felixstowe infrastructure study - Suffolk Coastal District Council

Suffolk Coastal District CouncilFELIXSTOWE INFRASTRUCTURESTUDYFinal ReportSeptember 2009

ROGER TYM & PARTNERSFairfax House15 Fulwood PlaceLondonWC1V 6HUt (020) 7831 2711f (020) 7831 7653e london@tymconsult.comw www.tymconsult.comThis document is formatted for double-sided printing.P 1970

CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 12 POLICY CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 3The evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on Infrastructure ............................. 33 THE SCALE AND BROAD LOCATIONS OF GROWTH ................................................ 74 HEALTH ....................................................................................................................... 9Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9Infrastructure Needs – Primary Medical Care .................................................................. 9Current Strategy ........................................................................................................... 11Capacity of the Existing Infrastructure .......................................................................... 12Capital needs resulting from new growth in the study area .......................................... 12Funding ........................................................................................................................ 12Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 15Infrastructure Needs – Acute Care ................................................................................ 155 EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 17Police ............................................................................................................................ 17Fire Service .................................................................................................................. 20Ambulance ................................................................................................................... 216 EDUCATION .............................................................................................................. 25Introduction ................................................................................................................... 25Capacity of Existing Infrastructure ................................................................................ 26Costs ............................................................................................................................ 29Issues ........................................................................................................................... 307 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................... 31Electricity ...................................................................................................................... 31Gas ............................................................................................................................... 32Water – Potable Supply ................................................................................................. 33Water – Wastewater ...................................................................................................... 34Telecommunications..................................................................................................... 368 WASTE ...................................................................................................................... 399 CEMETERIES/CREMATORIA .................................................................................... 43Cemeteries ................................................................................................................... 43Crematoria .................................................................................................................... 4310 COMMUNITY AND ON-SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................... 45Allotments ..................................................................................................................... 45Community halls and meeting places ........................................................................... 46Green infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 48Public art ...................................................................................................................... 52Sports facilities ............................................................................................................. 52Other Sports ................................................................................................................. 54Libraries ........................................................................................................................ 55Children’s play space ................................................................................................... 56Landscaping ................................................................................................................. 59

11 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................. 61Strategic infrastructure ................................................................................................. 61Community Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 62On-site infrastructure .................................................................................................... 64Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 65APPENDICESAppendix 1 - List of ConsulteesAppendix 2 - Maps Showing Locations of Key Infrastructure

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report1 INTRODUCTION1.1 This report is the Felixstowe Infrastructure Study. The report was written by Roger Tym &Partners.1.2 The Consultants’ brief was to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will ensure thatthe delivery of any development required is not compromised by unrealistic expectationsabout the availability of infrastructure. The study will directly inform the Council and otherservice providers to identify and prioritise infrastructure provision as part of an integratedapproach to planning and infrastructure development.1.3 The study will underpin the spatial development strategy of the Core Strategy, which isrequired to deliver approximately 1,000 dwellings in Felixstowe and the Trimleys withinSuffolk Coastal District. The study seeks to understand, in terms of infrastructurerequirements, the deliverability of the development option that represents the Core StrategyPreferred Option. It considers existing infrastructure surpluses or deficits and the potential tosecure mainstream public funding for particular types of development. It seeks to show thatthe chosen development strategy is robust and ‘sound’ in planning terms.1.4 As outlined in the Study Brief, the aims of the study are to identify:• Key service providers and document the location and current capacity of existinginfrastructure, as well as assessing existing availability of key infrastructure services(identified under Para 1.7 below) by networks and/or geographic catchments;• Accessibility and spare capacity of infrastructure services, and any constraints;• The nature and timing of confirmed upcoming infrastructure changes – throughphysical and other programmed changes); and to• Identify further requirements for infrastructure provision to serve developmentoptions.1.5 On the basis of these findings, an infrastructure delivery plan will be prepared as part of thestudy. This plan shall identify the infrastructure needed to enable the growth scenario to takeplace. As part of the infrastructure delivery plan, the following tasks will be carried out:• Calculate the costs and identify the phasing of creating and maintaining the requiredinfrastructure;• Identify potential sources of funding; and• Identify the costs that need to be met by the development (i.e. to be secured by legalagreements or other means) in order to cover any funding gaps.1.6 In terms of types of infrastructure, the study brief requires that the following categories beconsidered:(a) Strategic Infrastructure – it consists of improvements or new work designed to increasecapacity in the Felixstowe area, required as a direct result of housing and employmentgrowth. In the context of this Study, strategic infrastructure includes the following:• Cemeteries;Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 1

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report• Education – Secondary;• Emergency Services – fire, police, ambulance;• Hospitals;• Utilities - telecommunications, electricity, gas, water supply, surface water drainage,sewage disposal and sewage treatment; and• Waste Management.(b) Community Infrastructure consists of facilities required as a direct result of a particulardevelopment but able to be shared with the wider, local community. In the context of theFelixstowe area the following categories need to be looked into:• Allotments;• Community halls and meeting places;• Education – pre-school and primary• Green infrastructure, including accessible natural greenspace and habitat creation;• Healthcare - primary and secondary;• Public art• Sports facilities (indoor and outdoor); and• Libraries.(c) On-Site Infrastructure is essential or important infrastructure that needs to be on or closeto a particular development, the benefits of which are enjoyed by the occupants themselves.This includes:• Children’s play space, both equipped and non-equipped; and• Landscaping.1.7 We have structured this report as follows:a) Section 2 looks at the policy context for the Study;b) Section 3 describes the scale and directions of growth;c) Sections 4 to 10 describe the infrastructure assessments for each of the categoriesd) Section 11 provides a summary of key findings and conclusions.1.8 A list of the consultees is given in Appendix 1. Maps showing location of key existinginfrastructure are shown in Appendix 2.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 2

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report2 POLICY CONTEXTThe evidence base that LDF Core Strategies need on Infrastructure2.1 There has been a growing recognition of the link between spatial plans and infrastructureprovision in achieving timely and sustainable delivery of spatial growth. This has taken on agreater importance in recent years through planning documents.Local government is required to play an infrastructure co-ordinating role2.2 The Local Government White Paper on Strong and Prosperous Communities published inOctober 2006 referred to local authorities playing a positive co-ordinating role in the deliveryof infrastructure to ensure that the right infrastructure is provided at the right time. Anincreased emphasis on ‘place shaping’ was also made.The Planning White Paper, CSR 07 and PPS12 emphasise the need for aninfrastructure planning evidence base2.3 The Planning White Paper 2007 states that ‘local authorities should demonstrate how andwhen infrastructure that is required to facilitate development will be delivered’. This has alsobeen a major theme in the H M Treasury’s CSR07 Policy Review on Supporting HousingGrowth.2.4 Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) highlights the importance of ensuring that the corestrategy of Local Development Frameworks is supported by a robust evidence base oninfrastructure planning. 1 PPS 12 states that:“The core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical and socialinfrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area,taking account of its type and distribution. This evidence should cover who willprovide the infrastructure and when it will be provided. The core strategy should drawon and in parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authorityand other organisations.”2.5 The document also notes that:'Good infrastructure planning considers the infrastructure required to supportdevelopment, costs, sources of funding, timescales for delivery and gaps in funding.This allows for the identified infrastructure to be prioritised in discussions with keylocal partners.'2.6 It states what should be considered as part of the infrastructure evidence base andemphasises the need for the alignment of investment plans of a range of key infrastructureproviders. In particular, PPS12 states that the planning process infrastructure evidence baseshould take account of:1 PPS12 June 2008, paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 3

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report• The scale, type and distribution of development proposed for the area;• The physical, social and green infrastructure needed to enable the developmentproposed;• The phasing of development;• The cost, sources of funding and gaps in funding (recognising that the budgetingprocesses of different agencies could mean that less information may be available whenthe core strategy is being prepared than would be ideal);• The uncertainty of investment plans and undue reliance on critical elements ofinfrastructure whose funding is uncertain;• The prioritisation of infrastructure requirements in discussion with key partners;• The responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure.2.7 Key infrastructure providers are to be encouraged to reflect the core strategy within their ownfuture planning documents and seek alignment between their infrastructure planning and theplanning process.There is no detailed guidance on what an infrastructure planning evidence baseshould consist of2.8 Unlike some areas of the core strategy where the evidence base requirement isaccompanied by a guidance manual on how to prepare the evidence, (for instance in thecase of retail, strategic housing land availability and employment), there is no such provisionfor undertaking the evidence base for infrastructure assessment.2.9 Given the shortage of guidance, the key point to emphasise is that we are mindful of theneed to create a realistic infrastructure assessment that will aid spatial growth delivery. Butthe content of the evidence base is not defined and is likely to vary depending on localcircumstances.Here, we are relying on our understanding of best practice in order to comply withinspectors’ likely requirements for an evidence base2.10 Given this lack of guidance, we have relied more on our own work and expertise in this field.This has been cited by the Planning Advisory Service as good practice. We have alsoreviewed Inspectors’ Reports on core strategies to improve our understanding of theexpectation from Infrastructure Plans.2.11 From our review work and experience, it appears that the key is to ensure that we capturethe infrastructure needed and identify the range of providers including the developers andothers who will be responsible for funding the infrastructure. Further:• The infrastructure assessment will be of no use if it is an unrealistic ‘wish list’ that has nolikelihood of getting delivered and will hinder the overall delivery of the planned growth.• The infrastructure assessment is a way of ensuring that aspirational growth proposals inspatial plans are clearly grounded in terms of the likelihood of their delivery through arigorous process that considers infrastructure ‘showstoppers’, funding, phasing, jointcollaboration and delivery mechanisms and builds these considerations into the corestrategy and monitoring framework.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 4

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report• At this stage in the development of the infrastructure assessment, where all the detailedmodelling and master planning is not yet available, it is important to note a point by theInspector in his response to the Joint North Northamptonshire Core Strategy. TheInspector stated: ’I do not believe that for soundness, the specific solutions need to beidentified in the Core Strategy, only that appropriate solutions would need to be found.’• The Inspector will want to see there is a realistic prospect of delivery and if gaps infunding are identified, then a mechanism should be in place to demonstrate how theseare to be addressed in the future.• The need for infrastructure to support housing growth and the associated need for aninfrastructure delivery planning process has been highlighted in the Government’sHousing Green Paper. We consider this as an essential element of InfrastructurePlanning and is considered later under the Delivery Process of the final report.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 5

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report3 THE SCALE AND BROAD LOCATIONS OFGROWTH3.1 The Suffolk Coastal Core Strategy has been the subject of public consultation. The CoreStrategy proposes the distribution of new houses across the Suffolk Coastal district in theperiod 2010 to 2025 in order to meet requirements to 2021 set out in the Regional SpatialStrategy and extrapolated to 2025. The strategy proposed is one whereby the majority ofhousing will be located at major centres, one of which in the case of the Suffolk Coastaldistrict is the area of Felixstowe and the Trimleys.3.2 Suffolk Coastal District Council is now looking to clearly identify and take forward itsPreferred Option. In the case of the Felixstowe area this is for 1,000 additional dwellingsbetween 2008 and 2025.3.3 A broadbrush distribution and phasing of these dwellings is shown in Figure 3.1 belowand is summarised in Table 3.1. It should be noted that the Council’s publisheddocuments do not state a general area for growth post 2020. They merely state thatdevelopment options will be revisited in the light of a review against objectives forFelixstowe. However, from the point of assessing infrastructure requirements andconsulting with service providers it is very helpful to have rough areas to discuss. RTPtherefore interpreted the locational principles of accommodating growth within orimmediately abutting main urban areas expressed for Phases 1 and 2 to assume thathypothetical growth may occur on the north side of Felixstowe. This was only for thepurpose of assessing the infrastructure implications of growth of 1,000 dwellings in andaround Felixstowe.Table 3.1 The Distribution and Phasing of GrowthPhase Broad Area Preferred Option -dwellingsPhase 1 2010-15 Dispersed Urban and Brownfield 350Phase 2 2015-20 Dispersed Urban and Brownfield 100Between Walton and Trimley St Mary 350Phase 3 2020-25 North of Candlet Road 200Total 1,000Source:SDC, RTP3.4 In the following sections we deal with each infrastructure type in turn.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 7

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportFigure 3.1 Residential Development ScenariosRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 8

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4 HEALTHIntroduction4.1 Primary health care services in Suffolk Coastal are commissioned by NHS Suffolk, thePrimary Care Trust (PCT) for the area. NHS Suffolk (the PCT) was set up in October2006 as part of wider plans to reconfigure primary care trusts in England. Thus the fiveprevious PCTs in Suffolk were brought together into one.4.2 The population that is served by the PCT is approximately 585,000.4.3 Accident & Emergency and Acute services for the study area are provided by IpswichHospital, which is run by the Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust). The hospital servesEast Suffolk, and has a catchment population of 350,000.Our Remit4.4 Of the wide range of services health covers, we have focused on primary health care andacute – hospital - care. The following areas are therefore outside our study:• Pharmacies and Optometrists. PCTs do not financially support the initial provision orongoing costs of pharmaceutical and optometric premises. This is a private sectorfunction. However, the PCT does have a role in advising on the optimal location ofpharmacy and optometric services to ensure access and patient choice as determinedby the national regulations.• Dental Premises. Dentists’ premises are provided entirely by the private sector withno PCT involvement in provision or running costs. PCTs do contract with dentists toprovide a specific number of treatments. For this they receive an income. If thepopulation of an area rises a PCT would need to commission more treatments, butthis is unlikely to impact on the provision of premises.Infrastructure Needs – Primary Medical Care4.5 Our assessment needs to try to separate out a number of complex and overlappingissues. The provision of premises is broadly determined by:• Changes in demand – population changes and growth, and expanded patient choiceand public expectations• Changes in services – new models of care, and new clinical pathways. The size ofprimary heathcare facilities will need to expand significantly to expand to form ‘multifunctionalhealth centres’ to accommodate increased services and facilities andfacilities devolved from general hospitals. The provision of GPs surgeries fromconverted private housing stock is no longer seen as adequate.• Statutory requirements – including the Disability Discrimination Act, and Health andSafety.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 9

