id
stringlengths 40
40
| text
stringlengths 101
3.75M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| metadata
dict | attributes
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9b4901c68e78d7fb0ec3cba146e9f68aa1813812 | FORM DA1 DESIGN and ACCESS STATEMENT for DOMESTIC EXTENSIONS, ALTERATIONS, ACCESSES AND WORKS IN THE GARDEN
In National Parks it is necessary that any development within the curtilage of a dwelling reflects the design of the main dwelling and surrounding buildings. This form directs applicants to provide basic information to demonstrate the acceptability of the design. The boxes below should normally provide enough space for a domestic design statement but if necessary continue on separate sheets. If some of the detail is on the plans please cross-refer.
Describe the existing setting and design of the main dwelling, any outbuildings and surrounding development within 50 metres (For example: topography, gradients, landscape features of note, detached, semi, terraced, number of storeys, predominant external materials in the street scene)
The property is set on the north eastern side of Market Street in Bakewell, set behind a row of shops and the Peacock Public House to the west. It is a three-storey mid terrace townhouse in a terrace of 4 properties built in the 1990’s from coursed stone with natural gritstone quoins, lintels, cills to window and door openings. The roof to the main property is in natural blue slate. The existing Sunroom is a lean-to structure on the south west elevation.
The site which the property is located on is flat with the River Wye to the east. Adjoining properties within the terrace are to the south east and north west. The south western aspect through the Sunroom is to the site boundary wall and the Peacock Public House beyond. There is a two metre wall enclosing the garden and screening views to the River Wye beyond to the west which is accessed through a gate to the river side.
The street scene employs coursed natural stone walling to the houses and boundaries which has a unity of materials throughout the development.
Explain how the size and siting of the proposal relates to the street scene and main dwelling and clarify details of the proposed external materials, including walls, roof, windows, doors and external hard surfacing (This is to enable us to assess the impact of the design and its suitability for the site and wider locality)
The proposed re-building of the existing Conservatory does not affect the street scene as it is situated behind a two-metre wall to the south west. The footprint of the Conservatory stays the same as existing. The proposed materials of the Conservatory extension would be to match the existing, with the base walls being in stone and the hardwood timber conservatory built off the stone base to form windows and roof structure.
The principal street side south west elevation is divided into eight bays which maintains the existing Conservatory glazed divisions within the roof panels, the end roof panel to the north west is proposed to be solid clad in lead with storage cupboards on plan below, with the vertical wall taken down and finished in stone.
The eaves will be maintained at the same level as existing to allow the same roof pitch to be achieved. A low level stone planter in front of the glazing is proposed to further screen any views of the Sunroom. The proposed single inward opening door is detailed in two modules on the elevation with two glazed panels at the top and two solid timber panels at the base. This replaces the existing arrangement of a pair of glazed timber outward opening doors.
An additional roof-light is proposed to the west elevation replicating the proportion and scale of the existing adjacent roof-light. On the garden side east elevation the existing single door is enlarged to a double panel glazed door constructed in timber. All the above proposals will increase the natural light to the interior, in a sympathetic manner.
The hard surfacing arrangements would remain as existing.
The design is to replicate and mirror that of the adjoining property Number 28 Riverside Crescent which was approved and completed 6 years ago. The measures will improve the overall appearance of the visible elements to the street scene. Explain any specific measures taken to protect the privacy and impact on the living conditions of neighbours (For example: screening, positioning of windows, access arrangements)
The proposal will have no impact on the privacy and living conditions of the neighbours.
The proposed stone planter will improve screening from the street to limit direct views into the Conservatory, improving the existing situation. The re-built conservatory is detailed in a traditional manner to match its original form and that of the existing houses within the terrace.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0601-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4492,
"total-output-tokens": 996,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4077,
1
],
[
4077,
4632,
2
]
]
} |
6176ae0077e75e3b7371e0134e9cf748630c8a16 | Solarcentury’s C21e solar plain tile system delivers universal compatibility with small format plain tiles and an excellent performance per m², providing a perfect complement to a traditional plain tiled roof.
**No extra planning:** The C21e solar plain tile system sits flush with standard roof tiles, to provide a traditional finish. They protect your home from the elements whilst producing electricity.
**Ease of installation:** Fitted to standard wooden battens using traditional roofing practice, with one C21e covering the width of approximately seven conventional tiles.
**No specialist skills:** Designed to be installed by roofers, as part of the roof build, the C21e solar plain tile system fits ‘straight out of the box’ without the need for bespoke flashings or fillers.
**Fast to fit:** As fast to fit as traditional plain tiles, and complete with simple click-to-fit connectors, allowing all of the electrical work to be carried out within the building. Dimensions
| Dimension | Value | |----------------------------|-------------| | Gross width | 1210 mm | | Gross length | 445 mm | | Profile depth | 15 mm | | Covering width | 1210 mm | | C21e tile gauge | 300 mm | | Maximum roof pitch | 90° | | Minimum roof pitch\* | 30° | | Covering capacity | 2.8 C21e/m² | | Individual unit weight | 4.9 kg | | Weight as laid | 15.5 kg/m² | | Batten size (up to 450mm) | 38 x 25 mm | | Batten size (up to 600mm) | 50 x 25 mm |
Screws and fixings supplied:
- C21e stainless steel roof hooks with Torx fixing screws (T20) three per C21e unit,
- C21e stainless steel starter course hooks with Torx fixing screws (T20) three per unit on the bottom course, adjustable channels and tile interfaces.
Refer to fixing specification for the plain tiles to be installed alongside C21e.
- If the minimum pitch for the conventional plain tile is greater than the minimum pitch for C21e, the fixing specification for the conventional plain tile should take precedence. Please refer to the C21e plain tile installation guide for details.
Compatibility
C21e plain tile is compatible with clay and concrete single and double camber plain tiles from a range of manufacturers including:
- Cemex
- Dreadnought
- Imerys
- Keymer
- Koramic
- Marley (Eternit)
- Redland (Monier)
- Sandtoft
For a full list please see www.solarcentury.co.uk/C21e
Certifications & warranty
Weather-tightness tested to roofing industry standard prEN15601. External fire exposure test to BS 476-3: 2004, AB rating.
Power output guaranteed for 25 years from date of commissioning (80% performance). 10 year product warranty.
Installation
Please refer to the C21e Installation Guide before starting installation. Solarcentury solar plain tiles must be laid and fixed to comply with BS 5534: the British Standard Code of practice for slating and tiling, and BS 8000: Part 6: the British Standard Code of practice for workmanship on building sites.
For information on purchasing a C21e solar system, please contact the Solarcentury C21e team on 020 7549 1186
Solarcentury 50 Great Sutton St London EC1V 0DF T +44 (0)20 7549 1000 F +44 (0)20 7549 1001 www.solarcentury.com
© 05 2013 Solarcentury. For installations outside of the Specification please contact Solarcentury. Solarcentury reserves the right to change specifications when necessary without prior notice.
Electrical specification
| Specification | Value | |----------------------------------------|-------------| | Photovoltaic cell technology | Monocrystalline | | Cell dimensions (quantity) / diodes | 125 x 125 mm (18) / 1 | | Peak power (1) | 50 Wp | | Wp/m² | 138 | | Laminate size (active area) | 1174 x 318 mm | | Cell efficiency | 18.9 % | | Module efficiency | 13.9 % | | Maximum power voltage (Vmp)(2) | 9.2 V | | Maximum power current (Imp)(2) | 5.45 A | | Open circuit voltage (Voc)(2) | 11.4 V | | Short circuit current (Isc)(2) | 5.70 A | | Maximum system voltage (Vdc) | 1000 V DC | | Series fuse rating | 9 A | | NOCT | 48.0 °C | | Temperature coefficient of the open-circuit voltage | -0.027 V/°C, -0.241 %/°C | | Temperature coefficient of the short-circuit current | 1.88 mA/°C, 0.033 %/°C | | Temperature coefficient of the power | -0.37 %/°C | | Connectors | MC4 type IP65 push fit connectors | | Cables | Class II double insulated 4mm² cable, rated -40° +85° |
(1) Measured under Standard Test Conditions of 1000W/m² irradiance, AM 1.5 spectrum, 25°C cell temperature. (2) Values of current, voltage and power +/- 5%.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0602-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4870,
"total-output-tokens": 1480,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
973,
1
],
[
973,
5033,
2
]
]
} |
7084148706629b3d6cbffb3dcdaa6dd616669c03 | ORR’s approach to regulation in Scotland: Conclusions
December 2005
# Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Executive Summary | 1 | | 1. Introduction | 3 | | Context | 3 | | Purpose of this document | 3 | | Structure of this document | 4 | | Responding to this document | 5 | | 2. Approach to regulation in Scotland | 7 | | Background | 7 | | Our overall philosophy and approach | 8 | | Other ORR responsibilities | 10 | | Our relationship with the Scottish Executive and Scottish Ministers | 12 | | 3. Network Rail’s price control framework | 15 | | Introduction | 15 | | Disaggregating Network Rail’s revenue requirement | 15 | | Disaggregating Network Rail’s outputs | 16 | | Monitoring in CP3 | 19 | | Financial protections in CP3 | 21 | | Separating Network Rail’s price control framework for CP4 | 21 | | Proposed price control arrangements for CP4 | 24 | | Other aspects of price control separation | 24 | | Other changes to the price control framework through PR2008 | 25 | | Annex A: Respondents to the June consultation document | 27 | | Annex B: Disaggregated revenue requirements for Scotland and England & Wales | 29 | | Introduction | 29 | | Disaggregation of the RAB | 30 | | Confirmation of expenditure and revenue allowances | 31 | | Annex C: Disaggregated Outputs | 37 | Executive Summary
1. In July 2004, the Department for Transport (DfT) published The Future of Rail White Paper. A major change introduced by this White Paper is the transfer of responsibility for rail strategy and funding in Scotland to Scottish Ministers.
