Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment (2009) WCC

Westminster Infrastructure Plan:Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Prepared for:Westminster CityCouncillPrepared by:URS CorporationLimitedNovember200944935320

Westminster Infrastructure Plan:Technical Assessment 2006–2026November 2009Issue No 344935320

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportProject Title:Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanReport Title: Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Project No: 44935320Report Ref:Status:Client Contact Name:Client Company Name:FinalMike Fairmaner, Sara DilmamodeWestminster City CouncilIssued By:Document Production / Approval RecordIssue No:1Name Signature Date PositionPreparedbyAnthony BattenEsther Howe09/11/09 Project ManagersElena Di Biase 09/11/09 Research ConsultantNatalie Thomas 09/11/09 Research ConsultantCheckedandapprovedbyRory Brooke 09/11/09Project DirectorDocument Revision RecordIssue No Date Details of Revisions1 March 2009 Original issue2 October 2009 Revised draft3 November 2009 Final reportNovember 2009

November 2009Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportLIMITATIONURS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Westminster City Councilin accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty,expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any otherservices provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior andexpress written agreement of URS. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments madeassume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significantchange. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon informationprovided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by thoseparties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third parties has not beenindependently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.COPYRIGHT© This Report is the copyright of Westminster City Council.November 2009

November 2009Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportCONTENTSSectionPage NoABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 51. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 231.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 231.2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 231.3. Westminster: Growth and Change ................................................................................. 241.4. Report Structure ............................................................................................................. 282. INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY SCOPE AND APPROACH............................................. 302.1. Desk-Based Research ................................................................................................... 312.2. Consultations .................................................................................................................. 312.3. Modelling ........................................................................................................................ 312.4. Summary of Model Results ............................................................................................ 343. HARD INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 363.1. Electricity ........................................................................................................................ 363.2. Gas ................................................................................................................................. 453.3. Low Carbon Energy ....................................................................................................... 483.4. Telecommunications ...................................................................................................... 613.5. Water .............................................................................................................................. 633.6. Sewers and Sewerage Infrastructure ............................................................................. 663.7. Flood Risk ...................................................................................................................... 753.8. Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 794. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 844.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 844.2. Baseline .......................................................................................................................... 844.3. Forecast Demand ........................................................................................................... 934.4. Planned Investment and Costs ...................................................................................... 984.5. Assessment of Existing Growth Strategies .................................................................. 1035. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 1105.1. Early Years ................................................................................................................... 1105.2. Primary Education ........................................................................................................ 1145.3. Secondary Education ................................................................................................... 1215.4. Adult Learning and Further Education ......................................................................... 1275.5. Higher Education .......................................................................................................... 1345.6. Primary Healthcare....................................................................................................... 1415.7. Secondary Healthcare .................................................................................................. 1475.8. Parks and Open Space ................................................................................................ 150November 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportCONTENTSSectionPage No5.9. Sports and Leisure ....................................................................................................... 1565.10. Libraries ........................................................................................................................ 1615.11. Job Brokerage .............................................................................................................. 1675.12. Cemeteries ................................................................................................................... 1715.13. Community and Faith Facilities .................................................................................... 1745.14. Police ............................................................................................................................ 1805.15. Fire ............................................................................................................................... 1865.16. Ambulance ................................................................................................................... 1906. STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 1936.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1936.2. Development of the Strategy Infrastructure Plan ......................................................... 1936.3. Strategic Infrastructure Plan Explanatory Text ............................................................ 1936.4. Infrastructure Priorities ................................................................................................. 1956.5. Strategic Infrastructure Locations ................................................................................ 1956.6. Infrastructure Costs ...................................................................................................... 1966.7. Delivery and Funding Responsibilities ......................................................................... 1966.8. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 197APPENDIX 1 - TECHNICAL INPUTAPPENDIX 2 - APPROACH AND PARAMETERSAPPENDIX 3 - URS WESTMINSTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODELAPPENDIX 4 - HUDU MODEL APPROACHNovember 2009

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportABBREVIATIONSADPALAMPAMSBHPCBSBSFBTCAZCCAPCCHPCCSCIFCILCLFCLGCHPCPCRTDBERRCLGDCSFDEDDEFRADDADfTDIUSDLRDMAGDPCREAEfWESCOFEFTEFTGARDITGPApproved Document PartAdult LearningAsset Management PlanAsset Management StrategyBarkantine Heat and Power CompanyBritish StandardBuilding Schools for the FutureBritish TelecommunicationsCentral Activities ZoneCentre for Clean Air PolicyCombined Cooling Heat and PowerCongestion Charging SchemeCapital Investment FundCommunity Infrastructure LevyCentral London ForwardDepartment for Communities and Local GovernmentCombined Heat and PowerControl PeriodCross River TramDepartment for Business, Enterprise and RegulatoryReformDepartment for Communities and Local GovernmentDepartment for Children, Schools and FamiliesDecentralised Energy Delivery UnitDepartment of Environment Food and Rural AffairsDisabled Discrimination ActDepartment for TransportDepartment of Innovation, Universities and StudentsDocklands Light RailwayData Management and Analysis GroupDistribution Price Control ReviewEnvironment AgencyEnergy from WasteEnergy Services CompanyFurther EducationFull Time EquivalentsFoundation TrustGeneral Aquifer Research Development andInvestigation TeamGeneral PracticeNovember 2009 Page 1

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportGLAHEHEFCEHEPIHESAHLDUHUDUIPISULATSLBILCCALDALIFTLDFLPALPNLSCLULmMBTMl/dMPAMPSMRFMSWMUSCoNFCDDNHMNHSNLWANROAODPMONSPCTPCP SfCPFIPPP‟sPPSPCSOPVGreater London AuthorityHigher EducationHigher Education Funding Council for EnglandHigher Education Policy InstituteHigher Education Statistics AgencyHigh Level Output StatementHealthy Urban Development UnitIn PatientIntegrated Services UtilitiesLandfill Allowance Trading SchemeLondon Bus InitiativeLondon Climate Change AgencyLondon Development AgencyLocal Improvement Foundation TrustLocal Development FrameworkLondon Planning AuthorityLender Participation NotesLearning and Skills CouncilLondon Underground LtdmillionMechanical Biological Treatmentmillion litres per dayMetropolitan Police AuthorityMetropolitan Police ServiceMaterials Recycling FacilityMunicipal Solid WasteMultiple Utilities Services CompanyNational Flood and Coastal Defence DatabaseNatural History MuseumNational Health ServiceNorth London Waste AuthorityNational RailOpportunity AreaOffice of Deputy Prime MinisterOffice for National StatisticsPrimary Care TrustPrimary Capital Programme Strategy for ChangePrivate Finance InitiativePublic Private PartnershipsPlanning Policy StatementPolice Community Support OfficerPhotovoltaicNovember 2009 Page 2

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportPVIPrivate, Voluntary and IndependentROCsRenewables Obligations Certificates systemRUSRoute Utilisation StrategiesSFRAStrategic Flood Risk assessmentSHAStrategic Health AuthoritySOASSchool of Oriental and African StudiesSPGSupplementary Planning GuidanceSRIFScience Research Investment FundsSSDPStrategic Service Delivery PlanSSSSSub-Regional Strategy Support StudiesSUDSSustainable Urban Drainage SystemsTERTarget Emissions RateTE2100 Thames Estuary 2100TfLTransport for LondonUCLUniversity College LondonUKCMRIUK Centre for Medical Research and InnovationURSURS Corporation LtdVAMVictoria & Albert MuseumWCCWestminster City CouncilWCMLWest Coast Main LineNovember 2009 Page 3

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportNovember 2009 Page 4

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportEXECUTIVE SUMMARYObjectives1. In September 2008 Westminster City Council (WCC) commissioned URS Corporation Ltd (URS)and partners to assess strategic infrastructure needs and to develop a strategic infrastructure planfor its administrative area. This work provides part of the evidence base for WCC‟s emerging LDF.It will also feed into the development of a methodology for the Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL) so WCC is ready, if it wishes, to impose the levy on new developments once the legislationcomes into effect.2. A key driver for this work is the need to deliver the ambitious targets for population andemployment growth in WCC in a sustainable manner, in line with the guidance on infrastructureplanning in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12.Approach3. For utilities („hard‟), transport and social infrastructure areas 1 the study explores current provision.It examines the strategies and plans of providers in terms of the quantum of provision, costs andplanned investment. Existing or potential future gaps in provision are highlighted, as are risks todelivery. Where possible demand and costs are independently modelled to give a comparison withproviders‟ forward strategies. This includes identifying the timing or location of need and provision.4. A summary of the approach to this study is set out in Figure 1 below.Figure 1: Westminster Infrastructure Study, Methodology1 See table at end of the executive summary for a list of all the components of this infrastructure.November 2009 Page 5

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportDemand Framework5. To put our analysis in to context we looked at overall expected growth and the relationship of theinfrastructure assessment exercise to various factors affecting overall scale and distribution ofdemand for services.6. The anticipated changes in population, commercial floorspace and dwellings are summarised inTable 1. These figures are the inputs driving the forecasts of infrastructure demand. Estimatedbaseline figures showing the current position are also provided 2 .Table 1: Baseline and Projected Residential and Commercial GrowthCategory 3ExistingGrowth to2026Growth as %of ExistingPopulation (people) 231,874 25,840 11%Dwellings (units) 117,442 13,600 12%Business/Office Floorspace (Sqm) 5,592,000 1,137,363 20%Retail (Sqm) 2,094,000 441,933 21%Leisure (Sqm) Info not available 105,458 N/a7. Table 1 illustrates that growth over the plan period is significant – representing between around10% to 20% of the baseline situation.8. These figures have been used as an input in to our analysis of infrastructure needs. Howeverthere are a number of caveats to modelling demand for infrastructure according to projectedgrowth in homes and jobs. Relevant points include:There is likely to be significant background growth in demand which is not capturedin our analysis of additional infrastructure requirements. For example within innercity administrative areas such as Westminster there is evidence of increasingintensity of occupation and use of existing development: household sizes appear tobe increasing for the first time in years; vacant space is being brought back intouse; and other space is being used more intensively than previously.There is a changing nature of demand and provision. London is becoming a 24hour city and uses are becoming increasingly intensified in response to changingtechnology and lack of space. This requires new thinking about the relationshipbetween development and the spatial and financial outcomes of the resultingdemand for infrastructure.2 For a full discussion of the methodology adopted to arrive at these figures please refer to the „WestminsterInfrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026, Draft Report‟, which accompanies this Summary Report,Section 1.3.3 Baseline figures are sourced as follows: Population: ONS, 2007; Dwellings: ONS 2006; Business / OfficeFloorspace: ONS, 2007; Retail Floorspace: ONS, 2007.November 2009 Page 6

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThere is particular uncertainty over the modelling of future demand for energy andwater. Forecasts need to take account of government policy which promotes moresustainable living and therefore a potential reduction in per capita usage. However,historically usage has increased year on year, and there is as yet no clear evidencethat government policy will counter this.9. In planning infrastructure for growth it is often relevant to consider the location of growth andrelative issues of growth in different locations. In the context of this exercise the spatial distributionof growth is less relevant. This is because Westminster is a dense urban area in the middle of thewider urban area of London and although planned growth is significant it is relatively dispersed ona large number of development opportunities each of which forms a small element of overallprovision. In this context, a consideration of overall development levels is more relevant tostrategic infrastructure requirements than consideration of particular sites or discrete geographicalareas. While there are some specific issues associated with Opportunity Areas, which are coveredbelow, the focus of our analysis is on overall needs and strategic planning.Existing Information, Strategy and Planned Investment10. Through our research and stakeholder consultation we sought to establish the degree to whichproviders themselves had forecast demand associated with new growth, and planned for it. Thisexercise proved difficult because of gaps in provider strategy and information. Reasons for theseissues include:Strategic planning requirements and priorities for service providers do not matchwith the LDF Core Strategy. The LDF Core Strategy process considers growth andinfrastructure requirements typically over a 20 year planning period. For manyinfrastructure providers development strategy and funding on such timescales is notmeaningful or necessary.There is little incentive for some service providers to engage in the LDF CoreStrategy planning process. For example electricity, gas and water utilities providerstend to plan local infrastructure on a reactive basis that subsequently can becharged to third parties. They have little reason to plan more strategically.The regulatory environment encouraging competition may discourage/prevent coordinatedstrategic planning.Some providers are behind schedule/disorganised in their strategy planningexercises. For example the London Strategic Health Authority appears to have littleinformation on planned investment in secondary healthcare.11. In summary for the following infrastructure types providers‟ strategy and information were well orat least reasonably developed in a format which related well to our demand forecasts:TransportPrimary and secondary educationNovember 2009 Page 7

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportLibrariesParks, sports and leisure.12. For the following infrastructure types strategic infrastructure plans do not exist and/or detailedinformation to feed into the strategic infrastructure planning exercise was not available:Gas, electricity, water, sewerage and telecommunicationsEarly years education and child careFurther education and adult learningPrimary and secondary healthcareEmergency services (police, fire, ambulance)Community and faith facilities, job brokerage, burials.13. A more detailed analysis of service providers‟ plans is given in Table 4 at the end of this executivesummary. This outlines the adequacy of the providers‟ planning documents and processes in thecontext of identified LDF growth. It can be seen that in most cases providers‟ estimates of forecastdemand were not available.URS Assessment of Demand14. To provide an independent assessment of the likely demand associated with planned growth inWestminster we modelled the requirements for various infrastructures to 2026. It was notmeaningful or feasible to quantify demand for all infrastructures, and the scope of the exercisewas necessarily broad brush and strategic. The outcomes provide an estimate of the scale oflikely future requirements and were tested with providers where possible.15. Table 2 sets out the estimates of quantum of demand for various infrastructures derived from theURS modelling exercise. (The HUDU model was used for primary and secondary healthcare). Ourestimates of infrastructure demand were compared with those of the infrastructure providerswhere possible, as shown in Table 2. Where providers‟ forecasts were available or investmentplans were in place, they sometimes mirrored our own forecasts (e.g. libraries, indoor sportsspace, secondary schools). Elsewhere they were different, for example WCC forecast much lessdemand for additional primary school places than our model.16. With regard to utilities, in our model we have taken a pragmatic, worst case scenario which drawson strategic / design standards used currently by utilities companies. Ultimately, this pointemphasises the significance of meeting demand for energy and water through low carbonrenewable sources, and these issues are examined in a separate section within the report.November 2009 Page 8

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 2: Projected Requirements for Strategic Infrastructure 2006 – 2026 (Indicative estimate of worst case scenario)Infrastructure Theme Infrastructure Item Total Requirement Spatial RequirementsTotal CapitalCost (£)*Education Early Years 1,895 Places 6,601 Sqm 26,530,586Primary Education 1,857 Places 11,787 Sqm 26,002,859Secondary Education 915 Places 8,576 Sqm 21,509,483Further Education and Adult Learning 2,243 Places 22,434 Sqm 56,084,757Health GP and Primary Care Services 15 GP and Primary Care Services 2,525 Sqm 13,890,175Sports, Leisure andRecreationAcute and Mental Care 72 Acute and Mental Beds 3,478 Sqm 22,766,541Intermediate Care 30 Intermediate Beds and Day Spaces 1,728 Sqm 10,628,496Health Stations 614 Health Stations 3,068 Sqm 21,476,606Sports Halls N/a 2,039 Sqm 4,077,366Swimming Pools N/a 1,669 Sqm 10,979,404Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a 55 Ha 7,439,539Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 Spaces 34,966 Sqm 6,974,990Playable Space - Local (5-11) 68 Spaces 20,267 Sqm 4,042,841Playable Space - Youth (12-17) 89 Spaces 17,726 Sqm 3,536,041Parks N/a 78 Ha 36,209,539Community and Other Libraries N/a 1,446 Sqm 4,338,838Community Centres N/a - Sqm 0Faith Facilities N/a - Sqm 0Job Brokerage 7 Staff 127 Sqm 210,357Burials N/a 0.4 Ha 134,148Utilities Electricity 150,740 kVA N/a N/aGas 12,498 m3/Hour N/a N/aWater 13,163,847 Litres/Day N/a N/aSewerage 21,179,897 Litres/Day N/a N/aTotal 276,832,566*This includes construction costs only. **Worst-case scenario of requirement only. See Section 5.2 for details of approach and assessment.November 2009 Page 9

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructure Priorities17. Below the assessment is summarised under the headings „critical‟ and „significant‟. The groupingstake account of whether each infrastructure item is critical to ensuring development, and theimplications of not providing it. Works required to bring existing infrastructure up to standard, or tomeet existing deficits in provision, are considered as well as increased pressure associated withnew population and commercial growth.18. The report also lays out, where possible, when and where the infrastructure is required, who isresponsible for delivery and funding, and potential costs as identified by the provider and/or byURS. These dimensions of the analysis inform and add detail to the assessment of infrastructurepriority.Critical Priority Infrastructure Items19. The critical priority infrastructure items are those that are definitely required over the plan periodso as to enable anticipated development to take place. Without adequate provision of these itemsthere is a major risk that residential and commercial growth cannot continue beyond certainthresholds.20. The relevant infrastructure items include:Significant Infrastructure ItemsElectricity and water supply, including capacity increases and enhancements.Details on the location and extent of the enhancements required are not availabledue to the lack of thorough information on the baseline conditions of the network inWestminster.Transport improvements, covering schemes focused on congestion relief andproviding capacity increases, including improved accessibility and/or stationcongestion schemes at Paddington, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Maryleboneand Charing Cross underground stations, as well as rail stations capacityexpansions.Sewerage capacity increases and improvements, including new and refurbishedsewage pumping stations, particularly at: the northern end of Whitehall; TrafalgarSquare; Chippenham Road; and Westbourne Grove.Flood mitigation, including flood defence investigation and repair of the flooddefence wall at Millbank, and the Thames Tideway scheme.21. The items listed below will certainly be required if development is to take place sustainably.However, lack of these items is less likely to prevent development taking place in the short term.Provision might be successfully made at a later stage in the development process. Therequirement for some of the items is likely to arise from policy more than from other drivers, in theshort term at least.November 2009 Page 10

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report22. In general, these items cover:Gas – failure to meet requirement would constitute a potential showstopper fordevelopment. However, consultation with National Grid suggests that the network islikely to have sufficient capacity to meet Westminster‟s projected residential andpopulation growth up to 2026. No detailed information was made available byNational Grid in terms of potential hotspots where additional demand may result inexcessive pressure on the network.Waste management facilities – these are unlikely to be critical to enablingdevelopment and growth to take place, though under-provision has the potential tothreaten the sustainability of development in the longer term. The main driver ofwaste management is the landfill target up to 2016 and the financial implications forWCC of not meeting these targets.Telecommunications improvements – BT have confirmed that although existinginfrastructure would not be sufficient to cope with forecast levels of development,the rapidly advancing level of technology, including implementation of fibre opticcables across the wider system, implies that there would be more than adequatecapacity within the network to cope with demand in advance of any developmentthresholds being met.Sustainable energy initiatives – again, lack of sustainable energy solutions isunlikely to be a showstopper in the short to medium term, though the longer term,wider implications for sustainable development are highly significant. Areas wherefurther analysis may confirm the opportunity to introduce CHP schemes include:Queen‟s Park; Marylebone; Soho; Paddington; Tottenham Court Road; Victoria;and the Imperial College area.Local transport improvements, covering accessibility improvements, public realmenhancements and promotion of healthy travel options including town centreschemes at: Leicester Square; Oxford Street; Praed Street; Harrow Road; andMarylebone High Street.Social infrastructure – as population is the major driver of demand for socialinfrastructure additional requirements are likely to be concentrated in Westminster‟sOpportunity Areas. There are planned increased in provision social infrastructure inPaddington and Victoria. Additional demand will however add pressure throughoutWestminster, including for adult learning facilities, parks and open space(particularly in the north of Westminster), library space (at present there areplanned extensions at Church Street, Marylebone and St John‟s Wood) andcommunity and faith facilities (particularly in the north of Westminster).November 2009 Page 11

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportGeographical Distribution of Growth and Opportunities23. Growth is likely to be concentrated in certain parts of the City of Westminster. The London Plan(2008) and the emerging Westminster LDF refer to three Opportunity Areas where jobs,population and associated infrastructure demand are likely to be greatest. While the URSWestminster infrastructure model did not explicitly model growth and requirements according tothese Opportunity Areas, particular needs were identified as shown in Table 3.Table 3: Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Infrastructure RequirementsOAForecastJobs 4Identified Schemes / RequirementsPaddington 23,200 At Paddington underground station: Station Congestion SchemeRedevelopment of Westminster CollegeParks and playable spacesPotential works at Paddington Green Police StationExpansion of Paddington Children‟s libraryOpportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required)Victoria 8,000 At Victoria underground station: improved accessibility, StationCongestion SchemeTottenham CourtRoadOther locationsAt Victoria rail station: Integrated Kent Franchise scheme, Brighton andSussex trains, Major Stations programmeParks and playable spacesExpansion of Victoria and Pimlico library facilitiesOpportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required)2,000 5 At Tottenham Court Road underground station: Station CongestionSchemeParks and playable spacesOpportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required)At Church Street, Marylebone and St John‟s Wood: Expansion oflibrary facilitiesAt Queen‟s Park, Marylebone, Soho, and Imperial College: Opportunityto introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Paddington,Tottenham Court Road, Victoria4 London Plan 20085 Approximately 60% of the Tottenham Court Road opportunity area falls within LB Camden‟s boundaries, so thatout of the total 5,000 jobs that the area is expected to generate only 40% will be in Westminster.November 2009 Page 12

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportNext Steps and RecommendationsRecommendations on Infrastructure Planning and Engagement24. A key finding was the lack of information and strategy on the part of many infrastructure providers.This presents a serious risk to the delivery of sustainable growth, and makes the formulation of arobust LDF which reflects future infrastructure requirements challenging. We recommendpresenting this report to CLG (and potentially other sponsor departments) and holding discussionswith these organisations in order to raise awareness of, and seek solutions to, this issue.25. We recommend carrying out a separate study looking at setting up mechanisms to improvestrategic infrastructure planning and assessment. Such mechanisms might include a new unit totake on this task, or new requirements through the regulatory frameworks. The study would needto involve discussions with regulators, providers, CLG and other stakeholders so that the currentplanning processes and their complexities (relationship with competition rules, for examples) canbe properly understood and addressed.26. Relevant providers should be lobbied to enter in to the strategic planning process and engage withthe local authorities. This point is especially applicable to the utilities providers, as theseinfrastructure items are of critical importance to the delivery of sustainable growth, noting thatproviders and their regulatory systems are not conducive to engagement and joined up planning.27. WCC should also progress its agenda to meet future energy demand through sustainable energygeneration and move to a zero carbon energy supply. This could include building on theopportunities identified within this report for connectivity at the local and cross-boundary level;pushing forward programmes for low carbon energy production; establishment of new partnershipmanagement arrangements between water, waste (liquid and solid), telecoms, power, heat andcooling suppliers to determine feasibility of Multiple Utilities Services Companies and developmentof sustainable policies which promote renewable energy sources and reduced energyconsumption.Recommendations on CIL and Funding28. This report provides a sound basis for further work to assess the appropriateness of CIL in aWestminster context.November 2009 Page 13

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 4: Strategic Planning for InfrastructureInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageElectricity EDF No strategic plan forelectricity infrastructure ispublicly available.Adequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsNot available and insufficientinformation.No Westminster specific planexists or has been madepublicly available.Gas National Grid No strategic plan for gasinfrastructure is publiclyavailable.Not available and insufficientinformation.No Westminster specific planexists or has been madepublicly available.Water Thames Water „Draft Water ResourcesManagement Plan, 2010-2035‟ (2008)Extends over 25 years.Covers the entire ThamesWater region area.No Westminster specific planexists or has been madepublicly available.The plan extends beyond theLDF planning period.However, the plan does notprovide detailed information onbaseline or future demand orsupply at the Westminsterlevel.The document is not entirely ina format that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.November 2009 Page 14

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageSewerage Thames Water „Five Year Plan from 2010 to2015‟ (2008)Extends over 5 years.Covers the entire ThamesWater region area.„Taking Care of Water: Thenext 25 Years, 2010/2025‟(2008)Extends over 25 years.Covers the entire ThamesWater region area.Adequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsThe plans extend over five and25 years respectively.However, neither plan providesdetailed baseline or futuredemand or supply at theWestminster level.The document is not entirely ina format that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.No Westminster specific planexists or has been madepublicly available.Flood risk WCC „Draft Strategic Flood RiskAssessment‟ (2008)Covers the Westminsterarea.„Five Year Plan from 2010 to2015‟ (2008)Extends over 5 years.Covers the entire ThamesWater region area.„Taking Care of Water: Thenext 25 Years, 2010/2025‟(2008)Extends over 25 years.Covers the entire ThamesWater region area.Thames Water plans extendover five and 25 yearsrespectively. TheEnvironmental Agency (EA) isalso preparing a tidal flood riskmanagement plan for theThames estuary though to theend of the century.Whilst the EA plan is still beingfinalised, neither of ThamesWater plans provides detailedbaseline or future sewerflooding issues at theWestminster level.The available documents areonly partially in a format thatreadily lends itself totranslation into this study andthe requirements of PPS12.November 2009 Page 15

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageAdequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsWastemanagementWCC„Westminster MunicipalWaste Management StrategyImplementation Programme2004-2012‟ (2004).Extends over eight years.The programme only extendsover eight years up to 2012and the strategy does notconsider capacity or facilitiesdevelopment matters.Covers the Westminsterarea.The document is only partiallyin a format that readily lendsitself to translation into thisstudy and the requirements ofPPS12.TransportTransport forLondon (TfL)WCC„TfL Business Plan 2009/10 –2017/18‟Extends over 10 years.Covers the Greater Londonarea.„TfLTransport 2025:Transport Vision for aGrowing World City‟ (2006)The suite of strategicdocuments prepared both atthe Greater London andWestminster level is generallyadequate to assess theimplication of additionaldemand for transportinfrastructure arising fromprojected growth up to 2026.Generally over 20 years.Covers the Greater Londonarea.„WCC Local ImplementationPlan‟Extends over four years.Covers the Greater Londonarea.Early Years andPrimaryeducationWCC„Primary Strategy for Change‟Published June 2008,extends up to 2013.Covers the Westminsterarea.As the document identifiesfuture needs arising fromprojected growth up to 2013only, it is not in a format thatreadily lends itself totranslation into this study andthe requirements of PPS12.November 2009 Page 16

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageAdequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsSecondaryeducationWCC„WCC Building Schools forthe Future‟Generally extends over 10years.Covers the Westminsterarea.Whilst some information on theplanned schemes is availablefrom WCC‟s website, nocomprehensive BSF documenthas been available for reviewat the time of writing.Therefore no comment can bemade on its adequacy to planfor additional secondaryeducation needs arising fromnew growth in Westminster upto 2026.FurtherEducation andAdult LearningLearning andSkills Council„LSC London StrategicAnalysis‟ (2007)Extends over one year.Covers the Greater Londonarea.The London „LSC BuildingColleges for the Future‟ hasnot been made available forreview.Extends over one year.Covers the Greater Londonarea.No detailed information isavailable at the Westminsterlevel on current or planneddemand and supply for FE andAL facilities overall, althoughsome individual providers haveestates strategies in place (e.g.Westminster Adult EducationService).Therefore the availabledocuments are not in a formatthat readily lends itself totranslation into this study andthe requirements of PPS12.HigherEducationHigher EducationFunding Councilfor England(HEFCE)„Strategic Plan 2006-2011‟(2008)Extends over five years.Covers the entire Englandarea.No detailed information isavailable at the Westminsterlevel on current or planneddemand and supply for HEfacilities. Also, the individualuniversities‟ estates strategiesdo not adequately quantify theextent of future needs and thelikely financial requirements.Insufficient information isavailable in the HEFCE plan toplan for additional demandsarising from projected growthup to 2026.November 2009 Page 17

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageAdequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsPrimaryhealthcareWestminster PCT„Westminster PCT StrategicService Development Plan2008-2013‟ (2008)Extends over five years.Covers the Westminsterarea.„Westminster PCT EstatesStrategy 2008-2013‟ (2008)Extends over five years.Covers the Westminsterarea.Neither plan goes beyond2013.Both plans are focused onstrategy and issues in currentprovision rather than planningfor needs arising from newgrowth.The documents are not in aformat that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.SecondaryhealthcareLondon StrategicHealth Authority„NHS London Strategic Plan‟(2008)Neither plan goes beyond2013.Westminster PCTExtends over five years.Covers the Greater Londonarea.Neither of the plans providesdetailed baseline of projecteddemand or supply information.„Westminster PCT StrategicService Development Plan2008-2013‟ (2008)Neither plan is focused onplanning for needs arising fromnew growth.Extends over five years.Covers the Westminsterarea.The documents are not in aformat that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.Health stations WCC „Active Westminster: SportSports hallsand Physical Activity Strategy2008-2013‟ (2008)Swimming poolsOutdoor sportsfacilitiesExtends over five years.Covers the Westminsterarea.„City of Westminster OpenSpace Strategy‟ (2007)The timeframe of the strategyis unclear.Covers the Westminsterarea.The Sport and Physical ActivityStrategy and Open SpaceStrategy provides baselineinformation, but no quantitativeevidence of analysis of futuredemand arising from growth.The documents are not in aformat that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.November 2009 Page 18

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageAdequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsPlayable space– doorstops,local and youthWCC„Westminster Play Strategy2005-2009‟ (2005).Extends over five years.Covers the Westminsterarea.„City of Westminster OpenSpace Strategy‟ (2007).The timeframe of the strategyis unclear.Covers the Westminsterarea.The Play Strategy extends onlyover five years, and thetimeframe of the Open SpaceStrategy timeline is unclear.Neither provide quantitativeevidence of analysis of futuredemand arising from growth.The documents are not in aformat that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.Parks WCC „City of Westminster OpenSpace Strategy‟ (2007)The timeframe of the strategyis unclear.Covers the Westminsterarea.Libraries WCC „Westminster 2008/09Libraries, Archives, Arts andCulture Business Plan‟ (Cityof Westminster, 2008)The document does notprovide detailed baseline ofprojected demand or supply,only briefly discussingpopulation growth up to 2016.The document is not in aformat that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.Identifies planned provisionand costs up to 2012.Does not provide detailedbaseline information onadequacy of supply, norprojections of future demandand associated infrastructureneeds.The document is not in aformat that readily lends itselfto translation into this studyand the requirements ofPPS12.Burials WCC No strategic plan for burialsexists.Not available.November 2009 Page 19

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageAdequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsCommunity andfaith facilitiesWCCA variety ofvoluntary andcommunity sectorprovidersNo strategic plan forcommunity or faith facilitiesexists.Not available.Job brokerageWCCDWPNo strategic plan for jobbrokerage exists.Not available.PoliceMetropolitanPoliceMetropolitanPolice Authority„Asset Management Plan,Westminster‟ (2007)Extends over three years.Covers the Westminsterarea.The Asset Management planillustrates proposed works upto 2010, whilst the PolicingLondon business plan providescapital funding allocations upto 2012, and then up to 2015.„Policing London 2008-2011Business Plan‟ (2008)Extends over three years(capital funding is estimatedup to 2015).Covers the Greater Londonarea.Neither of the documentsprovides detailed baselineinformation on adequacy ofsupply, nor projections offuture demand and associatedinfrastructure needs.The available documents arenot in a format that readilylends itself to translation intothis study and therequirements of PPS12.November 2009 Page 20

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureItemInfrastructureProvider/ResponsibleAgencyRelevant StrategicPlanningProcess/DocumentsTimeframeGeographical CoverageAdequacy of StrategicPlanningProcess/Document forProjected LDF GrowthsFireLondon Fire andEmergencyPlanning Authority„Westminster BoroughProfile‟ (2007)Extends over three years.The timeline for the documentsis generally shorter than theLDF planning period.Covers the Westminsterarea.„London Fire Brigade FireSafety Plan‟ (2008)Extends over three years.Covers the Greater Londonarea.„London Fire Brigade DraftAsset Management PropertyPlan‟ (2008)Extends over 15 yearsCovers the Greater Londonarea.None of the availabledocuments providesWestminster specific detailedbaseline information onadequacy of supply. Also thedocuments do not includeprojections of future demandand associated infrastructureneeds at the Westminsterlevel.The available documents arenot in a format that readilylends itself to translation intothis study and therequirements of PPS12AmbulanceNHS LondonAmbulanceServices„London Ambulance ServiceNHS Trust Strategic Plan‟(2007)Extends over five years.Covers the Greater Londonarea.The plan only covers theperiod up to 2013.The plan does not provideWestminster specific detailedbaseline information onadequacy of supply. Also thedocument does not includeprojections of future demandand associated infrastructureneeds at the Westminsterlevel.The plan is not in a format thatreadily lends itself totranslation into this study andthe requirements of PPS12November 2009 Page 21

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportNovember 2009 Page 22

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report1. INTRODUCTION1.1. IntroductionIn September 2008 Westminster City Council (WCC) commissioned URS Corporation Ltd(URS), in association with partnering sub contractors 6 , to assess its strategicinfrastructure needs and to develop a strategic infrastructure plan for its administrativearea.This work will subsequently feed into the development of a methodology for theCommunity Infrastructure Levy (CIL) so WCC is ready, if it wishes, to impose the levy onnew developments once the legislation comes into effect.This work expands upon the results of the parallel study being undertaken by URS andpartners for Central London Forward (CLF) 7 to assess the infrastructure needs of CentralLondon for the next 15-20 years, to coincide with the time horizon of the LocalDevelopment Framework (LDF) Core Strategy in a manner that enables boroughs toreflect these needs in their individual LDF Core Strategies.1.2. ObjectivesThe project brief identifies the key objectives as being:To assess and provide a report on the infrastructure needs of the City ofWestminster for the next 15-20 years, to coincide with the time horizon of the LDFCore Strategy.To prepare a strategic infrastructure plan for the City of Westminster to set out howthis infrastructure should be provided, by whom and with indicative costs.Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Local Spatial Planning requires planning authoritiesto place infrastructure planning at the heart of the planning process. It states that theCore Strategy should be supported by evidence of physical and social infrastructurerequirements and advocates a strategic, collaborative and comprehensive approach tothe forward planning of infrastructure. The implementation of the CIL also implies theneed for quantitative and robust analysis of infrastructure requirements, costs anddelivery mechanisms.A key driver for this work is the need to deliver the ambitious targets for population andemployment growth in WCC in a sustainable manner. For various infrastructure areas,the study explores current demand and provision. It then examines the forecasts and6 The study team being headed by URS comprises Davis Langdon (costings), Integrated Services & UtilitiesLimited (utilities), Linklaters (planning law), Montagu Evans (property) and Steer Davis Gleave (transportation).7 Central London Forward is a cross-sectoral partnership led by City of London, LB Camden, LB Islington, theRoyal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, LB Southwark and Westminster City Council.November 2009 Page 23

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportplans of providers in terms of the quantum of provision, costs and planned investment. Inthis way, existing or potential future gaps in provision are highlighted, as are risks todelivery. Where possible, we independently model the demand for infrastructure andassociated costs for the 2006-2026 planning period, so as to allow an assessment of theadequacy of providers‟ forward strategies, and to provide an estimate of future demandand costs where none is yet available. This includes identifying the timing or location ofneed and provision where possible. All costs are 2009 prices.In this way, implications for the planning activities of WCC and other delivery partners areidentified. The Strategic Infrastructure Plan is also a key step in the development of amethodology for the CIL and WCC‟s first Annual Investment Plan to set out how the levywill be spent.1.3. Westminster: Growth and ChangeAs of 2007, there were just over 117,000 dwellings in Westminster, with a daytimepopulation of over one million adding pressure to the demand for services arising from itsusual residents 8 . There is also over 5.6 million sqm of office space with a further 2 millionsqm of retail space 9 . Westminster now accommodates 14% of all Greater London jobs 10 ,predominantly in the service sector, the finance, IT and other business activities sectorand the distribution, hotel and accommodation sector.Westminster is also however host to some of the most deprived areas in the country; fourof its wards, concentrated in the north west of Westminster, are within the 20% mostdeprived in the country. Westminster‟s success is also challenged by problems of roadsafety and crime and the fear of crime.WCC has consulted on its LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options and the final LDF CoreStrategy will be adopted in 2010. The emerging LDF Core Strategy sets out the planningframework to address the problems currently facing the Westminster and to deliverWestminster‟s spatial vision for the future, and highlights key challenges arising fromgrowth.Up to 2026 Westminster will experience considerable growth in housing and population.Significant growth is also forecast for commercial/employment, retail, leisure and otheruses. Based on our analysis the City of Westminster forecasts suggest an additional13,600 dwellings by 2026 and the development of 1.4 million sqm of business/officefloorspace. There is also an expected increase in both leisure and retail floorspace by2026, with an additional 105,458 sqm and 441,933 sqm of floorspace respectively.8 „Westminster Core Strategy Preferred Options‟, (City of Westminster, July 2008)9 Valuation Office Agency data, 2005, Net Internal Area, ONS, 2007. Westminster City Council estimates 7.5 msqm for office and 1.7 m sqm for retail in CAZ alone.10 ONS, 2009November 2009 Page 24

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportResidential GrowthThe London Plan 11 sets a target for the City of Westminster to provide 680 dwellings perannum between 2007/08 and 2016/17. Whilst a London wide assessment to identifyhousing capacity and needs up to 2026 is underway, there is currently transition periodwhere no formal target applies. To help address this issue, which potentially leaves localauthorities‟ Core Strategies open to challenge, the Government Office for London and theGLA have issued a statement suggesting that London authorities should roll forward theLondon Plan annual target (i.e. 680 p.a. for City of Westminster) up to 2026 as anindicative figure 12 .For the purpose of this Infrastructure Study we have rolled forward the current LondonPlan housing target up to 2026 to provide an indication of the extent of dwelling growth inWestminster. This results in a total of 13,600 additional dwellings distributed acrossWestminster, including the three opportunity areas (Paddington, Victoria, TottenhamCourt Road).Based on the expected growth in dwellings we estimate Westminster will see a growth inresident population of approximately 26,000 people as a result of new development.Figure 1-1 presents the projected additional population. Section 2.3 sets out in greaterdetail the methodology that informed this analysis.The City of Westminster has now prepared a housing trajectory as part of their CoreStrategy. It shows that as a minimum, an average of 680 new homes will be deliveredannually within Westminster up to 2011 when the new borough target is expected to bepublished in the London Plan. Rolling the London Plan figures forward it shows there isthe capacity to achieve 13,600 within the Core Strategy time frame, though there is a highreliance on windfall sites. It is anticipated that housing delivery will slow in the later planperiod as the number of larger available sites diminishes.11 „The London Plan, Consolidated with Alterations since 2004‟ (GLA, 2008)12 „Addressing PPS3 requirements for a 15-year housing land supply (Interim Approach)‟ (Government Office forLondon, GLA, 2008).November 2009 Page 25

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 1-1: Housing and Population Projections in Westminster Associated withNew Development, ‘000s, 2006-2026 13Westminster City Council0 5 10 15 20 25 30Resident PopulationNumber of DwellingsSource: URS analysisCommercial GrowthSignificant growth is also forecast for commercial space - that is retail, leisure andbusiness/offices. Figure 1-2 below sets out forecast development growth across thestudy area, which total an additional 1,137,363 sqm (GIA) of business, 441,933 sqm(GIA) of retail and 105,458 sqm (GIA) of leisure floorspace (Section 2.3 below elaboratesupon our methodology for collating such information and its limitations).13 As noted above, this is based on housing trajectory rates as discussed as opposed to the GLA‟s populationprojections. See Section 2 for further details.November 2009 Page 26

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 1-2: Commercial Floorspace Projections Associated with New Development,‘000s, 2006-2026 14Westminster City Council0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200Leisure Retail BusinessSource: URS analysisGeographical Distribution of Growth and OpportunitiesGrowth is likely to be concentrated in certain parts of Westminster. The London Plan(2008) and the emerging Westminster LDF Core Strategy refer to three OpportunityAreas where jobs, population and associated infrastructure demand are likely to begreatest. While the URS Westminster infrastructure model did not explicitly model growthand requirements according to these Opportunity Areas, particular needs were identifiedas fully illustrated in shown in Table 3.Table 1-1: Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Infrastructure RequirementsOAForecastJobs 15Identified Schemes / RequirementsPaddington 23,200 At Paddington underground station: Station Congestion SchemeRedevelopment of Westminster CollegeParks and playable spacesPotential works at Paddington Green Police StationExpansion of Paddington Children‟s libraryOpportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required)Victoria 8,000 At Victoria underground station: improved accessibility, Station CongestionScheme14 Additional Floorspace, Gross Internal.15 „The London Plan, Consolidated with Alterations since 2004‟ (GLA, 2008)November 2009 Page 27

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportOATottenhamCourtRoadOtherlocationsForecastJobs 15Source: URS analysis1.4. Report StructureIdentified Schemes / RequirementsAt Victoria rail station: Integrated Kent Franchise scheme, Brighton and Sussextrains, Major Stations programmeParks and playable spacesExpansion of Victoria and Pimlico library facilitiesOpportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required)2,000 16 At Tottenham Court Road underground station: Station Congestion SchemeParks and playable spacesOpportunity to introduce CHP schemes (further analysis required)At Church Street, Marylebone and St John‟s Wood: Expansion of library facilitiesAt Queen‟s Park, Marylebone, Soho, and Imperial College: Opportunity tointroduce CHP schemes (further analysis required) Paddington, TottenhamCourt Road, VictoriaThe remainder of this report is structured as follows:Section 2 sets out the approach that informed the study.Sections 3 to 6 set out the consultants‟ research findings in relation to each of theinfrastructure needs assessments. Section 3 covers energy (electricity, gas and lowcarbon sources); telecommunication; water and sewerage; flood risk and wastemanagement. Section 4 covers transport. Finally Section 5 covers social infrastructure,including: pre-school, primary and secondary education; further education and adultlearning; higher education; primary and secondary healthcare; indoor and outdoor sports,leisure and recreation facilities; community facilities and other social infrastructure; andemergency services. Conclusions and infrastructure priorities are identified wherepossible at the end of each section.Section 6 summarises infrastructure quantums, costs and relative priorities wherepossible and identifies how, when, where infrastructure should come forward in the formof a strategic infrastructure plan for Westminster.Appendix 1 outlines how different parts of this Strategic Infrastructure Plan were coveredby different parts of the of the consultants‟ team.Appendix 2 sets out the approach and parameters of the analysis for each of theinfrastructure areas, and the sources of information and details on the URS WestminsterInfrastructure Model that has been used to assess the impact that projected growth inresidential and non-residential land uses are likely to have on social infrastructure andutilities.16 Approximately 60% of the Tottenham Court Road opportunity area falls within Camden‟s boundaries, so thatout of the total 5,000 jobs that the area is expected to generate only 40% will be in Westminster.November 2009 Page 28

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportAppendix 3 presents URS‟ Westminster Infrastructure Model.Appendix 4 sets out the main assumptions of the HUDU model, which has been used toassess the impact that projected growth in residential uses is likely to have on primaryand secondary healthcare in the study area.November 2009 Page 29

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report2. INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY SCOPE AND APPROACHIn terms of the approach to the analysis a common framework for the research has beenfollowed so as to ensure consistent reporting across the infrastructure areas. Theresearch framework covers the following areas of analysis:Defining parameters of the work, based on professional experience, review ofrelevant available information and consultation with stakeholdersReview of policy framework, business plans and previous studies undertakenAnalysis of current supply and baseline situationEstimate of projected demand and issues (including a critique of how the demandfor infrastructure has been projected)Identification of planned investment and costs, based on publicly availabledocuments, consultation and URS Infrastructure modelIdentification of gapsSummary, including commentary on priorities going forward.Figure 2-1 below sets out the Westminster Infrastructure Study methodology. The fulldetail on the scope of each area of analysis is set out in Appendix 2.Figure 2-1: Westminster Infrastructure Study, MethodologyNovember 2009 Page 30

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe key steps in the research and analysis, and any associated limitations of theapproach, are described below.2.1. Desk-Based ResearchIn order to establish the parameters of the infrastructure study and to execute theassessment, we reviewed a range of WCC strategies, evidence-base and policydocuments, and service provider business plans and forward strategies which werepublicly available or sourced through consultation. A full list of the information sources ispresented in Appendix 2 for each of the infrastructure areas.2.2. ConsultationsWe contacted service providers, including WCC departments and external organisations,by telephone to source relevant data and information. Contacts were made both byphone and email – details of stakeholders who were successfully or unsuccessfullycontacted are presented in the assessment subsections for each infrastructure area.Furthermore, Steer Davies Gleeve met in person with organisations such as Transport forLondon and ISU met in person with utilities providers 17 .In addition, a seminar was held on 23rd Jan 2009 to which key stakeholders from WCCwere invited to discuss the approach adopted to the analysis as well as the keyassumptions underpinning the study.2.3. ModellingWhere possible, we independently modelled demand for infrastructure and theassociated requirements and costs between 2006 and 2026 based on developmentgrowth projections for different uses. The modelling exercise covered most of socialinfrastructure areas, including: pre-school, primary and secondary education; furthereducation and adult learning; primary and secondary healthcare; indoor and outdoorsports, leisure and recreation facilities; community facilities and other socialinfrastructure.We also modelled additional demand for utilities, namely water, sewerage, gas andelectricity to enable comparison with and assessment of providers‟ growth strategies.The starting point for this URS Infrastructure Model is the estimate of growth in residentialand commercial floorspace between 2006 and 2026. The growth projections were refinedand agreed with WCC to ensure their consistency with evidence submitted as part of theLDF process.17 EDF, National Grid; unsuccessful attempts were made to establish meetings with BT and Thames Water.November 2009 Page 31

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportEstimating Population GrowthAt the moment the available information on housing growth at the local authority andLondon level cannot be considered as finalised. The London Housing Strategy iscurrently at Consultation Draft Stage (with the final strategy to be published towards theend of 2009). This means that local authority level dwelling targets may be revised withina year. Also, as the local authorities progress in their LDF process they may revise boththeir housing trajectory and the demographic assumptions, which would then in turnresult in changes in the overall population growth figures. It should also be noted thatdiscrepancies in population projections can be found even between the GLA and ONSestimates – adding to the complexity of establishing a reliable information base on whichto conduct the analysis.Given the lack of established population projections reflecting the recent and imminentchanges in the WCC‟s housing trajectory and regional policies, we consider it appropriateto use assumptions that, albeit less sophisticated, are transparent enough to allow a clearunderstanding of the relation between the number of dwellings that each authority is setto host and the resulting population.Accordingly, based on the projected dwellings growth as discussed and agreed withWCC we have estimated the additional population based on standard assumptions on thetenure mix, size mix and occupancy rates. The approach can be considered somewhatcrude compared with full demographic models such as the ones used for the GLA orONS projections, it also has a number of advantages.The assumptions in which our calculations are based are listed below:The tenure split is 50% private housing, with the remainder 50% further splitbetween social (70%) and intermediate (30%), as per the London Plan 2008The dwelling size split is taken from London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4(2008), using figures from 2006/2007 LDDA standard occupancy rate of 1.9 across all tenures and size as per discussionswith WCC.With regards to residential growth, being able to relate the projected population growth tothe housing trajectory is essential for the purpose of this study. For example the mainreason is that the driver of future demand is the number of dwellings for certaininfrastructure areas (for instance electricity and gas) but the number of new residents forothers (including water and sewerage and social infrastructure).As the population resulting from our URS Infrastructure Model is consistently above theGLA estimates, it should be considered as an indicative upper constraint toWestminster‟s infrastructure needs.November 2009 Page 32

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportEstimating Commercial GrowthSignificant growth is also forecast for commercial space between 2006 and 2026 - that isretail, leisure and business/offices 18 . The information was sourced as follows:Office floorspace is from the GLA London Office Policy Review 2007Retail floorspace is taken as comparison goods floorspace requirements as set out inthe GLA 2008 Experian's „Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods FloorspaceNeed in London‟ – it should be noted that the estimated are based on expenditureand as such potentially overestimating the requirement; also site capacity andavailability and the recent downturn are not reflected.Leisure floorspace is recreational and sporting services including cultural services,games of chance, restaurants, cafes, accommodation services, hairdressing salonsand personal grooming establishments as per the GLA 2008 Experian's „ConsumerExpenditure and Comparison Goods Floorspace Need in London‟ – it should benoted that the figures from which the requirements is calculated exclude domestictourism, therefore the floorspace is potentially an under-estimate for Central London.Estimating Demand for InfrastructureDifferent approaches were adopted to assess the impact of residential and commercialgrowth on demand for services, over the LDF period between 2006 and 2026:For utilities it was possible to model additional demand based on additional residentpopulation and commercial floorspace – detailed assumptions are presented inSheet A5 of URS Infrastructure Model attached in Appendix 3.For most of the social infrastructure areas there is little or no quantitative evidenceof the impact of commercial floorspace growth on demand. Where no evidence wasavailable, professional judgement and discussion with providers was used to derivea „non-residential factor‟ by which to increase the demand stemming fromresidential growth 19 . We also discuss in each infrastructure section particularconcerns raised by providers on the impact of non-residential demand on servicesand the resulting infrastructure requirements.18 The forecasts were developed by the GLA before the beginning of the current economic recession and do notconsider the potential impact of the downturn nor whether this will have a long lasting impact on futurecommercial and residential growth. As such it is recommended that the projections, and the study as a result, arekept under review.Furthermore, the retail growth estimates have been derived from perceived demand, based on population andspending projections, rather than shopping centre capacity assessments. The figures assume that as thepopulation and its spending power increases, that there will be an exponentially increased demand for additionalretail floor space. The figures also assume a 1.5% productivity growth which appears unlikely in the short-term.19 Detailed information is provided in Appendix 2 for the individual infrastructure areas.November 2009 Page 33

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFor primary and secondary healthcare demand the HUDU model was used and noadjustment has been made to consider the impact of non-residential growth.The outputs of the model constitute a technical estimate only assessment, which doesnot incorporate considerations about spare capacity but only provision standards and keytrends in emerging policy or professional practice (although these issues are consideredin the individual assessments). The model outputs feed into the assessment of eachinfrastructure where forecast demand and planned provision is examined and potentialgaps identified. The model‟s results provide estimates of future demand and costs wherenone are yet available. Where service providers‟ forward strategies are available themodel results provide a comparative assessment and enable a critique of serviceproviders‟ plans.However, forecast demand and costs could not be modelled and linked to requirementsfor all infrastructure items. For example, while satisfactory estimates of demand for powercould be derived from the projection of new dwellings and non-residential floorspace, it isnot considered meaningful to apply unitary costs to estimate required investment, asmany other factors would need to be taken account of such as impact of emergingtechnologies etc. For infrastructure areas such as flood defences, higher education andemergency services, neither demand nor cost can be satisfactorily linked on a pro ratabasis to dwellings, population or non-residential floorspace. The approach to modellingrequirements for different infrastructure areas was formulated in collaboration with serviceproviders where possible.A detailed explanation of the method utilised in both the URS and HUDU models ispresented in Appendices 1 and 2. The URS Infrastructure Model is structured as follows:Sheets A1 to A5 outline the assumptions utilised to estimate population growth,education, health and utilities demand respectivelySheets I1 and I2 outline the growth rate in residential and non-residential uses andthe analysis of such projected growth, identifying the sources and methodSheets R1 to R6 set out the results of the analysis.2.4. Summary of Model ResultsThe outcomes of the URS Infrastructure Model are summarised below.November 2009 Page 34

