Delivery Board papers

Delivery Board Meeting to be held on Thursday 6th September from 2:30pm until 5:00pm Main Hall, Forest Community Centre

A G E N D A

1.

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

2.

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

3.

Public Questions – to respond to any questions received in writing from the public (10 mins)

4.

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)

5.

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

6.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) report on a commercial strategy for the Eco-town project Daphne Gardner, project director (paper attached) (10 mins) including: 1

A120906

page 5 12

page 13 55

i ii

Funding strategy Kate Hillerby, funding manager Lobbying Strategy – to review a suggested strategy Lydia Forbes-Manson, Communications and marketing officer

7.

Landowners’ Report Robert Smith, MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (paper attached) (5 mins)

page 56 59

8.

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group Public Engagement Strategy (draft) for Outline Planning Application Gill Griggs, Director, GVA (TBC) (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 60 82

9.

Consultation, communication and engagement strategy Lydia Forbes-Manson, Communications and marketing officer (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 83 103

10.

Proposed planning policy framework work programme for 2012-13 Mandar Puranik, Planning and Urban Design Theme Lead (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 104 114

11.

Inward Investment Sector Research Study Susan Robbins, Economic Development Theme Lead (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 115 121

12.

Education skills, skills centre & training – proposed delivery plan and strategy Peter Rabbett, Consultant to Hampshire County Council (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 122 126

2 A120906

13.

Governance structure – interim review Caroline Sayers, governance officer (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 127 136

14.

Proposals for long-term management & maintenance of Community Assets (Green Infrastructure) Bruce Collinson, Environmental Sustainability Theme Lead (paper attached) (10 mins)

page 137 148

15.

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

page 149 151

16.

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

page 152 177

17.

Forward Programme - Dates of future Standing Conference meetings (At least two weeks prior to the Delivery Board meetings) Thursday 29th November 6:30 pm – 9:00pm Eco-station, Camp Road Wed 6th March 10:00am – 12:30pm Venue TBC Wed 5th June 2:30pm – 5:00pm Venue TBC Wed 4th September 6:30pm – 9:00pm Venue TBC Wed 27th November 10:00am – 12:30pm Venue TBC

3 A120906

- Dates of future Delivery Board meetings Thursday 13th December 6:30 pm – 9:00pm Eco-station, Camp Road Wed 20th March 10:00am – 12:30pm Venue TBC Wed 19th June 2:30pm – 5:00pm Venue TBC Wed 18th September 6:30pm – 9:00pm Venue TBC Wed 11th December 10:00am – 12:30pm Venue TBC - Items for future meetings To discuss items for future meetings (attached) (5 mins) Total time – 2 hours 20 mins Exempt Items 18. Risk Register report Caroline Sayers, Governance Officer and Risk Manager (previously circulated to Delivery Board members)

4 A120906

page 178

Agenda item 2

Whitehill & Bordon Delivery Board Meeting 14th June 2012 10:00am Main Hall, Forest Community Centre, Bordon Present: John Walker Daphne Gardner

(JW) (DG)

Robert Smith

(RS)

Wendy Ivess-Mash Dr William Wain James Rowley

(WIM) (BW) (JR)

Cllr Andrew Joy

(AJ)

Cllr Glynis Watts Cllr Adam Carew

(GW) (AC)

Cllr Mark Davison

(MD)

Apologies: Kevin Bourner

(KB)

Cllr Melville Kendal

(MK)

Also: Ian Parker Mandar Puranik

(IP) (MP)

Sarah Allan

(SA)

Susan Robbins Tim Wall

(SR) (TW)

Chris Youngs Simon Beach Caroline Sayers Stuart Howie Mark Harris

(CY) (SJB) (CS) (SH) (MH)

Independent Chairman East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) Project Director MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Head of UK disposals, DIO Whitehill & Bordon Town Partnership (WBTP) 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 EHDC councillor representing Whitehill & Bordon Whitehill Town Council (WTC)

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

HCC (Head of County Development Taskforce) EHDC (Theme Lead – Planning and Urban Design) EHDC (Theme Lead – Eco-housing and Retrofitting) EHDC (Theme Lead – Economic Development) HCC (Team Leader Highways Development Planning) WTC (Eco-coordinator) EHDC (Project Coordinator) EHDC (Governance Officer) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC)

Item

Notes

Action

1.

Welcome and introductions - Chairman For the benefit of the members of the public, the Chairman introduced the role and purpose of the Delivery Board.

M120614 -5-

2.

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 5): The project director confirmed that the Eco-town vision were agreed by the East Hampshire District Council along with the revised framework masterplan.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-terrace architectural competition: This competition is being featured in London from 18th June to 4th August 2012.

Wildlife of Whitehill (WoW): A supplement to the WoW has been released. The supplement includes two new areas of land. These are Standford Grange and Roundhill, a MoD Army training area. The areas are identified by the Reptile Conservation Trust and are regarded as areas which are important for biodiversity and conservation for both animals and reptiles.

3.

Public questions The questions that were received for the Delivery Board meeting arrived after the deadline. Therefore if supplementary information is available this will be added to the minutes. The Chairman summarised the public questions and answers which were received prior to the Delivery Board meeting.

The questions and answers are appended to these notes. (Appendix 1.)

4.

Verbal update from Ministry of Defence (MoD) Members of the Delivery Board were aware of the previous ministerial announcement and the Defence Technical Training Change Programme (DTTCP) preferred option. The DTTCP project team to carry out this work has now been set up. The initial phase of work includes the move of the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (SEME) to RAF Lyneham as part of this programme.

As part of the MoD approval process, a main gate approval which is due 2013, if successful, will confirm the permanent move of the garrison personnel from Whitehill & Bordon. The lead in period is two years. Therefore, the move is planned to start in the summer 2015.

The programme is in hand. If there are any changes, DIO will bring this to the Board’s attention. The main gate process will bring detailed timing of the move. Until then, the project will have to work

M120614 -6-

on assumptions. RS confirmed this was normal practice.

5.

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

The project director introduced this report. Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS) facilitated a seminar earlier this year. The recommendations made in the report have been agreed by the Board and work has been progressing so that much of the recommended work has already taken place. Some of this work has been supported

by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC).

ATLAS had asked the Board to look at section 8 of its report on work going forward. This work needs as many people as possible to be involved.

Internal discussions have been taking place regarding progressing the outline planning application so that this can be taken forward. The project team may be in a position to bring this to the next Board meeting.

Reference was made to page 27, within the first list of tasks, the bullet point stating “Challenge and address the negativity...” It was recognised by Board members that the way this is written is misleading and it should be rewritten “addressing ill informed…”

The Board publicly thanked ATLAS for facilitating this workshop and the subsequent advice that the Board had received. The support and advice that has been given to the project has been free of charge.

6.

Commercial strategy advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) Stuart Howie from PwC introduced his presentation. The role of PwC is to support the Delivery Board in understanding the commercial needs of the project.

The first phase of work ran until December 2011. This phase of work focussed on understanding the delivery options available and considering the various options that may be applicable to the scheme.

The options will need to meet the needs of the Delivery Board while keeping the masterplan objectives both for the public sector and private sector in mind.

This project is a large complex scheme. Understanding what the investor market is willing to do and which potential options will work in this market, along with the associated risks were assessed.

The strong emerging theme is that the market must have certainty, especially due to the size of this project. Other related issues were around viability especially with the number of years involved in this project.

M120614 -7-

project team

The second phase of work has been running since December. This has been building on the list of options for delivery and included additional viability work. A shortlist of delivery options has been developed along with each option’s level of risk.

Further market testing has been carried out and is still ongoing. This work is giving a clearer picture of investor market appetite for this project. This includes identifying what can be done to make the project attractive to the market to secure private sector investment.

The current market conditions are difficult, but there is still interest in the project. It is important that the project recognises what is achievable and what is not.

A workshop with Delivery Board members was to take place that afternoon of the Delivery board meetings to discuss the PwC work in greater detail.

AC raised a concern regarding sand extraction. HCC clarified that sand extraction would not prejudice delivery of the scheme.

Opportunities for early extraction are limited to an area south of the town. This needs an extra piece of work and will be looked at and incorporated into the work of the green infrastructure work.

IP

A copy of the presentation made by PwC can be found in Appendix 2.

7.

Transition Group update Work is being carried out to identify MoD assets that may be of value to the Community in line with the Eco-town programme and to ease the move of MoD from the town. It was confirmed that use of the Phoenix Theatre and Bordon & Oakhanger Sports Club (BOSC) can continue.

Other elements of work include developing a site closure and asset data pack for the garrison. This is a record and assessment of the site facilities and how these assets might best be managed during the transition period. This work will link in with the MoD’s use of these assets between now and when the Garrison closes to identify how civilian access and use are best managed.

DIO

It was noted that Bruce Collinson from the Eco-town team had introduced to the Transition Group Gareth Price from Green Infrastructure Development Enablement Associates Ltd (GIDE Ltd).

Gareth is doing a piece of work to help the group think of ways to bring forward the comprehensive and holistic management of the open spaces in advance of when land comes forward for development.

In addition to this, Susan Robbins from the Eco-town team had highlighted the bid for funding that she was working on. These are in a separate item on the agenda.

Louisburg Barracks is no longer in operation. Therefore, in parallel with the site closure activities SR is working with DIO to promote opportunities to reuse certain assets for employment and skills development as an interim benefit ahead of site redevelopment.

M120614 -8-

SR / DIO

The last Transition Group meeting had only recently taken place. The minutes of the last meeting are appended to the Delivery Board minutes. (Please see Appendix 3)

8.

Landowners’ update Robert Smith introduced his report and summarised the key objectives which are outlined on page 34. The purpose of these objectives is to clarify the requirements of the landowners within the Eco-town project.

The Landowners’ Group is supported by consultants from GVA and Amec. These consultants represent the interests of the Landowners in terms of planning and marketing.

The role of PwC in advising the Delivery Board on marketing and investor strategy will be helpful to the landowners as they prepare to market their assets.

The landowners are working to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to ensure that the land available is developed in a responsible way.

GW highlighted the trip made by UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) to visit a number of businesses in the district including one in Whitehill & Bordon. They are very interested in the work that we are doing, particularly on inward investment.

The importance of meeting the long term community aspirations while maintaining the interests from investors and developers in the project was also recognised. Flexibility of the Joint Core Strategy and the masterplan will be required to secure the investment opportunities to make sure objectives are met.

9.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter The charter had previously had extensive consultation as well as good discussions at the recent Standing Conference. The Eco-housing and retrofitting theme lead highlighted the changes made to the report since the Standing Conference.

The following changes were made: Introduction: Incorporating a third purpose for the charter which is to influence development briefs and any future town-wide design guidance.

Principle 1: Page 4, the content of first bullet point of Principle 1 was made more balanced by recognising the importance of solar exposure.

Principle 2: additional commentary was included relating to historic MoD buildings in the town.

M120614 -9-

SA

It was suggested that further work should look at rural characteristics within and surrounding the town to help integrate the town with the surrounding areas. A lot of more detailed work that sits below the masterplan will need to be completed. The character of rural areas will relate to this. Areas within the existing town are also important and this work should be covered by the Town Design Statement.

All the Delivery Board members agreed to become signatories to the Neighbourhood Quality Charter.

10.

WTC All

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Revised Masterplan (May 2012) The Delivery Board was asked to endorse the masterplan which had been the subject of extensive consultation and which had been adopted by EHDC’s Council. Board members had previously input extensively to the plan.

AC stated that a key organisation had queried whether there was sufficient Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) provision in the plan. The project director and planning and urban design theme lead confirmed there was sufficient SANG provision. They stated that the team would not bring forward a plan without appropriate SANG provision. It was agreed that this kind of misunderstanding needed to be tackled outside of the meeting.

project team

The Delivery Board endorsed the masterplan.

11.

Transport Studies update The Chairman introduced the report highlighting that it is an update on work which is in progress.

The revised masterplan makes allowances for the alignment of alternative routes of the inner relief road (IRR). A concern was raised about the two routes going south. The team working on this issue are confident that an IRR can be provided without compromising the SANG. Dealing with traffic management is an issue that is important to the community. The work is not complete yet, but the community can be reassured that extensive work including public engagement will be done and once completed will be reported back to the Delivery Board.

December is the likely date that all the updated reports will be available.

12.

Funding applications The economic development theme lead introduced her report. Three funding applications have been submitted which are to support site development and economic growth.

It is important to maximise the chances of success with these bids.

M120614 - 10 -

TW

The funds are a way of helping to progress activity and raise the profile of the town and what we want to achieve. The work will also help with de-risking the project and giving investors more confidence.

This will help the planning process and move to real delivery.

The project team has good contact with, and support from the local enterprise partnerships. Board members were also asked to support the bids with their networks and contacts.

ALL

Regarding the two Growing enterprise bids submitted HCA stated that as these sought to provide upfront infrastructure, this approach should be supported. It was understood that the LEP board would be considering bids shortly and could revert to bidders where further clarification is required.

Work for these bids will not stop here, and work will continue after the bids have been submitted.

The bid to the Regional Growth Fund has been submitted to The government department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS).

Once in principle approval has been given, this bid will move into due diligence phase. The project should receive early indications for the Growing Enterprise Fund applications over the next two months.

Work required for the bids will be taking place over the next six months.

MPs and everyone concerned with the bids will be fully briefed on the bids. SR will come back to the Delivery Board if or when further support or lobbying for the bids is required.

13.

SR

SR

Outcomes from Specialist Groups and Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings The Chairman introduced the report on the work of the Specialist Groups.

The first bullet point under section 2.16 of the report: it was noted that the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) is engaged in discussions and is working with the Specialist Group on this.

A concern was raised regarding inviting external speakers connected with organisations which are potentials investors. This is a process issue. The project team has a vetting process to address sensitivities.

The project team and the Delivery Board Chairman can assist with recommendations.

The Delivery Board noted the work of the Specialist Groups.

14.

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.

M120614 - 11 -

ALL / project team

Additional information was given regarding section 8, appendix 2.

HCA, in conjunction with the Eco-town project team, are currently drafting a programme for the delivery of the Quebec Barracks site.

Once this programme of work has been agreed, it will be incorporated into the overall reporting gantt chart.

The Joint Core Strategy will now go through the examination in public process by the inspector during the first two weeks of September.

This is a slight change to the scheduled date of August. This will not affect the overall programme of work.

The project coordinator introduced the new town transport manager Kimberly Hardwick.

15.

Forward Programme The forward programme was reviewed. The project team will liaise with Delivery Board members before September on dates for future meetings to be scheduled in 2013.

CS

A Delivery Board member raised the forthcoming Parish Poll and commented on it.

The Chairman’s advice to the people was to “be careful what you wish for.” He also highlighted that if this poll was taken seriously, it would lead to piecemeal development that no one wants, and would not ensure environmental protection.

Some Board members were concerned that some of the information used in the circular being distributed for the poll could be misleading for the public and should be challenged.

Dates for future meetings were reviewed and confirmed.

Exempt items

16.

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.

M120614 - 12 -

CS

Agenda item 6

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) report on a commercial strategy for the Eco-town project

Author:

Daphne Gardner

Reference no: WBPD037-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) Consultants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), have now completed the second (final) phase of their work on a commercial strategy for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town project. A copy of their report is appended to this paper.

PwC identify a number of conclusions, issues and actions for the Board’s consideration, particularly in relation to the high level viability of the project; delivery/ governance options; funding; and market sentiment. This report discusses how the Board will take these issues forward.

Date: 16th August 2012 Version: v1

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 update on the PwC work on a commercial strategy for the Eco-town project and discuss how to take forward the issues identified in the PwC Phase 2 report.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: That Board members: (i) Consider the PwC Phase 2 report attached as Appendix 1 to this report and confirm the priorities for action arising from the report. (ii) Comment on and endorse the public sector Funding Strategy and Lobbying Strategy attached as Appendices 2 & 3 to this report. (iii) Confirm the key principles to be used to guide the future governance arrangements for the project. (iv) Comment on any other issues identified in PwC’s report which Board members feel should be addressed. (v) Note that a further report on progress in addressing the issues in PwC’s report will be presented to the December Board meeting.

Consultation and comments received: The PwC report is being considered by Landowners and Board members at the time of drafting this report. Any comments will be reported verbally to the Board meeting.

Community engagement proposals: As the Board firms up its views on how to take PwC’s report forward, community consultation on specific proposals will be undertaken as appropriate.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 In September 2011, East Hampshire District Council on behalf of the Board, commissioned consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to develop a commercial strategy to recommend a way forward the successful delivery of the Eco-town project.

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

1.2 PwC completed the first phase of their work in December and presented their findings to date to the December 2011 Delivery Board. The consultants have now completed the second phase of their work and a copy of their ‘Phase 2’ report is attached (Appendix 1).

1.3 This paper seeks to stimulate the Board’s thinking on how best to take forward the issues identified by PwC. 2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 The key findings of PwC’s work are, in summary, that: (i) The Eco-town project needs further public sector funding to ensure the project is viable and deliverable. A “package” of public funding needs to be identified, which would, for example, enable the provision of key infrastructure in the early years of delivery of the project. (ii) The Board needs to consider how it will engage with development or investor–partner and how it will organise its future governance to attract such partners on board. (iii) The Board needs to consider how it will address issues identified by potential investors, including a review of key project assumptions where appropriate, and continue to undertake market testing. (iv) The Board should explore options to de-risk the project prior to procurement of delivery partners (including dealing with items (ii) – (iii) above). (v) A procurement strategy needs to be devised to procure delivery partners. (vi) Partners should review project resources and capacity across the partnership.

2.2 The consultants have identified indicative timelines for addressing these issues and actions.

3 Taking the PwC findings forward 3.1 At the time of drafting this report discussion on the PwC report is about to take place at the Landowners’ Group and at an informal meeting of Board members. The Landowners are hoping t prepare a paper with recommendations for actions for Board members to consider. The outcomes of these meetings will be reported verbally to the Board.

3.2 PwC kept Board members appraised of their emerging findings as they have progressed their work. As a consequence, their report contains “no surprises” for Board members.

3.3 On the two key issues of funding/ viability, and project governance, we have been aware that we need to secure additional public sector investment to improve the viability of the Eco-town project and help derisk it. We have also been aware that, in the fullness of time, we would have to change and evolve the current project governance structure to 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 15

ensure it helps attract commercial interest and investment into the project. a) Public sector funding 3.4 The Eco-town team have, in parallel with PwC’s work, been working on a draft Public Sector Funding Strategy and a Lobbying Strategy. The Lobbying Strategy will play a key role in supporting the achievements of the Public Sector Funding Strategy.

3.5 Copies of these two draft strategies are attached as appendices 2 and 3.

Board members are asked to comment on and endorse these two strategies in order to agree a clear way forward to achieving public funding for the project. b) Governance 3.6 The Landowners and Board members are doing further work together to identify the guiding principles for any appropriate governance arrangements. These governance arrangements need to attract commercial interest in the delivery of the Eco-town project, whilst at the same time delivering the vision and realising the aspirations of principal landowners.

3.7 Some of the interests of the parties concerned may potentially compete or conflict. The principal landowners have therefore already commenced work on identifying areas of common ground and common objectives, i.e. what we all wish to achieve, following which we can discuss the options for how we achieve it. Progress will be reported verbally to the Board. c) Other actions 3.8 The PwC report was only received in August and it was felt appropriate to address the issues of public sector funding and project governance as early priorities for action.

3.9 The remaining issues and actions identified in PwC’s report can be considered by Landowners, Board members, partners and the Eco-town team over the coming weeks and months and a further report brought to the next Board meeting in December.

3.10 Board members are asked to give their comments on the priority issues they feel should be addressed.

4 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 4.1 The issues identified by PwC are, potentially, key risks to the project.

This is why the Funding and Lobbying Strategies have been brought 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 16

forward to the Board at the earliest opportunity, and work has commenced on appropriate governance.

4.2 The Board is asked to comment on any other early priorities for further work.

4.3 The project Risk Register is being updated to reflect the findings of PwC’s work.

5 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 5.1 The whole thrust of PwC’s work is about the effective delivery of the Eco-town, and hence the Board’s priorities.

6 Resource implications 6.1 The resourcing implications of the Funding and Lobbying Strategies will be met from within existing budgets. Resource implications across the partnership will be clarified as further work is agreed.

7 Cost implications 7.1 Cost implications will be assessed as further work is clarified.

8 Conclusion 8.1 Board members have received the results of PwC’s work on a commercial strategy for the project and now need to decide how to take this work forward. This report discusses how to take forward early priority work.

9 Appendix Appendix 1: PwC Phase 2 report Appendix 2: Public Sector Funding Strategy Appendix 3: Lobbying Strategy

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 17

www.pwc.co.uk

Appendix 1: PwC Phase 2 report

Whitehill & Bordon Eco Eco-town Phase 2 report August 2012

18

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Contents Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

5

Introduction

5

Conclusions and issues

5

Next Steps

8

PwC  3 19

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Important Notice This report has been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) for East Hampshire District Council (“the Client”) in connection to Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town (“the project”) under the terms of the Client’s engagement letter with PwC dated 1st December 2011 (the “Engagement”) and its contents are strictly confidential.

PwC accepts no duty of care to any person (except to the Client and other parties to the Eco-town project where an assumption of duty letter is in place between PwC and the party concerned, as detailed under the relevant terms of the Engagement) for the preparation of the report. Accordingly, regardless of the form of action, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, PwC accepts no liability of any kind and disclaims all responsibility for the consequences of any person (other than the Client and other parties to the Eco-town project where an assumption of duty letter is in place between PwC and the party concerned, as detailed under the relevant terms of the Engagement) acting or refraining to act in reliance on the report or for any decisions made or not made which are based upon such report.

PwC  4 20

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Introduction The Eco-town project is ambitious and challenging, exaggerated by current economic conditions. The Delivery Board has however, over the last nine months, developed a clear view of how the vision could be realised focussing on a number of key themes, including: 

High level viability;



Delivery options;



Funding; and



Market sentiment.

The result of the commercial work undertaken provides some clear conclusions, reflecting the current position of the project, and highlights issues that will impact on the successful delivery of the project. This work also sets out next steps to manage identified risks and a “road map” to progress the project

Conclusions and issues High level viability The commercials of the Eco-town are marginal (based on current data and without further public sector funding), and highlight that landowners could expect little or no return for their land if the Eco-town is to be delivered in line with current project assumptions.

Because of the scale of the project, and the relatively small proportion of land values (compared to total development costs), project viability is highly sensitive to underlying project assumptions. Sensitivity analysis has indicated that returns to landowners could be increased substantially, for example through changes to assumptions such as: 

The rate at which sales values rise – Current residential values in Bordon are substantially lower than surrounding areas. A “big bang” approach to regenerating the town centre could drive values more quickly than the current assumptions.



Enabling infrastructure costs – The project requires substantial enabling infrastructure, much of it in the early years. Availability of public funding to support investment, or an ability to re-profile into later years could improve viability. If the public sector was to invest more in infrastructure upfront, then it would have a greater impact on viability than profiling the investment over the whole scheme.



Timing of land payments – The initial viability work was based on an upfront disposal of land. A delayed and / or phased approach to land receipts by land owners (if acceptable) would similarly improve the value that could be paid for the land.

PwC  5 21

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

The Delivery Board and partners recognise the current position of the project commercials and, as a priority, are focusing on their funding strategy to attract further public sector funding to support the project.

Delivery options The key messages provided by the public sector stakeholders during the workshop sessions, when considering delivery options, were: 

Landowners are willing to hold / invest land if value uplift can be captured over time;



Control over delivery is required; and



There is some appetite for the land owners to take on some risk.

These messages coupled with the results of the quantitative testing underpinned the Delivery Board preference for some form of strategic partner model, with both “land trading” and “development” partnering models considered. On balance, the challenge in securing finance for a land trading approach which offered upfront time-bound commitment to invest, was outweighed by the opportunity to secure a development partner who would oversee the wider Eco-town development and commit to a clear “phase 1” delivery programme. Having opted for a strategic development partner model the Delivery Board can select and test how it partners (a contractual relationship or a joint venture) and the way in which risks are shared with a delivery partner as part of the partner procurement process.

Funding The project requires an element of public sector investment in order to improve its viability. It is recognised that public sector money is scarce and competition to secure it is fierce.

At this point in time, a range of potential and emerging sources of public funding has been identified, whilst a “package” of public funding for the project has not been secured.

Market setiment As part of the commercial work, a series of soundings were taken from the market to better understand potential interest in the project. It was clear from this work that, reflecting the scale and complexity of the opportunity, there are a limited number of entities that are likely to be capable of, and want to, deliver the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

The responses received varied, but overall it was clear that a potential market does exist and that appetite to bid for such a project would be influenced by a number of factors. In particular, potential bidders highlighted a number of issues during discussions that they would need to get comfortable with before responding to any procurement process. For example: 

Land assembly and infrastructure – there are some concerns over how the public sector land will be managed. For example, respondents would like conformation that a legal agreement between the public sector partners is in place; PwC  6 22

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town



The delivery model – respondents indicated that they would prefer a partnership arrangement with the public sector whereby land could be drawn down over time, but that gave clear control over the whole development. This sentiment supports the Delivery Board’s preferred model (some form of strategic development partner with a proportion of sites made available to third party developers);



Masterplan, development mix and planning – A clear approach is needed as to how planning permission will be secured. Bidders want to be factored into the planning process so as to obtain the right balance between certainty and allowing bidders to inject some innovation into the process;



Project viability – Respondents recognised that given the costs involved to deliver a project of this scale and complexity, it could straddle a number of economic cycles and delivery would be phased. Potential bidders highlighted the need to get comfortable with viability over the first 3-5 years ;



Public sector funding / investment – bidders will require a clear understanding on the availability of public sector funding to help with the delivery of infrastructure in the early years and alleviate any viability issues;



Capability and quality of public sector delivery team – It is important that the bidders have confidence in the capability of the project team and the internal governance arrangements given the significant investment they will be making in bidding for the project. The capability and reputation of the procuring body (ies) running the procurement process also features highly on the potential bidders’ considerations.

It is clear that the current delivery structure, designed for developing the Eco-town proposition would not be the most effective governance and delivery structure for running a procurement process and ultimately entering into a partnership with the private sector. New arrangements would be welcomed that balance needs for:



o

Oversight of the vision and progress;

o

Commercial decision making;

o

Capability, capacity and consistency to engage with bidders and negotiate; and

o

A single point of contact with the private sector (during procurement)

The procurement process – Bidders value a clear, efficient and well run procurement process. Early down-selection of bidders is popular with the market, however this needs to be balanced with your ability to test the market and retain competitive tension during a procurement process;



Eco-vision – Given the more challenging economic environment, respondents were interested to hear how much emphasis was placed on the eco-elements of the project relative to viability. Tension will need to be managed between maximising eco standards and managing project economics.

PwC  7 23

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Next Steps Based on the work undertaken to date, and taking account of market feedback, there is a range of issues that we would recommend are addressed prior to launching any market competition to secure a strategic delivery partner. Given the scale and nature of the project, and the limited field of potential bidders, the following tasks outline ways to “de-risk” the project. It is our experience that this kind of approach not only supports improving the attractiveness of the project to the market, but also gives the public sector a clearer view of what it may reasonably expect to achieve and ultimately leads to a shorter more cost effective procurement process.

