Whitehill & Bordon Delivery Board papers by East Hampshire District Council

Delivery Board Meeting to be held on Thursday 14th June from 10:00am until 12:30pm Main Hall, Forest Community Centre

A G E N D A

Welcome and introductions – Chairman (verbal) (5 mins)

Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising (attached) (5 mins)

Public Questions – to respond to any questions received in writing from the public (15 mins)

Verbal update from Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the light of the Minister’s Defence Technical Training Change Programme (DTTCP) Robert Smith, MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (5 mins)

ATLAS report on strategic decision making in relation to procurement of an investment partner and masterplan changes. Caroline Sayers, Governance Officer Paper attached (10 mins)

Commercial strategy advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) (Presentation ) Tim Wheeler (TBC), PwC (15 mins) 1

A120614

page 4 12

page 13 32

Transition Group update Robert Smith, MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (verbal update) (5 mins)

Landownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; update Robert Smith, MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (paper attached) (5 mins)

page 33 37

Neighbourhood Quality Charter Sarah Allan, Eco-housing and Retrofitting Theme Lead (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 38 85

10.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Revised Masterplan (May 2012) page 86 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mandar Puranik, Planning and Urban Design Theme Lead 90 (paper attached) (10 mins)

11.

Transport Studies update Tim Wall, Team Leader - Highways Development Planning (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 91 102

12.

Funding applications Susan Robbins, Economic Development Theme Lead (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 103 110

13.

Outcomes from Specialist Groups and Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings Chris Youngs, Eco Coordinator, Whitehill Town Council (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 111 115

14.

Project Progress Report Simon Beach, Project Coordinator (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 116 143

2 A120614

15.

Forward Programme - Dates of future Standing Conference meetings (At least two weeks prior to the Delivery Board meetings) Thursday 30th August 2:30pm – 5:00pm Main Hall, Forest Community Centre Thursday 29th November 6:30 pm – 9:00pm Eco-station, Camp Road - Dates of future Delivery Board meetings Thursday 6th September 2:30pm – 5:00pm Main Hall, Forest Community Centre Thursday 13th December 6:30 pm – 9:00pm Eco-station, Camp Road - Items for future meetings To discuss items for future meetings (attached) (5 mins) Total time – 2 hours 15 mins

Exempt Items 16. Risk Register report Caroline Sayers, Governance Officer and Risk Manager (previously circulated to Delivery Board members)

3 A120614

page 144

Agenda item 2

Whitehill & Bordon Delivery Board Meeting 15th March 2012 6:30pm – Bordon Junior School, Bordon Present: John Walker Daphne Gardner

(JW) (DG)

Cllr Adam Carew Richard Nelson

(AC) (RN)

Dr William Wain James Rowley

(BW) (JR)

Cllr Andrew Joy

(AJ)

Cllr Glynis Watts

(GW)

Apologies: Kevin Bourner

(KB)

Cllr Melville Kendal

(MK)

Also: Mandar Puranik

(MP)

Bruce Collinson

(BC)

Sarah Allan

(SA)

Susan Robbins Chris Youngs Lydia Forbes-Manson Simon Beach Peter Rabbett

(SR) (CY) (LFM) (SJB) (PR)

Chairman East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) Project Director Whitehill Town Council (WTC) MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Whitehill Bordon Town Partnership (WTP) Home and Communities Agency (HCA) Area Manager North Hampshire on behalf of Kevin Bourner Hampshire County Council (HCC) on behalf of Cllr Melville Kendal EHDC Portfolio Holder for Regeneration

Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Head of Area HCC Executive Member for the Environment

EHDC (Theme Lead – Planning and Urban Design) EHDC (Theme Lead – Environmental Sustainability) EHDC (Theme Lead – Eco-housing and Retrofitting) EHDC (Theme Lead – Economic Development) WTC (Eco-coordinator) EHDC (Communications & Marketing Officer) EHDC (Project Coordinator) Consultant to HCC

Item

Notes

Action

Welcome and introductions - Chairman The Chairman thanked Richard Nelson for his work on the project and made a presentation to him. His colleague, Robert Smith, will now be the representative for MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO).

M120315 -4-

Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising Minutes of the previous Delivery Board meeting were approved as accurate. Matters arising from the previous meeting are: Eco-town vision (minute no. 2, page 6): At the previous meeting, Delivery Board members agreed that the Eco-town vision should be taken back to their partner organisations for them to endorse. The Chairman asked each organisation representative for an update on progress of this. Responses are below: Whitehill Town Council (WTC) – support has been given. East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) – the Eco-town vision will be taken through due process alongside the revised masterplan. Hampshire County Council (HCC) – follow-up is needed to check if the vision has been endorsed. MoD, Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – David Olney is in the process of writing a letter to the project team on various points. Progress update on whether the vision has been endorsed will be included in this letter. Whitehill Bordon Town Partnership (WTP) – endorsing the vision will be incorporated into the agenda for the next meeting. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) – had previously commented that it is important to emphasise the need for economic regeneration and job creation. Written confirmation on endorsing the vision will be given. Because the vision guides the work of the Delivery Board, it is important that each organisation endorses this document.

All members

Development brief for demonstration scheme at Quebec Barracks (minute no. 8, page 6): Councillor Joy fed in some comments on the brief. Confirmation was given that there is a new zero carbon standard which is being used for some of the development at Quebec Barracks. Outcomes from Specialist Groups (minutes no. 11(a), page 7): It was noted that funding requirements still need to be identified to be able to carry out the recommended community facilities study. A committee has been established to begin the work on the assessment. Once an updated Masterplan document has been developed, one joint meeting of all Specialist Groups will be organised to assess the outcomes of the document. Because the Specialist Groups are open to anyone, all will be welcome to this meeting. Chris Youngs will be responsible for organising this meeting and will liaise with the project team to schedule the meeting.

M120315 -5-

WTC

Public Questions No public questions were received.

Verbal update from Ministry of Defence (MoD) This item will be covered later on the agenda. (Also, please see item one of the transition group meeting notes.)

Commercial strategy advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) The project director updated on progress. PwC are continuing with their work. And will be bringing their findings to the June meeting of the Delivery Board. PwC came to the December meeting with a current update at that point in time. Since then, further workshops with Delivery Board members have been held to get the Board investor ready. Part of this process has been to challenge the Board members which has been positive and constructive. This work has included looking at t options for the procurement of investment partners, reviewing the viability assumptions and working through this information. It is important to spend time to get a good result rather than rush the work. Therefore, another workshop will be held in April and an update given at the next Delivery Board meeting.

Transition Group update Richard Nelson introduced this item. Clarification of the position on the overall programme and implications for the release of land was given (item one of the transition group meeting minutes). Until the contract is let, there wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be certainty over the precise timing of release of land. This will create a practical issue. Part of the bidding process for the contract is to evaluate the options for the release of land. Some areas of the Garrison are already vacant. This includes Louisburg Barracks. Where there are opportunities to start development early, these should be taken. But it is important that development of this (and any) site is carried out in accordance with the masterplan to avoid piecemeal development. The Eco-town team are working up a proposal for the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to bid for capital from the Growing Places fund. This proposal will take into account the costs of the infrastructure needs of Louisburg. The team will need agreement and support from DIO for the preparation of the bid.

M120315 -6-

HCA have held discussions with LEP. The bidding round is due to start in April. Board members ask for clarification about the process for closing sites. Richard Nelson explained the MoD have a duty of care for a whole site, therefore take health and safety issues, security and vandalism seriously. Sites are not left unprotected. This can therefore work against the wishes of keeping part of a site open. It is essential that these types of issues are identified early so that innovative solutions can be found. To begin the process of overcoming these practical issues, WTC have held a meeting with a representative from the Bordon Garrison. It was confirmed that most encroachment activities will follow the Garrison staff to Lyneham. Other encroachment activities such as the scouts will remain. A related concern is that if user groups of MoD facilities are required to move out, they will need to be notified, preferably with at least six months notice to allow them adequate time to find alternative venues. In addition to the transition group work, WTC are also holding meetings with the Garrison to progress work needed and are grateful to the assistance that has already been given by Chris Youngs and Major (Retired) Alan Johnson. The Town Council will need to complete a list of activities taking place on Garrison land and have requested that the WTP participate in this work. The Town Council do not have financial resources. If the Town Council decide to take this on and it is a benefit to the community, then a request for a slight increase in precept will be made.

Landowners update RN introduced his report and updated on the Land Equalisation Agreement and the preparations for a planning application. RN confirmed that the Landowners continue to meet and highlighted the three principal areas of work. These are: to understand the key objectives related to land releases to deliver the scheme; to build on the work being carried out by PwC to produce data that will attract an investor; and the work needed in order to be in a position to sign a landowners’ agreement. Early discussions for Quebec Barracks and Louisburg Barracks have also been progressing. Clarification was sought in relation to MoD’s responsibility in regards to contaminated land. Under the MoD’s duty of care, any contamination of land as a result of MoD’s specific occupation of the land, the MoD has a policy to remove this contamination. Types of contamination include ordinance, chemical and/ or biological components. Data relating to other forms of contamination will be made available so that the land can be priced accordingly. Clarification for the suitable alternative natural green space (SANGS) provision for the development of Quebec Barracks was sought. Part of

M120315 -7-

Bordon Inclosure will be needed to ensure adequate SANGS provision for the development on Quebec Barracks. The question was put to RN to ask whether Bordon Inclosure would come on line prior to the development of Quebec Barracks so that this site is ready before the Quebec Barracks building work is complete. This would be one of the many practical issues that would need to be addressed, but is not insurmountable. An assessment of the Garrisonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s training needs would need to be carried out. In addition, PwC and GVA are working closely together to develop an informed and unified view.

Recruitment of a permanent Chairman to the Delivery Board. The Chairman stated his strong interest in continuing to be involved in the Eco-town project subject to it being exemplar. At this point the Chairman left the room and RN became acting Chairman. The project director introduced her report. Initially, JW was appointed as the interim Chairman. This contract was then extended until the summer of this year. The project director has spoken to each member of the Delivery Board individually. It was felt by all members that JW was now very familiar with the project and had a wealth of experience with previous work has made him a very able and helpful asset to this project. JW had proved his commitment to the project by carrying out a lot of additional work between meetings. The Delivery Board were being asked to endorse the continued appointment of JW as the permanent Chairman. Delivery Board members agreed unanimously to formally give in principle support to extend JWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contract until September 2015 or the demise of the current governance structure, which ever is sooner. The advantages of JW remaining in this role are that it will provide both continuity and certainty to the project. Because the Delivery Board do not have the powers to appoint the Chairman, his actual appointment will be made on behalf of the Delivery Board by EHDC.

Findings of the neighbourhood consultation There have been no changes made to the presentation or the report since the Standing Conference. Therefore, it was decided there was no need to show the presentation again. The Chairman introduced this report by stating that the consultation on the masterplan has been ongoing for a long time. It had been extensive and thorough and a lot of effort had been made to get people to respond. He felt that the consultation process had been a very useful and thorough exercise and the way it's been carried out has a lot to commend it. As with any consultation process, it is up to individual community members to participate and comment. The masterplan is an essential tool to ensure that the townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regeneration provides the best possible facilities and infrastructure and that development takes place to extremely high standards. Otherwise we risk a piecemeal approach, with no commitment to any particular outcomes. It was clear at the Standing Conference that all comments

M120315 -8-

received from the consultation have been carefully considered. The Delivery Board itself had been involved in the discussions. Such a large amount of public engagement is very unusual in this type of project and should be commended. The consultation process and resulting changes are seen as positive and had been well-received by WTC. Further discussions will be needed with the Eco-Housing and Retrofitting Project Lead for the Bordon and Oakhanger Sports Club (BOSC) in relation to housing density. Additional work is also needed to find alternative funding for retrofitting and refurbishment of existing homes. This work has already been recognised by the team and will be brought forward in September.

10.

Proposed changes to the Framework Masterplan In addition to the presentation made at the Standing Conference, the same presentation was also made to WTC. The Town Council made the following comments: - The changes made on the Viking Park site are well received. The Town Council showed preference for the inner relief road to follow the old disused rail line and not to go through Viking Park. This preference has been noted, but both options will need to be included in the masterplan for now. - As mentioned above, WTC would recommend reduction of housing density on the BOSC site. - The proposals for the new learning campus are welcomed. WTC would like to see more certainty on where the learning hub or sports hub should be sited. - A triangular piece of land on Mill Chase Road near the playing fields has not currently been included in the masterplan. Therefore WTC have asked for clarity on this piece of land. If the area is to be redeveloped clarity is still needed on what will happen to the triangular piece of land. The recreation ground is under the ownership of the Town Council, therefore if the sports hub is to be included, the Town Council needs to be included in the discussions. - WTC understands that the Viking Park site is now to be 70 percent employment and 30 percent leisure. This should be 50:50. Confirmation was given that it is proposed for 55 percent employment and 45 percent leisure which is the original position. - Clarity was also sought regarding housing numbers. There are 4,000 new homes proposed for the masterplan area. The number in the Joint Core Strategy is 4458 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which includes the 4,000 in the masterplan. But the Joint Core Strategy has caused some confusion because it includes 366 homes that have already been built, 13 homes that have planning consent but are yet to be built and a further 79 new homes which planners expect to be built. - Clarity was sought regarding Annington Property Ltd and the potential impact on housing numbers. There are no proposals to redevelop the site â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but if they did decide to redevelop then they will have to go through the normal planning process. It must be remembered that this site is already occupied by dwellings; therefore

M120315 -9-

it might not be a change in numbers of dwellings, but an upgrade to new homes. Any increase would have to pass strict environmental tests, which would appear to be prohibitive in the current circumstances.

11.

Whitehill & Bordon â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a learning community The consultant to HCC introduced his report. It was noted that section 5.1 of the report should read County, District and Town Councils. This work is regarded as a special project which was confirmed at the Standing Conference and Specialist Group meetings. The paper sets out the challenge of how to take this work forward. The consultation process must include existing and future parents to show them what the learning village can look like. Two weeks ago a series of government proposals were released which laid out the future statutory responsibility of the local authority. This includes the engagement of young people in the debate. Therefore, young people must be included in this work. The project director explained that the paper had been discussed at the County Council where it was well received. The next step is for the County to take this proposal to their management team as a cross cutting topic. The County has indicated that they could put forward some funding to get the initial work done. The proposal is presently looking affordable and deliverable. It is recognised that once some funding has been secured, it is usually easier to gain the rest. This proposal would need a working group to steer this work. The work would have to come through to the Delivery Board from the Infrastructure, Education and Transport Specialist Group as this group already involved the relevant stakeholders. The Community Facilities and Amenities Specialist Group and project team would also be willing to give support to this work. The Delivery Board endorsed this report and suggested way forward.

12.

Outcomes from Specialist Groups and Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings The Chairman introduced the report on the work of the Specialist Groups. No comments or fundamental errors were noted. The work of the Groups was noted. Comments were received in relation to the work plan. These are: - The work outlined in the learning community paper above needs incorporating into the work plan. - Work already done regarding the skills centre needs incorporating into the education strategy. - The Eco-town parking strategy needs to be linked to the EHDC parking strategy. This will require internal EHDC discussions.

M120315 - 10 -

CY/ PR

- Emergency services needs reprioritising to push this up the agenda. - Recommendation made in 2.3 of the report was noted and has been covered elsewhere. It was reiterated that the Delivery Board needs to support the retention of the sports facilities and buildings as in the masterplan therefore prioritising the retention of Edwardian buildings. The Delivery Board endorsed the work plan for the Specialist Groups.

13.

ALL

Project progress report The project coordinator introduced the report on project progress. This version of the report is the same as the version that was taken to the Standing Conference. Appendix 4 (page 114) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the project programme is an updated version. The work of the project team is continually being updated; therefore this plan can only be taken as a snapshot at any one point in time. The HCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work on bus routes has now completed and the chosen bus route is the second option. This bus route has now gone out to tender. The Town Council is still waiting for the report on bus shelters to know if this needs to go out to tender. The presentation and tour to the LEP was very helpful. The project has a lot of support. It was commented that the colour coding used in appendix 1 (page 101) is very useful and shows that there are very few problems within the project.

14.

SJB

Forward Programme The forward programme was reviewed. An item that need adding to the work plan included the refurbishment of existing homes (September 2012) Clarification regarding the work to be done on shop fronts for the High Street, Chalet Hill was sought. It was confirmed that the economic and development theme lead is working closely with retailers. Nine retailers have shown interest in improvements to shop fronts. Of these, seven have shown interest in eco-measures that could be implemented. Therefore, interest has been gathered, and the team will be going back to the retailers shortly to work with them. A request was made for the project team to assist in putting pressure on County to ensure bollards are installed at Lynton Road. Dates for future meetings were reviewed and confirmed.

M120315 - 11 -

Exempt items

15.

Risk register report The Board members reviewed the risk register report. It is recognised that the risk register is a work in progress and is a working document. This iteration of the risk register includes the reviews that have been conducted from an investorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s point of view.

M120315 - 12 -

Agenda item 5

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

ATLAS report on strategic decision making in relation to procurement of an investment partner and masterplan changes.

Author:

Caroline Sayers, Governance Officer

Reference no: WBPD014-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) At the request of the Project Director, Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS) facilitated a two day workshop to assist the board to focus on key decisions relating to the procurement of an investment partner and masterplan changes. This workshop followed on from the previous workshop held for board members in April 2011. This report summarises the outcomes of that workshop and proposes a series of recommendations. These recommendations are intended for the project rather than for the board specifically.

Date: 9th May 2012 Version: 1

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 13 -

Purpose of report: To present the outcomes from the board’s workshop held in February 2012.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: The board reviews the recommendations for work going forward which are presented in section 8 of the attached report.

Consultation and comments received: Board members, project team members, representatives from GVA and PwC attended the workshop. All comments and suggestions received have been incorporated in the attached report.

Community engagement proposals: Not applicable for this report.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 Board members participated in a two day workshop in February 2012. The workshop covered topics which included getting the project ‘investor ready’, procuring an investment partner and agreeing changes to the masterplan. 1.2 The workshop was facilitated by Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS); other participants included members from the project team and consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) and GVA Grimley Limited (GVA). PwC is presently advising us on preparing the project to become investor ready. GVA is leading the work on the outline planning application. 1.3 ATLAS colleagues collated the outputs from the workshop into the report attached to this document for the board’s consideration. 2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 Section 8 of the attached report outlines a series of recommendations which are intended for the project rather than for the board specifically. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 14 -

The recommendations made by board members in relation to the masterplan have already been completed. Board members are asked to review the remaining recommendations for work going forward. 2.2 We are most grateful to colleagues from ATLAS for facilitating the workshop and producing the attached report. The workshop event and report writing was done completely free of charge. The board may wish to formally record its thanks. 3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1 The recommendations made in the attached report will help the board and the project team to deliver the Eco-town in a timely, efficient and cost effective way. The recommendations, once implemented, will help to mitigate against the risk of delays etc to the project. 4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The attached report will help the board to deliver its strategic priorities. 5 Resource implications 5.1 The resource implications for delivering the project plan need to be worked up in detail. This is something the project team do and will advise the board accordingly. 6 Cost implications 6.1 The cost implications will need to be contained within existing resources unless additional sources of funding and support can be found. 7 Conclusion 7.1 The attached ATLAS report summarises the outcomes of a very successful two day workshop. The boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s workshop recommendations have been incorporated into the revised masterplan (which is presented elsewhere on the Delivery Board agenda) and all the workshop actions relating to the masterplan have been completed. 8 Appendix Appendix 1: Delivery Board Workshop Report - ATLAS

Appendix 1: Delivery Board Workshop Report - ATLAS

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town February 2012 Delivery Board Workshop Report Report Date: 20 March 2012

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Description of the Event 3. Anticipated Outcomes 4. Summary of Workshop Outcomes 5. Evaluation of 'Getting Investor Ready' Outputs 6. Evaluation of Completing the Masterplan Outputs 7. Other Actions 8. Looking Ahead - ATLAS' recommendations on the Work going Forward Appendices: One Whitehill Bordon Eco-town project 'Getting Investor Ready' Critical Dependencies Two Whitehill Bordon Eco-town project resources and skills Three - The templates setting out the options, officer recommendation and notes capturing the discussion at the workshop will be included for each area of focus in Appendix Three (available as a separate document)

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

2 17

Introduction ATLAS has a continuing role supporting the development of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board’s collaborative working, which is agreed through its Project Engagement Plan (August 2011 refresh). ATLAS facilitated a workshop in April 2011 to foster greater alignment of Board members to the project’s vision and objectives; to sharpen its delivery focus; as well as to progress a high level action plan and programme. Subsequently, in December 2011 the Eco-town Project Director asked ATLAS to assist the Board by facilitating a further workshop over two days focussed on key decisions relating to procurement of an investment partner and masterplan changes. The purpose of the workshop was to assist with strategic decision making and also to strengthen the Board’s collaborative working style.

Description of the Event The workshop took place on Tuesday 7 and Wednesday 8 February 2012. The programme comprised presentations, plenary sessions and group exercises in which the participants: • • •

explored issues and agreed the tasks related to getting the project ‘investor ready’; considered the likely programme related to procuring an investment partner; and agreed changes to the masterplan as a result of public consultation.

ATLAS facilitated the workshop sessions and exercises.

Anticipated Outcomes Within the workshop plan the anticipated outcomes were: 1. Understanding of project viability issues and their implications to project delivery 2. Consensus on the way forward on PWC’s work 3. Acknowledgement of the need for the Board to speak with ‘one voice’, together with an understanding of what this means collectively and individually 4. Identification of some initial issues and options relating to the evolution of the project’s governance structure 5. Consensus on the way forward on changes to the masterplan 6. Material to inform the preparation of a detailed investment partner procurement project plan and programme

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

3 18

Summary of Workshop Outcomes 1.

To help inform the Board’s discussion on ‘getting investor ready’ PWC gave an initial presentation on the criteria that would need to be met to get the project investor ready and also provided their high level understanding of project viability. During discussion following this presentation it became apparent that the high level analysis of project costs and incomes by GVA, which was the basis of PWC’s understanding, was not of sufficient contextual detail to be able to disaggregate project costs, and provide clarity in terms of detailed costs and incomes of specific items of infrastructure. However, PWC presented the concepts of internal rate of return, peak debt and first year net positive. And the Board appreciated that the overall project could generate a reasonable residual land value, but could still constitute a project in which a developer or investor would not wish to risk investment, because it did not have a viable route to delivery. PWC presented the key issues for investors as being: • • •

An internal rate of return of between 20-25% No specific requirements for level of peak debt – relationship to income for paying interest is most important The length of time before the cashflow goes positive would need to be less than the current 10 years.

Regarding the next stages of PWC’s work, a set of tasks were identified. These are discussed later in this report along with critical dependencies and other issues that impact on delivery. These tasks are grouped under the following headings:

• • •

•

The cohesiveness and strength of the political context The need to establish a baseline scheme and implementation plan on which there is clarity about viability and delivery Further understanding of the project risks and clarity around the partners’ attitude towards risk; approaches to de-risking the project and willingness for involvement in its long term delivery The need to define and agree a long term delivery strategy, which is based on a fuller understanding of potential investment partners.

It was agreed that a programme of work would be required prior to the commencement of the formal procurement process, but that this would need to take place within a broad timescale of having an investor in place in late 2013 (before land is released in 2014). And within that timescale, the project will need to be ‘investor ready’ in 12 months time. 3.

Speaking with one voice was not addressed directly, and ATLAS was not able to explore any divergence of view from members of the Board on issues regarding key strategic decisions. However, through the workshops, and in particular the changes to the masterplan, a consensus was achieved and explicitly confirmed.

A short discussion, chaired by the Board’s independent chairman, considered the role of the Board in different procurement options. This

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

4 19

aspect was only an introduction to the concept that changes will occur, but that this will depend on the procurement route to be adopted. It was agreed that further discussions will need to take place as part of future Board meetings.