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4.6 Clearly, all of these dimensions are important, but it is that portion of the first whichconcerns population growth which fundamentally concerns this report. In particular, it isimportant to clearly distinguish between the current reconfiguration of health servicedelivery (in larger, more fit-for-purpose health centres) and the expansion in demandwhich results from new housing development.4.7 However, it is the case that the health services can use all of the above drivers to helpthem reconfigure the way that services are delivered in order to respond to changingpopulation sizes, distributions and profiles.Primary health needs are driven by population, not housing growth4.8 PCTs undertake detailed demographic work, and make planning assumptions about agrowing population. A rough rule of thumb used by PCTs across the country is that thereshould be one GP, together with supporting staff, for every 1,800 people.4.9 However, it is the case nationally that GPs do run with both significantly more, andsignificantly fewer, people on their lists than the rough average of 1,800 people, althoughnot usually in Suffolk.4.10 The size of an average GP’s list means that, even if existing GPs were working at themaximum sustainable rate, growth of about 1,800 new people (or approximately 860 newhomes based on a household size of 2.1 people) would be needed before a new GPwould be required. In broad terms, commissioning new practices below around 5,000patients or 2,000 dwellings is unlikely to be viable.4.11 As a result, there is very often no requirement to provide a new GP surgery for each newdevelopment. However, patients should have a choice to register with a local practiceand therefore PCTs need to ensure there is sufficient capacity. Where there is a smallgrowth in population – equivalent to a requirement for one or two more GPs - this maymean extending an existing practice (or practices) in instances where there is physicalscope to develop, rather than building a new practice premises.4.12 Opening branch surgeries to treat a smaller, more local, population, is not always optimal,particularly in the context of the changing pattern of healthcare delivery outlined in para4.5 above. They are not appropriate in a relatively well populated area, such as the StudyArea, where catchment areas are sufficiently densely populated to support health centreswith a range of services.4.13 Conversely:• Larger surgeries can be more economically efficient, with shared ancillary and supportfacilities• Larger surgeries can often offer wider range of co-located primary services whichprovides a wider choice and access for patients. The national drivers for change areto provide a wider range of services in a primary care setting.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 10

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4.14 Surgeries with a number of GPs are often able to provide additional capacity and can (attimes) absorb some new housing growth. This can be a combination of physicalextension of premises, or more intensive use of existing premises. As GP practicesaccept patients from within an agreed practice boundary, the location of the proposeddevelopments will impact on some practices more than others, particularly in more ruralareas where the demand for services from the increased population may fall on only oneor two practices covering that area.There is a need to make best use of existing capacity4.15 PCTs believe that there is a need to make use of existing capacity in order to useresources efficiently, which also militates against opening new, smaller surgeries asopposed to the options of enlarging existing ones, or, where there are step changes indemand, opening new health centres.Current Strategy4.16 Key points regarding primary care from current published plans are set out below.SPCT Annual Report 2007-20084.17 The standard for primary care that GP practices in Suffolk currently meet is that patientsshould be able to see a GP within 48 hours and a healthcare professional within 24 hours.Additional provision in the study area will be designed to ensure that this continues to bemet.4.18 SPCT is devolving responsibility for commissioning care to nine groups of practices: aprocess described as Practice-based Commissioning (PBC).4.19 The challenge of funding facilities to serve additional patients arising from growth isillustrated by the fact capital expenditure across the entire PCT in 2007-2008 was £3m.4.20 The report refers to two recent improvements in Felixstowe:• Felixstowe Community Hospital reopened after an investment of £1.76 million.Services now include 16 inpatient beds and a walk-in minor injuries unit, improved x-ray facilities, and a base for local district nurses, occupational therapists andphysiotherapists. .• Enhanced mental health services for young people are being provided until 2011funded by a grant from the DCSF in response to evidence of a range of problems withyoung people in the town.Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2008-20114.21 This document, prepared by Suffolk County Council, Suffolk Primary Care Trust andGreat Yarmouth and Waveney Primary Care Trust, which covers Waveney District, setsout the evidence base for planning the health and social care services to meet thedemands made by the additional 58,600 homes to be built in Suffolk by 2025.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 11

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4.22 It illustrates the fact that there are other drivers for increasing the provision of servicessuch as the needs generated by an ageing and increasingly obese population.Your Care Matters - Strategic Plan 2008 – 20134.23 Among the goals for primary care are:• Offering extended opening hours at 75% of GP practices• Making it easier for people in Suffolk to get an appointment with their GP• Proposals for investment in new health centres are designed to make sure morepeople can access a range of NHS services closer to their homes, while bringing newopportunities to integrate GP and other community provision under one roof.• A significant increase in investment is proposed over the coming years, although it isnoted that there is no commitment to funding levels beyond 2010.4.24 There are no specific proposals for investment in the study area in the Strategic Plan.Capacity of the Existing Infrastructure4.25 There are currently four health centres/surgeries in Felixstowe. The Felixstowe surgerieshave nine, six, two and one GP respectively. There is also a community hospital which,as noted above, has recently reopened.4.26 The PCT is currently reviewing capacity in the study area.Capital needs resulting from new growth in the study area4.27 On the assumption of an average occupancy of 2.1 persons per dwelling, 1,000 additionaldwellings would be expected to generate 2,100 additional patients. At the national targetfigure of one GP per 1,800 people, this would give rise to a requirement for just over oneGP, which would normally be accommodated by an extension to existing provision.4.28 Although growth of 1,000 dwellings would not normally be sufficient to trigger arequirement for a new Health Centre, the PCT’s initial view is that in the context of currentcapacity in the area the growth proposals will require a new primary health care facility inthe proposed growth area between Felixstowe and Trimley St Mary. Details are currentlybeing worked up.FundingSome mainstream capital funding is available4.29 Funding for health services is provided to PCTs on a capitation basis. The PCTs areexpected to manage their requirements within this.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 12

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4.30 The DoH states that part of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement was acapital funding increase of 10 per cent in 2008/09, which will support continued growth incapital investment programmes. Nationally in 2008/09, £400 million is being madeavailable to fund PCT local capital schemes, with an additional £250 million to fundnational initiatives, such as the community hospitals programme. 24.31 There is also increasing private sector involvement in the creation and funding of newhealth centres which are then leased to GP practices with the rent met from the PCT’srevenue funding within the PCTs budgetary restraints. (e.g development companies suchas Primary Health Properties and Carecapital together with a number of specialistinvestment funds).4.32 One source of funding not currently available for investment in the study area is PFIfunding from setting up a Local Improvement Finance Trust Company – a LIFTCo – toconstruct new healthcare premises.Mainstream funding should pay for new capital requirements4.33 In theory, this funding should provide PCTs with the necessary funds to pay for the newfacilities needed. In practice it is not straightforward. Firstly, facilities will need to be builtin advance of the full realisation of the population increase, and secondly there will be asubsequent time lag before Health Service revenue funding catches up with thepopulation growth.4.34 Changes to the funding allocation mechanism should go some way to address this but willprobably not eradicate it. Neither is it entirely clear that capitation funding responds fully tothe needs of the growth. This was tacitly recognised by Government with a specificbudget for additional strategic capital investment in the Growth Areas but we understandthat this only amounted to £20 million during the period 2005-6. The result is that NHSbudgets in areas experiencing growth are invariably under pressure.4.35 Department of Health finance publications show that there is an upwards adjustment tofinancial settlements in areas labelled ODPM Growth Areas (in areas including MiltonKeynes South Midlands, Thames Gateway, and Ashford). 3PCTs do receive payments for premises, but do not receive specific budget forpremises development4.36 PCTs receive funding for GP premises from the Department of Health. This funding is notringfenced, and is paid to GPs.2 DoH (2007) The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2008/09 (chapter 4)3 See NHS Revenue Resource Allocations and Limits: Exposition Book. DoH Expositional 2006-07 and 2007-08Primary Care Trust initial revenue resource limits . Growth areas adjustments are shown in Table 3.5.http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Financeandplanning/Allocations/DH_4104471Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 13

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4.37 However, PCTs do not receive a specific budget for new premises developments as such.Funding for expansion to the current provision would be at the expense of othercompeting priorities and ultimately may not be possible.4.38 The revenue consequences will be critical to NHS Suffolk; capital costs are embedded inthe revenue costs attached to new development. Therefore other sources of funding fornew facilities have to be explored. As part of this it is the PCT’s policy to seek S106contributions towards healthcare for housing developments.PCTs have provision in place for small scale premises improvement andextension4.39 The PCT should be able to fund small scale improvements and expansion to extend therange of services they provide. PCTs argue that a) the first call on this investment wouldbe to improve the current estate rather than adding additional capacity, and b) this issubject to funding being available, and subject to budgetary constraints.The approach to capital funding for growth will need to be different in individualcases4.40 As discussed above, in the case of GP practices only, the PCT pays rent (recurrentrevenue) to the GPs for the use of existing premises and, where funding permits, the PCTcan provide capital and/or recurrent revenue funding for new and expanded premises fornew developments.4.41 In some instances, a form of private finance arrangement exists, where independentcontractor GPs enter into agreements with third part developer companies that specialisein Primary Care developments which are then leased back to the GPs, with the leasecosts being covered by the PCT.Developer funding (Sec.106 agreements)4.42 The PCT have confirmed that, for the reasons set out above they would seek Section 106or CIL contributions towards the costs of primary care facilities to meet the needs ofgrowth in the study area. They therefore wish to see provision for primary healthcare tobe included in the District’s developer contributions strategy.4.43 The approach currently being used by the PCT to calculating developer contributionsapproach is that based on the NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit’s model forcalculating the health requirements of growth. This is known as the HUDU model, anduses a combination of health and demographic data to assess requirements. The PCThave used the HUDU model in their initial approach on the requirement for developercontributions to the development proposals for Martlesham Heath. This throws up arequirement for a contribution of £485 per dwelling.4.44 We assume that it is reasonable to assume that this figure is a reasonable guide to whatthe HUDU model would throw up for Felixstowe, given its proximity. £485 applied to theproposed 1,000 dwellings gives a total requirement of £485,000.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 14

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report4.45 It should be noted that discussions on health priorities are on-going and until the PCT hasfinally adopted a method for calculating developer contributions, it will continue to haveregard to the HUDU model in its consultation responses on planning applications. Wetherefore consider that for the present that the sums resulting from application of theHUDU model should be used to estimate the costs of health requirements to meet growthin the study area.Priorities4.46 Provision of a new health centre will become a priority in Phase 2.Timing4.47 See above.Key Issues4.48 Developer contributions cannot be sought for meeting existing infrastructure deficits. Theproposed new health centre between Felixstowe and Trimley St Mary will be catering toexisting residents as well as new ones, and the PCT cannot seek contributions for thatelement of the proposed new health centre.Infrastructure Needs – Acute CareIpswich Hospital4.49 Acute care services in the study area are provided by Ipswich Hospital (the Hospital) fromits site at Heath Road in north east Ipswich. The Hospital serves a much wider catchmentarea than the study area, so the growth proposals for the study area form a small part ofoverall change in its catchment area in the period to 2025. The Hospital has recentlyopened a new Accident & Emergency Centre, funded by a PFI.4.50 The Trust considers that future drivers for growth will be an increase in the numbers ofwomen of childbearing age and the growing elderly population.4.51 The Hospital has approximately 560 beds, which reflects the typical ratio of one acute bedper 600 people. On this basis the additional population in the study area would give riseto a requirement for up to 4 additional beds. However, as already noted, any overallchange in provision would reflect change in the catchment area as a whole. In addition,the drive to decentralise service provision from District General Hospitals to enhancedprimary facilities mean that it is very difficult to predict the scale and nature of provision atthe Hospital by 2025.Current Strategy4.52 The Trust’s Annual Plan for 2009/10 sets out its aims and key service delivery objectivesfor a rolling five year period. Investment is currently constrained by the need for the Trustto pay off its debts.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 15

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportCapital needs resulting from new growth in the study area4.53 As noted, the capital requirements for growth in the study area will form only a small partof the requirements arising from the catchment area as a whole. As well as the needsarising from growth there will be those arising from an ageing population, changingmedical technology and the drive towards more decentralised patterns of service delivery.The Trust’s current investment programme to 2011/12, as set out in the Annual Plan,averages £5m per year.Funding4.54 The Trust receives 90% of its funding from NHS Suffolk, with the balance coming fromother PCTs which purchase specialist services. NHS Suffolk has indicated that fundinglevels over the next 10 years are likely to be significantly reduced, in line with nationaltrends.4.55 As the Trust is essentially funded by the PCT, we consider that issues regarding fundingto meet growth are best dealt with in the context of the PCT’s needs to meet growth,especially as growth in the study area will only form a small part of the changing demandson the Trust over the period to 2025.Priorities4.56 We are not aware of any specific priorities arising from growth in the study area.Timing4.57 The Trust will have to take into account the forecast rate and pattern of population changeover its catchment area in planning provision to the period to 2025.Key Issues4.58 Key long term issues for the Trust are the changing pattern of healthcare delivery and theimpact on demand of an ageing population.4.59 Like the PCT, the Trust is concerned at the recruitment and retention difficulties causedby high house prices and wishes to see the adoption of affordable housing policiesproviding for a range of key worker accommodation.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 16