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 2-1: Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Demand and Social Infrastructure Costs Associated with New Development, 2006 – 2026Infrastructure Theme Infrastructure Item Total RequirementSpatialRequirementsTotal CapitalCost (£)*Education Early Years 1,895 Places 6,601 Sqm 26,530,586Primary Education 1,857 Places 11,787 Sqm 26,002,859Secondary Education 915 Places 8,576 Sqm 21,509,483Further Education and Adult Learning 2,243 Places 22,434 Sqm 56,084,757Health GP and Primary Care Services 15 GP and Primary Care Services 2,525 Sqm 13,890,175Acute and Mental Care 72 Acute and Mental Beds 3,478 Sqm 22,766,541Intermediate Care 30 Intermediate Beds and Day Spaces 1,728 Sqm 10,628,496Sports, Leisure and Health Stations 614 Health Stations 3,068 Sqm 21,476,606RecreationSports Halls N/a 2,039 Sqm 4,077,366Swimming Pools N/a 1,669 Sqm 10,979,404Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a 55 Ha 7,439,539Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 Spaces 34,966 Sqm 6,974,990Playable Space - Local (5-11) 68 Spaces 20,267 Sqm 4,042,841Playable Space - Youth (12-17) 89 Spaces 17,726 Sqm 3,536,041Parks N/a 78 Ha 36,209,539Community and Other Libraries N/a 1,446 Sqm 4,338,838Community Centres N/a - Sqm 0Faith Facilities N/a - Sqm 0Job Brokerage 7 Staff 127 Sqm 210,357Burials N/a 0.4 Ha 134,148Utilities Electricity 150,740 kVA - -Gas 12,498 m3/Hour - -Water 13,163,847 Litres/Day - -Sewerage 21,179,897 Litres/Day - -Total 276,832,566* This includes construction costs only** Worst-case scenario of requirement. See Section 5.2 for details of approach and assessment.November 2009 Page 35

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3. HARD INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT3.1. Electricity3.1.1. BaselineThe „host‟ provider for the London area is EDF Energy and this is under a licence issuedby OFGEM, the Regulator, for a footprint known as London Power Networks; in essence,the old „London Electricity Board‟ zone. The consultant team met with EDF strategicplanning officers in order to obtain evidence regarding the current capacity of thenetwork, current demand, forecast demand and provision, forecast cost and plannedinvestment. This included presenting the URS Infrastructure Model of future demand inWestminster, details of which are provided in Appendix 3. The information obtained isincluded here; however, this information remains relatively limited despite numerousattempts to engage with EDF.EDF are obliged to manage their network against many criteria but with quality andconsistency being the main „public‟ facing measurements. Typically, this is to provideelectricity at 230V, with a tolerance of +10% -6%, to each residential unit assuming asingle phase intake. Of course, taking this as a given, the expectation is that electricity isavailable at all times of the day and year.Technically, EDF generally take in at 132kV (132,000 volts) and transform this down to33kV or 11kV via major substations located in positions throughout each local authorityarea. From these strategic points, local networks are established to afford connection andinterconnection, maintaining supplies and quality as previously identified. A map of theEDF London Network Development Plan covering Central London is presented in below.November 2009 Page 36

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 3-1: Central London Network Development PlanSource: EDFNovember 2009 Page 37

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe electricity demand for the whole of the LPN zone (in effect most of Greater London),identified by EDF during September 2008, was 5,100MW supplying 2.25M customers viasome 35,000km of underground cabling. The impact of the growth over and above thatalready planned is significant and therefore the delivery timescales need to ensure thatEDF engage early in the planning process although more defined development areasmay well be required in order to establish appropriate and specific design.The design of the EDF network is unique in the UK as it recognises the importance of theneed to maintain uninterruptible supplies, probably to a higher degree than that of moreprovincial areas, by employing a configuration that mitigates against faults that result in„customer minutes lost‟ (one of the KPI measurements utilised by OFGEM). In essence,faults do occur but they do not necessarily mean that electricity is disconnected.3.1.2. Forecast DemandThe network is ageing 20 and at the same time must respond to requirements associatedwith new development.Per capita consumption of electricity may increase in future years, implying that even ifthere were no new developments at all, the demand for energy would still increase - forexample, due to the increasing aspirations of individuals and more materialistic outcomes(televisions in more than one room being a good example). Of course, Government aimsto increase energy efficiency and encourage lower per capita energy usage, and this maybe achieved through the Code for Sustainable Homes and other regulatory initiatives.However, there is as yet no quantifiable evidence of success and so a pragmatic,cautionary approach appears sensible at this time (this is reflected in the URS model ofdemand).It is also not yet clear how much energy might in future be supplied by renewable or lowcarbon sources. Though there are significant policy drivers, the electricity network in theUK has not generally been built to accommodate generation at this level and there aretechnical issues with connecting or, indeed, feeding energy back into the grid.Combined heat and power (CHP) systems can generate electricity with relative efficiency;however, where they have been successfully established they generally run on „privatewire‟ type grids, though large CHPs have grid synchronised systems. The regulatorysystem and competition rules are also complex, often negating or limiting the widerGovernment policy aspirations (see Section 3.3 on Low Carbon Energy for furtherdetails).Micro-generation is subject to feed-in tariff incentives whilst CHP operates on aRenewables Obligations Certificates system (ROCs) that is designed to encourageinvestment.20 The Electricity, Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 specify safety standards to protect the generalpublic and consumer from danger. In addition, the regulations specify power quality and supply continuityrequirements to ensure efficient and economic electricity supply service to consumers.November 2009 Page 38

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportEDF have identified and planned for a degree of growth according to known developmentrequirements extracted from the wider planning process. At the same time however,planning, securing land for substations, negotiating cable routes in highway and cashfloware all factors that influence their decision making process. OFGEM, as Regulator, alsodemands delivery of Asset Replacement in line with pre-agreed charging structures torecover capital expenditure established via the DPCR. 21The EDF Distribution Price Control Review (DPCR) 22 lays out plans to provide for growthcurrently anticipated for London‟s central area and notes that the West End ispredominantly driven by tourism and leisure with other areas being lead by redevelopmentof residential areas. The impact of the Olympics is also a major influenceeven though the location of the main facilities is not directly within the study zone.Currently, the EDF Distribution Review considers that Westminster is likely to experiencethe third greatest demand for electricity when compared to adjacent Local Authorities,following the City of London and the Canary Wharf complex in Tower Hamlets. This isrepresented in Figure 3-2.21 EDF secure forward capital expenditure via agreement with OFGEM whom effectively check to ensure thatmonies spent deliver customer benefit. This occurs every 5 years and lasts for 5 years so the upgrading ofinfrastructure becomes ever more important. EDF recover the cost of upgrades via charges it makes to suppliers,who then pass the charge on to customers.22 Distribution Price Control Review (DPCR). As DNOs are natural monopolies, OFGEM protects customers‟interests by regulating the companies through five-year price control periods, which include curbs on expenditureas well as incentives to be efficient and innovative. The review process, on which we are consulting with you here(DPCR5), will determine the amount of money which can be invested in our networks between 2010 and 2015,and also looks ahead to long term requirements.November 2009 Page 39

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 3-2: Projected Electricity Demand for Central London, 2015City of London> 300 MW /km 2 by 2015kw / km 210 5xWest EndDocklandsSource: EDF EnergyDelivery wise, this should not be assumed to reflect the most physical work given thatcapacity may already be present and / or provided via schemes in hand, or indeedalready underway. Schemes already underway include a deep tunnel under the river toafford better interconnection between north and south London with upgrading works toexisting strategic intake points being completed. Other imminent schemes include twonew major substations (132kV transformation points) at Paddington and Fulham as wellas a deep tunnel from the City of London to East London (see Figure 3-3).November 2009 Page 40

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 3-3: Brunswick Wharf to Osborn Street TunnelSource: EDFSignificant planning is required to deliver development schemes over and above thosealready in the planning process. In addition, practicalities will also influence matters – forexample, the Olympics will potentially dominate planned works so other reinforcementschemes may well be delayed.In the absence of provider information, URS modelled demand for electricity associatedwith residential and non-residential forecast growth Westminster. The forecastingapproach, which is described in more detail in Appendix 2, has looked at a strategicprocess and not individual development schemes and the workings rely on a number ofassumptions. In this respect the findings represent merely indicative, broad-brushestimates and a starting point for further detailed analysis. The forecasts were presentedto EDF as a means to initiate discussion on the approach and outputs. Detailed feedbackwas not forthcoming in time for incorporation in this report, though EDF did confirm thatthe findings of the assessment are in line with their expectations, suggesting that theresults of the analysis are a good indication of the likely needs for Westminster over the2006-2026 period.November 2009 Page 41

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-1 and the full workings presented in sheet R4 in the URS Infrastructure Model(see Appendix 3) indicate that energy demand to 2026 could be 150,740 kVA for theWestminster area. These figures are almost certainly too high and should be treated withcaution. It is likely that for a strategic perspective a greater diversity should be used thanthat employed for this assessment. However, EDF has confirmed that the findings of theassessment are in line with their expectations.November 2009 Page 42

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-1: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Electricity fromNew Development, kVA, 2006-2026Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand21,760 128,980 150,740Source: URS Calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A4 and R4 Sheets3.1.3. Planned Investment and CostsThe existing planning and funding mechanisms do not tend to promote detailed forwardplanning and funding of electricity provision. The normal investment vehicle follows one oftwo routes. The first is more strategic investment that is made by EDF and recovered viaagreed processes that include household energy bills (i.e. a part of each bill that eachcustomer pays). The second is direct investment made by developers and computedagainst actual scheme design; for example, if a cable is laid to solely service a newdevelopment, the cost is likely to be wholly borne by the developer although there areinstances where EDF would contribute. The latter process is reactive as it uses designcriteria based upon client specifications and these do vary considerably. For thedevelopment plans that lie within Westminster, it is likely that the investment requiredwould be facilitated via the latter process.In an ideal situation, EDF would deliver capacity in advance of development. However,this would need reasonable load assessments to be made, development sites to beidentified and early monies invested. The last element is where this „ideal‟ scenariousually fails. Developers need to have known revenue returns or have an end user inmind before committing monies, particularly early – though there are strategic landdevelopers, such as Canary Wharf, whom have invested early into the utility system sothat the availability of load is present.Such a strategy may result in slightly higher costs being borne by the developer than ifthe more reactive route had been followed; however, attracting major clients to CanaryWharf for example, with certainty over electricity availability would have proven attractiveto incoming end users. There is, therefore, something of a vicious circle associated withthe current funding arrangements.The schemes described in the EDF plan and laid out above equate to a reportedcommitted expenditure of £250m for Central London. The URS Infrastructure Model doesnot forecast costs associated with utilities infrastructure.Given the reactive nature of the current process for planning and funding electricity, itwould make sense to move towards a process of more forward planning and funding.Developers can instigate infrastructure as this is permitted via the OFGEM rules. Theexample of Canary Wharf, where this route has been followed, illustrates that advancedworks can be completed and the security of supply provided early on, with the result thatdevelopment has secured capacity that facilitates the selling of floor space (thoughNovember 2009 Page 43

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportCanary Wharf has most likely paid for infrastructure which under normal situations theywould have not have been obliged to pay for; also Canary Wharf is a single landownerand estate and this approach is less practical in more typical Central London situation.3.1.4. Assessment and RecommendationsEDF are required to review network requirements every five years by the Regulator andhave a plan to 2020. However, the planning process remains mostly reactive, withinvestment related to specific schemes when plans are worked up. The current EDF Planidentifies a number of schemes which are planned or underway, with related expenditureof £250m for the whole Central London area.Utilities provision is fundamental to the delivery of planned growth. While data is lackingto evidence EDF‟s own plans for growth, and to quantify existing and planned capacity inthe existing network, planned provision investment is unlikely to cover forecast demand.EDF need to be engaged early in the planning process and future requirements need tobe co-ordinated in a strategic manner with adjacent growth areas for the major works.Significant „local‟ works may also be required. While more defined development areasmay well be required in order to establish appropriate design, the current system is, ingeneral, too reactive to respond to the long term growth agenda and Westminsterauthorities should lobby for better engagement and a more strategic approach.An immediate step could be to carry out research into options for changing the forwardplanning process and Regulatory requirements. This could be presented to CentralGovernment and stakeholders.November 2009 Page 44

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.2. Gas3.2.1. BaselineThe „host‟ provider for the study area is National Grid via operating licences issued byOFGEM, the Regulator.Principally, National Grid are obliged to manage their network against many criteria butwith quality, i.e. pre-set pressures, and consistency being the main „public‟ facingmeasurements.To afford supplies, National Grid has incoming pressure reducing stations that transformthe pressure from high or intermediate to medium, and this is subsequently then reducedfrom medium to low although it is somewhat dependant upon end user requirements. Afactory may, for example, require gas at medium pressure whilst a residential unit wouldnormally utilise low pressure as an end user pressure.No information on Westminster‟s baseline position has been made available by NationalGrid. 233.2.2. Forecast DemandThe network is ageing and at the same time must respond to requirements associatedwith new development. As for electricity, there is little quantitative evidence of how percapita consumption of gas may change in the future, and of the degree to whichrenewable sources could meet future demand for gas.CHP systems, when employed to provide district heating schemes as well as electricitygeneration, achieve greater efficiencies than individual usage means; notwithstanding thedesire for ever efficient dwellings via the application of the Code for Sustainable Homes.Regardless of the aspirations, the per capita impact on the gas network is not yet fullydetermined, albeit there is a predicted -2% growth on the strategic gas network.National Grid makes strategic investment which is recovered via agreed processes thatinclude household energy bills. They are also obliged to plan for growth that is identifiedvia the normal planning process; however, network configuration, securing land forpressure reducing stations, negotiating pipe routes in highway and cashflow are allfactors that influence the investment decision making process. OFGEM also demanddelivery in line with pre-agreed timeframes as part of the capital expenditure recoverystructure.23 The consultant team contacted National Grid to obtain evidence regarding the current capacity of the network,current demand, forecast demand and provision, forecast cost and planned investment. This included presentingthe URS model of future demand in the City of Westminster area, details of which are provided in Appendix 3. Ameeting with National Grid was held and relevant information was afforded to the consultant team, albeit with loadprojections not allocated to potential development sites; furthermore, no figures were provided on current gasusage in the Westminster area.November 2009 Page 45

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportIn general, therefore, the current system is not conducive to long term planning but moregeared up for responding to requirements associated with specific schemes.In the absence of provider estimates, URS modelled demand for gas associated withresidential and non-residential forecast growth in Westminster. The forecasting approach,which is described in more detail in Appendices 2 and 3, has looked at a strategicprocess and not individual development schemes and the workings rely on a number ofassumptions. The findings therefore represent indicative estimates of demand and abroad-brush starting point for analysis. The forecasts were presented to National Grid asa means to initiate discussion on the approach and outputs.Table 3-2, and the full workings presented in sheet R6 in the URS Infrastructure Model(see Appendix 3), indicate that gas demand to 2026 could be 12,498 m 3 /hour for theWestminster area.Table 3-2: URS Assessment of Additional Demand for Gas in m 3 /hr from NewDevelopment, 2006-2026 - Scenario 2Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand7,245 5,253 12,498Source: URS calculations A4 and R4 SheetsThe figures secured from National Grid in terms of gas loads reflected anticipated energyusage against future development aspirations as of December 2008 24 (scenario 1 in URSInfrastructure Model in Appendix 3). The recent revision to these aspirations 25 is likely toincrease the energy demand from the gas system but the effect, in terms of systemcapability, is not known. To achieve complete understanding of the increase, a newassessment of the gas system would need to be made.Based on the figures presented in Table 3-3 National Grid indicated that there wassufficient capacity with regard to gas on the medium and higher pressure systems withinthe existing network to cater for projected demand to 2026.24 In December the model was still assuming office growth as per London Office Policy Review 2006, andpopulation growth based on a 45% affordable housing in the tenure split.25 In the version of the model that can be found in Appendix 3 the office floorspace figures have been updated inline with the London Office Policy Review 2007, and population estimates have been updated to reflect theLondon Plan targets on affordable housing.November 2009 Page 46

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-3: URS Assessment of Demand Additional Demand for Gas in m 3 /hr fromNew Development, 2006-2026 - Scenario 1Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand7,245 6,205 13,450Source: URS calculations A4 and R4 Sheets3.2.3. Planned Investment and CostsNo information was available from providers.3.2.4. Assessment and RecommendationsConsultation with National Grid indicated that there is likely to be sufficient capacity withregard to medium and the higher pressure gas networks to cater for demand up to 2026.The gas providers do not publish strategic plans and engagement is difficult. Thishighlights the need for an improved framework for strategic partnership working, and toengage early where at all possible.November 2009 Page 47

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.3. Low Carbon Energy3.3.1. Baseline„The Mayor‟s Climate Change Action Plan‟, February 2007, demonstrates the Mayor‟s toppriority for reducing London‟s carbon dioxide emissions is to move away from reliance onthe national grid and on to a local, low carbon energy supply. This approach is oftentermed „decentralised energy‟ and is reinforced by the London Plan policies on provisionof heating and cooling networks (Policy 4A.5) and decentralised energy (Policy 4A.6).The Mayor‟s goal is to enable a quarter of London‟s energy supply to be moved off thegrid and on to local, decentralised energy systems by 2025, with the majority of London‟senergy being supplied in this way by 2050. The City of Westminster‟s emerging spatialvision is very much in keeping with the ambitions of the Mayor of London.The aim of this section is to provide an initial consideration of likely geographical areaswithin Westminster, as well as the surrounding boroughs, that can also supportsustainable energy infrastructure. Potential elements of a Westminster/ Wandsworth/Lambeth/ Southwark/ City of London/ Camden/ Kensington & Chelsea sustainable energyinfrastructure network are illustrated in Figure 3-4).In the rest of this section we present existing decentralised energy systems inWestminster and the surrounding boroughs, which are illustrated in Figure 3-4.City of WestminsterPimlico and Whitehall District Heating SchemesWestminster has two large district heating networks. These are both over 50 years old,and each recently underwent a major retrofit for CHP plant operation. These are thePimlico and Whitehall district heating schemes.The Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU) was established in 1950 to heat theChurchill Gardens Estate. Originally powered by waste heat from Battersea PowerStation and subsequently from gas fired boiler plant on the power station site, on siteCHP plant in Churchill Gardens Estate with a capacity of 30MW now provides the heat(via a 2500 m 3 heat storage accumulator) and generates electrical power. It is connectedto 3,256 CityWest homes, 47 commercial premises and two schools. It was recentlyconnected to the new Pimlico secondary school and other local extensions are underconsideration. Electrical power is exported to the national grid.The LDA is currently working on a study on the potential to connect the Pimlico andWhitehall district heating schemes.A tunnel passing beneath the Thames connecting Battersea Power Station to Pimlico isstill serviceable and contains redundant hot water pipework. This offers an opportunity toinvestigate a cross-boundary/river connection/partnership with the anticipated BatterseaPower Station development (see Section 2.3.3).November 2009 Page 48

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportRoyal Borough of Kensington and ChelseaImperial College London and the Natural History MuseumUntil 2000, the Natural History Museum (NHM) and Imperial College London were part ofa 42MW district heating scheme that also included the adjacent Science Museum andVictoria & Albert Museum (VAM). Imperial College London and the Science Museumwithdrew from the heating scheme in 2000.A new combined heat and power scheme at Imperial College London provides electricalpower to the College buildings, lecture theatres, and halls of residence for 9,000students. A subsidiary of London Power Company, London Heat & Power Company willoperate the plant for a 15 year period. The plant will provide all the heating, hot water andelectricity for the College and campus, with any additional electricity being exported to thegrid.When Imperial College and the Science Museum withdrew from the heating scheme, therunning costs of the two remaining partners (NHM and VAM) increased substantially. Tobring the cost back to its original price, £3.7M funds were raised from The Co-operativeBank to upgrade the existing system.In 2006 a partnership between NHM, VAM, The Co-operative Bank and Vital Energi Ltdwas established, with Vital Energi Limited in charge of operation and maintenance of theEnergy Centre for 15 years from its start up.The partnership employed two Danish consulting engineering firms, JPH for the design ofthe refurbishment of the Energy Centre and COWI for the analysis of the existing districtheating network and design of the new cooling network.The project demonstrates how an existing heating system of an iconic London landmarkcan be retrofitted to enhance low carbon decentralised energy systems without incurringlarge scale modifications.The new energy system includes CHP plant generating 1.8MW e of electricity and1.7MW th of thermal energy at full load, a waste heat recovery boiler to recover the thermalenergy in the flue gases and engine jacket, and two heat fired absorption chillers eachproviding 705kW coolth of cooling. Two boilers were retained as back-up boilers and fittedwith new low NO x gas burners. The existing electrical chillers were de-commissioned.These schemes are examples of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI).London Borough of CamdenUniversity College London – Gower Street and Bloomsbury Heat and Power SchemesThe heat and power schemes serve 450,000m 2 of educational and research facilities.Clients include the University College London (UCL) main campus, School of Orientaland African Studies (SOAS), Institute of Education, Birbeck College and various othercolleges of University of London.November 2009 Page 49

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportApproximately 58,000MWh of heat and 33,000MWh of electrical power is currentlygenerated by the heat and power schemes. The primary CHP plant capacity is 4.5MW e .The heat and electrical power supplies form the two schemes are supplied under longterm Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts.City of LondonCitigenCitigen is a wholly owned subsidiary of E-on UK (ESCo) and was established to serveThe City of London Corporation. Due to the contractual relationship between Citigen andthe City of London Corporation, this scheme represents a Public Private Partnership.The combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) plant consists of two 15.8MW e /12.5MW thdiesel/natural gas fired CHP engines and provides district heating and cooling (viaabsorption chillers), with the electrical power being exported to the grid and tradedthrough the parent E-on group. The heat and electrical power generation efficiency is70%. The system produces approximately 60,000MWh of heat (including output fromauxiliary boilers), 32,000MWh of electricity, and 30,000MWh of chilled water per year.PB Power has been commissioned to undertake a study for an expansion of the CitigenCCHP system. The results of this study were expected in September 2009, and althoughit is now unconfirmed when they will be published it is anticipated that the study willindicate the feasibility of an expansion of the district heating and cooling networks intoIslington and Westminster. Citigen fully grasp the commercial viability of a sustainableenergy network and have always expressed an interest in expansion and the delivery ofservices for heating, cooling and electrical power to additional consumers/customers.The City of London tunnels and heat network study (see Section 2.3.3.) will assess thefeasibility of using existing service tunnels, managed and owned by the City of London, toexpand district heating and cooling networks.3.3.2. Forecast DemandThis section discusses the opportunities for meeting future energy demand arising fromprojected growth in Westminster through low carbon energy. It considers both potentialschemes within the city, and opportunities outside its boundaries to highlight the potentialfor a sustainable energy infrastructure network. Potential areas within Westminster andthe surrounding areas are illustrated where feasibility work is already being conductedand where networks would benefit from mixed loads associated with anchor heat demandcustomers (e.g. housing estates, leisure centres, hospitals, schools, universities, etc.).Such elements of a potential low carbon energy infrastructure network for Westminsterand the surrounding local authorities are shown in Figure 3-4. It should be noted thatFigure 3-4 and the accompanying text describe potential areas for further investigationonly; the feasibility of the schemes and potential linkages described has not been tested.Work is currently underway by the LDA and partners to look into these and other potentialNovember 2009 Page 50

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 3-4: Elements of a Potential Sustainable Energy Infrastructure Network for Westminster and the Surrounding Local AuthoritiesSource: URS and WCCNovember 2009Page 51l

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportopportunities in more detail. Other potential anchor heat loads not shown / discussedhere are large retail and office buildings as well as hotels.The ambition of the possible low carbon infrastructure network is to demonstrate anetwork that supports multiple suppliers and ensures customers can benefit fromcompetition. The importance of competition within the energy supply market and thebenefits from mixed loads is further discussed in Section 3.3.4.City of WestminsterQueen‟s Park Geographical AreaThe Queen‟s Park geographical area has a relatively high proportion of housing estatesblocks, offering anchor heat demands that incentivise the implementation of decentralisedenergy. Further, its locality to the Paddington Opportunity Area might present anopportunity for an effective connection, as shown in Figure 3-5. However, it should alsobe noted that some locations within the areas are low density residential housing whichincurs in greater connection costs, putting restrictions on the viability of a decentralisedenergy system.Paddington Opportunity AreaThe Paddington Opportunity Area is Westminster‟s most significant opportunity area forlarge scale regeneration. This area, designated in 1988 and focused around PaddingtonStation, has seen considerable development, which has redefined the area. By 2008,over £2 billion has been invested in the area, 35 new companies have located to thearea, 8,000 jobs have been created and more than 900 homes have been constructed.Significant infrastructure projects are also planned for the area, including the delivery ofCrossrail. Further, key sites such as St Mary‟s Hospital, have been identified within theopportunity area that would benefit from redevelopment and renewal.This mix of uses and the offering of anchor heat demands incentivises theimplementation of decentralised energy. Additional opportunities should be investigatedfor energy networks deriving from the link with Crossrail as well as the potential to utilisethe same tunnels system to allow a technically robust solution for pipework distribution,i.e. the expansion/extension of a decentralised energy system. The potential for anetwork to serve sites within both the Opportunity Area and the Queen‟s ParkGeographical Area is shown in Figure 3-5.November 2009 Page 52

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 3-5: Paddington Opportunity Area – Potential to Serve All Sites within the Opportunity Area and Queen’s ParkSource: URS and WCCNovember 2009Page 53l

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportMarylebone Geographical AreaThe Marylebone geographical area has a large number of anchor heat demands (i.e.hospitals, schools, etc.) that incentivise the implementation of decentralised energy.Further, its locality to the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area and the possibleEuston Road district heating scheme suggest and opportunity for effective inter-andcross-boundary connections/partnerships that should be further investigated.Soho Geographical AreaAddressing the sustainability challenges of historic, mixed-use city core areas andresulting carbon dioxide emissions from existing commercial buildings is a neglectedpolicy issue that requires urgent attention. A study by the University of Westminster hasidentified the Soho geographical area as a possible exemplar for demonstrating howgreater sustainability can be achieved and put into practice in the West End and would,due to the visibility of the location, quickly disseminate such best practice widely. This isdiscussed in „Retrofitting Soho, Improving the Sustainability of Historic Core Areas‟,December 2008.The key findings of the report identify that an integrated approach to retrofitting isessential to driving savings in carbon dioxide emissions. The greatest benefits are to beachieved through scaling up to community wide solutions, such as a heat and powernetwork.London Borough of CamdenBoth the Tottenham Court Road and King‟s Cross Opportunity Areas and the EustonRoad District Heating Scheme offer the opportunity of investigating the potential forcross-boundary interactions with potential decentralised energy schemes at Marylebone,Soho and the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity area.Tottenham Court Road Opportunity AreaThe Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area has been established by Westminster toencourage regeneration and growth. Key development sites include sites for the deliveryof Crossrail, a large postal sorting office site and a large retail site. Additionally, like theSoho geographical area, there are a large number of historic buildings in the area.This mix of uses and the offering of anchor heat demands incentivise the implementationof decentralised energy. As for the Paddington Growth Area, Crossrail offers additionalopportunities for energy networks that could be further explored.Euston Road District Heating Scheme and King‟s Cross Opportunity AreaThe London Development Agency (LDA) has recently completed the first part of a twostagestudy, according to the „Euston Road District Heating Scheme, Executive Summary– November 2008‟ 26 . The benefits and feasibility of developing an area-wide district26 „Euston Road District Heating Scheme, Executive Summary‟ (LDA, 2008)November 2009 Page 54

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportheating network are assessed for the Euston Road area, extending from Regent‟s Park inthe west to Caledonian Road in the east. The LDA has no specific land interests in thisarea but is taking a strategic view, to identify and appraise this scheme, which could havecommercial and environmental benefits for all concerned.A number of existing buildings in this area could potentially be connected to such ascheme, including local authority housing, the British Library, Camden Civic Offices andTown Hall, the Wellcome Buildings and Regents Place. There are also a number of majornew developments planned and under construction, including the areas around Eustonand King‟s Cross Stations (British Land and Argent respectively), the UKCMRI (a newmedical research facility) and a new HQ for Unison on Euston Road itself.Existing heat and power networks already supply two University College Londoncampuses in the area, Bloomsbury Heat and Power and Gower Street Heat and Power(see Section 2.3.2), and there are a large number of communal heating schemes servinglocal authority housing estates, particularly in Camden on the northern side of EustonRoad.King‟s Cross is adjacent to the possible Euston Road district heating scheme is identifiedas a major redevelopment area. This has been reflected in the recent redevelopment ofSt Pancras and King‟s Cross Station for Eurorail services. The opportunity for an interboundaryconnection to the possible Euston Road district heating network incentivisesthe implementation of an extension to and reinforcement of the district heating network.City of LondonThe possible decentralised energy systems in the City of London tunnels and in the HeatNetwork Geographical Study Area allow further examining the potential for crossboundaryinteractions with potential schemes at Soho and the Tottenham Court RoadOpportunity area.City of London Corporation Tunnels and Heat Network Geographical Study AreaForecast growth in the City of London creates a unique opportunity for furtherdecentralised energy development. The City is currently looking into the feasibility ofdelivering low carbon heating, cooling and electricity district networks across the entireSquare Mile. However, substantial growth in the City has put much pressure on thetraditional infrastructure and it is not possible to plan for new network infrastructure.Developing these networks will therefore have to explore ways of using the existingservice tunnels ("pipe subways") managed and owned by the City of London Corporationor to expand them. One of the options could also be to use disused tunnels (legacyinfrastructure) to supply energy.SouthwarkThe potential schemes in the South Bank and at Battersea Power Station further suggestinvestigating the potential for cross-boundary interactions with schemes at Soho and theNovember 2009 Page 55

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTottenham Court Road Opportunity area in Westminster and the Tunnels and the HeatNetwork Geographical Study Area in the City of London.South Bank Employers GroupThe LDA has funded the South Bank Employers‟ Group (SBEG), in conjunction withSouth Bank University, to look at the potential for an extensive heat and power schemeacross London's South Bank. The scheme would connect major energy users.Existing public and private buildings such as St Thomas' Hospital, the South Bank Artscomplex and Shell buildings are all possible heat customers, as well as a number ofplanned high density mixed use developments. The SBEG have now suggested anumber of feasible schemes and the SBEG and the Decentralised Energy Delivery Unitare in discussions on how to progress the heat and power scheme.WandsworthBattersea Power StationThe proposed development of the Battersea Power Station site will create a new urbandistrict of London. Providing the energy required for this scale of development in asustainable manner is one of the project‟s key objectives. The current scheme is beingdeveloped around a decentralised plant strategy (to take account of the phasing of thedevelopment), which is to serve the total development with plant and systems chosen tomeet a significant amount of the energy in use of the site.Battersea Power Station development forms part of the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/BatterseaOpportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF). As a result, the LDA has taken a keeninterest in this development and will look to pursue the export of heat from the site tosupport the OAPF ambitions. Whilst there may be a conflict in exporting heat to Pimlico(see Figure 2-2) and not the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea area, the development ofthese areas will be subject to a longer lead in time than the currently anticipatedextension of the Pimlico district heating scheme. The Energy Services Company (ESCo)or Multiple Utility Services Company (MUSCo) selected to operate the decentralised plantservices is likely to determine that the most commercially viable route for expansion is toutilise the existing tunnels and redundant district heating pipework beneath the Thames,which already connect the Battersea Power Station site to Pimlico.November 2009 Page 56

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.3.3. AnalysisWCC is working with the support of the London Development Agency (LDA) to developheat mapping of all of Westminster, based on actual energy use data. This will enable anobjective assessment to be made of potential clusters for future district heat and powernetworks, as well as connections between existing local heating systems and CHP plant.The LDA is also supporting WCC to develop their capacity for energy master-planning toinform this process.Economic IncentivesEconomic incentives will be introduced that recognise the potential for carbon dioxidesavings from decentralised energy. The „Energy Act 2008‟ 27 provides for the introductionof feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity and incentives for renewable heat. This willimprove the economic viability of establishing new energy centres and increasing thecapacity of existing energy centres. Of more significance to district heating schemes,however, is OFGEM‟s reconsideration of the Class C supply licence exemption forschemes of up to 1MW e and whether this is increased or a junior licensing regime forembedded generation is put into place.These financial incentives and the work being carried out by OFGEM and BERR willimprove the business case for sustainable energy and encourage private sector energycompanies to expand their current decentralised energy provision to meet this demandfor investment. However, the availability and likelihood of obtaining funding remains a keypriority going forward. It is anticipated that where Westminster and the surroundingboroughs will need to contribute is in creating the opportunities for energy centres or,where this is not feasible, ensure that private developers make adequate provision fordecentralised heating through the planning process.The current process of decentralised energy is influenced by limitations set by OFGEM;however, notwithstanding these implications, the electricity distribution system in London,as elsewhere in the UK, has not historically been designed to accommodate connectionfrom local electrical power generation.This situation is likely to deteriorate as the increasing demand on the electricity networkleads EDF to consider their distribution protocols and this, in turn, is likely to exacerbatethe matter further. In essence, fault levels computed on the EDF network are likely to besignificantly increased and this will potentially impact upon connection options.EDF currently considers that decentralised energy will only be delivered if the networkseffectively stand alone without any interconnection with the wider public network. Toachieve this, OFGEM may therefore need to consider rule changes, specifically as theyrelate to competition rules.27 „Energy Act 2008‟November 2009 Page 57

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportOpportunities for Decentralised Energy through Inter- and Cross-BoundaryConnections/PartnershipsIn some localities in London, decentralised energy is already being provided at a districtscale where is can most efficiently be delivered. Further, a number of boroughs havealready initiated studies in relation to establishing decentralised energy strategies. Theseinclude Westminster and its surrounding boroughs.This report goes some way to identifying a possible Westminster/ Wandsworth/ Lambeth/Southwark/ City of London/ Camden/ Kensington & Chelsea sustainable energyinfrastructure network for further investigation. Figure 3-4 clearly identifies theimportance of inter- and cross-boundary connections/partnerships in deliveringdecentralised energy. For example, the viability of the prospective Euston Road districtheating scheme is dependent on upgrading the Gower Street and Bloomsbury combinedheat and power schemes to allow a number of existing and proposed buildings to beconnected. They offer an opportunity for an expansion on the existing PPP. An exampleof a possible cross-boundary interconnection is between Pimlico and Battersea PowerStation.Mixed Loads and Energy Supply CompetitionDecentralised energy is only effective in saving carbon dioxide emissions when it islocated where heating, cooling and power can be supplied most efficiently, i.e. wherethere are supporting mixed loads associated with anchor heat demand customers (e.g.housing estates, leisure centres, hospitals, schools, universities, etc.). It is essential thatthe public sector continue to connect these mixed loads to kick start decentralised energyschemes and ensure their economic viability, as has been the case for the Pimlico districtheating scheme. With the uncertainty of how the national grid will respond to multiplelocal connection points associated with the export of electrical power to the grid, andensuring effective competition for heat supply, sustainable energy infrastructure networksare essential to ensuring customers can benefit from competition.Partnerships for Funding and DeliveryBodies such as the London Development Agency‟s Decentralised Energy Delivery Unitare in a position to take advantage of possible Government funding, and to establishinter- and cross-boundary PPP‟s to deliver decentralised energy. They are responsible foractively seeking to invest in projects and create commercially viable ESCo‟s serving localcommunities. Their involvement is critical to implement a successful sustainable energyinfrastructure.PDHU is wholly owned by WCC and managed through CityWest Homes. However, PFI‟sand PPP‟s are typically the funding vehicle required to achieve financial viability ofprojects, and a number have already been established by energy service companies(ESCo‟s). All of the existing heat and power schemes described form part of a PFI orPPP. With the enactment of the Energy Act 2008, economic incentives have beenestablished for renewable electricity and heat with the introduction of feed-in tariffs.November 2009 Page 58

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportAdditionally, the work being carried out by OFGEM and BERR in this area in relation tothe distributed/decentralised generation review, the renewable energy strategy and theheat strategy will strengthen the viability of PFI‟s and PPP‟s. Banks and energycompanies will need to further work together on innovative ways of securing funding forlow carbon decentralised energy projects.Industry Standards and RegulationThere is a requirement to not only establish London wide standards and technicalspecifications for heat networks, but to also establish national heat network standards.Whilst we are only considering the Westminster infrastructure opportunities, decentralisedenergy strategies should be applied on a national scale where feasible, i.e. for largeurban centres.To ensure the long term viability of district heating schemes in terms of establishing acompetitive heat supply market and from a heat supply customer perspective, an industrywide Code of Practice for heat networks which includes consumer protection agreementsand guarantees of minimum service levels is required. In addition, OFGEM shouldoversee the appointment of a heat supply ombudsman as part of the EnergyOmbudsman‟s longer term/policy/regulatory change.The definition of zero carbon to recognise near site provision is becoming an extremelyprevalent topic and the Government has undertaken public consultation – „Definition ofZero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings, Consultation, December 2008‟ 28 –relating to the definition of zero carbon homes that will apply for new homes built from2016 and it also seeks views on Government‟s ambition that new non-domestic buildingsshould be zero carbon from 2019. This consultation document, for which responses havebeen collected and published in July 2009, recognises the range of off site solutions totackling the carbon dioxide emissions remaining after high levels of energy efficiency andpassive design measures are applied and on site renewable energy supply is provided.3.3.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThis section of the Draft Westminster Infrastructure Plan has offered a preliminaryoverview of possible district heating developments and the possibility of creating asustainable infrastructure network in central London (Westminster/ Wandsworth/Lambeth/ Southwark/ City of London/ Camden/ Kensington & Chelsea).This analysis is not based on a technical appraisal of such issues as data on heatdensity, safeguarding possible heat distribution network routes within the growth areas,growth area interconnection through a borough wide heat distribution network, identifyingthe customer base and establishing expectations for the customer base to connect toheat distribution networks. As such detailed technical appraisal would need to becommissioned to provide a reliable assessment of realistic potential and priority areas for28 „Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings, Consultation‟ (CLG, 2008)November 2009 Page 59

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportthe delivery of a sustainable infrastructure network in Westminster and in neighbouringCentral London boroughs. This appraisal is now in progress and WCC is at the timecurrently working to develop heat mapping of the whole of Westminster. There may alsobe the need for further research on legal structures required for schemes to progress or iftwo schemes can be linked.While recent policy developments represent significant steps forward in terms of thepromotion of decentralised energy schemes and renewable energy technologies, a seriesof risks to delivery remain, most importantly relating to the technical risks such asexporting electrical power into the national grid, and regulatory issues such ascompetition law and the role of the ombudsman. There is uncertainty about how theseissues will be resolved in the future and how the context for developing sustainableenergy infrastructure will evolve. Economic incentivisation is identified as essential toovercoming cost barriers and driving the uptake of a decentralised energy; these policydrivers are emerging. While cross-boundary collaboration and funding partnershipspresent opportunities to develop decentralised energy solutions, they also present newcomplexities, issues and challenges.November 2009 Page 60

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.4. Telecommunications3.4.1. BaselineBT, given their history as the General Post Office, have been considered to be thesignificant provider for the study zone. However, there are an increasing number of „host‟providers offering connection to telecommunication networks in the study area, such asVirgin Media, Cable and Wireless, Kingston Communications, Global Crossing andEnergis to name but a few possible alternatives. Wider issues relating to these providershave been considered also.The consultant team applied to BT in order to obtain information on the baseline position,forecast demand for and planned provision of telecommunication services, and forecastcosts and investment. A comprehensive response was not forth-coming, though somedata on highway works was supplied. There are no published BT documents on long termplanning for demand in the City of Westminster or which quantify current usage.Technically, BT utilise a mixture of fibre optic cables as well as copper cables.Historically, the copper network would have afforded connectivity but as demand forhigher quality telephone and / or data transmission, fibre optic cabling will becomeincreasingly utilised for all aspects of the service. This is especially relevant forbusinesses, though the recently announced government aspiration for all homes to havebroadband by 2012 highlights the implications of changing lifestyles at home as well 29 .3.4.2. Forecast DemandWith regard to new development opportunities, alternative providers are increasinglyoffering connection to telecommunication networks, often via the application of highquality lines secured via fibre optic. The result is that there are other providers vying forthe same highway space, which is known to be limited, or sharing duct tracks withproviders whom already have infrastructure in place (effectively renting duct space).Discussions with BT have identified that the works in the highway to complete renewalsand / or new duct tracks are likely to increase on average by 15%, or so, by 2026.Southwark and Islington will see an increase in planned works of circa 33% and 24%respectively. Conversely, Westminster, whilst experiencing the highest volume of plannedworks will only see an increase of circa 9%.This information provides limited insight given that works can be so diverse. For example,there is no delineation of whether the proposed project covers the replacement of 250mof cable or 4km, and not all works are necessarily intrusive.BT do not have plans for establishing new exchanges at this stage but they are looking athigh fault areas, or ageing networks, so that priority replacement works can be targeted.29 „Digital Britain‟ (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2009)November 2009 Page 61

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe outcomes of the consultation with BT demonstrate that the provider is geared up toreact to forth-coming schemes rather than to forward plan in a strategic manner.Certainly, technology does change very quickly and therefore strategic planning issomewhat limited, given that end user demands change in line with opportunities.However, residential requirements and applications are likely to be more static.Whilst the cabling and associated technology changes at some pace, there is everyopportunity for BT, and other providers if appropriate, to install new infrastructure ductwork early on in the development process so that demand for new connections can bedelivered relatively easily and without repetitive disruption to stakeholders in the area.3.4.3. Planned Investment and CostsNo information was available on forecast costs and planned investment fortelecommunications infrastructure.Funding frameworks have changed in recent years. For local schemes, BT now chargebeyond a certain ceiling for connections (previously connections were free); strategicworks can be funded out of BT‟s overhead structure.3.4.4. ConclusionsThe consultation process indicates that BT is set up to respond reactively to developmentrather than to plan provision in a strategic way. In general capacity constraints are less ofan issue for telecommunications than for some other areas of infrastructure.Early and ongoing communication by the City of Westminster is suggested so that a coordinateddelivery can be established and to minimise risks to the delivery of growth.Again, it may be useful to review options for the strategic planning regulatory framework.November 2009 Page 62

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.5. Water3.5.1. BaselineClean water to Westminster is supplied by Thames Water. The Thames Water supplyarea is divided into six independent water resource zones. The largest of these is Londonwhich covers the Greater London Area.Attempts to engage with Thames Water were unsuccessful. This section thereforereflects information obtained from published documentation only, predominantly fromWater Resources Management Plan (WRMP, currently in draft for consultation form) thatThames Water issue as part of their long term planning objectives, as well as the moreimmediate 2010-2015 five yearly business plan.The clean water resources for Westminster are largely based on abstraction from riverswhich is stored in reservoirs. The clean water resources for the areas subject to theInfrastructure Study are drawn from the Rivers Thames and Lee.In the whole of their supply area for the year 2006/07, Thames Water estimated thathousehold consumption accounted for 47% of demand, non-household consumption21%, and unbilled and operational use 2%. Leakage accounted for 30% of demand, splitinto 22% distribution losses (mains in road) and 8% customer supply pipe (individualservice pipes to properties) leakage 30 .No data is available on current levels of water consumption for Westminster-basedThames Water customers only.3.5.2. Forecast DemandThames Water assesses that up until 2034/35 within London, the population will rise by1M people with a consideration via an additional allowance for clandestine („uncounted‟)population and / or short term migrant population. Over the whole of its supply area,Thames Water estimate that each person uses on average 160 litres of water per dayalthough conventional planning approaches normally apply a slightly lower range of 150litres of water per day 31 .Water use per person is affected by several factors; typically, these are householdoccupancy, water use via appliances, fixture and fittings within the property,householders‟ water use behaviour, garden use and whether the property is metered ornot. It is certainly possible that per capita usage of water will decrease in future years dueto the economic climate, policy drivers such as the Code for Sustainable Homes andsupply-side measures such as use of harvested rainwater. Thames Water identify that30Thames Water, „WRMP Appendices Volume 3‟, 2008, available athttp://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/5392.htm31Thames Water: http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/5390.htm andhttp://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/2804.htm, accessed on 18/04/09November 2009 Page 63

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportalthough there is increasing pressure to use more water efficient appliances and animprovement in the education of the wider population to use water more wisely, this willnot be enough to off-set other factors. They forecast that overall demand for water willrise due to an increasing population, an increase rise in single occupancy houses stillusing all the appliances of a larger unit, smaller family groups and climate change.Thames Water has calculated non-household volumes by subtracting measuredhousehold volumes from total billed measured volumes and, from this reasonably basicassessment, they have produced forecasts for both service and non-service sectors ineach WRZ. The outcomes of their calculations are not published.The London zone is predominantly made up of service sector industries and ThamesWater indicate that there has been a marked decline in non-service demand (mainly inthe food, drink and tobacco sector), though this reduction has been more than off-set by arise in the service sector demand.Based on current forecasts, Thames Water predict, as a whole, that London will have asupply demand deficit increasing from 2% in 2009/10 to 20% by 2034/35 withoutexpanded provision. The deficit is essentially being driven by demand but leakagemanagement may off set an element of the shortfall.Current proposals are to follow a „twin track approach‟ in balancing the supply anddemand which involves the use of enhanced demand management activities combinedwith the development of new resource schemes.Initially, Thames Water is proposing a significant programme of demand management toclose the supply demand deficit which primarily include leakage reduction techniques (thereplacement of Victorian mains) and active leakage control; in addition, a progressiveprogramme to employ compulsory metering (the plan being to increase the proportion ofdomestic properties with meters from 25% to approximately 54% over the next 5 years)and establish an enhanced water efficiency programme.Management of demand alone however is unlikely to close the deficit and therefore adesalination water treatment plant is being constructed in Beckton and works are alreadyunderway. There are also plans for construction of a large reservoir in Oxfordshire whichit is hoped will be operational by 2021.In the absence of provider forecasts, URS Infrastructure Model has been used toestimate likely additional demand for potable water to 2026. The methodology andassumptions are described in Appendices 2 and 3. This high level exercise produces anindicative estimate only as a starting point for more detailed assessment. As no responseto the workings was obtained from Thames Water, it is not possible to comment on howthe outcomes of the modelling exercise compare to the providers‟ calculations of futuredemand.Table 3-4 indicates that additional demand for potable water could total 13.2m litres perday across Westminster up to 2026.November 2009 Page 64

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-4: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Water from NewDevelopment, 2006-2026Residential Demand Non-Residential Demand Total Demand3,876,000 9,287,847 13,163,847Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A4 and R4 Sheets3.5.3. Planned Investment and CostsNo costs are available for the schemes described above.As for the previous infrastructure areas, funding for strategic long term projects will besourced from Thames Waters‟ revenue, while developers may make contributions tomore local infrastructure associated with specific schemes.3.5.4. ConclusionsThames Water have identified a likely future deficit in supply of water in the London waterresource zone to 2034, and strategic plans to address this are being formulated.However, detailed information on the methodology used to establish estimated demandand of the investment programmes was not available. Therefore a meaningfulcomparison with URS Infrastructure Model estimates of demand, and a critique of theneeds assessment, was not possible.Like the other utility providers, Thames Water is in the main set up to respond to detaileddevelopment schemes as they come forward and their capacity to engage in meaningfuldialogue with partners on strategic planning is somewhat limited. This is a flaw in theexisting system and a risk to growth. The City of Westminster continue attempts toengage in meaningful dialogue with Thames Water at the earliest possible stage in theauthorities‟ strategic planning process.November 2009 Page 65

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.6. Sewers and Sewerage Infrastructure3.6.1. BaselineThe existing combined surface water and foul sewer system in Westminster as in the restof London was originally developed in the late 19th century based on a much smallerpopulation than exists today, and was designed based on a rainfall depth of 6.5 mmwithin the River Thames catchment. 32 As London grew the system was expanded in linewith economic and population growth and increasing rainfall intensities.A combined sewer has the advantage of providing a single network of pipes and istherefore cheaper to build. Historically most urban sewers were built as combinedsystems in the 19th and 20th centuries. During dry weather, all water entering the systemis treated at a sewer treatment works (e.g. Beckton), including rainwater, then the cleaneffluent is discharged to the river. However, during wet weather the volume of waterentering the system is much higher because of the additional rainfall. The sewer may'surcharge', which is when the flow is too high for the pipes to carry, resulting in sewage'backing up' within the system causing sewer flooding. To relieve surcharging, thesewage is allowed to overflow into rivers via 'combined sewer outfalls' or CSOs.The disadvantage of a combined sewer system is that rivers and surrounding ecosystemscan become polluted by CSO discharges containing untreated human and industrialwaste, toxic materials and debris during high rainfall events. EU regulations have beenintroduced to protect water quality and biodiversity, such as the Urban Waste WaterTreatment Directive introduced in 1995 to protect the environment from the adverseeffects of sewage discharges, and the Water Framework Directive introduced in 2000with the aim of reaching good chemical and ecological status in inland and coastal watersby 2015.Thames Water own and operate 68,000 km of sewer, 800,000 manholes, 2,530 pumpingstations and 349 sewage treatment works receiving 4.3 million cubic meters of sewageper day 33 .The treatment plants serving Westminster are located outside its boundaries in Mogden,Beckton and Crossness. Existing assets require routine maintenance including sewagetreatment works, pumping stations, sludge treatment, sewers and ancillary equipmentincluding maintenance and control equipment, IT and buildings. Twelve combinedsewerage outfalls currently discharging to the Westminster stretch of the River Thames,with eight located in Westminster and another four in Lambeth and Southwark.32 A combined sewer can be defined as a partially separated system for foul or sanitary drainage and surfacewater or storm-water run-off. The purpose of a sewer system is to remove all waste water, including rainwaterfrom roofs and paved or impermeable surfaces, and convey it to treatment works.33 However it should be noted that the entire Thames Water region constitutes a total area of 37,700 km2 of whichWestminster is only 21.48 km2 (0.06% by area).November 2009 Page 66

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportCurrently the sewers in Westminster are close to capacity during a 2-year return periodstorm event, and most sewers combine surface water with foul water. Since much ofWestminster is heavily developed there is a significant risk of surface water flooding as aresult 34 . Sewer flooding can be caused by excess inflow such as heavy rainfall in surfacewater sewers or due to blockages occurring in foul or surface water sewers. Westminsteris already heavily developed which means that the area is at significant risk from sewerflooding. The problem has been worsened in the past due to urbanisation, mostsignificantly where gardens have been paved over preventing rainwater from soaking intothe soil naturally. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are generallyimplemented in new developments to mitigate this problem, although most SUDS aredifficult to implement in an urban environment. Porous paving, attenuation tanks, greenroofs and rainwater harvesting are likely to be the most viable options.Thames Water has legal obligations set at EU and national UK level to meet effluentquality targets. The Environment Agency (EA) and the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (DEFRA) are responsible for making sure Thames Water meetsenvironmental standards for treated sewage effluent. Each treatment works has a permitto discharge and if effluent quality targets are not met Thames Water can be prosecutedby the Environment Agency. Population growth in recent years has increased pressureon treatment works, which increases the risk of breach in effluent quality targets.Currently, combined sewage overflows into the tidal reaches of the River Thames are aninfringement of the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.3.6.2. Forecast DemandThe forecasted need for and provision of sewerage infrastructure has been identified byThames Water in their Draft Five Year Plan 2010 to 2015 (AMP 5), and in their long termreport Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035). Beyond 2015 ThamesWater have not yet made detailed investment plans other than the long term investmentplans outlined here.Without further investment, the existing sewers system would have insufficient capacity tocope with future development anticipated within Westminster. Planning Policy Statement25, Development and Flood Risk indicates that the anticipated increase in rainfallintensity due to climate change is estimated to be 5% in the period up to 2025. Extremerainfall events are predicted to increase in frequency over the years requiring greatercapacity in sewers. Hotter, drier summers will increase the demand for water andtherefore increase pressure on sewers. Investment in treatment works will be required tomeet increasingly stringent water quality targets.The resident population and employees in Westminster is anticipated to increase whichwill necessitate increased capacities of the network, treatment works and sludgedisposal. Average household occupancy is anticipated to decrease, which will increaseper capita water use. Metering of household water should counteract increased demand:34 „Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options‟ (City of Westminster, July 2008)November 2009 Page 67

