Meetings, agendas, and minutes - Surrey County Council

Agenda

Gu

ildfo

rd

Lo

ca

l Co

mm

ittee

We welcome you to

Guildford Local Committee Your Councillors, Your Community

and the Issues that Matter to You

Discussion

• Guildford’s draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

• Guildford’s Parking Business Report

• Guildford’s Local Highways Budget 2015/16

Venue Location: Guildford Borough

Council

Date: Weds 26 November

2014

Time: 7pm

You can get involved in the following ways

Get in

volv

ed

Ask a question If there is something you wish know about how your council works or what it is doing in your area, you can ask the local committee a question about it. Most local committees provide an opportunity to raise questions, informally, up to 30 minutes before the meeting officially starts. If an answer cannot be given at the meeting, they will make arrangements for you to receive an answer either before or at the next formal meeting.

Write a question You can also put your question to the local committee in writing. The committee officer must receive it a minimum of 4 working days in advance of the meeting. When you arrive at the meeting let the committee officer (detailed below) know that you are there for the answer to your question. The committee chairman will decide exactly when your answer will be given and may invite you to ask a further question, if needed, at an appropriate time in the meeting.

Sign a petition If you live, work or study in Surrey and have a local issue of concern, you can petition the local committee and ask it to consider taking action on your behalf. Petitions should have at least 30 signatures and should be submitted to the committee officer 2 weeks before the meeting. You will be asked if you wish to outline your key concerns to the committee and will be given 3 minutes to address the meeting. Your petition may either be discussed at the meeting or alternatively, at the following

meeting.

Thank you for coming to the Local Committee meeting

Your Partnership officer is here to help. If you would like to talk about something in today’s meeting or have a local initiative or concern please contact them through the channels below.

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 01483 517336

Website: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/guildford

Follow @GuildfordLC on Twitter

Surrey County Council Appointed Members Mr W D Barker OBE, Horsleys Mr Mark Brett-Warburton, Guildford South East (Chairman) Mr Graham Ellwood, Guildford East Mr David Goodwin, Guildford South West Mr George Johnson, Shalford Mrs Marsha Moseley, Ash Mrs Pauline Searle, Guildford North Mr Keith Taylor, Shere Mrs Fiona White, Guildford West Mr Keith Witham, Worplesdon Borough Council Appointed Members Cllr Zoe Franklin, Stoke Cllr Matt Furniss, Christchurch Cllr Monika Juneja, Burpham Cllr Nigel Manning, Ash Vale (Vice-Chairman) Cllr Stephen Mansbridge, Ash South & Tongham Cllr Julia McShane, Westborough Cllr James Palmer, Shalford Cllr Tony Phillips, Onslow Cllr Tony Rooth, Pilgrims Cllr David Wright, Tillingbourne

Chief Executive David McNulty

If you would like a copy of this agenda or the attached papers in another format, e.g. large print, Braille, or another language please either call Carolyn Anderson on 01483 517336 or write to the Community Partnerships Team at Surrey County

Council, Old Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, GU2 4BB or [email protected]

This is a meeting in public. If you would like to attend and you have any special

requirements, please contact us using the above contact details.

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY AND FILMING – ACCEPTABLE USE

Those attending for the purpose of reporting on the meeting may use social media or mobile devices in silent mode to send electronic messages about the progress of the public parts of the meeting. To support this, Guildford Borough Council has wifi available for visitors – please ask at reception for details. Anyone is permitted to film, record or take photographs at council meetings. Please liaise with the council officer listed in the agenda prior to the start of the meeting so that those attending the meeting can be made aware of any filming taking place. Use of mobile devices, including for the purpose of recording or filming a meeting, is subject to no interruptions, distractions or interference being caused to the PA or Induction Loop systems, or any general disturbance to proceedings. The Chairman may ask for mobile devices to be switched off in these circumstances. It is requested that if you are not using your mobile device for any of the activities outlined above, it be switched off or placed in silent mode during the meeting to prevent interruptions and interference with PA and Induction Loop systems.

Thank you for your co-operation

Note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council. Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the representative of Community Partnerships Team at the meeting.

Mr Mark Brett-Warburton (Chairman)

Mr WD Barker OBE (Vice-Chairman)

Mr Graham Ellwood

Mr David Goodwin

Guildford South East

Horsleys

Guildford East Guildford South East

Mr George Johnson

Mrs Marsha Moseley

Mrs Pauline Searle

Mr Keith Taylor

Shalford Ash

Guildford North Shere

Local Committee (GUILDFORD)

County Councillors 2013-17

Mrs Fiona White

Mr Keith Witham Worplesdon

Guildford West

Cllr Zoe Franklin

Cllr Monika Juneja

Cllr Nigel Manning Cllr Stephen Mansbridge

Stoke

Burpham

Ash Vale

Ash South & Tongham

Cllr Matt Furniss

Cllr James Palmer

Cllr Tony Phillips

Cllr Julia McShane

Christchurch

Shalford

Onslow

Westborough

Local Committee (GUILDFORD)

Borough Council Members 2013-14

Cllr Tony Rooth Cllr David Wright Tillingbourne

Pilgrims

For councillor contact details, please contact Carolyn Anderson, Community Partnership and Committee Officer ([email protected] / 01483 517336)

1 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS To receive any Chairman’s announcements.

2 INFORMAL OPEN FORUM - PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS The Guildford Local Committee has two parts. The first part is the Open Forum session. It is an informal question and answer session for the public that does not form a part of the formal record of the meeting. The Open Forum will last no longer than 30 minutes. The Chairman will advise when the Open Forum has closed and the formal meeting has begun. The second part is the formal meeting. When the formal meeting begins members of the public may only ask questions at the direct invitation of the Chairman.

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Borough members under Standing Order 39.

4 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 24 September 2014 as a correct record.

(Pages 1 - 16)

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting. Notes:

• In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.

• Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

• Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.

• Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66.

7 MEMBER QUESTION TIME To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.

8 PETITION RESPONSE - DARYNGTON DRIVE (FOR INFORMATION) At the meeting on 24 September 2014 a petition requesting the proper maintenance of the highway and verge in Daryngton Drive was submitted to the committee. The officer response is at Annex 1 of the committee report.

(Pages 17 - 20)

9 GUILDFORD COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE (FOR INFORMATION) Landowners and developers currently provide infrastructure directly or make financial contributions towards provision of infrastructure to support development in the area. These are currently secured using planning obligations under S106 of the Planning Act (as amended). The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the government’s preferred mechanism for securing pooled contributions from developers to fund infrastructure to support development in the area. We will be asking the Executive of 6 January 2015 to agree the consultation material for Guildford’s first stage in preparing its CIL. This includes our initially proposed CIL rates as set out in the PDCS. This report to the Guildford Local Committee is for noting.

(Pages 21 - 196)

10 PARKING BUSINESS PLAN 2015-16 (FOR DECISION) The annexe to this report presents the Parking Business Plan for 2015-16. It covers off-street car parking, on-street parking and park and ride. It makes recommendations in respect of service improvements, efficiencies, and the funding of park and ride.

(Pages 197 - 256)

11 GUILDFORD BOROUGH DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY & FORWARD PROGRAMME PART A (FOR INFORMATION) Local Transport Strategies and Forward Programmes will be produced for all districts and boroughs within Surrey and will be ‘live’ documents, updated every 2-3 years whilst the Forward Programme will be updated yearly. The purpose of Part A of the strategy is to focus on the current issues and problems on the transport network in Guildford. Report document is to follow.

12 GUILDFORD LOCAL COMMITTEE PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK (FOR INFORMATION) Work is currently underway to develop a prioritisation framework for local road safety improvements in Guildford Borough. The framework aims to ensure that limited committee funds are spent in the most effective way. This paper provides an update on progress and next steps.

(Pages 257 - 260)

13 ROAD SAFETY OUTSIDE SCHOOLS - BOXGROVE AREA INTERIM UPDATE (FOR INFORMATION) Concern has been expressed over the safety of children arriving and leaving Boxgrove Primary School, St Peters Catholic Secondary School and St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School and the associated congestion caused by school journey traffic. This report provides an update on work conducted so far.

(Pages 261 - 264)

14 HIGHWAYS BUDGET 2015/16 (FOR DECISION) To allocate the anticipated budget available to this committee for 2015/16.

(Pages 265 - 268)

15 HIGHWAYS UPDATE (FOR DECISION) This report provides an update on the 2014/15 programme of minor highway works funded by this committee as well as Section 106 (developer funded) schemes.

(Pages 269 - 280)

16 REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION TASK GROUP (FOR INFORMATION) The Local Committee for Guildford considers a broad range of highways and transportation matters. In order to progress the committee’s transportation work programme a task group has been created. The purpose of the task group is to consider local transportation business on a more frequent and flexible basis than the schedule of the formal full committee may allow and thereafter to act in an informed and advisory capacity to the full committee. The Transportation Task Group (TTG) membership is made up of nominated members from the full committee. All formal decisions are undertaken by the full committee. This report is for the information of the full committee. The intention is to provide an update of the TTG work programme and a schedule.

(Pages 281 - 290)

17 FORWARD PROGRAMME To receive the forward programme for the committee.

(Pages 291 - 294)

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 1 of 8

Minutes of the meeting of the

Guildford LOCAL COMMITTEE held at 7.00 pm on 24 September 2014

at Guildford Borough Council.

Surrey County Council Members: * Mr W D Barker OBE

* Mr Mark Brett-Warburton (Chairman) * Mr Graham Ellwood * Mr David Goodwin * Mr George Johnson * Mrs Marsha Moseley * Mrs Pauline Searle * Mr Keith Taylor * Mrs Fiona White * Mr Keith Witham

Borough / District Members: * Cllr Zoe Franklin

Cllr Matt Furniss * Cllr Monika Juneja * Cllr Nigel Manning (Vice-Chairman) * Cllr Stephen Mansbridge * Cllr Julia McShane * Cllr James Palmer * Cllr Tony Phillips * Cllr Tony Rooth * Cllr David Wright

* In attendance ______________________________________________________________

17/14 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS [Item 1] The Chairman welcomed everyone and announced that the meeting would be recorded and webcast on the Surrey County Council website. The Community Partnerships Team received thanks from the Chairman on behalf of the committee for ensuring Members Allocation funding was in place to support the recent Stoughton Great War commemorative event.

18/14 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS [Item 3] Apologies for absence were received from Borough Councillor Matt Furniss.

19/14 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING [Item 4] The minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2014 were confirmed as a true record.

ITEM 4

Page 1

Page 2 of 8

There was a query raised by Borough Councillor James Palmer regarding the opening of Oakdene Road, Peasmarsh to emergency vehicles. The Area Highways Manager would take forward a discussion with local members.

20/14 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST [Item 5] County Councillor Mrs Fiona White and Borough Councillor Julia McShane declared a personal interest against item 10 of the agenda as they were both trustees of The Barn Youth Project.

21/14 PUBLIC WRITTEN QUESTIONS [Item 6] The formal written questions paper (along with a separate revised answer to public question 2 at Annex 2) was tabled at the meeting and can be found at Annex 1 of these minutes. Public Question 1: Mr Bowden was not present at the meeting Public Question 2: This was taken along with Petition 1 as they were both bought by Mr Burder and both related to Daryngton Drive. It was noted that the survey programme, which would include Daryngton Drive, would be published in early 2015. The local member thanked residents for raising the issue. Public Question 3: Mr Sellers was not present at the meeting. Public Question 4: Mr Frankland was not present at the meeting. Public Question 5: It was noted that there had been no decision about a one-way system for Mount Pleasant, but that residents consultation would commence during the fourth quarter of 2014. Mr Chesterton, as Chairman of the Guildford Cycling Forum, would be included in the consultation.

22/14 MEMBER WRITTEN QUESTIONS [Item 7] The formal written questions paper was tabled at the meeting and can be found at Annex 1 of these minutes. Borough Councillor James Palmer requested that Surrey County Council officers use all powers at their disposal to press Network Rail for a response to the closure of the footbridge.

23/14 NEW PETITIONS [Item 8] The petition requested proper maintenance of the highway and verge in Daryngton Drive. The committee response was taken under agenda item 6 (question 2). A survey would be undertaken and published in early 2015.

24/14 TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE UPDATE (FOR INFORMATION) [Item 9] The report was presented by the Trading Standards Vulnerable Persons Officer and Community Supervisor.

ITEM 4

Page 2

Page 3 of 8

The sectors of the Trading Standards service were outlined and in more detail the work of the Community Protection Unit which included tackling scams and supporting victims. Examples were provided of vulnerable people in Guildford who had fallen victim to scams. The members were highly supportive and praised the work of Trading Standards officers in Guildford and countywide. The possibility of raising the profile of the service online to promote the dangers of scams and perhaps a new campaign and drive to engage a greater range of partners such as those in the health service was discussed. The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.

25/14 CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE - EARLY HELP (FOR DECISION) [Item 10] The report was presented by the Lead Youth Officer (West Surrey). The report put forward the local priorities for supporting young people in Guildford as identified by the committee’s Youth Task Group and in addition the new provision for more local commissioning of services. It was noted that Surrey County Council’s Cabinet had approved the proposals. The members discussed the provision of local services including the running of the Surrey Outdoor Learning Centres, health and physical activities for young people, lifeskills learning and sites for local youth centres. All of these areas were high priorities for the service. Members were also interested to understand how the current Local Prevention funded contract agency was engaging with existing local partnerships. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed to: (i) Approve the local priorities (Annex 1), to be considered by providers, focusing on the identified needs of Guildford and the geographical neighbourhoods prioritised by the Youth Task Group.

(ii) Note the changes to the council scheme of delegation which provides increased decision making to local commissioning in relation to youth work and Surrey Outdoor Learning (SOLD) (Annex 1a).

26/14 SEALE LANE 7 FOOTPATH 338 (NON-EXECUTIVE ITEM) [Item 12] There was a short briefing for members on the legal responsibilities of the committee in terms of rights of way matters. The report was presented by the Countryside Access Officer. There was a proposal to support the application to modify the Definitive Map so as to create the footpath 338 between Seale Lane and Sandy Cross. The members agreed that there was sufficient evidence to make the modification. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed: (i) Public footpath rights are recognised over the route ‘A’ – ‘B’ on Drawing

No. 3/1/64/H8 (Annex B) and that the application for a MMO under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify

ITEM 4

Page 3

Page 4 of 8

the DMS by the addition of the footpath is approved. The route will be known as Public Footpath No. 580 (Seale and Sands).

(ii) A MMO should be made and advertised to implement these changes. If

objections are maintained to such an order, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation.

27/14 GUILDFORD ON-STREET PARKING REVIEW - CONSIDERATION OF AD-

HOC REQUESTS FOR CONTROLS IN THE AREA OUTSIDE THE GUILDFORD TOWN CENTRE CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE (FOR DECISION) [Item 13] The report was presented by the Parking Services Manager and On-Street Parking Coordinator, Guildford Borough Council. The intention of the report was two-fold. Firstly, to agree with members which of the reviewed sites ought to take priority for further consideration and recommendations. Secondly, to make suitable provision for on-street parking around the redeveloped Farnham Road Hospital. Parking issues on the Ashenden Estate and also in residential areas around the Slyfield Industrial Estate were raised and officers agreed to discuss the issues in these areas with the local councillors and determine a course of action. It was noted that the committee’s Transportation Task Group would be reviewing the parking evaluation matrix to ensure that it remain robust and fit for purpose. It was further noted that officers from Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council were working closely together to ensure that the restrictions for Woodbridge Hill were appropriate. Restrictions proposed for Shere Middle Street would be discussed with local members. The next report on the ad-hoc reviewed sites would be delivered in March 2015. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed: (iii) that parking controls be proposed for the ad-hoc locations highlighted

in ANNEX 1 and paragraph 2.9, that these are discussed with the affected ward and divisional councillors, and reported to a future meeting of the Committee to acquire authority for them to be formally advertised.

(iv) to formally advertise the revised proposals shown in ANNEX 2 to

accommodate the changes to the access arrangements associated with the Farnham Road Hospital development, and should any representations be received they be reported to a future meeting of the

ITEM 4

Page 4

Page 5 of 8

Committee for consideration, or if no representations are received, the Traffic Regualtion Order (TRO) will be made.

28/14 LOCAL SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT FUND AND 2014/15 PROGRAMME

(FOR INFORMATION) [Item 14] The report was presented by the Local Sustainable Transport Fund Programme Manager. The report provided a general update on progress for all work strands. It was noted that planning permission for the Onlow Park and Ride car park was granted specifically for those accessing the town centre and that the current level of use was in line with business projections. The criteria for TravelSmart community funded local projects was being strictly applied. Discussions were continuing positively with the Highways Agency to deliver signage for all of Guildford’s Park and Ride car parks from the A3. It was estimated that the benefits of the review of the town centre traffic management system would begin to felt in the fourth quarter of 2014 onward. The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.

29/14 GUILDFORD PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK (FOR INFORMATION) [Item 15] The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager. The purpose of the report had been to obtain feedback from the committee to develop a framework approach and matrix with which to evaluate and prioritise local transport schemes and proposals. With the agreement of committee the matrix would be applied to transportation schemes to support robust and fair consideration of all relevant aspects but that the final decisions would always lie with the committee itself. The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.

30/14 ROAD SAFETY OUTSIDE SCHOOLS (FOR DECISION) [Item 16] The report was presented by the Road Safety Team Manager. Surrey County Council had recently approved a new policy with which to evaluate, better understand and approach matters of safety for all road users outside of schools. The proposal for the committee was to consider and approve the application of this policy in evaluating the Boxgove area where there were three schools and reports of severe congestion and vehicle and parking issues.

ITEM 4

Page 5

Page 6 of 8

The members were in full support of the proposal as a test bed for the new policy and also as Boxgrove was a newly expanded school. There would be a further report back to committee in due course. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed: (v) the proposal to investigate the three schools featured in the committee report in accordance to the councils newly approved policy.

(vi) to note that highway improvements addressing congestion, accessibility, safety, economy and future maintenance liabilities in the Boxgrove area may be recommended in a future report.

31/14 GUILDFORD SPEED MANAGEMENT PLAN (FOR INFORMATION)

[Item 17] The Road Safety Team Manager presented the report. The Guildford Speed Management Plan is produced By Surrey County Council and Surrey Police. It is reviewed by Guildford Local Committee. The members welcomed the report and the new geographical maps depicting locations for casualties. It was noted that in rural areas parish councils meetings with the Casualty Reduction Officer are held but such meetings in the non-parished areas were not so well advertised. The members in non-parished areas would wish to be contacted in future. 30mph speed limit signage on the A320 at Stoke would be reviewed with local members and officers. The Chairman urged members of the committee to contact the Road Safety Team Manager with any roads of particular concern. Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.

32/14 PETITION RESPONSE: PEASLAKE 20MPH [Item 18] The Area Highways Manager presented the report. The petition to adjust the speed limit in Peaslake Lane to 20mph had been presented to the committee at the meeting held on 25 June 2014. Local members asked the TTG to review the request in a holistic way and to consider a reduction of road signage. Also, to acquire some data before a decision was proposed. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed:

ITEM 4

Page 6

Page 7 of 8

(vii) To nominate the Transportation Task Group to review this request along with any others that may be received for consideration in future programmes of capital highway works funded by this committee.

33/14 PETITION RESPONSE: SHERE HGV [Item 19]

The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager. The petition had been submitted to the committee on 25 June 2014. The local members requested that the task group review the matter in a holistic way considering also boundaries and parallel routes. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed: (viii) To nominate the Transportation Task Group to review this request along with any others that may be received for consideration in future programmes of capital highway works funded by this committee.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: To enable the Local Committee (Guildford) and residents to engage on matters of local concern.

34/14 HIGHWAYS UPDATE (FOR DECISION) [Item 20] The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager. The purpose of the report was to provide a general update on committee approved schemes. The members for Guildford (North) and Worplesdon requested a progress report on the proposed crossing on Salt Box Road. Pending committee approval for the 2015/16 budget letters would soon prepared for Parish Councils regarding lengthsman’s schemes for next year. Following local members concerns the decision to authorise the prohibition of the right turn from Jacob’s Well Road into the A320 Woking Road was deferred to the next meeting. It was suggested that members on bordering wards and divisions should be consulted to discuss likely impacts and outcomes. The Local Committee (Guildford):

(i) Agreed to reduce speed limits as recommended at Annex 2.

(ii) Agreed the Lengthsman bids by Shere PC (£7,000) and Worplesdon PC (£4,500) subject to SCC officer scrutiny.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The committee is asked to formally agree the recommendations above in order to progress the programme of work for 2014/15.

ITEM 4

Page 7

Page 8 of 8

(noting that the recommendation relating to the proposed right turn from Jacobs Well Road into the A320 was deferred to be discussed at the next formal meeting).

35/14 REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION TASK GROUP (FOR DECISION) [Item 21] The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager. The report was noted by the Local Committee. The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed: (ix) the revision to the TTG terms of reference as highlighted in Annex 1;

(x) Agreed that Borough Councillor Matt Furniss would join the task group and that Councillor James Palmer would replace Councillor Nigel Manning as the Guildford Borough Council nominated substitute member of the task group.

(xi) Agreed the delivery timescale for the Guildford Local Transport Strategy as proposed in the briefing note at Annex 3.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The purpose of the Transportation Task Group is to provide the Guildford Local Committee with considered and informed advice. The purpose of this report is to keep the full committee informed of matters under consideration by the TTG and when those items are likely be bought forward for the attention of the full committee.

36/14 FORWARD PROGRAMME (FOR INFORMATION) [Item 22] The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report. Meeting ended at: 9.43 pm ______________________________________________________________ Chairman

ITEM 4

Page 8

www.surreycc.gov.uk/guildford

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2014

LEAD OFFICER(S):

JOHN HILDER, AREA HIGHWAYS MANAGER

SUBJECT: PETITION REPONSE 24 SEPTEMBER 2014

DIVISION: GUILDFORD EAST

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

The Local Committee will receive petitions under Standing Order 65. At the meeting on 24 September 2014 a petition requesting the proper maintenance of the highway and verge in Daryngton Drive was submitted to the committee; the officer response is at Annex 1.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Local Committee (Guildford) is asked to:

(i) Note and comment on the officer response to the petition at Annex 1;

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

To enable the Local Committee (Guildford) and residents to engage on matters of local concern. Please refer to the response appended as Annex 1.

Contact Officer(s): Ian Fowler, Maintenance Engineer, 03456 009009 Annexes: Annex 1 – Petition response Sources/background papers: • None

ITEM 8

Page 9

Page 10


Annex 1 SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2014 LEAD OFFICER(S)

JOHN HILDER, AREA HIGHWAYS MANAGER

SUBJECT: PETITION REPONSE 24 SEPTEMBER 2014

DIVISION: GUILDFORD EAST

Principal petitioner/ organisation

The petition is from residents of Daryng Drive, Carrol Avenue and Elles Avenue and has attracted 50 signatures.

SCC Division / GBC Ward

Guildford East/Merrow

Summary of concerns and requests

We the residents of Daryngton Drive, Carrol Avenue and Elles Avenue request that proper maintenance of the highway and kerb stones takes place and that the grass verges be protected from vehicular traffic by the installation of trees or other suitable means.

Response As do all highway authorities, Surrey County Council (SCC) operate a reactive maintenance regime whereby safety defects such as potholes in the carriageway and trip hazards in footways are repaired as they are identified by SCC highways inspectors or reported by members of the public. These running repairs keep the road network safe for users. SCC also has a £100m planned highway maintenance programme for the five year period 2013 to 2018l called Operation Horizon. Roads and footways are resurfaced based on a prioritisation process which takes account of condition, use and other factors. Daryngton Drive is not included on this programme and will be kept safe for users under the reactive regime until such time as it is prioritised for full resurfacing. The petition organisers have been in discussion with their SCC councillor and Highways officers concerning planting trees to prevent parking on the verges, and it is expected trees will be planted over the winter months, with funding provided by Guildford Borough Council.

ITEM 8

Page 11

Page 12


SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26 November

LEAD OFFICER:

Tanya MankooPrincipal Policy Planning Officer, Guildford Borough Council

SUBJECT: Guildford Community Infrastructure LevyCharging Schedule

DIVISION: ALL

SUMMARY OF ISSUE: Landowners and developers currently provide infrastructure directly or make financial contributions towards provision of infrastructure to support development in the area. These are currently secured using planning obligations under S106 of the Planning Act (as amended). The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the government’s preferred mechanism for securing pooled contributions from developers to fund infrastructure to support development in the area. We will be asking the Executive of 6 January 20for Guildford’s first stage in preparing its rates as set out in the PDCS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Local Committee (Guildford)

(i) the appended preliminaaccompanying documents for 2015, subject to agreement January.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the system for collecting funds from developers towards the cost of infrastructure to support delivery of development. obligations.

The CIL is a significant corporate project which will provide an ongoing funding source, and will enable us to forward fund infrastructure. will decide which infrastructure funding of strategic infrastructure, including by other organisations.



(GUILDFORD)

26 November 2014

Tanya Mankoo-Flatt Principal Policy Planning Officer, Guildford Borough Council

Guildford Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary draft Charging Schedule

Landowners and developers currently provide infrastructure directly or make financial contributions towards provision of infrastructure to support development in the area. These are currently secured using planning obligations under S106 of the

t (as amended).

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the government’s preferred mechanism for securing pooled contributions from developers to fund infrastructure to support development in the area.

We will be asking the Executive of 6 January 2015 to agree the consultation material in preparing its CIL. This includes our initially proposed

as set out in the PDCS.

(Guildford) is asked to note:

reliminary draft charging schedule (PDCS) and accompanying documents for six week consultation in January and February

, subject to agreement of Guildford Borough Council’s Executive on 6


The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the system introduced nationally in 2010 for collecting funds from developers towards the cost of infrastructure to support

To a large extent it will replace use of Section 106 planning

The CIL is a significant corporate project which will provide an ongoing funding source, and will enable us to forward fund infrastructure. Guildford Borough will decide which infrastructure to fund. It has wide ranging implications funding of strategic infrastructure, including by other organisations.

Principal Policy Planning Officer, Guildford Borough Council

Preliminary draft

Landowners and developers currently provide infrastructure directly or make financial contributions towards provision of infrastructure to support development in the area. These are currently secured using planning obligations under S106 of the

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the government’s preferred mechanism for securing pooled contributions from developers to fund infrastructure to support

15 to agree the consultation material initially proposed CIL

and ary and February

Guildford Borough Council’s Executive on 6

introduced nationally in 2010 for collecting funds from developers towards the cost of infrastructure to support

To a large extent it will replace use of Section 106 planning

The CIL is a significant corporate project which will provide an ongoing funding Guildford Borough Council

to fund. It has wide ranging implications for the

ITEM 9

Page 13


1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:

The aim of the CIL is to ensure that landowners or developers fund part of the cost of infrastructure needed to support development in the area. CIL is not intended to replace main public sector infrastructure funding. 1.1 Once CIL is introduced it is a non-negotiable tariff. The levy is charged in

pounds per square metre, levied on the net additional new build floor space where the gross internal area is greater than 100m2, and on the creation of a new dwelling regardless of size. The levy may also be payable on permitted development. Landowners are ultimately liable for the levy, but anyone involved in the development may take on the CIL liability. The levy is due to be paid on commencement of development (unless we choose to adopt an instalments policy).

1.2 The relevant regulations exempt certain new development from CIL liability :

• buildings, or extensions to buildings, with less than 100 square metres gross internal floor space

• buildings into which people do not normally go, or go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery

• structures which are not buildings, such as pylons and wind turbines

• buildings owned by charities used for a charitable purpose

• affordable housing

• vacant buildings brought back into the same use,

• mezzanine floors of less than 200sqm inserted into existing buildings, unless they form part of a wider planning permission

• specified types of development which the charging authority decide should be subject to a “zero” rate and specified as such in their charging schedules

• where the levy liability is less than £50, the chargeable amount is deemed to be zero, so no levy is due.

1.3 Self-build homes, and household extensions and annexes can claim exemption provided they :

• submit an exception certificate before work starts, and

• live at the property for at least three years following completion of the development.

If the property is sold before three years, the CIL liability becomes due. The Council’s Planning Service would need to monitor these developments to ensure that they are genuinely exempt.

2. ANALYSIS:

Development viability

1.4 The CIL legislation and guidance tells us to use “appropriate available evidence” in considering viability in preparing our CIL. In 2014 we commissioned a Development Viability Study (“the Study”) to:

• update the previous Affordable Housing Viability Studies (2008, 2009 and 2011) which informed the Draft Local Plan affordable housing policy

• to inform our CIL rates, and

• to check the viability of the Draft Local Plan as a whole.

ITEM 9

Page 14


This study is provided at Appendix 1.

1.5 The CIL regulations (regulation 14 as amended) require that, in setting CIL

rate(s) we must strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of CIL funding the likely cost of infrastructure to support the development in our borough. In doing this we must take into account other sources of funding, and the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the CIL on the economic viability of development across our area.

1.6 This wording gives us some discretion in setting our rates. It recognises that

there is no single correct answer. Achieving an appropriate balance is a matter of judgement.

1.7 As the charging authority, it is for us to suggest what we consider to be an appropriate balance between the need to fund infrastructure and the potential implications for the economic viability of development across the borough. We must have evidence to support this.

1.8 We do not need to set charging rates so low as to ensure that CIL does not

make any individual developments unviable; there will be schemes that will be unviable with or without CIL. We do need to consider how our proposed rates would affect the delivery of the development plan as a whole.

1.9 The Study considered the viability of development for setting CIL rates in the context of the Affordable Housing policy, and other policy requirements in the Draft Local Plan 2014. The study seeks to balance the requirements so that developments generally remain viable. For example, it recommends a moderate CIL rate for purpose-built student housing, with no affordable housing contribution.

1.10 Guildford Development Viability Study 2014 is based on a range of theoretical developments, as the CIL guidance recommends. In line with guidance, the Draft Local Plan Strategic sites were considered individually. The study recommends CIL rates that the vast majority of developments could support.

1.11 CIL legislation permits us to set a single CIL rate, or differential rates if appropriate and based on economic viability evidence, with reference to:

• geographical zones within the area

• type of development, and/or

• scale of development.

The types / use of development is not tied to the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). Charging schedule

1.12 Differential rates can be set by reference to size of a development in m2 or number of units / homes, where a distinction can be made based on economic viability evidence. Differential rates should not have a disproportionate impact on any particular sector or development.

1.13 The study used a residual land value assessment methodology for a sample range of theoretical sites. A “headroom” is given for each housing development scenario, which is the amount theoretically available to fund

ITEM 9

Page 15


supporting infrastructure, once site opening up costs have been accounted for. The recommended CIL rate is then set slightly lower than the headroom level, to allow a margin to cover differing economic circumstances. This is as the CIL guidance recommends. The recommended CIL rate for Ash and Tongham is higher than its “headroom” figure for that development scenarios. This is due to one or two scenarios being of much lower viability than the general pattern. The recommended CIL rates have disregarded such atypical scenarios.

1.14 The study suggested rates for CIL in the borough that could be supported

with development largely remaining economically viable. These take into account consideration of the cost to the developer of providing affordable housing and other Local Plan policy requirements and standards.

1.15 The study also suggests a few policy choices, mainly relating to balance between the affordable housing requirement and the CIL rate, for example for Slyfield regeneration site. In drawing up our PDCS, officers have concluded that the lower of the CIL rates recommended with the higher affordable housing contribution is preferable to assist in redeveloping the site.

1.16 The CIL guidance tells us that : “A charging authority’s proposed rate or rates should be reasonable, given the available evidence, but there is no requirement for a proposed rate to exactly mirror the evidenceAThere is room for some pragmatism. It would be appropriate to ensure that a ‘buffer’ or margin is included, so that the levy rate is able to support development when economic circumstances adjust.”

1.17 The study recommends a rate of £400/ m2 for strategic sites. We arrived at

this recommended rate following meetings and discussions with the owners and promoters of these sites.

1.18 Full payment of CIL liability is due within 60 days of commencement of

development, unless we publish a CIL instalment policy on our website. An instalment policy can assist the viability and delivery of development, and the independent examiner can consider it as part of the consideration of viability of proposed CIL. Some planning permissions may be implemented in phases, in which case charges may be payable over an extended period of time. Any instalment policy that we set can be revised. We are likely to include this with our submitted draft CIL charging schedule.

1.19 Our highest proposed rates are comparable to the highest of the CIL rates

across the country so far, which predictably are in London. A recent Savills Spotlight report on land and sales values in Guildford and Elmbridge is included at Appendix 5. This confirms that the local market behaves more like London than the rest of the South East, and that the market for new build property in Surrey is very positive. The Study finds most of the borough to have relatively high values, and one of the best performing housing markets outside of London.

1.20 Wokingham‘s proposed CIL rate was found “sound” in October 2014 following

independent examination. Wokingham’s CIL rates are amongst the highest rates outside of London so far. With lower land and sales values than most of Guildford borough, this provides an indication of the rates Inspectors consider suitable provided the viability evidence and identified funding gap support this.

ITEM 9

Page 16


1.21 To enable comparison of our initial proposed CIL rates with other authorities’

rates, we include at Appendix 6 a list of adopted and proposed CIL rates across the country by region, as well as at Appendix 7, a separate list of Surrey districts and boroughs.

1.22 Surrey districts and boroughs with a CIL in place all have Local Plans or Core Strategies prepared before the 2012 National Planning Policy (NPPF). These were based on South East Plan housing requirements. It is now widely accepted that these plans generally have lower housing and infrastructure needs, and often have lower funding gaps than Local Plans prepared under the NPPF.

1.23 Officers, including members of the CIL Board, have considered the development viability report. We are satisfied that the proposed rates included in the PDCS are suitable given the available evidence.

Infrastructure Schedule

1.24 This PDCS is based on the 2014 Draft Local Plan, including the level and location of development identified (Policy 2), and the infrastructure needed to support it (Draft Infrastructure Schedule at Appendix B). Work is ongoing on the Draft Local Plan, including the Infrastructure Schedule. At this stage we have chosen not to identify the funding gap, because infrastructure planning work, in particular for transport mitigation, is ongoing. We will include the infrastructure funding gap within our draft charging schedule consultation.

1.25 We are confident that our initially proposed CIL rates will generate funding to deliver the necessary infrastructure to fill at least some of the need, but that it will not generate an excess. The regulations also permit us to set rates slightly higher than levels required to meet our infrastructure funding gap in order to cover administration costs. Delivering infrastructure

1.26 It is important to remember that CIL is only intended to fund or to contribute to funding the identified infrastructure funding gap. It is not intended as a main source of funding infrastructure. CIL receipts will be limited in the first few years after adoption, as CIL contributions are payable on commencement of development. In subsequent years, the CIL funds should grow to enable us to fund some infrastructure when it is needed.

1.27 The CIL regulations allow for site specific infrastructure and for affordable

housing to continue to be secured by S106 planning obligations. Affordable housing is specifically excluded from the CIL definition of infrastructure. Mitigation not classed as infrastructure for the purposes of CIL, such as Strategic Access Management and Maintenance (SAMM) cannot be funded by CIL. Spending CIL

2.1 The Council must use CIL receipts to fund infrastructure to support development in the area. “Infrastructure”, for the purpose of CIL is defined in the CIL Regulations. This includes open space, road and transport facilities, school and other educational facilities, flood defences, sporting and recreational facilities, and medical facilities.

ITEM 9

Page 17


2.2 Once introduced, Guildford Borough Council as the charging authority for this area, will decide what infrastructure the CIL receipts should be spent on. We may pass CIL receipts to Surrey County Council, or other infrastructure providers. In some circumstances we may decide that the developer themselves may provide infrastructure or land as the CIL contribution.

2.3 The PDCS is the first consultation towards introducing our CIL, and is appended to this report, along with other supporting documents for consultation. We will take all responses into account when we prepare the draft charging schedule (CS) for consultation prior to submission for independent examination.

2.4 Legislation allows us to recoup up to 5 per cent a year of all our CIL receipts to help with funding the set-up costs incurred in introducing the CIL, and with ongoing administration. Slightly different arrangements apply over the first three years to assist with contributing to CIL set up costs.

2.5 CIL receipts are to be used to provide new infrastructure to support development in the area. We cannot use the funds to remedy pre-existing infrastructure deficiencies unless those deficiencies will be made more severe by new development. The levy can be used to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure or to repair failing existing infrastructure, if that is necessary to support development.

2.6 CIL guidance tells us as a charging authority to “think strategically in their use of the levy to ensure that key infrastructure priorities are delivered.” Spending CIL receipts is not linked to planning permission in the way the planning obligations are. We may therefore spend the CIL on infrastructure anywhere in the borough or even outside, for example for strategic road schemes or flood defences, if it supports development in our area.

Draft Regulation 123 list 1.28 A Draft regulation 123 list (“Draft 123 list”) is a list of infrastructure projects or

types that we may fund from CIL. Once the CIL is adopted, we cannot then use planning obligations to secure delivery of this infrastructure.

1.29 Our Draft 123 list, at Appendix 2 identifies types of infrastructure and / or specific infrastructure projects that will be funded (at least partly) by the CIL. Whilst this list does not commit us to fund this infrastructure using the CIL, we cannot use planning obligations nor highways agreements to fund any of the infrastructure included in the Draft 123 list. Some infrastructure will continue to be secured by S106 planning obligations or 278 highways agreements. These include site specific infrastructure needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms, and affordable housing, as it is exempt from the CIL definition of infrastructure.

1.30 Our Draft 123 list is set in broad terms and does not prioritise infrastructure types or projects, other than provision of SANG. Provision of SANG is also prioritised in Policy 17 of the Draft Local Plan 2014. Without this infrastructure prioritisation, the Council (as competent authority) could risk being found in breach of the European Habitats Directive and the UK Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

ITEM 9

Page 18


1.31 It will be for us, as the charging authority, to decide what our infrastructure funding priorities are. The CIL Board will soon commence consideration of a formalised method of prioritising infrastructure funding. Closer to submission of our CIL, we will establish a working group of Guildford Borough Council officers and councillors to determine spending priorities and reporting spending for the CIL for each year. Our priority list may only include infrastructure projects and types included in our Regulation 123 list, which cannot be delivered by planning obligations. Top of the list will need to be SPA mitigation for both market and affordable homes (which do not pay CIL, but which tend to have fewer bedrooms than market housing), we will spend the remainder in accordance with our prioritised list.

3. OPTIONS:

3.1 Although we are not obliged to introduce the CIL locally, in September 2011,

the Executive agreed to introduce the CIL for Guildford borough. Forthcoming restrictions on pooling (collecting together) of planning obligations increase the need to introduce CIL in the borough.

3.2 The CIL must be based on planned development in the borough, and must be used to support delivery of the local plan. The CIL cannot therefore be introduced before an up to date Local Plan has been examined.

4. CONSULTATIONS:

4.1 The Council’s Executive will be asked to agree the PDCS and other material

for six week consultation in January and February 2015.

5. FINANCIAL AND VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS:

5.1 We have identified the key financial implications at this stage, prior to

introducing the CIL throughout this report. The introduction of the CIL in Guildford borough has implications for funding of infrastructure across the borough.

5.2 Other financial implications involved in establishing a CIL for Guildford, include staff time across council services, the cost of preparing evidence, IT software, two consultations, and independent examination. These costs are currently being absorbed into existing revenue and capital budgets. By recording staff time spent on preparing to introduce our CIL, we can claim up to 5 per cent of this back each year, once the CIL receipts begin being paid.

5.3 Once we have implemented CIL there will be various ongoing costs relating

to collecting, monitoring, enforcing and spending the CIL, including ongoing liaison work with neighbourhood groups in Guildford town. These can be more clearly identified once we approach introduction of the CIL. Some council services, including Parks and Leisure Services and Cleansing and Recycling Services, may also benefit by receiving some of the CIL receipts.

6. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS:

6.1 None undertaken as yet in the process of introducing the CIL.

ITEM 9

Page 19


7. LOCALISM:

7.1 As required by law, we will pass on a neighbourhood portion of our CIL

receipts to each parish council at the end of every April and October, unless alternative dates are agreed. This is at least 15 per cent up to a maximum of £100 per existing council tax dwelling per year, of the CIL originating in that parish. In parishes with a Neighbourhood Plan in place (following a successful referendum), the neighbourhood proportion is increased to 25 per cent, and has no annual limit.

7.2 This neighbourhood portion must be spent on supporting the development of the area, rather than on the more restrictive “infrastructure”. Parish councils are not therefore limited to spending their CIL receipts on infrastructure. They may choose to fund local affordable homes, developing a neighbourhood plan, or by agreement with Guildford Borough Council, we may retain it and to spend on their behalf on their priorities. Specific requirements are set out in the CIL regulations and guidance regarding the auditing and reporting of parish councils neighbourhood portion CIL receipts.

7.3 Guildford Borough Council is required to retain the neighbourhood portion for the areas of the borough with no parish council; Guildford town and Wisley parish. Planning Policy Officers will lead an officer working group which will include ward councillors and existing community groups and neighbourhood forums to prioritise the neighbourhood CIL spending for that area. We will set out our approach to spending this neighbourhood portion on our council website and in newsletters.

8. OTHER IMPLICATIONS:

Area assessed: Direct Implications:

Crime and Disorder No significant implications arising from this report

Sustainability (including Climate Change and Carbon Emissions)

No significant implications arising from this report

Corporate Parenting/Looked After Children


Safeguarding responsibilities for vulnerable children and adults


Public Health


9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

9.1 Following agreement by the Executive, we will hold a consultation period of

six weeks. During this time, we will invite comments on our initially proposed CIL rates set out in our PDCS.

ITEM 9

Page 20


10. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

10.1 There is no specified period for PDCS consultations. Based on experience of

previous consultations as well as the content of the material we are seeking comments on, officers consider that a consultation period of six weeks is suitable.

10.2 The relevant regulations (Regulation 15) include a list of those that we must

consult in preparing our CIL. This includes the County Council, authorities adjoining ours, parish councils, people living or carrying on business in the area, and those voluntary organisations, and other organisations representing the interests of persons carrying on business in the charging authority’s area that we consider appropriate.

10.3 We will continue to involve local developers and residential and commercial

agents in setting our CIL rate. Others have contacted us to ask that they be involved in setting our CIL rates, and we have added them to our online planning consultation database. We will also consult all those registered on our online planning consultation database. We will also make the consultation available to the public on our website.

10.4 The current dates for preparing our CIL are set out in Local Plan timetable,

Guildford Local Development Scheme (LDS) 2014, and include submission to the Secretary of State in March 2015. However, our timetable has since changed, and we now aim to consult on a revised Draft Local Plan in summer 2015, followed by a pre-submission publication consultation in autumn 2015, with submission to the Secretary of State in late 2015/early 2016. This has implications for progression of our CIL, which the NPPF (paragraph 175) tells us to prepare alongside our new Local Plan if practical.

10.5 As the Local Plan timetable will be reviewed, officers propose that the CIL

timeframe reflects that of the new Local Plan. This could include a second PDCS consultation if appropriate. Officers will aim to submit the Local Plan and CIL for examination at the same time. The decision to submit a charging schedule for independent examination, and subsequent adoption is a decision that must be made by the Full Council, as it is for the new Local Plan.

Contact Officer: Tanya Mankoo-Flatt Principal Policy Officer Consulted: Will intend to consult in January 2015. Annexes:

Consultation documents (Appendices 1-4): Appendix 1 - Preliminary draft charging schedule

Appendix 2 - Draft infrastructure list (the “regulation 123 list”)

ITEM 9

Page 21


Appendix 3 - Development Viability Study, September 2014

Appendix 4 - Draft Local Plan 2014, including at Appendix B, Draft

Infrastructure Schedule

Appendix 5 - Savills World Research, 2014, Spotlight Guildford and

Elmbridge Residential Development Sales

Appendix 6 - CIL: who’s charging what?

Appendix 7 - Overview of Surrey borough / districts CIL rates

Sources/background papers:

• Planning Act 2008, Part 11 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011, Part 6, Chapter 2, Sections 114 and 115.

• Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended April 2011, November 2012, April 2013 and February 2014)

• DCLG, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , March 2012 – in particular paragraphs 173 - 177

• DCLG, CIL online Planning Practice Guidance, June 2014

• Draft Guildford and West Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), May 2014

• Guildford Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2013/4

• Draft Guildford Local Plan 2014

ITEM 9

Page 22

ITEM 9

Page 23

Appendix 1

Guildford Preliminary draft charging schedule

This Community Infrastructure Levy

This is Guildford Borough Council’s preliminary draft charging schedule.

We must balance the need to funding (at least in part) infrastructure for which there is no other

identified funding source, against the potential impact on the economic viability of development

across the borough, and affordable housing policy.

We therefore propose the following preliminary draft charging schedule CIL rates.

Reference to maps of zones

Use Area / Zone (see map below) Recommended

CIL rate / m2

Residential (C3) Guildford town (excluding strategic

sites)

Zone 3

£500

Ash and Tongham (excluding strategic

location of growth)

Zone 2

£100

Rural areas and villages

Zone 1

£300

Slyfield

Zone 4

£150

Strategic sites Development

Viability Study

recommended

£400; using

planning

obligations to

provide greater

flexibility in

infrastructure

delivery on

strategic sites

Purpose-built student

Accommodation

C3/C2 and sui generis)

All locations £75

Assisted living/extra care

housing

All locations

Draft SHMA shows a need for around

40 units per annum of specialist

housing. Of this at least 25% should be

affordable housing = approximately 30

£100

ITEM 9

Page 24

units / year needed

Retail All locations

£200

All other forms of liable

floorspace

All locations £0

ITEM 9

Page 25

Page 26


Draft Guildford Borough Regulation 123 list

This regulation 123 list is a list of types of infrastructure or specific infrastructure projects

that we may fund (in whole or part), through the levy.

The inclusion of a project or type of infrastructure on the list does not signify a

commitment from the Council to fund from the levy (either in whole or part) the listed

project or type of infrastructure.

We may not accept a S106 planning obligation nor a S278 Highways Agreement for any

infrastructure included on this Reg 123 list. This is to ensure there is no duplication

between CIL and planning obligations secured through S106 agreements in funding the

same infrastructure projects.

The order of the list does not imply any preference or priority.

We will update this list when needed, including proportionate consultation with interested

parties.

Landowners and developers will contribute to infrastructure included in this list by way of

CIL payment or with Guildford Borough Council’s agreement, by direct infrastructure

provision or land for infrastructure equivalent value of infrastructure.

Before we submit our CIL proposals for independent examination, we will set out the

circumstances in which we will accept payments by way of infrastructure or land in place

of CIL.

In order to comply with our responsibilities under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive

(Council Directive 92/43/EEC), we will prioritise spending of our CIL receipts on this

infrastructure. Our new Local Plan will prioritise our CIL spending to provide Suitable

Available Natural Green Space / SANG (SPA mitigation). Both our new Local Plan and a

revision to the Guildford Planning Contributions SPD 2011 will confirm this prioritisation

so that we can show that we are providing effective mitigation of the SPA.

Once the CIL is adopted, use of planning obligations will be scaled back so that they

become limited to securing mitigation and policy requirements that do not fall within the

CIL Regulations definition of infrastructure (including provision of SAMM for SPA

mitigation and affordable housing), and to infrastructure projects related to development

of a specific site. This specific infrastructure needed to support individual sites will be

set out in the Local Plan’s Infrastructure Schedule.

Exclusions that we continue to secure through S106 legal agreements :

• The delivery of site specific infrastructure requirements, including highway works,

provision of open space, sports facilities and children’s play facilities necessary to the

development of a specific site (that would not result in pooling of at least five such planning

obligations)

• Affordable housing – which is not classes as infrastructure

• Strategic Access Maintenance and Management (SAMM) for the European-designated

Special Protection Areas – which is not classed as infrastructure

ITEM 9

Page 27

We will secure site-specific infrastructure necessary to make a development acceptable

by planning obligations. These will be subject to the three statutory tests set out in

Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). A

planning obligation can only be taken into account when determining a planning

application for development, or any part of a development, if the obligation meets all of

the following tests –

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms

b) directly related to the development; and

c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

Infrastructure type or project to be funded by CIL

Infrastructure excluded from Guildford’s Reg 123 list To be delivered by planning obligations

Provision and ongoing maintenance in perpetuity of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANGS), as part of Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Measures.

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). These costs associated with the mitigation measures are not deemed to be infrastructure and will be secured via separate legal agreements.

Transport Interventions which provide new transport infrastructure or services and/or improve the quality and/or capacity of transport infrastructure or services which form or will form part of the following transport/movement networks:

• Strategic Road Network

• Local Road Network

• Rail network

• Bus services and infrastructure

• Park and Ride services and infrastructure

• Coach infrastructure

• Cycling and walking networks

• Sustainable movement corridor, except sections linking to potential strategic sites

• Public off-street car parks

• Travel demand management interventions

All other site specific transport and highways improvements identified in the next local plan Infrastructure Schedule and/or site specific transport / highways impact assessments, agreed by Guildford Borough Council with relevant partners.

Education School expansion schemes and new schools

New school on site to meet the needs of a specific strategic development site

ITEM 9

Page 28

Surface water and river flood risk mitigation measures

Improvements required as a direct result of a single development.

Provision of and improvement to open space, including children’s play areas

New open space and improvements which are directly related to a development.

Indoor and outdoor sport and recreation facilities

New facilities and improvements which are directly related to a development.

Environmental and public realm improvements

Improvements required as a direct result of a single development

Public Art

Public art on development sites

Community facilities including community halls and libraries


Waste collection and recycling facilities and management Improvements required as a direct result of a single development.

Environmental improvements to waterways, including the Wey and Arun Canal, the River Wey, Basingstoke and Navigation

Improvements which are directly related to a development.

Health service facilities


Fire service facilities


CCTV security cameras and police service facilities Improvements required as a direct result of a single development.

ITEM 9

Page 29

Page 30


On behalf of Guildford Borough Council

Project Ref: 30648 | Rev: 2 | Date: August 2014

Office Address: 10 Queen Square, Bristol, BS1 4NT T: +44 (0)117 928 1560 F: +44 (0)117 928 1570 E: [email protected]

Guildford Borough Council Plan Viability & Affordable Housing Study

Final Report

ITEM 9

Page 31

Plan viability and affordable housing study

ii

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Guildford Plan preparation evidence base

Project Ref: 30648

Report Title: Plan viability and affordable housing study

Doc Ref: Final Report

Date: August 2014

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: MF Associate Planner MF August 2014

Reviewed by: RP Senior Associate

Economist RP August 2014

Approved by: JB Partner JB August 2014

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

01 June 2014 Draft report MF RP JB

02 August 2014

Final Report MF RP JB

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2014

ITEM 9

Page 32


iii

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 The study scope ............................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Approach used for the development viability appraisals ............................................... 6

1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Approach ....................................................................................................................... 8

2 National Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 9

2.1 National framework........................................................................................................ 9

2.2 National policy on affordable housing ......................................................................... 10

2.3 National policy on infrastructure .................................................................................. 11

2.4 National policy on community infrastructure levy ........................................................ 12

2.5 Policy and other requirements ..................................................................................... 16

2.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 16

3 Local Development Context ..................................................................................................... 18

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Past development patterns .......................................................................................... 18

3.3 Future development and the Local Plan ..................................................................... 20

3.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 20

4 Local Plan Policies Impact on Viability ................................................................................... 21

4.1 Local plan policies ....................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Affordable housing....................................................................................................... 22

5 Residential Market and Viability .............................................................................................. 24

5.1 Residential market overview ....................................................................................... 24

5.2 Residential site typologies for viability testing ............................................................. 26

5.3 Viability assumptions ................................................................................................... 28

5.4 Residential assessment outputs .................................................................................. 33

5.5 Residential viability zones ........................................................................................... 35

5.6 Residential recommendations ..................................................................................... 38

5.7 Summary of all residential testing ............................................................................... 43

6 Non-residential Market and Viability ....................................................................................... 44

6.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 44

6.2 Site typologies ............................................................................................................. 44

6.3 Establishing Gross Development Value (GDV) ........................................................... 44

6.4 Costs ........................................................................................................................... 45

6.5 Non-residential assessment outputs ........................................................................... 47

7 Conclusions and findings ........................................................................................................ 49

7.1 Viability findings ........................................................................................................... 49

7.2 Is the Local Plan deliverable? ..................................................................................... 49

ITEM 9

Page 33


iv

Tables

Table 3.1 Residential completions 2006-2014 (data provided by the council) ...................................... 18 Table 3.2 Gross permission by size of site 2006-2014 (data provided by the council) ......................... 19 Table 3.3 Development types (completions 2012/2014) (data provided by the council) ...................... 19 Table 4.1 Local Plan Policy assessment matrix .................................................................................... 21 Table 5.1 Average new house prices paid (£ p sqm) ............................................................................ 25 Table 5.2 Residential typologies ........................................................................................................... 27 Table 5.3: Benchmark land values ........................................................................................................ 29 Table 5.4 Median build costs in Guild at April 2014 tender prices ........................................................ 30 Table 5.5 Land purchase costs ............................................................................................................. 33 Table 5.6 Scenario 1 results .................................................................................................................. 34 Table 5.7 Residential liable headroom and recommendations ............................................................. 38 Table 5.8 Student Accommodation and affordable housing ................................................................. 39 Table 5.9 Housing for older people summary ....................................................................................... 41 Table 5.10 Rural exception summary ................................................................................................... 42 Table 5.11 Site appraisal identifying potential for off-site affordable housing contributions ................. 42 Table 6.1 Non-residential uses – rent and yields .................................................................................. 44 Table 6.2 Non-residential uses – rent and yields .................................................................................. 45 Table 6.3 Non-residential uses – build costs......................................................................................... 45 Table 6.4 Summary of Retail uses viability (headroom per sqm).......................................................... 48 Table 6.5 Summary of B-class uses development viability (headroom per sqm) ................................. 48 Table 7.1 Policy and CIL recommendations .......................................................................................... 50

Appendices

Appendix A Viability assumptions

Appendix B Example appraisals

Appendix C Workshop notes

Appendix D Glossary

ITEM 9

Page 34


5

1 Introduction

1.1 The study scope

1.1.1 Peter Brett Associates LLP was commissioned by Guildford Borough Council to undertake a viability assessment at a strategic plan level and provide the following outputs:

¡ A plan viability assessment (PV) of the emerging Plan (Local Plan).

¡ Inform the Plan affordable housing policy in the context of the PV assessment.

¡ Viability assessment of theoretical developments taking into account the draft Local Plan requirements and other cost, to inform the draft Community Infrastructure Levy rates.

¡ Inform the preparation of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Rates

1.1.2 The main purpose of a Plan viability (or PV) assessment is to provide evidence to show that the requirements of the national planning policy framework (NPPF) are met. That is, the policy requirements in the Plan should not threaten the development viability of the plan as a whole. The objective of this study is to inform policy decisions relating to the trade-offs between the policy aspirations of achieving sustainable development and the realities of economic viability.

1.1.3 The report and the accompanying appraisals have been prepared in line with RICS valuation guidance. However, it is first and foremost a supporting document to inform the Local Plan evidence base and planning policy, in particular policy concerned with the planning, funding and delivery of infrastructure needed to support delivery of the plan.

1.1.4 As per Professional Standards 1 of the RICS Valuation Standards – Global and UK Edition1, the

advice expressly given in the preparation for, or during the course of negotiations or possible litigation does not form part of a formal “Red Book” valuation and should not be relied upon as such. No responsibility whatsoever is accepted to any third party who may seek to rely on the content of the report for such purposes.

Defining local plan level viability

1.1.5 The 'Viability Testing Local Plans' advice for planning practitioners prepared by the Local housing Delivery Group and chaired by Sir John Harman June 2012(the Harman Report) defines whole plan viability (on page 14) as follows:

'An individual development can be said to be viable if, after taking account of all costs, including central and local government policy and regulatory costs, and the cost and availability of development finance, the scheme provides a competitive return to the developer to ensure that development takes place, and generates a land value sufficient to persuade the land owner to sell the land for the development proposed.'

At a Local Plan level, viability is very closely linked to the concept of deliverability. In the case of housing, a Local Plan can be said to be deliverable if sufficient sites are viable (as defined in the previous paragraph) to deliver the plan's housing requirement over the plan period.

1 RICS (January 2014) Valuation – Professional Standards, PS1 Compliance with standards and

practice statements where a written valuation is provided

ITEM 9

Page 35


6

1.1.6 Note the approach to Local Plan level viability assessment does not require all sites in the plan to be viable. The Harman Report says that a site typologies approach to understanding plan viability is sensible. Whole plan viability:

'does not require a detailed viability appraisal of every site anticipated to come forward over the plan period… [we suggest] rather it is to provide high level assurance that the policies with the plan are set in a way that is compatible with the likely economic viability of development needed to deliver the plan.

A more proportionate and practical approach in which local authorities create and test a range of appropriate site typologies reflecting the mix of sites upon which the plan relies'.

1.1.7 The Harman Report states that the role of the typologies testing is not required to provide a precise answer as to the viability of every development likely to take place during the plan period.

'No assessment could realistically provide this level of detail…rather, [the role of the typologies testing] is to provide high level assurance that the policies within the plan are set in a way that is compatible with the likely economic viability of development needed to deliver the plan.'

1.1.8 Indeed the Report also acknowledges that a:

'plan-wide test will only ever provide evidence of policies being 'broadly viable.' The assumptions that need to be made in order to carry out a test at plan level mean that any specific development site may still present a range of challenges that render it unviable given the policies in the Local Plan, even if those policies have passed the viability test at the plan level. This is one reason why our advice advocates a 'viability cushion' to manage these risks.

1.1.9 The report later suggests that once the typologies testing has been done:

'it may also help to include some tests of case study sites, based on more detailed examples of actual sites likely to come forward for development if this information is available' .

1.1.10 The Harman Report points out the importance of minimising risk to the delivery of the plan. Risks can come from policy requirements that are either too high or too low. So, planning authorities must have regard to the risks of damaging plan delivery through loading on excessive policy costs - but equally, they need to be aware of lowering standards to the point where the sustainable delivery of the plan is not possible. Good planning in this respect is about 'striking a balance' between the competing demands for policy and plan viability.

1.2 Approach used for the development viability appraisals

1.2.1 The PBA development viability model was used to test Plan delivery based on viability and to ascertain a CIL charge. This involved high level testing of a number of hypothetical and named schemes that represent the future allocation of development land in Guildford.

1.2.2 The viability testing and study results are based on a standard residual land valuation of different and uses relevant to different parts of the borough, aiming to show typical values for each site. The approach takes the difference between development values and costs, and compares the 'residual value' with a threshold land value to determine the balance that could be available to support policy costs such as affordable housing and infrastructure. This is a standard approach, which is advocated by the Harman Report. The broad method is illustrated in the Figure 1.1.

ITEM 9

Page 36


7

Figure 1.1 Approach to residual land value assessment for whole plan viability

Less development

costs – including build costs,

fees, finance costs etc

Balance - available to contribute

towards policy requirements

(can be + or -)

Benchmark land value - to

incentivise delivery and support

future policy requirements

Less developer’s

return (profit) – minimum profit

acceptable in the market to

undertake the scheme

Value of completed

development scheme

1.2.3 In the case of the strategic sites, the model has been adapted to test for a range of different infrastructure requirements in the phasing of the development to bring forward sustainable development. When added to a set of locally based assumptions on new-build sales values, threshold land values and developer profits, a set of potential strategic sites development viability assessments are produced. This is then built into the cashflow modelling to assess viability through the lifetime of the development, where costs and returns will be flowing through the development cycle. The purpose of the assessment is to identify the balance available to pay for policy costs at which each of the potential strategic sites is financially viable.