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report5 EMERGENCY SERVICESPolice5.1 The Suffolk Police Authority (the Authority) exists to ensure an efficient and effectivepolice service in Suffolk. It also holds the chief officer to account for how well they deliverlocal policing services. The Authority is an independent body made up of local people,including nine County Councillors, selected according to the number of seats held by eachpolitical group on the County Council, three local Magistrates, appointed by theMagistrates Courts Committee and five Independent Members, chosen from the localcommunity with vacancies advertised in the local media.5.2 The Police Authority sets the strategic direction for policing in Suffolk and has thefollowing statutory responsibilities:• consulting with local communities about the policing of their area;• publishing a Local Policing Plan and Annual Report 2007-2008 which sets out localpriorities and targets for achievement (the Monitoring and Audit Committee monitorsperformance against those priorities and targets);• publishing an annual report which sets out the Police Authority’s aims and objectivesand reports on its performance;• setting the Budget for the Constabulary;• publishing a Three Year Plan - which outlines the vision for policing in Suffolk;• preparing and publishing a Race Equality Scheme;• monitoring the Authority’s employment procedures and practices;• monitoring police handling of complaints from the public;• considering complaints in respect of senior officers; and• appointing the senior officers of the Constabulary.5.3 The Police Authority employs 1,280 officers, 308 PCSOs and 1,092 support staff. Thereare 336 special constables.Key Policy Documents5.4 In this section we examine documents published by the police authority, which deal withinfrastructure need.Suffolk Police Authority Three-Year Plan 2009-20125.5 The Three-Year Plan for 2009 – 2012 outlines how the Police Authority will maintain andimprove its service, and includes the Authority’s objectives for the three year period, andthe proposed arrangements for the policing of the County.5.6 In terms of capital investment, the document states that it is anticipated that the followingmajor estates need to receive attention during the period of the plan:• Provision of three new Police Investigation Centres (PICs);• Determination of the future of Ipswich Police Station;• Resolution of the accommodation strategy at Bury St Edmunds following theanticipated completion of the PIC;Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 17

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report• Review of the estate to meet emerging requirements and reflect the outcome ofongoing reviews on public accessibility, response policing and Safer NeighbourhoodTeams; and• Consideration of opportunities for shared accommodation solutions with partnerorganisations.5.7 For 2009/10, Suffolk Police will secure funding of £124.4 million, all of which will be spent.Of this funding, approximately one-third comes from Police Grant (from CentralGovernment, one-third again from Council Tax and 20% from Business Rates. In total,70% comes from Central Government sources and 30% from local taxpayers.5.8 Of this figure, approximately £4 million has been identified for the capital programme,which comprises the replacement of ageing assets such as vehicles and equipment,together with some investment in new IT and buildings.Suffolk Coastal Local Policing Summary 20095.9 A key reason for the reduction in crime in the Suffolk Coastal area can be attributed to theincreased partnership work between the District Council and Suffolk Constabulary, asevidenced through the Local Area Agreements and National indicators (NI) such as NI 21.These have focused on local concerns about anti social behaviour and crime, and asinitiatives have helped to deliver a 9.5% reduction in crime last year.5.10 It is therefore a common objective of Suffolk Coastal DC and Suffolk Constabulary to seekto maintain and improve this position, and in this respect the provision of sufficient policeresources and infrastructure to match planned growth within the Felixstowe area (thestudy area), is seen as a priority.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure5.11 The study area is located within the Authority’s Eastern Area. It is served by FelixstowePolice station which is open from 8am to 6pm (9am-5pm weekends). One of the 30 SaferNeighbourhood Teams covers the Felixstowe area. The capacity of policing services andfacilities and the capital improvements needed to address the planned growth would bedetermined following a review of the Constabulary’s estate. Setting the terms of referencefor the estates review and the objectives for the next 12 – 24 months is an area to be givenpriority. Dates for the review itself have not yet been set.Needs5.12 The Authority considers that the levels of growth proposed for the area would typicallygive rise to an increased incidence of crime which will give rise to a need for additionalpolicing resources. It considers that these additional resources would include physicalinfrastructure (premises), equipment, and revenue funding for staff, comprising:• Additional or enhanced police station floor space and facilities• Custody facilities• Communications, including IT• Patrol vehicles, mobile police stations, motor cycles, bicycles and other equipment.• Funding for additional staff resources such as Police Officers, Police CommunitySupport Officers and Special ConstablesRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 18

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report• Funding for community safety events and seminars5.13 Given the pattern of delivery of policing, it is very possible that new premises would not belocated in the area and that the additional provision would be part of a programme to meetgrowth across the Suffolk Coastal and Ipswich Area as a whole.Costs5.14 The estates review is expected to inform the Constabulary’s capital spend priorities withinthe study area and beyond.5.15 As a guide to requirements, the Constabulary estimate that a suitable police resourcesbudget for accommodating the planned growth is likely to require a flat rate cost of £700per dwelling. This approach is based on a formula currently used by the Constabulary todetermine the likely impact of population growth upon both estates and operationalrequirements through the increase in the number of incidents with the Police will have todeal. The requirement for the 1,000 dwellings would be £700,000.Funding5.16 As noted above, Suffolk Police are revenue funded by a mixture of Central Governmentand local government funding. The main funding stream for the Police Authority is basedon the Government’s 3 year revenue and capital settlement, which uses a formula tocalculate the grants awarded to Police Authorities. It is based on four components: i)relative needs, ii) relative resources, iii) a central allocation, and iv) damping. Thepopulation numbers are derived from census information and projections made by theOffice of National Statistics (ONS).5.17 Population projections cover 3 year periods and the funding settlement is therefore basedon the stage at which new census data is introduced into the formula and the accuracy ofthe ONS projections. This leads to a ‘3 year lag’ in funding as new population numbers,housing stock increases (and associated infrastructure requirements) are not addresseduntil each 3 year anniversary, with consequent shortfalls arising for police budget.5.18 At a national level, a developer funding formula is currently being devised to provide astandardised approach to securing financial contributions through the Section 106planning obligation process. This has been commissioned by the Association of ChiefPolice Officers and the Association of Police Authorities and the intention is to roll this outnationally. The approach is intended to provide greater certainty to identifying costsassociated with the site development process. In policing terms, this would address boththe likely revenue and capital costs associated with the provision of the police resourcesnecessary to keep pace with planned growth.5.19 The Authority will, therefore, be seeking developer contributions from new development toprovide the additional policing resources, both capital and revenue (as summarised in theneeds section above), to ensure that sustainable development is delivered and the currentlevel of policing and community safety is maintained. Whether the contributions aresought on the basis described in para 5.15 above or on the basis of the standardisednational approach currently in development will depend on timing.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 19

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report5.20 Further work is required to confirm the justification for the requirement of £700,000identified above.Priorities5.21 Any specific priorities for the study area would be identified in association with the SuffolkConstabulary’s Estates Review.Timing of provision5.22 It is critical that new or enhanced police facilities and resources are provided at an earlystage, as local police, community service officers and special constables need to be ableto build relationships with expanded or new communities from the outset, and to react tothe need for police services, demand for which would arise as the construction phaseassociated with new growth starts.Issues5.23 The Constabulary’s Estates Review and operational requirements would help to identifythose areas which need addressing.Fire Service5.24 The Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service’s role is to respond to emergencies, such as fires,rescues involving road traffic collisions; and dealing with a wide range of non-fire incidentssuch as chemical spillages. The Service also has a statutory duty to promote fire safetywhich it does by educating the community about fire safety in the home and providingguidance on fire safety to businesses. Two of the main objectives of the fire service are toimprove the safety of the public through prevention and protection work; and to provide aneffective response to emergencies.Key Policy DocumentsSuffolk Fire and Rescue Service Plan 2009 - 20105.25 This plan states that the County’s fleet of emergency vehicles was improved during2008/09. A total of eight new fire engines and three specialist water rescue vehicles werepurchased together with new equipment and modern helmets for all our fire-fighters. ThePlan also states that the Fire Service is benefitting from an ambitious County Councilsupportedprogramme for rebuilding or refurbishing eleven fire stations across the county.5.26 In total there are 35 fire stations in Suffolk – four stations are crewed 24 hours a day, 7days a week (two in Ipswich including Colchester Road, one in Bury St. Edmunds and onein Lowestoft) and three fire stations are crewed during the day. 28 stations, mostly in ruralareas, have retained crews only. Felixstowe has one of the stations crewed during theday. The day crew are supported by a retained crew.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 20

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportCapacity of Existing Infrastructure5.27 The Felixstowe fire station currently has two fire appliances. The duty system employed isa seven day crewed system. During the day (0745 - 1800 hrs) one appliance is crewed bywholetime personnel with the second fire appliance crewed by the retained duty system.Between the hours of 1800 - 0745 both fire appliances are crewed utilising the retainedduty system.Needs5.28 The additional development would be satisfactorily covered by the existing setup.Costs5.29 No specific costs have been identified that would arise from growth.Funding5.30 In light of the zero cost figure identified, funding is not an issue. However, it is worthnoting that the refurbishment and rebuilding of the 11 fire stations across Suffolk wassecured by way of Private Finance Initiative (PFI).Priorities5.31 There are no priorities identified.Timing of Provision5.32 There are no issues related to the fire service in respect of the timing of growth.Issues5.33 Generally, in order to maximise the sustainability of new developments, it is important thatthe fire service work with the wastewater providers in order to explore the possibility ofwater for fire needs coming from greywater sources.Ambulance5.34 The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EEAST) provides emergency andunscheduled care and patient transport services in Suffolk. The EEAST was formed on1 st July 2006 by the amalgamation of the former Bedfordshire and HertfordshireAmbulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust, the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trustand the Essex Ambulance NHS Trust. The new Trust is, geographically, the secondlargest in England, employing about 4,000 people (as at July 2007) with more than 2,000volunteers working in community response schemes and as non-emergency drivers.5.35 EEAST is required to reach 75% of all life threatening emergencies within 8 minutes. Thistarget is now measured from the time the Trust receives the call to arrival on scene (‘CallConnect’).5.36 The Trust’s main objectives are to:• meet these mandatory standards in service delivery;• deliver current priorities such as Call Connect and the new digital radio and despatchsystems;Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 21

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report• begin work on projects to deliver the vision, particularly the technical preparation forbuilding a knowledge management system and reshaping Health EmergencyOperations Centres (HEOCs) – formerly known as Control Rooms - to move to theemergency and urgent care assessment centre concept; and• prepare the organisation to apply for Foundation Trust status.5.37 EEAST has a service level agreement (SLA) with NHS Suffolk to deliver its servicesacross the PCT’s area. In the study area these are largely delivered from FelixstoweAmbulance Station.Key Policy DocumentsStrategic Direction (2007-12)5.38 The future issues and direction for EEAST is set out in its “Strategic Direction” (2007-12)document.5.39 The Trust anticipates that the five-year period covered by this document will see “a majorshift in the pattern of demand for services”.5.40 The shift will be driven by “radical changes in the way that different types of emergencyand urgent calls are classified, how they are commissioned, the need to place the patientat the centre of determining how services are delivered, and a focus on clinical evidenceof patient outcomes, as opposed to target response times, as the key measure ofperformance”.5.41 The ambulance service is therefore demand driven, as opposed to purely populationdriven. EEAST is already experiencing a 6% a year increase in calls, which has doubledsince 1992/93; partly driven by changing public attitudes to using the 999 service, anageing population profile and increased resources being allocated to emergencycapability 4 .5.42 These challenges are resulting in consideration of major changes to the delivery of theambulance service, which could result in a more flexible “hub and spoke” approach, withoperational staff not assigned to a single centre and only going there as required (e.g. fortraining). This could reduce the number of command centres and therefore its propertyportfolio, with four categories of premises:• Hub station – high utilisation, multiple vehicles, centrally located.• Ambulance station – medium utilisation, 24/7, one or more vehicles.• Response post – low to medium utilisation, < 24/7, one vehicle.• Additional “hot stand by” locations requiring no estate investment, to be identified.5.43 This is part of a “dynamic deployment” approach to improve patient care and responsetimes through the placement of resources in areas of predicted high demand. Dynamicdeployment is the pre-positioning of resources rather than the activation or mobilisation ofresources to calls.4 It should be noted that in 2007-2008 the increase in calls in Suffolk was 7.6% over 2006-7; the increase in callsresponded to was 9.2%.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 22

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportOutline Estates Strategy June 20085.44 This document sets the strategy for reviewing the Trust’s estate so that it can provide the‘hub and spoke’ approach outlined above.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure5.45 The study area is served by Felixstowe ambulance station.Needs5.46 Growth in demand arising from the development options will only be a small proportion ofoverall growth in demand.5.47 According to EEAST, 999 responses in Suffolk in 2008-2009 were to 12% of thepopulation. Applying this percentage to the dwelling increase in the 1,000 dwellings of theFelixstowe growth option gives an approximate annual call 999 figure of 120.5.48 Given that the total number of calls responded to in Suffolk in 2007-2008 was 64,203, thenumber of calls generated by the development scenarios would represent a 0.2%increase over current levels, at the most. However, the growth proposals for Felixstowewould reinforce the requirement to move the ambulance station from its current location inthe old heart of town to one which is more centrally located to the current and proposedpattern of development in order to enable the 8-minute target to be met. The current levelof demand is such that additional ambulance hours will shortly be required. EEASTenvisage new provison being made around 2015, which will link in with the proposedpattern of development around Felixstowe.Costs5.49 Year 1 set up costs are estimated to be of the order of £50,000.Funding5.50 EEAST is funded through it SLAs with the PCTs in the area it serves. ‘Normal’ growth canbe funded through adjustments to the SLAs. Problems arise when the scale of growthrequires a step change in provision, but it does not appear that the scale of growthproposed for the study area will give rise to this, provided that it is spread across the planperiod.Priorities5.51 The proposals for growth along Candlet Road and in the Trimleys will make the newprovision a priority in Phase 2 from 2015 onwards.Timing of Provision5.52 See above.Issues5.53 There are no issues additional to those discussed above.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 23