2. The implementation of the White Paper and the subsequent Railways Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) require a number of significant changes to the way that we regulate the railways both in Scotland and in Great Britain as a whole. In particular, the Act requires us to have regard to any general guidance given to us by Scottish Ministers about railways services in Scotland.
3. In addition, the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers will now provide us with separate high-level output specifications (HLOSs) and a statement of the public funds available (SOFAs) for the delivery of those outputs in England & Wales and Scotland respectively. In practice, this means that at future access charge reviews we will establish Network Rail’s outputs and corresponding revenue requirement separately for Scotland and for England & Wales. In addition, a number of further modifications to the regulatory framework will be necessary in the light of the new arrangements.
Changes to the regulatory framework
4. In June this year, we consulted on the changes that would be required to the framework that we employ for regulating Network Rail, in order to facilitate the new approach set out in the White Paper and the 2005 Act. Following this consultation process, our conclusions in this document confirm our approach to:
- regulating the railways in Scotland, focusing, in particular, on how we will conduct future access charges reviews and how we will work with Scottish Ministers to secure their reasonable requirements for the railway in Scotland;
- introducing a greater level of transparency and accountability to the price control arrangements for the remainder of control period 3 (CP3) which runs from April 2004 until March 2009. This will ensure a greater level of monitoring and enforceability of outputs for England & Wales and Scotland separately;
- further separating Network Rail’s price control in the future under the risk-bearing arrangements that will be developed and put in place from CP4 (which will run from April 2009 until March 2014) onwards. Under risk-bearing, the funding requirements for the Scottish Executive and the DfT will be based entirely on Network Rail’s performance within Scotland and England & Wales respectively; and
- disaggregating Network Rail’s regulatory asset base (RAB). In future, Network Rail’s regulatory accounts will report separately on adjustments and accruals to the element of the RAB allocated to Scotland and the element of the RAB allocated to England & Wales.
1. Introduction
Context
1.1 In July 2004, the Department for Transport (DfT) published The Future of Rail White Paper(^1). A major change introduced by this White Paper, is the transfer of responsibility for rail strategy and funding in Scotland to Scottish Ministers.
1.2 Although the details are different, there will also be increased roles for the National Assembly for Wales, Transport for London and the English PTEs. There has now been legislation, in the form of the Railways Act 2005 (the 2005 Act), to provide the basis for implementing those changes which required legislation.
1.3 In June 2005, we published a consultation document(^2) setting out our proposed approach to implementing the changes required to key aspects of the regulatory framework in response to these new arrangements. It considered the proposals set out in the White Paper in the context of all the various bodies to which power is being devolved. Progress in developing the proposals has been most advanced in relation to devolving new powers to Scottish Ministers and this document, therefore, focuses on the issues only in relation to Scotland.
Purpose of this document
1.4 The purpose of this document is to:
- set out our overall philosophy and approach to regulation in Scotland in the light of the new arrangements introduced by the White Paper and the 2005 Act;
- confirm the arrangements for working with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Executive in the future; and
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) The Future of Rail, Cm 6233, Department for Transport, July 2004.
(^2) Disaggregating Network Rail’s expenditure and revenue allowance and the future price control framework: a consultation, Office of Rail Regulation, June 2005. [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/238.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/238.pdf). • confirm our position on the economic issues related to devolution. These were discussed in detail in our June consultation document and include:
o our proposed approach to introducing greater transparency and accountability to the price control arrangements for the remainder of control period 3 (CP3); and
o the further separation of Network Rail’s price control under the risk-bearing arrangements proposed for CP4.
Structure of this document
1.5 This document is structured as follows.
• Chapter 2 sets out an overview of how the 2005 Act will influence the way we regulate the railways in Scotland, focusing, in particular, on how we will conduct future access charges reviews and how we will work with Scottish Ministers to secure their reasonable requirements for the railway in Scotland.
• Chapter 3 confirms our approach to introducing a greater level of transparency and accountability to the price control arrangements for the remainder of CP3. This chapter also outlines broadly how the framework will be developed further, in the future, to ensure that the price control structure properly meets the requirements of customers and funders of the railway from CP4 onwards.
• Annex A lists the respondents to the June consultation document.
• Annex B confirms our approach to disaggregating Network Rail’s expenditure and revenue requirement separately for Scotland and England & Wales for the remainder of CP3. This includes our approach to separating Network Rail’s regulatory asset base (RAB).
• Annex C sets out details of the disaggregated outputs which Network Rail will be required to deliver in Scotland and England & Wales over the remainder of CP3. Responding to this document
1.6 Although this publication is not a consultation document, comments on the content are welcome and can be sent to or discussed with:
Robert Toal Senior Economist Office of Rail Regulation 1 Waterhouse Square 138-142 Holborn London EC1N 2TQ
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: 020 7282 2055 2. Approach to regulation in Scotland
Background
2.1 Under the provisions of the 2005 Act, Scottish Ministers will from April 2006 both specify and fund the railway outputs they wish to be delivered in Scotland. This change will have important implications for the way that we regulate Network Rail both in Scotland and in the rest of Great Britain. To that extent, we have previously outlined how the new arrangements for devolution will impact on economic regulation including in:
(a) our September 2004 consultation document Implementing The Future of Rail: ORR’s Role and Proposed Work Programme(^3), which discussed the initial proposals and highlighted the importance of clarifying the relationships between devolved funders and other stakeholders;
(b) our April 2005 Corporate Strategy(^4), which explained how we will facilitate the new developments by working with the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers;
(c) our June 2005 consultation Disaggregating Network Rail’s expenditure and revenue allowance and the future price control framework(^5), which set out the principles that we intend to adopt, focusing in particular on the economic issues around how Network Rail’s price control may be separated in the future; and
(d) our August 2005 Periodic review 2008 – first consultation document(^6) which sets out the context for the next review and its proposed objectives, as well as outlining our role in relation to the high level
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Implementing The Future of Rail: ORR’s Role and Proposed Work Programme, Office of Rail Regulation, September 2004, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/211.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/211.pdf).
(^4) Corporate Strategy, Office of Rail Regulation, April 2005, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/233.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/233.pdf).
(^5) Disaggregating Network Rail’s expenditure and revenue allowance and the future price control framework: a consultation, Office of Rail Regulation, June 2005 available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/238.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/238.pdf).
(^6) Periodic Review 2008 – first consultation document, Office of Rail Regulation, August 2005, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/245.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/245.pdf). output specifications that will be produced by the DfT and the Scottish Executive.
2.2 The next section of this chapter builds on the issues discussed in these documents and confirms our overall philosophy and approach to regulation in the light of the new arrangements. In addition to highlighting the differences in approach to regulation in Scotland brought about by the 2005 Act, this chapter also clarifies the aspects of regulation that are not expected to change under the new legislative framework.
Our overall philosophy and approach
Section 4 duties
2.3 We carry out our functions in the light of the public interest duties set out in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended). This now includes explicit reference to the role of Scottish Ministers, in particular that we must have regard to any general guidance given to us by the Scottish Ministers about railway services wholly or partly in Scotland, or about other matters in Scotland that relate to railways.
2.4 In having regard to such guidance we are required to give appropriate weight to the extent to which the guidance relates to matters in respect of which expenditure is to be or has been incurred by Scottish Ministers. An important principle of the new arrangements is that Scottish Ministers will, in the future, have an equivalent role in Scotland to that of the Secretary of State in England and Wales in the conduct of access charges reviews.