1.2.4 The arithmetic of residual appraisal is straightforward (we use a bespoke spreadsheet models for the appraisals). However, the inputs to the calculation are hard to determine for a specific site (as demonstrated by the complexity of many S106 negotiations). The difficulties grow when making calculations that represent a typical or average site - which is what is required for estimating appropriate CIL charges. Therefore our viability assessments in this report are necessarily broad approximations, subject to a margin of uncertainty.

1.2.5 Examples of the residential and a non-residential site assessment sheets are set out in Appendix B.

1.3 Consultation

1.3.1 A developer workshop for the development industry active in the Borough was held to test the assumptions contained within this report. This took place in May 2014 and was attended by developers and agents, in addition to the consultants and Council officers.

1.3.2 The workshop was attended by a broad mix of house builders, surveyors, architects, agents and land owners and promoters. There were also representatives from Registered Providers and council officers from the borough and county councils.

1.3.3 The key data discussed includes:

¡ Typologies;

¡ The density and mix of development;

¡ Estimated market values of completed development;

ITEM 9

Page 37


8

¡ Existing use and open market land values;

¡ Basic build cost;

¡ External works (% of build cost);

¡ Professional fees (% of build cost);

¡ Marketing & sales costs (% of development value);

¡ Typical S106 costs;

¡ Finance costs (typical prevailing rates); and

¡ Developer's margin (% of development value)

1.3.4 A copy of the meeting note is in Appendix C.

1.3.5 Further consultation was also undertaken with a number of site promoters on a one to one basis. We also consulted separately with Registered Providers (RPs) of affordable housing operating in the Guildford borough area to gather more detailed information about revenue and costs for affordable housing to assist in the analysis. This was supplemented by discussions with the council.

1.4 Approach

Report structure

1.4.1 The rest of this report is set out as follows:

¡ Chapter 2 sets out the policy and legal requirements relating to whole plan viability, affordable housing and community infrastructure levy which the study assessment must comply with.

¡ Chapter 3 outlines the planning and development context, and considers past delivery.

¡ Chapter 4 sets out the emerging policies and their impact on viability.

¡ Chapters 5 and 6 describe the local residential and non-residential markets, and the development scenarios to be tested, assumptions and viability results.

¡ Chapter 7 concludes by setting out the main findings and translates this into recommendations for the whole plan viability and specifically affordable housing

¡ A glossary of key terms is available in Appendix D

ITEM 9

Page 38


9

2 National Policy Context

2.1 National framework

2.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises that the ‘developer funding pot’ or residual value is finite and decisions relating on how this funding is distributed between affordable housing, infrastructure, and other policy requirements have to be considered as a whole they cannot be separated out.

2.1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that cumulative effects of policy should not combine to render plans unviable:

‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable’.

2

2.1.3 With regard to non-residential development, the NPPF states that local planning authorities ‘should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area. To achieve this, they should… understand their changing needs and identify and address barriers to investment, including a lack of housing, infrastructure or viability.’

3

2.1.4 Note the NPPF does not state that all sites must be viable now in order to appear in the plan. Instead, the NPPF is concerned to ensure that the bulk of the development is not rendered unviable by unrealistic policy costs. It is important to recognise that economic viability will be subject to economic and market variations over the Local Plan timescale. In a free market, where development is largely undertaken by the private sector, the planning authority can seek to provide suitable sites to meet the needs of sustainable development. It is not within the local planning authorities control to ensure delivery actually takes place; this will depend on the willingness of a developer to invest and a landowner to release the land. So in considering whether a site is deliverable now or developable in the future, we have taken account of the local context to help shape our viability assumptions.

Deliverability and developability considerations in the NPPF

2.1.5 The NPPF creates the two concepts of ‘deliverability’ (which applies to residential sites which are expected in Years 0-5 of the plan) and ‘developability’ (which applies to year 6 onwards of the plan). The NPPF defines these two terms as follows:

To be deliverable, “sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable, with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable.”

4

To be developable, sites expected in Year 6 onwards should be able to demonstrate a “reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged”.

5

2

DCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework (41, para 173) 3 Ibid (para 160)

4 Ibid (para 47, footnote 11 – note this study deals with the viability element only, the assessment of availability,

suitability, and achievability is dealt with by the client team as part of the site selection process for the SHLAA and other site work.

ITEM 9

Page 39


10

2.1.6 This study deals with the viability element only, the assessment of availability, suitability, and achievability, including the timely delivery of infrastructure is dealt with by the client team as part of the site allocations and infrastructure planning.

2.1.7 The NPPF advises that a more flexible approach may be taken to the sites coming forward in the period after the first five years. Sites coming forward after Year 6 might not be viable now – and might instead be only viable at that point in time. This recognises the impact of economic cycles and variations in values and policy changes over time.

2.2 National policy on affordable housing

2.2.1 In informing future policy on affordable housing, it is important understand national policy on affordable housing. The NPPF states:

2.2.2 To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should

6:

¡ plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes);

¡ identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and

¡ where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.

7

2.2.3 The NPPF does recognise that in some instances, off site provision or a financial contribution of a broadly equivalent value may contribute towards creating mixed and balanced communities.

2.2.4 Finally the NPPF recognises that market conditions change over time, and so when setting long term policy on affordable housing, incorporating a degree of flexibility is sensible to reflect changing market circumstances.

2.2.5 Note that the NPPF has not amended the definition of affordable housing to take account of the variety of first time buyer mortgage support schemes offered by both the government and developers. It is unclear how long such products will be on the market, but they are not classified as an ‘affordable product’

8, although they may in some areas impact on the delivery of affordable

products.

2.2.6 In informing future policy on affordable housing, it is important to be clear of the national policy parameters that apply to affordable housing. The NPPF provides local planning authorities greater flexibility in determining their housing delivery strategy based on an understanding of local housing needs and housing market.

5 Ibid (para 47, footnote 12)

6 Ibid (para 50 and bullets).

7 Ibid (p13, para 50)

8 This is because the purpose of affordable housing is to help provide affordable housing for households in need over the

long term.

ITEM 9

Page 40


11

Threshold limits, off site contributions, and flexibility in policy

2.2.7 As can be seen from the above, the NPPF does not include any affordable housing thresholds and allows flexibility for local authorities to meet local requirements based on a clear understanding of local market, need, viability and delivery.

2.2.8 However, the government has recently published consultation on setting a national threshold of 10 dwellings for seeking provision of affordable housing. Whilst this is not policy at present the government have shown a consistent approach to reducing the burden on smaller development – e.g. removal of CIL liability from self-build schemes, so subject to the consultation it is likely that this will become national policy in the near future.

2.2.9 The NPPF does recognise that in some instances, off site provision or a financial contribution of a broadly equivalent value may contribute towards creating mixed and balanced communities.

2.2.10 Finally the NPPF recognises that market conditions change over time, and so when setting long term policy on affordable housing, incorporating a degree of flexibility is sensible to reflect changing market circumstances.

2.2.11 Note that the NPPF has not amended the definition of affordable housing to take account of the variety of first time buyer mortgage support schemes offered by both the government and developers. It is unclear how long such products will be on the market, but they are not classified as an ‘affordable product’, although they may in some areas impact on the delivery of affordable products.

2.2.12 The NPPF does include a duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities – particularly to reflect affordable housing needs and the scope to enable small amounts of market housing to cross subsidise affordable housing

9:

‘in rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs’.

2.3 National policy on infrastructure

2.3.1 The NPPF requires authorities to demonstrate that infrastructure will be available to support development:

[…]’It is equally important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. To facilitate this, it is important that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up.’

10

2.3.2 It is not necessary to prove that all funding for infrastructure has been identified. The NPPF states that standards and policies in Local Plans should ‘facilitate development across the economic cycle,’ 11

suggesting that in some circumstances, it may be reasonable for a Local Authority to argue that viability is likely to improve over time, that policy costs may be revised, that some infrastructure is not required immediately, and that mainstream funding levels may recover.

2.3.3 An Infrastructure Delivery Plan is being prepared by the Council to set out the necessary infrastructure and proposed funding.

9 DCLG (2012) op cit (para 54 page 14)

10 Ibid (p42, para 177) 11 Ibid (p42, para 174)

ITEM 9

Page 41


12

2.4 National policy on community infrastructure levy

2.4.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a planning charge based on legislation that came into force on 6 April 2010. The levy allows local authorities in England and Wales to raise contributions from development to help pay for infrastructure that is needed to support planned development. Local authorities who wish to charge the levy must produce a draft charging schedule setting out CIL rates for their areas – which are to be expressed as pounds (£) per square metre or number of homes, as CIL will be levied on the gross internal floorspace of the net additional liable development. Before it is approved by the Council, the draft schedule has to be tested by an independent examiner.

2.4.2 The requirements which a CIL charging schedule has to meet are set out in:

¡ The Planning Act 2008 as amended by the Localism Act 2011.

¡ The CIL Regulations 201012

, as amended in 201113

, 201214

, 201315

and 201416

.

¡ The CIL Guidance which was updated and published in February 2014 and since replaced by National Planning Practice Guidance on CIL (NPPG CIL).

17

2.4.3 The 2014 CIL amendment Regulations have altered key aspects of setting the charge for authorities who publish a Draft Charging Schedule for consultation. The key points from these various documents are summarised below.

Striking the appropriate balance

2.4.4 The revised Regulation 14 requires that a charging authority ‘strike an appropriate balance’ between:

a. The desirability of funding from CIL (in whole or in part) the… cost of infrastructure required to support the development of its area… and

b. The potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.

2.4.5 By itself, this statement is not easy to interpret. The guidance explains its meaning. A key feature of the 2014 Regulations is to give legal effect to the requirement in this guidance for an authority to ‘show and explain…’ their approach at examination. This explanation is important and worth quoting at length:

‘The levy is expected to have a positive economic effect on development across a local plan area. When deciding the levy rates, an appropriate balance must be struck between additional investment to support development and the potential effect on the viability of developments.

This balance is at the centre of the charge-setting process. In meeting the regulatory requirements (see Regulation 14(1)), charging authorities should be able to show and explain how their proposed levy rate (or rates) will contribute towards the implementation of their relevant plan and support development across their area.

12

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111492390_en.pdf 13

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111506301/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111506301_en.pdf 14

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2975/pdfs/uksi_20122975_en.pdf 15



DCLG (February 2014) Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance and DCLG (June 2014) National Planning Practice Guidance: Community Infrastructure Levy (NPPG CIL)

ITEM 9

Page 42


13

As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in England (paragraphs 173 – 177), the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. The same principle applies in Wales.’

18

2.4.6 In other words, the ‘appropriate balance’ is the level of CIL which maximises the delivery of development in the area. If the CIL charging rate is above this appropriate level, there will be less development than planned, because CIL will make too many potential developments unviable. Conversely, if the charging rates are below the appropriate level, development will also be compromised, because it will be constrained by insufficient infrastructure.

2.4.7 Achieving an appropriate balance is a matter of judgement. It is not surprising, therefore, that charging authorities are allowed some discretion in this matter. This has been reduced by the 2014 Regulations, but remains. For example, Regulation 14 requires that in setting levy rates, the Charging Authority (our underlining highlights the discretion):

‘must strike an appropriate balance…’ i.e. it is recognised there is no one perfect balance;

‘Charging authorities need to demonstrate that their proposed levy rate or rates are informed by ‘appropriate available’ evidence and consistent with that evidence across their area as a whole.’

‘A charging authority’s proposed rate or rates should be reasonable, given the available evidence, but there is no requirement for a proposed rate to exactly mirror the evidence …… There is room for some pragmatism.’

19

2.4.8 Thus the guidance sets the delivery of development firmly in within the context of implementing the Local Plan. This is linked to the plan viability requirements of the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 173 and 174. This point is given emphasis throughout the guidance. For example, in guiding examiners, the guidance makes it clear that the independent examiner should establish that:

‘…..evidence has been provided that shows the proposed rate (or rates) would not threaten delivery of the relevant Plan as a whole…..’

20

2.4.9 This also makes the point that viability is not simply a site specific issue but one for the plan as a whole.

2.4.10 The focus is on seeking to ensure that the CIL rate does not threaten the ability to develop viably the sites and scale of development identified in the Local Plan. Accordingly, when considering evidence the guidance requires that charging authorities should:

‘use an area based approach, involving a broad test of viability across their area’, supplemented by sampling ‘…an appropriate range of types of sites across its area…’ with the focus ‘...on strategic sites on which the relevant Plan relies and those sites where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant (such as brownfield sites).

21

2.4.11 This reinforces the message that charging rates do not need to be so low that CIL does not make any individual development schemes unviable (some schemes will be unviable with or without CIL). However, in aiming to strike an appropriate balance overall, the charging authority should avoid threatening the ability to develop viably the sites and scale of development identified in the Local Plan.

18

DCLG (June 2014) NPPG CIL (para 009) 19



DCLG (June 2014) NPPG CIL (para 019)

ITEM 9

Page 43


14

Keeping clear of the ceiling

2.4.12 The guidance advises that CIL rates should not be set at the very margin of viability, partly in order that they may remain robust over time as circumstances change:

‘…..if the evidence pointed to setting a charge right at the margins of viability………It would be appropriate to ensure that a ‘buffer’ or margin is included, so that the levy rate is able to support development when economic circumstances adjust.’

22

2.4.13 We would add two further reasons for a cautious approach to rate-setting, which stops short of the margin of viability:

¡ Values and costs vary widely between individual sites and over time, in ways that cannot be fully captured by the viability calculations in the CIL evidence base.

¡ A charge that aims to extract the absolute maximum would be strenuously opposed by landowners and developers, which would make CIL difficult to implement and put the overall development of the area at serious risk.

Varying the CIL charge

2.4.14 CIL Regulations (Regulation 13) allows the charging authority to introduce charge variations by geographical zone in its area, by use of buildings, by scale of development (GIA of buildings or number of units) or a combination of these three factors. (It is worth noting that the phrase ‘use of buildings’ indicates something distinct from ‘land use’).

23 As part of this, some rates may be set at

zero. But variations must reflect differences in viability; they cannot be based on policy boundaries. Nor should differential rates be set by reference to the costs of infrastructure.

2.4.15 The guidance also points out that charging authorities should avoid ‘undue complexity’ when setting differential rates, and ‘….it is likely to be harder to ensure that more complex patterns of differential rates are state aid compliant.’

24

2.4.16 Moreover, generally speaking, ‘Charging schedules with differential rates should not have a disproportionate impact on particular sectors or specialist forms of development’; otherwise the CIL may fall foul of state aid rules.

25

2.4.17 It is worth noting, however, that the guidance gives an example which makes it clear that a strategic site can be regarded as a separate charging zone: ‘If the evidence shows that the area includes a zone, which could be a strategic site, which has low, very low or zero viability, the charging authority should consider setting a low or zero levy rate in that area.’

26

Supporting evidence

2.4.18 The legislation requires a charging authority to use ‘appropriate available evidence' to inform their charging schedule

27. The guidance expands on this, explaining that the available data ‘is unlikely to

be fully comprehensive’.28

22


The Regulations allow differentiation by “uses of development”. “Development” is specially defined for CIL to include only ‘buildings’, it does not have the wider ‘land use’ meaning from TCPA 1990, except where the reference is to development of the area. 24


Ibid 26

Ibid 27

Planning Act 2008 section 211 (7A) 28

DCLG (June 2014) NPPG CIL (para 019)

ITEM 9

Page 44


15

2.4.19 These statements are important, because they indicate that the evidence supporting CIL charging rates should be proportionate, avoiding excessive detail. One implication of this is that we should not waste time and cost analysing types of development that will not have significant impacts, either on total CIL receipts or on the overall development of the area as set out in the Local Plan.

Chargeable floorspace

2.4.20 CIL will be payable on most buildings that people normally use and will be levied on the net additional new build floorspace created by any given development scheme. The following will not pay CIL:

¡ New build that replaces demolished existing floorspace that has been in use for six months in the last three years on the same site, even if the new floorspace belongs to a higher-value use than the old;

¡ Retained parts of buildings on the site that will not change their use, or have otherwise been in use for six months in the last three years;

¡ Development of buildings with floorspace less than 100 sqm (if not a new dwelling), by charities for charitable use, extensions to homes, homes by self-builders’ and social housing as defined in the regulations.

CIL, S106, S278 and the regulation 123 infrastructure list

2.4.21 The purpose of CIL is to enable the charging authority to carry out a wide range of infrastructure projects. CIL is not expected to pay for all infrastructure requirements but could make a significant contribution. However, development specific planning obligations (commonly known as S106) to make development acceptable will continue with the introduction of CIL. In order to ensure that planning obligations and CIL operate in a complementary way, CIL Regulations 122 and 123 place limits on the use of planning obligations.

2.4.22 To overcome potential for ‘double dipping’ (i.e. being charged twice for the same infrastructure by requiring the paying of CIL and S106), it is imperative that charging authorities are clear about the authorities’ infrastructure needs and what developers will be expected to pay for and through which route. The guidance expands this further in explaining how the regulation 123 list should be scripted to account for generic projects and specific named projects).

2.4.23 The guidance states that ‘it is good practice for charging authorities to also publish their draft (regulation 123) infrastructure lists and proposed policy for the scaling back of S106 agreements.’ This list now forms part of the ‘appropriate available evidence’ for consideration at the CIL examination. A draft infrastructure list must be available at the preliminary draft charging schedule phase.

2.4.24 The guidance identifies the need to assess past evidence on developer contributions, stating ‘as background evidence, the charging authority should also provide information about the amount of funding collected in recent years through section 106 agreements, and information on the extent to which affordable housing and other targets have been met’.

2.4.25 Similarly, there are restrictions on using section 278 highway agreements to fund infrastructure that is also including in the CIL infrastructure list. This is done by placing a limit on the use of planning conditions and obligations to enter into section 278 agreements to provide items that appear on the charging authority’s Regulation 123 infrastructure list. Note these restrictions do not apply to highway agreements drawn up the Highway Agency.

What the CIL examiner will be looking for

2.4.26 According to the guidance, the independent examiner should check that:

ITEM 9

Page 45


16

§ The charging authority has complied with the requirements set out in legislation.

§ The draft charging schedule is supported by background documents containing appropriate available evidence.

§ The proposed rate or rates are informed by and consistent with the evidence on economic viability across the charging authority's area.

§ Evidence has been provided that shows the proposed rate or rates would not threaten delivery of the relevant Plan as a whole.

2.4.27 The examiner must recommend that the draft charging schedule should be approved, rejected or approved with specific modifications.

2.5 Policy and other requirements

2.5.1 More broadly, the CIL guidance states that ‘Charging authorities should consider relevant national planning policy when drafting their charging schedules’

29. Where consideration of development

viability is concerned, the CIL guidance draws specific attention to paragraphs 173 to 177 of the NPPF and to paragraphs 162 and 177 of the NPPF in relation to infrastructure planning.

2.5.2 The only policy requirements which refer directly to CIL in the NPPF are set out at paragraph 175 of the NPPF, covering, firstly, working up CIL alongside the plan making where practical; and secondly placing control over a meaningful proportion of funds raised with neighbourhoods where development takes place. Since April 2013

30 this policy requirement has been complemented with a

legal duty on charging authorities to pass a specified proportion of CIL receipts to local councils, to spend it on behalf of the neighbourhood if there is no local council for the area where development takes place. Whilst important considerations, these two points are outside the immediate remit of this study.

2.6 Summary

Plan summary

2.6.1 Plan wide viability testing is different to site viability assessment and adopts a broader plan level approach to viability assessment based on ‘site typologies rather than actual sites’ combined with some case studies.

2.6.2 The key documents guiding plan viability assessment are the Harman Report and the RICS Guidance – both approach plan level viability different to site specific viability, and take account of current and future policy requirements, but both documents differ in their approach to arriving at the Threshold Land Value. The Harman Report advocates an existing use value plus uplift, whilst the RICS report advocates a market value minus a future policy cost approach.

2.6.3 The NPPF requires Councils to ensure that they ‘do not load’ policy costs onto development if it would hinder the site being developed. The key point is that policy costs will need to be balanced so as not to render a development unviable, but should still be considered sustainable.

Affordable housing summary

2.6.4 The NPPF has sought to remove nationally prescribed affordable housing thresholds and allows greater flexibility for local authorities to meet local needs based on a clear understanding of local market, need, viability and delivery. There is scope to secure commuted sums for off site delivery

29


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/982/pdfs/uksi_20130982_en.pdf

ITEM 9

Page 46


17

where appropriate, and importantly, the NPPF recognises the need for policies to be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.

Infrastructure summary

2.6.5 The infrastructure needed to support the plan over time will need to be planned and managed. Plans should be backed by a thought-through set of priorities and delivery sequencing that allows a clear narrative to be set out around how the plan will be delivered (including meeting the infrastructure requirements to enable delivery to take place).

2.6.6 This study confines itself to the question of development viability. It is for other elements of the evidence base to investigate the other ingredients in the definition of deliverability (i.e. location, infrastructure and prospects for development). Though the study will draw on infrastructure cost (prepared by the client team) to inform the impact on viability where relevant.

CIL summary

2.6.7 To meet legal requirements and satisfy the independent examiner, a CIL charging schedule published as a Draft for consultation after 24 February 2014, (when the 2014 CIL Regulations Amendments came into force) must strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding (in whole or in part) infrastructure needed to support the development and the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.

2.6.8 This means that the net effect of the levy on total development across the area should be positive. CIL may reduce development by making certain schemes which are not plan priorities unviable. Conversely, it may increase development by funding infrastructure that would not otherwise be provided, which in turn supports development that otherwise would not happen. The law requires that the net outcome of these two impacts should be judged to be positive. This judgment is at the core of the charge-setting and examination process.

2.6.9 Legislation and guidance also set out that:

¡ Authorities should avoid setting charges up to the margin of viability.

¡ CIL charging rates may vary across geographical zones, building uses, and by scale of development. But differential charging must be justified by differences in development viability, not by policy or by varying infrastructure costs; it should not introduce undue complexity; and it should have regard to State Aid rules.

¡ Charging rates should be informed by ‘appropriate available evidence’, which need not be ‘fully comprehensive’.

¡ Charging authorities should be clear and transparent about the use of different approaches to developers funding infrastructure and avoid ‘double dipping’.

2.6.10 While charging rates should be consistent with the evidence, they are not required to ‘mirror’ the evidence. In this, and other ways, charging authorities have discretion in setting charging rates.

ITEM 9

Page 47


18

3 Local Development Context

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This chapter briefly outlines the local development context in Guildford Borough reviewing past development that has taken place, and outlining the planned growth in the emerging Plan. This development context has informed the viability appraisal assumptions.

3.2 Past development patterns

3.2.1 Patterns of past development provide can normally provide a guide to the likely patterns of future development (though in Guildford’s case the new development strategy may alter some of the past patterns of development). Table 3.1 below analyses the amount of net residential completions over the period 2006 to 2014. Completions have generally been around 270 dwellings; however the average annual target for completions in the Local Plan will be around 650 dwellings per annum which is substantially higher than the past eight years. This will require a significant step change in delivery so the council will need to be mindful in setting their policy so as not to stifle development. Although it is noted that the council is already helping delivery by identifying a wide range of sites to help meet this increased delivery rate including several large new strategic sites of around 1,000 - 2,500 dwellings.

Table 3.1 Residential completions 2006-2014 (data provided by the council)

Period Net completions Cumulative Completions

2006/2007 357 357

2007/2008 478 835

2008/2009 130 965

2009/2010 227 1192

2010/2011 188 1380

2011/2012 261 1641

2012/2013 230 1871

2013/2014 132 2003

2006/7 – 2013/14 (annual avg) 250

Scale and type of past delivery

3.2.2 Table 3.2 shows the scale of applications received over the past eight years. This shows that that in the last five years there has been a reliance on smaller sites coming forward of under 15 dwelling. There have been no larger sites over 200 units and very few over 50 dwellings. This is largely due to limited supply of large sites because of the green belt constraints and the affordable housing threshold which was set at 15 dwellings.

ITEM 9

Page 48


19

Table 3.2 Gross permission by size of site 2006-2014 (data provided by the council)

Scheme size % of new homes

2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07

1-4 20% 39% 61% 43% 40% 18% 24% 23%

1-9 26% 56% 79% 76% 58% 25% 39% 34%

1-14 31% 63% 100% 90% 100% 39% 39% 45%

1-19 33% 70% N/A 100% N/A 73% 39% 45%

1-49 47% 100% N/A N/A N/A 100% 39% 45%

1-199 47% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% 100%

200+ 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.2.3 As well as looking at the size of proposals we have also looked at the breakdown of sites types for completions. As can be seen in Table 3.3 the number of dwellings coming forward on brownfield sites is very high. This is due to the policies of the current Local Plan 2003, within this period, residential gardens were reclassified from brownfield to greenfield.

3.2.4 When coupled with the assessment of site sizes and looking at the application detail, many of these are intensification of sites where existing dwellings have been knocked down and replaced with more dwellings or small business such as pubs or garages have been redeveloped for residential uses.

Table 3.3 Development types (completions 2012/2014) (data provided by the council)

Range Completions

Brownfield 221 (96%)

Greenfield 9 (4%)

Affordable housing

3.2.5 The number of affordable housing units completed has also been considered. The headline figure for affordable housing completions as a proportion of total supply is relatively healthy at 31%, especially given the recent economic cycles (2008-2013).

3.2.6 However, this does mask the real picture in terms of market housing funding affordable housing, when the figures are considered in more detail. The number of schemes with affordable housing is relatively small – as most of the sites that have come forward over this period were under the policy threshold of 15 dwellings. Therefore many of the homes that have come forward have benefited from public subsidy or been brought forward by registered providers. It should be noted that this does not suggest that schemes have not been viable, there could be numerous reasons but mainly it is because of the size of schemes that is contribute to limiting supply.

3.2.7 However it is clear that with more limited public funding for affordable housing the council will need to seek more affordable housing from market housing in order to try and meet its affordable housing requirements. However this is subject to viability and the council will need to be mindful of overloading development costs and potentially stymieing development.

ITEM 9

Page 49


20

3.3 Future development and the Local Plan

3.3.1 The overall housing number for Guildford Borough is 13,040 new homes from 2011 to 2031. The first five year housing supply of the new plan is proposed to be made up of a mix of brownfield sites, sites that are proposed to be included within villages inset from the greenbelt, and some large greenfield sites. Beyond this period it is anticipated that much of the supply will be from the very large strategic sites. Details are included in Guildford SHLAA.

3.3.2 The draft Local Plan identifies large strategic sites for development. The decision on which strategic site is not a matter for this report.

3.3.3 As this report covers the wider issues around plan delivery and CIL, other uses should also be considered.

3.3.4 The Draft Local Plan suggests up to 29.2 hectares of employment land is required over the plan period. In addition around 50,000 sq. m of comparison floorspace in anticipated in Guildford town centre and further convenience and comparison floorspace of an appropriate scale to support new development, particularly at the strategic sites.

3.3.5 Other uses are likely to be required or promoted over the plan period, however in terms of floorspace and impact on infrastructure these are not considered to be as significant as the residential, employment and retail figures identified above.

3.4 Summary

3.4.1 The land uses which are likely to account for the largest quantum of development, and hence are critical to the delivery of the Local Plan, comprise:

¡ Residential;

¡ Light industrial and warehousing space;

¡ Offices;

¡ Retail;

3.4.2 Within this report our viability assessments and the resulting recommendations, we have focussed on these types of development, aiming to ensure that they remain broadly viable after the CIL charge is levied.

ITEM 9

Page 50


21

4 Local Plan Policies Impact on Viability

4.1 Local plan policies

4.1.1 In order to be able to identify the full implications of local policies on development viability, a scoping exercise has been undertaken to include a thorough consideration of the potential policy requirements within the emerging Local Plan.

4.1.2 At the time of undertaking, Guildford borough was preparing a new Local Plan. We have assessed the policies that have been set out in the Draft Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites, June 2014 (DLP) to identify those that may have a cost implication and hence an impact on viability.

4.1.3 The policies in the DLP have been assessed, firstly to determine whether there is likely to be a cost implication over and above that required by the market to deliver the defined development. For those policies where there will be, or could be, a cost implication, a broad assessment of the nature of that cost has been undertaken, including whether the cost is likely to be borough-wide or site specific, whether costs are related to specific timescales or apply for the entire life of the plan and whether costs are likely to be incurred directly by the developer through on site or off site development, or via financial contributions made by the developer to other agencies or developers towards wider schemes within the borough. Table 4.1 sets out the results of the scoping exercise.

Table 4.1 Local Plan Policy assessment matrix

Plan policy Does the policy have

a cost implication?

Viability testing implication?

Policy 1: Presumption in favour of sustainable development

No

Policy 2: Planning for the borough- our spatial development strategy

Yes Policy outlines the locations across Guildford Borough Council where development is proposed to come forward. Consideration must be given to values specific to these locations.

Policy 3: Homes for all Yes Housing mix shall reflect the latest SHMA. There is also an importance to consideration for specialist residential products for students, elderly population and gypsy & traveller communities.

Policy 4: Affordable Homes Yes Policy states that at least 40% of all new homes built in the borough are to be affordable housing on sites of at least 5 homes. On greenfield sites the council will target provision of 45%, of which 70% will be rented and 30% other forms. Affordable Rent must be no more than the maximum percentage of market rent set out in the most recent housing guidance or strategy.

Policy 5: Rural Exception Homes Yes The policy permits small affordable housing developments to meet local needs. This is included as a scenario in our testing.

Policy 6: Making better places No

Policy 7: Sustainable design, construction and energy

No

ITEM 9

Page 51


22

Plan policy Does the policy have

a cost implication?

Viability testing implication?

Policy 8: Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

No

Policy 9 Villages and major previously developed sites

No

Policy 10 Green Belt and countryside

No

Policy 11: Ash and Tongham No

Policy 12: Historic environment No

Policy 13: Economic development No

Policy 14: The leisure and visitor experience

No

Policy 15: Guildford Town Centre No

Policy 16: District and Local Centres

No

Policy 17: Infrastructure and delivery

Yes Cost of required infrastructure needs to be factored into viability testing.

Policy 18: Sustainable transport for new developments

Possible New larger developments of 20+ dwellings or over 0.5ha of residential development should demonstrate consideration for maximising sustainable travel through provision of a transport assessment and a travel plan.

Policy 19: Green and blue infrastructure

No

4.2 Affordable housing

4.2.1 Chapter 2 outlined the national policy context relating to affordable housing. The key messages in informing this study from the national policy are as follows:

¡ The NPPF has made it clear that the viability considerations of the policy requirement for affordable housing should be considered as a whole with other policy requirements such as infrastructure contributions and any other requirements. This is the objective of this whole plan viability assessment.

¡ The NPPF has removed the previous nationally prescribed affordable housing thresholds and so there is now greater flexibility for local authorities to meet local requirements based on a clear understanding of local market, need, viability and delivery. This study will therefore assess the viability of those schemes below the current threshold of 15 units (or 10 in most rural villages) to make a contribution towards affordable housing either on or off site. Although it should be noted that consultation has recently been published suggesting a threshold of 10 dwellings.

¡ The NPPF does recognise that in some instances, off site provision or a financial contribution of a broadly equivalent value may contribute towards creating mixed and balanced communities.

ITEM 9

Page 52


23

¡ The NPPF recognises that market conditions change over time, and so when setting long term policy on affordable housing, incorporating a degree of flexibility is sensible to reflect changing market circumstances.

¡ Note that the NPPF has not amended the definition of affordable housing to take account of the variety of first time buyer mortgage support schemes offered by both the government and developers. It is unclear how long such products will be on the market, but they are not classified as an ‘affordable product’

31, although they may in some areas impact on the delivery

of affordable products.

Guildford’s affordable housing need, policy and delivery

4.2.2 The draft policy set out in the DLP has evolved from previous work undertaken on affordable housing need and viability. The emerging policy (Policy 4) sets out the following requirements:

¡ 40% affordable housing on brownfield sites of 5 or more (gross)

¡ 45% affordable housing on greenfield sites of 5 or more (gross)

¡ Contribution in accordance with a formula The same ratios as above on off campus student accommodation of at least 20 bedrooms to be provided

¡ Contribution in accordance with a formula from elderly people’s housing (C3) of at least 20 bedrooms

¡ On allocated sites as identified

4.2.3 The policy was set within the context of the borough’s SHMA and earlier work undertaken on viability that concluded that these ratios of affordable housing were generally achievable within the borough.

4.2.4 The most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to incorporate Guildford borough is the Guildford and West Surrey SHMA, Draft Final Report, May 2014. The report highlights that the borough falls within a high value housing market but that affordability of open market housing for sale and private rented accommodation is a big issue. The underlying cause of poor affordability levels is the high price of housing against relatively low incomes. The lower quartile house prices are 10.6 times the lower quartile incomes compared with 6.6 nationally.

4.2.5 The current evidence (SHMA, May 2014) recommends that the following affordable housing tenure mix should be provided:

¡ 90% Affordable rent/Social rent

¡ 10% Shared ownership

4.2.6 The Council further refined their approach and have set out an altered mix within their proposed affordable housing policy of 70% Affordable rented and 30% other tenures including Shared ownership. Therefore this is what has been tested within the viability work.

31

This is because the purpose of affordable housing is to help provide affordable housing for households in need over the long term.

ITEM 9

Page 53


24

5 Residential Market and Viability

5.1 Residential market overview

5.1.1 The housing market in Guildford continues to outperform the national average considerably. For instance, in the first quarter of 2014 the average price for Guildford was approximately 81% higher than the national average, with the average sales price (for all properties) in Guildford reaching £474,000 compared to the national average of £262,000 (Source: Land Registry).

5.1.2 The recent inflationary pressure on London house prices appears to have also had knock-on effects in the wider areas with figures supplied by RightMove, indicating that average house prices in the South East have increased by 5.9% in the 1 year period between July 2013 and July 2014.

5.1.3 Looking forward in Figure 5.1, the latest projections of house prices prepared by Savills in their Residential Property Focus (Q2 2014), shows that the South East is expected to grow at a higher rate than any other region over the period 2014 to 2018, with values forecast to rise by 31.9%. This is considerably higher than the 25.2% average and, on this evidence, is likely to further the gap between house prices in the South East and the national average.

Figure 5.1 Five Year forecast values, 2014-2018

Source: Savills (May 2014)

5.1.4 Figure 5.2 compares Guildford house prices (red, dashed line) over recent years with that of neighbouring authorities. The graph demonstrates that prices have been fairly resilient to the recession with a small dip in 2009. On the whole house prices have risen considerably over the period and, second to only Waverley, more than any other of the neighbouring authorities.

ITEM 9

Page 54


25

Figure 5.2 Average house prices in Guildford

Source: PBA derived from Provisor (2014)

5.1.5 Land registry data of new build properties sold within Guildford in the five year period between 2009 and 2014, identifies that property values also vary considerably across locations in the borough. For instance, the data revealed that values in eastern areas, with greater access to central London, such as Effingham and East Horsley have greater values for both houses and flats than locations towards the west of the borough in areas such as Ash and Tongham. This analysis has revealed six distinct value areas, as set out in Table 5.1.

5.1.6 Values for student accommodation, retirement homes and care home, have also been estimated in Table 5.1 based on similar schemes which have come forward in comparable (high value) areas in the region but outside London. A wider area has been used due to the limited number of transaction for these types of accommodation within the Borough.

Table 5.1 Average new sales values achieved (£ p sqm)

Location/use House price Flat price

Guildford (town) £4,584 £3,667

Ash & Tongham £3,170 £2,121

South East Rural £3,407 £3,167

West Rural £3,317 £1,894

North East Rural £3,520 £3,826

East Rural £4,550 £4,159

Student Accommodation, Guildford £2,200 £2,200

Retirement home, Guildford £2,512 £2,512

Care home, Guildford £2,145 £2,145

Extra care / Assisted living Care home, Guildford £2,699 £2,699

Source: PBA derived from Land Registry, (2014) Righmove/Zoopla, (2014); websearch

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

£300,000

£350,000

£400,000

£450,000

£500,000

201320122011201020092008200720062005

Guildford Woking Runnymede Hart

Waverley Surrey Heath Rushmoor Mole Valley

ITEM 9

Page 55


26

5.2 Residential site typologies for viability testing

5.2.1 The objective here is to allocate future development sites in Guildford to an appropriate development category. This allows the study to deal efficiently with the very high level of detail that would otherwise be generated by an attempt to viability test each site. This approach is proposed by the Harman Report, which suggests ‘a more proportionate and practical approach in which local authorities create and test a range of appropriate site typologies reflecting the mix of sites upon which the plan relies’.

32

5.2.2 The typologies are supported with a selection of case studies reflecting CIL guidance (2014), which suggests that:

‘a charging authority should directly sample an appropriate range of types of sites across its area, in order to supplement existing data. This will require support from local developers. The exercise should focus on strategic sites on which the relevant Plan relies, and those sites where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant (such as brownfield sites). The sampling should reflect a selection of the different types of sites included in the relevant Plan, and should be consistent with viability assessment undertaken as part of plan-making.’

33

5.2.3 The Harman Report states that the role of the typologies testing is not required to provide a precise answer as to the viability of every development likely to take place during the plan period.

‘No assessment could realistically provide this level of detail…rather, [the role of the typologies testing] is to provide high level assurance that the policies within the plan are set in a way that is compatible with the likely economic viability of development needed to deliver the plan.’

34

5.2.4 Indeed the Report also acknowledges that a:

‘plan-wide test will only ever provide evidence of policies being ‘broadly viable.’ The assumptions that need to be made in order to carry out a test at plan level mean that any specific development site may still present a range of challenges that render it unviable given the policies in the Local Plan, even if those policies have passed the viability test at the plan level. This is one reason why our advice advocates a ‘viability cushion’ to manage these risks.

35

Developing site profile categories

5.2.5 A list of typologies, reflecting planned development and representing the cross section of sites identified in the SHLAA were agreed with the client team. However following a consultation workshop with the development industry it was considered that a wider range of smaller sites should also be tested. Thus the original list was amended to reflect these views and the revised list is summarised in Table 5.2.

32

Local Housing Delivery Group Chaired by Sir John Harman (2012) Viability Testing Local Plans (9) 33

DCLG CIL Guidance 2014 page 16. 34

Local Housing Delivery Group ( 2012), op cit (para 15) 35

Local Housing Delivery Group (2012), op cit (para 18)

ITEM 9

Page 56


27

Table 5.2 Residential typologies

Site reference

Typology Land type Nr of Dwellings

1 2 houses (Guildford town) Guildford town, Brownfield 2

2 5 houses (Guildford town) Guildford town, Brownfield 5

3 5 flats (Guildford town) Guildford town, Brownfield 5

4 20 mixed (Guildford town) Guildford town, Brownfield 20




8 100 Mixed (Ash and Tongham) Ash & Tongham, Greenfield 100

9 2 houses (Ash & Tongham) Ash & Tongham, Brownfield 2

10 10 houses (Ash & Tongham) Ash & Tongham, Brownfield 10

11 15 flats (Ash & Tongham) Ash & Tongham, Brownfield 15

12 1 house (East rural) East Rural, Greenfield 1

13 3 houses (East rural) East Rural, Brownfield 3

14 8 houses (East rural) East Rural, Brownfield 8

15 10 flats (East rural) East Rural, Brownfield 10

16 30 flats (East rural) East Rural, Brownfield 30

17 100 mixed (East rural) East Rural, Greenfield 100

18 2 houses (West rural) West Rural, Greenfield 2

19 5 houses (West rural) West Rural, Brownfield 5

20 20 mixed (West rural) West Rural, Greenfield 20

21 100 mixed (West rural) West Rural, Greenfield 100

22 Gosden Hill Farm (Strategic Site) Guildford town, Greenfield 2,000

23 Blackwell Farm (Strategic Site) Guildford town, Greenfield 2,289

24 Former Wisley Airport (Strategic Site)

North East Rural, Mixed 2,100

25 Slyfield (Strategic Site) Guildford town, Brownfield 1,084

26 Exception housing scheme Rural Exception 10

27 Student Accommodation Guildford town, Brownfield 100

28 Care homes Guildford town, Brownfield 40

29 Retirement living Guildford town, Brownfield 40

30 Extra Care / Assisted living scheme Guildford town, Brownfield 40

5.2.6 The residential testing, including for impacts relating to affordable housing, also includes specialist market products for care, assisted living, retirement and student living. These have been informed by recent new build schemes or planning applications either in Guildford or in similar places elsewhere within the south east.

ITEM 9

Page 57


28

5.3 Viability assumptions

5.3.1 It is not always possible to get a perfect fit between a site, the site profile and cost/revenue categories. But a best fit in the spirit of the Harman Report guide has been attempted. For this, the viability testing requires a series of assumptions about the site coverage and floorspace mix to generate an overall sales turnover and value of land, which are discussed here.

Site coverage and area

Site coverage

5.3.2 The net (developable) area of the site informs the likely land value of a residential site. Typically, residential land values are normally reported on a per net hectare basis, since it is only this area which delivers a saleable return.

5.3.3 For the residential typologies, the net developable areas have been derived using a formula36

based on discussions with the council and the wider development industry, and examples from elsewhere. Details on gross and net areas for each typology are shown in Appendix A.

Saleable area

5.3.4 In addition to density, the type and size of units is important because this informs overall revenue based on saleable floorspace, to generate an overall sales turnover.

5.3.5 The type of unit and size of these likely to come forward in Guildford have been informed by the Guildford SHMA (Draft, Jan 2014), along with discussions with stakeholders and judgement based on experience of masterplans for other sites and studies using national standards in order to derive saleable floorspace.

5.3.6 Two floor areas are used for flatted schemes: the Gross Internal Area (GIA), including circulation space, is used to calculate build costs and Net Internal Area (NIA) is applied to calculate the sales revenue.

5.3.7 Details are shown in Appendix A.

Sales values

5.3.8 Current residential revenues and other viability variables are obtained from a range of sources, including:

¡ Generic websites, such as the RightMove and the Land Registry

¡ Direct research with developers and agents operating in the area.

5.3.9 The evidence for the sales assumptions and distribution has been discussed in the market assessment section of this report. In summary, from analysing the average size of developments likely to come forward in each value area, and using the value data provided by Land Registry, and along with feedback received at the workshops/consultation with development industry, we have arrived at the sales values shown in Table 5.1. These are used in the plan wide viability assessment.

5.3.10 The appraisal assumes that affordable housing will command a transfer value to a Registered Provider at lower than market rates. The values have been informed by evidence of recent deals and discussion with the Council’s housing team.

36

Uses a non-linear formula to estimate the net area from the gross area, so that the greater the number of units that there are the greater the amount of gross to net land area.

ITEM 9

Page 58


29

5.3.11 The testing assumes the following values:

¡ Affordable rent 55% of market value

¡ Intermediate 65% of market value

Threshold land values

5.3.12 To assess viability, the residual value generated by a scheme is compared with a threshold land value, which reflects ‘a competitive return for a landowner’ (as stated in Harman). The threshold land value is important in our calculations of the residual balance to pay for other policy and infrastructure costs to support a sustainable development. The difference between the threshold land value and the residual land value represents the amount of money available to contribute to affordable housing policy, S106/278 contributions or CIL.

5.3.13 The approach used to arrive at the threshold land value is based on a review of recent viability evidence of sites currently on the market, a review of submitted viability appraisal by applicants, published data on land values and discussions with stakeholders. The approach follows both a top down approach of current market value of serviced plots and bottom up approach of existing use values. Account has been taken of current and proposed future policy requirements. This approach is in line with the Harman report and recent CIL examination reports, which accept that authorities should work on the basis of future policy and its effects on land values and well as ensuring a reasonable return to a willing landowner and developer.

5.3.14 In collecting evidence on residential land values, a distinction has been made for sites that might reflect extra costs for ‘opening up, abnormals and securing planning permission’ from those which are clean or ‘oven-ready’ residential sites.

5.3.15 For the purposes of this report and testing viability, the benchmark values used in testing viability are shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Benchmark land values

Site typology Land value per net developable ha

Guildford, Brownfield £3,000,000

Ash & Tongham, Greenfield £1,300,000

Ash & Tongham, Brownfield £1,500,000

East Rural, Greenfield £3,000,000

East Rural, Brownfield £3,500,000

West Rural, Greenfield £2,500,000

West Rural, Brownfield £2,800,000

Strategic sites – Greenfield/Mixed £1,000,000

Strategic sites – Mixed £800,000

Rural Exception £250,000

Student accommodation £2,000,000

Care homes/retirement living £3,000,000

5.3.16 It is important to appreciate that assumptions on benchmark land values can only be broad approximations subject to a wide margin of uncertainty. This uncertainty is considered when drawing conclusions and recommendations. Cross sections of comparable residential land have been

ITEM 9

Page 59


30

examined to identify transactions which are either clean greenfield sites and existing non residential use urban brownfield sites fully serviced with roads and major utilities to the site boundary.

Build costs

5.3.17 Residential build costs are based on actual tender prices for new builds in the market place over a 15 year period from the Build Cost Information Service (BCIS), which is published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). The tender price data is rebased to Guildford prices using BCIS defined adjustments, to give the median build costs for small and large schemes as shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Median build costs in Guild at April 2014 tender prices

Dwelling type

Small housing scheme (3 or less units)

Medium sized house scheme (4 to 14 units)

Estate housing (15+ units)

Flats £1,185 £1,185 £1,185

Houses £1,467 £1,234 £1,001

Source: PBA derived from BCIS

5.3.18 Volume and regional house builders are able to operate within the median district cost figures comfortably, especially given that they are likely to achieve significant economies of scale in the purchase of materials and the use of labour. Many smaller and medium sized developers of houses are usually unable to attain the same economies, so their construction costs may be higher as shown in Table 5.4, which reflects the higher costs for schemes with 3 or less houses (taken from BCIS) and for 4-14 units (taken as a mid-point between the larger and small schemes). However, anecdotally the significantly higher cost of small builds is also likely to reflect higher standards and specifications to match local demand for standalone units, which has been prevalent in Guildford. These costs have been applied in the viability testing.

5.3.19 The BCIS build costs are exclusive of External works, Contingencies, Fees, VAT and Finance charges, plus other revenue costs.

Sustainability and building standards

5.3.20 The BCIS tender price at April 2014 may not reflect the latest England Building Regulations (Part L, 2013 - effective from April 2014), which came effective from April 2014. Building Regulations (currently Part L, 2013) was recently amended to require emission reductions, to give an overall 6% improvement to 2010 standards. This standard is estimated to add approximately £450 in costs per home above the 2010 Building Regulation standards (this is based on the Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment findings. This increase is taken into account in the viability assessments.

5.3.21 Building Regulations are different to the requirements set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH). The Code outlines a staged framework to improve the overall sustainability of new homes. In the past, there has been an intention to incorporate the requirements of the code with the Building Regulations. The government has recently intimated in the Building Standards Review that it wishes to simplify national standards and proposes to move away from the CfSH to a single system of standards.

5.3.22 Whilst the Government is no longer intending to support a range of standards in the future, they have indicated that they will allow local authorities, through planning policy, to seek improved building standards in their locations until revised regulations are place. For authorities wishing to incorporate this into planning policy this will have cost implication s that will need to be considered – however at this stage, as reflected in para 4.24 of draft Local Plan, the Council is not intending to introduce a mandatory policy requiring development to meet a higher level of sustainable development.

ITEM 9

Page 60


31

5.3.23 Similar to the Building Regulations the Government is also reviewing space standards and is currently considering a national voluntary policy on space standards. The details of this have yet to be published.

External works

5.3.24 This input incorporates all additional costs associated with the site curtilage of the built area. These include circulation space in flatted areas and garden space with housing units; incidental landscaping costs including trees and hedges, soft and hard landscaping; estate roads and connections to the strategic infrastructure such as sewers and utilities.

5.3.25 The external works variable had been set at a rate of 10% of build cost.

Other development costs

Professional fees

5.3.26 This input incorporates all professional fees associated with the build, including fees for designs, planning, surveying, project managing, etc, at 10% of build cost plus externals.

Contingency

5.3.27 It is normal to build in contingency based on the risk associated with each site and has been calculated based on industry standards. They are applied at 5% of build cost plus externals.

S106, infrastructure and site opening costs

S106

5.3.28 The infrastructure requirements anticipated for the majority of small sites (under 10 dwellings) are likely to be met through off site delivery of infrastructure such as schools expansions, open space enhancements, SANGS or transport improvements. It is most likely that this will be met through the CIL and such infrastructure requirements will be identified through the Regulation 123 list.

5.3.29 On larger sites it is likely that substantial infrastructure requirements will continue to be considered through S106. However at this stage the specific requirements are unknown, so in determining a suitable level of CIL, sufficient headroom needs to be available to fund likely S106 requirements.

5.3.30 There are two exceptions to the above in respect of Strategic Access Maintenance and Management (SAMM) and gypsy and traveller sites. In terms of SAMMS these will be continued to be sought through S106 as they are not an infrastructure item and therefore cannot be funded through CIL – however they are calculated on a per dwelling basis using a tariff based system. Since, SAMM costs will continue to be paid by most housing developments (within specified areas and on a net increase basis); this is included as a cost default chargeable at about £700 per unit (although in reality this will vary by unit type or size).

5.3.31 One of the most significant items of S106 sought from residential development sites is affordable housing. This will be tested at different tenures and different proportions to enable the Council to understand the balance between affordable housing and infrastructure provision. Added to this the Council has draft policy indicating that gypsy and traveller (G&T) sites are to be provided on sites above 500 units, therefore we have tested the impact of this policy on development viability. The council’s requirements are as follows:

¡ two pitches or plots for 500 to 999 homes;

¡ four pitches or plots for 1,000 to 1,499 homes;

ITEM 9

Page 61


32

¡ six pitches or plots for 1,500 to 1,999 homes; and

¡ eight pitches or plots for 2,000 to 2,500 homes.

5.3.32 It is anticipated that each G&T pitch will on average be around 0.05 net hectares – this is based on general design guidance on pitch provision and experience in carrying out over 20 studies on provision of gypsy and traveller pitches. This includes space for turning vehicles, storage and sufficient room for the average number of caravans per pitch in Guildford, which is between one and two caravans per pitch. The cost of providing a serviced and ‘ready to go’ plot is around £100,000 per pitch. This figure has been derived through consultation with providers who have tendered for these types of development (based on schemes of between 3 and 20 pitches).

5.3.33 It is assumed that there will be no value in the transfer of the land for G&T pitches to a public sector provider, whether that is a local authority or a registered provider. It is also assumed that the land will be made over as a serviced plot with land preparation, including access and hard standings and utilities all provided. The £100,000 cost per pitch has therefore been added to the appraisals for applicable sites as described above.

Opening costs

5.3.34 Developing greenfield, brownfield and mixed sites represent different risk and costs. These costs can vary significantly depending on the site's specific characteristics. To reflect additional costs associated with the tested site typologies, the following assumptions apply:

¡ For brownfield site development for residential purposes, we have increased the build costs (for demolition and remediation) as follows:

o Brownfield £200,000 per net ha

o Large brownfield £150,000 per net ha

¡ On Greenfield sites we make an allowance for opening up works such as utilities, land preparation, SuDS and spine roads. There will be different levels of development costs according to the type and characteristics of each site. Opening up costs vary but generally increase as schemes get bigger. Owing to the nature of being generic appraisals, an allowance for opening costs is applied based on the size of site. Therefore the following opening costs are assumed

37:

o Less than 50 units £0k per unit

o 50-100 units £5k per unit



o 501 or more units £20k per unit

Land purchase costs

5.3.35 The land value needs to reflect additional purchase cost assumptions, shown in Table 5.5. These are based on surveying costs and legal costs to a developer in the acquisition of land and the development process itself, which have been established from discussions with developers and agents, and are also reflected in the Harman Report (2012) as industry standard rates.

37

Once detailed master-planning is undertaken there will be a better understanding of these various costs (site opening costs, site abnormals, and strategic infrastructure such as schools, highways etc.) to inform site specific assessments.

ITEM 9

Page 62


33

Table 5.5 Land purchase costs

Land purchase costs Rate Unit

Surveyor's fees 1.00% land value

Legal fees 0.75% land value

Stamp Duty Land Tax HMRC rate land value

Development finance for land purchase (pa) 6.00% land value

5.3.36 A Stamp Duty Land Tax is payable by a developer when acquiring development land. This factor has been recognised and applied to the residual valuation as percentage cost based on the HM Customs & Revenue variable rates against the residual land value.

5.3.37 These inputs are incorporated into the residual valuation value.

Sales fees

5.3.38 The Gross Development Value (GDV) on open market units need to reflect additional sales cost assumptions relating to the disposing of the completed residential units. This will include legal, agents and marketing fees at the rate of 3% of the open market unit GDV, which is based on industry accepted scales established from discussions with developers and agents.

Developer’s profit

5.3.39 The developer's profit is the expected and reasonable level of return that a private developer would expect to achieve from a specific development scheme. In relation to these sites the open market residential dwellings elements are assumed to achieve a profit of 20%, which is applied to their GDV. This also allows for internal overheads.

5.3.40 For the Affordable Housing element, because they will have some, albeit lower, risks to the developer, a lower 6% profit margin is assumed for the private house builders on a nil grant basis. This is applied to the below market development cost of the AH residential dwelling development.

Finance

5.3.41 A monthly cashflow based on a finance cost of 6% has been used throughout the sites appraisals. This is used to account for the cost of borrowing and the risk associated with the current economic climate and near term outlook and associated implications for the housing market. This is a typical rate which is being applied by developers to schemes of this nature.

5.4 Residential assessment outputs

5.4.1 This section sets out the assessment of residential development viability and also summarises the impact on viability of changes in values and costs, and how this might have an impact on the level of developer contribution.

5.4.2 Each generic site type has been subjected to a detailed appraisal, complete with cashflow analysis. A range of different scenarios are then presented, including residential policy costs, student accommodation, older people housing and exception. Each set of scenarios sets out the maximum headroom for development contributions for infrastructure, whether these are collected through a traditional S106 or CIL. An example of an appraisal is shown in Appendix B.

ITEM 9

Page 63


34

Scenario 1 – Residential development including draft policy requirements

5.4.3 The first scenario shows the results of the residential appraisals with 40/45% affordable and a threshold of 5 dwellings. Also included is provision of gypsy and traveller site on compliant sites. As can be seen from the results in Table 5.6, the majority of development is viable and generally provide a financial overage against a benchmark land value to accommodate a S106 contribution and/or CIL levy.

Table 5.6 Scenario 1 results

Site Typology Value Area Dwellings Affordable

housing Residual

land value Benchmark Headroom

No. % Per Ha Per Ha Per Ha CIL

liable Sqm

1 2 houses (Guildford)

Guildford 2 0% £6,219,160 £3,000,000 £3,219,160 £746

2 5 houses (Guildford)

Guildford 5 40% £5,384,394 £3,000,000 £2,384,394 £884

3 5 flats (Guildford) Guildford 5 40% £5,879,544 £3,000,000 £2,879,544 £548

4 20 mixed (Guildford)

Guildford 20 40% £7,383,256 £3,000,000 £4,383,256 £1,369


Guildford 50 40% £6,379,079 £3,000,000 £3,379,079 £1,177


Guildford 100 40% £6,713,859 £3,000,000 £3,713,859 £1,224


Guildford 200 40% £6,835,907 £3,000,000 £3,835,907 £1,196

8 100 Mixed (Ash and Tongham)

Ash & Tongham 100 45% £2,356,325 £1,300,000 £1,056,325 £405

9 2 houses (Ash & Tongham)

Ash & Tongham 2 0% £2,504,025 £1,500,000 £1,004,025 £186

10 10 houses (Ash & Tongham)

Ash & Tongham 10 40% £2,037,163 £1,500,000 £537,163 £166

11 15 flats (Ash & Tongham)

Ash & Tongham 15 40% -£2,673,313 £1,500,000 -£4,173,313 -£795

12 1 house (East rural)

East Rural 1 0% £5,364,585 £3,000,000 £2,364,585 £657

13 3 houses (East rural)

East Rural 3 0% £6,573,761 £3,500,000 £3,073,761 £665

14 8 houses (East rural)

East Rural 8 40% £5,149,754 £3,500,000 £1,649,754 £637

15 10 flats (East rural)

East Rural 10 40% £6,535,010 £3,500,000 £3,035,010 £723

16 30 flats (East rural)

East Rural 30 40% £6,177,460 £3,500,000 £2,677,460 £637

17 100 mixed (East rural)

East Rural 100 45% £7,971,523 £3,500,000 £4,471,523 £1,339

18 2 houses (West rural)

West Rural 2 0% £3,106,185 £2,500,000 £606,185 £140

ITEM 9

Page 64


35

19 5 houses (West rural)

West Rural 5 40% £2,502,148 £2,800,000 -£297,852 -£110

20 20 mixed (West rural)

West Rural 20 45% £3,810,442 £2,500,000 £1,310,442 £454

21 100 mixed (West rural)

West Rural 100 45% £4,112,144 £2,500,000 £1,612,144 £483

22 Gosden Hill Farm (Strategic Site)

Guildford 2,000 45% £4,277,095 £1,000,000 £3,277,095 £1,426

23 Blackwell Farm (Strategic Site)

Guildford 2,289 45% £5,161,607 £1,000,000 £4,161,607 £1,696

24 Former Wisley Airport (Strategic Site)

North East Rural 2,100 40% £2,332,302 £800,000 £1,532,302 £667

25 Slyfield (Strategic Site)

Guildford 1,084 0% £3,479,935 £1,000,000 £2,479,935 £522

26 Exception housing scheme

West Rural 10 100% -£236,803 £250,000 -£486,803 £0

27 Student Accommodation

Guildford 100 0% £3,105,828 £2,000,000 £1,105,828 £85

28 Care homes Guildford 40 0% £4,608,000 £3,000,000 £1,608,000 £158

29 Retirement living Guildford 40 0% £4,775,984 £3,000,000 £1,775,984 £268

30 Extra Care / Assisted living scheme

Guildford 40 0% £4,881,642 £3,000,000 £1,881,642 £347

5.4.4 The results suggest that the authority should pursue their policy approach to affordable housing and

gypsy and traveller provision on qualifying sites. As stated the headroom identified in Table 5.5 does not at this stage include an allowance for S106/278 or CIL. To come to a view regarding an appropriate level of CIL and any variance some further analysis has been undertaken in the following sections.

5.5 Residential viability zones

5.5.1 As previously stated, CIL Regulations (Regulation 13) allow the charging authority to introduce charging variations by geographical zone, by land use, or both. All differences in rates need to be justified by reference to the economic viability of development.

5.5.2 Setting up a CIL which levies different amounts on development in different places increases the complexity of evidence required, and may be contested at examination. However, it will be worthwhile if the additional complexity generates important additional revenues for contributing to the delivery of infrastructure and therefore growth.

Principles

5.5.3 Identifying different charging zones for CIL has inherent difficulties. For example, house prices are an imperfect indicator; and there is no certainty that we are comparing like products; even within a given type of dwelling, such as terraced houses, there will be variations in, say, quality or size which will impact on price. Also the assumed housing type split that is typical for Guildford may produce anomalies when applied to individual houses – especially around zonal boundaries. Even between areas with very different average prices, the prices of similar houses in different areas may considerably overlap.

ITEM 9

Page 65


36

5.5.4 A further problem with setting charging area boundaries is that they depend on how the boundaries are defined. Boundaries drawn in a different place might alter the average price of an area within the boundary, even with no change in individual house prices.

5.5.5 To avoid these statistical and boundary problems, it is considered that a robust set of differential charging zones should ideally meet two conditions:

i. The zones should be separated by substantial and clear-cut price differences; and

ii. They should also be separated by substantial and clear-cut geographical boundaries – for example, with zones defined as individual settlements or groups of settlements, as urban or rural parts of the authority. Any charging boundaries which might bisect a strategic site or development area should avoid.

5.5.6 It will be for the local authority to determine an appropriate zone, and this decision and delimitation should be based on the viability evidence within this report.