Changes to the masterplan were discussed fully and key recommendations were proposed by Board members and consensus was achieved. Recommendations and further actions are recorded later in this report.

A set of actions emerged from the workshops and presentations for the Project Director to take forward, and ATLAS’s report includes recommendations setting out key dependencies to assist in the preparation of a detailed investment partner procurement project plan and programme.

Evaluation of ‘Getting Investor Ready’ Outputs Current Status of ‘Readiness’ In terms of the current status of investor readiness the workshop outputs suggest the project has achieved some significant milestones. There is a clear project vision agreed by the Board around which there is a great deal of consensus. The outputs confirm that the strategic planning policy framework required to support the delivery of the project is at an advanced stage and this, together with masterplan preparation and completion, is on programme. The outputs also indicate clear evidence of a commitment and ability to deliver with action being taken to a clear programme, as can be seen from the completion of evidence studies and the progress made with the implementation of demonstration projects, including advanced negotiations on the disposal of the Quebec Barracks site.

Main Issues However, whilst some significant milestones have been achieved towards investor readiness, the outputs highlight a broad range of issues that need to be resolved before one could confidently seek to procure an investment partner of the capacity and quality required to assist with the delivery of this exemplar project. The issues relate to:

• • •

•

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

5 20

Main Actions To respond to these issues Board members identified the following main actions, in addition to acknowledging the need to review and agree a clear overall programme for the project:

The cohesiveness and strength of the political context • • • • • • • • •

Ratify Eco-town vision in the 3 tiers of local government Clarify and align key stakeholder objectives Build local support through delivery of demonstrator projects Challenge and address the negativity of opposition groups Shared briefings to all 3 tiers of local government from Eco-team DB members to drive political will in their tier of government DB Members to become advocates of the project Work with WTC Respond to the request for a referendum

The need to establish a baseline scheme and implementation plan on which there is clarity about viability and delivery • • • • •

Get masterplan published and endorsed by community Publish land release programme Prepare phasing and implementation plan for masterplan Prioritise infrastructure requirements Review S106, validate infrastructure requirements and consider innovative planning tools

Further understanding of the project risks and clarity around the partners’ attitude towards risk, approaches to de-risking the project and willingness for involvement in its long term delivery • • • • •

Clarify landowner requirements Complete land equalisation agreement Partners to clarify and quantify their level of support and associated risk Explore other funding sources Undertake value engineering

The need to define and agree a long term delivery strategy, which is based on a fuller understanding of potential investment partners • •

Agree long term delivery strategy Evolve governance structure so that it is attractive to stakeholders

The Board members also identified other key tasks that would need to be progressed: • • • •

Completion of work on Housing Character Areas Prepare SPD Agree a clear programme for the Quebec Barracks site Develop a strategy for attracting new employment into the town

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

6 21

• • •

Prepare development brief for Louisburg Barracks, including infrastructure requirements Prepare long-term management and stewardship plan, including community assets, green infrastructure and energy generation Town Council complete Town Design Statement

Analysis of the ‘Getting Investor Ready’ Outputs The flowchart in Appendix One seeks to represent the critical dependencies and interrelationships between the ‘getting investor ready’ outputs. The flowchart indicates the critical importance to the project of having an agreed masterplan, together with clarifying land owner requirements and the ratification, by all tiers of local government, of the Eco-town vision. It also shows that there needs to be significant progress on, or completion of, a large number of related tasks that flow from these 3 critical actions before agreement to and implementation of a procurement programme can occur. The flowchart shows that some tasks are sequential, such as the relationship between finalising the masterplan and infrastructure prioritisation. Other tasks can be undertaken in parallel, such as those tasks related to aligning stakeholder objectives. Other tasks have an iterative aspect to them, which means that they are likely to be re-visited following work on other tasks. An example of this is the phasing and implementation plan which informs, but is also informed by project viability and delivery issues. Within this overall programme of work there are key interrelationships between clarifying project viability, preparing the outline planning application, undertaking actions relating to strengthening the political context and other key tasks. These all have a role to play in shaping the offer that is put to the market.

Timescales for Next Steps Within the time available the participants were unable to complete the project planning aspect of the ‘getting investor ready’ assessment. For this reason, there is only partial information contained within the outputs on the timescales involved in completing the tasks identified. However, from the information that was provided and the evaluation of the critical dependencies, it is possible to order the tasks into a general timeline of short to long term tasks. ATLAS’s interpretation of this is illustrated in Section 8 - “Looking Ahead”. The timeline, which covers a period of two years, demonstrates the imperative of completion and endorsement of the masterplan, together with work related to strengthening the political context. Tasks related to clarifying project viability and deliverability, and determining the partners’ attitude to risk fall within the short to medium term. Medium to long term tasks include outline planning application preparation, selection of a preferred delivery option and establishing the procurement programme, whilst evolution of the project governance structure is a longer term task.

Skills and Resources The need to consider the resourcing of the project team over the next two years until an investment partner is in place was noted at the workshop. Further work will be needed to ensure the skills and resource available to the project match with the key tasks over this period, some of which are set out in this report. An initial response to skills and knowledge required in relation to getting investor ready and taking the masterplan forward has been included in Appendix Two following the same format as the key dependencies flowchart.

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

7 22

As the focus for delivery shifts toward the preparation of a planning application, best practice in development management will be essential to the achievement of project outcomes. Good development management process, such as that contained with a PPA, can help establish patterns of good collaborative working that make the most of resources available to a project to avoid duplication of work, and maintain good lines of communication in the preparation and eventual resolution of the planning application. In addition, it can identify and mitigate risks to the planning process early on.

Evaluation of Completing the Masterplan Outputs The second day of the workshop was dedicated to the masterplan, and focussed on the key issues requiring resolution in the final version that would be signed off for submission as part of the Core Strategy evidence.

Current Position with Changes to the Masterplan Following a presentation of the public consultation process on changes to the masterplan, the Eco-town team set out in further detail the options for key areas where decisions were needed from the Board. Other issues were raised by Board Members (some of which appear in the list of other issues below) but there was broad agreement to the areas of focus for discussion in the workshop in accordance with officer recommendations: 1. Learning Campus 2. BOSC 3. Housing character 4. Inner Relief Road 5. Employment land (Viking Park and subsidiary land).

Areas of Focus and Agreed Delivery Board Recommendations The templates setting out the options, officer recommendation and notes of the workshop discussions are included for each area of focus in Appendix Three. The table below summarises the Board recommendations as agreed at the end of the workshop, along with any other comments made in relation to the recommendations:

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

8 23

Masterplan - outstanding decisions Issue

Board recommendation

Learning Campus

Option 2: expand the site boundary at Budds Lane to accommodate a learning campus (as officer recommendation)

BOSC

Option 2: reduce level of housing provide green buffer (as officer recommendation). Masterplan should include setting of principles and standards for design and character of green space and housing, detail to be defined. Option 2: redefine the residential neighbourhoods based on the new character areas (as officer recommendation), Eco-team to work collaboratively on character areas with WTC Town Design Statement working group. Option 1: show both potentially viable alignments of the IRR, through Viking Park and along the disused rail corridor (as officer recommendation), although the DB was minded to support the route along the disused southern rail corridor, but not enough evidence was currently available to make a decision. Criteria for evaluation to include: community views; ecology/landscape; blight; land ownership deliverability; impact on Whitehill Village Hall; archaeology; landowners expectations. None of the options presented were recommended. Instead an alternative recommendation was put to the DB and DB agreed to support the current uses in the existing planning permission for the existing Viking Park land â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50:50 commercial leisure (D1): employment (B). Officers to confirm the exact mix in the existing permission.

Housing character

Inner Relief Road

Employment land / Viking Park

Other comments Further information regarding forecasts of need should be made available to DB, and thoroughly investigated.

WTC are keen to lead on collaboration between their work regarding the Town Design Statement and the Eco-teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work on character areas.

It was agreed that in order to continue to safeguard future rail options, DB would support the safeguarding of the route North to Bentley, but that the southern route might not be actively safeguarded. Consideration should be given to nature conservation as part of any options appraisal for the IRR.

DB reserved judgement on the remaining portion of the Viking Holdings land with the following justification: (1) Insufficient evidence on road alignment to warrant this land forming part of the overall masterplan; (2) awaiting completion of the employment land requirements to justify demand; (3) considered premature to allocate all land, particularly land currently designated as SINC, which would need to be reprovided elsewhere if developed; and (4) land may be required to be retained for ecological objectives.

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

9 24

Other issues raised in the plenary discussion in addition to the areas of focus were: • •

•

• •

Burial provision needs to be considered in the community facilities section of the masterplan document. Confirmation was given by the Eco-team that there is no change proposed to the use of Standford Grange Farm in the changes to the masterplan. Standards – a question was raised as to how the masterplan will appropriately cover the continuous monitoring and improvements (over 20-30 years) in standards for sustainable placemaking (not just house design, construction and use)? It was noted that Carbon neutrality was a key component of the core strategy standards for the Eco-town, but that the methodology for measuring this is to be developed. Use of landownership to control standards - It was requested that a list of issues which could be satisfactorily controlled by land ownership (through development briefs and contracts), be identified by the Eco-team. Housing numbers – a request was made to the Eco-team to issue a clear statement of the boundary for the 4,000 strategic housing allocation, and dis-aggregate any housing already consented in Lindford or Whitehill and Bordon. Clarification on housing numbers should also be provided if Annington Homes propose to redevelop their sites. It was confirmed (by Adam Carew) that Chase Hospital is staying in Whitehill Bordon If more than one hotel proposal were to come forward through the land disposal process, the Eco-team confirmed that this would be dealt with at site allocation stage.

Confirmation was requested from the Eco-team on: • •

The future planned use of the officers’ mess; and safeguarding green infrastructure areas, and excluding land for playing fields from calculations regarding green infrastructure.

Masterplan Process – Main Actions The next steps that were agreed by the Board (sequentially) were: 1. A further meeting on masterplan changes would only be required if (and only if) any variance from what had been agreed at the workshop emerged, through further work by the Eco-team. 2. The agreed masterplan changes to be presented to Standing Conference as the first public presentation. The Standing Conference would also receive a presentation highlighting the Core Strategy timetable. 3. The Board would be sent complete masterplan documents with sufficient time to thoroughly review them before a meeting of Board members in April.

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

10 25

4. A meeting of Board members in April will consider the complete set of masterplan documents, written and drawn.

Other Actions Project plan for delivery Daphne Gardner would review the high level project plan in light of becoming ‘Investor Ready’, landowners’ intentions and the emerging land equalisation plan.

Outline Planning Application Further information on the OPA and the project plan that GVA Grimley/AMEC are working to would be presented to the Board. Further consideration and clarity would be provided to the Board on the community engagement strategy, so that stakeholders are clear at which points they will need to consider the outline application, and what level of detail they should expect, as part of the pre-application engagement plan.

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

11 26

Looking Ahead - ATLAS’ Recommendations on the Work going Forward Set out below are some recommendations that have been drawn from the discussions held on the day and ATLAS observations. The recommendations are intended for the project rather than for the Board specifically.

‘Getting Investor Ready’ Indicative Timescales Tasks

Timeframe

Get masterplan published and endorsed by community Ratify Eco-town vision in 3 tiers of local government Clarify and align stakeholder objectives Shared briefings in all 3 tiers of local government Work with TC DB members to become advocates of the project Challenge and address the negativity of opposition groups Respond to WTC request for referendum Respond to request for a

Early Action (Summer 2012)

Clarify Landowner requirements Publish land release programme Complete land equalisation agreement Prepare phasing and implementation plan Prioritise infrastructure requirements Clarify project viability Validate infrastructure and review S106 requirements Partners to clarify and quantify their level of support and associated risk Agree de-risking approaches, including value engineering, other funding sources and innovative planning tools Build local support through delivery of demonstrator projects, e.g. Quebec Barracks

Medium Term (Autumn 2012)

Medium to long term (Autumn 2012 to Winter 2013)

•

Prepare long-term management and stewardship plan Prepare outline planning application Completion of work on Housing Character areas Complete SPD Market testing for potential investors Select preferred delivery option and agree long term strategy (including community assets, green infrastructure and energy generation) Establish procurement programme Develop a strategy for attracting new employment into the town Prepare a development brief for Louisburg Barracks, including infrastructure requirements Town Council complete Town Design Statement

•

Evolve governance so that it is attractive to stakeholders

Long term (Spring 2014)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • •

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

12 27

Masterplanning process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ATLAS recommendations Task

Issues

Timing/ dependencies

Who

Set out for community how the masterplan will progress and when they can engage next

It may not be clear to those outside the process how the current masterplan will be signed off by the various stakeholder organisations or what will happen next. It will be helpful to set out what has been fixed and what remains flexible for discussion and finalisation at the next stage.

April/ May following sign off of masterplan for CS submission

Project team

Set out the next stage for the masterplan

The role of the Masterplan in relation to the Core Strategy and Examination has been clearly set out, but it is less clear how the masterplan will evolve following this, and its relationship to the application and SPD. What is the next stage that the community can become involved?

April/ May, at early stages of preparation of application

Project team/ EHDC policy and DM/ DIO

Further work on Phasing and Implementation

The next stage of work will need to consider the balance between viability and meeting infrastructure needs of the project and ensuring the vision and objectives are maintained. The emerging information on viability information will provide part of the story but will need to be supported by work on alternative funding sources and alternative approaches to investing in the project.

Following completion of next stage of viability work

Board/ Landowners Group

Set out what is needed for policy purposes

The Council will need to ensure the OPA and SPD are prepared in tandem and are iterative. It will be beneficial to involve Development Mgt team at this stage, potentially establishing a pre-application project plan with the applicant that sets out the respective workstreams around the SPD and OPA.

April/ May, at early stages of preparation of application

Project team/ EHDC policy and DM/ DIO

Set out what is required for application purposes

Who is driving the application? Need to avoid its preparation becoming too detached and resulting in two different masterplanning processes.

Board/ Landowners group

Further work around design quality

Further work on residential character areas is already identified for revised masterplan. However the issue of how design quality will be measured and achieved will need further consideration. Some areas will require a more considered design strategy, e.g. the district centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; who will do this work?

Landowner intentions for timing of preparation of application From May, after masterplan submission and in line with decisions around content of SPD

Further work on Viking Park

Some urban design work on Viking Park to establish the optimum design solution may help to provide some evidence for the land use policy that was debated at the workshop.

From May, after masterplan submission and in line with decisions around content of SPD

Project team

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

Details of land release programme

Project team

13 28

Resources ATLAS can assist the Council and its partners with some further work to identify requirements for future resourcing of the project. To avoid duplication, as part of this work, the Board will need to consider the relative roles of the project team, EHDC and HCC statutory planning functions and other landowners/partners. We would strongly recommend that the partners consider using a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA). On similarly large and complex projects, ATLAS has found PPAs to be a valuable tool to reach a shared view between council(s), the applicant and any other key stakeholders about the vision and development objectives for the project; the key issues; tasks related to the issues and a shared programme of work for delivering a planning application. ATLAS can provide advice on PPAs and potentially facilitate an inception day if partners felt that this would be of value.

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

14 29

APPENDIX ONE – Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Project ‘Getting Investor Ready’ Critical Dependencies

Establish a robust and clear overall project programme

Get masterplan published and endorsed by community

Prioritise infrastructure requirements

Clarify project viability

Clarify landowner requirements

Ratify Eco-town vision in the 3 tiers of local government

Other key tasks:

Publish land release programme

Shared briefings to all 3 tiers of local government from Ecoteam

•

Prepare phasing and implementatio n plan for masterplan

Complete land equalisation agreement

Clarify and align key stakeholder objectives

Work with TC

•

Prepare Outline Planning application • •

DB Members to become advocates of the project Challenge and address the negativity of opposition groups

• • •

Validate infrastructure and review S106 requirements Respond to request for a referendum • Partners to clarify and quantify their level of support and associated risk

Market testing for potential investors

Select preferred delivery option and agree long-term strategy Agree de-risking approaches including: • Value engineering • Other funding sources • Innovative planning tools

Build local support through delivery of demonstrator projects, e.g. Quebec Barracks Develop a strategy for attracting new employment into the town Prepare development brief for Louisburg Barracks, including infrastructure requirements Complete work on Housing Character Areas Prepare SPD Prepare long-term management and stewardship plan (including community assets, green infrastructure and energy generation) Complete Town Design Statement

Establish procurement programme

Evolve governance structure so that it is attractive to stakeholders

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS) 30

APPENDIX TWO â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Project Resources and Skills Town design statement

Establish a robust and clear overall project programme Project management

Other key tasks

Get masterplan published and endorsed by community

Clarify landowner requirements

Urban design and masterplanning

Commercial property development /surveying knowledge

Housing, incl. affordable housing delivery

Innovative approaches to funding

Environmental sustainability

Green infrastructure and ecology

Ratify Eco-town vision in the 3 tiers of local government

Community engagement

Marketing & Communications

Knowledge of development models

Delivery of infrastructure projects Market testing for potential investors

Transport and movement

Spatial planning and development management Infrastructure, including social and community infrastructure planning and delivery

Employment and economic development Public Art

Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS)

Delivering commercial and employment

Corporate working and decision making

Public sector funding programmes

Legal

Community governance and management models

16 31

Establish procurement programme

The Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS) provides independent and impartial advisory services to local planning authorities and other public and private sector stakeholders involved in the delivery of quality, large scale development. ATLAS is sponsored by Communities & Local Government and delivered by the Homes & Communities Agency. For more information and up to date content please contact:

ATLAS Central Business Exchange 414-428 Midsummer Boulevard Central Milton Keynes MK9 2EA T: 01908 353912 E: enquiries@atlasplanning,com W: www.atlasplanning.com

Page 17 of 17

Agenda item 8

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Landowners report

Author:

Robert Smith, MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Reference no: WBPD015-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) The core landowners are pleased to note the unanimous approval of the revised masterplan at the council meeting on the 9th May 2012. The core landowners continue to work closely with the councils, at all levels, as it proceeds to firm up on the strategy to market their land interests and proceed to prepare for the planning application work and investor selection that will follow. The core landowners remain supportive of the aims and objectives behind the Eco-town but emphasise the need for flexibility going forward to ensure the project progresses in line with the published programme having regard to the challenging economic conditions that persist.

Date: 28th May 2012 Version: 1

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

Purpose of report: To provide the Delivery Board with an update on the purpose of and of the actions of the Landowners’ Group since the last delivery board meeting on the 15th March 2012. Recommendations requiring Board considerations: None

Consultation and comments received: None

Community engagement proposals: None specific to the core landowners’ role at this stage but a consultation programme with regard to its planning application proposals will be developed.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1

To provide the Delivery Report with an update on the objectives of and the actions of the Landowners’ Group since the last Delivery Board meeting.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 The principle landowners comprise the Ministry of Defence (MoD), East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) and Hampshire County Council (HCC). 2.2 The members have met on two occasions to progress the work in the three distinct areas as reported in section 2.3 of the landowners’ report dated 15th March. 2.3 Clear understanding of the owners’ key objectives and the extent and timing of land release necessary to implement the development. 2.3.1

It is agreed that the objectives are summarised as follows:(i)

to obtain a satisfactory planning permission for the land; K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board

Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 34 -

(i) (ii) (iii)

2.3.2

to minimise cost and expenditure; to optimise the market value and the sale proceeds of the land; and to agree appropriate provision for the distribution of the proceeds of each sale and costs of disposing of the land based on a proportion of the land ownership of each party.

Whilst the availability of the land is confirmed, the timing as to when the land is eventually sold will be largely dependent on the final phasing of the scheme and market conditions. The landowners will therefore need to consider how the interests will be managed throughout the development programme.

2.4 Investor requirements and when in the programme these can be secured. 2.4.1

The recent viability work undertaken by GVA Grimley Limited (GVA) and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) is summarised in the revised masterplan. Based on the assumptions and criteria used including the need for both public and private sector investment, the landowners will need to consider and agree how and when it attracts and secures this. Further work is in hand to identify the suitability of the procurement options and how and when the landowners can present the opportunity to the market having regard for its main objectives.

2.5 The type and model of landownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; agreement required to attract and secure third party investment. 2.5.1

There are a number of contractual models available ranging from development partner agreements to trusts and asset backed joint ventures. The type of model best suited will be largely dependent upon the findings of this further work. It was agreed that substantive progress on this is likely to be made once the procurement options and benefits are known.

2.6 Key progress. 2.6.1

Quebec Barracks. Negotiations continue with regard to the transfer of this asset to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). It is understood that a planning application for an Eco-town demonstration project will be submitted shortly after the transfer by the HCA.

2.6.2

Louisburg Barracks. This site will be available earlier than the main Prince Philip Barracks and therefore offers an opportunity to commence development and regeneration ahead of the main site.

2.6.3

The landowners received a presentation from EHDCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Economic Development Team which set out the opportunity to and interest in the K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board

Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 35 -

re-use some of the existing assets on Louisburg for employment purposes, ahead of redevelopment. In addition, an opportunity to apply for funding from the Regional Growth Fund was identified and the landowners have agreed to pursue an application. 2.6.4

EHDCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Economic Development Team also gave a presentation on accessing the Growing Enterprise Fund (GEF) to assist in the establishing a management trust to manage the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) network and particularly that required to support the initial redevelopment of Quebec Barracks. The landowners have requested that the application to the GEF is now submitted. The landowners will also need to consider the terms relating to any payback provision and contributions required from the HCA.

2.6.5

The landowners also received a short presentation from EHDC planning team supporting a request for the landowners to fund the appointment of a dedicated planning officer to manage the key stages of the planning application process. The landowners agreed that due to the size of the development it was entirely appropriate to agree to fund such a position. EHDC will submit a draft Planning Performance Agreement to the landowners for their consideration.

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1 The landowners have identified the risk of financial loss and delay if they cannot promote the availability of the site in a format that secures the principle aims and objectives of both the masterplan and private and public sector investment. 3.2 Further work on viability and opportunities to attract investment and development expertise to the project is considered critical in the short term. 4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The appointment and funding by the landowners to undertake appraisal and viability work, as well as the commencement of ecological surveys to support the planning application, will assure the Delivery Board that it is committed to bringing its land forward for redevelopment in accordance with the programme in a responsible way. 4.2 The landowners would like to understand how the role of the Delivery Board is likely to change as the landowners prepare for the planning application work and as the landowners start the selection process for an investor and / or development partner. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 36 -

5 Resource implications 5.1 There are significant resource demands placed on the landowners over the next 12 to 18 months in both financial and human resource terms. Critical to supporting the preparation and consultation of the planning application will require development team expertise who are able to direct, advise and respond to technical consultants, planning officers and the statutory bodies. 5.2 The landowners are considering the options in how they resource the next stage of the planning process. 6 Cost implications 6.1 No additional costs have been identified to date, save for the funding of a dedicated planning officer within EHDC planning team. However, the landowners expect additional unforeseen expenditure to arise and these will be raised at the landowners meetings. Where costs arise that cannot be reasonably accommodated by the landowners or where the landowners feel the costs do not lie with them, these will be raised to the Delivery Board to avoid delay to the programme. 7 Conclusion 7.1 The landowners would like to recognise the significant amount of work undertaken by the Eco-town Project Team and the consultants in putting together the revised masterplan.

Agenda item 9

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Author:

Sarah Allan, Eco-housing and retrofitting theme lead

Reference no: WBPD017-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) This report describes the further work that has been carried out to develop the principles of the Neighbourhood Quality Charter since it was last discussed by the Delivery Board in December 2011. The main purpose of the charter is to represent a shared agreement about what constitutes good design in relation to homes and neighbourhoods and to guide planning application decisions. The draft charter is appended to the report and the Delivery Board members are recommended to adopt the principles and become signatories to the Neighbourhood Quality Charter.