Setting Network Rail’s outputs and revenue requirement
2.5 A primary focus of our activities will be setting Network Rail’s outputs and corresponding revenue requirement, at an access charges review, in the light of the statement of what Scottish Ministers want to be delivered by the railway and their statement of funds available. We have already started work on the next review, which will amend access charges from 1 April 2009. Our August consultation document (see footnote 6 above) was the first in a series of planned ORR consultation documents, which will ensure that the Periodic Review 2008 (PR2008) is conducted in a rigorous, open and consultative manner. 2.6 We have subsequently published a further document setting out our initial assessment of a possible range for Network Rail’s CP4 revenue requirement. This initial assessment provides a basis for the next stages of PR2008 and includes separate breakdowns of the possible revenue requirements for Scotland and England & Wales. We have also begun discussions with the Scottish Executive about the development of the Scottish HLOS for the next control period.
2.7 The overall approach to undertaking reviews of access charges will continue to be based upon the standard building block methodology used at the Access Charges Review 2003 (ACR2003). In future, Scottish Ministers will have the option of specifying and funding a higher (or lower) level of outputs in Scotland, which we will then be required to price and include in the calculation of Network Rail’s revenue requirement for Scotland.
2.8 From the start of the next control period (i.e. April 2009) a key principle underpinning the price control framework is that the funding requirements for the Scottish Executive and the DfT and will be based entirely on Network Rail’s financial performance within Scotland and England & Wales respectively. This means that any out-performance in either area will be ring-fenced and used solely for the benefit of customers and funders in that area. Similarly, customers and funders in each area will separately bear the cost and output risks associated with under-performance by Network Rail.
2.9 We would expect Network Rail to take reasonable steps to ensure that it can deliver the outputs required in Scotland and in England & Wales. However, if there were conflicts (e.g. because of shortage of specialist resources), we would expect Network Rail to prioritise resources based on the best GB-wide public-interest outcome.
2.10 We are currently developing the regulatory framework to facilitate these changes, which form part of our wider review of the regulatory framework for the PR2008. Our conclusions are explained in more detail in Chapter 3 of this document.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Periodic Review 2008 Initial assessment of Network Rail’s CP4 revenue requirement and consultation on the financial framework December 2005, Office of Rail Regulation, available at: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/264.pdf Other ORR responsibilities
2.11 Although our responsibilities with respect to undertaking access charge reviews will change as we will be undertaking separate access charges reviews for Scotland and England & Wales, it is also important to recognise that the GB railway is an integrated network (e.g. in terms of timetabling, standards and operation) and the regulatory regime operates at the GB wide level. Our jurisdiction and key elements of industry relationships will also remain at the GB level.
2.12 In practice, this means that while some aspects of regulation will change in the light of the devolution of powers to Scottish Ministers, other functions that we carry out will remain unchanged. The impact on the key areas of regulation is discussed below.
Licensing
2.13 Under the Railways Act 1993 (as amended) and the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005, the operators of trains, stations, networks and light maintenance depots must be authorised by an appropriate licence or exemption. Although licences are not normally limited to a particular geographic area, some changes to their detailed wording will be required to reflect, for example, the Scottish Ministers’ new role as a franchising authority. The 2005 Act provides a mechanism for these changes to be made. Otherwise, our licensing responsibilities will not be directly affected by the new arrangements.
The access regime
2.14 Under the Railways Act 1993 (as amended), we are responsible for determining the fair and efficient allocation of the capacity of railway facilities (track, stations and light maintenance depots). We will continue to apply common criteria and procedures for the exercise of our functions in relation to the access regime. Updated editions of our Criteria and Procedures documents for the approval of passenger(^8) and freight(^9) track access contracts,
______________________________________________________________________
(^8) Criteria and Procedures for the approval of passenger track access contracts: fourth edition – a consultation document, ORR, November 2005, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.00100b002001005001](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.00100b002001005001).
(^9) Criteria and Procedures for the approval of freight track access contracts: third edition – a consultation document, ORR, November 2005, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/258.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/258.pdf). on which we are currently consulting the industry, recognise the devolved responsibilities for rail in Scotland.
The Network Code
2.15 This common set of contractual provisions is contained in every track access agreement(^\\text{10}) and will continue to be applicable to train operators operating in or to Scotland. This ensures that common processes for issues such as timetable change, management of disruption or vehicle and network change will continue to be managed at a total industry level, retaining consistency of application for key processes.
2.16 The Network Code is currently under review, and in our conclusions on the reform of the Network Code, published in November 2005(^\\text{11}), we have concluded that considerable benefits can be gained by the industry in allowing certain classes of funders (including the Scottish Executive) and suppliers, specific rights to be consulted and involved in discussions about vehicle and network changes to ensure that their long-term interests are protected. We have, therefore, proposed that third parties should have access to general facilitation agreements.
Safety
2.17 The Future of Rail White Paper announced the Government’s intention to give us responsibility for both safety and economic regulation of railways in Great Britain as a whole. From early 2006, we will take on responsibility for health and safety in relation to the full range of railway operators including metro systems, heritage railways and trams. We will develop new ways of working and review and revise existing practices in order to comply with the legislation and meet the policy objectives of the White Paper.
Competition Act powers
2.18 ORR is the competent competition authority, concurrently with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), with the responsibility for investigating and examining possible breaches of the prohibitions contained in the Competition Act in
(^{10}) Except for certain pre-privatisation contracts such as the arrangements for Heathrow Express and London Underground.
(^{11}) Network Code reform phase 2: update and emerging conclusions; available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/262.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/262.pdf). relation to the supply of services relating to railways. We will continue to apply these powers in Scotland as we have done on a GB-wide basis.
**Investment policy**
2.19 Our policy framework(^{12}) to facilitate investment sets out clearly what Network Rail should do to facilitate and deliver investment, terms (including principles for risk allocation) for carrying out investments, and specific proposals in relation to investments sponsored by third parties (i.e. bodies other than the DfT/Scottish Executive and Network Rail, such as regional and local authorities, train operators and private developers).
2.20 The policy framework is designed to apply to all investments in the network in Great Britain, including Scotland. However, we recognise that for specific categories of scheme (such as minor schemes promoted by Network Rail through the Network Rail Discretionary Fund (NRDF)) the Scottish Executive may wish to put in place arrangements differing from those established by the DfT. There are also some investment schemes which will continue to be sponsored by the DfT on a GB-wide basis e.g. the ERTMS.
**Our relationship with the Scottish Executive and Scottish Ministers**
2.21 As a result of the changes introduced by the White Paper and by the 2005 Act, we have been reviewing our working relationship with the Scottish Executive(^{13}). We have considered carefully how we can build upon and develop our current working arrangements. The objective is to ensure that the respective roles and responsibilities are well defined and understood so that we can work together to secure the reasonable requirements of funders and customers of the railway in Scotland, as well as the rest of Great Britain.
2.22 Following the merger of ORR and HSE Rail, which is expected to take place during 2006, we will have staff and offices in Scotland. We will appoint a member of staff based in Scotland to fulfil a wider representational role for ORR including acting as a focal point for key stakeholders and advising on
______________________________________________________________________
(^{12}) More details on the investment framework can be found in our October 2005 publication Policy Framework for Investment: conclusions; available at [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/255.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/255.pdf).
(^{13}) Following the announcement of the proposals in the White Paper, a working group (the Scotland Working Group) was established comprising the DfT, the Scottish Executive, ORR and Network Rail to coordinate and implement the new arrangements for Scotland. emerging issues in Scotland. One of our Directors will have specific responsibility for relationships with stakeholders in Scotland.
2.23 In addition, we have established an internal working group, drawing on staff from a variety of disciplines throughout the office to co-ordinate policy development and delivery on Scottish issues. We will also establish regular high-level liaison arrangements with the Scottish Executive and with other key stakeholders, which will include participation from our Chairman and Chief Executive. Likewise, our Heads of the Railway Inspectorate and Safety Policy will establish a regular liaison with counterparts at the Scottish Executive supported by more frequent working level meetings as appropriate. These arrangements will ensure that we keep our Board informed of key policy issues in Scotland, and that we are able to respond appropriately to emerging issues on rail regulation as it affects Scotland. 3. Network Rail’s price control framework
Introduction
3.1 Network Rail’s current price control framework was established at ACR2003 on a GB-wide basis. This means that the assumptions we made about the expenditure that the company would need to incur to operate, maintain and renew the network were determined at the GB-level and were not ring-fenced to any geographical area. Similarly, the outputs determined at ACR2003 were generally set at the GB level (although network capability is to be maintained at a route level).
3.2 Currently, our monitoring of Network Rail is focused at the GB level although some information is collected and monitored at various levels of geographical disaggregation. In our June consultation document, we explained that it would be necessary to make modifications to the price control framework to ensure that the structure was fit for purpose in the light of the devolution proposals.