Method

5.5.7 Setting zones requires the marshalling of ‘appropriate available evidence’ available from a range of sources in order to advise on the best way forward. The following steps were taken:

¡ First step was to look at home prices. Sales prices of homes are a good proxy for viability. Land Registry data has been used to do this.

¡ Secondly, consultation with the Council on the distribution of development

¡ Thirdly, testing of this through formal development appraisals.

House prices

5.5.8 In advising on charging zones, the first step was to look at residential sales prices. In Figure 5.3 below, we looked at the average sales prices of all homes. Average prices are shown for each ward. Aside from the highest and lowest bands (which are tailored to actual values), average prices are broken into eight bands to show price variance across the borough.

5.5.9 This data is mapped to help understand the broad contours of residential prices in the Guildford area. Sales prices are a reasonable, though an imperfect, proxy for development viability, so the map provides a broad idea of which areas would tend to have more viable housing developments, with other things being equal.

5.5.10 It is worth noting that new homes are typically more expensive than second hand homes, but the prices mapped include both second hand and new homes. Data on both new and second hand homes was used because, firstly, datasets on sales values for new homes only was much smaller (and so more unstable) and, secondly, because at this stage the purpose is of the map is for identifying differentials between areas and not the absolute price levels. There were therefore good reasons to look at both new and second hand data, and no compelling reasons to avoid it.

5.5.11 The map shows that prices do vary across the borough, especially between the various settlements. In broad terms it can be seen that there are three broad areas:

¡ The highest values achieved in rural areas, especially to the east and south west

¡ Guildford town also achieves high values, although there is a slight variance between areas in the town

¡ The lowest values are to the west around Ash and Tongham,

ITEM 9

Page 66


37

5.5.12 On balance, this spread of prices from west to east, and rural and town, suggests that it might be worthwhile creating more than one charging band. However, it is also important to analyse how development is distributed before coming to a decision. If all development was going in a single price area, making geographical distinctions in the charging schedule would not be necessary.

Figure 5.3 Average house prices

Future supply

5.5.13 Understanding the patterns of development is therefore the next stage in our analysis. If the broad future housing supply is considered in relation to the average price bands, the scope for separate charging bands for residential development can be better understood.

5.5.14 Guildford’s housing supply is dispersed across the borough in a range of settlements from villages in the East to the main town of Guildford. However, more detailed analysis shows that of the approximately 14,660 dwellings being planned, the majority would be located in the strategic sites (note percentages do not sum due to rounding):

¡ Guildford town – 21% future supply by number of dwellings;

¡ Ash and Tongham - 8% future supply by number of dwellings

¡ Rural and villages – 14% future supply by number of dwellings; and

¡ Strategic sites – 56% future supply by number of dwellings.

ITEM 9

Page 67


38

5.6 Residential recommendations

5.6.1 Table 5.7 summarises the financial headroom for developments across the borough by area. The financial headroom is the difference between the residual value of the appraised scenario and the threshold benchmark land value. This headroom reflects the expected Local Plan policy compliant position, including the affordable housing rate of 40/45% for sites with a threshold of 5 units.

5.6.2 Please note that the average headroom shown is an average of the headroom, based on broad areas as set out in the individual typologies in Table 5.6. In some cases the average is influenced by one or two more extreme values for individual sites and thus on an average basis may appear to be unviable. In these circumstances we have carefully considered the nature of the types of development likely to come forward in any particular area and taken a view on setting a recommended CIL rate so as to leave sufficient buffer and allow for the majority of development in that particular area to come forward.

Table 5.7 Residential liable headroom and recommendations

Area/Use Average headroom

(per sqm) Recommended

CIL rate

Guildford town £1,020 £500

Ash & Tongham -£9 £100

East Rural £776 £300

West Rural £242 £300

Strategic sites £1,015 £400

Exception housing scheme £0 £0

5.6.3 For the non-strategic developments, the generic testing shows a clear difference in viability by area. Developments in Guildford generate the greatest headroom, whereas Ash & Tongham has a minor overall negative headroom. There is also a large difference between developments in the rural area depending on whether they are located in the east or west of the borough.

5.6.4 Across the borough, developments in the strategic sites generally generate the greatest headroom. However, it does vary within these areas according to the type and location of the development, with Blackwell Farm achieving £1,700 per sqm compared with £270 in Slyfield where the relocation of the sewage works is a significant burden on development.

5.6.5 Since there are differences in the values and the subsequent appraisal results between areas, there is sufficient evidence to be able to robustly define separate charging areas. In doing so, the following recommendations are offered in setting the CIL rate:

¡ Guildford town has sufficient headroom to comply with the proposed policy requirements. Therefore a CIL charging rate of £500 per sqm should provide the local authority with room for other site related S106 costs while achieving a substantial contribution towards infrastructure.

¡ The rural sites are deliverable in meeting proposed policy requirements with a CIL rate set at £300 per sqm. The rural areas in the East are able to comfortably meet this requirements, and most (three out of the four testing sites) in the rural west of the borough can afford this too. This rate provides a comfort buffer margin for most developments, with further scope for achieving some site specific S106 contributions.

¡ Despite showing an overall lack of viability, most developments in Ash and Tongham are able to comfortably afford a CIL rate of £100 sqm. The exception appears to be a flatted development where market evidence indicates the values to be low. However, this form of development is unlikely to be popular and it should not undermine the delivery of the proposed Local Plan.

ITEM 9

Page 68


39

¡ The strategic sites do have a significantly different ability to pay a CIL charge as they have higher development costs including essential infrastructure which will be sought through S106 and therefore warrant a separate charge zone. Therefore because of the importance of these sites in delivering the future housing supply and the need for site specific mitigations, a large buffer is suggested and therefore it is recommended that a CIL charge of £400 is set.

¡ In terms of the new settlement at Slyfield, it is accepted that although much work has been undertaken in understanding the likely S106/278 costs on such a large site, there is still uncertainty whilst the masterplan is developed and until a formal planning application is submitted. Rather than allow this site to undermine the CIL rate, the importance of the site in future housing supply should be considered through a review of the required affordable housing requirements. With a CIL charge of £400 per sqm, Slyfield should comfortably achieve viability at lower affordable housing rate of 10%, along with potentially some further S106. Alternatively if the affordable housing rate was raised to 40% the CIL would need to be much lower at around £150 per sqm.

Scenario 2 – Alternative approaches to Student Accommodation

5.6.6 The Council’s draft policy (Policy 4) sets out a requirement for affordable housing to be provided through a commuted sum on off campus schemes of 20 or more units. To test the viability of this policy affordable housing has been tested at zero, the policy rate of 40% and 20% and 30% to provide a range.

5.6.7 Table 5.8 sets out the results of this testing. It is clear that with no affordable housing student accommodation is sufficiently viable to pay a levy, with a head room of £111 per sqm. This suggests, allowing for a buffer, that a CIL rate of around £75 per sqm would be appropriate. However if affordable housing is included, even as a commuted sum, then at most this would be around 10% but no CIL will be achievable.

Table 5.8 Student Accommodation and affordable housing

Use

Maximum level of CIL (or headroom) liable development

£ per sq. m

0% affordable housing





Student Accommodation

£111 £46 -£34 -£138 -£34

5.6.8 Therefore on this basis the evidence suggest that policy 4 should be amended to exclude Student Accommodation from being required to contribute towards affordable housing. However a CIL charge will be possible.

Scenario 3 – Housing for older people

5.6.9 As with student accommodation, draft Policy 4 requires commuted sums payments for residential developments targeted at older people (over 20 units). This includes both retirement apartments and assisted living/extra care schemes. It is recognised that whilst retirement apartments share characteristics with normal flatted development there is a greater area of communal spaces within assisted living and extra care schemes. However whilst development costs might be marginally higher there is also a premium on prices for these types of developments and extra charges that pay for the additional services and facilities that are available.

ITEM 9

Page 69


40

5.6.10 For completeness the viability of care (C2) and retirement home products have also been tested. Table 5.9 shows the results of testing these different types of schemes.

ITEM 9

Page 70


41

Table 5.9 Housing for older people summary

Use

Maximum level of CIL (or headroom) liable development

£ per sq. m






Care Home £53 -£16 -£101 -£214 -£361

Retirement Living

£268 £209 £136 £41 -£85

Assisted Living/ Extra Care

£347 £290 £220 £129 £7

Care homes

5.6.11 There has been significant private sector investment in care homes in the recent past, fuelled by investment funds seeking new returns. However, there have been concerns about the occupancy rates and the ability to sustain prices in some areas, although the general residential market in Guildford as discussed previously is relatively strong.

5.6.12 As expected the care home market shows weak prospects in terms of acquiring a commuted sum for off-site affordable housing along with setting a positive CIL charge. As the figure in Table 5.9 shows, a 10% affordable housing contribution may cause a burden on this form of new development. With a maximum CIL headroom of £53 per sqm, then without any other S106 or Affordable housing obligations, there is a possibility for seeking a contribution through CIL at no more than £25 (after allowing for a safety buffer). Although the authority may want to be even more cautious and set a zero rate.

Retirement/Assisted living

5.6.13 Retirement living and or extra care living does show significant headroom although not as high as normal residential development in this particular area. Affordable housing through a commuted sum is possible although not at the 40% affordable housing rate. If the Council wants to set a CIL for this type of development then it is suggested that affordable housing is set at 20% with a CIL of around £100 per sqm.

Scenario 4 – Exception housing

5.6.14 Policy 5 in the draft Local Plan allows rural exception homes on sites that may otherwise not normally be allowed, on the basis that they are meeting local affordable housing needs. In some circumstances the authority has indicated , through the accompanying text to the policy, that a market house may be permitted to help subsidise the development of the affordable housing, but only if the price of the land is no more than 10 times agricultural value. Given the local market and the high land values and property prices for market housing this is a considered and reasonable approach to help ensure provision of affordable housing.

5.6.15 In order to test the viability of this approach table 5.8 shows the viability of scheme for 10 dwellings in the rural area with 100% affordable housing and 90% affordable housing, i.e. 9 affordable unit and 1 market house. Agricultural land values range from around £15,000 to £25,000 per gross hectare in this area. Therefore, assuming the middle ground of £20,000 per hectare, the benchmark threshold land value is set at £200,000 (10 times the agricultural value).

ITEM 9

Page 71


42

Table 5.10 Rural exception summary

Use

Maximum level of headroom

£ per sq. m

100% affordable housing 90% affordable housing

Rural exception scheme

£24 £119

5.6.16 The results set out in Table 5.10 suggest that if a threshold land value of £200,000 is assumed and the scheme is 100% affordable housing then it is marginally viable. However, if build costs rise or land value is higher the scheme may become unviable, however it is anticipated that as exception schemes land values should generally be lower than 10 times agricultural value. If a market dwelling is added then the scheme becomes much more viable with significant headroom, although this would be reduced slightly with the market dwelling being liable for CIL.

Scenario 5 – Commuted sums

5.6.17 As identified in Chapter 2, there is scope to secure commuted sums for off-site delivery for affordable housing where appropriate. This scenario attempts to streamline the calculation of financial contributions to off-site affordable housing.

5.6.18 The general approach is a contribution to off-site affordable housing based on the permitted number of on-site dwellings.

5.6.19 The scale of the contribution that developers should make for off-site affordable housing is derived from the projected opportunity cost of on-site affordable housing provision to the developer. The opportunity cost value is taken from the residual value of land with no affordable housing minus the residual value of land with the proposed rate of affordable housing on site. The difference is then divided by the number of on-site permitted units (including both open market and affordable units) to provide a per affordable housing unit opportunity cost.

5.6.20 To assess the capacity of different types of development to pay an affordable housing contribution in Guildford Borough, indicative development appraisal summaries of tested typologies where the currently proposed affordable housing requirements would be required, are considered as set out in Table 5.11. Since CIL would be liable on open market units, an assumed CIL charge based on the recommendations in Chapter 7 is also applied since this will place a cost on development that would normally come off the purchase land value.

Table 5.11 Site appraisal identifying potential for off-site affordable housing contributions

Site/Typology Dwellings Affordable housing Residual land value

Opportunity cost of AH

Equivalent value

Total nr Rate With no AH With AH (difference

in RV) Per unit

5 houses (Guildford) 5 0% £897,851 £500,000 £397,851 £79,570

5 flats (Guildford) 5 0% £331,666 £136,023 £195,642 £39,128

20 mixed (Guildford) 20 0% £3,914,969 £2,323,314 £1,591,654 £79,583

50 mixed (Guildford) 50 0% £9,523,053 £5,550,109 £3,972,944 £79,459

100 mixed 100 0% £18,977,304 £11,060,381 £7,916,923 £79,169

ITEM 9

Page 72


43

(Guildford)

200 mixed (Guildford) 200 0% £36,888,409 £21,187,956 £15,700,452 £78,502

100 Mixed (Ash and Tongham) 100 0% £9,092,369 £4,689,637 £4,402,733 £44,027

10 houses (Ash & Tongham) 10 0% £735,475 £346,811 £388,664 £38,866

15 flats (Ash & Tongham) 15 0% -£140,673 -£381,389 £240,716 £16,048

8 houses (East rural) 8 0% £1,412,376 £885,838 £526,538 £65,817

10 flats (East rural) 10 0% £880,359 £536,622 £343,737 £34,374

30 flats (East rural) 30 0% £2,533,119 £1,505,095 £1,028,024 £34,267

100 mixed (East rural) 100 0% £19,243,465 £12,206,564 £7,036,901 £70,369

5 houses (West rural) 5 0% £485,797 £213,179 £272,617 £54,523

20 mixed (West rural) 20 0% £2,375,902 £1,204,289 £1,171,614 £58,581

100 mixed (West rural) 100 0% £11,365,373 £5,531,470 £5,833,903 £58,339

5.6.21 The findings suggest that, at the proposed affordable housing rates and recommended CIL rates, an off-site contribution at the following rates are suggested:

¡ Between £40,000 and £80,000 per permitted unit in Guildford ;

¡ Between £16,000 and £44,000 per permitted unit in Ash & Tongham; and

¡ Between £34,000 and £70,000 per permitted unit in rural areas.

5.7 Summary of all residential testing

5.7.1 The relatively high values achieved in Guildford Borough means that most forms of residential development are viable. Coupled with a lack of large sites currently suitable and available for development, this means that market across the borough is buoyant and is amongst the best performing areas in the country outside central London.

5.7.2 However the borough does not have a one size fits all viability picture. Guildford and the rural areas enjoy the higher values and can thus accommodate a higher level of CIL and other development costs. Ash and Tongham does not have the same market as the rest of Guildford and therefore a different approach is required in that location. There is also a case to be made for a different approach to the strategic sites, where, whilst their values are not dissimilar to other types of development they will have higher S106 costs as infrastructure is more likely to be provided on site.

5.7.3 Other forms of residential accommodation for students and older people are viable but not as significantly as the general market housing and therefore a more cautious approach to policy requirements and CIL setting is required.

5.7.4 Lastly, should the Council seek to provide an alternative to on-site provision of affordable housing, then it would be possible to set a contribution towards off-site delivery. The findings suggest that a charge of between £10,000 upwards to £80,000 per permitted dwelling, depending on location, would be possible.

ITEM 9

Page 73


44

6 Non-residential Market and Viability

6.1 Assumptions

6.1.1 None of the Local Plan policies considered in Chapter 5 are seen to burden the viability for delivering non-residential uses in the Plan period. Therefore, this section sets out the assumptions used for the non-residential viability testing work to scope solely the potential for collecting CIL.

6.1.2 The initial appraisals make no allowance for either CIL or S106 contributions to establish if there is for scope to charge CIL.

6.2 Site typologies

6.2.1 The testing has been conducted on a hypothetical typical site basis. This is because it is impossible for this study to consider viability on a site-specific basis at this stage, given that there is currently insufficient data on site-specific costs and values, as site details have yet to be established. Such detail will evolve over the plan period.

38

Site coverage and floorspace

6.2.2 As the viability testing in some circumstances is being undertaken on a ‘per net developable hectare’ basis, it is important to consider the density of development proposed. The following table sets out the assumed net developable site area for each development type, the amount of floorspace this is likely to support within Guildford and the site area coverage.

Table 6.1 Non-residential uses – rent and yields

Use Net site area

(ha)

Floorspace

(GIA sqm)

Site coverage

1. Retail – Town centre 0.02 200 100%

2. Retail – Out of centre comparison 0.13 500 50%

3. Supermarket 0.50 2,000 40%

4. Local convenience 0.04 300 80%

5. Town centre office 0.08 1,500 150%

6. Out of centre offices 0.50 2,000 100%

7. Industrial factories 0.25 1,000 50%

8. Warehouse/stores 0.25 1,000 50%

9. Budget Hotel 0.10 1,200 120%

Source: PBA research

6.3 Establishing Gross Development Value (GDV)

6.3.1 In establishing the GDV for non-residential uses, this report has also considered historical comparable evidence for new values on a local and for some uses, national, level.

38

Site-specific testing would be considering detail on purely speculative/assumed scenarios, producing results that would be of little use for a study for strategic consideration.

ITEM 9

Page 74


45

6.3.2 The following table illustrates the values established for a variety of non-residential uses, expressed in sqm of net rentable floorspace and yield. The table is based on our knowledge of the market and analysis of comparable transaction data. The data has then been corroborated through a discussion with local stakeholders and through the stakeholder workshop.

Table 6.2 Non-residential uses – rent and yields

Use Rent Yield

1. Retail – Town centre £270 6.80%

2. Retail – Out of centre comparison £209 6.60%

3. Supermarket £240 5.00%

4. Local convenience £220 6.90%

5. Town centre office £210 8.60%

6. Out of centre offices £180 9.20%

7. Industrial factories £92 10.50%

8. Warehouse/stores £80 9.40%

9. Budget hotel £150 6.40%


6.4 Costs

6.4.1 Like in the residential uses testing, once a GDV has been established the cost of development (including developer profit) is then deducted. For the purposes of viability testing, the following costs and variables are some of the key inputs used within the assessment:

¡ Build Costs;

¡ Professional Fees and overheads;

¡ Marketing Fees;

¡ Legal Fees and land Stamp Duty Tax

¡ Finance costs; and

¡ Developer profit.

Build costs

6.4.2 Build cost inputs have been established from the RICS Build Cost Information Service (BCIS) at values set at the time of this study (current build cost values) and rebased to Guildford prices. The build costs adopted are based on the BCIS mean values shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Non-residential uses – build costs

Use Build cost per sqm

1. Retail – Town centre £1,118

2. Retail – Out of centre comparison £656

3. Supermarket £1,445

ITEM 9

Page 75


46

4. Local convenience £1,245

5. Town centre office £1,406

6. Out of centre offices £1,451

7. Industrial factories £751

8. Warehouse/stores £557

9. Budget hotel £1,656

Sources: BCIS

External works

6.4.3 Plot externals relate to costs for internal access roads, car parking and hard and soft landscaping associated with the site curtilage of the built area.

6.4.4 This input incorporates all additional costs, so the external works variable had been set at a rate of 10% of build cost.

Other development costs

Professional fees

6.4.5 This input incorporates all professional fees associated with the build, including fees for designs, planning, surveying, project managing, etc, at 10% of build cost plus externals.

Contingency

6.4.6 It is normal to build in contingency based on the risk associated with each site and has been calculated based on industry standards. They are applied at 4% of build cost plus externals.

Acquisition fees and Land Tax

6.4.7 This input represents the fees associated with the land purchase and are based upon the following industry standards: Surveyor – 1%; Legals – 0.75% of residual land value.

6.4.8 A Stamp Duty Land Tax is payable by a developer when acquiring development land. This factor has been recognised and applied to the residual valuation as percentage cost against the residual land value at the standard variable rates set out by HMRC (0 – 4% of land value).

Developer profit

6.4.9 The developer’s profit is the expected and reasonable level of return a private developer can expect to achieve from a development scheme. This figure is based a 20% profit margin of the total Gross Development Value (GDV) of the development.

ITEM 9

Page 76


47

Finance

6.4.10 A monthly cashflow based on a finance cost of 7% has been used throughout the sites appraisals. This is used to account for the cost of borrowing and the risk associated with the current economic climate and near term outlook and associated implications for the market specific to the proposed development.

Land for non-residential uses

6.4.11 After systematically removing the various costs and variables detailed above, the result is the residual land value. These are measured against a benchmark value which reflects a value range that a landowner would reasonably be expected to sell/release their land for development.

6.4.12 Establishing the existing use value (EUV) of land and in setting a benchmark at which a landowner is prepared to sell to enable a consideration of viability can be a complex process. There are a wide range of site specific variables which affect land sales (e.g. position of the landowner – are they requiring a quick sale or is it a long term land investment). However, for a strategic study, where the land values on future individual sites are unknown, a pragmatic approach is required.

6.4.13 VOA data from 2008 suggests that average industrial land value for Guildford was in the region of £2,000,000 per hectare. From discussions with agents’ active in the commercial sector, and an analysis of recent transactional data, a benchmark figure of £2,200,000 is considered appropriate. Discussions with agents also confirmed that this figure is both higher for units in town centre locations and varies depending on type of development.

6.4.14 We have therefore concluded that a benchmark figure towards the lower end of the range of £2,000,000/ha is appropriate as a starting point. The benchmark is then adjusted on the basis of location and different uplifts applied according to use. So for example a town site will be at the upper end of the existing use value as it will already have a comparatively high value and if the potential use is retail then it will also have a higher uplift value as expectation on return will be higher.

6.5 Non-residential assessment outputs

6.5.1 This section sets out the assessment of non-residential development viability and also summarises the impact on viability of changes in values and costs, and how this might have an impact on the level of developer contribution. The tables below summarise the detailed assessments, and represent the net value per sqm, the net costs per sqm (including an allowance for land cost) and the balance between the two.

6.5.2 It is important to note that the analysis considers development that might be built for subsequent sale or rent to a commercial tenant. However there will also be bespoke development that is undertaken for specific commercial operators either as owners or pre-lets.

Retail uses

6.5.3 The appraisal summary shown in Table 6.4 is for all retail development. As identified there is scope for charging, to various degrees, on all types of retail uses.

6.5.4 Our testing shows that residual values for all types of tested retail development within the borough are viable. This is not surprising given the buoyancy of the town centre and the attraction the centre has to the market. Given that all the typologies are viable and these reflect what is most likely to happen over the plan period the Council, in the spirit of the regulations and statutory guidance could opt for a simple approach and set a flat rate that applies to all retail development.

ITEM 9

Page 77


48

Table 6.4 Summary of Retail uses viability (headroom per sqm)

Use

Retail – Town centre

comparison

Retail – Out of centre

comparison Supermarket Local

convenience

CIL overage £677 £501 £491 £231


B-class uses

6.5.5 In line with other areas of the country our analysis suggests that for commercial B-class development it is not currently viable to charge a CIL. Whilst there is variance for different types of B-space, essentially none of them generate sufficient value to justify a CIL charge.

6.5.6 As the economy recovers this situation may improve but for the purposes of setting a CIL we need to consider the current market. Importantly this viability assessment relates to speculative build for rent – we do expect that there will be development to accommodate specific users, and this will based on the profitability of the occupier’s core business activities rather than the market values of the development.

Table 6.5 Summary of B-class uses development viability (headroom per sqm)

Use Town centre

office Out of centre

offices Industrial factories

Warehouse/ stores

CIL overage -£209 -£880 -£723 -£506


Hotel development

6.5.7 The rapid expansion in the sector at the end of the last decade was in part fuelled by a preference for management contracts or franchise operations over traditional lease contracts. Outside London, which has shown remarkable resilience to the recession, hotel development is being strongly driven by the budget operators delivering new projects through traditional leasehold arrangements with institutional investors. Feedback from the workshop suggested that it was more likely for these types of hotels to be delivered in this borough.

6.5.8 As can be seen in Table 6.6, hotel development in Guildford does not realise sufficient residual value to warrant a positive levy charge.

Table 6.6 Summary of Hotel viability (headroom per sqm)

Use Hotels

CIL overage -£395


ITEM 9

Page 78


49

7 Conclusions and findings

7.1 Viability findings

7.1.1 The assessment identified the policies most likely to impact on the residential viability of the Local Plan were affordable housing, gypsy and traveller sites and infrastructure (wide ranging). Other policy costs identified are already factored into the viability appraisal 'inputs'.

7.1.2 The emerging Local Plan indicates that the housing supply is dependent on the delivery of a mix of small and large urban brownfield sites, small/medium greenfield sites and strategic sites. This has shaped the viability assumptions for the urban and greenfield sites.

7.1.3 An important study finding is that Guildford has distinct value areas, ranging from low value areas in Ash and Tongham to much higher values in Guildford and the rural areas. Thus it is considered, based on the evidence, that there are effectively three value zones. This was further agreed by the stakeholder consultations and supported by the research on sales values.

7.1.4 The relatively high values achieved in Guildford means that viability of development is not an issue in many places across the borough. This is reflected in the housing market which has been identified as one of the best performing markets outside of London.

7.1.5 The review of planning consents identified that the majority of qualifying applications have included affordable housing even when there has been no grant available.

7.2 Is the Local Plan deliverable?

7.2.1 The final stage of this viability assessment is to draw broad conclusions on whether the Guildford Local Plan is deliverable in terms of viability.

7.2.2 Chapter 5 shows that most of the residential development scenarios relevant to the planned trajectory are currently viable, even when all additional policy costs are included. Where typologies are viable once affordable housing and infrastructure policy costs are included, the viability of schemes varies further depending on the scale of policy obligation.

7.2.3 Where development is marginal with full policy costs (student housing and housing for older people in particular), some policy trade-off will be required between affordable housing and infrastructure (as outlined below). The Council will need to carefully consider the requirements set out in their Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Housing Market Assessment to arrive at an appropriate balance.

7.2.4 The viability assessment has been tested at current costs and current values. There has not been a need to test the impact of longer term variations in assumptions, as the plan has be demonstrated to be viable based on current values and with the inclusion of a sensible mix of policies.

7.2.5 With regard to non-residential element of the planned development, the delivery of schemes taking place is less affected by the impact of 'policy burdens' and more sensitive to wider economic market conditions of demand and supply for such development. The viability assessment assessed a range of speculative development scenarios, without the imposition of any planning obligations and found the schemes most likely to take place are those that have an identified client requiring specific development requirements rather than speculative delivery.

The study findings for affordable housing policy and infrastructure

ITEM 9

Page 79


50

7.2.6 The whole plan viability assessment and emerging options for affordable housing policy and infrastructure (in the form of CIL and S106) are set out in chapter 5 and 6. The main findings and policy trade-off to inform the recommendation options are as follows:

¡ The appraisal findings demonstrate that viability does vary across the borough and that different policy approaches may be required for different areas

¡ Ash and Tongham has the lowest headroom for viability and in one scenario (100% flatted development) is not viable. However, one scenario should not guide the overall approach and a CIL can be set with the appropriate affordable housing level

¡ Development within Guildford town and in the rural areas is viable and the large headroom suggest significant scope to charge a levy

¡ Development of onsite gypsy and traveller sites is likely to be viable on the strategic sites, subject to sensitive design and layouts.

¡ The strategic sites are all viable, although caution should be exercised in setting a CIL rate in order to allow for the currently unknown site specific S106 costs. As this information becomes available further testing is advised.

¡ The non-residential viability assessment indicates that very little speculative development is viable at present apart from retail development. It would be prudent to err on the side of caution to avoid charging at the margins of viability, and therefore a figure of up to £200 sq.m may be appropriate for retail uses

¡ There is also potential for a levy on student accommodation and housing for older people, but because of more limited headroom the council will need to consider an alternative affordable housing approach.

¡ A contribution towards off-site delivery of affordable housing of between £10,000 upwards to £80,000 per permitted dwelling, depending on location, would be possible.

Study recommendations

7.2.7 The viability appraisal findings demonstrate that policy trade-off decisions are required between the need to deliver infrastructure to support the delivery of growth and meeting the affordable housing need if the delivery of the Local Plan overall is to remain viable. These decisions will be informed in part by the requirement to meet housing need, infrastructure need and political priorities.

7.2.8 The Local Plan policy and CIL charge recommendation options are set out in table 7.1. A charging zone map is also included below the Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Policy and CIL recommendations

Policy position Recommendations

Affordable housing percentage

To be included within Plan policy:

45% affordable housing target greenfield sites

40% affordable housing target brownfield sites

40/45% strategic sites*

ITEM 9

Page 80


51

0% affordable housing student accommodation

20% affordable housing target retirement and assisted living/extra care schemes

0% affordable housing target care homes

Housing tenure

To be included with Plan text:

Target of 70% Affordable rent and 30% Intermediate or other tenure types to be included as a target within supporting text, to allow flexibility, where schemes are marginal

Gypsy and travellers

To be included within Plan policy:

Requirement for onsite provision for gypsy and travellers on sites above 500 dwellings but subject to viability

CIL

The residential CIL should be set according to the affordable housing and proportions set out above:

Ash and Tongham – £100 per sqm CIL

Guildford town (excluding strategic sites) - £500 per sqm CIL

Rural areas and villages - £300 per sqm CIL

Strategic sites* - £400 per sqm CIL

Student accommodation - £75 per sqm CIL

Assisted living/extra care housing - £100 per sqm CIL

On non-residential development CIL should be set at:

All retail floorspace - £200 per sqm CIL

All other forms of liable floorspace - £0 per sqm CIL

Exception housing

Policy should allow up to ten percent market housing on exceptions schemes as long as land values do not exceed 10 times the prevailing agricultural land value.

*Slyfield Strategic site

There is a policy choice here with either 40% affordable housing at 150 CIL or 10% affordable and £400 CIL

ITEM 9

Page 81


52

Figure 7.1 Draft Charging zones

.

ITEM 9

Page 82


53

Appendix A Viability assumptions

Residential typology land areas and densities

Residential typology unit types

Ref Typology

Gross area

(ha)

Net area

(ha) Total dwg/net ha)

G&T pitches

(Policy 3)

1 2 houses (Guildford) Brownfield 0.05 0.05 2 40 -

2 5 houses (Guildford) Brownfield 0.12 0.12 5 42 -

3 5 flats (Guildford) Brownfield 0.04 0.04 5 125 -

4 20 mixed (Guildford) Brownfield 0.50 0.39 20 51 -




8 100 Mixed (Ash and Tongham) Greenfield 3.20 2.21 100 45 -

9 2 houses (Ash & Tongham) Brownfield 0.04 0.04 2 50 -

10 10 houses (Ash & Tongham) Brownfield 0.20 0.20 10 50 -

11 15 flats (Ash & Tongham) Brownfield 0.12 0.12 15 125 -

12 1 house (East rural) Greenfield 0.03 0.03 1 33 -

13 3 houses (East rural) Brownfield 0.07 0.07 3 43 -

14 8 houses (East rural) Brownfield 0.20 0.20 8 40 -

15 10 flats (East rural) Brownfield 0.10 0.10 10 100 -

16 30 flats (East rural) Brownfield 0.30 0.30 30 100 -

17 100 mixed (East rural) Greenfield 2.50 1.73 100 58 -

18 2 houses (West rural) Greenfield 0.05 0.05 2 40 -

19 5 houses (West rural) Brownfield 0.12 0.12 5 42 -

20 20 mixed (West rural) Greenfield 0.40 0.40 20 50 -

21 100 mixed (West rural) Greenfield 2.50 1.73 100 58 -

22 Gosden Hill Farm (Strategic Site) Greenfield 88.83 48.36 2,000 41 8

23 Blackwell Farm (Strategic Site) Greenfield 105.00 56.55 2,289 40 8

24 Former Wisley Airport (Strategic Site) Mixed 114.00 57.00 2,100 37 8

25 Slyfield (Strategic Site) Brownfield 41.00 23.44 1,084 46 4

26 Exception housing scheme Greenfield 0.35 0.35 10 29 -

27 Student Accommodation Brownfield 0.20 0.20 100 500 -

28 Care homes Brownfield 0.20 0.20 40 200 -

29 Retirement homes Brownfield 0.45 0.34 40 119 -

30 Extra Care / Assisted living scheme Brownfield 0.55 0.41 40 98 -

Ref Typology 1-2 bed Flats

2 bed

house 3 bed house

4+ bed

house

1-2 bed

Flats 2 bed house 3 bed house

4+ bed

house

1 2 houses (Guildford) 0% 33% 43% 23% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 5 houses (Guildford) 0% 33% 43% 23% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

3 5 flats (Guildford) 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4 20 mixed (Guildford) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

5 50 mixed (Guildford) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

6 100 mixed (Guildford) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

7 200 mixed (Guildford) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

8 100 Mixed (Ash and Tongham) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

9 2 houses (Ash & Tongham) 0% 33% 43% 23% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 10 houses (Ash & Tongham) 0% 33% 43% 23% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

11 15 flats (Ash & Tongham) 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

12 1 house (East rural) 0% 33% 43% 23% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

13 3 houses (East rural) 0% 33% 43% 23% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

14 8 houses (East rural) 0% 33% 43% 23% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

15 10 flats (East rural) 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16 30 flats (East rural) 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

17 100 mixed (East rural) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

18 2 houses (West rural) 0% 33% 43% 23% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

19 5 houses (West rural) 0% 33% 43% 23% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

20 20 mixed (West rural) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

21 100 mixed (West rural) 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

22 Gosden Hill Farm (Strategic Site) 25% 15% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

23 Blackwell Farm (Strategic Site) 4% 21% 45% 30% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% 10.0%

24 Former Wisley Airport (Strategic Site) 10% 30% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

25 Slyfield (Strategic Site) 25% 7% 47% 21% 25% 7% 47% 21%

26 Exception housing scheme 5% 35% 40% 20% 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 5.0%

27 Student Accommodation 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28 Care homes 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

29 Retirement homes 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

30 Extra Care / Assisted living scheme 100% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

OM dwelling type (%) AH dwelling type (%)

ITEM 9

Page 83


54

Residential typology unit sizes

Unit type Unit size (sqm)

Flats (NIA) 66

Flats (GIA) 70

2 bed house 90

3 bed house 110

4+ bed house 130

ITEM 9

Page 84


55

Appendix B Example appraisals

Non Residential

2. Retail – Out of centre comparison

ITEM

Residual value

Net Site Area 0.13 £5,204,405.06 per ha

1.0 Development Value

No. of units Size sq.m Rent Yield Value per unit Capital Value

1.1 2. Retail – Out of centre comparison 1 475 209 6.6% £1,504,167 £1,504,167

Rent free period Adjusted for rent free

No. of months 3 £1,480,324

5.75%

Total development value £1,395,205

2.0 Development Cost

2.1 Site Acquisition

2.1.1 Site value (residual land value) £650,551

5.75%

£687,957

2.2 Build Costs

No. of units Size sq.m Cost per sq.m Total Costs

2.2.1 2. Retail – Out of centre comparison 1 500 £656 £328,000

£328,000

2.3 Externals

2.3.1 external works as a percentage of build costs 10.0% £32,800

£32,800

2.4 Professional Fees

2.4.1 as percentage of build costs & externals 10% £36,080

£36,080

2.5 Total construction costs £396,880

3.0 Contingency

3.1.1 as a percentage of total construction costs 4% £15,875.20

£15,875

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS (including land payment) £1,100,712

4.0 Developers' Profit

Rate

4.1 as percentage of total development costs 20% £220,142

£220,142

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS [EXCLUDING INTEREST] £1,320,855

TOTAL INCOME - TOTAL COSTS [EXCLUDING INTEREST] £74,350

5.00 Finance Costs APR PCM

7.00% 0.565% -£74,350

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS [INCLUDING INTEREST] £1,395,205

Purchaser costs

This appraisal has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates on behalf of Guildford Council. The appraisal has been prepared in line with the RICS valuation guidance. The purpose of

the appraisal is to inform Guildford Council as to the impact of planning policy has on viability at a strategic borough level. This appraisal is not a formal 'Red Book' (RICS Valuation –

Professional Standards January 2014) valuation and should not be relied upon as such.

ITEM 9

Page 85


56

Residential

20 mixed (Guildford)Guildford 20 Units

ITEM

Residual Value Technical Checks:

Net Site Area 0.39 Brownfield £7,383,256 per net ha Sqm/ha 5,022

Units/pa 13

Dwgs/ha 51

Units Private Affordable Social rent Intermediate rentShared ownership GDV=Total costs -

Yield 20 12.00 8.00 0.00 5.60 2.40

1.0 Development Value

1.1 Private units No. of units Size sq.m Total sq.m £psm Total Value

Flats (NIA) 0.60 66 40 £3,667 £145,213

2 bed house 4.20 90 378 £4,584 £1,732,752

3 bed house 4.80 110 528 £4,584 £2,420,352

4+ bed house 2.40 130 312 £4,584 £1,430,208

12.0 1,258

1.2 Social rent No. of units Size sq.m Total sq.m £psm Total Value

Flats (NIA) 0.00 66 0 £1,650 £0

2 bed house 0.00 90 0 £2,063 £0

3 bed house 0.00 110 0 £2,063 £0

4+ bed house 0.00 130 0 £2,063 £0

- -

1.3 Affordable rent No. of units Size sq.m Total sq.m £psm Total Value

Flats (NIA) 1.68 66 111 £2,017 £223,628

2 bed house 2.24 90 202 £2,521 £508,274

3 bed house 1.40 110 154 £2,521 £388,265

4+ bed house 0.28 130 36 £2,521 £91,772

5.6 503

1.3 Intermediate No. of units Size sq.m Total sq.m £psm Total Value

Flats (NIA) 0.72 66 48 £2,384 £113,266

2 bed house 0.96 90 86 £2,980 £257,437

3 bed house 0.60 110 66 £2,980 £196,654

4+ bed house 0.12 130 16 £2,980 £46,482

2.4 216

Gross Development value £7,554,303

2.0 Development Cost

2.1 Site Acquisition

2.1.1 Site value (residual land value) £2,904,929

5.75%

3,071,963

2.3 Build Costs

2.3.1 Private units No. of units Size sq.m Total sq.m Cost per sq.m Total Costs

Flats (GIA) 0.60 70 42 £1,269 £53,298.00

2 bed house 4.20 90 378 £1,070 £404,460.00

3 bed house 4.80 110 528 £1,070 £564,960.00

4+ bed house 2.40 130 312 £1,070 £333,840.00

12 1,260

2.3.2 Affordable units No. of units Size sq.m Total sq.m Cost per sq.m Total Costs

Flats (GIA) 2.40 70 168 £1,269 £213,192.00

2 bed house 3.20 90 288 £1,070 £308,160.00

3 bed house 2.00 110 220 £1,070 £235,400.00

4+ bed house 0.40 130 52 £1,070 £55,640.00

8 728

2.3.3 Extra-over BR2014 £450 per unit £9,000

20.00 £2,177,950

2.4 Construction Costs

2.4.1 External works as a percentage of build costs 10% £217,795.00

2.4.2 Site abnormals (remediation/demolition) £200,000 per net ha £78,690

2.4.2 Site opening up costs £0 £0

£296,485

2.5 Professional Fees

2.5.1 10% of build cost (incl: externals) £239,575

£239,575

2.6 Contingency

2.6.1 5% as percentage of build costs £119,787

£119,787

2.7 Extra overs

2.7.1 Lifetime homes £0 per unit £0

2.7.2 CSH Level 4 0.0% build cost £0

2.7.3 Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Contributions £750 per unit £15,000

2.7.3 G&T pitches £100,000 per pitch £0

2.7.4 CIL £0 per sq.m £0

£15,000

2.8 Sale cost

2.8.1 3.00% as percentage of GDV £171,856

£171,856

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS (including land) £6,092,615

3.0 Developer's Profit

3.1 Private units 20% of gross development value £1,145,705

3.2 Affordable units 6% of build cost £109,547

£1,255,252

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS [EXCLUDING INTEREST] £7,347,866

TOTAL INCOME - TOTAL COSTS [EXCLUDING INTEREST] £206,437

4.0 Finance Costs

APR PCM

4.1 Finance 6.00% 0.487% -£206,437

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS [INCLUDING INTEREST] £7,554,303

Purchaser Costs

This appraisal has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates for the Council. The appraisal has been prepared in line with the RICS valuation guidance. The purpose of the appraisal is to inform the Council about the impact of

planning policy has on viability at a strategic level. This appraisal is not a formal 'Red Book' (RICS Valuation – Professional Standards January 2014) valuation and should not be relied upon as such.

ITEM 9

Page 86


57

Appendix C Workshop notes

Meeting Title: Guildford Borough Council Local Plan Development Viability Workshop

Attendees:

Peter Brett Associates

Mark Felgate (MF)

Louise Fenner

Guildford Borough Council (GBC)

Carol Humphrey (CH)

Tanya Mankoo-Flatt (TMF)

Participants

Name Organisation

James Stevens Home Builders Federation

Derry Caleb University of Surrey

Professor Stephen Baker University of Surrey

Alec Arrol Savills

Michael Knott Barton Willmore

Steve Molnar Terence O'Rourke Plc

Andrew Steen White and Sons

Steve Coggins A2 Dominion

Rob Cummins Radian Group

Mike Owen Owen Ship

Derek Cordon Kingstons

Charlotte Gartshore Planet Consulting

Laura Caines Lytle Associates

Adrian Buffery Greenoak Housing Association

Tom Elliot Savills

Terry Martin Land Securities

Sophie Groves Strutt and Parker

Kenneth Joyner

Worldwide Estates Guildford Business Forum – Property and Transport Group

Gaurav Choksi Development Projects manager, GBC

Nick Molyneux Housing Development manager, GBC

Mary Anne Pryor Planning Obligations Officer, GBC

Date of Meeting: 13th

May 2014

Item Comments

ITEM 9

Page 87


58

Introductions and context

1. CH welcomed attendees to the workshop, outlined the purpose of the workshop and presented an overview of the LDS timeframe.

2. MF began workshop with overview of viability in the context of LDF examination, NPPF requirement and the introduction of CIL.

3. MF outlined past delivery rates for the borough and future proposed development, including strategic housing development sites.

Method and approach

4.

MF presented approach to viability testing and viability model, including model inputs and guidance on viability testing from Harman Report. Workshop attendees agreed with the proposed approach.

Non-residential testing - scenarios

5.

MF presented the non-residential development typologies to be assessed in the viability appraisal. There was broad agreement with the list. However, it was suggested that hotels be added. Representative from the university questioned whether there would be a differentiation of private and university owned student accommodation – MF explained that all student accommodation would be treated the same in terms of testing but in some circumstances student accommodation may not be liable if developed by the University.. The inclusion of educational uses was suggested. Particularly nursery buildings which have been liable for S106 payment in the past. – MF responded that whilst Nurseries may still attract a S106 payment subject to the regulations it is not likely that it will be specifically tested for CIL as floorspace over plan period will be minimal. Post meeting note – it is also common for nursery space to be developed from existing floorspace so there will be no net gain in floorspace in many circumstances.

Non-residential testing - assumptions

6.

MF presented the proposed cost breakdown assumptions made in assessing the viability of non-residential uses. The following comments were made: The finance figure of 7% was considered a bit low, particularly in relation to employment uses, where it was suggested that 9-10% was more commonplace. Post meeting note – it would be helpful if there was some evidence for this. It was suggested that holding costs on rates and void periods should also be added. MF responded that as schemes were cashflowed through the lifetime of development through to sale that this should take into account - however it would be helpful to understand how long commercial schemes are taking. MF to set out typologies by size and suggested development period and consult further with local commercial agents. A rent free period of 3months was considered too low. It was noted that, particularly in relation to office schemes, it was commonplace to expect between 12-18 months’ rent free on a 5 year lease. The risk of inoccupation was also raised, with one participant citing an example of a scheme that had failed to be let in 10 years (those with high quality design and finish were more popular). In light of the risks taken in bringing forward a commercial scheme, it was suggested that some developers were targeting a 25% return, rather than the assumed 20%.

ITEM 9

Page 88


59

7.

MF provided further detail on build cost disaggregated by development typology. Costs in relation to refurbishment were raised as missing. MF stated that non-residential testing was primarily focused on CIL liable schemes, which require additional floor space to be created. Factory build costs were considered closer to £100 than the £70 assumed figure per square foot. Post meeting note – please can we have some evidence to support this higher cost The issue of labour supply in the borough was raised in relation to local plan proposals to significantly increase the number of houses coming forward annually. It was suggested that demand for labour produced by the extra residential schemes would increase build costs for commercial projects. – MF responded that that the consultant team would look at this in more detail to determine how this should be accounted for.

8.

MF presented testing rents (psqm) and yields by development typology. There was some confusion over the values for student accommodation and care homes. Post meeting note – the figures for care homes and student accommodation are gross development value per sqm – the rents and yields shown for other typologies will be capitalised to arrive at a gross development value. Several participants noted that land values and rents differ significantly depending on location in the borough, particularly retail uses. Post meeting note – if there are any distinctions for commercial development please advice further.

Residential testing - typologies

9.

MF set out residential testing development typologies, including strategic residential sites and generic brown and greenfield sites. Participants suggested that most ‘generic sites’ would be brownfield as the council would be unlikely to release any further greenfield land than that removed from the greenbelt for the strategic sites. However, GBC confirmed that small greenfield sites around major villages would be released to meet the borough’s 5 year housing land requirement, as homes on strategic sites are not expected to deliver significantly within the 5 year period. TMF also suggest that there are a significant number of sites with permission, mostly brownfield, that have yet to come forward which will also contribute to 5 yr supply It was suggested that the SHLAA should be used to guide the range and type of generic sites to be tested

Residential testing - assumptions

10.

MF presented spatial distribution of land values in Guildford. There broad agreement with spatial representation of land values. It was noted that whilst some areas of the borough attracted higher land values than others, due to the state of the residential market in Guildford, “anything you put a house on is attractive”.

11.

MF presented average land values for each area distinguished by flats and houses. There was broad agreement that the same information disaggregated by property type would provide a useful benchmark to judge assumption accuracy. Post meeting note – below is a breakdown of prices by house types – this is sourced from Land Registry data for new build properties:

ITEM 9

Page 89


60

Participants were is agreement that for the borough, the tipping point for higher value properties was when the size reached that of a proper ‘family home’. Post meeting note – the bigger size of properties in the Borough when compared elsewhere was mentioned in the discussion – if would be useful if you could provide further information on the size of properties on a sqm/sqf basis that you think will come forward over the plan period. Also whether there is any dintinction in returns on a sqm/sqf basis between sizes of property e.g. do you get a better per sqm return for a ¾ bed property than a two bed or a flat? The London bound rail lines through the villages in the east of borough was identified as a key driver of higher land values in these parts of the borough. One participant suggested that, unlike other rural locations where demand for primarily family house meant that few schemes included flats, developers of schemes within close proximity to the stations along this slow line had a preference for a 50/50 flat/house split.

12.

MF presented a benchmark land value of £2,000,000 per net hectare as a reasonable assumption to use, he explained that this had been used in the previous viability work on affordable housing. A representative from the house building industry considered £2 million to be the minimum local landowners would accept, as the rising housing market has raised landowners’ expectations. It was suggested that sites allocated in the forthcoming Guildford Local Plan were likely to have a higher land value due to the greater certainty of securing planning permission. Although it was also suggested to the consultant team in discussions after the presentation that the because of the release of more sites there was more competition than in the previously constrained market and that perhaps £2m was too high now. It was suggested that a figure based on the developable area of a site would be more appropriate. MF confirmed that the figure was a per net hectare basis. It was suggested that an across the Borough figure should not be used, based on actual residual calculations, as land values will vary and will also depend on the nature of the site ie greenfield strategic sites were likely to have lower values than brownfield sites with a higher existing use value. MF confirmed that more work was needed on land values but that required cooperation from those round the table to provide evidence. He urged those present to provide some examples of local transactions to help guide and set an appropriate figure. Post meeting note – please send any examples to the consultant team, they will not be quoted directly and can be treated in confidence.

13.

MF presented proposed build cost assumptions for estate and small scheme housing. It was noted that 20-100 unit schemes in Guildford had a build cost closer to £1500 per square meter than the prosed £1,001. Although it was later confirmed that the build cost was probably about right if the externals was added. It was suggested that the build cost assumptions should also take into account the proposed change to building regulation due to come forward in 2016. Attendees were uncertain about view of the Planning Inspectorate on this matter. MF responded that whilst there may have been a past expectation of a change to Building Regs to move towards zero carbon by 2016 the Government have not yet indicated whether any changes would be made. It was also pointed out that if Building

Average of Price Column Labels

Row Labels Ash and Tongham East Guildford North east Rural Rural West South East Rural

Detached £465,500 £702,585 £820,300 £479,375 £498,333 £545,000

Flats £132,821 £379,917 £277,036 £252,313 £121,625 £208,750

Semi £273,000 £461,848 £445,036 £354,425 £363,185 £393,325

Terraced £203,750 £445,357 £442,045 £399,375 £358,892 £380,980

ITEM 9

Page 90


61

Regs were bought in that the Council could review policy/CIL accordingly as it is unlikely the requirements would be implemented straight away. Post meeting note – it is also of note that work undertaken on cost of improving standards has often dropped significantly from initial estimates. It was suggested that, as part of the iterative plan-making process, public consultation should include presenting various options for affordable housing in order to promote greater understand of plan viability and ascertain public priorities. The idea of applying a ‘risk buffer’ to the viability testing was raised as a sensible option to account for spatial variation in cost and potential changes to building regulations. MF noted that if conservative cost assumptions are used in the testing it could be argued that this buffer is inbuilt, but that discussion would be had with the Council as to the approach and the associated risks.

14.

MF presented percentage breakdown of build costs by component. Participants were in broad agreement. It was highlighted that the amount spent on professional fees was dependent on whether the scheme was at a pre or post planning permission stage. A Contingency of 5% was considered a little low but no alternative was presented. Discrepancy between residential and non-residential contingency assumptions was raised (5%/4%). It was asked whether purchase costs are included – MF confirmed that they are Post meeting note – purchase costs of 1.75% plus relevant stamp duty are included within the appraisal

15.

MF presented abnormal (for brownfield sites) and opening up cost assumptions. A representative from the house building industry noted that these costs were a little lower than those recommended in the Harman Report. MF explained that once all the costs are added they would be within Harman ranges.

16.

MF presented developer contribution and affordable housing assumptions (taken from the draft local plan). Transfer values were cited as being geographically variable, with Ash and Tongham having higher transfer values. Post meeting note – we need further discussion on transfer rates for different tenures of affordable housing and whether these need to be varied for the different value areas. Representative from the house building industry suggested that they would like to comment further on the level of development obligations once assumptions based on council information had been formulated. It was suggested that Local Authorities tended to make assumptions about obligations that were lower than the actuality on a case by case basis. MF confirmed that consultant team is working with Council on likely s106 costs based on past experience and likely breakdown for CIL. It was suggested that increasing the proportion of affordable homes would make market housing more unaffordable. GBC countered that the increase in affordable homes would not be great enough to significantly affect the market, and that a doubling of homes coming to the market in the plan period should counteract this.

End of workshop

17.

MF thanked participants and stated that a copy of the notes and the presentation would be sent to everyone who attended to provide further opportunity to comment. MF encouraged participants to feedback comments at this stage before the assessment are undertaken so that information can be used.

Please provide comments by the 27

th May.

ITEM 9

Page 91


62

Please send to: [email protected] And [email protected]

ITEM 9

Page 92


63

Appendix D Glossary

Affordable Housing

Housing provided for sale, rent or shared equity at prices in perpetuity below the current market rate,

which people in housing need are able to afford

Affordable Rent

Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to

households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that

require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent (including service charges, where

applicable).

Allocated

Land which has been identified for a specific use in the current Development

Brownfield Land, Brownfield Site

Land or site that has been subject to previous development

Charging Authority

The charging authority is the local planning authority, although it may distribute the received levy to

other infrastructure providers such as the county council in two tier authorities

Charging Schedule

The Charging Schedule sets out the charges the Charging Authority proposes to adopt for new

development

Code for Sustainable Homes

The Code for Sustainable Homes is an environmental assessment method for rating and certifying the

performance of new homes. It is a national standard for use in the design and construction of new

homes with a view to encouraging continuous improvement in sustainable home building

Convenience Goods

Widely distributed and relatively inexpensive goods which are purchased frequently and with minimum

of effort, such as newspapers and food.

ITEM 9

Page 93


64

Comparison Goods

Household or personal items which are more expensive and are usually purchased after comparing

alternative models/types/styles and price of the item (e.g. clothes, furniture, electrical appliances).

Such goods generally are used for some time

Development

Defined in planning law as ‘the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on,

over, or under land, or the making of a material change of use of any building or land’

Infrastructure

The network of services to which it is usual for most buildings or activities to be connected. It includes

physical services serving the particular development (e.g. gas, electricity and water supply;

telephones, sewerage) and also includes networks of roads, public transport routes, footpaths etc. as

well as community facilities and green infrastructure

Intermediate Housing

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below

market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include

shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate

rent, but not affordable rented housing. Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable

housing, such as "low cost market" housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for

planning purposes.

Low Carbon

To minimise carbon dioxide emissions from a human activity

New Homes Bonus

The New Homes Bonus is a government funding scheme to ensure that the economic benefits of

growth are returned to the local area. It commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional

council tax raised for new homes and properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for

affordable homes, for the following six years

Planning Obligations

Legal agreements between a planning authority and a developer, or undertakings offered unilaterally

by a developer to ensure that specific works are carried out, payments made or other actions

undertaken which would otherwise be outside the scope of the planning permission. Often called

Section 106 (S106) obligations or contributions. The term legal agreements may embrace S106.

Renewable Energy

Energy generated from sources which are non-finite or can be replenished. Includes solar power, wind

energy, power generated from waste, biomass etc.

ITEM 9

Page 94


65

Residual Land Value

The amount remaining once the gross development cost of a scheme is deducted from its gross

development value and an appropriate return has been deducted

Rural exception sites

Small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity where sites would not normally be used for

housing. Rural exception sites seek to address the needs of the local community by accommodating

households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection.

Small numbers of market homes may be allowed at the local authority’s discretion, for example where

essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding.

Section 106 (S106) Contributions

See Planning Obligations

Social Rent

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in

section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined

through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under

equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and

Communities Agency.

Threshold land value

Landowners have an important role in deciding whether a project goes ahead on the basis of return

from the value of their land. The threshold land value, or the benchmark land value, refers to the

minimum value of the land that is likely to trigger the land owner to sell the land.

Use Classes and ‘Use’

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987, a statutory order made under planning

legislation, which groups land uses into different categories (called use classes). Change of within a

use class and some changes between classes do not require planning permission. Please note that the

definition of ‘use’ within the CIL regulations is meant in its wider sense and not in terms of the use

classes e.g. whilst a supermarket and a shop selling clothes are the same use in terms of the use class

system i.e. A1 – they are clearly a different use in terms of the CIL regulations as a store selling only

clothes is different from a store selling predominantly food.

ITEM 9

Page 95

Page 96


Appendix 4 Infrastructure Schedule

This infrastructure schedule focuses on the infrastructure needed to support development planned in the first five years of the plan period. It also

includes the infrastructure needed to support the strategic development sites.

Work with infrastructure delivery organisations, including Surrey County Council, the Highways Agency, Network Rail, Thames Water, water supply

companies and health providers, is ongoing. The schedule will be updated as we refine the emerging Local Plan and as infrastructure providers’

investment plans are progressed and other sources of funding become available. The infrastructure schedule is therefore subject to change.

For infrastructure needed to resolve existing infrastructure issues, such as some surface water flood mitigation, we may use future Community

Infrastructure Levy receipts generated from developments where these infrastructure deficiencies will be made more severe by new development.

We may also use the levy to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure or to repair failing existing infrastructure, if it is necessary to support

development.

Infrastructure project Timing Delivery organisation

Cost Committed funding and source

1

Guildford town centre

1.1

Transport interventions

1.1.1 Guildford town centre major scheme

Location: In and on the key radial roads which are centred on the present one-way gyratory system, Guildford town centre.

Scheme components and/or development: Scheme to be developed.

Scheme development to take into account the outcomes of origin-

Construction start: 2016-17 Scheme opening: 2018-19

Surrey County Council

TBD No committed funding – £2.85m requested from Local Growth Fund for a £3.8m scheme.

ITE

M 9

Page 97



destination travel surveys in Guildford town centre in May 2014, recommendations from Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study Strategy Report (Arup, April 2014) and findings from Surrey County Council’s public exhibition event on ‘Rethinking Guildford’s Gyratory’ in May 2013.

The scheme could include a new or widened pedestrian bridge from Walnut Tree Close to Bedford Road area.

Outcomes:

• Reduced traffic congestion in Guildford town centre

• Improved pedestrian links between the rail station and Guildford town centre

• Improved accident record related to pedestrian/vehicular conflict at junctions

• Improved quality of local environment.

References: Enterprise M3 Local Transport Body Application Form: Guildford Gyratory improvements (12 June 2013) (http://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/uploads/6b60ddc896e2e2fe4762ac483f9e624741c5ef41.pdf) Working for a Smarter Future: The Growth Deal for the Enterprise M3 Area (Enteprise M3 Local Enterprise Partership, March 2013) (http://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/local-growth-deal-strategic-economic-plan/)

Guildford Borough Council Executive Report – Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study 24 April 2014; also appendix and background papers (http://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/10786/Executive---24-April-2014)

1.1.2 Review and update of traffic control in Guildford town centre 2014/15 Surrey County TBD Surrey Travel

ITE

M 9

Page 98



through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund

Location: Guildford town centre.

Scheme components and/or development: Surrey County Council undertook on-street works and equipment upgrades to the traffic control system in Guildford town centre in 2013/14. This implemented recommendations from a review of the Urban Traffic Control / SCOOT system, including the common single database and an audit of the on-site signals infrastructure. Certain other key signals operated under a Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) system were also included in the review.

In 2014/15, following this work, Surrey County Council will commence the updating of the Urban Traffic Control database and timetable and the development of alternative strategies. These will improve the management and control of traffic in the town centre.

Outcomes:

• Improved management and control of traffic in Guildford town centre.

References: Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Local Sustainable Transport Fund Update and 2014/15 Programme – 12 March 2014, para 2.12 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=196&MId=3032&Ver=4)

Council SMART Local Sustainable Transport Fund



ITE

M 9

Page 99



1.1.3 Wayfinding signage system – Phase 1

Location: Guildford town centre.

Scheme components and/or development: Locations for 29 waymarkers identified and a consistent design agreed.

Outcomes:

• Improved information and reassurance for pedestrians in the town centre

• Potential economic benefit gained from increased dwell time and increased pedestrian movement.

2014/15 Surrey County Council

Total cost for manufacture and installation is £87,535. Additionally, cost for research and design has been approximately £85k.

£65,575 from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) plus contribution of £22,000 from Experience Guildford. For Phase 1 all research and design was funded by LSTF.

1.1.4 Wayfinding signage system – Phase 2

Location: Guildford town centre and wider urban area.

Scheme components and/or development: Locations for 40 waymarkers identified.

Outcomes:

• Improved information and reassurance for pedestrians in the town centre and wider urban area

• Potential economic benefit gained from increased dwell time and increased pedestrian movement.

2015/16 onwards


Individual costs for the manufacture and installation of each sign type are £3,000-5,500 depending on type.

None

ITE

M 9

Page 100



1.1.5 Guildford High Street – Setts maintenance strategy Location: Guildford High Street.

Scheme components and/or development: At scheme identification stage. The scheme would re-lay the setts in Guildford High Street.

Outcomes:

• Environmental enhancement.