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportmeters will be installed in 28% of households by 2010 and 84% by 2025. Theimplementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in new developmentswill also be an important measure mitigating increased run-off from developed areas 35 .At national and EU level, major policy drivers will be the Urban Waste Water TreatmentDirective and the Water Framework Directive improving water quality standards and theforthcoming Flood and Water Management Bill currently in draft form. To addressrequirements for quality improvements, the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel willcapture and transport raw sewage that would otherwise discharge into the River Thames.These discharges create foul conditions in the river, resulting in an elevated health risk toriver users and damage to the ecology of the river. The project will also help to alleviatesome of the flood risk due to sewers and surface water.The Thames Tideway project comprises two new tunnels to substantially reduce theamount of untreated sewage discharged to the River Thames and its tributary the RiverLee after heavy rainfall via CSOs. The Thames Tunnel is the larger of the two projectswhich will comprise a 32 km long tunnel under the Thames from the west of the city toBeckton treatment works although the precise route is yet to be determined. Constructionis provisionally scheduled to start in 2012 and finish in 2020. At this stage Thames Waterexpect to submit a planning application in late 2011. The overflow of untreated sewageinto the Thames is a legacy of the original design for London‟s sewers and currentlyoccurs around once per week. On average 32 million cubic metres is discharged everyyear and the situation is predicted to get worse due to expected population growth andmore intense rain storms as the climate changes. The Tideway Tunnel project is alsointended to address surface water flooding. Continuing urbanisation through paving overlandscaped areas preventing rainfall from being soaked up by the ground is adding to theproblem of surface water flooding.The UK Water and Flood Management Bill, published in draft form in April 2009, isdesigned to improve flood risk management in response to the summer 2007 floods.Under the proposed Bill, WCC would gain new roles and responsibilities including localflood risk mapping and identifying ownership to resolve flooding problems as they arise,and would have new responsibilities for drainage. Developers‟ automatic right to connectto the sewer system under the Water Industry Act 1991 would be removed andconnection would become conditional on meeting new standards including SUDSimplementation.In future years, existing assets will continue to require routine maintenance. The totallength of sewers to be maintained by Thames Water across its entire area will increasefrom 68,000 to 108,000 km by 2015. In addition, investment is required to reduce sewerflooding and reduce odour from sewage treatment works. Cleaning and repairs will be35 SUDS are designed to mimic the rainwater attenuation properties of a natural landscape and prevent largevolumes of surface water runoff into the sewer system following intense rainstorms. SUDS can significantlyreduce surface water or sewer flooding and methods suitable for urban environments are available such asporous paving and rainwater harvesting.November 2009 Page 68

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportincreased in sewers where blockages are known to occur. Sewer flooding isdisproportionately high in Westminster due to the number of basement flats and low lyingsewers and the fact that rainwater is mixed with foul sewage. In 2010, 1,937 propertieswill still be at risk and an additional 1,995 by 2015. Thames Water aims to virtuallyeliminate high risk flooding by 2035 and to prioritise prevention of sewer floods withinproperties over flooding of external areas. In most cases, oversized pipes or tanks will beused to increase sewer capacity. Sewer design standards are to be enhanced to increasecapacity for the projected increased flows and network models will be developed toassess where capacity improvements are required.Sewer flooding of residential properties occurred in a total of 8 properties within the SW1V1 and SW1 V2 postcode areas between 1997 and 2007 36 . According to WCC, sewerflooding is confined to a few isolated areas including the area between the northern endof Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, the area around Chippenham Road and alongWestbourne Grove, the latter area having been severely affected during the July 2007floods. In response, Thames Water are currently constructing a sewer relief scheme onWestbourne Grove involving laying a new 1.5m diameter sewer and underground storagesewer within the Hallfield Estate.In their Draft Five Year Plan 2010 to 2015 (AMP 5) Thames Water identifies possiblemeasures to meet future expansion in levels of service provision through newinfrastructure and improved existing infrastructure. At this stage, no detailed options havebeen made available. Possible measures to expand service provision are as follows:Upgrades to treatment works including sludge capacity and odour reductionImproving quality and monitoring of treated effluentImproving security and provision for emergency measures relating to sewage anddrinking waterMeasures to reduce CO2 emissionsTideway Tunnel project including improvements to Beckton treatment worksNew infrastructure to accommodate population growthProtection of key sites from surface and sewer flooding alleviation, eg theWestbourne Grove and Hallfield Estate scheme.The provision standards that will be used to calculate the demand for new sewerageinfrastructure arising from economic and population growth are based on the standardindustry procedure used to design adoptable sewers 37 .36 „Westminster Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Draft, „ (WCC, August 2008)37 „Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition‟, clause 2.12.2 (Water Research Council, 2006)November 2009 Page 69

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-5: Sewerage Provision StandardsDevelopmentResidentialProvision Standard200 L/day per personCommercial Low water use (offices, retail) 1.1 L/s per hectareIntermediate water use1.35 L/s per hectareHigh water use (industrial)Source: Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition, Water Research1.6 L/s per hectareSince most of the commercial development in Westminster will be office and retail, thewater use is likely to be low and therefore a rate of 1.1 L/s per hectare was used in thecalculations. The baseline quantities of sewage arising from residential and commercialdevelopments for the baseline and 2026 scenarios are shown in the table below. Thetotal volume of sewage was calculated by multiplying the appropriate rate by either theresidential population or commercial area then adding the two together.As a comparison, the table shows an estimate of total sewage produced in Westminsterbased on data provided by Thames Water. Thames Water treats 4.3M cubic metres perday for 13.5M customers in their region 38 . This means that Thames Water receivesapproximately 319 L/day per customer at their sewer treatment works. Thames Waterestimated that the number of sewer customers would increase by 380,000 by 2015 39 .Assuming the trend continues there will be 14.4M sewer customers by 2026, i.e. anincrease from 2007 to 2026 of 47,500 per year. The baseline population of Westminsteris 234,100. Using the rate of 319 L/day this means that Westminster produces 74.7 ML/day of sewage and the predicted 2026 population of 259,940 will produce 82.9 M L/day.Table 3-6: URS Assessment of Additional Sewer Flow Rates from NewDevelopment Compared to Thames Water Data, 2026 ScenarioDevelopmentVolume of sewage (L/day)Baseline 2026Residential 46.8M 52.7MCommercial (Office, Retail) 73.0M 85.7MTotal (Thames Water figures in brackets) 119.8M (74.7M) 138.4M (82.9M)Source: URS calculations see Utilities, A5 and R6 sheets andhttp://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/4625.htm38 http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/4625.htm Thames Water, About Us, Our Business,Facts and Figures. Accessed on 13 February 2009.39 ‟Five-Year Plan from 2010 to 2015‟, Draft Report, p. 50 (Thames Water, 2008)November 2009 Page 70

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe above assessment is a technical estimate only assessment of likely future demand,based on very limited data and makes a number of assumptions: for example, the volumeof sewage treated per customer will remain the same in 2026; the surface water flow isnot considered; and the number of Thames Water customers increases at a constant ratefrom now until 2026. These factors are all unknown at this stage and the assessment istherefore based on the limited information currently available. However, given that thevolumes of sewage calculated for 2026 using the two methods have increased byapproximately the same proportion (between 10% and 15%) it can be concluded thatThames Water have accurately predicted the required sewerage infrastructure forWestminster.3.6.3. Planned Investment and CostsThe Thames Water region includes not only Westminster but also most of the Thamescatchment area, from Warwickshire to Sussex and from Gloucestershire to Essex.Thames Water was unable to provide figures for Westminster since much of theirinvestment is directed towards large-scale assets, which serve areas greater than thestudy area. The figures presented in the rest of this section for Thames Water costs arefor the whole Thames Water region, with approximate figures for Westminster shownwhich were estimated based on equivalent population where relevant 40 .Across their entire area, current Thames Water maintenance expenditure is on average£1bn per year („Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)‟, Thames Water).Thames Water plans to invest a total of £6.5bn between 2010 and 2015 in both watersupply and sewer services, and a total of £27bn over the next 25 years. Sewerageinvestment in 2010 to 2015 in the AMP 4 period will total £4.2bn („Five-Year Plan from2010 to 2015„, Draft Report, Thames Water).Table 3-7 below shows capital investment in sewerage infrastructure within Westminster,2010-2015. Detailed investment information is available for the period from 2010 to 2015and more approximate costs are available for 2015-2020. Projects will be funded byrevenue from Thames Water customers averaged over the whole Thames Water region.Long-term costs have been evaluated for the Thames Tideway project due for completionin 2020.40 The entire Thames Water region constitutes a total area of 37,700 km2 of which Westminster is only 21.48 km2(0.05% by area). In terms of population Westminster is slightly more significant; around 0.234m people live inWestminster compared to a total population of 13.5m in the Thames Region (1.7% by population).November 2009 Page 71

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-7: Capital Investment in Sewerage Infrastructure within Westminster up to2025Key Activity ProjectionsNew and renovated sewersNew and refurbished treatment worksNew and refurbished pumping stationsManagement and general costsThames Tideway Project (also includesthe Lee tunnel)TotalEstimated Westminster Cost(Thames Water Region Cost in Brackets) 412007-2010£20m(£1,200m)2010-2015£39m(£2,297m)£30m(£1,755m)£2m(£125m)£3m(£191m)£74m(£4,369m)£22m(£1,321.3m)2015-2020£35m(£2,079m)£29m(£1,682m)£2m(£118m)£3m(£199m)£69m(£4,080m)2020-2025£68m 42(£4,025m)Source: „Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)‟, Thames Water p. 67; „Five-YearPlan from 2010 to 2015‟, Draft Report, Thames Water p. 88-89Following consultations between Thames Water and their customers, the highest priorityin terms of investment will be to reduce sewer flooding within properties and to deal withodour nuisance caused by treatment works. While protecting the aquatic environmentwithin watercourses is considered a priority, the proposed Thames Tideway has still notyet received planning permission and therefore may not be implemented in its plannedform.3.6.4. ConclusionsThames Water has based their assessments on existing asset maintenance costs andprojections of required improvements and additional infrastructure required to meetforecasted demand. Several factors may have an impact on the predicted investmentplans as follows, including public expectations, the state of physical assets and theexternal environment. Increased incidences of surface water flooding, and increasedfrequency of CSO discharges into the River Thames are examples of drivers that wouldrequire investment in further improvements to the sewerage system.41 Estimated Westminster cost is based on population equivalent: Westminster population is 0.234m; ThamesWater Region population is 13.5m.42 Based on predicted total capital investment of £5,750m in 2020-2025 assuming 70% covers sewerage (the restcovers water supply), based on long term cost assessments („Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035‟, p. 67, Thames Water,2008)November 2009 Page 72

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 3-8: Potential Factors Affecting Future Required Investment in Sewers inWestminsterPopulation Assets External EnvironmentDemographic changes:Increasingly mobile and/ortransient population makes itdifficult to predict demand forsewerage servicesEvolving public expectationsregarding level of service, e.g.sewer flooding and river waterqualityAdaptation to and tolerance ofclimate change impacts, e.g.increased water use in thesummer months; if Greywaterrecycling becomes commonplace (i.e. rainwater harvestingfor garden use and wc flushing)demand may be reducedInnovations in treatmenttechnology such as fuel cellsEfficiency improvements suchas automated monitoringDevelopment of smaller scale,localised solutionsResilience of assets to climatechange impacts - degradationmay be accelerated orcapacity exceededPressure to cut carbonemissions‟Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)‟, Thames Water p. 13Extent of climate change maydiffer from predictionsDownturn in the economy willconstrain investment; marketforces will affect demand andprice for sewage servicesChanging land use planscould alter existing / forecastdrainage patternsRestructuring of the waterindustry to stimulatecompetition will affectinvestment plansTightening legislative andregulatory environmentIn an assessment of projected foul sewer flow rates (see spreadsheet R6 Utilities) it wasestimated that by 2026, residential developments in Westminster would generate aroundsix million litres/day 43 of foul sewerage. Thames Water were unable to provide figures forprojected increase in sewerage therefore it was not possible to compare this figuredirectly. In terms of costs, Thames Water estimates that £231m investment in sewerageinfrastructure will be required in the period up to 2025 for Westminster.There are potential gaps in provision in terms of both the planning system and financialrisk. Under the current planning regime, developers have an automatic right to connectnew developments to the public sewer system once planning permission has beengranted 44 . In previous consultations with WCC 45 in response to Alternative Option 2A, inwhich planning permission would be conditional on demonstration that sufficientsewerage capacity either exists already or would be funded by the developer, ThamesWater commented that:“Water and sewerage undertakers have limited powers under theWater Industry Act to prevent connection ahead of infrastructure43 Based on 4000 litres/day/dwelling, „Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition‟ (Water Research Council, 2006)44 Pitt Report Executive Summary, paragraph ES.2845 „City of Westminster, Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options‟, p. 43 (WCC, July 2008)November 2009 Page 73

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportupgrades… where there is a (sewer) capacity problem and noimprovements are programmed … the developer needs to contact theundertaker to agree what improvements are required and how theywill be funded.”Another potential gap in provision could arise due to the Tideway scheme not yet havingreceived planning permission and therefore it may not be implemented in its plannedform.Investment in sewerage infrastructure will be subject to financial risk. Thames Water is aprivate company and although their prices are limited by Ofwat to protect consumers, theproposed investment in sewer infrastructure is subject to financial risks. Thames Waterwill need to raise over £30bn in debt to finance their investment plans. The scale of theproposed investment will exceed the capacity of any single debt market, therefore thecompany will require access to a wide range of capital markets. Large projects such asthe Thames tunnel may require funding in alternative ways to better define and allocaterisk, as these projects have a different risk profile to a standard capital programme. Toregulate prices, Ofwat sets cost efficiency targets every five years and benefits of costsavings are hence shared with sewerage customers. In summary there is a risk that thecosts of the proposed investment may increase due to both the cost of borrowing and dueto the high risks involved in major construction projects, but these are controlled to anextent by Ofwat to protect consumers from excessive price increases.Complementary to works that Thames Water will be responsible for, WCC is in theposition to encourage a range of initiatives as part of the planning process so as toreduce the cumulative impact of new developments on carrying capacity of sewers andwater treatment infrastructure. These could include the introduction of SUDS, waterefficient measures, attenuation, protected gardens, and sustainable design standard.November 2009 Page 74

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.7. Flood Risk3.7.1. BaselineFlood RiskThe WCC Draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (August 2008, City ofWestminster and Halcrow) finds that the potential sources of flood risk for the City ofWestminster include groundwater, sewer, surface water, fluvial, and tidal. In addition, theflood risk caused by canals and docks is identified. Each source of flooding is been givena degree of risk as high, medium or low corresponding with the results determined in theSFRA. See Table 3-9 for a summary of these findings.Table 3-9: Sources of Flooding and the Degree of RiskSources of FloodingGroundwaterSewerSurface waterFluvialTidalCanals and Water Features and Water MainsSource: WCC Draft SFRADegree of RiskLowHighHighHighLow – High ResidualLowThe City of Westminster is reporting a low groundwater flooding risk. To this end, WCCshould continue to work with General Aquifer Research Development and InvestigationTeam (GARDIT) formed by Thames Water Utilities, London Underground Limited and theEA in 1992 to mitigate the problem. GARDIT has been able to increase the groundwaterabstraction in London by up to 50 million litres per day (Ml/d), which has reduced the rateof groundwater rise considerably.The City of Westminster has a high sewerage and surface water flood risk. This conditionis caused by the majority of the sewers in the area being combined foul and surfacewater sewers that are at capacity during 1 in 1 year and 1 in 2 year storm events.Therefore, small storm events can cause extensive sewer flooding where surface watercannot drain into the sewerage network. Surface water flooding then occurs when theexcess surface water flows downhill as overland flow.The fluvial and tidal risks in the City of Westminster are due to the River Thames and itstributaries. The Thames Barrier along with 32km of flood defences protects the boroughsof London for storms up to and including the 1 in 1000 year or 0.1% annual probabilitystorm event. However, in 2030 the Barrier is expected to reach its design life due to theNovember 2009 Page 75

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportunanticipated increasing rate in sea level rise. This is coupled with the risk that theextreme storm events may breach the existing flood defence walls.Canals and water features and water mains pose a minimal flood risk in the City ofWestminster. None of the canals within Westminster are on embankments. In addition,there are no locks within Westminster itself and the nearest upstream lock is 16km westof Westminster. Also, as indicated in the SFRA, the water features of Westminster are theresult of „hidden rivers‟ and are unlikely to flood. Many water mains in Westminster datefrom Victorian times. Burst water mains are a minimal risk for Westminster as the areasaffected by this type of flooding would be mainly localised to the source of flooding.Additionally, Thames Water has already begun its Victorian mains replacementprogramme which is aiming to replace 2,500km of water mains in London by 2015.Flood DefencesWithin in the SFRA, the presence of flood defences is identified. The SFRA identifies theEnvironment Agency‟s National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) gradesfor the River Thames flood defences in Westminster. Westminster‟s flood defence wall isin good (grade 2) condition, though one section (Millbank) is subject to seepage. 46 WCCshould work to maintain this condition level and investigate the repair of the section of theflood defence wall in Millbank.3.7.2. Forecast DemandThe effects of climate change on both rainfall intensities and sea level rise pose seriousflood risk concerns from a variety of sources to the City of Westminster, particularly inlight of the revised sea level rise predictions.The potential risks associated with the Thames Barrier and the flood defence walls (dueto either a failure or to an extreme event that results in breaching) are considered as partof the Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100), an Environment Agency (EA) project to develop atidal flood risk management plan for the Thames estuary through to the end of thecentury. The plan will evaluate the region‟s flood risk including the effects of climatechange, rising sea levels and the aging of existing flood defences. The EA‟s websitestates that TE 2100 is due to be submitted to the Government in March 2010. The resultsof TE 2100 should outline other areas of investment that can be pursued by LondonBoroughs.Landowners of sites (riparian owners) have legal responsibility to maintain and repairdefences of sites adjacent to the Thames. As well as planning flood for fluvial and tidalflood risk on a long term basis, the EA inspects flood defences twice a year and enforces46 Source: WCC Draft SFRA Appendix 1: Westminster Breach Analysis and Surface Water Flooding Assessment,Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. Data provided by the Environment Agency to the authors of the SFRAs from the NationalFlood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD). Grades - Very Good (1), Good (2), Fair (3), Poor (4), Very Poor(5).November 2009 Page 76

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportthe obligation for action if necessary. The EA has a contributions policy which can helplandowners with costs where necessary.In terms of sewerage and surface flooding, Thames Water has a five year AssetManagement Plan and also a 25 year investment plan which covers measures tomaintain sewers and reduce flooding; see Sewerage section of the report for full details.The Thames Tideway scheme will help to alleviate some of the risk. Construction on thisscheme is expected to start in 20012 and to complete in 2020.Developers are required to mitigate sewerage and surface flood risk impacts associatedwith specific sites as a condition of planning permission.Defra has recently issued guidance on Surface Water Management Plans, which may bea requirement in the forthcoming Floods and Water Bill (expected Spring 09). 47 LocalAuthorities will be expected to co-ordinate surface water management and produce planscontaining information on existing surface water drainage infrastructure and setting outactions relating to capital works / maintenance programmes and a drainage strategy fornew development. There will be a requirement for local authorities to work closely withwater & sewerage companies, and to inform the LDF.3.7.3. Planned Investment and CostsThere is insufficient data to enable costs associated with flood defences in Westminsterto be separated from higher level cost information available from Thames Water and theEA.Thames Water plan to invest approximately £2bn in the Thames Tideway storm overflowscheme, which will help to alleviate some of the flood risk due to sewers and surfacewater. Although construction of this scheme is set to start in 20012, detailed informationand costs are not available although they have been requested from Thames Water onmore than one occasion.3.7.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThames Water and the EA are making long term plans to mitigate flood risk through theThames Tunnel and TE2100 schemes. However, there is insufficient data available onthese planned investments to enable a detailed assessment of these strategies tomanage increased flood risk, or to identify costs specifically associated with Westminster.It will be important for WCC to engage early with TW, EA and other agencies involved inthe planning and funding of these schemes.While maintaining hard flood defences is vital, it will be important for Westminster to workwith the EA to implement flood management standards that are similar to the otherauthorities which make up the Central London Central Activities Zone. The standardsshould help reduce the amount of surface water generated by developments with the47 See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/surfacewaterdrainage.htmNovember 2009 Page 77

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportimplementation of sustainable drainage systems and encourage the implementation offlood resilient architecture.November 2009 Page 78

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report3.8. Waste Management3.8.1. BaselineWestminster currently collects approximately 190,000 tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste(MSW) per year of which 56% is commercial waste, 34% is from households and 10% isstreet litter 48 . This is a reduction on the quantity of 214,066 tonnes collected in 2003/2004which comprised 60% commercial, 30% household and 10% street cleansing wastes 49 .Reasons for the reduction in the volume of waste over this period are not apparent in theavailable documentation, although it is noted in the Waste Implementation Programmereport that there has been a declining trend since at least 1996/1997. WCC reportedlyonly collects commercial waste from 30% of the businesses in the City of Westminster,the remainder being collected by independent waste contractors.MSW is also collected by WCC from approximately 140 „Micro Recycling Centres‟ and140 „Big Black Bins‟ located across the Westminster. The Micro Recycling Centres andBig Black Bins are usually placed non-residential streets and are often, but not always,located together. Both are for the storage of household waste, with the Micro RecyclingCentres storing recyclable wastes such as glass, plastics, cans, paper, cardboard andtextiles, and the Big Black Bins storing general (non-recyclable) household waste.According to WCC, the Micro Recycling Centres are emptied weekly or even daily asrequired and there are no problems with them becoming over filled. However, commercialwaste is occasionally fly-tipped into the Big Black Bins, but these are emptiedapproximately three times per day.According to the Waste Strategy Manager for WCC, approximately 250 tonnes ofresidential garden waste and 700 tonnes of street leaves are collected each year. Thesewaste streams are transferred to a composting facility in Rainham, Essex. WCC has alsorecently introduced a food waste collection service, which collects approximately 1 tonneof food waste per week from the Church Street Estate. This waste is transferred off site toan in-vessel rocket composter (operated by Vital Regeneration) and then the resultingcompost is transferred to local parks.WCC transfers most (94% in 2003/2004) of its MSW out of Westminster‟s boundaries.According to the Waste Strategy Manager for WCC, waste from smaller vehicles (e.g.street litter) is initially transferred to either Cringle Dock Waste Transfer Station (LondonBorough of Wandsworth) 50 or Smugglers Way Waste Transfer Station (London Borough48 Information received from WCC on the 5 th of February 2009, via email.49 „Municipal Waste Management Strategy Implementation Programme 2004-2016‟ (City of Westminster, 2003)50 It should also be noted that planning conditions, contractual obligations and Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) arenot necessarily flexible enough to allow changes to the arrangements at a waste management facility. Forexample, according to the Greater London Authority (GLA), the owner of a waste wharf in Battersea wishes totreat waste generated on site in an on-site Energy from Waste plant; but this is not possible as the waste hasbeen contracted to be treated at a facility in Belvedere.”November 2009 Page 79

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportof Wandsworth) from where it is transferred to a landfill site in Mucking (Essex) via theRiver Thames. Larger collection vehicles, containing the remaining waste streams,transport the waste to the South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP)facility in Lewisham during the day and to Brent Waste Transfer Station (London Boroughof Brent) at night. Waste is transferred from Brent in the morning either to SELCHP forincineration or to Springfield Farm Landfill site in Buckinghamshire.A new Energy from Waste facility, Riverside at Belvedere, has been proposed which willbe able to accept 585,000 tonnes of waste per annum. WCC has indicated that wastecurrently going to landfill from the waste transfer stations will in future be transferred tothe new Belvedere facility upon its completion (estimated to be in 2010).The Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Management Strategy (GLA, 2003) indicates that there areno Civic Amenity (CA) sites within Westminster, whilst typically other London authoritieshave one or two civic amenity sites. WCC‟s duty to provide a CA facility is achieved byhaving contractual access for residents to use the Western Riverside Waste Authority CAsites at Cringle Dock in Battersea and Smugglers Way in Wandsworth. WCC reportedlyowns a strategic waste depot on Mandela Way in the London Borough of Southwark, butcurrently rents this facility out to third parties rather than use the facility itself. This depotmay be used from September 2010, when WCC‟s next Waste Collection contract is dueto commence, for parking for the fleet of refuse collection vehicles as well as salt storesfor winter gritting operations.As outlined above there is evidence of under-provision for dealing with MSW within theboundaries of the City of Westminster. Waste is primarily transferred, treated anddisposed of outside the Westminster‟s boundaries.3.8.2. Forecast DemandThe composition of Westminster‟s MSW is predominantly generated by commercial andindustrial activities rather than by households. Therefore it is it is less possible to linkfuture demand for waste infrastructure to population or household growth than someother London LPAs.WCC anticipates that the key future drivers of demand and supply will be EU Directives,Waste Strategies, Regulations and Guidance. For example the Landfill AllowanceTrading Scheme (LATS) introduces significant and innovative changes in waste policyand practice for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill. The Schemeis intended to provide a cost effective way of enabling England to meet its targets forreducing the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste under Article 5(2) of the ECLandfill Directive.According to the WCC Waste Implementation Programme, waste arisings in 2015/2016will remain the same as in 2003/2004 (at 214,066 tonnes) despite a projected growth inpopulation. However, there will be a change in the percentages of the different wastestreams to 55% commercial (117,377 tonnes), 28% household (66,015 tonnes) and 14%street cleansing (29,645 tonnes). It is anticipated that in 2015/2016, 15% of the wastegenerated by Westminster will be recycled/composted, 77% will be combusted (EnergyNovember 2009 Page 80

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportfrom Waste) and 8% will be landfilled. This represents a significant change from2003/2004 when for example, a total of 32.5% was sent to landfill.The table below shows the projected percentage changes of the different waste streamsin the City of Westminster.Table 3-10: Percentage of Waste Streams in WestminsterYearCommercial(Tonnes)Household(Tonnes)Street Cleansing(Tonnes)2003/4 62.5% (134,213) 27.5% (58,585) 10% (21,268) 512015/2016 55% (117,377) 28% (66,015) 14% (29,645)Source: WCC Waste Implementation Programme and Personal Communication, WCC, 05/02/2009According to the WCC Waste Implementation Programme, the proportion of waste whichwill be disposed of to landfill will decrease from 33% (2003/4) to 8% (2015/2016) asshown in the table below.Table 3-11: Destination of WasteYearRecycledCompostedCombusted(Energy fromWaste)Landfilled2003/4 6% 61% 33%2015/2016 15% 77% 8%Source: WCC Waste Implementation ProgrammeThe London Plan states that Westminster (as well as the other London authorities) shouldidentify sufficient land to manage waste that has been apportioned at local authority level.The London Plan does not indicate any locations for recycling and waste treatmentfacilities within Westminster. The Mayor has apportioned 216,000 tonnes of waste toWestminster, to be managed by 2020 through the identification of recycling and wastetreatment facilities in the Westminster or by pooling arrangements with other boroughs.(This apportionment includes commercial and industrial waste as well as domesticwaste).The emerging LDF recognises the need for greater self-sufficiency but indicates it may beunrealistic to identify additional waste facilities in Westminster, given the land-useconstraints; and indicates that a large proportion of waste will always need to be handledoutside the boundary of the City of Westminster. WCC is currently preparing the tenderdocuments to deliver waste collection, recycling and street cleansing services during theperiod 2010 - 2017. Its current waste disposal contracts expire in 2016/17 and tenderdocuments for the post-2017 disposal needs will be prepared during 2010. Both tender51 N.B. This figure includes Parks Waste.November 2009 Page 81

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportprocesses but particularly the latter will have major infrastructure implications. However,no further information is available.The Waste Implementation Programme indicates that a new Material Recycling Facility(MRF) at Smugglers Way (London Borough of Wandsworth) is proposed. Planningpermission was granted a couple of years ago but construction is yet to start. The MRFwill be able to sort recyclables received from Westminster. The facility is likely to have acapacity of 84,000 tonnes/year and is planned to be operational from 2010.3.8.3. Planned Investment and CostsVery little information is available in relation to the funding of future projects inWestminster.Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) are one of the main mechanisms through which localauthorities can procure assets in a value for money way in partnership with the privatesector; in that it is a procurement methodology for asset-based services. Local Authoritiescan enter into long term fixed price contracts with private sector contractors to deliverservices to specified performance standards. For example, Defra was granted £280million of funding through PFI credits in 2007/08, which will be available to help localauthorities invest in sustainable waste management options. The PFI credits will rise to£600 million in 2008/09 and £700 million in 2009/10 and 2010/11 52 .Waste PFI schemes will help the UK meet the EU Landfill Directive diversion andrecycling targets. They also encourage better partnership working between localauthorities resulting in efficiency gains, more integrated waste management solutions andthe benefits of economies of scale that flow from this and a more strategic approach toplanning and procurement.In the last couple of years, there has been an increase in the number of projectssubmitted to Defra for consideration for PFI credit support. With that increase has comean improvement in the environmental solutions being proposed. Most of the recentlysubmitted projects have proposed long-term recycling and composting solutions in linewith national targets in the Waste Strategy for England 2007; as well as diversion fromlandfill in excess of EU targets and ambitious waste minimisation proposals that aim toreduce waste growth to 0% per annum in the long term.Funding is also available from other sources such as the Waste Resource and ActionProgramme (WRAP). For Greater London in general additional funding is available fromthe London Waste and Recycling Fund, which has already funded: a green wastecomposting facility, improvements to civic amenity sites, recycling on estates, theproposed new Riverside Energy from Waste facility at Belvedere, and a planningapplication for an MBT plant located at Southwark.52 http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/waste/localauth/funding/pfi/November 2009 Page 82

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportBetween 2005 and 2008, funding was also available through the Department ofEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) via the Business Resource Efficiency andWaste (BREW) Programme. The programme was established to return to business £284million of money raised over that period through the landfill tax escalator. The projects itfunded included assisting the construction, manufacturing, retail, recycling andreprocessing industries to reduce waste and encourage recycling 53 .Following this programme, a range of advice and support is now available to businessesand Local Authorities through Business Link 54 and the Brew Centre 55 .3.8.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThere is limited information concerning the funding or potential capacity of WCC‟splanned waste management facilities. However, work is be undertaken by WCC toaddress this. WCC see a growing role for 'micro treatment' facilities such as that at theChurch Street Estate, and is currently surveying other potential sites (especially housingestates) for similar food waste collection/processing operations.The composition of Westminster‟s MSW is predominantly generated by commercial andvisitor activities. The City of Westminster has predicted that the population of the boroughwill increase but has also predicted that this will not lead to a corresponding increase inthe total arisings of MSW. No information was available to confirm how Westminsterplans to reduce the volume of MSW generated per person. However, this could be linkedto a predicted reduction in commercial waste or street litter. Therefore URS cannot makea judgement as to whether this prediction is reasonable. However, URS has observedthat waste generation in the borough has decreased since 1996/7.As described above, WCC transfers the majority of MSW out of Westminster fortreatment or disposal, therefore relying on the availability of resources of surroundingLondon boroughs. Anecdotal evidence from the City of Westminster indicates that thisarrangement is currently providing an adequate service for the volume of wastegenerated in the Westminster. As WCC has predicted that waste arisings will notincrease in the future, it could also be assumed that adequate provision may be availablein the future. However, there is no guarantee that the services currently provided bysurrounding boroughs will be available in the future and this constitutes a risk to theadequate management of waste in the future.53 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/support/54 http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1079068363&r.s=tl55 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1212811November 2009 Page 83

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report4. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT4.1. IntroductionThe City of Westminster is a major employment area with 568,900 workers (CoreStrategy Preferred Options, July 2008). Westminster is also a major tourism and retaildestination, and together these uses significantly expand the daytime resident populationof some 230,000 people. Westminster, therefore, experiences a large daily influx ofworkers and visitors that places significant pressure on available transport resources,including roads, car parks and public spaces.Given its central location, much of the transport infrastructure that serves movements to,from and within Westminster are provided by other parties, including Transport froLondon and Network Rail. However, Westminster is the highway authority for over 90% ofroads in Westminster and is responsible for public spaces and several car parks.While the majority of trips into Westminster arrive by rail or tube, the majority ofmovements around Westminster are by vehicle (car, bus, taxi, coach, cycle etc.) or onfoot. The intensity of such movements, and especially walk movements on confinedfootways, creates a need to continuously ensure that such facilities are maintained tostandards sufficient to maintain the status of Westminster as an attractive place to live,work or visit.4.2. BaselineBaseline travel conditions within Westminster have been assessed for each mode oftravel. This forms the basis for an assessment of future needs and areas where there maybe gaps in infrastructure provision.The City of Westminster is well served by public transport. An assessment of publictransport accessibility levels (PTAL) for the City of Westminster shows that the majority ofthe city has an excellent or very good PTAL index. This is illustrated in Figure 4-1.November 2009 Page 84

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 4-1: City of Westminster Public Transport Accessibility LevelsSource: WCC, Planning and City DevelopmentThis high level of accessibility and connectivity is provided by the London Undergroundnetwork (32 stations providing links to all underground lines except the Waterloo & Cityline), a high provision of bus services and the rail network. Accessibility is very goodacross almost the whole of Westminster, with only areas north of Regent‟s Park and southPimlico showing moderate levels of accessibility.A key determinant of peak travel demands in Westminster is journeys to work, with manytrips being made by non-city residents into Westminster. The 2001 census data includesdetails of journeys to work by mode of travel and data has been extracted for both jobslocated in Westminster (inbound) and jobs held by residents but located outsideWestminster (outbound). Table 4-1 shows the modal characteristics of inbound andoutbound journeys to work.November 2009 Page 85

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 4-1: Journey to Work Modal Share for City of Westminster (2001)ModeInbound to Jobs inWestminster(%)Outbound to Jobsfrom Westminster(%)London Underground 36 36National Rail 32 4Bus 10 14Car (driver and passenger) 12 16Taxi 1 2Motorcycle 2 1Bicycle 2 3Walk 5 22Other 0 1Total 100 100Source: Census (2001)Table 4-1 shows that the majority of trips to work in Westminster are by rail modes, i.e.London Underground (36%) and National Rail (32%). Together with bus and taxi use,public transport modes account for 79% of all inbound trips. Only 10% of jobs inWestminster are accessed by car.Westminster residents show a higher propensity to travel to work by car (this includestravel to jobs) with 16% using this mode. A high percentage of residents walk to work(22%), reflecting the high numbers of residents who both live and work in Westminster.The level of crowding on the public transport network facilitates an understanding of travelconditions on the public transport network. Existing levels of crowding on the tube networkin Westminster is detailed in Figure 4-2. The black bands represent very crowdedconditions and the red bands indicate crowded conditions. The Victoria line betweenVictoria and Green Park and north of Oxford Circus is very crowded. The Bakerloo linebetween Oxford Circus and Marylebone is also very crowded.November 2009 Page 86

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 4-2: London Underground Crowding in 2005 (AM Peak)Baker StreetBondStreetHolbornSource: T2025VictoriaVery CrowdedCrowdedBusyUncrowdedAs well as crowding on underground lines in the City of Westminster, there are alsosignificant levels of crowding at a number of LUL stations. In the most extreme cases, thiscan lead to partial or full station closures during peak period. Of the ten busiest stations,in 2005/06, on the underground network four are located in the City of Westminster,namely Victoria (67.82 million passengers), Oxford Circus (63.06 million passengers),Paddington (34.29 million passengers) and Piccadilly Circus (33.76 million passengers).The four stations that are included in LUL‟s forward programme of congestion relief worksare all located within the City of Westminster, namely; Victoria; Tottenham Court Road;Paddington; and Bond Street stations.Only Westminster underground station has step free access. Projects are planned forTottenham Court Road, Victoria, Paddington, Green Park and Baker Street stations.Several stations have poor quality public realm these include Victoria, Paddington andTottenham Court Road stations.The National Rail Network serving Westminster operates out of four main line termini,namely Marylebone, Paddington, Victoria and Charing Cross, serving the north-west,west London, the south-west and the south-east, all of which have step free access.Figure 4-3 shows crowding levels on National Rail services. There is crowding on linesinto Marylebone and Paddington. All four stations cater for high numbers of passengers.Paddington and Victoria provide direct connections to Gatwick and Heathrow airports.November 2009 Page 87

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe GLA‟s Transport Committee produced „The Big Squeeze – Rail overcrowding inLondon‟ (February 2009). This document reports that London‟s rail network isovercrowded and that trains are more crowded than reported in official figures. In additiontwo-thirds of London commuters are dissatisfied with crowding on peak rail services withsome services so packed that there are health and safety risks. In fact London performsworse than in other areas of the UK.Figure 4-3: National Rail Crowding in 2006 (Peak)Source: T2025The Interchange Plan – Improving interchange in London (Transport for London, August2002) identifies Paddington, Victoria and Charing Cross as major central London terminirequiring future investment/development. Tottenham Court Road, Leicester Square,Piccadilly Circus, Edgware Road (H&C line), Oxford Circus and Bond Street are all apriority within the other major central London termini category. These have been selectedbecause the quality gap is greatest. Particular interchanges, such as Victoria, have beenselected because they suffer from capacity constraints as a result of high levels ofinterchange, which mean that they have to close regularly to control passenger flows. It isnot possible to consistently compare measures of crowding at stations due to differencesin the composition of stations such as platform length and any problems tend to beisolated to specific areas of facilities, such as gatelines or escalators.A number of the National Rail stations have poor quality public realm, including Victoria,Paddington and Charing Cross stations.November 2009 Page 88

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportOver 80 bus routes service the City of Westminster. This high level of service provisionbenefits Westminster in terms of the levels of public transport accessibility provided forresidents, workers and visitors travelling to, from and within Westminster. The density ofroutes enables most major corridors to provide high levels of frequency. However, thesheer volume of buses in some areas, such as Oxford Street, contributes to congestion inthe area. This in turn detrimentally impacts bus passenger journey times. Way to Go!Planning for better transport (Nov 2008) highlighted the Mayor's vision for transport inadvance of the formal process to revise the Transport Strategy. The document recognisesthat wall to wall buses on routes such as Oxford Street can be counter productive forpedestrians and the environment.The London Bus Initiative (LBI) has done much to improve the reliability of busesoperating in Westminster with the implementation of bus lanes and other measures.However, buses are still susceptible to road congestion, particularly as a result of roadworks.A total of 229 miles of carriageway is located within the City of Westminster, of which 180miles is within the remit of WCC, 15 miles forms part of the Transport for London RoadNetwork (TLRN) and 35 miles comprises privately maintained streets. TfL is alsoresponsible for the maintenance and operation of traffic signals in Westminster. An areabounded by Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane, Edgware Road,Marylebone Road and Euston Road is subject to the Congestion Charging Scheme(CCS). Recent consultation has determined that the Western Extension of the scheme willbe abolished. On the 27 November 2008 the Mayor of London announced his intention toremove the Western Extension of the congestion charging zone following a non-statutoryconsultation with the public and stakeholders. The earliest the Western extension couldbe removed is 2010.Westminster‟s UDP states that „The City of Westminster has unacceptably high levels ofthrough traffic and traffic congestion‟. It is more difficult to define highway conditions dueto the diffuse character of the road network. Historically, in central London and thereforein Westminster, average traffic speeds have changed little in the last 100 years at around10 miles per hour. The introduction of the CCS in February 2003 had a very marked initialeffect on traffic volumes entering the charging area. In the first year, all motor vehiclesdeclined by 14% but, since the first year, and despite subsequent increases in charges,the reduction in 2007 is only 16% compared with 2002.Transport for London also monitors congestion within the charging zone as reported in theSixth Annual Report (Transport for London, July 2008). In 2002, the average excessvehicle time per kilometre in central London was 2.3 minutes (equivalent to a reduction inspeed from 30 mph to 14 mph). Initially, congestion fell following the introduction ofcharging but by 2007 excess travel time per kilometre was back to 2.3 minutes. There areseveral contributory factors to this higher level of congestion, including road works, buttaking these factors into account there is still an unexplained increase.How well traffic flows is important not just for private vehicles and buses but for freight aswell. Congestion therefore impacts the movement of goods as well as people throughWestminster.November 2009 Page 89

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportWalking is seen as an increasingly important mode of transport in its own right. Walkingrelieves pressure on the public transport network, particularly in central London. Walkingfrom major interchanges such as Victoria helps to relieve overcrowded tube and busservices. The importance of walk trips over short distances is illustrated by the modalshares detailed in Table 4-1, particularly for trips made from the City of Westminster.The Legible London project by TfL/City of Westminster aims to encourage more people tomake short journeys on foot rather than by mechanised modes. Westminster LIP investsin schemes to enhance and improve accessibility for pedestrians. Pedestrians, however,are highly susceptible to a range of problems that reduce the amenity of the walkingenvironment, including traffic, poorly located crossings, narrow footways and streetclutter.The Central London Pedestrian Study (Intelligence Space/Atkins, December 2007)examined pedestrian conditions at 102 key locations and systematically audited thesesites against fixed criteria. It is noted that this study only focuses on locations on theTLRN. Several of the sites identified as having the highest priority for improvement arewithin the City of Westminster. The highest priority sites include Westminster Bridge,Baker Street, Marble Arch and Victoria Station. Many of the problems identified at theselocations arise from high pedestrian volumes in areas with inadequate footways and/orformal crossings.The City of Westminster is served by three piers, namely Embankment Pier, WestminsterMillennium Pier and Millbank Millennium Pier. These are served by commuter riverservices to/from the east (Canary Wharf and Greenwich) and to the west (Putney andChelsea Harbour). Leisure services also operate to destinations such as Kew andGreenwich.Opportunity AreasThe London Plan identifies three Opportunity Areas, located within the CAZ, for growth injobs and homes within Westminster. These are Victoria, Tottenham Court and Paddingtonand are located around existing key transport interchanges.Victoria Opportunity AreaThe Victoria Opportunity Area is located around Victoria station and is predominantly anarea with office and retail uses located adjacent to a residential area. Westminster‟semerging Core Strategy (July 2008) extends the area to include Chelsea Barracks andVictoria Coach Terminus. The Victoria Area Planning Brief (adopted April 2006) providesstrategic planning and transport advice for the area. Since 2006 the Opportunity Area haschanged therefore the City of Westminster are in the process of updating the brief.The 2006 planning brief reports that the Victoria Station is one of the busiest interchangesin London with approximately 75 million passengers per annum using the facilities. Theinterchange is not adequately catering for this existing demand because:The LUL station is regularly closed for short periods during the morning peak due toexcessive demandNovember 2009 Page 90

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInterchange between Network Rail/LUL and bus is across a line of taxisThe interchange is surrounded by strategic highway routes. The networksurrounding the station operates at approximately 80% saturation at key junctionsduring the peak periodsThe existing bus station cannot accommodate bus service frequency increases orpassenger demand, bus stops are dispersed around the interchange (on-street andwithin the Terminus Place Bus Station)Pedestrian space is limited and demand is high, which results in congestedfootways also a key route (Victoria Interchange to Victoria Street/BressendenPlace) involves crossing three roadsThe scale of activity, movement and development results in conflict betweenvehicles and pedestrians. The area „lacks a coherent sense of place and urbanquality‟.Victoria station is therefore one of the stations included in LUL‟s and Network Rails stationimprovement/congestion relief scheme.The Victoria Street, Buckingham Gate and Palace Street draft Planning Brief (March2007), which is likely to be superseded by the new version of the Victoria Area PlanningBrief, also discusses the baseline transport situation. It highlights the high provision ofpublic transport services, including Victoria national rail, underground and bus services, StJames‟s Park underground station and the bus services along Victoria Street. The briefraises concerns about the level of pedestrian and vehicle congestion on Victoria Streetdue, respectively, to a very high level of pedestrian demand and buses stopping to pickup/set down passengers.Paddington Opportunity AreaThe Paddington Opportunity Area is located around Paddington station. It is already asuccessful regeneration area with new office and residential developments in apredominantly residential location. The emerging LDF Core Strategy extends theboundary to include the area of railway land west of Paddington Goods Yard and schoolsite.The Paddington Station and Environs revisions to draft planning brief cited some keyconclusions from the July 2006 Paddington Area Transport Study 4:There are likely to be significant capacity problems at Paddington and EdgwareRoad, Bakerloo, and Hammersmith and City underground stations, althoughCrossrail and various proposed improvements could relieve these problemsLine capacity is most constrained on the Bakerloo Line (southbound). Proposed lineimprovements and Crossrail would relieve these problemsNovember 2009 Page 91

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThere is scope to enhance the bus network to provide greater accessibility andcapacity.Tottenham Court Road Opportunity AreaThe Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area is located at the eastern end of OxfordStreet and is therefore dominated by retail and entertainment uses, with some office use.Tottenham Court Road station is very accessible by public transport and it will besubstantially enhanced with the delivery of Crossrail. It is served by Tottenham CourtRoad station and numerous bus services, but is within walking distance to Holborn,Covent Garden, Goodge Street and Leicester Square underground stations.The Tottenham Court Road area is a highly constrained environment for pedestrians andpublic transport passengers with narrow and constricted footways, often cluttered bystreet vendors, and roads with poor crossing facilities. It is one of the busiest parts ofcentral London and is home to tourist attractions, retail, bars and theatres. It is also animportant location for interchange between buses and the underground.Despite the good access to different modes, interchange is difficult. However, theprovision of new transport infrastructure is the opportunity required to improveinterchange opportunities.Pedestrian activity has increased without any increase in footway capacity. For examplethe north side of Oxford Street, adjacent to the Tottenham Pub, is a pinch point. Thelocation of the tube entrance/exits on the southern side causes congestion. Consequently,pedestrians spill onto the road to pass each other at all locations in this area.There is a lack of pedestrian facilities on the west side of Charing Cross Road because ofthe water feature in front of the Centre Point building. Therefore a lot of pedestrian activityoccurs on the west side although people do still walk alongside the water fountain. Thereare many impediments to convenient pedestrian movement; very high two way footfall,narrow and non-existent footways and lack of pedestrian crossing facilities.The high amount of pedestrian activity during the day and the night leaves very little timefor undertaking servicing activities during quieter periods.A high number of bus movements including terminating services occur here. The totalnumber of buses negotiating the junction during the day is in the region of 325 buses perhour. The buses emerging onto the St Giles Street junction from Oxford Street are theinfamous (described in the Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008) services thatcontribute towards the streets reputation as being a „red wall‟ of buses. Buses along withtaxis make up the majority of vehicles to/from Oxford Street. It is possible that competingdemand for road space as a result ofThe area is also an unpleasant area to cycle around. It is difficult to introduce cycle lanesbecause of the limited road space, complex junctions, heavy traffic and one-way systems.The one-way systems have reduced the quality of the environment and therefore haveled to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists being insufficiently provided for.November 2009 Page 92

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTottenham Court Road station, like much of the surrounding area, suffers from congestionthroughout the day. It is one of the stations included in Transport for London‟s congestionrelief programme and is currently being enlarged.Retail CentresThe emerging LDF Core Strategy designates the West End and Knightsbridge as„International Centres‟, which are the focus of large scale retail activity. Both destinationsrequire comprehensive public transport provision to facilitate access to the centres.Oxford Street has a high level of pedestrian activity. Pedestrian surveys undertaken aspart of the Jan Gehl Public Spaces and Public Life study (2004) showed that pedestriantraffic on Oxford Street peaks between 11.30am and 6.30pm. Pedestrian countsundertaken on 9 July 2003 displayed that a total of 127,857 pedestrians used OxfordStreet West between 8.00am and 10.00pm. For Oxford Street East the total figure was138,080 pedestrians. No additional footway capacity has been provided to cater for thelevel of demand. The pedestrian environment is constrained for pedestrians and publictransport passengers.Oxford Circus is one of the busiest stations on the underground network. Figure 4-2illustrated the crowded nature of the tube lines serving Oxford Circus and other stationsthat serve Oxford Street.Buses along with taxis comprise the majority of vehicles on Oxford Street. Buses have thereputation of being a „red wall‟ of buses along the street. The level of capacity providedalong Oxford Street is in excess of demand because the busiest point on a route drivesthe level of service provided and are located elsewhere. Buses are therefore a significantcontributor to the levels of road congestion in the area. Way to Go! Planning for bettertransport 2008 recognises that wall to wall buses can be counter productive forpedestrians and the environment.The Crossrail Bond Street Station Eastern Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief highlights theexisting conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in and around Hanover Square. Anyadditional demand, particularly for routes to Oxford Street and Regent Street will thereforerequire detailed consideration of how to cater for it. The Crossrail: Bond Street StationWestern Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief also raises the issue of conflict betweenpedestrians and vehicles around the northern end of Davies Street and adjoining streets.The emerging LDF Core Strategy recommends that an improved pedestrian environmentalong Oxford Street and some adjoining streets, including „the formation of Oasis‟s ofopen space and the reduction of pedestrian and vehicular congestion‟ are provided.Improved linkages to visitor attractions such as the British Museum and Covent Gardenshould also be provided.4.3. Forecast DemandAs employment levels and the number of residents increase in the City of Westminstertravel demand is projected to increase significantly. The City of Westminster‟s target asNovember 2009 Page 93

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportset out in the London Plan (2008) for additional homes up to 2016/17 is set at 6,800homes.More specifically, the three Opportunity Areas (Victoria, Tottenham Court andPaddington) identified in the London Plan as areas for growth in jobs and homes withinWestminster. These Opportunity Areas are located around existing key transportinterchanges and have indicative employment and new home forecasts. Table 4-2 detailsthe theoretical capacity for jobs and minimum capacity for homes as set out in the DraftCore Strategy Preferred Options document.Table 4-2: Indicative Employment and New Home Forecasts for City of WestminsterOpportunity AreasOpportunity AreaArea(ha)Indicativeemploymentcapacity 2001-2026Indicative newhomes (minimum)2001-2026Paddington 38 23,200 3,000Tottenham Court Road 19* 5,000 1,000Victoria 52 8,000 1,000* only 36% of the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area is in Westminster, comprising 6.8 ha.Source: Emerging LDF Core StrategyTo meet these growth projections various transport measures are required in order toprovide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the movement of people and goods toand from the area. These measures are outlined in Westminster‟s emerging LDF CoreStrategy. The measures required for the Victoria Opportunity Area are:Significant improvements in pedestrian routes, movement and environmentUpgrades to increase capacity of the Victoria line and the District and Circle linestationsImproved rail stationImproved London buses interchange design and layoutSafeguarding of Crossrail Line 2Improved public realm throughout the transport interchangeCycle parking facilities.The measures required for the Paddington Opportunity Area are:Provision of public transport improvements to meet the long term needs of the area,including Crossrail and improvements to underground stationsNovember 2009 Page 94

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportImprovements to pedestrian accessibility.The Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area will require:The provision of public transport improvements to meet the long term needs of thearea, including accommodation of Crossrail and associated station upgradesPublic realm improvements.There is no specific data for expected changes in modal patterns in the City ofWestminster. However, T2025 provides a general indication of changes in modal patternsin London. In general car trips are expected to fall and public transport and cycle trips toincrease.T2025 does provide an indication of rail growth by corridor and this is shown in Figure4-4. Rail trips into central London are forecast to increase by between 10% and 40% withthe highest levels of growth into Paddington in the City of Westminster.Figure 4-4: Growth in Rail Trips into Central London to 2025Source: T2025Recent evidence given to the GLA Assembly by Transport for London (Cross River Tram,London Assembly Transport Committee, October 2008) included an update of the T2025Reference Case rail crowding assessment. The revised assessment for 2026 includes allPPP upgrades, Crossrail and Cross River Tram (for which preparatory work has sincebeen suspended). Figure 4-5 shows projected crowding levels on the tube network.November 2009 Page 95