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report6 EDUCATIONIntroduction6.1 Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, Local Authorities exercise theirstatutory duty to secure primary and secondary education to meet the needs of thepopulation in their area. Suffolk County Council is the LA responsible for educationprovision in Suffolk.6.2 School Organisation Plans (SOPs) provide a key framework covering a 5-year periodagainst which decisions can be taken about the overall need to provide additional schoolplaces, or to remove surplus places. However, due to the strategic level of the documents,they do not identify changes that may be required at individual schools.6.3 The requirement to produce a SOP has now been superseded by the introduction of theChildren and Young People’s Plan. However, the information a SOP contains, and thestatistical data that supports it, remain vital to the effective planning of educationalprovision.6.4 Statutory proposals are decided by the County Council cabinet unless specificcircumstances determine that a decision is to be made by the Schools Adjudicator.Our remit6.5 We have included the following education services within our assessment:• Nursery Education• Primary Education• Secondary Education6.6 Unlike the provision of primary and secondary education which is undertaken by theCounty Council, the public sector does not directly deliver any pre-school education. Allchildcare provision in the county is delivered through the voluntary, private andindependent sector. As the County Council provides support for pre-school provision andseeks developer funding we have included a reference to this in the developercontribution paragraph below.6.7 We have assessed the schools whose catchment area sites within the study area. Clearlythere are other schools outside the study area that will likely provide places for childrenfrom within the study area. However, it is not possible to include such a considerationwithin the assessment.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 25

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportKey Policy DocumentsSuffolk County Council School Organisation Plan – 2006 – 20116.8 As explained above, a SOP sets the broad context and framework, against which a LocalAuthority can plan its provision and the SCC cabinet can consider specific statutoryproposals. According to the latest Suffolk County Council SOP, the last review of theSuffolk SOP was carried out in 2003, with an update of the statistical data in 2005. Thusthe fully revised SOP covers the period 2006 – 2011. This is being revised for 2009 – 2014and is due to be published shortly.6.9 In Suffolk, schools are grouped into 18 Community Clusters consisting of one, two orthree upper/high schools and their contributory feeder schools. Generally each communitycluster has between 4,000 and 7,000 pupils. These clusters are the basis for the localdelivery of support services to children and families. The Felixstowe area is covered bythe Felixstowe cluster.6.10 The current SOP identifies the general forecast trend in surplus school places across theCounty. This indicates that during the period 2006 – 2011:• In the primary school sector, surplus places are forecast to rise very slightly from7,750 (15%) to 7,765 (15%);• In the middle school sector are forecast to fall from 2,181 (11%) to 1,522 (8%);• In the high/upper school sector are forecast to fall from 3,705 (9%) to 2,458 (6%);• The overall number of surplus places is forecast to fall from 13,636 (12%) to 11,745(11%).6.11 These forecasts do not take into consideration the impact of the School OrganisationReview (SOR) which is underway in two of the three education areas in Suffolk. The SORmeans that the current combination of two- and three-tier structures in Suffolk is to berationalised into a single two-tier structure by the closure of middle schools in the Northernand Western areas. The Felixstowe area is already two-tier so will not be affected by theSOR.6.12 For assessing the impact of growth on the demand for school places the SOP states that,typically, a new housing development of 900 houses will generate about 30 pupils per agegroup. That is approximately:• 210 pupils of primary school age, 5-11 years (equivalent to a 1 form-entry school); and• 150 pupils of secondary school age, 11-16 years• 32 sixth form pupils, 16-18 years.6.13 These figures are estimates based on Suffolk census data about average occupancyrates, but do not take account of specific local factors.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure6.14 There are seven infant/junior and primary schools in Felixstowe itself, with two more in theTrimleys, making a total of nine primary schools in the area. There are nursery classes infour of the Felixstowe schools and in Trimley St Martin Primary school.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 26

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report6.15 There are currently two high schools in Felixstowe, Deben and Orwell. Under BSF it isintended that the two schools will close and that a single new 11-18 school will open onthe Orwell School site in 2013.Nursery Schools6.16 The SOP states that free early education is available for all children from the start of theterm after their third birthday. They are entitled to five 2½ hour sessions each week for 11weeks of each term with any registered provider included in the Suffolk directory. A varietyof providers offer early education including:• Pre-school or playgroups;• Private day nurseries, private nursery schools or independent schools;• Reception or mixed age classes at a local primary schools;• Nursery classes at local primary schools.6.17 For early years provision the LEA works on the same basis as for primary and secondaryeducation, i.e. every 900 new dwellings will create a cohort of about 30 children per yeargroup, or 60 places for 3 and 4 year olds. The LEA works to an average take-up of 60%,so actual requirement would be about 36 places per 900 dwellings. For the 1,000dwellings in the Felixstowe area the requirement would be 40 places. Current nurseryclass provision in Felixstowe is 169 places in four of the five infant/primary schools in thetown. There is also a nursery class at Trimley St Martin Primary School. We do not haveseparate nursery NOR and surplus places for 2014, but some of the additionalrequirement would be catered for by surplus places; some by playgroups, day nurseriesand other private and voluntary provision. The forecast requirement to be met by the LEAis considered within the analysis for primary schools belowPrimary Schools6.18 Table 6-1 below shows:• The LA’s forecast, for the Felixstowe and Trimleys areas, of primary pupil numbers onroll compared with capacity in 2014, showing an overall surplus of 411 places or 17%• A calculation of the pupil generation arising from the projected growth, which is 246places, showing that there is a crude surplus of 165 primary school places in theFelixstowe area sufficient to meet the demand arising from growth of 1,000 dwellings.6.19 The availability of surplus places to cater for growth to 2025 is based on the assumptionthat pupil generation from existing dwellings in Felixstowe and the Trimleys will continueat a level which leaves over 250 places available for pupils generated by the newdwellings.6.20 Indeed across South-East Suffolk there is growth in numbers in the forecast lower ageranges. This applies to some Felixstowe schools as well.6.21 However, the crude surplus calculation it does not take any account of the fact the muchof the surplus is in the Trimleys, whereas most of the growth will occur in Felixstowe, asTable 6-2 shows. These crude totals also hide a general trend of increasing arrival ratesat most schools in the area over the next five years which the LA expects will cause theseforecasts to rise as they pupils move through the schools.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 27

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportTable 6-1 Surplus Places v Pupil GenerationCapacity Forecast Surplus %NOR 2014Felixstowe Primary Schools (7) 1,753 1,508 245 14Trimley Primary Schools 630 464 166 26Total 2,383 1,972 411 17Pupil Generation (0.245 pupils/dwelling)Ph 1 Brownfield (350 dwellings) 86Ph 2 Brownfield (100 dwellings) 25Ph2 Between Walton and Trimleys (350 dwellings) 86Ph3 N of Candlet Road (200 dwellings) 49Total Primary Pupils Generated 246Source: Suffolk LEA6.22 During the period 2010-2015 the Local Authority expects to take measures that willreduce surplus places and improve the suitability at certain Felixstowe Primary ageschools. There is the potential to amalgamate Infant and Junior provision to create 5-11primary schools.6.23 Table 6-2 below shows that the forecast 2014 surplus of places is ample to meet thedemand arising from growth in the Trimleys, which have a relatively large number ofsurplus places.6.24 The surplus of places in Felixstowe is also just sufficient to meet demand arising fromgrowth all three phases, although as demand from Phases 2 and 3 will fall mainly onMaidstone Infant and Causton Junior Schools the Local Authority may need to divertdemand from their existing catchment areas elsewhere.Table 6-2Felixstowe Trimleys Notes2014 Surplus Places 245 166Phase 1 pupil generation (Urban/brownfield) 86 0 Assumes that Phase 1 urban/brownfieldgrowth will be in FelixstowePhase 2 pupil generation (Urban/brownfield) 0 25 Assumes that Phase 2 growth will be in theTrimleysPhase 2 pupil generation (Between Walton and Trimleys) 86 0 LEA identifies demand falling onMaidstone Infant and Causton JuniorSchoolsEstimated surplus/shortfall by 2020 73 141Phase 3 pupil generation (N of Candlett Road) 49 LEA identifies demand falling onMaidstone Infant and Causton JuniorSchoolsEstimated surplus/shortfall by 2025 24 141Source: Suffolk LEARoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 28

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportConclusions – Primary Schools6.25 The number of surplus places currently forecast for Felixstowe and the Trimleys in 2013 issufficient to meet any likely levels of growth in all three phases.Secondary Schools6.26 The LEA is proposing to close the two existing secondary schools in Felixstowe, andthrough BSF to build a new one, including a 6 th Form, on the site of the existing OrwellHigh School.6.27 The table below shows the LEA’s forecast of demand arising from proposed growth.Table 6-3High School 6th Form TotalPupil GenerationPh 1 Brownfield (350 dwellings) 62 13 75Ph 2 Brownfield (100 dwellings) 18 4 22Ph2 Between Walton and Trimleys (350 dwellings) 62 13 75Ph3 N of Candlet Road (200 dwellings) 35 7 42Total Secondary Pupils Generated 177 37 214Source: Suffolk LEA6.28 The proposed new school would have a total capacity, including 6 th Form, of 1,900 places.The LEA consider that the additional 214 pupils generated by proposed growth can beaccommodated within this.Costs6.29 As the LEA considers that there will be sufficient primary and secondary school places tomeet the demand arising from the proposed growth, we do consider that there are anycosts and funding issues requiring consideration, except for pre-school provision, whichwe discuss briefly below.Pre-school Funding6.30 As stated earlier, the local authority does not directly deliver any pre-school education andall childcare provision in the county is delivered through the voluntary, private andindependent sector. The County Council does however receive Central Governmentfunding to ensure that it can work in partnership with the private, voluntary andindependent sector to encourage the growth of suitable, high quality, affordable andflexible care. The current round of capital funding is in place until 31st March 2011 butthere is no guarantee that there will be any funds available after this date. Between 2008and 2011, the County Council was granted approximately £2.8 million per annum to carryout this work.6.31 Given that the major development options under consideration would be completed withinthis time, it is not possible to be definitive as to how much funding would be available tosupport this growthRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 29

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report6.32 In addition, it is understood that the County Council seeks a standard developercontribution for pre-school provision. Typically this is in the region of £500 per dwelling butis considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the requirements generated by aparticular development. This is based on the same criteria as the contribution for schoolprovision but at a much lower level because of the levels of investment required atpreschool age compared to primary and secondary school infrastructure costs. The figurewas derived through discussions with other education services in the East of England.Issues6.33 The main issue appears to be how to ensure that demand for primary school places inFelixstowe can be met by 2025, given the narrow margin between forecast demand andcapacity. It appears that this will require detailed work by the County on school catchmentarea changes which are beyond the scope of this study.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 30

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report7 UTILITIESElectricity7.1 Electricity is generated from power stations and transmitted through a national network ofelectricity lines (the National Grid) operating at 275 and 400kv before connecting to localnetworks owned by distribution companies. EDF Energy is the appointed distributioncompany for Suffolk Coastal district.Capacity of Existing InfrastructureIn terms of the National Grid, development proposals within the Felixstowe area will nothave a significant effect upon the National Grid’s electricity transmission infrastructure.The National Grid operators have confirmed that there are no National Grid electricitytransmission assets within the area subject to this study. Furthermore, extra growth isunlikely to create capacity issues elsewhere, and that the National Grid should be able tocope with additional demands.7.2 The local distribution network is operated by EDF Energy. They have confirmed thatFelixstowe town and the surrounding areas are fed from two 33/11kV substations at DockRoad and Langley Avenue, both of which currently have spare capacity.Needs7.3 EDF have indicated that a singe large proposal for an industrial or off-site port relateddevelopment could remove the existing headroom at either site. Additionally, dependingon any new job creation as a result of growth, which will have an impact on capacity, theremay be a requirement for an additional 33/11kV substation, possibly between theTrimleys.7.4 In terms of the specific growth options, the dispersed urban and brownfield option isunlikely to cause any specific issues, however each development would be assessedindividually for the need for off-site reinforcement. Development in the area north ofCandlet Road, which is a generally greenfield site, is likely to require new infrastructure,as well as diversions/removal of any existing apparatus. Some off-site reinforcement mayalso be needed. The same is true for the area between Walton and Trimley St Mary,where there is some existing development as well as greenfield land.Costs7.5 Since no specific requirements for infrastructure have been identified at this stage, theircosts will also need to be assessed at the time of their identification, dependent on theextent to which operational and upgrading works are needed to serve the developmentsRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 31