References: Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Highways Update – 12 March 2014, para 2.29-2.33 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12270/Highways%20Update%20v3.pdf

Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Guildford High Street Setts Maintenance Strategy - 19 June 2013 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s6323/19%2006%202013%20Item%209%20High%20Street%20Setts.pdf)

2014/15 onwards


Estimated £1.5m

None

1.1.6 Redesign of the pedestrian crossing facilities and junction of Chertsey Street with North Street and High Street Location: Junction of Chertsey Street and North Street. Scheme components and/or development: At scheme identification stage. Outcomes:

• Improved pedestrian amenity and environmental enhancement. References:


£0.263m TBD

ITE

M 9

Page 101



Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Highways Update 12 March 2014 para 2.23 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12270/Highways%20Update%20v3.pdf

2

Guildford town (excluding strategic sites)

2.1


2.1.1 Sustainable movement corridor The sustainable movement corridor will provide an attractive, landscaped priority pathway for pedestrians, cyclists and buses, largely along existing roads in the town. The Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study Strategy Report (Arup, April 2014) sets out the concept and identifies a potential route. Location: Guildford urban area and town centre. It is proposed that the corridor would be delivered in sections. Potential sections as follows: Section 1 – Stag Hill campus to Guildford railway station: This section includes the replacement of Yorkie’s Bridge and the delivery of the site allocation 122. Section 2 – Surrey Research Park to Stag Hill campus via Royal Surrey County Hospital Section 3 – Guildford rail station to Friary Centre/North Street regeneration site Section 4 – Friary Centre/North Street regeneration site to Spectrum leisure complex Section 5 – Blackwell Farm to Surrey Research Park

2016/17 to 2050

TBD Presently promoted by Guildford Borough Council

Estimated at £75-100m in total including infrastructure such as bridges over the railway and river.

None

ITE

M 9

Page 102



Section 6 –Spectrum leisure complex to Slyfield Area Regeneration Project Scheme components and/or development: Scheme to be developed. Outcomes:

• Improved routes for pedestrians, cyclists and buses

• Journey time savings for buses, pedestrians and cyclists along the length of the completed corridor as each section added.

References: Guildford Borough Council Executive Report – Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study 24 April 2014; also appendix and background papers (http://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/10786/Executive---24-April-2014)

2.1.2 Guildford Sustainable Transport Package A package of enhanced public transport (Quality Bus Corridors), walking and cycling infrastructure to support access to major employment sites in Guildford. Also includes real time information and smart ticketing with the ‘Go Guildford’ ticket offering easy access to buses, bike hire, rail services, car clubs, park and ride, leisure facilities. This will be supported by initiatives to support businesses in reducing travel costs and improving staff productivity. Location: Guildford urban area and town centre. Scheme components and/or development: Package to be developed. Outcomes:

TBD Surrey County Council

£4.95m No committed funding – £3.7125m requested from Local Growth Fund (£1.2375m in 2015/16).

ITE

M 9

Page 103



• Enhanced public transport (Quality Bus Corridors)

• Walking and cycling infrastructure

• Real time information and smart ticketing with the ‘Go Guildford’ ticket offering easy access to buses, bike hire, rail services, car clubs, park and ride, leisure facilities.

References: Working for a Smarter Future: The Enterprise M3 Delivery Plan – 2014-2020 (http://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/uploads/1dbac429c2bbb7f75d0c2a9c9b4ef71cb25b0330.pdf)

2.1.3 New and/or improved cycling routes schemes through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund

Completion of the programme will take place in the 2014/15 financial year.

Location: Completion of works on A25 Cycle route – various sections Cycle route 4 – Slyfield to Stoke Crossroad via A320 Cycle route 5 – Woking Road to Wooden Bridge via Bellfield Estate Cycle route 7 – Salt Box Road to Wooden Bridge via Grange Road Cycle route 10 – Surrey Research Park via University to Walnut Tree Close

Scheme components and/or development: Preliminary design, detailed design and construction as shown in Annex B - SCC LSTF Capital Scheme Programme for Guildford.

Outcomes:

• Improved cycle routes.

References:


TBD Surrey Travel SMART Local Sustainable Transport Fund

ITE

M 9

Page 104



Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Local Sustainable Transport Fund Update and 2014/15 Programme – 12 March 2014, Annex B (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=196&MId=3032&Ver=4)

2.1.4 Bus stop accessibility improvement works on Quality Bus Corridors through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund Completion of the programme of bus stop accessibility improvement works will take place in the 2014/15 financial year. Location: Guildford Park Road, Aldershot Road, Worplesdon Road, Woodbridge Road, A320 Woking Road (via Slyfield Green), Epsom Road, Park Barn, Shalford Road, Godalming Road, London Road. Scheme components and/or development: Design and construction as shown in Annex B - SCC LSTF Capital Scheme Programme for Guildford. Outcomes:

• More accessible bus stops. References: Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Local Sustainable Transport Fund Update and 2014/15 Programme – 12 March 2014, Annex B (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=196&MId=3032&Ver=4)


TBD Surrey Travel SMART Local Sustainable Transport Fund

2.1.5 Shopping parade at Woodbridge Hill – Environmental enhancement scheme


Estimated £160k

Planning contributions via Guildford

ITE

M 9

Page 105



Location: Woodbridge Hill. Scheme components and/or development: Parking bays and spaces will be rationalised, with no loss in numbers, in order to create better pavement spaces. New pedestrian crossing points will be introduced, trees and other planting is planned, as well as good quality unit paving and street furniture. Outcomes:

• Environmental enhancement. References: Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Highways Update – 12 March 2014, para 2.29-2.33 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12270/Highways%20Update%20v3.pdf Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Guildford High Street Setts Maintenance Strategy - 19 June 2013 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s6323/19%2006%202013%20Item%209%20High%20Street%20Setts.pdf)

Borough Council

2.1.6 A320 Woking Road junction with Jacobs Well Road – Junction improvement Location: A320 Woking Road junction with Jacobs Well Road. Scheme components and/or development: Design in progress. Outcomes:

• To reduce accidents. References:


Estimated £137k


ITE

M 9

Page 106



Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Highways Update 12 March 2014 para 2.21 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12270/Highways%20Update%20v3.pdf) LTP3 Guildford borough Transport Strategy & Improvement Programme (January 2014, Draft for discussion) – see para 5.22 for issue addressed.

2.1.7 Jacobs Well Road junction with Clay Lane – Junction improvement Location: Jacobs Well Road junction with Clay Lane. Scheme components and/or development: Design in progress. Outcomes:

• Junction improvement. References: Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Highways Update 12 March 2014 para 2.22 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12270/Highways%20Update%20v3.pdf





2.1.8 A25 Epsom Road, Merrow – Pedestrian safety improvements Location: Horseshoe Lane West junction with A25 Epsom Road. Scheme components and/or development: Upgrade pedestrian refuges


Estimated £100k

Planning contributions via Guildford Borough Council

ITE

M 9

Page 107



and introduce road table at Horseshoe Lane West. References: Surrey County Council Local Committee for Guildford – Highways Update 12 March 2014 para 2.26 (http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12270/Highways%20Update%20v3.pdf

2.2

Wastewater treatment

2.2.1 Upgrades to Guildford sewage / wastewater treatment works Details of scale and form of upgrades to wastewater infrastructure to be included once development areas are confirmed and developers have produced detailed drainage strategies.

0-15 years Local network upgrades take about 18 months to deliver Sewage Treatment Works upgrades take approximately 3 to 5 years

Thames Water TBD To be funded by the developer / landowner and / or Thames Water

2.3

Flood risk reduction

ITE

M 9

Page 108



2.3.1 Applegarth, Park Barn – Surface Water mitigation measures Proposed capital works on Hunts Close are related to highway drainage improvements and should be funded by Surrey County Council. In addition, the maintenance of highway gullies on Hartshill should be funded through Surrey County Council. Works on Roman Farm Road, School Meadow and the general maintenance of the watercourses in this catchment should be funded by Guildford Borough Council. The draft Guildford Surface Water management Plan (SWMP) 2014 recommends that a funding application for FDGiA be submitted for the flood embankment to the east of Pond Meadow, although some local contributions will be required.

1-15 years Guildford Borough Council, Surrey County Council with the Environment Agency (to provide support for Flood Defence Grant in Aid / FDGiA funding)

Estimated costs = £335k (£318k associated with embankment to east of Pond Meadow)

TBD

2.3.2 Ashenden Estate, by Tesco and east of Surrey County Hospital – Surface Water mitigation measures A funding application for FDGiA has already been submitted. The evidence from the SWMP can be used to support enhancement of the funding bid. Given the historic evidence of flooding to the Tesco store and car park there is an opportunity to secure funding towards the scheme. This would significantly improve the potential to secure Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) funding.

1-15 years Guildford Borough Council, Environment Agency (to provide support for FDGiA funding), Tesco

£420k part funding from FDGiA, remainder TBD

ITE

M 9

Page 109



2.3.3 Jacobs Well – Surface Water mitigation measures Guildford Borough Council should focus its funding on the embankment on Oak Tree Close and the potential for an additional trash screen, whilst the County Council should investigate highway flooding issues in Brookside. There is an active flood forum in Jacobs Well, who contribute to the management and maintenance of the watercourse. We will continue to work in partnership with the flood forum to manage flood risk from the watercourse, as blockages or obstructions could result in flooding to residential properties.

1-15 years Guildford Borough Council with Surrey County Council, parish council and Worplesdon Flood Forum

£22k Guildford Borough Council and Surrey County Council

2.3.4 Burpham – Surface Water mitigation measures Costs = £20k for structural repairs to culvert near Gosden Hill Road Costs = £12k per annum for maintenance of watercourse downstream of London Road, and £4k per annum for maintenance of culvert under New Inn Lane Costs = £530k for flood storage to the east of Merrow Lane.

1-5 years Surrey County Council, Environment Agency (to provide support for FDGiA funding), and local residents

£562k plus annual maintenance cost

TBD Potentially developer contributions

2.4

Cemeteries and crematoria

2.4.1 New cemetery and / or crematorium at Land off A322 at Tangley Place Farm, Pitch Place

6-15 years Guildford Borough Council

TBD Guildford Borough Council

3

Ash and Tongham

ITE

M 9

Page 110



3.1


3.1.1 Interventions to address potential highway performance issues in Ash and Tongham area which could otherwise result from spatial development strategy excluding strategic sites Locations: The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) has identified the locations on the Local Highway Network and the Strategic Highway Network which could be expected to experience the most significant potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions, from development of the spatial development strategy excluding strategic sites. These are as below.

• Link: B3411 Vale Road, Ash Vale

• Link: B3411 Ash Hill Road, Ash

• Junction: B3411 Ash Hill Road with A323 Guildford Road, Ash

• Link: A323 Ash Road, Ash

• Junction: A323 Aldershot Road with A331 Blackwater Valley Route, Ash

• Link: The Street, Tongham

• Link: Runfold Diversion between The Street and A31 Hog’s Back, Runfold

• Junction: A331 Blackwater Valley Route with A31 Hog’s Back, Tongham

• Link: A31 Hog’s Back, Tongham to Puttenham The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) identifies further locations which could be expected to experience potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions. Further locations could also be

2015/16 onwards

Surrey County Council and Highways Agency, working with developers

TBD Developer contributions

ITE

M 9

Page 111



identified through future strategic transport assessment studies. Scheme components and/or development: Interventions to be developed. Outcomes:

• Interventions which address the potential highway performance issues which could otherwise result from the development.

References: Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014)

3.2

Education

3.2.1 Expansion of Ash Grange Primary School To support the approved homes at Ash Lodge Drive, Ash Green Lane West, The Croft, and Poyle Road Tongham, and other housing developments in the area

0-5 years TBD TBD TBD

3.2.2 Expansion of St Paul’s Infant School, Tongham

TBD TBD TBD TBD

3.3 Flood Risk Reduction

3.3.1 Ash Vale North The localised flood risk issues in Ash Vale North primarily relate to the operation of the existing drainage system within the area, particularly how surface water is discharged via the drainage ditch and foul water via the existing pumping station. Thames Water are the asset owners and operators for the sewerage network, and would be responsible for

1-15 Thames Water, Network Rail, and Guildford Borough Council

Minimum of £239,000

TBD

ITE

M 9

Page 112



funding improvement works to their network subject to the work being cost-beneficial for Thames Water.

The drainage ditch to the west of the hotspot is owned and maintained by Network Rail, so improvements to the ditch or culvert might be funded by Network Rail.

Guildford Borough Council could make a contribution towards improvement works and progress this scheme as jointly funded with Thames Water and Network Rail. CCTV Survey work should be funded by Guildford Borough Council.

3.3.2 Ash Vale South Regular maintenance of open watercourse which runs north-east to south-west from Vale Road, as it is critical to drainage of this area. Also regular maintenance of the 450mm culvert needed to ensure adequate conveyance of surface water from the north of the hotspot. Maintenance of highway gullies along Fir Acre Road to reduce flood risk to properties. Maintenance of the open watercourse is believed to be undertaken by Network Rail as the asset owner, and therefore Network Rail should fund ongoing maintenance of this watercourse. Improvements to highway gullies on Fir Acre Road should be funded by Surrey County Council as the highways authority. Property level protection could be funded by Guildford Borough Council, or a Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) application could be submitted.

1-15 Network Rail, Surrey County Council, Guildford Borough Council

Estimated cost of the proposed storage area is £280,000

TBD

3.3.3 Ash Station Area (Harpers Road)

1-15 Guildford Borough

Potentially £165,000

TBD

ITE

M 9

Page 113



A flood storage area to the east of Ash Hill Road would reduce the risk of surcharge and overtopping of the culvert which would cause flooding to properties along the natural valley of the historic watercourse. The Project Board has identified a proposed site, bounded by Ash Hill Road to the west, Guildford Road to the north and the railway to the south in a natural depression. This would provide storage in the region of 10,000 to 11,000 m3, subject to further analysis and design.

Council and Surrey County Council

towards the scheme from FDGiA funding. Potentially developer contributions if development likely to worsen flooding in the area.

3.3.4 Ash Lodge Drive The main culvert inlet needs to be maintained daily during times of heavy rainfall to avoid blockage of the culvert, which would exacerbate flood risk. Surface water sewers at the head of the catchment (Ash Church Road / Ash Street) are rapidly exceeded during times of heavy rainfall which causes exceedance flows to run down Ash Church Road and Ash Street before flowing onto Ash Lodge Drive, Loddon Way, Lea Close and Grange Road/South Lane. These surface water sewers have not been adopted by Thames Water, probably because they are considered to be under-sized. Sewer maps indicate that south of Ash Lodge Drive, the surface water sewers drain to the low spot on South Lane into a 375mm sewer, before flowing into the 1050mm surface water sewer which runs to the south of Ash Lodge Drive.

1-15 Guildford Borough Council, Thames Water and Bewley Homes

£750,000, potentially consisting of £500,000 of Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA), and approximately £186,000 from other sources. Potentially developer contributions if development

TBD

ITE

M 9

Page 114



Both sewers should be upsized. To alleviate risk of surcharging of the 900mm surface water sewer to the south of Ash Lodge Drive it is recommended that additional flood storage is provided in the fields to the south of the disused railway near Bin Wood. If further flood storage is needed to compensate for upsizing the drainage network upstream or to provide an enhanced level of protection, the existing green space bounded to the north by Ash Lodge Drive and to the west by Manor Road should be utilised. The Flood Risk Assessment for the proposed development south of Ash Lodge Drive has identified a detention basin will be provided in this location to manage surface runoff from the development site. There is sufficient scope in this location to upsize the proposed detention basin. The balancing pond near South Lane which was built to attenuate runoff from The Briars development is potentially under-sized. A review should be undertaken to determined whether upsizing of the balancing pond may be required. There is evidence of surface water ingress to the foul network causing foul system to flood properties. Sealing of the foul network around Southlands Road would reduce flood risk from the foul network Guildford Borough Council should fund the following mitigation measures:

• Improve maintenance of the culvert inlets of watercourse from the south of Ash Lodge Drive;

• CCTV Survey of the surface water sewer network (although Thames Water should be engaged to identify whether they would contribute), and;

• Investigation of the balancing pond near South Lane.

likely to worsen flooding in the area.

ITE

M 9

Page 115



For the significant capital investment measures (upsizing the network and providing storage near Bin Wood) it is recommended that a Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) application be submitted.

3.3.5 Tongham Reported flooding on New Road, The Street and in a cul-de-sac off Lambourne Way. The available evidence indicates that flooding in these locations were due to blocked drainage. Maintenance of watercourses on Poyle Road, including culverted sections is needed. Evidence of overtopping of the watercourse on Poyle Road although this is believed to be as a result of poor maintenance rather than hydraulic capacity. Investigation and maintenance of the highway system should be undertaken by Surrey County Council, whereas the maintenance of the watercourse south of Poyle Road should be undertaken by Guildford Borough Council. Should enhancement works be required to manage flows into the watercourse this should be funded by Surrey County Council or Guildford Borough Council.

1-15 Surrey County Council and possibly Guildford Borough Council

£20,000 per annum

TBD

4

Rest of Guildford borough (excluding Guildford town and town centre, Ash and Tongham area and strategic sites)

4.1


4.1.1 Interventions to address potential highway performance issues in rest of borough which could otherwise result from spatial

2015/16 onwards

Surrey County Council and


ITE

M 9

Page 116



development strategy excluding strategic sites Locations: The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) has identified the locations on the Local Highway Network and the Strategic Highway Network which could be expected to experience the most significant potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions, from development of the spatial development strategy excluding strategic sites. These are as below.

• Link: A31 Hog’s Back, Tongham to Puttenham

• Junction: B3000 Puttenham Hill with A31 Hog’s Back, Puttenham

• Link: A323 Guildford Road, Normandy

• Link: Westwood Lane, Normandy

• Link + Junction: A3 northbound between Puttenham/Compton and Dennis’ roundabout

• Junction: A3 northbound on slip at A31 Hog’s Back

• Link + Junction: A3 northbound off slip at Burntcommon

• Link + Junction: A3 northbound on slip at Ockham The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) identifies further locations which could be expected to experience potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions. Further locations could also be identified through future strategic transport assessment studies. Scheme components and/or development: Interventions to be developed. Outcomes:


Highways Agency, working with developers

ITE

M 9

Page 117




4.1.2 Northern Park and Ride to serve the A320/A322/A323 corridors Location: To be determined. Scheme components and/or development: The business case for the Park and Ride facility is to be tested. This will include consideration of the costs of construction, ongoing operational costs of the site and the associated bus services. Outcomes:

• 1,000 space Park and Ride facility to serve the A320/A322/A323 corridors.

1-15 years TBD TBD TBD

4.1.3 Pirbright village safety scheme Location: Pirbright village. Scheme components and/or development: Construction in 2014/15. Outcomes:

• Enhance overall user safety.


£180k Surrey County Council

4.1.4 Gole Road, Pirbright – 30mph speed limits Location: Gole Road, Pirbright. Scheme components and/or development:



ITE

M 9

Page 118



Construction in 2014/15. Outcomes:

• Reduce speed to 30mph.

4.1.5 Kings Road, Shalford – New zebra crossing Location: Kings Road, Shalford. Scheme components and/or development: Construction in 2014/15. Outcomes:

• New zebra crossing.



4.1.6 A247 Send Road junction with Tannery Lane, Send – Junction

improvement

Location: A247 Send Road junction with Tannery Lane.

Scheme components and/or development: To be determined. Likely to

involve a four-arm signal controlled junction with right turning provision

for those wishing to turn right from the A247 Send Road into the side

roads (Tannery Lane and Sandy Lane), together with controlled

pedestrian crossing facilities.

Outcomes:

• Junction improvement to accommodate additional traffic generated by potential developments in the vicinity

• To provide improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

TBD Surrey County Council in partnership with developer(s)

TBD None.

To be wholly funded by developer(s)

ITE

M 9

Page 119



4.1.7 Provision of a small public village car park, Send

Location: To be determined. An opportunity may presented through the

future development of site 75 Land at Tannery Lane, Send (including

Clockbarn Nurseries).

Scheme components and/or development: A small public village car park

providing short stay parking for customers of the businesses at the A247

Send Road junction with Tannery Lane.

Outcomes:

• Short stay car parking for customers of the nearby businesses

• To reduce the incidence of on-street parking at A247 Send Road junction with Tannery Lane.

TBD TBD. Potentially Guildford Borough Council and/or Send Parish Council with developer(s)

TBD None.

To be wholly provided and funded by developer(s)

4.2

Education

4.2.1 New (minimum five-form entry) secondary school at Land to the south of Clandon station and north of Meadowlands, West Clandon

6-15 years Surrey County Council, Guildford Borough Council and landowner

TBD – land cost and school build cost


4.2.2 New (minimum five-form entry) secondary school at Land north of Salt Box Road, west of the railway line, Guildford

6-15 years Surrey County Council, Guildford Borough Council and landowner

TBD – land cost and school build cost


ITE

M 9

Page 120



4.3

Flood risk reduction

4.3.1 East Horsley - Surface Water mitigation measures It is recommended that highway drainage improvements on Kingston Avenue are funded and delivered by Surrey County Council as the Local Highway Authority. A CCTV survey of the watercourse to the rear of Kingston Avenue should be undertaken by Guildford Borough Council. Further investigation and detailed hydraulic modelling of the watercourse through East Horsley is recommended. Initially, Guildford Borough Council should undertake engagement and consultation with local residents to better understand historic flooding in the catchment. Subsequently, it is recommended that an application for FDGiA funding is submitted to undertake detailed hydraulic modelling of the watercourse and drainage network in East Horsley to improve understanding of flood risk and potential mitigation measures. A CCTV survey of the culverted watercourses may be required and should be funded by Guildford Borough Council.

1-15 years Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council

Costs for highway works = £10k Estimated costs for future hydraulic modelling = £75k

TBD

4.3.2 Ripley - Surface Water mitigation measures £355k (including highways works and design, construction and maintenance of storage areas) Improvements to the existing highway drainage on High Street and the ditch network adjacent to Grove Heath North should be progressed and funded by Surrey County Council as the highways authority. Guildford Borough Council should take the lead on working with local

TBD Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council

TBD TBD

ITE

M 9

Page 121



landowners to improve the management of land to reduce runoff rates. The most feasible funding opportunity for the flood storage area to the south of the High Street would be FDGiA. However, initial analysis of the Partnership Funding Score indicates that significant cost savings or external contributions would be needed to fund the scheme. Further work will be required to seek cost savings, as it is considered unlikely that £190k can be raised locally to support the scheme, in the absence of a recent flood history in the area.

4.3.3 Send - Surface Water mitigation measures Should there be a residual flood risk following improvements to the highway drainage network, property level protection would be suitable for properties on Send Road. The flood risk issues in Send appear to be localised and related to the condition and location of highway drainage within the area. Therefore it is recommended that Surrey County Council act as the lead organisation for further investigation and funding of the proposed mitigation measures. Should property level protection be progressed in this area, an FDGiA application could be submitted to secure funding for the scheme, although local contributions would be needed to secure FDGiA


£20k TBD

4.4

Cemeteries and crematoria

4.4.1 New cemetery and / or crematorium at Land off Westwood Lane, Normandy

6-15 years Guildford Borough Council

TBD Guildford Borough Council

ITE

M 9

Page 122



4.5

Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG)

4.5.1 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Effingham Common 1-5 years GBC TBD Developer contributions

4.5.2 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Ben’s Wood, West Horsley

1-10 years Landowner TBD Developer contributions

4.5.3 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Alderton’s Farm, Send Marsh Road


4.5.4 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Tyting Farm, Halfpenny Lane, Holy Trinity

1-5 years GBC TBD Developer contributions

4.5.5 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Chantry Woods, Pilgrim’s Way, Holy Trinity

Current GBC SANG (capital costs and endowment) - £7,695,900

SAMM - £1,490,200

Developer contributions

4.5.6 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Riverside Park, North Guildford

Current GBC SANG (capital costs and endowment) - £849,200

SAMM - £164,400


4.5.7 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Burpham Court Farm, 1-15 years GBC TBD Developer

ITE

M 9

Page 123



North Guildford contributions

4.5.8 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Parsonage Water Meadows, North of A3, Stoke

Current GBC SANG (capital costs and endowment) - £395,700

SAMM - £76,700


4.5.9 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Russell Place Farm, Wood Street Village


4.5.10 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Ash, West of Ash Green


4.5.11 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Stringers Common 1-15 years GBC/SCC TBD Developer contributions

4.5.12 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Broad Street and Backside Common

1-15 years GBC/SCC TBD Developer contributions

4.5.13 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Tongham Pools, Ash 1-15 years GBC/SCC TBD Developer contributions

5

Strategic site – Blackwell Farm

5.1


5.1.1 Interventions to address potential highway performance issues which could otherwise result from development of the Blackwell

1-15 years Surrey County Council and


ITE

M 9

Page 124



Farm site Locations: The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) has identified the locations on the Local Highway Network and the Strategic Highway Network which could be expected to experience the most significant potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions, from development of the Blackwell Farm site. These are as below.

• Link + Junction: Runfold diversion between A31 Hog’s Back and The Street, Runfold

• Junction: A331 Blackwater Valley Route with A31 Hog’s Back, Tongham

• Junction: B3000 Puttenham Hill with A31 Hog’s Back, Puttenham

• Link: A31 Hog’s Back, Tongham to Puttenham

• Junction: A31 Farnham Road with Guildford Park Road, Guildford

• Link + Junction: A3 northbound between A31 and Dennis’ roundabout The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) identifies further locations which could be expected to experience potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions. Further locations could also be identified through future strategic transport assessment studies. Scheme components and/or development: Interventions to be developed. Outcomes:


References:

Highways Agency, working with developer

ITE

M 9

Page 125



Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014)

5.1.2 New junction with the A31 Hog’s Back and/or A3 trunk road and connections to the Local Road Network Location: Blackwell Farm site and land in ownership of Highways Agency and Surrey County Council. Scheme components and/or development: TBD. Outcomes:

• New junction with the A31 Hog’s Back and/or A3 trunk road and connections to the Local Road Network.

1-15 years Surrey County Council and Highways Agency, working with developer


5.1.3 Access road linking Beechcroft Drive (private road) to Francis Crick Drive (private road) Location: Blackwell Farm site. Scheme components and/or development: Outline design prepared. Outcomes:

• Access road from linking Beechcroft Drive (private road) to Francis Crick Drive (private road).

1-15 years Developer TBD Developer contributions

5.1.4 Blackwell Farm Park and Ride Location: Blackwell Farm site. Scheme components and/or development:


ITE

M 9

Page 126



The business case for the Park and Ride facility is to be tested. This will include consideration of the costs of construction, ongoing operational costs of the site and the associated bus services. Outcomes:

• 1,000 space Park and Ride facility on the A31 corridor.

5.1.5 New rail station at Park Barn/Surrey Research Park/Blackwell Farm, Guildford This will serve existing and new housing and commercial developments. Locations: To be determined. Scheme components and/or development: The business case for the new railway station is to be tested. This will include consideration of the costs of construction, ongoing operational costs of the site and the associated rail services. Outcomes:

• New railway station. References: Surrey Rail Strategy (Arup, 2013)

1-15 years TBD £5-10m capital cost plus potential revenue costs to fund changes to services for Train Operating Company


5.2

Other

5.2.1 New two-form entry primary school 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

5.2.2 Local retail centre 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

ITE

M 9

Page 127



5.2.3 Community building 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

5.2.4 GPs surgery 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

5.2.5 Open space including playgrounds, playing fields and allotments 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

5.2.6 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) 1-15 years Landowner TBD Developer contributions

5.2.7 Upgrade to wastewater infrastructure if needed 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

5.2.8 Upgrade to water supply network capacity if assessment shows it is needed

1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

6

Strategic site – Gosden Hill Farm

6.1


6.1.1 Interventions to address potential highway performance issues which could otherwise result from development of the Gosden Hill Farm site

Locations: The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) has identified the locations on the Local Highway Network and the Strategic Highway Network which could be expected to experience the most significant potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions, from development of the Gosden Hill Farm site. These are as below.

• Link: A3100 London Road, Burpham



ITE

M 9

Page 128



• Link: B2234 New Inn/Park Lane, Burpham

• Link: A25 Parkway and Epsom Road, Burpham/Merrow

• Link + Junction: A3 southbound between Dennis’ roundabout and Cathedral junction

• Link + Junction: A3 southbound off slip at Burpham/Merrow

• Junction: A3 northbound off slip at Burntcommon

The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) identifies further locations which could be expected to experience potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions. Further locations could also be identified through future strategic transport assessment studies.

Scheme components and/or development: Interventions to be developed.

Outcomes:



6.1.2 Relocated A3 southbound off-slip, new A3 southbound on-slip and connections to the Local Road Network

Location: Gosden Hill Farm site and land in ownership of Highways Agency and Surrey County Council.

Scheme components and/or development: TBD.

Outcomes:



ITE

M 9

Page 129



• Relocated A3 southbound off-slip, new A3 southbound on-slip and connections to the Local Road Network.

6.1.3 Gosden Hill Farm Park and Ride Location: Gosden Hill Farm site. Scheme components and/or development: The business case for the Park and Ride facility is to be tested. This will include consideration of the costs of construction, ongoing operational costs of the site and the associated bus services. Outcomes:

• 1,000 space Park and Ride facility on the A3 southbound corridor.


6.1.4 New rail station at Merrow, Guildford This will serve existing and new housing and commercial developments at Gosden Hill Farm site. Locations: Merrow Depot site On New Guildford Line. Scheme components and/or development: The business case for the new railway station is to be tested. This will include consideration of the costs of construction, ongoing operational costs of the site and the associated rail services. Outcomes:

• New railway station. References: Surrey Rail Strategy (Arup, 2013)

1-15 years TBD £5-10m capital cost plus potential revenue costs to fund changes to services for Train Operating Company


ITE

M 9

Page 130



6.2

Other

6.2.1 New two-form entry primary school 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions


6.2.3 GPs surgery 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

6.2.4 Community building 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

6.2.5 Open space including playgrounds, playing fields and allotments 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions

6.2.6 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Gosden Hill Farm 1-15 years Landowner TBD Developer contributions


6.2.8 Upgrade to wastewater infrastructure if needed 1-15 years Thames Water TBD Developer (and potentially Thames Water)



6.2.10 Reducing surface water flood risk, potentially with balancing pond(s), on-site Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs)


ITE

M 9

Page 131



7

Strategic site – Former Wisley airfield

7.1


7.1.1 Interventions to address potential highway performance issues which could otherwise result from development of the former Wisley airfield site

Locations: The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) has identified the locations on the Local Highway Network and the Strategic Highway Network which could be expected to experience the most significant potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions, from development of the former Wisley airfield site. These are as below.

• Link: B2039 Ockham Road North, Ockham

• Link + Junction: A3 northbound on slip at Ockham

• Link + Junction: A3 southbound off slip at Ockham

• Link: A3 northbound between Ockham and M25

• Link + Junction: A3 southbound on slip at Burntcommon

The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report (Surrey County Council, January 2014) identifies further locations which could be expected to experience potential highway performance issues, in the absence of mitigating interventions. Further locations could also be identified through future strategic transport assessment studies.

Scheme components and/or development: Interventions to be developed.



ITE

M 9

Page 132



Outcomes:



7.2

Other

7.2.1 New two-form entry primary school


7.2.2 Local retail centre


7.2.3 GPs surgery


7.2.4 Community building


7.2.5 Open space including playgrounds, playing fields and allotments


7.2.6 Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) Former Wisley airfield 1-15 years Landowner TBD Developer contributions

7.2.7 High speed Broadband upgrade


7.2.8 Drainage and any flood mitigation


7.2.9 Upgrade to wastewater infrastructure if needed

1-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions and Thames Water

7.2.10 Upgrade to water supply network capacity if assessment shows it is 1-15 years TBD TBD Developer

ITE

M 9

Page 133



needed

contributions



8

Strategic site –Slyfield Area Regeneration Project (SARP) site

8.1


8.1.1 Clay Lane Link Road Northern Section (Phase One) Location: Link road connecting Clay Lane and Moorfield Road on the Slyfield Industrial Estate. See site allocation 121. Scheme components and/or development: Link road connecting Clay Lane and Moorfield Road on the Slyfield Industrial Estate. Outcomes:

• Clay Lane Link Road Northern Section facilitates the intensification of the Slyfield Industrial Estate

• Reduced traffic congestion at junction of A320 Woking Road and Moorfield Road.

2015/16 onwards

TBD £6m Public Works Loan Board

8.1.2 Clay Lane Link Road Southern Section (Phase Two) Location: Slyfield Area Regeneration Project site.


ITE

M 9

Page 134



Scheme components and/or development: Presently envisaged to be an internal access road which connects to the existing Local Road Network to the east of the A320 Woking Road, with a restricted connection to the Clay Lane Link Road Northern Section for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and emergency vehicles only. Outcomes:

• Clay Lane Link Road Northern Section and Southern Section facilitates development of the Slyfield Area Regeneration Project site.

8.2

Other

8.2.1 New two-form entry primary school





11-15 years TBD TBD Developer contributions and Water company

ITE

M 9

Page 135

Page 136


http://www.regen.net/Business/article/1121218/CIL-Watch-whos-charging-what/

This is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 12 Oct 2014 16:55:02 GMT.

Planning Resource

Planning for Energy Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability

CIL Watch: who's charging what?

Want to know whether your local authority has published Community Infrastructure

Levy proposals?

Our live table includes the latest details of councils' levy plans, including a breakdown of

charges by development type.

Levy receipts are used to fund infrastructure to support an area's development

ITE

M 9

Page 137

The CIL system allows councils in England and Wales to raise funds for infrastructure to support an area's development by imposing a charge

per square metre of development.

But before a council can begin raising cash through the levy, it must publish a table of levy charges - known as a charging schedule - so that each

developer can calculate up front how much CIL it must pay for its development. These set out levy rates, variations across economic zones

within council areas, different levy rates for different development classes and exemptions.

LONDON

Local

authority CIL status Date Residential Charges Retail/Commercial Charges Others

London

mayoral

(Crossrail) CIL

01/04/2012 Adopted Three charging bands, with rates of

£20, £35 and £50 per square metre

Three charging bands, with rates of

£20, £35 and £50 per square metre

Medical and health service

developments are exempt, as are

school, college and higher

education developments

Barking and

Dagenham

28/05/2014

Examination

Report

Published

Three residential charging zones,

with rates of £70, £25 and £10 per

square metre.

Supermarket and superstore

developments will be charged £175

per square metre. Business


per square metre.

No charge for all other uses.

Barnet 16/04/2013 Adopted

Residential developments will be

charged £135 per square metre, this

includes all C1 - C3, sui generis and

HMOs developments.

All Retail developments have a

charge of £135 per square metre. No charge for all other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 138

Local


Bexley 18/08/2014 Submitted

Two charging zones for residential,

hotel and student housing

developments, with rates of £40

and £60 per square metre.

Convenience supermarket,

superstore and retail warehouse

developments are to be charged

£100 per square metre.

All other uses £10 per square

metre excluding educational

establishments and medical,

health and emergency services

that are publicly funded.

Brent 25/02/2014 Adopted

Residential developments including

residential institutions will be

charged £200 per square metre.

Hotel developments will be charged


All retail (A1- A5) developments will

be charged £40 per square metre.

Office developments will be


Warehouse club developments

will be charged £14 per square

metre. Assembly and leisure


per square metre. No charge for

all other uses.

Camden 28/08/2014 Submitted

Small residential developments will


Three large residential development

and private care home development

charging zones with rates of £500,

£250 and £150 per square metre.

Two student housing development

charging zones with rates of £400

and £175 per square metre. Two

hotel development charging zones

with rates of £40 and £30 per

square metre.

All retail developments are to be

charged £25 per square metre. Two

office development charging zones


square metre. No charge for

industry, warehousing, research and

developments. All other commercial




ITE

M 9

Page 139

Local


City of London 08/04/2014 Adopted

Two residential charging zones with

rates of £95 and £150 per square

metre.

Offices will be charged £75 per

square metre.

Health and education

developments will not be charged.

All other uses will be charged £75

per square metre.

Croydon 26/02/2013 Adopted



metre. Residential instituion

developments will not be charged

CIL.

Two business development charging

zones with rates of £120 and £0 per

square metre.

Non-residential instituion


CIL. All other uses will be charged


Ealing 28/02/2014

Preliminary

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published



metre.

Large retail developments will be

charged £100 per square metre. All

other retail will be charged £30 per

square metre.


Enfield 07/06/2013

Preliminary

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published

Three residential charging zones


square metre.

Betting shops and hot food

takeaways will be charged £85 per

square metre. Restaurants and cafe

developments (A3) as well as

drinking establishment

developments (A4) will not be

charged. All other retail



ITE

M 9

Page 140

Local


per square metre.

Hackney 17/07/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Four residential charging zones with

rates of £190, £55, £25 and £0 per

square metre. Student

accommodation developments are

to be charged £373 per square

metre. Two hotel development



Two office charging zones with


metre. Large format retail


£150 per square metre. Two retail




Hammersmith

and Fulham

22/08/2014

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published

Four residential, HMO and hostel

development charging zones with

rates of £400, £200, £100 and £0

per square metre. Hotel


Two office charging zones with


metre. Industrial, warehouse,

scrapyard developments and

developments for the selling or

display of motor vehicles will not be

charged.



Two charging zones for all other

uses with rates of £80 and £0 per

square metre.

Haringey 21/07/2014 Adopted

Three residential and student

accommodation developments



Supermarket developments are to


Retail warehouse developments are


metre.


ITE

M 9

Page 141

Local


Harrow 01/10/2013 Adopted



Hotel, residential institution,

student accommodation, hostel and

HMO developments will be charged


Retail developments (A1- A5) will be

charged £100 per square metre. No charge for all other uses.

Hillingdon 24/04/2014 Adopted

Residential developments are to be


Hotel developments are to be


Two charging zones for large format

retail developments (A1) with rates

of £215 and £0 per square metre.

Office developments are to be


Storage and distribution

developments are to be charged £5

per square metre.


Hounslow 19/09/2014

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published


with rates of £200, £110 and £70

per square metre.







All other uses will be charged £20

per square metre.

Islington 26/06/2014 Adopted

Two charging zones for residential

dwellings and residential institution

developments with rates of £250

and £300 per square metre. Student

Two retail development (A1-A5)


and £125 per square metre. Two

office development charging zones

Assembly and leisure

developments (D2) not including

public leisure facilities are to be


ITE

M 9

Page 142

Local




metre. Two hotel charging zones


square metre.

with rates of £80 and £0 per square

metre.

Conference centre developments

are to be charged £80 per square

metre. Nightclub, private

members' club and amusement

centre (sui generis) developments


metre. No charge for all other

uses.

Kensington

and Chelsea

31/03/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Seven residential charging zones

with rates of £750, £590, £430,

£270, £190, £110 and £0 per square

metre. Six extra care

accommodation charging zones with

rates of £510, £230, £300, £160, £20

and £0 per square metre. Hotel


£160 per square metre. Student



metre.

No charge for all commercial or

industrial uses. No charge for all other uses.

Kingston upon

Thames

10/01/2014 Draft

Charging

Schedule


rates of £210, £130, £85 and £50

per square metre. Two care and




Public service and community

facility related developments will

not be charged. All other uses will

ITE

M 9

Page 143

Local


Published retirement home charging zones


square metre. Extra care housing





metre.

£200 per square metre. Two

charging zones for all other retail


square metre.


Lambeth 23/07/2014 Adopted



per square metre. Two hotel



metre. Student accommodation



Large retail developments are to be


Two office development charging


square metre.


Lewisham 23/01/2014

Examination

Report

Published



metre.

Retail developments are to be

charged £80 per square metre. No

charge for business, general

industry or storage and distribution

developments.

All other developments are to be


Merton 20/11/2013 Adopted Two residential charging zones with Retail warehouse and superstores No charge for all other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 144

Local



metre.


metre.

Newham 30/09/2013 Adopted

Two residential development (C3

and 4) charging zones with rates of


Hotel developments will be charged


accommodation developments will


Retail developments (A1-5) will be


Redbridge 01/01/2012 Adopted


charged £70 per square metre, this

includes all C1 - C3, sui generis and

HMOs developments.

All retail and commercial


per square metre.

All other development will be


Richmond

upon Thames

22/07/2014 Adopted



metre. Two care home and hotel



metre.

Convenience retail developments


metre. Two comparison retail


and £0 per square metre. Two office


rates of £25 and £0.


Southwark 22/04/2014 Charging Three residential charging zones, Superstore, supermarket and No charge for town centre car

ITE

M 9

Page 145

Local


Schedule

Submitted


per square metre. Two hotel



metre. Direct let student housing


£100 per square metre. No charge

for nominated student housing

schemes.

shopping mall developments are to


All other retail developments are to


Two office development charging


square metre. No charge for

industrial and warehouse

developments.

parking, public libraries, health

and education developments. All

other uses will be charged £30 per

square metre.

Sutton 03/03/2014 Adopted Residential developments will be




metre.


Tower Hamlets Mar-13

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published



square metre. Student housing


£425 per square metre. Hotel



Three office development charging

zones with rates of £215, £100 and

£0 per square metre. Convenience

based supermarkets, superstores

and retail warehose developments


metre. Two small retail charging


square metre.


Waltham 19/03/2014 Adopted Two residential and retirement Convenience retail developments No charge for all other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 146

Local


Forest home development charging zones


square metre. Hotel developments


metre. No charge for publically

funded care homes.


metre. Hot food takeaway


per square metre. Betting shop


per square metre.

Wandsworth 01/11/2012 Adopted



metre.

Office and all retail (A1- A5)


per square metre.


Westminster 19/09/2014

Preliminary

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published



per square metre. Three hotel


rates of £200, £150 and £50 per

square metre.

Three retail development (A1-5)


£150 and £50per square metre.


zones with rates of £250, £200 and


Three nightclub and casino



square metre. No charge for all

other uses.

SOUTH EAST

Local


Basingstoke 06/01/2014 Preliminary Three Residential charging zones, with Varying retail rates based on No charge for all other

ITE

M 9

Page 147

Local


and Deane Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

rates of £75, £105 and £160 per square

metre. No charge for care home/sheltered

housing. Budget hotels will be charged £55

per square metre. No charge for full service

hotels.

development type with charges of; town

centre comparison retail £85 per square

metre, retail warehouse £240 per square

metre, small convenience retail £60 per

square metre, supermarket £100 per

square metre, superstore £220 per

square metre.

uses.

Bracknell

Forest

08/09/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Six residential charging zones with rates of

£220, £150, £0 per square metre in three

zones. The other three residential zones

have two charges each based on the scale

of development with small scale

development being charged £75, £350 and

£300 per square metre, large scale

developments will be charged £25, £220

and £150 per square metre. There will be

three residential care accommodation

development charging zones with rates of

£100, £75 and £0 per square metre.

Two convenience based supermarket,

superstore and retailwarehouse charging


square metre.

No charge for all other

uses.

Chichester 17/03/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential charging zones with rates


Student accommodation developments will


Convenience retail developments are to


Comparison retail developments are to



uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 148

Local


Dartford 16/12/2013 Adopted

Large residential developments that

provide affordable housing will be charged

£100 per square metre. All other residential

development will be charged £200 per

square metre. Hotel developments will be


Supermarket and superstore

developments will be charged £65 per

square metre. Other large retail


square metre. No charge for all other

retail developments. Office and

Industrial developpments will be


Leisure developments

will be charged £25

per square metre. No

charge for all other

uses.

Dover 13/12/2012

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Four residential charging zones with rates

of £125, £75, £50 and £0 per square metre.

Four retail charging zones with rates of

£75, £50, £25 and £0 per square metre.

Out of town large retail developments

will be charged £125 per square metre.


zones with rates of £50, £25 and £0 per

square metre.


uses.

East

Hampshire

30/05/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published


of £180, £100, £60 and £0 per square

metre. Hotel developments are to be


Retail developments are to be charged



uses.

Eastbourne 27/06/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential developments (C3) will be


Retail developments (A1-A5) will be



uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 149

Local


Eastliegh 11/08/2014 Submitted

Three residential and sheltered

accommodation charging zones with rates

of £75 and £0 per square metre. Three

hotel charging zones with charges of £60 or


Two supermarket, superstore and retail

warehouse charging zones with rates of



uses.

Elmbridge 01/04/2013 Adopted Residential developments will be charged





uses.

Epsom and

Ewell

29/04/2014 Adopted


charged £125 per square metre. Student

accommodation developments are to be

charged £30 per square metre. Care home

developments are to be charged £20 per

square metre.

Convenience retail developments are to



uses.

Fareham 25/04/2013 Adopted

Residential and HMO developments will be

charged £105 per square metre. Care home


square metre. Hotel developments will be


Comparison retail in centre will not be

charged CIL. All other retail £120 per

square metre.


uses.

Fareham

(Review)

25/06/2014 Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Two small residential development

charging zones with rates of £185 and £0

per square metre. Two large residential

Two comparison retail charging zones


metre. Two large convenience retail


uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 150

Local


Published development charging zones with rates of

£120 and £0 per square metre. Two care

home and hotel development charging

zones with rates of £35 and £0 per square

metre.

development charging zones with rates

of £140 and £0 per square metre. Two

small convenience retail development


per square metre.

Gosport 19/09/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three small residental development

charging zones with rates of £100, £60 and

£40 per square metre. Four large residental

development with affordable housing

charging zones with rates of £100, £80, £40


Retail warehouses and supermarkets will



uses.

Hart 03/05/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Five residential charging zones with rates of

£800, £525, £375, £225, £75 and £0 per

square metre. Three residential institutions

charging zones with rates of £275, £75 and


Large scale retail developments will be

charged £100 per square metre. Sui

generis (retail warehouse and retail club)


square metre.


uses.

Havant 01/08/2013 Adopted Two residential charging zones with rates


Two charging zones for large retail

developments with rates of £80 and £0

per square metre. Two charging zones

for small retail developments with rates



uses. ITE

M 9

Page 151

Local


Horsham 16/05/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Retail developments (A1 -A5) will be



uses.

Lewes 16/09/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted



Retail developments will be charged



uses.

Maidstone 21/03/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three residential charging zones with rates

of £126, £84 and £35 per square metre.


warehouse development charging zones


metre. Two small scale convenience

retail development charging zones with

rates of £189 and £0 per square metre.


uses.

Maldon 12/09/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted


of £70 and £0 per square metre. Two

private retirement and nursing home


£70 and £0 per square metre. Hotel


square metre.

Two supermarket and retail warehouse




uses.

Medway 01/03/2013 Preliminary Two residential charging zones with rates Two supermarket charging zones with No charge for all other

ITE

M 9

Page 152

Local


Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

of £150 and £50 per square metre for large

housing developments, or £150 and £200

per square metre for small housing

developments.

rates of £75 and £0 per square metre. uses.

Mole Valley 08/03/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential developments will be charged


Convenience retail will be charged £100

per square metre.


uses.

New Forest 14/04/2014 Adopted Residential developments are to charged


No charge for retail or commercial

developments.


uses.

Oxford 30/09/2013 Adopted

Residential, HMO and student

accomodation developments will be


All retail (A1- A5) developments will be


All other development


per square metre.

Portsmouth 24/01/2012 Adopted


£105 per square metre. Hotel and

residential institution developments will be



developments with rates of £105 and

£53 per square metre. Small retail


square metre. Office and industrial

developments will not be charged CIL.

Community use

developments will not

be charged CIL. All

other developments


per square metre. ITE

M 9

Page 153

Local


Reading 08/08/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Residential, hotel, care home and private

rented hostel accomodation development


Two retail charging zones with rates of

£150 and £0 per square metre. Two

office charging zones with rates of £30



uses.

Reigate and

Banstead

14/02/2012

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential development will be charged



charged £250 per square metre. Small

scale retail developments will be



uses.

Runnymede 11/03/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted



Two charging zones for retail


per square metre.


uses.

Rushmoor Oct-12

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Supermarkets, superstores and retail

warehouses will be charged £100 per

square metre.


uses.

Sevenoaks 18/02/2014 Adopted Two residential charging zones with rates



warehousing will be charged £125 per

square metre.


uses.

Southampton 01/09/2013 Adopted Residential developments will be charged

£70 per square metre, this includes all C3, All retail (A1- A5) developments will be No charge for all other

ITE

M 9

Page 154

Local


C4, sui generis and HMOs developments. charged £43 per square metre. uses.

Spelthorne 08/09/2014

Examination

Report

Published


of £0, £40 and £60 per square metre, and


metre for small scale developments.

Student accommodation developments are

to be charged £120 per square metre.


warehouses are to be charged £120 per

square metre.


uses.

Surrey Heath 16/07/2014 Adopted

Two charging zones for residential

developments with SANG with rates of £55

and £95 per square metre. Three charging

zones for residential developments without

SANG with rates of £220, £180 and £0 per

square metre.

Supermarket, superstore and retail

warehouse developments are to be


charging zones for all other retail with



uses.

Tandridge 09/12/2013

Charging

Schedule

Submitted



Convenience retail developments will be

chared £100 per square metre.


uses.

Test Valley 06/12/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Five residential charging zones with rates of

£225, £180, £135, £90 and £0 per square

metre.




metre.


uses. ITE

M 9

Page 155

Local


Waverley 08/11/2012

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published


charged £160 per square metre




uses.

Wealden 15/09/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Convenience based retail developments


metre. Comparison based retail


square metre.


uses.

West

Berkshire

04/03/2014 Adopted Two residential charging zones with rates





uses.

Winchester 08/01/2014 Adopted


of £120, £80 and £0 per square metre. Two

hotel development charging zones with


Two charging zones for convenience

retail, superstore and retail warehouse


metre. Two charging zones for all other

retail developments with rates of £120



uses.

Woking 09/07/2014

Examination

Report

Published



Retail developments will be charged £75

per square metre.


uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 156

Local


Wokingham 12/06/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted


of £300, £320, £340 and £365 per square

metre. Residential institutions and extra

care housing developments are to be


Two retail charging zones with rates of



uses.

Worthing 19/06/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted






uses.

Wycombe 01/11/2012 Adopted Two residential charging zones with rates


Convenience based supermarkets,

superstores and retail warehouse


square metre. All other retail


square metre.


uses.

SOUTH WEST

Local authority CIL status Date Residential Charges Retail/Commercial Charges Others

Bath and North

East Somerset

24/07/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published


rates of £100 and £50 per squre

metre. Hotels will be charged £100

Two retail development charging zones


metre. Supermarket, superstore and


uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 157


per square metre in Bath and £0

elsewhere. Two student

accommodation charging zones with


metre.

retail warehouse developments will be


Bournemouth 01/08/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Student accommodation


square metre.



charging zones for comparison retail


metre.


uses.

Bristol, City of 18/09/2012 Adopted



metre. Hotel developments will be


Student Accommodation


per square metre. Residential

institions will not be charged CIL.


£120 per square metre. Commercial

developments will not be charged CIL.

Non-residential

institutions and

emergency service

developments will not

be charged CIL. All

other developments

will be charged £50 per

square metre.

Christchurch

(Christchurch and

East Dorset)

07/05/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential Development will be

charged £100 per square metre. Care

homes will be charged £40 per square

metre.




uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 158


Cornwall 11/03/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three residential and HMO



metre.

Two large convenience retail




uses.

East Devon 02/08/2013

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Three residential charging zones with


metre.



metre.


uses.

East Dorset

(Christchurch and

East Dorset)

07/05/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential development will be

charged £100 per square metre. Care

homes will be charged £40 per square

metre.




uses.

Exeter 15/10/2013 Adopted



Student housing developments will be


Two retail developments (A1-A5)


per square metre.


uses.

Mid Devon

(Unimplemented)

26/02/2014 Adopted Residential developments will be



developments.


uses.

Mid Devon

(Revised)

13/06/2014 Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule


charged differential rates based on

size of development and whether or

not they come with renewable energy





uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 159


Published . Large developments with renewable

energy will be charged £40 per square

metre. Large developments without

renewable energy will be charged £60

per square metre. Small

developments with renewable energy


Small developments without

renewable energy will be charged

£100 per square metre. Residential

developments in strategic sites will

not be charged.

metre.

North Devon 26/06/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential (including C3 sheltered

accomodation) developments are to


Two supermarket development charging


square metre. Retail warehouses are to



uses.

North Somerset 09/11/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre. Student accommodation will


Care homes will be charged £40 per

square metre.


charged £120 per square metre. Small

scale retail developments will be



uses.

Plymouth 01/06/2013 Adopted Two residential charging zones with Superstore and supermarket No charge for all other

ITE

M 9

Page 160



Two student accommodation




square metre.

uses.

Poole 18/09/2012 Adopted



square metre.


developments.


uses.

Purbeck 11/03/2014 Adopted


rates of £180, £100, £30 and £10 per

square metre. Three charging zones

for care homes and sheltered and

retirement housing with rates of £100,


Retail developments (A1) will be charged

£75 per square metre. All other retail

developments (A2-A5) will be charged



uses.

Sedgemoor 04/02/2014

Examination

Report

Published





Supermarket and retail warehouses


square metre.


uses.

South

Gloucestershire

12/05/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre, and rates of £100 and £130 per

square metre for small scale

developments, there will be no charge



metre. Two office development charging


square metre. Developments for the



square metre.

ITE

M 9

Page 161


in strategic sites . Two hotel



Two student accommodation



Residential care homes, extra care

homes and agricultural tied houses

will not be charged.

display or sale of motor vehicles will be

charged £90 per square metre. Industrial


South Somerset Mar-12

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



square metre.

Large format retail developments are to



uses.

Stroud 26/02/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Residential development in strategic

sites will not be required to pay CIL,

but they will be required to fund their

own site infrastructure costs.

Supermarkets and retail warehouse


square metre. All other retail as well as

business and industrial developments

are to be charged £10 per square metre.



square metre.

Swindon 10/07/2013

Charging

Schedule

Submitted





metre.


uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 162


Taunton Deane 13/11/2013 Adopted



metre.



metre.


uses.

Teignbridge 31/07/2014 Adopted

Five residential charging zones with

rates of £200, £150, £125, £85 and

£70 per square metre. No charge for

affordable housing.



metre.


uses.

Torbay Dec-11

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Two charging zones for A1 shop



for small A1 shop developments with


Two charging zones for retail warehouse



for food and drink developments with



uses.

Torridge 26/06/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential (including C3 sheltered

accomodation) developments are to


Two supermarket development charging


square metre. Retail warehouses are to



uses.

West Dorset 24/06/2013 Charging Two residential charging zones with No charge for retail or commercial No charge for all other

ITE

M 9

Page 163


Schedule

Submitted


metre. No charge for essential rural

worker dwellings.

developments. uses.

Weymouth and

Portland

24/06/2013

Charging

Schedule

Submitted



metre.


developments.


uses.

Wiltshire 23/06/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted


rates of £85, £55, £40 and £30 per

square metre. Student housing and

hotel developments are to be charged


High street retail developments are to be

charged £70 per square metre. Retail

warehouse and superstore

developments are to be charged £175

per square metre.


uses.

EAST OF ENGLAND


Babergh (Babergh

and Mid Suffolk)

21/05/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre and one zone with varying

rates of £90 per square metre for

smaller developments and £50 per

square metre for larger

developments.



metre.


ITE

M 9

Page 164


Bedford 05/02/2014 Adopted

Five residential charging zones with

rates of £125, £120, £100, £55 and

£40 per square metre. No charge for

care homes or residential institutions.

Convenience based supermarket,



per square metre.


Breckland 15/04/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Hotels will be charged £140 per

square metre. Residential care homes


Holiday accommodation will be


Out of centre retail development

(A1) will be charged £150 per

square metre.


Broadland (Greater

Norwich

Development

Partnership)

09/05/2013 Adopted



metre. Residential institions will not

be charged CIL.

Large convenience retail


per square. All other retail


per square metre.


developments will be

charged £25 per square

metre. Health and education

developments will not be

charged. All other uses will

be charged £5 per square

metre.

Cambridge 28/03/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Residential and student

accommodation developments are to


Retail developments are to be

charged £75 per square metre. No charge for all other uses. IT

EM

9

Page 165


Castle Point 15/01/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential charging zones, with


metre. Residential Care Homes are

charged £80 per square metre. Hotels

are £40 per square metre.

Three retail charging zones and

types, with rates of £140, £60 and



Central

Bedfordshire

14/01/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



square metre.

Large superstores will charge £200

per square metre. Town centre

retail will not be charged. All other

retail will be charged £100


Chelmsford 26/02/2014 Adopted Residential developments will be




metre. All other retail


per square metre.


Colchester 11/11/2011

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published





metre. Comparison retail




Dacorum 16/07/2014 Submitted Four residential charging zones with

rates of £250, £150, £100 and £0 per

square metre. Retirement housing

Convenienced based supermarkets,

superstores and retail warehousing



ITE

M 9

Page 166


will have two zones with rates of


metre.

East

Cambridgeshire

01/02/2013 Adopted



metre.



Hertsmere 17/09/2014 Adopted



metre. Hotel and retirement home


per square metre.

Retail developments (A1)will be


Huntingdonshire 01/05/2012 Adopted


charged £85 per square metre. Hotel


square metre. Residential institution


square metre.

Large retail developments will be


Small retail developments will be


Business, general industry and

storage or distribution


CIL.

Health developments will be


metre. Community useand

agricultural developments

will not be charged CIL. All

other developments will be


metre.

Ipswich 04/12/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three small residential development


£85 and £50 per square metre. Three

large residential development

Convenience retail will be charged

£120 per square metre. No charge for all other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 167




Mid Suffolk

(Babergh and Mid

Suffolk)

21/05/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre and one zone with varying

rates of £75 per square metre for

smaller developments and £50 per

square metre for larger

developments.



metre.


North

Hertfordshire

11/02/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre.

Large scale retail developments will


Small scale retail developments will



Norwich (Greater

Norwich

Development

Partnership)

25/06/2013 Adopted


charged £75 per square metre. Tall

flat blocks will be charged £65 per

square metre. Residential institions

will not be charged CIL.



per square. All other retail


per square metre.








metre.

Peterborough 18/08/2014 Draft Charging Three charging zones for market Supermarket developments will be No charge for all other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 168


Schedule

Published

housing developments of less that 15

units with rates of £140, £120 and

£100 per square metre. Three

charging zones for market housing

developments of 15 or more units or

apartment developments on sites of

less than 15 units with rates of £70,


Strategic site developments of 500

dwellings or more will be charged £15

per square metre.


Retail warehouse developments will


Neighbourhood convenience shops


metre.

South

Cambridgeshire

28/04/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre.

Large scale retail developments will


Small scale retail developments will



South Norfolk

(Greater Norwich

Development

Partnership)

24/02/2014 Adopted





Residential institions will not be

charged CIL.



per square metre. All other retail


per square metre. Business and

industrial developments will be









metre.

ITE

M 9

Page 169


Suffolk Coastal 21/05/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre, and two zones with varying


metre for smaller developments and

£50 and £90 per square metre for

larger developments.


will be chared £100 per square

metre.


Three Rivers 04/07/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre. Hotel developments are to be


Retirement housing developments


metre.

Retail developments (A1) are to be


Thurrock Mar-13

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential and HMO charging


square metre. Two hotel



Two retail (A1) and food and drink

(A3, A4&A5) development charging

zones with rates of £150 £0 per

square metre. Two financial and

professional (A2), research (B1b),

industry (B1c&B2) and warehouse

(B8) development charging zones


metre.

Two casino and retail

warehouse club

developpment charging

zones wit rates of £150 and

£0 per square metre. Two

car showroom development

charging zones with rates of

£25 and £0 per square

metre. No charge for all

other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 170


Watford 18/08/2014

Examination

Report

Published

Two residential developments

including care home and hotel



metre.

Three retail charging zones with


square metre.


Waveney 01/08/2013 Adopted


rates of £150, £60, £40 and £0 per

square metre. Holiday let


square metre.

Supermarkets, superstores and

retail warehouse developments will



EAST MIDLANDS


Bassetlaw 27/06/2014 Adopted Three residential charging zones with rates


Two retail charging zones with rates of £100

and £25 per square metre. Commercial

Developments will be charged £15 per square

metre.