Public Sector Funding It is imperative that the Delivery Board agrees and implements its strategy to pull together a ‘package of funding’ that will help deliver some of the infrastructure in the early years. For example, a package of funding could consider both external sources such as the Regional Growth Fund and the Growing Places Fund as well as the use of prudential borrowing that could potentially be repaid from incremental business rates.

Public funding could be assembled on a piecemeal or “bottom up” basis by only looking at available funding streams and seeking to tap in to them. Such an approach is difficult to manage as typically pots of public sector funding operate independently, often on differing timescale, metrics and processes. Getting all the funding “ducks in a row” is therefore likely to be difficult without an overarching narrative and understanding of the collective investment from and benefits to the public sector.

We would suggest that a strategic approach to public funding should include: 1) Understanding the potential value of your project to the public sector In order to “sell” your project to public sector funders effectively you will need evidence to demonstrate the benefits that the project could bring to the local and UK economies.

An economic (and potentially social) impact assessment of the project could highlight: - direct project benefits such as jobs created and Gross Value Added; - indirect benefits such as supply chain impacts; and - social and attendant treasury impacts (e.g. increased tax take, reductions in crime etc) 2) Consider scheme wide Value for Money Consider the project funding needs -quantum; - timing; and - form e.g. debt, equity or grant

PwC  8 24

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Assess potential value for money (against the Government’s own value for money benchmarks) by comparing project value (outputs) with cost (total public funding).

This type of approach can deliver a number of benefits including: 

A strong evidence base to potential funders of the benefits and value for money of investing in the project;



Give you a clear understanding of “what the project is worth” benchmarked to other projects; and



Make it easier to develop a longer term funding approach that reflects the length of the project.

High level viability Viability of the overall project will be improved with a clear public funding package (as highlighted above) and a review of key project assumptions where appropriate.

A potential bidder will not however only consider the viability of the project as a whole, but will want to understand what the “phase 1” or an initial short to medium term (3-5 year) viability picture looks like.

Understanding what the early phase (or phases) might look like is therefore an important part of getting viability comfort before going to market. Key aspects of this could include: 

Development scale & timing



Enabling infrastructure need; and



Associated timing.

A failure to consider viability at this level can lead to a range of procurement issues, the most common of which being either a lack of market response (because the project is clearly not viable) or pressure to change key project fundamentals at a later stage (because the project as set out is not commercial).

It is therefore recommended that further work is undertaken on understanding the viability of the project, including 

‘Bite sizing’ the project so as to identify a ‘phase 1’ or initial 3 to 5 years of project that is commercially viable;



Undertaking a thorough infrastructure prioritisation exercise to understand the value add of different elements of infrastructure i.e. separating the ‘must haves’ from the ‘nice to haves’ and the potential timing of infrastructure investment;



Challenging value assumptions; and



Factoring in any additional public sector monies identified by the public funding strategy.

Project governance and resource A key concern for the private sector is the governance of the project given:

PwC  9 25

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town



The involvement of the public sector (and perceived implications and risks around process, capability, consistency and timetable);



The multiple landowners involved, with different and potentially conflicting objectives;



The views of other non-landowner stakeholders and how they can influence the process; and



The consequent cost/ risk of bidding, acknowledging that they may not be successful or the process itself may not even reach a successful conclusion.

Given that this project may well be using the competitive dialogue process to secure a private sector partner, it is vital that the project is appropriately resourced and governance arrangements are in place in order to give the market confidence that the procurement process will be well managed and that it is effectively “doing business” with a body that has “one voice”. The Delivery Board will need to ensure that it has the right delivery structure and the required level of dedicated resource, both from the public sector landowners and professional advisers to run an intensive procurement process.

Putting such arrangements in place will need to take account of a range of potential competing tensions, for example: 

Commercial land owner interests versus long term stakeholder aspirations;



Broad engagement versus streamlined decision making;



Securing the perfect deal versus getting no deal at all; and



Consistency versus flexibility

A further risk to all of the project stakeholders is ensuring adequacy of resource to run an effective process once appropriate governance arrangements have been established. Failure to resource the project suitably risks delays and inefficiencies which lead to significant increases in procurement costs, both for the public sector and the private sector. In a worst case scenario, a badly managed procurement process can lead to bidders withdrawing from the competition and even legal challenges.

It is therefore recommended that the Delivery Board undertakes work to establish the most appropriate governance structure to deliver the project. There are various forms a governance structure might take from loose affiliations through to corporate structures. Examples include: 

Creating a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the landowners. The MOU addresses many of the partnering issues that would typically be addressed in a PPP. The types of areas that will need to be addressed include objectives, KPIs, control and governance, resources, risks and exit provisions.



Forming an enabling company along the lines of an Urban Regeneration Company (“URC”). URCs are task focussed independent companies established by local authorities to drive delivery across a range of stakeholders.

Given the complexity of the project, the wide range of stakeholders and the market feedback from potential bidders, it is our view that strong governance arrangements will be needed to manage the many risks associated

PwC  10 26

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

with effective delivery. The success of URCs in leading complex regeneration schemes involving multiple stakeholders highlights the extent to which the Delivery Board may wish to go to establish effective governance for the procurement and implementation phases.

Furthermore, any governance arrangements will need to allow for the voices of both landowners and wider stakeholders, but recognising that relationships / roles may be different between those with commercial equity interest (i.e. land owners) and those without.

Regardless of the form of the project governance structure, it should have single, agreed evaluation criteria before commencing the procurement. The evaluation criteria will essentially mirror the joint objectives of the stakeholder group and its ability to develop a single agreed set of evaluation criteria will be a good “litmus test” as to how governance arrangements are working. Ultimately, it is the application of the agreed evaluation criteria that will determine the outcome of any partner procurement process.

In tandem with establishing an appropriate governance structure, the Delivery Board needs to review the skills and capacity of the current project team in relation to running an intense commercial procurement. In particular it will need to identify where any skills or capacity gaps are and how those gaps will be filled.

De-risking There are a number of risks that the Delivery Board has in its gift to control, manage or influence. Reducing uncertainty will lead to better value for money as any uncertainty is typically priced in by the bidders, with a premium for the risks taken. The Delivery Board should explore options to de-risk the project prior to procurement, such as: 

Identifying / undertaking any key technical studies needed;



Providing key data / information to bidders (with appropriate warranties) at the relevant point in the procurement process;



Providing a clear approach as to how planning permission will be secured. Bidders will want to be actively involved in the planning process so as to obtain the right balance between certainty and allowing bidders to inject some innovation into the process; and



Addressing key governance, viability and funding issues (per above).

The Delivery Board should conduct a review of the information that is currently available and determine how relevant the information is, whether the information needs to be updated and what the gaps in information are.

A data room that bidders can access should also be set up once the procurement commences.

Getting ready for dialogue Planning ahead of the competitive dialogue process should not be underestimated. The competitive dialogue process effectively encourages negotiation early in the process with multiple bidders. Therefore, if the process is not managed carefully, there is the potential for costs to increase significantly which can lead to bidders withdrawing from the process. A procurement strategy will need to be implemented so that the competitive dialogue process is run efficiently and the public sector gets what it set out to achieve from the process.

PwC  11 27

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

The Delivery Board should therefore design and implement a clear procurement strategy. Aspects covered are likely to include the following tasks: 

Developing robust evaluation criteria that reflect the objectives of the public sector stakeholders. This is highly important, as if the evaluation criteria is not robust, then the public sector could end up with a deal that is sub-optimal and does not reflect what it set out to procure. Robust evaluation criteria also send a clear signal to the market in how it should approach the procurement competition. Developing a robust evaluation criteria includes understanding the weighting of priorities e.g. transformation change, eco-features, financial return, risk transfer, deliverability etc.

The development of the evaluation criteria is a critical step that will highlight differing views amongst stakeholders (testing project governance arrangements) and ultimately determines the bidder you will select.



Designing an efficient procurement process. This will involve deciding on what to test at each dialogue stage and how many bidders to take through to each stage of dialogue. You will need to strike a balance between level of detail, time, cost and resource with bidder willingness to engage and the amount of added value that can be driven out of an effective dialogue process. The process should also factor in appropriate gateway and approvals processes (and timings) so that it operates smoothly and efficiently with the overarching project governance arrangements.



Developing a project risk register – key risks will need to be identified along with a plan on how risks are mitigated.



Developing procurement documents – key documents associated with the procurement exercise will need to be developed including Information Memorandum, Invitation to Participate in Dialogue document, PQQ documents, OJEU notice etc.

Indicative Timeline A detailed project work programme and timetable should be developed. As an illustration, the timeline below outlines how the above steps might be covered in advance of commencing a competitive dialogue procurement competition.

PwC  12 28

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Table 1 – Indicative project timeline Task Project Governance Structure

Risk Lack of interest and commitment from the market.

Dependencies

Timeline Early September 2012 to mid November 2012.

Desired outcome Agreed forum for making decisions and engaging with the private sector.

A single point of contact will be required during procurement.

Resourcing the project should not be influenced by the governance structure.

It is clear that an exercise is required to review the skills and capacity available to the project to ensure sufficiency, in light of the tasks required to bring the project to the market and into close a successful deal.

In order to improve viability in the early years, infrastructure prioritisation exercise required, along with challenging value uplift assumptions.

Early September 2012 to mid November 2012.

A project team that has both skills and capacity to deliver a complex procurement process over an 18month period. Team likely to require internal resource from the public sector landowners as well as experienced legal and financial advisers.

Early September 2012 to end February 2012.

A clear understanding of what is commercially viable in short to medium term.

Pro-longed procurement process leading to delays, increased costs and possibly bidders leaving the procurement process.

Eventual deal is not supported by all parties.

Project resourcing across the project

Pro-longed procurement process due to lack of skills and capacity leading to delays, increased costs and possibly bidders leaving the procurement process.

Weak or sub-optimal deal concluded.

Further viability testing Infrastructure prioritisation Understanding the short to medium term viability picture Confirming viability following commitment of public sector funding

Approach to securing public sector funding/investment

Lack of market response (because project is not viable) Pressure to change key project fundamental at a later stage (because project as set out is not commercial).

Time wasted pursuing a project that doesn’t “stack up”.

Unable to secure funding needed to deliver key outcomes.

Prioritisation of infrastructure undertaken.

Linked to potential public funding availability.

Assumptions have been robustly challenged.

Commercial understanding of potential bidders’ attitudes.

Public sector funding availability and commitment understood.

Should reflect infrastructure phasing.

Confidence in the project and its deliverability.

Comprehensive strategy on target sources of funding, how funding will be secured (eg what tasks

Early September 2012 to mid December 2012.

PwC  13 29

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Task

Risk

Dependencies

Timeline

Commitment of public sector funding/investment

Lack of market response (because project is not viable without public sector funding).

Interest may have changed due to changes in funding environment, economy, political environment Uncertainty of risks leads to unnecessary risk-pricing by bidders, thus increasing costs and lowering financial return for public sector.

Funding strategy in place and where necessary, relevant business cases to justify funding.

On-going engagement with the market recommended, particularly in light of funding market challenges.

Technical support may be required.

Mid October 2012 to end March 2013.

Further market testing

De-risking (1.e. data collection, survey info etc)

Desired outcome required – business cases, economic impact studies etc) and timing of funding.

Commitment from funding organisations.

Early September 2012 to mid March 2013

Up to date knowledge of current level of interest in the project

Early November 2012 to end February 2013.

A data room available for bidders to view surveys / information on the project that enables them to price without having to factor in uncertainty regarding information that is readily available.

Comprehensive risk register detailing risk, probability, potential impact and mitigation measures.

Developing project risk register

Risks not identified so unprepared when risk crystallises.

Mid January 2013t to mid February 2013.

Developing evaluation criteria

The public sector does not get the right deal as evaluation is skewed.

Project delivery team and governance structure developed.

Early October 2012 to mid November 2012.

Agreed evaluation criteria before commencement of procurement.

Designing procurement process

A badly designed procurement leads to inefficiency and potential increased costs for both bidders and the public sector.

Developed evaluation criteria Project Risk Register.

Mid November 2012 to mid December 2012.

An agreed strategy on how the market will be tested at each stage of the procurement and how many bidders to down-select at each stage.

Potential risk of challenge from bidders is procurement process is poorly managed.

Developing procurement documents

Unnecessary delays to procurement if documents are not ready.

Balance between cost, time and effectiveness of procurement process achieved.

Developed evaluation criteria Project Risk Register Designed procurement process.

Mid January 2013 to mid March 2013.

Consistent, on time, engagement with the market that breeds bidder confidence.

PwC  14 30

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Task Issue OJEU notice

Risk One chance to make a “first impression” on the market. Need to get it right.

Dependencies All procurement documents prepared

Timeline End of March 2013.

Desired outcome Procurement starts when partners are ready and fully understand (and commit to process ahead).

Illustration of work-plan September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

Project Governance & Resourcing Infrastructure Prioritisation Challenging Assumptions Modelling “bite sized” phasing Confirm ing viability Approach to securing public sector funding Com m itment of public sector funding De-risking (i.e. Data collection, survey info etc) Project risk register Develop evaluation criteria Designing procurement process Developing procurement docum ents

Further m arket testing Issue OJEU

PwC  15 31

Š 2012 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. 'PricewaterhouseCoopers' refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. insert reference in subjectinsert reference in subject 32

Appendix 2: Public Sector Funding Strategy

Public Sector Funding Strategy September 2012

33

Public Sector Funding Strategy – September 2012 A. Purpose

High level viability work carried out by Price Waterhouse Cooper has identified that viability of the overall project will be improved with a clear funding package. Ideally ÂŁ23m needs to be sourced in the next five years to provide maximum impact. Concurrent with this work, the infrastructure requirements for the development have now been identified.

This provides a clear list of projects for which funding is required. Sourcing funding for these projects will reduce the funding gap and will be critical to the viability of the Eco-town project.

This strategy identifies three sources of funding to address the funding gap - debt, equity and grant and sets out the actions required to secure funding going forward. It is likely that a mix of these sources will be required and that a coordinated approach across organisations will be needed to pull together a package of funding that can fill this gap.

2 Public Sector Funding Strategy 34

Any infrastructure that is secured ahead of selection of a delivery model and procurement of an investor partner can potentially increase the land owners’ equity stake in the delivery model (either unilaterally or multilaterally depending on agreement between landowners).

The delivery model which is selected may affect the funding mix that is required to address the funding gap and ability to secure different forms of finance. A structured delivery arrangement will be crucial if innovative financial mechanisms which require government support or backing are proposed.

This strategy and accompanying documents set out the funding sources which will be considered as part of the funding package and the work which must carried out to ensure that we have a costed and agreed Infrastructure Investment Plan in place by March 2013.

B. Funding Sources Three forms of funding are considered below with examples.

1. Debt This is finance that must be repaid, usually with some form of interest. For example: 1.1 Prudential borrowing – The Local Government Act 2003 gave local authorities the power to borrow for capital works via the Public Works Loan Board so long as borrowing is affordable and in line with the Prudential Code.

This is the least expensive form of funding for local authorities with 20 year rates of 2.77% as of 20 July 2012.

1.2 Growing Enterprise Fund –This is Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership’s Growing Places Fund. It is a revolving fund for providing infrastructure to unblock development sites.

Sources of repayment (e.g. Section 106 / CIL agreements) must be identified at application stage.

Central government is introducing (or has recently introduced) a number of measures for repayment that could make borrowing more attractive to local authorities: 1.3 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – From April 2013 local authorities will be able to retain a share of additional public sector revenues generated from development within a designated area and will be able to borrow against these future business rate receipts within the existing prudential borrowing code.

PWC have calculated that EHDC could potentially retain £56m over a 20 year period which would support £43m of debt at current rates via the Public Works Loan Board. These are modelled figures and there are no assurances that these revenues will be achieved.

3 Public Sector Funding Strategy 35

1.4 New Homes Bonus – Central government will match fund council tax revenues from new homes for a six year period. The government has established this funding without ringfences, but has drastically reduced councils’ core funding. PWC have calculated that a development of 4000 homes could potentially generate circa £37m assuming that the New Homes Business exists for the next twenty years.

However, It is not certain how long the scheme will remain active beyond the current Comprehensive Spending Review Period which ends in March 2015. However early sites such as Quebec Barracks should be eligible to generate an income for the Local Authorities from the New Homes Bonus.

1.5 SLIC (Strategic Land and Infrastructure Contract) / S.106 approach Alongside work that is currently being undertaken to establish the community infrastructure levy for East Hampshire, we are also developing a standardised approach to

4 Public Sector Funding Strategy 36

planning obligations in Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown. We are considering setting a fixed tariff for strategic infrastructure and a variable range for secondary site specific infrastructure. A similar approach was followed in the Milton Keynes prospectus and other long term strategic large scale developments in the UK. The SLIC process will commence with initiating a dialogue between the Landowners Group, EHDC, HCC, investment partners (if party to the discussion), government departments and infrastructure agencies. These parties will agree priorities reflecting local circumstances and viability. If tested and developed in parallel with other planning studies, CIL and pre-application process; progress could be made in agreeing on a draft SLIC by the end of 2013. Initiating SLIC dialogue will also help in lobbying for the various funding streams from central government.

2. Equity

This is investment in return for a stake in the organisation usually in the form of shares. Equity investors expect to see a dividend paid out of the organisation’s earnings or capital gain.

2.1 Public Sector Investment Land owners may choose to invest equity over and above land values in return for a greater share of eventual profits.

2.2 Private Sector Investment Some infrastructure projects may be suitable for equity finance ahead of securing an investment partner. The government’s newly announced UK Guarantee Scheme could provide confidence for private sector investors.

Utility companies may invest in the capital cost of infrastructure (for example a district energy network) in exchange for an equity stake, or just the certainty of a future revenue stream from users of their supplies or networks.

2.3 Social Investment There are a number of not for profit organisations and social investment businesses such as Salix Finance who are interested in investing in projects that can generate a return, for example, out of energy savings. Such funds would be particularly good for refurbishing existing buildings where an energy saving can be demonstrated. This may be a good approach for refurbishing MoD buildings which are likely to retained. Unfortunately the existing community buildings are less likely to engage in this type of finance as the management organisations are generally very risk averse.

We will also investigate whether UK Green Investments (the forerunner of the Green Investment Bank) and Big Society Capital could invest in these infrastructure projects.

2.4 European Investment Bank Some infrastructure projects, once more fully developed, may be attractive to investment

5 Public Sector Funding Strategy 37

banks such as the European Investment Bank. A range of energy infrastructure projects could, for example, be packaged together for investment from the European Energy Efficiency Fund.

The EIB’s JESSICA (Joint European Support for for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) initiative allows European Regional Development funding to be used to make repayable investments in infrastructure projects which form part of an integrated plan for sustainable urban development. Whilst Whitehill & Bordon is not of sufficient scale to ‘go it alone’ with a JESSICA style initiative there may be scope for working with Enterprise M3 LEP or Hampshire County Council if EU or other funds can be sourced for this purpose.

3. Grants Public sector grants (or in some cases interest free loans) mainly come from EU (e.g. European Regional Development Fund), UK central government (e.g. Regional Growth Fund) or

6 Public Sector Funding Strategy 38

innovation funding from utility companies or the Technology Strategy Board (e.g. Low Carbon Networks Fund). This source of funding is not repayable, but the project must meet the criteria set out in the funding call to be successful. As detail is worked up on major infrastructure projects we are better placed to respond quickly to major funding calls. Match funding is usually required for any grant.

4. Future opportunities In the current economic climate infrastructure funding is an ever changing landscape, TIF guidance and UK Guarantee Scheme, for example, have been published in the last week of July. Business rate retention, Local Government Bonds and pension fund investment may be options in the near future.

We will lobby relevant parties and keep a watching brief on upcoming developments that may influence our funding options moving forward.

C. Approach

- direct project benefits such as jobs created and gross value added.

To be successful in attracting major public funds we need to:

- indirect benefits such as supply chain impacts

1. Build an investment case This will be an economic and social impact assessment that goes beyond the work already undertaken which by and large shows the needs of the town. This work must focus on the outputs and qualitative and quantitive outcomes that can accrue from investment in the town over and above what could accrue from investment elsewhere.

The investment case will be used to develop marketing materials that sell investment in Whitehill & Bordon to public sector investors in European, UK and regional government. It will show

- social and attendant treasury impacts (e.g. increased tax take, reductions in health inequality, reductions in crime etc.).

2. Build a portfolio of infrastructure projects We need to identify which source of funding is most appropriate for each item on the infrastructure plan. This will include assessing which ones are unlikely to be funded by the private sector, which will release sites for investment and which will build market confidence.

For each identified project we will need a briefing document which shows: - earliest potential delivery dates

7 Public Sector Funding Strategy 39

- what linkages need to be secured before project can be delivered and what are the dependencies.

- How much funding required - Where match funding will come from (investment/ debt/ existing resources/ another funding stream) - Why needed - additional benefits of project

3. Develop an action plan 3.1 Generate an Infrastructure Investment Plan showing projects, delivery phasing and funding sources for a five year period.

3.2 Identify matchfunding (debt / investment/ another funding stream).

3.3 Apply for funds drawing in additional technical expertise where necessary to ensure success.

3.3 In addition to this work we need to be working up projects from the infrastructure delivery plan which can be delivered early to

8 Public Sector Funding Strategy 40

respond to predictable funding calls such as ERDF and Regional Growth Fund round four which we anticipate will be announced in the near future.

4. Promote Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

We have developed a lobbying strategy which sits alongside this strategy. This shows how we will promote Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town to central government departments, Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), Southern England Local Partners (SELP), Enterprise M3 LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership), UK Infrastructure and Utilities.

This will increase awareness of Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, build an investment market, generate support for funding applications and ensure we have the best possible knowledge of when calls are likely to occur for funding streams over the next five years.

Appendix 1 – Analysis of funding sources Appendix 2 – Public Sector Funding Strategy – Key Milestones Appendix 3 – Public Sector Funding Strategy – Work Plan

9 Public Sector Funding Strategy 41

www.whitehillbordon.com Produced on behalf of Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town East Hampshire District Council Penns Place Petersfield Hampshire GU31 4EX 01730 234 329

10 Public Sector Funding Strategy 42

Appendix 1

Analysis of Funding Sources Funding Source Debt

Benefits *low cost finance from Public Works Loan Board *New mechanisms such as TIF / NHB to repay loan

Equity

* Upfront equity investment to deliver infrastructure can yield greater returns for public sector partners as the development is built out. * Established approach, familiar to the market.

Grant

*Not repayable

Assumptions * development will generate expected income * Government fully develops new repayment mechanisms within project timeframe * Development will realise uplift in value and generate profit

*Time consuming applications will be successful

43

Constraints * Debt must be repaid

Dependencies * Risk held with organisation taking out the loan

* Will not be appropriate for all infrastructure projects * Investors may want to invest in specific projects (e.g. ESCO) without being party to wider delivery arrangements * Investors may require guarantees. *Grant criteria may not exactly match our projects * Reactive rather than proactive * Often paid in arrears

* Structure of delivery vehicle needs to be established

*Matchfunding *Partnership requirement (e.g. 3 EU partners)

Other (e.g. Bonds, Pension Fund investment, business rate retention).

* May provide additional elements to include in funding mix that reduce the risk to the public sector.

* Public sector partners will be keen to be trail blazers for new mechanisms

44

* Time required to * These proposals are fully factor untested realised in time to be part mechanisms into the of the funding mix. funding package

Appendix 2

Public Sector Funding Strategy - Key Milestones Milestones

Timeline

Project governance structure established

September 2012 -

Who Eco-town team, Delivery Board, Landowners

November 2012 Create public sector funding task force – to ensure;

September 2012 October 2012

- a coordinated approach to the three sources of funding.

- that landowners are not duplicating resources.

- best source of funding for each item of infrastructure is

45

Eco-town team EHDC and HCC Economic Development teams EHDC and HCC Strategic Finance teams HCA ATLAS

Milestones

Timeline

Who

established. E.g. Hampshire County Council may already be working on providing superfast broadband countywide.

Will also test internal appetite for pump priming development in Whitehill & Bordon with debt / equity investment and ensure high level buy in from early stage in process.

Build investment case

October 2012 March 2013

Build portfolio of infrastructure projects

October 2012 -

Eco-town team, EHDC and HCC Economic Development teams.

Eco-town team

March 2013 Work up projects from the infrastructure plan which can be delivered early to respond to predictable funding calls such as ERDF and Regional Growth Fund round four which we anticipate will be announced in the near future.

Continue to monitor the funding horizon, particularly EU funding proposals for 2014 – 2020 and UK Government infrastructure funding proposals.

Promote Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town to central government departments, Homes and Communities

46

Ongoing

Eco-town team

Ongoing

Eco-town team

Ongoing

Eco-town team, Delivery Board,

Milestones

Timeline

Agency (HCA), Southern England Local Partners (SELP), Enterprise M3 LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership), UK Infrastructure and Utilities.

Identifying suitable funding streams for items in portfolio of infrastructure projects – generate a matrix of projects, delivery phasing and funding options for a five year period.

Who Project team

December 2012 – March 2013

Eco-town team, Public Sector Funding Task Force

Develop package of public sector debt / equity to fund infrastructure measures which are not suitable for grant funding, taking into account new or imminent developments such as Pension Fund investments, community infrastructure bonds etc.

September 2012 – March 2013

Eco-town team, Public Sector Funding Task Force

Infrastructure Investment Plan based on previous two milestones finalised

March 2013

Eco-town team, Public Sector Funding Task Force

Core Strategy adopted

March 2013

EDHC

OJEU notice issued to procure development partner

March 2013

Delivery Board

S.106 / SLIC arrangements in place

December 2013

Landowners’ group / EHDC

Outline planning submission

Early 2014

Landowners’ group / EHDC

47

Appendix 3

Public Sector Funding Strategy - Work Plan Issue Number /Date:

No. Task

1: 9/08/2012

End Date

1 2 3 4 5

Project Governance structure established

Nov 2012

Create Public Sector Funding Task Force Build investment case Build portfolio of infrastructure projects Respond to predicted funding calls

October 2012 March 2013 March 2013 Ongoing

6

Horizon scanning

Ongoing

Promote Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Ongoing

7

Identify funding streams

March 2013

8

Develop debt / equity package

March 2013

9 Infrastructure Investment Plan Finalised 10 Core strategy adopted 11 OJEU notice to procure development partner issued

March 2013 March 2013 March 2013

12 S.106 / SLIC arrangements agreed 13 Outline planning application

December 2013 Early 2014

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

48

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2103

Late 2013 - early 2014

Appendix 3: Lobbying Strategy

Developing this lobbying strategy will give a more structured approach to enable partner organisations and the team to make best use of contacts and opportunities. It also ensures we don’t miss opportunities.

Lobbying strategy Why we need this strategy We need this strategy to ensure that we can develop a sustainable and prosperous community in Whitehill & Bordon (and East Hampshire) and mitigate the effects of the Army leaving the town in 2015.

We have ambitious plans for regeneration but we are competing in an environment where securing public and private sector funding is increasingly difficult. So we need to ensure that the right target groups are lobbied so that we are considered as a priority for future funding.

We need to raise the profile of the Eco-town project to those who make decisions about funding so that we are a high priority for investment – as well as benefiting from advice and networking opportunities that a higher profile will generate.

Identifying the right people to lobby is key to achieving success. Key target groups have been outlined in this strategy.