3.3 The first part of this chapter sets out our conclusions on how the price control framework should be modified for the remainder of the current control period. The second part of the chapter explains how the framework will be developed further for CP4.
Disaggregating Network Rail’s revenue requirement
3.4 Under the new devolution arrangements, the Scottish Executive will take on responsibility for funding infrastructure in Scotland from 1 April 2006, with funding responsibility in England and Wales being retained by the DfT. This means that a proportion of Network Rail’s income will, from that date, be funded directly by the Scottish Executive.
3.5 Our June consultation document explained that we would disaggregate Network Rail’s revenue requirement for the remainder of CP3, including the RAB, to form separate assumptions on expenditure and revenue for Scotland and England & Wales. This is necessary in order to establish what portion of Network Rail’s funding should be provided directly by the Scottish Executive and what portion should continue to be paid by the DfT. 3.6 The approach we proposed in our June document followed the standard building block methodology that we employed in the ACR2003. This involved:
- identifying the proportions of expenditure on operations, maintenance, renewals and enhancements in Scotland and England & Wales based on the projections set out in Network Rail’s business plan;
- establishing rules for the allocation of an appropriate share of Network Rail’s central costs;
- disaggregating the RAB between Scotland and England & Wales;
- calculating an allowance for amortisation of the RAB and the return on the RAB for each region, based on the rules established at the ACR2003;
- identifying the income that Network Rail is expected to earn through the single till (including access charges, station income and freight) in each area; and
- combining the results of each step above to determine disaggregated expenditure assumptions and revenue requirements for Scotland and England & Wales.
3.7 Respondents to the consultation were broadly supportive of our proposed methodology. Annex B of this document sets out details of the final disaggregated revenue requirements for Scotland and England & Wales.
**Disaggregating Network Rail’s outputs**
3.8 In return for the revenue that it receives, Network Rail is required to deliver a given set of outputs. Chapter 9 of the ACR2003 final conclusions document(^\\text{14}) sets out details of the GB-wide baseline outputs (including train delay minutes, limits on the number of broken rails and track geometry) that Network Rail is expected to deliver during the current control period. In the June consultation document, we confirmed that in the interests of transparency and accountability, as well as disaggregating the company’s revenue requirement, we would also disaggregate the GB-wide baseline
(^{14}) *Access Charges Review 2003: Final Conclusions*, Office of Rail Regulation, December 2003, [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/184.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/184.pdf). outputs to form separate outputs for Scotland and England & Wales for the remainder of CP3.
3.9 We commissioned Halcrow to determine an appropriate methodology for separating the GB-wide outputs. Halcrow’s report(^{15}) sets out in detail the approach they took to disaggregating the outputs.
3.10 In undertaking this work, Halcrow considered a number of factors including:
- the relative size of the network in Scotland compared to England & Wales;
- the intensity of use in each area;
- the relative proportions of expenditure planned in each area as set out in Network Rail’s Business Plan 2005;
- Network Rail’s current and historic relative performance in each area; and
- the relative proportions of assets or traffic.
3.11 Halcrow’s work was discussed in detail and the final output agreed with the members of the Scotland Working Group. The results of Halcrow’s work in terms of these disaggregated outputs are set out in Annex C to this document.
Enforcement of outputs in CP3
3.12 In terms of how the disaggregated outputs would be enforced, the June consultation document explained that the existing regulatory mechanisms should provide sufficient flexibility to allow us to monitor and enforce the new arrangements for the remainder of CP3. In particular, Condition 7 of Network Rail’s Network Licence requires (inter alia) the company to:
“secure -
(a) the operation and maintenance of the network;
(b) the renewal and replacement of the network; and
(c) the improvement, enhancement and development of the network
(^{15}) Halcrow’s report to the ORR for this work has been published on our website at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/halcrow-disaggregating-nr-baseline.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/halcrow-disaggregating-nr-baseline.pdf). in each case in accordance with best practice and in a timely, efficient and economical manner so as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of persons providing services relating to railways and funders in respect of:
(i) the quality and capability of the network; and
(ii) the facilitation of railway service performance in respect of services for the carriage of passengers and goods by railway operating on the network.
General duty
The licence holder shall take such steps as are necessary or expedient so as to achieve the purpose to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances including the ability of the licence holder to finance its licensed activities.”
3.13 We have considered carefully how this provision affects the enforceability of Network Rail’s outputs in Scotland and in England & Wales. We have also taken in to account the responses to the June consultation which are summarised below.
Views of respondents
3.14 In its response, the Scottish Executive sought assurance that the disaggregated outputs for Scotland would be supported by an enforcement regime which is as rigorous and as effective as the existing arrangements which apply to GB as a whole. Likewise, the DfT said that it would expect the England & Wales outputs to be reasonable requirements of Network Rail under Condition 7 of its Network Licence, and enforceable under the same framework as the GB outputs set by the ACR 2003.
3.15 Network Rail said that the disaggregated outputs should be ‘indicative’ in nature and incorporate appropriate tolerances. In Network Rail’s view, output measures are subject to statistical variability caused by random fluctuation and the accuracy of data measurement. Network Rail also suggested that we should revisit the issue of tolerances and at the same time consider the impact of statistical volatility at the Scotland and England & Wales levels.
3.16 Other respondents did not comment specifically on the issue of the enforceability of outputs. **ORR position**
3.17 As a matter of policy, we have stated in our enforcement policy statement (which was published in November(^{16})) that we will focus on using regulatory powers to resolve systemic issues that cannot be dealt with effectively in contractual relationships. Although we did not set tolerances around outputs in the ACR2003, we recognise that performance against some outputs may fluctuate and that there may be some statistical variation. We will consider this when reviewing individual cases.
3.18 In monitoring and enforcing compliance with Network Rail’s Network Licence, we shall examine Network Rail’s efficient operation, maintenance, renewal and development of the network, and review whether it is meeting the reasonable requirements of its customers and funders under Condition 7. We consider that reasonable requirements include the disaggregated outputs established through the Halcrow work and set out in Annex C to this document. In the event that Network Rail is failing to deliver an output which we determine is a reasonable requirement, we will consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, Network Rail is fulfilling the general duty.
**Local output commitments**
3.19 As well as the regulatory outputs specified by us at access charge reviews, Network Rail also works to contractual targets with each train operating company (TOC) through the local output commitments (LOC) regime. Therefore, Network Rail has a separate LOC target for its contribution to First ScotRail performance.
3.20 In contrast, the disaggregated outputs established through the Halcrow work apply to Scotland as a whole and, therefore, the performance targets include the impact of cross-border services and freight traffic. The disaggregated outputs set out in Annex C for train performance are, therefore, complementary to the targets established under the LOC regime.
**Monitoring in CP3**
3.21 Under the new arrangements, it will be necessary to monitor Network Rail’s outputs and expenditure in Scotland and England & Wales separately.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{16}) Enforcement policy and penalties statement – draft for consultation, November 2005, ORR, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/259.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/259.pdf). (alongside the GB level) for the remainder of CP3. This will provide additional information to determine Network Rail’s compliance with Condition 7 of its Network Licence in respect of the disaggregated outputs. It will also help to inform the next periodic review process. To that extent, we are currently reviewing and making appropriate modifications to the monitoring framework during 2005-06. The key elements of the monitoring framework are listed below:
- **Network Rail’s regulatory accounts** - we are currently working with the Scottish Executive, Network Rail and the DfT to ensure that the regulatory accounting guidelines reflect these new arrangements. In particular, we intend that from 2006-07 Network Rail will prepare fully audited regulatory accounts that will include segmented financial statements for Scotland and England & Wales, as well as at a GB level.
- **Network Rail’s Annual Return**: we have recently written to Network Rail to confirm that, in future, we would expect the Annual Return to include separate disaggregated information for Scotland and England & Wales.
- **Network Rail Monitor (Scotland)**: in August 2005, we published the first version of the Network Rail Monitor for Scotland. This is a quarterly report on Network Rail’s performance in Scotland, based on a range of financial and operational measures. We will continue to develop the Network Rail Monitor for Scotland and will, in future, also produce a separate Network Rail Monitor for England & Wales.
- **The Network Rail business plan**: this document sets out the company’s proposed future activities, outputs and expenditure at a GB-wide level and on its 26 strategic routes. The plan also explains the organisational changes and initiatives that Network Rail is making in order to deliver its proposals. The 2006 Business Plan, which will be produced in March 2006, will include separate disaggregated information for Scotland and England & Wales.
______________________________________________________________________
17 Network Rail’s 2005 Annual Return is available on the company’s website at: [http://www.networkrail.co.uk/companyinformation/RegulatoryDocuments/Content/Documents/F-%20Regulatory%20Reports/2005%20annual%20return.pdf](http://www.networkrail.co.uk/companyinformation/RegulatoryDocuments/Content/Documents/F-%20Regulatory%20Reports/2005%20annual%20return.pdf).