Date: 18/05/2012 Version: V1.0

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

Purpose of report: Since December 2011, further work has been done to revise the charter principles to ensure the document reflects the work and comments of the Housing Specialist Group between July 2011 to March 2012, as well as reflecting national, county and local policies and guidance. The report is to confirm the Delivery Board’s commitment to sign up to the Charter. Recommendations requiring Board considerations: It is recommended to the Delivery Board that members adopt the Neighbourhood Quality Charter (see Appendix 1) and become signatories to the four principles. Consultation and comments received: Comments were received on the draft Charter principles at various meetings throughout the preparation stage since December 2011:  Sustainable Environment Specialist Group workshop on 10th January 2012 – focusing on principles around the wider Environment and open spaces  Infrastructure and Transport Specialist Group workshop on 2nd February 2012 – focusing on principles around parking  Whitehill Town Council meeting on 16th April 2012  Officer level comments from Hampshire County Council transport planning team and EHDC planning policy team On 9th March 2012, a day-long workshop was held with members of the community focusing on agreeing design principles for Quebec Barracks. The process tested and validated the charter principles. In order for the document to be considered as a material consideration, it has been suggested that it is taken to East Hampshire District Council’s Development Policy Panel for its discussion. It will not go through the formal adoption process but the contents will be scrutinised by the panel. Community engagement proposals: The process leading up to the production of the charter principles has involved engagement with the community through the Specialist Groups and the Standing Conference. Further engagement will be necessary beyond the Charter, involving the community to discuss and test design principles across the town and on particular sites, over the year ahead.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 In April 2011, the Housing Specialist Group agreed to prepare a Neighbourhood Quality Charter for Whitehill & Bordon. This document is owned by the group, with input from the wider community through the Standing Conference and other Specialist Groups. Its main purpose is to represent a shared agreement about what constitutes good design in relation to homes and neighbourhoods and to guide planning application decisions. The charter is referred to in the Whitehill & Bordon chapter of the emerging Joint Core Strategy and the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town masterplan, (revised May 2012). We would like it to be a material consideration in planning application decisions. 1.2 This has been a creative exercise where local knowledge of existing neighbourhoods and issues of common concern and agreement between participants, have informed the four principles in this charter. 1.3 Building for Life has been a useful tool to help the group identify the elements that create a well-designed neighbourhood. It is the national quality standard for homes and neighbourhoods and has been tried and tested on newly built schemes and planning applications across the country. The 20 questions forming the Building for Life criteria are used to evaluate the quality of housing developments. The 20 questions are structured under four chapters: Environment and Community; Character; Streets Parking and Pedestrianisation; Design and Construction. Whilst Building for Life is an umbrella for other standards such as Lifetime Homes and Secured by Design, the Housing Specialist Group has also discussed the need to cover issues of integrating habitats for wildlife within developments. The Building for Life criteria can be found in the appendix of this report. More information on Building for Life can also be found at www.buildingforlife.org. The charter principles draw on other relevant guidance such as Biodiversity by Design, Manual for Streets and the Urban Design Compendium. 2

Subject of report and considerations

2.1 The 12 draft charter principles that were seen by the Delivery Board in December 2011, have been revised following further engagement with Specialist Groups and feedback from Whitehill Town Council, the Chair of the Housing Specialist Group and EHDC officers. 2.2 This final draft of the charter (Appendix 1) will also be taken to the Development Policy Panel for scrutiny and discussion to support its use as a material consideration for planning applications. 2.3 The charter is underpinned by the Eco-town Vision, the revised masterplan and policies in the Joint Core Strategy.

Risk assessment

3.2 Without the charter, there is a risk that residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; views do not influence the quality of future development early enough, creating lack of clarity early on about what is expected from developers, which could cause delays during planning. 3.3 The charter encapsulates a shared understanding about the principles for what a well designed and sustainable neighbourhood in the town might be like. It is important to start to be specific about what a well designed, sustainable neighbourhood is, even at this early stage, without being prescriptive and overly detailed. 3.4 The endorsement of the charter by the Delivery Board will help to reinforce the role that good design should have in the planning of the town. 4

Contributions to Delivery Board priorities

4.1 Ensuring Eco-town objectives are met and to help the implementation of the boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future work. 5 Resource implications 5.2 The charter has been prepared in-house by the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown team underpinned by the work of the Housing Specialist Group. 6 Cost implications 6.2 Some of the workshops and talks that helped inform the charter principles were funded from Eco-town money. All the work to prepare the charter was carried out in-house and staff costs were met by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town team. 7 Conclusion 7.2 The main purpose of the charter is to represent a shared agreement about what constitutes good design in relation to homes and neighbourhoods, and to guide planning application decisions. 7.3 The draft charter is appended to this report and the Delivery Board members are recommended to adopt the principles and become signatories to the Neighbourhood Quality Charter. 8 Appendix Appendix 1: Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Appendix 1: Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Neighbourhood Quality Charter â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAFT v4 (120531) We will encourage a range of good quality, welldesigned, low carbon homes built to the highest standards in well-planned neighbourhoods where people want to live. If this aspiration is to be achieved, there must be a clear understanding by all about what wellplanned, biodiversity rich neighbourhoods and well-designed homes could be like. The Charter principles are clear statements of belief about what will create a legacy of great neighbourhoods in the Eco-town. The principles articulate qualities, characteristics and processes that new development in the town should consider.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

1. Introduction In April 2011, the Housing Specialist Group agreed to prepare a Neighbourhood Quality Charter for Whitehill & Bordon. This document is owned by the group, with input from the wider community through the Standing Conference and other Specialist Groups. Its main purpose is to represent a shared agreement about what constitutes good design in relation to homes and neighbourhoods, to influence development briefs and wider design guidance and to guide planning application decisions. The Charter is referred to in the Whitehill & Bordon chapter of the emerging Joint Core Strategy and the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town masterplan, (revised May 2012). We would like it to be a material consideration in planning application decisions. This has been a creative exercise where local knowledge of existing neighbourhoods and issues of common concern and agreement between participants, have informed the four principles in this Charter. Building for Life has been a useful tool to help the group identify the elements that create a well-designed neighbourhood. It is the national quality standard for homes and neighbourhoods and has been tried and tested on newly built schemes and planning applications across the country. The 20 questions forming the Building for Life criteria are used to evaluate the quality of housing developments. The 20 questions are structured under four chapters: Environment and Community; Character; Streets Parking and Pedestrianisation; Design and Construction. Whilst Building for Life is an umbrella for other standards such as Lifetime Homes and Secured by Design, the Housing Specialist Group have also discussed the need to cover issues of integrating habitats for wildlife within developments. The Building for Life criteria can be found in the appendix of this report. More information on Building for Life can also be found at www.buildingforlife.org. The Charter principles draw on other relevant guidance such as Biodiversity by Design, Manual for Streets and the Urban Design Compendium. Process for agreeing the Charter The Charter principles are supported by the evidence gathered from seven neighbourhood reviews and draw from visits to other recent developments. This information can be found in the appendix to this document. Members of the Housing Specialist Group agreed 12 priority principles in a workshop on 31st October. These were discussed in a further workshop at the Standing Conference and presented to the Delivery Board in December 2011. In January and February 2012, the principles around natural open spaces and parking were reviewed respectively with the Sustainable Environments Specialist Group and the Infrastructure and Transport Specialist Group. In early March, members of all Specialist Groups were invited to attend a workshop that focused on developing design principles for Quebec Barracks, which validated the draft charter principles. The success of the charter is now dependent on its use by signatories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as a means to start to guide decisions affecting the quality of new neighbourhoods and buildings.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

2. Principles The following principles represent priorities that should be considered for all new development. It is not the aim to cover every topic but focus on physical aspects and processes that will shape future development that participants in the Specialist Groups considered a fundamental necessity. There are four principles, each supported by evidence gathered by residents and by national and local policy and guidance. Principle 1 We believe that new homes and neighbourhoods must respect the natural environment and provide opportunities for people to live more sustainably by:     

considering the role of existing mature trees in the design of neighbourhoods, to create beneficial micro-climates (in particular exploiting solar shading and cooling) without losing opportunities for using solar energy to provide electricity and hot water to homes; designing homes and open spaces to accommodate a range of habitats for protected species; using native plant species in the design of public open spaces; considering measures to limit light pollution particularly on sites near sensitive and ecological areas; where there is a need, provide communal outdoor spaces for growing food.

Principle 2 We believe that new neighbourhoods should have their own sense of place that together help to create a clear and coherent identity for the town reflecting existing landscape character, local history and new sustainable design. In order to achieve this development should consider:  the role that existing topography, archaeology, water features, mature trees and hedgerows contribute to the character of new neighbourhoods;  the role of built form in creating a sense of place in different neighbourhoods;  a mix of street scenes and parking solutions to create variety and contribute to neighbourhood character.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Principle 3 We believe that neighbourhoods should be designed to allow ease of movement for pedestrians, cyclists and cars and should consider providing:  

connecting streets to promote easy movement for pedestrians and cyclists; a mix of parking solutions that reflects good practice and promotes safety and security for people and cars.

Principle 4 We believe the design of open spaces is as important as the design of homes and that homes and open spaces should be designed to last, should be well maintained and meet future needs. We would like to see a variety of house designs in different neighbourhoods that consider the surrounding area and prioritise fabric energy efficiency and energy saving. To help achieve this, the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town team will refresh the design and sustainability review panel, ensuring a mix of local and national expertise in key areas of environmental design, ecology, urban design, transport and architecture. The panel will not only review schemes at an early stage in the planning process, but may also contribute to the development of more detailed design guidance and development briefs, through workshops with developers, landowners and the local community. This approach is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (p15, Mar 2012) which states that “Local planning authorities should have local design review arrangements in place to provide assessment and support to ensure high standards of design. […] In general, early engagement on design produces the greatest benefits. In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the recommendations from the design review panel.”

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Principle 1 We believe that new homes and neighbourhoods must respect the natural environment and provide opportunities for people to live more sustainably by:  considering the role of existing mature trees in the design of neighbourhoods, to create beneficial micro-climates (in particular exploiting solar shading and cooling) without losing opportunities for using solar energy to provide electricity and hot water to homes  designing homes and open spaces to accommodate a range of habitats for protected species  using native plant species in the design of public open spaces  considering measures to limit light pollution particularly on sites near sensitive and ecological areas  where there is a need, provide communal outdoor spaces for growing food.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Evidence supporting principle 1 

Mature trees and wooded areas are prominent in many neighbourhoods, creating permeable ground cover and the potential for cooling and shading. For example: Heather Close: public open space in a residential neighbourhood. Trees create the potential for a communal shaded play area as well as potentially reducing the impacts of thermal emissions from surrounding homes.



Monument Chase: mature trees providing shade to a south-facing elevation.

Some of the neighbourhoods reviewed have open space that is under-used and does not support biodiversity or productivity. For example: Robinson Way: too few homes overlook this space creating ambiguity about its role, preventing it from contributing positively to the neighbourhood as a green or communal garden.

Before

After

Case study – Clapton Park Estate, London: John Little from the Green Roof Company showed the Housing Specialist Group work he has done with residents to turn wasted open space into productive and biodiversity rich areas that residents maintain and now reap the rewards.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter



Existing street lighting does not take account of sensitive ecological areas. For example: Monument Chase: The Deadwater Valley Nature Reserve bordering this neighbourhood is home to rarely seen birds and butterflies. Whilst

the study of impacts of light pollution on plant and animal species is still in its early days, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the need for limiting

lighting levels to habitats for migratory and native species.

Policy and guidance supporting principle 1  Whitehill & Bordon masterplan (2012)  Green infrastructure strategy (2011)  One planet living strategy (2011)  Light pollution and the impacts on biodiversity, species and their habitats: P. Deda, I. Elbertzhagen, M. Klussmann; Secretariat of the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (2006)  RSPB guidance on provision of nest sites for housemartins www.rspb.org.uk/hfw  “Homes for Wildlife" leaflet dossier; Bat Conservation Trust www.bats.org.uk  Swift Conservation website - www.swift-conservation.org - and publications  Biodiversity By Design (TCPA 2005)

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Principle 2 We believe that new neighbourhoods should have their own sense of place that together help to create a clear and coherent identity for the town reflecting existing landscape character, local history and new sustainable design. In order to achieve this development should consider:  the role that existing topography, archaeology, water features, mature trees and hedgerows contribute to the character of new neighbourhoods  the role of built form in creating a sense of place in different neighbourhoods  a mix of street scenes and parking solutions to create variety and contribute to neighbourhood character

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Evidence supporting principle 2 

Mature trees are an important characteristic of many existing neighbourhoods, however, the layout of developments sometimes ignores existing topography and natural features. For example:

Atholl Road: the Deadwater Valley Nature Reserve is a distinctive landscape feature that could help to characterise this neighbourhood, instead it has been ignored both as a focal point and as a means of creating a place that is easy to understand



Meadow View: a missed opportunity for these homes to benefit from the view towards a small green and the Nature Reserve as houses turn their backs on the street and an odd relationship is created between rear fences and the street

In many of the neighbourhoods reviewed, there were too many “anywhere” developments where built form was felt to be repetitive, lacking in variety and character. For example: Royal Drive: standard house types are laid out ignoring the relationship of houses to each other and failing to create a coherent neighbourhood.

Figure ground plan

Neighbourhood Quality Charter



On the visit to Graylingwell Park near Chichester, the restoration and re-use of historic buildings demonstrated how existing buildings can bring character and a sense of place to new development. The Clockhouse, Graylingwell Park, Chichester: this former hospital administration building has been renovated to accommodate five apartments.



In Whitehill & Bordon, there are opportunities for the best of the existing Edwardian military buildings to contribute to the character and identity of new development.

The visit to Watercolour, Redhill, demonstrated how landscape features and varied built form can help create a neighbourhood with a distinctive character. Watercolour, Redhill: a culverted brook was reopened to create an important landscape feature in the centre of this residential development. The scale and colours of the buildings further contribute to make this an attractive and coherent neighbourhood.

Policy and guidance supporting principle 2  Whitehill & Bordon masterplan (2012)  Urban Design Compendium, HCA: http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/urban-design-compendium?page_id=3892&page=2

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Principle 3 We believe that neighbourhoods should be designed to allow ease of movement for pedestrians, cyclists and cars and should consider providing: ď&#x201A;ˇ connecting streets to promote easy movement for pedestrians and cyclists ď&#x201A;ˇ a mix of parking solutions that reflects good practice and promotes safety and security for people and cars.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Evidence supporting principle 3 ď&#x201A;ˇ

In some of the reviewed neighbourhoods, parking areas at the end of streets or alleyways demonstrated the problems that a lack of connectivity can create for surveillance and security. Off Coniston Road: two rows of garages with no natural surveillance from adjoining houses. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location is inconvenient for residents creating further problems of neglect and increasing the likelihood of informal parking outside properties.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Saville Crescent: this long alleyway leading to a poorly maintained garage parking court demonstrates the problems of locating parking at a distance from front doors. As a result, some residents have turned their front gardens into parking areas.

The visit to Graylingwell Park showed that successful street layouts are as important as the environmental sustainability of individual homes. Graylingwell Park, Chichester: a single parking solution for this neighbourhood has created a car dominated street that is far removed from the approach encouraged by Manual for Streets.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter



Some neighbourhoods in Whitehill & Bordon demonstrate how different parking solutions can be successful, whilst in others, informal parking can prevent pedestrian access and make cycling dangerous.

. Beaufort Road: on-street parking on this wide street allows pedestrians freedom of movement without detrimentally affecting the character of this terraced street.

Sutherland Close: parking spaces that aren’t conveniently located in site of owners homes sometimes result in people parking anywhere – even if it means blocking pedestrian movement. This can be dangerous and create an unattractive, car dominated environment.

Policy and guidance supporting principle 3  Companion Guide to Manual for Streets (Hampshire County Council 2010)  Eco-town Parking strategy (forthcoming)  Eco-town Walking and cycling strategy (forthcoming)  Manual for Streets (DfT 2007)  Car Parking: What Works Where (HCA 2006)  Urban Design Compendium, HCA: http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/urban-design-compendium?page_id=3892&page=2

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

Principle 4 We believe the design of open spaces is as important as the design of homes and that homes and open spaces should be designed to last, should be well maintained and meet future needs. We would like to see a variety of house designs in different neighbourhoods that consider the surrounding area and prioritise fabric energy efficiency and energy saving. To help achieve this, the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town team will refresh the design and sustainability review panel, ensuring a mix of local and national expertise in key areas of environmental design, ecology, urban design, transport and architecture. The panel will not only review schemes at an early stage in the planning process, but may also contribute to the development of more detailed design guidance and development briefs, through workshops with developers, landowners and the local community. This approach is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (p15, Mar 2012) which states that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Local planning authorities should have local design review arrangements in place to provide assessment and support to ensure high standards of design. [â&#x20AC;Ś] In general, early engagement on design produces the greatest benefits. In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the recommendations from the design review panel.â&#x20AC;?

Neighbourhood Quality Charter

3. Signatories

Neighbourhood Quality Charter Appendices 1. 2. 3. 4.

Building for Life criteria Neighbourhood reviews â&#x20AC;&#x201C; summary Seven neighbourhood reviews Learning from elsewhere

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Appendix 1: 20 Building for Life criteria Criteria 2, 3, 18 and 20 were not possible to assess during the neighbourhood reviews. The issues covered by these criteria have been addressed in workshops at Housing Specialist Group meetings. ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? 2. Is there an accommodation mix that reflects the needs and aspirations of the local community? 3. Is there a tenure mix that reflects the needs of the local community? 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? CHARACTER 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? STREETS, PARKING AND PEDESTRIANISATION 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? 18. Do internal spaces and layout allow for adaptation, conversion or extension? 19. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance quality and attractiveness? 20. Do buildings or spaces outperform statutory minima, such as building regulations?

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Appendix 2: Neighbourhood reviews Between May and September 2011, members of the Housing Specialist Group looked at a sample of neighbourhoods in Whitehill & Bordon that they selected, and gathering visual evidence about how different places in the town work. Residents visited seven different neighbourhoods. They used the 20 Building for Life criteria to help them consistently identify the things that are less successful in each neighbourhood and to document what is important, or distinctive. This evidence informed the Charter principles. Neighbourhoods (defined by principle street names) 1. Around Apollo Drive 2. Around Monument Chase, Montrose Close and Sutherland Close 3. Around Champney Close and Sutton Field 4. Around Bolley Avenue 5. Around Loweswater Gardens, Ennerdale Road and Coniston Road 6. Around Royal Drive 7. Around Meadow View and Saville Crescent

Dates 23 May 2011 13 July 27 July 10 August 24 August 7 September 21 September

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Summary of evidence gathered from all neighbourhoods: The evidence gathered for the seven reviews was in response to the Building for Life questions and has been structured under the four Building for Life chapters of Environment and Community; Character; Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation; Design and Construction. Participants were asked to answer the questions giving evidence from what they observed, rather than just answering “Yes” or “No”. The material gathered from the neighbourhood reviews represents the views and perceptions of those who participated in the exercise. Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Most neighbourhoods in walking distance from primary schools. Many have play areas but not always well overlooked, or well maintained. Limited walkable shops - particularly convenience stores in 2 neighbourhoods. 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? In general (except for Bolley Avenue), there are bus stops within 10-15mins walk from neighbourhoods, but very irregular service to limited locations. 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? All the neighbourhoods are older developments so don't have features such as SUDS or CHP plants etc. However, the presence of mature trees and wooded areas was very prominent in many neighbourhoods with potential for solar shading, permeable ground cover.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? Most neighbourhoods were not specific to their context - they used land inefficiently and applied generic solutions. 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Natural elements to neighbourhoods often prominent particularly mature trees / woodlands and greenery. Views typically not exploited and topography often ignored. 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? Some of the older army houses (officersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; houses and family quarters) were more distinctive with strong military character in terms of layout or robust building features. More recent developments were generally considered as "anywhere" developments. 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Many neighbourhoods were confusing and did not have a clear network of streets, courtyards or alleyways that felt safe. Cul-de-sacs were prominent, making it difficult to find your way around. The repetitive design of the houses sometimes made navigation difficult. 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? The arrangement of many neighbourhoods was poor - few neighbourhoods had proper streets, squares, mews (ie tried and tested layouts). Often blurring between private and public space. Many houses had backs facing open spaces - poor surveillance. Neighbourhoods structured by roads layouts rather than the arrangement of the buildings.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? Overall, more thought given to streets and car parking than to arrangement of buildings and quality of space between them. 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Parking was a consistent problem with the majority of neighbourhoods. Beaufort and Oakley Rd were more successful due to parking being designed into the scheme and good relationship between houses and street. Even larger dwellings (such as parts of Bolley Ave) were car dominated due to proximity of garages to roads. Many examples of unsupervised garage court parking. 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Most streets prioritised car use. 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? Many developments did not connect to other routes or neighbourhoods making it difficult to get to some places except by car. 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Some areas had more rural feel and location so lack of overlooking felt less of an issue. However, many instances of blank gables walls onto public spaces or back gardens facing public spaces creating security and safety issues.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Design and construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Many public spaces, but use not often clear and poorly maintained. 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Older houses had robust detailing, considered more durable. More recent developments did not consider proportion, materials, colour or detail.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Appendix 3: 7 Neighbourhood reviews NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 1 (pilot) Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 23 May 2011 Around Apollo Drive Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Forest Community Centre, church, doctor's surgery and shopping centre within 400m walk from neighbourhood. Small play area in neighbourhood (not big enough for football), and poorly overlooked. 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? There is a bus stop outside the Forest Community Centre and one about 10 minutes walk further down Apollo Drive. Infrequent service [check times] 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? There are plenty of green spaces. Weedy areas, blackberry areas, mixed trees and eroded areas [check what this means] all help wildlife, as do Privet hedges and gardens.

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? No, although retaining existing trees positive aspect. 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? There are many mature trees in the neighbourhood (especially Hibiscus Grove) and some properties have been built around clusters of mature trees to create a village green.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Open spaces, woodland and grassed areas create visual links to surrounding countryside. 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? No common theme/ coherence although mature trees create a distinctive quality to the development. 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Very difficult to work out where you are. Too many alternative routes and no sense of where alleyways are leading to. There is very little to help with orientation and the cul-de-sacs and confusing street layout do not make this easy to navigate. Confusing. 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Very muddled layout, some back gardens onto roads, others have front gardens for children to play in. There are many separate developments - creating incoherence

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Informal parking on green verges, which makes the area look unkempt. In some areas there is on-plot parking, in others, parking courts, however, the parking courts are very large and not integrated into the street scene with poorly maintained garages forming a "gateway" into part of the neighbourhood. 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? There are no specific measures such as home zones or traffic calming. 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Rather a lot of alleyways, which may not be safe at night and could encourage vandalism. Pedestrian pathways are fronted by 6ft high panel fences, creating perception of unsafe routes.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Green areas are unconnected [fragmented?]. Quick win money is going to be used to put in native flowers. Neglected and unmanaged open spaces, parking courts and alleyways evidenced by weeds and lifted tarmac. There is lighting to some of the open spaces. 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Not too bad. Some properties in Hibiscus Grove have different outlooks. [Too] many different styles (built by different developers).