But this is by no means a definitive list and will evolve as the lobbying activities evolve.

All our lobbying activities need to be focussed and coordinated so that our efforts have maximum impact.

September 2012

This strategy is not just about trying to secure funding; it has a much wider remit. We need to continue to develop relations

49

1

with key organisations and individuals as their advice and expertise will continue to be useful to the project (and some of the work we are doing may be useful to them as well).

Objectives 1. To raise the profile of the project to those that could provide (or have an influence on providing) funding for infrastructure 2. To raise the profile of the project to those that could give us useful advice or provide key networking opportunities 3. To raise the profile of the project so that it is seen as an example of how to create sustainable communities 4. To give a more structured and coordinated approach to our lobbying activities so that there is a consistent message for maximum impact

To succeed, the lobbying needs to take a multi-pronged approach so that as many people/departments are targeted over a relatively short time to ensure maximum impact and therefore maximum chance of funding and interest in the project.

The project needs to have continuing political and policy support to ensure its delivery over a long period.

This strategy outlines key target groups and also those who will be doing the lobbying. It also lists the actions needed to achieve the objectives.

Our immediate lobbying priority Our number one priority is securing funding for the Eco-town project.

A calendar of up-and coming opportunities will be created – but opportunities are not limited to these. Those listed as lobbyists should raise the profile of the project in any relevant meeting and we will be able to provide material for these meetings (at short notice if necessary – please see action plan).

September 2012

Timescale Lobbying will be an ongoing activity throughout the lifetime of the project – but it is particularly relevant in the early stages to attract private and public investment to deliver key infrastructure and to ‘de-risk’ the site which will be needed upfront in order to ensure the successful delivery of the project.

Please see the action plan for an outline timetable of key actions.

50

2

• • •

How we will achieve these objectives: In order to achieve the objectives we will: 1. Establish who we are going to target to achieve these objectives (this will include the following broad groups: MPs, MEPs, government departments, local councils, businesses, business groups (e.g. the local enterprise partnership), infrastructure providers, organisations working alongside the Eco-town project and lowcarbon ‘movers and shakers’ – this is not a definitive list and will continue to evolve.

2. Establish who will be involved in targeting these individuals and organisations – (this might include the following list – again this is not a definitive list and will continue to evolve).

• Chairman of the Whitehill & Bordon Delivery Board • Eco-town project director • Council leader, portfolio holder and cabinet • Local councillors • District council Chief Executive, lead Executive Director, Joint Executive Board and service teams

September 2012

Leader and portfolio holder at Hampshire County Council MP Eco-town theme leads

3. Compile calendar of opportunities and events in the town that could be useful for lobbying (it is particularly useful to have events in the town as this is one of the key ways that those targeted will be able to see the potential impact on the town) 4. Provide useful material and information to those involved (this will include a presentation, web pages, social media presence, a brochure and comprehensive briefing material) 5. Monitor progress and note key achievements so we can see what is working and what isn’t working and understand why so that we can improve the strategy and activities.

51

3

Action plan

Actions Establish who we are going to target to achieve these objectives Identify suitable events in Whitehill & Bordon to which we invite key influencers and develop calendar of opportunities that includes other events and meetings that we should be at

When (approximate timescale) October 2012 End of October 2012

Networking opportunities will be monitored and those that would be most useful will be highlighted to those who are responsible for implementing the strategy Create a short presentation about the project and why it needs investment to take to meetings Create a targeted brochure outlining why the town needs investment. Hard copies will be given to those involved in implementing the strategy so that they have them available when needed and the brochure will also be available to send via email Develop an ‘Invest in Whitehill & Bordon’ section of the website and develop social media presence Produce up-to-date briefing notes for key meetings (to include details of key investment needed at a particular time as the project progresses)

September 2012

52

November 2012 December 2012

December 2012/January 2013 As and when required

4

Evaluation: the strategy will be reviewed to ensure that the objectives are still relevant, to review progress and to change tack if necessary (e.g. to focus more resources on a particular element of this strategy)

Quarterly review meeting February 2013

The review process will include quarterly meetings with those involved to discuss progress, new contacts, new leads, opportunities as they emerge and discussions on what has worked well and why (and if anything hasn’t worked so well) so that work can be improved.

1. Outcomes of activity: Which meetings were particularly successful? Has follow-up information been sent? Are we targeting the right individuals/groups?

2. Have any activities led directly to funding/networking opportunities/advice 3. Is the promotional material useful and has it been well received by the target audience?

4. Have we selected the right targets and lobbying group to be most effective?

5. What could we do better?

Please see the last page of this report for more details on evaluation.

Monitoring and evaluation It is hoped that if every networking opportunity stimulates one new contact (e.g. one additional person mentions or praises the project to someone else) then the increased momentum will create a buzz about the Eco-town to those that can help us secure additional funding, advice and support – as well as being seen as an example of how to create a sustainable community.

Ultimately, the real test of whether this strategy has been successful will be if we are able to secure the funding for the necessary infrastructure. However we also need to ensure that we are on target to secure this funding (and advice) in the interim and so the lobbying activity and outcomes will be monitored and reviewed regularly.

Therefore quarterly review meetings will be held with those implementing the lobbying strategy to discuss:

September 2012

Links to other work This strategy will complement and be delivered in tandem with the public sector funding strategy and the inward investment marketing strategy. These both seek to promote the town and

53

5

the project to investors and so materials, information and contacts can be shared between all three areas of activity.

Objective To raise the profile of the project to those that could provide (or have an influence on providing) funding for infrastructure

Evaluation Have we held meetings with these groups – what was the outcome of the meeting? Have they generated ongoing interest? Requested further details?

Are our funding bids successful?

Monitor hits to specific webpages/social media/are we being talked about on Twitter?

To raise the profile of the project to those that could give us useful advice or provide key networking opportunities

September 2012

Assess which material has been most useful (and discuss if any is not useful so that resources can be prioritised) Are we receiving more advice? Is this advice useful?

Are we being invited to take part in more networking opportunities?

54

6

To raise the profile of the project so that it is seen as an example of how to create sustainable communities

To give a more structured and coordinated approach to our lobbying activities so that there is a consistent message for maximum impact

September 2012

Is there general opinion that we are an example sustainable community?

Are we being asked for information as an example of best practice and asked to appear in journals etc.

Is there a better understanding about the Eco-town in general meetings?

Is there a groundswell in the way we are perceived by key influencers?

55

7

Agenda item 7

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Landowners’ Report

Author:

Ian Parker, Chief Executive’s Department, Hampshire County Council

Reference no: WBPD038-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) In response to updates received on the Defence Technical Training Change Programme (DTTCP), the wider project management and the outline planning application it was agreed that the priority areas for work were to: • • •

Establish the agreed landowner position on the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) Report on commercial strategy and other the other recommendations.

Progress the short and medium term plan for the funding and resources required to promote the development of the Eco-town.

Preparation for the Examination in Public (EiP).

Date: 16th August 2012 Version: v1

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 - 56 -

Purpose of report: This report sets out the outcomes of the discussion between the principal land owners in relation to the on-going project management and governance of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town project.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: None

Consultation and comments received: None

Community engagement proposals: Consultation proposals for the planning application are being established.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1

To update the Delivery Board on the actions of the Landowners’ Group since the last board meeting on 14th June 2012.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 The principal land owners comprise the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Hampshire County Council (HCC) & East Hampshire District Council (EHDC).

2.2 The members of the Landowners’ Group have met on one occasion since the last meeting of the Delivery Board to progress the work required to bring forward the land for development 2.3 The aim remains to assemble the three land ownerships all held within the public sector and to bring this forward as a single entity to support a single delivery vehicle for the development of the scheme.

2.4 The landowners recognise the importance and challenges of how the combined land owning interest will be best managed / presented throughout the development programme.

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 - 57 -

2.5 Further clarification of the respective roles of the Landowners’ Group (individually and collectively) and the Delivery Board is critical.

2.6 The DTTCP programme continues to promote the closure of the Bordon Garrison in 2015.

2.7 A joint landowner statement of common ground is to be prepared for the examination in public. GVA have been contracted by DIO to work with all landowners. The requirement for early investment in the provision of Critical Infrastructure as identified in the masterplan was recognised.

2.8 Report on the general principles of the Consultation Strategy for the Planning Application to be made to the Delivery Board at its 6th September meeting.

2.9 The Landowners’ agreed to progress the Land Equalisation Agreement and the MoD are to circulate templates of agreements used on other sites to the other landowners.

2.10 The collective use of the Landowners’ Group to be made to the Delivery Board workshop on Wednesday 29th August.

2.11 Further work required on the Programme (costs, resources and funding) to progress the Planning Application and to bring forward critical infrastructure work and phasing of the scheme.

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1 Further consideration on the viability position and programme to secure investment will continue to be required as the project progresses.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The role of the Landowners in funding and procuring the work required to bring forward the Planning Application and work alongside the Delivery Board is recognised. The emerging relationship between the Landowners and the Delivery Board will need to be defined, in light of the PwC report.

4.2 The findings of the PwC report are being considered by the Landowners and a collective response will be made to the Delivery Board workshop on 29th August.

5 Resource implications 5.1 Further work is being undertaken on the resources required to progress the planning application and to attract the necessary investment into 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 - 58 -

provision of primary infrastructure and to progress the early and longer term components of the Eco-town. In addition to costs (see item below) opportunities to secure development expertise into the team will be required.

6 Cost implications 6.1 Additional costs to cover marketing, legal fees etc are anticipated but have not yet been quantified since the last meeting but work is hand to profile the costs against the headings of planning, development partner procurement and legal (S106).

7 Conclusion 7.1 The Landowners recognise the importance of the progress made in relation to the Joint Core Strategy.

7.2 The future roles and responsibility of the Landowners’ Group and the Delivery Board needs a review. The Landowners fully recognise the complexities and interdependencies between the various members of the Delivery Board project.

7.3 The roles each will play and contribute to the successful delivery of the project needs to be defined having regard to the findings in the PwC report with a particular emphasis in securing the necessary development expertise and funding (public & private) partners required.

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 - 59 -

Agenda item 8

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group Public Engagement Strategy (draft) for Outline Planning Application

Author:

Gillian Griggs, Director, GVA

Reference no: WBPD031-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) At its meeting in June 2012, the Delivery Board requested the Landowners Group to prepare a paper on plans for public engagement on the outline planning application for their development proposals at Whitehill & Bordon.

GVA has been tasked to prepare a strategy for public engagement on behalf of the Landowners.

A draft strategy is appended. It aims to adopt best practice principles of engagement and takes account of EHDC’s requirements as set out in its Statement of Community Involvement and its ‘Ecommunication’ strategy for Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. It must be emphasised that these proposals were not considered by the Landowners Group until 23rd August and therefore their comments will be communicated verbally to the Delivery Board on 6th September.

Date: 7th August 2012 Version: v1

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 - 60 -

Purpose of report: To set out the Landowners’ Group proposals for engaging with the public and other stakeholders during the preparation of a planning application for development at Whitehill & Bordon.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: To note the proposals for public engagement and offer comments for the Landowners’ Group to consider.

Consultation and comments received: Eco-town team members and landowners. Landowners’ Group comments to be reported verbally at Delivery Board meeting.

Community engagement proposals: See attached paper.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 This report responds to a request from the Delivery Board for the Landowners’ Group to set out their plans for engagement with the public during the preparation of their planning application.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 Proposals for public engagement and other key stakeholders including overall approach, methods of consultation and an indicative programme (although the latter remains subject to change).

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1 It is important that the public engagement proposals enable all relevant individuals and parties to be consulted either indirectly or directly and have the opportunity to comment. This will help to address concerns and help avoid delays in the planning application 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 - 61 -

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 Pre-application consultation is a statutory requirement. Implementation of the engagement strategy addresses this requirement and will contribute to achieving submission of a planning application as swiftly as possible.

5 Resource implications 5.1 This will be a matter for the Landowners’ Group.

6 Cost implications 6.1 This will be a matter for the Landowners’ Group 7 Conclusion 7.1 The attached draft public engagement strategy outlines the proposals for ensuring all sectors of the community are consulted.

8 Appendix Appendix 1: Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group, Public Engagement Strategy (Draft), GVA, August 2012.

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 - 62 -

Appendix 1: Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group, Public Engagement Strategy (Draft), GVA, August 2012.

Report Report GVA 3 Brindleyplace Birmingham B1 2JB

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group Public Engagement Strategy (DRAFT) Prepared on behalf of the Landowners’ Group.

August 2012

gva.co.uk 63

Prepared By .Laura Smith ....................... Status..Senior Planner ........Date 27/07/2012 .....................

Reviewed By Gillian Griggs ................... Status..Director....................Date August 2012...................

For and on behalf of GVA Grimley Ltd

January 2011 I gva.co.uk

64

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Contents

CONTENTS 1.

Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................ 1

2.

Key Considerations .................................................................................................. 2

3.

Scope of Consultees ............................................................................................... 8

4.

Approach and Methods of Consultation ............................................................. 10

5.

Indicative Programme ........................................................................................... 15

6.

Conclusions and Next Steps ................................................................................. 17

APPENDICES Appendix 1

Schedule of Consultees (to be completed)

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

65

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Introduction and Purpose

1.

Introduction and Purpose

1.1

The purpose of this report is to set out the proposals of the Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group for public engagement relating to preparation of an outline planning application (OPA) for development of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. The report also refers to consultation proposals with wider stakeholders and other interest groups. This strategy has been prepared as the basis for discussions with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board and East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), as Local Planning Authority (LPA), and will be finalised following their feedback.

1.2

This report is structured as follows: •

Section 2 provides an overview of the key considerations in preparing the consultation strategy, and the broad approach;

•

Section 3 outlines the proposed scope of consultees;

•

Section 4 describes the proposed approach and methods of consultation and Section 5 sets out an indicative programme of consultation; and

• 1.3

Section 6 concludes the document and sets out next steps.

Should you require any further information, please contact: Gill Griggs

Laura Smith

Director

Senior Planner

T 0121 609 8340

T 0121 609 8330

E gill.griggs@gva.co.uk

E laura.smith@gva.co.uk

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

66

1

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

2.

Key Considerations

Key Considerations Planning Policy Consultation Requirements and Guidance

2.1

The Landowners’ Group recognises that community involvement is at the forefront of the planning agenda and is reflected in the principles underpinning the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and Localism Act (2011).

The Localism Act

introduced a statutory requirement on prospective developers to undertake pre application consultation with the local community prior to the submission of major planning applications. Further guidance is expected to be published shortly on these requirements and this strategy will be amended to reflect the guidance as and when it is published.

2.2

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, reinforces the need for early engagement. It encourages pre-application engagement with key stakeholders and the local

planning authority as well as with the local

community.

2.3

Specific regard has also been had to East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC’s) adopted (2007) Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which encourages early consultation and suggests appropriate consultation approaches. The SCI at paragraph 9.7 encourages “applicants for planning permission to consult and involve local residents, statutory consultees and organisations in their proposals at an early stage before submitting their planning applications”, explaining that the benefit of early engagement with the community may reduce delays when the application is submitted.

2.4

Paragraph 9.3 identifies those applications which may require more community involvement. As a major application, the OPA for the Eco-town will require a higher level of community involvement. With this in mind, paragraph 9.8 requires developers to adopt the following procedures: •

To agree a consultation programme at pre-application discussions with the Council;

•

To carry out consultations; and

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

67

2

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

•

Key Considerations

To submit a Public Consultation Statement at the same time as the planning application. This statement will outline the results of the consultation carried out before a planning application is submitted.

2.5

Whilst the SCI does not prescribe requirements for public consultation, it does include the following suggested communication methods: •

Identify and consult members of the community and other interested parties affected by the proposals;

•

Organising local exhibitions and meetings;

•

Contact and consult with the local Town or Parish Council;

•

Use of newsletters, local media, leaflets and posters to provide information; and

•

Use of workshops where appropriate.

These methods have been incorporated in the Landowners engagement proposals as explained in Section 4 of this report.

East Hampshire District Council Local Plan: Joint Joint Core Strategy Consultation Programme 2.6

EHDC is engaged in both informal and statutory consultations as part of preparation of its Local Plan: Joint Joint Core Strategy, which includes a chapter on the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. The formal consultation on its Submitted Joint Core Strategy has been completed. Consultation is also proposed in relation to the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy. The table below sets out the key dates in relation to future public engagement and consultation led by EHDC and it will be important to align the OPA public consultation with EHDC’s consultation activities to avoid confusion and overload.

Local Plan Public Engagement Activities

Key Dates

EHDC Joint Core Strategy Public Examination

23rd October – 2nd November 2012

EHDC Joint Core Strategy Proposed Modifications Consultation

31st January 2013 (tbc)

CIL Charging Schedule Consultation

December 2012 (tbc)

Source: GVA, 2012

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

68

3

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Key Considerations

Eco-town structure and community engagement 2.7

EHDC has engaged widely with the local community in preparing the Framework Masterplan for the Eco-town. A bespoke structure has been established to advance the Eco-town proposals, which embeds community engagement within it structure.

The current Eco-town structure is shown on Plan 1 below.

Plan1 – Proposed Governance Structure

2.8

The structure allows the public to be involved through attendance at Delivery Board meetings and Standing Conference meetings which are held in public. The Standing Conference is regarded as a key way in which local stakeholders and members of the public can comment on proposals before they are considered by the Delivery Board. Its role is to act as a

sounding board for the Specialist Groups and to

comment on proposals being submitted to the Delivery Board. It also gives another opportunity to listen to local opinion and feed it back to the Delivery Board.

The Specialist Groups meet in workshop format to comment and advise the Delivery Board on key themes. Local representatives attend these groups. The structure and roles of various bodies are currently under review.

A communications strategy has also been adopted for the Eco-town. The document “Ecommunication: Engaging, consulting and communicating with Whitehill Bordon” explains the aims and objectives of the strategy, evaluates its success and outlines the variety of consulatation methods used.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

69

It also schedules the extent of

4

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Key Considerations

consultation that has taken place to date. This document is currently being updated

by EHDC. `

Public engagement will continue in relation to the Masterplan as the Eco-town team prepare a number of development principles/briefs for key sites over the next 6 months.

Engagement principles and Best Practice 2.9

The Landowners’ Group recognises the extensive public engagement process that has been undertaken to date in relation to Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. In preparing the OPA, the Landowners need to strike an appropriate balance between the Ecotown consultations on development briefs, consulting on their own proposals as they progress, and avoiding consultation fatigue, of which there is evidence.

2.10

With these points in mind, the Landowners’ Group has prepared a community consultation programme, which reflects best practice and therefore seeks to satisfy Local Planning Authority expectations. The Landowners’ Group has identified a number of key principles which have shaped the scope and direction of the proposed engagement programme, as set out below: •

It should relate effectively to other public consultation programmes currently being undertaken in East Hampshire, and in particular the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town consultation programme.

•

It should be targeted to relevant individuals, groups and organisations to be identified in consultation with EHDC as Local Planning Authority. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town and the surrounding area is made up of a diverse community which is represented by a wide network of groups, associations, and action groups representing residents, businesses, the voluntary sector, minority groups, and single issue bodies, many of which are already involved in the consultation process.

•

The engagement process should demonstrate how the OPA will contribute to achieving the Joint Core Strategy and Masterplan Vision for the Eco-town and explain where and how any changes from the Masterplan are being proposed.

•

It must be transparent and meaningful.

Individuals and groups need to be

able to identify where their comments have influenced the development proposals and plans. In instances where views expressed by individuals have

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

70

5

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Key Considerations

not been taken forward, the reasons behind this decision should be clearly expressed; •

To be effective, the strategy should inform, as well as consult, to reduce fear of change and clarify any misunderstandings

•

The strategy must also enable public expectations to be managed. This means that the roles of informing and sharing information will need sometimes to be differentiated from opportunities to comment and influence the proposals. It will be important for members of the public to understand that a balance must be achieved between commercial reality and the delivery of public expectations. This requires the Landowners to explain fully the engagement process and to provide a clear rationale for their decisions (as referred to above).

•

The strategy must be related to option development and outputs of the proposals. Tried and tested methods that are followed through and are seen to make a difference to the outcome are important, as well as innovative methods. This allows the consultation strategy to gain credibility with the very communities with which engagement will be focussed.

•

It is important that the personalities who undertake and facilitate the consultation are good 'ambassadors' for the Landowners’ Group. The key is that they should have a strong understanding of local issues and have experience of managing a variety of situations, in order to gain the confidence of a range of groups and audiences.

2.11

These considerations and drivers have enabled the Landowners’ Group to scope and work up an appropriate community consultation strategy for the future development of the Eco-town, which is based upon the following approach:

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

71

6

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Key Considerations

Figure 2.1 Approach to Community Consultation Identify Consultees

Engage with Consultees Maintain Relationships Report back to Consultees

Consult

Compile Consultation Results and Outcomes

Take account of consultation outcomes in formulating development proposals

Submit planning application(s)

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

72

7

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Scope of Consultees

3.

Scope of Consultees

3.1

The purpose of this section is to set out the identity of the organisations and individuals that should be consulted as part of the pre-application consultation.

Given the scale of the proposals and their implications for the town as a whole, a wide range of organisations and individuals will be affected by the proposals to a greater or lesser extent. In preparing the target list of consultees, consideration has been given to targeting those individuals, groups and organisations that will be most directly affected by the proposed development and those who will be most involved in the decision making and delivery of the Eco-town.

As a general principle,

targeted consultations will be supplemented by methods of wider information sharing for the benefit of the town as a whole and other settlements within the Eco-town policy zone boundary.

3.2

A comprehensive breakdown of the target consultees is provided in Appendix 2. In summary, the intention is to engage and consult with the following: •

Stakeholder Consultation -

Hampshire County Council and EHDC including Council leaders and Chief Executive Officers and in the case of EHDC, locally elected ward Councillors. Access and involvement of key Councillors will be gained via the Eco-town Governance structure and extended as appropriate to ensure all Local Councillors are engaged at appropriate key stages.

-

Hampshire

County

Council

and

EHDC

Highways,

Education,

Environmental Health, Leisure and Culture (including Parks and Open Spaces), Regeneration and Housing departments (in addition to planning).

-

Local Member of Parliament (MP).

-

Parish / Town Councils –– it is proposed to consult Whitehill Town Council and other Parish Councils within the Eco-town policy zone and parish councils near the town on cross boundary issues.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

73

8

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

•

Scope of Consultees

Technical Stakeholders -

HCC and EHDC (Highways, Planning, Environmental, Drainage, Ecology and Archaeology). It will also be appropriate to consult with Surrey Heath CC in their capacity as adjoining Highway Authority.

-

Statutory Consultees including Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage, Sport England, Highways Agency, energy suppliers, water and sewerage companies.

-

Special interest groups – this will include the Specialist Groups (community facilities and amenities; economic development; housing; infrastructure and transport and sustainable environment) that have been established as part of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

•

Community Consultation -

Local residents, residents associations / groups, including business representatives and local interest groups. The extent of local residents to be directly contacted will need to be agreed based on proximity to the OPA boundary.

3.3

The Landowners’ Group would wish to work with EHDC to ensure all relevant consultees have been identified and to assess priorities.

3.4

Having identified the various consultees above, the next section sets out the recommended approach to consulting and engaging with the various organisations and individuals and by who.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

74

9

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

4.

4.1

Approach and Methods of Consultation

Approach and Methods of Consultation The process of consultation will involve dialogue between GVA / AMEC on behalf of the Landowners’ Group with the individuals, groups and organisations identified in the previous section. This section outlines our recommended approach and methods for engaging with the target groups.

4.2

A variety of approaches will be taken towards engagement with the target consultees depending on their relationship to the development proposals, and characteristics and nature of the consultee. The approach to engagement is an iterative process, whereby, efforts will be made to sustain levels of engagement throughout the application process through to determination of the planning application.

4.3

In view of the extent of previous consultations and high level of awareness of the wider Eco-town proposals, it is important to keep the OPA consultations as simple as possible. To that end, two key stages of engagement with the public during the preparation of the OPA are proposed as follows: •

Consultation on the preparation of site layout options for the main development areas, ensuring these are timed to follow on from any Eco-town consultations on development principles (assuming these are prepared in a timely fashion); and

• 4.4

Pre-application consultation on a preferred option.

In addition, consultation and information sharing with specific groups will be ongoing throughout the OPA preparation via the Eco-town Governance arrangements, technical stakeholders and the Specialist Groups.

4.5

Our approach will seek to build upon the consultation process which has already begun and will involve the following core elements: •

Ongoing meetings and engagement.

•

Use of media including preparation of a website.

•

Public Exhibitions and workshop sessions.

•

Preparation of Statement of Community Involvement.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

75

10

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Approach and Methods of Consultation

Ongoing Meetings and Engagement Meetings with EHDC 4.6

Whilst the Landowners’ Group recognises that much background work has been undertaken to date, they, via their planning and technical consultant team, will meet with EHDC officers on a regular basis. The frequency of these meetings will vary according to the stage of preparation of the OPA but will be captured in Planning Performance Agreement. The meetings will discuss : •

Identifying constraints and opportunities;

•

Issues and Options;

•

Sharing of an OPA masterplan and land-use budget as it evolves;

•

Progress against programme;

•

Identification of any significant issues/risks.

Technical work 4.7

Some work has already been undertaken by the Consultant team in liaising with technical stakeholders. It is important that this process continues in order to ensure that all parties understand the proposals and major technical issues are resolved. A programme of consultations with key stakeholders will be prepared and shared with EHDC. This process will also involve the technical consultants sharing information with the Specialist Groups and feeding their comments into the masterplanning work where feasible.

Political/senior officer engagement

4.8

Councillors are the key decision makers of planning applications and their decisions are informed by planning officers’ recommendations but also by lobbying from other Councillors and the local electorate. The Landowners’ Group will need to ensure that relevant Councillors together with senior officers are fully briefed on the proposals and the rationale behind them. This will need to involve neighbouring authorities.

4.9

The nature of the Eco-town project is such that there is already extensive political involvement in the proposals which will be maintained through the Governance arrangements.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

It will be important, however, to establish a broad level of

76

11

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Approach and Methods of Consultation

understanding of the proposals across all relevant Councillors and Senior Officers in order to build consensus on the proposals.

This could be achieved by preview

presentations prior to the public exhibitions of the proposals.

Public Exhibitions 4.10 We propose to engage directly with the local community at key stages of OPA preparation by holding public consultation exhibitions as part of the pre-application process. The objective will be to ensure that people are aware of the proposed redevelopment proposals and the benefits that will arise from them.

It will be

important to ensure, where possible, that any concerns raised by the public can be addressed prior to submission of a planning application, to avoid problems at a later stage.

4.11 At this stage, two exhibitions are suggested to cover the options and preferred option and pre-application stages. Each of the exhibitions will be open to the public and will be supplemented by separate invitation-only sessions for targeted consultees (ward members etc). This would allow decision makers the opportunity to view the exhibition in advance of the public and therefore, be in a position of knowledge should any subsequent questions be received from the public.

4.12 In addition, it is proposed to hold a preview session by invitation for key stakeholders, for example Residents’ Association representatives, to explain the process and seek an early indication of concerns that may be raised.

4.13 The exhibitions would be attended by representatives from the Landowners’ Group and the consultant team at all times who would be available to answer any questions. A number of display boards would be prepared to visually display the information about the development proposals and programme. An attendance record would be kept and comment forms would be available to gather feedback from visitors and could either be completed on the day, returned by post or comments could be left on the website.