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 4-5: London Underground Crowding Levels in 2026Source: Cross River Tram, London Assembly Transport Committee, October 2008Figure 4-5 shows only a marginal worsening of conditions compared with the base(2006) situation shown in Figure 4-2. Crowding on the Jubilee line between Baker Streetand Green Park has worsened. Crossrail, in particular, has helped to alleviate some ofthe crowding on east/west links. The omission of Cross River Tram is expected toincrease crowding levels on the Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly lines within the centralarea, including Westminster by about 5%.The equivalent rail crowding levels in 2026 are shown in Figure 4-6.November 2009 Page 96

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 4-6: National Rail Crowding Levels in 2026Source: Cross River Tram, London Assembly Transport Committee, October 2008Crowding levels at Paddington station are shown to have been alleviated by Crossrail.The forward investment programme is outlined below and this now includes several highprofile schemes such as Crossrail that will start to provide much needed capacityimprovements.Bus trips into central London have increased markedly in recent years and T2025 isprojecting a further 40% increase in bus patronage. In general, increased bus use issimply met by the provision of more frequent services on heavily used routes. There havebeen some changes to bus technology with higher capacity vehicles, although the Mayorhas announced a phased reduction in articulated (bendy) buses that have the highestcarrying capacity.Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008 also recognises that wall to wall buses onsome routes in central London (such as Oxford Street) can be counter-productive forpedestrians and the environment. A more efficient distribution of bus capacity is soughtbut there is no easy answer to this problem given the difficulties inherent in changing thebus network. It is likely that any changes to bus services will continue to be incremental.However, the cancellation of Cross River Tram would require extra capacity to beprovided on the routes it would have served in order to minimise over-crowding. The longterm provision of terminating space for bus services will also need to be considered.November 2009 Page 97

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report4.4. Planned Investment and CostsThe investment programmes that will impinge upon travel conditions in the City ofWestminster are being delivered by national and regional governments and the localhighway authorities.Westminster‟s LIP, published in July 2004, sets out the transport proposals which supportthe Mayor‟s Transport Strategy. The LIP identifies proposals to improve accessibility,reduce congestion, improve social inclusion, reduce the amount of traffic, reduceemissions, improve safety and security, improve air quality, reduce noise quality andimprove the health and Londoners.The LIP outlines projects to improve the accessibility to the City of Westminster. Itincludes accessibility improvements to Paddington, Charing Cross and Victoria stations. Itdiscusses the importance of bus priority and the need to improve bus journey times. TheLIP details a number of bus priority schemes and proposes a list of works to make all busstops accessible. Improvements to pedestrian facilities and pedestrian safety areproposed. A programme of improvements to improve conditions for pedestrians, toinvestigate pedestrian phases at signalled controlled junctions and footway schemes aredetailed in the LIP.Improving traffic flows is also addressed specifically for buses and taxis. Proposals toimprove the public realm are included, including integration with interchange schemessuch as Paddington and Victoria. Westminster recognises the importance of coach travelin Westminster and as such will ensure that on-street provision is made for coaches nearmain tourist attractions, public transport hubs and other key destinations for coaches.Cycling schemes including LCN proposed routes and non LCN initiatives are detailed.Table 4-3 details the schemes contained in Westminster‟s LIP and associated costs tothe date of opening.November 2009 Page 98

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 4-3: City of Westminster Infrastructure ProjectsProjectStatusOpeningDate Cost 1Mayor‟s 100 Public Spaces FC 2009 To be confirmedAccessibility including Subway, TTSand TactileUC 2009 £1,650,000Station Access Marylebone Station FC 2009 To be confirmedStation Access Charing CrossStationUC 2009 £811,000Station Access Victoria Station FC 2009 To be confirmedBus Priority FC 2009 To be confirmedBus Stop Accessibility UC 2009 £434,000Cycling LCN+ UC 2009 £2,975,000Cycling Non LCN+ Cycle Parking UC 2009 £320,000Walking UC 2009 £2,700,000Town Centre Schemes – West EndLeicester SquareTown Centre Schemes – West EndOxford StreetTown Centre Schemes – ShoppingStreets: Praed StreetTown Centre Schemes – ShoppingStreets: Harrow RoadTown Centre Schemes – ShoppingStreets: Marylebone High StreetAccessibility including Subway, TTSand Tactile Paving and SigningImprovements1 Funding total for 2005-2009U/C – Under Construction, C - CommittedSource: Local Implementation PlanUC 2009 £16,010FC 2009 To be confirmedUC 2009 £1,000,000UC 2009 £2,900,000UC 2009 £3,000,000UC 2009 £1,650,000The emerging LDF Core Strategy states that Westminster „will support and promoteimprovements to transport infrastructure as detailed in the LIP (as outlined above) andinclude the following:CrossrailVictoriaNovember 2009 Page 99

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportCross River TramPaddingtonImprovements to Underground stations including access and environmentImprovements to the public realm, with a focus on meeting the needs of people withdisabilities and more vulnerable peopleIncreasing cycle parking across Westminster.Network Rail is responsible for the national rail network, including the major rail termini,but its spending priorities are set by the Department for Transport and the Office of theRail Regulator. Transport for London is responsible for strategic roads and buses andmanages the tube PPP contract.For the purposes of defining infrastructure, these have been grouped into Network Rail,Transport for London and City of Westminster schemes. Schemes are also grouped bystatus as either under construction, committed or planned. Committed schemes havecompleted all statutory processes and have a funding commitment. All schemesconsidered would increase transport provision in central London, including schemes thatwould provide additional capacity for travellers into the CAZ.Network Rail forward plans are developed through its route utilisation strategies (RUS)that are specific to each line group or franchise. A RUS covers a ten year period – thereare several that are relevant to central London although some, such as the South LondonRUS (March 2008).Rail priorities are set by the Department for Transport in its High Level Output Statement(HLOS), which are incorporated into the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan. The lattercurrently covers the period 2009 to 2014 and is known as Control Period 4 (CP4). Table4-4 summarises Network Rail projects programmed in CP4. Projects beyond CP4 arediscussed below but any such schemes are subject to DfT approval and funding.Table 4-4: Network Rail Infrastructure ProjectsProject Description StatusIntegrated KentFranchiseBrighton andSussex12-car trains to Charing Cross/8-car trains to Victoria12-car trains East Grinstead toVictoria/10-car suburban trains toVictoriaOpeningDate Cost 1C 2014 £56 millionC 2014£101millionMajor Stations Victoria C/P ? n/a1 – Costs for 2014 schemes taken from Office of Rail Regulator Periodic Review PR08Source: Network Rail Strategic Business PlanNovember 2009 Page 100

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportService improvements on the lines into Charing Cross and Victoria will increase capacityon busy commuter routes through the introduction of longer trains.Network Rail has a programme of improvements at major rail termini, including Victoriastation. In most cases, major improvements are linked to station developmentmasterplans and involve private sector partnerships.The period from 2014 is less clear and will depend upon the Strategic Business Plan forControl Period 5 (to 2019). The Route Utilisation Strategies (where available) do providesome indication of priorities and possible schemes but it is too early in the schemedevelopment and funding process to put too much weight on possibilities. However, CP5is likely to continue the theme of increasing capacity, where possible, on routes intoLondon terminals.Transport for London has varied responsibilities for transport services in London. TfL isthe sponsor for responsible for delivering the Crossrail project and will let the contract tooperate the services.TfL operates tube stations and trains but rolling stock, track and signalling systems aremaintained and upgraded by the Private Public Partnership (PPP) companies that, ineffect, make these systems available to London Underground. Payments to the PPP arebased on availability and performance. However, the recent demise of Metronet hasresulted in its contractual responsibilities being assumed by TfL. The remaining PPPInfraco, Tube Lines, remains responsible for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines.Transport for London rail and tube projects that are relevant to the City of Westminsterare summarised in Table 4-5. The list of schemes in Table 4-5 is taken from the TfLBusiness Plan – this lists schemes that, in most cases, will be completed by 2018 andincludes costs only to this date.November 2009 Page 101

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 4-5: Transport for London Infrastructure ProjectsProject Description StatusOpeningDateCostCrossrail East/West rail link C 2017 £17 billionJubilee LineNew signalling system to allow 30trains per hour in peak (25%increase in capacity)U/C 2009 n/aVictoria LineNorthern LinePiccadilly LineDistrict LineMetropolitan LineCircle andHammersmith &City LinesBakerloo LineStationCongestionSchemesHigher frequency and larger trains(19% increase in capacity)Phase 1 signalling system toimprove speeds and frequency(20% increase in capacity)Phase 2 separation of Bank andCharing Cross lines at KenningtonNew signalling system and trains(25% increase in capacity)New train stock with longer andmore frequent trains (47%increase in capacity)New train stock and higherfrequency services (49% increasein capacity)New train stock, longer trains andhigher frequency with merged T-cup service (49% increase incapacity)New trains, signalling andimproved frequency (40%increase in capacity)Victoria (2017), Paddington(2014), Tottenham Court Road(2016), Bond Street (2016)U/C – Under Construction, C – Committed, P - PlannedSource: TfL Business PlanC 2012 n/aU/C 2012 n/aP 2020 n/aC 2014 n/aC 2018 n/aC 2016 n/aC 2016 n/aC 2022 n/aCn/aThe above table does include one scheme that is post-2018 and that is the separation ofthe Northern line branches at Kennington, which is currently not committed. This isregarded as a priority by LUL as it would release additional capacity on the Northern linebranches through central London. However, the definition of this scheme is still beingconsidered and there are several options for how separation could be achieved. Fullseparation would also trigger additional station upgrade costs.Beyond 2018, it is also likely that further consideration will be given to Cross River Tram.Other major projects that are ongoing include Cooling the Tube and the increasing rolloutof air conditioned carriages on sub-surface lines.Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008 states that Transport for London will doeverything in its power to facilitate an increase in the number of people walking inNovember 2009 Page 102

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportLondon. This will require the removal of physical or perceived barriers to walkingincluding improving safety and security, the provision of high quality public space theremoval of street clutter. A balance will need to be struck between pedestrianaccessibility and capacity and traffic flows.Continuing programmes to increase the number of cyclists are detailed in T2025 andinclude:Upgrade and expand the cycle networkIncrease cycle safety, access and priorityImprove facilities at origin, on route and destinationImprove education and trainingPromote cycling as part of a healthy lifestyle.This is promoted by the Mayor in Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008. Inaddition the introduction of the London Cycle Hire Scheme will further promote cycling.Conflict between cyclists and other road users, including pedestrians will need to beaddressed.4.5. Assessment of Existing Growth StrategiesNetwork Rail, through its Strategic Business Plan, and Transport for London, through itsBusiness Plan, are both making provision for increased commuter demand on rail andtube routes serving the City of Westminster. Both deliver significant increases in capacityin the medium term.The London underground network will see significant enhancements to its line capacityover the next 10 years. The programme of investment also includes some stationcongestion relief schemes, which are scheduled for Victoria, Paddington, TottenhamCourt Road and Bond Street stations. These schemes are necessary to cater for theadditional demand that will be generated by the growth in employment and homes thatwill occur at these locations and are supported by Westminster‟s emerging LDF CoreStrategy.The existing and future capacities on rail and tube lines have been assessed and theseare an accurate reflection of programmed improvements to 2014 and 2018 respectively.Network Rail gives forecasts to 2014 and beyond this an average rate of growth isassumed derived from DfT sources. Tube passenger growth has been profiled based onemployment growth – this is a simplification given expected variations by corridor.The Network Rail investment programme discussed above will deliver higher capacity onrail routes into the main London terminals. Table 4-6 summarises an assessment of theeffects of this programme and projects this forward to 2026. Load factors are given foreach station (defined as seats plus standing space divided by 0.45m 2 per passenger oncommuter services).November 2009 Page 103

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 4-6: Load Factors on Rail Routes into London Terminals located in City ofWestminsterTerminalDemand2008/9ExistingCapacityLoadFactor(%)Demand2013/14Capacity2013/14LoadFactor(%)LoadDemand Factor2026 1 (%)Marylebone 4,600 7,500 61 5,200 8,800 59 6,200 70Paddington 11,500 11,900 97 12,900 13,400 96 15,400 115Victoria 29,300 41,900 70 32,100 46,500 69 38,400 83Total 45,400 61,300 74 50,200 68,700 73 60,000 871 – Assumes 1.5% per annum growth on all routesSource: Delivering Sustainable Railways White Paper CM7176, DfTThe current load factor (2008/09) for the London terminal stations within the City ofWestminster is 74%, with Paddington station operating close to capacity. The overall loadfactor is projected to remain at a similar level to 2014 based on increases in capacityincluded in the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan. Paddington station, therefore, willcontinue to operate close to capacity. By 2026, however, the overall load factor willincrease to 87%, with Paddington Station operating over capacity.Crossrail will provide additional rail capacity into Paddington from 2017/18 onwards. Intheory, Crossrail will provide a peak hour capacity of 15,000 passengers into Paddington(based on provisional capacity of 1,500 passengers per train). However, the 10 Crossrailtrains in the peak hour will replace existing commuter services. Crossrail will provide reliefto London Underground services as much as to National Rail services.Transport for London PPP upgrades, as discussed above, will deliver significantadditional capacity on tube lines into Westminster. Table 4-7 summarises load factors byline into the City of Westminster. Load factors are based on LUL planning standards andreflect committed line upgrade plans as discussed above.November 2009 Page 104

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 4-7: Load Factors on London Underground Lines into WestminsterLine (from)Demand2007ExistingCapacityLoadFactor(%)Demand2018Capacity2018LoadFactor(%)Demand2026LoadFactor(%)Northern (North) 8,662 13,034 66 10,317 15,641 66 11,885 63Bakerloo (North) 7,070 15,994 44 8,421 22,072 38 9,701 44Victoria (North) 21,056 23,240 91 25,080 27656 91 28,892 104Piccadilly (East) 10,075 16,368 62 12,000 20,460 59 13,824 68Central (East) 14,003 26,640 53 16,679 33,300 50 19,214 58Metropolitan(North)Hammersmith &City (East)11,938 14,588 82 14,220 21,736 65 16,381 753,518 5,152 68 4,190 7,676 55 4,827 63District (East) 9,118 18,128 50 10,861 26,648 41 12,511 47Jubilee (East) 13,223 17,052 78 15,750 22,679 69 18,144 80Circle (East) 1,548 5,152 30 1,844 7,676 24 2,124 28Northern (South) 10,683 13,720 78 12,725 16,464 77 14,659 74Bakerloo (South) 6,180 15,994 39 7,361 22,072 33 8,480 38Victoria (South) 16,012 23,240 69 19,072 27,656 69 21,971 79District (West) 14,389 18,128 79 17,139 26,648 64 19,744 74Piccadilly (West) 11,847 16,368 72 14,111 20,460 69 16,256 79Central (West) 13,972 23,976 58 16,642 29,970 56 19,172 64Metropolitan(South)2,748 14,588 19 3,273 17,506 19 3,771 22Jubilee (North) 15,753 19,488 81 18,764 25,919 72 21,615 83Circle (West) 2,689 5,152 52 3,203 7,676 42 3,690 48Total 189,906 311,154 61 228,218 407,592 56 260,577 631 No capacity changes assumed post-2018 except for the Northern lineSource: RODsNovember 2009 Page 105

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportLondon Underground services into the City of Westminster are currently operating at 61%capacity. The Victoria line from the north is currently operating in excess of 90% ofcapacity. Some lines have a significant amount of spare capacity as they enter the City ofWestminster such as the Circle line from the east and the Metropolitan line from thesouth.Planned line upgrades to 2018 will increase tube capacity into the City of Westminster by30%. As such the operating load factor into the City falls by 5% to 56% of capacity.Nevertheless the Victoria line from the north will continue to operate in excess of 90%.In 2026 all London Underground lines, with the exception of the Victoria line from theNorth are shown to be operating well within capacity in 2026.Rail and tube upgrades will provide most of the increase in public transport capacity to2026.The forward investment programme will therefore start to provide much needed capacityimprovements. However, there will still be high levels of crowding on some commuterroutes and station congestion. Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy also supportsthe transport infrastructure improvements at Victoria and Paddington stations, but alsosupports improvements to underground station, including access to/from them and theirsurrounding environment.Bus trips into central London and therefore Westminster have increased markedly inrecent years. T2025 is projecting a further increase in bus patronage. In general termsincrease in bus use has been addressed by increasing frequencies, particularly on keybus corridors where services are heavily used. In some cases additional capacity hasbeen provided by higher capacity vehicles such as articulated buses on routes such asthe 38 and 73.Transport for London expects to operate an additional 8% bus kilometres by 2018 but it isprojecting a 40% increase in patronage by 2026. A more efficient distribution of buscapacity is sought but there is no easy answer to this problem given the difficultiesinherent in changing the bus network. A strategic review of bus services in London iscommencing in Spring 2009 and only after this has been reported will it be possible togauge the extent to which current investment plans are adequate.The cancellation of Cross River Tram would remove the only tram/transit project servingthe City of Westminster from Transport for London‟s investment programme. It is unlikelyin the short term, with current financial constraints, that any proposals will now comeforward before 2018. Cross River Tram is supported by Westminster‟s emerging LDFCore Strategy.Bus priority and bus stop accessibility projects continue to be provided for withinWestminster‟s LIP.There are no plans for major new highways in the City of Westminster or indeed centralLondon. Transport for London‟s emphasis is now firmly on traffic management to improvecapacity. Capacity increases are expected to be generated by increasing green time forNovember 2009 Page 106

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportvehicles at traffic signals and through other signal improvements. In this light, schemessuch as Parliament Square that could have potentially reduced highway capacity havebeen shelved. This will facilitate the movement of freight as well as private vehicles.There are no plans for additional piers within Westminster. However, use of the Thamesfor the movement of people and waste is promoted in the emerging LDF Core Strategy.Enhanced access to the river is also discussed.The London Cycle Network (LCN) within Westminster continues to be a project containedwithin the LIP. In addition Westminster will look to provide additional cycle parking withinWestminster both through WCC initiatives and through private development.ConclusionsThe infrastructure investment programme for the rail and underground network servingthe City of Westminster should cater for the increase in demand that will result fromhousing and employment growth to 2026. Our analysis shows that committed schemes inthe City of Westminster, and on rail routes into Westminster, should at least holdconditions on the rail network stable and, at the same time, providing much neededmodernisation. The funding of this programme is subject to several factors, includingcentral Government grants, private sector contributions and primary legislation onsupplementary business rates, and its delivery is contingent upon target levels of fundingbeing achieved.These line upgrades, however, will require an increase in station capacity on the network.Victoria, Paddington, Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road are the only stations in theCity of Westminster that are programmed for improvement. These are probably higher onthe agenda as a result of developer funding/contributions and Crossrail.The increased numbers of passengers travelling into Westminster‟s mainline termini willin turn increase demand on the tube, bus, and street networks connecting into Victoriaand Charing Cross as these passengers continue their onward journey. It is possible thatthese additional numbers could negate planned improvements. Consequently catering forthe onward movement of people from Westminster‟s mainline termini and key stations isimportant. Promoting walking rather than onward movement by underground ort bus willbe crucial to reducing congestion on these modes during peak hours. This will requireinvestment in public realm and wayfinding.Bus patronage is projected to increase by 40% in London and by a broadly comparableamount in central London and therefore Westminster, yet London Buses expects buskilometres operated to increase by only 8% to 2018. The placing of Cross River Tram incold storage places even greater emphasis on the bus network to deliver full capacity forshorter distance trips within the central area, which is considered unrealistic so the needfor the Cross River Tram is likely to remain. Way to Go! Planning for better transport 2008proposes a fresh look at bus services and Transport for London has already commendeda review of how it procures bus services. It is expected that this will herald a morecomprehensive strategic review of bus services.November 2009 Page 107

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportRegardless of the number of buses and bus passengers circulating in central London,buses are just as prone as other vehicles to delays caused by congestion and roadworks. The Mayor has announced a blitz on road works but the reality is that thereplacement of life-expired utilities will continue for many years. Buses, in recent years,have helped to relieve pressure on congested rail services and this should abate incoming years.Westminster‟s emerging LDF Core Strategy requires a higher level of priority to be givento the pedestrian environment. This is particularly appropriate for areas that have highnumbers of pedestrian movements such as Oxford Street and Victoria. Initiatives broughtforward by WCC within the LIP to improve accessibility for pedestrians and London wideschemes such as Legible London should encourage higher numbers of walking inWestminster.Increased pedestrian capacity and improvements to the pedestrian environment includingway-finding will be necessary to cater for this increasingly important mode. This isparticularly important around stations where there is a significant amount of onwardmovement of people such as at Victoria and Tottenham Court Road. This is a priority inthe short term.Higher levels of cycling are likely given WCC and TfL promotion and investment in theLCN+, cycle parking, bikeability and the cycle hire schemes and cycle superhighway.This will encourage higher levels of cycling for commuters and visitors.An increase in walking and cycling trips should reduce shorter distance trips on buses. Itis worth noting that increases in pedestrians and cycles, compete for capacity withvehicles. This will need addressing, particularly in areas that are already congested.Delays caused by congestion and road works affect private vehicles, freight and buses.The Mayor has announced a blitz on road works but the reality is that the replacement oflife-expired utilities will continue for many years.The Congestion Charging Scheme has reduced the number of vehicles entering the zoneby 16% compared with 2002 levels, but still about 380,000 vehicles per day enter duringthe hours of charging. Of the vehicles (excluding pedal cycles) circulating within the zone,less than 63% are potentially chargeable (as measured by vehicle kilometres driven). Thecongestion benefits of the charging zone have been largely negated in recent years byroad works and many highway routes within the zone are seriously congested. There areno plans for significant infrastructure investment in Westminster or central London, butTransport for London makes a significant financial commitment to traffic managementimprovements, new signal systems (SCOOT) and real-time monitoring. The Mayor hasannounced a programme of re-timing traffic signals to increase capacity but this will takeseveral years to complete.The current strategy based on high-tech traffic management solutions and focusing onblackspots is the correct approach. However, the impact upon pedestrian flows needs tobe considered.November 2009 Page 108

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe current investment plans to 2018, which include LUL upgrades and Crossrail clearlyadd significant additional public transport capacity but leave several residual problems orissues. Post-2018, further capacity increases will be required but, at present, no firmproposals exist. The main investment priorities from this analysis are considered to be asfollows:Extension of LUL station congestion relief programme and improvements to thestation environs and access to stationsStrategic review of bus services to redistribute capacity and to compensate forCross River Tram scheme not being progressed furtherInterchange improvements at stations, particularly PaddingtonMore targeted traffic management measures to alleviate congestion hotspotsCrossrail 2 Chelsea to Hackney line (although funding in unlikely to becomeavailable until 2025 so potentially this would not be within the current LDF planperiods)Public realm improvements at locations identified in Central London PedestrianStudy and other key locations and enhancement to pedestrian facilities to promotewalking and to ensure that the needs of vulnerable people and people withdisabilities are catered forPublic realm improvements at rail and underground stationsPublic realm improvements at major development schemesProvision of step free access at LUL stationsRevisit Cross River TramWayfinding and directional signage initiativesIntroduction of Legible LondonMore positive measures to assist cyclists, including priority measures, cycle hireschemes and cycle parkingPossible further extensions to the DLR to Charing Cross and Victoria.It is important that future transport strategies for each mode are closely linked.November 2009 Page 109

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT5.1. Early Years5.1.1. BaselineChildcare in Westminster is delivered by a broad range of providers across the private,voluntary, independent and maintained sectors. Childcare can be full day care orsessional, or delivered in alignment with school hours. Providers in Westminster vary intheir approach to charging and fees can be requested on a sessional, weekly, or termlybasis. In Westminster charges for childcare can vary between a free governmententitlement place for three and four year olds for 12.5 hours a week, and a high end costof circa £400 for a private full time equivalent place.The number of children aged between 0 and five taking up childcare places inWestminster is estimated to be between 3,637 and 4,085. There are a total of 112registered providers across the Private, Voluntary, Independent (PVI) and maintainedsector (and an additional 148 childminders) offering a total of 4,352 registered places.Existing spare capacity is estimated at circa 300 places (these are not all full time). Thisis 9% of the market‟s capacity. Providers rarely work towards 100% because of staffingand ratio factors 56 .Based on GLA projection data there are an estimated 11,919 0 to five year olds inWestminster. This means that if every child resident in Westminster wanted to access achildcare place there would be 2.73 children per place.In 2008 local planning authorities were given a statutory duty to secure sufficientchildcare (as far as is reasonably practicable) to meet the needs of parents who want towork or train, particularly in areas of deprivation. National indicators 116, NI153 and LAA14 to reduce the percentage of children in workless households and increase the numberof disadvantaged people in employment reinforce this requirement. Developing achildcare market which is affordable and available to the community supports the childpoverty agenda and the city Recovery Programme for sustainable employment.Westminster has a deficit of affordable childcare to meet the needs of low incomeparents, in the form of affordable full day care and the delivery of free early years placesfor three and four year olds 57 . Westminster also has a deficit of holiday places for thethree to five age group during the holidays.56 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 200957 The government requires LAs to deliver free early years places for all three and four year olds. Currently therequirement is for 12.5 hours of free provision per week; this will be increased to 15 hours per week in 2010/11.Westminster currently has a large deficit of free entitlement places for three and four year olds and is notachieving 92% coverage of free entitlement places.November 2009 Page 110

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe priority areas for the 0 to five group (i.e. where there is a deficit of childcare placesrelative to the number of children) are: Bayswater (with 5.5 children per childcare place),Harrow Road (with 5.6), Little Venice (with 5.5), West End (with 4.8). Furthermore anumber of areas are key target for affordable / free entitlement places for three and fouryear olds in low income families, and these include Harrow Road, Church Street, Queen'sPark and Westbourne.5.1.2. Forecast DemandThere is an emphasis on raising the take up of childcare by low income households whichis expected to raise the demand for affordable childcare places and the take up of placesin general. Providing a sufficient number of childcare places and funding arrangements toensure childcare provision for everyone will increase the take up from parents. A pilotscheme to provide 15 hours per week free child care for two year olds is likely to furtherincrease the uptake of two year old places, and therefore an increase in demand for childcare provision in Westminster is expected 58 .Lone Parent Welfare reforms mean that lone parents with children aged seven to12 thatcurrently claim income support will be moved onto Job Seekers Allowance. It is expectedthat this will increase demand for a childcare place / a „safe place to be‟ for the seven+age group. 59Table 5-47 summarises the results of URS Westminster infrastructure Model, which wasused to forecast demand in the absence of comprehensive provider estimates beyond thefive year period. It provides a broad-brush, indicative estimate of the likely increase indemand for early years places and associated spatial requirements arising from theprojected residential and commercial growth. The additional demand up to 2026 takesinto account the projected growth in resident population and an additional componentexpected to demand services even if residing elsewhere 60 . While this demand isexpressed as nursery classes of a standard size, as indicated in Section 5.1.1 the natureof the provision, including class sizes, will be much more diverse in reality.58 Personal communication, Children‟s Strategy, Planning and Performance, WCC, 20/02/200959 The reforms will take place as follows: children aged 12 or over from November 2008; children aged 10 or overfrom October 2009; children aged 7 or over from October 2010. There is support via Extended Schools services /or After School and Out of School provision.60 Westminster Children Services have suggested that this „non-residential‟ component currently built into themodel could be too low, leading to an underestimate of the actual non-residential demand for pre-school places.However at this stage no quantitative evidence has been made available.November 2009 Page 111

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-1: URS Indicative Estimate of Additional Demand for Early Years Placesfrom New Development, 2006 – 2026Total Demand forEarly Years Places,FTENumber ofClassesNumber ofNurseries*SpatialRequirements,Sqm1,895 74 37 6,601Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) sheets A1, A2, R1 and A25.1.3. Planned investment and costsEarly years receive external funding in three year cycle from the DCSF. These are basedon the numbers of children under five accessing early years provision and on thedeprivation levels in the authority. Funding allocations are reviewed in the CorporateSpending Review and it is anticipated that there will be significant reductions in externalgrant as a result of the recession and the need to cut public spending 61 . The two yearpilot scheme to provide 15 hours per week of free childcare for two year olds is likely tofurther increase the uptake of two years old places, although it is not yet guaranteed thatthis funding will be mainstreamed.Changes in the mode of provision are likely to influence future supply of childcareservices. Westminster Children Services have underlined the importance of integratingchildren services, by considering health, education and youth services holistically. Childpoverty, child care and youth provision, children‟s centres, play provision, and schoolplace provision are all aspects that will play an increasing role in defining a wider earlyyears strategy 62 . Children centres in particular are expected to expand their services tooffer services during weekends and for longer hours during the working week.There has been a capital allocation of approximately £1million to support PVI settings andprimary schools to develop their provision for under fives. Some of this is being used todevelop outdoor provision but it is mostly being used to develop the indoor learningenvironment and for resources rather than to expand existing capacity. It is notanticipated that there will be any capital allocations post 2011 63 .The URS Westminster Infrastructure Model was used to provide an indicative, broadbrushestimate of future costs associated with the delivery of the required additional earlyyears places, in the absence of comprehensive provider estimates beyond the five yearperiod. Table 5-2 below shows that the estimated cost is approximately £26.5m up to2026.61 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 200962 Personal communication, Children‟s Strategy, Planning and Performance, WCC, 20/02/200963 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 2009November 2009 Page 112

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-2: URS Indicative Estimate of Cost of Additional Early Years Places, 2006 –2026, £Total Demand for EarlyYears Places, FTESpatial Requirements,Sqm Total Capital Cost, £1,895 6,601 26,530,586Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet5.1.4. Assessment and RecommendationsFuture funding for expansion of childcare provision will depend on the outcome of thethree-yearly funding allocation from central government. There has been a capitalallocation of approximately £1million to support PVI settings and primary schools todevelop their provision for under fives in Westminster, but it is not anticipated that therewill be any capital allocations post 2011.In the absence of long term provider forecasts, the URS Westminster InfrastructureModel estimates a need for 1,895 new early years places up to 2026, equating a total of74 new classes: 0 to two years old (32 classes), two years old (17 classes) and three tofour years old (25 classes), at an overall capital cost of approximately £26.5m. This is nota cost that is expected to be met 64 .Early Years Extended Services and Play (EYESP) seeks support from S106, corporateproperty and BSF to develop new premises and receive contributions to support newchildcare, affordable childcare, the expansion in the existing childcare market, and thedelivery of Children‟s Centre activities in areas of deprivation where there is limitedspace 65 . EYESP will continue to work with existing providers to increase capacity anddeal with the priority issues of childcare stock, childcare affordability, holiday provision,and increasing the offer of government funded three and four year old places to meet theneeds of the most disadvantaged children in Westminster.WCC is in the process of developing baseline data to establish a childcare sufficiencyformula to inform policy on affordability and increased access to early years provision. Inorder to deliver its vision for early years and children services in general WCC shouldactively promote an interdepartmental approach to planning for infrastructure.Consultation with Children Services has particularly highlighted the importance ofintegrating children services, with plans to develop integrated services within threelocalities to provide education, health and youth facilities. Play provision should also becrucially considered in the context of services for children of all ages, together withextended services hours in children centres.64 Personal communication, Early Years Department, WCC, 200965 Ibid.November 2009 Page 113

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.2. Primary Education5.2.1. BaselineThere are a total of 40 66 primary schools in the City of Westminster, which are shown inFigure 5-1 together with secondary schools. There are noticeable clusters surroundingthe housing estates in the north-west and the south of Westminster. The map does notinclude King Solomon Academy, the primary section of which opened in September 2007and now has 60 places in both the reception and Year 1 age groups.The total supply of school places for reception to year six is shown in Table 5-3. Thetable highlights that the total number of school places January 2008 was 9,813 with asurplus of 666 primary school places across 31 schools. Data from WCC Children‟sServices indicates that the number on roll in primary schools for 2009 is 10,999.WCC Children Services emphasise that in addition to existing surplus capacity in someWestminster schools (especially in SW1), approximately of 20% of pupils at Westminsterprimary schools reside outside of Westminster. The pattern of admissions to Westminsterprimary schools is complex with a high proportion of faith primary schools and over a thirdof schools located close to Westminster boundaries. Nonetheless, there should be somescope to increase the proportion of places for Westminster residents as demandincreases. 67Table 5-3: Supply of Primary School Places in Westminster, As of January 2008Total Number on Roll 9,813Number on Roll in Schools with Spare Capacity 7,075Net Capacity in Schools with Spare Capacity 7,741Surplus in Schools with Spare Capacity 666Source: DfES Supply of School Places 200866 2008 Statistical Returns to Secretary of State Supply of School Places as of 01/12/2008, WCC.67 Personal communication, Children and Learning Directorate, WCC, 2009November 2009 Page 114

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 5-1: Primary and Secondary Schools in WestminsterSource: URS and WCCNovember 2009 Page 115

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.2.2. Forecast DemandThe table below highlights the WCC forecasts for reception to year six, over the 2008 / 09to 2014 / 15 period. There is an estimated increase in the number of school placesrequired by 272.The projections use GLA school roll projections as the main source of data for itssubmissions to the DSCF. The data provided by the GLA takes into account existingschool roll and demographic trends together with planned housing developments.The projections also take into account the mean 'seepage' for the last three years forhigher year groups - that is, the percentage reduction in school cohorts as they movefrom one school year to the next. For the period 2005-2008 this varied from nil(Reception to Y1) to 2.2% (Y4-Y5).WCC Children‟s Services highlights that projections beyond 5 years become moredifficult and unreliable as so many factors can change over this time, especially in areassuch as Westminster (and some other parts of central London) where there are a morelimited number of major development sites compared to many other London boroughs.Table 5-4: Local Authority District Forecasts for Westminster, adjusted GLA figuresusing mean seepage 2005-2008Actual Reception Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Total2008/09 1,428 1,394 1,430 1,398 1,416 1,311 1,342 9,7192009/10 1,485 1,428 1,369 1,410 1,376 1,385 1,300 9,7522010/11 1,470 1,485 1,402 1,350 1,387 1,346 1,372 9,8122011/12 1,480 1,470 1,458 1,383 1,328 1,357 1,333 9,8092012/13 1,488 1,480 1,444 1,438 1,361 1,299 1,344 9,8532013/14 1,495 1,488 1,453 1,423 1,415 1,331 1,287 9,8922014/15 1,499 1,495 1,461 1,433 1,401 1,384 1,319 9,991Source: WCC Schools and Learning DirectorateIn the absence of a longer term forecasts of the requirement for primary school places,URS modelled the likely increase in demand and associated spatial requirements arisingfrom the projected new residential and commercial growth, 2006 to 2026 (Table 5-5).The URS Infrastructure Model provides a broad-brush, indicative estimate only. Thefigures potentially over-estimate demand by a significant margin. The model is a snapshotof demand at a particular time, whereas is reality demand trends are dynamic.Annual variations in the housing trajectory and in cohort size, as well as more detailedNovember 2009 Page 116

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportdemographic trends, are not taken into account. Therefore these figures represent atechnical estimate only and a starting point for further analysis and refinement. 68The URS Infrastructure Model suggests that in a five year time period approximatelyadditional 500 pupils would demand primary education. Such a demand would potentiallybe absorbed by existing capacity in the system (666 places in Jan 2008). Total additionaldemand for primary school places to 2026 is estimated to be 1,857 pupils (equivalent tofour two-form-entry primary schools). As noted above, obtaining accurate long termforecasts are problematic and this figure is likely to be an over-estimate.Table 5-5: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Primary SchoolPlaces from New Development, 2006 – 2026 (Worst Case Scenario)Total Demand forPrimary SchoolPlaces, FTENumber of Formsof EntryNumber of SchoolsSpatialRequirements,Sqm1,857 9 4 6,724Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet5.2.3. Planned Investment and CostsThe Westminster Primary Capital Programme Strategy for Change (PCP SfC) (June2008) sets out the investment priorities for Westminster and the financial programmefrom 2009-11. Westminster is allocated a total of £8.7m in Primary Capital ProgrammeGrants, which has recently been signed off by DCSF.68 The model does take into account WCCs‟ suggested 30% discount in pupils yield accounting for leakage toother boroughs and private education, as well as the fact that a proportion of pupils taking up the new housingmay be already residing in Westminster. This assumption draws on the „Supplementary Planning Guidance onPlanning Obligations‟ (WCC, 2008). WCC Children Services have confirmed that Westminster experiences bothconsiderable leakage to the private sector and inflow of pupils from adjacent boroughs.November 2009 Page 117

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-6: Westminster Primary Schools, Financial Programming 2009-11ProgrammePrimary Capital ProgrammeHowallocated? 2009/10 2010/11 TotalStrategy forChange 3,165,621 5,543,621 8,709,242NDS Modernisation AMP data 367,356 940,929 1,308,285ICT Per pupil 442,935 482,332 925,267Other WCC (Basic Need; Access; Pupil forecastsExtended schools)and formula 762,329 629,818 1,392,147LCVAPAMP data and noof schools 1,800,373 1,800,373 3,600,746Schools Capital Devolved formula 2,547,000 2,547,000 5,094,000Source: WCC Primary Capital Programme Strategy for Change, June 2008Three projects likely to be implemented in the first wave of PCP SfC are:Paddington Green and St Luke‟s: upgrade buildings and facilities, particularly forcommunity and family support activities; provide spaces for multi-agency workingHallfield and George Eliot: amalgamate the infant and junior sections within each ofthese schoolsSW1 Area Review: identify the schools best placed for expansion given significanthousing development expected in the south of the borough, and any furtherinvestment to transform unsuitable accommodation.There is planned expansion at Millbank primary school from 1.5 FE to 2 FE and theintention is to rebuild the two George Elliot Schools. The rebuilt school will be about 400mfurther into Westminster and will serve the St Johns Wood barracks development, withthe result that more of the attendees are likely to be residing in Westminster(approximately 98% of the children are currently from LB Camden) 69 .In the absence of forecast costs covering the entire planning period to 2026, URSWestminster Infrastructure Model has been used to provide indicative costs associatedwith the delivery of the required additional primary school places. These estimates rely onbroad-brush assumptions and providing a starting point for further analysis. Table 5-7below shows that the estimated cost is nearly £26m up to 2026.69 Personal communication, Children and Learning Directorate, WCC, 2009November 2009 Page 118

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-7: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Primary School Places,2006-2026, £Total Demand forPrimary SchoolPlaces, FTENumber of Formsof EntrySpatialRequirements,SqmTotal Capital Cost,£1,857 9 11,787 26,002,859Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet5.2.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThe DfES Supply of School Places 2008 indicates that in 2008 31 of Westminster„sprimary schools had a total of over 600 spare places. WCC estimate an increase indemand of 272 new places over the next five years. Forecasts of primary school capacityare not available. Based on the information available on current capacity, it appears thatthere is adequate capacity to cope with forecast demand in the short term.WCC‟s estimates of forecast demand are lower than those coming out of the URSInfrastructure Model. However, as explained above, the model estimates should be takenas a worse case scenario and potentially overestimate of demand, as various dynamicand demographic factors such as cohort size are not taken into account (as they are inWCC estimates), and predicting medium to long term trends is complex. Therefore thesefigures represent a technical estimate only and a starting point for further analysis andrefinement. Ongoing monitoring including more detailed assessments of medium to longterm needs would need to examine geographical variations in provision and to besensitive to a number of demographic factors.The URS Infrastructure Model estimates costs of approximately £26m associated withnew primary schools to 2026. Research has identified a provisional £21m allocated incapital funding to 2010 / 11; however, details of exactly what these funds might cover arenot clear.The major risk to meeting future demand for primary education rests with funding.Planning for primary education needs follows a five year cycle, as shown by the DfESSupply of School Places 2008. However, funding is allocated on a three year basis, inline with the Comprehensive Spending Review process. This means that facilities likely tobe needed ahead of the three year budget period will not see committed funding prior tothe following budget cycle. Also, at present the funding arrangements for many elementsof social infrastructure are such that need is catered for as and when it arises, so thatunder capacity is likely to be addressed only reactively. With regard to primary schools,for example, there is a three year design/build/contract process. Bids must be made toDCSF but will only come forward when the number of children residing in the areajustifies a new facility.Should WCC face funding gaps in providing education facilities to meet the projectedpopulation growth it should seek potential partners facing similar constraints and lobby forNovember 2009 Page 119

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportchanges to the policy and the introduction of appropriate forward funding mechanisms,which may still include PFI, to deliver new facilities.November 2009 Page 120

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.3. Secondary Education5.3.1. BaselineThere are a total of 10 secondary schools in the City of Westminster, of which two are allage special schools. Figure 5-1 shows that as with primary schools the facilities arelocated close to the concentrations of housing estates in the north-west and the south ofWestminster. Westminster, Paddington and King Soloman Academies (not shown onFigure 5-1) were rebuilt under the City Academies funding stream; the secondary sectionof King Solomans will open in September 2009, admitting 60 pupils into Year 7.The total supply of school places for secondary schools years seven to thirteen (agegroups 11-17) has been identified using the number on roll (NOR), net capacity, and thesurplus capacity as at January 2008. Table 5-8 illustrates the total number on roll as atJanuary 2008 as 6,590; only three of Westminster‟s secondary schools have a surplus ofplaces, totalling 54 places. It should be noted that these DCSF Return figures do notinclude Academies.Table 5-8: Supply of Secondary School Places in Westminster, 2008Total Number on Roll 6,590Number on Roll in Schools with Spare Capacity 3,209Net Capacity in Schools with Spare Capacity 3,334Surplus with Spare Capacity 54Source: DfES Supply of School Places 2008 (Personal communication: Westminster EducationDepartment forwarded by Children‟s Services)Up to date information excluding Pimlico Academy indicates that there were 5,280secondary school pupils in 2009 70 . Including the academies, approximately 53% of pupilsattending Westminster's secondary schools come from Westminster and this figure isprobably if academies are included. According to DCSF data, based on London-wideschool roll information:73.2% of secondary school pupils resident in Westminster attend a maintainedschool/academy in Westminster27.8% (1,347) attend a maintained school/academy elsewhere - 9.0% in the RoyalBorough of Kensington and Chelsea, 5.1% in LB Brentin Westminster‟s secondary maintained schools and academies, 52.9% of schoolpopulation resident in Westminster, and 47.1% of school population residentelsewhere (9.9% from Camden).70 Personal Communication, School Admissions Team, Schools & Learning Directorate, WCC, 25/09/2009November 2009 Page 121

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportWestminster has seen a number of Academies opening since 2006, providing secondaryand further education within the same building. North Westminster Community School,WCC‟s largest school, was closed and its pupils were transferred to Paddington Academyor Westminster Academy. As of January 2008, the total number on roll at both academieswas 1,905 as shown in Table 5-9. Once the academies reach full capacity they will offer1,260 secondary places each.Table 5-9: Westminster Academies Number on Roll, 2008Name Year 7-11 Year 12-13 TotalPaddington Academy 862 237 1,099Westminster Academy 751 55 806Total 1,631 292 1,905Source: Personal communication: Westminster Education Department (forwarded by Children‟sServices 20/02/2009)5.3.2. Forecast DemandThe DFES projected forecast for secondary school places has been based on a numberof additional factors such as housing developments, boundary changes, expectedmigration, rationalisation proposals, age of transfer changes, and error margins. Theplaces have been adjusted to take account of the expansion of three schools fromJanuary 2011 but also the closure and reopening of Pimlico School and the NorthWestminster schools in Westminster. Table 5-10 illustrates an estimated increase in thenumber of secondary school places up to 2014-2015 for both years 7-11 and years 12and 13. Based on these figures years 7-11 are forecast to expand by 419 places over a 7year period up to 2015. It should be noted that these DCSF Return figures do not includeAcademies.Table 5-10: Local Authority District Forecasts for Westminster Secondary Schools2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Years 7-11 4,324 4,326 4,406 4,492 4,576 4,660 4,743Years 12 &13 1065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,220 1,525 1,525TotalSecondary5,389 5,391 5,471 5,557 5,796 6,186 6,268Source: DFES Supply of School Places 2008; Personal communication: Westminster EducationDepartment (forwarded from Children‟s Services 20/02/2009)November 2009 Page 122

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportAs local authority forecasts do not cover the entire planning period, the URSInfrastructure Model has been used to generate an indicative, broad-brush estimate ofpotential future demand for places and associated spatial requirements arising from theprojected residential and commercial growth. These figures represent a technicalestimate only and a starting point for further analysis. Table 5-11 shows the additionaldemand up to 2026, taking into account the projected growth in resident population andWCCs‟ suggested 30% discount in pupils yield accounting for leakage to other boroughsand private education, as well as the fact that a proportion of pupils taking up the newhousing may be already residing in Westminster 71 .Information retrieved from WCC is in line with the results of our model, which suggeststhat in a seven year period an additional approximate 320 (slightly below WCC‟sprojection) pupils would demand secondary education, resulting in the need for a newforms of entry. Based on current capacity, this forecast demand might be offset by theexisting 54 surplus places in Westminster‟s secondary schools.Table 5-11: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for SecondarySchool Places from New Development, 2006 – 2026Total Demand forSecondary SchoolPlaces, FTENumber of Formsof EntryNumber of SchoolsSpatialRequirements,Sqm915 6 2 7,982Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet5.3.3. Planned Investment and CostsWestminster is a Wave 3 Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Authority, so allsecondary schools will be either remodelled or rebuilt between 2008 and 2010. BSF isthe government‟s national capital programme to change and enhance education forsecondary school students. Figure 5-2 highlights the location of Westminster‟s secondaryschools that are part of the BSF programme.The BSF schools in Westminster include a combination of new build, refurbishment, andimprovement as identified in Table 5-12. There is no additional information available oncosts 72 .71 „Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations‟ (WCC, 2008). Westminster Children Serviceshave confirmed that Westminster experience both considerable leakage to the private sector and inflow of pupilsfrom adjacent boroughs.72 Unable to comment on forecast investment or costs. Personal communication, Children‟s Strategy, Planningand Performance, WCC by email 20/02/2009November 2009 Page 123

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 5-2: Map of the Building Schools for the Future in WestminsterSource: Building Schools for the Future 2008 see www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearningNovember 2009 Page 124

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-12: BSF Schools in WestminsterBSF School ProposalA new facility to help young people who have had difficulty in mainstreamBeachcroft Schoolschools continue their educationCollege Park School Complete rebuild specialising on education for ASD pupilsNew block at the St. Andrew‟s site. State of the art facilities for drama,The Grey Coatmusic, art and film studies. Improvements to St. Andrew‟s and St MichaelsSchoolto increase dining and study space£34 million rebuild of the Lupus Street site school. Enhanced sportsprovision and facilities to support the schools and specialism asPimlico Academyperforming and visual arts college. New community library and adulteducation centre. 2011 completion dateQueen Elizabeth II Refurbishment and new build. New hydrotherapy and physiotherapy suite.Jubilee School New post-16 centre with independent living suite and gymnasium.Quintin Kynaston Complete rebuild using BSF and Co-location funding with facilities to colocatea range of services for children and young peopleSchoolRefurbishment of main teaching block. New science laboratories toSt. Augustine‟s CE support the school's specialism in science. New atrium dining area linkingHigh School the existing main school buildings...New drama and activity studios Newfull size sports hall available for community use.Improvements to current school building to provide extra space for pupils.St. George‟s RCNew sports hall. Conversion of the existing gym into new drama and musicSchoolspacesRedevelopment of the Blandford Street site into a university style learningSt. Marylebone centre for children aged 14 – 19. Refurbishment of the High Street site toSchoolsupport the school's specialist subjects of performing arts, maths andcomputing. 2010 completion dateCreation of new classrooms, improved sixth form provision and a sportsWestminster School hall for the school and community. Development of new music rooms anda drama studio. New art department. 2010 completion date.Source: Building Schools for the Future 2008 see www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearningGiven the lack of detailed cost information for the period up to 2026, the URSInfrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative, broad-brush estimate ofcosts associated with the delivery of the required additional secondary school places. Theestimate is a technical assessment based on a series of assumptions and a starting pointfor more detailed analysis. Table 5-13 below shows that the estimated cost is just over£20m up to 2026.November 2009 Page 125

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-13: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Secondary SchoolPlaces, 2006-2026, £Total Demand forSecondary SchoolPlaces, FTENumber of Formsof EntrySpatialRequirements,SqmTotal Capital Cos,£915 6 7,982 21,509,483Source: URS calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) A1, A2, R1 and A2 Sheet5.3.4. Assessment and RecommendationsAccording to the 2008 DfES Supply of School Places 2008, only three of Westminster‟ssecondary schools have a surplus of places, totalling 54 places. Because secondaryschools‟ catchment areas are much wider than primary schools‟, with children likely totravel across Westminster to school, this spare capacity could help meet the additionalprojected demand. Also, WCC have already estimated an increase in demand of about400 new places over the next 7 years, suggesting that secondary school needs planningis adequately incorporating the Westminster‟s projected growth.The URS Infrastructure Model estimates the need for approximately 900 new secondaryschool places up to 2026, at an overall capital cost of approximately £21m.The major risk to meeting future demand for secondary education rests with funding.Whilst planning for secondary education needs follows a seven year cycle, as shown bythe DfES Supply of School Places 2008, funding is allocated on a three year basis, in linewith the Comprehensive Spending Review process. This means that secondaryeducation is potentially subject to the same funding time-lag issues as primary education.Should WCC face funding gaps in providing education facilities to meet the projectedpopulation growth it should seek potential partners facing similar constraints and lobby forthe introduction of forward funding mechanisms. WCC should however also consider anincreased use of PFI mechanisms to deliver new facilities.November 2009 Page 126

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.4. Adult Learning and Further Education5.4.1. BaselineThere are a total of three colleges in Westminster offering FE and adult education, whichare shown in Table 5-14. Westminster Adult Education Service (WAES) is one of thelargest providers of adult education in London offering full-time and part-time study in thedaytime, evenings and at weekends.Table 5-14: Westminster CollegesCollegeCity of Westminster CollegeWestminster Adult Education ServiceWestminster Kingsway CollegeSource: Building Schools for the Future 2008 see www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearningThe LSC‟s London Strategic Analysis 2007-2008 73 highlights that London has 32% ofexisting provision renewed, below the national average of 45% and one of the lowest inthe country. It states that local London needs are urgent so the pace of capital investmentneeds to increase. The Strategic Analysis also indicates that FE and Work BasedLearning success rates in London have improved but are still below the national average.Minimum levels of performance, Notices to Improve; Frameworks for Excellence, providerspecialisation and National Skills Academies will be used to address poor quality andunresponsive learning. More detailed, Westminster-specific information on the scale andquality of current FE and Adult Learning provision in WCC was not available from theLSC 74 .Table 5-15 shows the number of 16-18 learners and adult learners above the age of 19 inEngland 75 . It illustrates the different categories of learners and the split at a national levelbetween learners at the different age groups.73 „LSC London Strategic Analysis 2007/2008‟ (LSC, 2007)74 FE and Adult learners often attend colleges in different boroughs to the one they reside in, therefore it is difficultto gather exact FE and AL numbers for WCC. Personal communication, LSC London by phone, December 200875 Information on the number FE and adult learners in Westminster was unavailable. Personal communication,LSC London by phone and email December and January 2008/2009November 2009 Page 127

