In August 2009 the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point Delivery Team appointed AECOM, a professional engineering, consulting and project management consultancy, to carry out a comprehensive Social and Community Infrastructure Study for the extent of the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point area (which includes the whole of Exeter City and strategic development sites in the western part of East Devon) and:

  • The rest of East Devon district
  • A small area to the south west of Exeter in Teignbridge district (identified as area of search 4c in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

The background to this key study was that the proposed development areas would be built out over a period of approximately 20 - 25 years and would be subject to existing and emerging national planning and local development plan policies, as well as Building Regulations, the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) and the incoming Code for Sustainable Buildings (CSB).

Green SpaceThis study was commissioned in light of revisions to Planning Policy Statement 12 that promoted the integration of development planning and infrastructure planning.  The Planning Policy Statement required that core strategies must be supported by evidence of what physical, social and green infrastructure was needed to enable the amount of development proposed for areas, taking account of its type and distribution.  Additionally, infrastructure plans would provide the key evidence in support of policies for planning obligations and in future the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as introduced by the Planning Act 2008.

Infrastructure planning also supports the Issues and Options stage of the Local Development Framework process by providing the different infrastructure scenarios that each different Option being proposed will require.

The results of this study was used by four Local Authorities, three with local planning responsibilities and one County Council responsible for the provision of relevant services.  Each Local Authority was at a different stage in its Local Development Framework process and the outcomes of this study contributed to the evidence base for each authority's LDF. A key requirement of this study was that it needed to be flexible enough to assist each Local Authority to achieve this.

Scope of Work and Outputs

The study was made up of three parts:  Part One - Review of existing work.

Each of the four authorities in the study area had already completed significant work to examine both the capacity of existing infrastructure to support new development and the new infrastructure requirements driven by certain levels of new development.  Part One of this study brought this existing work together and identified areas where new or additional work was required; to account both for increased levels of anticipated new development and classes of infrastructure for which no previous work had been undertaken.

 Key outputs for Part One were therefore:

 An assessment of existing infrastructure capacity in the study area.

  • A summary of the additional infrastructure that has already been identified as being required, the scale of development that it serves and development thresholds for provision.
  • Analysis of the functional links between existing capacity and planned growth and the likely use of existing services and capacity by new households.
  • A consistent process for the incorporation of existing work giving confidence in the robustness of this work.
  • Recommendations to the Steering Group setting out new or additional work required.

Part Two - Identifying additional infrastructure requirements.

Research Data GraphPart One of the study identified the infrastructure required to support growth to particular levels.  Part Two of this study would involve identifying the additional new infrastructure required to support higher levels of anticipated new development than has previously been tested by existing studies and of infrastructure requirements where no previous work has been completed.  For both these elements, the critical development thresholds for provision of the infrastructure would also need to be identified.

There were a number of proposed urban extensions in the Study Area.  Part Two of this study would consider these large sites but would also identify the infrastructure required to support the total level of new dwellings. Various options existed for the location of new development, particularly that which is forecast to come forward in the longer-term.  Part Two would therefore require a flexible approach that could account for different scenarios for the location and distribution of new development.  The Project Steering Group defined further the various options that the study would need to test.

In order to properly complete this Part of the Study it was necessary to consult the relevant service providers.

The Project Steering Group took a view of the recommendations made to it following completion of Part One regarding new and additional work before agreeing which new and/or additional work was to be undertaken in Part Two.

Key outputs for Part Two were:

An in-depth description of the new and additional infrastructure that was required, the scale of growth that it would serve and development thresholds for provision.

Production of scenarios showing how requirements for new infrastructure change given various different options for locating sustainable growth across the study area.

Observations and recommendations on how the use of existing capacity could be increased by providing better links or improving existing ones between new development and existing capacity.

Part Three - Final Infrastructure Plan.

Library ServicesPart Three brought Parts One and Two together and produced an overarching Infrastructure Plan for the study area. The Plan was capable of showing the strategic infrastructure required in support of growth across the Study Area, that which was required to serve only parts of the area and that which may be required to serve specific planned developments only.  The underlying data and evidence for the Plan was provided in a format that was both flexible and readily updateable and that could be translated into mapped form. 

The provided findings needed to be in a format that could be easily mapped and/or used in support of official Issues and Options phases.  It was thought that this might best be done by providing infrastructure information in a database as opposed to a standard written report; this would also facilitate the incorporation of the findings of the study into a Geographical Information System.

Key Outputs for Part Three were:

The Final Infrastructure Plan showing the infrastructure required to support new development in the Study Area.

  • The underlying evidence captured and presented in a flexible, readily updateable manner and in a format that could be easily translated, using GIS into mapped form.
  • A discussion of options for the optimum locations for new infrastructure to inform provision and forward planning.
  • Advice on the best timing of provision for the new infrastructure against the projected phasing and delivery of new development.
  • Broad costing for the provision of the infrastructure identified as being required.

For the purposes of this study ‘infrastructure' was defined as that within the following list:

  • Transport      
  • Road
  • Rail
  • Light Rapid Transit
  • Bus
  • Travel Management
  • Footpaths and cycleways
  • Travel interchanges
  • Energy          
  • Centralised power generation
  • Transmission and distribution systems for gas and electricity (e.g. sub-stations, pylons, pipelines)
  • Biomass processing
  • District heat/cooling and power networks (e.g. Energy centres, heat mains, private wire networks)
  • Water and drainage
  • Water supply
  • Waste water
  • Drainage
  • Flood defences
  • Waste
  • Waste transfer stations
  • Energy from waste plants
  • Composting
  • Waste processing/sort stations
  • ICT
  • Broadband and wireless installations
  • Children's Services
  • Further education
  • Higher education
  • Secondary education
  • Primary education
  • Nursery (early years 0 -5)
  • Health           
  • Hospitals
  • Health centres
  • GP Surgeries
  • Community
  • Libraries
  • Community centres
  • Social services/Elderly persons housing/support
  • Emergency services
  • Cemeteries
  • Prisons
  • Sport and leisure
  • Green corridors
  • Parks
  • Play areas
  • Arts venues
  • Sports centres
  • Green infrastructure
  • Community Parks
  • Blue infrastructure

Client: Exeter and East Devon Growth Point Partners and Teignbridge District Council
Consultant: Matthew Pell, Associate Director, AECOM