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportFunding7.6 The existing charging methodology is for developers to support the capital investmentneeded to extend or reinforce the electricity network to their developments. The chargesmade to existing connected customers doe not support network extension; they supportmaintenance, repairs and generic reinforcement. Where a development promptsinfrastructure reinforcement it will be required to contribute towards the reinforcement on atotal or a proportional basis.7.7 EDF Energy will proportionally fund some strategic infrastructure if that has the benefit ofusefully reinforcing supply to the existing networks. However, the developer will becharged the remaining proportion of the total costs. This should relate to employmentdevelopment as well as housing.Priorities7.8 There are no particular priorities associated with this provision.Timing of Provision7.9 The installation of network to supply a new development could take in the region of two tothree years and this would be phased with the planned growth.Issues7.10 The assessment is based on existing network loading. The available headroom capacitymay change as a result of other new connections or increases in demand. This may affectthe assessment of need currently identified.Gas7.11 Gas is delivered through seven reception points into the United Kingdom and distributedthrough a National Transmission System (NTS). National Grid is responsible for the NTSwhich covers the whole of Great Britain.7.12 A series of off-take points in the NTS supplies gas to twelve Local Distribution Zones. Inthe Suffolk Coastal area, National Grid Gas is the licensed gas transporter.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure7.13 There are currently no capacity issues related to the existing provision of gas services inFelixstowe. National Grid Gas has confirmed that the identified growth areas currentlyhave some gas transmission infrastructure capacity.Costs7.14 Costs for additional gas infrastructure are apportioned using an ‘economic test’ – growth isconsidered 5 and 10 years ahead, but infrastructure is built only where it is consideredeconomic to do so and only where approved as a ‘good business case’.7.15 However, in general the costs of upgrading the existing network – as opposed to providingnew infrastructure – are comparatively small.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 32

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportFunding7.16 The cost of the network infrastructure both on-site and off-site will be borne solely bydevelopers, whereas reinforcements will be apportioned between National Grid anddevelopers via use of an economic test. The gas company may wish to install strategicpipelines at an early stage of the developments and will recharge a proportion of the coststo each developer.Priorities7.17 If there is spare capacity within the system this will be allocated on a first come firstserved basis. Developments located closer to the point of connection will generallyrequire a lower capital investment then developments located a distance from the majorinfrastructure.Timing of Provision7.18 Given that only upgrading of the network is needed, National Grid Gas would be able tosupply these new loads, or reinforce them on a reasonably short timescale, i.e. within sixmonths. Therefore, the need would follow the planned provision of development.7.19 Only if a large number of loads are added to the network in a short period of time couldthe upstream systems be overloaded. These reinforcements could cause delays in "gason dates" but these delays are not considered to be significant within the context of thelikely programme of housing delivery.Issues7.20 The National Grid has a commitment to a 5-year price control review, which makes longtermplanning difficult. With tightly controlled capital spend, it is difficult to build capacity toexisting networks upfront, even though planning does take place up to 10 years ahead,and considers demand from new sites identified in LDFs. This means that reinforcementprojects are planned on a very reactive basis as and when new loads connect to thenetwork. The connections analysis process and regulatory rules force a reactive, ratherthan proactive, approach and any reinforcement requirements are subject to an economictest to apportion costs. Thus it will be important to fully engage with National Grid Gasonce specific site information is available, specifying what size loads are likely to beconnected and a proposed timescale.Water – Potable Supply7.21 The provider of potable (drinking) water supply to Suffolk Coastal district is Anglian Water.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure7.22 Existing infrastructure is sufficient to deliver current demand, however a clearerunderstanding of specific sites would be required for an on-site supply assessment.Needs7.23 All of the growth options almost certainly have sufficient capacity to supply the requiredpotable water supply.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 33

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportCosts7.24 Cost information has not been provided. This is mainly because the only requirements arelikely to be relatively minor upgrades to the existing network.Funding7.25 Any new development would be funded by the developer in accordance with therequirements of the Water Industry Act. In reality, the actual payments made by thedeveloper for any on-site water main would be significantly less than the cost of the asset.Any new service connection would be charged in accordance with standard rates andstandard infrastructure charges would also apply. Given the fact that revenue will fill theshortfall, there are no funding issues with providing potable water supply.Priorities7.26 No priorities have been identified.Timing of Provision7.27 There are no particular priorities for timing identified.Issues7.28 No particular issues have been identified.Water – Wastewater7.29 The provider of wastewater services to Suffolk Coastal district is Anglian Water.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure7.30 The requirements for wastewater provision relate to the network for delivering wastewater(i.e. the sewerage pipes) and the facility at which it is treated, i.e. the WastewaterTreatment Works (WwTW). In general terms, Anglian Water has commented that due tothe location of WwTW, there are no options for direct connections to the works. Thusimprovements will be required to be made within the network by upsizing the existingpipework.7.31 Determining the degree of improvement needed would require a full assessment of eachsite, including its location and onsite drainage plans (including appropriate surface waterdisposal, such as sustainable urban drainage systems). The redevelopment of brownfieldsites would require a minimum of like with like or betterment. However, until specificindividual site locations are know this detailed assessment cannot take place.7.32 There is sufficient capacity of wastewater treatment infrastructure for all three stages ofthe growth scenario, however the sewerage network for all options has limited capacityand would require significant infrastructure investment to accommodate any growth.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 34

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportNeeds7.33 Anglian Water advise that there is wastewater treatment capacity available for all threephases of the growth scenario, subject to further detailed assessment of developmentsites. However, the sewerage network in the area of the Trimleys, and to the north ofCandlet Road has limited capacity, and improvements will be required. Furthermore, thesewerage network in Felixstowe has no available capacity and major improvements willbe required to accommodate any future development.Costs7.34 At this point, it is not possible to determine the cost of new or extensions to existingWwTWs or the cost of providing additional sewer networks. This will need to bedetermined when particular schemes are assessed.Funding7.35 Capital spending on waste water services is funded by the revenue collected from existingcustomers. Anglian Water produces a 5-year Asset Management Programme (AMP) thatis approved by OFWAT. The current 5-year plan is expected to be determined shortly.This identifies all needs over the next five years.7.36 Currently, none of the needs identified as part of the growth options have been promotedas part of the final business plan for the current AMP being considered by OFWAT.Therefore, if Anglian Water is to provide any of these solutions, then they will have to bepart of the bids within the next AMPs (either post-2016 or post-2021). Alternatively, thedeveloper is able to bring forward the planned improvement works sooner by making acontribution up front to ensure the works takes place at an earlier date. On largedevelopments, Anglian Water would expect to see developer contributions being used tosupport early delivery of wastewater facilities. We consider that this should be treated aspart of the costs of development.7.37 Anglian Water only pays for wastewater services related to residential development. Thecosts for serving employment and retail development are expected to be met in full by thedeveloper.Priorities7.38 Individual improvements to sewage capacity to enable developments to go ahead will bepriorities for developers. The extent to which this may inhibit development will becomeapparent when Anglian Water responds to individual applications.7.39 Provision of additional sewerage capacity will become a priority from 2015 onwards toensure that the later phases of growth can be served.Timing of Provision7.40 As indicated above, Anglian Water’s capital programmes are determined by the AMPprocess, and planning for provision must take account of this.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 35

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportIssues7.41 The timing issues mean that close liaison with Anglian Water is required over the scaleand timing of development proposals.TelecommunicationsCapacity of Existing Infrastructure7.42 Existing infrastructure is sufficient to deliver current demand.Needs7.43 We review this subject briefly because landline and broadband provision is dealt withbetween developers and providers. There are no infrastructure requirements on thepublic sector for providing either fixed-line or mobile telecom services. British Telecom(BT) has an obligation to provide a landline to every household in the UK, and developerswill want to facilitate this otherwise their developments will be unsellable. The market isfunctioning well in this regard and there is no need for public involvement.7.44 Mobile phone provision is also a matter for private sector provision. The mainrequirement is for sites for masts. This is dealt with through the development system.7.45 Broadband access is also almost universally available through the market, so this placesno infrastructure demands on the public sector either. Business users can purchaseadditional bandwidth to speed up their internet access if they wish to. Those requiringspeeds higher than ADSL (up to 8 mbps) can obtain increased bandwidth through themarket.Costs7.46 As the infrastructure provision is private investment, we have not felt it necessary toidentify the costs.Funding7.47 In the case of both fixed-line and mobile, telecoms, new infrastructure will be funded fromthe capital programmes of BT and also cable companies, where the latter operate.7.48 The Digital Britain review (June 2009) mentions a universal access to 2mbps broadbandby 2012, but is unclear on exactly how this will be funded (although it appears to be anextension of BT’s Public Service Obligation on phone provision across the broadbandindustry).7.49 The report also confirms the Government’s decision to deliver this universal accessthrough a mix of technologies (DSL, fibre to the street cabinet, wireless and possiblysatellite infill), and funded from £200m from direct public funding.Priorities7.50 Telecom services should be rolled out as the new housing and commercial developmentis built so the issue of priorities does not arise.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 36

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report7.51 If issues of prioritisation arise with regard to high-speed internet access, BT and otherproviders should be encouraged to give priority to employment areas although, in anyevent, they will probably wish to do so on commercial grounds.7.52 We have shown above that these infrastructure costs are generally picked up by theprivate sector. They do not represent a priority for public sector investment.Timing of provision7.53 There are no particular priorities associated with the timing of any provision.Issues7.54 The provision of telecoms infrastructure does not give rise to any significant issues.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 37

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report8 WASTE8.1 Suffolk County Council is responsible for the treatment and disposal of municipal waste.Suffolk Coastal District Council is responsible for the collection of household waste. Thebrief for the study makes it clear that only the management (i.e. treatment and disposal) ofwaste should be considered. Therefore, it is only the County function that is relevant.Key DocumentsSuffolk Waste Local Plan 20068.2 Suffolk County Council, as Waste Planning Authority, is required to prepare a WasteLocal Plan for Suffolk.8.3 The Suffolk Waste Local Plan was adopted in 2006. It applies to the whole of Suffolk, andits period is from 1 Jan 2001 until 31 Dec 2016. This Plan consists of land-use policiesand proposals regarding waste management and the reasoned justification for them.8.4 The plan states that it is difficult to project future levels of municipal waste, and identifies a3% growth per year in waste up to 2010, with no further growth beyond then.Waste Core Strategy – Final Consultation8.5 Suffolk County Council published a Waste Core Strategy Final Consultation SustainabilityAppraisal Report in July 2009. This document will ultimately lead to a Waste and MineralsCore Strategy. The report identifies 5 sites as suitable for the siting of Strategic ResidualWaste Treatment Facilities, none of which are located in Felixstowe.8.6 The Core Strategy itself will also identify strategic sites for the management of residualwaste. Although non-landfill waste management methods are set to increase, there willcontinue to be a need for some non-hazardous landfill. It is estimated that the remainingnon-hazardous landfill void space within Suffolk could run out between 2014 and 2016.The Core Strategy therefore seeks to identify suitable strategic sites for non-hazardouslandfill.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure8.7 The Suffolk Waste Local Plan 2006 states that it is difficult to establish the capacity ofinert waste management facilities 5 . The Plan indicates that the combined output of thesefacilities was 418,000 tonnes in 2000, which suggests that there is sufficient capacity tocope with existing requirements.8.8 However, the County Council has confirmed that landfill capacity within the County isexpected to meet the needs of the county to 2014/15, at which time a new residual wastetreatment facility will manage all of Suffolk's waste. The procurement of this new facilityfor which PFI funding has been secured is currently underway.5 Waste is considered to be inert if it does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biologicaltransformations.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 39

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report8.9 The new facility will be designed to meet the needs of the County with consideration ofhousing growth in the County. The capacity of the new residual waste facility is beingdetermined based on the housing figures contained in the Regional Spatial Strategy(RSS) for the East of England (therefore any housing growth in excess of the RSS figures,as a whole county, may cause pressure on the capacity of the facility).8.10 SCC is also responsible for the provision of Household Waste Recycling Centres(HWRCs) in the County. The Council’s current contractor plans to improve servicesthrough these sites to meet the needs of the County (which will help deal with increasedhousing numbers).Needs8.11 Suffolk County Council considers that landfill capacity is expected to meet the needs ofthe County to 2014/15. Therefore, no new landfill sites need to be identified for additionalcapacity, given projected increase in recycling levels. By this time, a new residual wastetreatment facility will be in place to manage all of the County’s waste.8.12 The current HWRC contractor considers that upgrades to the existing HWRCs will besufficient to address all needs in the County over the plan period. Certainly, there arealways inevitable constraints of location, that a given rise by people always wanting to usetheir nearest HWRC.8.13 As such, if significant growth in the County’s population is centred around the FelixstoweHWRC (i.e. in the study area), then this site will face pressure regardless of whether thereare 17 other HWRCs with capacity around the county. However, there are no specificcapacity problems at this time at the Felixstowe HWRC and there are no specific plans todevelop additional HWRCs at this time.Costs8.14 For a new residual waste treatment facility processing 250,000 tonnes of residual wasteper annum, the capital cost is around £210 million. Also, three Transfer Stations will beneeded at a cost of £12 million each.Funding8.15 In April 2008, Suffolk County Council secured private finance initiative (PFI) funding of£102 million in respect of providing a new residual waste treatment facility. These will bepaid as credits over the lifetime of the contract with the chosen provider.8.16 This therefore leaves the remaining cost of the new treatment facility and the cost of thewaste transfer stations. Suffolk County Council seeks a standard contribution of £381 perdwelling in respect of this type of waste disposal. This is based on the need for a newresidual waste treatment facility having an outstanding capital cost not covered by PFI of£105 million and three Transfer Stations having a capital cost of £12 million. This totalcost of £117m is then divided equally between the 307,000 households in the county,which equals £381 per household for provision.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 40