18 Available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nr_monitor-q2-scot.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nr_monitor-q2-scot.pdf). Financial protections in CP3
3.22 Although we will monitor outputs and expenditure separately for the remainder of CP3, the June consultation document set out our view that all operational risk should continue to be dealt with at a GB-wide level for the remainder of CP3. In practice, this means that:
- the trigger for an interim review of Network Rail’s outputs and/or revenue will remain at the GB-wide level (i.e. 15% of cumulative expenditure);
- Network Rail will deal with any revenue shortfalls or cost shocks through the ability to draw on its allowed surplus and financial buffer (e.g. to undertake additional borrowings up to the ceiling of its debt to RAB limit); and
- there will be no restrictions placed on Network Rail’s flexibility to transfer operating surpluses between Scotland and England & Wales to offset operating deficits in the other area.
3.23 In their responses to the consultation Network Rail, the Scottish Executive and the DfT all supported the principle that risk should be dealt with at a GB-level for the remainder of CP3. The Scottish Executive also suggested that there should be ring-fencing of Network Rail’s operating surpluses within Scotland during CP3. We are currently discussing with Network Rail its criteria for the use of out-performance in CP3 and will publish our final policy statement on the treatment of under-spend and efficiency in January 2006.(^{19})
Separating Network Rail’s price control framework for CP4
3.24 The June consultation document set out the issues that we will consider in introducing more formal price control separation from the start of CP4. In contrast to the arrangements that we are putting place for the remainder of CP3, the principle of devolution and separate HLOSs and funding means that a greater degree of ring-fencing will be necessary in the future.
3.25 In the June document, we characterised the issue of price control separation in CP4 as risk-sharing versus risk-bearing. It relates to the extent to which the DfT and the Scottish Executive would either share or separately bear the risk
______________________________________________________________________
(^{19}) Our initial consultation in to the treatment of under-spend and efficiency was published in June 2005, available at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/237.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/237.pdf). of unanticipated cost shocks or revenue shortfalls, which result in increases in access charges or reductions in outputs (and therefore possibly funding) or share the benefits of out-performance.
**Risk-sharing**
3.26 In summary, under a risk-sharing model, the risks and associated funding requirements imposed on the DfT and the Scottish Executive would continue to be based on Network Rail’s GB-wide financial performance and not related to performance in each area separately. Network Rail would retain any out-performance in an area centrally so that surpluses in one area could be used to cover deficits in the other.
3.27 Similarly, under a risk-sharing approach any overspend in an area would be funded centrally by Network Rail (e.g. through its ability to borrow or to draw on operating surpluses). This would, therefore, only lead to an increase in the funding requirement in any area to the extent that it resulted in a legitimate increase in future operating, maintenance and renewal expenditure or had a material impact on Network Rail’s GB-wide financial position, resulting in an increase in the company-wide allowed return.
3.28 Under the risk-sharing model, under-spend or overspend in either area would not be capped by separate interim review re-opener provisions. Rather, a GB-wide re-opener provision would be retained.
**Risk-bearing**
3.29 In contrast, under a risk-bearing approach, the funding requirements imposed on the Scottish Executive and the DfT would be based on Network Rail’s financial performance within Scotland and England & Wales separately. This means that any under-spend in either area would be retained by Network Rail in that area and be used solely for the benefit of customers and funders of the railway in that area.
3.30 Likewise, any overspend by Network Rail in either area may have to be funded by any reserves established for each area separately. Under risk-bearing, under-spend or overspend in either area by Network Rail would be capped by implementing separate interim review re-opener provisions in track access contracts to apply to expenditure within each area. 3.31 The June document discussed in detail the implications of different models of risk-bearing and risk-sharing and invited views from interested parties on which approach would provide the most appropriate price control framework for Network Rail in CP4.
Views of respondents
3.32 The Scottish Executive was clear in its response that it prefers a full risk-bearing approach so that from CP4 onwards, risks materialising within Scotland will be wholly managed and funded within Scotland. This would mean that, amongst other things, an interim review re-opener provision would be established at the Scotland level and should Network Rail’s costs increase or decrease by more than this level in Scotland, both the Scottish Executive and Network Rail would be able to ask the ORR to undertake a review of access charges in Scotland.
3.33 The DfT has said that it also supports full ring-fencing of Network Rail’s funds between Scotland and England & Wales. The DfT considers this approach to be consistent with the new arrangements for conducting access charges reviews established by the 2005 Act, including the preparation of separate HLOSs by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. For this reason the DfT has said that a full risk-bearing approach is the appropriate basis.
3.34 In contrast, Network Rail has said that, at the highest level, its desire is to support the Scottish Executive and the DfT in their roles of specifying and funding outputs separately. However, it believes that the risk-bearing approach is unlikely to represent the best long-term interests of customers and funders as it considers it would reduce the company’s ability to manage the delivery of outputs in the most efficient manner.
3.35 Moreover, Network Rail has said that ring-fencing of resources under a risk-bearing approach would mean that it would have less flexibility, and fewer resources to draw upon, to deal with shocks (e.g. asset or weather-related) that can have a big impact at a local level but are smoothed over a larger area.
3.36 Of the other respondents to the consultation, First Group expressed support for the risk-bearing model. TfL said that it is preferable for out-performance to be retained for use solely in a particular area and any underperformance absorbed within the relevant ‘buffer’ for each area. TfL also said that a constrained model, blending elements of both options may have merit but that it would wish to see this supported by strict criteria for use of surpluses.
**Proposed price control arrangements for CP4**
3.37 Having considered the issues carefully and having regard to the responses to the consultation document, our conclusion is that the risk-bearing approach is necessary in order to be consistent with the principles underlying devolution and the new arrangements for undertaking access charge reviews separately for Scotland and England & Wales.
3.38 Network Rail has implied that a risk-bearing approach may increase the cost of running the network. However, this is difficult to quantify and if, indeed, the costs of a risk-bearing approach are ultimately higher these will be borne by the DfT and the Scottish Executive who have both stated their commitment to this approach. We will ensure through the regulatory framework that there is no additional cost risk to Network Rail from the separation of the price controls.
3.39 Under the risk-bearing model proposed for CP4, we will specify clearly the regulatory arrangements underpinning this approach. This means that in addition to the modifications to the monitoring framework described above, the financial protections in the price control framework would also be identified separately including:
- any provision to re-open the price control, in the event that Network Rail’s expenditure departs significantly from the assumptions we make at the next periodic review, will be established separately for Scotland and England & Wales;
- other financial protections which allow Network Rail to manage its risks (e.g. the surplus on the allowed return) may need to be determined separately; and
- Network Rail will be restricted from transferring operating surpluses or deficits between Scotland and England & Wales.
**Other aspects of price control separation**
3.40 As part of our preparations for PR2008 we will carry out the detailed work on the expenditure assessments, efficiency, activity volumes, outputs, and all other aspects of the price control framework wholly separately for England & Wales and Scotland.
3.41 There will be separate determinations of track access charges, and each of the building blocks used to build up the company’s revenue requirement will be dealt with separately. In future, additions and accruals to the Scottish RAB will be based on expenditure and amortisation incurred in Scotland.
**Other changes to the price control framework through PR2008**
3.42 The precise details of the separate price control arrangements will be considered further as part of the PR2008 process. Our initial assessment of Network Rail’s revenue requirement in CP4 provides a transparent basis for the next stages of the PR2008 including work on the development of HLOSs and the SOFAs that has recently started, involving the DfT, Scottish Executive, Network Rail and ORR.
3.43 As part of the PR2008 we will also be undertaking a fundamental review of the financial and incentive framework for Network Rail. Our December consultation document considers these issues in more detail, setting out our current thinking and options for the key financial building blocks. The financial framework that we determine for Network Rail as part of the PR2008 will form a key input in determining exactly how much revenue the company will be entitled to receive over the next control period in return for the outputs that it will be expected to deliver in Scotland, England & Wales and GB.
3.44 Our follow-up document to the consultation on the financial framework, which is likely to be published in the second half of 2006, will set out our emerging conclusions on the appropriate financial framework for Network Rail in CP4, including the impact it will have on the risk-bearing model discussed above. Annex A: Respondents to the June consultation document
Angel Trains Department for Transport (DfT) First Group Grant Thornton Joint response from Merseytravel, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited and Merseyrail Infraco Limited Network Rail Scottish Executive Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive Transport for London (TfL) Annex B: Disaggregated revenue requirements for Scotland and England & Wales
Introduction
1. Under the new arrangements set out in The Future of Rail White Paper and the Railways Act 2005, the Scottish Executive will take on responsibility for funding infrastructure in Scotland from 1 April 2006, with funding responsibility in England and Wales being retained by the DfT. This means that a proportion of Network Rail’s income will, from that date, be funded by the Scottish Executive, either directly through network grants or indirectly through access charges paid by franchised passenger train operating companies (TOCs) operating in Scotland.