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 2 Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 13 July 2011 Around Monument Chase, Montrose Close and Sutherland Close Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Woodleigh school with playing fields for football and a net for basketball available for children to play outside school hours (check) - safe environment without balls being kicked against parked cars Community Centre and Forest Shopping Centre 10 minutes walk from neighbourhood but less accessible for those who are less mobile. 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? Bus stops (on which road?) Not always available [find out times of service] Very limited public transport 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? Areas of woodland in particular help to provide permeable surfaces for rainfall and possibly contribute to offset carbon emissions [check]

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? Each scheme has a specific design [as shown byâ&#x20AC;Ś?] but has a claustrophobic feeling 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Developments do exploit the undulating topography Some developments are using the topography whilst others are facing inwards to small courtyards 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? Anytown character. Bland

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Montrose Close and Sutherland Close do not [as evidenced byâ&#x20AC;Ś.] Monument Chase feels more distinctive - larger houses in woodland setting 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Lack of signage for pedestrians and traffic. Access roads narrow with pinch points. Lots of cul-de-sacs - used in one area for car repairs with dustbins in a line in front of houses spoiling very good outlook from terrace of houses over adjoining woodland. Houses have repetitive design so nothing that distinguishes where you are No, the layout is dominated by roads and alley ways with little indication of direction. 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Monument Chase was good, the other areas were congested and dominated by car parking

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? No, not really. Better use could be made of the mature trees and green spaces in between the developments. 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Designed to limit street parking but vehicles still use grass verges Garages not always used for cars and sometimes not wide enough to open car doors once inside! Little account taken of growth of vehicle ownership and extended families living in single dwellings Not enough parking and it is intrusive 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Wide paths. Inadequate parking space in Sutherland Close - number of parked cars makes this area feel busy Monument Chase pedestrian/cycle friendly as a no-through route for traffic No, pathways used for parking and not good for walking and cycling Excessive on-street parking with multiple vehicles belonging to single dwelling No, many cars parked on streets, alleyways narrow and not wide enough for bikes

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? Developments do not flow together, they have separate identities No, standalone developed area. Monument Chase is remote and has air of insularity Sutherland Close and Montrose Close convenient for vehicular access and facilities but is typical medium density development Not well defined or signed 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Dark alleys, unlit pedestrian routes, trees overshadow footpaths in some areas Public spaces are hidden off Sutherland Close - do not feel safe Some spaces are overlooked Many have 6ft high panel fences or placed with cars ranked between houses and play areas

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Monument Chase - limited public space and access for maintenance of public space is limited Not designed, just odd green spaces. Not easy to understand who has ownership 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Efforts to individualise houses particularly on Montrose Close Typical tidy modern brick building, each one a clone of the rest Very poor - Monument Chase had more consideration of quality in relation to context, but detail very standardised. For example, one cluster of 3 houses surrounded timber rail resembling farm blocks perhaps but more could have been made of this. 19. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness? In smaller plots, little room for extensions for houses to grow and improve

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 3 Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 27 July 2011 Around Champney Close and Sutton Field Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Community centre/ village hall Play area Shops across main road 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? On the main road but not on roads around the estate 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? There is a lot of wildlife as the houses back on to woodland. Squirrels always in the garden, toads come up to the back door, even snakes appear in the garden from the woodland.

Character 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Some houses overlooking woods Some green spaces but not clear whether play area as footpath cutting across 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? New eco-houses have a distinctive character 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Yes (but how?) I love the position of the house. The area isn't over crowded.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Yes (but what is evidence?)

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? No, except in the cul-de-sac (how?) 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Cars parked on green spaces outside village hall. Also parked on grass verges and pavements, restricting access for pedestrians. 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Some double yellow lines - maybe why cars are parked on green space beside village hall 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? Yes (how?) 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Walkway at end of cul-de-sac in Sutton Fields, not overlooked Steps from Sutton Fields to Champney Close and woodland - partly overlooked

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Overgrown vegetation along car parking spaces -who is responsible for maintaining these spaces? 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Only the new eco-houses and new houses in Morse Road - variety with tile hanging and face different directions Good house size, very well built. Tenants are not allowed to store anything in the loft so as not to interfere with the pipework for the heating

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

system in the loft. The tenant sees this as positive, as it cuts down on any junk. The 3 eco homes look nice on the outside as well as the inside. 19. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness? 3 eco-homes with integrated PVs on roof. Hybrid solar heat pump and water tub, under floor heating. “The houses are very well insulated but oddly, compared to a conventional house, in the summer the property heats up quickly. The heating system is expensive. The house has under-floor heating, and it takes a long time for the heating to come through the system before the building warms up. Usually, from first putting the heating on when the weather cools down, the system takes 24 hours before any heat arrives. Electricity bills can costs around £106 per month. The house has no gas supply. The heating is used sparingly due to the cost making the owner more aware of being eco friendly. The Sunergy heating system is located just outside the back door inside a small wooden store. It has to be serviced regularly and the clock inside this computer has to be changed due to BST. Tenants are not permitted to touch this. When there are any problems with the SEP Unit (underfloor heating and hot water control system) the red light on the panel on the kitchen wall flashes to show a fault. As long as there is a green light showing the system is healthy and operating normally. When the red light flashes, if the tenant is unable to reset it by pressing the reset button, they have to call the housing association who contact Sunergy. The electricity is supplied using split rates. Off peak and on peak rates. The cheaper rates for using electricity is 1pm-4pm, 8pm-10pm and midnight - 5am. However, some tenants find trying to cook tea before 4pm every day is very challenging. The cheaper rates of using electricity after midnight are not practical unless staying up all night doing washing etc. Electricity use is influencing tenants’ choice of white goods: "My next washing machine I purchase will have a timer on it to try to save me more money on electricity! At present my washing machine has a manual 'start' button on it so I can't put a timer switch on the plug! Since living in an eco home I have become more eco friendly. I have a compost bin, I recycle a lot, my children follow me in turning the taps off in between brushing teeth. I do think that when more properties are built with new systems in them that they definitely need good tenant participation." Although one tenant notes a few teething problems with the 3 eco homes, they are very happy to be living here. "It’s been a learning process for the housing association as well as for the tenants but overall I'm one happy tenant!"

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 4 Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 10 August 2011 Around Bolley Avenue Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Close to Bordon Officers and Social Club with park and sports facilities. Children's playground behind 70's houses. Walking distance to Bordon Infants and Junior schools. 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? Nearest bus stop about Â˝ - Âž mile away to east on A325, near old fire station 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? Mature trees - woodland, and hedges

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? Large detached / semi-detached homes very clearly military character, even to 70's houses. Spacious feel with variety of hedge types 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Greenery surrounding neighbourhood, particularly '50s quarters. Views not exploited but rural character from high hedges to older quarters. 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? Hedges screen cars from view (50's quarters) and v generous lawned spaces to front of 70's houses. Both schemes had v different characters to each other - 70's more open, 50's more private. Peaceful, open, safe. Older village feel 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Yes, small neighbourhoods. Well sign-posted

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Hedges to 50's quarters provide more defined edge and create greater privacy. Very regimented

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? All dwellings have on-plot parking, however, 70's houses have garages to the front, and no boundary between front garden and street, creating more car dominated appearance. Well balanced overall 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? 70's less successful but allowed plenty of space for parking, although this creates more car dominated feel to street. Older houses more successfully screened cars 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Open spaces and wide roads. No through traffic, creating safe environment for cycling and pedestrians. Lowered kerbs 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? Doesn't integrate but feels appropriate for larger properties with more rural character. Cut off by B3002 Oakhanger Road 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Open spaces / woodland not overlooked but appropriate for rural character.

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Grassed areas overgrown but lawns to front gardens of 70's homes well tended. Maintained by contractors working for MoD 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Durable / robust detailing to 70's houses, but 50's houses have smaller windows and more utilitarian/ standardised. Prefabricated construction

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 5 Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 24 August 2011 Around Loweswater Gardens, Ennerdale Road and Coniston Road Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Infant and junior school (Bordon Junior) to the south of the development Pinewood Village Hall One stop convenience store Tesco - 20mins walk 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? Only at eastern end - bus stop by post office. 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? Grassed areas providing permeable ground cover and mature trees provide shading

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? Streets of terraces - successful as provide strong street pattern, however many areas in development show piecemeal approach that does not create strong sense of place 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? The couple of terraced streets (post-war development) are more successful (how?) Very few vistas Topography not exploited 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character?

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Mix of styles and no overall distinctive character. Uninspiring 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Easy to get lost, confusing with cul-de-sacs. Many roads connected by alleyways that aren't sign posted and are narrow.

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? Highways do dominate in many areas. 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Rows of terraces (Beaufort and Oakley Road) have successful parking solution - wider street with parallel parking and no cars parked on generous grass verges. In other areas, some cars parked on grass although generally ok but parking not integrated with some surrounded by walls Many houses in Loweswater Gardens w/ driveways and garages, but still parked cars on roads and pavements. 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Street layout appeared to restrict fast driving allowing children to play in streets. However, car parking along roads make streets less cycle friendly. 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? Although access off Camp Road and Station Road, the connections are limited effecting the integration and connection to the wider town. 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Some alleyways connecting open spaces have poor overlooking. Limited lighting to public spaces.

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Evidence of grass being mown, but in other areas, poor maintenance of left over spaces in parking areas (possibly former washing areas)

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 6 Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 7 Sept 2011 Around Royal Drive Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Bordon infants and junior school One stop convenience store (approximately 7mins walk) Play park on St Lucia (Army) Natural green space nearby Pub in walking distance along Lindford Road 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? Bus stop on A325, 1 min walk max 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? Small area of mature trees and shrubs might contribute to supporting biodiversity and providing solar shading - but not really significant scale to have impact and offset development. Concern about pet ownership (cats in particular) in close proximity to Broxhead Common.

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? No - it could be any recent house builder development. A more urban feel with houses closer to the back of pavements and v small front gardens. 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? A couple of existing trees used as part of 'green' by entrance to development, otherwise, doesn't draw on surrounding features at all. 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character?

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

No, the scheme feels too busy Similar to a scheme in Petersfield Generic - no characteristics that make it distinctive The road names imply distinctive character "Royal Drive", but this hasn't been drawn into the design of the scheme. The history of the site has been lost in this development. 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? Some of the areas seem very "itty bitty" Despite being small development with 1 main vehicular route, still maze-like off this route. Layout is poor. Not enough attention to the position and size of gardens v small. 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Most buildings (and entrances) face the central route. Houses too bunched up and not all front of houses facing road.

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? No, the highway dominates allowing parking to take over. Car parking is the most notable feature. 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Car parking not well integrated so informal parking on street and pavement, perhaps due to badly located and poorly laid out garages and drives. Parking dominates the development with some residents occupying neighbouring driveways. Car parking is well cared for at every opportunity. 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Streets seem a bit cluttered, not pleasant look or feel. No green spaces No pedestrian crossings or shared pedestrian surfaces. No cycle paths. 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? The development is isolated and the scheme has been designed to look inwards, so doesn't connect to Farnham Road. Single access off Lindford

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Road creating cul-de-sac. No visual links to adjoining SPA or access to surrounding woodland. 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Not all were overlooked.

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? There are areas where blank gables face the street, where planting has not been maintained. However, green space by entrance to estate stands out as selling point. Green space facing A325 poor, acting only as buffer 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Pastiche historic approach using blank windows did not contribute to quality of architecture. Some garages has fascias and guttering missing, and tiles missing from roof, demonstrating poor quality detailing - not built to last. 19. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness? 2 properties with photovoltaic panels on roof

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

NEIGHBOURHOOD REVIEW 7 Evidence gathered from group walkabout on 21 Sept 2011 Around Meadow View and Saville Crescent Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? Mill Chase school and a primary school across road. Alexandra park and Jubilee park Play area and sports fields adjacent to Mill chase school. Allotments behind Saville Crescent CafĂŠ near Mill Chase school. Walking distance from Forest Centre 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? Better than most of town - routes 13 and 18 on Chalet Hill

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? There are a mix of houses over a century - the couple of Edwardian houses have rural character. The 1950's houses are more suburban in character but standardized and 1970's-'80's houses could be anywhere. 7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Despite Meadow View properties facing river valley, they don't exploit views of woodland or topography. 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? '50's houses on Saville Row have coherence, despite some properties being poorly maintained and some poor newer higher density developments breaking terrace. Character of River valley very distinctive to Meadow View but housing not distinctive - although interesting variations on standard house types layout creates lack of distinctiveness. 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around?

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Neighbourhoods small 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Yes - Saville Crescent: uniformity of terraces with front gardens No - Meadow View: confusion between fronts and backs

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Cars are parked on grass verges and in some cases in Saville Crescent, in front gardens 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? Streets and pavements are poorly maintained and hedges encroach onto paths 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Woodland to rear of Saville Crescent not overlooked and not lit. River valley by Meadow View overlooked in places.

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Open space at Meadow View maintained grassed area creating pleasant rural feel. Spaces behind Saville Row not well maintained - evidence of litter and abandoned building materials. 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? Saville Crescent - robust and standardized, many well maintained with new rendering. Newer 80's houses at Meadow View (with back gardens facing river) poorer quality. 19. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness? One house had solar thermal panel, although facing east so only benefits from sun in morning

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Appendix 4: Learning from elsewhere It is important to visit other places and look at neighbourhoods that work well elsewhere. Between October and December 2011 members of the Housing Specialist Group visiting other housing developments to understand why they are successful. The group visited Graylingwell Park in Chichester, Chapel in Southampton, Merton Rise and Oakridge developments in Basingstoke and Watercolour Park in Redhill.

Graylingwell Park, Chichester 8 residents attended Environment and Community 1. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes? It does have some facilities, 20 minutes to walk to the town centre No schools yet, has parks and exhibition space, but no shops, no pubs 4. Does the development have easy access to public transport? Does have a limited bus service 5. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? The development is carbon neutral â&#x20AC;&#x201C; due to integrated PV panels on residential properties and combined heat and power plant. Phase 1 homes built to Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 Hedges and avenues of trees kept around park â&#x20AC;&#x201C; opportunities for biodiversity and shading

Character 6. Is the design specific to the scheme? The awkward site for phase 1 has resulted in a design that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t address the surrounding area. The development has no clear identity and it feels as if compromises have been made both in terms of finishes and planting.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

7. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Old buildings have been used e.g. water tower and administration building which has been converted into apartments. Opportunities of views to park have not been exploited. 8. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? Aspects are distinctive, such as the park and re-use of existing buildings. 9. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? No, the buildings are all similar. Cul-de-sacs are not clearly marked 10. Are streets defined by a well structured building layout? Simple layout of terraces and semi-detached homes with entrances facing street.

Streets, Parking and Pedestrianisation 11. Does the building layout take priority over the streets and car parking, so that the highways do not dominate? Highways do dominate due to lack of consideration of spaces between parking and houses. 12. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene? Single parking solution and dominant use of tarmac detrimental to street scene. 13. Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly? This is a poorly executed shared space where cars dominate with nothing to indicate that pedestrians and cyclists could easily share the space. 14. Does the scheme integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? Phase 1 development seems to be distinctly on its own and does not integrate with the original hospital 15. Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Open space to rear of some properties with poor overlooking. This space does not feel safe.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter: Appendices

Design and Construction 16. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? Phase 1 doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t show well designed pubic space. Too much hard surfacing. Poor green infrastructure. Too sterile! However some management of front gardens in place 17. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? No, not the new ones. The refurbished administration building looks great. 19. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness? Individual homes have been designed to use 33% less water than a standard home. Some homes include MVHR.

Agenda item 10

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Revised Masterplan (May 2012)

Author:

Mandar Puranik, Planning and urban design theme lead

Reference no: WBPD018-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) The recently completed evidence base studies, changes in the national planning policies and the extensive consultation have led to the revisions to the masterplan. This revised masterplan has been adopted by the Council in May 2012 and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate forming part of the evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy. The Delivery Board is recommended to endorse the masterplan (appendix 1) as a high level framework to deliver the Eco-town Vision.

Date: 14/05/2012 Version: V1.0

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

Purpose of report: The Council adopted the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan, May 2012 (the masterplan) on 9th May 2012. The masterplan sets out a clear vision and policy framework to guide how the area will be regenerated. It presents an overall vision for the physical, social, economic and environmental improvement of the town to ensure that development takes place in a considered manner to deliver community benefits for the town as a whole. The framework masterplan is a flexible tool, which will be revisited over the course of the project to respond to changing conditions. The report is to confirm the Delivery Board’s support in taking forward the masterplan.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: It is recommended to the Delivery Board that the adopted masterplan as set out in Appendix 1 is endorsed as a high level framework to deliver the Ecotown Vision.

Consultation and comments received: Comments were received on the Draft Revised Masterplan at various meetings throughout the preparation stage  The Delivery Board workshops held on 8th February 2012, 19th April 2012 and meeting on 15th March 2012.  Standing Conference meeting on 1st March 2012.  Joint Specialist Group Meeting on 1st May 2012.  Whitehill Town Council meetings on 12th March 2012 and 2nd May 2012.  East Hampshire District Council’s Development Policy Panel on 26th April 2012, Cabinet on 1st May 2012 and Council meeting on 9th May 2012.  Officer level comments from the key statutory stakeholders.

Community engagement proposals: As the revised masterplan is the product of extensive consultation over the last two years, further consultation is not proposed on this document. Instead, options for taking the masterplan forward and evolving it will be prepared in consultation with the East Hampshire District Council. These options will be presented to the Delivery Board later this year and will include proposals for continued community consultation and engagement.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 The masterplan was approved in May 2012 as a high level framework for regeneration within the Eco-town policy zone and is given a status of material consideration when planning applications are considered. The masterplan will guide future development and avoid a piecemeal approach to land disposal and development of the sites. It is crucial for the future of the area that a masterplan be put in place to encourage the sustainable planning of development in the town. 1.2 The revised masterplan has been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy. It is important that the masterplan receives endorsement from the Delivery Board prior to the Examination of the Joint Core Strategy, currently expected in August 2012. 2 Subject of report and considerations 2.1 The original masterplan, which was adopted by the Council in December 2010, has been revised in response to public consultation and evidence base studies. It provides an up-to-date evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy. The revised masterplan has been updated in the context of changes to the national planning policy, public consultations carried out in autumn 2010 and 2011 and evidence base studies. The key changes included in the revised masterplan and findings of the evidence base studies were communicated as part of the neighbourhood engagement in autumn 2011. 2.2 The draft revised masterplan with key changes was prepared in April 2012 and since been amended in consultation with the Delivery Board. It was unanimously approved at East Hampshire District Council’s Full Council meeting on 9th May 2012. The adopted masterplan (appendix 1) incorporates changes recommended by the Board, EHDC’s Development Policy Panel, Cabinet and comments submitted by Whitehill Town Council. It has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as an evidence base to the Joint Core Strategy. 2.3 The masterplan supports the Eco-town Vision and policies in the Joint Core Strategy. The key changes in the masterplan were consulted on through the neighbourhood engagement and are supported by respondents and stakeholders. 2.4 Chapter 9 of the masterplan sets out ‘Phasing and the next steps’. It should be noted that the nature of proposed phasing and delivery is likely to be regularly reviewed in the future. The Delivery Board should prioritise implementation of ‘the next steps’ as listed in the masterplan and resource it with support from the project partners.

2.5 Copies of the masterplan will be made available to read in Whitehill Town Council offices at the Forest Community Centre during opening hours. The masterplan will also be available in the following locations: Bordon Library, Liphook Library, Alton Library, Petersfield Library and Mill Chase Community Technology College. Copies will be given to parish councils and electronic copies of the masterplan are available on the website - www.whitehillbordon.com 3 Risk assessment 3.1 The neighbourhood engagement carried out in autumn 2011 to support the revised masterplan included an Integrated Impact Assessment and equalities monitoring. 3.2 The timely completion of the masterplan and submission as part of the evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy was ahead of the programme and covered the District Council from the risk of delay in the submission. 3.3 The endorsement of the masterplan by the Delivery Board will help to mitigate the potential risk of piecemeal development. 4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The masterplan will help to deliver the Eco-town Vision and targets to achieve carbon neutrality, increase biodiversity, improve transportation options and reduce water usage by 2036. 4.2 The masterplan and next steps included in Chapter 9 of the masterplan will inform the Specialist Groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Work Plan priorities. 5 Resource implications 5.1 The masterplan was led by the Whitehill & Bordon project team in partnership with East Hampshire District Council, Hampshire County Council, Whitehill Town Council and other local parish councils. It was produced in-house under a tight timescale and printed in Bordon. The detailed resource requirement for the masterplan delivery is not yet prepared but the key actions will continue to be led or coordinated by the Whitehill & Bordon project team. 6 Cost implications 6.1 The masterplan preparation was funded by government money. The majority of the work was carried out in-house and staff costs were met by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town team. 7 Conclusion

7.1 The recently completed evidence base studies, changes in the national planning policies and the extensive consultation have led to the revisions to the masterplan. This masterplan has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate forming part of the evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy and adopted by the Council in May 2012. 7.2 This masterplan represents a framework document and the next level of detail that sits under the Joint Core Strategy. It sets out the vision, key spatial planning principles and demonstrates how the proposed regeneration could be delivered within the allocated land. Its endorsement will not prevent the Delivery Board from influencing site specific designs as further evidence comes forward. It is important to receive endorsement from the Delivery Board to help resource the further work and progress to the delivery stage. 8 Appendix Appendix 1: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (May 2012) (Available on request)

Agenda item 11

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Transport Studies Update

Author:

Tim Wall, Team Leader – Highways Development Planning

Reference no: WBPD019-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary:

This report is provided to update the Delivery Board on current progress on ongoing Transport Studies;      

Walking and Cycling Strategy Car Parking Strategy Traffic Management Strategy Inner Relief Road Alignment Options Appraisal A325 Traffic Management Strategy GRIP 3 Rail Study

Work on all of these studies is continuing, and the work will inform the Emerging Transport Strategy and project proposals as they develop. The report provides the latest position on all of these work-streams, and identifies the current programme for their completion. When completed, the findings of the Studies will be brought back to the Delivery Board for comment and approval.

Date: 01 June 2012 Version: 1.2

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

Purpose of report:

This report is provided to update the Delivery Board on current progress on a number of different ongoing Transport Studies, and to set out for the Delivery Board’s information a programme for completion of this work. Recommendations requiring Board considerations:

It is recommended that; 1. The Delivery Board note the current progress that has been made on the Transport Studies and the projected programme for their completion Consultation and comments received:

The draft Delivery Board report was presented to the Standing Conference and each study was discussed. The following comments were raised; Walking and Cycling Strategy Need to consider linkages with longer distance routes and the wider network of footpaths and bridleways and public rights of way (PROW). – Concerns that the existing network of cycleways was ‘bitty’ and required a comprehensive and cohesive approach. – Different design requirements of different types of users were discussed. – Study needs to make allowance for the Shipwrights Way. – Traffic conditions adjacent to footways and cycleways impact on their attractiveness. Needs to be considered together. – Need to ensure local access groups are consulted on the strategy – i.e Disability Forum, Community Partnership. –

Car Parking Strategy Need to ensure that there are clear linkages between this work and the Neighbourhood Quality Charter. – Need to ensure there are links between this work and East Hamsprhire District Council’s (EHDC’s) wider work on parking review. – Concerns were expressed about the need to ensure that adequate parking spaces were provided, and in an appropriate style. – The linkages between car parking provision and economic viability were discussed. There is a possible conflict between ensuring sufficient parking to make the development attractive to investors and –

in meeting sustainability aims. Traffic Management Strategy –

The approach to consultation was discussed and generally supported. It was confirmed that the three WSP studies would undergo public consultation at the same time.

Inner Relief Road (IRR) Alignment Options Appraisal –

– –

Concerns were expressed about either routing option in relation to the impact on the environment, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and ecology. In particular, concerns related to the use of the abandoned rail line option to the south. Need to ensure that ecological impacts are minimised with whatever routing is chosen. It was highlighted that there are limited routing opportunities and any option would have some impact on the environment. Need to strike the best balance between delivering the road and minimising impact. It was stated that we cannot avoid the problem in deciding the IRR alignment, and that challenge was one of finding the right mitigation. It was suggested that a joint meeting of the Infrastructure Education and Transport and Sustainable Environment Specialist Groups would be appropriate to consider this topic in September. This was generally supported.

A325 Traffic Management Strategy – –

–

Concerns were expressed about the potential application of shared space schemes for areas outside of cul-de-sacs. Concerns were expressed about the safety and effectiveness of a shared space approach to the A325 in the absence of the IRR. They would need to be delivered together. The potential opportunities for including native planting along the A325 was raised. This should be considered as part of the study.