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-15: Total Number of 16-18 Age Group and Adult Learners in England2007/2008No. of LearnersSub-total 16-18 age group 1,447,000Sub-total 19+ age group 3,306,000Total learners 4,753,000Source: LSC Statement of Priorities 2009-10 www.westminster.gov.uk/educationandlearningWhile figures on the current number of FE students and Adult Learners in Westminsterwere not available, participation can be estimated by applying current take up rates to therelevant age group within each local authority. URS in their model of assessment haveconsidered the take up rate for 16-18 year olds requiring Further Education provision andthe 19 + years that require Adult Education provision, these rates are shown in Table5-16.Table 5-16 Participation Rates in England, by Age GroupAge GroupParticipation Rate16-17 years old 0.8418 years old 0.5618-65 years old 0.10Source: Take up rates are calculated from 'Government Investment Strategy 2009-10, LSC GrantLetters and LSC Statement of Priorities' (LSC, 2008, Investment and Allocations section).5.4.2. Forecast DemandWestminster specific forecasts are unavailable. A core government target is to encouragemore young people to stay in education until the age of 18; therefore it is essential toincrease the number of 16-18 year olds in education at levels 2 and 3. The LSC‟s LondonStrategic Analysis 2007/2008 76 contains forecast growth in the 16-18 age group inLondon. GLA 2006 population figures are used, and then growth is projected to 2008 and2021. GLA projections indicate that London‟s population will increase by just over500,000 (6.5%) between 2006 and 2016, with adults (19+) accounting for three quartersof the estimated growth. 77 Table 5-17 highlights central London has a significantpercentage change from 2006-2021 at 9.4%.76 LSC London Strategic Analysis (LSC, 2007)77 GLA Population Projections Scenario 9.07, in „London Strategic Analysis 2007/2008‟ (LSC, 2007)November 2009 Page 128

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-17:16-18 Age Group Population Growth, LSC Estimates up to 2021LondonSub-Region 2006 2006-2008 2006-2021Totalnumber oflearners by2021Percentagechange 2006-2021London40,362 -266 +3,828 44,190 9.4%Central 78Source: LSC based on GLA Population ProjectionsTable 5-18 highlights the current participation and projected participation of 16-18 agegroup and adults (19+) in FE and Adult Learning in England. Participation in LSC fundedlearning is predicted to increase for the 16-18 age group, though the number of AdultLearners will in fact fall from 2007/08 levels by 2009/10.Table 5-18: Projected FE Participation Rates in England, by Age GroupAge Group2007/08 2008/2009 2009/201016 88% 92% 95%17 79% 81% 84%18 56% 56% 56%Source: LSC Statement of Priorities 2009-10In the absence of provider forecasts, the URS Infrastructure Model has been used toprovide an indicative estimate of the likely increase in demand for further education andadult learning places, and associated spatial requirements, arising from the projectedresidential and commercial growth. These estimates are broad-brush and intended as astarting point for more detailed analysis. The additional demand up to 2026 takes intoaccount the projected growth in resident population, and total 2,243 places for peopleaged 16-18 and 19+ (Table 5-19).78 Central London sub area consists of Camden, Islington, Royal borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Southwark,WandsworthNovember 2009 Page 129

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-19: URS Indicative Assessment of Demand for 16-18 and 19+ FurtherEducation and Adult Education Provision and number of places in Westminsterfrom New Development, 2006-202616-18 Years OldsRequiring FurtherEducation19+ Year OldsRequiring AdultEducationTotal DemandSpatialRequirements,Sqm564 1,679 2,243 22,434Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) Children Population Estimate from Dwelling Number, R1 and A2 Sheet5.4.3. Planned Investment and CostsWCC is planning to bring forward proposals to deliver new facilities for adult education.The Westminster Adult Education Service (WAES) will join the strategic approach toworklessness and the employability and training agenda. As one of the biggest providersof adult learning opportunities in central London, WAES is well placed to supportWestminster‟s wider work to deliver economic regeneration, with more training for localpeople to take up local jobs 79 .WCC has approved the WAES property strategy that incorporates a new, centrallylocated main centre and three smaller satellite centres. Once the plans are completedthey will total 7,800 sqm of FE and AL floorspace to replace existing facilities locatedelsewhere. The main centre will be 6,000 sqm in size and will be located on part of theMoxon Street car park in Marylebone. The three satellite centres, each 600 sqm in size,will be located in north and south Westminster, and Soho. The proposed satellite centrein the south has been approved and is scheduled for completion by summer 2010, aspart of the new Pimlico School rebuild. The new build will provide eight excellentclassrooms, a learning centre, crèche and café.The Learning and Skills Council have agreed a capital grant of £9.2 million to contributetowards the £21 million cost of the main centre at Moxon Street. However, the delivery isuncertain due to the recently emerged funding commitments on behalf of the LSC.Therefore it will not meet the scheduled open date of September 2010.Table 5-20 shows the Westminster Capital Applications in Detail Approved in 2007/2008and 2008/2009. Three applications related to the City of Westminster College, with therefurbishment of the Maida Vale site and expansion of the Paddington site 80 .79 „2008 One City Plan‟ (WCC, 2008)80 Unfortunately full details of the additional floorspace that the expansion will introduce are not available.November 2009 Page 130

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-20: London Capital Applications in Detail Approved 2007/2008 and2008/2009 (as of 01/09/08)CollegeTotalProjectCostProposedLSCContributionFundingGapDescriptionCity ofWestminsterCollege£12,703,953 £10,023,419 £2,680,534£3,201,370 £1,120,480 £2,080,890£101,943,250 £87,668,000 £14,275,250Phase 1: Renting of 13,000 m2of temporary accommodationfor decant purposes andrefurbishment / adaptation ofthe space prior to occupation.Phase 2(a): Demolition andclearance of the currentPaddington Centre site andsubsequent site preparation,including the expansion of theexisting electricity substation.Phase 2(b): Construction of23,320m2 of newaccommodation at PaddingtonGreenSt CharlesSixth FormCollege£6,099,569 £4,391,690 £1,707,879Construction of new buildingcontaining a 4 badminton courtgym, fitness suite and 6classrooms. Relaying ofMUGA. Removal of temporaryaccommodation.Source: LSC Capital Applications Approved 2007/2008 – 2008/2009 (as of 01/9/08)No further detail for capital investment in Westminster is available. Consultationhighlighted to the following more general / national trends and issues which haveimplications for the planning and funding FE and AL in Westminster:The wider LSC budget allocation is driven by historical rates of allocation toschools, FE providers, and colleges. There is no substantial planned growth innational budget for FE and AL.The main capital programme for both 16-19 learners and 19+ learners is the FEcapital programme. This is an application based system where colleges can applyeither individually for funding for specific projects or as part of wider regionalstrategies for a 5-10 year period.Capital funding for the 14-19 age group is under reform. There will be a major shiftin the way education and training is delivered, with schools, colleges, highereducation and work based providers involved in consortia to deliver the curriculumand qualifications entitlement. In particular the Diploma will require specialistfacilities. The scale of, and the approach to, providing these facilities will varyacross each area depending upon the current level of readiness.November 2009 Page 131

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportEvolving policy is expected to shift responsibility for FE funding from the LSC tolocal authorities supported by a new non-departmental public body, the YoungPerson‟s Learning Agency, reporting to the Department for Children, Schools andFamilies (DCSF) as of the 1st April 2010. For adult learning and training, fundingduties will be overseen by the new Skills Funding Agency, to be an agency of theDepartment for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)Given the lack of detailed cost information for the period up to 2026, the URSInfrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative, broad-brush estimate ofcosts associated with the delivery of the required additional FE and AL places. Table5-21 below shows that the estimated cost is just over £57m up to 2026.Table 5-21: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Further Educationand Adult Learning School Places, 2006-2026, £16-19 Years OldsRequiring FurtherEducation19+ Year OldsRequiring AdultEducationTotal DemandTotal Capital Cost,£564 1,679 2,243 56,084,757Source: URS calculations A1, A2, R1 and A2 SheetThe proposed new centre at Moxon Street with its three satellite sites is expected todeliver 7,800 sqm of FE and AL floorspace, with more space to be provided at theexpanded Paddington site. However, these proposals are mainly to replace facilities to bedisposed of elsewhere.5.4.4. Assessment and RecommendationsWCC has approved the WAES property strategy that incorporates a new, centrallylocated main centre and three smaller satellite centres. Once the plans are completedthey will total 7,800 sqm of FE and AL floorspace, though this floorspace will primarilyreplace facilities to be disposed of elsewhere. Expansion plans have already beenapproved for the Paddington site of the City of Westminster College (details on theadditional floorspace to be provided are not available at the moment) as well as two otherprojects at the college and construction of new building at St Charles Sixth Form College.Part of the funding for these facilities has already been allocated, with the LSCcontributing over £103m to the projects. However, a substantial funding gap remains, ofover £20.7m. In addition, there is now uncertainty regarding the availability of LSC funds;a lack of these funds could threaten the project.Even once these planned projects are completed, indicative estimates from the URSInfrastructure Model suggests there may be a substantial demand that remains unmet,with a total additional demand for floorspace expected to reach 23,000 sqm up to 2026 ata cost of approximately £57.5m. In considering the adequacy of existing provision andfuture provision, it is however critical to appreciate that students seeking FE and ALcourses more often than not do not stay within the boundaries of the borough in whichNovember 2009 Page 132

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportthey are resident. This reflects the fact that particularly FE colleges function as specialistproviders attracting learners from across London and even further away.The lack of more detailed information on the baseline position, LSC plans and funding atthe Westminster level makes it difficult to assess whether the scale of requirementsuggested by the URS Infrastructure Model is in line with LSC expectations. WCC shouldtherefore liaise with the LSC and emerging new bodies overseeing FE and AL funding toensure they are aware of the residential growth that Westminster is expecting over theLondon Plan period, so as to ensure that accurate estimate for future demand areaundertaken and an adequate delivery plan is developed.November 2009 Page 133

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.5. Higher Education5.5.1. BaselineOf the 24 Universities in Central London 10 are in Westminster, and their location isshown in Figure 5-3.The University of the Arts and University of Westminster have the largest number ofenrolled students, as shown in Table 5-22. The table also shows that a majority of themoffering predominantly higher education courses as opposed to further education ones(the exception is the University of the Arts London). All institutions have a mix ofundergraduate and postgraduates within each university. However, in total there are agreater number of students enrolled in undergraduate degree courses.Table 5-22: The Breakdown of Total Number of StudentsUniversityTotalNumberofStudentsEnrolledTotal FEStudentsTotal HEStudentsTotalUnderGraduateTotal PostGraduateUniversity of Westminster 24,710 0 24,710 17,850 6,860Kings College London 21,230 0 21,230 14,010 7,220London School of Economics andPolitical Science9,030 0 9,030 3,825 5,205London Business School 1,495 0 1,495 0 1,495Royal Academy of Music 700 0 700 320 380Royal College of Music 650 0 650 350 300Royal College of Art 920 0 920 0 920The Royal College of Nursing 650 0 650 460 190University of the Arts London 30,885 15,975 14,910 12,460 2,450Courtauld Institute of Art 455 0 455 155 300TOTAL 90,725 15,975 74,750 49,430 25,320Source: High Education Statistics Agency Limited (HESA) 2008November 2009 Page 134

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 5-3: Higher Education Institutions in WestminsterSource: URS and WCCNovember 2009 Page 135

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportHigher education demand is not derived solely from the resident or employee population.Table 5-23 identifies the proportion of full time first degree accepted applicants in 2007-08 who came from the region in which the institution was located. The table shows thatthe catchment for higher education is national and international rather than local orregional.Table 5-23: Proportion of Accepted Applicants from Institution’s Region / Studyingin Home RegionRegion of institutionProportion of Institution’sStudents Coming fromInstitution’s RegionProportion of Region’sApplicants Studying inHome RegionNorth East 48% 65%North West 63% 66%Yorkshire and the Humber 40% 59%East Midlands 34% 43%West Midlands 54% 50%East of England 49% 28%Greater London 63% 57%South East 47% 41%South West 42% 47%Source: UCAS Statistical Services,20095.5.2. Forecast DemandThe Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has no information on the breakdown offorecast student numbers at local authority level or by institution 81 . Trends in Westminstermay reflect national trends reviewed below.HEPI identifies the forecast national demand for HE up to 2029. HEPI have identified themain driver of demand in full time student numbers as population. HEPI have usedassumptions based on the number of people aged 18+ and the potential proportion thatwill attend University 82 .Figure 5-4 identifies the total changes in three different age cohorts 2008-2029. All threeexperience a steady increase in numbers from 2008 until early the next decade. The81 Personal communication, HEPI Director by email 24/12/200882 Personal Communication, HEPI Director, November 2008November 2009 Page 136

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportlargest age group is the 25-29 which continues to steadily increase until 2018 where itbegins to slightly decline like the other two age cohorts.Figure 5-4: Changes in Different Age Cohorts 2008-2029 (000s)4500.04000.018-2021-2425-293500.03000.02500.02000.01500.02007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028Source: ONS population estimates and GAD projections as in HEPI Demand for Higher Educationto 2029 (HEPI, 2008)Table 5-24 sets out the change in full time student numbers that would occur over thenext two decades, if higher education numbers changed in line with demographicchanges illustrated above in Figure 5-4. The trend illustrated in Table 5-24 shows adecrease in student numbers to 2020/2021 followed by an increase in 2028/2029.Table 5-24: Changes in Full Time English Domiciled Student Numbers at EnglishHE Institutes from Changes in the PopulationEstimatedStudentNumbers2007-08Change inNumbers2007-08 to2020-21TotalStudentNumbers2020-21Change inNumbers2007-08 to2028-29TotalStudentNumbers2028-29All males 375,043 -25,368 349,675 11,462 386,505All females 482,405 -33,856 448,549 13,496 495,901Total 857,448 -59,224 798,224 24,958 882,406Source: HEPI Demand for Higher Education beyond 2029 (HEPI, 2008)November 2009 Page 137

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.5.3. Planned Investment and CostsHEFCE is the main funding body for universities capital investment. Funding is allocatedon a four-year basis. The HEFCE Strategic Plan 2006-2011 83 identifies the keyperformance targets and measures for Higher Education, as illustrated in Table 5-25.Table 5-25: Key performance targets and measures for Higher EducationEnhancing excellence in teaching and learningWidening participation and fair accessEnhancing excellence in researchEnhancing the contribution of Higher Education to the economy and societyEnhancing a high-quality Higher Education sectorEnabling excellenceSource: Strategic Plan 2006-2011 (HEFCE, 2008)Capital expenditure plans for each institution in the City of Westminster were notavailable 84 . However, the Estates Strategy for each university provides come relevantinformation on future investment plans. The Estate Strategies contain an overview of theEstate Strategy and Master Plan, Corporate Plan & Financial Strategy, Changes to theEstate and Development & Refurbishment Opportunities. The Estates Strategies for eachuniversity in Westminster were reviewed to identify major issues regarding future demandand provision of HE.The Estates Strategies highlight that considerable funds are required to maintain theexisting estate. In addition ambitious major projects are underway and planned for futureyears. Needs for new space relate not just to academic uses but also student housingand support services, and to wider drivers such as the research sector and localregeneration initiatives.A summary of the key findings emerging from these documents are outlined below.University of WestminsterThe Estate Strategy 2008 indicates that while overall the Estate is in a reasonablecondition, the cost of realising all of the university‟s ambitions is approximately £13583 „Strategic Plan 2006-2011‟ (HEFCE, 2008)84 HESA hold this information but it is not publicly available (a fee is levied)November 2009 Page 138

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportmillion over the period 2008-2018. The following major projects have been identified 85 .Not all the estate is within Westminster (one of the four sites in Harrow); where theinformation is available the sites to which the projects apply have been specified.Maintain and improve the estate (2008-2018, c.£35 million)Improve the utilisation of general teaching spaces (2008-2010, c.£7 million andembedded in other major projects)Develop the Marylebone site (2008-2017, c.£16.3 million) and the Harrow site(2008-2013, £37 million)Refocus the West End by developing 115 New Cavendish Street as a centre forundergraduate teaching and 309 Regent Street as a centre for high qualitypostgraduate teaching and interaction with industry and commerceDevelop additional bedrooms: 600 bedrooms at Harrow (2008-2017, £35.75million); approximately 650 beds at Wembley for delivery in 2011 (via a nominationsagreement with Quintain); development of the International House site to deliverapproximately 250 bedsDevelop sports & leisure facilities at the Harrow site (2008-13).University of the Arts LondonThe Estates Strategy (2007) outlines strategic interventions comprising the consolidationand rationalisation of distant and disparate premises (many of which are outsideWestminster) into a smaller number of purpose-built facilities, preferably on a singlecampus. Strategic proposals comprise adaptation, extension and improvement of existingpremises, while operational interventions are more usually related to maintenanceactivities.5.5.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThere are currently 10 universities in City of Westminster, with a total of 90,725 studentsenrolled in 2007.A meaningful strategic assessment of demand for HE in Westminster is difficult asdemand is not related directly to residential or commercial growth. Based on age cohortanalysis, there is an expected decrease in demand across England for Higher Educationup to 2021, following an increase up to 2029.A sample analysis of estates strategies for two of the largest Westminster universitiesalready identify major issues regarding future demand and provision of Higher Educationhighlighting that considerable funds are required to maintain the existing estate. It should85 „Westminster Estate Strategy 2008-2016‟ (University of Westminster, 2007)November 2009 Page 139

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportbe noted that some of the estate of these and other universities is located outsideWestminster itself.In addition ambitious major projects are underway and planned for future years. Needsfor new space relate not just to academic uses but also student housing and supportservices, and to wider drivers such as the research sector and local regenerationinitiatives. The documents however highlight the difficulty in meeting the requiredexpansion of both academic and accommodation facilities, due to the pressingmaintenance and refurbishment needs of the existing stock.November 2009 Page 140

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.6. Primary Healthcare5.6.1. BaselineThe Westminster Strategic Service Development Plan (2008-2013) highlights thatWestminster PCT serves more than 247,000 registered patients, but there are anestimated million people who live, work and visit Westminster each day and use some ofits services, therefore adding pressure on Westminster‟s primary healthcare system.The table below, Table 5-26, illustrates Westminster‟s GP Profile identifying the totalnumber of GP practices, registered patients, single handed practitioners, and aged 60+practitioners in Westminster. 86Table 5-26: Westminster GP ProfileNo. of GP practices in Westminster PCT 53Total No. of Patients Registered 247,000No. of GP‟s Aged 60+ 18No. of Single Handed Practices (no assistants) 13No. of Single Handed Practitioners aged 60+ 5No. of Single Handed Practitioners with list size 2500+ 7No. of Aged 60+ practitioners with list size 2500+ 3Total No. of Patients Registered with a Single Handed GP 33,825Source: Westminster NHS Strategic Service Development Plan 2008 – 2013, September 2008. Theinformation is correct of the publishing date.Using the ODPM recommended standard of provision 87 of 1 GP per 1,700 residents hasbeen used to record current baseline figures and whether Westminster is above or belowthe OPDM national average, see Table 5-27.86 In addition to GPs other PCT health facilities include community pharmacies, dental contractors and optometrycontractors. It is not within the scope of this study to cover these elements separately, given their varyingoperational and contractual arrangements. (Some health centres in Westminster include these services - seeTable 5-28).87 'Reforming Planning Obligations' (ODPM, 2004).November 2009 Page 141

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-27: Primary Service Providers for WestminsterNo. of GPpracticesNo. of GP’s(FTE)Total ResidentPopulationPopulationper GPAbove orBelow OPDMaverageSource: Information Centre for Health and Social Care, September 2007.1,767 BelowWestminster is host to a number of health centres offering a range of health serviceswithin the same facility, including health visiting, district nursing, community dentistry,sexual health, and a number of GP surgeries. We provide an overview of the extent ofsuch centres in Table 5-28.Table 5-28: Westminster Health CentresLocationNumberTotalFloorspace,SqmQueens Park / Paddington 2 4,648Soho / West End 1 4,474St. John‟s Wood / Marylebone 2 2,815Pimlico / Victoria 1 2,075Total 6 14,012Source: Westminster PCT Estates Strategy (Westminster PCT, 2008)Westminster PCT has prepared both a Services and an Estates Strategy adopted inSeptember 2008 providing a ten year strategy for the PCTs estate portfolio. The strategyis aimed at ensuring that the PCT retains and supports the development of a high qualityestate in the right locations to deliver modern, accessible primary care services.Westminster PCT has a significant estate, but it is old and will not support the flexibility inthe provision of services 88 . Coupled with this is the high number of workers and visitorsthat increase significantly the pressure on existing facilities. Of Westminster‟s 53 GPs,23% of the practices are single handed and are seen as unable to provide the accessand the range of services which is appropriate for the modern provision of primary care 89 .Recent investments have been made to upgrade and expand GP accommodation andthese are outlined in Table 5-29.88 „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008)89 „Westminster Strategic Service Development Plan 2008-2013‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008)November 2009 Page 142

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-29: Recent Projects for Westminster PCTCurrent Proposals:Victoria Medical Centre providing enhanced facility for an existing GP practiceBrampton House GP led primary care centre relocated another GP onto its premisesHallfield Clinic refurbished for use as GP surgeryExtension of a GP surgery in Victoria to enable practice to develop integrated service and becomea training practiceSource: Westminster PCT Estates Strategy (Westminster PCT, 2008)5.6.2. Forecast DemandDetailed information on forecast provision of primary health care services wasunavailable 90 . Service planning is extremely complex in Westminster as demand is notmerely related to the residential population.The PCT‟s key priorities up to 2013 however suggest that a number of capitalprogrammes will be undertaken to ensure the delivery of integrated and localised service,alternative healthcare settings and improve the performance and efficiency of the Trust‟sestate. This is in line with evolving national policy: the report „Healthcare for London – Aframework for Action‟ published in July 2007, the supporting technical paper and themore recent „Healthcare for London: Consulting the Capital – a consultation document‟produced in November 2007 have emphasised that services should be morepersonalised, closer to peoples‟ homes, more integrated, focussed on prevention andtackle health inequalities.The Westminster PCT Estates Strategy highlights the proposals that are beingconsidered for implementation across Westminster. These include the development ofeither a „hub and spokes‟ model or a single polyclinic model, for which Westminster PCThas been the first to submit a proposal to NHS London.GP led health centres are also proposed to offer „a combined approach to providing newand integrated services or work as part of a federated solution‟ 91 . Westminster PCT hasalso submitted two proposals to NHS London for the development of two GP led healthcentres based in its two most deprived areas. Emerging Westminster policy is particularlysupportive of this mode of provision.The HUDU model was used to offer an indication of the likely growth-related demand andcost potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements in Westminster. Thelimitations of the model, including the problematic nature of linking future primary care90 Personal communication, Westminster PCT91 „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008), page 24November 2009 Page 143

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportrequirements to population growth, are acknowledge. However, in the absence of anyprovider projections, the model is considered to provide a useful indicative estimate offuture demand and a starting point for further analysis. Table 5-30 shows the results ofthe analysis. The forecast GP and primary care units and space requirements arepresented for Westminster. Because the HUDU model does not allow for factoring inadditional demand deriving from non residential growth the figures presented are likely tobe a lower bound estimate of the likely additional demand for primary care services.Table 5-30: HUDU Model Results, Primary Healthcare Additional Requirementsfrom New Development, 2006 – 2026Total Requirements(Number of GP and Primary Care Units)Space Requirements (Sqm)4 685Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 20075.6.3. Planned Investment and CostsThere are a variety of funding options to support primary and community care premises inWestminster, including central government, PPIs and private developers‟ contributions.Funding requirements for PCT capital allocations will be determined through expenditureplans submitted to and agreed with the London NHS 92 . The NHS London Strategic Plan2008 outlines high level performance targets and goals, with detailed planned andforecast investment costs or strategies still evolving and under review.Information on planned investment is available in Westminster‟s Strategic ServiceDelivery Plan (SSDP) and Westminster‟s Estates Strategy. The priorities for Westminsterare:To plan for the patients of retiring GPs over the next year to be accommodated inexisting premisesTo work to develop GP-led health centres and polysystemsTo work with the Local Authority and other partners on developmentsTo work with practices on minor premises improvements to provide extra space andor to improve quality of existing premises, including meeting access requirements.Recent investments which have been completed in Westminster are outlined in Table5-29. Table 5-31 is taken from Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008-2013. While itshows capital bids rather than funded projects, it illustrates the scale of plannedinvestment by Westminster PCT in upkeep of the primary health estate. A total of92 „Westminster PCT Estates Strategy 2008‟ (Westminster PCT, 2008)November 2009 Page 144

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report£2,186,261 has been forecast for estates capital bids for the period 2008/09, 2009/10 and2010/11.Table 5-31: Total Westminster PCT Estates Capital Bids for 2008-2011, £Building Condition Statutory Compliance Total1,443,707 992,554 2,186,261Source: Westminster Estates Strategy 2008-2013The HUDU model was used to quantify and cost potential primary and secondaryhealthcare requirements in WCC. While the HUDU model is a useful tool, it should benoted that it does not take the baseline position (i.e. existing capacity) into account. Inaddition, the model does not reflect evolving models of healthcare provision, for examplethe drive to better integrate health and care services and to shift care wherever possibleout into the community, and the associated move towards health centres andpolysystems 93 . Work is already underway to identify potential sites for such provision inWestminster. Therefore the estimates of required provision and associated costsgenerated may be exaggerated and the units of provision used to express primaryhealthcare requirements (number of GPs) may in the future become less appropriate.Table 5-32 shows the results of the analysis. It illustrates the likely building costsassociated with providing primary health care services in Westminster. The extent of theadditional spatial requirements, compared with the size of existing primary healthcarefacilities in Westminster, suggests that the implementation of the proposed health centresand polysystems may be more than adequate to meet the projected additional needs.Table 5-32: HUDU Model Results, Total Capital Costs, 2006 – 2026Space Requirements, Sqm Total Capital Costs (£)685 2,416,305Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 20075.6.4. Assessment and RecommendationsWestminster PCT has a significant estate, but a considerable portion of it is not deemedadequate to support the PCTs strategy of integrated and localised service, alternativehealthcare settings and an improved performance and efficiency of the Trust‟s estate.The HUDU model forecasts a need for an additional 685 sqm of primary care facilities, atan overall cost of £2.4m. It should be noted that the HUDU model does not take the93 „London‟s Health Services: A Framework for Action‟ (Professor Darzi, 2007)November 2009 Page 145

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportbaseline position into account and also does not reflect evolving models of healthcareprovision, and so the estimates of required provision and associated costs generatedmay be exaggerated. On the other hand, the fact that the HUDU model does notincorporate the demand of primary healthcare services arising from commercial uses maybalance the risk of over-estimating the requirements.Changes in the preferred model of healthcare provision are key drivers of the PCT‟sestate and service strategy, including the expansion of GP led health centres and thedevelopment of new polysystems across Westminster. Although full details of theprojected additional number and size of facilities is not available at this stage, theevolving plan is being reflected in the emerging LDF Core Strategy. It is likely that shouldthe PCT‟s estate plans be fully implemented the additional demand arising from projectedgrowth will be met through the newly developed facilities.Funding for primary health is allocated on a three year basis, making assessment ofplanned long term future investment difficult. Whilst some evidence on capital bids for theyears 2008-2011 is available, there is no information on funding that is specificallyallocated to expand services and facilities.November 2009 Page 146

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.7. Secondary Healthcare5.7.1. BaselineNHS London is one of 10 strategic health authorities (SHAs) in England. It wasestablished in July 2006 to lead the NHS across London. NHS London is accountable forthe performance of 31 primary care trusts (PCTs); 24 acute trusts 94 ; five mental healthtrusts and the London Ambulance Service. London Strategic Health Authority assessescapacity of secondary health care provision by the total number of hospital beds 95 ;however, no details for Westminster were available.According to the Westminster PCT Strategic Service Delivery Plan 2008 there are 16secondary care providers in Westminster. These include the Imperial Healthcare NHSFoundation Trust (St Mary‟s); Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust; UniversityCollege London Hospital; Central and North West London Mental Health Trust, includingGordon Hospital (Mental Health) and Butterworth Centre; and a series of other providerorganisations engaged via Service Level Agreements (SLAs).5.7.2. Forecast DemandThe London Strategic Health Authority indicated that individual PCTs hold information onforecast demand for and planned provision of secondary healthcare. However,consultation with the PCT revealed that this strategic planning activity is driven by theindividual hospital trust. 96Some information is available from the annual reports of the Imperial Healthcare and theChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trusts (FT). The Foundation Trust Statusheld by both the Imperial Healthcare and the Chelsea and Westminster NHS FoundationFT allows them greater financial flexibility. FTs‟ capital funding is less reliant on centrallyallocated resources and more on affordable borrowing on the private capital market. Forinstance the Chelsea & Westminster NHS FT reports a £19.4m capital programme whichincludes expansion of their Children‟s Accident and Emergency department 97 . TheImperial Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust also reports considerable capital investmentin 2008, totalling £72m, which included the acquisition of the Paterson building and thestart of a major scheme to facilities on the St Mary‟s site 98 .94 Acute trusts are responsible of the quality and efficiency of hospital services provisions. They also decide on astrategy for how the hospital will develop, so that services improve.95 Personal communication, London Strategic Health Authority (by phone) December 200896 Personal communication, London Strategic Health Authority (by phone and email) December 200897 „Annual Report and Summary Financial Statements, 2007/08‟ (Chelsea & Westminster NHS FT, 2008)98 „Annual Report, 2007/08‟ (Imperial Healthcare NHS FT, 2008)November 2009 Page 147

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportIn the absence of provider forecasts, the HUDU model was used to as a starting point forquantifying and costing potential primary and secondary healthcare requirements inWestminster. While the HUDU model is a useful tool, it should be noted that it does nottake the baseline position (i.e. existing capacity) into account. In addition, the model doesnot reflect evolving models of healthcare provision, in particular the drive to provide moreacute services through primary healthcare facilities which may reduce the demand forsecondary healthcare space. For these reasons, the estimates of required provision andassociated costs generated may be exaggerated.Table 5-33 provides results in terms of additional units of service required, i.e. number ofbeds or of places as appropriate, and illustrates the space required to physically providethem.Table 5-33: HUDU Model Results, Additional Secondary Healthcare Requirementsfrom New Development, 2006 – 2026Total Requirements (Number of Units)Acute and Mental Beds Intermediate Beds Intermediate Day Spaces19 4 4Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 20075.7.3. Planned Investment and CostsConsultation with London Strategic Health Authority indicated that information wasavailable from Westminster PCT. However, consultation with Westminster PCT wasunfruitful with respect to both demand and planned investments in secondary care.In 2007/08, London‟s PCTs spent £11.5 billion commissioning health services forLondoners. However, there is no breakdown of what this figure includes 99 .In the absence of information from providers the HUDU model was used to provideindicative quantify and cost estimates of potential primary and secondary healthcarerequirements in Westminster. Table 5-34 outlines the capital required to build the newfacilities and operate them. Future requirements for Westminster PCT they are just under£5m.Table 5-34: HUDU Model Results, Total Capital Costs, 2006 – 2026Spatial Requirements, Sqm Capital Costs (£)1,335 4,837,925Source: HUDU Planning Contribution Model, EDAW/AECOM, 200799 „NHS London annual report and statement of accounts 2007/08‟ (NHS, 2008).November 2009 Page 148

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTotal revenue costs for primary and secondary healthcare required to operate newfacilities in Westminster are £18.3m.5.7.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThe HUDU model forecasts an indicative need for an additional 1,335 sqm of secondarycare facilities, at an overall capital cost of £4.8m. It should be noted that the HUDU modeldoes not take the baseline position into account and also does not reflect evolvingmodels of healthcare provision, and so the estimates of required provision andassociated costs generated may be exaggerated. On the other hand, the fact that theHUDU model does not incorporate the demand of primary healthcare services arisingfrom commercial uses may balance the risk of over-estimating the requirements.The major finding of the assessment is the lack of systematic information. WestminsterPCT‟s Strategic Service Delivery Plan lists existing acute, mental and intermediate careproviders. However, limited evidence on their current capacity is available either throughthe individual PCTs or through the London Strategic Health Authority. The same holds foranalysis of future demand and planned costs and investments.The absence of publicly available details on Westminster based secondary healthcareinstitutions risks hindering the delivery of residential and commercial growth inWestminster, as no analysis of current and future needs is possible. The lack of uniquesource of information at the regional (London) or sub-regional (Central London) level mayconstitute an additional obstacle to the delivery of the additional infrastructure required tosatisfy projected level of demand. Cross boundary movements can be considerable forsecondary healthcare services, and integrated information may be essential in ensuringprovision throughout Central London in time to meet additional demand.November 2009 Page 149

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.8. Parks and Open Space5.8.1. BaselineThere are a total of 172 open spaces in Westminster (excluding ten civic spaces)covering an area of 527 hectares. Of these 527 hectares, 454 hectares (87 open spaces)have public access and the remaining 73 hectares (85 open spaces) is made up of openspaces on housing estates and other private spaces.Based on 2005 population figures, the Westminster‟s Open Space Strategy 2007 100calculated that this equates to 1.86 hectares of publicly accessible open space per 1,000population. The figure is higher than the generally accepted standard of 1.6 ha per1000. 101 However, there are two Westminster specific features which suggest that WCCshould aim to maintain such (higher) provision of publicly accessible open space. First, ifWestminster‟s estimated daytime population numbers of approximately one million isconsidered the level of provision drops to a standard of 0.45 per 1,000 population.Second, the majority of Westminster‟s open space lies within Royal Parks, which, beingdistant from residential areas, may not be highly accessible to Westminster‟s residentpopulation.Table 5-35 identifies the open space in different areas of Westminster with the totalhectares per 1,000 populations. The central area has the largest number of public openspace, with Marylebone the fewest.Table 5-35: Open Space in Westminster per 1,000 PopulationWestminsterAreaPublic OpenSpaceHousing EstateLandTotalsNumber Hectares Number HectaresTotalHectares.Hectares per1,000 populationCentral 27 291 0 0 291 11.6South 15 4.5 1 0.03 4.54 0.13Bayswater 13 6.3 2 1.33 7.64 0.2Maida Vale 13 16.2 0 0 16.2 0.46Marylebone 4 1.4 0 0 1.4 1.07St. John‟s Wood 9 134.8 2 2 134.94 5Source: Westminster Open Space Strategy 2007100 „Open Space Strategy 2007‟ (WCC, 2007)101 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor and Sports Play, 2008November 2009 Page 150

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-47 below presents the results of the Open Space Strategy analysis ofWestminster‟s open spaces, including their number, indicative size and geographicalimportance.Table 5-36: Westminster Public Open Space Hierarchy (2007)Type Number Size Guideline (ha) Examples CommentsMetropolitan 3 60-400District 2 20-60Local Parks 4 2-20Small LocalParks13 0.4-2Hyde Park,Kensington Gardens,Regents ParkSt. James‟s Park,Green ParkPaddington Rec.,VictoriaTower Gardens(north)BessboroughGardensPocket Parks 4

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe Open Space Strategy underlines the importance of creating more city spaces tocater for the shared space with visitors and workers. In addition the likely increase in thenumber of children and of households without gardens is expected to result in additionaldemand for child play space.The Strategy puts forward an Action Plan which sets out committed works to openspaces across the borough on a year by year basis. As of 2008, completed or plannedworks included the refurbishment and improvement of existing facilities and improvedaccessibility. Also planned are the creation of new child play space at the Mozart estate,an Environmental Area at Paddington Recreation Ground and a wildlife area at Queen‟sPark Gardens 103 .In order to provide a longer term, comprehensive indicative assessment of likely futureadditional demand for open space, the URS Infrastructure Model was used. The findingsare an indicative, broad-brush estimate only. As shown in Table 5-37 and Table 5-38 theresults confirm the Open Space Strategy initial findings. It shows the likely increase indemand and associated spatial requirements for both parks and playable space 104 arisingfrom the projected residential and commercial growth. The additional demand for parksup to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident population and anadditional component expected to use Westminster parks even if residing elsewhere.It should be noted that this exercise represents a technical estimate only and should beconsidered in the context of the very limited availability of land in Westminster. As suchadditional provision should be sought wherever possible, but improvements to existingspace and increased accessibility are likely to contribute mostly to meeting the estimatednew demand.Table 5-37: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Parks from NewDevelopment, 2006-2026Number of People Requiring AdditionalParks SpaceAdditional Spatial Requirements (Ha)42,119 78Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets103 „Westminster Open Space Strategy, 2007 – Action Plan Update‟ (WCC, December 2008), available athttp://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/AMR_2007_2008_Appendix_2_Open_Space_Action_Plan_Review.pdf104 As defined in „Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young Peoples Play and InformalRecreation‟ (GLA, 2008)November 2009 Page 152

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-38: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Playable Spacesfrom New Development, 2006-2026Type of Playable SpacePlayable Space - Doorstops (0-4)Playable Space - Local (5-10)Playable Space - Youth (11-17)Number of AdditionalPlayable Spaces3506889Additional SpatialRequirements (Sqm)34,96620,26717,726Total 506 72,959Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheetsGenerally private developers are required to find solutions to incorporate the requireddoorstops playable spaces as part of their proposed development design, and local andyouth playable spaces may be delivered within primary and secondary educationestablishments.Consultation with WCC has however confirmed that given the land availability constraintsin Westminster it is expected that not all large scale projects/ developments will be ableaccommodate the required amount of open space or play space. When this is the case,WCC will usually seek contributions to improving existing open space/play space in theform of biodiversity in parks and green infrastructure such as green walls, green roofsand trees.5.8.3. Planned Investment and CostsLocal Authorities have a role in ensuring that sufficient open space for residents andemployees is provided on schemes that are brought forward by developers. Charitableand quasi-governmental bodies could play a key role in delivering such spaces ifresources can be secured.As grant funding is the major source of capital resources to deliver additional open space,there is a risk of mis-match between the variety of funding streams that may contribute toan individual scheme. This may be exacerbated by inadequate staff resources, resultingin underspending of the available funding or delays in the delivery.With regards to playspace, an important source of provision is private developersdelivering residential developments. Playable spaces associated with primary orsecondary schools are an additional source of play space for children aged 5 and above,although there is limited opportunity to increase provision. Such places should nothowever be considered as interchangeable with playable spaces located outside schoolpremises, as children‟s play needs extend outside school hours. These spaces wouldgenerally be funded through Primary Capital Programme or Building Schools for theFuture monies.In order to provide a starting point for detailed analysis, the URS Infrastructure Modelprovides indicative costs associated with the delivery of the required additional openNovember 2009 Page 153

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportspace provision. Table 5-39 and Table 5-40 below show that the estimated cost is toprovide the additional 78 hectares of parks provision is in excess of £36m. Whileproviding a point of reference for the cost of open space provision, this cost estimate is oflimited applicability in the Westminster context given land availability constraints. Thefocus for future investment is likely to be small scale provision and improvements.Table 5-39: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Parks Provision,2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)Additional Spatial Requirements (Ha)Total Capital Cost78 36,209,539Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R sheetsTable 5-40: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Expanding Playable Spaces,2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)Type of Playable SpacePlayable Space - Doorstops (0-4)Playable Space - Local (5-10)Playable Space - Youth (11-17)Additional SpatialRequirements (Sqm)Total Capital Cost34,966 6,974,99020,267 4,042,84117,726 3,536,041Total 72,959 14,553,872Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets5.8.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThe baseline analysis highlights that many parts of the north and south of Westminsteralready suffer from an existing deficit with regard to open space and playspace, includingparts of the three opportunity areas due to accommodate significant housing and jobsgrowth.Given Westminster‟s central London location, land constraints will not allow for thedelivery of additional parks space in the scale suggested by the application of the URSInfrastructure Model an additional 78 ha of parks and just under 73,000 sqm of childrenplay space. For this reason wherever it is not possible to create new local parks, smalllocal parks and pocket parks alternative measures should be identified to improveexisting open space/play space in the form of biodiversity in parks and greeninfrastructure such as green walls, green roofs and trees. This approach is aligned withthat currently employed by WCC.November 2009 Page 154

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportOut of the total additional playspace needed to meet the additional projected demandover a third is for children aged 0 to 4. As such private developers delivering theresidential schemes will be expected to incorporate them into their designs, or to givefinancial contributions for off-site delivery. The remainder of additional playspace (localand youth playable space) can potentially be delivered within primary or secondaryschools developments, and as such its cost would be incorporated in the school‟s fundingbid. As a result, it is expected that both private developers and education funding willcontribute to the children playspace expected capital cost of £14.6m.The URS Infrastructure Model estimates also a costs of approximately £36.2massociated with new parks space. However, on the basis of Westminster‟s landconstraints, the actual deliverable space is expected to be lower, resulting in a lower cost.As parks and open space are not funded through a streamlined capital source, there arerisks in terms of potential funding gaps. As grant funding is the major source of capitalresources to deliver additional open space, there is also a risk of mis-match between thevariety of funding streams that may contribute to a large individual scheme. This may beexacerbated by inadequate staff resources, resulting in underspending of the availablefunding or delays in the delivery.Should WCC face funding gaps in providing open space to meet the projected populationgrowth it should seek potential partners facing similar constraints and lobby for theintroduction of forward funding mechanisms.November 2009 Page 155

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.9. Sports and Leisure5.9.1. BaselineThe „Active Westminster Sports and Physical Activity Strategy‟ highlights a current underprovisionof sports halls and synthetic turf pitches. However, the Strategy identifiesWestminster as being excellently served by swimming pools and health and fitnesscentres. Westminster has 64 different sites offering health and fitness. However, only fiveof them (7.8% of the total), are owned by WCC. Table 5-41 highlights the sports facilityprovision in Westminster assessed to identify the needs of the city.Table 5-41: Sports Facilities in WestminsterSports FacilitySports hallsSwimming poolsProvision per 1,000 Population29.8 sq m48.92 sq mHealth and fitness17.99 stationsSource: ActiveWestminster Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013In addition to the sports facilities identified in the Active Westminster Sports and PhysicalActivity Strategy, WCC wishes to expand on the provision of alternative sports facilitieswhich include climbing, martial areas, dance etc. However, there is no quantitativeinformation available to assess the provision.It is recognised that while swimming pool provision is very good in Westminster there is aneed for swimming pools in the north-east of Westminster. Participation levels inWestminster vary and the wards of Queens Park, Church Street, Harrow Road,Tachbrook and Churchill all experience lower levels of participation than the Westminsteraverage.5.9.2. Forecast DemandForecasting for sports provision is based on population projections for Westminster.However, no detailed plan forecasting future demand is available. Indications are thatthere is adequate sports and leisure provision due to the three new main stream facilitiesin addition to existing facilities. The three new builds will be completed over the next fiveyears, in addition to seven projects coming online under the Building Schools for theFuture programme. The additional facilities will be accommodated either in purpose builtsports and leisure centres or within educational establishments. The planned schemeinclude a variety of indoor and outdoor sports facilities, including pitches for team games,sports halls, fitness/dance suites, climbing walls, Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs) andhydrotherapy pools. The available details on such schemes are presented in Table 5-42,which also shows that they are expected to deliver an additional 10,162 sqm of formaland informal sports facilities.November 2009 Page 156

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-42: Planned Additional Community and Leisure FacilitiesTotalNumberType ofFacilityofCentres LocationTimeline forDeliveryAdditionalFloorspace(Sqm)Little Venice Sports Centre Late Spring 2009 N/aCommunitySports andLeisure Centres3Marshall Street LeisureCentreSpring 2010N/aChelsea Barracks N/a N/aCommunitysports facilities9Pimlico Academy Summer 2009 4,094St. Marylebone Existing 188Westminster City School August 2009 1,321Quintin Kynaston2,791St. Augustine‟s 105 594St. Georges RC 63320010/11The Grey Coat Hospital 218College Park Special School 196QE2 Special School 127Total 12 10,162Source: Personal communication: Principal Sports and Leisure Services Manager, WCC,20/01/2009In the absence of comprehensive forecasts of need for the planning period, the URSInfrastructure Model has been used to provide an indicative assessment of the likelyincrease in demand and associated spatial requirements for indoor and outdoor sportsfacilities arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. Table 5-43summarises the results, which are a broad-brush estimate only. The additional demandfor sports space up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in resident populationand an additional component expected to use Westminster sports space even if residingelsewhere as agreed with WCC.105 A new sports hall is to be developed on the Brent side of the site. Discussions are underway with BrentCouncil regarding joint community use by Westminster residents.November 2009 Page 157

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-43: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Indoor andOutdoor Sports Facilities from New Development, 2006-2026TypeAdditional Spatial Requirements (Sqm)Health Stations 3,068Sport Halls 2,039Swimming Pools 1,669Outdoor Sports Facilities 550,000Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheetsInformation provided by Sports and Leisure Services shows that WCC is planning toexpand indoor sports provision with a range of formal and informal facilities. Based onthis information, the additional floorspace that is expected to come through over the nextfive years is in line with the additional demand as estimated by the URS InfrastructureModel.With regards to outdoor sports facilities, land availability constraints in Westminster meanthat WCC is unlikely to be able to meet the estimated additional demand of 41 hectares.As for parks, it is therefore suggested that links to and quality of existing facilities isimproved to allow wider access.5.9.3. Planned Investment and CostsTo address the under provision of sports facilities and to meet ActiveWestminsterstrategy aspirations and population growth forecasts, Westminster are planning/delivering three new community sports and leisure centres, seven new community sportsfacilities through the BSF programme, and an expanded programme to better work withthe private sector 106 . Table 5-44 outlines the cost of each new centre.106 Personal communication, Sports and Leisure, WCC, 20/01/2009November 2009 Page 158

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-44: Planned Additional Community and Leisure FacilitiesType of Facility Total Number of Centres Cost, £ ‘000Community Sports andLeisure Centres34,00020,00046,000Community sports facilities 9 NA 107Total 12 70,000Source: Personal communication, Principal Sports and Leisure Services Manager, WCC,20/01/2009Table 5-45 shows the expected cost of delivering additional sports facilities to meet theprojected growth in demand as estimated through the URS Infrastructure Model. Thecosts are a high-level indicative estimate only. Funding for the additional indoor andoutdoor sports facilities listed in Table 5-42 is already allocated, as shown in Table 5-44.Table 5-45: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Cost of Indoor and OutdoorSports Facilities, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)TypeTotal Capital CostHealth Stations 21,476,606Sport Halls 4,077,366Swimming Pools 10,979,404Outdoor Sports Facilities 7,439,539Total 43,972,915Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R4 sheets5.9.4. Assessment and RecommendationsWCC has planned for an additional 10,162 sqm of predominantly indoor sports facilitiesover the next five years, with most of the funding already allocated. The new facilities willbe delivered either in purpose built sports and leisure centres or within educational107 Funds of approximately £150m have been committed for the relevant schools through the BSF programme;this figure however is for the entire schools rather than the sports facilities exclusively. Source: Personalcommunication, Sports and Leisure, WCC, 20/01/2009.November 2009 Page 159

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportestablishments and will provide equipped space for a range of formal and informal sportsactivity.As a result, it is expected that a significant portion of the expected £36.5m cost of indoorsports facilities is already covered by planned investment.The key issue in meeting additional sports facilities demand arising from growth up to2026 is land availability. The URS Infrastructure Model estimates the need for anadditional 55 ha of outdoor sports space, at a cost of £7.4m. Given Westminster centralLondon location, land constraints will not allow for the delivery of the entire additionaloutdoor sports facilities requirement. As for parks, it is therefore suggested that whereverit is not possible to deliver new facilities alternative measures should be identified toimprove existing facilities space and improve their access and level of usage.November 2009 Page 160

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.10. Libraries5.10.1. BaselineIn the 2007/2008 Westminster libraries had 81,629 adult and children members, of whichapproximately 40% can be expected to reside outside Westminster‟s administrativeboundaries 108 . However, an additional 2,464,342 visitors were recorded over the sameperiod, totalling just under 2,500,000 users. Of this number Westminster has a statutoryremit to supply library services for residents, workers and students 109 .There are currently 14 libraries in Westminster, totalling over 11,300 sqm of library space.This includes four main libraries, other community libraries which also provide learningfacilities and community spaces, the Westminster Reference Library and the WestminsterArchive Centre. In addition there is also the Home Service.Existing libraries are listed in Table 5-46.Table 5-46: Westminster Libraries and TypeName of LibraryTypeArchive CentreCharing CrossMainChurch StreetCommunityMaida ValeCommunityMarylebone (incl. Marylebone Info Service)MainMayfairCommunityPaddingtonMainPaddington ChildrenCommunityPimlicoCommunityQueen's ParkCommunitySaint JamesCommunitySaint John's WoodCommunityVictoriaMainWestminster Reference LibrarySource: Personal communication, Library and Planning and Development Dpts, WCC 09/02/2009and 01/10/2009Libraries increasingly act as community hubs offering a range of activities and services.Among these the Westminster Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan2008/09 110 lists for instance: under five activities and after school homework clubstogether with learning opportunities; programmes tailored to the needs of local108 „Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan 2008/09‟ (WCC, 2008).109 It has been so far impossible to quantify this additional requirement. Personal communication, WestminsterLibraries, 09/02/2009110 „Westminster 2008/09 Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan‟ (City of Westminster, 2008)November 2009 Page 161

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportcommunities; provision on information on local health, education and other communityservices; and provision of material in local community languages.Westminster‟s libraries are a mixture of both main and community libraries offering a widerange of services to the community such as specific services for commuters, the Chinesepopulation, and specialist collections.Despite the number of facilities and services provided, not all existing facilities aredeemed to be suitable to meeting current demand. Because of the variety of servicesthey provide, many of the existing buildings are considered to be inadequate in terms ofsize, layout and design 111 .5.10.2. Forecast DemandConsultation with WCC 112 has confirmed that future demand for libraries is forecast basedon:Analysis of increase in the number of potential users: this includes expandingpopulation and population drift, changes in catchment areas leading to a change inthe number or members or users, and supporting the diversification of thepopulation/BME/new communitiesAnalysis of patterns of library use: this includes analysis of the use of existingfacilities and changes in the type of services providedBudget and potential savings considerations.In light of these elements, there are plans to consolidate the provision of library services.This involves re-locating collections currently located within specialist libraries to reducethe number of smaller libraries 113 , while remaining facilities are to be expanded to meetadditional demand. The strategy is however still evolving and no agreed details arecurrently available, although preliminary analysis suggests a potential increase infloorspace by 2,000 sqm 114 .Table 5-47 summarises the results of URS Infrastructure Model, which represents atechnical estimate only of the likely increase in demand and associated spatialrequirements arising from the projected residential and commercial growth. Theadditional demand up to 2026 takes into account the projected growth in residentpopulation and an additional component expected to demand services even if residing111 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 12/01/2009112 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009113 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 12/01/2009114 Westminster Library Five Year Capital Programme by Scheme as approved by Cabinet 08/12/08November 2009 Page 162

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportelsewhere 115 . It should be noted that the estimated quantum of demand arising from theemerging Core Strategy might be accommodated in space terms but this does notconsider the increasing pressure resulting from, among other factors, the intensification inuse and the high number of visitors to Westminster‟s libraries. Also, quality of space is animportant factor not reflected through a straight-forward consideration of quantum of therequirement.Table 5-47: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Library Facilitiesfrom New Development, 2006-2026Number of People Requiring LibraryServicesAdditional Spatial Requirements (Sqm)36,157 1,446URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix 3) OtherSocial Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheetsIn light of the information provided by Library Operations it appears that Westminster‟slibrary provision is currently adequate to meet existing demand, even when consideringthe substantial demand for services arising by commuters working and studying inWestminster but residing elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed expansion of facilities islikely to meet future growth in demand as opposed to meeting existing shortfalls inprovision.Information contained in the Library Business Plan 2008/09 only goes up to 2012. Thismeans that the figures are not directly comparable with the findings of URS InfrastructureModel. However, should all the planned schemes go forward the additional provisionappears to be adequate to meet the additional demand arising from the estimatedresidential and commercial growth up to 2026. It should be noted that this assessment isbased on a consideration of space requirements only and does not take into accountother factors such as the quality of facilities.5.10.3. Planned Investment and CostsWestminster Library funding is based on a five year capital investment programmeoutlining the investment required to improve the building stock or increase the capacity offacilities throughout Westminster. The most up to date programme sets out costs totalling£4.5m for the relocation and/or expansion of libraries across Westminster; however, it isunclear at this stage what these costs include 116 . We understand these capital costs are115 The „non-residential‟ component as defined in URS Infrastructure Model could be underestimating the actualnon-residential demand for library services as available statistics do not consider use by non members, and mayeven be underestimating the number of non-resident members.116 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009November 2009 Page 163