4.14 It is recognised that ensuring good attendance to such events is dependant on appropriate publicity, therefore we intend to undertake the following promotional activity: •

Direct engagement to those most closely affected by means of mailshots.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

77

12

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

•

Approach and Methods of Consultation

Bespoke letters written to key residents groups, parish councils, special interest groups, statutory consultees, EHDC and HCC departments, and politicians.

•

Advertisements in the local press.

•

Use of the OPA web site supplemented by links from the EHDC Eco-town web site

•

Temporary signage on-site.

Use of media including preparation of a website 4.15

As indicated above, the Landowners’ Group intend to utilise both direct methods of engagement for those individuals and groups most affected by the proposals but also to utilise the media to disseminate information more widely within the Eco-town policy zone boundary.

Media such as the area’s local newspapers will be used to

publicise key events such as exhibitions and the submission of the OPA. 4.16

The Landowners’ Group would wish to discuss their approach and use of local media with EHDC Officers to develop an agreed strategy.

4.17 For a major project such as this, we propose that a website is set up specifically for these proposals. The website would have three primary roles: •

To provide information to the public on progress of the OPA preparation, including the exhibition material and the associated planning application timescales.

•

It will provide a means for members of the public to express support and also comment on the development proposals during the consultation periods.

•

At the planning application stage all the relevant documents will be posted on the website for ease of reference.

4.18 This web site will be separate from the Eco-town web-site but should have links to it from the EHDC sites.

Preparation of Public Consultation Statement 4.19 In accordance with EHDC’s SCI, we will produce a Public Consultation Statement which will set out the following:

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

78

13

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Approach and Methods of Consultation

•

The method of consultation used.

•

Who was consulted and the level of involvement.

•

How the matters raised in the consultation were addressed by the applicant.

4.20 The Statement will be submitted in conjunction with the planning application.

Accessibility 4.21

Given the diversity of the local community, the Landowners’ Group will make all printed matter and the website content available in languages other than English on request. The Landowners’ Group will liaise with EHDC Officers as to appropriate languages.

Public Relations Consultant 4.22

Given the complexity of the public engagement strategy for the OPA for the Ecotown, the Landowners may wish to consider the appointment of a Public Relations Consultant (such as Camargue, Hardhat etc.) to handle some aspects of the consultation, for example, mailshots and press releases.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

79

14

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Indicative Programme

5.

Indicative Programme

5.1

The timing of the key stages of public engagement will be determined by the programme for the OPA submission and may be influenced by the timing of any further consultation exercises proposed by the EHDC Eco-town team.

The main

stages of public engagement in the planning application process are set out below with a broad indication of timescales. However, it must be recognised that this timetable is only very preliminary at this stage. It should also be noted that it has been assumed that the Local Plan: Joint Joint Core Strategy will have been subject to any further consultation and adopted by March 2013. It is also assumed that EHDC may seek to carry out further consultation on development principles although the timing of such consultations is not yet known.

5.2

The proposed events and draft programme for the Landowners’ Group community consultation strategy for their OPA scheme is outlined below against a background of an assumed preparation timescale

of the OPA from January 2013 through to

January 2014:

Stage

Methods of Engagement

Indicative Timescales

1. Development of Issues and Options for detailed masterplanning work

Engagement with EHDC and key stakeholders including Delivery Board and Specialist Groups.

Could include limited workshops.

January – April 2013

2. Public exhibition of site layout options

Engagement via mailshots, media, bespoke letters

May 2013

Preview presentations by invitation All above approaches to provide background information on the detailed masterplan work together with consultation programme.

3. Re-Engagement

Follow up meetings with EHDC and other key stakeholders

July/August 2013

4. Pre-application consultation on preferred option exhibition

Means of engagement as above

September / October 2013

5. Re-Engagement

Report back on outcomes of previous consultation, publicise submission of planning application.

October 2013

6. Planning Application

Prepare Public Engagement Statement documenting the consultation process, key responses received, and how the scheme has evolved in response to the consultation process.

November 2103

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

80

15

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

5.3

Indicative Programme

Once the principles embodied in this strategy are agreed, a more detailed programme of tasks and timescales can be drawn up for each stage of the OPA process and the key dates embodied in both the comprehensive project programme and a Planning Performance Agreement.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

81

16

Whitehill & Bordon Landowners’ Group

Conclusion and Next Steps

6.

Conclusions and Next Steps

6.1

The purpose of this document is to set out the Landowners’ Group proposed community consultation strategy for Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, which, in their view, represents a best practice approach. The Landowners’ Group recognises, however, that consultation and liaison with EHDC is essential to ensure all appropriate persons/organisations are consulted.

6.2

The Landowners’ Group has already taken account of initial comments from EHDC but appreciates that further work will be required to flesh out the principles set out in this document. The Landowners’ Group has therefore produced this report in draft to the form the basis of discussion with the Delivery Board and Planning Officers prior to finalising this strategy.

Once agreed, the Landowners’ Group will implement the

approved strategy in accordance with the principles set out and in association with EHDC where appropriate.

6.3

Accordingly, the following next steps are recommended: •

Following approval by the Landowners’ Group, this report be taken to the Whitehill & Bordon Delivery Board and EHDC for consideration and comment, and revised to take account of any comments made; and

•

The Landowners’ Group consultant team should implement the final approved strategy in collaboration with EHDC officers and other stakeholders as necessary.

August 2012 I gva.co.uk

82

17

Agenda item 9

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Consultation, communication and engagement strategy

Author:

Lydia Forbes-Manson, Communications and Marketing Officer

Reference no: WBPD032-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) A consultation strategy was agreed by the Delivery Board in 2010. It has been reviewed and an updated strategy (attached) has been developed.

It is recommended that this revised strategy is agreed and implemented to ensure that localism is at the very heart of regenerating Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

Date: 17th August 2012 Version: v1

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 - 83 -

Purpose of report: To ensure that consultation and engagement inform Delivery Board decisions – and that the communication raises the profile of the project and enables residents to benefit from initiatives.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: It is recommended that the Delivery Board adopts this strategy to guide future consultation, communication and engagement.

The Delivery Board is asked to agree the objectives in the strategy and endorse the guidelines that it proposes for consultation.

The objectives are: (i) To increase the number of people taking part in consultation (ii) To clearly demonstrate how consultations have informed the decisionmaking process (iii) Establish a consistent and co-ordinated approach to consultation, communication and engagement (iv) To consult on the development briefs which will guide the design of sites e.g. Louisburg Barracks (v) To communicate and promote Eco-town projects and initiatives so that residents can take advantage of them (vi) To encourage younger people to participate (and other groups who aren’t yet involved) Consultation and comments received: Eco-town team Lead executive director Standing Conference (30th August) Joint Executive Board (4th September) Community engagement proposals: This strategy sets out how community engagement, consultation and communication should take place for the Eco-town project.

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 - 84 -

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 We need to engage, inform and consult with the community and stakeholders so that they continue to drive the regeneration of the town – this strategy sets out a way of doing this.

1.2 Consultation has been ongoing and we have used a variety of methods to talk to as many people as possible. We need to develop our communications and consultation methods to ensure that we talk to people who wouldn’t normally come to consultation events and to ensure that as many as possible are participating.

1.3 There has been very good uptake of free loft and cavity wall insulation and interest-free loans – which shows that our communication methods have been effective. We need to ensure that future projects are as popular.

1.4 Our efforts also show that awareness of environmental issues within the town has improved (details of this are in the strategy) but we need to ensure that this continues.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 The report addresses how consultation, communication and engagement will be carried out to be efficient and effective.

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1

Equalities impact assessments are carried out when necessary.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 Ensures that residents and stakeholders drive the regeneration of the town.

4.2 Achieving the objectives set out in the strategy will help encourage behaviour change in the town (and go someway to helping the town to become carbon and water neutral).

4.3 The main priority is to successfully regenerate Whitehill & Bordon. This will only be successful if it is done in a way that meets the existing and future community needs. The objectives in the attached document will ensure this happens.

5 Resource implications 5.1 Primarily officer 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 - 85 -

6 Cost implications 6.1 Existing Eco-town budget.

7 Conclusion 7.1 For the Delivery Board to agree to the objectives set out in the strategy.

8 Appendix Appendix 1: Consultation, communication and engagement strategy

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 - 86 -

Appendix 1: Consultation, communication and engagement strategy

Consultation, communication and engagement strategy

September 2012

87

1

This is a revised strategy and has been updated because it is important that as the project progresses and more work gets up-and-running that consultation continues to be fundamental to the future work.

Introduction – overview and context Consultation Consultation is central to the regeneration of Whitehill & Bordon and as more projects start and larger-scale regeneration schemes get up-and-running we need to ensure that consultation is effective and inclusive and that it shapes the work we are doing.

Communications The aims are to communicate Eco-town projects, publicise consultation and to demonstrate the benefits of regenerating Whitehill & Bordon.

The consultation strategy is important because it will enable the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Delivery Board to make informed decisions about the future of the town.

Effective communication is essential if residents are going to take-up the Eco-town offers. For example, a wide range of communication methods were used to promote free loft and cavity wall insulation and as a result more than 1,000 homes have now benefited from this.

Extensive consultation has taken place throughout this project and will continue as the project evolves.

Effective communications also ensured that as many as possible (35) interest-free energy-efficiency loans were taken-up by residents. This was part of a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) project called the Low Carbon Communities Challenge (LCCC) where Whitehill & Bordon was one of 22 towns chosen to take part in reducing their energy.

This strategy sets objectives and guidelines for how consultation should take place on Eco-town projects and what should be considered when planning consultations and preparing consultation material.

This strategy does not discuss in detail the outline planning application because a separate strategy is being prepared for this. However the consultation on this should be informed by this strategy and East Hampshire District Council’s ‘statement of community involvement’ which can be found on the EHDC website.

A survey carried out on behalf of DECC found that around two thirds of those questioned in Whitehill & Bordon were aware of the energy-saving initiatives in the town (65% were very or fairly aware). This is significantly higher than the 50% average across other areas who were taking part in the LCCC project.

88

2

We think that the following are the most important things to communicate: 1. The masterplan sets out a way of ensuring that the town gets the best possible facilities and infrastructure while protecting and enhancing the environment. Without the masterplan there would be piecemeal development.

2. There will be prosperity if the government, developers and residents commit to improving Whitehill & Bordon. Without this, the local economy will struggle.

3. What the Eco-town project is really all about is improving the quality of life for people so there are better opportunities, more jobs etc.

4. There are many ways to get involved in the project and help to drive the regeneration of the town 5. The ‘eco’ credentials of the regeneration will encourage businesses to invest in the town

This survey also showed that the proportion of residents who agree that trying to reduce their carbon footprint is the ‘normal’ thing to do in their area has grown significantly in Whitehill & Bordon in a year (up from 33% to 58% from 2010 to 2011). And although there has been an increase in both the overall figures from towns taking part in the LCCC project and national figures neither have been as marked as in Whitehill & Bordon (they were up by seven percentage points and four percentage points respectively – whereas Whitehill & Bordon was up by 25%).

Whitehill & Bordon residents who were aware of the LCCC project were more likely to have become aware of it from seeing it in a local paper (55% compared with an average of 31% in all LCCC areas), receiving a leaflet about it (28% compared with 20%) or seeing a poster (12% compared with 8%).

Engagement Engagement is also at the heart of the Eco-town project and we are always striving to find new ways to reach the town’s residents. Some of the innovative methods we have used have included having a residents’ panel as part of the international Eco-terrace architectural competition. Another example is the streaming of photos to the website as the Exhibition House was built (this enabled residents to watch progress from the comfort of their own home).

The survey also showed that there has been a rise in the proportion of people who have heard about action on climate change in the local area (from 25% in 2010 to 49% in 2011). Interestingly, in 2010 awareness in Whitehill & Bordon lagged behind the overall LCCC average – but it is now higher.

89

3

Other methods we have used have included working more closely with Whitehill Town Council (for example with project members working from the town council offices) so that they are aware of issues at a ‘grass roots’ level – and also having drop-in sessions at the Fire Station so residents could come in and find out more about the project.

Communications and engagement will be ongoing and consultation will take place at key stages to inform decision-making.

The consultation, communications and engagement align with the strategic objectives of the Eco-town by raising awareness and promoting behaviour change which will help to achieve the targets of becoming carbon and water neutral.

This strategy is a source of practical advice and should be used on a day-to-day basis.

Officers, councillors and partner organisations working on the Eco-town project should be aware of the strategy and use it when they are planning any consultations.

We will continue to monitor how we consult and are always grateful for feedback to help improve it.

90

4

12. Consultation about the Eco-station exhibition 13. Ongoing engagement with schools and community groups 14. Work carried out by community support worker and Eco-town countryside ranger including working with Brownies and Scouts 15. Ongoing involvement and closer working with Whitehill Town Council (e.g. theme leads based at the town council offices two days a week) 16. Events about the benefits of using electric cars (as part of initiative to get an electric-car club in the town) 17. New Eco-town website to make it easier to find out about projects and events happening in the town 18. An Eco-town booklet has been published and gives an overview of the regeneration, vision and targets 19. Masterplan published and summaries produced – available in the town, surrounding villages and on the website 20. Eco-terrace display at prestigious exhibition centre in London (during the Olympics) 21. Articles in East Hampshire District Council’s Partners magazine and editorial coverage in all media (press, web, radio, TV) 22. Wood Day – talking to residents about free loft and cavity wall insulation at this event which was organised by the Deadwater Valley Trust 23. Blackmoor Apple Day – promoting energy-saving measures to those enjoying the event

Key consultation, communication and engagement activities that have taken place 1. Neighbourhood consultation on the masterplan.

Including numerous workshops in the town and surrounding villages (a revised masterplan has since been produced) 2. Eco-town team based at the Fire Station so that residents could drop-in 3. Residents’ panel formed to take part in the judging of the international architectural competition to design three zero-carbon homes at the Eco-station site 4. Neighbourhood Quality Charter (which encourages best practice when designing and building homes) developed by the Housing Specialist Group 5. Consultation on bus routes 6. Initial consultation about walking and cycling in the town 7. Consultation on Viking Park 8. Consultation on the area behind the Eco-station that is set to be landscaped 9. Consultation on Quebec Barracks 10. Stakeholder consultation about the future management of the town’s greenspaces 11. Workshops on the learning campus at meetings of the Standing Conference, Specialist Groups and the Delivery Board

91

5

24. Walk, Make and Bake Day (as part of Climate Week) this was a fun event where residents could cook on campfires and enjoy the Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve 25. Whitehill & Bordon Christmas Festival (Santa’s Ecogrotto) – promoting energy-saving measures 26. Free energy-efficiency advice (with free pizza) at the Forest Community Centre 27. Free workshop (about benefits of saving energy) for local builders and construction companies What we have learnt so far and why this strategy is being revised •

•

•

•

discussions and feeding into the decision-making process.

We need to more clearly communicate how we are acting on consultees’ views and concerns. We will do this by explaining at the start of any consultation how we intend to feedback the results to the respondents so that they know what to expect and to more clearly demonstrate how consultation affects decisions

This strategy is being updated to take on board this information.

Going out to the community is far better than waiting for the community to come to us so piggybacking on events is a really good way to get more people involved in the consultation process. For future consultation it will be important to try to use existing groups and networks to encourage as many residents to participate as possible.

When the Eco-town team were at the Fire Station many interested residents popped in to discuss the future plans. This was an informal approach to engagement and consultation but worked well.

That we need to focus our efforts on those that aren’t telling us their views for example there were few youngsters taking part in our extensive masterplan consultation. There are other groups that we need to ensure are taking part in

Objectives Overall we are trying to engage, inform and consult with the community and stakeholders so that they continue to drive the regeneration of the town.

The following objectives will go someway to achieving this overall aim and the following section outlines how we will achieve them.

Objectives 1. To increase the number of people taking part in consultation 2. To clearly demonstrate how consultations have informed the decision-making process 3. Establish a consistent and co-ordinated approach

92

6

to consultation, communication and engagement 4. To consult on the development briefs which will guide the design of sites e.g. Louisburg Barracks etc 5. To communicate and promote Eco-town projects and initiatives so that residents can take advantage of them 6. To encourage younger people to participate (and other groups who aren’t yet involved) How we will achieve the objectives

Objective 1. Increase the number of people taking part in consultation

How we will achieve it Ensure that there are clear objectives set for each consultation so those taking part can see what they are being asked and why (so there is a clear purpose to what we are doing).

Use methods that are most suitable to the particular consultation so that it is effective as possible.

Time events so that as many people as possible can take part (this could be by having different times for different target audiences) and avoiding popular holiday periods. It is also important to give plenty of notice that these events are taking place.

Ensure consultation is not repetitive or confusing to those we are consulting with to minimise ‘consultation fatigue’.

Widely publicise consultation using appropriate methods to attract the target audience.

93

7

Encourage councillors to be ambassadors of consultations as they have great connections and links in the community and could be invaluable in engaging with residents and encouraging them to take part.

Reach more people by drawing on existing networks and local organisations so that we are working with the community infrastructure that is already in place because this will be a more efficient and effective way of reaching the community.

Organisations will be encouraged to register their interest in forthcoming consultations (e.g. using the website) where users can register their interest in particular policy areas.

2. To clearly demonstrate how consultations have informed the decision-making process

To use the Eco-station exhibition and events as a key way to engage with residents who may not be interested in more formal consultation activities.

Clearly communicate how we are acting on respondents’ views and concerns. We will do this by explaining at the start of any consultation how we intend to feedback the results to the respondents so that they know what to expect.

Link the consultation findings to decisions/policy so respondents can identify how consultation results have a direct influence on decisions (and when the consultation is happening, clearly explain what the consultation cannot influence).

Avoid ‘blue-sky’ processes that are open-ended because this results in a considerably harder and more time-consuming process.

Gather feedback from those who have taken part in consultations and those who ran the consultation events to evaluate how the process can be

94

8

improved.

3. Establish a consistent and coordinated approach to consultation, engagement and communications 4. To consult on the development briefs which will guide the design of the sites e.g. Louisburg Barracks etc.

5. To communicate and promote Ecotown projects and initiatives so that residents can take advantage of them 6. To encourage younger people to participate (and other groups who aren’t yet involved)

Develop a calendar of upcoming consultation and Eco-town events and make this available in the town and on the website Use a two-stage consultation method in the development of site briefs or development principles where possible. The first stage will be to inform the development of these documents (before they are produced) and the second stage will be to comment on the draft strategies before they are finalised.

Continue to use all channels of communication to publicise Eco-town projects and initiatives and to seek out other innovative ways of doing this.

Develop contacts in these groups and ask what type of consultation would work best for them and then try to meet these needs.

A particular emphasis will be placed on social media to reach young people.

Use the Eco-station exhibition and events as a key way to engage with

95

9

residents who may not be interested in more formal consultation activities.

Ensure meetings take places at times to suit so that as many people as possible can take part.

A detailed implementation plan will be developed with resources allocated to actions. As resources (staff, time and finances) are limited some work may need to be prioritised.

The diagram on the following page outlines the steps that should be taken when planning a consultation.

96

10

11

97

• Guidelines to planning a consultation (there will be a separate strategy for the whole-site planning application) Good consultation requires careful planning and the aspects that should be considered when organising any consultation include:

A timetable of consultation should be developed that lists the forward plan of what will be consulted on and when (this will help to avoid ‘consultation fatigue’ which is discussed below).

2. Consultation duration • Consultations should allow adequate time for respondents to take part but this will vary depending on the type of consultation

1. Real consultation that has an impact on decisions • Any consultation carried out should be done so that it can inform decisions • Options put forward as part of any consultation must be viable • Qualitative and quantitative consultation should be used to best suit the type of consultation being carried out

3. Be clear • All documentation about the consultation must be written in plain English and easily understandable.

The consultation may be on a technical matter but it should still be easy for someone without technical knowledge to understand.

4. Well publicised • All consultation should be publicised so that those targeted know about it and can be involved. This will be different for the different target audiences e.g. technical stakeholders or residents. The Ecotown website should be used where possible.

2. Timing of consultation • Planning is key to consultation because consultation needs to take place when there is the potential to influence the outcome (so that the consultation can inform the decision-making process) • The actual time that the consultation is held should also be considered for example key public holidays should be avoided. Also the actual time of day (and day of the week) that enables more of the target audience to attend should be considered.

5. Avoid consultation fatigue • It is important to be careful not to ask those we are consulting the same questions repeatedly or to bombard them with consultation after consultation – it may be possible to combine issues that need to be discussed.

98

12

•

We will also ‘piggyback’ on already existing events where possible to help boost the number of people attending.

infrastructure providers, technical stakeholders, voluntary organisations in the town, faith groups

Who we will consult with

Group

Examples of who this includes (not extensive list)

Residents

Existing residents, residents’ groups, local interest groups, school pupils Existing businesses, business groups Whitehill Town Council, surrounding parish councils and other councils when necessary e.g. Waverley Borough Council Hampshire County Council, Natural England, health providers etc.

Specialist Groups, Standing Conference and Delivery Board Organisations that make up the Delivery Board, the Landowners’ Group and the Transition Group Bordon Garrison,

Businesses Local councils

Statutory stakeholders

Governance structure

Project partners

Other stakeholders

As well as targeting the particular groups, the information will (where possible) be shared with the wider community.

How we will consult A variety of methods will be used so that there is an ongoing dialogue between the Eco-town team, residents and stakeholders.

The methods used will be both informal (e.g. conversations) and formal (e.g. questionnaires) and there will be a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods of consultation (e.g. surveys) give an indication of a weight of views but qualitative research (e.g. through meetings and focus groups) can provide an understanding of the range and complexity of issues.

The type of consultation should be chosen that best suits what is being consulted on and who the target audience is.

99

13

It is important to choose the right methods. Sometimes talking is better than formal written consultation or it may be useful to use a variety of methods.

we need to be flexible and sensitive to the needs of those we are trying to consult with.

Where possible an online version of the consultation should be available. A consultation section of the website should be established.

There are many methods of consultation and all sorts of factors will influence how consultation is carried out and

8. A statement saying that the responses will normally be made available (published) unless the respondent has requested that they remain confidential 9. Where feasible an invitation to provide feedback on the consultation exercise itself and make suggestions for improving consultations in the future and also where feasible respondents could be asked if there is anyone that they feel should be consulted.

Guidelines for preparing consultation material 1. Consultation documentation should be concise and avoid jargon 2. The purpose of the consultation should be clear – with a description of the issue being addressed 3. Identify what decisions have already been made (if relevant) and what can be influenced by this consultation 4. The issues on which views are being sought should be clearly asked as direct questions 5. Where appropriate there should be an invitation to respondents to submit their own ideas (but it must not raise the expectations of what this consultation can achieve) 6. The material should include a deadline for responses and where possible an outline of the proposed timetable for the rest of the decisionmaking and implementation processes including a statement of how feedback will be given 7. Contact details for further information should be included

Consultation results

Where possible a summary of the views should be produced and made available (unless confidential).

Where possible respondents should be notified once a decision has been made on how things will progress (this could be via a press release or the website). This should outline the consultation process that has been followed and how the decision reflects what was said at the consultation.

100

14

Communications

We will proactively promote Eco-town initiatives to the local, national, international and trade press (we have worked closely with Whitehill Town Council to publish joint press releases) as well as radio, TV and websites.

Digital media This is our preferred method of communicating as it is environmentally-friendly and reduces the amount we are printing.

However, we have to ensure that information gets to as many people as possible (who may not be online).

We will continue to respond to local, national, trade and international media enquiries on a day-to-day basis.

A variety of methods have been used to communicate the Eco-town proposals, consultation and projects. This will continue and will include: press releases, web updates, e-newsletters, social media updates, newsletters, magazine articles, meetings, informal conversations, advertisements, video advertisements, banners, posters, flyers, radio interviews and TV coverage.

The website is an effective way to find out about the project but we will continue to improve the user experience.

Social media We will use this to provide real-time information and regular updates – as well as to better understand the issues that residents face.

Engagement Media The Eco-station will be instrumental in enabling residents and stakeholders to find out more about the Eco-town.

101

15

It will provide information about the regeneration of the town and what we are aiming to achieve – but it will do this in a fun and interactive way.

Residents were also involved in the design of the exhibition at the Eco-station and actually star in it (come to the exhibition to find out more!).

Members of the Eco-town team will be on hand when the exhibition is open to answer questions and give more in-depth information to those who request it.

As well as this, the Eco-town countryside ranger, the transport manager and the community development Evaluation worker will be working in the town at a ‘grass roots level’ to ensure maximum possible community involvement.

Regular monitoring and evaluation will take place and some of the aspects we will assess are covered below.

Objective How we will evaluate this 1. To increase the number of people taking part 1. Monitor the number of people taking part in each consultation in consultation 2. Monitor the demographics of those taking part in consultation 3. Seek feedback from those we are consulting with (where possible) to ask them what would encourage them to come to consultation events 4. Seek feedback from those running the consultation following events 5. Ask those taking part in consultation where they heard about it 2. To clearly demonstrate how consultations 1. Feedback from those who have taken part in consultation possibly have informed the decision-making process via a focus group 3. Establish a consistent and co-ordinated approach to consultation, communication and engagement

1. Feedback from those who have taken part in consultation and their feelings about ‘consultation fatigue’ 2. Monitor numbers taking part in consultation 3. Monitor number of hits to the consultation section of the website (and interactions on Facebook and Twitter) 4. Monitor number who download/open studies and documents and

102

16

view calendar of consultation 4. To consult on the development briefs which will guide the design of sites e.g. Louisburg Barracks etc 5. To communicate and promote Eco-town projects and initiatives so that residents can take advantage of them

6. To encourage younger people to participate (and other groups who aren’t yet involved)

1. Good number of responses to these consultations that provide useful direction for the briefs 1. Good uptake of projects and initiatives 2. Feedback forms where possible asking residents how they heard about the initiative 3. Media monitoring: Coverage in media and appearance in target publications. Also important to monitor if key messages are being reported and the number of positive/neutral/negative stories 4. Monitor the number of people who visit the Eco-station and ask some (where possible) for feedback on where they heard about it 5. Monitor the number of people who sign-up for the e-newsletter 6. Monitor the number of people who use the website and engage with us via social media 1. Monitor demographics following consultation events 2. Monitor social media engagement activities

103

17

Agenda item 10

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Proposed planning policy framework work programme for 2012-13

Author:

Mandar Puranik, Planning and Urban Design Theme Lead

Reference no: WBPD033-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) The District Council as a Local Planning Authority has considered its approach to taking forward the masterplan, including considering the need to supplement the planning policy framework. The District Council has decided to: (i) Prepare a suite of supporting documents comprising : 1. Site specific development and design briefs, for example for Louisburg Barracks and the new town centre.

2. An Infrastructure and Delivery Plan.

3. Other supporting documents such as Town Design Statement (TDS), Character Areas Design code, Community Involvement Plan, Employment Skills Plan and other ongoing studies. (ii) Use a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) to work effectively with the Landowners’ Group on the Planning Application. (iii) Work towards securing Section 106 (S106) and offer credibility to the private sector development partners by commencing the initial discussion on drafting a SLIC (Strategic Land and Infrastructure Contract).