GRIP 3 Rail Study It was noted that the results of the report were eagerly anticipated, and it was disappointing that these would not be available until September, then with the Delivery Board for December. – There was agreement on the need to consider the public transport solution as a whole rather than individual elements. As such it was accepted that the Public Transport Strategy would be a good approach to achieving this. –

Community engagement proposals:

Proposals for future community engagement on each of the Studies are set out within the main part of the report. 1 Background 1.1 In September 2011, Hampshire County Council (HCC) adopted its Emerging Transport Strategy (ETS) for Whitehill & Bordon, following extensive engagement and the completion of a number of technical studies. The ETS identified that further work was needed to inform the Strategy on a number of areas. 1.2 Following adoption of the September 2011 ETS, HCC and the Eco-town team has commissioned further technical work to refine and develop the proposals. This report updates the Delivery Board on current progress on this work.

2 Transport Studies Update 2.1

Walking and Cycling Strategy

Study Purpose 2.1.1

This strategy will set out proposals for the improvement of walking and cycling facilities in the future town, and will develop proposals for the delivery of the Green Grid and Green Loop. The strategy will identify how the Green Grid and Green Loop can be implemented, and will identify a phased and costed programme for delivery.

Study Progress 2.1.2

WSP has been commissioned to carry out this strategy work and have produced a first draft of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. Following officer comments, WSP is currently in the process of revising the draft strategy and carrying out further work to improve the draft before progressing to public consultation.

Community Engagement 2.1.3 WSP carried out initial consultation on the Walking and Cycling Strategy in January 2012. This included facilitating a Stakeholder Workshop event at the Phoenix Theatre, where local people could identify current barriers to walking and cycling in the town and explore current and possible future desire lines. This was supplemented by drop-in events at both Tesco and the Forest Centre in January 2012. A web-based survey was also conducted at this time. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 94 -

2.1.4 Once WSP is in a position where they have an agreed draft Walking and Cycling Strategy, they will carry out a public consultation on the draft Walking and Cycling Strategy before this is finalised. In order to avoid school holiday periods, this is likely to occur during the late summer. Study Programme 2.1.5 WSP is tasked with producing a second draft strategy by June 2012, to enable officers to comment on the draft strategy before its public consultation in August and September 2012. Following public consultation, WSP will consider any comments made and revise the Walking and Cycling Strategy. 2.16

The final Walking and Cycling Strategy will then be taken back to the Delivery Board in December 2012 for approval.

2.2

Car Parking Strategy

Study Purpose 2.2.1 The Car Parking Strategy will provide further information and guidance on the level and nature of car parking provision within Whitehill & Bordon. It will consider, at a high-level, the number of car parking spaces likely to be required in the town, and at each land-use, along with the type of provision to be made to ensure that the best use of space is made, parking is provided in a sustainable manner and that the attractiveness of the town to inward investment is retained. The Strategy takes advice from property experts to understand the link between car parking provision and economic viability. Study Progress 2.2.2 WSP has been commissioned to carry out this strategy work and has produced a first draft of the Car Parking Strategy. Following officersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments, WSP is currently in the process of revising the draft strategy and carrying out further work to improve the draft before public consultation. Community Engagement 2.2.3 WSP carried out initial consultation on the strategy in January 2012. This included facilitating a Stakeholder Workshop event at the Phoenix Theatre where local people could identify current issues with car parking provision in the town, and to identify their preferred parking types. This was supplemented by web-based information and a web survey. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 95 -

2.2.4 Once WSP has agreed draft Car Parking Strategy, they will carry out a public consultation on the work to enable the public to comment on the proposals before they are finalised. In order to avoid school holiday periods, this is likely to occur during the late summer. Study Programme 2.2.5 WSP is tasked with producing a second draft Car Parking Strategy by June 2012, to enable officers to comment on the strategy before its public consultation in August and September. Following public consultation, WSP will consider any comments made and revise the Car Parking Strategy. 2.2.6 The final Car Parking Strategy will then be taken back to the Delivery Board in December 2012 for approval. 2.3

Traffic Management Strategy

Study Purpose 2.3.1 The Traffic Management Strategy will provide guidance on a range of possible traffic management options available to mitigate the impact of traffic in the town, and in local surrounding villages, in order to support the ETS. This will focus on reducing the impact of traffic in villages and ensuring that traffic from and through the town uses the most appropriate local routes. Study Progress 2.3.2 WSP has been commissioned to carry out this work. WSP has identified the key areas of study, completed detailed route audits on each area, engaged with the local villages affected and now produced a draft Traffic Management Strategy. This draft Traffic Management Strategy is now the subject of stakeholder consultation. Community Engagement 2.3.3 Following background research, WSP sought to engage at an early stage with each of the communities potentially impacted by traffic from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. WSP held meetings with each of these communities, as detailed in the table below.

2.3.4 Following this first stage of consultation, WSP produced a draft strategy identifying options for improvement within each local community, and is currently carrying out a second stage of community engagement. A copy of the Draft Traffic Management Strategy has been provided to each of the stakeholders engaged during the first stage (i.e the Parish Councils and Whitehill Town Council as identified above). A copy of the draft strategy has also been provided to members of the Infrastructure, Education and Transport Specialist Group (IET Specialist Group), as well as all local county councillors. 2.3.5 Following completion of the Stage 2 stakeholder consultation, WSP will be considering the comments made and seeking to revise the Strategy in light of these comments. WSP will then carry out a full public consultation in late summer. Study Programme 2.3.6 Following the completion of the Stage 2 stakeholder consultation, and the public consultation in late summer, the Final Traffic Management Strategy will be taken to the Delivery Board for approval in December 2012. 2.4

Inner Relief Road Alignment Options Appraisal

Study Purpose 2.4.1 This work will consider possible inner relief road alignment options, in order to identify which route the inner relief road may take in the future, along with considering at a high-level possible construction constraints, environmental issues and costs.

Study Progress 2.4.2 HCC, through its Engineering Consultancy, is carrying out work to consider possible alignment options for the inner relief road. Initial alignment options have been generated for the full length of the inner relief road, and the draft report is currently being produced. This will consider, at a high level, possible engineering, ecological, environmental, archaeological and cost issues associated with each alignment option. The draft report is likely to be available by the end of June 2012, to inform future stakeholder consultation. Community Engagement 2.4.3 At this stage, no community engagement has been carried out on the inner relief road alignment options. The work is at this stage a technical assessment of available options. Following completion of the draft report, HCC will be carrying out consultation with Whitehill Town Council, and the IET Specialist Group, in advance of reporting the work to the Delivery Board in late 2012. Study Programme 2.4.4 The draft report is expected to be complete in June 2012. It is currently envisaged that the report will be discussed with Whitehill Town Council in September 2012, before also being considered by the IET Specialist Group and Delivery Board at their September meetings. 2.5

A325 Traffic Management Strategy

Study Purpose 2.5.1 The A325 Traffic Management Strategy focuses solely on the A325 within Whitehill & Bordon and will consider and provide options for its future design to accommodate the Eco-town, deliver a new town centre environment, and manage traffic within and through Whitehill & Bordon. The scope of the study is contained to the areas of the A325 between the inner relief road junctions, shown highlighted on the below plan.

2.5.2 The A325 Traffic Management Strategy is expected to focus on urban design principles to ensure that the A325 becomes a quality â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;placeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the future, reducing the dominance of existing traffic and overcoming existing severance issues. Study Progress 2.5.3 HCC has secured funding for the study, and has prepared a study brief for the work. The brief has been discussed with the EHDC Eco-town Team, relevant departments in HCC and Whitehill Town Council. HCC is currently preparing the paperwork to tender the study through the IESE Framework. This will be done in June 2012, with work commencing in July 2012. Community Engagement 2.5.4 The study brief for the work sets out a requirement that the consultant carrying out the work will undertake robust community engagement. This is likely to include at least a two-stage engagement process. Full details of engagement proposals will not be known until a consultant is chosen through the tendering process. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 99 -

Study Programme 2.5.5 The study will be commissioned in June 2012, to start in July 2012. It is currently expected that the study will be complete in December 2012, but this will depend upon the timetable agreed with the successful consultant following their appointment. 2.5.6 The results of the A325 Traffic Management Strategy will be reported to the Delivery Board when available. 2.6

Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) 3 Rail Study

Study Purpose 2.6.1 The GRIP 3 Rail Study considers in greater detail the potential for direct rail connection to Whitehill & Bordon identified in earlier work. The GRIP 3 study is considering only the potential link from Whitehill & Bordon to Bentley. All other opportunities for heavy rail connection (i.e to Alton, Liss and Liphook) were discounted at the GRIP 2 stage. Study Progress 2.6.2 The consultants carrying out the work, Halcrow, have produced a first draft of the GRIP 3 Rail Study and engagement with rail professionals (Network Rail, DfT Rail, Southwest Trains) is ongoing before this is finalised. Community Engagement 2.6.3 The GRIP 3 Rail Study is a technical study and has not included community engagement. However, following completion of the GRIP 3 Study the report will be made publicly available. At the same time its results will be reported within the draft Public Transport Strategy, which will be consulted upon in autumn 2012. Study Programme 2.6.4 HCC is in the process of producing a Public Transport Strategy. The results of the GRIP 3 Study will be reported as part of the HCC draft Public Transport Strategy in September 2012, and the GRIP 3 report will be released at that time. Delivery Board members will be briefed before the report is released. The Draft Public Transport Strategy, with the GRIP 3 Rail Study, will be reported to the December 2012 Delivery Board for its comment following consultation.

Risk assessment

Environmental 3.2 Each of the work-streams described above are considering delivery of different aspects of the transport strategy for Whitehill & Bordon. Within each work-stream, environmental risks are identified and considered. Financial 3.3 All of the work identified above is fully funded from existing agreed budgets at both EHDC and HCC. Contracting arrangements with consultants have been done on the basis of fixed price contracts to reduce the risk to the project of any project overspend. Health and Safety 3.4 The report identifies ongoing study work only. There are limited risks with the completion of the studies outlined above, and in each case separate risk assessments have been carried out. Equalities Impact Assessment 3.5 An EIA was carried out as part of the PID process for the studies. 4

Contributions to Delivery Board priorities

4.1 The studies outlined above are required to inform the Emerging Transport Strategy. The ETS seeks to reduce carbon emissions from transport and promote more sustainable transport within the town. The Eco-town target is for no more than 50% of trips to be made by car. The successful completion of these studies will provide further detail on the ETS approach to transport, and will contribute towards meeting this target and the Delivery Boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Vision. 5

Resource implications

5.1 Adequate resource has been identified to progress these studies through to completion from a combination of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town team and from Hampshire County Council. 6 Cost implications 6.1 All of the work identified above is fully funded from existing agreed budgets at both EHDC and HCC. 7 Conclusion 7.1

Good progress has been made to complete a large number of studies that inform the Emerging Transport Strategy for Whitehill & Bordon. These studies are essential to ensure that the ETS is current, realistic and achievable. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board

Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 101 -

7.2

A programme for completion of the Transport Studies is set out in the Report above. Each of these studies are at slightly different stages and on different timescales. At the appropriate time the findings of each of the Studies will be brought back to the Delivery Board for comment and approval.

Agenda item 12

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Funding Applications

Author:

Susan Robbins, Economic development theme lead

Reference no: WBPD023-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) The Eco-town team has submitted three projects for funding; two to the growing enterprise fund managed by the Enterprise M3 local enterprise partnership; and one to the regional growth fund managed by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills. These bids seek monies to deliver infrastructure on both the sites at Quebec and Louisburg Barracks but which also support the wider Eco-town development. This report provides a summary of the bid projects and seeks the Delivery Boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s endorsement and commitment to support development and delivery of the projects should the bids be successful.

Date: 24 May 2012 Version: 1

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

Purpose of report: The purpose of this report is to inform the Delivery Board of three funding applications to support site development and economic growth. The Board will be aware of the need for these projects as they are part of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (Revised May 2012) and its infrastructure delivery plan and / or the economic development and employment strategy. Recommendations requiring Board considerations: The board is asked to: Endorse the three applications for funding and confirm its support of the projects for which the funding has been sought. Note the implications for delivery should the bids be successful and support the establishment of project teams to be responsible for the planning, design and management of project delivery. Consultation and comments received: The bids have been discussed at the Landownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Group and the Transition Group. The project details have also been provided for comment to the Homes and Communities Agency, Thames Water, Natural England, the Deadwater Valley Trust and the Environment Agency. Community engagement proposals: The 29th March green infrastructure management and maintenance workshop discussed the approach to suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANG) network delivery. If the bids are successful projects teams will be required to take the individual schemes forward and this will include the need for community engagement and involvement. 1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 In January 2012 the local enterprise partnership, Enterprise M3 (EM3), within which the Eco-town sits, received ÂŁ21m funding from government to support housing delivery and job growth through a competitive funding programme called the growing places fund. EM3 launched its funding scheme called Growing Enterprise Fund in April 2012. The aim of the fund is to unlock development and stimulate housing and job growth and will fund infrastructure such as transport, utilities, land remediation and education.

1.2 At the same time government announced a third round of its regional growth fund, a competitive programme for bids of more than £1m. Although the fund can support infrastructure, the critical aspect of this fund is the need to generate jobs and private sector investment. The guidance states “Bids are invited for programmes that will directly create jobs through private sector enterprise and growth and for programmes that will enable or unlock future private sector jobs growth, particularly in those areas and communities that are currently dependent on the public sector.” It also states that jobs from the green economy will be welcomed and are encouraged. 1.3 This is the first opportunity to seek funding of this nature and scale to support infrastructure delivery. The Eco-town funding strategy supports submitting bids to funds like these where the work is required to deliver the regeneration of Whitehill & Bordon. 2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 The Eco-town team has submitted three projects with the potential to attract more than £2.5m in funding to support the delivery of infrastructure and to bring forward sites for development on both the Quebec Barracks and Louisburg Barracks sites. A summary of these projects is given in Appendix 1. 2.2 The Growing Enterprise Fund applications are for:  £700,000 for an upgraded and realigned foul water pipe on the Quebec Barracks site that will remove development constraints on the site and allow the development of 4,000 homes.  £800,000 for the creation of management arrangements for the SANG network and for improved access and site infrastructure works to Bordon Inclosure. 2.3 The Regional Growth Fund is for more than £1.5m to bring Louisburg Barracks site into economic use by refurbishing a building as a business centre and another building as a skills centre, and setting up a management partnership to oversee the maintenance to the site and to attract occupiers and business investment. 2.4 These bids present the Eco-town with the opportunity to move from the planning phases into delivery. It capitalises on the demonstration site at Quebec Barracks and the vacant Louisburg Barracks site as a focus for stimulating economic activity and private sector job growth. The projects need to deliver on the ground and capture benefits and improvements for the town. If successful the bids will attract significant investment to the town, however even if they are not they create a profile with government and funding bodies of the town’s needs and potential, which builds the case for prioritising the town for support in the future.

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1 The growing enterprise fund projects present an opportunity to secure infrastructure that will not only allow the development of the Quebec Barracks site but will also enable the next phases of development to commence without the need to delay. The risk of not undertaking this work is that the site takes longer to develop and remains vacant, with a deteriorating appearance and increasing health and safety risk and cost of maintenance. If the project to the regional growth fund for Louisburg Barracks site is not delivered there is a similar risk of deteriorating buildings and increased risks and costs etc., but also that the opportunity to increase the business activity in the town before the MoD withdraws is lost. 3.2 Environmental impact assessments will need to be carried out in advance of any development or refurbishment work taking place on either Louisburg, Quebec or Bordon Inclosure. 3.3 Equality impact assessments will be carried out for all three projects during the design and planning stage of the projects once it is known whether the bids are successful or not. 4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The objectives for all three bids are that they must:  Support the Eco-town vision and supporting targets.  Deliver on the ground and bring sites forward.  Secure infrastructure in advance of development.  Stimulate housing development and job growth.  Create a profile for the town‘s development opportunities and investment needs. 4.2 The Eco-town vision’s supporting targets that the projects will directly contribute towards are homes and employment and jobs. 5 Resource implications 5.1 As with any project delivery the main implications concern the time scales involved, the resources available and ensuring quality of delivery. With regard to both funding programmes a period of due diligence will follow if an application is successful. This allows time for delivery mechanisms and processes to be fully developed and agreed between relevant parties. 5.2 With all three bids the district council would be the accountable body for the project delivery, which means it provides financial and project management resources throughout the lifetime of the project. This K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 106 -

responsibility could pass to the special purpose vehicle to be established to deliver the Eco-town development from 2015/16 onwards. 5.3 In the meantime however, if all three bids are successful there are resource implications for the Eco-town team, the District Council and partners and it is proposed small delivery focused project teams be established to take forward each proposal. The resource requirements are yet to be fully quantified, and will vary across the three projects, but in essence includes:  Financial accounting for grant expenditure, claims for funds, audits.  Legal service for due diligence and contracting.  Project co-ordination / management to oversee the delivery of the project in line with the bid; accounting for performance and outcomes, reporting and evaluation.  Project delivery and roll out of activities.  Community engagement, communications and publicity. 6 Cost implications 6.1 The Growing Enterprise Fund is a revolving fund which means that any grant provided will need to be paid back as the development it has unlocked is built, for example through a S106 arrangement. It is proposed that the two projects submitted pay back the grant through developer contribution on the wider Eco-town development. These charges are identified in the masterplan infrastructure delivery plan. 6.2 With regard to the grant from the regional growth fund, this does not need to be repaid but the project must lever other support including private sector funding at a rate greater than one to one. This reflects the programme’s aim to stimulate private sector investment and job growth 7 Conclusion 7.1 It is recommended that the applications submitted for the Growing Enterprise Fund and Regional Growth Fund are endorsed by the Ecotown delivery board. The board is also asked to support the work to progress the projects through project teams that will develop the project programmes, delivery models, procurement arrangements, management processes and community engagement. 8 Appendix Appendix 1: Summary of funding applications for Growing Places and Regional Growth Funds

Appendix 1 - Summary of Eco-town funding applications Growing Enterprise Fund Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) Network Delivery in Whitehill & Bordon Project proposal To bid for £800,000 to establish or expand the existing management trust to manage the entire SANG network of around 130ha. This will include creation of new management structure with a licence or agreement for access from MoD / Defence Infrastructure Organisation to undertake works on Bordon Inclosure as the first piece of the network. The improvements work to be undertaken on Bordon Inclosure including,  access improvements;  on site infrastructure – paths, lighting, litter bins etc.;  interpretation materials – signage and leaflets; and  vegetation clearance and removal of non-native species. Work on management and access arrangements to take place between July 2012 and July 2013. Physical improvement work on Bordon Inclosure to commence autumn 2013

Why it’s needed All new housing developments in Whitehill & Bordon will be required to make a contribution towards the establishment and management of areas called SANGs, which provide a key element of the avoidance and mitigation strategy to ensure no harm comes to the Natura 2000 sites as a result of development. To support the delivery of the masterplan, which includes 4,000 homes and a new town centre at least 75ha of SANG is required. To satisfy the Habitats Regulations these SANG areas need to be safeguarded and delivered in advance of the first new homes being occupied. This approach reflects experiences from organisations involved in the Dorset Heaths and Thames Basin Heaths. Bordon Inclosure is an 18ha linear greenspace located in the centre of the Whitehill & Bordon Framework Masterplan area. It forms a densely wooded river valley corridor, which is currently designated as a military training area. The vacation of the MoD from the garrison releases this land as a SANG. The provision of the Bordon Inclosure as a SANG is essential in order to allow occupation of the Quebec Barracks site, the Eco-town’s first demonstrator development. It will also support the development of future sites alongside the other proposed SANGs identified in the masterplan, which a form a key part the wider green infrastructure network covering around 200ha of the masterplan area.

Eco-town Foul Water Up-grade Project proposal To bid for ÂŁ700,000 to replace approximately 500m of pipe run from the eastern edge of the A325 to Bordon Sewage Treatment Works (SWT) crossing the River Wey and the northern edge the Quebec Barracks site. This section of pipe will be designed to deal with flow rates for 4,000 new homes, which have been estimated in the Detailed Water Cycle Study (DWCS) as a total loading for the sewerage treatment works (STW) as 162 l/s and a daily flow rate of 2.33 Ml. The improvement of the foul sewerage infrastructure at this location will bring the current system up to a standard that will service the entire planned development and enable adoption by Thames Water. Sewers for Adoption (6th Edition) Guidance will be used to ensure the appropriate standards are met. Why itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needed The provision of a new and improved foul sewerage drainage system is an essential part in the delivery of the whole Eco-town development outlined in the 2012 masterplan. With the early redevelopment of the Quebec Barracks site, which will require some level of water infrastructure improvement to update old pipes / drains and solve cross connection issues between the MoD estate and domestic supply, an opportunity arises to address the same issues at a larger scale to avoid retrenching works on or near Quebec Barracks at a later stage. This is due to the fact that the main foul water sewerage pipe for the MoD estate cuts across the northern site of the Quebec Barracks site before crossing the River Wey and entering Bordon STW in Lindford, which is managed by Thames Water. The Growing Enterprise Fund allows early investment in the delivery of this piece of infrastructure that will help enable the wider development and avoid future disruption to the Quebec Barracks (QB) site. The QB site had its own water supply and disposal arrangements. Therefore the new development needs to be connected to the local water infrastructure network, which is managed and maintained by South East Water and Thames Water. This pipe up-grade would also serve the larger Eco-town development of 4,000 home and 5,500 jobs and so needs to be up-graded to a greater extent than for the Quebec Barracks site alone, this will provide greater installed capacity and overcome one of the barriers to future development at an early stage. The pipe that requires upgrading runs across the north end of the QB site and so works need to be undertaken in advance of the development to avoid retrenching and fitting a larger pipe at a later stage in the development timetable.

Regional Growth Fund Louisburg Barracks Site Project proposal is for more than £1.5m. The project will establish a management arrangement for the use of the land / building on the Louisburg Barracks site for a fixed term, say 5 years with option to extend. The aim of the project is to undertake physical infrastructure improvement to bring the site back into economic use. This includes to:  Remediate the site and secure for private sector commercial use.  Refurbish building(s) to create letable commercial space.  Provide broadband connectivity. It will generate investment and job growth through additional economic development activity to:  Establish a business centre / work hub for entrepreneurs, start-up and small businesses.  Provide skills and training in a skills centre.  Secure business relocation investments.  Deliver a range of business support, mentoring, advice and guidance etc. Focus will be given to sectors that complement the Eco-town vision which will include environmental goods and services, sustainable construction and renewable energy, value added food and tourism.

Why it’s needed The site is now vacant and so represents an opportunity to bring the MoD buildings back into beneficial economic use. This would be for the short term until wider regeneration of the town is started and investment for the comprehensive development of the site can be secured. The short term period is anticipated to start from mid 2012 and continue to 2017. This would allow for the stimulation and growth of business activity in the town to mitigate the loss of the MoD personnel, staff and supporting contractors.

Agenda item 13

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board ______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Outcomes from Specialist Groups and Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings

Author:

Chris Youngs, Eco Coordinator, Whitehill Town Council

Reference no: WBPD020-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: All the Specialist Groups have met in April/ May and this report provides information on the outcomes of those meetings. In addition a meeting of the Chairman/ Vice Chairman & Lead Officers took place and the outcomes of that meeting are also included in this report, together with comments from the Standing Conference.

Date: 1st June 2012 Version: V2

Status of Report: Public (Exempt or Public)

Purpose of report: To provide information on the outcomes of the Specialist Groups/ Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings and any comments from the Standing Conference. Recommendations requiring Board considerations:   

To note the progress of the work of the Specialist Groups (paragraphs 2.2 - 2.7) To consider the comments of the Specialist Groups/ Chairman/ Vice Chairman and Lead Officers meeting (paragraph 2.8) To consider the comments from the Standing Conference (paragraph 2.9).