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportconfirmed by the Cabinet and some of them have now been approved, although nofurther details are available.In addition to the library expansion there are a number of other library works planned toimprove the quality of Westminster‟s libraries. These include signage, redecoration,furniture, layout and shelving refit, archive redecorations, minor works, life upgrade, andrepairs to structure.The Library Business Plan 2008/09 outlines the financial resources set aside for thecapital costs of service for libraries, archives and arts up to 2011/12. Table 5-48illustrates the expected capital costs for new building/ capital bidding 117 and identifiesthere is a projected increase up to 2009/10 followed by a decrease to 2011/12.Table 5-48: Capital Costs of Service for Libraries, Archives and Arts (‘000s)2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 TotalLibraries 422 1,660 2,700 1,300 200 6,282Archives 16 105 0 0 0 121Total 438 1,765 2,700 1,300 200 6,403Source: Westminster 2008/09 Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business PlanThe outlined spending is to be considered in the context of the library consolidationstrategy. Major works that are planned but for which funding has not been alreadyallocated include 118 :Transformation and expansion of Church Street Library: Major building works havealready started, and a temporary library has been opened to cover this period.Marylebone Library: There are plans to redevelop the Marylebone library and WCCHouse.Relocation of Paddington Children‟s Library: the potential end of lease move from asmall church hall to a premise which is three times larger in a now disusedbasement.Expansion of St. John‟s Wood library: Both the expansion and the refurbishmenthave now been completed.Victoria Exchange: A new funded library funded in part through developercontributions will open at Victoria in 2017, replacing the current libraries in Victoriaand St James's. The new facility will offer 1,500 m2 of library services together witha range of community services.117 „Westminster 2008/09 Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan‟ (City of Westminster, 2008)118 „Westminster Library Five Year Capital Programme by Scheme‟ (Westminster Libraries, 09/02/2009; asapproved by Cabinet 08/12/08).November 2009 Page 164

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportRedecoration and upgrade at Archives, Charing Cross, Mayfair and Victorialibraries.Some data is available for some of these projects; however, at the moment there is not acomplete picture of the full funding options for realising WCC‟s strategy.The URS Infrastructure Model provides indicative costs associated with the delivery ofthe required additional library space provision over the whole planning period. Theestimates provided are broad-brush and a starting point for more detailed assessment.Table 5-49 below shows that the estimated cost is in fact in line with WCC‟s expectationsof costs in their current Five Year Capital Programme 119 .Table 5-49: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Library Facilities,2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)Number of PeopleRequiring LibraryServicesAdditional SpatialRequirements (Sqm)Total Capital Cost36,157 1,446 4,338,838Source: URS calculations. For workings and assumptions see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets5.10.4. Assessment and RecommendationsCurrent library provision in Westminster is deemed adequate to meet demand arisingfrom projected growth. A number of schemes have been planned to address issues ofquality of the library space in terms of size, layout and design. Westminster Libraries areplanning to expand the overall library space by approximately 2,000 sqm 120 . This is in linewith the URS Infrastructure Model‟s estimate of additional requirements arising fromprojected growth in Westminster up to 2026. It should be noted that an assessment ofspatial requirements does not take into account the importance of other factors such asimprovements to access and the quality of library space. The estimated costs are in theregion of £4.5m, and are partly expected to be met through developer contributions.Westminster Libraries are in the process of agreeing a comprehensive strategy aimed atconsolidating the provision of library services. This involves re-locating collections are119 The construction cost assumed to calculate the overall cost of provision is of £3,000 per sqm. This is in linewith MLA recommendations, which state: 'A construction and initial fit out cost; these can vary by site and area;taking the authoritative RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered surveyors) Building Cost Information Service data,this can be from £2,807 per square metre in the East Midlands area to £3,465 per square metre in GreaterLondon. A recommended current benchmark figure here is £3,000 per square metre'.http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/standard_charge2008, page 5.120 Westminster Library Five Year Capital Programme by Scheme as approved by Cabinet 08/12/08November 2009 Page 165

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportlocated within specialist libraries to reduce the number of smaller libraries 121 , whileremaining facilities are to be expanded to meet additional demand.WCC should continue to develop a funding strategy to support the delivery of its vision forlibrary provision, to ensure to full funding package is adequate to meet the expectedgrowth in demand. Such strategy should set out a comprehensive list of potential public,quasi-public and private sources of funding together with the amount that each shouldcontribute, to ensure that the planned timeline for delivery is met.121 Personal communication, Westminster Libraries, 12/01/2009November 2009 Page 166

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.11. Job Brokerage5.11.1. BaselineWestminster Works is a new neighbourhood based training and employment programmetargeting out of work residents in areas with the highest concentration of benefitclaimants. The job brokerage element of the programme is being lead by PaddingtonWaterside Partnership via their Paddington First job brokerage service. WestminsterWorks effectively acts as the unemployed unique point of contact, outlining opportunitiesfor job training or re-skilling and job search. The programme engages with localemployers as well as voluntary and community sector employment supportorganisations 122 .Jobcentre Plus is the government agency offering welfare to work services to people ofworking age. It is part of the Department of Work and Pensions and also has arepresentative on the Westminster Works board, usually referring job seekers toWestminster Works‟ staff whenever their resources do not allow a tailored enoughsupport.There currently are two Jobcentre Plus offices in Westminster, one in Chadwick Streetand one in Lisson Grove. Information on the size of the Jobcentre Plus offices and thenumber of staff employed was provided by Job Centre Plus.Consultation with Jobcentre Plus also confirmed that the demand for job brokerageservices is related to the number of benefit claimants. Table 5-50 illustrates the totalnumber of working age benefit claimants in Westminster. The benefit claimants are aproxy for Westminster‟s Jobcentre Plus customers. The total number of claimants was17,355 in February 2008 and this figure includes job seekers, incapacity benefits, loneparents, and others on income related benefits.Table 5-50: Benefit Claimants - Working Age Clients for Westminster February 2008JobSeekersIncapacityBenefitsLoneParentsOthers onIncomeRelatedBenefitsTotalClaimantsTotal 3,085 10,240 3,095 935 17,355Source: Benefit Claimants - Working Age Clients for Westminster, February 20085.11.2. Forecast DemandThe total number of staff required is related to the total number of customers. There is anestimated need for staff in Jobcentre Plus due to the increase in unemployment attributedto the economic downturn. Westminster Works has confirmed that there has been anincrease of 50% in the number of job support claimants since last year.122 Personal Communication, Economic Development and Policy Dpt, WCC, 30/05/2009.November 2009 Page 167

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportBased on these considerations, Table 5-51 shows the results of URS InfrastructureModel technical estimates for future demand for job brokerage services. These estimatesprovide a broad-brush assessment and a starting point for further analysis. The totaladditional space requirement, based on square metres per staff at existing offices,suggests that either an expansion of existing facilities or a re-structuring of the facilitiesaround three offices are viable options to meet the additional demand.Table 5-51: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Job Brokeragefrom New Development, 2006-2026Additional DemandAdditional Job BrokerageStaff RequiredAdditional SpatialRequirements (Sqm)1,812 7 127Source: URS calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets5.11.3. Planned Investment and CostsConsultation with Central London‟s Jobcentre Plus Offices Partnership suggests thatthere are no planned new build or expansion plans to Westminster‟s Jobcentre Plusbuildings 123 . Westminster Works has confirmed that no formal analysis of future demandis undertaken to inform an estate strategy. This is partly understood to be the result of thefact that Job Centre Plus rely predominantly on other local providers to offer aconsiderable proportion of job support services 124 .The Department of Work and Pensions, of which Jobcentre Plus is part, has recentlyshifted from ownership of assets to contracting for services, coupled with a modernisationof all Jobcentre Plus buildings by 2006 125 . In the context of rationalisation of resources,the 2004 investment plan highlights a drive towards centralisation, so that for instanceJobcentre Plus accommodation is provided through a centrally held DWP PFI contractwith Land Securities Trillion 126 .123 Personal communication, Central London Partnership Manager, Jobcentre Plus, 20/01/2009124 Personal Communication, Economic Development and Policy Dpt, WCC, 30/05/2009125 „Departmental Investment Strategy 2005-2007‟ (DWP, 2004); „CSR 2007 Asset Management Strategy‟ (DWP,2007)126 „Jobcentre Plus Annual Reports and Accounts 2007/08‟ (Jobcentre Plus, 2008)November 2009 Page 168

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportJobcentre Plus funding comes predominantly from the Department of Work and Pension,which plans to spend £8.7m on the programme nationally over the 2008-2011 SpendingReview period 127 .Westminster Works resources come from a variety of institutions, including WCC, theLocal Strategic Partnership, S106 agreements, as well as some education or childsupport funding for pertinent areas of work.The URS Infrastructure Model suggests a likely capital cost to provide adequate spacefor the newly required staff of just over £210,000, as shown in Table 5-52. This is a highlevel estimate and a starting point for further analysis. As Jobcentre Plus appear to haveno plan to expand on current provision, no funding has been set aside that could coverthe expected costsTable 5-52: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Job BrokerageFacilities, 2006-2026, £ (2009 Prices)Additional Job BrokerageStaff RequiredAdditional SpatialRequirements (Sqm)Total Capital Cost7 127 210,357Source: URS calculations. For assumptions and workings see URS Infrastructure Model (Appendix3) Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets5.11.4. Assessment and RecommendationsInformation on the current capacity of Jobcentre Plus offices located in Westminster isunavailable. However, given the lack of apparent expansion plans for Jobcentre Plusservices in Westminster, the population growth projected up to 2026 is expected toincrease pressure on existing staff numbers. Based on the URS Infrastructure Model thenew resident population is expected to generate the need for at least seven new staffmembers, with an associated need for new floorspace.Our analysis does not incorporate the additional needs that are likely to arise from thecurrent economic situation, which could be medium to long term in their impact.. Theestimated cost of just over £210,000 is therefore to consider a lower boundary estimate ofthe potential funding gap to provide for adequate job brokerage services.It is understood that service planning is currently difficult with Jobcentre Plus operatingunder a strongly centralised organisational structure. WCC should therefore seek tostrengthen the cooperative approach to service planning with the Jobcentre Plus CentralPartnership through its Westminster Works board.127 „Department for Work and Pensions: Three Years Business Plan 2008-2011‟ (DWP, 2008)November 2009 Page 169

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportWCC should also ensure that both Westminster Works and Jobcentre Plus are fullyaware of the projected growth in population, and the associated needs for job brokerageservices, so that a critical analysis of likely future needs is undertaken to inform futurestrategies.November 2009 Page 170

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.12. Cemeteries5.12.1. BaselineThe City of Westminster operates three cemeteries, all located outside its boundaries, atwhich grave spaces for burial and the interment of ashes are available. The cemeteriesare mainly for Christian faith burials, although the Cemeteries website states that thecemeteries offer services to people of all denomination.On average there are 150 burials each year in Westminster‟s three cemeteries and WCChas identified an existing 20 years of burial space to cater for its residents 128 . WCC hashowever raised concern over the lack in opportunity to cater for all burials and offer arange of burial services.Table 5-53: Cemeteries in WCCHanwell Cemetery (formerly City of Westminster Cemetery)East Finchley Cemetery (formerly St. Marylebone Cemetery)Mill Hill Cemetery (formerly Paddington New Cemetery)Source: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/cemeteries/5.12.2. Forecast DemandConsultation has highlighted the difficultly in forecasting the demand for burial space inWestminster, due to the choice Westminster residents have in where they get buried(London residents do not have to be buried in the local planning authority in which theylive) 129 .No expansion plan has emerged from the research, as WCC identifies that existingfacilities are broadly adequate to meet the next 20 years‟ demand for burials. It ishowever understood that officers are considering the potential for introduction of burialchambers which would allow for a more intensive use of the existing spaces.WCC is also however aware that there is a recognised demand for burial space fromneighbouring boroughs, which could put a strain on the existing 20 year burial spaceavailable and impact the potential to meet future demand.Consultation with Westminster Parks Services has also highlighted the need to takeaccount of emergency planning such as the possibility of pandemics. This could impactthe demand for cemetery space by coupling with the normal population rate of burials.The URS Infrastructure Model was used to generate a broad-brush, technical estimate forfuture demand for burials. Table 5-54 shows that whilst the lack of available land is to be128 Personal communication, Parks, Sports and Leisure Dpt, WCC, 26/03/2009129 Personal communication, Parks, Sports and Leisure Dpt, WCC, 26/03/2009November 2009 Page 171

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportconsidered an issue in the Westminster context, the total additional space requiredsuggests that a minor expansion to the current cemetery space should be enough tomeet the additional demand.Table 5-54: URS Indicative Assessment of Additional Demand for Burials from NewDevelopment, 2006-2026Additional Burials RequiredAdditional Spatial Requirements (Ha)1,535 0.4Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets5.12.3. Planned Investment and CostsInformation on forecast costs and planned investment was unavailable 130 .The URS Infrastructure Model was therefore used to provide an indicative cost for theentire planning period. It suggests that a likely capital cost to provide adequate space forthe newly required burials is just over £150,000, as shown in Table 5-55.Table 5-55: URS Indicative Assessment of Cost of Additional Burial Space, £ (2009Prices), 2006-2026Additional Spatial Requirements (Ha)Total Capital Cost)0.4 134,148Source: URS calculations see Other Social Infrastructure, A4 and R5 sheets5.12.4. Assessment and RecommendationsConsultation with Westminster Parks Services confirmed that existing facilities, all ofwhich are located outside of Westminster, are broadly adequate to meet the next 20years‟ demand for burials, with the exception of larger burials for potential pandemics andpossible pressure due to demand from neighbouring boroughs and the variety of faithgroups which are present in Westminster.URS Infrastructure Model estimates the need for very limited additional space, totalling0.4 hectares of burial space, to meet demand arising from the expected growth in burialrates. When considering recommendations from Westminster Parks that future planningshould incorporate emergency planning considerations, this may mean that URS130 Personal communication, Westminster Cemeteries, by phone and email 24/03/2009November 2009 Page 172

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructure Model‟s estimates could be underestimating the additional requirement forcemetery space over the next 20 years.Options for intensification of use are being explored. These and if appropriate options forexpansion at existing sites and associated funding need to be progressed to ensuredemand can be met.November 2009 Page 173

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.13. Community and Faith Facilities5.13.1. BaselineIn considering community facilities the analysis looks at meeting, activity and office spaceoffering four main areas of services:Services for Children (crèche, play, youth clubs)Advice Services (CAB, Law Centre, BMW community advice users, etc)Adult and Community LearningMeeting Rooms and Halls.Voluntary Action Westminster (an independent charity that works with community andvoluntary groups in the City of Westminster) indicate that approximately 2,000 third sectororganisations are located in Westminster and deliver or run services from communityspaces for a high number of residents.No detailed information on existing floorspace and utilisation rates is available on thenumber of community facilities across the whole of Westminster. Moreover, a meaningfulassessment of current provision should consider a number of factors that are difficult toquantify, unless a specific survey is undertaken, including: how often the facility is used,whether the facility is operating at under or over capacity, the catchment area that thefacilities tend to cater for, whether the buildings are fit for purpose, etc.Baseline information is available for the north of Westminster, where WCC hascommissioned a recently completed audit of community space within the wards ofWestbourne, Harrow Road and Queens Park. The audit records a total of 10,621 sqm offloorspace available in the area, with a utilisation of between 40% and 90% 131 . These arespread across a variety of venues, and approximately 9,700 sqm of floorspace areclassified in the report as being flexible use, activity or dedicated meeting and trainingspace 132 .Figure 5-5 shows the location of youth centres in Westminster. In the same map we alsopresent the location of primary and secondary schools, as well as sports centres. Themap clearly shows a significant concentration of all the facilities in the north and south ofWestminster. What is interesting is the locational pattern emerging from the map: theproximity of most facilities to one another suggests opportunities for either a partial colocationof overlapping services or for an integrated service package for young people.131 „North Westminster Community Space Audit‟ (Harrow Road Neighbourhood Partnership and HansonConsulting, 2009)132 This space is provided across a wide range of venues, including mixed use community venues, communityhalls, libraries, schools, places of worship and private and other venues.November 2009 Page 174

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFurther work on other types of community halls and centres would enable a morethorough analysis.More information is available on faith facilities. The City of Westminster has a prosperousfaith community and is identified as one of the most ethnically and religiously diverseboroughs in the Country. The majority of Westminster‟s places of worship are used bylocal residents as well as visited by thousands of people from across the world everyyear 133 .Figure 5-5 illustrates the religious diversity of Westminster (as of 2001 census), with thehighest proportion of residents being of Christian faith (55%) but with 16% of no religion.133 „Directory of Faiths in Westminster‟ (WCC, 2007)November 2009 Page 175

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 5-5: Youth Clubs, Sports Facilities and Primary and Secondary Schools in WestminsterSource: URS and WCCNovember 2009Page 176l

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-56: Westminster 2001 Census Faith EstimatesPopulation by Faith GroupEstimated Total Numberof Residents% of TotalPopulationChristians 99,797 55Muslims 21,356 12Hindus 3,473 2Jews 7,732 4Sikhs 404 1Buddhists 2,392 1Any Other Religion 940 1Residents with No Religion 29,299 16Residents with Religion not stated 15,889 9Total 181,282 100Source: 2001 Census Faith Estimates, WCCAmong the established places of worship in Westminster there are 134 :90 churches (including 45 Church of England Parish churches)21 Mosques and centres9 Synagogues7 Buddhist/Bahai/Hindu temples and centresSeveral more places of worship just outside of Westminster's borders that will beused by Westminster residents (such as the Central Gurdwara in QueensdaleRoad) 135WCC is aware of the shortage of space available for use by the Muslim community forfive daily prayers in the north and south of Westminster. Currently the Muslim communityuses community halls and centres for daily prayers; however, there are problems withuse of these facilities for early morning and evening prayers, and there are oftencompeting demands between groups who are sharing these spaces.The West London Buddhist Centre also indicates the need for a larger shared space inWestminster that could be used for festivals and celebrations, albeit no indication of size134 „Directory of Faiths in Westminster‟ (WCC, 2007)135 Personal communication, WCC, 13/02/2009November 2009 Page 177

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportof that space has been given. Westminster has one of the largest (and fastest growing)Buddhist communities in London 136 .5.13.2. Forecast DemandDuring consultation Voluntary Action Westminster underlined the challenges intrinsic inattempts to quantify future community facilities needs. This is due to the variety of bothproviders involved with running the facilities and of users of each community facility. Thedemand from each group and organisation is unique and therefore hard to quantify. Forthese reasons an independent assessment of potential demand for faith facilities has notbeen made.With respect to faith facilities, anecdotal evidence reveals a high demand for a purposebuilt Muslim prayer facility and a shared Buddhist Centre.The recently completed audit of community space in north Westminster includes anassessment of demand for space for the wards of Westbourne, Harrow Road andQueens Park 137 . The audit finds that for flexible use, activity or dedicated meeting andtraining space there is an unsatisfied demand in the area for approximately 360 sqm ofadditional floorspace, with a strong need for large spaces for social events, and for anadditional 232 sqm of small office space for community groups and organisations.5.13.3. Planned Investment and CostsWCC is currently assessing the feasibility of establishing a community centre in northWestminster. As part of this process the recently completed North WestminsterCommunity Space Audit shows that the could help meet the requirements for anadditional 232 sqm of office space, 35 sqm of meeting and training space, 100 sqm offlexible activity space and 192 sqm of physical or social activity space. Discussions withWCC suggest that the centre would also provide space for daily prayers for the Muslimcommunity; however, details of the size of that space have not yet been developed 138 . Asthe project is still at the feasibility stage no assessment of the likely cost has beenundertaken 139 .136 Personal communication, WCC, 27/01/2009137 „North Westminster Community Space Audit‟ (Harrow Road Neighbourhood Partnership and HansonConsulting, 2009)138 Personal communication, WCC, 13/02/2009139 There are also issues to be resolved around whether residents would accept a multi-faith community facilityand how this would be managed Personal communication, Policy officer, WCC, 27/01/2009November 2009 Page 178

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe investment cost for a community centre, Muslim prayer room and Buddhist Centrewill be identified if the project moves to a second stage. No site for the prayer room orcentre has been identified as yet 140 .5.13.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThere is a wide consensus around the importance of an adequate provision of communityand faith facilities to support sustainable communities. The range of services that thesefacilities generally provide, including training, advice and youth services mean that theyalso constitute an alternative or a complimentary option to local or central governmentagencies providing the same services.It is however recognised that there are intrinsic difficulties in quantifying how much suchspace communities may need due to the variety of both providers involved with runningthe facilities and of users of each community facility. Westminster has recently completeda survey of community facilities in the North of Westminster as part of a feasibility studyfor a new community centre, and this could constitute the starting point for a widerassessment of the provision of community and faith spaces.A recently completed North Westminster Community Space Audit 141 shows that inWestbourne, Harrow Road and Queens Park there is a need for an additional 232 sqm ofoffice space, 35 sqm of meeting and training space, 100 sqm of flexible activity spaceand 192 sqm of physical or social activity space.WCC should encourage and support the voluntary and community sector groups indeveloping a robust evidence base on existing and future needs. This should include:A realistic benchmark standard for unit costs and space requirements inWestminster, to be used in planning future provision of community and faithfacilitiesDeveloping an understanding of the baseline in terms of whether new futuredemand can be met by existing facilitiesIntegration of the work undertaken in the current study andProvision of a base for negotiation when major developments come forward.WCC should continue support community and faith groups in developing fundingstrategies to either expand or improve their facilities. As no mainstream funding source isavailable for this infrastructure area community groups are under considerable pressureto develop quite detailed business plans to bid for quasi-governmental funding (includingfor instance Big Lottery Fund monies).140 Personal communication, WCC, 13/02/2009141 Covering the wards of Westbourne, Harrow Road and Queens ParkNovember 2009 Page 179

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.14. Police5.14.1. BaselinePolicing services in Westminster are managed by the Metropolitan Police at a Londonwide level and also at a local level by the Safer Neighbourhood Team. The MetropolitanPolice provides police services, and its works are scrutinised and supported by theMetropolitan Police Authority (MPA).The MPA has a strategic role and is not responsible for day to day delivery of policing.The MPA work closely with the Metropolitan Police and its partners to secure an efficientpolice service for London and work together to provide a safer London. The SaferNeighbourhood Team is dedicated to the local community and act as an additionalpolicing team and unit in London. They deal with day-to-day crime and disorder issues inthe local community.The Metropolitan Police is shifting to a more locally focused service provision. Policenumbers have risen in recent years, from 25,400 police officers in 2000 to over 31,000 in2007, along with almost 4,000 Police Community Support Officers, almost 2,000 specialconstables and 14,000 members of police staff. This growth has placed demands on thepolicing buildings and facilities 142 .The MPA has overall responsibility for all MPS buildings and facilities in London andrecognises the vital role the estate plays in supporting the delivery of effective andefficient policing across the capital 143 . The management of the Metropolitan Police Estateis crucial to ensure an effective police service for London. It needs to be modernised toprovide accommodation that enables a more accessible, flexible and effective policeservice for each local authority.The overall Metropolitan Estate is ageing; 40% of the buildings are pre-date 1940, a largenumber are poorly located, many are inefficient and expensive to maintain, and a lot ofthe estate is inappropriate for a modern police service 144 .Table 5-57 below highlights the resident population and number of police officers andpolice staff and police community staff officers 145 in Westminster.142 „Metropolitan Police Estate, Asset Management Plan Westminster‟ (Metropolitan Police, November 2007).143 Ibid.144 Ibid.145 A police officer is a member of the police force, police staff are all members involved within the police estate,and PCSO are police community staff officers which support the police officers.November 2009 Page 180

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-57: Police Numbers in Westminster as at the End of September 2008 146AuthorityResidentPopulation(2007)No of PoliceOfficersNo. of PoliceStaffPCSOStrengthWestminster 234,100 1,537 319 349Source: Metropolitan Police Authority 2008.There are seven police stations (see Table 5-58) located in Westminster which provide arange of police services including; patrolling, custody cells, Safer NeighbourhoodsTeams, and senior management teams. Figure 5-6 highlights the distribution of policestations across Westminster there is a noticeable cluster across the north of Westminster.The map also shows the distribution of hospitals, which are likely to be involved in anyemergency situation by providing A&E services. New Scotland Yard is also located inWestminster but is not shown on the map.Table 5-58: Police Stations and Services ProvidedPolice StationBelgravia police stationCharring Cross police stationHarrow Road police stationMarylebone police stationPaddington Green police stationSt. John‟s Wood police stationPolice ServicePatrolling, Custody cells, 2 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams,senior management teamPatrolling, Custody cells, 3 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams,Senior Management TeamPatrolling, 5 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, SeniorManagement TeamPatrolling, Custody cells, 4 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams,Senior Management TeamCustody cells, 3 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, SeniorManagement TeamPatrolling, 2 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams, SeniorManagement TeamWest End Central police stationCustody cells, 2 Safer Neighbourhood Teams, SeniorManagement TeamMetropolitan Police Estate, Asset Management Plan Westminster 2007146 A police officer is a member of the police force, police staff are all members involved within the police estate,PCSO is police community support officer, these members support the police officers.November 2009 Page 181

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportFigure 5-6: Emergency Services and Hospitals in WestminsterSource: URS and WCCNovember 2009 Page 182

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.14.2. Forecast DemandThe increase in major developments is an issue to consider in terms of policing as it isexpected to result in additional demand for police officers. The increase in Westminster‟slocal population will particularly place a demand on local policing levels i.e. the SaferNeighbourhood Team will need to increase in order to serve a larger neighbourhood.Quantitative forecasts for future police service requirements in WCC were notavailable 147 . Consultation with the MPA indicated that estimated demand for policeofficers is based predominantly on the number of calls and the number of crimes at thelocal authority level. This is then translated into how many officers would be required torespond to that crime and how many would need to investigate the crime.Emergency planning also considers the location of other emergency facilities. Forinstance the number of officers in an area tends to be higher if there is a hospital in thearea 148 .Population is not the main basis on which additional officers requirements are forecastbecause of the great variation in demographic profile across local authorities. However,the MPA considers both the projected population and any large scale developmentcoming forward. An assessment is made in terms of the need and level of policing todetermine the demand for each ward and therefore within the individual local planningauthorities.5.14.3. Planned Investment and CostsFuture plans for Westminster Police Stations are outlined in the Metropolitan PoliceEstate Asset Management Plan (AMP) for Westminster 149 illustrating proposed works for2007-2010. Table 5-59 outlines the four areas of focus and proposed future plans toimprove policing facilities in Westminster so that they are suitable to meet police needs inthe city.147 Personal communication, Metropolitan Police Services148 Personal communication, London Metropolitan Police Authority, December 2008149 „Metropolitan Police Estate Asset Management Plan, Westminster‟ (Metropolitan Police, 2007)November 2009 Page 183

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-59: The Westminster Areas of Focus for Future PlansArea of FocusSafer NeighbourhoodsProgrammeNew custody provision inWestminsterImproved patrol facilities inWestminsterFront counters- a betterenvironment for the publicin WestminsterBetter officeaccommodation inWestminsterFuture PlansLocal policing and working with the local community to identify andtackle issues of concern at a local levelCurrently there are seven locations where custody cells are locatedin Westminster providing a total of 157 cells.The Paddington Green station in particular is recognised as in needof modernising and possible redevelopment, and options for thissite which will include providing dedicated custody facilities.Other new solutions include five short term holding cells located inSelfridges which will be managed and operated by Westminsterpolice.Westminster‟s patrolling takes place from the five sites across thecity and is identified as being adequate for Westminster offeringfastest response times.Each patrolling site provides garaging for police vehicles andoperational parking along with briefing rooms and locker facilitiesfor all the patrolling officers.Inefficient use of valuable space and inappropriate facilities usedfor functions that could be accommodated within office facilities. Toreorganise and improve back-office facilities so improved facilitiesfor staff and officers to lead to more efficient functional teams.Source: Metropolitan Police Estate Asset Management Plan, Westminster, 2007The AMP identifies that new demands are constantly being made for more space andbetter security; however, it does not provide a list of detailed and costed initiatives tomeet the proposed plans for Westminster.The Policing London Business Plan relates to a central government fund and is preparedin accordance with the Metropolitan Police Capital Strategy. The fund has been extendedto cover the period of 2008/09 to 2014/15 to allow efficient investment planning and theadoption of a longer-term strategy. Table 5-60 shows the proposed capital funding. Thecapital funding involves current initiatives such as the Safer Neighbourhoods programme;renewal of IT infrastructure to ensure meets modern operational needs; and renewal ofassets such as police vehicles. However, itemised spending forecast is not available.Table 5-60: Capital Funding 2008/09 to 2014/15, £MFundingPeriod 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/122012-2015 TotalProposedCapital242 302 225 165 471 1,404FundSource: Policing London 2008/2011 Business Plan, Metropolitan Police Authority, 2008November 2009 Page 184

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.14.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThe police do not forecast the numbers of officers required in each local authority on apopulation basis, and there are no such workings available to quantify future demand.WCC should engage with the Metropolitan Police to understand their future requirementsand changing models of service delivery.Future plans to improve the police estate are strategic, with no specific investmentinformation available. There is an aim to expand the custody provision, including therefurbishment of Paddington Green Police Station, and to improve patrol facilities. Thereis also an overarching objective to rationalise property assets, in order to support morefunctional teams and make a more efficient use of resources.November 2009 Page 185

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.15. Fire5.15.1. BaselineFire stations and fire engines work across local authorities‟ boundaries therefore it is hardto assess the adequacy of current fire station provision on a local authority basis. CentralLondon is overall described as a fire station rich with very good fire station coverage 150 .There are a total of three fire stations in Westminster as shown in Table 5-61.Table 5-61: The Number of Fire Stations in WestminsterFire StationStation Ground (km sq)Paddington 7.2Soho 4.0Westminster 3.9Source: Westminster Borough Profile, London Fire Brigade, 2007Overall at the local authority level, Westminster has good attendance coverage with thefirst fire engine arriving on average in less than five minutes 151 . Figure 5-6 shows thethree fire stations and their location, illustrating an even spread of fire service provisionacross Westminster. A station ground may include parts of a neighbouring authority sothat appliances from that station would be mobilised to the adjoining authority.Westminster is also the only local authority where a „peak activity inspection team„ isactive, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and WCC to promote publicsafety in the context of high concentration of licensed public entertainment and specialevents.Table 5-62 summarises the key fire services statistics in Westminster. Soho is the stationattending the highest number of fire incidents. The London Fire Brigade WestminsterProfile report also shows that the fire accidents were concentrated in the St. James andthe West End wards, and that is also where the majority of malicious false alarms comefrom.150 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 12/02/2009151 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 23/02/2009November 2009 Page 186

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 5-62: Operational Incidents 2006/07 in WestminsterOperational Incident (2006/07)Fire StationAll FiresFalseAlarmsRoadTrafficCollisionOtherSpecialServiceTotalPaddington 382 1,677 68 1,232 3,359Soho 406 3,150 43 1,127 4,726Westminster 170 1,045 27 651 1,893Source: Westminster Profile, London Fire Brigade, 20075.15.2. Forecast DemandFire stations and fire engines work across borough boundaries therefore it is hard toanalyse future needs at the local authority level.The London Fire Safety Plan 2008 introduced new targets to measure the performance ofLondon Fire crews in getting to emergency incidents. The Brigade measures thepercentage of occasions when first and second fire engines arrive at emergency incidentswithin set time thresholds (a fire engine should reach an incident in five minutes on 65%of occasions, and within eight minutes on 90% of occasions 152 ).Quantitative forecasts for future fire service requirements in Westminster were notavailable153. Consultation with the London Fire Planning Authority indicated thatestimated demand for fire services is based on incidents statistics; the demand for theforth-coming year is estimated based on historical data of the number of incidentsattracting two or more fire engines in each area. There are on average approximately160,000 calls across London each year which has remained an average even despite tothe increased population in the Central London.Although population is not used directly to assess demand, population growth isconsidered to potentially impact on the fire service provision. New developments and anyurban regeneration project, together with consideration of how accessible the area inquestion is, affects fire service provision. Each new development is assessed in terms ofthe time it takes for fire services to reach them. This is one of the factors influencingincreasing fire service provision in an area. Furthermore increases in the number ofcommercial buildings increases the number of false alarms and therefore pressure on thefire service.152 „London Fire Brigade, Our Performance 2007/08‟ (London Fire Brigade, 2008)153 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 23/02/2009November 2009 Page 187

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.15.3. Planned Investment and CostsThere are no plans to build additional fire stations in the Westminster, whilst there is afocus on refurbishing the existing ones 154 .In 2007/08 the London Fire Brigade‟s gross capital programme was £47.7m; however, nodetail account of what this covers is available 155 .The London Fire Brigades Asset Management Plan (AMP) establishes the framework fora multi year programme that identifies and prioritises the most important property projectsup to 15 years. It reports that the Westminster station was recently refurbished (after1994), whilst results of the estates analysis show that the Soho and Paddington stationsare in satisfactory conditions and fit for purpose.Across London the AMP 2008 states that there are currently 30 fire stations (pre 1940and over 60 years old) which need to be updated at an estimated cost of £130m (thisfigure includes the £47.7m 2007/08 capital programme). The document states the figureis likely to significantly grow in the next 15 years as 22 more stations move from asatisfactory to a poor status due to their age profile. It reports that preliminary work hasestimated that a further £90m (this figure is in addition to the £130m). These indicativecosts have been based on the average cost of recent refurbishment/replacement firestation, the new fire station safety standard, to meet changes in functional requirementsfor refurbishments 156 .The rebuilding of fire stations is one strand of capital investment in fire service provision.The London Fire Planning Authority rely on private finance initiatives (PFI) to improve itsproperty estate by rebuilding up to ten fire stations that are in an operationally poor and/orin a poor property condition.The new stations will provide for mixed fire fighter accommodation and be capable ofhousing the latest fire fighting equipment. The Brigade aims to start advertising for adevelopment partner in 2009 and start rebuilding in 2012/13 with the first new stationoperational in 2013/14. There is currently work underway on securing new sites for two ofthe stations in the PFI project. Site investigations are also underway for the existing sites.There will be no change in the number of fire fighters or the number of fire enginesserving an area once a station is rebuilt 157 .154 Personal communication, London Fire Planning Authority, 19/12/2009155 „London Fire Brigade Fire Safety Plan 2008/09-2010/11‟ (London Fire Brigade, 2008)156 „London Fire Brigade Draft Asset Management Property Plan‟ (London Fire Brigade, 2008)157 London Fire Planning Authority websiteNovember 2009 Page 188

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.15.4. Assessment and RecommendationsFire stations and fire engines work across local authority boundaries therefore it is hard toassess the fire station provision on a local authority basis. Overall Central London isdescribed as fire station rich with very good fire station coverage. Westminster alsoreceives specific attention due to the high concentration of entertainment uses andspecial events, with a unique „peak activity inspection team„, working in partnership withthe Metropolitan Police and WCC to promote public safety.Whilst population is not used to assess demand it is considered to potentially impact onthe fire service provision, together with new developments and any urban regenerationproject and accessibility considerations.Expansion of existing service may be required in the face of population and employmentgrowth; however, current plans rather address the need to rebuild many fire stations asthey are ageing and upgrade them to reflect changing models of provision. There are nocurrent plans to build any more fire stations in Westminster nor to rebuild or refurbishexisting ones.November 2009 Page 189

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report5.16. Ambulance5.16.1. BaselineThe main London ambulance provider is the London Ambulance Service (LAS) NHSTrust, whose services are purchased by the individual PCTs. The LAS operates in twoareas, firstly Accident and Emergency (A&E) care commissioned by the individual PCTsfor the population each of them caters for; secondly patient transport services (PTS),where the LAS wins contracts through competitive tendering 158 .London Ambulance stations comprise main stations and satellite stations. Main stationsconsist of offices where managers and administrative staff are based. The satellitestations are smaller and do not have offices they act as a base for ambulances to parkin 159 . Ambulance stations are not located within hospitals; each ambulance station is aseparate premise and do not fall under hospital estate 160 . In the event of an incident thenearest available ambulance will be sent.The LAS is under pressure from the increased number of 999 calls. This could beindicative of increasing demand. Of all the authorities in the Central London area,Westminster had the highest number of incidents per authority in both 2007 and 2008.There are a total of two ambulance stations in Westminster, one located in St. John‟sWood (St. John‟s Wood Station) and the other in Millbank (Westminster Station), asshown in Figure 5-6 161 .In 2008 the LAS raised the declared pressure level at which it is operating from „severepressure‟ to „critical‟ – the first time that it has reached this level since the capacity levelswere introduced in late 2005. Despite the current levels of demand, the service iscontinuing to reach more patients, more quickly than ever before 162 .5.16.2. Forecast DemandThe LAS NHS Trust Strategic Plan 163 sets out the Trust‟s plans between 2007 and 2013to respond to key changes affecting emergency and healthcare services in general. Thereport highlights population and visitors growth as likely to have a considerable impact onambulance provision in terms of increased pressure on staff and facilities as well as on158 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Strategic Plan 2006/07-2012/13 (London Ambulance Service, 2007).159 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 19/03/2009160 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 08/01/2009161 The map only shows Westminster Station.162 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust website, December 2008163 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Strategic Plan 2006/07-2012/13 (London Ambulance Service NHSTrust, 2007)November 2009 Page 190

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportfinancial resources available. However, the report does not focus on projected growth inWestminster, focussing instead on the wider London Thames Gateway.As for the both police and fire emergency services, forecasts for future ambulanceservice requirements in the Westminster were not available 164 . The demand forambulance provision in the local authorities is forecast using historical incident data. Thenumber of ambulances, the location of hospitals and how well the hospitals are served allhave an impact on the performance and delivery of ambulance provision in the localauthorities. As it is hard to gather data particularly on London‟s day time and nonresidentialpopulation, population is not directly used to forecast future ambulance needsin Westminster 165 .Table 5-63 illustrates the number of incidents in Westminster between January 2007 andNovember 2008. Westminster has a high number of incidents in both 2007 and 2008.There is a decrease in from 2007 to 2008. However, it should be noted that December2008 is not included in the 2008 statistics.Table 5-63: Incidents in Westminster, January 2007-November 20082007 (Jan-Dec) 2008 (Jan-Nov) Total43,640 40,423 87,685Source: London Ambulance Service NHS Trust 20085.16.3. Planned Investment and CostsLAS is predominantly funded through annually approved NHS Service Level Agreementsmade with each of London‟s PCTs. For patient transport services additional resourcesare available on a contractual basis from foundation trusts (secondary healthcare).Consultation with the LAS NHS Trust has revealed that the current Estates Strategy isbeing reviewed so there are no formal plans available for ambulance provision andplanned investment for the future 166 .The annual report however states that one of the key areas of work in the 2006-2009period was the reconfiguration of the estate 167 . As part of this process the Trust hasdisposed of a significant number of sites; this process is expected to be completed in the2008/09 financial year.164 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust website, December 2008165 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 19/12/2008166 Personal communication, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 23/12/2008167 „Annual Service Plan, 2009‟ (NHS London, 2009)November 2009 Page 191

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThis rationalisation is in line with the Trust‟s strategic plan 168 which identifies opportunitiesfor co-location of ambulance stations with PCT and emergency facilities, recommendingearly engagement between PCTs and LAS to ensure that the planning of new primaryand secondary healthcare facilities considers such co-location opportunities.The London Ambulance Service is conducting preparatory work to submit a FoundationTrust application 169 . Should its submission be successful the Trust would have moreflexibility in accessing financial resources on the private market, albeit always in line withprinciples of prudential borrowing.5.16.4. Assessment and RecommendationsThe LAS NHS Trust forecasts demand for ambulance provision using historical incidentdata. While day time and non-residential population are acknowledged as having aconsiderable impact on required provision, population is not directly used to forecastfuture ambulance needs in Westminster.A comprehensive estate strategy for the LAS NHS Trust is being updated and notcurrently available. Recent documents highlight that the Trust has been rationalising itsfacilities portfolio by disposing of smaller sites. The Trust is also moving in the direction ofintegrated emergency and primary care provision, by pushing for PCTs to consider theopportunity of co-locating ambulance with primary healthcare services when developingany estate strategy.WCC should engage with the LAS NHS Trust to ensure that the potential impact ofprojected growth in Westminster and in the rest of Central London is adequatelyconsidered by the Trust when developing its estate strategy.WCC should also promote active engagement between the Westminster PCT and theLAS NHS Trust to ensure that any opportunity for the co-location of primary, secondaryand ambulance services are considered when estates strategies are developed.168 „London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Strategic Plan 2006/07-2012/13‟ (London Ambulance Service, 2007).169 „Annual Service Plan, 2009‟ (NHS London, 2009)November 2009 Page 192

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report6. STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS6.1. IntroductionThe section pulls together the outcomes of the infrastructure assessment into a strategicinfrastructure plan. Findings are presented through a matrix with accompanying text, andrecommendations are laid out for WWC in moving forward as it takes the strategicinfrastructure plan forward within its LDF and ongoing infrastructure planning process.6.2. Development of the Strategy Infrastructure PlanThis Strategic Infrastructure Plan (SIP) and associated recommendations should sitalongside other research papers that constitute the evidence base in support of WCC‟sLDF and more specifically its Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD). TheSIP is structured around „what‟, ‟when‟, „where‟, „how‟, and „how much‟ requiredinfrastructure is needed to support the level of anticipated housing, employment anddevelopment growth forecasted in Westminster. These LDF requirements are set out inPlanning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 - Local Spatial Planning (2008). The requirement forsound infrastructure planning as part of the formation and review of LDFs further exploredand discussed as part of the CLG‟s fifth thematic study prepared for their Spatial Plans inPractice series 170 . Both sets of guidance notes have informed the basis of the SIP.PPS12 also states that adequate and timely infrastructure provision is fundamental to thecreation of sustainable communities. In recent years this principle has become central inall policy arenas and it now shapes strategy at all spatial levels. PPS12 places the needfor infrastructure planning at the heart of the planning process. It states that the CoreStrategy DPD should be supported by evidence of physical and social infrastructurerequirements including the type, distribution, timing and responsibilities for delivery of thisinfrastructure. It sets out the key components of good infrastructure planning, andadvocates discussions with key local partners to establish priorities.As noted in Section 1 of the report, an additional aim of the Westminster InfrastructureStudy and Plan is to inform the basis of the forthcoming City of Westminster CommunityInfrastructure Levy and WCC‟s annual investment plan. Further reporting will be issuedby mid 2008 covering this work.6.3. Strategic Infrastructure Plan Explanatory TextRecommended infrastructure schemes, actions and priorities are summarised in thematrices below. Please note that a grey background has been used to indicate thoseschemes or actions that have been identified in providers‟ plans rather than through URSindependent work.The list below explains the headings set out in the table.170 „Infrastructure Delivery. Spatial Plans in Practice: Supporting the reform of local planning‟ (CLG, 2008)November 2009 Page 193

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructure areas are grouped around the hard, transport and socialinfrastructure themes set out in the study.Infrastructure Schemes and Actions identifies current, forthcoming orrecommended infrastructure required in Westminster over the plan period tosupport forecast development growth as well as that needed to alleviate existingshortfalls or gaps. Schemes include those already proposed by third parties,schemes that are underway as well as those new ones that are recommended bythe consultants.Rationale for Inclusion / Risk if not included clearly states the key reason theinfrastructure item is included in the plan highlighting where necessary the risk if itis not delivered over the plan period.Drivers reflect the key rationale for the required infrastructure items includingalleviating existing gaps or replacement of existing infrastructure; in response togreater demand placed upon the infrastructure derived from forecast growth; aswell as policy driven. The latter are primarily related to infrastructure items such assustainable energy infrastructure initiatives that are not necessarily „demanded‟ assuch, rather they stem from EU and UK Government directives.When should the infrastructure be delivered by? Our timeframes cover the short(2009-20014) medium (2015-2020) and long term (2021-2026) periods. Where theinformation is available on committed schemes, exact delivery dates have beenspecified.Where should the infrastructure item be delivered? Where requiredinfrastructure items are location specific they have been identified. In many casesinfrastructure recommendations and actions are authority wide i.e. Implementationof Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and promotion of flood resistantarchitecture.Who is responsible for delivery of the infrastructure items? This identified theagency, Governmental department or organisation responsible for delivery ofinfrastructure item. In some cases, for example utilities delivery, the regulator willalso have a key role to play as both an authority and supervisor.Who is responsible for funding the infrastructure item? This lists the likelypublic sector department or agency tasked with funding the infrastructure item. Insome cases the item will be delivered though a range of funding sources includingprivate developers in the form of planning gain contributions.Costs Identified by providers incl. status? Where the infrastructure has beencosted by the provided, as ascertained through this study, this information is stated.Costs Identified by URS / HUDU model? For infrastructure items that could bemeaningfully quantified, such as social infrastructure items, URS has appliedindicative costings in agreement with Davis Langdon.November 2009 Page 194

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Report6.4. Infrastructure PrioritiesThe priority of different infrastructures is probably best gauged by the implications of notmaking the relevant investment, as well as by considering how soon investment isrequired. An assessment of the priority is clouded by a lack of information and relevantdata in many cases. However, in cases where no information has been obtained toconfirm that forward planning is underway and capacity is within the system, it can beargued that a cautionary approach, whereby it is assumed that planning is not underwayand capacity is not available, should be adopted in order to prepare for the „worst casescenario‟.While all the infrastructures included in the infrastructure plan are required for sustainablegrowth, the priorities for investment are hard infrastructures because these are in manycases „show stoppers‟. This includes gas, electricity and water, though there is evidencethat there is sufficient capacity within the gas network to accommodate forecastrequirements. Without adequate provision, residential and commercial growth cannotcontinue beyond certain key thresholds. A lack of information makes it difficult to quantifythe quantum and cost of planned investment, but because of the fundamental importanceof these infrastructures the apparent lack of strategic, long-term forward planning by therelevant providers is especially concerning.Sewage and flood repair works are also key priorities. Works are required to bringexisting infrastructure up to standard as well as to prepare for increased pressureassociated with population and commercial growth. Identified requirements include newand refurbished sewage pumping stations; the investigation and repair of the flooddefence wall at Millbank; and the Thames Tideway scheme.Transport is absolutely fundamental to the delivery of growth. Baseline studies highlightan existing lack of capacity in many parts of the network which must be addressed beforefurther capacity can be found for new travellers, and the urgent need for works at key railtermini. Many of the schemes considered are scheduled or required in the short term,including town centre schemes at various locations and works to the Jubilee, Northern,Picadilly and Victoria lines. That said, the potential scale of growth in Westminsternecessitates a new approach to transportation and a renewed emphasis on walking andwayfinding as an alternative to investment in capital intensive infrastructure.A consideration of timelines emphasises the requirement to prioritise the WCC wasteimplementation plan. A key driver is the landfill target up to 2016 and the financialimplications for WCC of not meeting the target.6.5. Strategic Infrastructure LocationsThe assessment emphasises the following high level geographical priorities forinfrastructure investment:Transport hubs, especially major rail termini. Investment here is crucial to unlockingdevelopment and ensuring growth is delivered in a sustainable way.November 2009 Page 195

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportThe opportunity areas identified in the emerging LDF. Social infrastructure needswill be most closely related to the location population, and it will be in Westminster‟sthree opportunity areas at Paddington, Victoria and Tottenham Court Road wherenew growth is concentrated. However, future need is also likely to be concentratedin areas with potential for windfall growth.Improving living and working conditions for existing communities is vital for thedevelopment of sustainable, cohesive communities; this emphasises therequirement within the more deprived parts of Westminster, especially the NorthWestminster Economic Development area.Locations where the need for specific interventions has been identified include:Millbank: investigation and repair of flood defence wallNorth of the City: requirement for new / expanded faith and community facilitiesVarious locations: transport infrastructure / improvements.6.6. Infrastructure CostsThe assessment of the likely total cost of infrastructure required to deliver growth inWestminster is limited by incomplete and imperfect information. However, we estimatethat costs associated with the social infrastructure items included in the URSInfrastructure Model, including HUDU workings for health infrastructure, could total£277M. This cost is only indicative for the projected growth over the 2006-2026 period.The assessment has found that where costs are identified in providers plans they areusually uncommitted or unapproved. Where funds are committed they generally leave afunding gap (see for instance LSC allocations for FE projects). This is to be expected tosome degree given that the LDF considers long term growth and associatedrequirements and that most providers operate on a much more short term basis.However, the scale of the differential between the potential requirement for the itemsincluded within the URS Infrastructure Model and the funds identified as committed withinproviders plans highlights the urgent need to ensure that long term planning is beingundertaken and that the scale of requirement in terms of funds is not beingunderestimated by the partners involved.6.7. Delivery and Funding ResponsibilitiesThe infrastructure assessment highlights the numerous agencies with a role in deliveringand funding infrastructure for growth in Westminster. Stakeholders are diverse and wideranging, including Thames Water, the utilities regulators, Network Rail, TfL, the PrimaryCare Trust and NHS, contractors and commissioned providers and WCC itself. There arepartnerships between the private and public sector, for example in the form of BSF andthe PFI redeveloping London‟s fire stations, and the voluntary and community sector alsoplays a role, most notably in the delivery of social infrastructure. Most fundamentally thisNovember 2009 Page 196

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final Reportlong and diverse list emphasises the need for collaboration and joined up working todeliver sustainable growth, across sector and geographical boundaries.Most infrastructure funding arrangements rely on funding from central government oranother national agency and then delivery and local allocation of funds through a morelocal organisation. The infrastructure assessment highlights some issues and tensionswithin this framework due to central planning and funding cycles which discourage a longterm approach and encourage a more reactive system. For example, mainstream capitalfunding for much social infrastructure in committed every three years in line with theComprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and planning often does not go beyond the nextthree year period. A particular issue has been flagged up around primary educationbecause DCSF formulae fail to fully account for costs in growth areas.6.8. RecommendationsThe infrastructure assessment and strategic infrastructure plan highlights the followingactions for WCC as a planning authority and delivery agency, and in potentially movingforward to develop and implement the CIL for Westminster.Potential short-falls in funds for infrastructure constitute a significant risk to the delivery ofgrowth. WCC and other public agencies should lobby central government for an improvedsystem of funding allocations.Where infrastructure bodies do not appreciate the need for strategic planning, or theirstructure does not facilitate it, WCC should engage with such bodies and their parentagencies in order to emphasise the urgent need for new arrangements and resourceswhich better allow long term strategic planning.WCC should target investment according to strategic priorities, taking forward this plan asan evidence base and drawing in kind funding and resources from the voluntary andcommunity and private sector where opportunities arise. This will maximise theeffectiveness of investment, so it acts as a catalyst to regeneration, increasing confidenceand bringing land values up to a level whereby private sector investment becomes viable.WCC should collaborate closely with partners involved in delivering and fundinginfrastructure, assisting with planning and providing in-kind resources where possible,such as technical expertise.As the planning authority, WCC can assist agencies in developing their estate andinvestment strategy, especially where infrastructure has significant land take andimplementation requires the identification of new sites. The requirements and aspirationsof different partners can be reflected and taken forward within the LDF so that a strategic,joined up approach to land use planning is achieved.Infrastructure planning is and will be an on-going process in Westminster. This plan andthe analysis within it, including the indicative demand assessment, will need to be updatedand monitored throughout the plan period as schemes come forward and thebaseline changes.November 2009 Page 197