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportPriorities8.17 It is clear that the construction of these facilities represents a priority for the county as awhole, including Suffolk Coastal.Timing of Provision8.18 The provider of the new residual waste treatment facility is currently being selected. Thisis expected to take another year and the facility will be built by 2014, when landfill sitesare reaching capacity. There are therefore no particular issues of timing for any of thegrowth option.Issues8.19 The function of SCC as WDA covers the whole of Suffolk and therefore it is difficult toanticipate specific infrastructure needs. For example, the additional houses in theFelixstowe area may increase pressure on waste infrastructure, but the decision may betaken to relieve the pressure by providing an additional facility in another area of thecounty to relieve the pressure in the Felixstowe area - rather than developing a facilityspecifically to meet the needs of the SCDC/Felixstowe area.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 41

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report9 CEMETERIES/CREMATORIACemeteries9.1 Felixstowe Cemetery is situated in Langley Avenue, Felixstowe. It is owned and managedby Felixstowe Town Council. It serves the town of Felixstowe and the adjacent Parish ofTrimley St. Martin. The cemetery had an expansion in 2007.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure9.2 We have assumed that as the cemetery has been recently expanded the growthproposals will not create a capacity problem.Needs9.3 Clearly there will be a need for additional cemetery space to support new growth.However, there is no standard for such provision so it is not possible to identify specificneeds.Costs and Funding9.4 It is assumed that in most cases the requirement will be to extend existing cemeteries. Inpractical terms the extension will need a fence or wall, access paths and possiblyequipment storage, with the first being the major cost. It is considered that a budget of£50,000 per hectare is reasonable.9.5 Funding is usually provided through local authority capital expenditure budgets.Priorities9.6 No specific priorities have been identified.Timing of Provision9.7 There are no particular issues in respect of timing.Issues9.8 We have not identified any specific issues with regard to cemetery provision in Felixstowe.Crematoria9.9 Crematoria are usually provided by the private sector.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure9.10 There are crematoria at Ipswich and Woodbridge.Needs9.11 We have not identified any specific issues with regard to crematorium capacity.Costs and Funding9.12 Because crematoria are most commonly provided privately, as demand increases, supplyshould theoretically increase accordingly. As such, this is not an infrastructurerequirement that necessitates separate provision by way of public or developer funding.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 43

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportPriorities9.13 No specific priorities have been identified.Timing of Provision9.14 There are no particular issues in respect of timing.Issues9.15 Planning policy should facilitate any necessary increases in capacity.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 44

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report10 COMMUNITY AND ON-SITE INFRASTRUCTURE10.1 This section addresses a number of infrastructure needs that can be broadly categorisedas either community or on-site items.Allotments10.2 Allotment provision is not commonly undertaken by one specific body. Many allotmentswere provided several decades ago when funding and provision regimes were verydifferent. Today it is more reasonable to expect developers to provide allotments as partof large developments. The maintenance and upkeep of allotments is commonlyundertaken by parish councils.Capacity of existing provision10.3 The Felixstowe Town Council owns five different allotment sites, at Cemetery Field,Cowpasture, Ferry Road, Railway Hill and Taunton Road. The biggest site is Cowpasturewith 213 plots. There are 70 plots at Ferry Road, 38 plots at Railway Hill, 29 plots atCemetery Field and 12 plots at Taunton Road. Additionally, there are some allotments atTrimley St Mary. There are currently waiting lists for all sites.Needs10.4 In terms of determining the need for allotment space in response to new housingdevelopment, it is necessary to consider an appropriate standard of provision. There is nolocal standard of provision for the district. The 1969 Thorpe Report into demand forallotments, undertaken for the Ministry of Natural Resources, suggests a standard of0.2ha per 1,000 population. Due to various factors such as the price of supermarket foodand concern over the unsustainable levels of food miles that supermarket foods accrue,there has been a general upsurge in demand for allotments; therefore this standard,although dated, is considered to be reasonable.10.5 The proposed growth option comprises 1,000 dwellings, which corresponds to apopulation of 2,100 people. There is therefore a requirement of 0.42 ha of allotments for1,000 new dwellings. It must be remembered though that new development cannot beexpected to pay for existing deficits in provision.Costs and Funding10.6 Costs for allotments are usually done on a ‘one-off’ basis, so it is most appropriate todetermine this individually according to the particular development. As a guide,Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council considered proposals to create new allotmentsand derived a cost per hectare of £100,000. This would cover the provision of facilitiessuch as sheds, access, fencing and drainage. Allotment fees would cover themaintenance of the access and fencing. This does not include the cost of purchasing theland.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 45

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report10.7 There may be small pots of local funding available for the provision of allotment space.However, these are unlikely to cover anything other than a small proportion of the overallcosts. It is therefore assumed that allotment space would be funded solely throughdeveloper contributions.Priorities10.8 No specific priorities have been identified.Timing of Provision10.9 There are no particular issues in respect of timing.Issues10.10 No specific issues have been identified in respect of allotment provision.Community halls and meeting places10.11 Like allotments, there is no common provider of community halls. Most are provided bythe local authority, with some provision by private charities.Capacity of existing provision10.12 There are several community centres serving the study area. Within the study area, thereare the following halls:Broadway House Orwell Road;Felixstowe Town Hall Undercliff Road West, FelixstoweWalton Community Hall High Street, Walton, FelixstoweTrimley Memorial Hall, Trimley St MartinTrimley St Mary Welcome Hall10.13 Additionally, there are a number of church halls which are available for hire. However,there has been no clear audit of the capacity and usage of these facilities.Needs10.14 There is no clear and accepted standard for the provision of community halls and meetingplaces. Other districts have adopted a range of standards, such as:• Horsham District Council - 0.15 sq m per person;• Taunton & Deane Borough Council - 0.2 sq m per person for village halls;• Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 0.2 sq m per person (0.5 sq m per dwelling,based on an average of 2.4 people per dwelling);• Bracknell Forest Council - 0.13 sq m per person for a community centre (0.33 sq mper dwelling based on 2.4 people per dwelling).• Wycombe District Council and Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council - 0.3 sq m perperson.• Broxbourne – 0.55 community facilities per 1,000 people (within 15-minute walk time)Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 46

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report10.15 We therefore consider that a reasonable standard to adopt would be approximately 0.2 sqm per person, or 0.42 sq m per dwelling, based on an average of 2.1 people per dwelling.The requirement in total area for the proposed growth scenario is therefore 420 sqm.Based on a reasonable assumption of 500 sq m for a large community centre and 200 sqm for a small meeting hall, one large or two small community centres are likely to berequired.10.16 However, it is too simplistic to say that this is exactly what is required in terms of thenumber of facilities. It may be preferable to provide community facilities as part of onelarge, multi use facility. Community centres are often used for sporting activities.However, if such sporting facilities are already to be provided (either as a stand alonefacility or through use of secondary school facilities) then it is not necessary for such alarge centre to be provided.Costs10.17 The capital cost of constructing a typical community centre ranges from £1,200/sq m to£1,800/sq m 6 . This covers construction and fees, with the higher end of the range allowingfor equipment used for sports activities.10.18 Assuming that sports facilities are not required, then a figure of £1,300/sq m isreasonable. This would therefore create a cost of £0.55m.10.19 It is important to note that this does not include the cost of the land for such facilities. It isalso important to consider that there is a revenue cost attached to running new communityfacilities.Funding10.20 New community facilities are either provided from local authority capital expenditurebudgets or by developers through S106 agreements. In certain circumstances, fundingcan be sought from Sport England if the facility is to provide a significant level of sportsfacilities.10.21 Commonly as part of major developments, such land is provided as free land in lieu ofother charges, so a developer may offer either the land and a capital contribution towardsthe construction of a community building, or the identification of a site and construction ofthe building with subsequent transfer to the local planning authority.Priorities10.22 No specific priorities have been identified.Timing of Provision10.23 There are no particular issues in respect of timing.6 A typical community centre consists of a large hall, a separate smaller meeting room, kitchen facilities and WCs(including disabled facilities)Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 47

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportIssues10.24 No specific issues have been identified in respect of community centre provision.Green infrastructure10.25 The need is to deliver this growth in accordance with the objectives of the Government’sSustainable Communities Plan. However, a key component of achieving sustainability willbe the sub-region’s ability to deliver a multi-functional greenspace network or ‘greeninfrastructure’.10.26 Green infrastructure is the term used to describe a network of green spaces, greenlinkages, protected sites and nature reserves that is multi-functional, providingrecreational and cultural experiences whilst also delivering landscape, historical andecological benefits. Ownership of land can be both public and private and levels of publicaccessibility can range from being limited to public rights of way to being less constrainedon open access land. As such, its provision and the availability of green infrastructure hasstrong linkages to the provision of outdoor sports facilities, including grass sports pitches.This is covered separately later in this chapter.Key documents10.27 The Haven Gateway Partnership produced a Green Infrastructure Strategy (GIS) in April2008. Production of this document was a condition of New Growth Point status for theHaven Gateway. Its principal purpose is to provide a framework for the delivery of highquality green infrastructure to complement planned housing and employment growth overthe next 20 years.10.28 The scope of the Haven Gateway GIS extends beyond the boundaries of the district andthe vision and principles contained in the strategy apply equally throughout the subregion.So the green areas within the district will be serving a wider population whichprincipally relates to Ipswich borough. It is important that Suffolk Coastal district workswith its neighbouring authorities, to understand collective green infrastructure needs andagree a common approach to charging development for their provision.Capacity of Existing Infrastructure10.29 The majority of green space in the study area is located along the seafront, with very littlegreen space located inland. Felixstowe records green space deprivation at the District andRegional Levels.Needs10.30 Based on standards promoted by Natural England, people should have access to:• 2ha+ of accessible natural greenspace (ANG) within 300m of home – this has beentermed the Neighbourhood Level• 20ha+ of ANG within 1.2km of home – the District Level• 60ha+ of ANG within 3.2km of home – the Sub-regional Level• 500ha+ of ANG within 10km of home – the Regional LevelRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 48

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report10.31 The Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure Strategy identifies the study area as having adeficiency in regional (500 ha+) and district level (20 ha+) accessible natural greenspaces. The conclusion is based upon an assessment using the accessible naturalgreenspace standards developed in 2003 by Natural England and adapted by the Townand Country Planning Association.Costs10.32 The Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure Strategy identifies various projects within thevicinity of the study area which could address the regional and local deficiencies. Theseinclude:• Project 43 – a new green bridge over the A14(T) at Trimley – more than £500,000;• Project 40 – a green corridor around the northern edge of Felixstowe – costing between£200,000 and £500,000; and• Project 42 – the extension of the Trimley Marshes, with associated accessimprovements, estimated to cost in excess of £500,000.10.33 The study does not provide more detailed cost estimates than the figures above. Clearly,it will be necessary to cost particular schemes once more specific proposals have beendrawn up.Funding10.34 A proportion of the costs of green infrastructure requirements can be sought by way ofS106 contributions. In order to make provision for the future growth of the population, twoelements need to be secured, capital costs for implementation and a commuted sum formaintenance during an established period. We address each in turn below.10.35 It is important to note that the District Council has embarked upon a fundamental reviewof its service priorities with the aim of investigating other mechanisms for the delivery ofboth existing and future green space provision in the coming 3 years. The need is to meetthe Council's target of making budget savings of 20%.Capital projects10.36 Below is a brief summary of some of the public funding opportunities for provision ofcapital projects.The Landfill Communities Fund (formally the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme)10.37 The Landfill Communities Fund can generate finance for environmental, conservation andpublic amenity initiatives managed by registered environmental bodies, although theseoften preclude local authorities. Only projects located within 10 miles of an active landfillsite are eligible – all the proposed sites are within 10 miles of Waldringfield Quarry - and itmust be recognised that with the emphasis moving away from landfill, this source offunding is likely to diminish. The delivery of biodiversity conservation for UKspecies/habitats is one of the criteria identified for funding.SITA Trust10.38 SITA Trust launched its Enriching Nature programme back in September 2005 toencourage conservation and environment projects to apply for funding through the LandfillRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 49

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportCommunities Fund. The Enriching Nature Programme provides funding for biodiversityprojects around any licensed and registered landfill site in England. It funded 80 projectsacross the country in year one of its programme with just under £3.8 million. In year twothe Trust has managed to fund 88 projects with over £4.1 million.10.39 The existing three year programme was due to come to an end in 2008 but, recognisingthe demand for biodiversity investment, the SITA Trust Board has announced ‘EnrichingNature 2009’. The initial tranche included large grants up to £175,000.Agri-environment and Woodland Grants10.40 These grants, which are being administered by Natural England and the ForestryCommission have the potential to enhance the biodiversity, landscape quality and publicaccess of privately owned farmland. Forestry Commission English Woodland GrantScheme can fund new woodlands planted under Section 106 agreements or under otherplanning conditionsCountdown 2010 Biodiversity Action Fund10.41 The Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Action Fund is the name for the Environmental ActionFund (EAF) biodiversity stream, which is administered by Natural England and is part of aEurope-wide initiative. This fund will support projects that help achieve the UKgovernment’s commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, through delivering theobjectives of the England Biodiversity Strategy and Biodiversity Action Plan targets. Onlyvoluntary conservation sector organisations are eligible to apply for this fund. Grants havebeen made for the years 2006/07 and 2007/08) with awards between £25,000 and£250,000. Grants required match funding.Big Lottery Fund10.42 The Big Lottery Fund is responsible for distributing half of the money that the NationalLottery raises for good causes. Between 2006 and 2009, £234 million is being madeavailable to help local communities in England improve their environment through the‘Changing Spaces’ programme, which has three priority areas including communityspaces and access to the natural environment.Heritage Lottery Grants10.43 These are site/topic related (e.g. Public Parks initiative) which usually involves therestoration of existing features. They can be applied for and administered by localgovernment, quasi public organisations and charitable trusts etc. This programme aims tohelp communities in England improve their environment through three strands: communityspaces; local community enterprise; and access to the natural environment. Up to £234million is available until 2009 to improve local environments and create a greater sense ofcommunity ownership of them.New Parks for People Programme10.44 The Parks for People Programme operated in the first instance for approximately threeyears (2005-8) but has been extended. Grants ranging from £250,000 to £5 million areavailable for projects that will improve public parks in the UK, and create newopportunities for communities to learn about and enjoy their local environment. For theRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 50