Consultation and comments received: Comments received from the Standing Conference

Community engagement proposals:

1 Background 1.1 This report provides the Delivery Board on the outcomes and recommendations of the meetings of the Specialist Groups, the Chairman/ Vice Chairman and Lead Officers meeting together with the comments of the Standing Conference and requires that the Delivery Board discusses the outcome. 2 Outcomes of the Specialist Groups 2.1

All the meetings took place in April and May and the main outcomes are shown below.

Sustainable Environment 2.2 Chris Wain gave information on the 4th update of the Wildlife of Whitehill (WOW) and they have now included the new areas of Standford Grange Farm, including Eveley Wood and Round Hill Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 112 -

2.3 Bruce Collinson gave a presentation on the Biodiversity and Carbon & Water neutrality chapters of the masterplan. 2.4 A One Planet Living Food Project was discussed and a working group was formed to develop this concept further and produce a project plan. Community Facilities & Amenities 2.5 The main topic was a discussion on faith group facilities and needs. A very productive and positive discussion took place with 13 people representing faith groups attending and the following was agreed:  that there should be a joint meeting of this group and the Infrastructure, Education & Transport Specialist Group to discuss provision of a faith school; and  to set up a working party to look into faith provision with officer support from Hampshire County Council (HCC) and East Hampshire District Council (EHDC). The working party will investigate the sustained use of St George’s (Garrison Church); a multi faith facility in the town centre (as at hospitals/ airports) and an outdoor faith facility (that can link to the green infrastructure work). 2.6 Updates were given on the Community Facilities audit and the development of the Heritage Strategy. Economic Development 2.7 Sue Robbins gave information on:  the Economic Role chapter in the revised draft framework master plan;  specialist advice had been procured for a research study to identify key business sectors which will attract investment in the town; and  an implementation plan for 1 year for the economic development strategy had been developed and Sue Robbins welcomed input and views on it. 2.8 It was suggested that a workshop or guest business speaker (perhaps from the ‘green’ industries) could be organised for future meetings that would engage and encourage greater participation at meetings. Infrastructure, Education & Transport 2.9 Andy MacLean (HCC) informed the meeting regarding the Traffic Management Strategy and forthcoming consultation process. Concern was expressed at the limited consultation periods and it was agreed that these should be extended. 2.10 Andy MacLean highlighted the three key messages from the Study:  if you have current traffic problems engage with the County Council now;  the proposed measures are not cast in stone; and K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 113 -



when the measures are designed they will be, in consultation with the local community.

2.11 Tim Wall gave a presentation on the revised masterplan and gave a short presentation on the transport projects which included E-car club, Town Transport Manager; options for the inner relief road; a traffic management scheme for the A325; Walking and Cycling Strategy; Car Parking Strategy; Bus Service Early Win Project; Bus Shelter project; Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP 3) Rail Study and future work of a Public Transport Strategy and a Freight Strategy. Housing 2.12 The main topic was a Workshop – Housing for All- Building the Community – Community Safety/ Anti Social Behaviour (ASB). This was coordinated by Petra Norris – Community Safety Manager of Radian and each of the four tables considered types of ASB, age of perpetrators/ complainants. They also worked through four scenarios and discussed how they should be acted on. 2.13 There was also a retrofit update given by Paul Ciniglio. 2.14 Concern was raised at lack of residents at the meeting (only 8). Joint Specialist Group meeting 2.15 The theme leads presented details of the revised draft framework master plan and questions were answered. Comments made by the meeting of Chairmen/ Vice Chairmen and Lead Officers 2.16 A meeting took place in May and the outcomes were as follows:  Suggested that pepper potting of social housing needed a wider debate to include the Homes & Community Agency and that it should be raised at this Delivery Board meeting;  Discussed on whether the WOW document could become a Supplementary Planning document and this is to be considered at a future Sustainability Environment Specialist Group meeting;  A concern was expressed at the option of the inner relief road going along the abandoned railway line in Hogmoor Inclosure; and  Agreed that the faith school issue should be discussed with Hampshire County Council as part of the work on learning provision. Comments made by Members of the Standing Conference 2.17 The comments by members of the Standing Conference included:  Support for use of eternal speakers at Specialist Group meetings providing they do not have a vested interest in development.  To a question on the issue of pepper potting of social housing raised at the meeting of the Chairmen/ Vice Chairmen and Lead K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 114 -

Officers, it was mentioned that James Rowley of the Home and Communities Agency is aware of this issue. 3 Risk assessment 3.1 This demonstrates that the community is involved in the work streams of the Eco-town project 4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The work of the Specialist Groups has been agreed by the Delivery Board. 5 Resource implications 5.1 The resource implications for some of the work streams (such as Stage 2 of the community Facilities study) need further support, yet to be identified. 6 Cost implications 6.1 The cost implications for some of the work streams (such as Stage 2 of the community Facilities study) need further support, yet to be identified.

Agenda item 14

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board _______________________________________________________________ Date of meeting:

14th June 2012

Title of report:

Project Progress Report

Author:

Simon Beach, Project Coordinator

Reference no: WBPD021-2012 _______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: This report provides a periodic update for the Delivery Board. It outlines progress since the last meeting. Key features of the past three months include: 

2012 Masterplan unanimously agreed at EHDC full council



Revisions to the overall project plan include changes to demonstration projects timings, revision of hybrid planning timescales, and revision to Quebec Barracks work streams. Revisions have been made to the Joint Core Strategy examination date



Work with PwC towards commercial strategy advice and a delivery/investment partner concludes at the Delivery Board meeting. A report will be available.



Transport report to be given by Tim Wall at the Delivery Board



Neighbourhood Quality Charter report to be given by Sarah Allan at the Delivery Board

Date: 17.05.2012 Version: 1.2

Status of Report: Public

Purpose of report: This report provides a periodic update for the Delivery Board. It is produced for each Delivery Board meeting. Recommendations requiring Board considerations: For information only. Consultation and comments received: Comments received at the Standing Conference have been incorporated in the Delivery Board report.

Community Engagement Proposals The projects undertaken as part of the Eco-town programme encourage and expect community engagement at all levels as appropriate. Details of engagement can be found in the associated documents accompanying this report.

1 Background 1.1 This report outlines progress of projects since the last Delivery Board meeting. 1.2 There is no overspend to report and the majority of projects are running to programme. 2 Report Governance 2.1 All elements of governance are running smoothly. Within the last quarter, all five Specialist Groups have met, and a separate report identifies their work and conclusions. In addition, the work of PwC is now nearing completion. The recommendations that will be made in their report, once finalised, will assist in guiding the next steps needed in procuring an investment partner. Masterplan and Core Strategy 2.2 The revised masterplan (May 2012) was approved by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) on 9th May 2012. This formal sign-off by the district council was the final stage in a rigorous approval process which included taking on board comments from: EHDCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development Policy Panel, Whitehill Town Council, Specialist Groups, the Standing Conference and the Delivery Board. The masterplan has been submitted as part of the evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy. (Please refer to the separate report on the masterplan.) 2.3 The Joint Core Strategy is submitted with 'modifications' in response to the previous consultation comments. Whitehill & Bordon Strategic Allocation now conforms with the revised masterplan. The modifications will be subject to the further statutory consultation period and will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for the examination along with other comprehensive evidence base. The Examination in Public (EiP) is expected to take place in September. Planning and Project Team Projects 2.4 Work continues with GVA Grimley Ltd (GVA) and AMEC and the project team, to undertake an outline planning application for the entire site and an outline planning application for Quebec Barracks. 2.5 The overall delivery programme for the project is now well underway. GVA / AMEC programme is now included in the overall project programme which is found in Appendix 2 of this report. 2.6 Bruce Collinson is progressing the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) work to timetable, which covers three areas:

HRA Refresh - Workshop on Access Management Plans held with key stakeholders to bring together land managers to agree principles for joint working.

SANG Design and Delivery - Workshop held on design principles and phased development of the core Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) areas to reflect the revised masterplan.

Visitor Survey - Preparatory work is underway to agree a methodology for the 2012 visitor survey; this has been shared with the HRA Working Group in May 2012.

2.7 The green infrastructure management and maintenance work is progressing well. The workshop at the end of March provided valuable information in developing the management and maintenance framework for the Eco-town. Meetings continue with the key land managers in and around the town in advance of a paper going to the September Delivery Board meeting. 2.8 A paper is being written to take forward the energy and water proposals for Whitehill & Bordon linked to the draft Retrofitting Strategy, Energy Feasibility Study and Detailed Water Cycle Study. The paper was circulated to stakeholders in May. Neighbourhood Quality Charter 2.9 A report is to be given to the Delivery Board. Economic Development and Funding 2.10 Work has focused on:  design workshop held and output being written up into a report and included in the Development Principles. 2.11 Activity on skills includes:  work in progress with the garrison to set up a pilot training scheme;  work with Hampshire County Council on learning campus concept;  work with East Hampshire District Council on innovation campus feasibility;  meeting held with Jobcentre Plus to discuss training schemes linked to developments. 2.12 Discussions as to how to bring the site forward for economic use are taking place. There is interest from a range of people in seeing it brought forward and these options are being explored with a view to a potential funding bid to the Regional Growth Fundship Service in collaboration with East Hampshire Community Partnership. 2.13 Economic development and employment strategy draft implementation plan has been circulated to the Economic Development Specialist Group K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 119 -

for comment. Feedback was received and a revised version was produced in May. 2.14 Inward Investment Sector Research. Consultants have been commissioned to carry out research into the investment potential of the environmental goods and services, clean tech, sustainable construction sectors etc. to be attracted to the future Eco-town development, what assets we have and need to attract these businesses and how best to approach them to secure investment. Project Management Framework 2.15 Following a review of the project management framework and lessons learned reports received, a number of changes have been made. 2.16 Reporting will now be programmed on a quarterly basis in line with Standing Conference and Delivery Board deadlines. 2.17 Project documentation process will remain. 2.18 Strengthening of Issue Log and resolution process between reporting periods. Lessons Learned Report 2.19 As part of the project management framework, lessons learned reports are completed and act as project closure reports. Three elements of project delivery are commented on; what went well, what didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t go well and how these learning points can be addressed or replicated in future projects. A summary report can be viewed in Appendix 6 3 Risk assessment 3.1 Risks are assessed and mitigated within the risk register and project management system. Please see separate documents. 4 Contributions to Delivery Board Priorities 4.1 These projects all contribute to Eco-town priorities. 5 Resource implications 5.1 All the projects are funded from the Department of Communities and Local Government funding received in March 2010 and March 2011. There is no change to resource implications or requirements. 6 Cost Implication 6.1 Appendix 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Financial Summary. 6.2 We anticipate that the funding will be spent over three years. K:\Corporate Shared Folders\Whitehill Bordon\011 Meetings\Delivery Board Partners: EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHITEHILL TOWN COUNCIL, WHITEHILL & BORDON TOWN PARTNERSHIP, MINISTRY of DEFENCE, HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY - 120 -

7 Conclusion 7.1 The overall status is amber due to some projects and workstreams which have issues and risks that are being managed. 8 Appendix Appendix 1: Theme Report The Theme document is a monthly report which highlights the status of individual projects from the previous month, achievements and items to be reviewed for exception. Appendix 2: Overall Project Programme The Overall Project Programme report is presented to the Delivery Board for process information purposes. The overall programme plan outlines the work required to deliver key aspects of the entire project into the future. Since the previous overall project programme was submitted in March 2012 the following amendments have been made 1. 2. 3. 4.

Updated GVA Amec Hybrid Planning programme Updated PwC investment partner programme Updated Core Strategy Programme Updated timescales for individual projects

The timings of each element are as accurate as possible at present, but will change in line with project demands and requirements over a number of years. Appendix 3: Project Status Report The project status report is submitted for information purposes. The purpose of the report is to provide a more detailed snapshot of status for each of the projects. Three areas of information are provided on community projects, demonstration projects and studies. 1. Project description 2. Latest progress 3. Status Appendix 4: Overall RAG Report The Overall RAG report is submitted for information purposes. The report highlights all projects and workstreams including risk and forward planned milestones for the entire project.

Appendix 5: Financial Summary The financial summary is submitted for information purposes. Appendix 6: Lessons Learned summary report The Lessons Learned summary report collates the headline experiences of completed projects and summarises key actions to take forward to new projects within the Eco-town programme.

Appendix 1: Theme Report Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

project complete May-12

Next Milestone

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

15/05/2012

£10,000.00

£9,770.00

Green

Amber

Green

Project complete Ongoing reports received

Attended Weyford Juniors after school Rangers and Gardening clubs Picked up and distributed progrow bags, seeds and tools to schools for Veg box competition Attended Bordon Infants after school Buzz club Guided walk with Woodlea school year 5 around DV-LNR Met with 3 contractors for Green Network tendering Performed community litter pick on DV-LNR area behind Savile Crescent

15/05/2012

£50,000.00

yes

Green

Project complete Ongoing reports received

Continuing support vegetable box competition with schools Hampshire Solar Challenge planning Working with Town Partnership on Soapbox Derby Facilities and Amenities working group Scouts/Guides/Brownies

10/05/2012

£60,000.00

£58,660.00

yes

Green

16/04/2012

£400,000.00

£217,790.00

yes

Green

Achievement This Reporting Period

Sc op

Project Manager

on es

Summary Status

M ile st

Project Title

nc ia ls

Project Ref No.

Community / Demonstration Projects Amber

Fi na

Theme: Status:

Comments on Underperforming Areas

Solution / Positive Comments

1st Priority Risk and Owner upcoming issues

Community Projects

5526PR

5527PR

5524PR

5518PR

Green Network Enhancement- Existing Town

Countryside Ranger

Community Development Worker

Retrofitting homes Insulation

Amber

Green

Site visits undertaken with 3 contractors for Produce a consultation Green Network Tori Melhuish plan for engagement tendering with residents 2 tenders returned to date

Tori Mehluish

Project complete Ongoing reports received

Mike O'Mahony

Project complete Ongoing reports received

Stephanie Beggs

Meeting to be held to discuss closure of the scheme

5530PR

Youth Drop In Centre

Amber

Carolyn Warne

5525PR

Heathland Biomass Potential Project

Green

Matthew Woodcock

5521PR

Eco Pack

Green

982 households have had insulation installed Setting up of further retrofitting projects Attended Insulate Hampshire meeting

Two drop-ins open and have consistent Continue with planning numbers attending sessions for the term Started activities and projects including junk modeling

Incorporate feedback into draft report and include further maps

Community First line manage the Youth Project Worker. Milestones to recruit volunteers, have 3 sessions weekly and engage with more young people still not met

2nd draft report circulated to HRA working group

Second Eco-pack Lydia Forbes Investigate possibility of (consultation flyer third eco pack designed, writted, Manson printed & distributed)

Two Eco-packs completed with money left over to consider a third Eco-pack

3 meetings have taken place with EHDC contracts and a timetable for work schedule has been outlined

EHDC (Planning or street contractor) not able to meet to discuss feasibility of each plot

Green

Serious accident

Green

Poor response to LCCC and other initiatives for residents and community groups

Green

Low Uptake of initiative resulting in funds not being spent

Youth worker cannot recruit volunteers

YUG

Major delay to the project as the contracts team have not been able to give priority to the project due to demands in their department.

Some funding has been used to secure another worker in place to enable 2 of the 3 sessions to continue so dropins are not dependent on volunteers

16/05/2012

£30,000.00

Green

Amber

Green

15/05/2012

£6,000.00

No spend this period

yes

Green

Financial constraints

Matthew Woodcock

15/05/2012

£8,000.00

£2,711.00

yes

Green

Depends on other projects and their possible delays

LFM

15/05/2012

£25000 & £40000

yes

Green

Ongoing engagement with Natural England and other stakeholders

Unable to recruit volunteers

Studies

5535PR

HRA Refresh & Visitor Survey

Green

Bruce Collinson

Preparation of outline access management plans for stakeholder comment

Evidence gathered and European site data updated HRA workshop held

123

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

£45,000.00

£9,817.11

yes

Green

PID written

Achievement This Reporting Period

Sc op

Next Milestone

on es

Project Manager

M ile st

Summary Status

nc ia ls

Project Title

Fi na

Project Ref No.

Comments on Underperforming Areas

Solution / Positive Comments

1st Priority Risk and Owner upcoming issues

Community Projects

5536PR

One Planet Living (second phase)

Green

Bruce Collinson

5535PR

Management and maintenance of Green Infrastructure

Green

Bruce Collinson

5535PR

SANG Deisgn and Delivery

Green

Bruce Collinson

5539PR

Transport Evidence Base Development

Green

Tim Wall

5533PR

Transport Rail Feasibility study

Green

Tim Wall

GI Management & Maintenance workshop Draft outline management framework held produced 1:1 meetings with landowners and Workshop held Standford Grange Farm SANG Option appraisal visit 1:1 meetings with key stakeholders

Continued dialogue with Continue work on the Continue work on the SCC and HA on Link Mitigation Strategy evidence requirements Link Mitigation Strategy and scheme delivery

yes

Green

Ongoing engagement with Natural England and other stakeholders

15/05/2012

£25,000.00

yes

Green

Ongoing engagement with Natural England and other stakeholders

N/A

£250,000.00

yes

Green

Agreement of stakeholders

15/05/12

£250,000.00

£199,139.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

Commissioning of Second Stage Study delayed due to delay in receipt of yr2 funding

Funding now received and No positive business case Stage2 Study commissioned identified in interim report and underway

15/05/2012

£30,000.00

£10,472.50

yes

Green

Final draft Strategy requires significant further work to be of a suitable standard for consultation. This will impact on the programme.

Meeting held with consultants to discuss work required to the Strategy

Study goes overprogramme

15/05/2012

£20,000.00

£10,232.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

First Draft Study late being delivered and requires further work before being acceptable to consult upon

Comments provided to Consultant - awaiting revised draft

Study goes overprogramme

Project is not yet initiated

15/05/2012

£30,000.00

£16,738.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

Draft now agreed for the second stage consultation. Extended consultation period agreed.

Study goes overprogramme

N/A

£370,000.00

£310,883.00

yes

Green

Project is not yet initiated

Transport Walking & Cycling Strategy

Green

Tim Wall

Publish draft Strategy

5539PR

Car Parking Strategy

Amber

Tim Wall

Publish draft Strategy

First draft produced for client comment Officer comments provided to consultant

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Green

Tim Wall

Publish draft Strategy

Green

Stephanie Beggs

Project complete

High Street Chalet Hill

EHDC

Project is not yet initiated

5513PR

Viking Park

Amber

Mandar Puranik

5514PR

Quebec Barracks

Green

Susan Robbins

Traffic Management Strategy

£12,000.00

Work on stage 2 continuing

5539PR

15/05/2012

Receive revised draft Stage 2 Study

Met with consultants to discuss concerns regarding draft prepared Received programme of further work to improve the strategy in line with the brief

Transport Freight Strategy

Project is not yet initiated

Presented Study to IET Specialist Group Commenced stage 2 stakeholder consultation

Andrew Wilson

Project is not yet initiated

Extended consultation with villages and consultant delay in delivering draft

Demonstration Projects

5519PR

5506PR

LCCC Ecofit

Firestation Refurb

Amber

Sarah Allan

Project complete

Development principles Output from design approved workshop agreed

Phase 2 completion

Building work progressing to budget

Next steps are to establish a process for re-loaning funds from loan repayments

Ongoing workstream with 2 deliverable options coming out of the study

N/A

£90,000.00

£82,473.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

Unable to create a comercially viable solution that meets sustainable ambitions (e.g. BREEAM excellent)

10/05/2012

£45,000.00

£9,124.00

yes

Green

Unable to create a comercially viable solution that meets sustainable ambitions

Amber

Contractor progressing with works and seeking to make progress in areas later in the programmeto Contractor running behing programme but past delays now resolved.make up for some lost Green time. Architect still awaiting detailed extension of time information.

Delay to completion

15/05/2012

£868,300.00

£432,662.00

124

yes

Green

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

Consultants issued user questionnaire and ran stakeholder and community workshops to inform development of project brief Initial design process meeting positive

15/05/2012

£374,700.00

£23,015.00

yes

Green

Achievement This Reporting Period

Sc op

Next Milestone

on es

Project Manager

M ile st

Summary Status

nc ia ls

Project Title

Fi na

Project Ref No.

Comments on Underperforming Areas

Solution / Positive Comments

1st Priority Risk and Owner upcoming issues

Community Projects

5510PR

Firestation Exhibition Venue

Green

Stephanie Beggs

Draft plan for opening event

5508PR

Eco-town terraced house competition

Red

Sarah Allan

Sign land transfer agreement

Radian comments received by legal team Agreement plan prepared by EHDC

15/05/2012

£250,000.00

£50,683.00

yes

Green

Red

Green

Land transfer agreement dependent on quick responses between EHDC legal and Radian

House completion

Building work progressing to budget and whilst programme behind, contractor and design team working pro-actively to resolve items and maintain quality of construction.

19/04/2012

£425,000.00

£257,732.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

Problems with delivery and specialist design of innovative items (trombe wall and inter-seasonal heat store)

N/A

£15,000

£5,570.00

yes

Green

5507PR

Exhibition House

Amber

Sarah Allan

Green

Tim Wall

Delay in opening the building and launching the first exhibition

SA received updates from EHDC

Land transfer - issue

Issues now resolved and anticipated completion of house is 4 weeks late (Aug 2012)

Public access during and following construction

Website becomes inactive/crashes

Ben Clifton

Lack of interest in route by the public - low patronage and usage

Andrew Wilson

Inadequate funding to implement Smarter Choices Strategies

Failure to capture and maintain stakeholder support

Insufficient uptake

Further Transport Projects

5548PR

Whitehill Bordon Travel Website

Personalised Journey Planning Project

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Whitehill Bordon Eco-Car Club

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Eco Cycle Hire Schemes

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated Project is not yet

Project is not yet initiated

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated Project is not

Tim Wall

Tender Contract

HCC Executive Member Approval achieved to tender

15/05/2012

£500,000.00

£4,000.00

yes

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet

15/05/2012

£200,000.00

No spend this period

yes

Walking and Cycling improvements Stage 1 Marketing and Promotion

5539PR

Bus Service Improvements

Tim Wall

Amber

Electric Charging Points

5539PR

Make minor ammendments to Web pages are live complete the interactive map

Town Transport Manager

Amber

Tim Wall

Prepare for TTM start in TTM position appointed June

Project is not yet initiated Project is not yet initiated

Green

Amber

Green

Delay in agreeing service options and achieving authority to release options caused a delay in milestones

Project is not yet initiated

Green

Amber

Green

No successful candidate found first time around - required re- Town Transport Manager now recruited advertising

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Transport Hub Phase 1

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Transport Improved Cycle Parking

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

15/05/2012

£250,000.00

£140,488.00

yes

Green

10/05/2012

£50,000.00

£11,780.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

Walking and Cycling improvements Stage 2

Authority to release options was agreed

Other Projects

5534PR

5537PR

Governance

Eco-Grants

Green

Daphne Gardner

Susan Robbins

EHDC Cabinet agreement has been given for the DB Finalise the contract for Chairman’s contract to the DB Chairman be renewed for up to a three years period.

Design for two shop fronts provided Re-launch of the grant Follow-up contact with and support to retailers businesses Proposal for re-launch of eco-grant has been accepted

125

Dates for awarding grants has not been met.

Applications have been received and the first awards were made in April 2012

Stephanie Beggs

Promote solid wall insulation

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

15/05/2012

ÂŁ39,423.00

ÂŁ27,143.00

yes

Green

Achievement This Reporting Period

Sc op

Next Milestone

on es

Project Manager

M ile st

Summary Status

nc ia ls

Project Title

Fi na

Project Ref No.