A brief scope for each document, its purpose, contents and benefits are outlined in this report. The Delivery Board is recommended to (i) Suggest any amendments to the scope and purpose of the planning policy documents to align them with the Delivery Board priorities. (ii) Endorse the draft planning policy work programme and provide resources as necessary.

Date: 14 August 2012 Version: 1.0

Status of Report: Public (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 - 104 -

Purpose of report: To discuss the planning policy framework work programme proposed by East Hampshire District Council for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. This framework will assist in taking forward the masterplan and give more certainty to the successful delivery of the Eco-town Vision.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: The Delivery Board is recommended to (i) suggest any amendments to the scope and purpose of the planning policy documents to align them with the Delivery Board priorities; (ii) endorse the draft planning policy work programme and provide resources as necessary Consultation and comments received:

Community engagement proposals: An overarching strategy/ plan to effectively engage with the residents, stakeholders and project governance structure will be prepared to inform the project programme and brief for the suite of documents. It will ensure that engagement activities can be ‘piggy-backed’ in joint meetings or as part of already established channels, avoid mixed messages and consultation fatigue within the community. Feedback from the previous engagement events will be used to positively engage with those who have been less willing to participate in the past. A draft strategy will be prepared by November 2012 once the project brief and programme for all documents are available.

1 Background and the policy context 1.1 The Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (revised May 2012) has been adopted by the District Council and will be a material consideration in determining planning applications within the Eco-town Policy Zone.

The Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (JCS) has been submitted to the Inspectorate and will undergo the Examination in October 2012. It includes the Whitehill & Bordon Strategic Allocation and supporting planning policies for about 340 Ha of land providing 4,000 new homes.

1.2 In addition, the District Council intends to have a draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule published by October 2012 and expects it to be adopted by the summer of 2013. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Policy Zone will be treated as a special case with a zero CIL rate. The cost of delivering new infrastructure will be met with external 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 - 105 -

funding, a separate tariff or S106 or special agreement with the Landowners’.

1.3 The Landowners’ Group is working towards preparing an outline planning application (OPA) for the whole site and expects to submit it by the end of 2013 and gain approval by summer 2014. Securing a planning consent for the land will help to bring investment partners on board to fund the infrastructure and to deliver the project from 2014-15. The PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) report recommendations and the next steps have been taken into account while drafting this report to align the proposed planning policy framework with the project delivery stages.

1.4 To date, there has been considerable evidence base studies and planning policy work has been undertaken to support the masterplan and Joint Core Strategy (JCS). Once adopted, the JCS and masterplan provide a robust planning policy context for the future planning applications. At the time of adoption of the Draft Framework Masterplan (June 2010), the planning policy preference was to prepare the Masterplan as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Going forward, it is important that only proportionate and necessary planning documents are produced which aid the project delivery rather than adding a burden on the developer, as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework. It states“Any additional development plan documents should only be used where clearly justified. Supplementary planning documents should be used where they can help applicants make successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery, and should not be used to add unnecessarily to the financial burdens of development.”

National Planning Policy Framework, para 153

1.5 The District Council as a Local Planning Authority has considered its approach to taking forward the masterplan, including considering the need to supplement the planning policy framework. The District Council has decided to: (i) prepare a suite of supporting documents which have weight in the planning process (e.g. which can be approved as a material planning consideration) The suite of documents to comprise:1. Site specific development and design briefs, for example for Louisburg Barracks and the new town centre. A design panel will input to the briefs.

2. An Infrastructure and Delivery Plan.

3. Other supporting documents such as Town Design Statement (TDS), Character Areas Design Code, Community Engagement Plan, Employment Skills Plan and other ongoing studies. (ii) Use a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) to work effectively with the Landowners’ Group on the OPA. 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 -

(iii) Work towards securing S106 and offer credibility to the private sector development partners by commencing the initial discussion on drafting a SLIC (Strategic Land and Infrastructure Contract).

2 Subject of report: the suite of documents 2.1 A brief scope of each document, its purpose, contents and benefits is outlined in this report. The chart in the appendix illustrates the process in the context of the Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy. A detailed project brief and programme will be prepared separately and reflected in the Delivery Board progress report papers.

Site based development and design briefs 2.2 Louisburg Barracks and Quebec Barracks sites are currently vacant and likely to come forward as soon as the Army vacates the garrison or even earlier than that in the case of Quebec Barracks. Similarly, a clear strategy needs to be in place for the delivery of the new town centre acknowledging commercial interest already generated in the town by a planning application for a supermarket and community aspirations. For both sites, a development brief led approach is considered appropriate.

2.3 Purpose of documents: • To identify site specific infrastructure requirements, capacity testing, phasing and concept statement.

• To gain in principle support from the Landowners’, stakeholders and community for the development principles.

• To prepare a tool for marketing the site, the feedback from which could be included within the outline planning application for the whole site enhancing its deliverability.

• Testing high level development principles with the key stakeholders 2.4 Contents: • The planning baseline policy and masterplan context for the site.

• Site constraints and opportunities.

• Feasibility stage site capacity, layout options and viability testing to inform the deliverables and mix of uses.

• Primary and secondary infrastructure requirements in accordance with the indicative phasing plan.

• Staged outputs to feed into the OPA programme and procurement of investment partner timetable.

2.5 The Brief could be adopted as a SPD (if felt appropriate at the time) to offer further assurance to the investors and guide the detailed planning applications as individual sites come forward within the area.

Louisburg Barracks Development Brief draft milestones: The project team and project brief established October 2012 Draft development principles April 2013 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 - 107 -

Marketing, investment and procurement strategy with the final brief Summer 2013 Town Centre Development Brief draft milestones: The project team and project brief established September 2012 Draft development principles January 2013 Marketing, investment and procurement strategy with the final brief Spring 2013 Quebec Barracks Development Principles Brief Completed This site will follow a separate planning and procurement route as an early demonstration project led by HCA. An Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2.6 An IDP for the District Council has been prepared to support the Joint Core Strategy Examination and as part of the evidence base for the CIL. It includes a separate interim infrastructure schedule for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Strategic Allocation. The work is supported by a Viability Assessment (GVA, June 2012) and the masterplan (May 2012).

The Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) report on the delivery options, market testing and viability recommends the next steps on ‘de-risking’ the project for the delivery stage.

2.7 Purpose of document: • To set out the infrastructure requirements for the initial phases of development, to improve project viability and take forward the recommendations of the PwC report.

• The IDP will ensure that the long term masterplan vision and objectives are delivered over the life of the project.

• It will be prepared in consultation with utility companies, statutory stakeholders and other private and public sector partners to inform the outline planning application.

2.8 Contents: • An apportionment of infrastructure requirements for those sites which are – (i) directly linked with the land included within the Strategic Allocation (SA) boundaries based on the SA policies and masterplan assumptions; (ii) associated with the wider Eco-town Policy Zone policies.

• A breakdown schedule for the delivery phases with greater detail on phase one based on the masterplan and emerging development briefs.

• A review of the assumption, viability testing for ‘bite size’ phases using notional development scenarios (running up to the first five years) as recommended in the PwC report.

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 - 108 -

• •

A prioritisation of the infrastructure delivery with project phasing to improve cash flow gaps and deliverability reflecting the emerging funding strategy.

Using available funding streams and the preferred development model to test a threshold for the ‘strategic development tariff’ to form a basis for a SLIC (see below).

2.9 Draft milestones: Set up a project team and establish the baseline November 2012 Critically review the first two phases of the masterplan infrastructure requirements January 2013 Update the viability assessment, available funding streams and cash flow assumptions March 2013 Revise the Whitehill & Bordon IDP May 2013 OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Town Design Statement (TDS) 2.10 Whitehill Town Council (WTC) has already agreed to develop a TDS which will be an important part of the suite of documents. The baseline ‘character area study’ prepared to inform TDS could also form basis for the Character Area Design Code. The baseline work on TDS, ‘character area study’ will inform the outline planning application and should be progressed in parallel with the programme for preparing the application.

The TDS will provide baseline data for understanding the different landscape and settlement characteristics that are positive and should influence future development in existing residential areas.

2.11 The TDS is not a standalone document; it will form part of a suite of planning documents and will help to make the planning application process smoother by engaging people early on to identify the important landscape and built features and characteristics that should be considered by new proposals for existing residential areas. A considerable evidence base and background studies are already available and should form the basis for the TDS. In particular, the masterplan and Neighbourhood Quality Charter should inform the proposed design principle. The TDS is referred to in the Joint Core Strategy and provides a ‘hook’ for guiding the future developments adjacent to the existing settlements.

2.12 Purpose of document: • To describe the distinctive character of the existing settlement and the surrounding countryside; • To show how character can be identified at three levels: (i) The landscape setting of the town; (ii) The form of the settlement; (iii) The nature of the buildings themselves.

• To draw up design principles based on the distinctive local character for areas adjacent to existing development.

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 - 109 -

2.13 Contents: • • An overview of the different neighbourhood areas of the town and how they relate to each other, including annotated maps.

• • An area by area townscape analysis identifying the: (i) Distinctive features covering building design styles, spatial layouts, building materials, landscape setting and special features; (ii) Main issues covering the problems and opportunities in the area as identified through community consultation.

2.14 Draft milestones: Draft baseline study and site visits Completion of the baseline character area study Draft design principles consultation Final TDS

November 2012 December 2012 February 2013 April 2013

Character Area Design Codes (CDC) 2.15 Purpose of document: • To ensure that aspirations for the neighbourhood character areas of rural/ woodland, satellite, parkland and town centre are safeguarded against the performance described and implied in the masterplan.

• To ensure that the area-wide character specification is reflected in each character area.

2.16 Contents: • Site constraints, housing density, street types, block frontages (in relation to streets) and green infrastructure and other aspects affecting the quality of a neighbourhood are considered.

• Energy, water, waste and community facilities, and the spatial, typological and locational fixes for each sub-area.

• It will identify special areas that require further definition including the main Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUD) system, boulevard and the town centre.

• An exemplar design and sustainability standard as supported by an independent design review panel.

2.17

Draft milestones: Refine the character areas based on the completed baseline study and appointment of consultants Dec 12 Identify priority areas based on the project phasing Jan 13 Draft design codes consultation March 13 Ongoing staged output to meet timetable of OPA May-July13

2.18

Ongoing studies include the following: • Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) refresh work • Green Infrastructure management and maintenance • Walking and cycling strategy 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 - 110 -

• • • • • • • •

Parking strategy Procurement of Investment Partner The A325 public realm –traffic management vision Inner relief road alignment options modelling outputs Employment Skills Plan Funding strategy Public transport strategy Traffic management strategy

B.

PLANNING PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (PPA)

2.19

The Landowners’ Group is in the process of preparing an outline planning application for the jointly owned land. The nature and details of the application are yet to be determined. To date, preliminary work has been carried out by the consultants followed by technical exchange meetings with the Eco-town team. The formal pre-application dialogue is yet to commence and awaiting instructions from the Landowners’ Group. EHDC will be using a ‘Planning Performance Agreement’ to effectively manage the expected complex co-ordination process of the preparation and submission of the planning application.

2.20

Purpose: • Provide certainty to the Landowners’ and establish an outline framework to enable individual detailed applications or reserved matters to come forward at a later stage.

• Secure an agreement to deliver the critical infrastructure and investment contribution proportionate to the development.

• Integrate with the ongoing policy and regeneration initiatives within the Eco-town Policy Zone.

• Ensure that the project is viable over the long term and deliverable, to bring forward the investment to the town after the MoD’s vacation in 2015.

• Work collaboratively to the agreed timescale, ensure transparency in the decision making with a consideration for Freedom of Information legislation.

2.21

Scope: • To facilitate submission of a planning application for the land owned by the Landowners’ Group and its timely determination.

• Follow the framework set out in the Eco-town masterplan and adopted planning policy framework.

• Identify issues earlier in the process through scoping document and at the inception day.

• Set up the project structure and technical teams in resolving those issues.

• Agree on the service charter for the shared roles and responsibilities and those specific to EHDC and the applicant.

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 - 111 -

• •

Monitor risks, review the project programme and protect commercially sensitive information.

Effectively engage with the community and stakeholders.

C.

SLIC (STRATEGIC LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT) / S106 APPROACH

2.22

Over the next year, one of the key challenges will be to secure the confidence of public -private investors and Landowners’ in bringing forward the land for development and its delivery. It is clear from the viability assessment and PwC report that the entire infrastructure costs may not be met by development contributions if the Eco-town Vision is to be achieved in its entirety. The Landowners’ Group would need an assurance that some form of public sector investment or funding is likely to come forward over the life of the project.

2.23

Amongst other things, addressing peak cash flow, project viability, certainty of infrastructure tariff and attracting other sources of funding will be examined prior to initiating competitive dialogue in 2013.

Bringing all relevant parties to the table will help to align interdepartmental priorities, attract public sector funding and gain investor’s confidence while setting up a delivery vehicle for the project.

2.24

Purpose: • Agree and clarify infrastructure delivery programme prior to the submission of the planning application for the whole site.

• Bring the key public and private sector project partners to form a working group and align infrastructure funding priorities.

• Agree on a non binding contract in order to pursue the best endeavours towards commitment of resources.

2.25

Further work will be required to decide on a standardised approach to developers’ contributions (e.g. one of the options being setting a fixed tariff for strategic infrastructure and a variable tariff for secondary sitespecific infrastructure). A similar approach was followed in the Milton Keynes prospectus and other long-term large scale strategic large scale developments in the UK. The SLIC process will commence with initiating a dialogue between the Landowners’ Group, EHDC, HCC, investment partners (if party to the discussion), government departments and infrastructure agencies. Together they will agree on priorities reflecting local circumstances and viability. If tested and developed in parallel with other planning studies, CIL and the preapplication process, progress could be made in agreeing on a draft SLIC by the end of 2013. Initiating SLIC dialogue will also help in lobbying for various funding streams.

3 Risk assessment

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 -

3.1 The critical risk for the proposed programme is the timetable for the adoption of the Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (JCS). Any delay or substantial modifications will need to be accommodated in the programming. The current programme proposes the majority of studies and commencement of critical work after the JCS Examination. It should be kept under review regularly and mitigated with necessary actions.

The District Council’s Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) screening will be carried out as part of the project initiation documentation which covers health & safety and equalities impacts.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The suite of documents will contribute to the Delivery Board priorities by continuing to develop the adopted masterplan framework to the delivery stage and securing investment partners. This work will provide a useful evidence base and act as guidance for the development of the Planning Application.

5 Resource implications 5.1 Majority of the studies will be project managed by the Eco-town team and EHDC officers. There is merit in commissioning some work jointly with the Landowners’ Group or Whitehill Town Council where appropriate. This will be developed further at the project brief stage after agreeing the high level scope of documents with this paper. A specialist advice will be procured on the areas such as retail assessment, viability, design and this would be identified in the project brief.

6 Cost implications 6.1 The costs towards completing the studies will be shared between the Eco-town Team, EHDC and the Landowners’ Group. The exact detail about the budget split, procurement process is yet to be agreed.

Whitehill Town Council will commission TDS separately and will contribute towards any external consultant’s fees.

7 Conclusion 7.1 The work programme proposed by EHDC adequately supports the implementation of the masterplan through a series of planning framework documents. It has been carefully thought through to align with the Eco-town project programme and OPA work led by the Landowners’ Group. There is flexibility to influence or update the detailed project brief and programme if need arise at a later stage.

8 Appendix Appendix 1: Chart: Planning work streams for Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town 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 -

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

The Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Other supporting ongoing studies : The A325 trafffic managment, Walking and Cyclying Strategy, HRA Refresh, Employment and Skills Plan, Funding Strategy etc

Proposed suite of planning policy framework documents

(EHDC & SDNPA)

Examination in Public (October 2012)

Whitehill & Bordon Infrastructure and Delivery Plan

Town Design Statement Site specific Development & Design Briefs

(led by WTC)

Character Area Design Code

Outline Planning Application (OPA) led by the Landowner's Group

Planning Performance Agreement - Inception Day (TBC September 2012)

Developers Contributions and CIL

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) led by EHDC

Strategic Land Infrarstructure Contract (SLIC)

Draft the project brief and appoint consultants 114

Expected adoption (March 2013)

Estabish the distinctive characteristics (built and natural ) of the study area

-Review the baseline and development constraints

1. Quebec Barracks

-Prioratisation

2. Louisburg Barrakcs

-Delivery of bite size phases

3. The New Town Centre

Baseline work completed by December 2012

Technical studies, Baseline and EIA scoping (December 2012)

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule December 2012

Key stakeholders, project partners, landowners and delivery board steering group (November 2012)

-Project viability and funding

Site Allocations DPD and Development Management Policies (2013-14)

To inform 1. Strategic Land and Infrastructure Contract (SLIC)

Design principles, market testing, viability, consultation

TDS will iclude design principles for the development areas or opportunity sites adjacent to the existing settlements

Charcter Area Design Code will set out guidelines for the new character areas proposed as part of the masterplan

Public Consultation Design options Design Reviews Parameter plans

Examination and adoption

by June 2013

Funding Strategy, Investment Partner / Project procurement route/ De-risking the project

2. S106 position on OPA

Endorse the briefs (EHDC) OR Will inform the planning application prepared by Landowners / Devep Partners

Draft TDS published by Feb 2013 Final TDS by April 2013

Informs the design and access statement for OPA Used at the detailed design stage / applications /discharging conditions Timescale TBC

An overarching consultation strategy

Submission by Jan 2014 and determination by summer 2014

Draft SLIC to inform S106 , development tarriff December 2013

Appendix 1: Chart: Planning work streams for Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Planning workstreams for

Agenda item 11

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Inward Investment Sector Research Study

Author:

Susan Robbins, Economic Development Theme Lead

Reference no: WBPD027-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) This reports provides an overview of a piece of research undertaken on behalf of the Eco-town to understand the business sectors the town should be focusing on to attract inward investment. The consultants Campbell Ventures has presented its work to the Standing Conference and the Economic Development Specialist Group and have submitted their report. The Board is asked to endorse this work as an important evidence base as to how the job generation target of Eco-town vision is to be achieved and in directing future inward investment strategy and activities.

An outline of the next phase of work to translate this research into an inward investment strategy is given in order to obtain the Board’s support for the proposed way forward.

Date: 6 August 2012 Version: V1

Status of Report: 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 - 115 -

Purpose of report: This report provides the Board with the background and summary of the recently completed inward investment sector research study. It highlights the actions recommended in the report and proposes the next phase of work to use the findings to develop an inward investment marketing strategy for Whitehill & Bordon.

Recommendations requiring board considerations: That: The inward investment sector research report is endorsed and the actions identified supported; (ii) The next phase of work and outline for an inward investment strategy is approved; and (iii) The draft inward investment marketing strategy is reported to the Delivery Board in December 2012. (i)

Consultation and comments received: Consultation and input to the inward investment sector research has included a workshop at the Standing Conference and a presentation to the Economic Development Specialist Group. The Standing Conference was particularly useful in proposing sectors of interest to Whitehill & Bordon that should be considered and researched as part of the work.

Community engagement proposals: The research study has recommended a number of actions to promote the town and its investment opportunities. It is proposed that consultation on these actions is undertaken with partners such as the Town Council, District Council and Hampshire Council County economic teams, Enterprise M3, UK Trade and Investment. This will inform an Inward Investment Strategy to be drafted and presented to the Delivery Board in December.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 The Economic Development and Employment Strategy, July 2011 (EDES) sets out a number of priorities and six activities to stimulate economic growth and generate the Eco-town vision target of 5,500 jobs.

One of these activities is marketing and investment with the objectives to: • Promote a compelling and distinctive image for Whitehill & Bordon that appeals to investors and creates a sense of identity.

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 - 116 -

• •

Secure new inward investment from the rest of the UK and overseas.

Enhance the strategic linkages with the Blackwater Valley towns and urban south Hampshire.

1.2 The EDES recognises that the town could be the focus for growth in a number of sectors including, sustainable construction, low carbon energy, environmental innovation and technology business, value added local food and tourism sectors. These are very broad sectors that hide different activities and specialisms that could be particularly relevant to, and interested in, the opportunities the Eco-town presents. A greater understanding is required of these sectors, sub-sectors and the needs of the businesses within them.

1.3 In order to gain this thorough understanding of the sectors external consultants Campbell Ventures were appointed to undertake the work, and they have now submitted their findings and recommended actions.

The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a copy of their report, to highlight the salient points and to propose the next phase of work to develop this into an inward investment strategy. The strategy will directly address the actions identified in the EDES under the marketing and investment activity to: • Ensure that investment opportunities are effectively promoted.

• Engage with suitable inward investment networks.

• Develop external business promotion of the Eco-town possibly including the creation of a Choose Whitehill & Bordon Website.

• Encourage joint sub-regional promotions.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1 Overview of Inward Investment Report The consultants, Campbell Ventures Ltd. appointed to undertake the sector research study completed their work and submitted their report mid August 2012.

2.1.1

Review of industry sectors The consultants researched and examined the make-up, growth potential and relevance of a number of sectors grouped around environmental goods, services and technologies and clean technology (or clean-tech) businesses. In addition a number of sectors which had been identified by the Standing Conference were included, such as not for profit and charities; tourism and leisure; IT and data storage, and timber industries. The report concluded that the following should be the focus for inward investment for the Eco-town:

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 - 117 -

Whitehill & Bordon Target Industry Sectors Clean technologies Energy storage Smart grid Solar Bio-fuels Recycling & Waste Energy efficiency & green buildings Clean transportation

Tourism & leisure Hotels Restaurants Leisure parks Tourist attractions Theatres & cinemas

IT, software & digital media Security systems & software Next generation internet technologies Cyber security Gaming Digital media content

2.1.2

Inward investment approach The report recognises that the Eco-town vision’s target of generating 5,500 jobs is a major challenge. To achieve this, the approach recommended is to: • Target large multi-international business and high growth small & medium size enterprises (SMEs).

• Focus on attracting established foreign and UK businesses.

• Focus on a small number of industry sectors – no more than five.

• Develop industry specific propositions to attract businesses.

• Take a pro-active approach in the promotion to, and targeting of, potential foreign investors.

• Take advantage of local clusters – aerospace in Farnborough; IT and software in Basingstoke.

• Partner with UK Trade & Investment (UKTI).

2.1.3

An action plan framework The consultants were not required to generate an inward investment strategy, but were asked to recommend actions that would take the work forward. These include: • Produce a three year plan and identify resources needed including staff and financial.

• Creation of business accommodation / development site database and marketing collateral.

• Develop the Eco-town brand and differentiate from other ecotowns.

• Agree a memorandum of understanding with UKTI. • Sector Industry Propositions - research and produce three propositions for each of the target growth sectors.

• Target Company profiles - research and produce a company profile for each of the industry sectors.

• Pro-actively target foreign business that fit with the target company profiles.

• Contact local medium to large business to identify quick wins through their supply chain.

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 - 118 -

2.2 Next phase of work This research provides the evidence base needed to develop a targeted and focused approach to the Eco-town’s marketing for inward investment. Therefore the next phase of work will be to take the analysis of the sectors and the framework action plan and translate this into the inward investment strategy.

2.2.1

Consultation The Eco-town team will share the report and its findings with key stakeholders involved in inward investment to help develop the strategy and secure their collaboration in delivering activities. Those to be contacted include: • East Hampshire District Council – Economic Development team.

• Hampshire County Council – Economic Development.

• Whitehill Town Council.

• Enterprise M3 LEP – Land and Property Group.

• Business East Hampshire.

• Eco-town – Landowners’ group.

• UK Trade & Investment (UKTI).

As well as collaboration across the public sector, it will be important to engage with the private sector, including commercial agents and business location services.

2.2.2

Content By using the evidence the research study has provided as the basis for future activity, the strategy will clearly state objectives, targets and approaches to ensure the inward investment work is effective and can be evaluated. The following is a suggested framework for the strategy.

• Objective – purpose and what’s to be achieved, investment policies, incentives.

• Targets – results expected from activity – number of business relocations, level of investment, jobs generated.

• Delivery approach – marketing, business contact, response handling, after-care.

• Delivery plan – perception evidence, branding, marketing campaigns, sector propositions, target business profiles, timelines.

• Delivery options – role of stakeholders, informal partnership, company, agency.

• Resources and funding.

• Monitoring and evaluation.

2.2.3

Context The inward investment strategy will need to link closely with the Ecotown’s other areas or work and supporting policies • Eco-town vision and branding guidelines.

• Marketing strategy.

• Lobbying strategy.

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 -

• • •

2.2.4

Tourism and visitor promotions.

Sponsorship policy.

Securing an investment partner.

Timetable It is posed that work on the strategy commences straight away, complementing work running concurrently on the lobbying strategy. A draft of the inward investment strategy will be brought to the Board at its December 2012 meeting. Following that it will be reported to the East Hampshire District Council for its endorsement.

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) Environmental 3.1 There are no environmental risks associated with the research or the strategy.

Financial 3.2 The research study and inward investment strategy work has been budgeted for within the Eco-town’s existing funds. The strategy will identify the cost of its delivery along with potential sources of funding.

There are a number of factors that may generate financial risk including the ability to attract an investment partner that in the longer term could take over the role of marketing sites and thereby share costs; the role any new delivery vehicle could play in managing and co-ordinating inward investment activity; how quickly sites are taken up for commercial development and so how sustained the marketing needs to be.

Health & Safety 3.3 There are no health & safety risks associated with the inward investment research or strategy Equalities Impact Assessment 3.4 An assessment will be completed as part of the development of the inward investment strategy.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 This inward investment research and the subsequent strategy supports the Board’s priority to encourage investment by businesses and industries, particularly those that share its vision for a sustainable, prosperous, environmentally-friendly community.

5 Resource implications 5.1 The resources need to develop the inward investment strategy will come from within the Eco-town team. The strategy itself will identify 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 - 120 -

resources needed to deliver the inward investment activities and in particular the staff requirements for responsibilities such as the coordination of materials and information, communication and contact with target business and monitoring and evaluation.

6 Cost implications 6.1 As with resources, the cost of producing the inward investment strategy will be found from within the existing budgets of the Eco-town team; the cost of delivery will be identified in the strategy. Whilst the amounts are not yet know, costs are likely to include producing marketing materials and advertising; hosting showcase visits and events at the Eco-station; and establishing contact databases.

7 Conclusion 7.1 The inward investment sector research study is an important evidence base demonstrating how to achieve the job generation target for the Eco-town. From this an inward investment strategy will be created to direct future activities to attract business into the town, in a collaborative, focused and effective manner.

8 Appendix Appendix 1:

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town inward investment strategy and action plan (available on request and in future through the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town website )

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 - 121 -

Agenda Agendaitem item12 x

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Education skills, skills centre and training - proposed delivery plan and strategy

Author:

Peter Rabbett, Consultant to Hampshire County Council

Reference no: WBPD028-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) This report summarises work undertaken since the Standing Conference and Delivery Board endorsed proposals for a Learning Village/ Community at the heart of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. It sets out the investigations, visits and consultations which have taken place and confirms next steps in the programme.

The risks associated with not implementing the proposed programme are explored and the Standing Conference/ Delivery Board are invited to support current consultations on partnership funding for and delivery of this work.

Date: 16th August 2012 Version: v1

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 - 122 -

Purpose of report: This report summarises progress with the development of a business plan and delivery plan or the creation of a learning community at the heart of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

The report includes activities which have been undertaken since the Delivery Board endorsed the proposals for this work in March 2012.