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Reportpurposes of this scheme, the term 'public park' refers to an existing designed urban orrural green space, the main purpose of which is for informal recreation and enjoyment.Importantly both capital work and revenue activities will be supported.Revenue services10.45 In terms of revenue services, the District Council provides a Countryside Service thatmanages natural greenspace throughout the District and supports countrysidemanagement projects. Currently the Countryside Service manages 39 sites throughoutthe district of which 10 are public open spaces resulting from S106 agreements. Only 4 ofthese sites area still managed with commuted sums, the remainder are now covered bythe Council’s mainstream revenue budget10.46 Suffolk Coastal District along with all other local authorities is subject to tight spendingcontrols and Government has indicated that revenue funding is expected to contractfurther over the coming years i.e. throughout the plan period. The Council is thereforeactively developing and has developed various mechanisms to help improve the situatione.g. developing partnerships with other local authorities, the voluntary sector, communitygroups and parish councils. It has also recently launched a fund-raising campaign to tryand increase funding from the private sector, communities and individuals and promotevolunteer involvement. It is possible therefore that the Council may not be the servicemanaging new greenspace in this area. Similar financial restraints on the AONB andGreenways Countryside Projects could prevent them becoming more actively involved ingreenspace management without the provision of additional resources.Priorities10.47 There are no particular priorities attached to any of these projects.Timing of Provision10.48 It is desirable but not essential to have the identified requirements provided early in thelife of a development. This will help to improve the quality of life for new residents.Issues10.49 Given the likely order of costs bringing forward all the schemes identified to addressdeficiencies in green infrastructure, there will be a significant requirement to access publicfunding sources. Whilst any of the possible growth options would provide developercontributions towards such schemes, it is not considered likely that this will meet all thecosts. The list of funding opportunities identified above cannot be guaranteed to providefunding, and even if they did, would only likely provide a proportion of what are significantcosts.10.50 In addition, even if new green infrastructure was provided, there would be considerableissues that would need to be addressed in respect of managing new space.10.51 The sites that this study is assessing will, in themselves, create their own need forinformal green space provision in addition to the formal sports pitches and play areasbeing assessed later in the chapter. These areas will be expected to contribute to theGreen Infrastructure strategy. Also, more can be expected to be done through looking atproviding access/public rights of way to other parts of the green infrastructure network.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 51

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportPublic art10.52 Public art in this context could cover sculptures or particular pieces to act as a focal pointfor a development. However, more commonly it will include more fundamental needs of adevelopment, such as benches, signage and fencing.Capacity of existing provision10.53 This is not relevant for determining needs.Needs10.54 There are no standards for the provision of public art and it is not possible to determinewhat types of public art would be appropriate for any single developments. Each must beassessed on a development-by-development basis.Costs10.55 There are no standards for the provision of the more common requirements identifiedabove. As such, it is not possible to assign costs to any such needs. It will be necessary tonegotiate with a developer on a site-by-site basis. Undoubtedly it is in the best interests ofa developer to use public art in order to enhance their development, as this will help tocontribute towards higher returns in the form of higher house prices and/or quicker sale ofproperties.10.56 Any costs will need to cover the long term maintenance of public art items.Funding10.57 Funding would be expected to normally come entirely from developer contributions. Incertain circumstances it may be possible for some funding to be sought from charitablebodies with an interest in the arts.Priorities10.58 There are no particular priorities attached to the provision of public art.Timing of Provision10.59 There are no issues relating to the timing of provision.Issues10.60 There are no particular issues attached to this provision.Sports facilities10.61 SPG15 has a standard for the provision of sports grounds for adult and youth use of 1.7hectares per 1,000 population.Capacity of existing provision10.62 The table below summarises the requirements and current provision of playing pitchesand sports grounds for the Felixstowe Parish and the Trimleys.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 52

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportTable 10-1 Requirements for playing pitches and sports grounds (ha)Local PlanRequirementCurrent Provision(Local + District)CurrentAdequacyFelixstowe Parish 40.89 43.47 +2.58Trimley St Mary 6.24 5.42 -0.82Trimley St Martin 3.31 3.18 -0.13710.63 The table demonstrates that there is a slight oversupply in Felixstowe, and minorundersupplies in the two Trimley parishes.Needs10.64 Whilst this suggests that only small amounts of provision are necessary, there is no clearstandard for the level of accessibility to sports facilities, so it is not possible to be definitiveabout the possible additional requirement. The only way to undertake a meaningfulassessment is to assume that none of the development options have access to any sportsfacilities, and to then determine their individual needs.10.65 For the proposed growth scenario of 1,000 dwellings (and population of 2,100), 3.57 ha ofsports facilities will be required, based on a standard of 1.7 ha per 1,000 population.Costs10.66 The cost of sports pitches can vary due to a number of factors. The actual provision offootball, rugby and cricket pitches is relatively fixed but other requirements, if incurred, willserve to significantly increase the costs. In particular, the need for suitable drainage ofpitches and the provision of changing facilities are significant items. It is therefore notpossible to give accurate costings for the provision of sports facilities.Funding10.67 There are several potential sources of funding available for the provision of sportsfacilities. Some of these, such as the Football Association for football pitches haveparticular standards that must be applied to developments they contribute to, serving toincrease the overall cost.10.68 It is therefore assumed that these would be funded solely through developer contributions.Priorities10.69 There are no particular priorities attached to the provision of sports facilities.Timing of Provision10.70 There are no issues relating to the timing of provision.Issues10.71 There are no particular issues attached to this provision.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 53

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportOther Sports10.72 The SPG15 standard applies to outdoor facilities and in the main, to ‘standard’ sportsfacilities, as opposed to facilities for specialist or indoor sports. There are other identifiedsports needs that must be addressed in order to create adequate provision in the district.Capacity of Existing Provision10.73 It has not been possible to fully audit the provision of other sports facilities. Because theserepresent the provision of ‘one-off’ facilities, then it is not possible to accurately determinewhether there is a shortfall of existing provision.Needs10.74 In 2007, Sport England and EEDA published ‘Creating Active Places – Sports FacilitiesStrategy for the East of England.’ This assessed future needs for sports facilities acrossthe region, broken down by county. The Strategy identified that there is very limited facilityprovision (built and outdoor) in rural areas to the south-west of Suffolk. Another generalpoint is that a number of facilities, including swimming pools and fitness facilities aresufficient in numbers, however there are issues with accessing them, which lead todeficits.10.75 More specifically, the Study identified the need for the following facilities relevant to theSuffolk Coastal area (there is no detailed information provided for Felixstowe itself):• Badminton – 4 court facilities;• Traffic free cycling;• Hockey;• Martial arts;• Netball;• Squash;• Swimming; and• Volleyball – indoor facilities.10.76 In the absence of a local, Felixstowe-specific assessment of needs for indoor sportsfacilities, particularly swimming pools and sports halls, it is not possible to accuratelydetermine the level of need for additional facilities to serve the proposed growth scenario.It is recommended that such work be undertaken by the District Council.Costs10.77 Typically with less common sports facilities, the cost of a development is determined on acase-by-case basis. Sport England do provide guidance on the cost of facilities such asgymnasia but it is more appropriate to look at these costs when more specific informationabout the type of development – and whether there will be co-location of several facilities,as is more common – comes forward.Funding10.78 Funding for specific types of facility is available from Sport England, principally in the formof grants. However, for the provision of public facilities, the most common funding sourcesare local authority capital expenditure budgets and developer contributions.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 54

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportPriorities10.79 There are no particular priorities attached to the provision of other sports facilities.Timing of Provision10.80 There are no issues relating to the timing of provision.Issues10.81 Certainly it is worth noting that any ‘common’ facilities that are normally offered in sportshalls could be provided in a secondary school gymnasium. This could be used bymembers of the general public outside school hours. The provision of the new secondaryschool offers an opportunity for co-location of facilities to save costs and duplication.LibrariesCapacity of existing provision10.82 The existing library in Felixstowe has 774 square metres of gross floorspace and hasbeen refurbished and extended in the last few years. The Library Service consider that itis adequate for the town at its current size, but additional provision would be required forgrowth.10.83 The County’s library service works on standards published for the Department for Culture,Media and Sport (DCMS) by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). TheMLA a non-departmental public body sponsored by the DCMS which promotes bestpractice in museums, libraries and archives, to inspire innovative, integrated andsustainable services for all. These standards include the proportion of households livingwithin two miles of a static library, the number of new items added annually per 1,000population and the number of electronic workstations per 1,000 population.Needs10.84 The MLA recommends that a floorspace standard for library provision of 30 sq m per1,000 population is adopted by local authorities. This follows a survey of space standardsused by library authorities. The MLA also recommends that 6 sq m of archive floorspaceper 1,000 population is provided, based on a survey of recent and current archivefacilities.10.85 Suffolk County Council uses the standards recommended by the MLA, with the exceptionthat the floorspace standard for archive accommodation, at 5 sq m per 1,000 population issmaller than recommended. On this basis, 1,000 additional dwellings at Felixstowe,assuming a population of 2.1 residents per dwelling, would generate a requirement for:• Library space: 63 square metres (30 sqm x 2.1)• Archive space: 10.5 square metres (5 sqm x 2.1).10.86 The Library Service wishes to see some provision at the Trimleys, which are a separatecommunity some distance from the town. The service does not consider that astandalone library is required, but that one way of meeting the requirement for additionalspace would be library provision co-located with other community facilities, such as ahealth centre.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 55

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report10.87 Improvements to the mobile library service would also be required, to service theadditional residential development.Costs and Funding10.88 The average cost of providing library space, including books, is £3,068 per sq m. Thiscomes from the MLA’s document, Public Libraries, Archives and New Development: AStandard Charge’. So the requirement for 63 square metres would cost £193,000.10.89 New library space is typically sought through developer contributions. This could either beprovided in kind, or by means of financial contribution. Suffolk County Council calculatescontributions to be £259 per dwelling for both libraries and archives. This is calculated asfollows:• A minimum standard of 30 sq m of new library space and 5 sq m of archive space per1,000 population is required.• Construction and initial fit out cost of £3,000 per sq m for libraries and £3,600 per sqm for archives (based on RICS Building Cost Information Service data but excludingland costs).• This gives a cost of (30 x £3,000) = £90,000 per 1,000 people or £90 per person forlibrary space and (5 x £3,600) = £18,000 per 1,000 people or £18 per person forarchive space (total £108 per person).• Assumed occupancy of 2.4 persons per dwelling (regional average house occupancy)results in contribution of £259 per dwelling. This approach excludes anyconsideration of provision of a site, and is purely a contribution towards build and fitout costs.10.90 Throughout this study, we have used Suffolk county occupancy rates of 2.1 persons perdwelling. This would give a slightly lower contribution of £227 per dwelling. This is notsignificant and would be agreed by way of negotiation.10.91 If the Suffolk County Council contribution of £259 per dwelling is adopted, then the totalcontribution from the 1,000 dwellings proposed for the Felixstowe area would be£259,000. This would cover the cost of the additional space required to be provided and acontribution towards the improvement of the County Records Office in Ipswich.Issues10.92 Detailed consideration will be required as to whether additional library provision should bemade at the existing Felixstowe library; or in community facilities on the edge of the townor in the Trimleys.Children’s play space10.93 The Council has existing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG15) on outdoor playspace. This document was published in 2001 and it is the intention of the Council to carrythis forward as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) into the emerging LDF.10.94 SPG15 has an established standard of 0.7ha per 1,000 population for the provision ofplaying areas for the use of children. This includes outdoor equipped playgroundsRoger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 56

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report(equipped place space) and casual or informal playing space within housing areas (nonequippedplay space).Capacity of existing provision10.95 SPG15 has a Parish Schedule that is updated annually. This assesses the existingprovision of play space and sports grounds against the appropriate standards. The mostrecent parish plan for Felixstowe, Trimley St Martin and Trimley St Mary are for 2008.10.96 The Felixstowe parish plan identifies 25 existing children’s play areas - covering bothequipped and non-equipped place space - with a total area of play space of 14.71ha. Thiscompares to a Local Plan requirement of 16.84 ha, suggesting a parish-wide deficit inprovision of 2.13 ha. The parish plan recommends the expansion of a number of playareas, as well as the provision of some new play areas, without clarifying possible ways ofdelivery or funding.10.97 The Trimley St Martin parish plan identifies two play areas within the village, with a totalarea of 0.38 ha, compared with a Local Plan requirement of 1.36ha. There is therefore adeficit of 0.98ha of play space in this parish.10.98 The parish plan states that there is only one equipped play area serving the entire village,and its availability for general use is questionable, due to its location in the southern endof the village, to the south of High Road. It is currently equipped to LEAP standard, andthe equipment is in a reasonable condition.10.99 In the northern part of Trimley St Martin there is a shortfall of both land and equipment.The plan recommends that an equipped area for play be provided in the northern andsouth-western ends of the village. Additionally, the plan recommends that at least one ofthe existing play areas be expanded to NEAP standard, including provision for teenagers.Currently the need for upgrade has been identified but no clear plans have been made asto how this would be delivered or funded.10.100 The Trimley St Mary parish plan identifies seven play areas, with a total area of 2.33ha.The Local Plan requirement is for 2.57ha; there is therefore a deficit of 0.24ha. Thisincludes three equipped areas within the village. The parish plan recommends theexpansion and upgrade to NEAP standard of one of the areas – at the Stennett MemorialField. The other two equipped areas are recommended to be upgraded to NEAP andLEAP standards also. It is stated that a new LEAP area is required to serve the southeasternpart of the village. Once again, the need has been identified, without plans fordelivery or funding.10.101 Given the deficits identified above, new development is likely to lead to further deficits inplay areas. SPG15 states that the appropriate standards for the provision of equippedplay spaces are as shown in Table 10.8.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 57