2. In order to facilitate these arrangements, a provisional agreement was reached between the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers on 18 January 2005 for a transfer of £302 million per annum for the funding of Network Rail in Scotland. The provisional settlement was calculated using a RAB split which assumed that 10% of the Network Rail RAB applied to Scotland. DfT and the Scottish Executive agreed that all terms of the provisional settlement were to be fixed except for the RAB split, which would be subject to change following determination by us.
3. Our June consultation document set out details of our proposed approach to disaggregating Network Rail’s revenue requirement, including the RAB, to form separate indicative determinations for Scotland and England & Wales. The approach we have adopted follows the standard building block methodology that we employed in the ACR2003.
4. Disaggregated revenue requirements for each region based on this approach were set out in Annex C of the June consultation document. Respondents to that document were broadly supportive of our proposed methodology.
______________________________________________________________________
20 Details of this can be found in a DfT press release at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/displaypn.cgi?pn_id=2005_0003. 5. Network Rail proposed a number of minor amendments to the allocation metrics for common costs, which were set out in Annex A of the June document. We have considered carefully Network Rail’s suggestions and conclude that they do not have a material impact on our proposed methodology to disaggregate the network revenue allowance. We will, therefore, retain those set out in the June document. Those were developed jointly with the Scotland Working Group and were used to underpin the funding transfer between the DfT and Scottish Executive.
Disaggregation of the RAB
6. Chapter 3 of the June consultation document also discussed our proposed approach to disaggregating Network Rail’s opening RAB (i.e. at 1 April 2006). The value of the RAB has a significant impact on the overall level of Network Rail’s revenue requirement since it affects the allowed return and amortisation building blocks.
7. Our proposed methodology for disaggregating the RAB was a composite approach that considered the effects of both the underlying value of the assets and the level of use that these assets incur. In summary, the approach consisted of three main steps:
- determining an appropriate measure for the relative proportions of asset values within Scotland and England & Wales;
- determining the level of asset usage in Scotland and England & Wales; and
- combining the asset value and usage in each area to determine an appropriate RAB split.
08. Using that methodology, we calculated that the appropriate proportion of the RAB to be allocated to Scotland is 11.17%.
09. All of the respondents to the June consultation were broadly supportive of our proposed methodology. Only TfL raised a detailed point around the metrics used in the approach. Specifically, TfL asked whether we had explored alternative methods for the calculation of asset usage. Our methodology was based on tonne km travelled, and TfL suggested that an alternative method such as vehicle km may also be valid and could potentially have more merit in terms of networks primarily for passenger use.
10. However, we consider that vehicle km travelled does not adequately reflect the length and weight of trains and, therefore, tonne km travelled represents a more appropriate measure.
11. On the basis of the responses received on the RAB split, we have, therefore, written to the Scottish Executive, the DfT and Network Rail to confirm that the GB RAB will be disaggregated on the basis that 11.17%(^{21}) of the GB total is allocated to Scotland, with the rest allocated to England & Wales(^{22}).
12. From April 2006 Network Rail’s regulatory accounts will report separately on adjustments and accruals to the element of the RAB allocated to Scotland and the element of the RAB allocated to England & Wales. We are currently working with Network Rail, the Scottish Executive and the DfT to ensure that the regulatory accounting guidelines reflect the new arrangements.
13. The DfT and Scottish Executive have confirmed that they will use our split to finalise the funding transfer between the two organisations provisionally agreed in January 2005.
**Confirmation of expenditure and revenue allowances**
14. Taking the disaggregated expenditure and revenue allowances for each region, together with the RAB split allows us to calculate an indicative revenue requirement separately for Scotland and England & Wales. Annex E of our final conclusions(^{23}) to the ACR2003 sets out details of Network Rail’s overall revenue requirement for GB as a whole for the duration of CP3. Annex E also
______________________________________________________________________
(^{21}) Under the funding settlement agreed between the Scottish Executive and the DfT, all of the ACR2003 funded enhancements are attributable to the ‘England & Wales’ RAB. This includes enhancement expenditure incurred in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Therefore, in practice, the opening RAB split for Scotland will be based on 11.17% of the GB RAB at April 2006 less enhancements expenditure in the first two years of the control period. This expenditure will be added to the England and Wales RAB.
(^{22}) A copy of this letter has been published on the ORR website at: [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/lett_rag_scot_ew.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/lett_rag_scot_ew.pdf).
(^{23}) Access Charges Review 2003: Final Conclusions, ORR, December 2003, [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/184.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/184.pdf). sets out details of how this revenue requirement would be funded between access charges, grants and other single till income\\textsuperscript{24}.
15. We have replicated the Annex E style summary of Network Rail’s revenue requirement at a disaggregated level for Scotland and England & Wales based on the principles set out above. The indicative disaggregated revenue requirements are set out below. The key update to this analysis since the June document is that the disaggregated revenue requirements now include enhancement expenditure, which was excluded from the earlier analysis.
\\textsuperscript{24} The funding allocation set out in Annex E of the final conclusions was subsequently amended in the light of Network Rail’s proposed financing arrangements. Details of the revised funding arrangements are set out in a document published by ORR in March 2004, Access Charges Review 2003: Regulator’s Approval of Network Rail’s Proposed Financing Arrangements, ORR, March 2004, \\url{http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/188.pdf}.
### Table 1: Total Network Rail revenue requirement
| £ million (2004/05 prices) | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | Total | |---------------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | **RAB** | | | | | | 1 April RAB | 23,210 | 24,341 | 25,425 | | | Renewals | 2,279 | 2,294 | 2,077 | | | Enhancements | 320 | 263 | 235 | | | Amortisation | -1,468 | -1,474 | -1,477 | | | 31 March RAB | 24,341 | 25,425 | 26,261 | | | Average RAB | 23,775 | 24,883 | 25,843 | | | **Revenue requirement** | | | | | | Maintenance | 1,096 | 1,009 | 928 | 3,033 | | Controllable opex | 862 | 819 | 778 | 2,459 | | Non-controllable opex | 231 | 232 | 232 | 695 | | Schedule 4 and 8 costs | 97 | 98 | 98 | 293 | | Return on RAB | 1,497 | 1,566 | 1,627 | 4,690 | | Amortisation | 1,468 | 1,474 | 1,477 | 4,419 | | **Gross revenue requirement** | 5,251 | 5,198 | 5,140 | 15,589 | | Other single till income | -750 | -741 | -749 | -2,239| | **Net revenue requirement** | 4,501 | 4,456 | 4,392 | 13,350| | Adjustment for additional borrowing | 339 | 332 | 325 | 996 | | Adjusted revenue requirement | 4,841 | 4,788 | 4,716 | 14,345 |
**Funded by:**
| | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | Total | |------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | Fixed charges | 1,857 | 1,844 | 2,012 | 5,713 | | Variable charges | 307 | 307 | 312 | 926 | | Schedule 4 and 8 income | 97 | 98 | 98 | 293 | | Grants & other funding | 2,580 | 2,539 | 2,294 | 7,414 | | | 4,841 | 4,788 | 4,716 | 14,345 | Table 2: England and Wales indicative revenue requirement