The Local Children’s Partnership has made some progress in developing the concept of a learning village/community and is now ready to consult further with parents and young people.

The report recommends concerted action to agree partnership funding for the proposals agreed in March 2012.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: In March 2012, the Standing conference and Delivery Board endorsed the concept of a Learning Village/ Community at the heart of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. The proposals included: (i) a programme for engaging young people and their parents in the development of the Masterplan; (ii) an agreed strategy for learning, training and leisure; (iii) a site appraisal and development options together with a funding strategy; (iv) a strategic partnership with a Higher Education provider; (v) an implementation programme.

Whilst progress has been made on some aspects of these proposals, consultation on partnership funding for this work have not yet been concluded.

The Standing Conference and Delivery Board are encouraged to support these consultations where possible.

Consultation and comments received: The programme of work undertaken since March 2012 has been reported to the Local Children’s Partnership and to the Economic Development Specialist Group. Both groups endorsed the proposed next steps with the programme.

Community engagement proposals: The next stage in the development of the ‘Learning Community’ is detailed consultation with children, young people and parents.

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 - 123 -

It is proposed to hold a programme of consultation events from September to December 2012 to explore the concept of 21st Century learning and the options for its delivery.

The purpose of the consultation is to provide a vision of education in the future for parents, children and young people and to discuss options for the different ways in which it might be delivered.

The outcome of this consultation programme will underpin the scope and direction of the business and delivery plan.

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 This is a progress report which documents the activity and outcomes achieved since the meeting of the Delivery Board in March 2012. That meeting endorsed the recommendation to commence a programme of work to produce a business plan and delivery plan for the creation of a Learning Village at the heart of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

1.2 This report sets out the requirement for partnership investment involving all stakeholders to secure the development and delivery of the plans agreed at the previous meeting.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations 2.1

Meetings of the Whitehill & Bordon Standing Conference and Delivery Board held in March 2012 agreed: • proposals for the production of the business plan and delivery plan; • budget estimates of £90,000 for the development of these plans and £25,000 for the consultation programme with young people and their parents; • an outline timetable for the delivery of these programmes in 2012 2013.

2.2 Members of the Local Children’s Partnership have undertaken a programme of visits to ‘Learning Villages/ Communities’ to investigate the strengths and shortcomings of a campus model for the delivery of 21st century learning. These visits have proved valuable in shaping a vision for the future as they provide clear evidence of how investment in an integrated concept of learning can transform local communities.

2.3 Preliminary discussions have been held with key academics working in the field to prioritise areas for successful partnership. These consultations have underpinned the need for an integrated strategy: education, economy and environment working in symmetry. The business and delivery plans will include the establishment of long term strategic partnerships with research faculties active in the fields of sustainable technology. The goal is to create a University based 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 - 124 -

research facility within the Whitehill & Bordon area that contributes to the delivery of 21st century learning.

2.4 Similar discussions have been held with organisations promoting sustainable development. These discussions have confirmed the need for integrated strategic planning if sustainable development and delivery of services is to be achieved. The investment in a ‘Learning Village’ can deliver significant gains across the economy and environment if planned and implemented properly.

2.5 The Standing Conference/ Delivery Board will also consider the commercial/ industrial partners it hopes to attract to provide investment and employment in the Eco-town. We wish to engage these firms in the design and delivery of the Learning Village/ Community building on the best practice achieved in University Technical Colleges. We are also exploring the feasibility of delivery models through multi-owner social enterprises.

2.6 The Local Children’s Partnership will support the delivery of the consultation programme with parents and young people. They will provide a forum which will engage the widest possible proportion of the community. A draft programme is in place to undertake such work in autumn 2012.

2.7 The Local Children’s Partnership (LCP) provides the nucleus of the strategic partnership required to develop and deliver the business plan and delivery plan. This involves representation from health, education, social care, services for young people. The LCP also includes representation from Hampshire County Council and the local sixth form college. Outcomes of this work will be reported through Specialist Groups, the Standing Conference and the Delivery Board.

3 Risk assessment 3.1 The major risk is a lack of investment in the delivery of 21st century learning for learners of all ages. Companies are unlikely to invest in an area where there is a shortage of skills and qualifications in the local workforce. There needs to be a guarantee of sufficient and continuing availability of suitable skills across the whole supply chain and at all levels in industry and commerce.

3.2 The time required to plan and deliver the infrastructure for a learning village/ community means that investment is required now to ensure the partnership is built, plans are in place and a capital programme delivered for 2015. An agreement by all funding partners is necessary before the next steps can be taken.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 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 - 125 -

4.1 Following the meeting in March 2012, these proposals are now central to the Delivery Board’s priorities. The meeting in March endorsed the following statement: The development of Whitehill & Bordon as a learning community with a ‘learning village at the heart of the Town Centre will be central to the delivery of the vision and targets within the masterplan. In particular, this development will make the Town ‘a place to be’ - attracting people to a vibrant and thriving local economy. An innovative, well-designed sustainable learning village - a Campus for lifelong learning, leisure, arts and creativity, will become the hub from which Whitehill & Bordon will develop as a learning village. A learning community will develop the attitudes, habits and ways of living which promote sustainability, regeneration and investment.

4.2 These objectives remain at the heart of the proposals contained in this paper.

5 Resource implications 5.1 The work will require the support of a special project group capable of bringing together the input from all of the stakeholders - County, District and Parish Councils especially specialist officers in these organisations education and learning, finance, planning, procurement, capital strategy, leisure; current providers through the local children’s partnership; further and higher education providers; research bodies and local employers.

Its work needs to be agile and efficient, reporting to the Delivery Board and Standing Conference as needed.

5.2 Consultation with children, young people and parents is best delivered in partnership with schools and children’s centres. It is proposed to secure the services of a specialist team to support this consultation.

6 Cost implications 6.1 The costs involved in the preparation of the business plan and delivery plan will be £90,000. This is based on a range of similar scale projects in both the public and private sector.

6.2 The costs of a consultation programme will be £25,000. Again, this estimate is based on similar scale activities.

7 Conclusion 7.1 The resource and cost implications remain as reported in March 2012.

Consultations that are underway within Hampshire County Council, East Hampshire District Council and Whitehill Town Council will require resolution before progress can be made with this work. The Delivery Board is asked to do what is feasible to support these consultations.

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 - 126 -

Agenda item 13

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Governance structure – interim review

Author:

Caroline Sayers, Governance Officer

Reference no: WBPD034-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) The purpose of this report is to highlight and assess the key messages that have been received as a result of an interim review of the current governance structure for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town project.

The main areas of concern raised during the interim governance structure review process were related to the inflexibility of the Specialist Groups in relation to their content and schedule, and the reduced turnout of members attending the Standing Conference.

This paper proposes minor changes to improve the existing governance arrangements pending a more major overhaul when investment partners are brought on board.

Date: 31st July 2012 Version: v3

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 - 127 -

Purpose of report: To report a summary of an interim review of the existing governance structure, focussing predominantly on the Standing Conference and Specialist Groups.

The report will also highlight the key messages received during this process and recommend a suggested way forward.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: That Board members agree: (i) That themed Specialist Group meetings should be held as and when required and that cross-cutting Specialist Group meetings should be encouraged by Chairs and Vice Chairs where appropriate, to which all Specialist Group members are invited. (ii) Members of the Specialist Groups (and Standing Conference) form an important element of the consultation programme for the Outline Planning Application by ensuring that all members are invited to all public engagement events. (iii) That the format and membership of the Standing Conference is reviewed in the light of fluctuating attendance numbers – and in the light of any feedback from the Standing Conference workshop discussions on 30th August.

Consultation and comments received: The Chairmen of Specialist Groups, the Eco-coordinator, members of the Delivery Board and Members of the Eco-town team have been approached for their initial comments regarding their involvement and input in the governance structure. A workshop was also held at the Standing Conference.

Community engagement proposals: The governance arrangements as set out in this report continue to promote opportunities for the local community to be engaged and involved in the development and delivery of the Eco-town project.

All Delivery Board meetings and Standing Conference meetings will continue to be held in public and interested individuals and stakeholders from all sectors will continue to be encouraged to participate through the Specialist Groups.

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 - 128 -

1 Background (reason for report) 1.1 The Eco-town project is continuously evolving. This means that the demands of the project and staff resources to support the current needs of the project are also continually evolving. This work needs a governance structure that can meet the current demands of the project.

1.2 In early 2010, and at the funder’s request, a review of the governance structure was undertaken. The Executive Group, as it was then, recognised that to adapt to the progression of the project, a new governance structure was needed to ensure a more business-like, “fitfor-purpose” approach for transition to delivery phase.

1.3 A new structure was proposed in June 2010 which made suggestions for what, at the time, was seen as appropriate changes to implement a new governance structure. This new structure was to be as open and transparent to the public as possible while also providing funders and partner organisations with the confidence in the delivery of the project.

This was agreed and implemented in December 2010, which is the structure we have today.

1.4 Since the last governance review, MoD has confirmed withdrawal from Bordon and the relocation of the Garrison to RAF Lyneham in 2015.

1.5 At the request of Delivery Board members (in September 2011), the Landowners commissioned consultants – PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) – to develop a commercial strategy to recommend the way forward for the successful development of the town in the present economic climate. Their work is now complete.

1.6 Now that the present governance structure has been in operation for more than 18 months, a review has been conducted to assess the suitability / successes of the present governance structure. This information will be used in conjunction with the advice from PwC to ensure that lessons learnt from the previous structure can influence how the future structure will be developed.

1.7 It is expected that, as a result of the PwC work, the governance could change significantly in the future. This governance review is hence an interim review to improve the governance pending further changes in the future.

2 Subject of report / options and considerations Standing Conference review 2.1 The Standing Conference meets on a quarterly basis prior to the Delivery Board meeting. The Standing Conference and Delivery Board meetings are held in public in Whitehill & Bordon at varying times, rotating morning, afternoon, evening to allow as many sectors of 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 - 129 -

local community to be able to come along as possible. Hard copies of the papers for each of these meetings are put in key locations within the Eco-town in advance of the meetings.

2.2 Over the last year, at the suggestion of the Chair / Vice Chair and lead officers’ meeting, the structure of the Standing Conference has changed.

Previously, the Standing Conference was solely business orientated with members reviewing reports prior to the Delivery Board meeting. Now, the business section of the Standing Conference takes up approximately half the time. The remaining time is dedicated to one or two topicspecific workshops which also include members of the public who have attended the meeting. This has been working well and provided greatest value for those in attendance.

2.3 The table below shows the number of people attending each Standing Conference.

March 2011 (pm) June 2011 (eve) September 2011 (am) December 2011 (pm) March 2012 (eve) June 2012 (am)

Specialist Group nominations (max 15)

Interested individuals, local businesses or organisations (max 17)

Total (out of 56)

1

10

2

21

1

4

10

1

20

1

1

1

10

5

20

2

1

1

1

7

4

16

4

3

3

0

7

3

20

2

1

2

2

6

5

18

Whitehill Town council nominees (max 5 inc.

DB members)

Whitehill & Bordon District Councillors (max 5)

Nominated members of neighbouring parishes (max 7)

District Councillors from neighbouring parishes (max 7)

3

2

3

2

2

2

2.4 Two rotating cycles of morning, afternoon and evening meetings have been held. A cursory review of the table above does not appear to show a preference of time for any membership group. No one time slot appears to demonstrate a higher attendance rate.

2.5 Of the neighbouring parish representation Lindford’s nominated member has been the most consistent in his attendance at Standing Conferences. Some of the other neighbouring parish councils have experience delays in finding nominees to attend the Standing Conference. Some of these delays have been out of their control.

2.6 District councillor representation from neighbouring parishes has been declining. Lindford representation has been the most regular 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 - 130 -

consistent. Bramshott & Liphook now have a new councillor who has also been attending regularly.

2.7 The last three rounds of meetings have seen a decline in the attendance of Specialist Group nominees at the Standing Conference. It will be interesting to explore the reasons for this.

2.8 In the main, national organisations have decided that because of other commitments, and alternative involvement through other routes and meetings, their involvement in the Eco-town project has been sufficient.

Within their organisations they cannot justify the additional resource required for sending a representative to the Standing Conference.

National organisations are keen to remain on the mailing list for Standing Conference and Delivery Board papers.

2.9 Some of the local organisations, despite low attendance, have a high level of interest in the project, and would like to remain as members.

Other local organisations initially showed interest but have not committed beyond the initial interest.

2.10 In light of the low attendance of Standing Conference members from the original list agreed by key Board members, Standing Conference and Board members are asked to comment on the future of the Standing Conference and the scale of membership given that only a third of members ever turn up.

Specialist Group review 2.11 Specialist Group meetings take place prior to the Standing Conference.

Some Specialist Groups hold their meetings during the day, others in the evening. With the assistance of the Theme Leads, the Specialist Groups have developed a joint work plan that takes them up to the end of 2012.

2.12 Project specific workshops may take place in addition to the Specialist Group meetings. The need and frequency of the workshop is determined by the appropriate theme lead and Chairmen or Vice Chairmen of the Specialist Groups.

2.13 The table below shows the number of people attending each Specialist Group meeting. These figures include officers and speakers. The date in the table shows the month the relevant Delivery Board meeting took place. Each cycle of Specialist Group meetings took place prior to these dates.

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 - 131 -

March 2011 June 2011 September 2011 December 2011 March 2012 June 2012

Sustainable environment

Community facility & amenities

Economic development

Infrastructure education & transport

Housing

30

27

28

40

25

17

17

9

15

21

19

15

15

21

24

28

14

17

21

23

26

22

22

28

21

17

26

12

17

20

2.14 Put into graph form, the above table looks like this: Specialist Group attendance

Mar-11

Jun-11

Sustainable environment

Sep-11

Community facility & amenities

Dec-11 Economic development

Mar-12 Infrastructure education & transport

Jun-12 Housing

2.15 For each inaugural Specialist Group meeting, numbers were high. All groups initially had good representation. After an initial fall in numbers, numbers have remained low but steady, which is the normal pattern of attendance at public meetings.

2.16 Feedback received regarding the Specialist Group meeting is as follows: Specialist Groups in their current format 2.17 The agenda for the Specialist Group meetings generally relates to feeding back on ongoing work, a lot of which is technical in nature. This is useful to keep interested people informed, and may add to the quality of work, but does not really assist in delivery of the Board’s work plan.

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 - 132 -

2.18 The Specialist Group meetings have relied on the theme lead bringing discussion points and tasks to the group. To be led by the theme leads was never the originally intention, but that is what has happened in practice. Members have not always been proactive in generating discussions or tasks as was originally anticipated.

2.19 It is felt that the work of the Specialist Groups has provided a useful place for information sharing and to hold workshops on various subject matters. The meetings have also been an opportunity for mentoring or training for residents.

Issues raised 2.20 Progress on an Outline Planning Application (OPA) will include engagement / consultation by the planning consultants appointed by the Landowner’s Group. A Draft Public Engagement Strategy has been prepared setting out the approach and explained in a separate report.

Each piece of work will have its own engagement requirements with Specialist Group members, other stakeholders and wider community.

This will place Specialist Group members at the centre of the consultation process and provide an opportunity to have a real input to the OPA. 2.21 When the programme of events starts at the Eco-station, this will be an opportunity for anyone in the community, including Specialist Group members, to attend different talks. A separate programme of events for the Specialist Groups should not be expected as this will double up on work.

Suggested changes for format 2.22 Additional workshops and meetings have also been organised outside of the quarterly Specialist Group meetings. These workshops and meetings have aligned better with the project work which is currently being undertaken.

2.23 Specialist Group Chairmen and members would welcome some flexibility on when and how the Specialist Group meetings are to be held. There should also be more cross cutting Specialist Group meetings that cover topics / matters that are of interest to a range of groups. Where this has been done (e.g. joint meeting of Community and Amenities and Sustainable Environment Specialist Group’s on Greenspace Management and Maintenance in October 2011) it has worked well.

2.24 The Specialist Groups provide a useful way to consult with a wide range of stakeholders and the local community. The OPA is a good way for Specialist Group members to tackle cross cutting issues collectively.

Specialist Group members may wish to consider the option of having topic based discussions on the early release sites such as Quebec Barracks 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 - 133 -

3 Risk assessment (must include consideration of the environmental, financial, health and safety and equalities impact assessment) 3.1 The Eco-town project needs a robust governance structure to ensure community are thoroughly involved.

3.2 As highlighted in the Eco-town risk register, for the future governance structure to be successful, the ability of the chosen delivery vehicle must be in a position to be able to make timely decisions, adhere to agreed deadlines and speak with one voice. If this is not possible, confidence with potential investors will be lost, delays will prove costly, and success of this regeneration project will be put at risk.

3.3 The risk of not having a robust business-like governance structure is profound. The effective operation of the governance structure is crucial to the success of this project and the delivery of the Eco-town.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 The aim of the governance arrangements is to work towards achieving the objectives of the Eco-town. It is therefore important that the governance structure is able to meet and support the demands of the project appropriately.

4.2 It is therefore vital that the Delivery Board is aware of the potential risks faced by the Eco-town project and those members working towards the regeneration of the town. These risks are recorded in the risk register.

4.3 An effective governance structure that is able to coordinate its activities and speak with one voice is crucial in ensuring the Eco-town objectives are met.

5 Resource implications 5.1 For Phase 1 of the project, the resource implications have been primarily officers’ time and partners’ / Stakeholders time in working towards masterplanning process and supporting evidence base.

6 Cost implications 6.1 Cost implications have been met from the existing budget.

7 Conclusion 7.1 Delivery Board members are asked consider the lessons learnt highlighted in this report when agreeing the proposed future governance structure needed for delivery of this important regeneration project.

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 - 134 -

8 Appendix Appendix 1: Agreed list of Standing Conference invitees – Dec 2010

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 - 135 -

Appendix 1: Agreed list of Standing Conference invitees – Dec 2010.

5 Councillors from Whitehill Town Council 1 District Councillor from each of the Whitehill Bordon wards: Chase, Deadwater, Hogmoor, Pinewood and Walldown 1 nominated member from eight neighbouring parishes: Lindford, Greatham, Headley, Liss, Liphook & Bramshott, Selborne, Kingsley, Milland 1 District Councillor from eight neighbouring parishes: Lindford, Greatham, Headley, Liss, Liphook & Bramshott, Selborne, Kingsley, Milland 3 nominated members from each of the 5 specialist groups (fifteen total) Sustainable environment; Infrastructure, education & transport; Community amenities & facilities; and Housing.

17 members from interested individuals, local businesses or organisations Total number of Standing Conference members: 58 (NOTE: When Milland were contacted regarding their involvement in the Standing Conference, their response was that Milland is too far way from the Eco-town to be affected. There is no interest to participate.)

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 - 136 -

Agenda item 14

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Proposals for long-term management and maintenance of community assets (green infrastructure)

Author:

Bruce Collinson, Environmental Sustainability Theme Lead

Reference no: WBPD029-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: (Not more than 2 small paragraphs) This report provides members of the Delivery Board with an update on work since the December 2011 meeting. This includes the suggested creation of a town-wide framework to guide the management and maintenance of new and existing greenspaces across Whitehill & Bordon.

The paper presents feedback from a range of consultation exercises and reviewing existing arrangements in the town, which was conducted in parallel with the revision of the Framework Masterplan (May 2012). It concludes by recommending that the Delivery Board agree to endorse some high level guiding principles to direct the long term management and maintenance of green infrastructure set out in appendix 1. The other recommendations are set out on the next page.

Date: 15th August 2012 Version: Final

Status of Report: 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 - 137 -

Purpose of report: The purpose of this report is to provide the Delivery Board with an update on proposals for the long-term management and maintenance of green infrastructure following a range of meetings and interviews with stakeholders.

It also reports on the recommendations following the December 2011 Delivery Board meeting and proposes next steps for Delivery Board members to agree.

Recommendations requiring board considerations:

(i) To endorse the Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Framework high level guiding principles and supporting management structure (appendix 2). (ii) To support the continued development of the Growing Enterprise Fund SANG project and provide a letter of support for this bid to Enterprise M3 signed by the Chairman on behalf of all Delivery Board members. (iii) That Whitehill Town Council should take a lead through their own emerging thinking on existing and future asset ownership and management working with local partners and landowners to facilitate further discussion and agreement. (iv) That the Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Framework should be built into the review of the wider work associated with the audit of the other assets within the town and evolution of the governance structure.

Consultation and comments received:

See supporting report template (post Standing Conference), which relates to this agenda item.

Community engagement proposals: This paper proposes that community engagement will continue through the existing governance structure, which includes work with all the Specialist Groups, particularly the Sustainable Environment and Community Facilities and Amenities Specialist Groups.

The outline of this paper was discussed at the 10th July Sustainable Environment Specialist Group Meeting. The group felt that the work so far had been a good start and they were supportive of the high level principles and proposed management structure (appendix 1 & 2). However concerns 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 - 138 -

were expressed about using external contractors for works in a broad brush approach. Contractors would need to adhere to specific standards to ensure the appropriate management regime is delivered to all sites. The group did acknowledge that better working arrangements and economies of scale would be achieved if all new and existing land managers were able to work together under or alongside a town-wide umbrella management body.

These proposals were also taken to a Whitehill Town Council meeting on 3rd September 2012, which fell after the report deadline therefore a verbal update will be given alongside the recommendations to the Delivery Board.

1 Background 1.1 This report draws together a number of activities that have occurred since the previous Delivery Board meeting where this topic was presented in December 2011. The overriding aim of this work is to provide early consideration of the long term management and maintenance implications for the range of greenspace types which make up the 200ha of new and existing green infrastructure identified within the Whitehill & Bordon Framework Masterplan (Revised May 2012). It will also help influence the future governance arrangements for the project, particularly in relation to the early release of sites for development and cover the transitional period of land use between now and the final build out of individual sites.

1.2

The Delivery Board agreed the following at the December 2011 meeting: • The issues around the management and maintenance of green infrastructure should be explored separately from other community assets so this work is not held up. However links should remain through the Eco-town team on any discussions around the management of other assets within the town. This is particularly important in relation to the community assets audit.

• The role of the Deadwater Valley Trust (DVT) and Whitehill Town Council (WTC) should be explored in connection with the early phases of land release.

• A factsheet should be produced and circulated that provides more detail about the Land Trust (completed 14th Feb 2012).

1.3 Since December 2011 stakeholders have been involved in a range of activities, which has included two stakeholder workshops, two DVT Trustee meetings, two Specialist Group meetings, Transition Group meeting and 1:1 interviews with landowners and managers in around the town. The outputs from this work have been circulated in the form of a stakeholder report and helped to create the Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Framework, which sets out the principles, priorities and proposed structure of a management solution.

Due to its size it has not been attached to this paper for discussion, but 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 - 139 -

subsequent work with the Specialist Groups will see this document made publicly available. Therefore the Delivery Board is asked to acknowledge the work so far, endorse the high level guiding principles and proposed supporting management structure as a platform for further work.

1.4 Since the last Delivery Board Meeting the Community Facilities and Amenities Specialist Group is undertaking an audit of the existing community built facilities. The stage one audit is expected to be completed in September 2012. Any cross cutting issues where green infrastructure and built facilities overlap could be identified at the next stage. A joint Specialist Group meeting / working party would draw synergies between various stakeholders interested in the long term maintenance and management issues.

1.5 This work has also provided the opportunity to review arrangements surrounding the Ministry of Defence (MoD) estate in relation to the current larger greenspace assets and clarify where the existing management responsibilities and operational requirements lie for Bordon Garrison, Technical Training Area (School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (SEME)) and Defence Training Estate (DTE) South East based at Longmoor Camp.

1.6 This work will also support the current programme of work associated with the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), particularly the design and delivery of the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) and the access management plans associated with the European Protected Sites.

2 Subject of report 2.1 This report provides members of the Delivery Board with an update on work since the recommendations were made at the December 2011 meeting. It includes the creation of a town-wide framework to guide the management and maintenance of new and existing greenspaces across Whitehill & Bordon.

2.2 Deadwater Valley Trust (DVT) is highlighted as a good example of greenspace management of the Local Nature Reserve, and community engagement, working in partnership with Whitehill Town Council and Hampshire County Council. The future growth and regeneration of Whitehill & Bordon will include an important role for the Trust. But the Trustees recognise the need for their governance structure to evolve to provide greater capacity and more resources to manage other sites.

Trustees are willing to take on more responsibility, but do not see themselves expanding their responsibilities beyond those greenspaces that have a direct physical and environmental connection with the Local Nature Reserve (LNR) such as Eveley Wood and Bordon Inclosure to the East and North of the LNR. Also, they do not see themselves as a 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 - 140 -

land owning body and would be willing to work under an ‘umbrella organisation’ that retains the risk, liabilities and financial responsibilities associated with land ownership.

2.3 Whitehill Town Council recognises the value and opportunities, for both the community and wildlife of owning and managing greenspaces in and around Whitehill & Bordon. Councillors have been working with Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS) since February 2012 to explore their future role with regards to new and existing assets in the town.

This has raised a number of queries for Town Councillors and Officers, who wish to understand more about the risks and liabilities associated with taking on a larger scale interest than experienced within their current asset portfolio. They recognise that the role of the Town Council would need to evolve to respond to an expanded portfolio. This might include the use of external expertise in the initial stages to help them gain a common grasp of the issues and understand their position within the wider project. The current review of the Town Council’s Asset Register will play an important role in determining priorities, financial arrangements and forward plan for the assets it is currently responsible for, and how that would change in the future.

2.4 As part of the preparation work for this paper the future management and maintenance of greenspaces associated within the masterplan area and neighbouring MoD estate was discussed at the June 2012 meeting of the Transition Group. Broadly speaking this included the Group’s views on: (i) Assets that would remain in operational use alongside and beyond the life of the masterplan. (ii) Vacant assets. (iii) The period of time between asset disposal and construction taking place.

The Group supported the Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Framework principles and the notion of an umbrella body to manage the new and existing greenspaces.

2.5 In June 2012 the Eco-town team with key partners submitted a project proposal to Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership to support the delivery of early demonstration sites in the town. The proposal was to deliver capital improvements to Bordon Inclosure. This has been shortlisted for further evaluation over the summer and will be presented to the October Enterprise M3 Board for approval. If successful Bordon Inclosure would be an ideal demonstration site to show what the future management and maintenance arrangements could look like in association with the development of the Quebec Barracks Site. All members of the Delivery Board and their associated organisations will need to play an important role in delivering this project.

2.6 A positive outcome from discussions at the December 2011 Delivery Board meeting and subsequent meetings with stakeholders has been to 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 - 141 -

establish some high level guiding principles (appendix 1), which the principal landowners and stakeholders have endorsed. These principles form a critical part of the process and serve to underpin all subsequent proposals. It has also prompted the need to establish a management structure that reflects current governance structures whilst addressing long-term green infrastructure management needs. It will be important that this structure can adapt to future changes in the governance structure, particularly in response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) work being presented to the Delivery Board alongside this paper.

The Delivery Board’s feedback and their response to the PwC work will be reflected in the next stages of work. The draft structure is provided at appendix 2.

3 Risk assessment 3.1 The amount of time available to consider the management and maintenance options for the green infrastructure is limited, as such it is important to continue to progress this matter inline with the wider Ecotown Project Programme.

3.2 Any risks associated with this work are dependent upon successfully integrating the recommendations made here, with taking forward the PwC Report, development of the Outline Planning Application, the evolution of the 2012 Masterplan and the Community Asset Audit. As such there are no special considerations for the Delivery Board to make at this time.