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportSTRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 171Table 6-1: Hard InfrastructureInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesSewerage H1 New and refurnishedtreatment works includingodour reductionThe sewerage system is currentlyoperating at full capacity. Thesystem will not be able to cope withadditional forecast development.PolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for development M – L It will be to alleviatedeficiencies authority widebut new and improvedfacilities are likely to belocated out of Westminster.Name AgencyThames Water (inassociation with theRegulator)Thames Water To 2020Costs identified areacross the ThamesWater Region at£3,437m(Estimate forWestminster: £59m)This is an ambitious undertakingand extensive business planningand identification of funds will berequired.The overall need for renewal andrefurbishment works in thesewers system is identified byThames Water. However, nodetail on the specifics of requiredworks in Westminster have beenmade available; the additionaldemand for the Westminsterarea is an estimate.171November 2009 Page 198

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesH2 New and renovated sewers The sewerage system is currentlyoperating at full capacity. Thesystem will not be able to cope withadditional forecast development.Investment is also required toreduce sewer flooding. Thisincludes a requirement forincreased cycles of cleaning andprompt repairs where blockagesare known.PolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for development S – M - L Improvements should becity wide. Problem hotspotsinclude northern end ofWhitehall and TrafalgarSquare, Chippenham Roadand Westbourne Grove.Name AgencyThames Water (inassociation with theRegulator)Thames Water To 2020Costs identified areacross the ThamesWater Region at£4,376m(Estimate forWestminster: £74m)See comment to previous item.H3New and refurbished pumpingstations requiredThe sewerage system if currentlyoperating at full capacity. Thesystem will not be able to cope withadditional forecast development. S- M Improvements should becity wide.Thames Water (inassociation with theRegulator)Thames Water To 2020Costs identified areacross the ThamesWater Region at£243mSee comment to previous item.(Estimate forWestminster: £4m)FlooddefenceH4Help ensure delivery ofThames Tideway schemeTo help alleviate sewer flooding. Toseparate foul water from ain water.Continued discharge of foul waterinto Thames damages ecology andposes a risk to river users‟ healthand safety. S – M - L Improvements should becity wide.Thames Water(in association with theRegulator)Thames WaterCosts identified areacross the ThamesWater Region at£1,321m(Estimate forWestminster: £22m)Also a requirement for sewerage.November 2009 Page 199

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesH5Implementation of SustainableUrban Drainage Systems(SUDS) and promotion offlood resistant architecturePolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentHelp alleviate sewer flowing S – M - L Improvements should becity wide.Name AgencyLPA Developer applicant Unknown There is an ongoing requirementfor WCC to oversee and ensureimplementation of SUDS acrossthe LP area.H6Investigation and repair offlood defence wall at MillbankA breach of the Thames is possibleif the repair is not investigated andrepaired. S Westminster Thameside Landowner (WCC) Landowner (WCC) UnknownWaste H7 Implement WCC WasteImplementation Plan toensure landfill target isachieved up to 2016Unless targets are achieved, WCCwill fall foul of EU and UKGovernment legislation, targetingreduction of waste to landfill S - M City wide Westminster CC Westminster CC /Central Government /Waste contractorUnknownElectricity H8 Provision of additional150,740 KVA to 2026 andrelated infrastructure.Fundamental to the delivery ofcommercial and residential growth. S – M - L City wide Regulator / UtilityproviderUtility providerUnknownGas H9 Provision of additional 13,450m3/hr and relatedinfrastructure.Fundamental to the delivery ofcommercial and residential growth. S – M - L City wide Regulator / UtilityproviderUtility provider Unknown Please note that no detailedinformation on the exact extentand location of works has beenmade available by National Grid;the additional demand for theWestminster area is an estimate.Water H10 Provision of additional13,163,847 l/day and relatedinfrastructure.Thames Water have identified alikely future deficit in supply ofwater in the London water resourcezone to 2034, and strategic plans toaddress this are being formulated.However, no clear, immediate planfor mitigating investment areaevident. M – L City wide Regulator / UtilityproviderUtility provider Unknown Please note that no detailedinformation on the exact extentand location of works has beenmade available by ThanesWater; the additional demand forthe Westminster area is anestimate.November 2009 Page 200

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesTelecoms H11 Provision of new and updatedtelecoms infrastructure.Lack of evidence of strategicplanning by BT.PolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentName Agency S – M - L City wide Regulator / UtilityproviderBT, other telecomprovidersUnknownLow CarbonEnergyH12Investigate the feasibility ofconnectivity withinWestminster and across LPA /Opportunity Area boundaries,including:Improved feasibility of deliveringsustainable infrastructure S – M – L LPAs affected LPA‟s affected /London ESCO /Decentralised EnergyDelivery Unit / UtilitysuppliersPPP / PFIUnknownQueen‟s Park geographicalareaMarylebone geographicalareaSoho geographical areaCity of London tunnels andheat network geographicalareaSouth Bank Employers‟ GroupBattersea Power StationPaddington Opportunity AreaTottenham Court RoadOpportunity AreaWhitehall and Pimlico districtheating networksUniversity College London –Gower Street and BloomsburyHeat and PowerEuston Road district heatingschemeCitigenImperial College London andthe Natural History MuseumNovember 2009 Page 201

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 6-2: Transport InfrastructureInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesPublicRealmPolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentName AgencyT1 Mayor‟s 100 Public Spaces Improvements to public realm L City wide WCC Westminster CC /Central Government/businesscontributionsTBCT2 Legible London To improve accessibility S City wide TfL/WCC TfL/DevelopercontributionsNot identifiedRail Stations T3 Station Access MaryleboneStationBusCyclingT4T5T6Station Access Charing CrossStationStation Access VictoriaStationImprovements to public realmat stationsTo improve accessibility S Marylebone Station Network Rail Network Rail TBCTo improve accessibility S Charing Cross Station Network Rail Network Rail TBCTo improve accessibility S Victoria Station Network Rail Network Rail £811,500To facilitate pedestrian movementand connectivity S City wide Network Rail/TfL/WCC NetworkRail/TfL/WCC/Developer contributionsT7 Bus Priority To improve bus journey times S City wide TfL TfL TBCT8 Bus Stop Accessibility To improve accessibility S City wide TfL TfL £434,000T9 Bus service enhancement To provide additional capacity andlinks S-L City wide TfL TfL/DevelopercontributionsNot identifiedNot identifiedT10 Strategic review of bus To provide additional capacity S-L City wideservices (to compensate forCross River Tram scheme notbeing progressed further)T11 Cycling LCN+ To improve cycle facilities City wide £2,975,000T12 Cycling Non LCN+ To improve cycle facilities S-L City wide TfL/WCC TfL £320,000T13 Cycle Parking To increase provision of cycleparking S-L City wide WCC TfL Not identifiedWalking T14 Pedestrian environmentimprovementsTo improve accessibility,connectivity, capacity and safety S-L City wide TfL TfL £2,700,000November 2009 Page 202

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesPolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentName AgencyTownCentresT15 Town Centre Schemes –West End Leicester Square S West End Leicester Square WCC Westminster CC /Central Government/businesscontributions£16,010T16 Town Centre Schemes –West End Oxford StreetTo improve accessibility S West End Oxford Street WCC Westminster CC /Central Government/businesscontributionsTBCT17 Town Centre Schemes –Shopping Streets: PraedStreetTo improve accessibility S Praed Street WCC Westminster CC /Central Government/businesscontributionsTBCT18 Town Centre Schemes –Shopping Streets: HarrowRoadTo improve accessibility S Harrow Road WCC Westminster CC /Central Government/businesscontributionsTBCRoadNetworkT19 Town Centre Schemes –Shopping Streets: MaryleboneHigh StreetTo improve accessibility S Marylebone High Street WCC Westminster CC /Central Government/businesscontributionsT20 Improve taxi facilities To improve accessibility M-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/DevelopercontributionsT21 Improve coach facilities To improve accessibility M-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/DevelopercontributionsTBCNot identifiedNot identifiedT22 Car Club Schemes To reduce the need for carownership S-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/DevelopercontributionsNot identifiedT23 Electric Car Charging Points Sustainable transport S-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL/DevelopercontributionsNot identifiedT24 Principal Road Renewal To improve road conditions S-L City wide TfL/WCC WCC/TfL Not identifiedT25 Local Road Safety Schemes To improve safety S-L City wide WCC WCC/TfL Not identifiedNovember 2009 Page 203

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesRail T26 Integrated Kent Franchise Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacity.T27Brighton and Sussex - 12-cartrainsServices are currently operating at,close to or above full capacity.T28 Crossrail To alleviate pressure on theunderground system and provide afaster east to west rail linkconnecting Heathrow in the westwith the Thames Gateway in theeast.PolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentName Agency S (by 2014) Victoria Network Rail Network Rail £56 million Committed Scheme will cover 12-car trainsto Charing Cross/8-car trains toVictoria. S (by 2014) Charing Cross / Victoria Network Rail Network Rail £101 millionCommitted M (By 2017) City wide TfL / Network Rail TfL / Network Rail /Businesses /DevelopersScheme will cover 12-car trainsEast Grinstead to Victoria/10-carsuburban trains to Victoria .£17b Committed schemeUndergroundStationsT29 Crossrail 2 To provide additional capacity L (2026+) Tottenham Court Road /VictoriaT30 Major Stations – Victoria The station is currently operating,particularly during peak hours andsuffers from overcrowding resultingin platform closures.TfL / Network Rail TfL / Network Rail /Businesses /DevelopersUndeterminedLine safeguarded/subject topowers and funding Not known Victoria Network Rail Network Rail Unknown Committed and planned scheme.T31 Station Congestion Schemes Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hoursresulting in overcrowded platformsand station concourses. S - M - L Victoria (2017), Paddington(2014), Tottenham CourtRoad (2016), Bond Street(2016)TfL TfL Unknown Committed schemeUndergroundLinesT32 Jubilee Line S (By 2009) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New signalling system to allow30 trains per hour in peak (25%increase in capacity)T33 Victoria Line Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hours. S (By 2012) City wide TfL TfL Unknown Higher frequency and largertrains (19% increase in capacity)November 2009 Page 204

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding theinfrastructure item?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets ifavailable)NotesT34 Northern Line Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hours.T35 Piccadilly Line Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hours.PolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for development S - M(By 2012 for phase 1signalling and 2020 forphase 2 separation of Bankand Charing Cross Lines)Name AgencyCity wide TfL TfL Unknown Phase 1 signalling system toimprove speeds and frequency(20% increase in capacity)Phase 2 separation of Bank andCharing Cross lines atKennington S (By 2014) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New signalling system and trains(25% increase in capacity)T36 District Line Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hours.T37 Metropolitan Line Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hoursparticularly during peak hours.T38Circle and Hammersmith &City LinesServices are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hours.T39 Bakerloo Line Services are currently operating at,close to or above full capacityparticularly during peak hours. M (By 2018) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New train stock with longer andmore frequent trains (47%increase in capacity) M (By 2016) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New train stock and higherfrequency services (49%increase in capacity) M (By 2016) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New train stock, longer trains andhigher frequency with merged T-cup service (49% increase incapacity) L (By 2022) City wide TfL TfL Unknown New trains, signalling andimproved frequency (40%increase in capacity)November 2009 Page 205

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportTable 6-3: Social InfrastructureInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes, andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding the infrastructureitem?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets)NotesEarly Yearsand ChildCareS1Expanded provision ofIntegrated children‟s services(1,895 places, 74 newclasses)Local provision required for theexpanding residential and workerpopulationPolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for development S - M City wide, local to demand(though integrated centresmay serve largercatchments in the future)Name AgencyWCC and VCS (withprivate sector)WCC and VCS (withprivate sector)Unknown(Estimate forWestminster: £27M)PrimaryEducationS2Expanded provision ofprimary schools (1,857places, up to four 2FEschools) over the plan period(This is a worst case scenario;various factors add complexityto forecasting demand – seeSection 5.2).Local provision required for theexpanding population. WCC haveidentified capacity for next 5 years,even given a net import of students.Further work and ongoingmonitoring is necessary in liaisonwith neighbouring boroughs toclarify medium to longer termassessment. S - M City wide, local to demand WCC WCC (DCSF) Unknown – PrimaryCapital Programme2009-2010 allocation is£8.7M(Estimate forWestminster: £20m)The Primary Capital Programmeallocates £8.7M for a number ofcapital works acrossWestminster, however it isunclear how much these willcontribute to expanding currentcapacity to meet the estimatedfuture demand.SecondaryEducationS3Expanded provision ofsecondary schools (915places, two 6FE schools)(This is a worst case scenario;various factors add complexityto forecasting demand – seeSection 5.3).Provision for the expandingresidential population. Further workand ongoing monitoring isnecessary in liaison withneighbouring boroughs to clarifymedium to longer term assessment. M City wide (including plansto expand existing schools)WCC (with privatesector through BSFPFI)WCC (with privatesector through BSFPFI)£34m PimlicoAcademy rebuildCosts for otherschemes not available(Estimate forWestminster: £21.5m)Only part of the required fundingis available, and only for PimlicoAcademy (which is now excludedfrom the maintained secondaryschools list)AdultLearning andFurtherEducationS4Expansion in line withdemand, includingredevelopment of City ofWestminster College,Westminster Adult EducationServices Facilities and StCharles Sixth FormProvision for the expandingpopulation so local people canbenefit from jobs growth M City wide (including plansfor new WAES centre atMarylebone andredevelopment ofWestminster College inPaddington)FE Colleges,Westminster AdultEducation ServicesLSC (or successororganisation), FEcollegesCost of three existingschemes identified£124MProposed LSC funding totals£103M, with a £21M funding gapNovember 2009 Page 206

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes, andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding the infrastructureitem?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets)NotesHigherEducationS5Maintain and improve facilitiesin Westminster‟s tenuniversitiesProvision for expanding studentpopulation and to maintain City‟sacademic / research offerPolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentName Agency M - L City wide Universities HEFCE Unknown, althoughcertain schemescostedNo Westminster / Londonspecificforecasts available;national trends indicate a likelyfall in students in the short termfollowed by an increase in themedium / long term.Primaryhealth careS6Refurbishment,redevelopment and expansionof provision, includingpolysystems modelFacilities require renewal andexpansion but also reconfigurationso the preferred service deliverymodel can be implemented M City wide and especially inareas of high deprivationWestminster PCT Westminster PCT /NHSUnknown(Estimate forWestminster: £13.9m)SecondaryHealthcareS7Expansion of acute, mentaland intermediate care bedsand spaces (estimated 1,335sqm)Requirement for needs of residentand working population M City wide Foundation Trusts /Hospitals / othercommissionedprovidersNHSUnknown(Estimate forWestminster: £33.4m)Parks andopen spaceS8Parks and playable space forresidential and workingpopulation and visitors, in linewith WCC Open SpaceStrategyKey to high quality environment andoffer for and health of population,workers and visitors S - M City wide especially northand south of the City and inthe opportunity areas ofsignificant growthWCC, quasigovernmentalorganisations e.g.LDA, charities, privatedevelopersWCC, quasigovernmentalorganisations e.g.LDA, charities, privatedevelopersUnknown(Estimate forWestminster: £36.2mfor parks; £14.6m forplayspace)Sports andleisureS9Provision of new sportsfacilities for residential andworking population (estimated55 ha outdoor, 6,776 sqmindoor)Important aspect of health and wellbeingand entertainment offer S - M City wide; need forswimming pool in northeastof Westminster(participation is in generallow here)WCC, PFI (BSF),private providersWCC, PFI (BSF),private providers£70m committed for 3WCC communitysports and leisurefacilities; funds for 9community sportfacilities within schoolscommitted throughBSFLibraries S10 Consolidate and expandprovision Library ProvisionStatutory duty of provision S / M City wide WCC (WestminsterLibraries)WCC (inc developercontributions)£4.48m; some offunding approved andexpected via S106however gap still likely.November 2009 Page 207

Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026Final ReportInfrastructureArea #Infrastructure schemes, andactionsRationale for inclusion / risk if notincludedDriversWhen should the infrastructureitems be delivered by?(S, M, L, term)Where should theinfrastructure item bedelivered?Who is responsible fordelivery of theinfrastructure items?Who is responsible forfunding the infrastructureitem?Costs Identified byproviders (Estimate forWestminster includingbased on URS / HUDUmodel in brackets)NotesJobbrokerageS11Expansion of facilities in linewith workforceWider socio-economic significanceof provisionPolicyExisting gap /replacement/ upgradeForecast demand for developmentS / M[no specific detailsavailable]City wide[No details available,probable expansion ofexisting two offices]Name AgencyJob Centre PlusDpt of Work andPensionsUnknown(Estimate forWestminster £0.2m)Cemeteries S12 Additional space requirement(0.4 ha)/ intensification of useand expanded servicePublic health issues, especiallyunder emergency scenario M / L Provision on site outsidethe City of Westminster[most likely throughexpansion of existingcemeteries]WCC WCC Unknown(Estimate forWestminster £0.13m)CommunityFacilitiesS13Additional requirement forbetween 500 and 600 sqm ofcommunity space including232 sq m of office space, 35sq m of meeting and ortraining space, 100 sq m offlexible use space and 192 sqm of activity space.Addressing current supply gap andfuture needs in the North ofWestminster S / M North of Westminster,including the wards ofWestbourne, Harrow Roadand Queens Park.Unknown Unknown UnknownPolice S14 Modernisation of estateincluding possibleredevelopment of PaddingtonPolice Station, new holdingcells at Selfridges andimproved office spaceEnable more effective policing andmore efficient use of space S / M City wide Metropolitan PoliceAssociationMetropolitan PoliceAssociationUnknownAmbulance S15 Expansion of service to meetgrowth in demandPopulation and employment growthare likely to drive demand M City wide London AmbulanceService NHS TrustNHSUnknownFire S16 Modernisation of existingestateUpdate facilities making them fit forcurrent delivery models S - M City wide London Fire PlanningAuthorityLondon Fire PlanningAuthorityUnknownUnknownNovember 2009 Page 208

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportAppendix 1 - Technical InputNovember 2009 Page 209

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportNovember 2009 Page 210

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportAs noted within Section 1, the Westminster Infrastructure Plan has involved aconsultancy team headed by URS, but supported by sub-consultants including IntegratedServices & Utilities Limited (utilities), Steer Davis Gleave (transportation) and DavisLangdon (costings).Section 2.2 to 2.12 infrastructure inputs are covered as follows:Infrastructure AreaPower (electricity and gas)TransportConsultantIntegrated Services & Utilities LtdSteer Davies GleaveWaterSewerageFlood defencesURS Corporation LtdWaste managementSocial InfrastructureCostsDavis Langdon LtdNovember 2009 Page 211

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportNovember 2009 Page 212

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportAppendix 2 - Approach and ParametersNovember 2009 Page 213

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportNovember 2009 Page 214

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportIntroductionThis Appendix sets out additional information on the infrastructure study parameters andapproach, including:The scope of the assessment and definition of key termsThe key information sources which formed the evidence base for the analysisKey assumptions which informed the analysisAdditional background material relating to the policy context, drivers of demandand supply, etc.We also outline the assumptions utilised within the URS Infrastructure Model, whichconstitutes a key element of assessing growth impacts on relevant strands ofinfrastructure, namely:Early years, primary and secondary education, futher education and adultlearningHealthcareParks and open space, sports and leisureLibraries, communitiy and faith facilitiesJob brokerageCemeteriesElectricity, gas, water and sewerage.The model is laid out in full in Appendix 3 including the assumptions utilised to estimatepopulation growth, education, health and utilities demand; the growth rate in residentialand non-residential uses; and the analysis of such projected growth including datasources and the method.The outputs of the model and a high level description of our workings are included in thebody of the report. Below we set out additional details of our approach to quantifying thequantum and cost of required future provision for the various infrastructure areasconsidered.UtilitiesContact, via ISU, has been made with the „host‟ utility companies that cover eachrespective network. Within the study zone, there are two gas companies involved with anotional boundary between them, broadly split by the River Thames. The companiesinvolved include EDF Energy, National Grid, British Telecommunications and ThamesWater.Other utility companies have been identified as influencing factors but, at this stage, havebeen excluded from the commentary as the infrastructure present is considered as lesscomplex. This includes cables companies such as Virgin Media, Cable and Wireless,November 2009 Page 215

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportKingston Communications, Global Crossing and Energis to name but a few possiblealternatives.Generally, the approach considers what the network is doing currently, what plans are inplace to cover „organic‟ growth and what plans are in place to ensure that wider growth,based upon known development zones, can be catered for. These are all facets thatregulator requires the incumbent provider to undertake as part of their operating licence.There is a need however to clarify what impact the proposed growth to 2026, which is inexcess of development schemes which are currently forth-coming, will subsequently haveon each network in terms of funding and delivery in particular.ElectricityThe assessment of the electricity network includes strategic assets owned and operatedby the „host‟ electricity provider for the area, up to and including the 132kV (132,000volts) network . The lower voltages of 400V and 11kV are not considered given that thesereflect more local infrastructure associated with specific development proposals which areat present unknown and which are unlikely to be of consequence to the nature of thereport.URS modelled demand for electricity associated with residential and non-residentialforecast growth for the City of Westminster.Westminster is unique in that the relative mix of employment, residential, retail, andcommunity uses, when compared to more provincial areas. Office space, for example, islikely to represent a greater proportion of future development than, say, commercial orindustrial uses.However, the utility system works according to „trigger points‟ at a strategic level, andutilises standard material / apparatus sizes. For this reason, the inconsistencies of loadapplication becomes relatively insignificant and trying to establish an exact projected loadis not necessarily required; the pertinence of the finer detail only becomes an issue if thetrigger point is close to being reached. For this reason it is possible to use a linearassumption which places emphasis on varying load application to establish a startingpoint for projecting energy demand.To secure a basic position, each type of additional requirement will need to haverecognised energy consumption demand placed against it. This generally splits into twocategories: firstly, a per unit approach and, secondly, a square metreage approach. Theformer is usually applied to residential although there is a secondary split betweenelectrically heated and non electrically heated units (air conditioning or storage heatersattract greater energy demand figures than, say, a gas centrally heated unit). The latterapproach of working against floor space is reflected better against employment andcommercial uses, including leisure, although leisure, particularly when consideringswimming pools, are somewhat disproportionate in demand to other types.November 2009 Page 216

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportThe resulting loads facilitate projections of energy demand against historical data so thatshortfalls can be considered. The figures projected are extremely high, probably becausethe diversity assumed is not great enough for a strategic level analysis 172 . ISU uses thesefigures as a starting point for analysis, and draws upon applying industry experience todraw informed judgements as far as is possible. The utility industry use their owncomputations when assessing demand and the likely impact; there are no publishedfigures available.Regardless of the figures utilised, outturn figures only offer indicative engineeringrequirements until a formal design is completed against set network criteria. Theelectricity system, given its „dynamic‟ nature, is always subject to change and reconfiguration.Therefore, the assessments made will reflect reasonable judgements and /or scenarios so that the client team have an understanding of the requirements in order todeliver the greater growth.GasThe assessment of the gas network covers strategic assets owned and operated by the„host‟ gas providers for the area. This includes up to intermediate or high pressurenetworks. Low pressure networks are not considered given that these reflect more localinfrastructure which is unlikely to be of consequence for a strategic report.Demand for gas to 2026 was modelled using the same principles described above forelectricity.TelecommunicationsThe assessment of the telecommunications network covers strategic assets owned andoperated by British Telecommunications (BT) as they remain a significant „host‟ providerfor the area. The ability to consider protocols is limited as the telecommunicationsindustry tends to be more reactive than proactive when considering new connections.The scope of works therefore is to review whatever data BT can provide and assess thisagainst delivery criteria, even if this subsequently ignores the cabling aspect and focuseson impact works such as highway excavation.WaterThe assessment of the water network covers strategic assets owned and operated by the„host‟ water provider for the area. This includes strategic mains and supplies and does172 The forecasts were presented to EDF as a means to initiate discussion on the approach and outputs. Detailedfeedback was not forthcoming in time for incorporation in this report, though EDF did confirm that the findings ofthe assessment are in line with their expectations, suggesting that the results of the analysis are a good indicationof the likely needs for Westminster over the 2006-2026 period.November 2009 Page 217

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal Reportnot necessarily reflect upon more local infrastructure which is unlikely to be ofconsequence to the nature of the report.Demand for potable water to 2026 was modelled using the same principles describedabove for electricity.SewerageThe elements of infrastructure covered in this section include physical assets associatedwith conveying and treating surface and foul water from the Westminster area anddischarging the treated effluent to watercourses (mainly the River Thames). Thisinfrastructure can be identified as follows:Sewerage treatment works (Mogden, Beckton and Crossness)Pumping stationsSewersMaintenance and control equipmentIT and buildingsThe proposed Thames Tideway tunnel.Private drainage networks within individual sites (i.e. non-adopted drainage) have beenomitted because sewer records are generally not available from private owners. Thestudy was undertaken based on Thames Water‟s data and predictions for the wholeThames Water region which comprises most of the Thames catchment area, fromWarwickshire to Sussex and from Gloucestershire to Essex. It was not possible to extractprecise details of plans relating to the Westminster area therefore approximateinvestment figures for Westminster are estimated where relevant, based on equivalentpopulation.The assessment has been carried out based on a review of the Thames Water 5-year 173and 25-year 174 investment plans. Currently Thames Water is undertaking AssetManagement Plan 4 or AMP 4, due to end in 2010. AMP 5 will run from 2010 to 2015,followed by AMP 6 in 2015-2020 and AMP 7 in 2020-2025. The scope of the reportextends to 2026 which is one year into the AMP 8 period of 2025-2030.The assessment is based on information provided by Thames Water, WCC andinformation available in the public domain and subsequent consultations with ThamesWater and WCC Environmental Health Department.173 “Five-Year Plan from 2010 to 2015”, Draft Report, Thames Water174 “Taking Care of Water – The Next 25 Years (2010-2035)”, Thames WaterNovember 2009 Page 218

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportWaste ManagementOnly the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream has been considered in this study as thiswaste stream is collected by Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and treated/disposedof by Unitary Authorities. Some data and information relating to this waste stream isavailable in the documentation listed below.This study covers waste treatment and disposal facilities such as landfill sites, thermaltreatment (e.g. energy from waste, incineration), anaerobic digestion and composting. Inaccordance with the London Plan, 2008, Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, thisstudy has not included the current or future capacity of waste transfer stations as they arenot classified as “waste management” facilities.This study is based on information and data obtained from the following documents:Central London Forward, Infrastructure in Central London, Strategic Scoping Report:Capacity and Future PlanningGreater London Authority; Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Management Strategy(September 2003)City of Westminster Municipal Waste Management Strategy ImplementationProgramme 2004-2016Early Alterations to the London Plan, Greater London Authority, December 2006City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan adopted 24 January 2007City of Westminster Local Development Framework Core Strategy Issues andOptions – May 2007Environment and Planning Section (specifically relating to the Local DevelopmentFramework) of the WCC website (www.westminster.gov.uk).URS has not undertaken a consistency check on the data contained within each of theabove documents reviewed. All data in the assessment is as stated in the individualreports. It is highly likely that reported data is based upon limited available informationand assumptions, making the reliability of the data questionable, and this is openlyacknowledged in the Greater London Authority (GLA) report “Rethinking Rubbish inLondon, The Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Management Strategy” in relation to estimatedcapacities for waste management.Detailed waste management data, specifically funding data for the City of Westminster,was unavailable.The LDF for the City of Westminster is still being developed and currently the UnitaryDevelopment Plan, adopted on 24 January 2007, is valid. WCC has published someinformation in relation to the LDF on its website, and this indicates that an assessment ofpotential waste sites is currently under development, which will form an evidence baseddocument for the LDF.November 2009 Page 219

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportTransportTransport infrastructure considered as part of this study includes rail and undergroundnetworks, bus routes, highways, interchanges, stations (bus and rail), pedestrian andcycle routes, riverboat piers and public realm. In the context of each mode, transportinfrastructure relates to physical works and not strictly speaking to the vehicles or trainsthat operate on each network. However, in discussing transport capacity, this distinctionis often arbitrary and where necessary reference is made to operations as well asinfrastructure works.Local planning policy documentation including Westminster‟s emerging Core Strategy,Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) have informed thisreport. The emerging Core Strategy highlights the need for improvements to the publictransport system, traffic management and improvements to the public realm and walkingand cycling.The City of Westminster has adopted a number of planning briefs which focus on keyareas within the borough and outline strategic planning and transport advice. Thefollowing briefs have been consulted:Victoria Area Planning Brief (March 2006)Victoria Street, Buckingham Gate and Palace Street Draft Planning Brief (March2007)Paddington Station and Evirons Revisions to Draft Planning Brief (April 2008)Crossrail: Bond Street2008)Station Eastern Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief (JulyCrossrail: Bond Street Station Western Ticket Hall Draft Planning Brief (July2008).This report is also informed by key strategic documents such as the recent publication ofWay to Go! (Mayor of London 2008) and the Transport for London Business Plan –2009/10 – 2017/18 (November 2008). These documents reflect the priorities and policiesof the incumbent Mayor but are also outputs of a wide-ranging review of infrastructureschemes in London in response to funding constraints.These reports take a realistic view of schemes likely to be delivered over the course ofthe next ten years. Given the costs associated with Crossrail (now sponsored byTransport for London) and tube upgrades, and expected Government grant, severalschemes have been omitted from the business plan. In some cases, this reflects anunderlying lack of viability or absence of political support; in others, it reflects the lack offunding that is likely to be available.Whilst the Business Plan looks ahead ten years, the planning horizon for London isdictated by the London Plan, which sets out policies to 2026. The most completeappraisal of transport in London over this period was contained in Transport 2025 –November 2009 Page 220

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportTransport vision for a growing world city (Transport for London, November 2006). T2025identified a transport strategy for London that would match travel growth in London withtransport infrastructure capacity improvements. The recent policy announcementspotentially create a supply gap, as discussed below.Additional documentation such as the Interchange Plan – improving interchange inLondon (Transport for London, August 2002) and the Central London Pedestrian Study(Intelligence Space/Atkins, December 2007) have also been consulted.The aim of this report is to review the transport infrastructure requirements of theborough, regardless of ultimate provider, and to identify priorities for investment andfunding that will enable Westminster to secure improvements consistent with its local planobjectives. This report, therefore, spans both infrastructure schemes that are national orregional in scope and more local measures that will be delivered primarily by theborough.Early Years and Child CareWe use take up rates from an average of day nurseries, independent schools, maintainednursery schools and classes and private/voluntary nurseries to estimate the number of 0-four year olds requiring additional places. The registered providers considered are daynurseries, independent schools, maintained nursery schools and classes andprivate/voluntary nurseries. The age group is 0-4 year olds.The methodology to assess the demand for early years and child care places has beenrefined following consultation with the education department. Information waspredominantly sourced from:Consultation with Westminster Education DepartmentChildcare Sufficiency Assessment (i) Analysis of childcare supply in Westminster(WCC 2007-2008).Westminster Children Services have advised that information is being updated.The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for early years placesacross the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost.Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. The analysis is basedon:Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from residential and nonresidentialpopulation growthCalculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based onEarly Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008)November 2009 Page 221

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportCalculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.The model does not incorporate future trends expected to increase take up rates as noquantitative evidence was available at the time of writing.Primary EducationPrimary school places are reception to year six. In our model we assume that all four yearolds attend reception year at primary schools.The methodology to assess the demand for primary school places has been refinedfollowing consultation with the education department. Information was predominantlysourced from:Consultation with Westminster Education Department 175Supply of School Places 2008, (Department for Education and Skills, 2008)Westminster Children Services have advised that information is being updated and will bepublished at the end of March, but was not available at the time of writing.The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for early years placesacross the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost.Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. The analysis is basedon:Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from residential populationgrowthCalculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, nationalguidanceCalculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.Secondary EducationSecondary education covers pupils year seven to year thirteen (i.e. who have alreadyturned 11 and who have yet to turn 17).The methodology to assess the demand for secondary school places has been refinedfollowing consultation with the education department. Information was predominantlysourced from:Consultation with Westminster Education Department175 Ibid.November 2009 Page 222

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportSupply of School Places 2008, (Department for Education and Skills, 2008)The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for secondary schoolplaces across Westminster up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likelycapital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. Whilst wediscuss the evolution of secondary education provision in Westminster, including theopening of two new academies, we have not incorporated this formally within the model.The model provides intermediate results in terms of number of places and forms of entryrequired, so that the results can then be compared with any additional provision,disregard of the organisational arrangements of the institution.The analysis is based on:Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from residential populationgrowth, in terms of total number of places, forms of entries, and schoolsCalculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, nationalguidanceCalculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.Further Education and Adult LearningFuture demand for FE and adult education in Westminster was modelled for 16-18 yearolds (FE) and for 19-65 year olds (adult education).The methodology to assess the demand for secondary school places has been refinedfollowing consultation with the education department. Information was predominantlysourced from:Consultation with Learning and Schools CouncilLSC London Strategic Analysis 2007/2008 (LSC, 2007/2008)LSC Statement of Priorities (LSC, 2009-10)Future demand for FE and adult education in the Westminster was modelled for 16-18year olds (FE) and for 19-65 year olds (adult education). Further details on how we havecalculated demand and costs are provided in sheet A2 Education of the attached URSWestminster infrastructure model.November 2009 Page 223

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportHigher EducationThe methodology to assess the demand for Higher Education (HE) places has beenrefined following consultation with the higher education department 176 . Information waspredominantly sourced from:Consultation with HEPI, HEFCE, HESA, individual universitiesDemand for Higher Education to 2029 (HEPI, 2008)Savills Report to Unite The Student accommodation market in London (SavillsLtd, 2007)The HEFCE Strategic Plan (HEFCE, 2006-2011).Higher education demand is not geographically sensitive. Our baseline information showsthat a significant component of students move into the higher education institution regionto study, suggesting a high national and international component in HE demand. For thisreason we did not model the impact that the projected Westminster growth may have ondemand for HE.Primary HealthcareURS have assessed both primary and secondary health requirements arising fromprojected population the City of Westminster based on the NHS London Healthy UrbanDevelopment Unit (HUDU) model. Primary healthcare is accordingly considered toinclude all services that evolving policy aims at seeing provided at General Practices 177 .The output of the assessment is therefore an understanding of the additional number ofGeneral Practitioners (GPs) required to satisfy the new demand arising from projectedresident population growth. In addition the likely spatial requirements and building costsrequired to host such additional units will be provided.URS have contacted the Westminster Primary Care Trust (PCT). Information waspredominantly sourced from:Consultation with Westminster PCTHUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes (EDAW/AECOM 2007)Westminster PCT Estates Strategy (Westminster PCT, 2008)176 HEPI, HESA and HEFCE177 „HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes‟ (EDAW/AECOM, 2007)November 2009 Page 224

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportWestminster Strategic Service Development Plan 2008-2013 (Westminster PCT,2008)NHS London is one of the ten Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) in England establishedin July 2006 to lead NHS across London, providing strategic leadership for NHS inLondon and operates a PCT Commissioning Regime to enable the commissioning ofworld class heath care. Strategic Health Authorities were created by the government in2002 to manage the local NHS on behalf of the secretary of state, and were reduced to10 from the original number of 28 on July 1 2006. SHAs are responsible for developingplans for improving health services in their local area, making sure local health servicesare of a high quality and are performing well, increasing the capacity of local healthservices (so they can provide more services), and making sure national priorities areintegrated into local health service plans. SHAs manage the NHS locally and are a keylink between the Department of Health and the NHS.As discussed the HUDU model was used to quantify and cost potential primary andsecondary healthcare requirements in the City of Westminster. The HUDU model doesnot however consider the impact of non-residential growth on healthcare demand. Also, itdoes not allow to account for any potential spare capacity in current provision and thebaseline information made available to URS by consultees was inadequate to allow a fullgap analysis; therefore a qualitative assessment of emerging key issues will bepresented. The findings of this quantitative assessment should therefore be consideredas indicative of the order of magnitude of the net additional needs likely to arise fromresidential growth.The projected dwelling growth up to 2026 for the City of Westminster was the key inputinto the HUDU model. For primary care, the Westminster URS model occupancy rates bytenure and size were used and a net population gain factor of 100% was assumed. Thehigh case scenario has been used for population projections based on GLA, DMAG, RLP(Review of the London Plan) forecasts. Finally all new build has been assumed to beflats, as the occupancy rates used already combines flat and houses population yields.HUDU model default assumptions have been used for all other variables, including buildup rates and take up rates 178 .The GP to patient ratio was set at 1 GP per 1,700 179 has using the ODPM ReformingPlanning Obligations which sets out the requirement as based on the standard levels ofprovision assumed by NHS and Department of Health planners.178 This means that the housing trajectory assumed by the model is different from the one presented in theLondon Plan. The HUDU assumptions with this respect have been developed with the specific purpose ofassessing health needs arising from new development, as opposed to the Westminster URS model assumptionswhich were intended to provide the base for the assessment of impacts on a wider range of infrastructure areas.As a result URS have considered appropriate to utilise the standard HUDU assumptions. It should be howevernoted that this approach implies that the resulting housing trajectory may be spread across a different time framefrom the 2006-2026 London Plan timeline. The model attached in Appendix 4 presents detailed information.179 As opposed the HUDU default of 1,800 patients per GP.November 2009 Page 225

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportAll other healthcare needs assumptions are the HUDU model default ones, and theseinclude:Spatial requirements, in the form of square metres per unit (e.g. per bed or dayplaces)Build costs and build costs inflation assumptions, as well as revenue fundingallocations assumptions.Secondary HealthcareWith regard to Secondary Healthcare URS have assessed health requirements arisingfrom projected population growth in the City of Westminster based on the NHS LondonHealthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) model. The HUDU model defines secondaryhealthcare as the combination of:Acute healthcare provision, covering acute elective and non elective in patientsand acute day caseMental healthcare provision, covering mental healthIntermediate 180spaces.healthcare provision, covering intermediate beds and dayCurrent Government health policy drives PCTs and secondary healthcare providerstowards an integrated model of services provision, in order to achieve a shift of activityfrom the secondary into the primary sector 181 .Information was predominantly sourced from:Consultation with Westminster PCT and London Strategic Health AuthorityHUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes (EDAW/AECOM 2007)NHS London Strategic Plan (NHS, 2008)NHS London annual report and statement of accounts 2007/08 (NHS, 2008).Accordingly URS have consulted with both Westminster PCT and the London StrategicHealth Authority. In addition they have reviewed the PCT Commissioning Strategies and180 Intermediate care is generally considered to include those services that do not require the resources of anacute general hospital, but are beyond the scope of traditional primary care.181 „HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes‟ (EDAW/AECOM, 2007). This is also evident from theWestminster PCT Strategic Service Delivery Plan 2008.November 2009 Page 226

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal Reportthe NHS London Strategic Plan and Annual Report and Statement of Accounts2007/2008 182 .It should be noted that the HUDU model does however not consider the impact of nonresidentialactivities on healthcare demand. Also, it does not allow for any potential sparecapacity in current provision and the baseline information made available to URS byconsultees was inadequate to allow a full gap analysis; therefore a qualitativeassessment of emerging key issues will be presented. The findings of this quantitativeassessment should therefore be considered as indicative of the order of magnitude of thenet additional needs likely to arise from residential growth.The output of the assessment is therefore an understanding of the additional number ofsecondary and intermediary care beds and places (for intermediate day care only)required to satisfy the new demand arising from projected resident population growth. Inaddition the likely spatial requirements and building costs required to host such additionalunits will be provided.Parks and Open SpaceThe methodology to assess the demand for parks and open space has been refinedfollowing consultation with WCC. Information was predominantly sourced from:Consultation with Westminster Parks, Sports and LeisureOpen Space Strategy (WCC, 2007)The London Plan 2008 183 provides guidance of the typologies of open space that shouldbe accessible to residents:MetropolitanParkDistrict Park Local Park Small OpenSpacePocket Park60 hectares 20 hectares 2 hectares

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal Reportand links to developments of existing open space will constitute the priority of WCC‟swork.The Greater London Authority‟s „Supplementary Planning Guidance 184 recommends thatall new developments plan for 10 sqm of play and recreation space for all children andyoung people aged 0-18. The SPG also defines different recreational spaces that meetthe range of needs arising from different age groups. Children between 0 and four yearsof age need specific engaging play features (for instance climbable objects or sand andwater) as well as places for carers to sit and talk. Children between 6 and 11 years of ageneed additional facilities, including for instance kick about areas and basketball nets,whilst older children need a more broadly defined social space where they can meet andtake part in a wider range of informal recreational activities.Such differentiated needs can be satisfied by a variety of facilities, as long as they meetspecific minimum size and accessibility requirements. Existing facilities can help meetsome of this demand if they are within certain distances and have sufficient capacity tocater for additional children. The following are different types of play space:Doorstep Playable Spaces are usually designed for children under 0-4 years old,contain small indicative items of play equipment, have a minimum activity zone of100 sqm in size and are located within 100m of the housing units.Local Areas of Playable Space are more flexible spaces designed for children aged0-11, equipped with equipment allowing children to swing slide and climb togetherwith for instance kick about areas and basketball nets. They have a minimum activityzone of 300 sqm and are located within 400m of the housing units.Youth Space cater for children of 12 years of age and older, equipped with moreteenage provision than Local Areas of Playable Space including opportunities forwheeled play (skateboards, BMXs, etc) and youth shelter. They have an activityzone of a minimum of 200 sqm in size and are to be located within 800m from thehousing units. Informal play areas of Youth Spaces can also be considered MultiUse Games Areas (MUGAs) if sufficient informal sports space is designed.Neighbourhood Areas of Playable Space cater for children of all ages, equipped withboth activity and play features for children between 0 and 11 years of age, and asocial space for children of 12 years of age or older. Their minimum activity zone isof 200 sqm and they are located within 800m from the housing units.Sports and LeisureURS model will include indoor and outdoor sports facilities in Westminster, including:swimming pools, health stations and outdoor sports facilities (i.e. athletic tracks andsynthetic turf pitches).184 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young People‟s Play and Informal Recreation(GLA, 2008)November 2009 Page 228

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportThe provision of less conventional sports such as climbing, martial areas, dance etc willnot be assessed in the URS model as we have analysed indoor and outdoor sportsprovision in line with the ActiveWestminster Strategy. There is a lack of quantitativeevidence and as a result we are limited to assessing indoor and outdoor sports provisiononly.The information was predominantly sourced from:Consultation with Westminster‟s Sports and Leisure departmentActiveWestminster Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013 (City ofWestminster, 2008)Active Westminster Delivery Plan, 2008-2009, (WCC, 2008).LibrariesAnalysis of Library requirements covers library space across the City.The methodology to assess the demand for job brokerage services has been refinedfollowing consultation WCC. Information was predominantly sourced from:WCC CouncilBetter Public Libraries (CABE, 2003)21st Century Libraries (Building Futures, 2004)Public Libraries, Archives and New Development (MLA, 2008)City of Westminster Libraries, Archives, Arts and Culture Business Plan 2008/09(WCC, 2008)The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for library services acrossthe City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Fulldetails on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 2. The analysis is based on:Identifying the potential demand up to 2026, arising from both residential andnon-residential population growthCalculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based onconsultation with WCC Library OperationsCalculating the associated costs, based on information from Davis Langdon.November 2009 Page 229

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportJob BrokerageThe methodology to assess the demand for job brokerage services has been defined inconsultation with the Job Centre Plus Central London Partnership. Information waspredominantly sourced from:Consultation with the Job Centre Plus Central London PartnershipThe Job Centre Plus London website was used to identify services specific toLondonhttp://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Partners/RegionalBusinessCommunity/London/index.html.The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for job brokerageservices across the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likelycapital cost. Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. Theanalysis is based on:Calculating the percentage of benefit claimants in working age out of the totalCity population, equalling 7%, to identify the potential demand up to 2026Calculating an indicative rate of staff per 1,000 claimants based on current staffnumbers serving WestminsterCalculating the additional staff required to meet the estimated additional demandCalculating the associated spatial requirements and costs, based on informationfrom Davis Langdon.CemeteriesCemeteries are generally publicly provided, with each local authority deciding whether torespond discretionally to population growth by extending the existing cemeteries ordeveloping new ones. For burials local authorities generally consider the current deathrate to identify how many years‟ capacity the current facilities still have.Westminster‟s cemeteries are managed by the City of Westminster Parks services. Thecemeteries are opened also to people residing outside Westminster, and equally thoseliving in Westminster may decide to be buried elsewhere.The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for burials only across theCity up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Fulldetails on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. The analysis is based on:Calculating the number of burials per capita up to 2026Calculating the associated spatial requirements and costs, based on informationfrom Roger Tym and Partners.November 2009 Page 230

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportCommunity and Faith FacilitiesCommunity facilities represent a very complex infrastructure area that has to meet avariety of competing demands reflecting the variety of community views and needs. Wehave consulted with WCC and Voluntary Action Westminster to identify the baseline,forecast demand and forecast costs and planned investment for community facilities inWestminster.The Westminster Infrastructure Model estimates future demand for community facilitiesacross the City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost.Full details on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. We appreciate that apurely quantitative standard for community facilities in itself is of limited value. For thisreason the analysis of the URS Westminster infrastructure model should be consideredas the starting point for further qualitative research and as a base for any negotiationswith private developers to ensure community needs are met. The analysis is based on:Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based on avariety of sources and discussions with WCC and Voluntary Action WestminsterCalculating the total additional spatial requirements and costs, based oninformation from Davis Langdon.With regards to faith facilities, consultation has confirmed that the information availableon faith facilities in Westminster is exclusively qualitative and anecdotal. It is based onneeds identified by engagement with faith communities through the Westminster FaithExchange (Westminster's local interfaith body) and a Needs Mapping Survey of Muslimorganisations completed in 2008.The Westminster infrastructure model estimates future demand for faith facilities acrossthe City up to 2026, the associated spatial requirements and the likely capital cost. Fulldetails on the model calculations can be found in Appendix 3. The analysis is based on:Calculating an indicative spatial requirement per 1,000 population, based on avariety of sourcesCalculating the total additional spatial requirements and costs, based oninformation from Davis Langdon.Emergency ServicesThe report aims to investigate the current and future needs for emergency serviceprovision, in terms of police, fire and ambulances, in Westminster.URS‟ approach to understanding future emergency services requirements includedconsulting with the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade and the LondonAmbulance NHS Trust.URS have reviewed the following documents:November 2009 Page 231

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportMetropolitan Police Estate, Asset Management Plan Westminster (MetropolitanPolice, 2007)Home Office Statistical Bulletin- Police Service Strength 2008 (Home Office,2007)Fire Asset Management Plan (London and Fire Emergency Planning, 2008)London Safety Plan 2008-2011 (London Fire Brigade, 2008)Fire Corporate Plan 2008-2011 (London Fire Brigade, 2008).The impact of residential and non-residential growth on emergency infrastructure has notbeen assessed quantitatively within our model as consultation indicated that such ananalysis would not be appropriate or robust. The information presented in the section istherefore predominantly qualitative, with quantitative evidence is presented whereveravailable.For fire services for instance the key element is not only the extent of population growth,but also and more importantly its accessibility to existing fire stations in case ofemergency. Furthermore increases in the number of commercial buildings increases thenumber of false alarms and therefore pressure on the fire service. This is likely to applyalso to other emergency services.The majority of services provided by police, fire stations and ambulance stations areprovided across local authority boundaries. It is therefore hard to provide a meaningfulassessment of the adequacy of provision and needs at the Westminster level.November 2009 Page 232

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportAppendix 3 - URS WestminsterInfrastructure ModelNovember 2009 Page 233

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportNovember 2009 Page 234

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportBelow we present the model that has informed part of the analysis. The model is set outas follows:Sheet Contents presents the table of contentsSheet Results presents a summary of the model resultsSheet A1 Population presents the assumptions adopted to calculate populationout of the housing trajectorySheet A2 Education presents the assumptions adopted to calculate demandand requirements for early years, primary and secondary education and furthereducation and adult learningSheet A3 Health presents the assumptions inputted in the HUDU model tocalculate primary and secondary healthcare demand and requirements inaddition to the HUDU standard assumptionsSheet A4 Other Social Infrastructure presents the assumptions adopted tocalculate demand and requirements for sports and leisure facilities; parks andopen spaces; libraries, community and faith facilities; job brokerage; cemeteriesSheet A5 Utilities presents the assumptions used to calculate future load forelectricity, gas, water and sewerageSheet I1 Growth Projections presents the growth projections used to inform themodel and the assessmentSheet I2 Growth Analysis presents an analysis of projected growthSheet R1 Population presents the resulting population growth based on thehousing trajectorySheet R2 Education presents the resulting demand for early years, primary andsecondary education and further education and adult learning, based onpopulation growth and education assumptionsSheet R3 Health presents the resulting primary and secondary healthcarerequirements based on population growth and health assumptionsSheet R4 Sports, Leisure and Recreation presents the resulting demand forsports and leisure facilities, and parks and open spaces, based on populationgrowth and facilities provision assumptionsSheet R5 Community and Other presents the resulting demand for libraries,community and faith facilities; job brokerage; cemeteries, based on populationgrowth and facilities provision assumptionsNovember 2009 Page 235

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportSheet R6 Utilities presents the resulting electricity, gas, water and seweragebased on population growth and utilities assumptions.November 2009 Page 236

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportAppendix 4 - HUDU Model ApproachNovember 2009 Page 237

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportNovember 2009 Page 238

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal ReportIntroductionThe NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) developed the so calledHUDU model in 2005 to help quantify the impact of new development on the local healthservices and estimate the associated capital and revenue costs associated with suchimpact 185 .The model is intended for use by the 31 London Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and iscurrently being used by about a third of them. In addition, it is employed by privatedevelopers and local authorities and therefore constitutes a common tool to assesshealth impacts of new population. For all these reasons it is considered appropriate touse it to the purpose of this social infrastructure assessment as opposed to developing anew model.The HUDU model assumes that the additional health requirements as a result ofpopulation growth attributable to residential developments will need to be met throughcapital development. Illustrative healthcare requirements and the costs of meetingrequirements through new build solutions are calculated. The HUDU model does notincorporate baseline data on the existing or planned health service provision for theindividual PCTs. Having been designed to assist in calculating developers‟ contributionsin new individual developments the model assumed that the reconciliation of currentcapacity and future demand is undertaken at a subsequent stage.The HUDU model was run for the City of Westminster to ascertain the likely quantum andcost of required future healthcare. It should be noted that the HUDU model, while usedwidely by PCTs both within and outside London, is a model providing indicative quantumand cost figures only. In particularly its use have been challenged in the past in occasionswhere PCTs did not have an adopted estates strategy in place that could justify the needfor additional health premises.AssumptionsThe model estimates future service, spatial and cost requirements in three stages. Theyare illustrated below together with the assumptions used in each of them.Stage 1: population and housing.oooThe projected dwelling growth up to 2026 for the City of Westminster wasused to estimate the impact on primary health services.The Westminster URS model occupancy rates by tenure and size wereused.The age profile of new population has been assumed to follow the defaultHUDU age profile distribution. The HUDU assumption account for thedynamic evolution of population in the planning period as opposed to the185 „HUDU Planning Contribution Model, Guidance Notes‟ (EDAW/AECOM, 2007).November 2009 Page 239