No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Chesterfield 13/06/2014 Submitted Four residential charging zones with rates of


Two retail charging zones with rates of £80 and


No

charge

for all

ITE

M 9

Page 171


other

uses.

Corby 09/05/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential charging zone with rates of


Convenience based supermarkets, superstores

and retail warehouse developments will be

charged £100 per square metre. No charge for

comparison and all other retail (A1 - A5).

No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Daventry 26/06/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential charging zone with rates of

in one zone £50 per square metre, and in

the other zone £200 per square metre but

it's reduced to £150 per square metre if

there is sufficient affordable housing.

Two retail development charging zones with


No

charge

for all

other

uses.

East

Northamptonshire

14/03/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three residential charging zones, with rates

of £112.50, £70 and £50 per square metre.

Office, industrial and warhouse developments

are to be charged £20 per square metre.

Convenience supermarket, superstore and

retail warehouse developments are to be


No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Gedling 04/07/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three residential charging zones, with rates


Retail developments (A1-5) will be charged £60

per square metre.

No

charge

for all

other

uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 172


Kettering 09/11/2012

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential charging zones with rates of

£50 and £100 per square metre

Large retail developments will be charged £125

per square metre. Two small retail

development charging zones with rates of £60


No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Newark and

Sherwood

01/12/2011 Adopted Five residential charging zones with rates of

£75, £65, £55, £45 and £0 per square metre.

Four industrial development charging zones

with rates of £20, £15, £5 and £0 per square

metre. Two retail development charging zones

with rates of £125 and £100 per square metre.

No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Northampton 26/06/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential development will be charged


Two retail charging zones with rates of £100


No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Rutland May-13

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published


£100 per square metre. Hotel developments


Supermarkets and Retail Warehouses will be

charged £150 per square metre. Distribution

centres will be charged £10 per square metre.

No

charge

for all

other

uses.

South

Northamptonshire

26/06/2014 Draft Charging

Schedule

Two residential charging zones one with a

rate of £50 per square metre and the other

Retail developments are to be charged £100

per square metre. No

charge

ITE

M 9

Page 173


Published with two rates of £200 per square metre for

residential developments that do not

provide enough affordable housing and

£150 per square metre that do.

for all

other

uses.

Wellingborough 09/05/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Convenience based supermarkets, superstores

and retail warehouse developments will be

charged £100 per square metre. Two charging

zones for comparison and all other retail (A1 -

A5) with rates of £60 and £0 per square metre.

No

charge

for all

other

uses.

NORTH EAST

Local


County

Durham

25/04/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Four residential charging zones with rates of


Student accommodation developments are to


Two large food retail charging zones with rates of


No

charge

for all

other

uses.

Gateshead 18/07/2012 Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule


£88 and £16 per square metre. Two student

accommodation charging zones with rates of

Supermarkets will be charged £128 per square metre.

Two zones for all other large retail developments

with rates of £128 and £80 per square metre. Two

No

charge

for all

ITE

M 9

Page 174

Local


Published £16 and £0 per square metre. Two hotel

charging zones with rates of £40 and £0 per

square metre.

zones for small scale retail development with rates of


other

uses.

Newcastle

upon Tyne

20/06/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Three residential charging zones with rates of

£88, £16 and £0 per square metre. Three

hotel charging zones with rates of £3, £40 and

£0 per square metre. Two shared or student

accommodation charging zones with rates of


Supermarkets will be charged £128 per square metre.

Two small scale retail charging zones with rates of

£128 and £0 per square metre. Two large scale retail

charging zones with rates of £128 and £80 per square

metre. Two office charging zones zones with rates of


No

charge

for all

other

uses.

NORTH WEST

Local


Bolton 13/05/2013

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential and student accomodation


square metre. Affordaple housing will

not be charged.

Supermarket developments are to be


Warehouse developments are to be


All other uses are to be


metre. Except for health

community and emergency

services facilities which will

be £0

Chorley 16/07/2013 Adopted Dwelling house developments will be Convenience retail developments No charge for all other

ITE

M 9

Page 175

Local


(Central

Lancashire)

charged £65 per square metre. (excluding neighbourhood conveience

stores) will be charged £160 per square

metre. Retail warehouse, retail parks and

neighbourhood conveience stores will be


uses.

Preston

(Central

Lancashire)

22/08/2013 Adopted

Two dwelling house development

charging zones with rates of £65 and

£35 per square metre. Apartments will

not be charged CIL.

Convenience retail (excluding

neighbourhood convenience stores) will

be charged £160 per square metre. Retail

ware house, retail park and

neighbourhood convenience stores will be



uses.

South

Lakeland

18/09/2014

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published



metre. Two sheltered and retirement

housing development charging zones


metre. Agricultural workers dwellings

will not be charged.

Two supermarket and retail warehouse




uses.

South Ribble

(Central

Lancashire)

24/07/2013 Adopted

Dwelling house developments will be

charged £65 per square metre. No

charge for apartment developments.

Convenience retail (excluding

neighbourhood convenience stores) will

be charged £160 per square metre. Retail

ware house, retail park and


uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 176

Local


neighbourhood convenience stores will be


Trafford 26/03/2014 Adopted

Three private market house

development zones with rates of £20,

£40 and £80 per square metre. Two

apartment development zones with


Hotel developments will be charged £10

per square metre.

Two charging zones for supermarket


per square metre. Retail warehouse


square metre. No charge for office,

industry and warhouse developments.

Leisure developments will



other uses.

West

Lancashire

23/08/2014 Adopted



No charge for essential rural worker

dwellings or apartment developments.

Two convenience retail developments


metre. Two food and drink developments

(A3, A4 and A5) with rates of £90 and £0

per square metre.


uses.

Wigan 24/07/2014

Draft

Charging

Schedule

Published



metre.

Supermarkets and superstores


square metre. Retail warehouse


square metre. Retail developments (A3-

A5) will be charged £10 per square metre.


uses.

WEST MIDLANDS

ITE

M 9

Page 177


Birmingham 05/11/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential charging zones


square metre. Two hotel



Two supermarket charging zones with rates of

£150 and £380 per square metre. All other retail

developments will be charged £150 per square

metre. Three office development charging zones

with rates of £15, £25 and £55 per square metre.

No charge for all

other uses.

Cannock Chase 03/12/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Supermarkets, superstores and retail park


metre.

No charge for all

other uses.

Dudley 04/09/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Five residential charging zones

with rates of £100, £75, £50, £20


Two retail development (A1) charging zones with

rates of £100 and £0 per square metre. Two

retail development (A3 - A5) charging zones with


No charge for all

other uses.

Herefordshire,

County of

04/03/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Four Residential charging zones

with rates of £0, £50, £100 and

£140 per sguare metre.

Residential institutions will not

be charged CIL. Hotels will be


Two comparison retail charging zones with rates

of £90 and £125 per square metre. Small

convenience retail will be charged £80 per

square metre and Large comparison retail will be


No charge for all

other uses.

Lichfield 11/03/2014 Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule



square metre.

Supermarkets will be charged £160 per square

metre. Retail warehouse developments will be

charged £100 per square metre. Neighbourhood

No charge for all

other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 178


Published convenience retail developments will be charged


Malvern Hills (South

Worcestershire)

27/09/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



Student accommodation will be


Hotels will be charged £100 per

square metre.

Supermarkets and retail warehouses will be


No charge for all

other uses.

Newcastle-under-

Lyme (Newcastle-

under-Lyme and

Stoke-on-Trent)

24/06/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Four residential charging zones



Retail development will be charged £100 per

square metre.

No charge for all

other uses.

Rugby Sep-13

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



square metre

Retail developments will be charged £112 per

square metre.

No charge for all

other uses.

Sandwell 24/07/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Small scale housing

developments will be charged

£30 per square metre. Large

scale housing developments will


metre.

Supermarket, superstore and retail warehouse


metre. Two retail charging zones with rates of


No charge for all

other uses. ITE

M 9

Page 179


Shropshire 11/24/2011 Adopted



square metre.


developments.

No charge for all

other uses.

Solihull 27/06/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Three residential charging zones,


per square metre. Two hotel and

residential institution

development charging zones


square metre.

Two supermarket and large convenience retail

development charging zones with rates of £300

and £0 per square metre. Two small convenience

retail development charging zones with rates of

£150 and £0 per square metre. Three charging

zones for other retail (A1) development with

rates of £50, £25 and £0 per square metre. Two

financial and professional development (A2)

charging zones with rates of £25 and £0 per

square metre. Two food and drink development

(A3, A4&A5) charging zones with rates of £100


Two car dealership

charging zones

with rates of £75

and £0 per square

metre. No charge

for all other uses.

Stoke-on-Trent

(Newcastle-under-

Lyme and Stoke on

Trent)

24/06/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Four residential charging zones



Retail development will be charged £100 per

square metre.

No charge for all

other uses.

Stratford-on-Avon 31/10/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



per square metre.

Retail developments are to be charged £120 per

square metre.

No charge for all

other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 180


Warwick Jun-13

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Eight residential charging zones

with rates of £180, £170, £120,

£110, £90, £70, £50 and £30 per

square metre. Hotel and student


are to be charged £80 per

square metre.

Two retail developments charging zones with


Supermarkets, superstores and retail parks are to


No charge for all

other uses.

Worcester (South

Worcestershire)

27/09/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential developments are to


metre. Hotel and Student



square metre.

Supermarkets and retail warehouses are to be


No charge for all

other uses.

Wychavon (South

Worcestershire)

27/09/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Residential developments are to


metre. Hotel and Student



square metre.

Supermarkets and retail warehouses are to be


No charge for all

other uses.

YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER ITE

M 9

Page 181

Local


Hambleton 30/05/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted



Retail warehouses are to be charged £40

per square metre. Supermarkets are to be



uses.

Hull 19/08/2013

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published





per square metre


uses.

Leeds 07/04/2014

Charging

Schedule

Submitted


rates of £5, £23, £45 and £90 per square

metre.

Two charging zones for supermarket


per square metre. Two charging zones for

large comparison retail with rates of £35

and £55 per square metre. City centre

offices will be charged £35 per square

metre.

Publicly funded or not for

profit developments will

not be charged CIL. All

other uses will be


metre.

Rotherham Aug-13

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre.



warehouses and parks will be charged £30

per square metre.


uses.

Ryedale 25/06/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



No charge for apartment developments.

Supermarkets will be charged £120 per

square metre. Retail warehouses will be



uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 182

Local


Selby 14/07/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Two residential (excluding apartments)

charging zones with rates of £45 and






uses.

Sheffield 29/08/2014

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published

Five residential (C3 and C4) charging

zones with rates of £80, £50, £30, £10

and £0 per square metre. Hotel


square metre. Student accommodation


square metre.

Large retail developments are to be

charged £60 per square metre. Three retail

development (A1) charging zones with rates


Two leisure development

charging zones with rates

of £10 and £0 per square


other uses.

Wakefield 11/06/2014

Preliminary

Draft Charging

Schedule

Published



metre.





uses.

WALES


Caerphilly

(Caerphilly and

Merthyr Tydfil)

31/10/2013

Charging

Schedule

Submitted

Three residential

charging zones with

rates of £40, £25 and £0

Retail developments (A1) are to be charged

£100 per square metre. Restaurant, cafe and

drinking establishment developments are to be

Primary healthcare

developments are to be


ITE

M 9

Page 183


per square metre. charged £25 per square metre. No charge for all other uses.

Merthyr Tydfil

(Caerphilly and

Merthyr Tydfil)

23/04/2014 Adopted

Two residential charging

zones with rates of £25

and £0 per square

metre.

Retail developments (A1) are to be charged

£100 per square metre. Food and drink

developments (A3) are to be charged £25 per

square metre.


Rhondda Cynon

Taf

04/06/2014

Examination

Report

Published

Three residential

charging zones with

rates of £0, £40 and £85

per square metre.

Retail developments (A1) will be charged £100

per square metre. No charge for all other uses.

ITE

M 9

Page 184

September 2014

Overview of Surrey Boroughs Charging Schedules

Borough Stage Residential £ / m2

Retail £ / m2

Other £ / m2

Funding Gap £m

Anticipated income £m/year avrg

Elmbridge Introduced April 2013

125 >280m2 = 125 <280m2 =50

42 2.4

Epsom and Ewell

Introduced

July 2014 125 150 (Convenience)

30 (student accommodation)

20 Care Home

43 0.7

Guildford

Preliminary consultation November - December 2014

300 - Zone 1, rural areas

and villages 100 - Zone 2, Ash and

Tongham 500 - Zone 3, Guildford

town, excluding strategic sites)

150 - Zone 4, Slyfield Regeneration Area £400 - Zone 5, Strategic sites (or £0 with all infrastructure secured by S106)

200

75 Student accommodation 100 Assisted living / extra care housing

?

Mole Valley Preliminary March/April 2013

125 100 (Convenience) 0 (Comparison)

12 1.8

Reigate and Banstead

Preliminary Sept/Oct 2012

125 250 (>280) 50 (<280)

75 2.3

ITE

M 9

Page 185

September 2014


Retail £ / m2

Other £ / m2

Funding Gap £m


Revised pdcs consultation Dec 2014

Runnymede

Local Plan and CIL charging schedule submitted March 2014

Withdrawn due to Local Plan issues

125 All borough except for DERA site

0 (Town centres, Virginia Water Local Centre & DERA site)

75 elsewhere

48 1.5

Spelthorne

Inspector’s report Sept 2014 Adoption planned for March 2015

< 15 units (no affordable)

100 (Zone 1 Stanwell) 140 (Zone 2 North of M3) 160 (Zone 3 South of M3)

> 15 units (affordable housing included)

0 (Zone 1 Stanwell) 40 (Zone 2 North of M3) 60 (Zone 3 South of M3)

120 out of centre larger convenience based supermarkets and superstores and retail warehouses (over 280sqm)

120 purpose built student housing

25 960,000- 1.2million

Surrey Heath

Adopted July 2014, Introduced Dec 2014 2014

220 (East) or 55 (with SANG) 180 (West) or 55 (with SANG) 0 (Princess Royal Barracks)

240 Convenience 200 retail warehousing/ superstore 100 comparison

28 1.1

ITE

M 9

Page 186

September 2014


Retail £ / m2

Other £ / m2

Funding Gap £m


Tandridge

Adopted July 2014 Effective from Dec 2014

120 100 (Convenience) 0 (Comparison)

>12 1.1

Waverley

Preliminary Consulted on in Nov/Dec 2012 Work suspended to rework new local plan

160 87 (Convenience) 32 1.6

Woking

Inspectors report July 2014 Effective from 1 April 2015

75 (Woking Town Centre Sheerwater/Maybury) 125 remainder of borough

75 76 1.4

ITE

M 9

Page 187

Page 188


SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: WEDNESDAY 2

LEAD OFFICER:

KEVIN MCKEE, PARKING SERVICES MANAGER, GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

SUBJECT: PARKING BUSINESS PLAN 2015

DIVISION(S): ALL SUMMARY OF ISSUE: The annexe to this report presents off-street car parking, on-recommendations in respect of park and ride. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Local Committee (Guildford)

(i) In principle, that we look at the use of virtual permit technology to provide an improved service for residents (ii) That all interested parties discuss changes to road direction signparticularly where this convenient car park. (iii) That the provision of guardingride sites be combined (iv) That Surrey County Council undertake a consultation on the proposal to remove the ENCTS from the Park & Ride networkbased on age, and journey for these concessionary pass holders (v) To use the uncommittedGuildford in 2013-Ride in 2015-16.


To improve customer service, help motorists find the and to provide funding for the park and ride service

www.surreycc.gov.uk/guildford.


(GUILDFORD).

WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2014

KEVIN MCKEE, PARKING SERVICES MANAGER, GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PARKING BUSINESS PLAN 2015-16

report presents the Parking Business Plan for 2015street parking and park and ride. It makes

in respect of service improvements, efficiencies, and the funding

(Guildford) is asked to agree:

that we look at the use of virtual permit technology to provide service for residents whilst reducing costs.

hat all interested parties discuss changes to road direction signwhere this will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first

convenient car park.

provision of guarding services at Artington and Merrow be combined into a single mobile guard between the two sites

hat Surrey County Council undertake a consultation on the proposal to remove the ENCTS from the Park & Ride network, for people qualifying

and on the introduction of a nominal charge of £1 per return journey for these concessionary pass holders.

uncommitted surplus from on-street parking management in -14, of £68,000 on funding the cost of Onslow Park and


improve customer service, help motorists find the most appropriate parking facility to provide funding for the park and ride service.

KEVIN MCKEE, PARKING SERVICES MANAGER, GUILDFORD

2015-16. It covers

of service improvements, efficiencies, and the funding

that we look at the use of virtual permit technology to provide

hat all interested parties discuss changes to road direction signage will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first

at Artington and Merrow park and obile guard between the two sites.

hat Surrey County Council undertake a consultation on the proposal to for people qualifying

a nominal charge of £1 per return

street parking management in the cost of Onslow Park and

most appropriate parking facility

ITEM 10

Page 189



1.1 The Parking Business Plan for 2015-16 is attached as Annexe 1. It presents

information on on-street parking management, off-street parking and park and ride, to enable issues to be considered across all parts of the parking service.

1.2 The Guildford Local Committee is responsible for on-street parking, Guildford

Borough Council is responsible for off-street parking, and both the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council have joint responsibility for park and ride. The business plan therefore highlights which committee needs to agree which recommendations. However, presenting a combined report provides an opportunity for the Committee to consider parking across all aspects of the parking service.

2. ANALYSIS:

2.2 Recommendation (i) is discussed in paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 of the Parking

Business Plan. 2.3 Recommendation (ii) is discussed in paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 of the Parking

Business Plan. 2.4 Recommendations (iii), (iv) and (v) are discussed in section 7 of the Parking

Business Plan.

3. OPTIONS:

3.1 The options are to agree the recommendations, to have no change, or to

substitute a modified recommendation.

4. CONSULTATIONS:

4.1 Officers from Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council have

been consulted. In particular, section 7, about park and ride, has been discussed with the Passenger Transport Group.


5.1 More work is required to quantify the potential savings from using virtual

permits and so the Committee is asked to confirm, in principle, that it would support the introduction of virtual permits.

5.2 The estimated saving from combining the guards at Artington and Merrow

park and ride sites is £30,000. The estimate for additional fare revenue from the introduction of a charge for concessionary pass holders is £130,000 per annum.

ITEM 10

Page 190



6.1 We provide a wide range of parking facilities for the disabled. These include

unrestricted and time limited on-street disabled parking bays. Blue badge holders can also park on yellow lines, not subject to loading restrictions, for up to three hours. They are exempt from charges for parking on-street. They can also park for an unlimited period in residents’ only, shared-use, or limited waiting parking places, and in pay and display car parks.

6.2 Surrey County Council will carry out an equalities impact assessment on the proposal to introduce a fare for concessionary pass holders using park and ride.

7. LOCALISM:

7.1 Parking, as a policy tool, is most effective when it is co-ordinated. Surrey

County Council and Guildford Borough Council have responsibility for different parts of the service. A combined business plan being considered by both authorities represents co-ordination at a local level.



Crime and Disorder No significant implications arising from this report.


Set out below.


No significant implications arising from this report.


No significant implications arising from this report.

Public Health


Sustainability implications 8.1 Parking sits alongside Climate Change and Air Quality within the strategies

that feed into the Surrey Transport Plan. Therefore, in many respects, these strategies and sustainability are inter-dependant.

8.2 The Parking Business Plan discusses ways to reduce congestion and

promote sustainable means of transport.


9.1 The conclusions and recommendations are set out in the Parking Business

Plan.


10.1 The plan is due to be considered by Guildford Borough Council’s Customer

and Community Scrutiny Committee on 13 January and then by the Executive on 20 January 2015.

ITEM 10

Page 191


Contact Officer: Kevin McKee, Parking Services Manager, Guildford Borough Council (01483) 444530 Consulted: Officers from Guildford Borough and Surrey County Councils Annexes: Annexe 1 – The Parking Business Plan 2015-16 Sources/background papers: None

ITEM 10

Page 192

Annexe 1

Parking Business Plan 2015-16 Page 1

PARKING BUSINESS PLAN 2015-16

This business plan covers:

On-Street Parking in Guildford

On-Street Parking Reviews in Guildford

Off-Street Parking in Guildford

Park and Ride services

ITEM 10

Page 193

Annexe 1


Structure of the Business Plan

1. Summary

2. Introduction

3. Aims

Service Performance and Issues

4. On-street parking management Guildford

5. On-street parking reviews

6. Off-street parking

7. Park and Ride

Appendix

Appendix 1 On-street parking places

Appendix 2 Financial Statement for on-street parking management

Appendix 3 Off-street public car parks

Appendix 4 Financial statement for off-street car parks

Appendix 5 Car park usage and enforcement data

Appendix 6 Charges made in neighbouring centres

Appendix 7 Statement for the Car Park Maintenance Reserve (CPMR)

Appendix 8 Bid for funding from the CPMR for upgrading to LED lighting

Appendix 9 Bid for funding from the CPMR for Lift Replacement

Appendix 10 Proposed parking order for (a) Nightingale Road, (b) Lido Road Upper and (c)

Sutherland Memorial Park car parks

Appendix 11 Copy of the Memorandum of understanding on Park and Ride

ITEM 10

Page 194

Annexe 1


1. Summary

1.1 This report presents details of the parking services operation since April 2013 and

makes a series of recommendations for 2014-15. The recommendations are listed below

together with the section of the report in which they are discussed.

Section 3 – Aims

Recommendation to the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council’s

Executive

1. We recommend that a Task Group is established to develop a Parking Strategy

which sets a framework for parking operations to support key strategic plans

including the Local Plan, Town Centre Master Plan and Local Transport Plan 3.

Section 4 - On-street parking management Guildford

Recommendation to the Guildford Local Committee

2. We recommend that the Guildford Local Committee agree in principle that we look

at the use of virtual permit technology to provide an improved service for residents

whilst reducing costs.

Section 6 – Off-street parking

Recommendation for the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council’s

Executive

3. We recommend that all interested parties discuss changes to the direction road

signage, particularly where this will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first


Recommendations to Guildford Borough Council’s Executive

4. We recommend that we continue to examine the potential to develop Millbrook

Car Park and also work with our colleagues in Development to explore ways of

changing existing car parks, or developing new ones, based on the “drive to, not

through” principle.

5. To encourage greater use of park and ride and address the increase in use we

recommend the following tariff adjustments:

(i) Farnham Road Multi Storey Car Park from 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday

from 90p per hour to £1.00 per hour.

(ii) York Road Multi Storey Car Park from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday

from 90p per hour to £1.00 per hour.

(iii) Guildford Park Car Park from £4.50 per visit on Monday to Friday to £5.00 per

visit.

ITEM 10

Page 195

Annexe 1


(iv) Shalford Park Car Park from £2.80 per visit on Monday to Friday to £3.20 per

visit.

(v) Walnut Tree Close Car Park from £3 per visit on Monday to Friday to £3.20 per

visit.

6. We recommend increasing the charge for season tickets in York and Farnham

Road Multi Storey Car Parks by five per cent.

7. We recommend an increase of five per cent in our garage charges.

8. We recommend that when a garage becomes available, we give first priority to

any resident living in areas A,B,C,D, E or F of the controlled parking zone.

9. There is high demand for contract parking and we recommend an increase of five

per cent in the charge.

10. We recommend reducing the annual revenue contribution to the Car Park

Maintenance Reserve by £125,000 from April 2015.

11. We recommend upgrading the lights in Castle, Farnham and York Road car

parks to LED lamps, as detailed in the bid attached as Appendix 8, and that this be

funded from the Car Park Maintenance Reserve.

12. We recommend that the lift replacement programme proposed in the bid

attached as Appendix 9, is funded from the Car Park Maintenance Reserve.

13. We recommend that the car parks detailed in Appendix 10 be included within the

Off-Street Parking Places Order and that the Council undertakes the statutory

procedures to amend the order.

Section 7 Park and Ride

Recommendations to the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough

Council’s Executive

14. We recommended that the provision of guarding services at Artington and

Merrow be combined to become a mobile guard between the two sites.

15. We recommend that Surrey County Council undertakes a public consultation on

the proposal to remove the ENCTS from the Park & Ride network for people

qualifying based on age and on the introduction of a nominal charge of £1 per return

journey for these concessionary pass holders.

16. We recommend using the uncommitted surplus from on-street parking

management in Guildford for 2013-14 of £68,000 on funding the cost of Onslow Park

and Ride in 2015-16.

Recommendation for Guildford Borough Council’s Executive

ITEM 10

Page 196

Annexe 1


17. We recommend using the unspent surplus from on-street parking management

in Waverley, £37,750 to fund Onslow Park and Ride in 2015-16.

ITEM 10

Page 197

Annexe 1


2. Introduction

2.1 The service has a role in all aspects of parking in Guildford, and this provides an

opportunity to co-ordinate policies across different areas, and with wider transport

objectives. The Council is also in a strong position to influence parking in the town

because it runs nearly all the major car parks. We work closely with Surrey County

Council in managing on-street parking. Both authorities oversee the park and ride

network with Surrey County Council managing the bus network and Guildford

Borough Council managing the car parks.

2.2 To strengthen this co-ordination, a combined business plan is being presented to

both the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council’s Executive.

Guildford Borough Council’s Customer and Community Scrutiny Committee will also

consider the business plan.

2.3 The business plan presents a joined-up overview of parking but the

recommendations require approval from the committee responsible for that particular

area. A covering report will be presented to each Committee, drawing their attention

to the particular recommendations for their agreement, but they will also be able to

comment on other aspects of the report and services.

2.4 The majority of parking activity takes place in Guildford town centre and this is

therefore the focus of the service and this report. However, we conduct regular

reviews of parking restrictions all over the borough and enforce the restrictions that

are in place. Our agency agreement with Surrey County Council also includes the

management of on-street parking in Waverley, although this part of the service will be

subject to a separate report to the Waverley Local Committee.

3. Aims

3.1 Guildford Borough Council’s Corporate Plan and Surrey County Council’s Local

Transport Plan set out a number of priorities to which the Parking Service

contributes.

3.2 One of the key aims of the corporate plan is to develop, in partnership, a transport

strategy to 2050 for the town. The Guildford Traffic and Movement Study (GTAMs)

was published in April 2014 and presents a long-term strategy aiming towards 2050.

It includes promoting more sustainable modes of transport. The report suggests

making a range of improvements in the provision for walking, cycling and public

transport, including park and ride. It also suggests creating a sustainable movement

corridor. In the medium term, after some of these improvements are implemented,

the study supports the review of parking charges aimed at encouraging the use of

more sustainable means of transport.

3.3 The corporate plan sets a vision for an evolving vibrant economy. It highlights the

need to improve car parking capacity for local employers and visitors, and to create

conditions that support business and provide opportunities for growth. We need to

ensure that we support businesses as we work towards encouraging change.

ITEM 10

Page 198

Annexe 1


3.4 Surrey County Council’ s Local Transport Plan (LTP3) contains a vision “to help

people to meet their transport and travel needs effectively, reliably, safely and

sustainably within Surrey; in order to promote economic vibrancy, protect and

enhance the environment and improve the quality of life”. The Parking Strategy,

which forms part of the third local transport plan, describes the county council’s vision

for parking as “provide parking where appropriate, control parking where necessary”

and the objectives are stated as:

• Reduce congestion caused by parked vehicles

• Make the best use of parking space available

• Enforce parking restrictions fairly and efficiently

• Provide appropriate parking where needed

3.5 The Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council agreed a parking

strategy in 2003. This needs updating in view of developing policy and visions. The

following aims are suggested as a focus for the parking service to contribute towards

the objectives set out above:

• To provide a mixture of parking options needed to support a vibrant economy

• To encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes including park and ride.

• To develop further park and ride sites.

• To continually review parking tariffs centred around the town centre in order to maintain a hierarchy of charges. On-street parking to have the highest tariff and the further a driver parks from the centre, the lower the charge.

• To keep park and ride fares attractive, and to promote it as an alternative to parking in or near the town centre.

• To monitor all available indicators to ensure that the local economy continues to be successful and to ensure that customers and businesses continue to choose to do business in Guildford.

• To review the car parks provision and to explore opportunities to develop sites that allow drivers to park and return directly along main routes, a “drive to, not through” approach.

• To use on-street parking controls to support the objectives listed above, to maintain safe traffic flow and where necessary, and where supported by the local community, prioritise space for residents.

3.6 We will develop these objectives in the light of comments made by the various committees considering the Business Plan and in conjunction with officers developing other transport related strategies to produce a parking strategy that supports both councils aims.

ITEM 10

Page 199

Annexe 1



Executive

1. We recommend that a Task Group is established to develop a Parking Strategy

which sets a framework for parking operations to support key strategic plans,

including the Local Plan, Town Centre Master Plan and Local Transport Plan 3.

ITEM 10

Page 200

Annexe 1


Service Performance and Issues

4. On-street parking management Guildford

On-street parking space

4.1 Appendix 1 shows the number and distribution of designated on-street parking

places in the borough. Outside the town centre, in areas where controls are

necessary, there is a mixture of yellow lines and either free parking places, or parking

places subject to limited waiting. The town centre has a residents’ parking scheme

and this is divided into ten catchment areas A to J. Within these areas, a certain

amount of parking space is prioritised for residents, often with the facility for non-

residents to park for a limited amount of time, or longer, if they obtain a visitors'

permit from a resident.

4.2 Permit schemes are introduced where there is parking pressure. In these areas, the

emphasis is on ensuring that residents who have access to off-street parking use it to

reduce pressure on parking on the streets. Households are limited to up to two

permits and the number of permits is generally reduced according to the amount of

off-street parking at the residence. In the town centre, area D, there is a waiting list

for permits and residents who qualify are issued with a permit for an adjacent

catchment area, until such time that an area D permit becomes available.

4.3 In the town centre, there are around 460 pay and display parking bays. These allow

motorists to stay for a limited period on payment of a charge. The bays closest to the

centre have a maximum stay of 30 minutes. Most of the others allow up to two hours

parking, and there are a few in and around Pewley Hill that allow up to three hours.

4.4 Motorists look for the most convenient parking space and there is only a limited

amount of space on-street. Drivers who look for, but cannot find, space on-street

add to congestion. To discourage this, it is good practice for on-street parking to

carry a higher charge than car parks. To ensure there is a steady supply of on-street

space becoming available, the time motorists can park is limited. This reflects the

fact that on-street space is usually the most convenient and in shortest supply.

On-street pay and display

4.5 In January 2014, the charge for on-street parking in Guildford was increased from

70p to 80p per half hour. This was the first change since April 2008. We reported

that in key areas of the town, on-street parking usage was growing. The exception

was around G Live where the people who had been parking on the street during

construction were now returning to use the car park. One of the reasons for the

growth was that the price of parking on-street was very similar to that in the car

parks. The equivalent price per hour on-street was £1.40 and the price in the car

parks was £1.20.

4.6 The Guildford Local Committee agreed a tariff increase to create a higher differential

between the on-street charge and the charge for car parks. The charge was

increased from 70p per half hour to 80p per half hour in January 2014.

ITEM 10

Page 201

Annexe 1


Year Income (£) Change

(compared to

2010-11) in

per cent

No. of

Tickets

Change

(compared

to 2010-11)

In per cent

Average

time

purchased

2010-11 692,868 - 532,111 - 56mins

2011-12 700,606 +1.3 533,031 + 0.1 57mins

2012-13 687,677 -0.7 524,046 -1.5 56mins

2013-14 699,890 +1 520,089 -2.4 56mins

Change since the increase

Jan 2013-

Sept 2013

498,959 Change in

income in per

cent

384,087 Change in

number of

tickets in per

cent

56mins

Jan 2014 –

Sept 2014

549,277 +10.1 376,794 -1.9 55mins

4.7 The report presented in September 2013 highlighted the locations shown in the table

below and the increase they had had since 2010-11. The table below shows that the

tariff change has stopped the increase in use, but that on-street parking is still well

used. No further change to the tariff is recommended.

Road Percentage

increase in ticket

numbers between

2010-11 and Sept

2013

First

Quarter

2013-14

First

Quarter

2014-15

Change in

per cent as

a result of

the increase

Millmead 8.3 13,650 13,343 -2.2

South Hill 27.5 2,565 2,676 +4.3

Chertsey Street 11 2,986 2,958 -0.9

Castle Street &

Tunsgate

3.2 9,719 9,213 -5.2

Residents Parking Permits

4.8 During the course of 2014, the parking service has been undergoing an internal

fundamental service review. The review has reinforced the need for a better IT

system and for more on-line facilities. We intend to look at facilities to allow people

who receive a penalty charge to view and submit comments and evidence on-line.

4.9 The way permits are issued can also be improved with virtual permits. Residents

who satisfy us that they qualify could have their registration number listed on a

ITEM 10

Page 202

Annexe 1


database. Civil Enforcement Officers using Automatic Number Plate Recognition

technology can check the validity quickly. This is similar to the system now being

used for tax discs, where no physical disc is issued, but cars are checked by

cameras.

4.10 This process means residents can apply for a permit on-line, rather than by post, or

by visiting the Parking Office. It saves time for the residents and reduces processing

costs. Residents that do not want, or do not have the capability to apply on-line,

would still be able to apply in the traditional way. The aim is to provide the option

and encourage on-line transactions. To implement such a change requires a new IT

system and a change to the Traffic Regulation Order.

Recommendation to the Guildford Local Committee

2. We recommend that the Guildford Local Committee agree in principle that we look

at the use of virtual permits technology to provide an improved service for residents

whilst reducing costs.

Enforcement and number of Civil Enforcement Officers

4.11 We are considering the number of Civil Enforcement Officers and the times they

patrol. Successive parking reviews have increased the amount of on-street parking

controls. As part of the recently completed review of the town centre, the hours of

control in the parking bays and single yellow lines around Dene Road were increased

to 8.30am to 9pm Monday to Sunday. We are also receiving more requests to

enforce restrictions, particularly double yellow lines, outside normal working hours

and on Sundays. Trying to respond to these requests reduces the number of officers

on duty during the normal working day.

4.12 The deployment of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) is complex. When fully staffed,

we have 22 CEOs and three of these work in Waverley borough. 19 CEOs are

available in Guildford. Their work patterns need to cover six days (Monday to

Saturday), while their working hours are 37 hours per week over five days. They also

have holiday and some sickness. On any day, there will be around 14 officers

available in Guildford to cover car parks and on-street restrictions. Between 7am and

7pm one CEO will be in the control room, which requires 1.5 FTEs per day to cover,

so there are around 12.5 available for patrols. There are three normal shifts early,

middle and late, and occasional evening shifts. Sundays are worked on voluntary

overtime. The table below shows how these resources are typically used.

Deployment of CEOs

Early (7am to 3pm or 7.30am to 3.30pm) 3 or 4

Middle (8.00am to 5.00pm) 3

Late (9.15am to 6.15pm or 10.15 to 6.15pm) 5 or 6

Evening

(2pm to 10pm)

Approximately once every week with two

officers mainly around the area with town

centre car parks but targeted enforcement

elsewhere when we get complaints or

ITEM 10

Page 203

Annexe 1


become aware of problems.

Sundays Every Sunday with two to three officers on

voluntary overtime.

4.13 We will review the enforcement patterns and present further proposals during

2015-16.

On-street parking – Financial data and performance

4.14 Attached as Appendix 2 is a statement of costs and income for the service. Under

the Memorandum of Understanding between Surrey County Council and Guildford

Borough Council (details in the Park and Ride section and appendix 10), the first call

on any surplus made from on-street parking is put towards the cost of park and ride

at the Artington, Merrow and Spectrum sites.

4.15 As part of the agency agreement there are KPIs on which we are required to report.

They are as follows.

KPI Details Result

Total cost to administer the

on-street parking service –

the overall net cost of

operating the on-street

enforcement element of the

parking service.

Our total costs include

parking reviews, management

of pay and displays, and

permit administration is

£821,317. The net cost of the

on-street service is positive

with income at £1,450,150.

Net surplus less

expenditure

£628,833

Civil enforcement officer

(CEO) deployment

efficiency – this measures

the number of hours

deployed CEO time spent

on-street or travelling to

sites as a ratio of the total

cost of the enforcement

operation.

Total enforcement cost is

estimated at £481,100. Total

hours deployed on-street or

travelling is estimated at

12,600.

£38.18

Penalty charge notices

(PCN) issued per

deployed hour – total

number of PCNs issued

as a ratio of the total

number of CEO hours on-

street.

The number of penalty charge

notices issued on-street was

14,768. The estimated time

deployed was 8000 and

travelling time was 4600.

1.85

PCN cancellation rate - the total number of PCNs cancelled as a ratio of the total number of PCNs issued.

1,658 PCNs were cancelled

and 14,768 PCNs were

issued.

11.2%

ITEM 10

Page 204

Annexe 1


PCN Appeal Rate - the

total number of PCNs

successfully appealed, as

a ratio of the total number

of PCNs issued.

Total number of PCNs issued

was 14,768. 3 PCNs were

successfully appealed at the

formal appeal stage.

0.02%

Time taken to issue

parking permits/

dispensations/

suspensions – measuring

the average number of

days taken to deal with

general customer

requests for service

(excluding PCN appeals

or comments on parking).

5 working days

4.16 These KPIs will be useful in future years to compare performance with other

boroughs and districts in Surrey and to monitor changes in the performance in

Guildford.

ITEM 10

Page 205

Annexe 1


5. On-street parking reviews

5.1 During 2013-14 and in the first two quarters of 2014-15 we completed a review of the

town centre. The cost of implementing the changes associated with these reviews is

funded form the on-street account.

5.2 The work included consulting with residents in the town centre on whether the hours

of control should be extended to Sundays and into the evening. Around 2,000

properties were contacted. They were also asked whether they wanted more pay

and display controls. Some residents had expressed concerns about shoppers using

parking places that allow non-permit holders to park for a limited amount of time, as

well as permit holders who could park without limit.

5.3 None of the areas surveyed were in favour of additional pay and display controls.

The only area in favour of an extension to the hours of control was around Dene

Road, and the controls there now operate between 8.30am and 9pm Monday to

Sunday. New double yellow lines were also introduced to help with traffic flow in the

evening on London and Epsom Roads.

5.4 The controlled parking zone was extended in Onslow Village and Rivermount

Gardens was included. Controls have also been introduced in St Lukes Square.

Parking bays around the schools in Cranley Road have been adjusted to relieve the

pressure around the school at drop-off and pick-up times.

5.5 We are just starting a review of outer town locations and the Local Committee has

agreed that we look at seven areas and 22 locations. The areas are Avondale

Estate, Effingham Junction, Fairlands, Kingspost Parade, Merrow Parade , Shalford

and Woodbridge Hill.

5.6 We have a considerable amount of work to do in terms of assessing the issues,

producing proposals, consulting with local councillors, residents and others affected

and then implementing any proposed changes. It is expected that implementation

will be towards the end of 2015 or early 2016.

ITEM 10

Page 206

Annexe 1


6. Off-street Parking

6.1 Car parks provide access to the town and an availability of parking space absorbs

traffic and reduces congestion. Guildford has 23 public car parks, providing just over

5,000 spaces. Some car parks are contract car parks during the week and open to

the public at weekends. There are also contract only car parks. North Street car park

operates as a market on Fridays and Saturdays. We also provide a car park by Ash

Vale Station. In addition, we manage 200 garages in the town centre. A list of all the

car parks and garages managed by the Council’s parking service is shown in

Appendix 3.

6.2 Guildford Borough Council owns nearly all the major car parks in the town centre and

this provides us with a strong tool to influence the behaviour of people coming to

Guildford by car.

6.3 The locations of our car parks have often arisen from opportunity and many are on

development sites. The development of a future vision for Guildford and the studies

into the future road networks also provides an opportunity to consider sites for future

car parks.

6.4 Car parks are intended to reduce congestion. They are most effective if they are

positioned close to the main routes to the town, remove the traffic before it reaches

the most congested areas and allow vehicles to exit by the same route. This type of

access to car parks can be referred to as “drive to, not through” and helps reduce

congestion by removing traffic without it needing to drive through the town.

6.5 A number of existing car parks are not efficient in taking traffic away from congested

areas. Millbrook car park on the A281 takes traffic off the main road before its

reaches the gyratory but when vehicles leave, they have to turn left and go round the

gyratory to return to where they came from. A development of Millbrook car park

could enable the entry and exit to be moved to the junction with Quarry Street and

avoid the need to go round the gyratory.

6.6 Bedford Road Multi Storey is split into two car parks and the lower one is accessed

from Bedford Road after cars have gone around the gyratory. All cars leaving the

multi-storey have to travel on to Onslow Street and those that have come round the

gyratory to enter go round it again on their way back. Again, we can look to develop

alternative ways of accessing the car park to avoid this.


3. We recommend that we continue to examine the potential to develop Millbrook Car

Park and also work with our colleagues in Development to explore ways of changing

existing car parks, or developing new ones, on the basis of the “drive to, not through”

principle.

6.7 We can also use other methods to persuade and inform drivers about the choices

they have and where it is best to park. The current system of signing uses the

traditional terms “long-stay” and “short-stay” descriptions. Long stay car parks are

intended to be those further from a centre, which have cheaper tariffs to encourage

ITEM 10

Page 207

Annexe 1


workers to use them rather than the more central car parks. However, Guildford’s

shopping streets are long and the shopping area narrow. This means some of the

long-stay car parks are closer to certain shops than some of the short stay car parks.

For example, G Live car park is very close to the Upper High Street and therefore

classified as short-stay, but if you were going to the Friary shopping centre, it would

be more convenient to use Farnham Road Multi Storey car park, which is classified

as long-stay. We want drivers to use the first convenient car park to their designation

rather than drive round the town to get to closest one.

6.8 The City of Nottingham uses an approach called “Parksmart” signage, which splits

the city into zones, and drivers follow signs to car parks within the zone they wish to

visit. They know that if their location and a car park are in the same zone it will be

relatively close.

Recommendation for the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough Council’s

Executive

4. We recommend that all interested parties discuss changes to the directional road

signs, particularly where this will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first


Tariff Review

6.9 Appendix 4 presents a financial statement for the car park service and Appendix 5

data on usage and enforcement. The occupancy of a car park varies according to

days of the week and times of the year. The overall usage of a car park can be

assessed by considering the number of cars parking and how long they stay. In car

parks where an hourly charge is made, the income compared to the number of

tickets sold gives a good indication of the average amount of time being purchased.

6.10 The way people use car parks can be influenced by the tariffs we charge. Our ability

to influence behaviour is strengthened by our ownership of most of the car parks in

the town. In other centres of our size, there is often fragmented ownership, which

makes gathering data about what is happening more difficult.

6.11 Tariffs can be set to influence where people park, at what times, and for how long. In

Guildford, we have a fairly complex set of tariffs in our car parks. In the centre, the

day-time tariff is used to deter long-stay parking in the centre. This creates more

space for shoppers, who arrive after the morning traffic peak, and usually leave

before the evening peak. The charge is less at night and on Sundays.

6.12 During the day, keeping a significant deferential with park and ride fares, can also

help encourage greater use of the park and ride sites. In setting tariffs, we need to

be careful not to discourage people from coming to the town. To help, we compare

our tariffs to other similar local centres. The details of these are shown in Appendix

6.

6.13 In April 2010, we introduced an evening charge in the most central car parks, which

applied after 6pm Monday to Saturday and after 5pm on a Sunday. Motorists need

to pay up until 10pm. This added to the number of tickets sold and there was a jump

of 250,000 in the number sold between 2009-10 and 2010-11. The new pay and

ITEM 10

Page 208

Annexe 1


display machines installed in April 2013 allow us to analyse, in more detail, when

tickets are sold. It shows that last year around 380,000 tickets were sold in the

evening, which indicates the number of people paying to park in the evening is

increasing.

6.14 The total usage of the car parks in 2013-14 was 3,220,000. With around 380,000

using the car parks in the evening, the usage during the day is around 2,840,000.

The numbers using the car parks during the day before the banking crisis in 2008

was around 3,500,000. People are likely to be influenced by the increased cost of

motoring. The introduction of free concessionary bus travel has also had an effect

encouraging those with passes to use the bus.

6.15 In April 2013, we increased the tariff in a number of central short-stay car parks from

£1.10 per hour to £1.20 per hour. Subsequently, there was a significant drop-off in

the numbers using those car parks and the amount of time purchased. Although part

of the reduction was due to the flooding in Christmas - New Year period, particularly

in Bedford Road Multi Storey car park, the evidence suggests there was strong

resistance to price changes in short stay car parks. So far, in 2014-15 the number of

users is slightly higher than 2013-14.

6.16 A further change in short-stay tariff may have a more pronounced effect on the

number of users. We therefore do not recommend increasing the short stay tariffs in

the town centre.

6.17 There has been an increase in the use of the long-stay car parks around the town

centre. Long-stay users parking in these will add to the peak time congestion in the

roads leading to the town. The last tariff change was in 2011. To address this, and

help make park and ride more attractive, we recommend increasing the tariffs in the

long-stay car parks.

Recommendation to Guildford Borough Council’s Executive

5. To encourage greater use of park and ride and address the increase in use we

recommended making the following tariff adjustments:

(i) Farnham Road Multi Storey from 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday from 90p

per hour to £1.00 per hour.

(ii) York Road Multi Storey from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday from 90p per

hour to £1.00 per hour.

(iii) Guildford Park Car Park from £4.50 per visit on Monday to Friday to £5.00 per

visit.

(iv) Shalford Park Car Park from £2.80 per visit on Monday to Friday to £3.20 per visit.

(v) Walnut Tree Close Car Park from £3 per visit on Monday to Friday to £3.20 per

visit.

6.18 There are also season tickets sold to regular users of Farnham Road and York Road

car parks, which currently cost £1,712.35 per annum for a Monday to Friday pass.

ITEM 10

Page 209

Annexe 1


We recommend that these are increased by five per cent. In this way, regular users

will have a lesser increase.


6. We recommend to increase the season tickets in York and Farnham Road Multi

Storey Car Parks by five per cent to £1,780 per annum.

6.19 We also have pre-payment cards for the barrier-controlled car parks. These work

like oyster cards on the London underground. Drivers put credit on the card and can

use it to park in any of the barrier-controlled car parks at a rate that is 10 per cent

less than the normal charge. These cards provide regular parkers with a convenient

flexible way to pay.

Garages

6.20 We operate 200 garages around the town centre, which are in high demand. There

are three levels of charge: for residents £640.92 per annum, non-residents £1,076.93

per annum and in Bedford Sheds a business rate of £1,542.88 per annum. Many of

the garages are on development sites. A benchmarking exercise showed that the

rates we charged for residents were lower than in other boroughs. A resident living

within the Guildford town centre controlled parking zone can rent a garage for £640,

whereas Woking Borough Council charges over £800, and Waverley Borough

Council over £700.


7. We therefore recommend an increase of five per cent in our garage charges.

6.21 When letting a garage, we classify a resident as someone living in the town centre

Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). We give them priority for a garage over someone

not living within the CPZ. The CPZ has expanded over the years. The highest levels

of on-street parking pressure exist in the very centre of the town. We consider it

would help relieve on-street parking pressure if, when a garage became available, it

was offered to any resident of catchment areas A,B,C,D E or F who is on the waiting

list first, then to any other resident of the CPZ, and then to any other applicant.


8. We recommend that when a garage becomes available we give first priority to any

resident living in areas A,B,C,D, E or F of the controlled parking zone.

Contract Parking

6.22 The council operates over 600 contract parking spaces around the town centre.

These provide the holder with a reserved parking space. They are most suitable for

business users who need to come and go because they provide the reserved space.

However, when the user is away the space is normally empty. This is not an efficient

use of the limited amount of space we have in the town centre. The number of

ITEM 10

Page 210

Annexe 1


contract spaces we can provide is due to reduce, through development of the sites

on which the car parks are currently based, and we do not recommend replacing

them. We would instead suggest greater use of season tickets. These provide entry

and exit from larger car parks but do not involve a reserved space. The spaces can

be used by others drivers when the season ticket holder is away. Season tickets are

offered in the larger car parks and this normally means there will be room for the

season ticket holder on their return.

6.23 The contract parking spaces are heavily let and there are waiting lists for many car

parks. We therefore recommend an increase of five per cent.


9. There is high demand for contract parking and we recommend an increase of five

per cent in the charge.

Car Park Maintenance Reserve

6.24 The car park maintenance reserve was established in 2006-07. The aim was to set

aside money to fund major cyclical works in the multi-storey car parks. The major

works were specified as:

Applying protective deck surfaces every 12 years

Replacing lighting every 12 years

Electrical re-wiring every 24 years

Upgrading lifts when required

Decorating every 5 years

Replacing Pay Equipment every 10 years

6.25 It has been very successful, and our car parks are recognised as being maintained to

a high standard. They were part of the Purple Flag assessment and all the public car

parks have the Park Mark Award. Proactive work should also reduce maintenance

costs overall, so we benefit from well-maintained car parks and lower costs.

6.26 The contribution to the reserve was funded from an increase in the parking charge

combined with funding from existing revenue budgets. Various refinements have

been made over the years to the estimated frequencies and costs of works. A

statement for the account is attached as Appendix 7. This year, we have

conducted a major review, and consider, with the benefit of knowing the costs of

previous work, that the contribution from revenue can be reduced by £125,000 from

2015-16.


10. We recommend reducing the funding requirement for the Car Park Maintenance

Reserve by £125,000.

Bedford Road Lights

6.27 Rewiring and new lighting was completed in Bedford Road Multi Storey Car Park in

2013. LED lights, which are more expensive to buy but are far more efficient and

require less maintenance, replaced the traditional lights. We have been benefiting

from a saving of 40 per cent on electricity consumption.

ITEM 10

Page 211

Annexe 1


6.28 The table below shows the energy consumption in each of the lit car parks compared

to the number of spaces they provide:

Car Park Spaces

Consumption

in kWh/yr

kWh

per

space

Cost per

Space/yr

York 605 280,000 463 £49.47

Castle 350 325,000 929 £87.98

Farnham 917 485,000 529 £56.54

Leapale 384 175,000 456 £48.72

G Live 123 85,000 691 £62.20

Tunsgate 64 60,000 938 £88.07

Bedford 1,033 400,000 387 £36.53

Total 2,470,000

6.29 Attached as Appendix 8 is a bid outlining the advantages of upgrading the lighting in

our other major car parks with LED. For a project cost of £300,000 we can save

around £45,000 per year in energy and maintenance costs, and reduce the electricity

consumption from our car parks.


11. We recommend that the upgrade to LED lighting in Castle, Farnham and York

Road car parks, as detailed in the bid attached as Appendix 8, and that this is funded

from the Car Park Maintenance Reserve.

Replacement Lifts

6.30 The Council’s Electrical Engineer has recommended a phased replacement of the

lifts in our car parks. The Electrical Engineer has proposed an approach benefiting

from economies of scale by letting a contract for replacing lifts at a number of

housing sites and combining this with the car park lifts, with the lifts in one car park

being replaced each year over the next three years. A bid form is attached as

Appendix 9, and it is recommended we fund the work from the Car Park

Maintenance Reserve.


12. We recommend that the lift replacement programme, detailed in the bid attached

as Appendix 9, is funded from the Car Park Maintenance Reserve.

Phone and Pay

ITEM 10

Page 212

Annexe 1


6.31 We have recently introduced a system of phone and pay, which allows the users of

our pay and display car parks to pay for parking using their phone, or mobile apps. It

also allows users to top-up while they are away from their vehicle. The system is

already proving popular and currently around five per cent of users are paying for

more time while they are away from their vehicle.

Parking Apps

6.32 We are talking to a company on the Surrey Business Park, which is developing an

app to allow people to book parking space or guide them to space, which is available.

Such an app would help us direct users to an appropriate car park, minimising

congestion and delays.

Parks Car Parks

6.33 Three car parks around the parks are having problems with commuters and others

using spaces and reducing access to the park facilities. When drivers intending on

going to the park cannot find parking, they add to congestion in the local area. It is

therefore recommended to introduce parking orders to control parking in Nightingale

Road car park, on Stoke Park, Lido Road Upper and Sutherland Memorial Park car

parks The details of the proposed order are outlined in Appendix 10.


13. We recommend that the car parks detailed in Appendix 10 be included within the Off-Street Parking Places Order and that the Council undertakes the statutory procedures to amend the order.

ITEM 10

Page 213

Annexe 1


7. Park and Ride

7.1 Guildford has a developing network of park and ride sites. With plans to develop the town centre, and limited scope for absorbing increased traffic flows, the continued development of park and ride is important.

7.2 Research shows there are a number of characteristics that towns or cities exhibit that

have successful park and rides services. These are:

• the centre is historic

• there is a university

• tourism levels are high

• there is a vibrant shopping centre

• there is a large service sector business area

• there is limited capacity to improve town centre road infrastructure

• there is severe congestion during rush hours

• the proportion of private off-street parking available for businesses is low

• there is limited opportunity for free parking within walking distance of the centre.

7.3 Key features for a successful park and ride service are that the

• sites are large enough to provide sufficient passenger throughput to support the bus service (500 to 700 spaces).

• they are well designed, high quality, safe sites with toilets

• the bus service is punctual, high quality, and reliable

• the travelling time is 15 minutes or less

• there is bus priority around congested spots, so the service is equal to or faster than the journey by car.

• the site has uncongested access

• there is ratio between town centre parking charges and park and ride fares that encourages the use of park and ride.

• there is clear signage and good marketing

7.4 The town currently has four sites: Artington:(742 spaces), Merrow (335 spaces), Spectrum (over 1,000 shared with the leisure centre) and Onslow (550 spaces). The table below shows the current fares from each site:

Site Return Weekly Monthly

Spectrum £2.40 £9.60 £30

Artington £2.20 £8.80 £30

Merrow £1.80 £7.20 £30

Onslow £1.50 £6 £30

7.5 Under the Memorandum of Understanding between Surrey County Council and

Guildford Borough Council, attached as Appendix 11, the first call on any surplus

made from on-street parking is put towards the cost of park and ride at the Artington,

Merrow and Spectrum sites. Onslow park and ride opened in November 2013. It is

ITEM 10

Page 214

Annexe 1


funded from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund award, but this funding only lasts

until March 2015.

7.6 A breakdown of usage at each site is shown below. In 2013-14, the Artington,

Merrow and Spectrum park and ride sites had 839,922 passengers, took £514,454

on the buses, and received a subsidy of £561,000 from the on-street parking

account.

Data between

September 13

– August 14

Total

Passengers

Concessions Percentage

of

concessions

Fare income

in £

Artington 371,147 164,765 44 218,809

Spectrum 211,183 68,926 33 177,661

Merrow 245,626 136,915 56 107,587

Totals 827,956 370,606 45 504,057

7.7 The net running cost of Onslow Park and Ride is estimated at £227,000 per annum;

this is after income received from fares projected at £40,000 for 2014/15 and

concessionary income estimated at £10,000 with costs for the bus service at

£277,187. The LSFT award will meet the running costs for 2014-15. However, in

2015-16 there is no further funding available. After funding park and ride, the

remaining surplus from the Guildford on-street parking account was £68,000.

Onslow Park

and Ride

Oct- Dec 13 Jan – Mar 14 Apr – Jun 14 Total

Concessions 1,554 3,557 4,421 9,532

Total

Patronage

4,623 12,505 14,999 32,127

Fares in £ 2,673 6,014 9,017 17,704

7.8 Park and ride services around the country need subsidy and the issue is how to

provide a high quality service at the lowest cost. We have been looking at ways to

maintain the quality of service whilst reducing costs and / or increasing income. In

particular, it is important to be able to fund Onslow Park and Ride while the usage

builds. The existing bus contracts expire at the end of March 2015 and following a

retender process, the advice is that the bus contract costs may increase by a few per

cent.

7.9 The fares were increased at Artington, Merrow and Spectrum in January 2013 and

the table below shows the level of patronage and the income from bus fares:

Patronage and Income of Park and Ride Sites Excluding Onslow

ITEM 10

Page 215

Annexe 1


Quarter Patronage Income

Jan-Mar12 234,874 122,103

Apr- Jun 12 218,116 115,678

Jul – Sep 12 212,234 116,384

Oct-Dec 12 260,132 138,055

Total 925,356 492,220

Jan-Mar 13 213,083 123,472

Apr – Jun 13 215,805 129,187

Jul – Sep 13 199,115 125,512

Oct – Dec 13 224,627 141,294

Total 852,630 519,465

Jan – Mar 14 200,375 118,461

Apr – Jun 14 196,776 118,170

7.10 Passenger numbers using Artington, Merrow and Spectrum appear to be reduced

for the first six months of 2014 compared with 2012 and 2013 and while average

income per passenger trip has increased as a result of the fares review in January

2013, overall income is at best staying static. Some of the figures could be affected

by cars diverting to the Onslow site, which may well be more convenient for some.

7.11 In order to improve access to the park & ride site from the A3 a programme of new

and additional signs is planned with the Highways Agency. This will be a

comprehensive strategy between the Highways Agency Surrey County Council and

Guildford Borough Council. This should complement a parking signage strategy for

Guildford, providing clear, concise directions to the park & ride sites and town centre

car parks. In addition enhanced car park signs will be installed at the entrance and

within all the Park & Ride sites.

7.12 Information about car parks will include details of the Park & Ride network so

motorists will be are aware of both options.

7.13 The rent for the extension at Artington is considered high compared to the value of

the land. Last year, it was £75,000 and provides an additional 270 spaces at the site.

We will speak to the landowner to see whether a better settlement can be obtained.

7.14 There is currently a guard at each of the sites other than Spectrum. The cost of each

guard is around £40,000 per annum. The Onslow site has barriers, with a guard is

ITEM 10

Page 216

Annexe 1


needed in case there is a problem with them. Artington has CCTV camera that are

monitored from the control room at Bedford Road Car Park and a help point that

connects to the control room. We have looked at the possibility of combining guards

at Artington and Merrow, and having one guard driving between the two sites.

Changing to a mobile guard between both sites would save around £30,000 per

annum. If this change is agreed we will look at introducing CCTV at Merrow and

providing a help point, which enable customers to speak directly to the control room.


Executive

14. We recommended that the guard at Artington and Merrow be combined and

become a mobile guard between the two sites.

7.15 The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme offers passholders free off peak

travel on local bus services anywhere in England between 9.30am – 11.00pm

Monday to Friday, all day at weekends and on Public Holidays. Residents qualify on

age or on grounds of certain disabilities.

7.16 The Concessionary Bus Travel Act aimed to delivery social inclusion benefits for

older and disabled people by allowing them greater freedom to travel, for free, by

local bus. This was a key part of the Government's wider recognition of the

importance of public transport for older and disabled people, and the role access to

transport has to play in improving social inclusion and maintaining well-being.

7.17 An amendment to the Act noted that “Services where the fare charged has a special

amenity element” can be excluded from the ENCTS scheme. In the case of

Guildford Park & Ride the “special amenity element” may be the provision of a secure

parking space, with waiting room and toilets. For example, one would not generally

use the park & ride services unless one had a car.

7.18 Analysis of passenger data indicates that 45 per cent of all passengers on the park

and ride use concessionary bus passes and pay no fare. As noted previously the

ENCTS scheme is primarily to help promote social inclusion and maintain well-being.

The ENCTS scheme could be intended for holders as an alternative to the car and

those that use the park and ride are primarily travelling by car. Basically, park and

ride is a car park linked to the town by a bus. It is intended to take cars out of the

traffic flow before they add to traffic in a town centre.

7.19 Other local authorities in England have removed the ENCTS offer from their park and

ride network. We recommend that a consultation be undertaken to look at removing

the ENCTs from the park and ride network for people qualifying for a badge based on

age. There would be no change for those who had a pass based on disability.