Comments on Underperforming Areas

Solution / Positive Comments

1st Priority Risk and Owner upcoming issues

Community Projects

LEAF project

Grant claims submitted Boiler scrappage scheme advertised

126

Green

Low uptake of schemes resulting in funds not being spent in time

Appendix 2: Overall Project Programme Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V5 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish arApr a Jun Jul u

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme

1175 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Fri 01/01/16

MoD Vacations

1174 days? Mon 04/07/11

Thu 31/12/15

Withdrawal from occupied sites

1 day?

Thu 31/12/15

Withdrawal from unoccupied sites TBA

1 day?

Mon 04/07/11

1 day? Mon 04/07/11

Mon 04/07/11

Transition Plan

1 day?

Mon 04/07/11

EHDC Support Services Plan

1 day?

Mon 04/07/11

195 days? Mon 04/07/11

Fri 30/03/12

175 days?

Mon 01/08/11

Fri 30/03/12

65 days?

Mon 03/10/11

Fri 30/12/11

2 days

Mon 04/07/11

Tue 05/07/11

391 days? Mon 04/07/11

Mon 31/12/12

216 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Mon 30/04/12 Fri 30/09/11

Operational Transition (Dates TBA)

Community Engagement & Vision 263 days?

Engage with Community & update Masterplan 120 days

Neighbourhood consultation

Communications and Marketing (Dates TBA)

Core Strategy and Masterplan

Completion of studies

Re-state vision

45 days?

Mon 01/08/11

Public Consultation on Masterplan

87 days?

Thu 01/09/11

Fri 30/12/11

Update masterplan

99 days?

Mon 02/01/12

Thu 17/05/12

Publish Masterplan

Core Strategy Pre submission Published

0 days

Fri 18/05/12

31 days

Fri 03/02/12

Fri 16/03/12

Tue 01/05/12

EHDC Full Cabinet Meeting

0 days

Masterplan Adoption

0 days Wed 09/05/12 Wed 09/05/12

Core Strategy Submission

0 days

Fri 25/05/12

Core Strategy EIP

10 days

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 14/09/12

25 26

Core Strategy Adopted Masterplan Next Steps

Draft options paper on Masterplan

Agree preferred option

Prepare Project Programme

Masterplan Studies

21 days

Mon 03/12/12

Mon 31/12/12

131 days?

Fri 01/06/12

Fri 30/11/12

66 days?

Fri 01/06/12

Fri 31/08/12

0 days

Fri 28/09/12

41 days?

Fri 05/10/12

Fri 30/11/12

404 days? Mon 30/05/11

Thu 13/12/12

Completion of Current Studies (Phase 1) 0 days

Completion of Rail GRIP 3 Study 138 days

Evidence for Core Strategy Studies

174 days

Tue 01/11/11

HRA Refresh

109 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Fri 30/03/12

Walking and Cycling Strategy

293 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Thu 13/12/12

Parking Strategy

293 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Thu 13/12/12

Additional Transport Work Dates TBA

109 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Fri 30/03/12

Traffic Management Strategy

206 days?

Thu 01/03/12

Thu 13/12/12

80 days Wed 22/02/12

Thu 14/06/12

0 days

PWC Commercial Strategy Advice

Mon 30/05/11

Thu 28/07/11

402 days? Wed 01/06/11

Thu 13/12/12

e Oct o

2012 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

25/05

28/09

30/05

Fri 29/06/12

Fri 24/02/12

24/02

Fri 24/02/12

24/02

Review and agree changes to Masterplan

0 days

Fri 24/02/12

24/02

Obtain likely land release programme from MoD (Date in review)

0 days

Fri 24/02/12

24/02

80 days Wed 22/02/12

Thu 14/06/12

Stage 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Test Phasing Options

Fri 24/02/12

22/02

Pre-meeting to the main technical workshop

0 days Wed 22/02/12 Wed 22/02/12

Technical workshop to test phasing options and impact of infrastructure investment on outputs

0 days

Thu 01/03/12

Update on phase 2 progress to Delivery Board

0 days

Fri 16/03/12

16/03

GVA to provide baseline position and worked up options

0 days

Fri 16/03/12

16/03

Masterplan financials and value engineering:reprofiling and phasing of key infrastructure

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

14/06

Sources of funding - assessing potential viability and suitability of funding sources

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

14/06

Selection of preferred delivery option:quantitative assessment

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

14/06

Procurement and Implementation Strategy

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

14/06

Market testing exercise based on financial assessment of delivery options

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

14/06

Delivery of Phase 2 report

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

14/06

Development Partner procurement OJEU Process 474 days

Outline Planning Application GVA Programme 2012

2 days?

Thu 08/09/11

147 days

Thu 08/09/11

Fri 30/03/12

Start up meeting

0 days

Thu 08/09/11

Document review

20 days

Mon 03/10/11

Fri 28/10/11

Identifying additional technical survey requirements

105 days

Mon 03/10/11

Fri 24/02/12

Review/ agree planning strategy (PT level)

65 days

Mon 02/01/12

Fri 30/03/12

Review/ update programme

18 days Wed 01/02/12

Fri 24/02/12

Agree/ prepare consultation strategy

Mobilisation & information gathering

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Fri 18/05/12

114 days

01/03

Tue 15/11/11 Wed 16/11/11

147 days

2014 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

09/05

0 days

e Oct o

01/05

Review assumptions from GVA viability report

Stage 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Review Assumptions

2013 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

18/05

e Oct o

Fri 30/03/12

Tue 25/10/11

08/09

Fri 30/03/12

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 1

127

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2017 e Jan e

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V5 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish arApr a Jun Jul u

Undertake technical surveys/ work

237 days?

Thu 01/12/11

235 days

Mon 05/12/11

Fri 26/10/12

87 days

Mon 02/04/12

Tue 31/07/12

174 days

Thu 01/12/11

Tue 31/07/12

87 days?

Mon 02/04/12

Tue 31/07/12

110 days

Mon 02/04/12

Fri 31/08/12

66 days

Tue 01/05/12

Tue 31/07/12

Phase 1 LQA Review

130 days Wed 01/02/12

Tue 31/07/12

Cultural heritage survey

152 days

Mon 02/01/12

Tue 31/07/12

87 days

Mon 02/04/12

Tue 31/07/12

152 days

Mon 02/01/12

Tue 31/07/12

546 days?

Fri 29/04/11

Fri 31/05/13

Ecological surveys

Buidings and Utilities survey

Landscape and Visual

Topographical Survey

Transportation Surveys

Noise surveys

93 94 95

Flood Risk Surveys

Other inc Tree Survey

Progress Masterplan

Review AECOM framework masterplan

219 days

Framework update

153 days Wed 01/02/12

Fri 31/08/12

Update constraints/ opportunities

153 days Wed 01/02/12

Fri 31/08/12

101

Review land use budget/ capacity

153 days Wed 01/02/12

Fri 31/08/12

102

Option for EIA Scoping

103

Develop options

153 days

Mon 02/04/12 Wed 31/10/12

104

Evaluate options

130 days

Mon 04/06/12

Fri 30/11/12

105

Viability testing

130 days

Mon 04/06/12

Fri 30/11/12

106

Environmental Support to Masterplan Design

175 days

Mon 02/04/12

Fri 30/11/12

107

Consult on options

23 days

Tue 01/01/13

Thu 31/01/13

108

Identify/ progress preferred option

20 days

Fri 01/02/13

Thu 28/02/13

109

Obtain approvals to preferred option

20 days

Fri 01/02/13

Thu 28/02/13

110

Finalise Masterplan preferred option

282 days

Mon 02/04/12

Tue 30/04/13

111

Develop Detailed Masterplan

86 days?

Fri 01/02/13

Fri 31/05/13

Draft preliminary application documents

495 days?

Mon 02/04/12

Draft Planning Performance Agreement

66 days

Fri 01/06/12

Fri 31/08/12

EIA scoping

65 days

Mon 04/06/12

Fri 31/08/12

115

EIA Scoping Opinion

30 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 12/10/12

116

Environmental Statement

129 days

Thu 01/11/12

Tue 30/04/13

117

ES Amendments

43 days? Wed 01/05/13

Fri 28/06/13

118

Energy Strategy

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

119

Appropriate Assessment Screening

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

120

Transport assessment and travel plan

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

121

Flood risk assessment and SWMP*1

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

122

Integrated water management strategy

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

123

Other assessments e.g. retail impact/ health/ sport/ leisure impact assessments

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

124

Utilities statement

109 days

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

125

Planning statement

86 days

Fri 01/03/13

Fri 28/06/13

126

Design & access statement

107 days

127

Sustainability statement

107 days

Tue 01/01/13 Wed 29/05/13

128

Statement of community involvement

453 days

Mon 07/11/11 Wed 31/07/13

129

S106 Heads of Terms/ CIL

130

Consultation Agree strategy (see 7 above)

132

Publication of Pre-Submission Joint Core Strategy

133

Joint Core Strategy submission

134

Masterplan options testing

135

Statutory consultees (as required)

136

LPA pre-application meetings

Tue 01/01/13 Wed 31/07/13

473 days?

Thu 08/09/11

Mon 01/07/13

196 days

Tue 01/11/11

Tue 31/07/12

33 days Wed 01/02/12

Fri 16/03/12

4 days

Tue 29/05/12

Fri 01/06/12

216 days

Thu 05/04/12

Thu 31/01/13

1 day

Thu 08/09/11

236 days? Mon 06/08/12

Mon 01/07/13

LPA pre-application meetings 1

1 day

Mon 06/08/12

138

LPA pre-application meetings 2

1 day

Mon 01/10/12

139

LPA pre-application meetings 3

1 day

Mon 03/12/12

140

LPA pre-application meetings 4

1 day

Mon 04/02/13

141

LPA pre-application meetings 5

1 day

Mon 01/04/13

142

LPA pre-application meetings 6

1 day

Mon 03/06/13

143

LPA pre-application meetings 7

1 day?

Mon 01/07/13

Specialist technical groups (TBA)

03/06 01/07

115 days Wed 11/04/12 Wed 19/09/12

145

April

0 days Wed 11/04/12 Wed 11/04/12

146

May

0 days Wed 16/05/12 Wed 16/05/12

147

June

0 days Wed 13/06/12 Wed 13/06/12

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Fri 18/05/12

2014 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

Tue 01/01/13 Wed 29/05/13

137

144

e Oct o

Thu 08/09/11 Wed 31/07/13

114

131

2013 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

Fri 31/08/12

113

152 days

e Oct o

Fri 29/04/11 Wed 29/02/12

112

2012 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

Fri 26/10/12

100

110 days?

e Oct o

11/04 16/05 13/06

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 2

128

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2017 e Jan e

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V5 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish arApr a Jun Jul u

148

July

0 days Wed 18/07/12 Wed 18/07/12

149

August

0 days Wed 22/08/12 Wed 22/08/12

150

September

0 days Wed 19/09/12 Wed 19/09/12

151

LPA/ Delivery Board

260 days

Thu 15/12/11

Thu 13/12/12

Thu 15/12/11

152

15 December 2011

0 days

153

14 March 2012

0 days Wed 14/03/12 Wed 14/03/12

154

14 June 2012

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

155

13 September 2012

0 days

Thu 13/09/12

156

13 December 2012

0 days

Thu 13/12/12

157

Pre-application consultation

20 days

Mon 03/06/13

Fri 28/06/13

158

Joint Core Strategy EiP

23 days Wed 01/08/12

159

Joint Core Strategy adoption

16 days

Mon 10/12/12

Mon 31/12/12

160

SPD Final consultation

30 days

Mon 18/02/13

Fri 29/03/13

161

SPD Adoption

0 days

Fri 07/06/13

162

Finalise PA documentation

45 days

Mon 01/07/13

Fri 30/08/13

163

Amend in light of comments

23 days

Mon 01/07/13 Wed 31/07/13

Prepare forms/ certificates/ fee

23 days

Mon 01/07/13 Wed 31/07/13

165

Collate/ review all documents

23 days

Mon 01/07/13 Wed 31/07/13

166

Obtain approvals to submit

22 days

Thu 01/08/13

167

Submit Application

0 days

Fri 30/08/13

130 days

Mon 02/09/13

Fri 28/02/14

Post-submission

2012 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u e Oct o 18/07

Respond to LPA issues (4-6 months)

130 days

Mon 02/09/13

Fri 28/02/14

170

Negotiate obligations/ affordable housing/ S278 etc (4-6 months)

130 days

Mon 02/09/13

Fri 28/02/14

171

PA determined

0 days

Fri 28/02/14

172

Detailed consents

783 days Wed 01/01/14

Fri 30/12/16

19/09

15/12 14/03 14/06 13/09 13/12

28/02

173

Prepare and submit (2014)

522 days Wed 01/01/14

Thu 31/12/15

Pre-commencement conditions (2014/15)

522 days Wed 01/01/14

Thu 31/12/15

175

Set up period (2015)

261 days

Thu 01/01/15

Thu 31/12/15

176

Start on site/ late 2015

261 days

Fri 01/01/16

Fri 30/12/16

0 days

Fri 28/09/12

28/09

0 days

Fri 28/09/12

28/09

588 days?

Thu 01/09/11

Mon 02/12/13 Thu 15/09/11

178 179

Land Equalisation Agreement Quebec Barracks (DATES IN REVIEW)

180

Preliminary/ baseline tasks:

11 days

Thu 01/09/11

184

Prepare options

98 days?

Fri 16/09/11

Tue 31/01/12

190

Report to Project Team

74 days? Mon 17/10/11

Thu 26/01/12

195

Develop preferred option

115 days? Mon 24/10/11

Fri 30/03/12

199

Obtain approval to development principles

206

90 days? Mon 28/11/11

Fri 30/03/12

Prepare planning application documents

109 days? Mon 02/01/12

Thu 31/05/12

222

Public Consultation

113 days? Wed 25/01/12

Fri 29/06/12

231

Approve final document

236

Market land

242

Detailed planning application preparation

246

Post application submission

93 days? Mon 25/06/12 Wed 31/10/12 150 days? Mon 03/09/12

Fri 29/03/13

85 days? Mon 04/03/13

Fri 28/06/13

151 days? Mon 06/05/13

Mon 02/12/13

250

Community Engagement

460

Landowners Group Meetings

220 days

Thu 23/02/12

Thu 27/12/12

461

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 23/02/12

462

Landowners meeting

0 days

Fri 23/03/12

463

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 26/04/12

464

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 24/05/12

465

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 28/06/12

466

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 26/07/12

467

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 23/08/12

468

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 27/09/12

469

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 25/10/12

470

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 22/11/12

471

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 27/12/12

472

Delivery Board Meetings

195 days

Thu 15/03/12

Thu 13/12/12

1041 days Wed 04/01/12 Wed 30/12/15

473

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 15/03/12

474

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

475

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 13/09/12

476

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 13/12/12

477

Specialist Group Meetings

137 days

Tue 01/05/12

Thu 08/11/12

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Fri 18/05/12

2014 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

22/08

174

Landowners Issues

e Oct o

Fri 30/08/13

169

177

2013 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

Fri 31/08/12

164

168

e Oct o

23/02 23/03 26/04 24/05 28/06 26/07 23/08 27/09 25/10 22/11 27/12

15/03 14/06 13/09 13/12

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 3

129

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2017 e Jan e

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V5 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish arApr a Jun Jul u

478

135 days

Tue 01/05/12

Tue 06/11/12

479

Meeting

0 days

Tue 01/05/12

480

Meeting

0 days

Tue 03/07/12

481

Meeting

0 days

Tue 06/11/12

80 days

Thu 19/07/12

Thu 08/11/12

482

Community Facilities & Amenities

Infrastructure and Transport

483

Meeting

0 days

Thu 19/07/12

484

Meeting

0 days

Thu 08/11/12

4 days

Tue 17/07/12

Mon 23/07/12

485

Economic Development

486

Meeting

0 days

Tue 17/07/12

487

Meeting

0 days

Mon 23/07/12

75 days

Thu 12/07/12

Thu 25/10/12

488

Housing

489

Meeting

0 days

Thu 12/07/12

490

Meeting

0 days

Thu 25/10/12

824 days?

Tue 05/07/11

Fri 29/08/14

824 days?

Tue 05/07/11

Fri 29/08/14

64 days?

Tue 05/07/11

Fri 30/09/11

491

Demonstration Projects

492

Eco-station/Eco-house

493

Tender process

494

Sign contract with Main Contractor

0 days

Mon 14/11/11

495

Site works Phase 2- eco station

0 days

Fri 31/08/12

496

Site work - eco-house

210 days

Mon 14/11/11

Fri 31/08/12

21 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Mon 01/10/12

0 days

Fri 28/09/12

261 days

Fri 30/08/13

Fri 29/08/14

481 days? Mon 28/11/11

Mon 30/09/13

497

Commissioning

498

Opening

499

Monitoring

500

Radian Competition

501

Stage 2 competition

502

Planning application

503

Construction start

504 505

Transport Infrastructure Bus - early win

48 days?

Mon 28/11/11 Wed 01/02/12

65 days?

Mon 02/07/12

Fri 28/09/12

195 days?

Tue 01/01/13

Mon 30/09/13

1 day? Mon 31/12/12

Mon 31/12/12

1 day?

Mon 31/12/12

Mon 31/12/12 Tue 03/01/12

506

Completion of Community & Demonstrator Projects (Ph2) 132 days

132 days? Mon 04/07/11

507

Completion of Community & Demonstrator Projects (Ph3) 263 days

263 days? Mon 04/07/11 Wed 04/07/12

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Fri 18/05/12

e Oct o

2012 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

2013 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2014 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

01/05 03/07 06/11

19/07 08/11

17/07 23/07

12/07 25/10

14/11 31/08

28/09

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 4

130

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e MarApr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2017 e Jan e

Appendix 3: Project Status Report

Whitehill Bordon Project Status Update March 2012

Demonstration Projects

Status

Quebec Barracks Project Description This project will prepare a timely and commercially viable development and align project partnership objectives for the Quebec Barracks site

Project Progress Draft Development Principles presented to Standing Conference and Delivery Board and consultation period closed 31 January 2012. Document being revised and will progress through Council approval stages and on to Board for approval June 2012.

In progress

HCA are negotiating the purchase of the site. Until this is complete there is no direct activity from the project team to report. As reported previously project team arrangements and activities will be reviewed once this process is completed. Work on seeking funding to support eco-standards on the site and its development continues.

Firestation Refurbishment Project Description To develop both an historical museum and an exhibition of the practical matters appertaining to the proposed Eco-town, with particular reference to householders. Both the history of the area and its biodiversity will be demonstrated. For adults and children, these matters will be shown alongside an information centre. This information centre will provide meeting rooms, office space and also marketing space for the Eco Town project. The site will also include a demonstration house and other demonstration projects along with an architectural competition for 3 houses under separate PIDS

Project Progress Building work progressing on site â&#x20AC;&#x201C; contractor still behind programme but working hard to progress work on site. MoD electrical issues now resolved after MoD engineers attended site w/c 7th May to test electrical supply cut off. Press/cllr site visit 15th May

In progress

Fire Station Exhibition Venue Project Description The project is to deliver a fixed exhibition and a programme of events at the Eco station site for 1 year. The aim is to demonstrate the benefits of the Eco-town and the latest technologies. The exhibition space is first and foremost for the residents of Whitehill Bordon and then to businesses and other groups. Project Progress Progress meetings with exhibition designers and team steering group. Meeting with heritage society to understand exhibition requirements Consultants issued user questionnaire and ran stakeholder and community workshops to inform development of project brief Initial design progress meeting positive

131

In progress

Eco-terrace competition Project Description To launch a design competition for 3 zero carbon houses. The houses will be built and managed by Radian Housing Group and will be open to the pubic for a period of time and then occupied and monitored to measure the effectiveness of the designs and technology Project Progress Radian comments received by legal team Agreement plan prepared by EHDC Land transfer in progress

In progress

Exhibition House Project Description To develop an exhibition house to showcase zero carbon construction techniques, water saving and rainwater harvesting and sustainable living. The house will be developed using less some more experimental techniques and their performance will be monitored Project Progress Building work progressing on site but still 4 weeks behind programme due to delay in delivery and sub-contractor design information of some of the innovative elements of the project. Press/Cllr site visit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15th May 2012

In Progress

Firestation South Site Project Description Following on from the first stage of the project - the draft design and development brief for the site, the project will commence under an extension to the contract for the Eco-station refurbishment and Exhibition House. Project reports will follow for the September Standing Conference and Delivery Board

Project Progress Reported at September Standing Conference and Delivery Board

TBA

HCC Schools and Library Improvements Project Description The Project is to improve the energy performance and reduce the dependency on fossil fuels of Hampshire County Council buildings used by the community of Whitehill Bordon. The buildings reviewed under the first phase were : Bordon Junior School, Bordon Infants School, Weyford Junior School, Weyford Infants School, Woodlea Primary School and Bordon Library. Due to efficiencies in procurement of the works it has been possible to extend the energy efficiencies initiative to other publicly used buildings in the Whitehill Bordon area.

Project Progress Eco-town Project funding complete. HCC funded phase 2 work underway

Completed

Low Carbon Communities Ecofit Project Description Establish a revolving fund for loans of up to ÂŁ10,000 for packages of the more expensive home energy conservation measures including micro generation technologies, boiler upgrades, solid wall insulation and triple-glazing. Employ an Eco-fit Advisor, on 1 year fixed term contract, to facilitate loans and behavior change measures. Deliver community engagement goals, monitoring and evaluation and shared learning as part of the Low Carbon Communities Challenge.

Completed

Project Progress

132

Viking Park Design and Feasibility Study Project Progress

Completed

Studies Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh Project Description To ensure that the revised Whitehill Bordon Draft Framework Masterplan considers the conclusions and recommendations of the HRA (2011) and is updated to include the most recent European Protect Sites data and site management plan information. This project will also provide additional baseline data to support the Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy for the Eco-town In Progress

Project Progress Workshop held Standford Grange Farm Visit 1:1 Meetings with key stakeholders Evidence gathered and site managers contacted

Green Infrastructure Management and Maintentance Project Description To ensure the new and existing green infrastructure is managed correctly within the Ecotown Policy Zone Boundary there is a need to agree a sustainable approach to management and maintenance regimes with stakeholders at the pre-planning application stage. The Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board, which represents all the key stakeholders in the project has confirmed that resources should be committed to examining potential options more closely to help inform the evolution of a bespoke green infrastructure management and maintenance model alongside the developing delivery structures for the Eco-town. In Progress

Project Progress GI Management and Maintenance Workshop held 1:1 Interviews with landowners and managers held Two meetings with Deadwater Valley Trust held

Transport Rail Feasibility Study Project Description The study will consider the socio-economic business case for re-establishing direct rail provision (either light or heavy rail) to the town, taking into account financial, environmental, social and operational factors. The study will be carried out in accordance with the Network Railâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GRIP process, and will consider the outline business case for a number of potential route options identified previously in the HCC Rail Pre-Feasibility Study. Should a positive business case be established for one or more routing option, preliminary design will be carried out to GRIP level 3 for the selected option(s). Project Progress Stage 1 Study completed and approved by HCC and the Delivery Board Results of Stage 1 Study widely presented and made publicly available Stage 2 Study Commissioned and underway

133

Ongoing

Transport Walking and Cycling Strategy Project Description To develop a phased strategy for the implementation of a comprehensive and cohesive network of pedestrian and cycle links and facilities in Whitehill Bordon (and Lindford) and linking to its local area. The study will combine specialist knowledge and experience in delivering walking and cycling improvements with local knowledge and participation to deliver a clear, concise and comprehensive Walking and Cycling Strategy, which will enable the phased delivery of improvement in, through and to Whitehill Bordon for walking and cycling.