| £ million (2004/05 prices) | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | Total | |---------------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | **RAB** | | | | | | 1 April RAB | 20,778 | 21,839 | 22,858 | | | Renewals | 2,052 | 2,075 | 1,879 | | | Enhancements | 320 | 263 | 235 | | | Amortisation | -1,312 | -1,319 | -1,324 | | | 31 March RAB | 21,839 | 22,858 | 23,649 | | | Average RAB | 21,309 | 22,349 | 23,254 | | | **Revenue requirement** | | | | | | Maintenance | 996 | 915 | 842 | 2,752 | | Controllable opex | 778 | 740 | 703 | 2,220 | | Non-controllable opex | 208 | 209 | 210 | 628 | | Schedule 4 and 8 costs | 88 | 89 | 89 | 267 | | Return on RAB | 1,341 | 1,407 | 1,464 | 4,212 | | Amortisation | 1,312 | 1,319 | 1,324 | 3,955 | | **Gross revenue requirement** | 4,723 | 4,679 | 4,631 | 14,034 | | Other single till income | -694 | -685 | -692 | -2,072| | **Net revenue requirement** | 4,029 | 3,994 | 3,939 | 11,962| | Adjustment for additional borrowing | 321 | 304 | 290 | 915 | | Adjusted revenue requirement | 4,350 | 4,298 | 4,229 | 12,877|
**Funded by:**
| | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | | |---------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | Fixed charges | 1,731 | 1,720 | 1,877 | 5,328 | | Variable charges | 288 | 288 | 293 | 868 | | Schedule 4 and 8 income | 88 | 89 | 89 | 267 | | Grants & other funding | 2,242 | 2,201 | 1,970 | 6,414 | | | 4,350 | 4,298 | 4,229 | 12,877|
### Table 3: Scotland indicative revenue requirement
| £ million (2004/05 prices) | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | Total | |---------------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | **RAB** | | | | | | 1 April RAB | 2,431 | 2,502 | 2,567 | | | Renewals | 227 | 219 | 198 | | | Enhancements | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Amortisation | -156 | -155 | -153 | | | 31 March RAB | 2,502 | 2,567 | 2,612 | | | Average RAB | 2,467 | 2,534 | 2,589 | | | **Revenue requirement** | | | | | | Maintenance | 101 | 94 | 86 | 281 | | Controllable opex | 84 | 79 | 75 | 239 | | Non-controllable opex | 23 | 22 | 23 | 68 | | Schedule 4 and 8 costs | 8 | 9 | 9 | 26 | | Return on RAB | 155 | 160 | 163 | 478 | | Amortisation | 156 | 155 | 153 | 464 | | **Gross revenue requirement** | 527 | 518 | 509 | 1,555 | | Other single till income | -55 | -56 | -56 | -167 | | **Net revenue requirement** | 472 | 463 | 453 | 1,388 | | Adjustment for additional borrowing | 19 | 28 | 35 | 81 | | **Adjusted revenue requirement** | 491 | 490 | 487 | 1,469 |
**Funded by:**
| | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | Total | |------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | Fixed charges | 125 | 124 | 135 | 385 | | Variable charges | 19 | 19 | 19 | 58 | | Schedule 4 and 8 income | 8 | 9 | 9 | 26 | | Grants & other funding | 338 | 338 | 324 | 1,000 | | | 491 | 490 | 487 | 1,468 |
## Annex C: Disaggregated Outputs
### Table 4: Disaggregated baseline outputs
| Baseline Output | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------| | | Scotland | England/Wales | Scotland | England/Wales | Scotland | England/Wales | | Train Delay Minutes (all operators) in millions of minutes | 0.887 | 9.713 | 0.820 | 8.980 | 0.762 | 8.338 | | Passenger Train Delay Minutes per 100 train km | 1.74 | 1.99 | 1.59 | 1.82 | 1.46 | 1.67 | | Broken Rails (M1) | 30 | 270 | 30 | 270 | 30 | 270 | | Track Geometry Standard Deviations (M3) | | | | | | | | Condition of Asset – Temporary Speed Restrictions (M4) | 108 | 1091 | 108 | 1091 | 108 | 1091 | | Level 2 Exceedences (M5) | 0.70 | 0.93 | 0.70 | 0.93 | 0.70 | 0.93 | | Earthwork Failures (M6) | 10 | 37 | 10 | 37 | 10 | 37 | | Bridge Condition (M8) | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Signalling Failures (M9) | 2,948 | 25,150 | 2,948 | 25,150 | 2,948 | 25,150 | | Signalling Condition (M10) | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | | AC Traction Power Incidents Causing Train Delays (M11) | 10 | 97 | 10 | 97 | 10 | 97 | | Electrification Condition: AC Traction Feeder Stations and Track Sectioning Points (M13) | 1.61 | 2.18 | 1.61 | 2.18 | 1.61 | 2.18 | | Electrification Condition: AC Traction Contact Systems (M15) | 1.61 | 1.83 | 1.61 | 1.83 | 1.61 | 1.83 | | Station Condition Index (M17) | 2.02 | 2.29 | 2.02 | 2.29 | 2.02 | 2.29 | | Light Maintenance Depot Condition Index (M19) | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | Table 5: Disaggregated baseline outputs for track geometry standard deviation data (M3)
| Geometry parameter | 35m Top (Vertical) | 35m Alignment (Horizontal) | 70m Top (Vertical) | 70m Alignment (Horizontal) | |--------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------| | | 50% | 90% | 100% | 50% | 90% | 100% | 50% | 90% | 100% | 50% | 90% | 100% | | GB target | 62.4%| 89.2%| 97.0%| 72.7%| 92.9%| 96.5%| 63.6%| 92.3%| 95.3%| 79.5%| 95.8%| 97.2%| | Scotland target | 69.8%| 92.4%| 97.9%| 69.3%| 92.9%| 96.7%| 67.1%| 92.4%| 95.2%| 77.7%| 95.8%| 97.3%| | E/W target | 61.2%| 88.7%| 96.9%| 73.2%| 92.9%| 96.5%| 63.1%| 92.3%| 95.3%| 79.8%| 95.8%| 97.2%|
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0603-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 42,
"total-input-tokens": 71964,
"total-output-tokens": 17060,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
69,
1
],
[
69,
69,
2
],
[
69,
2468,
3
],
[
2468,
2468,
4
],
[
2468,
4511,
5
],
[
4511,
5261,
6
],
[
5261,
7076,
7
],
[
7076,
8759,
8
],
[
8759,
9088,
9
],
[
9088,
9088,
10
],
[
9088,
11454,
11
],
[
11454,
13559,
12
],
[
13559,
15868,
13
],
[
15868,
18306,
14
],
[
18306,
20531,
15
],
[
20531,
23089,
16
],
[
23089,
24034,
17
],
[
24034,
24034,
18
],
[
24034,
26049,
19
],
[
26049,
28071,
20
],
[
28071,
29860,
21
],
[
29860,
31884,
22
],
[
31884,
34168,
23
],
[
34168,
36639,
24
],
[
36639,
38956,
25
],
[
38956,
41085,
26
],
[
41085,
43437,
27
],
[
43437,
45524,
28
],
[
45524,
47315,
29
],
[
47315,
47315,
30
],
[
47315,
47642,
31
],
[
47642,
47642,
32
],
[
47642,
49542,
33
],
[
49542,
51484,
34
],
[
51484,
53985,
35
],
[
53985,
55022,
36
],
[
55022,
56924,
37
],
[
56924,
58890,
38
],
[
58890,
60772,
39
],
[
60772,
60772,
40
],
[
60772,
63446,
41
],
[
63446,
64210,
42
]
]
} |
9e82df8f98bdc48d670cac4110410fe1b2a11d19 | DELEGATED ITEM REPORT
FULL PLANNING PERMISSION FOR SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS TO WELL VIEW, WARDLOW
Planning Case Officer: SC P File No: 11757 Authorised by: JK NP Number: DDD08140823 Date of Report: 30/9/2014
National Guidance: NPPF – Requiring good design Core Strategy: GSP1, 2, 3, DS1 Local Plan Codes: LC4, LC5, LH4, LT11
List of Background Papers (not previously published) Nil
Human Rights
Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.
Report:
Site and surroundings
Well View is a modern non-traditional bungalow situated in a 'backland' position to the west of the main road through Wardlow. Access is gained along an unmade track off the main street. The property lies within the village Conservation Area.
Proposal
Permission is being sought to extend the property by infilling the space between the main dwelling and the existing detached garage, with a single storey pitched roof extension, in addition to enlarging the footprint of the existing garage.
Key issues
Scale, design and external appearance and potential impact on the village conservation area.
History
2004 – (NP/DDD/0304/0260) - Extension to dwelling – Approved.
2014 – (NP/DDD/0214/0217) - Single storey extension - The Authority’s Officers assessed the proposal and offered advice on a scheme to improve the design, that if accepted would have ensured that the development followed guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan Policies of the Authority. The applicant/agent felt unable to agree to such advice/amendments at this stage and wished the application determined as submitted. The scheme was subsequently refused on scale and design grounds.
Continued over Policy
Core Strategy
GSP3, requires that particular attention is paid to the impact on the character and setting of buildings and that the design is in accord with the Authority’s Design Guide and development is appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park.
L3, is particularly relevant as it deals with Cultural heritage Assets. It explains that development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of historic assets and their setting. Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset or its setting.
Local Plan
LH4, extensions and alterations to dwellings will be permitted provided that the proposal does not detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, its setting or neighbouring buildings. Dominate the original dwelling where it is of architectural, historic or vernacular merit amount to the creation of a separate dwelling or an annexe that could be used as a separate dwelling.
LC4, clearly states, that where development is acceptable in principle, it will be permitted provided that its detailed treatment is of a high standard that respects, conserves and where possible it enhances the landscape, built environment and other valued characteristics of the area, and the degree to which design details, materials and finishes reflect or complement the style and traditions of local buildings.
LC5, states that applications for development in a Conservation Area, or for development that affects it’s setting or important views into or out of the area, should assess and clearly demonstrate how the existing character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved and, where possible, enhanced.