Executive

15. That Surrey County Council undertakes a public consultation on the

proposal to remove the ENCTS from the Park & Ride network for people

ITEM 10

Page 217

Annexe 1


qualifying based on age and on the introduction of a nominal charge of £1 per

return journey for these concessionary pass holders.

7.20 Under the agency agreement, which came into effect in April 2013, the remaining

surplus after the cost of park and ride for the Artington, Merrow and Spectrum sites

has been deducted is for the Guildford Local Committee and Guildford Borough

Council Executive to decide how to spend. The surplus for 2013-14 was £68,000

and it is recommended that this is put towards the cost of funding Onslow Park and

Ride in the year 2015-16.


Executive

16. We recommend using the uncommitted surplus from on-street parking

management in 2013-14 of £68,000 on funding the cost of Onslow Park and Ride in

2015-16.

7.21 Guildford Borough Council also receives 20 per cent of any surplus made in

Waverley, and in 2013-14 this amounted to £37,750. We also recommend that this

amount be used to fund Onslow Park and Ride in 2015-16.


17. We recommend using the unspent surplus from on-street parking management in

Waverley, £37,750 to fund Onslow Park and Ride in 2015-16.

ITEM 10

Page 218

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

Perm

it

On

ly

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

Perm

it

On

ly

8.3

0am

-

9p

m

30 m

ins

P&

D

Du

al

Use

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

2 H

rs

P&

D

Du

al

Use

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

2 H

rs

P&

D

Du

al

Use

8.3

0am

-

9p

m

3 H

rs

P&

D

Du

al

Use

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

2 H

rs L

W

Sh

are

d

Use

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

4 H

rs L

W

Sh

are

d

Use

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

30 m

ins

P&

D

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

2 H

rs

P&

D

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

20 m

ins

LW

nr

30 m

ins

M-S

8am

-7p

m

20 m

ins

LW

nr

1 H

r

M-S

8am

-6p

m

30 m

ins

LW

nr

1 H

r

M-S

8am

-6p

m

1 H

r L

W

nr

1 H

r

M-S

8am

-6p

m

1 H

r L

W

nr

2 H

rs

M-S

8am

-6p

m

2 H

rs L

W

nr

1 H

r

M-S

8am

-6p

m

2 H

rs L

W

nr

1 H

r

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

2 H

rs L

W

nr

1 H

r

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6.3

0p

m

2 H

rs L

W

nr

4 H

rs

M-S

8.3

0am

-

6.3

0p

m

2 H

rs L

W

nr

1 H

r

M-F

8.3

0am

-

6p

m

Un

lim

ited

Dis

ab

led

On

ly

Dis

ab

led

3 H

rs L

W

To

tal

1,

DA

ll43

117

25

396

28

60

101

202

15

17

664

2,

AA

ll29

520

283

1804

2,

EA

ll13

178

128

15

1322

3,

BA

ll17

248

133

2383

3,

FA

ll20

198

541

739

3,

GA

ll5

0119

119

4,

CA

ll12

142

185

14

341

4H

All

90

174

100

274

Ph

ase /

Are

a

On

-str

ee

t p

ark

ing

sp

ac

es

in

th

e b

oro

ug

h o

f G

uil

dfo

rd

Ro

ad

sN

o.

of

Sp

aces b

y B

ay T

yp

e f

rom

26/0

8/1

4N

o.

of

Ro

ad

s

4,

HA

ll9

0174

100

274

4,

IA

ll32

20

166

184

322

3695

5,

JA

ll25

438

379

53

2476

To

wn

Cen

tre

CP

Z

All

205

1,4

27

25

396

28

60

1,7

67

663

101

202

00

00

00

15

00

0389

24

17

4,8

17

No

n-C

PZ

All

66

631

14

485

032

54

180

21

0439

To

tal

1,4

27

25

396

28

60

1,7

67

663

101

202

66

631

14

4100

032

54

569

45

17

5,2

56

Su

mm

ary

- T

ow

n C

en

tre C

PZ

Key

den

ote

s r

ecen

t ch

an

ges f

rom

pre

vio

us

4,8

17

Du

al

Use

Ch

arg

ed

pay a

nd

dis

pla

y a

nd

perm

it h

old

ers

1,4

52

FF

rid

ay

2,5

89

LW

Fre

e l

imit

ed

wait

ing

490

MM

on

day

2,4

45

nr

no

retu

rn w

ith

in

389

P&

DC

harg

ed

pay a

nd

dis

pla

y

41

SS

atu

rday

Bay T

yp

e

Dis

ab

led

(in

cl.

3H

rL

W)

Un

lim

ited

Overa

ll

Perm

it O

nly

Du

al

/ S

hare

d U

se (

all

typ

es)

Ch

arg

ed

Bay (

incl.

P&

D D

ual

Use)

Fre

e L

imit

ed

Wait

ing

(fr

ee b

ays i

ncl.

Sh

are

d U

se)

41

SS

atu

rday

Sh

are

d U

se

Fre

e l

imit

ed

wait

ing

an

d p

erm

it h

old

ers

Dis

ab

led

(in

cl.

3H

rL

W)

ITEM 10

Page 219

Page 220


Appendix 2 Annual on-street parking return

Authority name GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

Financial year 2013-14

£

REVENUE EXPENDITURE

DIRECT COSTS

Staff costs

Enforcement staff 358,785

Non-enforcement staff 218,850

Contracted out enforcement staff 0

Contracted out cash collection staff 34,703

Operating costs

Contracted out services 0

Notice processing software and Handheld Computers 19,437

Maintenance of equipment (pay and display) 21,164

Maintenance of signs and lines

Adjudication and debt registration 15,348

Consumables (printing materials /stationary etc) 13,814

other (please list) 34,368

716,469

OVERHEAD COSTS

Indirect staff 29,156

IT 17,720

Office accommodation 42,837

Depot accommodation 0

HR 15,120

Audit 7,620

Finance 6,060

Office services 6,568

Cashiers/Creditors/Debtors 3,090

Customer services 1,550

other (please list) 4,158

133,879

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 850,348

REVENUE INCOME

Pay and Display -699,890

Penalties -435,389

Resident permits -165,768

Maintenance of signs and lines recharge 0

Suspensions and Waivers -50,822

Visitor permits -96,436

Other receipts -1,847

-1,450,151

TOTAL INCOME -1,450,151

NET (SURPLUS)/DEFICIT -599,802

FRS17/IAS19 adjustment -29,031

REVISED NET (SURPLUS)/DEFICIT -628,833*

*Surplus of income over expenditure shall be used firstly to fund the Guildford Park and Ride sites at Artington, Merrow and Spectrum, with any remaining surplus shared between the Local Committee and the Borough Council.

ITEM 10

Page 221

ITEM 10

Page 222

Appendix 3 Off- Street Car Parks and Garages

Car Park Assets

Public Metered Car Parks

Site Location Type of Parking Type of structure

No. of spaces / Units

Bedford Road Multi Storey

7 days a week short stay – P&D

Multi-storey 1033

Castle Car Park 7 days a week short stay – Pay on Foot

Multi -storey 350

Leapale Road 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Multi – storey 384

Tunsgate 7 days a week short stay - Pay on Foot

Underground 64

Millbrook 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 244

G Live 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface and partially covered

220

Mary Road 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 107

Bright Hill 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 121

Bedford Road Surface

7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 68

Commercial Road 2 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 52

Old Police Station 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 62

Upper High Street 7 days a week short stay – P&D

Surface 49

North Street Sun to Thurs max stay 30 mins -P&D

Surface 49

Lawn Road Weekend short stay -P&D

Surface 107

Millmead House (front)

Weekend short stay -P&D

Surface 27

Robin Hood Weekends short stay -P&D

Surface 23

St Josephs Church Weekends short stay -P&D

Surface and partially covered

61

Portsmouth Road Weekends short stay -P&D

Surface 98

Farnham Road 7 days a week long stay - Pay on foot

Multi storey 917

York Road 7 days a week long stay - Pay on foot

Multi Storey 605

Guildford Park 7 days a week long stay - P&D

Surface 400

Shalford Park Mon to Fri long stay - P&D

Surface 66

Walnut Tree Close 7 days a week long stay - P&D

Surface 17

Ash Vale Station 7 days a week long stay - P&D

Surface 49

ITEM 10

Page 223

Appendix 3 Off- Street Car Parks and Garages

Contract Parking

Site Location Type of Parking Type of

Structure

No of

spaces/units

Bedford Sheds Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 35

Black Horse House Mon –Sat Contract

Parking

Covered 26

St Josephs Church Mon-Fri Contract Parking Surface and

partially covered

61

Commercial Road

1

Mon –Sat Contract

Parking

Surface 12

Eagle Road Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 22

Millmead Court Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 20

Castle Square

(Orlandos)

Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 7

Sydenham Road

(Palmer& Harvey)

Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 5

Portsmouth Road Mon-Fri Contract Parking Surface 98

Robin Hood Mon-Fri Contract Parking Surface 22

Stoke Road Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 7

Stoke Fields Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 8

Robin Hood Mon-Fri Contract Parking Surface 22

Mill Lane Mon-Sat Contract Parking Surface 1

Garages

Bedford Sheds Tenancy subject to notice Garage 20

Gardener Road Tenancy subject to notice Garage 28

Stoke Fields Tenancy subject to notice Garage 35

Park Road Tenancy subject to notice Garage 2

Guildford Park Tenancy subject to notice Garage 118

ITEM 10

Page 224

Appendix 4 Financial Statement for Off-street car parks

OFF-Street Parking

2012-13

2013-14 2014-15 2014-15

Actual

Actual Estimate Projection

£

£ £

Expenditure

589,717 Employee Related 603,655 612,150 626,927

1,883,480 Premises Related 1,876,738 1,953,170 1,944,241

34,544 Transport Related 27,113 33,480 33,236

454,812 Supplies & Services 514,341 577,670 579,733

172,184 Support Services 179,842 185,170 183,460

3,134,737 3,201,689 3,361,640 3,367,597

Income

(618,423) Contract Parking (581,014) (570,420) (571,707)

(7,297,060) Meter Income (7,349,372) (7,612,170) (7,544,726)

(280,467) Penalty Fees (294,549) (300,600) (297,689)

(801,652) Season Tickets (753,813) (756,360) (765,065)

(112,456) Garage Rents (115,678) (121,030) (120,135)

(4,723) Other Rent (6,895) (5,030) (2,059)

(80,237) Other Income (83,031) (78,010) (73,569)

(9,195,020) (9,184,353) (9,443,620) (9,374,950)

(6,060,283) Net Expenditure/(Income) (5,982,664) (6,081,980) (6,007,353)

799,562 Capital Financing Costs 845,189 899,970 900,057

(5,260,721) Net Expenditure/(Income) (5,137,474) (5,182,010) (5,107,296)

73,872 Car Parks Maintenance Reserve Works 106,280 1,114,080 1,279,928

(5,186,848) Total Net Exp./(Income) (5,031,194) (4,067,930) (3,827,368)

ITEM 10

Page 225

Page 226


Appendix 5 Car Park Usage and Enforcement Data

Car Park Usage

Total Usage

Year Tickets sold

Income

(NET of VAT) (£)

2006/07 3,497,975 5,770,971

2007/08 3,510,665 6,223,607

2008/09 3,302,613 6,542,342

2009/10 3,064,020 6,336,955

2010/11 3,295,433 6,910,130

Evening charges introduced April

2010

2011/12 3,352,018 7,304,106 53 weeks in the year

2012/13 3,318,383 7,297,441

2013/14 3,221,702 7,349,431

Major Car Parks

Car Park Tickets Sold Income (net of VAT)

2012/13 2013/14 % Change 2012/13 2013/14

%

Change

Bedford Rd 729,060 637,993 -12.5% 1,466,813 1,375,440 -6.2%

Bright Hill 86,490 84,646 -2.1% 174,728 182,095 4.2%

Farnham Rd 207,931 211,916 1.9% 856,670 871,131 1.7%

Leapale Rd 332,777 312,572 -6.1% 644,439 645,688 0.2%

Millbrook 219,650 213,946 -2.6% 457,051 470,055 2.8%

York Rd 268,436 276,312 2.9% 691,720 702,413 1.5%

Castle 371,726 379,506 2.1% 913,269 922,357 1.0%

Total 2,216,070 2,116,891 -4.5% 5,204,690 5,169,178 -0.7%

ITEM 10

Page 227

Appendix 5 Car Park Usage and Enforcement Data

Enforcement

Penalty Charge Notices Issued

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

13,041 11,975 11,927 12,701 11,750 11,967 12,139

Outcomes for Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued in 2013/14

Breakdown of PCNs issued (as at

Aug 2014) No

Number of higher level PCNs

issued 1617

Number of lower level PCNs

issued 10522

Total number of PCNs issued 12139

Number paid at discount 7251

Number paid at full (or above) 1523

Total number of PCNs paid 8774

Number of PCNs against which

formal or informal reps made 2572

Number of PCNs cancelled as a

result of formal or informal reps 2097

Number of PCNs cancelled for

other reasons 146

Number of PCNs written off 720

Number of PCNs outstanding 402

Number cancelled/written

off/outstanding 3365

Number of vehicles immobilised n/a

Number of vehicles removed n/a

Cancellation by reason for PCNs issued in 2013-14

Reason

% of

those

cancelled

% of PCNs

issued

Motorists producing tickets which were not clearly displayed 65.4% 9.7%

Mitigating and other circumstances 11.8% 1.8%

Contract and other parkers entitled to park

but not displaying correct permit 11.4% 2.4%

Machine faults and other equipment problems 1.6% 1.2%

Civil Enforcement Officer errors 2.1% 0.6%

Blue Badge holders not parking according to the scheme 4.9% 0.8%

Problems with signs 1.8% 0.4%

Other issues 0.8% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 16.9%

ITEM 10

Page 228

Appendix 6

Comparison of Short-Stay Parking Charges in other Towns /Cities The data presented in the table is taken from websites in September 2014 and maybe subject to review. Most tariffs are changed in January or April and so the comparison is what was being charged towards the end of 2014.

Town/City 1st Hour Monday to Saturday

Hours Mon to Sat

Charge on Sunday

Change from last year

Basingstoke (Festival Place)

£1 per hour (3 hours £2.80, 4 hours £3.40)

Centre Hours Same as other days

No change

Kingston (Bentalls)

£1.40 per hour (other car parks £1.40)

Variable – 8.00 until midnight typically

Same as other days

No change

Portsmouth City Council

£1.60 ( 2 hours £2.60, 3 hours, £3.50)

24 hours Same as other days

No change

Portsmouth (Gunn Wharf)

£2.90 (for first 2 hours) 3 hours £3.90

24 hours Same as other days

No change

Reading (Oracle Riverside)

£1.50 per hour 24 hours Same as other days

No change

Southampton (West Quay Podium)

£2.50 (for the first 2 hours) 3hours £3.50, 4 hours £4.50

8.00am to 8.00pm typical (£1 per evening after 17.00)

Same (noon to 18.00)

Initial 2 hours parking increased form £2.40 to £2.50 and 4hours from £4.20 to £4.50

Woking £1.30 per hour up to £10.

Daily charge applies 6.00am to 7.00pm then £1.30 between 7.00pm and 6.00am

£1.30 up to £3 Changed 1 October Hourly charge £1.20 to £1.30 Evening charge £1.00 to £1.30 First hour Sunday from £1.20 to £1.30

Guildford £1.20 per hour Daily charge applies 8am to 6pm then evening charge £1 per visit until 10pm.

£1.50 per visit and central car parks £2.50 for more than 3 hours.

ITEM 10

Page 229

Page 230


Appendix 7

Parking Maintenance Reserve 2015-16

Note:- Items included are a mixture of revenue and capital expenditure for accounting purposes.

Each scheme will be charged to the relevant account but be funded from the reserve.

Financial

Year

Description Code Estimated

Spend

Income/

funding

Balance of fund

£ £ £

Opening balance (1,995,942)

Lift Works (annual) - all car parks B2216B1651 14,000

Lighting & Minor Electrical - York, Castle & Farnham MSCPs Capital 300,000

Lift Replacement - York Road MSCP Capital 143,000

Funding

Revenue Budget Below the line (716,590)

Proposed Reduction 125,000

Revised Revenue Contribution (591,590)

Year end balance (2,130,532)


Decorations (5 yrly) - York Road MSCP B2291B1650 190,133

Deck Surfacing (12 yrly) - Tunsgate Car Park Capital 100,000

Lighting & Electrics Tunsgate Capital 20,000

Lift Replacement (15 yry) - Farnham Road MSCP Capital 143,000

Funding




Deck Surfacing (12 yrly) - Bedford Road MSCP Capital 511,523

Deck Surfacing (12 yrly) - Castle MSCP Capital 323,067

Decorations (5 yrly) - Leapale Road MSCP B2257B1650 135,770

Lift Replacement (15 yrly) - Castle MSCP Capital 143,000

Funding




Electrical Works (24 yrly) - Farnham Road MSCP Capital 173,950

Lift Replacement - Leapale MSCP Capital 150,000

Funding




Decorations (5 yrly) - Tunsgate Car Park B2281B1650 38,400

Decorations (5 yrly) - Bedford Road MSCP B2219B1650 209,311

Decorations (5 yrly) - Castle MSCP B2277B1650 124,455

Decorations (5 yrly) - Farnham Road MSCP B2244B1650 282,852

Funding




Pay on Foot Equipment replacement P37503 640,042

Funding




Decorations (5 yrly) - York Road MSCP B2291B1650 215,118

Funding



2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

ITEM 10

Page 231

Appendix 7


Decorations (5 yrly) - Leapale Road MSCP B2257B1650 153,611

Replacement of Pay & Display Machines (10 Yrly) Capital 231,695

Funding




Deck Surfacing - (12 yrly) - York Road MSCP Capital 470,710

Deck surfacing (12 yrly) - Leapale Road MSCP Capital 468,694

Decorations (5 yrly) - Guildford Park MSCP Revenue 200,000

Funding




Decorations (5 yrly) - Tunsgate Car Park B2281B1650 43,450

Decorations (5 yrly) - Bedford Road MSCP B2219B1650 236,816

Decorations (5 yrly) - Castle MSCP B2277B1650 140,809

Decorations (5 yrly) - Farnham Road MSCP B2244B1650 320,021

Lighting (12 yrly) - Leapale Road MSCP Capital 134,490

Electrical works (24 yrly) - Castle MSCP Capital 68,926

Funding




Lighting (12 yrly) - Bedford Road MSCP Capital 201,733

Funding




Deck surfacing (12 yrly) - Farnham Road MSCP P37510 403,467

Funding




Lighting (12 yrly) - York, Castle & Farnham MSCPs Capital 403,467

Funding




Deck surfacing (12 yrly) - Tunsgate Car Park Capital 134,489

Lighting & Electrics Tunsgate Capital 26,898

Deck surfacing (12 yrly) - Guildford Park MSCP Capital 423,892

Lighting (12 yrly) - Guildford Park MSCP Capital 217,245

Decorations (5 yrly) - Guildford Park MSCP Revenue 226,282

Funding




Deck surfacing (12 yrly) - Bedford Road MSCP Capital 687,942

Deck surfacing (12 yrly) - Castle MSCP Capital 434,489

Lift replacement (15 Yrly) - Bedford Road MSCP Capital 94,139

Funding



2026-27

2027-28

2028-29

2029-30

2022-23

2023-24

2024-25

2025-26

ITEM 10

Page 232

BID OS – Cap 03 APPENDIX 8

1

APPENDIX 8: GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015-16 TO 2019-20: BID FOR FUNDING

Scheme title Car Park Lighting upgrade

Location Castle, Farnham and York Road MSCPs

Landowner

Officer responsible for project Kevin McKee/Paresh Rajani

Service Unit responsible for project

Project champion/Councillor (if applicable)

1. Description of project. To upgrade the lighting in York Road, Farnham Road and Castle Car Parks to LED lights to reduce energy consumption and reduce costs. The project is important if the council is to reduce its carbon footprint and reduce costs. The current lighting is adequate but the new lighting with LED will reduce maintenance costs and energy costs. This is based on the experience of relighting Bedford Road multi-storey car park.

2. Estimated Timetable Duration (number of months) Start date (month/year)

Pre-contract, design, procurement etc. 6 months October 2015

Contract works 6 months June 2016

3. Justification for project. The project is estimated to save around £45,000 per annum in electricity and maintenance costs once the new lights are in place.

4. Implications if project not undertaken. The savings will not be realised

5. Options. To continue as now and incur the additional costs.

6. Consents required: Yes/No Yes/No

Planning Permission required? NO Building Regulations required? No

Any other consent required? NO

ITEM 10

Page 233


2

7. Estimated Gross Cost 2015-16 to 2019-20: The capital programme covers five financial years. You must provide estimates on a realistic basis, allowing for lead-in time, procurement issues etc, in the financial years as appropriate. Costs must be shown gross, and not netted off for any external funding contributions which should be included in section 8.

2015-16

£000 2016-17

£000 2017-18

£000 2018-19

£000 2019-20

£000 Total

£000

Land Acquisition

Contractor Payments 250

Consultants Fees 25

Salaries: Property Services

Salaries: Housing Services 25

Salaries: Engineers

Other Fees

Equipment/Vehicle Purchases

Other (please state)


TOTAL CAPITAL COST 300

Is the estimate based on quotations, detailed knowledge or is it an outline

estimate figure?

The contractor cost is based on previous tenders the other costs are estimates. It is requested that the money be taken from the car park maintenance reserve.

8. External Funding: Please provide details of any external income or source of funding and whether it is conditional or guaranteed:

2015-16

£000 2016-17

£000 2017-18

£000 2018-19

£000 2019-20

£000 Total

£000

Receipts

Contributions

Grants

S106



estimate figure?

S106 reference number if known

9. Expected useful life of the asset Where the expected lives of each significant component of the asset are different (for example buying a property with a flat roof) you must estimate both the useful lives and cost of replacing each component part; please add additional components where applicable. Please only include major components

Basis of Estimate Estimated Value (£)

Estimated Life (Years)

Component 1 LED lamp 5 years

Component 2 Fittings 10 years

ITEM 10

Page 234


3

10. Revenue Implications: This section MUST be completed for each scheme detailing additional revenue costs or savings arising from the proposal. Include costs at current prices and include maintenance costs after the capital scheme has finished. If the project is approved, the figures will be incorporated in the service’s revenue estimates.

2015-16

£000 2016-17

£000 2017-18

£000 2018-19

£000 2019-20

£000 Total

£000

Employees’ costs

Other costs 45

Less additional income

Net additional expenditure/(income) (enter NIL if no implications)

Please provide further details:

The saving will be made in electricity and a smaller amount in maintenance/replacing bulbs.

NOTES: All sections of this form must be completed before submission and must include full details of the project and a convincing justification. When finalised, please pass this form to your Head of Service, who will need to ensure that all elements are in place to enable your Executive Head of Service and the Management Team to make a proper evaluation of the proposal. The form must be signed by your Head of Service and Executive Head of Service.

1. Form completed by: Kevin McKee

Date:

2. Head of Service:

Date:

3. Executive Head of Service:

Date:

Save this form as a word document with an appropriate project title and email it to your Head of Service, who in turn should forward it to the Executive Head of Service. When forwarding by email, and accompanying message indicating approval of the bid by both the Head of Service and Executive Head of Service will also be acceptable. A signed hard copy of the bid may be submitted, but also submit the completed pro-forma by email. When signed off by all parties, the form should be submitted as part of the business planning process submission and copied to Vicky Worsfold ([email protected])

ITEM 10

Page 235

Page 236


BID: OS – Cap 02 APPENDIX 9

1

APPENDIX 9: GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015-16 TO 2019-20: BID FOR FUNDING

Scheme title Lift Replacement

Location York Road, Farnham Road, and Castle Car Park

Landowner GBC

Officer responsible for project Paresh Rajani/Kevin McKee

Service Unit responsible for project Operational Services

Project champion/Councillor (if applicable)

1. Description of project. To let a contract for the replacement of lifts in a number of housing sites and car parks.

2. Estimated Timetable Duration (number of months) Start date (month/year)

Pre-contract, design, procurement etc. 8 April 2015

Contract works 36 (phased with one car park a year)

Jan 2016

• Justification for project. The lifts are needed to provide access to the multi storey car parks particularly for those who find walking difficult. The existing lifts are old and have a higher risk of failure and maintenance costs are likely to rise. It is important that they are replaced. The lifts in Bedford Road were subject to a bid to the Executive and the cost will be split with housing as they serve the residential lifts as well as the car park. The project can be funded from the car park maintenance reserve.

3. Implications if project not undertaken. The lifts will be subject to higher maintenance costs and more frequent failure. .

4. Options. Continue to repair the existing lifts.

5. Consents required: Yes/No Yes/No

Planning Permission required? No Building Regulations required? ?

Any other consent required? No

ITEM 10

Page 237


2

6. Estimated Gross Cost 2015-16 to 2019-20: The capital programme covers five financial years. You must provide estimates on a realistic basis, allowing for lead-in time, procurement issues etc, in the financial years as appropriate. Costs must be shown gross, and not netted off for any external funding contributions which should be included in section 8.

2015-16

£000 2016-17

£000 2017-18

£000 2018-19

£000 2019-20

£000 Total

£000

Land Acquisition

Contractor Payments 65 130 130 130 455

Consultants Fees

Salaries: Property Services

Salaries: Housing Services 13 13 13 39

Salaries: Engineers

Other Fees

Equipment/Vehicle Purchases



TOTAL CAPITAL COST 65 143 143 143 494


estimate figure?

The figures are estimates based on previous work. It is requested that the funding is taken from the car park maintenance reserve.

7. External Funding: Please provide details of any external income or source of funding and whether it is conditional or guaranteed:

2015-16

£000 2016-17

£000 2017-18

£000 2018-19

£000 2019-20

£000 Total

£000

Receipts

Contributions

Grants

S106



estimate figure?

S106 reference number if known

8. Expected useful life of the asset Where the expected lives of each significant component of the asset are different (for example buying a property with a flat roof) you must estimate both the useful lives and cost of replacing each component part; please add additional components where applicable. Please only include major components

Basis of Estimate Estimated Value (£)

Estimated Life (Years)

Component 1 (please specify)

The lifts should last for at least 20 years.

Component 2 (please specify)

ITEM 10

Page 238


3

9. Revenue Implications: This section MUST be completed for each scheme detailing additional revenue costs or savings arising from the proposal. Include costs at current prices and include maintenance costs after the capital scheme has finished. If the project is approved, the figures will be incorporated in the service’s revenue estimates.

2015-16

£000 2016-17

£000 2017-18

£000 2018-19

£000 2019-20

£000 Total

£000

Employees’ costs

Other costs

Less additional income

Net additional expenditure/(income) (enter NIL if no implications)

Please provide further details:

There are no expected additional revenue costs or savings .

NOTES: All sections of this form must be completed before submission and must include full details of the project and a convincing justification. When finalised, please pass this form to your Head of Service, who will need to ensure that all elements are in place to enable your Executive Head of Service and the Management Team to make a proper evaluation of the proposal. The form must be signed by your Head of Service and Executive Head of Service.

1. Form completed by: Kevin McKee

Date: 23/09/2014

2. Head of Service:

Date:

3. Executive Head of Service:

Date:

Save this form as a word document with an appropriate project title and email it to your Head of Service, who in turn should forward it to the Executive Head of Service. When forwarding by email, and accompanying message indicating approval of the bid by both the Head of Service and Executive Head of Service will also be acceptable. A signed hard copy of the bid may be submitted, but also submit the completed pro-forma by email. When signed off by all parties, the form should be submitted as part of the business planning process submission and copied to Vicky Worsfold ([email protected])

ITEM 10

Page 239

Page 240


Appendix 10a Nightingale Road Car Park – Stoke Park

(1) Name of Parking Place (Car Park)

(2) Position where

parking of vehicles is permitted

(3) Class of

Vehicles for which the

parking place is available

(4) Hours during

which the parking place is available

(5) Maximum period for parking

(6) Charging Hours

(7) Charge

Nightingale Rd Car Park (as edged by a heavy black line on the plan below)

Wholly within a parking bay as indicated by markings in the car park

Motor cars and invalid carriages (each as defined in Section 136 of the Act of 1984)

All hours

4 hours or up to 24 hours with

a valid permit

N/A N/A

ITEM 10

Page 241

Page 242


Appendix 10b Lido Road Upper Car Park


(2) Position where


(3) Class of



(4) Hours during



(6) Charging Hours

(7) Charge

Lido Road Upper Car Park (as edged by a heavy black line on the plan below)



All hours

4 hours or 24 hours with a valid permit

N/A N/A

ITEM 10

Page 243

Page 244


Appendix 10c Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park - Burpham


(2) Position where


(3) Class of



(4) Hours during



(6) Charging Hours

(7) Charge

Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park (as edged by a heavy black line on the plan below)



No entry when the gate is closed

4 hours N/A N/A

ITEM 10

Page 245

Page 246


Appendix 11

Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council

Memorandum of Agreement for the operation Guildford Park and Ride

March 2013

Guildford Borough Council (GBC) and Surrey County Council (SCC) have agreed the following funding

process for Guildford park and ride services.

1. Guildford Borough Council and Guildford Local Committee have responsibility for the

financial operation of the park and ride services including any charges levied to bus

passengers and on car parking.

2. GBC will be responsible for all aspects of the operation and management of the car parks.

SCC will design the park and ride bus network, undertake to procure and manage the bus

service contracts, and to deal with all associated operational issues. Both authorities will

work in tandem on operational and financial matters, and to agree strategic issues.

3. Park and ride services and supporting operational and administrative functions are funded

through the surpluses generated by the Guildford on-street parking account. This includes

the bus service operating costs, park and ride car park operating costs and the Artington

park and ride site lease cost. ( On street parking management is a SCC function managed on

their behalf by GBC).

4. SCC is the Transport Concessionary Authority. The Guildford Park and Ride network of

services currently offer travel in line with the English National Concessionary Fares Scheme

(ENCTS). As the joint bus operator, SCC will be reimbursed for the revenue foregone from

concessionary travel on park and ride services by means of the surpluses generated through

the on-street parking account. The amount of reimbursement will be calculated through the

application of the Surrey concessionary travel scheme, which is part of the English National

Concessionary Fares Scheme. The level of concessionary travel reimbursement for park and

ride services from the surpluses generated from on-street parking will be capped at a

maximum value of £200,000 per annum. If the value of the reimbursement exceeds this cap

the difference between the cap and the value will be met by SCC in its capacity as the

Transport Concessionary Authority.

5. If after the park and ride bus service operating costs, park and ride car park operating costs

and the Artington site lease cost have been deducted from the on-street parking account

there remains an insufficient surplus to reimbursement concessionary travel to the capped

maximum value of £200,000 per annum, the concessionary fares reimbursement will be

reduced to £160,000 per annum maximum cap.

6. Park and ride bus fares will be increased through two fares reviews over a period not

exceeding 18 months to reduce the net operating deficit. The first fares review has been

implemented with effect from January 2013. The second will be considered by the Guildford

Local Committee taking into account the effect the first increase has had on usage.

7. All remaining surplus from the on-street parking account for Guildford Borough shall be

allocated annually to “Guildford”. “Guildford” is defined as the Local Committee and

Guildford Borough Council. They shall decide between them how any surplus is allocated but

in the event of a default it shall be determined by the SCC’s Strategic Director after

consulting with the Borough Nominated Officer.

ITEM 10

Page 247

Appendix 11

8. This agreement applies immediately to the Artington, Merrow and Spectrum park and ride

services. This agreement does not apply to the proposed Onslow Park and Ride. Onslow will

be included in future agreements as part of the annual review process.

9. This agreement will apply for the full 2013/14 financial year and is subject to annual review

by GBC and SCC. It will come into effect from 1 April 2013.

ITEM 10

Page 248



LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26th November 2014

LEAD OFFICER:

Lyndon Mendes Team Manager, Transport Policy

SUBJECT: Guildford Draft Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme – Part A

DIVISION: All

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

This paper presents the development of the Guildford Local Transport Strategy (LTS) and Forward Programme – Part A. It makes no recommendations or decisions but requires the Committee to take note of the ‘work in progress’ to develop the Draft Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme – Part A. The county council is producing Local Transport Strategies and Forward Programmes for each district and borough in the county. The purpose of these strategies is to support the growth set out within district and borough local plans and provide a programme of transport infrastructure required to deliver this growth. They also provide an evidence base for future funding bids.

The strategies are ‘live documents’ which will be updated at regular intervals to ensure they remain relevant and current. They will become part of the Surrey Transport Plan. They contain two main elements. The main document provides a commentary on the transport provision and transport problems in each district or borough. It also provides possible transport related interventions to the identified current problems.

The annex contains a forward programme of transport infrastructure that SCC would like to see implemented in the district or borough, subject to funding. The programme would seek to address the problems identified in the main document of the strategy and mitigate the impact of future growth on the transport network.

The Guildford Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme is being developed in phases:

Part A: identifies existing local infrastructure and challenges on the network

Part B: will include mitigation measures to address current problems outlined in Part A and the impacts of future development growth which may have an impact on the transport networks.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Local Committee (Guildford) is asked to

(i) Note the ‘work in progress’ in producing the Draft Guildford Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme (see Annex 1) – Part A, and its suggested objectives.Note that Part B will be completed following the adoption of the

ITEM 11

Page 249


Borough Local Plan.


Delivering the Guildford Local Transport Strategy will support the county council’s priorities to promote sustainable economic growth and secure investment in infrastructure. It also supports the borough council’s vision to reduce the negative impacts of traffic. The Guildford Local Transport Strategy will benefit Surrey residents and businesses driving the economy, accommodating sustainable population growth and reducing impacts on the environment.


1.1 The Surrey Transport Plan is the county's third Local Transport Plan (LTP3).

It is a statutory document. The Guildford Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme form part of the LTP3; both components are included as Annex 1 to this report.

1.2 The documents were prepared by Surrey County Council officers, working with Guildford Borough Council officers. It has been subject to officer consultation in both the County Council and Borough Council.

1.3 The draft Guildford Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme was taken to the Informal Guildford Local Committee on 10 July 2014 and 24 September 2014. Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to give their comments, which could then be incorporated into the Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme – Part A. Other engagement has included:

• 4 September 2014 – Transportation Task group

• 24 September 2014 – Formal Local Committee

• 30 September 2014 – member feedback requested by this date

• 21 October 2014 – Transportation Task Group

• 13 November 2014 – Private Local Committee

2. ANALYSIS:

2.1 The strategy aims to identify current problems and issues on the borough’s

transport network and where possible, list possible transport related interventions to these problems and issues.

2.2 The strategy will become part of the Surrey Transport Plan.

3. OPTIONS:

3.1 As and when schemes are developed possible options will be investigated

and evaluated.

4. CONSULTATIONS:

ITEM 11

Page 250


4.1 Following the completion of Part B after the adoption of the Borough Local Plan, the Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme will be subject to a formal public consultation.


5.1 This report only provides estimated costs of possible schemes scheduled

within the Forward Programme.


6.1 An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) has been drafted for the Guildford

Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme and will accompany Part B of the Local Transport Strategy.

6.2 No negative impacts on any protected characteristic group were identified.

6.3 No changes to date have been made to the Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme as a result of the EIA.

7. LOCALISM:

7.1 The Guildford Local Transport Strategy is a borough wide document which

seeks to address transport issues and opportunities across the entire borough area. Specific schemes will have local impacts in their specified areas, and these will be assessed when a scheme is brought forward. The Forward Programme will be updated on an annual basis and will offer the opportunity for local input to be included in the programme during these revisions.



Crime and Disorder No significant implications arising from this report


Set out below.





Public Health

Set out below

8.1 Sustainability and Public Health implications

Increased walking and cycling, where it replaces motorised forms of transport such as the car, will improve air quality and reduce carbon emission levels, which is a key objective of the Local Transport Strategy.

ITEM 11

Page 251


Transport is responsible for one third of carbon emissions in Surrey. Surrey’s Local Transport Plan has a target to reduce carbon emissions from (non-motorway) transport by 10% (absolute emissions) by 2020, increasing to 25% reduction by 2035 from 2007 baseline of 2,114k tonnes.

Increased walking and cycling has a positive impact on personal health. The NHS identifies cycling as an activity which provides significant health benefits.

It is expected that increased levels of walking and cycling to and around the town centre will have a positive effect on the local economy with recent studies suggesting that pedestrians and cyclists actually spend more on a trip into a town than motorist.


9.1 This paper presents the development of the Guildford Local Transport

Strategy (LTS) and Forward Programme – Part A. It makes no recommendations or decisions but requires the Committee to take note of the ‘work in progress’ to develop the Draft Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme – Part A.


10.1 Following the adoption of the Borough Local Plan the Guildford Local

Transport Strategy and Forward Programme Part B will be updated and subject to a formal public consultation. The document will be revised to take account of any changes following the public consultation and will then be taken to a Surrey County Council Cabinet and Full Council. Subject to approval it will then be a public document on the SCC website as part of the Surrey Transport Plan. The Local Transport Strategy will be updated at regular intervals, and the Forward Programme will be updated annually.

Contact Officer: Lyndon Mendes, Team Manager, Transport Policy. Tel: 020 8541 9393

Consulted: Guildford Transportation Task Group Guildford Local Committee Annexes: Annex 1: Guildford Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme Sources/background papers: • Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3)

ITEM 11

Page 252

i

Surrey Transport Plan

Guildford Borough Draft Local Transport Strategy

& Forward Programme – Part A

LTP3

Mole Valley District Local Transport Strategy

November 2014

Draft

ITEM 11

Page 253

ii

This page has been intentionally left blank

ITEM 11

Page 254

iii

Alternative formats Surrey County Council has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. We are happy to give information in either large print or in another language. If you want this service please call us on 03456 009 009. If you have other needs in this regard please contact Surrey County Council in one of the following ways.

In writing Surrey County Council Transport Policy (Room 420) Environment & Infrastructure Directorate County Hall Kingston upon Thames Surrey KT1 2DN

By phone 03456 009 009 (8am-6pm weekdays)

By email [email protected]

ITEM 11

Page 255

iv

Surrey Transport Plan

Guildford Borough Draft Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme

November 2014

Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

2 Objectives and delivery priorities.................................................................................... 4

3 The transport networks in Guildford borough ................................................................. 7

4 Guildford transport trends and issues .......................................................................... 16

5 Future growth and its impact ........................................................................................ 23

6 Related work streams and projects .............................................................................. 24

7 Places in Guildford ....................................................................................................... 35

8 Forward Programme, Funding and Delivery ................................................................. 49

9 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 53

10 References .................................................................................................................. 57

Forward Programme....................................................................................Annex

ITEM 11

Page 256

i

Executive Summary

The Surrey Transport Plan is the third Local Transport Plan (LTP) 1 for the county. It

is a statutory plan (required by the Local Transport Act 2008 and Transport Act

2000), which replaced the second LTP on 1 April 2011. Like the previous Plans, the

Surrey Transport Plan is partly an aspirational document. The Guildford Borough

Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme forms part of the LTP3. Local

Transport Strategies and Forward Programmes will be produced for all districts and

boroughs within Surrey and will be ‘live’ documents, updated every two to three

years whilst the Forward Programme (annex) will be updated yearly.

The purpose of the strategy in the longer term will be to support the development

needs set out in the Borough’s Local Plan as and when adopted and provide a

programme of transport infrastructure required to deliver the agreed level of

development. In the short, term the Local Transport Strategy provides an evidence

base for funding bids, to mitigate against current transport related issues within the

borough

The objectives of this strategy are to manage congestion within the borough and

reduce car dependency and use, by introducing new and promoting existing

sustainable travel initiatives for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. These

objectives are in accordance with Surrey County Council’s Environment and

Infrastructure priorities and the recommendations set out in Guildford Town and

Approaches Movement Study ((GTAMS) (GBC,2014)).

In order to achieve these objectives, this Part A of the strategy focuses on the

current issues and problems on the transport networks in Guildford. The strategy

considers potential interventions. A Forward Programme has been produced (see

separate annex) which lists the schemes identified to achieve the objectives set out

in this strategy, this includes transport schemes from external delivery partners such

as the Highways Agency (HA).

Following the adoption of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, the Local Transport

Strategy and Forward Programme will be updated to reflect Infrastructure Delivery

Schedule (IDS) which will accompany the Local Plan, therefore Part B will include

mitigation measures to address current problems and the impacts of both future

development growth from the Borough’s Local Plan and the impacts of growth from

developments external to the borough of Guildford, which may have an impact on

the transport networks, currently serving Guildford.

As such, the Forward Programme contains an aspirational list of transport

infrastructure schemes which would achieve the objectives of the Guildford Borough

Local Transport Strategy, subject to funding and feasibility. The programme will seek

1 Surrey County Council. (2014) Surrey Transport Plan: Executive Summary [Online] Available at:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/842698/01-STP-Executive-summary-July-2014.pdf (Last accessed: 25/07/2014).

ITEM 11

Page 257

ii

to address the problems identified in the strategy and mitigate the impact of future

growth on the transport network.

The strategy has been produced by the County Council and following the adoption of

the Local Plan, it will be subject to online public consultation. The final version will

take on board comments received during consultation and will be considered by the

Guildford Local Committee and by Surrey County Council’s Cabinet to be adopted as

part of Surrey’s Local Transport Plan (LPT3), sometime in 2016.

ITEM 11

Page 258

1

Guildford Borough Local Transport Strategy & Forward Programme Draft Part A November 2014

1 Introduction

1.1 The Guildford Borough Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme is

part of the Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3)2 and supports the existing and the

intended emerging Guildford Local Plan3. LTP3 is the county’s third Local

Transport Plan and is a statutory document. The Surrey Transport Plan sets

out the strategy to help people to meet their transport and travel needs

effectively, reliably, safely and sustainably within Surrey, in order to promote

economic vibrancy, protect and enhance the environment, improve the quality

of life, and reduce carbon emissions.

1.2 Local transport strategies have been developed to take account of and provide

a plan for addressing transport problems and opportunities in a geographical

area. A local transport strategy (LTS) has been produced for each district and

borough in the county.

1.3 This LTS will be updated to respond to needs of the emerging Local Plan and

is currently a key document to inform responses to Central Government and

the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in terms of potential

funding bids, to address current transport related problems. The emerging

local transport strategies were used to report to and inform the LEP Strategic

Economic Plan which considers the need for highway and transport

interventions to tackle current problems to achieve growth in terms of jobs,

employment floorspace and housing created. Finally, the LTS is a mechanism

to respond to and inform the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

requirements.

1.4 This LTS is a ‘live document’ that it is intended to be updated every two to

three years. This LTS consists of two main parts:

· The main document, which provides a commentary on the

characteristics, problems and opportunities in the area.

· An annex consisting of forward programme detailing highway and

transport intervention to address the problems identified.

1.5 The LTS sets out the short, medium and long-term approach by which Surrey

County Council (SCC) will seek to encourage sustainable travel patterns and

manage congestion in Guildford Borough.

1.6 The schemes outlined in the forward programme are intended to provide a

cohesive package of measures to address all common modes of transport and

to work towards providing an effective travel choice for all users.

2 Available at: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/surrey-transport-plan-ltp3 3 To be adopted in autumn 2015.

ITEM 11

Page 259

2


1.7 The forward programme identifies a number of transport infrastructure

schemes which could be implemented over the next 15 year period, subject to

feasibility and funding. The status of the schemes has been defined as

· local schemes (less than £250,000),

· intermediate schemes (between £250,000 and less than £2m), and

· major schemes (£2m and above)

1.8 The forward programme identifies more strategic transport schemes or

scheme packages. It therefore includes schemes from the Local Committee

capital programme which will identify those generally smaller scale schemes

considered to be of immediate local priority.

1.9 The forward programme presents schemes, many of which may be

approached through different funding and implementation avenues, and will

help the County Council and Borough Council to agree strategic infrastructure

delivery priorities and guide future investment from a range of funding sources

including:

· Major schemes funding via the EM3 Local Transport Body.

· Potential funding via the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership

(LEP).

· Local Committee funding including the Integrated Transport Block.

· Developer contributions including S106 and S278.

Structure of document

1.10 The Guildford Borough Transport Strategy & Forward Programme is

structured as follows:

1.11 Chapter 2 ‘Objectives and delivery priorities’ outlines the agreed objectives

for the strategy, based on any issues on the transport network

1.12 Chapter 3 ‘The Guildford transport network’ describes the key highways,

public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure in the Borough and

describes overall issues experienced on the transport network.

1.13 Chapter 4 ‘Guildford transport trends’ outlines the key trends on the

Guildford transport network.

1.14 Chapter 5 ‘Future growth and its impact’ outlines planned growth in the

Borough. Following the adoption of the Local Plan, this Chapter will be

Chaper 2

• Objectives

and delivery

priorities

Chapter 3

• Guildford

transport

network

Chapter 4

• Guildford

transport

trends

Chaper 5

• Future

growth and

its impact

•Part B

Chapter 6

• Related

workstreams

and projects

Chapter 7

•Places in

Guildford

Chapter 8

•Forward

programme,

funding and

delivery

ITEM 11

Page 260

3


updated to reflect the Local Plan Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS), this

Part B will include mitigation measures to address the impacts of both future

growth from the Borough’s Local Plan and the impacts of growth from

developments external to the borough of Guildford, which may have an

impact on the transport networks, currently serving Guildford.

1.15 Chapter 6 ‘Related workstreams and projects’ places this transport strategy

in a wider context.

1.16 Chapter 7 ‘Places in Guildford’ gives descriptions of the local transport

networks in the boroughs main settlements.

1.17 Chapter 8 ‘Forward programme, funding and delivery” outlines the main

funding sources which it is anticipated may be used to deliver the schemes

included in the annex, in line with the objectives.

1.18 To provide balance in the programme, schemes that are valued at less than

£100,000 have not been included (given their smaller scale and likely

quicker turnaround) but schemes above £100,000 have been included as

these are likely to require funding from different sources and hence will

generally be beyond the scope of Local Committee funding.

ITEM 11

Page 261

4


Vision

To help people to meet their transport and travel needs effectively,

reliably, safely and sustainably within Surrey; in order to promote

economic vibrancy, protect and enhance the environment and improve the

quality of life.

Objectives

Effective transport: To facilitate end-to-end journeys for residents,

business and visitors by maintaining the road network, delivering public

transport services and, where appropriate, providing enhancements.

Reliable transport: To improve the journey time reliability of travel in

Surrey.

Safe transport: To improve road safety and the security of the travelling

public in Surrey.

Sustainable transport: To provide an integrated transport system that

protects the environment, keeps people healthy and provides for lower

carbon transport choices.

2 Objectives and delivery priorities

2.1 This chapter sets out the objectives based on the visions and objectives of key

documents which have influenced the stated objectives. The objectives of this

strategy have been developed using the Local Transport Plan (LTP3), SCC’s

Environment and Infrastructure Directorate priorities and the currently adopted

Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003. These documents, and their visions and

objectives, have been summarised below.

Vision and objectives of the Local Transport Plan LTP3

Surrey County Council’s Environment & Infrastructure Directorate Vision and Priorities (2014/15)4

4 This document mainly addresses the objectives 1, 2, 4.

Vision: A leading economy and an attractive environment, with better roads and transport networks.

ITEM 11

Page 262

5


Guildford Borough Local Plan 20035

The policies aim to strike the right balance between protecting the Borough’s

environment whilst ensuring that essential development to support the local

economy and meet local residents’ needs takes place.

5 Adopted

4. Enable and facilitate the sustainable development of key ‘places’ in Surrey

· Work with District and Boroughs to support investment in key places in Surrey.

· Support the county council priority to deliver the necessary additional school places through a robust and timely planning process.

3. Maintain and improve the county’s attractive environment · Ensure at least 90% of municipal waste is diverted from landfill through

recycling, reuse and recovery.

· Work with partners to secure maximum value from waste.

· Ensure the Eco Park will be constructed by 2016.

· Work in partnership to deliver the Countryside Management Transformation Programme.

· Work in partnership to reduce energy costs and carbon impact for the council and schools and to deliver affordable warmth to vulnerable residents.

2. Optimise the use of highway and transport infrastructure to support health, wellbeing and economic development

· Deliver the Travel SMART programme.

· Deliver the Surrey cycling strategy with Local Committees.

· Complete the passenger transport review.

· Develop business cases for major transport schemes to secure required funding.

1. Maintain and improve highway and transport infrastructure to support economic growth

· Repair road defects within appropriate timescales.

· Deliver the county council priority to renew 100 km of the county’s roads.

· Work with the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to secure funding to enhance highways and transport infrastructure.

· Invest up to £10m to tackle damage to roads from severe weather and flooding.

ITEM 11

Page 263

6


2.2 Based on these visions and objectives the Guildford Borough Local

Transport Strategy has the following objectives and strategic delivery

priorities:

Objective 1: Road congestion

Manage congestion at congestion hotspots within the Borough through:

· Introducing “soft”6 and in some cases supported by “hard”7 transport planning

measures to reduce the vehicle movements and establish green transport

corridors.

· Operating existing capacity more efficiently introducing arterial and incident

management to improve journey time reliability.

Objective 2: Public transport

Promote movement by public transport between towns and villages and major

destinations both within and outside the Borough by:

· Establishing and promoting public integration to enhance access of businesses

and residents and reduce isolation.

· Improving quality and reliability of public transport services.

· Upgrading the public transport infrastructure to increase its attractiveness and

manage overcrowding on peak periods.

Objective 3: Pedestrians and cyclists

Promote movement on foot and by bicycle within Guildford’s towns and

villages and to their neighbouring communities by:

· Improving pedestrian and cyclist accessibility to reduce traffic which causes

local air pollution and vehicular emissions.

· Preserving and enhancing the public realm.

· Introducing a comprehensive wayfinding system to enhance navigation.

· Improving the network infrastructure, safety and legibility for pedestrians and

cyclists in all settlements.

· Encourage greater levels of walking and cycling by using smarter choices and

social marketing techniques.

· Improving the quality of travel information for all modes of transport to ensure

residents and visitors make the most appropriate travel choices for their

journey.

6 Soft transport planning measures include travel plans, better information, new ways of organising activities and new patterns of car use. 7 Hard transport planning measures include increase of road capacity, arterial and freeway improvements, parking restrictions.

ITEM 11

Page 264

7


3 The transport networks in Guildford borough

3.1 The following Chapter provides a description of the current transport networks

within the borough of Guildford. It describes the boroughs context within the

South East of England and Surrey; it then goes into further detail, focusing in

on the modes of transport and the infrastructure available across the borough

of Guildford.

Surrey and its transport network

3.2 The county of Surrey is located within the South East region of England and

contains 11 districts. Surrey has a population of 1.144 million and, with an area

of some 1,670 square kilometers, is one of the most densely populated

counties in England. Much of the county is rural and is protected by the Green

Belt. Surrey, however, also contains large urban areas, mostly concentrated in

the north of the county, where it adjoins the London conurbation. Due to

Surrey’s location next to London, and the proximity of both Heathrow and

Gatwick Airports, there is considerable demand for movement within, to, from,

and through the county.

3.3 Surrey’s road network has developed over many years to suit the prevailing

movement demands. The strategic network, comprising motorways and trunk

roads, has evolved principally to serve London, with several nationally

important routes passing through the county, including the M3, M23, M25 and

the A3.

3.4 The local bus network is an integral part of the transport system in Surrey,

providing valuable transport provision to communities and supporting the

economy. Some of the more urbanised areas of Surrey are relatively well

connected by bus services.

3.5 There are currently 84 railway stations in Surrey and the county is served by an

extensive rail network. Movements to and from central London are well catered

for via the South West Mainline and Portsmouth Direct Line. There is limited

provision for orbital movement across the rest of Surrey, though the North

Downs Line connecting Gatwick and Reading via Redhill and Guildford, the line

from Redhill to Tonbridge, the Ascot-Aldershot line and the Virginia Water to

Weybridge route offer opportunities to move from one part of Surrey to another

without having to interchange closer towards London.

ITEM 11

Page 265

8


3.6 Guildford Borough is located in south-

west Surrey. It is a popular location with

people commuting into London, settled

approximately 40 miles from it. Guildford

town is a regional hub and a major

economic centre for the whole of

Surrey and the second biggest

town in Surrey (Surrey-i, 2011).

Other principal settlements within the Borough are Ash and Tongham, East

Horsley, Pirbright, Shalford, Chilworth, Effingham, Send, Ripley, Fairlands,

Wood Street Village, West Horsley, Peaslake and Send Marsh/Burntcommon

(GBC, 2014).

Motorways and Primary Route Network (PRN)

3.7 One of the major roads in Guildford Borough is the A3 London-Portsmouth

trunk road which is managed by the Highways Agency and runs from north-east

to south-west through the centre of the Borough. This major trunk road is a

vitally important strategic corridor as it passes through the heart of the county

and is the principal highway connection between London and Portsmouth.

3.8 The A31 runs east-west along the Hog’s Back and links Guildford Borough with

Waverley and the county of Hampshire. It is the main link between Guildford

and Farnham including Ash via the A331. The A322 provides access to the M3

junction 3 at Lightwater via Worplesdon and onto Bagshot and the A323

connects Guildford with Aldershot via Ash. The A324 connects Normandy with

Worplesdon and joins the A322 at Brookwood.

3.9 The A25 runs through the south east of the Borough connecting Guildford town

with Mole Valley District, Reigate and Banstead Borough, Tandridge District

and the county of Kent. It is the main link between Guildford and the

settlements of Shere, Gomshall, Dorking, Reigate, Redhill, Godstone and

Oxted. The A246 runs parallel to the A25 and connects Guildford with

Leatherhead via Clandon and East Horsley. The A247 connects Woking to the

south-east area of Guildford borough and joins the A25/A246 at Clandon

crossroads.

3.10 The A320 is the principal road between the town of Guildford and Woking.

3.11 Other main roads in Guildford Borough are the A3100 Old Portsmouth Road

between Guildford and Milford, passing through Godalming and the A281

Shalford Road between Guildford and Horsham, passing through Shalford and

forming the main highway links at the south of the Borough. The A248

connects the A281 at Shalford to the A25 at Albury.

Figure 1 Guildford Borough within context of Surrey

ITEM 11

Page 266

9

Gu

ild

ford

Bo

rou

gh

Lo

cal

Tra

ns

po

rt S

tra

teg

y &

Fo

rwa

rd P

rog

ram

me

N

ove

mb

er

20

14

– D

raft f

or

dis

cu

ssio

n

Th

e l

eve

l o

f c

on

ges

tio

n

Th

is f

igu

re illu

str

ate

s th

e le

ve

l of

co

nge

stion

fo

r ea

ch r

oa

d in

th

e m

orn

ing p

ea

k p

erio

d. H

igh

er

traff

ic c

on

ge

stion

is e

xp

erie

nce

d

acro

ss t

he

A3

(1),

th

e A

31

Ho

g’s

Ba

ck (

2),

in a

nd

aro

un

d A

sh

(3)

and

Gu

ildfo

rd to

wn

ce

ntr

e (

4).

Fig

ure

2 T

he h

igh

est

leve

l o

f co

ng

estio

n in

Gu

ildfo

rd B

oro

ug

h (

SC

C,

201

3).

1

2

3

4

1

ITEM 11

Page 267

10

Guildford Borough Local Transport Strategy & Forward Programme November 2014 – Draft for discussion

3.12 There are a number of transport problems on the Borough’s transport networks

including:

· Guildford suffers from peak period congestion which remains a critical

barrier to economic growth and promoting Guildford as a destination.

· The A3 as it runs through Guildford Borough is considered to have one

of the worst levels of congestion in the county operating at more than

90% capacity during peak periods.

· The A3 bisects the town of Guildford creating severance and causes

severe congestion on the limited crossing points, which leads to an

adverse impact on the local highway network.

· During peak times there are incidents of queuing at the junction of the

A3/A31.

· Incidents on the M25 South West Quadrant and the A3 corridor to the

North of Guildford cause rat-running in the villages around Ripley.

· Congestion on the local network adjoining the research park, Royal

Surrey County Hospital and University of Surrey is exacerbated by

congestion and delays on the 3.

· High traffic flows and delays between A31 & Egerton Road to Guildford

Business Park.

· Potential development plans to expand the University of Surrey may

exacerbate current peak period congestion and delays on this section of

the A3.

ITEM 11

Page 268

11


Bus network

3.13 Bus provision in Guildford is focused primarily on the

town centre of Guildford and its surrounding

employment centers at the western periphery such

the University of Surrey, Surrey Research Park,

Royal Surrey County Hospital, Park Barn and at the

eastern periphery such as Burp ham. Other most

common bus routes are those to Aldershot, Cranleigh and Woking.

3.14 A replacement of facilitates presently provided at Guildford bus station remains

under consideration as part of the project to bring forward a development

proposals for the North Street Regeneration Area.

3.15 Surrey County Council is currently developing a Local Transport Review (LTR),

which subject to public consultation until early 2015. In Surrey 29 million

passenger journeys are made on bus services each year, an average of 80,000

trips every day. Surrey provides approximately 200 bus services throughout the

county, which are run by 22 different operators. Whilst some services are run

commercially, i.e. are not funded by SCC, over half of all passenger transport

services receive support funding from SCC.

3.16 Surrey’s current budgeted spend on transport revision is £19.39 million

(2014/15), of which £8.95 million is spent on local bus contracts, and £8.68

million on concessionary fares. The purpose of the LTR is to integrate services,

find and optimise efficiencies and make revenue savings while maintaining the

services that residents rely on most, services that get people to work, hospitals,

schools and shops. Proposals for reviewing the passenger transport services

are as follows:

· Renegotiate bus operator contracts – Renegotiate existing payments,

inflation uplift and length of contracts

· Review all bus routes in Surrey - Optimise the efficiently of local bus

services, support areas of economic growth and prioritise financial support

for key services.

· Make use of developer contributions - Make wider use of developer

contributions to support bus service improvements.

· Market research - To undertake a joint market study with Surrey

University to increase patronage and profitability.

· Community alternative - Work with Parish Councils to develop a

community-based alternative to more rural bus services.

3.17 Where services are not deemed viable, SCC will look to deliver alternate

methods of transport to maintain accessibility where this is necessary.

Community transport such as Dial-a-Ride, community bus schemes, demand

ITEM 11

Page 269

12


responsive bus services and voluntary car schemes can be a viable alternative

to bus services, especially in rural areas.

3.18 The county council is holding a public consultation on the Local Transport

Review until January 2015 to engage with businesses and the public. This can

be found here or by contacting [email protected].

Rail provision

3.19 There are twelve railway stations in the borough:

· Guildford

· London Road (Guildford)

· Clandon

· Horsley

· Effingham Junction

· Shalford

· Chilworth

· Gomshall

· Wanborough

· Ash

· North Camp

· Ash Vale

3.20 Guildford railway station is an important railway junction and interchange

station for the area. The 2012/13 station data show that Guildford is the busiest

railway station in Surrey with a substantial 7.96 million entries and exits per

annum.

3.21 The Borough is served by six rail lines that provide frequent and fast services;

· The Portsmouth Direct Line (part of the SWML) which links Guildford

and London Waterloo with 4tph, Portsmouth Harbour with a fast service of

2tph and Portsmouth and Southsea with 1tph. The maximum speed of this

line is 105mph. There is limited scope for major capacity improvements on

the line in the short term. The existing line is running at its full length and

the capacity at London Waterloo is very low. To face these future

challenges, additional services and train lengthening will be examined to

increase capacity:

· The New Guildford Line (part of the SWML) which links London

Waterloo and Guildford via Cobham and Epsom with 2tph for each route.

There is limited scope for major capacity improvements on the line in the

short term.