4 Contributions to Delivery Board priorities 4.1 This paper contributes to the Delivery Board priorities by continuing to prompt discussions on issues and opportunities associated with the management and maintenance of green infrastructure across the masterplan area in accordance with wider sustainability objectives. The amount of new and existing land earmarked for some form of greenspace, particularly the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) will make this one of the largest long term management and maintenance challenges for the Delivery Board to tackle in partnership with landowners and managers in and around the town.

4.2 Discussions at this stage will help inform the Delivery Board’s other work streams associated with the Eco-town project both in terms masterplan delivery and transitional arrangements for greenspaces prior to the phased programme of development.

4.3 This work also provides a useful evidence base for the development of the Outline Planning Application. Setting out an approach that will ensure the new and existing green infrastructure will be managed appropriately over the longer term. Ensuring that the implications 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 - 142 -

costs are fully understood in terms of potential developer contributions etc.

5 Resource implications 5.1 Members of the Delivery Board have already committed resources to this work following the December meeting. Further resources will be required later this year depending on decisions related to the PwC report and further development of the masterplan. In the meantime this paper recommends that representatives from the Deadwater Valley Trust and Whitehill Town Council continue to work with the Environmental Sustainability Theme Lead and key stakeholders in progressing the Delivery Board’s recommendations.

6 Cost implications 6.1 There are no direct costs associated with this paper as its primary purpose is to inform the Delivery Board of progress since the December 2011 discussions. However, there are cost implications related to taking forward the actions outlined in the conclusions and recommendations below. These would be worked up in more detail once the Delivery Board has considered overall direction in light of the wider issues being presented to them at this meeting.

7 Conclusion 7.1 Overall this range of work with stakeholders has provided an opportunity to explore the issues and opportunities associated with the management and maintenance of green infrastructure as part of the wider sustainable of the Eco-town. It has also provided the opportunity to clarify landowner’ aspirations and concerns, plus start to establish closer working arrangements and a common understanding of expectations on what should be tackled first and when.

7.2 The conclusions described below are reflected in the recommendations for members of the Delivery Board to agree: (i) To endorse the Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Framework high level guiding principles and supporting management structure (appendix 2). (ii) To support the continued development of the Growing Enterprise Fund SANG project and provide a letter of support for this bid to Enterprise M3 signed by the Chairman on behalf of all Delivery Board members. (iii) That Whitehill Town Council should take a lead through their own emerging thinking on existing and future asset ownership and management working with local partners and landowners to facilitate further discussion and agreement. (iv) That the Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Framework should be built into the review of the wider work 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 - 143 -

associated with the audit of the other assets within the town and evolution of the governance structure.

8 Appendix Appendix 1: Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance High Level Guiding Principles Appendix 2: Proposed Green Infrastructure Management Structure

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 - 144 -

Appendix 1: Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance High Level Guiding Principles -

There are environmental gains to be made from developing a “whole landscape”1 approach which goes beyond the Eco-town Policy Zone.

-

There are gains to be made from fully engaging with and utilising local initiatives and communities and ensuring they are equipped with the necessary skills to appreciate and play a key role in the management and maintenance of green infrastructure.

-

There is a need for a co-ordinated approach across the whole area; this will allow resources to be deployed efficiently and economies of scale to be achieved.

-

Accountability is best kept local.

-

Local solutions to local issues is the “default” position.

-

Aims, objectives and assets safeguarded for the local community for the long-term (sustainable and resilient to climate change).

-

There is a need to maximise the potential to attract a wide range of funding and to achieve the best returns on investments.

-

Objectives must be realistic and achievable and include appropriate safeguards to protect local people against liability.

1

A collective term used to describe all physical elements that make up an area – roads, parks, gardens, ponds, woodlands, verges, etc as part of a single coherent unit.

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 - 145 -

Appendix 2 Proposed Green Infrastructure Management Structure The following outlines a structure for how Whitehill and Bordon’s green spaces might be managed and maintained in the long-term in accordance with the conclusions of the above analysis and the high level “Guiding Principles”.

A diagram to illustrate the structure and distinguish between existing and new mechanisms is provided below. However key elements are described as follows: a) “Strategic Working Group”. Evolving out of the existing governance structure, t this group’s role would be to oversee the work of the “Delivery/Enabling Body” (see below) and hold them to account on delivery. The current “Delivery Board” or “Landowners Group” might form a valuable basis for adapting into this role in due course. b) “Delivery/Enabling Body”. A new mechanism, this would take on overall financial (including any potential Service Charge Collection), legal and land ownership (freehold or long-term leasehold) responsibility - thereby removing the burdens locally and allowing effective delivery. It would be contractually bound and directed by the Strategic Working Group and provide the essential “checks and balances” in terms of management and delivery standards. During the development phase it would work with development partners and affiliates to manage the phased delivery of the green infrastructure strategy. Direct contractual agreements would be established with “Managing Agents” (see below) in accordance with agreed Management Plans, with strategic direction being provided by the “Asset Management Forum” (see below). c) “Asset Management Forum”. Another new mechanism, this would comprise all key strategic stakeholders and provide a strategic role (as opposed to the “executive” role of the “Delivery/Enabling Body”) to the Managing Agents and Delivery/Enabling Body. Its position therefore would not be to control issues of finance and legal management, but to help guide the development of Management Plans in accordance with the delivery of community/environmental benefits As the name implies, the Forum’s role would also be well placed to guide the development of other related assets, such as Energy Service Companies and community facilities etc. in due course. d) Managing Agents. Building on existing local initiatives, these would be contracted by the “Delivery/Enabling Body” under the strategic direction of the “Asset Management Forum”. Managing Agents would be selected on the basis of the specific needs of the agreed green infrastructure types.

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 - 146 -

e) “Friends of Group”. The final new mechanism, this would provide an essential focus for local community engagement and accountability and create a forum where the interests and priorities of the local community are addressed.

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 - 147 -

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 - 148 -

Agenda item 15

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

6 September 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: WBPD035-2012 ______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: Three of the Specialist Groups have met in July 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. Any comments from the Standing Conference that took place on 30 August will be tabled at the Delivery Board meeting.

Date: 10 August 2012 Version: V1

Status of Report: 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 - 149 -

Purpose of report: To provide information on the outcomes of the Specialist Groups/ Chairman/ Vice Chairman/ Lead Officers meetings.

Recommendations requiring Board considerations: •

To note the topics discussed at the recent Specialist Group meetings.

Consultation and comments received: Comments received from the Standing Conference will be tabled at the Delivery Board meeting.

Community engagement proposals: None 1 Background 1.1 This report provides the Delivery Board on the outcomes of the meetings of the Specialist Groups, the Chairman/ Vice Chairman and Lead Officers meeting and requires that the Delivery Board consider these.

2 Outcomes of the Specialist Groups 2.1 Two of the Specialist Groups did not meet (Community Facilities & Amenities and Infrastructure, Education & Transport ones) but project updates were circulated to the members of those groups. The three remaining groups met in July and the main outcomes are shown below.

Sustainable Environment 2.2 A mini workshop took place on the One Planet Living Food Project being assisted by BioRegional on the compilation of a food map. A food survey is being distributed to the community to understand on how to improve access to food and what food means to the community.

2.3 Bruce Collinson gave a presentation on the proposals for Green Infrastructure Management and this is the topic of a separate report on this meeting’s agenda.

2.4 Bruce Collinson also gave a presentation on the Maintenance/Monitoring progress towards delivering the Eco-town vision (which he asked for assistance on).

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 - 150 -

Economic Development 2.5 Two presentations were given; the first on Inward Investment by Mike Campbell and the second by Peter Rabbett on Investing in a Learning Community.

Housing 2.6 The main topic was a presentation by James Rowley on the Aldershot Urban Extension – concern was expressed regarding the preservation of historic buildings in Whitehill & Bordon.

Comments made by the meeting of Chairmen/Vice Chairmen and Lead Officers 2.7 A meeting took place in July and the group were given an update of what had been discussed at each Specialist Group meeting (as shown above).

2.8 The group also had a discussion on the governance arrangements which are dealt with in a separate report (Governance structure – interim review). The group supports a more flexible arrangement with regard to the Specialist Groups and that this group could possible evolve into a planning group for Specialist Group meetings in 2013.

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 plan has been agreed by the Delivery Board.

5 Resource and Cost implications 5.1 No resource or cost Implications in this report

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 - 151 -

Agenda Item 16

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

6th September 2012

Title of report:

Project Progress Report

Author:

Simon Beach, Project Coordinator

Reference no: WBPD036-2012 _______________________________________________________________ Executive Summary: This report provides a periodic update for the Delivery Board. It outlines progress since the last meeting.

Key features of previous quarter include: •

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Phase2 Report completed

•

Work in progress towards a funding strategy

•

Scoping meetings held between ATLAS and EHDC in preparation for a Planning Performance Agreement

•

Eco-station work continues with the official opening in October 2012

•

Negotiations relating to the purchase of Quebec barracks by Homes and Communities Agency continue

•

Heathland biomass potential final draft completed

Date: 16th August 2012 Version: 1.0

Status of Report: Public 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 - 152 -

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 will be tabled at the Delivery Board meeting.

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.

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 - 153 -

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, three of the five Specialist Groups have met, and a separate report identifies their work and conclusions. In addition, the work of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) is now complete. The recommendations that were made in their report were the basis of the discussions during the Board’s workshop held on 29th August. The purpose of these discussions is to review the next steps needed in procuring an investment partner and the governance structure that will be needed to oversee the project.

Planning 2.2 Since the adoption of the masterplan, EHDC has re-evaluated the next steps of planning policy documents preparation and have agreed to prepare a suite of documents to support the implementation of the adopted masterplan (please refer to the separate report).

2.3 The Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the representations received. A further period of public consultation in relation to the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ran until 20th August. The Examination will be held in a week commencing on 23rd October 2012. A pre-hearing meeting will be held in the Council Chamber at East Hampshire District Council on 6th September 2012.

2.4 The Landowners Group and EHDC (as the local planning authority) are drafting a ‘Statement of Common Ground’ to resolve previously raised issues and address any outstanding concerns. It is expected to be submitted to the Inspector in September.

2.5 Work continues with GVA Grimley Ltd (GVA) and AMEC and the project team, to prepare for an outline planning application (OPA) for the entire site. EHDC has proposed using a ‘Planning Performance Agreement’ (PPA) to effectively manage the planning application process. ATLAS is providing support to EHDC in setting up the PPA process.

2.6 The OPA programme will be updated once the inception meeting is held between EHDC and the Landowners’ Group. The bulk of the technical work, design and consultation will commence in early 2013. The current 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 - 154 -

overall programme (Appendix 4) reflects the most up to date position but would be kept under review.

Quebec Barracks Project 2.7 The last quarter has seen a project team of stakeholders set up to take forward the development of the site including working together to facilitate the submission of a planning application. The team have completed a number of activities to support this work and to help secure a high quality eco-demonstration scheme.

2.8 Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) continue negotiations with Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) and Annington Properties for purchase of the site; these are continuing but nearing conclusion.

Neighbourhood Quality Charter 2.9 The Charter was approved by the Delivery Board in June. It was presented to Development Policy Panel (DPP) on 31st July for discussion, and then is to be submitted to Cabinet in September to be approved as non-statutory planning guidance.

Economic Development and Funding Quebec Barracks 2.10 The development Principles agreed by the Board were submitted to the July Development Policy Panel (DPP) and subject to some amendments will go forward to Cabinet with a recommendation for approval as non statutory planning guidance.

2.11 The results of the two Growing Enterprise fund bids submitted for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and Foul Water pipe works related to the site development have been received from Enterprise M3.

The foul water pipe was not successful on this occasion, but enterprise M3 have asked for more details on the SANG project with a view to it being supported in the future if Enterprise M3 are satisfied with our responses.

Louisburg Barracks 2.12 A regional Growth Fund application has been submitted to bring the site forward for business, using the existing building on site. The Landowners Group is discussing options for how the site could be taken forward including setting up a project team to co-ordinate and progress work.

Inward investment research 2.13 Consultants presented work to the July Economic Development Specialist Group with the final report provided mid August. See item on main agenda.

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 - 155 -

E-Car Club Challenge 2.14 Whitehill and Bordon Eco-town is one of four communities across the UK that has been selected as a suitable destination for an Electric Car Club.

In the region of 100 communities applied in the first instance. E-Car hope to be able to launch the Whitehill & Bordon E-Car Club in the near future once they are certain that there is enough commitment from local people and businesses to make the club viable.

Growing Enterprise Fund 2.15 Two proposals were submitted to the Growing Enterprise Fund: Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) Network (£900,000) Foul Water Upgrade Project (Quebec Barracks) (£700,000) 2.16 The SANG Network proposal has been shortlisted. Enterprise M3 Board felt that the proposal was slightly premature and have requested a written report giving more detail by September 14th 2012 which Bruce Collinson and Kate Hillerby are now working on.

2.17 Foul Water Upgrade bid was unsuccessful however the Board liked the concept but felt the project was too small scale and funding recycling rates were too long. As part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Infrastructure Investment plan we will revisit the project and see how it can be upscaled and how funds could be recycled more quickly for future rounds of the fund.

Regional Growth Fund 2.18 The bid to the Regional Growth Fund was unsuccessful in the application for £1,630,000 from the Regional Growth Fund to deliver the Louisburg Barracks Business Development Programme. Feedback is expected in the Autumn. The application process was successful in bringing together organisations which are interested in developing business opportunities on Louisburg Barracks if the land can be released early and we are hoping to build upon this work.

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2.19 Work is underway to explore whether to submit a proposal to the open ERDF call. This will depend on whether any key infrastructure items or other programmed work fits the criteria for the call and could be delivered within the call timescales.

Public Sector Funding Strategy 2.20 A public sector funding strategy has been developed which shows the work needed to improve the commercial viability of the Eco-town project.

Going forward, work will be undertaken to match current and future funding calls to the emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan. An Infrastructure Investment Plan will be produced to sit alongside the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. See item on main agenda.

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 - 156 -

Eco-station 2.21 Proposals for business events and meetings are being developed for when the Eco-station opens in October 2012. The official opening is on 13th October. First event will be on 23rd October and will be a workshop on how to become a more environmentally sustainable business.

Project Management Framework 2.22 The project management framework remains unchanged from the previous report. The process is regularly reviewed and adapted according to the demands of the programme.

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 current projects are funded from the Department of Communities and Local Government and Homes and Communities funding received in March 2010 and March 2011. There is no change to resource implications or requirements.

6 Cost Implication 6.1 Appendix 5 – Financial Summary.

6.2 We anticipate that the funding will be spent over three years.

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 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 - 157 -

the work required to deliver key aspects of the entire project into the future.

Since the previous overall project programme was submitted in June 2012 the following amendments have been made 1. Updated and detailed GVA Amec/EHDC Outline Planning programme 2. Updated PwC investment partner programme 3. 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: Overall RAG Report The Overall RAG report is submitted for information purposes. The report highlights all projects and work streams including risk and forward planned milestones for the entire project Appendix 4: 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 5: Financial Summary The financial summary is submitted for information purposes.

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 - 158 -

Appendix 1: Theme Report Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

project complete Aug-12

Next Milestone

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

30/07/2012

£10,000.00

£9,770.00

no

Green

Amber

Green

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.

30/07/2012

£50,000.00

£50,000.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

ISSUE: The Countryside Ranger works closely with Community Project Officer who has now left the role.

Employment of replacement important as soon as possible.

£60,000.00

£58,660.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

£400,000.00

£227,853.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

e

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

Green Network Enhancement- Existing Town

5527PR

Countryside Ranger

Amber

Tori Melhuish

Deliver consultation letters to approx 360 homes Design notices for affected spaces

Project complete Ongoing reports received

Met with consultants to discuss concerns regarding the draft prepared Received programme of further work to improve the strategy in line with the brief Received revised draft study for comment Maps and detail finalised

Project complete Ongoing reports received

Organised bat surveys in Bordon Inclosure and DVLNR Litter pick with Cubs and Brownies Held pond dipping sessions with Bordon Infants and Juniors Attended after school clubs Presentation and guided walks for school groups

Green

Tori Mehluish

5524PR

Community Development Worker

Green

Mike O'Mahony

Re-advertise post

5518PR

Retrofitting homes Insulation

Green

Stephanie Beggs

Meeting to be held to discuss closure of the scheme

Over 1000 homes have received installations.

The scheme has now closed

The scheme is being evaluated to draw out the lessons learnt

Drop-ins finish at the end of September so transition work with other youth providers will be done

Junk modeling competition at both drop ins Trip to Sustainability Centre planned for end of Summer Holidays

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

5530PR

Youth Drop In Centre

Amber

Carolyn Warne

5525PR

Heathland Biomass Potential Project

Green

Matthew Woodcock

5521PR

Eco Pack

Green

Community Development Worker left the post on 25/7/12 - new Community Development Worker to be recruited

Technical report Final report completed completed and shared with the Eco-town team

Two Eco-packs Lydia Forbes Investigate possibility of completed with money third eco pack left over to consider a Manson third Eco-pack

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

30/07/2012

Regular meetings have taken EHDC (Planning or street place with EHDC contracts contractor) not able to meet to discuss feasibility and a timetable for work of each plot schedule has been outlined

TM

Serious accident

TM

Low Uptake of initiative resulting in funds not being spent

SB

Youth worker cannot recruit volunteers

YUG

16/05/2012

£30,000.00

£30,000.00

no

Green

Amber

Some funding has been used to secure another worker in Milestones lapsed due to having one youth worker for a while place to enable 2 of the 3 Green sessions to continue so dropso youth drop-in was unable to open for a month ins are not dependent on volunteers

25/07/2012

£6,000.00

No spend this period

yes

Green

Green

Green

Financial constraints

Matthew Woodcock

03/08/2012

£8,000.00

£2,711.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Depends on other projects and their possible delays

LFM

25/07/2012

£25000 & £40000

yes

Green

Green

Green

Ongoing engagement with Natural England and other stakeholders

BC

Studies

5535PR

HRA Refresh & Visitor Survey

Green

Bruce Collinson

Final draft reports circulated to members of the HRA working group for comment Visitor survey completed and analysed with project manager and Natural England

1st draft of report and monitoring table being prepared SANG visits completed Visitor survey underway

159

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

25/07/2012

£45,000.00

£9,817.11

yes

Green

Green

Green

Ongoing engagement with stakeholders

BC

e

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 Inception meeting held with BioRegional and Working Group Workshop held at 10th July Specialist Group meeting Food mapping commenced

5536PR

One Planet Living (second phase)

Green

Bruce Collinson

5535PR

Management and maintenance of Green Infrastructure

Green

Bruce Collinson

1 to 1 interviews Produce long-term completed management and 1st and 3nd drafts maintenance framework shared with Eco-town team for comment

25/07/2012

£12,000.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Significant changes to the masterplan and core strategy

BC

5535PR

SANG Deisgn and Delivery

Green

Bruce Collinson

Produce SANG Delivery Timetable

25/07/2012

£25,000.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Ongoing engagement with Natural England and other stakeholders

BC

5539PR

Transport Evidence Base Development

Green

Tim Wall

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

N/A

£250,000.00

£250,000.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Agreement of stakeholders

TW

5533PR

Transport Rail Feasibility study

Tim Wall

Work on Stage 2 Present draft Stage 2 coming to its conclusion findings to the Delivery Draft Public Transport Strategy being prepared Board for approval to publish

25/07/12

£250,000.00

£199,139.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

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

25/07/2012

£30,000.00

£10,472.50

yes

Amber Amber

Green

Within budget at this time, there is further work to bring the Majority of work now Strategy up to an acceptable standard. First draft Strategy completed. Meeting held with consultant to discuss work required significant further work to be of a suitable standard required to the Strategy for consultation

25/07/2012

£20,000.00

£10,232.00

yes

Green

Green

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

25/07/2012

£30,000.00

£16,738.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

N/A

£370,000.00

£310,883.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

30/07/2012

£10,000.00

£1,500.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Limited funds may mean that not every household who expresses an interest receives a grant

SB

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

MP

SR

Green

5539PR

Transport Walking & Cycling Strategy

Amber

Tim Wall

5539PR

Car Parking Strategy

Amber

Tim Wall

Traffic Management Strategy

SANG Option appraisal

Met with consultants to discuss concerns regarding the draft prepared Received programme of Publish draft Study further work to improve the strategy in line with the brief Received revised draft study for comment Agree draft strategy for First draft produced for consultation client comment Agree consultation Officer comments methodology provided to consultant

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Green

Tim Wall

Publish draft Study

Transport Freight Strategy

5539PR

PID written

Project is not yet initiated

Presented study to IET Specialist Group Carried out Stage 2 stakeholder consultation

Amber

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

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

Andrew Wilson

Study goes overprogramme

TW

Revised draft received

Study goes overprogramme

TW

Draft now agreed for the second stage consultation.

Extended consultation period agreed.

Study goes overprogramme

TW

Project is not yet initiated

Extended consultation with villages and consultant delay in delivering draft

Demonstration Projects

5519PR

LCCC Retrofit

Green

Stephanie Beggs

Project complete

5519PR

Boiler Scrappage Scheme

Green

Stephanie Beggs

Further advertising of scheme

High Street Chalet Hill

EHDC

Project is not yet initiated

Viking Park

Green

Mandar Puranik

Green

Susan Robbins

5513PR

5514PR

Quebec Barracks

Project complete

Project complete

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

3 boilers have been installed

Project is not yet initiated

Project complete

Project details for Bordon Inclosure SANG Development principles provided to LEP to approved support Growing Enterprise Fund bid

Ongoing workstream with 2 deliverable options coming out of the study

SB

N/A

£90,000.00

£82,473.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

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

25/07/2012

£45,000.00

£10,603.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Unable to create a comercially viable solution that meets sustainable ambitions

160

Sarah Allan

Phase 2 completion

Stephanie Beggs

Programme for first term of main events and exhibitions is ready for publicity

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

30/07/2012

£868,300.00

£599,861.00

yes

Green

Amber

Extension of time of 41 days granted to Contractor running behing programme but past delays now resolved.

Green contractor for additional works to Eco-station

03/08/2012

£374,700.00

£64,268.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

31/07/2012

£250,000.00

£51,764.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

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

31/07/2012

£425,000.00

£372,638.00

yes

Green

Amber

Green

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

Green

Green

Green

e

Amber

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

5506PR

5510PR

5508PR

5507PR

Firestation Refurb

Firestation Exhibition Venue

Eco-town terraced house competition

Green

Amber

Sarah Allan

Sign land transfer agreement

Contractors and design team continuing to resolve issues in a proactive manner

The Exhibition and events programme for the first term are being finalised.

Marketing strategy is written so the opening and events will soon be advertised.

Agreement nearing completion - EHDC sent boundary plan to Radian and final comments being addressed

Amber

Sarah Allan

House completion

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

Green

Tim Wall

Project complete

Project complete

N/A

£15,000

£5,570.00

yes

Personalised Journey Planning Project

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Whitehill Bordon Eco-Car Club

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

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 initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated Project is not yet

Project is not yet initiated Project is not yet

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated Project is not

Project is not yet initiated Project is not

Project is not yet initiated Project is not

Tim Wall

Complete tender paperwork

Tender paperwork advanced Vehicle manufacturers contacted and trial arranged

25/07/2012

£500,000.00

£4,000.00

yes

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet

25/07/2012

£200,000.00

No spend this period

yes

Exhibition House

Radian progressing with project now agreement nearing completion

Delay to completion

SA

Delay in opening the building and launching the first exhibition

SB

Land transfer - issue

SA

Issues now resolved and Public access during and anticipated completion of following construction house by end of Aug 2012

SA

Further Transport Projects

5548PR

Whitehill Bordon Travel Website

Walking and Cycling improvements Stage 1 Marketing and Promotion

5539PR

Bus Service Improvements

Tim Wall Tim Wall

Red

Electric Charging Points

5539PR

Town Transport Manager

Green

Tim Wall

Roll out work plan Finalise transport contributions to exhibition

Induction of Town Transport Manager Work plan for next 2 years developed

Ben Clifton

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

Andrew Wilson

Inadequate funding to implement Smarter Choices Strategies

TW

Failure to capture and maintain stakeholder support

DG

Project is not yet initiated Project is not yet initiated

Green

Red

Green

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

Authority to release options was agreed

Project is not yet initiated

Green

Green

Green

Walking and Cycling improvements Stage 2

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Transport Hub Phase 1

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Tim Wall

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Project is not yet initiated

Daphne Gardner

Delivery Board workshop on 29th August to review recommendations made in the PwC report and discuss the next steps for the project and governance structure needs

26/07/2012

£250,000.00

£150,209.00

yes

Transport Improved Cycle Parking

Website becomes inactive/crashes

Other Projects

5534PR

Governance

Green

Contract for the Delivery Board Chairman has been finalised A meeting between Deilvery Board members and PwC has taken place

161

Green

Green

Green

Ongoing legacy - how the project continues

Update Date

Project Budget

Spend to date

On Target (Yes/No)

25/07/2012

£50,000.00

£11,780.00

yes

e

Susan Robbins

Achievement This Reporting Period

Sc op

Green

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

5537PR

5564PR

5566PR

Eco-Grants

LEAF project

Inward Investment Sector Research Study

Green

Green

Stephanie Beggs

Susan Robbins

Review eco-business grants project and Shop front signs consider how best to installed deliver this programme

Green

Amber

Green

No work has commenced on the eco-business grants

Eco-business grants project will be reviewed

Insufficient uptake

SR

SB

SR

Conduct solid wall insulation surveys

Letters sent to householders to promote solid wall insulation scheme with 7 householders expressing interest

30/07/2012

£39,423.00

£27,143.00

yes

Green

Green

Green

Limited funds may mean that not every household who expresses an interest receives an interest free loan

Completion of study

Consultants appointed and interim reports presented to Economic Development Specialist Group and Informal Cabinet

30/07/2012

£4,987.50

£4,987.50

yes

Green

Green

Green

Final report is not provided by the deadline

162

Appendix 2: Overall Project Programme Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V6 ID

Task Name

Duration

1

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme

1175 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Start

Fri 01/01/16

Finish

2

MoD Vacations

1174 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Thu 31/12/15

Apr a Jun Jul u

3

Withdrawal from occupied sites

1 day?

Thu 31/12/15

Thu 31/12/15

4

Withdrawal from unoccupied sites TBA

1 day?

Mon 04/07/11

Mon 04/07/11

5

Operational Transition

652 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Tue 31/12/13

6

Transition Plan

522 days?

Mon 02/01/12

Tue 31/12/13

7

EHDC Support Services Plan (TBA)

1 day?

Mon 04/07/11

Mon 04/07/11

2 days

Mon 04/07/11

Tue 05/07/11

8

Communications and Marketing (Dates TBA)

11

Core Strategy and Masterplan

452 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Tue 26/03/13

12

Completion of studies

216 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Mon 30/04/12

13

Re-state vision

45 days?

Mon 01/08/11

Fri 30/09/11

14

Public Consultation on Masterplan

87 days?

Thu 01/09/11

Fri 30/12/11

15

Update masterplan

99 days?