Project Progress Walking and Cycling Study Brief prepared and agreed with EHDC / HCC / IET Specialist Group Consultant procured under the IESE Framework (WSP appointed) Study commenced First Stage Consultation carried out First Draft Strategy produced Meeting held with Consultant over outstanding work required on First Draft Study Further work ongoing to improve study before consutlation In Progress

Transport Car Parking Strategy Project Description To develop a car parking strategy for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town to provide guidance and advice on the level of parking provision to be made within the town, the nature in which that parking should be provided and the management mechanisms to be employed to manage car parking so to achieve sustainable regeneration of Whitehill Bordon without negatively reducing the ability of the town to attract the inward investment in jobs, retail and services. Project Progress Car Parking Study Brief prepared and agreed with EHDC / HCC / IET Specialist Group Consultant procured under the IESE Framework (WSP appointed) Study commenced First Stage Consultation carried out First Draft Strategy prepared for client comment Meeting held with Consultant to feed back comments â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft under amendment

In Progress

Transport Freight Strategy Project Description Project Progress

On Hold

Transport Traffic Management Strategy Project Description To develop a strategy to bring forward local improvements to mitigate the vehicular impact of the Eco-town on local villages and communities and to identify a package of management measures to discourage the inappropriate use of local roads. Project Progress Traffic Management Study Brief prepared and agreed with EHDC / HCC / IET Specialist Group Consultant procured under the IESE Framework (WSP appointed) Study commenced First Stage Consultation (with the villages) carried out Draft Study completed Amendments to First Draft provided to Consultant in advance of Stage 2 consultation Stage 2 Consultation underway In Progress

134

Transport Evidence Base Project Description A robust and reliable transport evidence base is required to support future decisions on the Eco Town project, and to better understand both the potential impact of the development and the level of transport infrastructure and services needed to achieve a high-quality sustainable re-development of the town. A transport model and Stage 2 Transport Assessment will be prepared in advance of the submission of the EHDC LDF Core Strategy in early 2011, and the evidence base work will underpin that submission. The evidence base will inform the future Transport Strategy for the town, and will produce both technical and non-technical reports on the impact of the Eco Town development, and its sensitivities to key variables and transport targets. Project Progress Final TA published as evidence to the Core Strategy and Masterplan Continuing dialogue with Key Stakeholders on additional work requirements Link Mitigation Work being carried out In Progress

Transport Bus Improvements Project Description To provide a high quality, sustainable and flexible bus service to serve the populations of Whitehill, Bordon and the local surrounding communities in order to facilitate sustainable travel and promote accessibility to key services. The implementation of the local bus service will; • Improve accessibility to transport and increase coverage, frequency and quality of local bus services • Improved connections by public transport for local communities surrounding the town • Promotion of sustainable travel and consequential reduced emissions • Reduced congestion Project Progress HCC Executive Member approval to proceed to Tender achieved in March 2012 HCC Passenger Transport Group preparing tendering paperwork

In Progress

Town Transport Manager Project Description The Town Transport manager will initially be appointed for a 2 year period, reporting to EHDC Communities Team but working under the direction of the Whitehill Bordon Project Team, and will be responsible for implementing the Smarter Choices Strategy, including the Personalised Journey Planning, school and workplace travel plan development, managing the future Eco-Car and EcoCycle schemes and in providing and disseminating information across the town. Project Progress Town Transport manager now appointed following successful consultation in March 2012. Town Transport Manager to start in June 2012

Commences June 2012

Biodiversity and green infrastructure Energy Utility Strategy Water Cycle Study One Planet Living Transport Liftshare Transport Smarter Choices Study Transport Website Habitats Regulations Assessment

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

135

Community Projects Brash Pelletising Project Description To assess the potential for sustainable biomass production from local heaths within easy reach of the Eco-town for which markets could be established as the Eco-town develops and the business opportunities and models associated with this. In Progress

Project Progress 2nd Draft of report circulated for comment to HRA Working Group

Community Development Worker Project Description The project aims to engage and empower the existing community living in Whitehill/Bordon in the development of the EcoTown. The Ecotown proposal will obviously create a lot of new energy efficient homes; this project aims to get the existing community to change their behaviour to meet with the overall objective of an Ecotown. The officer will coordinate the existing community to have a voice in future development of the Ecotown. This officer will complement existing community development work. This project will engage the existing community in the EcoTown and ensure they benefit fully from the opportunities of EcoTown development Project Progress Achievements during April / May 2012 Continuing support vegetable box competition with schools Hampshire Solar Challenge planning Working with Town Partnership on Soapbox Derby Facilities and Amenities working group Scouts/Guides/Brownies Community Week Events

Ongoing

Countryside Ranger Project Description Employment of a Countryside Ranger to promote to the public, especially schoolchildren, the importance of the Biodiversity Network and to serve as a link with HCC, MoD and EHDC for the ability to organise Biodiversity projects on their land. Increasing knowledge, awareness and involvement of schoolchildren/public in surrounding countryside Creating a change in public perception of the importance of the Biodiversity of the area Improving relationships with landowners and organising biodiversity projects Minimising impact on sensitive areas.

Project Progress Community and Schools Carrying out school visits/classroom sessions/ guided walks of nature reserve Developing resident involvement/events Developing after school clubs have set dates with 5 schools and started activities

Ongoing

Wildlife Surveying Collating wildlife surveys of town - liaising with Bruce Collinson Working on GI strategy Green Spaces Attending appropriate meetings as stakeholder for Bordonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s green spaces/HRA/Biodiversity groups

Eco Pack Project Description First Packs Completed

Project Progress 2 packs produced and distributed

136

Green Network Enhancement of Existing Town Project Description Identify, protect, enhance and link the 56 isolated pockets of green land dotted throughout the town In Progress Project Progress Mapping & Site Work Sites visits undertaken with landscape management company Quotes being obtained to carry out works to selected sites for greenspace improvements 24/04/12 Attended meeting with Tori, Jamie and Bill & Chris Wain to discuss project and hand over to Jamie to project manage whilst Tori is on Maternity Leave from 04/05/12 04/05/12 Met with 3 contractors for Green Network tendering and showed them all 11 plots requiring planting 11/05/12 Two tenders from contractors received to date Change Request Form to increase budget, utilizing other project under spend, completed

Youth Drop In Worker Project Description The aim of the Project is to provide a Youth Drop-In facility within the Bordon eco-town area of Whitehill/Bordon/Lindford which will be a safe and informal meeting place for young people aged 11 – 18 years. Whilst the obvious priority of a Drop-in will be to provide a facility where young people can relax, enjoy themselves and meet their peers in a safe environment, this will be underpinned by a clear commitment by the appointed youth worker to promote the core values of the Bordon eco-town, i.e. sustainability and environmental responsibility. Young people will therefore be encouraged to participate in constructive projects which increase awareness of the environment and ‘green’ issues but also seek to make a contribution to improving the local environment. Project Progress Ongoing Both drop ins open and having consistent numbers attending Young people were involved in a junk modelling contest at both drop ins. They were asked to collect recyclable waste and bring it to club and make models. Prizes were given for most junk collected, favourite model etc. Catherine and Becka were able to plan for each session for the term.

Alexandra Park and Jubilee Park ecological improvements Project Description Restoration of the pond in Alexandra Park beside the pistol range and path/boardwalk to link Jubilee Park with Alexandra Park to improve the access for users of the long-distance footpath, the Royal Woolmer Way. Complete

Project Progress

Allotments Project Description Demolition of existing hall, conversion of public open space land to allotments. This meets a local demand as there are currently 38 residents on the waiting list. The allotments will provide a place to grow fresh food, will provide a green haven for wildlife in providing habitats for many species, have environmental and economic affects by reducing transportation of foods from far and wide allow gardeners to reduce their spending Complete

Project Progress

Amphibian Pond

137

Project Description To open up the pond surrounds, dredge the pond and raise the water levels. (NOTE, the Management Plan for the Bordon Inclosure Boardwalk would include appropriate management for this pond) The project is intended to protect the vulnerable habitat and also to enhance the biodiversity of the pond (more amphibians and a greater range of species). Complete

Project Progress

Bordon Inclosure Boardwalk Project Description To create a boardwalk to protect the vulnerable habitat and provide a safe crossing of a marshy area. The five year Management Plan would safeguard the appropriate development of this area. The project is intended to protect the vulnerable habitat and also to assist the walkers using the area. The Management Plan will also serve to protect the area from inappropriate development Complete

Project Progress

Community WiFi Phase 1 Project Description To provide free WiFi internet access in the events space at Forest Community Centre. The wireless system will include a method for controlling the inappropriate use of the internet service. Proxy servers will be used to filter and block inappropriate access. Free internet access will be available to all residents and visitors to Whitehill/Bordon in the events space. The project benefits are aimed specifically at young people living in the town who raised this as a need for the community

Completed

Project Progress

Local Biomass Supply Case Studies Project Description Prepare a detailed assessment of sustainable yield capacity from existing woodland in the area of the ecotown. This will allow the local fuel resource to be linked to potential woodfuel use within the infrastructure of the evolving ecotown.

Completed

Project Progress

Timber Fitness Trail Project Description The project is to install a timber fitness trail around the perimeter of the Town Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Recreation Ground. The Recreation Ground is adjacent to a secondary and primary school and the recreation ground has a play area and football pitches. There is national research that shows that youngsters are becoming obese and the provision of a trim trail will help this problem, particularly as some people do not like organised or team activities.

Project Progress

Completed

Complete

Medium Risk / in progress with issues and risks that are being managed High Risk / behind schedule

Low Risk / On Schedule

138

Appendix 4: Overall RAG Report Whitehill Bordon Eco-town - Highlight Report

18th May 2012

This report provides an update on all Whitehill Bordon Eco-town projects. RAG status updates for individual projects are available on request from Project Director - Daphne Gardner

KEY G

OVERALL PROGRAMME RAG STATUS

AMBER

Report Author - Simon Beach

R C

Strategic Objectives

Workstream

Last Period

Demonstration Projects Year 2

WORKSTREAM RAG SUMMARIES

Current RAG

Community Projects

Masterplan and Studies

Low risk/on schedule Med risk/in progress with issues which are being managed High risk/behind schedule/ Significant issues Complete

Demonstration Projects - Year 1 and 2 Community Projects

Workstreams Masterplan and Studies (Each of the Delivery WB Projects

Regeneration of Whitehill Bordon in accordance with Eco-guidelines Implementation of Eco-town

Explanation of Status (see specific Project Status reports for more detail) 2nd Phase Eco-station Refurbishment started in November 2011. Building work progressing to budget but is one week behind programme. The building has been stripped internally and completion has slipped by one month. The target completion date is end of September 2012 Demonstration House Started on site November 2011. Building work progressing to budget. Completion has slipped by one month. Now due end of September 2012. There are no significant impacts to budget. Firestation Exhibition Venue The project is to deliver a fixed exhibition and a programme of events at the Eco station site for 1 year. Progress meetings held with exhibition designers and team steering group. Meetings have been held with heritage society to understand exhibition requirements. Consultants issued user questionnaire and ran stakeholder and community workshops to inform development of project brief. Initial design progress meeting positive Quebec Barracks The Delivery Board agreed that a project team be set up to secure an exemplar, timely and commercially viable development of the Quebec Barracks site. It will do this by advising the landowners and their agents, working collaboratively to reduce delays and solve problems and facilitating community su Eco-terrace competition To launch a design competition for 3 zero carbon houses During Qtr 4, the competition for the design of 3 zero carbon houses was won by Ash Sakula. Land transfer is now in progress following legal comments and agreements

Completed Allotments Amphibian Pond Alexandra Park and Jubilee Park ecological improvements Bordon Inclosure Boardwalk Local Sports and Recreation Facilities strategy Timber Fitness Trail Community WiFi hotspot phase 1 Local Biomass Supply Case Studies Eco Pack phase 1 and 2 LCC Ecofit Retrofitting homes and insulation Liftshare Ongoing Youth Drop In Worker - project ongoing - updates received monthly Community Development Worker - project ongoing - updates received monthly Countryside Ranger - project ongoing - updates received monthly To Complete Green Network Enhancement Brash Pelletisation Revised masterplan (May 2012) was approved by the Council on 9th May 2012. This included taking on board comments from: EHDCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development Policy Panel, Whitehill Town Council, specialist groups , the Standing Conference and the Delivery Board. The Masterplan has been submitted as part of the evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy. (please refer to the separate report on the masterplan)

The Joint Core Strategy is submitted with 'modifications' in response to the previous consultation comments. Whitehill & Bordon Strategic Allocations now conforms with the revised masterplan. The modifications will be subject to the further statutory consultation period and will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for the examination along with other comprehensive evidence base. The Examination in Public (EiP) is expected to take place in August.

Project Delivery Programme continues to be refined alongside Core strategy and hybrid planning programme PWC working with the Delivery Board on delivery organisation investment partner options Delivery

Amec/GVA team - hybrid planning work currently underway ATLAS is supporting the District Council and project team in preparation of Planning Performance Agreement and pre-application process. Initial meeting to understand the scope was held in May and ATLAS will have regular input into the planning application process

PM UPDATE

2nd Phase of Eco-station is underway. Eco-terrace competition has received proposals from architects and competition is now complete EHDC, MoD and HCC working towards a land equalisation agreement EHDC, MoD, HCC working with GVA Grimley and Amec to produce hybrid planning proposal. PWC is working with the project partners and Delivery Board in order to outline delivery vehicle options. Project reporting adjusted to coincide with Standing Conference and Delivery Board meetings Work towards Quebec Barracks purchase continues between HCA and MoD Owner

Workstream Reference & Description

RISK

Financial modelling doesn't align with market changes

Ian Parker

Tender process doesn't generate bid we want or provide suitable suppliers

Daphne Gardner

1.) Do not accept a tender that we are not confident with i.e. minimum level of acceptance (Prevention) 2.) Research and invite suitable firms to tender after advertising had taken place (Reduction) 3.) Clear brief for tender (Prevention) 4.) Stimulate interest in market (Reduction) 5.) Explore all procurement options (Reduction)

Ian Parker

1.) Manage design expectations in line with local housing prices (Reduction) 2.) Options Appraisal/ Value engineering (Reduction) 3.) Identify suitable grants to secure the Ecotown strategy (Reduction) 4.) Detailed cost plans for each development (Reduction i.e. gives an indicator) 5.) Develop funded energy strategy for the town (Reduction) 6.) Using Demonstration projects for bench marking costs

Daphne Gardner

1.) Have regular meetings with planning policy team to review relevant policies and ensure consistency with Core Strategy (Acceptance) 2.) Revert to Green-Town vision principles (Acceptance)

NEW risks, issues or changes

RISK

Market unable to provide a commercially viable solution that meets sustainable ambitions including planning requirements.

Potential change to relevant policies

Demonstration Projects Year 2 Key Actions (Jun-Sept)

Delivery

Firestation phase 2 refurbishment Quebec Barracks Core Strategy EIP PWC Commercial Strategy

Key Actions Demonstration Projects Year 2 for next period Core Strategy (Sept-Dec) Delivery

G G G G

Next Delivery Board Meeting

139

Solution/Mitigation/Impact (changes) 1.) Include sensitivity testing in all future viability and financial predictions (Reduction) 2.) Identify appropriate mitigation funding (Contingency)

Firestation phase 2 and exhibition venue near completion Quebec Barracks purchase complete

Core Strategy EIP and Inspector's report Land Equalisation Agreement

6th September 2012

Appendix 5: Financial Summary

SUBJECT TO YEAR END AUDIT East Hampshire District Council Summary for Whitehill Bordon as at 30th April 2012

Account

5505PR 5506PR 5507PR 5508PR 5509PR 5510PR 5511PR 5512PR 5513PR 5514PR 5515PR 5516PR 5517PR

C C C C C C C C C C C C C

5518PR 5519PR 5520PR 5521PR 5522PR 5523PR 5524PR 5525PR 5526PR 5527PR 5528PR 5529PR 5530PR

C C C C C C C C C C C C C

5531PR 5532PR 5533PR 5534PR 5535PR 5536PR 5537PR

R C C C R R C

5538PR 5539PR

R C

5563PR 5564PR

R C R R R R

Demonstration Projects Fire Station - Purchase and Surveys Firestation - Refurbishment Fire Station - Exhibition House Fire Station - Radian Competition Fire Station - Site Fire Station - Exhibitions Working Mens Club Morelands Viking Park Quebec Barracks Chalet Hill Initial Design Briefs Publicity and Advertising Early Wins Retrofitting homes Eco-fit Whitehill Bordon (LCCC) Retrofitting Library & Primary Schools Eco Information Packs Wi-Fi Bio Mass Supply Case Studies Community Development Workers Brash Pelletisation Potential Kick Start habitat improvement/ Biodiversity projects Green Rangers Allotments Timber Fitness Trail Drop in centre for young people Studies and Evidence Sports and recreation study Rail Study Transport Studies SPV/Governance studies Eco-studies and evidence One Planet Living funding Eco-grant Substainable finance consultant for Retro-fit New Projects Impleementing the EC Dev Strategy Skills centre & learning vision Early sites business development Other Costs Project Management Consultancy* Whitehill Bordon - Travel - Transport Evidence Base HCC Transport Advice 2011/12 HCC Property Development and corporate advice Whitehill Bordon Eco Town Housing Advice WTC Eco Projects/pags/specialist groups co-ordinator Neighbourhood Engagement Project LEAF Salaries Other Costs Unallocated Revenue Costs** Total for the Whitehill / Bordon

2009/10 Actual

2010/11 Actual

2010/11 Subject to year end audit

582,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38,450 150,491 23,558 850 0 0 0 0 43,984 0 0 49,332

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 306,994 1,275,000 0 0 96 24,448 0 76,452 12,500 25,000 38,000 15,000

217,790 3,889 2,711 12,024 3,000 34,294 11,000 37,500 15,000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,000 0 0 21,024 86,123 20

91,000 119,464 265,592 48,746 11,780 11,153

0 0

56,493 775,000

0 0 0 71,669 653,669

673,341 0 0 130,462 3,831,617

127,157 70,936 63,137 23,658 32,000 17,437 27,143 576,587 187,362 2,671,114

FY Budget

0 282,171 234,174 49,833 11,745 23,015 38,489 9,124 8,835 3,368

0 475,011 229,668 198,317 57,591 348,985 0 0 7,490 2,035,876 0 71,165 36,632 0 23,210 159,000 0 13,902 0 0 34,113 6,000 0 21,000 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 90,000 355,536 99,408 81,234 88,220 37,500 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 203,844 70,936 31,569 23,600 13,333 0 0 550,000 0 0 226,255 5,746,894

YTD YTD Remaining YTD Actuals Committed Budget Variance Budget

0 39,584 19,139 16,526 4,799 29,082 0 0 624 169,656 0 5,930 3,053 0 1,934 13,250 0 1,158 0 0 2,843 500 0 1,750 0 0 625 0 0 0 7,500 29,628 8,284 6,770 7,352 3,125 0 4,167 4,167 4,167 0 0 16,987 5,911 2,631 1,967 1,111 0 045,833 0 0 18,855 478,908

63,387 52,524 22 171 2,451

769

2,594 201

3,451 2,325 5,840

0 31,161 40,701 0 6,246 84,679 0 0 0 769 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 53,532 8,080 7,000

0 0

15,722 43,831

598 160,904

0 0 0 430 232,872

0 -54,964 -74,086 16,504 -1,618 -58,048 0 0 624 169,656 0 5,930 459 0 1,713 13,250 0 1,158 0 0 2,843 500 0 1,750 0 0 625 0 0 0 7,500 25,923 -47,573 -7,151 352 3,125 0 4,167 4,167 4,167 0 0 16,987 5,911 2,631 1,967 1,111 0 15,722 2,002 0 0 17,827 85,132

0 380,463 136,443 198,295 51,174 261,855 0 0 7,490 2,035,876 0 71,165 34,038 0 22,989 159,000 0 13,902 0 0 34,113 6,000 0 21,000 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 90,000 351,831 43,551 67,314 81,220 37,500 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 203,844 70,936 31,569 23,600 13,333 0 15,722 506,169 0 0 225,227 5,353,118

* - funded from separate grants ** - funded from EHDC 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Total funding needed

653,669 3,831,617 2,671,114 5,746,894 983,604 13,886,898

140

CLG Grant CLG Grant April 2011 EHDC funding HCA Funding LEAF DECC funding Funding Received

9,870,687 2,025,000 633,185 1,020,000 27,143 310,883 13,886,898

Preposed 2013/2014 onwards

Forecast

500,000

190,000

225,000 68,604 0

983,604

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Project

Lessons Learned Report

Overall Conclusions

DOCUMENT CONTROL Document title:

Lessons Learned Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Overall Conclusions

Author:

Simon Beach

Last Updated:

17th April 2012

Last Saved by:

Simon Beach

Version:

1.2

- 141 -

Provide a brief 1 page (max) summary of the lessons learnt. As part of the Whitehill and Bordon Eco-town project management process, all completed projects are required to report on aspects which went well and which aspects faced issues that could be avoided or mitigated against in future projects. The Lessons Learned report also acts as a project closure report. To date, Lessons learned reports have been received from the following projects: Allotments HRA Timber Trail Deadwater Valley Trust projects Detailed Water Cycle Study Energy Feasibility Study Green Infrastructure Study WiFi Governance (Ongoing work but an interim report has been completed for monitoring) Retrofitting Quebec Barracks (separate report due to nature of the project) Below is a bullet pointed list of the issues that were raised throughout each of the projects completed so far 

The time given to put in a realistic bid was too short to give an accurate assessment of the costs of a project.



This caused a wrong assessment to be made due to the complexity of what was a relatively small project and additional funding had to be found



The PID process for a small project was over the top, it seemed as if the same criteria was used for each project irrespective of size



The monitoring process was again onerous for a small project and as above it seemed as if the same criteria was used for each project irrespective of size



The Planning requirements were far more onerous than at first thought and the conditions imposed added to the cost and delivery of the project



Define the project team terms of reference and authority



Have clear and stated standards that need to be met



There needs to be a mechanism to test the assumptions and values provided.



The forms, process and procedures designed for much larger scale project didn’t always suit the information available from these biodiversity projects. Though completing the forms as well as possible it has been good practice to follow up queries to form directly by email, phonecall and/or at audit meetings.



To involve Project Manager at the very earliest stage of the projects, well before even the draft PIDS are completed



To be more realistic on timescales and milestones (or aware of external delays beyond project manager’s control)



Involve fewer people / identify key people; meet face to face early on. Ensure correct lines of communication are used by all involved. E.g. project discussions- project manager – project co-ordinator – project director (and vice versa)



Improve project partnership communication.

- 142 -

Lessons Carried Forward 1.

Develop project brief in advance of PID completion

Following discussion with the Project Group, it was decided that the project documentation should remain. Documentation should be completed appropriate to the size of the project.

There should be a greater understanding of why the project reports are required and how that information is used.

A revision to the frequency of reporting should be undertaken in line with either a Gateway Review process or longer period between chronological reporting e.g quarterly in line with the Delivery Board. A longer period between reporting would require a more robust issues logging and resolution process.

When new projects are in the Brief development stage, greater emphasis should be placed on communication with stakeholders and in the wider project group. The purpose of this is to create better working relationships and to encourage a ‘no surprises’ approach to projects

Regular meetings between the project group, individuals and projects ‘on the ground’ should take place. The opening of the firestation as offices will improve the contact with the Eco-town team.

- 143 -

Agenda item 15

Items for future Delivery Board meetings

Project update report (standing item) Outcomes from Specialist Groups and Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings (standing item) Landowners update report (standing item) Transition Group update (standing item) Inward investment sector research Education skills, skills centre and training Proposals for the Long term management and maintenance of Community Assets and Green Infrastructure Design principles for demonstration scheme at Quebec Barracks Risk register (standing item) Traffic and Transport Studies - Traffic management - Walking & cycling - Car parking - GRIP3 Retrofit Strategy Energy and Water Cycle Proposals Inner Relief Road proposals Consultation strategy Public engagement proposals for the OPA Evolution of the governance arrangements A325 Traffic management

13th September 2012 √

13th December 2012 √

March 2013 √

June 2013 √

√

√ √ √

√ √

√

√ √ (TBC) √ (TBC) √ √ √ √ (TBC)