ITEM 11

Page 270

13


· The North Downs Line which links Guildford and Reading with 2tph and

Redhill with 2tph including Gatwick airport with 1tph. The maximum speed

of this line is 75mph and part of it is not electrified. Shalford Junction to

Reigate is the only part in Surrey and one of the two remaining parts of

the line (Wokingham-Aldershot) that have not been electrified yet. The

complete electrification of the North Downs Line will provide faster and

more reliable journey times for the passengers. This upgrade is also in

line with the provision of “green” transport, producing less noise pollution

to the communities adjacent to the line and less environmental pollution.

Also, it will support the provision of 2tph between Gatwick airport and

Reading with station upgrades and improvements.

· The Ascot to Guildford Line which links Guildford and Ascot with 2tph.

· The Alton Line which links London Waterloo and Alton with 2tph via Ash

Vale.

· The Mole Valley Line – Bookham branch which links Guildford with

Effingham junction.

3.22 At peak hours, trains are running over capacity on services carrying commuters

to and from London Waterloo (operating at 110% of capacity at Clapham

Junction and Vauxhall stations (SCC, 2013)) and with little spare capacity to

and from Gatwick airport.

3.23 There are no direct links to London Heathrow and passengers need to change

for the Rail-Air bus at Woking. In contrast, there is a direct link to Gatwick

airport from Guildford station.

3.24 Guildford has a direct rail service from many railway stations in Surrey,

although passengers travelling to Spelthorne, Runnymede and Tandridge

experience connectivity problems, increasing their journey times as in most

cases they have to travel via London.

3.25 It is expected that the capacity demand on the South West Main Line (SWML)

will be increased by 137% (about 1% per year) and capacity will be reached on

the North Downs Line by 2031. (Surrey Rail Strategy)

ITEM 11

Page 271

14


Walking and cycling infrastructure

3.26 Surrey County Council is working to develop the Guildford gyratory Package

scheme to improve pedestrian access, increase walking and cycling provision

between the railway station and Guildford town centre.

3.27 Surrey County Council is also working to improve the walking and cycling

infrastructure through the implementation of the Travel SMART project8.

Improvements are proposed to routes linking the Guildford railway station, town

centre, University of Surrey and Surrey Research Park.

3.28 There is the opportunity to improve routes between Westborough/Park Barn

and local places of employment; and the wooden bridge over the A3.

3.29 Working with its partners, Surrey County Council seeks to restrain the demand

for car travel to work. To achieve that, it attempts to rebalance the area’s

transport system in favour of more sustainable modes of transport.

3.30 Guildford Borough Council commissioned a Guildford Town and Approaches

Movement Study (GTAMS) which recommended the need to improve and

expand walking and cycling infrastructure. Please see Chapter 4 for more

information.

3.31 Surrey County Council is also working to improve cycling infrastructure through

Surrey’s Cycling Strategy which was published in March 2014; please see

Chapter 4 for more information.

Access to airports

3.32 Gatwick airport is directly accessible by

train from Guildford, Shalford, Chilworth

and Gomshall railway stations. It is

approximately 40 minutes driving distance

from Guildford town via the A25 or the A3

(M25-M23) route.

3.33 London Heathrow airport is not directly accessible by train from any Guildford

ward and thus passengers need to change for the Rail-Air bus at Woking

railway station. Bus users can access the airport via the A3 (M25) route.

3.34 Please see Chapter 4 for a description of Surrey Future’s workstream ‘surface

access to airports’ which considers how access to airports can be improved,

both under existing conditions and in response to the potential extra capacity

at London Heathrow and/or London Gatwick.

8 See “Travel SMART”. Available at: http://www.travelsmartsurrey.info/

ITEM 11

Page 272

15


Challenges for the transport network

3.35 The main transport challenges facing Guildford Borough which the Forward

Programme seeks to address have been identified as:

· Manage existing and forecast road congestion especially on main

routes, key junctions and town and village centres.

· Consider ways of reducing congestion and possible measures to

deliver reductions focusing on reducing traffic growth and encouraging

more sustainable transport choices particularly for journeys to

work/schools.

· Improve the connectivity of the Borough to neighbouring areas by

focusing on reducing road congestion on the key strategic routes such

as the A3, A31 and A25.

· Deliver improvements to the cycle and walking networks across the

Borough.

· Manage traffic speeds and flows, especially in rural communities, urban

centres and residential roads.

· Manage and improve existing transport access by passenger transport

to main employment areas.

· Improve transport access to local areas, services and facilities,

especially for people in rural areas without the use of a car.

· Encourage behavioural change to sustainable travel to reduce the

transport network’s climate change impacts.

· Promote and increase road safety as a priority, focusing on speed

enforcement and engineering improvements on high risk routes.

· Tackle the level of cycling casualties through training and awareness,

infrastructure improvement and enforcement.

ITEM 11

Page 273

16


4 Guildford transport trends and issues

4.1 This chapter describes the travel patterns within Guildford and the many trends

which affect transport in the borough. It is split into four sections:

· demographic and socio economic trends

· environmental issues

· safety

· economic circumstance.

4.2 By looking at these four areas this chapter will give an understanding of the

factors affecting travel behaviour in Guildford.

Demographic and socio-economic trends

4.3 One of the most influential demographic factors upon the demand for travel is

population; specifically the impacts of population growth and the desire for

people to live in smaller sized households.

4.4 Surrey’s population density varies considerably across the county. Dense urban

areas are located in the north within the M25 and in the large towns of

Guildford, Woking, Reigate/Redhill and Farnham south of the M25. These

dense urban areas are separated by low density rural areas. 83% of the

population lives in urban areas which cover just 34% of the county.

4.5 Between 2008 and 2013, Surrey’s population grew by 3.7%. This trend is

projected to continue over the next 20 years at a rate of about 3.6% per year.

Along with increases in population, the number of households has also

increased over time, by 11.3% since 1991 and 21.6% since 1981. The number

of households in Surrey in 2011 was 455,791. If trends in personal travel

demand remain constant, then the growth in population together with the desire

to live in smaller households will result in an increase in future travel demand.

4.6 The 2011 Census shows the population of Guildford is 141,009. Approximately

half of the borough’s population lives in the town of Guildford.

ITEM 11

Page 274

17


4.7 Figure shows journey purpose (by number of trips made for all modes) in the

South East region in 2011/12. This demonstrates the complex nature of travel

patterns although focus is often placed on those that have peak weekday flows

during the morning and evening peak periods such as commuting and

education.

Figure 3 Journey purpose (NTS South East, 2011/12).

Shopping

19%

Commuting

15%

Visit friends at

private home

10%

Other escort

10%

Personal business

10%

Education

6%

Escort education

5% Business

3%

Other

22%

Journey purpose (NTS South East, 2011/12)

ITEM 11

Page 275

18


4.8 Borough-specific data regarding travel to work patterns is available from the

Census 2011. This data provides modal split data for’ travel to work’ by

Guildford Borough residents (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Modal split: Method of travel to work (ONS, 2011b).

4.9 Car remains the predominant mode of travel with 57.3%9 of residents (age 16-

74) travelling to work as a driver of a car or van as shown in Figure 4.

4.10 Car ownership per household is higher in Guildford (86.1%), higher than the

average in the South East (81.4%), with 46.1% of household owning two or

more cars (39.7% for South East) (ONS, 2011c).

4.11 Journeys less than 5km are considered to be most receptive to change given

their shorter distance. The modal split for journeys travelled to work by

Guildford residents that are less than 5km in distance has been sourced from

the 2011 Census and is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Modal split by distance travelled to work (ONS, 2011a).

Mode < 2km (%) < 5km (%) 2km -5km (%)

Car (driver or passenger) 35.6 48.7 64.1

Foot 47.2 28.7 7.0

Bicycle 6.2 5.7 5.0

Bus 2.8 6.5 11.0

Origin and destination data (ONS, 2011a) reveals the following:

9 This is as a percentage of those residents in employment.

1.9%

2.6%

3.4%

3.7%

11.3%

7.8%

12.0%

57.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Other

Bicycle

Bus, minibus, coach

Passenger in a car or van

Train

Work mainly at or from home

On foot

Driving a car or van

Modal split: Method of travel to work Guildford residents aged 16-74, exc. not in employment (Census, 2001/2011).

2011 2001

ITEM 11

Page 276

19


· Just over a half of the Borough’s working population live and work in

Guildford (53.96%).

· In terms of origin most travel from

Waverley (8,612 people), Surrey

Heath (3,804 people), Woking

(2,629 people) and Rushmoor

(2,281 people) to work in Guildford

borough.

· Most people who reside in

Guildford borough travel to

Waverley (8,539), to Woking

(7,316), to Rushmoor (7,134) and to Southwark in Central London

(4,548) to work.

4.12 The travel patterns of Borough

residents and commuters travelling into the Borough present the opportunity to

encourage sustainable transport, especially for journeys less than 5 km in

length, many of which could be cycled, walked or made by public transport.

Environmental issues

Climate Change

4.13 In recent years there has been increasing concern at the increase in extreme

weather events and the changes in climate that the county will face. The most

recent government predictions have made it clear that over the next few

decades Surrey will certainly be affected in

many different ways. These changes will bring

both threats and opportunities.

4.14 Increased intensity of rainfall will bring threats

of flooding and subsidence, adversely affecting

transport infrastructure including roads, bridges

and the rail network, as will hotter and drier

summers. At the same time a warmer climate

will provide increased opportunities for tourism

destinations and new crops for farmers. Consequently public services and

infrastructure will need to change in response to a changing climate, which will

be challenging.

4.15 Transport is a major contributor to global climate change. Carbon dioxide

emissions from transport in the UK grew by 98% between 1971 and 2001 and

transport’s share of total emissions is predicted to increase from 24% in 2006 to

30% in 2022 according to the Committee on Climate Change. Acting on

Figure 5 Guildford inward and outward commuting flows 2011 (ONS, 2011a).

ITEM 11

Page 277

20


transport’s role in mitigating against this is an increasing local and national

priority.

4.16 Between 2005 and 2007 there was a 3% absolute reduction in CO2 emissions

from transport in Surrey and a 5% per capita reduction. Research from 2008

shows an estimate of 2,029 kilo tonnes for total transport C02 emissions and

1.84 tonnes CO2 per capita. This equates to a 7.8% reduction since 2005 in

absolute figures and 10% per capita reduction.

4.17 Further information is available in the Climate Change strategy detail of which

can be found in Chapter 6 of this document.

4.18 Air pollution in the UK harms human health and the environment. Air pollution

can have a long-term effect on people’s heath associated in particular with

premature mortality due to heart and lung effects. 143,200 Surrey residents

(13.5%) have a long-term illness or health problems. People in Surrey have

high life expectancy and this is improving over time. In the short term, high

pollution episodes can trigger increased admissions to hospital and contribute

to the premature death of those people that are more vulnerable to daily

changes in levels of air pollutants.

4.19 Road traffic is known to be a key issue in relation to air quality. Stop start

driving conditions and slower vehicle speeds resulting from congestion can lead

to higher roadside pollutant concentrations, but to date no Air Quality

Management Areas (AQMAs) have been identified in Guildford ,

4.20 Further information is available in the Air Quality Strategy details of which can

be found in Chapter 6 of this document.

Safety

4.21 Guildford borough had the most casualties within the county in 200710, 16% of

the 6,113 casualties in Surrey. However, it should be noted that this high

number of casualties includes motorway and trunk road sections of the

borough.

Electric Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure

4.22 ‘Electric vehicles, or EVs, are cars or vans where the petrol or diesel engine is

replaced or supplemented by battery powered electric motors’. 11

4.23 Surrey County Council is currently producing an Electric Vehicle Strategy,

which is expected to be published mid 2015. More information on the strategy

and SCC current guidance can be found in chapter 6.

10 Surrey County Council. (2008). Safety engineering team. 11 Source: Travel Smart – Electric Vehicle Charging Points

ITEM 11

Page 278

21


4.24 Surrey County Council has set an ambition to reduce our carbon footprint. One

identified cost effective method of reducing our carbon footprint is through

encouraging the use of electric vehicles.12

4.25 To encourage the use and increase the viability of electric vehicles, supporting

infrastructure is required e.g. EV charge points.

4.26 The County Council will seek the provision of electric vehicle charging points

with all new developments, as part of the authority’s Parking Guidance13.

4.27 The Surrey Climate Change Strategy, which forms part of the Surrey Transport

Plan, identifies ‘Infrastructure to support use of hybrid/electric vehicles’ as a key

measure to help address climate change.

Economic Circumstance

Existing transport infrastructure capacity

4.28 Surrey has an extremely busy transport network, but does not suffer congestion

to the degree that some metropolitan conurbations do. However, due to this

busy nature, congestion does occur during the peak periods and at local

hotspots, and rapidly arises when either incidents occur or traffic flow is

disrupted. Congestion arises when the level of traffic flow on a road exceeds, or

approaches, the available capacity.

4.29 Congestion is a significant issue and it can affect any route causing problems

for drivers, pedestrians and public transport users. For Surrey as a whole,

including motorways and trunk roads, the cost of congestion is estimated to

amount to about £550 million per annum.

4.30 The Congestion Strategy sets out the overall approach to tackling congestion in

Surrey further information on this is available in chapter 6 of this document.

4.31 Capacity issues and overcrowding on trains in Surrey have been identified in

the Surrey Rail Strategy, particularly on routes into Waterloo and on the

Brighton Main Line and North Downs Line. Further information is also available

in Chapter 6 of this document.

4.32 Parking is seen to influence congestion in three main ways; firstly at a strategic

level the availability of parking has a direct influence on modal choice,

secondly, in places where there is a high demand for parking, congestion can

be exacerbated by queuing at car park entrances and circulating traffic seeking

on-street spaces, thirdly, both legal and illegal on-street parking leads to a

12 Source: Surrey Transport Plan - Climate Change Strategy 13 Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/266423/Vehicular-and-Cycle-Parking-Guidance-Jan-2012.pdf

ITEM 11

Page 279

22


reduction in the amount of road space available for through traffic, creates

bottlenecks, reduces traffic flow and increases journey times.

4.33 Further information is available in the Parking strategy (see Section 6 for further

details of the Parking Strategy).

ITEM 11

Page 280

23


5 Future growth and its impact

5.1 This chapter has been left intentionally blank.

5.2 Following the adoption of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, this Chapter will be

updated to reflect Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS), this Part B will include

mitigation measures to address the impacts of both future growth from the

Borough’s Local Plan and the impacts of growth from developments external to

the borough of Guildford, which may have an impact on the transport networks,

currently serving Guildford.

ITEM 11

Page 281

24


6 Related work streams and projects

6.1 This chapter details the many related work streams being carried out by the

county council, borough council and other external stakeholders. The diagram

below shows how transport elements of SCC and GBC strategies fit together to

influence the Local Transport Strategy. This in the future may help to provide a

mechanism for jointly prioritising and delivering transport schemes to meet the

aims and priorities of both the borough and county council.

Surrey County Council work streams

Surrey Transport Plan Strategies

6.2 The strategies are key components of the Surrey Transport Plan, setting out

aims and objectives and identifying spending priorities for each area. The

strategies will be used to inform the development of programmes for the

delivery of schemes on the ground.

6.3 SCC has a flexible web-based approach to the development and review of

strategies. The following components have been produced:

· Air Quality

· Climate Change

ITEM 11

Page 282

25


· Congestion

· Cycling

· Freight

· Parking

· Passenger Transport (Local Bus and Information)

· Travel Planning

· Rail

6.4 Below is a summary of the Surrey Transport Plan strategies.

Surrey Air Quality Strategy

6.5 The Surrey Air Quality Strategy was published in 2011.The strategy forms part

of the Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3) and covers the effect of the road network

on air quality. Road traffic is a major contributor to air pollution in Surrey. The

aim of the Air Quality Strategy is to improve air quality on and around the

county network.

Surrey Climate Change Strategy

6.6 The Surrey Climate Change Strategy was published in 2011.The strategy forms

part of the Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3) and covers the carbon emissions

arising from the transport network within Surrey. The aim of the strategy is to

reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport in Surrey and manage climate

risks posed to transport infrastructure and transport services.

6.7 The objectives associated with the strategy aims are to; reduce the overall

distance travelled by reducing the need to travel, increase the proportion of

travel by sustainable modes (walking and cycling), maintain public transport

patronage and increase vehicle occupancy, switch to lower carbon vehicles,

encourage efficient driving and manage traffic flows, reduce energy use of

highway infrastructure and transport services and manage the risks posed to

transport by forecasted effects of climate change.

Surrey Future Congestion Programme and the Congestion Strategy

6.8 The Surrey Future Congestion Programme sets out the Surrey Future

initiative’s strategic programme for managing traffic congestion on Surrey’s

road network to support economic competitiveness and growth. It has been

prepared to provide a shared and agreed vision for managing congestion on

Surrey’s road network, building on the Congestion Strategy in the Surrey

Transport Plan (LTP3).

ITEM 11

Page 283

26


What is Surrey Future? Surrey Future brings together Surrey’s local authorities and business leaders to agree the investment priorities to support the county’s economy. Surrey Future builds on existing and emerging local plans to manage planned growth sustainably, attract new businesses to the county and retain existing ones. The partnership supports the aims of the local enterprise partnerships covering Surrey: Enterprise M3 and Coast to Capital. More information at: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/surreyfuture

“...a true Olympic legacy would see every child in Surrey learning to ride a bike and being able to cycle safely to school. It would mean that many more of our residents’ cycle for transport and leisure, reducing congestion and reliance on cars and reaping the considerable health and economic benefits this brings. And it would mean that people without access to a car can travel safely and affordably around the county....”

Surrey Cycling Strategy Consultation.

6.9 The Congestion Programme summarises

the main transport challenges in Guildford

Borough as major congestion on

approaches to town centres, in the town

centres themselves, poor access to public

transport in some areas, and limited

provision for parking at railway stations.

6.10 The Congestion Programme highlights the

huge economic impact of congestion on

the economy; congestion on Surrey’s road

network has been calculated to cost the

UK economy £550 million every year14.

Strategic congestion hotspots are

identified and a programme of

interventions is proposed for 2015-201915.

The Congestion Programme concludes

that improvement may be needed in the

following areas:

· Guildford town centre.

· A3 as it runs through the town of Guildford.

· A3 between Ripley junction and junction 10 Wisley interchange

(A3/M25).

· A31 between Farnham and Guildford.

These schemes are detailed in the Annex accompanying this strategy.

6.11 A package regarding wider network benefits across the county is also included

in the Congestion Programme. This scheme is currently being drawn up in the

Enterprise M3 LEP area of the county (the west, the east is covered by the

Coast to Capital LEP), focusing on

addressing congestion on key strategic

routes.

Surrey Cycling Strategy

6.12 The Surrey Cycling Strategy 2014-

2026 was published in March 2014.

The strategy forms part of the Surrey

Transport Plan (LTP3) and covers

cycling as a means of transport, leisure

and as a sport, setting out our aim for

cycling in Surrey for the period to 2026. One aim of the Cycling Strategy is to

14 Congestion Programme Consultation Draft March 2013, Executive Summary 15 Congestion Programme Consultation Draft March 2013, Table 1

ITEM 11

Page 284

27


develop Local Cycling Plans for each district and borough as appropriate.

These will be incorporated into future versions of each of the district/borough

Local Transport Strategy and Forward programmes. In addition to the

infrastructure schemes identified throughout this strategy and within the forward

programme (Annex), the county council will also implement smarter travel

initiatives, such as TravelSMART which includes improved provision of

information, travel planning and marketing methods designed to encourage

more sustainable travel behaviour. The county council will work in partnership

with the borough council to submit funding bids to the Local Enterprise

Partnership Enterprise M3 to deliver such scheme.

Surrey Freight Strategy

6.13 Surrey’s Freight Strategy is one of the strategies in the Surrey Transport Plan.

Due to the location of Surrey; bordering London, bordering counties with a

European link like Kent and being in close proximity to Gatwick and Heathrow

airports a large number Heavy Goods Vehicles pass through the county’s

roads. The relative affluence of the county also means that there is a demand

from the residents for goods to be delivered also increasing the amount of

HGVs within the county.

6.14 The aim of the freight strategy is to assist the effective transportation of goods

whilst minimising the impact of HGVs on the environment and residents. To

meet this aim the objective laid out are to; provide up-to-date information to the

freight industry to enable more efficient, reliable safe and sustainable deliveries,

reduce the negative impacts of HGVs on congestion, air quality and road safety

(in urban areas) reduce incidences of HGVs being diverted along unsuitable

lower category roads when not being used for access.

Surrey Parking Strategy

6.15 The parking strategy has been developed by the county council. As a county

Surrey has an above average level of car ownership coupled with severe

congestion in several areas. This can be influenced by parking provisions and

regulations.

6.16 Guidance for the integration of Electric Vehicle charging points has been

established for new developments. Guidance for the new charging points can

be found here.

6.17 SCC is currently developing an Electric Vehicle Strategy which is expected to

be published in 2015. This strategy will outline how SCC and the eleven

districts and boroughs will improve on electric vehicle infrastructure to promote

and increase the use of more energy efficient modes of transport such as

electrically powered private motor vehicles. It is expected that guidance on the

integration of infrastructure for electric vehicles will change to reflect advances

in technologies for fast and rapid charging points.

ITEM 11

Page 285

28


Surrey Passenger Transport Strategy

6.18 The Surrey Passenger Transport Strategy is made up of two parts: Part 1 is the

Local Bus Strategy and Part 2 is the Passenger Information Strategy.

6.19 Surrey’s Local Bus Strategy was published in April 2011. The strategy forms

part of the Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3) and covers local buses as a means of

transport setting out the aims for bus travel in Surrey for the period to 2026.

The main aim the Strategy is to deliver and maintain an effective, safe and

sustainable bus network in Surrey. The objectives for reaching these aims

centre on improving accessibility, reliability and punctuality of local bus

services.

6.20 Surrey’s Passenger Information Strategy aims to promote shift towards

sustainable modes of travel, promote equality of opportunity by publicising

passenger transport options improve passenger transport information and

improve confidence in passenger transport reliability.

6.21 Delivery of these objectives will be achieved through the following strands of

work:

· Development of passenger infrastructure and information, with

consideration given to more responsibility being taken on by bus

operators (overseen by the county council to ensure standards are met)

· Continued development of the SCC website, including up to date bus

timetables and electronic real time passenger information for bus and train

users

· Support for Traveline, to ensure that this valuable journey planning

resource is supplied with timely and accurate data

Surrey Travel Planning Strategy

6.22 The Travel Planning Strategy has the aim of providing travel planning

measures to schools and workplaces within Surrey to help them to make

informed travel choices. The objectives of the strategy in relation to schools

focus on providing the appropriate resources, training and support to ensure

that individuals gain independence and self reliance skills. In relation to

workplaces the objectives of the strategy focus on providing advice, tools and

information to organisations to set up plans.

6.23 School travel planning aims to make it safer and easier for children to walk,

cycle or use public transport to travel to school hence; reducing the amount of

car dependency, improving traffic congestion and air quality around schools

and it can contribute to the long-term health of the child.

6.24 Workplace travel planning aims to encourage staff, visitors, service users and

customers to use alternatives to single vehicle occupancy. These travel plans

could include measures such as; improving pedestrian and cycling facilities,

ITEM 11

Page 286

29


public transport subsidies, car-pooling and working from home.

Surrey Rail Strategy

6.25 Surrey Future has also produced the Surrey Rail Strategy. The objective for

the strategy is to ensure that the county has the rail infrastructure needed for

sustainable economic growth and identify proposals that partners in Surrey can

plan and deliver. These proposals have been identified in consultation with the

rail industry, business, boroughs and districts and other partners.

6.26 Proposals include enhancing capacity on the South West Main Line and

North Downs Line. Access to Guildford was considered in detail in the

strategy, including new station at Park Barn and Merrow and an improved

connection between Guildford and Alton. Access to and from stations was also

included under the scope of the strategy.

Surface Access to Airports

6.27 Surrey Future is proactively engaging with the Airports Commission (also

known as the Davies Commission) on future airport capacity. The Congestion

Programme and Rail Strategy highlight surface access to airports as an issue.

A further study has been commissioned (Surrey Rail Strategy: Surface Access

to Airports Study) to consider transport infrastructure improvements needed to

address both existing surface access issues and potential improvements

needed in the event of additional runway capacity at Heathrow and/or Gatwick.

The study highlights the overall key issues and challenges for surface access to

Heathrow and Gatwick Airports from Surrey and identifies development

objectives for surface access in Surrey.

Transport Strategy for Surrey’s Schools Place Programme

6.28 SCC’s schools place programme aims to meet the future need for additional

school places across the county. More than 12,000 primary places are required

between 2014 and 2018, while an additional 5,000 secondary places are being

planned by 2018. Further expansions will be required beyond 2018. It is

essential to plan for this growth in school places in terms of transport in order to

mitigate the impacts. The transport strategy aims to maximise the choices

available to children as to how they travel and to minimise the impact of school

growth on local residents and businesses. It therefore focuses on five areas:

travel planning; walking and cycling to school; school design and access; public

transport; and parking on and off school sites.

6.29 The Transport Strategy for Surrey’s Schools Place Programme is currently in

draft; it is intended to be adopted by the county council under the Surrey

Transport Plan in 2015.

Maintenance

6.30 SCC has identified the worst 10% of its road network and is currently delivering

an innovative 5 year maintenance programme, Operation Horizon, which will

ITEM 11

Page 287

30


ensure the Surrey network is fit for purpose.

6.31 In February 2013, SCC Cabinet approved the ambitious maintenance

programme. Operation Horizon will deliver a programme with total investment

of nearly £120m to replace the worst 500km (10%) of Surrey roads. The five

year Horizon project (year one) commenced in April 2013.

6.32 For Guildford in particular, the new programme will result in £10m being

invested in the local road network and will enable 52km of road to be

reconstructed.

Road Safety

6.33 One of the aims of the Surrey Transport Plan is to improve road safety and the

security of the travelling public in Surrey. In order to achieve this objective, SCC

works with Surrey Police through the Drive SMART partnership with the aim to

reduce road casualties, tackle anti-social driving and make the county's roads

safer for everyone. The partnership produced a strategy in 2011 which includes

a number of measures or interventions by which Drive SMART seeks to

address road safety issues in Surrey. These include road safety engineering,

police enforcement, driver rehabilitation courses, school speed watch and

school crossing patrols, as well as school and workplace travel planning.

6.34 The county council adopted a Road Safety Outside Schools policy in June

2014, which recognises that safety of children outside schools is one of the

most frequently expressed road safety concerns, identifying the high level of

vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist activity outside schools at drop-off and pick-up

times as a cause of congestion and provides guidance on how the county

council will respond to concerns. The guidance is intended to help the council

remove barriers to safe walking and cycling to school, promoting active travel

and helping address congestion and is linked to the schools place programme

strategy

Public Health

6.35 SCC is responsible for a number of public health functions. The Public Health

service works across a number of key areas of health improvement and

protection for the population of Surrey. Public health provides expert advice

and evidence and has been consulted in the preparation of this strategy.

Transport related aspects of health which have been considered in Guildford

are:-

· Air Quality: Most air pollution in Surrey is caused by motorised transport.

Air pollution has an impact on health in many ways. Long term exposure

to particulate air pollution affects mortality from cardiovascular and

respiratory conditions, including lung cancer.

· Road Safety: In 2012, 49.2 residents in Surrey per 100,000 population

(crude rate) were killed or seriously injured on the roads. Unintentional

ITEM 11

Page 288

31


What is the M25 to Solent Route Strategy? The M25 to Solent Route Strategy is a Route-based strategy (RBS) which represents a fresh approach to identifying investment needs on the strategic road network. Through adopting the RBS approach, we aim to identify network needs relating to operations, maintenance and where appropriate, improvements to proactively facilitate economic growth. More information at: http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/route-strategies/M25%20to%20Solent.pdf

injury is the leading cause of death for 0 -14 year old children in Surrey,

almost half of these are due to transport injury.

· Physical Activity: Increasing opportunities for walking and cycling as a

means of transport is one way to increase overall levels of physical

activity and therefore increasing opportunities to elicit the health benefits

associated to being physically active.

· Obesity: Active travel has a significant impact on physical activity, which in

turn impacts on the prevalence of obesity and overweight. Over a quarter

of Surrey’s children are overweight or obese by the time they are 10-11

years old. More than 1 in 5 adults are obese.

· Community Cohesion: Transport has the ability to divide and isolate

communities, as well as bring them together. Increasing the number of

people of all ages who are out on the streets, through active travel makes

public spaces seem more welcoming and providing opportunities for

social interaction and provides an opportunity for everyone to participate

in and enjoy the outdoor environment .

· Noise pollution: can adversely affect mental health, the cardiovascular

system and school performance in children.

External work streams

M25 to Solent route strategy

6.36 The Highways Agency (HA) is responsible for planning the long term future and

development of the strategic road network (SRN).

6.37 The Highways Agency (HA) is currently examining problems and potential

interventions nationally across the entire SRN and developing strategies on a

route basis. These route strategies are intended to help identify investment

plans to accommodate changes in funding on the strategic road network as

announced by the Government in the June 2013 paper ‘Investing in Britain’s

Future’.The M25 to Solent route connects London with Southampton and

Portsmouth, running within the counties of Surrey and Hampshire.

6.38 The A3-A3(M) section is 46 miles

long and runs, north to south,

near the conurbations of

Guildford, Haslemere, Liphook,

Petersfied, Waterlooville and

Havant. It intersects with two

other roads of the SRN: M25 (the

London Orbital) and A27

(Eastbourne to Portsmouth).

6.39 The ten least reliable sections of

the M25 to Solent route are provided in the Guildford area. This part of the A3

ITEM 11

Page 289

32


shows the lowest journey time reliability and peak hour speed.

Table 2 Ten least reliable journey-time locations on the route (1 April-31 March 2013)

6.40 The A3 around Guildford (in particular through Guildford and at the Hogs Back)

and Wisley currently experiences delay and congestion with high journey time

unreliability. Ccareful consideration including demand management will need to

be taken to take account of any development once the Local Plan is adopted.

6.41 The A3 has challenging characteristics, in particular in and around Guildford. At

this location the A3 serves as a key strategic highway connection whilst also

being used as a local arterial road for Guildford. This results in a strong

interaction between the A3 and local road traffic, in particular there is significant

interaction between the A3 and the parallel A25 between Stoke Road and

Wooden Bridge interchanges, so that congestion along the route can adversely

affect the operation of the other route (as reported in Report for the Highways

Agency, Parsons Brinckerhoff, March 2009). Challenges are also presented by

a number of properties and minor roads having direct access onto the A3 to the

south of Guildford, where no acceleration or deceleration tapers are provided.

Figure 6 Network performance 2012/13 – Delay (Left), Safety on the network (Right)

Rank Location On-time reliability measure

National Rank

1 A3 between A320 and A322 55.1% 24

2 A3 between A322 and A320 60.5% 89

3 A3 between A272 and A272 66.7% 371

4 A3 between A3100 and A320 67.4% 437

5 A3 between A322 and A31 67.9% 483

6 A3 between A3100 and A3100 69.1% 601

7 A3(M) between J2 and J1 69.2% 605

8 M3 between J11 and J10 69.5% 642

9 A3 between A272 and A272 69.6% 657

10 A2(M) between J3 and J4 69.7% 676

ITEM 11

Page 290

33


What is GTAMS? GTAMS is a long term movement strategy to 2050 for the town of Guildford. The report includes recommendations for transport and movement within the town centre and wider context of the Borough. More information at: www.guildford.gov.uk/transport

Network Rail Wessex Route Study

6.42 Network Rail’s Summary Route Plan for the Wessex Route document sets out

the relevant outputs, activity and expenditure at route level to achieve the

specified outputs for Network Rail’s fifth Control Period (CP5). The plan also

forecasts the long-term activity and expenditure required to manage and

maintain a sustainable network.

6.43 The Wessex Rail Operating Centres (ROC) will reduce annual operating costs

and deliver an improved, efficient railway.

Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study (GTAMS)

6.44 The aim of GTAMS was to

develop a recommended long

term movement strategy to

2050 for the town of Guildford.

This will inform the

development of a new Local

Plan for the borough for the

period to 2031.

6.45 The study opened with the

development of a headline

vision for sustainable mobility

in Guildford in 2050 and

supporting objectives. The

vision statement is:

6.46 “The transport system in 2050

will sustain Guildford as a

centre of excellence; with an

attractive and thriving town

centre; an innovative world-

class high-tech employment

sector; a high-quality resilient

environment; an engaged,

healthy and prosperous community; and excellent connections, locally,

regionally, and internationally via airports and high speed rail links.”

6.47 The appraisal of interventions and packages found that all of the sustainable

transport intervention scenarios performed significantly better than other

scenarios. Rail interventions serving more regional travel needs and new park

and ride facilities also scored well. The appraisal resulted in a set of preferred

interventions that support the 2050 vision for sustainable mobility in Guildford.

Guildford Town Centre Vision 2014

6.48 The emerging Guildford town centre vision 2014 report has identified nine

ITEM 11

Page 291

34


themes for the vision for Guildford town centre. In each case these are several

key projects which relate directly to ideas that have been suggested by local

people through the consultation.

ITEM 11

Page 292

35


7 Places in Guildford

7.1 This chapter outlines the different areas across Guildford, presenting the key

transport network at each location and identifying a number of problems which

currently exist in these areas. Interventions are stated where these are known,

planned or aspired to. Potential interventions listed under each area are based

on the problems identified and/or any development coming forward in the area;

the issues and problems serve to guide future interventions for each area,

acting as an evidence base.

7.2 The main urban area in the Borough is Guildford town, where about half of the

Borough’s population resides. Other notable settlements in Guildford Borough

are Ash and Tongham, Clandon and Horsley.

7.3 The remainder of this section describes the main elements of Guildford town as

the core of the Borough with the settlements grouped into three geographical

clusters as follows:

1. Central - Burp ham, Christchurch, Friary and St. Nicholas, Holy Trinity

Merrow, Onslow, Stoke, Stoughton and Westborough wards.

2. West - Ash Vale, Ash Wharf, Ash South, Tongham, Normandy, Pirbright,

Worplesdon wards, The Pilgrims and Shalford wards

3. East - Clandon and Horsley, Effingham, Send and Lovelace, Tillingbourne

wards

Figure 7 Guildford wards divided into three main clusters

ITEM 11

Page 293

36


Guildford borough - Central

Population: 70,40716

7.4 Guildford borough is a historic market

town, the largest settlement and the main

employment/retail centre in Guildford

Borough. It is a unique town within Surrey

as it is both a “destination” town and a

“commuter” hotspot attracting large

amount of journeys for retail and

employment as well as users that they are

simply travelling through Guildford to

reach A3.

7.5 Guildford town is one of the key

employment areas in the Borough.

According to a recent study, it was the

most competitive non-metropolitan centre in the UK (CIC, 2010). It is a key

growth centre, home of key employment sites such as the Guildford town

centre, Surrey Research Park, University of Surrey, Guildford College, Slyfield

Industrial Estate, Guildford Business Park and Merrow Business Park and key

community facilities such as the Royal Surrey County Hospital, Surrey Sports

Park, Guildford Cathedral and Guildford Spectrum leisure complex. These

centers are located at a short distance from major transport routes and hubs

such as the A3 and Guildford railway station. Growth of business, cultural and

leisure activities is anticipated in each of these sectors while good quality

buildings remain in short supply.

7.6 The A3 is strategically located next to the town centre which is accessible

through a one-way gyratory system. The aforementioned gyratory straddles the

River Wey with two crossings; Bridge Street at the north and Friary Bridge at

the south. Four A roads converge at the one-way gyratory system. These are

the A3100 and the A281 from the southerly direction, the A31 from the westerly

direction and the A322 from a northerly direction.

7.7 Guildford railway station is the busiest station in Surrey with 7.96 million

passengers in 2012/13 (ORR, 2013) and an important railway junction for the

area. The main railway line runs through the town centre where there are

frequent trains providing direct service to Woking and fast journeys to and from

London Waterloo. There is an indirect link to and from Heathrow airport via

Woking (Woking Railair 701 coach service) and a direct link to and from

Gatwick airport via the North Downs Line. Guildford is also directly linked with

Reading, Redhill and Portsmouth Harbour. There are developer aspirations for

16 Includes Burpham, Christchurch, Friary and St. Nicholas, Holy Trinity Merrow, Onslow, Stoke, Stoughton and WestBorough wards (ONS, 2011).

Figure 8 Guildford High Street

ITEM 11

Page 294

37


major redevelopments at Guildford railway station.

7.8 Guildford town centre has 5,234 public off-street spaces during the weekday,

rising to 5,631 spaces at weekends.

7.9 There are a number of Park and Ride sites serving the town centre including

Artington, Merrow, Spectrum and Onslow with regular bus services.

7.10 The existing bus service covers local Guildford routes and longer distance

interurban routes. These interurban routes

serve Dorking, Cranleigh, Leatherhead,

Staines, Kingston, Haslemere, Farnham,

Aldershot, Bagshot and Camberley.

7.11 There are over 90 cycle parking stands

around the town centre and over 120

stands at Guildford rail station and South

West Train’s Brompton bike hire scheme,

a cycle hire rental scheme at railway

stations. NCR 223 connects Woking town

centre via Sutton Green to Guildford town

centre.

Figure 9 The locations of the existing park and ride facilities (SCC, 2014).

ITEM 11

Page 295

38


7.12 Current problems and issues with inverventions to consider are:

Guildford Borough - Central

Current problems Potential interventions

Ro

ad c

on

ge

stio

n

- Heavy congestion on the A3 during

peak time particularly from the A3/A31

junction to Dennis’ roundabout.

- Inadequate entry/exit movements to

and from the A3 trunk road at its

junctions.

- Heavy congestion in all principal

routes linked by the gyratory system

during peak time.

- Slyfield industrial estate experiences

high levels of congestion including

parking and junction capacity issues.

- General widespread traffic congestion

increases rapidly in peak times.

- The borough’s proximity to London

and the two major international

airports.

- Relatively low cost of car

travel/parking, compared to public

transport fares.

- Town centre parking distribution,

access arrangements, availability and

cost.

- Lack of up-to-date information to

assist travellers’ decision making.

- School run traffic.

- Encourage use of alternative

means of transport.

- Reassess vehicular capacity and

highway space.

- Upgrade UTC systems.

- Improvements in Slyfield Area

Regeneration Project (SARP)/Clay

Lane link road.

- Promote mechanisms for

commuters to use the existing park

and ride facilities.

- Provision for new and expanded

park and ride facilities..

- Rethink parking in the town centre

andextend on-street parking

controls.

- Improvements on the A25

Ladymead to reduce noise. The road

has been prioritised into the noise

action planning.

- Infrastructure provision to facilitate

electric vehicles (EVs).

ITEM 11

Page 296

39


Pu

blic

tra

nsp

ort

- Bus and rail reliability.

- Access to international gateways,

particularly to Heathrow and Gatwick

airports, as well as High Speed 1 and

2.

- Bus attractiveness and functionality of

the bus station.

- High volume of passengers using the

Guildford railway station.

- Low bus priority compared to

vehicular movements.

- Insufficient customer information

systems.

- Poor perception of public transport.

- Insufficient accessibility among the

railway station, bus station and the key

employment sites.

- Improve reliability, efficiency and

accessibility to international

gateways and key employment

areas to maintain Surrey’s global

competiveness.

- Bus priority and corridor

improvements such as segregation,

signalling priority and bus gates at

pinch-points.

- Encourage modal shift in favour of

rail and bus.

- Encourage public transport

integration.

- Provision customer information

systems.

- Provision for wider advertising of

sustainable travel initiatives.

- Provide hybrid electric buses

through the Green Bus Fund.

- Provision for a new bus station or

on road bus bays to maximise

attractiveness and access of public

transport.

- Proceed with the regeneration of

the Guildford railway station

including a new station and

comprehensive mixed use

redevelopment.

ITEM 11

Page 297

40


Pe

de

str

ians a

nd

cyclis

ts

- High accident rate especially on the

gyratory system, particularly involving

pedestrians as the gyratory prioritises

the movement of motor vehicles over

pedestrians and cyclists.

- People are discouraged to walk and

cycle because vehicles are dominating

in the gyratory system. Pedestrian

traffic flows are really high and people

are presently funnelled along the

narrow northern footway of Bridge

Street.

- Extensive guard railing, several

subways, discontinuous and narrow

footways are indirect obstacles to

movement.

- The existing pedestrian network is

generally unattractive and

disconnected causing severance to the

pedestrians.

- Inadequate and inconsistent way

finding system causes difficulties for

pedestrians trying to navigate around

the town.

- Cyclist accident problem and weak

link in the cycling network at the

Boxgrove roundabout junction of A25

and A3100.

- Enhance and improve safety of the

existing pedestrian network and

identify future extensions to link the

key employment sites.

- Improve the pedestrian and cycle

movements especially in Bridge

Street, over the A3 and A25.

-Enhance alternative routes around

the gyratory to improve access

considering closure of Walnut Tree

Close and widening of the Bedford

Road footbridge to facilitate cycle

movement and improve pedestrian

movement especially for the mobility

impaired from the railway station and

University of Surrey to the town

centre.

- Make Guildford a pedestrian

friendly town and increase the

provision for pedestrian people.

Improve public realm in and around

high street.

- Provide more cycle facilities in key

points such the town centre.

Redesign of the pedestrian crossing

facilities and junction of Chertsey

Street with North Street and High

Street.

- Promote the way-finder map

project.

- Conversion of Yorkies Bridge into a

shared bridge catering for bus

services linking the university to the

town centre17.

- Promote the Guildford’s LSTF

programme to improve sustainable

travel in Guildford.

17

Guildford Borough Council. (2013) Guildford Borough infrastructure baseline. p.22.

ITEM 11

Page 298

41


Guildford Borough – West

Ash Vale, Ash Wharf, Ash South, Tongham and Normandy wards


7.13 Ash Vale, Ash, Normandy and Tongham are the

main settlements located at the West of the

Borough and in a short distance from Aldershot.

7.14 Ash is the one of the four district centers of the

Borough with at least 30 commercial units. Ash

Vale has a small military community and a popular

towpath next to the canal. Ash, Normandy and

Tongham remain quite rural in character including

Normandy Common and Pond..

7.15 Most of the settlements are adjacent to the A331 and are located at a short

distance from the A31 providing strong links to Aldershot, Farnborough and

Guildford.

7.16 There are a number of railway stations with some of them located at the

settlements of Ash vale, North Camp and Ash railway stations and some others

located within a short walking distance such as the Aldershot, Farnborough

Main/North and Wanborough railway stations. Brookwood railway station and

an hourly bus service are the main transport links from Pirbright to the nearby

towns. North Downs Line is accessible from the Ash railway station.

7.17 There are cycle routes which run throughout Ash and Tongham wards to the

west of the borough with one main route into Guildford town centre, namely the

Christmas Pie Trail. This is an off road trail for pedestrians and cyclists that

connects the south of Ash and Tongham to the north west of Guildford via Ash

Green, Flexford and Wood Street Village. National Cycle Route (NCR) 22

connects Guildford and Rowledge, south of Farnham following mainly quiet

roads and bridleways to the south of the Hog’s Back.

18 Ash South and Tongham: 7,674; Ash Vale: 5,686; Ash Wharf: 6,120; Normandy: 2,981 (ONS, 2011).

Figure 3 Ash railway station level crossing.

ITEM 11

Page 299

42


Pirbright and Worplesdon wards


7.18 Worplesdon is a small village situated at the North-

North West side of Guildford. It is a reasonably large

civil parish including settlements such as Fairlands,

Jacobs Well and Woodstreet village which are small

settlements located around North Guildford.

7.19 There are a number of shops and businesses

across Worplesdon and its surrounding settlements

which provide a variety of services for the local residents. Merrist Wood College

which is located in the area.

7.20 The A322 and the A320 are the principal roads through Worplesdon and

Jacobs Well respectively. All the settlements are located in a short vehicular

distance from the A3, Guildford and Woking.

7.21 Worplesdon railway station is located between Worplesdon and Jacobs Well

providing a frequent and fast service to London Waterloo. However, it lies in the

Borough of Woking.

The Pilgrims and Shalford wards

Population: 8,26820

7.22 The main settlements on the South and

South-West side of the Borough are

Shalford, Compton, Seale, Puttenham

and Shackleford.

7.23 Watts Gallery is a local visitor attraction

and within a short walking distance from

Compton. Crooksbury and Puttenham

Commons are sites of special scientific

interest which lie to the south of Hog’s

Back with visitors accessing them from Puttenham.

7.24 Shalford lies on the A248 - A281 crossroads and within a walking distance to

Guildford, Farncombe and Chilworth which is about 2 miles on the east and

build along the A248. Compton is next to the A3 and buses are running from

and to Godalming and Guildford. On the westbound of the A31 there are two

more settlements; Puttenham and Seale whilst Shackleford is south of

Puttenham and next to the A3.

7.25 There is an hourly train service running from Shalford railway station

connecting it with Guildford and Chilworth via the North Downs Line. The

19

Pirbright: 3,691; Worplesdon: 8,529 (ONS, 2011) 20

Pilgrims: 2,613; Shalford: 5,655 (ONS, 2011).

Figure 4 Perry Hill, Worplesdon

Figure 5 The River Wey, Shalford

ITEM 11

Page 300

43


railway station in Chilworth is relatively smaller with only 19,308 ARPU21 for

2011/12 (ORR, 2012). There are no railway stations to the south-west of

Guildford Borough and the whole area south to Hog’s Back is accessed by

Farnham and Godalming railway stations.

7.26 The Downs Link is a 37-mile footpath and bridleway, available to cyclists,

linking the North Downs Way at St Martha’s Hill with the South Downs Way in

West Sussex. There is a cycle track beside the A281 Millbrook which connects

with the Downs Link south of the town.

21 Annual Rail Passenger Usage

ITEM 11

Page 301

44



Guildford Borough - West

Current problems Potential interventions

Ro

ad c

on

ge

stio

n

- High private car dependency.

- Traffic congestion on the A31 Hog’s

Back and the A331 Blackwater Valley

Route cause rat-running on roads in

Ash and Tongham particularly on

Oxenden Road and Manor Road

causing congestion at peak times.

- Significant congestion on Greyhound

roundabout at peak times.

- The presence of the level crossing on

both sides of the A323 causes

significant congestion by the Ash

railway station. Traffic volumes can

reach Church Street when the crossing

is closed for more than 10 minutes

causing disruption to a major route

between Guildford and Aldershot.

- Continuing accident problem at the

junction of A322 Worplesdon Road and

A323 Aldershot Road.

- “Hard” and/or “soft” transport

planning measures such as travel

planning, better information,

promotion of walking and cycling.

- Improvements on the A31 (Hog’s

Back)/A331 (Blackwater Valley

Route) interchange to reduce

congestion.

- Suggestion for safeguarding on

both sides of the level crossing on

the A323. Provision for upgrading

the Ash Station. Train downtime

improvements to reduce delays on

the A323.

- Improvements at junction of the

A320 Woking road and Jacobs Well

road in order to reduce accidents.

Pu

blic

tra

nsp

ort

- Limited buses in the evenings and on

Sundays causing connection issues

and possibly isolation.

- Reassess bus services in the

evening and on Sundays.

Pe

de

str

ians a

nd

cyclis

ts

- Pedestrian and cyclist safety.

- Cycling routes are poorly catered in

Pirbright and Normandy.

- Improve flexibility and accessibility

such as traffic separation to create

safer conditions.

- Speed management measures.

- Provision for comprehensive

networks of pedestrian and cycle

routes.

ITEM 11

Page 302

45


Guildford Borough - East

Clandon, Effingham, East and West Horley wards


7.28 The largest settlements at the eastern

boundary of Guildford Borough are

Clandon, Effingham, East and West

Horsley.

7.29 There is a small range of shops and

businesses in every settlement. Clandon is

home of Clandon Park House and

Hatchlands Park, both owned by the

National Trust attracting tens of thousands people every year.

7.30 The settlements are enclosed by the A3, M25 and A246 providing easy access

to main employment areas of Guildford and Leatherhead.

7.31 The aforementioned settlements have similar public transport characteristics.

They have excellent rail links between Guildford and London Waterloo

providing some frequent services as they lie on the New Guildford Line and can

be accessed from three railway stations; Clandon, Horsley and Effingham

Junction.

Send and Lovelace wards

Population: 6,86923

7.32 Send and Ripley are the main settlements in

Send and Lovelace wards respectively. Other

smaller settlements are Send Marsh and

Ockham.

7.33 There are a few shops and businesses along

the A247 (known as Send road). The biggest

attraction in the area is the Royal Horticultural

Society (RHS) Garden Wisley.

7.34 Both settlements are easily accessible from the A3 Ripley By-Pass and

because of their close proximity to the A3, they provide excellent vehicular

access to the M25, Heathrow and Gatwick airports.

22

Clandon and Horsley: 8,749; Effingham: 2,711 (ONS, 2011). 23

Send: 4,245; Lovelace: 2,624 (ONS, 2011)

Figure 6 Effingham railway station.

Figure 7 Wisley garden.

ITEM 11

Page 303

46


7.35 The closest railway stations are at Clandon and Woking although bus services

are connecting Send and Ripley with Guildford and Woking.

7.36 One existing route runs from the north-eastern ward of Lovelace through Send

and into the Guildford town centre.

Tillingbourne ward

Population: 5,49824

7.37 The ward of Tillingbourne is at the south-

east of Guildford Borough. The main

settlement is Gomshall which neighbors

with Shere and Albury. Other notable

settlements are Peaslake which is in the

centre of Surrey Hills and Holmbury St.

Mary which is in the centre of Hurtwood.

7.38 Most of the area is part of the Green

Belt. Surrey Hills is a popular

destination for walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

7.39 Albury, Shere and Gomshall are located next to the A25 providing good

vehicular links to Dorking and Guildford. Most of the rest of the ward including

Peaslake and Holmbury St. Mary is countryside covered by an extensive rural

network with shared routes and lack of footpaths.

7.40 The main railway station of Tillingbourne ward is Gomshall on the North Downs

Line with 50,642 ARPU25 for 2011/12 (ORR, 2012) and low train frequency

between Redhill and Reading.

24 (ONS, 2011). 25 Annual Rail Passenger Usage

Figure 8 Station Road, Tillingbourne.

ITEM 11

Page 304

47



Guildford Borough – East

Current challenges Potential interventions

Ro

ad c

on

ge

stio

n

- Unreliable network with widespread

congestion during peak time.

- Poor road condition.

- Queuing traffic on the A3 between

Ripley Junction and Junction 10 Wisley

Interchange causing congestion at

peak times.

- Lengthy queues and delays caused in

Ripley being a conduit for most Woking

traffic using roads such as B2215 and

B367.

- The A25 carries a significant volume

of through traffic.

- Significant congestion at junction

A246 and the street in Effingham.

-- Improvements on the maintenance

and management of the local public

transport network.

- Upgrade key junctions to relief

congestion.

ITEM 11

Page 305

48


Pu

blic

tra

nsp

ort

- Poor public transport leading to high

reliance on private cars and causing

environmental concerns.

- Significant proportion of residents

working outside of these wards and

reduced accessibility can lead to social

exclusion.

- There are limited buses in the

evenings and on Sundays causing

connection issues.

- Lack of parking space at Chilworth

Railway Station.

Infrequent rail services

- Improvements in public transport to

cover all three wards and provide

better access between the

aforementioned railway stations and

key services and facilities.

- Tackle congestion using “soft”

transport planning measures.

- North Dowms Line

Electrification would provide

opportunity to improve rail

services and frequencies

along this section

Pe

de

str

ians a

nd

cyclis

ts - Pedestrian and cyclist safety. - Improve flexibility, accessibility and

vulnerability such as traffic

separation to create safer conditions.

- Speed management measures.

- Provision for comprehensive

networks of pedestrian and cycle

routes.

ITEM 11

Page 306

49


8 Forward Programme, Funding and Delivery

8.1 This chapter outlines the scope and purpose of the Forward Programme. It also

describes the potential funding and delivery mechanisms that will be used,

should schemes from the programme be brought forward for implementation.

8.2 To allow provision of an effective, reliable, safe and sustainable transport

network in support of economic growth and carbon reduction, a balanced

programme of maintenance and integrated transport schemes is required.

Additionally, the opportunity to secure alternative funding to the Surrey

Transport Plan will be compromised, unless it provides a balanced strategy and

programme that contains integrated transport schemes as well as maintenance

schemes.

The Forward Programme (See Annex)

8.3 The Forward Programme has been designed to meet the objectives of the

Local Transport Strategy by including schemes which tackle existing problems.

8.4 The programme identifies short, medium term, long term schemes and

packages of measures which seek to deliver improvements in line with the

above objectives in Section 2 and identified problems and issues. These are

grouped at various spatial levels:

1. Borough wide - the principal road and rail networks.

2. Key settlements – including major town centers such as Guildford, Ash

and Tongham.

3. Rural areas.

8.5 The value and status of scheme has been defined as:

· local schemes are at a cost of between £100,000 and up to £250,000

· intermediate schemes are valued between £250,000 and £2 million

· major schemes are valued at over £2 million.

8.6 These schemes included in the forward programme are largely schemes which

require funding from different sources and hence will generally be beyond the

scope of local committee capital funding below. A full schedule of all local

improvement schemes can be found in the relevant Local Committee report for

the area (usually published for the December of each year).

8.7 In general, the schemes are not intended to provide additional network

capacity, but seek to manage the existing network and provide more

sustainable transport choices. The overall mix and scale of schemes is

considered necessary to support sustainable economic.

8.8 The Forward Programme includes the purposes of each scheme or package of

measures, delivery stage, estimated costs, potential funding sources, estimated

start dates, scheme status and how it meets the local and strategic objectives.

ITEM 11

Page 307

50


8.9 The delivery stages are defined as:

· Scheme identification – the need for a scheme is identified, initial drawings

may have been produced.

· Identification and assessment of options – outline design of scheme options

has been/is being produced.

· Preferred route and statutory process – preliminary design of preferred

option.

· Detailed design – scheme is designed to allow and instruct construction.

· Construction – scheme is fully designed and works have begun on site.

8.10 The Forward Programme will be revised on a yearly basis by the Local

Committee to take account of available funding and to ensure:

· There are no more effective alternative options available which address the

impacts of growth and policy objectives.

· Delivery is on track with necessary feasibility and design work progressing

for priority schemes.

Funding

8.11 The estimated cost of these more strategic

infrastructure schemes identified in the forward

programme is provided in the annex. The actual

future costs will depend on the precise schemes

brought forward and each scheme will require a

detailed feasibility study.

8.12 The availability of funding will also depend on a

number of factors. Nevertheless the cost of the

schemes identified is reasonably in line with

potential funding over the initial short- to medium-

term of the strategy. Beyond this period scheme

costs and possible funding sources become

increasingly difficult to estimate.

8.13 Potential funding for schemes could be a combination of:

· Developer contributions through Section 106 agreements and the

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

· Capital funding by the county council (government grants such as the

Local Transport Plan (LTP) allocations, Local Sustainable Transport

Fund (LSTF) and major schemes funding available from 2015 from

designated Local Enterprise Partnership Local Transport Bodies).

· County council capital funding allocated capital centrally for more

ITEM 11

Page 308

51


strategic schemes as well as the Guildford Borough Local Committee.

· Capital funding by the borough council.

· Capital funding from the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership. A

number of schemes have been submitted by the county council in

partnership with the district council to the LEP for consideration in their

strategic economic plan.

8.14 Funding for the schemes identified/proposed in the strategy is likely to come

from a combination of the sources described above. More detailed information

on funding can be found here.

Delivery

8.15 The Local Committee will use its capital programme and local knowledge to

drive more local scheme delivery in the short term within the context of local

objectives. The Local Committee will also drive priorities in the medium and

longer term and consider contributing to more strategic intermediate schemes

through funding feasibility work or even

contributing to the overall cost, perhaps

spread over a number of years.

8.16 Major schemes will continue to be funded

through bids to the local transport body and

overseen by the Surrey Future partnership.

8.17 The delivery body will generally be the

county council sometimes in partnership with

others such as the borough council and private bus operators. The delivery

body for the rail network and services will be Network Rail and relevant train

operators. In some other cases, the delivery body is the developer when an

entire highways scheme is secured through the S278 process.

8.18 Each scheme will require a detailed feasibility study and the actual costs will

depend on the precise nature of the schemes brought forward. The availability

of funding will also depend on a number of factors.

8.19 We recognise that schemes in forward programme may be subject to the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)26 and the Habitats Regulations

process27. This will be dependent on scheme specifics. At the appropriate stage

of scheme feasibility we would seek to:

· Obtain EIA screening opinion from relevant planning authority

· Clarify the planning position relevant to the scheme

· Consider archaeological impacts of the scheme by consulting English

26 EU Directive (2011/92/EU); Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 27 EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

ITEM 11

Page 309

52


Heritage and the county archaeologist

· Consider any flooding impact of the scheme by consulting the

Environment Agency and the lead local flood authority

· Consider an ecology impacts of the scheme by consulting the county

ecologist

· Consider any landscape impacts of the scheme, by consulting the

county landscape architect.

ITEM 11

Page 310

53


9 Glossary

Term Description

Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) An identified area where current, and likely future,

air quality is unlikely to meet the Government’s

national air quality objectives.

Bus operator Bus services are run by private operators who

have been awarded a contract by Surrey County

Council.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy

that local authorities can charge on new

developments in their area. The charges are set

by the local Council based on the size and type of

the new development. The money raised from the

Community Infrastructure Levy can be used to

support development by funding infrastructure that

is needed to mitigate the impact of development.

Capital funding Money spent on the purchase or improvement of

fixed assets such as buildings, roads and

equipment.

Coast to Capital (C2C) LEP The Local Enterprise Partnership of which the

easternmost Surrey Districts and Boroughs are

part. More information at:

http://www.coast2capital.org.uk/

Congestion Programme The Surrey Future Congestion Programme sets

out a strategic programme for managing traffic

congestion on Surrey’s road network to support

economic competitiveness and growth produced in

partnership by the Surrey Future Partnership

comprising of Surrey’s local authorities and

business leaders.

Control Period 5 (CP5) 5 year periods by which Network Rail is regulated

by the Office of Rail Regulation. CP4: 2009-2014;

CP5: 2014-2019; CP6: 2019-202428.

Cycling Strategy (2014-2026) The Surrey Cycling Strategy is a component

strategy of the Local Transport Plan

Scheme delivery stages (see Annex):

1. Scheme Identification The need for a scheme is identified; initial

drawings may have been produced.

2. Identification and assessment of

options

Outline design of scheme options has been/is

being produced.

3. Preferred route and statutory

process

Preliminary design of preferred option.

28 Ove Arup ‘Surrey Rail Strategy Report’ (September 2013)

ITEM 11

Page 311

54


Term Description

4. Detailed design Scheme is designed to allow and instruct

construction.

5. Construction Scheme is fully designed and works have begun

on site.

Department for Transport (DfT)

Government department responsible for transport

matters in England and those not devolved in

Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Enterprise M3 LEP The Local Enterprise Partnership of which the

westernmost Surrey Districts and Boroughs are

part (including Guildford). More information at:

http://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/

Intermediate scheme Infrastructure scheme estimated to cost between

£250,000 and less than £2 million.

Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) A voluntary partnership between local authorities

and businesses formed in 2011 by the Department

for Business, Innovation and Skills to help

determine local economic priorities and lead

economic growth and job creation within its local

area

Local Sustainable Transport Fund

(LSTF)

A total of £560 million was originally made

available through the Local Sustainable Transport

Fund (LSTF) to enable the department to fund a

number of high quality bids. Funding was topped

up with a further £40 million to £600 million in 2012

to accommodate approval for a greater number of

bids (with local contribution being provided by local

authority partners). In total, the Department for

Transport awarded funding to 96 packages to 77

authorities to deliver their schemes between 2011

and 2015.