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportTable 10.8 Standards for provision of play spaceWalking distance/straightline distanceProvision required pernumber of dwellingsSource: SPG15LEAP240metres/400 metresUsually 1 for every 50dwellingsNEAP600 metres/1,000 metresUsually 1 for every 100dwellings10.102 It goes on to state that the overriding factor in the location and number of play facilitiesrequired from development is accessibility, i.e. the distance to the play space. Thestandard based on provision per number of dwellings results in an unrealistically highrequirement. For example, the 1,000-dwelling development scenario, as proposed, wouldrequire 20 LEAPs and 10 NEAPs. This is an aspirational standard and so it is moresensible to plan for the preferred standard, based on distance.Needs10.103 Therefore new play areas will be required to support growth at the Trimleys andFelixstowe itself. This would be on the basis of them being provided centrally within theareas of new development. If they were located towards the edges, in less accessiblelocations, then an additional play area may be required.10.104 In terms of additional non-equipped play space that would be needed on top of therequired NEAPs and LEAPs in order to reach the necessary standard of provision, theneed for this has to be based on the likely additional population that each developmentwould create. Based on an average household size of 2.1 persons, the proposed growthscenario of 1,000 dwellings will have a total requirement of 1.47 ha. The precisebreakdown of this into numbers of LEAPS and NEAPS and non-equipped play areas willdepend on the ability to provide additional spaces where development takes place ondispersed brownfield sites; and the requirements arising from application of theaccessibility standards to the layout of the more significant growth areas. The total areastandard applied to the SPG play facility standards allows for provision of the followingnotional breakdown:• 30 non-equipped playspaces @ 100m² (total 3,000 m²)• 15 LEAPs @ 400 m² (total 6,000 m²)• 6 NEAPs @1,000 m² (total 6,000 m²)10.105 It is worth noting that the provision of facilities for youth activity is a District Councilpriority. Therefore, whilst not subject to any standards of provision, giving the opportunityto provide facilities such as youth shelters, skateboard parks and Multi Use Games Areas(MUGAs) would be desirable.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 58

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportCosts10.106 Based on an assessment of developments elsewhere, the typical cost of a LEAP is£40,000 and a NEAP, £80,000. The pattern of provision above would therefore cost£1.08m (assuming that the cost of non-equipped space is included in landscaping bydevelopers). This includes all fees but excludes the ongoing maintenance of suchfacilities, as this would be a revenue cost. It will be important for the District Council to beconfident that the additional burden of maintaining these sites can be absorbed by itsfuture revenue budgets.Funding10.107 Outside of local authority budgets, there is no known source of funding available for theprovision of additional play space as would be required by the development options. It isassumed that these would be funded solely through developer contributions.10.108 Teenage shelters typically cost in the region of £5,000 each. However, if a NEAP isprovided, then a shelter could be included as part of that development.10.109 MUGAs typically cost in the region of £55,000-£60,000 each. Often teenage shelters areprovided as part of a MUGA.Priorities10.110 There are no particular priorities attached to the provision of children’s play space.Timing of Provision10.111 There are no issues relating to the timing of provision.Issues10.112 There are no issues attached to this provision.LandscapingCapacity of existing provision10.113 This is not relevant for determining needs.Needs10.114 New greenfield development in particular should try and minimise its visual impactthrough landscaping.Costs10.115 Costs for such landscaping can only reasonably be determined in response to a specificscheme design, as this will determine the amount of landscaping that is appropriate.Funding10.116 Costs for such landscaping would reasonably need to be borne by the developer in eachcase. It is likely that such requirements would be placed on the developer by way of acondition attached to a planning permission.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 59

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportPriorities10.117 There are no particular priorities attached to the provision of landscaping.Timing of Provision10.118 There are no issues relating to the timing of provision.Issues10.119 There are no particular issues attached to this provision.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 60

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal Report11 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS11.1 Below is a short summary of the infrastructure requirements arising from the proposedgrowth scenario.Strategic infrastructureCemeteries and Crematoria11.2 The cemetery at Felixstowe has been extended in the last two years so we assume thatno issues are likely to arise from the level of growth proposed.11.3 There are existing crematoria at Ipswich and Woodbridge. Provided that the planningregime facilitates expansion of existing or construction of new facilities the private sectorshould provide for any increase in requirements.Education – secondary11.4 The County Council advise that the proposed replacement of the existing two schools inFelixstowe by a single new one funded through Building Schools for The Future (BSF) willprovide sufficient capacity to cater for the proposed growth.Emergency ServicesFire11.5 No significant requirements have been identified.Police11.6 Suffolk Police are currently reviewing their requirements. They consider that theincreased workload arising from growth will require a developer contribution of £700 perdwelling. We consider that further work is required to validate this figure.Ambulance11.7 EEAST consider that the pattern of growth at Felixstowe already makes a case for movingthe ambulance station to a more central location in relation to the built area of the town.This need will be reinforced by the growth proposals. EEAST envisage making thisprovision around 2015. Estimated first-year costs are £50,000, to be met from their ownbudgets.Hospitals11.8 The growth required by any of the possible options is comparatively minor in terms of theneed for new hospital provision. Therefore, no specific requirements have been identified.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 61

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportUtilitiesElectricity11.9 No specific requirements for infrastructure have been identified at this stage. However, ithas been indicated that, depending on the type of development that occurs, there may bea requirement for a new 33/11 kV substation, possibly between the Trimleys.11.10 Funding is likely to come mostly from the developers and would need a lead-in time of twoto three years.Gas11.11 There is currently some spare capacity of the gas network in Felixstowe, and any requiredreinforcement or new infrastructure can be supplied within 6 months.Water – Potable Supply11.12 No significant requirements have been identified.Water – Wastewater11.13 The Waste-water treatment plant at Felixstowe has sufficient capacity to deal with theproposed growth but the sewerage networks will require expansion. The cost ofimprovements in Phase 1 will be have to be met by developers and the Council will needto work closely with Anglian Water to ensure that improvements required for Phases 2and 3 are in the Asset Management Plan (AMP) to reduce the costs on developers as faras possible.Telecommunications11.14 No significant requirements have been identified.Waste management11.15 Current landfill capacity is expected to meet the needs of the county until 2014/2015. Anew residual waste treatment facility will be put in place by this time. Its costs will bepartially covered by a PFI contract, which has been secured, and partly by developercontributions. There are no particular timing issues associated with this provision.Community InfrastructureAllotments11.16 Using standards of provision, the proposed development scenario will require 0.42ha ofallotment land. Funding will mostly be through developer contributions.Community halls and meeting places11.17 Using standards of provision, the growth scenario will result in a requirement for one large(500sqm) or two small community halls. The cost of provision would be £0.55 million.11.18 Funding would be mostly through local authority capital expenditure budgets, althoughdevelopers will commonly provide the land for a facility and contribution towards thecapital build.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 62

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportEducation – pre-school and primaryPre-school11.19 Demand will be met in a variety of ways through the statutory, private and voluntarysectors so it is difficult to estimate costs. The County Council seek developercontributions of up to £500 per dwelling, but the actual amount is determined on a caseby-casebasis, and depending on the needs generated by the development.Primary11.20 The County Council advise that there is sufficient capacity to meet demand arising fromthe projected level of growth. There may be a need to adjust catchment areas to enableindividual schools to deal with the demand arising from specific growth areas.Green infrastructure11.21 The Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure Strategy identifies the study area as having adeficiency in regional (500 ha+) and district level (20 ha+) accessible natural greenspaces.11.22 Public sector funding could come from a variety of sources but none of them will provide adefinite level of funding, nor are they likely to fully cover the costs of the identified need.11.23 In addition, even if new green infrastructure was provided, there would be considerableissues that would need to be addressed in respect of managing the new space.Healthcare – primary and secondaryPrimary11.24 The PCT have provisionally identified the need for a new health centre in Felixstowe,although this is largely to improve the service to existing residents, as the level of growthproposed is insufficient to require a new health centre by itself.11.25 The PCT are currently using the HUDU model to estimate the costs of the healthrequirements of growth, which produces a cost per dwelling of the order of £485. Thiswould give a total requirement in Felixstowe of £485,000. However, the situation isevolving and the Trust is carrying out work to refine its estimates of requirements and howthese should be fundedSecondary11.26 The Community Hospital in Felixstowe has recently been refurbished and upgraded, sowe do not consider that there will be significant requirements in this sector.Public art11.27 It has not been possible to identify any needs through the study.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 63

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportSports facilities – indoor and outdoorIndoor11.28 In the absence of a local assessment of needs for indoor sports facilities, particularlyswimming pools and sports halls, it is not possible to accurately determine the level ofneed for additional facilities to serve the proposed growth options. It is recommended thatsuch work is undertaken by the District Council.11.29 Certainly it is worth noting that any ‘common’ facilities that are normally offered in sportshalls could be provided in a secondary school gymnasium. This could be used bymembers of the general public outside school hours.11.30 This is mostly to be provided by developer funding or directly as part of a development.Outdoor11.31 While the Felixstowe parish has a surplus of 2.6ha, both Trimley St Martin and Trimley StMary parishes have a deficit in the provision of outdoor sports facilities. For the proposedgrowth scenario of 1,000 dwellings (and population of 2,100), 3.57 ha of sports facilitieswill be required, based on a standard of 1.7 ha per 1,000 population.11.32 Some funding may be available for facilities through bodies such as Sport England.However, the majority is likely to come through developer funding.Libraries and archives11.33 There is a need for additional library space identified. However, this is not significant andwould likely be covered by developer contributions.On-site infrastructureChildren’s play space, equipped and non-equipped11.34 All three parishes have a deficit in children’s play space provision. The Felixstowe parishplan identifies a deficit in provision of 2.13 ha; The Trimley St Martin plan - a deficit of0.98ha; and Trimley St Mary - a deficit of 0.24ha. All three parish plans contain varioussuggestions for new play space and the upgrade of existing play space. Currently needshave been identified but no clear plans have been made as to how they would bedelivered or funded.11.35 The additional need identified, based on an average household size of 2.1 persons, theproposed growth scenario of 1,000 dwellings will have a requirement of 1.47 ha. This ismostly to be provided by developer funding or directly as part of a development. Weestimate the costs as being of the order of £1m.Landscaping11.36 No requirements have been identified as all costs would be borne by the developer andenforced by way of planning condition.Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 64

Felixstowe Infrastructure studyFinal ReportSummary and ConclusionsSummary of findings11.37 There are no fundamental ‘showstoppers’ to development of the preferred option.However, there needs for which the deliver of the appropriate infrastructure isproblematic, and these are summarised in Table 11.1.Table 11.1 Summary of the needs for the proposed growth scenario, by service providerOptionPreferred OptionDwellings 1,000Cemeteries/crematoriaSecondary educationEmergency services – fireEmergency services – policeEmergency services – ambulanceHospitalsUtilities – telecommunicationsUtilities – electricityUtilities – gasUtilities – potable water supplyUtilities – waste waterWaste managementAllotmentsCommunity halls and meeting placesPre-school and primary educationGreen infrastructurePrimary and secondary healthcarePublic artIndoor and outdoor sports facilitiesLibraries and archivesChildren’s play spaceLandscapingNo significant needs that cannot be deliveredSome needs, each of which, in isolation, can be deliveredSignificant needs which may be difficult to deliver (work onviability needed)Roger Tym & PartnersSeptember 2009 65

APPENDIX 1List of consultees

Infrastructure category Contact OrganisationCemeteries and Crematoria N/a Felixstowe Town CouncilEducation – secondary Iain Maxwell Suffolk County CouncilEmergency services - fire Gary Clark Suffolk Fire and Rescue ServiceEmergency services – police James Lawson Lawson Planning Partnership onbehalf of Suffolk ConstabularyEmergency services - ambulance Marcus Bailey East of England AmbulanceServiceHospitals (REPEATED TWICE) John Lawson Lawson Planning Partnership onbehalf of Ipswich Hospital TrustUtilities - telecommunications N/a N/aUtilities - electricity Ian Robertson EDF EnergyUtilities - electricity Leslie Morris National GridUtilities - Gas Paul Cudby National GridUtilities – surface water drainage Andrew Hunter Environment AgencyUtilities – water supply Rob Morris Anglian WaterUtilities – sewage treatment and Rob MorrisAnglian WaterdisposalWaste management Hilary Palmer Suffolk County CouncilAllotments N/a Felixstowe Town CouncilCommunity halls and meeting N/aFelixstowe Town CouncilplacesEducation – pre-school Alison Manning Suffolk County CouncilEducation - primary Iain Maxwell Suffolk County CouncilGreen infrastructure John Davies Suffolk Coastal District CouncilHealthcare – primary andsecondaryJohn Lawson Lawson Planning Partnership onbehalf of Suffolk PCTPublic art Daniel King Suffolk Coastal District CouncilSports facilities (indoor and N/aN/aoutdoor)Libraries and archives Nick Palmer Suffolk County CouncilChildren’s play space N/a N/aLandscaping John Davies Suffolk Coastal District Council

APPENDIX 2Maps showing locations of key infrastructure

Map 1: Education

Map 2: Health and Emergency Services