Westminster Infrastructure Study and PlanFinal Reportstatic approach of the URS model. As a result population estimates basedon the same dwelling numbers are lower in the HUDU model.oooA net population gain factor, that is the percentage of new populationwhich is assumed to move into the PCT catchment area for the first time,was assumed to be 100% so as to ensure the worst case scenario (thehighest number of people) is considered.The high case scenario has been used for population projections basedon GLA, DMAG, RLP (Review of the London Plan) forecasts.Finally all new build has been assumed to be flats, as the occupancyrates used already combines flat and houses population yields. HUDUmodel default assumptions have been used for all other variables,including build up rates and take up rates 186 .Stage 2: HealthcareooFor primary healthcare the GP:patient ratio was set at 1 GP per 1,700 hasusing the ODPM Reforming Planning Obligations which sets out therequirement as based on the standard levels of provision assumed byNHS and Department of Health planners.For secondary and intermediate healthcare the default HUDU modelassumptions have been used.Stage 3: Spatial requirements and costs:ooThe default HUDU model spatial requirements and cost requirements(considering building costs only) have been usedThe HUDU model calculated building costs for each of the analysedhealthcare item, whereas revenue costs are estimated as a total tosupport all of the new facilities. It should be noted that given the strategiclevel of this study and the long time frame the figure is not considered tobe robust.186 This means that the housing trajectory assumed by the model is different from the one presented in theLondon Plan. The HUDU assumptions with this respect have been developed with the specific purpose ofassessing health needs arising from new development, as opposed to the Westminster URS model assumptionswhich were intended to provide the base for the assessment of impacts on a wider range of infrastructure areas.As a result URS have considered appropriate to utilise the standard HUDU assumptions. It should be howevernoted that this approach implies that the resulting housing trajectory may be spread across a different time framefrom the 2006-2026 London Plan timeline. The model attached in Appendix 3 presents detailed information.November 2009 Page 240

WCC Infrastructure ModelNovember 2009URS Corporation Ltd.WCC Infrastructure Model 1 of 27 10/11/2009

TABLE OF CONTENTSThese cells are fixed - see explanation alongsideThese cells are assumptions and can be updated/amended with more relevant data when appropriate. They will adjust subsequent resultsThese cells contain an inconsistent formula for a reasonThese cells contain the the formulas leading to the results of the model calculationsWorksheet nameSummaryContentsResultsDescriptionTable of ContentsSummary of ResultsAssumptionsA1 PopulationA2 EducationA3 HealthA4 Other SocialA5 UtilitiesModel InputI1 Demand ProjectionsI2 Non-residential AnalysisModel Calculations and ResultsR1 PopulationR2 EducationR3 HealthR4 Sports, Leisure and RecreationR5 Community Facilities and OtherR6 UtilitiesA1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields AssumptionsA2 Education AssumptionsA3 Healthcare AssumptionsA4 Other Social Infrastructure AssumptionsA5 Utilities AssumptionsI1 Demand ProjectionsI2 Analysis of Non-residential UsesR1 PopulationR2 EducationR3 HealthR4 Sports, Leisure and RecreationR5 Community Facilities and Other Social InfrastructureR6 UtilitiesPROTECT/UNPROTECT WORKSHEETS:All the sheets in this worksbook are now protected to avoid unintentional mistakes.To unprotect the sheets (individually): Enter each sheet andselect Tools>Protection>Unprotect Sheet.To protect the sheets (individually): When finished updating thesingle sheet protect it again by selecting Tools>Protection>ProtectSheetAlternatively select CONTROL+SHIFT+U (Note that by using the shortcut you will not be required to enter the psw)Alternatively select CONTROL+SHIFT+P (Note that by using the shortcut you will not be required to enter the psw)psw: WCC_SIPWCC Infrastructure Model 2 of 27 10/11/2009

Summary of Model ResultsInfrastructure Theme Infrastructure ItemTotal RequirementSpatial RequirementsTotal CapitalCost (£)*Education Early Years 74 Classes 6,601 Sqm 26,530,586Primary Education 9 Forms of Entry 11,787 Sqm 26,002,859Secondary Education 6 Forms of Entry 8,576 Sqm 21,509,483Further Education and Adult Learning 2,243 Places 22,434 Sqm 56,084,757Health GP and Primary Care Services 15 GP and Primary Care Services 2,525 Sqm 13,890,175Acute and Mental Care 72 Acute and Mental Beds 3,478 Sqm 22,766,541Intermediate Care 30 Intermediate Beds and Day Spaces 1,728 Sqm 10,628,496Sports, Leisure andRecreationCommunity and OtherUtilitiesHealth Stations 614 Health Stations 3,068 Sqm 21,476,606Sports Halls N/a 2,039 Sqm 4,077,366Swimming Pools N/a 1,669 Sqm 10,979,404Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a 55 Ha 7,439,539Playable Space - Doorstops (0-4) 350 Spaces 34,966 Sqm 6,974,990Playable Space - Local (5-11) 68 Spaces 20,267 Sqm 4,042,841Playable Space - Youth (12-17) 89 Spaces 17,726 Sqm 3,536,041Parks N/a 78 Ha 36,209,539Libraries N/a 1,446 Sqm 4,338,838Community Centres N/a - Sqm 0Faith Facilities N/a - Sqm 0Job Brokerage 7 Staff 127 Sqm 210,357Burials N/a 0.4 Ha 134,148Electricity 150,740 kVA N/a N/aGas 12,498 m3/Hour N/a N/aWater 13,163,847 Litres/Day N/a N/aSewerage 21,179,897 Litres/Day N/a N/aTotal 276,832,566* This includes building costs onlyWCC Infrastructure Model 3 of 27 10/11/2009

A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields AssumptionsNotesPopulation estimate from dwelling numberTenure mix (% of total housing1 provision)Open MarketSocial RentedIntermediate50% 50% 50% 50% 35% 35% 35% 35% 15% 15% 15% 15%2 Size mix (% by tenure)1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+36% 51% 9% 4% 30% 46% 17% 8% 46% 46% 7% 1%3 Occupancy Rate1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9Possible sources for the housing tenure split are: 1)London Plan 2008, suggesting 50% private housing andthe remainder split in 70% social and 30% affordable.2)London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 (2008),Here the first option is used.The source for the housing size split by tenure isLondon Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 (2008), usingfigures from 2006/2007 LDD; units (gross) by bedroomsize and tenure (table HPM10, p. 80)Consultation with WCC suggests a flat 1.9 occupancyrate is used for population projections from dwellingnumbers - WWC, email communication, 18/02/2009Children population estimate from dwelling numberChild Occupancy Rate by Tenure1 and Size mixOpen Market Social Rented Intermediate0.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.2 1 2 3.3 0.12 0.57 1.25 2.162 Age Group Distribution1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 40-4 years 0.89 0.67 0.50 0.36 1.00 0.64 0.31 0.12 0.94 0.66 0.40 0.245-10 years 0.11 0.16 0.32 0.38 0.00 0.23 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.19 0.34 0.3811-15 years 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.39 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.2916-17 years 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.093 Child Yields by Age Group1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 40-4 years 0.03 0.09 0.25 0.37 0.20 0.64 0.62 0.41 0.11 0.37 0.50 0.535-10 years 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.39 0.00 0.23 0.74 1.22 0.01 0.11 0.43 0.8211-15 years 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.20 0.00 0.08 0.47 1.29 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.6316-17 years 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.37 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.19Total 0.03 0.14 0.50 1.02 0.20 1.00 2.00 3.30 0.12 0.57 1.25 2.16Private Housing tenure and size mix is fromWandsworth New Housing Survey (2007), both housesand flats. Social Housing tenure and size mix is fromthe London and Sub-Regional Strategy Support Studies(SSSS) dataset (2004). Intermediate Housing is a nonweighted average between the two.Private Housing age distribution is from WandswarthNew Housing Survey 2007. Social Housing agedistribution is from the London and Sub-RegionalStrategy Support Studies (SSSS) dataset (2004) childyield by bedroom. 4 beds child yield are not an averageof 4, 5 and 6 beds yields due to the unreliability of 5 andThis was confirmed by Wesminster Children Services(by email, 20/02/2009)18+ population estimate from dwelling number1 % of 18 out of 18-65 population 0.012 % of 19+ out of 18 to 65 population 0.86Census 2001, WCC figures (see the table: Census 2001Age Distribution, 2001 in this spreadsheet).WCC Infrastructure Model 4 of 27 10/11/2009

A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields AssumptionsData Sources and NotesWandsworth New Housing Survey (2007)1 Population Yield per Dwelling (Private Developments)Number of BedroomsAge 1 2 3 4All5+ Households0-2 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.083-4 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.19 0.13 0.045-10 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.37 0.46 0.0611-15 - 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.33 0.0316-19 - 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.0220-29 0.52 0.47 0.32 0.32 0.13 0.4530-39 0.51 0.61 0.69 0.58 0.46 0.6040-59 0.23 0.34 0.67 0.93 1.04 0.4060-79 0.09 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.1680+ 0.02 0.03 0.02 - - 0.02Total 1.41 1.75 2.44 3.03 2.96 1.86Respondents (weig 282.00 940.00 222.00 73.00 24.00 1,541.00As the rate of response varied between developments,the responses have been weighted to remove any biasthat may arise from this in line with standard statisticalpractice.2 Population Yield per Dwelling (Private Developments) - 0 to 17 only (16 to 17 as % of 16 to 19 from Census)Number of BedroomsAge 1 2 3 40-4 0.03 0.09 0.25 0.375-10 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.3911-15 - 0.02 0.07 0.2016-17 - 0.00 0.02 0.060.03 0.14 0.50 1.023 Age DistributionNumber of BedroomsAge 1 2 3 40-4 0.89 0.67 0.50 0.365-10 0.11 0.16 0.32 0.3811-15 - 0.14 0.14 0.1916-17 - 0.03 0.04 0.061.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Westminster Core Strategy Population informationWCC % of schoolage population 0-WCC count19Resident Populatio 231,874 ONS MYE 2006Census population distribution (2001)1 Census 2001 Age Distribution, 2001WCC % of schoolage population 0-WCC count190-4 9,452 0.195-10 8,722 0.18Total 0-10 18,174.00 0.374 years old out of 0-10 0.0911-15 6,300 0.1316-17 2,844 0.0618-19 4,096 0.08Total 0-19 49,588.00 1.0016-17 out of 16-19 0.41WCC % out ofWCC count 18+ population18 1,690.00 0.0219-65 83,564.00 0.98Total 18+ 85,254.00WCC Infrastructure Model 5 of 27 10/11/2009

A1 Household, Tenure and Child Yields AssumptionsCensus 2001 (ONS, 2008)Age (UV04), Apr01LastUpdated 18-Nov-04Age (UV04), Apr01Source Office for National StatisticsAge (UV04) National StatisticsThis material is Crown Copyright. Users are granted permission to reproduce Crown Copyright material provided that a Click-Use Licence has been obtained from HMSO. The Click-Use Licence can be obtained from http://www.clickanduse.hmso.gov.uk. When reproducing this material, thesource should be acknowledged.Age (UV04)Age Type Description Year Westminster Age Type Description Year WestminsterAged under 1 year Count Persons Apr-01 2,228 Aged 41 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,604Aged 1 year Count Persons Apr-01 1,957 Aged 42 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,371Aged 2 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,771 Aged 43 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,219Aged 3 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,802 Aged 44 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,260Aged 4 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,694 Aged 45 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,005Aged 5 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,642 Aged 46 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,953Aged 6 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,419 Aged 47 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,841Aged 7 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,507 Aged 48 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,902Aged 8 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,421 Aged 49 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,913Aged 9 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,447 Aged 50 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,075Aged 10 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,286 Aged 51 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,037Aged 11 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,358 Aged 52 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,172Aged 12 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,266 Aged 53 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,306Aged 13 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,330 Aged 54 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,366Aged 14 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,237 Aged 55 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,024Aged 15 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,109 Aged 56 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,894Aged 16 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,386 Aged 57 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,785Aged 17 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,458 Aged 58 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,721Aged 18 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,690 Aged 59 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,522Aged 19 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,406 Aged 60 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,488Aged 20 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,782 Aged 61 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,506Aged 21 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,988 Aged 62 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,467Aged 22 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,392 Aged 63 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,425Aged 23 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,839 Aged 64 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,447Aged 24 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,368 Aged 65 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,424Aged 25 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,350 Aged 66 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,308Aged 26 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,708 Aged 67 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,240Aged 27 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,881 Aged 68 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,263Aged 28 years Count Persons Apr-01 5,092 Aged 69 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,153Aged 29 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,997 Aged 70 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,206Aged 30 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,545 Aged 71 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,213Aged 31 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,280 Aged 72 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,162Aged 32 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,191 Aged 73 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,088Aged 33 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,936 Aged 74 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,019Aged 34 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,960 Aged 75 to 79 years Count Persons Apr-01 4,542Aged 35 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,723 Aged 80 to 84 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,060Aged 36 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,319 Aged 85 to 89 years Count Persons Apr-01 1,851Aged 37 years Count Persons Apr-01 3,339 Aged 90 to 94 years Count Persons Apr-01 715Aged 38 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,964 Aged 95 to 99 years Count Persons Apr-01 144Aged 39 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,758 Aged 100 years and over Count Persons Apr-01 23Aged 40 years Count Persons Apr-01 2,746WCC Infrastructure Model 6 of 27 10/11/2009

A2 Education AssumptionsTheme AreaPre-School Formal EducationNotesIt is assumed that demand for Education only derives from new residential population.1 Demand% of 0-4 yrs Take-up rate0 to 1 year olds 0.44 0.522 year olds 0.19 0.643 year olds 0.19 0.924 year olds 0.18 0.00% of 0-4 requiring 0-1 education 0.23% of 0-4 requiring 2 year old education 0.12% of 0-4 requiring 3 year old education 0.18% of 0-4 requiring 4 year old education 0.00Non Residential Factor 0.030-4yr % is analysis of Census data, see A1 sheet. Take up rates are calculated as an average of take up rates for DayNurseries, Private/Voluntary Nurseries, Maintained Sector Nurseries and Independent Schools, from WCC 2007-2008Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (see tables below in the Data Sources section of this spreadsheet).It is assumed that all 4 year olds will attend reception year at primary school. This was confirmed by by Wesminster ChildrenServices ( by email, 20/02/2009)The model currently assumes that all 4 year olds attend reception year at primary school. It should be noted that this may notentirely reflect the reality in Westminster, however no city specific statistics are available at this stage.Under the Children Act (2006) the LA has a duty to provide universal provision of nursery places for 3 to 4 years old. LAs havealso a duty to secure sufficient childcare for working women. The lower census estimate of Westminster resident populationindicates that 92% of children are already in a nursery place. 0.92 is therefore assumed to be the FTE demand.NB: At this stage the non-residential demand feeds into the total 0-4 age group demand only.2 Space RequirementsChildren per Class 25Classes per Nursery School 2Gross to Net GrossNet Floorspace Ratio FloorspaceTotal Required Floorspace 2.76 1.30 3.59 sqm per childThe class and nursery size has been agreed with WCC, 30/09/2009.Total net required floorspace for nursery is an average of the following based on legal space requirements Early YearsFoundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008): > Children under 2 years: 3.5m2 per child; > Two year olds:2.5m2 per child; > Children aged three to five years: 2.3m2 per child. These requirements are for the minimum net or useableindoor space. We expand this standard by 30% to account for areas not included. As the the Early Years Foundation StageStatutory Practice Guidance (May 2008) is applicable to every Ofsted registered early years provider it is not anticipated thatthe space requirements for private nurseries will differ significantly from state nurseries.Construction Cost per Full Time Pupil (£) 14,000.00 Davis Langdon, advise £14,000 would cover for construction costs only at 2008 pricesPrimary Education1 DemandLeakage 0.304 year olds attending primary education 0.18 out of 0-4 year oldsWCC SPG on Planning Obligations (WCC, 2008). The 30% discount is understood to cover both leakage to the privatesector/other borough and existing residents.Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008). There is a legal requirement for infant classes to be2 Space RequirementsChildren per Class 30no more than 30 pupils in size, and this is assumed to be maintained across the whole primary and secondary statemaintained school provision.Number of years 7 It is assumed that all 25% of 4 to 5 years old attend reception year at primary schools.No. of Forms in a school 2The net and gross internal floorspace required for primary schools is derived from:N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable)Source: Building Bulletin 98 (2nd Edition) Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects - Area Guidelines for SchoolsWCC Infrastructure Model 7 of 27 10/11/2009

A2 Education AssumptionsThe net and gross external floorspace required for primary schools is derived from:N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable)Source: Building Bulletin 98 (2nd Edition) Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects - Area Guidelines for Schools.Guidelines for confined site areas are used as the education facilities are likely to be provided within confined sites.Construction Cost per Pupil (£) 14,000.00 Davis Langdon advise £14,000 would cover for construction costs only at 2008 pricesSecondary Education1 Demand2 Space RequirementsLeakage to the Private Sector 0.3 The Independent School Council Annual Census 2007 states 7% of children (aged12-17) are leakaged to private schools.Children per Class 30Number of years 5 Secondary Schools are assumed to provide education to children in the 11 to 16 age groupNo. of Forms in a school 4The net and gross internal floorspace required for primary schools is derived from:N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable)Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Practice Guidance (May 2008). There is a legal requirement for infant classes to beno more than 30 pupils in size, and this is assumed to be maintained across the whole primary and secondary statemaintained school provision.Source: Building Bulletin 99 Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects - Area Guidelines for SchoolsThe net and gross external floorspace required for primary schools is derived from:N = number of pupil places (or full-time equivalent where applicable)Source: Building Bulletin 99 Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects - Area Guidelines for Schools. Guidelines forconfined site areas are used as the education facilities are likely to be provided within confined sites.Construction Cost per Pupil (£) 23,500.00 Davis Langdon advise £23,500 would cover for construction costs only at 2008 pricesWCC Infrastructure Model 8 of 27 10/11/2009

A2 Education AssumptionsFurther and Adult Education1 Demand% 18+ pop. Take-up rate16-17 years old non relevant 0.9018 years old 0.01 0.5618-65 years old 0.86 0.10The Education and Skills Act 2008 places on the LSC the duty to provide proper facilities for relevant education or training forpersons over the age of 19.18 and 19-65 yr % is analysis of Census data, see A1 sheet. Take up rates are calculated from 'Government InvestmentStrategy 2009-10, LSC Grant Letters and LSC Statement of Priorities' (LSC, 2008) (see below). For 18 years old see Table 4.For 19-65 take up rates are calculated as a percentage of the total number or adult learner (2007) out of 16-60/65 Englandpopulation (2007) see Table 8 in the Data Sources section of this spreadsheet and ONS (2008).Non Residential Factor 0.01 It is assumed that the non-residential factor remains the same across the three age groups considered2 Space RequirementsSqm per Pupil 10Construction Cost per Pupil (£) 25,000Davis Langdon advise that typically FE and AL facilities provide 10 sqm per pupil.They also suggest that the typical range of costs can vary from £1,800 to £2,500/m2 gross internal floor area, excludingDemolitions and Site Preparation; Abnormal ground conditions and remediation; External Works and Services; LooseFurniture, Fittings and operating equipment; Decant Costs; Professional fees and VAT.WCC Infrastructure Model 9 of 27 10/11/2009

A2 Education AssumptionsData Sources and NotesPre-School Formal EducationFigure 17: Places and Take-up for Day Nurseries in WestminsterNo of Providerswith places forthis age-rangeNo ofRegisteredPlacesFull TimeEquivalent Takeupof PlacesGap analysis(Places - Takeup) WCC 2007-2008 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (WCC, 2008)FTE Take-upAge-RangeRateBirth-1 Year 12 124 73 0.59 51 The total consider the age range birth-4 (the 4+ age group is not considered)1-2 Years 11 118 99.6 0.84 182-3 Years 19 291 164.7 0.57 1263-4 Years 16 204 190.9 0.94 134+ Years 8 50 61.2 1.22 -11Total 58 737 528.2 209Figure 18: Private/Voluntary Nursery places and take-upNo of Providerswith places forthis age-rangeNo ofRegisteredPlacesFull TimeEquivalent Takeupof PlacesGap analysis(Places - Takeup)FTE Take-upAge-RangeRateBirth-1 Year 3 32 11.7 0.37 201-2 Years 2 18 13.6 0.76 42-3 Years 18 351 163 0.46 1883-4 Years 14 286 243.2 0.85 434+ Years 7 90 66 0.73 24Total 37 687 431.5 256Figure 19: Maintained sector places and take-upNo of Providerswith places forthis age-rangeNo ofRegisteredPlacesFull TimeEquivalent Takeupof PlacesGap analysis(Places - Takeup)FTE Take-upAge-RangeRateBirth-1 Year 0 0 0 0.00 01-2 Years 0 0 0 0.00 02-3 Years 4 94 53.5 0.57 413-4 Years 4 135 98.5 0.73 374+ Years 2 5 5 1.00 0Total 8 229 152 77Figure 20: Independent School places and take-upNo of Providers No of Full TimeGap analysiswith places for Registered Equivalent TakeupFTE Take-up (Places - TakeAge-Rangethis age-range Placesof Places Rateup)Birth-1 Year 1 9 7 0.78 21-2 Years 1 27 23 0.85 42-3 Years 2 52 49 0.94 33-4 Years 3 114 108 0.95 64+ Years 3 246 233 0.95 13Total 7 202 187 15Further and Adult EducationTable 4: Projected participation in learning among 16- to18-year-olds in England between 2007/08 and 2009/102007/08 2008/2009 2009/2010 'Government Investment Strategy 2009-10, LSC Grant Letters and LSC Statement of Priorities' (LSC, 2008)Proportion participating at 16 88% 92% 95%Proportion participating at 17 79% 81% 84%Proportion participating at 18 56% 56% 56%Table 8: Numbers of adult learners in England 2007/08 to 2009/102007/08 2008/09 2009/10Total learners , of which: 3,306,000 3,399,000 3,277,000Adult learner-responsive 1,712,000 1,626,000 1,469,000Adult employer-responsive 934,000 1,143,000 1,203,000Adult Safeguarded Learning 660,000 630,000 605,000Population in England, 2007 Mid-2007 UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: 21/08/08' (ONS, 2008)All ages 51,092,00016-44 20,615,60045-64/59* 11,176,100WCC Infrastructure Model 10 of 27 10/11/2009

A3 Healthcare AssumptionsTheme AreaNotesHealth1 Occupancy RatesAll assumptions are those set by default within the HUDU model - 'HDU PlanningContribution Model, Guidance Notes (EDAW/AECOM, 2007). Exceptions are specifiedbelow.Open MarketAffordable1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 41.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90In the population and housing section: The population scenario is assumed to be the High RPL. All new built is assumed tobe flats, in absence of a % split between flats and houses provision. Net population gain is assumed to be 100%. All theseassumptions should ensure the findings hold in a worst case scenario.Occupancy Rates from Wandsworth New Housing Survey (2007) and from the London and Sub-Regional StrategySupport Studies (SSSS) dataset (2004) are used instead of the default Average Household Size figures. For affordablehousing the occupancy rate is calculated as the number of people per flat in social and intermediate divided by the numberof flats in social and intermediate tenure.Patients per GP 1,700 Reforming Planning Obligations' ODPM, 2004.The HUDU model as run on 27/04/2009 calculates a total of 26,014 new people in WCC based on the 13,600 dwellingsData Sources and NotesCalculation of Affordable Occupancy RateWestminster City CouncilOpen Market1 2 3 4+Number of dwellings 2,473 3,434 618 275Population 4,698 6,525 1,175 522Social Rented Intermediate Affordable1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ Total 1 2 3 4+Number of dwellings 1,414 2,168 801 377 938 # 143 20 13,600 2,352 3,106 944 397Population 2,686 4,119 1,522 716 1,783 # 271 39 25,840 4,469 5,902 1,794 7551.90 1.90 1.90 1.90Total (Open Market + Affordable)1 2 3 4+4,825 6,541 1,562 672 13,600WCC Infrastructure Model 11 of 27 10/11/2009

A4 Other Social Infrastructure AssumptionsTheme AreaNotesSports, Leisure and Recreation1 Sports FacilitiesHealth Stations per 1,000 Resident Population 17.99Non-residential factor 0.32Required Floorspace per Station 5 sqmConstruction Cost per Sqm (£) 7,000 £ Davis Langdon, construction costs only at 2008 pricesSqm of Sports Halls per 1,000 Resident Population 59.77 sqmNon-residential factor 0.32Construction Cost per sqm (£) 2,000 Davis Langdon, construction costs only at 2008 pricesSqm of Swimming Pool per 1,000 Resident Population 48.92 sqmNon-residential factor 0.32Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 6,580 £ Aitkins, LB Camden Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Update (2008)Ha of Outdoor Sports Facilities per 1,000 Resident Populatio 1.60 Ha Planning and Design for Outdoor and Sports Play (Fields in Trust - Formerly National Playing Fields Association, 2008)Non-residential factor 0.32 WCC, Personal communication, 06/02/2009Construction Cost per ha (£) 136,320Considering the current levels of health stations provision in WCC (17.99 per 1,000 population) it is suggested that local targets are set that allow to maintainthe existing levels of provision - 'Active Westminster - Sports and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013' (WCC, 2008).Considering the current levels of sports provision in WCC (29.8 sqm per 1,000 population) it is suggested that local targets are set to align WCC to Londonwide levels - 'Active Westminster - Sports and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013' (WCC, 2008).Considering the current levels of swimming pools provision in WCC (48.92 sqm per 1,000 population) it is suggested that local targets are set that allow tomaintain the existing levels of provision - 'Active Westminster - Sports and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-2013' (WCC, 2008).The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005) (2005 prices), including two football pitches, two tennis courts, carparking. Confirmed by Davis Langdon, 20082 Open SpaceChild - Total Playable Space per 0 to 17 Resident Child 10.00 sqmChild - 0-4 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 100.00 sqmChild - 5-11 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 300.00 sqmChild - 12-17 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 200.00 sqmChild - 0 to 17 Year Olds Playable Space Minimum Size 500.00 sqmAge groups are based on the GLA ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young Peoples Play and Informal Recreation’ (GLA, 2008).Demand is analysed by age group to allow for different solutions to provide the required open space. To the purpose of this model it is assumed that provisionwill be: 0-4 year olds, Doorsteps Playable Spaces; 5-11 , Local Playable Spaces; 12-17 Youth SpacesConstruction Cost per Sqm (£) 199.48 £ LB Camden Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Update (Atkins, 2008)Hectares of Parks Required per 1,000 Resident Population 1.86Non-residential factor 0.63 Agreed with the CouncilPlanning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play' (Fields In Trust – Formerly the National Playing Fields Association, 2008). NB: The WCC Open SpaceStrategy (WCC, 2007) states: "It is considered important to maintain the existing ratio of 1.86 ha per 1000, despite it being in excess of the normal 1.6 hastandard, because the majority of space in terms of area is shared with visitors and workers." However it is here suggested that the 'non residential factor' isConstruction Cost per Sqm (£) 46 £ LB Camden Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Update (Atkins, 2008), confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009)WCC Infrastructure Model 12 of 27 10/11/2009

A4 Other Social Infrastructure AssumptionsCommunity Facilities1 LibrariesLibrary space per 1,000 Resident Population 40.00 sqm GIA Personal Communication, Head of Library Operations 09/02/2009Non-residential factor 0.40Construction Cost per Sqm (£) 3,000 £http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/standard_charge2008, page 5, confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009). Westminster LibraryOperations advise that the architects working on a current libray project are using a cost per sqm of £5,000 - however the information from Davis Langdonseems to suggest that the figure may include costs other than construction only.The additional library requirement is calculated separately from community space. However, in consideration of the current trend that sees libraries servicesexpand from simple book lending, the final requirement is incorporate in the community space one.Community SpaceCommunity Space per 1,000 PopulationsqmSize of a Multi-use Community Centre 500.00 sqmConstruction Cost per Sqm (£) 1,746 £Community and Library Combined Provision Cost per Sqm ( 2,375 £Faith FacilitiesFaith Facilities Space per 1,000 PopulationsqmConstruction Cost per Sqm (£) 1,746 £A Westminster specific figure is not currently available, therefore the model does not calculate requirements for community space. However, should the Councildevelop a standard the model is set up to run the calculations, so that the standard should be entered in this cellThe Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005) (2005 prices), confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009). The cost refersto Community Halls and associated space/facilities only.Davis Langdon (2009). The cost refers to Community Halls and associated space/facilities only, it also assumes that the total space is equally divided betweenthe two usesA Westminster specific figure is not currently available, therefore the model does not calculate requirements for community space. However, should the Councildevelop a standard the model is set up to run the calculations, so that the standard should be entered inthis cellDavis Langdon (2009). The cost refers to Community Halls and associated space/facilities only, it also assumes that the total space is equally divided betweenthe two usesOther Social Infrastructure1 Other Social InfrastructureJob Brokerage Demand Factor 0.07This is the % of residents likely to demand additional job brokerage services. It is calculated out of Department for Work and Pension statistics on benefitclaimants out of working age population, and then re-apportioned to the total WCC population.Staff required per 1,000 new customers 4.0Spatial Requirement per staff worker 17.50 Davis Langdon, 2009Construction Cost per Sqm 1,650.00 £ Davis Langdon, 2009Burials per capita, 2006 to 2026 0.06Burials per Hectare 4,325.00Construction Cost per Ha (£) 378,000 £The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005), including ancillary space. 0.003 burials per capita per year, timesthe 20 years between 2006 and 2026The Cost and Funding of Growth in the South East England' (Roger Tym & Partners, 2005) (2005 prices), confirmed by Davis Langdon (2009) The figure wouldexclude any built facility (e.g. crematoria, chapels etc.)WCC Infrastructure Model 13 of 27 10/11/2009

A4 Other Social Infrastructure AssumptionsData Sources and NotesDepartment for Work and PensionsBenefit Claimants - Working Age ClientsGeographical area job seekers incapacity benefits lone parents total claimants Source: Job Centre Plus - Central London Partnership, Personal Communication, 16/12/2008.WCC Total 3,085.00 10,240.00 3,095.00 16,420.00Proportion of February 2008 claimants out of 2007 total populationTotal WCC population02/08 Claimants asGeographical area2007 Total Claimants% of WAPWCC Total 234,100 16,420 7%Westminster Job Centre Plus StatisticsJCP Office Sqm Number of StaffStaff per ThousandClaimantsChadwick Street 1,243 59 3.6Lisson Grove (also part of LBC) 1,100 73 4.4Total 2,343 132 4.0Westminster Library ServicesLibrary Membership, 2008LibraryAdult ResidentsChildrenResidents Adult Non Residents Total by LibraryNon Resident /Resident Members Source: Library property Strategy, 2008Charing Cross 2,234 296 8,805 11,335 3.48Church Street 2,096 1,251 198 3,545 0.06Maida Vale 4,296 1,332 206 5,834 0.04Marylebone 6,917 1,141 2,672 10,730 0.33Mayfair 1,206 257 984 2,447 0.67Paddington 8,867 1,739 1,258 11,864 0.12Paddington Children 8,869 1,739 1,258 11,866 0.12Pimlico 4,071 1,342 728 6,141 0.13Queen's Park 2,068 1,437 387 3,892 0.11Saint James 3,764 618 3,942 8,324 0.90Saint John's Wood 4,673 1,389 716 6,778 0.12Victoria 3,590 574 5,104 9,268 1.23Total by Member 52,651 13,115 26,258 92,024 0.40Library Facilities - SqmLibrary Type of Library Current SqmPlanned Extension -Total Sqm Source: Personal communication, Iona Cairns, Head of Library Operations, 09.02.2009Charing Cross Main 1,202Church Street Community 565 1,400Maida Vale Community 1,021Marylebone Main 1,772 3,000Mayfair Community 547Paddington Main 799Paddington Children Community 140Pimlico Community 514 800Queen's Park Community 417Saint James Community 148Saint John's Wood Community 369Victoria Main 1,830 1,500Total 9,324 6,700Curernt WCC population 231,874WCC Infrastructure Model 14 of 27 10/11/2009

A5 Utilities AssumptionsTheme AreaNotesElectricityLand useStrategic Design(kVA)All figures are typical utility company figures for both development design and strategic planning - please note thatResidential Low (GCH) 1.60 the strategic planning figures change with volume and the information is not published as it is commercially sensitive.Residential Medium (GCH) 1.60 Consumption rate for residential use given per dwelling (GCH - gas central heating / NGCH - non gas central heating)Residential High (GCH) 1.60 Consumption rate for office / retail use given per m 2.Residential High (NGCH) 3.60 pf power factor - ratio of kVA to kilowattsOffice - Town Centre 0.08 DF Diversity Factor - applied to each building / use.Retail 0.12 kVA kilo Volts-AmpereSite Diversity Equates to the diversity of the whole site and assumes that no two users are identical in energy consumption.*NB* assessment of utility networks takes place at different levels and therefore what is pertinent for a local development is notnecessarily the same assessment values utilised for strategic planning , given that masterplanning would assume whollydivcersity factors. As an example, an electricity cable for a site of say 50no. houses will assume a design function of2kVA for a GCH dwelling. Strategically, this figure will decrease as the planning gets more high level - so, for strategic localinfrastructure, this figure would reduce to 1.6kVA; for strategic regional infrastructure, this would reduce to say 1kVA.Density of units does not generally materially affect the electricity network but type of heating does. The principle is based broadlyon the fact that, for example, a dwelling will have a cooker regardless of size - so a 4 bedroom house has a cooker that is likely tobe the same as a cooker in a 2 bedroom flat. Usage and energy type (gas or electricity may change) but the potential use does not.The planning process may therefore have two elements to consider - what infrastructure is required to service a particulardevelopment and what infrastructure is required to service the wider population. This is wholly in the control of the utilityindustry whom will determine what requirements are needed at that specific moment in time given that all networks are dynamic.GasLand usem3/hourAll figures are typical utility company figures for both development design and strategic planning - please note thatResidential Low (GCH) 1.13 the strategic planning figures change with volume and the information is not published as it is commercially sensitive.Residential Medium (GCH) 0.79 Consumption rate for residential use given per dwelling (GCH - gas central heating / NGCH - non gas central heating)Residential High (GCH) 0.51 Consumption rate for non residential uses is given per metre square floorspaceResidential High (NGCH) 0.00 DF Equates to the Diversity Factor for the whole site; usually applied to a total area of diverse land-uses.Office - Town Centre 0.00 *NB* offices with air conditioning are unlikely to use gas unless catering is employed on site.Retail 0.01 *NB* please refer to the note contained in the electricity section when considering the assessment of utility networks.WCC Infrastructure Model 15 of 27 10/11/2009

A5 Utilities AssumptionsWater and SewerageLand useWaterLitres / Resident /DayResidential 150.00Litres / Day /SqmFor residential consumption figures are based on average strategic design figures.Office - Town Centre n/a 7.08 *NB* please refer to the note contained in the water section when considering the assessment of utility networks.Retail n/a 6.49The non residential figure have been confirmed by Anglian Water.SewarageLand useLitres / Person / DayLitres / Day /SqmResidential 200.00Office - Town Centre n/a 9.50Retail n/a 9.50 Figures are more conservative than in calculations for waterBoth residential and non residential figures are from Sewers for Adoption 6th edition (Water Research Council, 2006). For nonresidential uses the figure for 'normal' (i.e. non wet) industry is used.WCC Infrastructure Model 16 of 27 10/11/2009

I1 Demand ProjectionsAll Floorspace is in square metersResidential is assumed to deliver a constant number of dwellings to 2026.Net Additional Demand(B1)(A1 comparison only)(A3+ A4+ A5+ C1+ D2).Figures excludedomestic tourism.(C2, both self and nonself contained units)(C2, both self andnon self containedunits)NotesTotal NonResidential, GrossFloorspaceRequirementsResidential,Gross InternalFloorspaceRequirementsBusiness, Gross Retail, Gross Leisure, GrossInternal Floorspace Internal Floorspace Internal FloorspaceBoroughsRequirements(Sqm)Requirements(Sqm)Requirements(Sqm)(Sqm)(Sqm)Number ofDwellingsResidentPopulationWestminster City Council 1,137,363 441,933 105,458 1,684,754 1,428,000 13,600 25,840Business, Source: London Office Policy Review 2006 (Table 14), Volterra, GLAEconomics, Roger Tym & Partners. Additional demand, gross floorspace.Projections give 5 years tranches for 2006-2026;Retail, Source: GLA 2008 Experian's Consumer Expenditure and ComparisonGoods Floorspace Need in London. Comparison goods floorspacerequirements (2006-2026); productivity growth 2.20%. This indicates thecomparison goods floorspace requirements at a town. Additional demand, grossLeisure, Source: GLA 2008 Experian's Consumer Expenditure and Experian,Personal Communication, 08/12/2008. Leisure includes: Recreational andsporting services, Cultural services, Games of chance, Restaurants, cafes etc,Accommodation services, Hairdressing salons & personal grooming estbshmntsResidential floorspace, average dwelling size is assumed to be 76 sqm, sourceEuropean Union, Housing Statistics in the EU 2002. In the absence of accurateindication it is assumed that the 76 sqm is gross internal area, and therefore anincrease by 20% is applied based on URS experience in EnvironmentalStatements socioeconomic chapters.Leisure spending to floorspace ratio (£/sft) 444Sqft to Sqm conversion rate 0.09Average WCC private residential dwelling size (Sqm) 140.00Average WCC social residential dwelling size (Sqm) 70.00Westminster Core Strategy, Draft for Publication (City of Westminster, February2009)Data Sources and NotesLeisure a(nd Other Services )(Annual expenditure projections in £m)SourceAssumptionsGLA 2008 Experian's ConsumerLeisure includes: Recreational and sportingLeisure and OtherServices (£M)Leisure and OtherServices (£)Leisure (NarrowDefinition) (£M)Leisure (NarrowDefinition) (£)City of London 834 833,700,000 28 28,000,000Camden 10,308 10,307,900,000 436 436,000,000Islington 9,282 9,282,000,000 383 383,000,000Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 9,182 9,181,700,000 389 389,000,000Southwark 11,981 11,981,200,000 452 452,000,000Westminster City Council 12,082 12,082,000,000 504 504,000,000Hackney 8,560 8,559,800,000 350 350,000,000Tower Hamlets 9,623 9,623,400,000 344 344,000,000Lambeth 9,989 9,988,900,000 529 529,000,000Resident PopulationNumber of Dwellings- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000Westminster City CouncilWCC Infrastructure Model 17 of 27 10/11/2009

I2 Analysis of Non-residential UsesNon-residential Net Additional Demand Analysis(B1)(A1 comparison only)(A3+ A4+ A5+ C1+ D2). Figures excludedomestic tourism.(C2, both self and non self contained units)Boroughs Business Retail Leisure ResidentialTotal Non-resi/Total ResiWestminster City Council 1,137 442 105 1,428 118%Camden 615 27 91 1,366 54%Islington 391 56 80 2,242 23%Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 118 115 81 638 49%Southwark 590 84 95 2,973 26%Hackney 216 23 73 1,979 16%Tower Hamlets 1,162 62 72 5,746 23%Lambeth 222 29 111 2,006 18%City of London 1,018 67 6 164 665%Westminster City CouncilWestminster City Council0 5 10 15 20 25 30NotesNB: The Non-residential factor iscalculated as the average ofcolumns J to L times the average ofnon-residential/residentialfloorspace. The average of nonresidential/residentialfloorspaceconsidered here includes only LBC,LBI, RBKC,LBS, and WCC. Itexcludes the CoL given its peculiaremployment use pattern and LBH,LBTH, and LBL on the grounds thatthese are not part of CentralLondon.NB: the HUDU model does notallow incorporating non residentialAnalysis of WCC librariesmembership suggest that for everyresident partner there are onaverage (across all the boroughlibraries) 0.41 non residentmembers. This figure will thereforebe used.0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200Resident PopulationLeisureRetailWCC Infrastructure Model 18 of 27 10/11/2009

I2 Analysis of Non-residential UsesNon Residential ImpactLikely chance of placing additional demand, by land useLikely resulting uplift on top ofresidential demandPlease note information may besuperseeded by informationreceived from WCC, see sheets A2to A4.Infrastructure Item Business Retail Leisure Non-residential factorCLF StudyFurther and Adult Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1%Higher Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1%Primary Healthcare 0.1 0.1 0.1 5%Secondary Healthcare 0.25 0.25 0.25 14%Emergency Services 0.2 0.25 0.25 13%WCC StudyChildcare and Early Years 0.05 0.05 0.05 3%Primary Education 0 0 0 0%Secondary Education 0 0 0 0%Further and Adult Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1%Higher Education 0.02 0.02 0.02 1%Primary Healthcare 0.1 0.1 0.1 5%Secondary Healthcare 0.25 0.25 0.25 14%Libraries 0.5 0.5 0.5 27%Health Stations 0.5 0.5 0.5 27%Sports Halls 0.5 0.5 0.5 27%Swimming Pools 0.5 0.5 0.5 27%Outdoor Sports Facilities 0 0 0 0%Child Play Space 0 0 0 0%Parks 1 1 1 63%Community Space 0 0 0 0%Faith Facilities 0 0 0 0%Emergency Services 0.2 0.3 0.5 18%Job Brokerage 0.1 0.1 0.1 5%Cemeteries 0 0 0 0%Data Sources and NotesNumber of DwellingsResident PopulationWestminster City Council 13.6 25.84WCC Infrastructure Model 19 of 27 10/11/2009

R1 PopulationTheme AreaNotesProjected GrowthTotal Population 0-4 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-17 years 0-17 yearsWestminster City Council 25,840 3,497 2,027 1,308 465 7,296Population Estimate from Dwelling NumberWestminster City CouncilOpen Market Social Rented Intermediate1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ TotalNumber of dwellings 2,473 3,434 618 275 1,414 2,168 801 377 938 938 143 20 13,600Population 4,698 6,525 1,175 522 2,686 4,119 1,522 716 1,783 1,783 271 39 25,840Children Population Estimate from Dwelling NumberOpen Market Social Rented Intermediate1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ Total0-3 years 70 314 153 102 283 1,387 497 155 103 350 72 11 3,4974-10 years 9 73 97 108 - 499 593 461 6 103 61 17 2,02711-15 years - 66 45 54 - 173 377 488 - 59 34 13 1,30816-17 years - 13 14 17 - 108 136 140 - 21 12 4 465Total 0-17 79 467 309 280 283 2,168 1,602 1,244 109 533 178 44 7,296WCC Infrastructure Model 20 of 27 10/11/2009

R2 EducationTheme AreaNotesProjected GrowthOpen Market Social Rented Intermediate1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+TOTALFrom R1 SheetPre-School Formal Education0-4 years 70 314 153 102 283 1,387 497 155 103 350 72 11 3,4975-10 years 9 73 97 108 - 499 593 461 6 103 61 17 2,02711-15 years - 66 45 54 - 173 377 488 - 59 34 13 1,30816-17 years - 13 14 17 - 108 136 140 - 21 12 4 465Total 0-17 79 467 309 280 283 2,168 1,602 1,244 109 533 178 44 7,296Total Population 4,698 6,525 1,175 522 2,686 4,119 1,522 716 1,783 1,783 271 39 25,8401. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs0 -2 years Requiring Education, FTE 810 Number of Classes Required for 0 -2 322 years Requiring Education, FTE 416 Number of Classes Required for 2 173 years Requiring Education, FTE 614 Number of Classes Required for 3-4 254 years Requiring Education, FTE -Total 0- 3 years Requiring Education, FTE 1,895Total Number of Classes Required for 0-4 74Baseline provision 0Total Number of Nurseries 37Net Additional Requirement 1,895Total Required Floorspace6,601 SqmFrom ChildrenPopulation Estimatefrom Dwelling Numberand A3 Sheet (both forstandards andbaseline)Total Capital Cost 26,530,586 £Primary Education1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs5-10 Requiring Public Primary Education 1,419 Number of Forms Required for 4-10 94 year olds Requiring Public Primary Education 439Baseline provision Total Number of Primary Schools 4Net Additional Requirement 1,857 Total net internal area - building area 6,008 SqmTotal gross internal area - building area8,698 SqmFrom ChildrenPopulation Estimatefrom Dwelling Numberand A3 SheetTotal net external area - site areaTotal gross external area - site area9,229 Sqm11,787 SqmTotal Capital Cost 26,002,859 £WCC Infrastructure Model 21 of 27 10/11/2009

R2 EducationSecondary Education1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and Costs11-15 Requiring Public Primary Education 915 Number of Forms Required for 11-15 6Baseline provision Total Number of Secondary Schools 2Net Additional Requirement 915 Total net internal area - building area 5,602 SqmTotal gross internal area - building area7,982 SqmFrom ChildrenPopulation Estimatefrom Dwelling Numberand A3 SheetTotal net external area - site areaTotal gross external area - site area6,461 Sqm8,576 SqmTotal Capital Cost 21,509,483 £Further and Adult Education1. Demand 2. Space Requirements16-17 years old Requiring Further Education 420 Total Number of Places Required 2,243Baseline provision Total gross internal area 22,434 SqmTotal Capital Cost 56,084,757 £18 years old Requiring Further Education 144Baseline provisionFrom ChildrenPopulation Estimatefrom Dwelling Number19+ years old Requiring Adult Education 1,679Baseline provisionWCC Infrastructure Model 22 of 27 10/11/2009

R3 HealthTheme AreaPrimary HealthcareNotesTotal Requirements (Number of GPs and Primary Care units)GP and PrimaryCare ServicesWestminster City Council 15Time frame2006/7-2022/23Space Requirements (Sqm)GP and PrimaryCare ServicesWestminster City Council 2,525Time frame2006/7-2030/31Capital CostsGP and PrimaryCare Services, £Westminster City Council 13,890,175Time frame2006/7-2030/31Secondary HealthcareTotal Requirements (Number of beds/spaces)Acute Elective IP Acute Non Acute Day Case Mental Health Total Acute andBed Elective IP Bed BedBed Mental BedsWestminster City Council 16 33 9 14 72Time frame2006/7-2030/31IntermediateBedsIntermediateDay SpacesTotalIntermediateBeds andSpacesWestminster City Council 15 15 30Time frame2006/7-2030/31Space RequirementsAcute NonAcute Elective IP Elective IP Bed, Acute Day Case Mental HealthTotal Acute andMental Beds,Bed, Sqm Sqm Bed, Sqm Bed, Sqm SqmWestminster City Council 777 1,571 455 675 3,478TotalIntermediateBeds, SqmIntermediateDay Spaces,SqmIntermediateBeds andSpaces, SqmWestminster City Council 960 768 1,728Time frame2006/7-2030/31Time frame2006/7-2030/31Capital CostsAcute NonAcute Elective IP Elective IP Bed, Acute Day Case Mental Health Total Acute andBed, ££Bed, £Bed, £ Mental Beds, £Westminster City Council 5,479,999 10,679,951 3,449,366 3,157,225 22,766,541Time frame2006/7-2030/31IntermediateBeds, £IntermediateDay Spaces, £TotalIntermediateBeds andSpaces, £Westminster City Council 6,227,079 4,401,417 10,628,496Time frame2006/7-2030/31Total Healthcare Revenue CostRevenue CostsPrimary andSecondaryHealthcare, £Westminster City Council 61,013,227Time frame2006/7-2030/31WCC Infrastructure Model 23 of 27 10/11/2009

R4 Sports, Leisure and RecreationTheme AreaNotesProjected GrowthTotalWestmNumber of dwellings 13,600WestmPopulation 25,8400-4 years 3,4975-10 years 2,02711-15 years 1,30816-17 years 465Health Stations1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsNumber of Health Stations Required 614 Total Gross Internal Area 3,068 SqmBaseline provision Total Capital Cost 21,476,606 £From Population Estimate fromDwelling Number and A4Sports Halls1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsSports Halls Space Required 2,039 Sqm Total Capital Cost 4,077,366 £Net Additional Requirement2,039 SqmFrom Population Estimate fromDwelling Number and A4Swimming Pools1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsSwimming Pools Space Required 1,669 Sqm Total Capital Cost 10,979,404 £Net Additional Requirement1,669 SqmFrom Population Estimate fromDwelling Number and A4Outdoor Sports Facilities1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsOutdoor Sports Facilities 55 Ha Total Capital Cost 7,439,539 £Net Additional Requirement55 HaFrom Population Estimate fromDwelling Number and A4WCC Infrastructure Model 24 of 27 10/11/2009

R4 Sports, Leisure and RecreationPlayable Space1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsTotal 0-4 Play Space Required 34,966 Sqm Total Doorstops Playable Space Capital Cost 6,974,990 £Total 5-11 Play Space Required 20,267 Sqm Total Local Playable Space Capital Cost 4,042,841 £Total 12-17 Play Space Required 17,726 Sqm Total Youth Space Capital Cost 3,536,041 £From Population Estimate fromDwelling Number and A4Total Number Doorstops Playable Space Required (0-4) 350Total Number Local Playable Space Required (5-11) 68Total Number Youth Space Required (12-17) 89From Population Estimate fromDwelling Number and A4Parks1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsHectares of Parks Required 78 Ha Total Parks Capital Cost 36,209,539 £Baseline provision0 HaNet Additional Requirement 78The Open Space Strategy highlights that twomajor factors need to be taken into account whenapplying a standard to Westminster: 1)Recognition that Westminster’s daytimepopulation numbers approximately 1 million andtherefore reduces the level of provision to wellbelow the accepted standard - about 0.45 ha per1,000 (compared to 1.6 ha per 1000 standard). 2)The majority of Westminster’s open space lieswithin the Royal Parks, which are generallydistant from the main residential areas. Manyareas of Westminster are therefore deficient innearby accessible space. It is thereforeconsidered appropriate to assume that currentopen space provision has no space capacity.WCC Infrastructure Model 25 of 27 10/11/2009

R5 Community Facilities and Other Social InfrastructureTheme AreaNotesProjected GrowthTotalWestminster CNumber of dwellings 13,600Westminster CPopulation 25,840 36157Libraries & Community Facilities1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsLibrary Space Required 1,446 Sqm Total Library Cost 4,338,838 £Community Facilities Space Required - Sqm Total Community Facilities Cost 0£Combined Library and Community Space Required 0 Sqm Total Combined Capital Cost 4,338,838 £From PopulationFrom PopulationEstimate from DwellingNumber and A4Faith Facilities1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsFaith Facilities Required - Sqm Total Capital Cost 0£From PopulationNet Additional Requirement - SqmJob Brokerage1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsAdditional Staff 7 Sqm Total Capital Cost 210,357 £Job Brokerage Facilities Required127 SqmFrom PopulationEstimate from DwellingNumber and A4Burials1. Demand 2. Space Requirements and CostsNumber of Burials Required 1,535 Total Capital Cost 134,148 £Hectares of Burials Required0.4 HaFrom PopulationEstimate from DwellingWCC Infrastructure Model 26 of 27 10/11/2009

R6 UtilitiesTheme AreaNotesProjected GrowthTotalWestminster CNumber of dwellings 13,600Westminster CPopulation 25,840ElectricityGas1. DemandResidential Non Residential TotalkVA kVA kVAWestminster City Council 21,760.00 128,980.28 150,740.28All the non residential figures are calculated on the Net InternalArea, estimated as an 80% of the gross figures presented insheet I1. This is based on URS experience in socio economicassessments.NB: Leisure uses the same standards as retailLeisure uses the same standards as retail1. DemandResidential Non Residential Totalm3/Hour m3/Hour m3/HourWestminster City Council 7,245.19 5,253.17 12,498.35Water and Sewage1. DemandWATERResidential Non Residential TotalLiters/DayWestminster City Council 3,876,000 9,287,847 13,163,847SEWERAGE Residential Non Residential TotalLiters/DayLiters/DayWestminster City Council 5,168,000 16,011,897 21,179,897WCC Infrastructure Model 27 of 27 10/11/2009