Local Transport Body (LTB) Local Transport Bodies are voluntary partnerships

between Local Authorities (LAs), Local Enterprise

Partnerships (LEPs) and other organisations if

appropriate that are in charge of the devolved

funding for local major transport schemes from the

Department of Transport

Local Transport Plan (LTP3) Under the Transport Acts 2000 and 2008, every

local transport authority in the country has to

publish a Local Transport Plan (more commonly

known as the LTP). The LTP sets out an

integrated transport strategy for the area ad

outlines proposals for the future.

Local scheme Scheme cost is less than £250,000

Major scheme Infrastructure scheme estimated to cost in excess

of £2 million

ITEM 11

Page 312

55


Term Description

Primary Route Network (PRN) The primary route network (PRN) designates roads

between places of traffic importance across the UK

(known as primary destinations), with the aim of

providing easily identifiable routes to access the

whole of the country. The PRN consists of

motorways, trunk roads and certain other A roads.

Quality Bus Corridor A strategic bus route that is improved to encourage

more people to use buses. This includes measures

to make buses more reliable, and more convenient

for users and non-users. These measures may

include traffic signal priority for buses, high quality

passenger facilities, electronic passenger

information and strong marketing, together with

safe pedestrian routes to the bus stops.

Real time passenger information

(RTPI)

Real time passenger information is information that

changes continuously as a result of events and is

typically used during the course of a journey

(primarily how close the service is running to time

and when it is due at a stop, but also incidents that

affect service operations, platform changes etc)

and is displayed on Passenger Information

Systems such as a display board.

Scheme delivery timescales (see

Annex)

Short term Timescale for start of construction 0-2 years from

now, see Annex for given years

Medium term Timescale for start of construction between 3 and

6 years from now, see Annex for given years

Long term Timescale for start of construction 6+ years from

now, see Annex for given years

Section 106 (S106) Planning obligations are created under Section

106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

They are legally binding obligations that are

attached to a piece of land and are registered as

local land charges against that piece of land.

Planning obligations enable the Council to secure

contributions to services, infrastructure and

amenities in order to support and facilitate a

proposed development.

Strategic Road Network (SRN) The SRN is connected to the local road network

and is owned by the Secretary of State for

Transport, and operated on their behalf by the

Highways Agency (HA), which acts as the highway

authority.

ITEM 11

Page 313

56


Term Description

Surrey Future A partnership overseeing how we can manage

planned growth sustainably, both in Surrey and on

our borders. More information at:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/surreyfuture

Surrey Rail Strategy Document prepared by Ove Arup & Partners on

behalf of the Surrey Future partnership to consider

rail issues and options which could be supported

by the Council to produce benefits for Surrey.

Surrey Transport Plan See ‘Local Transport Plan (LTP3)’

Travel SMART A Surrey initiative designed to provide local people

with more travel choices that help cut carbon,

costs and increase fitness. The initiative aims to

support economic growth.

ITEM 11

Page 314

57


10 References

Centre for International Competitiveness. (2010) The UK Competitiveness Index 2010 [Online] Available at: http://www.cforic.org/pages/ukci2010.php

Costar. (2013) Office space data for Guildford Borough.

Enterprise M3. (2011) Enterprise M3 ‘Barriers to Growth’ Business Survey 2011.

Guildford Borough Council. (2006) Town Centre Action Plan p.47 [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4212&p=0 [Accessed: 6/1/2014].

Guildford Borough Council. (2012a) Air quality updating and Screening Assessment for Guildford Borough. In fulfilment of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 Local Air Quality Management.[Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14493&p=0 [Accessed: 6/1/2014].

Guildford Borough Council. (2012b) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15082&p=0 [Accessed: 17/12/2013].

Guildford Borough Council. (2013a) Guildford Borough Economic Strategy 2013-2031.

Guildford Borough Council. (2013b) Guildford Borough Employment Land Assessment.

Guildford Borough Council. (2014) Guildford Borough Settlement Hierarchy [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/16930/Guildford-borough-Settlement-hierarchy-May-2014/pdf/Settlement_hierarchy_May_2014.pdf [Accessed: 19/05/2013]

Guildford Local Strategic Partnership. (2009) Guildford Borough Sustainable Community Strategy 2009-2026. p.5 [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=871&p=0 [Accessed: 8/1/2014].

Huggins, R. & Thompson, P. (2010) UK Competitiveness Index 2010. p.2 [Online] Available at: http://www.cforic.org/downloads.php [Accessed: 27/11/2013].

MVA Consultancy. (2011) Assisting Decisions. Guildford Bus Station Study Issues & Options Report. p.15 [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10476&p=0 [Accessed: 7/1/2014].

ITEM 11

Page 315

58


National Travel Survey. (2011) NTS9906: Average number of trips (trip rates) by trip purpose, region and area type.

Office for National Statistics. (2010) Index of Multiple Deprivation. [Online]

Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-

of-deprivation-2010 [Accessed: 27/11/2013].

Office for National Statistics. (2011) Dataset: Census 2011.

Office for National Statistics. (2011a) Annual population survey commuter from local authorities in Great Britain 2010 and 2011.

Office for National Statistics. (2011b) QS701EW: Method of travel to work.

Office for National Statistics. (2011c) KS404EW: Car or van availability.

Office of Rail Regulation. (2011) Estimates of Station Usage [Online] Available at: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529 [Accessed: 27/11/2013].

Office for Rail Regulation. (2013) Latest estimate for station usage reports and data. 2011-2012 report data. [Online] Available at: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529 [Accessed: 8/1/2014]

Surrey County Council. (2011) Cumulative Assessment of Future Development Impacts on the Highway Network Report.

Surrey County Council. (2013) Surrey Rail Strategy. p.25.

Surrey County Council. (2014) Guildford Park&Ride [Online] Available at: http://new.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/buses-and-trains/guildford-park-and-ride [Accessed: 12/6/2014].

Surrey County Council. (2014) The Options Growth Scenarios Transport Assessment Report [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/16963/Guildford-Borough-Council-Local-Plan-Options-Growth-Scenarios-Transport-Assessment-Report-Surrey-County-Council-January-2014/pdf/OGSTAR_(SCC_Jan_2014).pdf [Accessed: 9/6/2014]

Surrey-i. (2011) 2011 Census in Surrey – First Results. [Online] Available at: http://www.surreyi.gov.uk/ViewPage1.aspx?C=resource&ResourceID=928# Total population [Accessed: 13/12/2013].

URS. (2013) Guildford Local Plan: Initial Sustainability Appraisal Finding. p.3 [Online] Available at: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15250&p=0 [Accessed: 6/1/2014].

ITEM 11

Page 316

Annex

Guildford Borough (Draft) Forward Programme – Part A November 2014

Short term delivery programme 0-2 years (2014/15 – 2015/16) Medium term programme 3-6 years (2016/17- 2019/20) Long term programme 6+ years (2020/2021+) (Part of the Guildford Borough Local Transport Strategy)

This is a work in progress and its completion is subject to the adoption of the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Schedule

ITE

M 11

Page 317

Annex Draft Forward Programme – Part A November 2014

Page 1

Scheme

ID#

Location and scheme/package description Scheme purpose Delivery

stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

Principal road network schemes – borough-wide

Improvement to public transport and accessibility to services

1 Implementation via current LTSF programme for 2014/157:

· Park and Ride marketing.

· bus stop accessibility works Epsom Road, London Road, Portsmouth Road and Shalford Road.

· bus stop accessibility and information improvements for Ash, Ripley and Send (See overleaf Scheme ID 2)*.

· a footway widening scheme on the A25 under Wooden Bridge (rail and pedestrian bridges)

· a new cycle and pedestrian crossing facilities east of Woodbridge Meadows on the River Wey Bridge, and

· crossing facilities over the south side of the Ladymead /Woodbridge Road crossroads (See overleaf Scheme ID 3)**.

· the traffic management system (UTC/SCOOT8) update in town centre.

· the first phase of the wayfinder mapping for town centre (construction starts Sep 2014)

a travel planning and promotion programme.

Promote sustainable travel in Guildford and reduce carbon emissions.

Varying but mostly

detailed design

£3.502m

(£2.178m capital and £1.324m revenue)

Local Sustainable

Transport Fund (LSTF)

Short Major

1

2

3

2

4

1 All costs are indicative and subject to revision and refinement

2 Schemes funded (in part, or whole) by Local Committee are sourced from the Local Committee forward Integrated Transport scheme (ITS) programme (Item 8, Annex 1 to 4 December 2013 Local Committee (formal)

3 All start dates are indicative and subject to change

4 See front cover of annex for timeframes

5 Local: scheme costed at less than £250,000; Intermediate: scheme costed at between £250,000 and £2 million; Major: scheme costed at £2 million and above

6 Please see Section 2 of the strategy for a full list of priorities

7 Surrey County Council. (2014) Local Sustainable Transport Fund update and 2014/15 programme [Online] Available at: http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/g3032/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2012-Mar-

2014%2019.00%20Guildford%20Local%20Committee.pdf?T=10 (Last accessed: 01/07/2014). 8 Urban Traffic Control (UTC)/Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique (SCOOT)

ITE

M 11

Page 318


Page 2

Scheme

ID#


stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

2 Implementation via current LTSF programme for 2014/159: * Guildford priority bus corridors:

· Guildford Park Road

· Aldershot Road

· Worplesdon Road

· Woodbridge Road

· A320 Woking Road (via Slyfield Green)

· Epsom Road

· Park Barn

· Shalford Road

· Godalming Road

· London Road


Varying from preliminary design to

construction

£3.502m


Local Sustainable


Short Major 2 2

9 Surrey County Council. (2014) Local Sustainable Transport Fund update and 2014/15 programme [Online] Available at: http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/g3032/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2012-Mar-

2014%2019.00%20Guildford%20Local%20Committee.pdf?T=10 (Last accessed: 01/07/2014).

ITE

M 11

Page 319


Page 3

Scheme

ID#


stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

3 Implementation via current LTSF programme for 2014/1510: ** Guildford cycling schemes:

· A25 cycle route – Surrey Way to University

· A25 cycle route – Middleton Road (excluding Wooden Bridge footbridge ramp improvements)

· A25 cycle route – Middleton Road (Footway widening under wooden bridge footbridge ramp improvements)

· A25 cycle route – Wooden bridge footbridge ramp improvements

· A25 cycle route – Ladymead/Woodbridge junction

· A25 Cycle route – Stoke crossroads

· Cycle route 4 – Slyfield to Stoke crossroads via A320

· Cycle route 5 – Woking Road to Wooden Bridge via Bellfields estate

· Cycle route 6 - Salt Box to Wooden Bridge via Grange Road

· Cycle route 10 – Surrey Research Park via University to Walnut Tree Close


Varying from detailed

design to construction

£3.502m


Local Sustainable


Short Major 3 2

4

Operation Horizon - five year (2013-2018) Surrey Road Maintenance programme for Guildford11

Part of Surrey’s road investment programme for planned maintenance. In Guildford to enable 85km of road (12% of local network) to be reconstructed.12

Varying from identification

to construction

£12m

Surrey Highways

Medium Term Plan

Short to Medium N/A 1 1

10

Surrey County Council. (2014) Local Sustainable Transport Fund update and 2014/15 programme [Online] Available at: http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/g3032/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2012-Mar-2014%2019.00%20Guildford%20Local%20Committee.pdf?T=10 (Last accessed: 01/07/2014). 11

More information at: http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12301/Anx%201%20Revised%20Feb%202014%20Operation%20Horizon_Guildford.pdf 12

Surrey County Council. (2014) Operation Horizon 5 Year Carriageway Maintenance Plan [Online] Available at: http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s12300/Rev%20Guildford%20Cttee%20report%2012%20March%2014.pdf Last

ITE

M 11

Page 320


Page 4

Scheme

ID#


stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

Rail and Accessibility

5

Proposed North Downs Line Improvements

Improvements include electrification, modernised rolling stock, frequency improvements and train lengthening. Improvements would address overcrowding on the line, improve integration with the rest of network and boost economic growth in economic hubs along the route, especially Guildford.

Full electrification along its length will enable faster and more reliable services from Guildford to Gatwick and Reading, and allow new services to be run incorporating the North Downs line and the rest of the electrified network. The North Downs Line has the potential to be the “M25 for rail”.

Scheme identification

£100m

Network Rail

EM3 & C2C LEP Local

Growth Fund

Local authority contributions

Long Strategic 2 2

4

Junction improvements/major schemes on the Strategic Route Network

6

Proposed Guildford A3 Strategic Corridor Improvements

The scheme aims to improve the operational performance of the A3 including junctions improvements between the A3/A31 Hogs Back and the A3/A3100 Clay Lane/Burpham Junction.

Provide increased capacity and improvements to key junctions.

Improve journey times and reduce accidents.


£300m

Highways Agency

EM3 LEP Local Growth Fund


Long Strategic 1 1

4

7

Proposed A3/M25 Junction 10 Wisley interchange improvements

Increase capacity, ease congestion and improve road safety at strategic interchange between M25 and A3.


£30m

Highways agency

EM3 LEP

Local Growth Fund


Medium to Long Major 1 1

4

ITE

M 11

Page 321


Page 5

Scheme

ID#


stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

Junction improvements/major schemes on the Primary Route Network

8 Proposed Guildford Gyratory Package

· Provide a new or widened pedestrian bridge from Walnut Tree Close to Bedford Road and the replacement of the Wooden Bridge over the A3 to provide for pedestrians and cyclists.

· The scheme to consider closure of Walnut Tree Closure.

Improve access between Guildford railway station and town centre for walking and cycling


£3.8m

EM3 LEP

Local Growth Fund


Short

(Submission of Business Case

Sep 2015)

Major

1

2

3

1

2

4

9

Proposed SARP/Clay Lane link road

Infrastructure to access major developments

Reduce congestion, improve bus journey time reliability and provide better infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

Intensification of existing Slyfield Industrial Estate


£7.4m

EM3 LEP

Local Growth Fund

Public Works Loan Board

GBC

Medium Major

1

2

3

1

2

4

Schemes by place

Guildford Borough - Central

10 George Abbot crossroads (A320/A3100) improvements

Chertsey Street, Guildford junction with North Street

Improve accessibility for pedestrian and bus users and facilitate off road bus stations relocating road space.


£263k13 Local authority contributions

Short Minor 1 2

11

Proposed A3 Strategic package of improvements – North-East Guildford infrastructure A3 Interchange improvements:

Bus priority measures

Pedestrian and cycle measures

Reduce congestion,

improve accessibility and promote sustainable travel in Guildford

Reduce accidents


£17.5m

Highways Agency



Short Major 2

3

1

2

4

13

Surrey County Council. (2011) Minor Improvements Programme Review.

ITE

M 11

Page 322


Page 6

Scheme

ID#


stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

12 Proposed Guildford Sustainable Transport Package

· Corridor(s)and routes yet to be determined

Promote sustainable travel in Guildford.


£4.95m



Short Major 2

3

1

2

4

13

Wayfinding signage system – Phase 2

· 40 new waymakers

Improve pedestrian experience.

Encourage walking and cycling

Build and reinforce Guildford’s identity


≤£250k Local authority contributions

Short Minor 3 2

14 Guildford High Street – Setts maintenance strategy

· The scheme will replace the existing setts.

Improve pedestrian experience and town centre attractiveness.

Detail Design £1.5m14 SCC

GBC Short Intermediate 3 2

15 Proposed Guildford hub transport improvements – Infrastructure support for town centre regeneration

Relieve congestion and promote sustainable travel in Guildford


£16m



Short Major

1

2

3

1

2

4

16 Pan-Stoughton area

Parking restriction Unknown £1.2m

SCC and other sources

Medium Intermediate 1 N/A

17 Sustainable travel measures (LSTF programme)

Provision of information including traffic improved signing, maps and use of websites.

Training: Eco Driver training, cycle training travel planning and business travel plan forums.

Expansion of the Brompton Dock scheme.

Car sharing schemes including car clubs and electric vehicles.

Promote sustainable travel in Guildford.

Unknown £2.06m15

LSTF


Medium Major 2

3

2

4

18 Guildford Railway Station (linked to Solum development)

Improve interchange between rail, bus, walking and cycling at the rail station.


Unknown


Network rail

Long Major 2

3

2

4

14

Surrey County Council. (2013) Guildford High Street ready to get setts [Online] Available at: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/get-involved/your-local-area/guildford-local-area/news-from-guildford/guildford-high-street-ready-to-get-setts (Last accessed: 01/07/2014) 15

Surrey County Council. (2011) LSTF Bid document.

ITE

M 11

Page 323


Page 7

Scheme

ID#


stage

Estimated

cost1

Potential

Funding

sources2

Estimated

timeframe for

start date3

(Short, medium,

long4)

Status5 Local

Strategy

Objective

SCC directorate

priorities6

19

Proposed Merrow railway station

Provide direct rail access at Merrow and align it with the TravelSMART initiative.


£7m

Network rail



Long Major 2

3

1

2

4

20

Proposed Park Barn railway station

Provide direct rail access at Park Barn and align it with the TravelSMART initiative.


£7m

Network rail



Long Major 2

3

1

2

4

21

Guildford sustainable movement corridor (based on GTAMS)

Improve walking, cycling and public transport within Guildford town centre.


£75-100m

To be confirmed

during scheme identification

Long Major 2

3

2

4

Guildford Borough - West

22 A248 Kings Road improvements, Shalford

Close “slip road” outside shops

Provision of footway and pedestrian facility

Pedestrian improvements


≤£250k SCC and other

sources Medium Minor 3 2

Notes

Schemes in Bold are based on Expressions of Interest submitted to the EM3 Local Enterprise Partnership Local Transport Body in March 2014

ITE

M 11

Page 324

Annex 1: Guildford local committee prioritisation framework - draft proforma for scheme evaluation

Scheme name Short title to capture location and purpose, e.g. "20 mph zone covering neighbourhood A".

Electoral division and division cluster Division clusters are Town Centre (Guildford South West and South East), Neighbourhoods

(Guildford North, West and East), Western Parishes (Ash, Shalford and Worplesdon), Eastern

Parishes (Horselys and Shere).

Location Description of location, including a map and photographs if appropriate.

Purpose Sentence or paragraph to briefly explain why the scheme is needed.

Assessment

Policy alignment:

Criteria Assessment1 Evidence / comments

Encourages modal shift Amber

Reduces congestion Amber

Supports public transport improvements

Encourages walking Amber

Encourages cycling Amber

Improves public realm Amber

Route importance:

Criteria Assessment Evidence / comments

Contributes to strategic walking /cycling routes2

Contributes to safe routes to schools Green

Addresses casualty cluster

Deliverability:

Criteria Assessment Evidence / comments

Cost Green

Public support Amber

Technical feasibility Green

Other comments Any further information relevant to the scheme

1 Definitions for RAG assessment on reverse. Colours for illustration, based on a fictional example.

2 Strategic walking and cycling routes = green corridors and key routes linking major destinations

ITEM 12

Page 325

Annex 1: Guildford local committee prioritisation framework - draft proforma for scheme evaluation

RAG definitions

In general, green ratings highlight factors that support the scheme while red ratings highlight

potential issues, risks or drawbacks.

Policy alignment and strategic importance:

• Green = significant (positive) impact

• Amber = moderate (positive) impact

• Pale blue = low or no impact

• Red = negative impact

• U = unknown

Cost:

• Green = up to £10,000

• Amber = £10,000-£100,000

• Red = over £100,000

Public support:

• Green = majority support/acceptance, little opposition

• Amber = some support and some opposition (possibly strong on both sides)

• Red = significant opposition, limited support

Technical feasibility:

• Green = no significant technical problems anticipated

• Amber = significant technical problems that can be overcome

• Red = significant technical problems that present a serious risk to project delivery

Overall risk:

• Green = low

• Amber = moderate degree of risk that can be managed

• Red = high risk

ITEM 12

Page 326

Annex 2: Guildford prioritisation framework - proposed process

1. Identify scheme

Schemes will be identified as at present, e.g. through public petitions and through existing plans and

programmes.

2. Complete proforma

• Complete proforma, which includes scheme name, electoral division, division cluster,

location details and purpose

• Use proforma to assess scheme in relation to various criteria under headings of policy

alignment, route importance and deliverability. Assess each criteria as red/amber/green.

• Need to consider who would do this, and ensure it is evidence based, consistent and open

to challenge / debate. The draft proforma suggests some definitions in relation to

red/amber/green, which could be made more detailed/specific if required.

3. Assign overall scheme 'performance' level

• Assign an initial 'performance level' to each scheme (e.g. high, medium, low) based on policy

alignment and route importance. (Not taking into account cost/deliverability at this stage).

This could be assessed as follows:

High Performs well on both policy alignment and route importance

• e.g. at least one 'green' rating for both

Medium Performs well on policy alignment and moderately on route importance, or vice versa

• At least one 'green' rating for policy alignment and at least one 'amber' rating for

route importance; or

• Several 'amber' ratings for policy alignment and at least one 'green' rating for

route importance.

Low Does not meet any of the criteria above.

4. Compare performance against cost

This could be carried out using a cost/performance matrix, e.g. as follows (schemes nearer the top

left providing better value for money):

Performance

High

Medium

X

Low

£0-10,000 £10-

100,000

£100,000+

Cost

ITEM 12

Page 327

Could be done for schemes individually or could show all schemes on the same matrix for

comparison. There are alternative methods of display, for example the cost bands could be more

even to give a more accurate picture.

5. Allocate schemes into division clusters

This will enable the committee to identify the priority schemes in each cluster and ensure that areas

aren't overlooked for investment.

6. Final prioritisation of schemes

The committee can decide the final prioritisation of schemes, based on the cost/performance

matrix, and taking into account public support, technical feasibility, geographical spread and overall

risk. The above factors may influence whether the committee wishes the scheme to go ahead, or the

timescales for delivery. Therefore a scheme may be prioritised, de prioritised or moved backwards

or forwards as a result.

7. Alternative approaches

• The process could be based on 'scores' instead of or as well as RAG ratings. Different criteria

can be weighted according to importance in a scoring process. This can assist with

prioritisation, however may be sensitive to value judgements such as the weight assigned to

each criteria, and the number of categories (which are likely to overlap and lead to a risk of a

'double counting'). However scoring has benefits in giving order to a large number of

schemes and helping to choose between schemes.

• Another alternative presented in best practice guidance involves political and professional

judgement rather than scoring, without any weighting of criteria. In this case it is essential

that decisions are based on robust evidence and open to challenge.

• Any process (whether score-based, category-based, or judgement-based) will involve an

element of value judgement.

8. Other considerations

• The process should be tested against existing proposals to see whether recommendations

make sense.

• The process should be treated as a guide to aid decision making, and not as the final arbiter

as to which schemes are prioritised. This is strongly recommended as best practice within

guidance produced on behalf of the DfT.

• It is essential that every stage of the process is open to challenge, discussion and debate,

and that assessment is based on evidence wherever possible.

• The process is likely to evolve over time based on experience of using it and opportunities to

resolve any problems or make improvements.

ITEM 12

Page 328

www.surreycc.gov.uk/

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD DATE: 26 November 2014

LEAD OFFICER:

Rebecca Harrison

SUBJECT: ROAD SAFETY OUTSIDE SCHOOLS REPORTBoxgrove Primary SchoolSt Peters Catholic Secondary SchoolSt Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School

DIVISION: Guildford South East Division

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

Concern has been expressed over the safety of children arriving and leaving Boxgrove Primary School, St Peters Catholic Secondary School and St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School school journey traffic. This report

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Local Committee (Guildford

(i) Note and comment on the interim report


The outcome of this process reduce traffic speeds and reduce antisocial penvironment to encourage more walking, scooting and cycling to school. A successful increase in these modes would contribute to fewer car journeys and less motor vehicle congestion. The recommended school travel plan and road safety education would also help to improve road safety and reduce reliance on the car for the school journey.

www.surreycc.gov.uk/Choose an item.


GUILDFORD)

26 November 2014

Rebecca Harrison

SAFETY OUTSIDE SCHOOLS REPORT Boxgrove Primary School

Peters Catholic Secondary School St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School

Guildford South East Division

Concern has been expressed over the safety of children arriving and leaving Primary School, St Peters Catholic Secondary School and St Thomas of

Canterbury Catholic Primary School and the associated congestion caused by school journey traffic. This report provides an update on work carried out so far.

Guildford) is asked to

Note and comment on the interim report


outcome of this process may recommend highway measures thatreduce traffic speeds and reduce antisocial parking and would improve the road environment to encourage more walking, scooting and cycling to school. A successful increase in these modes would contribute to fewer car journeys and less motor vehicle congestion. The recommended school travel plan and road safety education would also help to improve road safety and reduce reliance on the car for

St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School

Concern has been expressed over the safety of children arriving and leaving Primary School, St Peters Catholic Secondary School and St Thomas of

and the associated congestion caused by provides an update on work carried out so far.

that would help to would improve the road

environment to encourage more walking, scooting and cycling to school. A successful increase in these modes would contribute to fewer car journeys and less motor vehicle congestion. The recommended school travel plan and road safety education would also help to improve road safety and reduce reliance on the car for

ITEM 13

Page 329



1.1 One of the most frequently expressed road safety concerns is that of the

safety of children outside schools. At school drop off and pick up times the roads in the immediate vicinity of schools are especially busy and there is usually a higher level of vehicle, pedestrian, scooter and cyclist activity. This causes congestion resulting in slower vehicle speeds and very often leads to frustration from residents and motorists at the apparent chaos caused by parents and children arriving or leaving the school.

1.2 Concerns have been expressed over the safety of children arriving and leaving Boxgrove Primary School, St Peters Catholic Secondary School and St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School in Guildford. There have also been ongoing concerns over the behaviour of parents parking inappropriately in the vicinity of the named schools and related congestion.

1.3 A series of site visits during school drop off and pick up times have been conducted during October. These assessments have been carried out by the following; Road Safety Team, Sustainability Community Engagement Team, Surrey Police and Local Highway Engineers. Local Councillors have been in attendance. Each school location has been subject to casualty analysis and speed surveys. Detailed observations notes have been compiles at each location which will form the basis of our full report to local committee in March.

1.4 Since the site assessments have taken place St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School and Boxgrove Primary School are fully participating in our Living Streets Scheme which aims to increase walking through pupil incentives. This has been funded by the Local Sustainable Transport Fund

1.5 A Future report to the March 2015 local committee will fully describe the results of investigations into these issues and will present possible highway and road safety education improvements to address the problems identified. These have been developed in accordance with the county council’s Road Safety Outside Schools policy approved by county council Cabinet on 24 June 2014.

2. ANALYSIS:

2.1 A report will be brought to the next local committee which will focus on the

component s listed below; this will provide a detailed analysis of each school specified. A site survey will be carried out at each site during school peak times. Other area studies such as the Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study will be taken in to account as part of this process.

a. Site Description and Existing Infrastructure

b. Perceived Problems

c. Analysis of Road Collision Data

d. Speed Survey Data

e. Post Code and Sustainable Travel Data

f. Road User Behaviour Observations

ITEM 13

Page 330


g. School Travel Plan and Road Safety Education

3. OPTIONS:

3.1 A report will be brought to the March 2015 local committee which will outline

various options that have been considered as part of this process.

4. CONSULTATIONS:

4.1 A meeting was held with the Divisional Member Councillor Brett – Warburton

to discuss the scope of our investigations. Site visits have been undertaken during October which have included police colleagues, local highway engineers, road safety team and sustainable travel team.

4.2 The Divisional and Local Members and Schools Leadership Teams have been consulted as part of this process.


5.1 The proposals that will be presented will need to be prioritised alongside

other schemes within Guildford using the countywide scheme assessment process to ensure value for money. This will take into account the likely effect of the proposals on congestion, accessibility, safety, economy and future maintenance liabilities. Any recommended school travel plan and road safety education activities could be delivered using existing staff resources.


6.1 This report has been created in accordance with the council’s Road Safety

Outside Schools Policy which has been subject to Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment. Highway improvements are subject to independent road safety audit which take into account the needs of all road users including those with mobility impairment.

7. LOCALISM:

7.1 Future proposals presented within further reports will be developed following

consultation with the Local and Divisional Member and School Leadership Teams. If implemented they would improve road safety and encourage more walking, cycling and scooting to school and would help reduce car journeys, anti social parking and congestion which have a negative impact on the local community.


8.1 It is recommended that the Guildford Local Committee note the progress so

far and a full report will be brought to March 2015 local committee or consideration.


10.1 A detailed report covering all three schools will be brought to the March 2015

local committee for consideration.

ITEM 13

Page 331


Contact Officer:

Rebecca Harrison Sustainability Community Engagement Team Leader

01483 517515 Consulted:

Divisional Member,- Councillor Brett- Warburton Annexes:

Annex A: Road Safety Outside Schools Policy.

ITEM 13

Page 332


LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR GUILDFORD

DATE: WEDNESDAY

LEAD

OFFICER:

JOHN HILDER, SCC AREA HIGHWAY MANAGER SW

SUBJECT: HIGHWAYS

DIVISION: ALL

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

To allocate the anticipated budget available to this committee for 2015/16

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Local Committee is asked to:

The Local Committee (Guildford) is asked to (i) Agree the following budget allocations for 201

Proposed maintenance works and operationProposed improvement (ITS) schemes

(ii) Delegate authority to the Area Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and locally affected Members to amend budgets throughout the year if requirmanner.


The committee is asked to of schemes can start at the earliest opportunity, increasing confidence in delivery.



LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR GUILDFORD.

WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2014


HIGHWAYS BUDGETS FOR 2015/16

anticipated budget available to this committee for 2015/16

The Local Committee is asked to:


Agree the following budget allocations for 2015/16 as detailed in this report

maintenance works and operations £421,000Proposed improvement (ITS) schemes £369,500

Delegate authority to the Area Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and locally affected Members to amend budgets throughout the year if required to ensure the budget is allocated in a timely


The committee is asked to agree 2015/16 allocations at this stage so that the design of schemes can start at the earliest opportunity, increasing confidence in delivery.


anticipated budget available to this committee for 2015/16.

5/16 as detailed in this report:-

421,000 369,500

Delegate authority to the Area Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and locally affected Members to amend budgets

ed to ensure the budget is allocated in a timely

allocations at this stage so that the design of schemes can start at the earliest opportunity, increasing confidence in delivery.

ITEM 14

Page 333



Anticipated Budgets for 2015/16

1.1 The budgets available to this committee in 2015/6 are expected to be the same as those in 2014/15, which were as follows.

£

Capital ITS (Improvement) Schemes 263,000

Capital Maintenance 263,000

Revenue Maintenance 317,000

843,000

And in addition

Community Enhancement Fund

50,000

Proposed Maintenance Works and Operations

1.2 The committee was asked to dedicate at least half of the 2014/15 works budget towards maintenance, and the same requirement can be expected in 2015/16. So £421,000 should be directed towards highway maintenance.

1.3 The area manager recommends some funding is directed towards small general maintenance work as has been the case in previous years. This will allow the Guildford highways team to address day-to-day maintenance issues as they arise.

1.4 As for 2014/15 it is also recommended that £25,000 is reserved for the Lengthsman scheme.

1.5 At the June meeting the committee allocated £150,000 of the 2014/15 budget towards the High Street Setts project and indicated the intention to allocate £150,000 of the 2015/16 budget to this scheme which is planned to start on site in the summer of 2015.

1.6 It is recommended that the residue of maintenance funding is directed towards carriageway & footway surfacing as well as drainage schemes, with more detailed proposals coming to the March committee meeting.

Summarising the above:-

‘Community Gang’ for 26 weeks £40,000

Jetter for 5 weeks £25,000

ITEM 14

Page 334


Ad-hoc maintenance work by the Guildford team

£10,000

Reserve funding for the Lengthsman scheme

£25,000

High Street Setts £150,000

Carriageway/footway/drainage schemes

£171,000

Total £421,000

Proposed Improvement (or ITS) Schemes

1.7 The Guildford Transportation Task Group met on 21 October to consider and prioritise requests for highway improvement (or ITS schemes) for inclusion in the 2015/16 programme. The task group recommendations were subsequently considered and endorsed at the informal meeting of the local committee on 28 October.

‘New’ schemes for 2015/16 & estimated delivery costs Boxgrove area schools, Guildford: Area safety scheme £100,000 Onslow village: Area safety scheme feasibility study £10,000 A248 The Street, Albury: Traffic calming measures £25,000 B3000 The Street, Compton: Traffic calming measures £25,000 Eashing Lane, Godalming: Road safety feasibility study £3,000 A320 Woking Rd, Guildford: Upgrade refuge to Puffin xing £120,000 A25 Newlands Corner: Traffic calming/improved crossing £20,000 Ockham Rd South: Traffic calming measures £20,000 Merrow Lane, Guildford: Footway extension £5,000 A322 Worplesdon Rd: Upgrade Barrack Rd crossing point £8,000 A31 Farnham Rd, Guildford: Vehicle activated sign £2,000 Ad-hoc signs and lines budget £20,000 Persian New Year, Ockham £7,000 Peaslake Lane, Peaslake: Feasibility study 20mph limit £3,000 A247 Send Barn Lane: Feasibility study road safety for scheme £1,500 Total £369,500

1.8 The above would leave uncommitted budget as follows:-

Total Capital & Revenue allocation £843,000 Proposed maintenance works - £421,000 ‘New’ schemes for 2015/16 - £369,500

Unallocated £52,500

1.9 The Area Manager recommends that the unallocated £52,500 is reserved against increases in anticipated costs, which at this stage are indicative only.

ITEM 14

Page 335


2. OPTIONS:

2.1 As discussed with members.

3. CONSULTATIONS:

3.1 Appropriate consultation will be carried out for all schemes.


4.1 Works will be carried out by SCC’s term highways contractor, May Gurney,

who won the term contract in a competitive tender process.

.5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS:

5.1 None

6. LOCALISM:

6.1 Works and schemes are designed to improve and make safer the facilities

for local communities in the borough. 6.2 The Lengsthman initiative allows parish councils to undertake enhanced

maintenance of the public highway.


7.1 None


8.1 As set out in the body of the report.


9.1 Officers will continue to progress the programme of schemes agreed by the

committee.

Contact Officer: SCC Area Highway Manager SW Tel 0300 200 1003 Consulted: As described within the report Annexes: None Sources/background papers:

ITEM 14

Page 336



LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2014

LEAD OFFICER:

JOHN HILDER

SUBJECT: HIGHWAYS UPDATE

DIVISION: ALL

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

This report provides an update on the 2014/15 programme of minor highway works funded by this committee as well as Section 106 (developer funded) schemes.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Local Committee (Guildford) is asked to agree that / asked to:

(i) Authorise the prohibition of the right turn from Jacobs Well Road into the A320 Woking Road.

(ii) Note that ten additional resurfacing schemes will be centrally funded.

(iii) Note the Highways Update report


The committee is asked to formally agree the recommendations above in order to progress the programme of work for 2014/15.

ITEM 15

Page 337


1. UPDATE

Local Committee Budgets and Forecast Expenditure 1.1 The 2014/15 budget, agreed allocations and forecast expenditure for 2014/15

are set out at Annex 1, which shows that the budget is now thought to be about 7% over committed. The position will become clearer as the year progresses and work is priced, but it may be necessary to defer starts on schemes to stay within budget.

Prohibit right turn Jacobs Well Rd into A320 Woking Road 1.2 The 2014/15 programme includes an allocation of £10,000 for improving

safety and movement at the junction of Jacobs Well Road with the A320 Woking Road.

1.3 The road is bounded by common land (Stringers Common) and there is little opportunity to widen the junction. A design has been produced which would provide an improved central refuge for pedestrians crossing the mouth of Jacobs Well Road and which would prohibit the right turn into the Woking Road.

1.4 There have been several personal injury collisions involving right turning vehicles exiting Jacobs Well Rd and this is considered due in part to restricted visibility, particularly at peak hours when vehicles on the A320 southbound queue through the junction. Residents of Jacobs Well would have to access the A320 northbound via Clay Lane.

1.5 The police have been consulted and support the proposal.

Additional Capital Maintenance LSR (surfacing) Schemes 1.6 The centrally funded planned highways capital maintenance programme for

2014/15 was reported to the June meeting of the local committee. The programme included carriageway and footway resurfacing schemes as well as drainage, bridge and embankment works.

1.7 The central Asset Management Group has agreed to fund a number of additional surfacing schemes in Guildford in the current financial year and these new schemes are listed below.

Radnor Lane, entire length Holmbury St Mary

Totford Lane, middle section near bridge Seale

Scotland Farm Road, entire length Ash Vale

Sandy Lane, entire length Albury

Mill Lane, various sections Ripley

School Lane, between school accesses Normandy

Chapel Lane, Melrose to Fitzella Pirbright

Pilgrims Way/Echo Pit, car park to A281 Guildford

Cranley Rd, Cross Lanes to school entrance Guildford

Semaphore Rd, entire length Guildford

ITEM 15

Page 338


High Street Setts 1.8 At their meeting in June the committee agreed to increase the allocation

towards relaying the setts in Guildford High St to £150,000. Since then Guildford Borough Council has agreed to commit £350,000 towards the project, as has the Deputy Leader of the County Council, so the major element of funding is now in place.

1.9 Guildford town will host the Armed Forces Day in 2015, with the date set for 27 June. The window between now and then is too narrow to be confident that relaying the setts could be procured and completed in advance, and work is planned to start on site in the Summer of 2015, following Armed Forces Day.

1.10 Costs will be incurred against design and procurement only in the current financial year, and the balance of the £150,000 allocated by the committee will be carried forward to 2015/16 to meet construction costs.

1.11 In August The Project Centre (consulting engineers) were commissioned to produce a scoping report looking at how relaying the setts might be widened to a public realm/environmental enhancement scheme. They had been asked to look at different configurations for the High Street including wider footways, bringing the carriageway to the same height as the footways, planting (trees) and street furniture.

1.12 The Steering Group for this project met 30 October to consider the scoping report. The group felt it was appropriate that consideration should be given to the idea of altering the appearance of the High Street in view of the scale of work involved in relaying the setts. However after a lengthy discussion it was concluded that given the fact that the overall appearance had remained unchanged for centuries and that the High Street is within a Conservation Area (so to be preserved for future generations) any radical change would be inappropriate, would require lengthy consultations, and would likely provoke widespread objection. The steering group considered that the project should remain as originally proposed, namely to relay the setts with consideration of further ‘flatter’ crossing places such as that at Tunsgate. The group noted that the scoping report estimated costs for a public realm scheme at £2m plus, but that this included rebuilding everything between shop facades including footways, kerbs & drainage systems, planting trees and installing new street furniture.

1.13 The Steering Group meets next on 1 December to consider to agree traffic management, deliveries and communication strategies in preparation for opening discussions with high street retailers in the new year.

1.14 Detailed design and contract documents will be prepared between December and April 2015, with procurement (tendering) carried out between April and July, with construction starting August 2015.

ITEM 15

Page 339


Lengthsman Scheme 1.15 In June the committee agreed to fund a 2014/15 bid of £4,800 by Ash PC.

1.16 In September the committee agreed to fund bids by Shere (£7,000) and Worplesdon (£4,500).

1.17 The Horsleys are understood to be preparing a bid.

Community Enhancement Fund 1.18 At the end of October £17,000 of the £50,000 community enhancement fund

had been committed. SCC members are asked to discuss potential work within their divisions with the area team and confirm their requirements by the end of November so that works can be ordered and delivered before the end of the financial year.

Customer Enquiries and Reactive Repairs 1.19 Following the extremely high volume of enquires in the first part of the year,

the second and third quarters have seen a steady reduction. This is to be expected given the time of year but overall volumes remain high with over 118000 received for the calendar year to date, giving an average of approximately 13100 per month, down from 14600 in the second quarter.

1.20 For Guildford specifically, 13698 enquiries have been received since January of which 7706 were directed to the local area office for action, 91% of these have been resolved. This response rate is slightly below the countywide average of 95%. Although the response rate remains high, we are working hard in conjunction with our contractors to improve the service we provide. This includes the launch of a new customer enquiry and works scheduling system and revised customer service KPIs.

1.21 Through the Customer Service Excellence project we are also seeking to improve the accessibility of information and advance notification of roadwork's. As part of which we have recently moved our roadwork information to a new website; www.roadworks.org that also contains information on work being undertaken by utility companies. Customers can sign up to receive alerts and provides a fuller picture of the work in an area.

1.22 Although there have been a reduction in customer contacts, complaints have remained high with 308 at stage 1 for the 9 months to the end of September compared to 208 for the first half of the year. The South West area including Guildford have received 78. The main reasons for these being communication and the failure to carry out works to either the required standard or timescale. In addition 11 complaints have been escalated to stage 2 of which we were found to be at fault in only three. Seven complaints have been made to the Local Government Ombudsman about the Service, none of which have been upheld.

2. OPTIONS:

2.1 As discussed with members.

ITEM 15

Page 340


3. CONSULTATIONS:

3.1 Appropriate consultation will be carried out for all schemes.


4.1 Works will be carried out by SCC’s term highways contractor, Keir, who won

the term contract in a competitive tender process.

.5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS:

5.1 None

6. LOCALISM:

6.1 Works and schemes are designed to improve and make safer the facilities for

local communities in the borough. 6.2 The Lengsthman initiative allows parish councils to undertake enhanced

maintenance of the public highway.


7.1 None


8.1 As set out in the body of the report.


9.1 Officers will continue to progress the programme of schemes agreed by the committee.

Contact Officer: SCC Area Highway Manager SW Tel 0300 200 1003 Consulted: As described within the report Annexes:

1. Highways Budget and Expenditure for 2014/15

Sources/background papers: Local Committee for Guildford Wednesday 11 December 2013 Item 12: ‘Highways Budgets 2014/15’ Local Committee for Guildford Wednesday 12 March 2014 Item 14: ‘Highways Update’ Local Committee for Guildford Wednesday 24 June 2014 Item 15: ‘Highways Update’

ITEM 15

Page 341

Page 342


SCC Local Committee for Guildford Highways Update Report Nov-14 ANNEX 1

2014/15 Local Committe Budget

Capital ITS carried forward from 2013/14 192,000 Complete 2013/14 ITS Schemes 344,500

Capital ITS (Improvement) Schemes 263,000 2014/15 ITS Schemes 294,500

Capital Maintenance 263,000 Capital Maintenance -LSR (surfacing)

schemes

121,000

Revenue Maintenance 317,000 Capital Maintenance - High St Setts 150,000

Community Enhancement 50,000 Revenue Maintenance 205,000

Community Enhancement 50,000

Total 1,085,000 Total 1,165,000

Annex 1: Page 1 of 6

Highway budgets and expenditure for 2014/15

2014/15 Forecast Expenditure (pages 2 to 5 below)

ITE

M 15

Page 343

SCHEME TITLE ALLOCATION FORECAST

EXPENDITURE

STATUS/PROGRAMME/COMMENTS

Pirbright Village Safety Scheme 80,000 80,000 Largely complete, traffic island yet to be installed

Shere Village Safety Scheme 90,000 150,000 Complete

Zebra Crossing Aldershot Road 8,000 4,500 Complete

Traffic Island, Portsmouth Road, Ripley 6,500 25,000 Complete

20mph limit Wodeland Avenue, Guildford 55,000 55,000 Expected to complete by Christmas

Bus stop platform, The Street, Albury 10,000 10,000 Design complete & priced. Dependant on PC agreement with

developer/landowner

Safer crossing at Salt Box Road rail bridge 20,000 20,000 Design complete & priced. Ecological surveys underway

Sub Total 269,500 344,500 Carry forward to page 1

Traffic calming Down Lane, Compton 30,000 30,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

One-way Mount Pleasant, Guildford 10,000 10,000 Consultation Q3, Install Q4

Ped facilities Quarry St signals, Guildford 25,000 25,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

30mph limit A281 Shalford Rd, Guildford 6,000 6,000 Assessment complete, install Q3

Safer crossing Boxgrove Rd, Guildford 20,000 20,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

Continued on next page Annex 1: Page 2 of 6

Complete 2013/14 ITS Schemes: Reported to June 2014 LC

2014/15 ITS Schemes: Programme approved at Dec 2013 LC

ITE

M 15

Page 344


EXPENDITURE


2014/15 ITS Schemes (continued)

Ped refuge Aldershot Rd, Worplesdon 25,000 25,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

Ped refuge A281Horsham Rd, Shalford 20,000 20,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

30mph limit in Shere Road East Horsley 15,000 5,000 Assessment complete, install Q3

Traffic calming Oak Hill, Wood St Village 25,000 40,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

Speed limit review Wisley Lane, Wisley 10,000 10,000 Assessment complete, install Q3

Speed limit review Poyle Rd & others, Tongham 15,000 5,000 Assessment complete, install Q4

Improve junction Jacobs Well Rd with Clay Lane 30,000 25,000 Design in progress. Install Q3/Q4

Improve juntion Jacobs Well Rd with A320

Woking Rd

10,000 20,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

Road closures Persian New Year, Wisley 7,000 7,000 Late March. Road closures to limit access to Wisley Common

Elm Lane footway extension, Tongham 10,000 10,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

Hornhatch Estate, Chilworth - pram ramps 5,000 5,000 Complete

East Lane, West Horsley footway extension 15,000 25,000 Design in progress. Install Q4

Byrefield Rd/Stoughton Rd Bus Clearways 2,500 2,500 Complete

Epsom Rd j/w The Street W Horsley Feasibility

only

5,000 4,000 In progress


Annex 1: page 3 of 6 ITE

M 15

Page 345


EXPENDITURE


Flexford Road, Normandy 20,000 Programmed Q3

Fullers Farm Rd, West Horsley 22,000 Ditto

Chantry Lane, Shere 15,500 Ditto

Walking Bottom, Peaslake 43,000 Ditto

Mandeville Close, Stoughton 20,500 Ditto

Sub Total 121000 Carry forward to page 1

Re-lay High Street setts, Guildford 150,000 150,000 Works planned for 2015/16. Design/procurement costs only in 2014/15,

carry forward balance to 2015/16.


Annex 1: page 4 0f 6

Capital Maintenance - LSR (Surfacing) Schemes identified & prioritised by SW Area Team

Capital Maintenance - High St Setts: Allocation approved at June 2014 LC

ITE

M 15

Page 346


EXPENDITURE


Ad-hoc signs, lines, bollards etc by SW Area

Team

25,000 25,000 Used through the year in response to requests from residents and members.

Community Gang for 48 weeks 96,000 70,000 Reduced to 36 weeks by area team with funding redirected to LSR work.

Jetter for 5 weeks 25,000 25,000 Area team allocated a central jetter 5 times a year, so this doubles the

resource available.

Ad-hoc maintenance by SW Area Team 10,000 10,000 Used through the year in response to requests from residents and members.

Funding for Lengthsman Scheme 25,000 25,000 Bids submitted by Ash, Shere and Worplesdon

LC funding for flood recovery 50,000 50,000 Approved March 2014 LC.


Community Enhancement

Allocated at £5,000 per SCC division 50,000 50,000 Approved Dec 2013 LC



Revenue Maintenance: Allocations approved at Dec 2013 LC

ITE

M 15

Page 347

SCHEME TITLE EST COST (EXTERNAL

FUNDING)

Traffic calming - A246 & D4010 Epsom

Road / Horseshoe Lane West

65,000


SECTION 106 SCHEMES

Works should complete by October


ITE

M 15

Page 348

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26 NOVEMBER

LEAD OFFICER:

JOHN HILDERAREA HIGHWAYS MANAGER (SW)

SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION TASK GROUP

DIVISION: ALL

SUMMARY OF ISSUE: The Local Committee for Guildford considers a broad range of highways and transportation matters. In order to progress the committee’s transportation wprogramme a task group consider local transportation business schedule of the formal full committeeand advisory capacity to the membership is made up of ndecisions are undertaken by the This report is for the information of the update of the TTG work programme and RECOMMENDATIONS: The Local Committee (Guildford) (i) Note and comment on

Transportation Task Group

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:The purpose of the Transportation Task Group is to provide the Committee with considered and informed advicekeep the full committee informed of matters under when those items are likely be bought forward for the attention of the



(GUILDFORD)

26 NOVEMBER 2014

JOHN HILDER AREA HIGHWAYS MANAGER (SW)

REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION TASK GROUP

for Guildford considers a broad range of highways and transportation matters. In order to progress the committee’s transportation w

has been created. The purpose of the task group islocal transportation business on a more frequent and flexible basis than the

full committee may allow and thereafter to act in an advisory capacity to the full committee. The Transportation Task Group (TTG)

membership is made up of nominated members from the full committeeons are undertaken by the full committee.

or the information of the full committee. The intention is to provide an work programme and a schedule.

(Guildford) is asked to:

and comment on the work programme and schedule for the Transportation Task Group at Annex 1

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The purpose of the Transportation Task Group is to provide the Guildford

considered and informed advice. The purpose of this report is to informed of matters under consideration by the TTG

are likely be bought forward for the attention of the full committee

REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION TASK GROUP (TTG)

for Guildford considers a broad range of highways and transportation matters. In order to progress the committee’s transportation work

ted. The purpose of the task group is to more frequent and flexible basis than the

to act in an informed The Transportation Task Group (TTG)

full committee. All formal

. The intention is to provide an

the

Guildford Local . The purpose of this report is to

by the TTG and full committee.

ITEM 16

Page 349



1.1 The Transportation Task Group (TTG) comprises of members who have

been selected and nominated by the full committee. The TTG has no decision-making powers in itself but provides advice and recommendations to the full committee.

1.2 The TTG has flexibility to meet more frequently than the full committee and to consider matters on a level of detail which is not always possible in the agendas of the formal meetings of the full committee. The recommendations and advice of the Task Group will be reported to the full committee for formal discussion and decision.

1.3 It is a requirement that the membership of the TTG is broadly representative of the full committee as a whole, both politically and in terms of balance between the urban and rural areas of the borough. Membership includes the Local Committee Chairman and the Borough Lead Member for Transport and Infrastructure along with two other County Councillors and two Borough Councillors and one reserve from each council.

2. ANALYSIS:

2.1 The TTG has convened on four occasions this municipal year. The work

programme at Annex 1 demonstrates the breadth and scope of the topics under review on behalf of the Local Committee.

3. OPTIONS:

3.1 The Local Committee customarily reviews the membership and terms of

reference for the task groups at the first meeting of the municipal year. The current arrangements were agreed 25 June 2014. The Committee may review these arrangements at its discretion.

4. CONSULTATIONS:

4.1 All members of the Local Committee were consulted on the membership and

terms of reference for the Transportation Task Group.

4.2 The members of the TTG have been consulted on the contents of this report and the work programme.


5.1 There are no direct financial implications. The purpose of the arrangements for

the Transportation Task Group is to improve informed and considered decision making by the full committee and seek to produce better value for money outcomes for residents.


6.1 There are no direct implications. Both Surrey County Council (SCC) and

Guildford Borough Council (GBC) are committed to supporting equal opportunities for all.

ITEM 16

Page 350


6.2 Individual schemes and projects will undertake Equalities Impact Assessments as appropriate.

7. LOCALISM:

7.1 The Local Committee seeks to bring decision making closer to local

communities.

7.2 The Local Committee seeks to engage local communities in matters of interest, concern and priority.

7.3 Through balanced membership the Local Committee task groups seek to represent all communities in the borough.


8.1 There are no additional implications.


The Local Committee (Guildford) is asked to: 9.1 Note and comment on the work programme and schedule for the Transportation

Task Group at Annex 1


10.1 The Transportation Task Group will proceed to consider the work programme

and to report to the full committee as appropriate. It is intended the work programme be reviewed by the full committee quarterly unless advised differently by the members.

Contact Officer: Carolyn Anderson, Community Partnerships & Committee Officer, SCC 01483 517336 [email protected] Consulted: Guildford Local Committee’s Transportation Task Group Annexes: 1. TTG Terms of reference (agreed 25 June 2014)

2. TTG Work programme

3. Guildford Local Transport Strategy Briefing Note

Sources/background papers: • None

ITEM 16

Page 351


ITEM 16

Page 352

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) ANNEX 1 Updated 17/11/ 2014

1

Guildford Local Committee Transportation Task Group Work Plan for 2014/15

Actions Officer When next to TTG

When next to GLC

Lead Agency

Status / Note / Feedback

GLC Highways Budget 2015/16

JH SCC Full report to committee for agreement in November. Agreed schemes to transfer to ITS schemes list and updated through the Highways Update.

ITS Schemes progress 2015/16

JH As req. 25/03/2015 SCC Refer to Highways Update rpt.

ITS Schemes progress 2014/15

JH As req. 26/11/2014 SCC Refer to Highways Update rpt.

Minor Works Maintenance Schedule

JH 4/2/2014 SCC New proposal. To form a liaison between County Councillors and lead Highways officer. To committee only if further decisions req.

Flood recovery

JH As req. As req. SCC No rpts scheduled currently.

Local Transport Strategy for Guildford (LTS)

LM/SH 26/11/2014

SCC Ongoing live document. Part A: Current schemes - for Local Committee member to comment and note. Part B: Future schemes – to be completed in accordance with final Local Plan draft. Then to committee for formal approval.

Local Committee Framework HT/JH 26/11/2014 SCC In development and awaiting final Cycle Plan approval. Update to committee as required. Aim for completion June 2015.

ITE

M 16

Page 353


2


When next to GLC

Lead Agency


Local Sustainable Transport Fund DL/MW As req. 25/3/2014 SCC Programme review and progress update. To TTG as req. in the New Year. Closing report to March/June committee.

Local Transport Review / Bus Review

PM

TBC TBC SCC Feedback from consultation as available / required in the New Year.

Community Infrastructure Levy TM-F/PD TBA 26/11/2014 GBC

As per the agreement of both councils during 2014 the local CIL proposals to be bought before the committee for noting and comment prior to acceptance by GBC.

Transport Strategy for Schools DF/KB TBA TBA SCC Feedback from consultation as available / required. To cross reference with Boxgrove area RSOS.

High Street Setts JH/GSB As Req. Highways Update

SCC Local Committee has agreed to reserve up to one third of the cost. GBC has agreed to fund £318k towards the cost. Guildford Surrey Board approved. Start date after June 2015.

Speed Management Plan DK June 2015 30/9/2015 SCC Annual review. For liaison with Safer Guildford Executive and Health & Wellbeing Board.

Guildford Cycle Plan

DS 4/2/2014 25/3/2014 SCC In progress. Linked work with other projects on the programme (Framework, road safety etc). TTG recommends a stakeholder workshop to be convened in the New Year.

ITE

M 16

Page 354


3


When next to GLC

Lead Agency


Boxgrove Area (Road Safety Outside Schools)

RH 4/2/2014 26/11/2014 SCC Interim report to November committee. Full report to March 2015. Highways budget 2015/16 recommends set aside funding for possible interventions.

Park & Ride & on-street parking revenue review

DL/KM TBC 26/11/2014 SCC/GBC P&R under regular review. Recommendations for 2015/16 to November committee within Parking Business report. .

Parking Strategy

KM TBC 26/11/2014 GBC/SCC Joint, holistic approach to using parking as a tool to manage congestion and sustainable transport options. Initial approach within Parking Business Report to November committee.

Parking evaluation matrix KM 2015/16 As req. GBC To regularly review the criteria by which parking proposals are evaluated to ensure the process remains relevant and robust.

PETITIONS

• WTC Closure JH 19/6/2014 SCC Request for closure was considered by the Transportation Task Group, but was not prioritised for funding in 2014/15 as it is closely linked with work on the gyratory, and felt it could not be progressed in isolation. It is recommended that the closure of Walnut Tree Close is included in the gyratory modelling currently underway in order to gain an appreciation of the effects on the local road network.

ITE

M 16

Page 355


4


When next to GLC

Lead Agency


This road also potentially affected by forthcoming station redevelopment. Monitor.

• Onslow 20mph zone

JH 2015/16 TBA SCC Recommendations to November committee in Highways Budget 2015/16 to set aside funding for a wider RSOS review dependent upon outcomes and recommendations from Boxgrove area.

• Peaslake 20mph

JH TBA SCC TG considered a feasibility study is needed to examine options. Funding recommended from 2015/16 budget.

• Shere HGV

JH TBA SCC TTG considered the effects of the recently installed village safety scheme/20mph speed limit should be assessed before further measures are considered.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING

Mount Pleasant proposed one-way system

JH 4/2/2014 TBA Local resident survey to be undertaken and report back to TTG and committee.

Sheepwalk Lane impact of 4x4

JH 4/2/2014 TBA Referred to Countryside Access officers for investigation.

MEMBER QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING

ITE

M 16

Page 356


5

Meetings

14 May 2014 7 July 2014 4 September 2014 21 October 2014 4 February 2015

ITE

M 16

Page 357

Page 358




LOCAL COMMITTEE (GUILDFORD) DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2014 LEAD OFFICER:

CAROLYN ANDERSON COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS & COMMITTEE OFFICER

SUBJECT: LOCAL COMMITTEE FORWARD PROGRAMME

DIVISION: ALL

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

The Forward Programme of reports for the Local Committee for 2014/15.

RECOMMENDATIONS:


a) Agree the Forward Programme 2014/15, as outlined in Annexe 1, indicating any further preferences for inclusion.

b) Consider any further themes for Member briefings during 2014/15.


Members are asked to comment on the Forward Programme so that Officers can publicise the meetings and prepare the necessary reports.


1.1 The Forward Programme of the Local Committee is revised at each Committee

meeting. Members are requested to propose any additional items for inclusion on the Programme.

2. ANALYSIS:

2.1 Officers are required to investigate and consult with the appropriate services, partners or other agencies on the purpose, content and timing of future reports. As these negotiations are concluded then items are added to the Programme.

3. OPTIONS:

3.1 It is prudent and practical for the Local Committee to produce and maintain a

business forward plan.

ITEM 17

Page 359


4. CONSULTATIONS:

4.1 Local Committee members are consulted.


5.1 None


6.1 None

7. LOCALISM:

7.1 The Local Committee will receive reports relating to communities within the

borough.


8.1 None


9.1 Members are asked to agree the Forward Programme


10.1 Officers will progress any member request and schedule reports for future

meetings

Contact Officer: Carolyn Anderson 01483 517336 [email protected] Consulted: Guildford Local Committee members Annexes: Annexe 1 Forward Programme Sources/background papers: • None

ITEM 17

Page 360

ANNEXE 1

Please note the Forward Programme may be subject to change.

Surrey County Council Local Committee (Guildford) Forward Programme 2014/15

Safer Guildford Partnership

Annual Report 2014 Guildford Borough Council & Surrey Police

25 March 2014

Services for Young People

2015/16 Commissioning Report Leigh Middleton / Victoria Harris

25 March 2014

Topic Purpose Contact Officers Proposed date

Transportation Items

Countryside Access Pubic Footpath 206 Albury - proposed diversion Debbie Prismal 25 March 2015

Environment & Infrastructure

Guildford Cycle Plan (Interim) Marc Woodall 25 March 2015

Highways Local Sustainable Transport Fund: Egerton Road/Tesco Roundabout traffic modelling report

David Ligertwood 25 March 2015

Highways Local Sustainable Transport Fund Programme Update David Ligertwood 25 March 2015

Details of future meetings

Formal public 25 March 2015 7pm Guildford Borough Council Chamber **


General Items

ITE

M 17

Page 361

ANNEXE 1

Please note the Forward Programme may be subject to change.


Highways Guildford Local Committee Prioritisation Framework John Hilder 17 June 2015

Highways Boxgrove Area (Road Safety Outside Schools)

John Hilder 25 March 2015

Highways Highways Update (all Highways matters) John Hilder 25 March 2015

Highways Use of local rural roads by HGV Commercial vehicles John Hilder 25 March 2015

Highways Borough Drainage Plan Mark Borland 2015 TBA

* Guildford Local Committee ‘Plus’ refers to the agreement undertaken in 2014 by both councils to extend joint working arrangements through this committee. ** Meetings will be webcast.

ITE

M 17

Page 362