Mon 02/01/12

Thu 17/05/12

16

Publish Masterplan

0 days

Fri 18/05/12

Fri 18/05/12

17

Core Strategy Pre submission Published

31 days

Fri 03/02/12

Fri 16/03/12

e Oct o

2012 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2013 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

01/05

18

EHDC Full Cabinet Meeting

0 days

Tue 01/05/12

Tue 01/05/12

Masterplan Adoption

0 days

Wed 09/05/12

Wed 09/05/12

20

Core Strategy Submission

0 days

Fri 25/05/12

Fri 25/05/12

21

Pre-Hearing Meeting

0 days

Thu 06/09/12

Thu 06/09/12

22

Core Strategy EIP

10 days

Mon 22/10/12

Fri 02/11/12

23

Post examination modifications consultation

36 days?

Fri 16/11/12

Fri 04/01/13

24

Inspectors final report

0 days

Thu 17/01/13

Thu 17/01/13

25

Development Policy Panel (potential special Council/Cabinet)

0 days

Tue 26/03/13

Tue 26/03/13

26/03

26

Core Strategy Adopted (estimated date )

0 days

Tue 26/03/13

Tue 26/03/13

26/03

70 days?

Mon 27/08/12

Fri 30/11/12

8 days

Mon 27/08/12

Wed 05/09/12

41 days?

Fri 05/10/12

Fri 30/11/12

502 days?

Thu 30/06/11

Fri 31/05/13

Masterplan Next Steps - suite of documents

28

Delivery Board report

29

Prepare project programme

30

Suite of Documents

31

Prepare development principles for Louisburg Barracks and New Town Centre

152 days?

Thu 01/11/12

Fri 31/05/13

32

Town design statement (Led by WTC)

502 days?

Thu 30/06/11

Fri 31/05/13

33

Character Area Design Code

152 days?

Thu 01/11/12

Fri 31/05/13

34

Infrastructure and Delivery Plan (Whitehill and Bordon)

152 days?

Thu 01/11/12

Fri 31/05/13

480 days?

Mon 30/05/11

Fri 29/03/13

0 days

Mon 30/05/11

Thu 28/07/11

402 days?

Wed 01/06/11

Thu 13/12/12

174 days

Tue 01/11/11

Fri 29/06/12

35

Studies

36

Completion of Current Studies (Phase 1) 0 days

37

Completion of Rail GRIP 3 Study 138 days

38

Evidence for Core Strategy Studies

39

HRA Refresh

369 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Fri 29/03/13

40

Walking and Cycling Strategy

293 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Thu 13/12/12

41

Parking Strategy

293 days?

Tue 01/11/11

Thu 13/12/12

42

Inner Relief Road Northern and Southern section feasibility study

0 days

Thu 13/12/12

Thu 13/12/12

43

Public Transport Strategy

0 days

Fri 28/12/12

Fri 28/12/12

44

Traffic Management Strategy

206 days?

Thu 01/03/12

Thu 13/12/12

195 days?

Mon 03/12/12

Fri 30/08/13

45

CIL Charging Schedule

46

Consultation on preliminary charging schedule

44 days?

Mon 03/12/12

Thu 31/01/13

47

Consultation on draft charging schedule

41 days?

Fri 01/02/13

Fri 29/03/13

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Wed 15/08/12

2014 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

18/05

19

27

e Oct o

09/05 25/05 06/09

17/01

30/05

13/12 28/12

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 1

163

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e M

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V6 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish Apr a Jun Jul u

48

CIL public examination

23 days?

Wed 01/05/13

Fri 31/05/13

49

CIL Examiner's report

23 days?

Mon 01/07/13

Wed 31/07/13

50

CIL adoption

22 days?

Thu 01/08/13

Fri 30/08/13

51

101 days?

Wed 22/02/12

Thu 12/07/12

52

Stage 1 – Review Assumptions

0 days

Fri 24/02/12

Fri 24/02/12

56

Stage 2 – Test Phasing Options

101 days?

Wed 22/02/12

Thu 12/07/12

149 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 29/03/13

Project Governance Structure

55 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 16/11/12

70

Project resourcing across the project

10 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 14/09/12

71

Further viability testing/ Infrastructure prioritisation/Short-long term viability/confirm viability following public sector funding commitment

55 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 16/11/12

72

Approach to securing public sector funding / investment

75 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 14/12/12

73

Commitment of public sector funding / investment

111 days?

Fri 12/10/12

Fri 15/03/13

74

Further market testing

140 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Fri 15/03/13

68 69

PWC Commercial Strategy Advice

Procurement Process (PWC recommended programme)

75

De-risking (i.e data collection, survey info)

86 days?

Thu 01/11/12

Thu 28/02/13

76

Developing project risk register

25 days?

Mon 14/01/13

Fri 15/02/13

77

Developing Evaluation Criteria

35 days?

Mon 01/10/12

Fri 16/11/12

78

Design Procurement Process

20 days?

Mon 19/11/12

Fri 14/12/12

79

Develop procurement process

45 days?

Mon 14/01/13

Fri 15/03/13

80

Issue OJEU notice

0 days

Fri 29/03/13

Fri 29/03/13

2 days?

Tue 15/11/11

Wed 16/11/11

42 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Tue 30/10/12

81

Development Partner procurement OJEU Process (Dates TBA)

103

Outline Planning Application GVA Programme 2012 (Dates in Review)

42 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Tue 30/10/12

105

Undertake technical surveys/ work (GVA Programme) indicative dates

283 days?

Mon 02/07/12

Wed 31/07/13

116

Progress (GVA Programme) Masterplan for outline planning (indicative task completion dates)

109 days?

Tue 01/01/13

Fri 31/05/13

104

Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) and Inception Meeting

117

Update constraints/ opportunities

86 days

Tue 01/01/13

Tue 30/04/13

118

Review land use budget/ capacity

86 days

Tue 01/01/13

Tue 30/04/13

119

Option for EIA Scoping

45 days?

Mon 01/04/13

Fri 31/05/13

120

Develop options

86 days

Tue 01/01/13

Tue 30/04/13

121

Evaluate options

86 days

Tue 01/01/13

Tue 30/04/13

122

Consult on options

10 days

Mon 20/05/13

Fri 31/05/13

123

303 days?

Thu 02/08/12

Mon 30/09/13

124

Develop preferred option (GVA Programme) Dates in Review Develop preferred option

282 days

Thu 02/08/12

Fri 30/08/13

125

Pre application consultation

11 days?

Mon 16/09/13

Mon 30/09/13

650 days?

Wed 06/07/11

Tue 31/12/13

115 days

Wed 11/04/12

Wed 19/09/12

126

Draft preliminary application documents (TBA)

145

Specialist technical groups (TBA)

146

April

0 days

Wed 11/04/12

Wed 11/04/12

147

May

0 days

Wed 16/05/12

Wed 16/05/12

148

June

0 days

Wed 13/06/12

Wed 13/06/12

149

July

0 days

Wed 18/07/12

Wed 18/07/12

150

August

0 days

Wed 22/08/12

Wed 22/08/12

151

September

0 days

Wed 19/09/12

Wed 19/09/12

152

LPA/ Delivery Board

130 days

Thu 14/06/12

Thu 13/12/12

153

14 June 2012

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

Thu 14/06/12

154

6 September 2012

0 days

Thu 13/09/12

Thu 13/09/12

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Wed 15/08/12

e Oct o

2012 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2013 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2014 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

24/02

29/03

11/04 16/05 13/06 18/07 22/08 19/09

14/06 13/09

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 2

164

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e M

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V6 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish Apr a Jun Jul u

155 156

13 December 2012 Finalise OPA documentation (GVA Programme) indicative dates

0 days

Thu 13/12/12

Thu 13/12/12

68 days

Wed 30/10/13

Fri 31/01/14

157

Collate/ review all documents

23 days

Wed 30/10/13

Fri 29/11/13

158

Obtain approvals to submit

22 days

Mon 02/12/13

Tue 31/12/13

159

Submit Application

23 days

Wed 01/01/14

Fri 31/01/14

160

129 days

Mon 03/02/14

Thu 31/07/14

161

Respond to LPA issues and negotiate S106(4-6 months)

85 days

Mon 03/02/14

Fri 30/05/14

162

PA determined

44 days

Mon 02/06/14

Thu 31/07/14

892 days?

Wed 01/08/12

Thu 31/12/15

163

Post-submission (GVA Programme) Dates in Review

Landowners Group

164

Devise/Agree viable scheme

165

Review funding options and procurement options (see preparation for procurement below)

66 days?

Wed 01/08/12

Wed 31/10/12

109 days?

Wed 01/08/12

Mon 31/12/12

166

Complete landowners agreement

23 days?

Mon 01/10/12

Wed 31/10/12

167

Respond to the local plan and intrerim IDP statement at Core Strategy Examination inc prep Statement of Common Ground

43 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Wed 31/10/12

168

Manage costs and budgets for all landowners tasks

892 days?

Wed 01/08/12

Thu 31/12/15

169

Manage consultants incl tech team

892 days?

Wed 01/08/12

Thu 31/12/15

170

Programme Quebec Barracks Headline Tasks (DATES IN REVIEW)

588 days?

Thu 01/09/11

Mon 02/12/13

239

Community Engagement

1041 days

Wed 04/01/12

Wed 30/12/15

449

Landowners Group Meetings

220 days

Thu 23/02/12

Thu 27/12/12

450

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 23/02/12

Thu 23/02/12

451

Landowners meeting

0 days

Fri 23/03/12

Fri 23/03/12

452

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 26/04/12

Thu 26/04/12

453

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 24/05/12

Thu 24/05/12

454

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 28/06/12

Thu 28/06/12

455

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 26/07/12

Thu 26/07/12

456

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 23/08/12

Thu 23/08/12

457

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 27/09/12

Thu 27/09/12

458

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 25/10/12

Thu 25/10/12

459

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 22/11/12

Thu 22/11/12

460

Landowners meeting

0 days

Thu 27/12/12

Thu 27/12/12

195 days

Thu 15/03/12

Thu 13/12/12

461

Delivery Board Meetings

462

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 15/03/12

Thu 15/03/12

463

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 14/06/12

Thu 14/06/12

464

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 06/09/12

Thu 06/09/12

465

Delivery Board Meeting

0 days

Thu 13/12/12

Thu 13/12/12

466

Specialist Group Meetings

137 days

Tue 01/05/12

Thu 08/11/12

135 days

Tue 01/05/12

Tue 06/11/12

467

Community Facilities & Amenities

e Oct o

2012 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

2013 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u 13/12

e Oct o

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

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

01/05

Meeting

0 days

Tue 01/05/12

Tue 01/05/12

469

Meeting

0 days

Tue 03/07/12

Tue 03/07/12

470

Meeting

0 days

Tue 06/11/12

Tue 06/11/12

06/11

0 days

Thu 08/11/12

Thu 08/11/12

08/11 08/11

472 473

Infrastructure and Transport Meeting Economic Development

0 days

Thu 08/11/12

Thu 08/11/12

55 days

Tue 17/07/12

Tue 02/10/12

474

Joint Specialist Group Meeting

0 days

Tue 17/07/12

Tue 17/07/12

475

Meeting

0 days

Tue 02/10/12

Tue 02/10/12

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Wed 15/08/12

2014 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

23/02

468

471

e Oct o

03/07

17/07 02/10

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 3

165

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e M

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V6 ID

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish Apr a Jun Jul u

476

75 days

Thu 12/07/12

Thu 25/10/12

477

Meeting

0 days

Thu 12/07/12

Thu 12/07/12

478

Meeting

0 days

Thu 25/10/12

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

479

Housing

Demonstration Projects

480

Eco-station/Eco-house

481

Tender process

482

Sign contract with Main Contractor

0 days

Mon 14/11/11

Mon 14/11/11

483

Site works Phase 2- eco station

0 days

Fri 31/08/12

Fri 31/08/12

484

Site work - eco-house

210 days

Mon 14/11/11

Fri 31/08/12

485

Commissioning

21 days?

Mon 03/09/12

Mon 01/10/12

486

Opening

0 days

Fri 28/09/12

Fri 28/09/12

487

Monitoring

488

Radian Competition

261 days

Fri 30/08/13

Fri 29/08/14

481 days?

Mon 28/11/11

Mon 30/09/13

489

Stage 2 competition

48 days?

Mon 28/11/11

Wed 01/02/12

490

Planning application

65 days?

Mon 02/07/12

Fri 28/09/12

491 492 493

Construction completion Transport Infrastructure Bus - early win

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

494

Completion of Community & Demonstrator Projects (Ph2) 132 days

132 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Tue 03/01/12

495

Completion of Community & Demonstrator Projects (Ph3) 263 days

263 days?

Mon 04/07/11

Wed 04/07/12

Project: Whitehill Bordon DRAFT EcoDate: Wed 15/08/12

e Oct o

2012 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2013 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2014 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

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

166

e Oct o

2015 e Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul u

e Oct o

2016 e Jan e M

Whitehill Bordon DRAFT Eco-town Programme V6 6 27 42 45 46

48

49

50 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Transition Plan Indicative timeline extended for V6 Masterplan Next Steps - suite of documents sub tasks amended for V6 Inner Relief Road Northern and Southern section feasibility study Task added for V6 CIL Charging Schedule New task for V6 Consultation on preliminary charging schedule New task for V6 Task completion January 2013 CIL public examination New task for V6 MH revised date for May 2013 CIL Examiner's report New task for V6 MH date revised CIL adoption New task for V6 Procurement Process (PWC recommended programme) New workstream derived from the PWC Draft Phase 2 Report issued in July Project Governance Structure New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Project resourcing across the project New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Further viability testing/ Infrastructure prioritisation/Short-long term viability/confirm viability following public sector funding commitment New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Approach to securing public sector funding / investment New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Commitment of public sector funding / investment New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Further market testing New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme De-risking (i.e data collection, survey info) New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Developing project risk register New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Developing Evaluation Criteria New task for V6 from PWC recommended programme Design Procurement Process Task added. Start and Finish dates are draft and indicative and subject to approval Develop procurement process Task added. Start and Finish dates are draft and indicative and subject to approval Issue OJEU notice Task added. Start and Finish dates are draft and indicative and subject to approval Development Partner procurement OJEU Process (Dates TBA) Headline Programme Workstreams are collapsed while clarity is sought over programme Process to be aligned with PWC Programme

103 Outline Planning Application GVA Programme 2012 (Dates in Review) Headline Programme Tasks removed for V6 105 Undertake technical surveys/ work (GVA Programme) indicative dates Headline Programme Task start and completion dates amended for V6 116 Progress (GVA Programme) Masterplan for outline planning (indicative task completion dates) Headline Programme Workstreams are collapsed for V5.2 as dates in review 117 Update constraints/ opportunities Task start and completion dates amended for V6 118 Review land use budget/ capacity Task start and completion dates amended for V6 119 Option for EIA Scoping Task start and completion dates amended for V6 120 Develop options Task start and completion dates amended for V6 121 Evaluate options Task start and completion dates amended for V6 122 Consult on options Task start and completion dates amended for V6 156 Finalise OPA documentation (GVA Programme) indicative dates

164 Devise/Agree viable scheme New task for V6 165 Review funding options and procurement options (see preparation for procurement below) New task for V6 166 Complete landowners agreement New task for V6 167 Respond to the local plan and intrerim IDP statement at Core Strategy Examination inc prep Statement of Common Ground New task for V6 168 Manage costs and budgets for all landowners tasks New task for V6 169 Manage consultants incl tech team New task for V6

Page 5

167

Appendix 3: Overall RAG Report Whitehill Bordon Eco-town - Highlight Report

1 August 2012

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

KEY G

OVERALL PROGRAMME RAG STATUS

AMBER

A

Report Author - Simon Beach

R C

1

Strategic Objectives

2

Last Period

Current RAG

Demonstration Projects Year 2

A

A

Community Projects

G

G

Workstream

WORKSTREAM RAG SUMMARIES

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. The building has been stripped internally and completion has slipped by one month. The target completion date is end of September 2012. There are no significant impacts to budget.

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.

Progressing well and on target to open the Exhibition in October. The Exhibition and events programme for the first term are being finalised. Marketing strategy completed. The opening and events will be advertised.

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 support for the proposals. Negotiations continue towards the sale of land from DIO to HCA Eco-terrace competition To launch a design competition for 3 zero carbon houses.

Legal agreement nearing completion and final comments being addressed. Seminar taken place, sharing lessons from competition held at Building Centre on 22nd June – attended by 100 architects and other built environment professionals.

Exhibition of shortlisted submissions at Building Centre ran from 18th June to 4th August 2012.

Neighbourhood Charter The Neighbourhood Charter was approved by the Delivery Board in June. It was presented at DPP on 13th July for discussion, and then taken to Cabinet to be approved as non-statutory planning guidance.

Completed 12 community projects completed To Complete Green Network Enhancement Ongoing Projects Community Development Worker projects Countryside Ranger Projects Youth Drop In sessions Joint Core Strategy It is submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the representations received.

The Examination will be held in a week commencing on 23rd October 2012 (venue to be confirmed). A pre-hearing meeting will be held on 6 September

Joint Core Strategy and Studies

Delivery

PM UPDATE

G

G

G

G

2012. The Landowners Group and EHDC (as the local planning authority) are drafting ‘Statement of Common Ground’ to resolve previously raised issues by the principal landowner and address any outstanding concerns. It is expected to be submitted to the Inspector in September.

Since the adoption of the masterplan, EHDC has re-evaluated the next steps of planning policy documents preparation and have agreed to prepare a suite of documents to support the implementation of the adopted masterplan (Please refer to the separate report).

Studies Biomass Case Studies draft report submitted for review PwC Phase II report has been completed and recommendations on the procurement and implementation strategy are made to the Delivery Board.

Work continues with GVA Grimley Ltd (GVA) and AMEC and the project team, to undertake an outline planning application (OPA) for the entire site. EHDC has proposed using ‘Planning Performance Agreement’ (PPA) to effectively manage the planning application process. ATLAS are providing support to the EHDC in setting up the PPA process.

EHDC, MoD and HCC working towards a land equalisation agreement EHDC, MoD, HCC working with GVA Grimley and Amec to produce outline planning proposal.

EHDC, ATLAS, MoD working towards Planning Performance Agreement PWC report produced with the project partners and Delivery Board in order to outline delivery vehicle options.

Work towards Quebec Barracks purchase continues between HCA and MoD

RISK

RISK

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

Owner

Workstream Reference & Description

Financial modelling doesn't align with market changes

Ian Parker

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

Daphne Gardner

NEW risks, issues or changes

RISK

RISK

1.) Manage design expectations in line with local housing prices (Reduction) 2.) Options Appraisal/ Value engineering (Reduction) 3.) Identify suitable grants to secure the Eco-town 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

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

Ian Parker

Potential change to relevant policies

Demonstration Projects Year 2

Firestation phase 2 refurbishment and Exhibition Quebec Barracks Purchase

Delivery

Land Equalisation Agreement Formalise planning performance agreement to initiate preparation of the planning application for the whole site.

Daphne Gardner

Demonstration Projects Year 2

G

Key Actions (Sept-Dec)

Core Strategy

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)

Key Actions for next Core Strategy period (Jan-April)

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)

Firestation Exhibition running Quebec Barracks work towards marketing site and planning application.

3 house ecoterrace construction starts.

Louisburg Barracks options appraisal developed

Core Strategy adopted

G

Core Strategy EIP

Delivery

Develop procurement process for outline planning application

G

Next Delivery Board Meeting

168

13th December 2012

Appendix 4: Project Status Report

Whitehill Bordon Project Status Update August 2012

Status

Demonstration Projects 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 HCA are negotiating the purchase of the site.

The Development Principles are to be presented to the Council’s Development Policy Panel on 31 July with the recommendation that subject to any amendments it go to Cabinet for approval as approved as non statutory planning guidance.

The Growing Enterprise Fund applications for bringing Bordon Inclosure forward as a suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANG) and the up-grade of the foul water pipe have been considered by the Enterprise M3 LEP. The foul water pipe project was not successful this time, but the LEP have asked for more information about the SANG project with the possibility that it could be supported. Work to respond to the LEPs queries will be undertaken in the coming period.

In progress

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 4 No. houses under separate PIDS

Project Progress In progress Building work progressing on site. Extension of Time of 41 days granted to contractor for additional works to Eco-station, including new boilers, additional lining to north wing offices, additional lighting to first floor offices and amendments to structural and M&E works.

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.

In progress 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

169

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 In progress Project Progress Development Agreement heading towards final stages. Site boundary agreed between parties and final comments and amendments being made to Agreement

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. Contractor running behind programme but scheduled to complete by 31st Aug.

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 August Standing Conference and September 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 theProgress Low Carbon Communities Challenge.

Project

170

Completed

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 Project Progress • 1st draft of Report and Monitoring Table being prepared • Update provided at 21st June 2012 HRA Working Group meeting • SANG visits completed • Visitor Survey underway • Discussions held with Halcrow on SANG Management work

In Progress

Inward Investment Sector Research Project Description The purpose of the project is to undertake an assessment of inward investment sectors that are relevant to and have potential for the Eco-town’s development opportunities. The work will investigate sectors, examine the infrastructure they require for their operations and how this matches to what is available within the sub-region. It will also propose the most effective way to engage and market to businesses in these sectors with an action plan for promoting the town and the development sites.

In Progress Project Progress • Consultants Campbell Ventures has been appointed to undertake the inward investment sector research. Mike Campbell, MD presented the scope of the project to the May Standing Conference meeting and provided a project progress report in June.

• An interim report was presented to the July Economic Development specialist group and Council’s informal cabinet meetings.

Green Infrastructure Management and Maintenance Project Description The overall aim of this project is to provide a framework for the long-term management and maintenance of green infrastructure within the Eco-town, which complements the work of existing land managers and the formation of a Special Purpose Vehicle for the Eco-town Project. It will lay the foundation for a bespoke management model for green infrastructure, which reflects the Eco-town vision.

Project Progress • 1:1 interviews completed • Meeting held with Halcrow to discuss management options for SANGs • 1st and 2nd drafted shared with Eco-town Team for comment

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 Rail’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).

171

In Progress

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. Draft received by HCC

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 consultation

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 Meeting held with Consultant to feed back comments – Revised Draft under consideration 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

172

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 (Kim Hardwick) has started work on the Project in June 2012 Full 2 year work plan being refined Work on making the business case for an E-Car pilot underway Planning for the Exhibition underway Transport website update for October relaunch

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

173

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 Final draft of report received Review prior to publication

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 Community Development Worker has left the post and work is underway to recruit

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 Bordon’s green spaces/HRA/Biodiversity groups

Eco Pack Project Description First Packs Completed

Project Progress 2 packs produced and distributed

174

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 The large number of original plots throughout the town has been slimmed down to 19 plots. These plots have been selected after sites visits to the plots with most potential and with good knowledge of the plots that will have least resistance/damage and most support from residents.

Although the original number of plots has been reduced, it was also considered that a smaller number of plots to work on as a phased approached to this pan-Bordon project meant that these first phase plot could be used to show a quality project carried out effectively and with the right results and residents appreciation. This phased approach also then helps to best plan tackling the other potential plots in the town Rachel Gorvin (EHDC) to speak with EHDC contractors regarding changes Outline costs for each plot and re-check Budget Available versus Forecasted Costs Speak with Lydia regarding signage. Branding and marketing and costs

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 The Youth Drop Ins which are based both in Lindford and Bordon are running really well. Both are established clubs now with young people looking forward to coming and knowing the set up within them.

Young people have built strong relationships with the staff at each drop in and also their peer group which has increased their self esteem and communication skills.

Young people have a forum at the drop ins to discuss their views and ideas on where they live. They are also given information regarding the eco town which recently included looking at, The Whitehill and Bordon Eco town Masterplan Summary.

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

175

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 Council’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

176

East Hampshire District Council Summary for Whitehill Bordon as at 30th June 2012

Account

177

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 5565PR

R C C C R R C R

5566PR 5567PR 5568PR

R R R

5538PR 5539PR 5540PR

R C R R R R R R C R R R R

5563PR 5564PR

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 Town Transport Manager 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

2011/12 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 7,000 6,503

0 0

0 0 0 71,669 653,669

56,493 775,000

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

0 282,171 237,174 49,833 13,808 23,015 38,489 9,124 8,835 3,368

FY Budget

127,157

0 475,011 229,668 198,317 57,591 360,985 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 69,234 88,220 43,497 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 203,844

70,936 63,137 23,658 32,000 17,437 15,487 576,587 187,362 2,655,091

70,936 31,569 23,600 13,333 0 0 550,000 0 0 226,255 5,752,891

YTD Budget

YTD Actuals Committed

0 118,753 57,417 49,579 14,398 90,246 0 0 1,873 508,969 0 17,791 9,158 0 5,803 39,750 0 3,475 0 0 8,528 1,500 0 5,250 0 0 1,875 0 0 0 22,500 88,884 24,852 17,309 22,055 10,874 0 12,500 12,500 12,500 0 0 50,961 0 17,734 7,892 5,900 3,333 0 0137,500 0 0 56,564 1,438,223

167,199 114,906 1,081 1,224 41,253

1,479 8,724 10,063 1,000

8,648

9,721 17,153 7,461

0 22,319 25,597 3,518 2,401 548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 55,630 32,685 4,069

YTD Remaining Variance Budget

0 0

0 -70,765 -83,086 44,980 10,773 48,445 0 0 1,873 507,490 0 9,067 9,158 0 -4,281 38,750 0 3,475 0 0 -120 1,500 0 5,250 0 0 1,875 0 0 0 22,500 78,909 -13,625 -7,916 17,986 -406 0 7,512 12,500 12,500 0 0 50,961

0 285,493 89,165 193,718 53,966 319,184 0 0 7,490 2,034,397 0 62,441 36,632 0 13,127 158,000 0 13,902 0 0 25,465 6,000 0 21,000 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 90,000 345,561 60,931 44,010 84,151 32,217 0 45,012 50,000 50,000 0 0 203,844

0 0 0 75 147,116

17,734 7,892 5,900 -10,000 0 15,722 4,458 0 0 -12,173 734,840

70,936 31,569 23,600 0 0 15,722 416,958 0 0 157,518 5,049,508

11280 4,988

Total funding needed

653,669 3,831,617 2,655,091 5,752,891 991,974 13,885,242

500,000

190,000

2,378

13333 15,722 133,042

68,662 558,645

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

Proposed 2013/2014 onwards

Forecast

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

9,870,687 2,025,000 633,185 1,020,000 15,487 10,000 310,883 13,885,242

225,000 76,974 0

991,974

Appendix 5: Financial Summary

SUBJECT TO YEAR END AUDIT

Agenda item 17

Items for future Delivery Board meetings th

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 (Green Infrastructure) Design principles for demonstration scheme at Quebec Barracks Risk register (standing item) Traffic and Transport Studies - Traffic management - Walking & cycling - Car parking - Public transport strategy Priorities for improving energy efficiency in existing housing Energy and Water Proposals

th

20 March 2013 √

19 June 2013 √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ (Ideas) √

√ (Strategy)

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ (TBC) √ (TBC)

Consultation strategy

√

Public engagement proposals for the Outline Planning Application Planning policy framework post masterplan Funding strategy

√

Interim governance structure review

√

Infrastructure Investment Plan

th

13 December 2012 √

Inner Relief Road options

Evolution of the governance arrangements A325 Traffic management

th

6 September 2012 √

√ √

√ √ (TBC) √ (TBC)

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 - 178 -