LT11 states, the design and number of parking spaces associated with residential development, including any communal residential parking, must respect the valued characteristics of the area, particularly in Conservation Areas.
Supplementary Planning Guidance within the 1987 and 2007 Design Guides.
Comment
Principle
The site lies within a named settlement (as indicated in Core Strategy Policy DS1), where policy supports in principle to extending an existing dwelling, subject to satisfactory scale, design and external appearance.
Scale & design
One of the objectives of Development Plan policy is to ensure that extensions respect the scale and character of the dwelling, and proposals are not of such a scale and design that the appearance of the property and its surroundings are harmed.
Continued over Policy LH4 in particular allows such extensions, the pretext indicating that, in general, extensions amounting to about 25% of the original floorspace of the dwelling are likely to be acceptable. Further advice on this issue is provided in the 2007 Design Guide where it states, ‘Extensions that are limited to less than 25% of the original building are more likely to be approved’.
The original floorspace of the dwelling, (including the garage) is approx. 141 square metres. The proposed extensions (41m² of additional floorspace) including a previously approved extension (55m² of additional floorspace) amounts to an overall floor area of approx. 96 square metres, amounting to approx. 67% increase over the original floorspace of the dwelling. In this instance the new extensions including the previously approved extension cumulatively exceed the recommended guidelines.
The current resubmission addresses previous concerns over the design, particularly where the ridgeline gave the building an over long appearance. In the current (re-submitted) scheme, this has been addressed, by retaining the existing ridge orientation of the garage and running the ridge of the infill extension opposite to the main building and the garage, thus appearing to break up the continuous/overlong appearance of the dwelling, (although the % increase remains the same as before).
In this case however, whilst the % increase is significantly more than guide, the building is sited more than 30m back from the main road and is barely visible due to its orientation. In the context of the site, it is considered on balance, that the proposed extensions would not appear overly disproportionate in scale and design to the existing property.
Other issues
The Highway Authority has no objections, subject to applicant maintaining 3no. Off-street parking spaces. In this case, aside from the two proposed garage spaces being maintained, there is ample provision for parking and manoeuvring within the site.
The nearest dwelling ‘Well Lane End’ is situated approx 10m to the east of the development and is considered not be affected by the development, although part of the garden boundary is shared with Well View.
Conclusion
It is considered that on balance, the proposed extensions are of an acceptable scale and appearance in relation to the existing property will have no adverse impact on nearby residential amenity nor the character and appearance of the conservation area, whilst maintaining ample provision for parking and manoeuvring. Consequently, the scheme is considered to accord with advice in the NPPF, Development Plan Policies and adopted Design Guidance, therefore recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.
Environmental Management measures
No new measures have been introduced; however, the agent has stated that the new extensions will help improve thermal performance of the building.
Consultation:
Highways - No objections subject to applicant maintaining 3no. Off-street parking spaces. The Parish Council comment that the proposed study window/door in the infill extension should be frosted and the boundary walls between the properties not encroached upon by the development. In this case, whilst the Parish comments are noted, it is considered no amenity will be compromised by not obscuring the glazing to the study window/door, as the window/door is set back approx 2m from the shared garden boundaries, which consist of a combination of wall and mature hedging. Regarding the perceived encroachment on the boundary walls. The extensions will not encroach anywhere near the boundary, therefore considered will remain unaffected by the development.
**Officer recommendation:**
Approve subject to the following conditions:
- Standard 3 year time limit
- Submitted plans
- Design and materials
- Maintain garage space
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0604-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7271,
"total-output-tokens": 1851,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1742,
1
],
[
1742,
4375,
2
],
[
4375,
7398,
3
],
[
7398,
8233,
4
]
]
} |
0cdc5e0987876dbb0234083a9f5b974974f9e294 | Management of Travellers' Sites 2016-17 City of York Council Internal Audit Report
Business Unit: Health, Housing and Adult Social Care Responsible Officer: AD Housing & Community Safety Service Manager: Supported Housing Manager Date Issued: 27th April 2017 Status: Final Reference: 11530/004
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | Overall Audit Opinion | High Assurance | Introduction The City of York Council is responsible for providing management and support services to travellers’ sites, taking into account the distinct cultural needs and values of the community as well as its commitment to the promotion of equality.
There are three travellers’ sites owned and managed by the Council; James Street (20 pitches), Clifton Site (23 pitches) and Osbaldwick Site (18 pitches).
The Council has appointed a site manager who, along with 3 staff members, manages the daily operation of the sites. The housing department is principally responsible for providing management and support services to the travellers’ sites, however, in reality services are provided by a range of council departments and agencies across the city.
The 2016/17 budget allocation for the management of the Council’s travellers’ sites amounts to £270,322.75. This audit of travellers’ sites will aim to provide assurance that the Council is fulfilling all statutory requirements in its management of travellers’ sites, with particular focus on the day-to-day running of sites.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system will ensure that:
- The Council's management of travellers' sites is compliant with the relevant legislation.
- The Council provides the same standards of management and support services to travellers' sites as to customers in other forms of social housing.
The receipt and arrears procedure for travellers’ sites, originally included in the audit specification, is now being reviewed as part of the 2016/17 audit of Housing Rents.
Key Findings The audit work carried out on the management of travellers’ sites by the Council highlighted that, at the time of the audit, systems, processes and the controls were robust and sufficient in mitigating risk. A couple of minor issues were identified; however these had already been considered by staff and were in the process of being rectified. The Council has up-to-date policies and documents that are compliant with the relevant legislation, such as the Mobile Homes Act (1983), Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act (2010). The Council developed a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Strategy (2013-2018) that included an action plan with agreed deadlines. Whilst this strategy has a well-developed action plan to improve both the management of travellers' sites and identify opportunities to provide more pitches, it has not progressed since 2014. Senior Managers will be reviewing this Strategy during 2017/18 as it still remains advertised on the Council website and is available for download by the general public.
The team at Ordnance Lane keep thorough and detailed records on all of the correspondence, repairs requests and general queries for each tenant. These records are kept on the Document Management System (DMS). For each tenant in the sample we selected there was a signed Pitch Agreement on file. The only minor issue noted is that there was not always a copy of the tenant’s identification on file. This has already been acknowledged by the housing team and for all applications going forward copies of identification will be kept on DMS alongside the application document.
Statistics produced by the BI Hub show that 94.77% of repairs requested for travellers sites in 2016/17 were completed within the allocated timeframe. Repairs completed within the timeframe for social housing tenants were 95.03%. From the data analysis performed and using the data compiled by the BI hub, it is evident that tenants across the three travellers’ sites receive the same standard of service that tenants in other forms of social housing receive.
**Overall Conclusions**
It was found that the arrangements for managing risk were very good. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided **High Assurance**. Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0605-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9003,
"total-output-tokens": 1601,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
393,
1
],
[
393,
2413,
2
],
[
2413,
4395,
3
],
[
4395,
6589,
4
],
[
6589,
7189,
5
]
]
} |
059370d33f85bdf359b00d2d5d782daca785e392 | Follow Up of the Agreed Actions from previous Health and Safety audits
City of York Council
Memorandum
For: Assistant Director of Customers and Employees, Head of Health and Safety Status: Final Date Issued: 27th July 2016
Where information resulting from investigation and/or audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential. 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and associated legislation the council has a responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of all its employees as well as customers accessing services.
1.2 The Health and Safety team are appointed, under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to advise the council in relation to its responsibilities regarding health and safety and also assists in the development of the Safety Management System (SMS), by advising on health and safety matters. The team does this by working with managers who are responsible for health and safety within their area of control, and the Workforce Development Unit who coordinate health and safety training across the council.
1.3 The Head of the Health and Safety service is shared between City of York Council and North Yorkshire County Council. This sharing arrangement is a formal agreement with the manager splitting their time between the two authorities, with at least two days a week to be spent at City of York Council; the manager also being available on other days depending upon the nature of the work. As of late August 2016, the whole of the Health and Safety service will be shared with North Yorkshire County Council with the other 5 members of the CYC Health and Safety Service also seconded to North Yorkshire County Council. A formal Service Level Agreement will be drafted and clear performance standards will be in place between the two councils.
Scope and Objectives
1.4 The objective of this audit was to determine the progress made towards the outstanding actions agreed by the management of the Health and Safety service to address one finding identified in the 13/14 audit and the findings identified in the 14/15 audit.
1.5 The audit reports for 13/14 and 14/15 have been provided in Annex 1 and 2 for reference. Full details of identified issues, risks and agreed actions can be found in these reports.
Key Findings
1.6 It was found that reasonable progress has been made towards the agreed actions but that there are a number of outstanding issues for which timescales have been revised and/or the appropriateness of the action which was originally agreed has been reviewed.
1.7 The detailed findings in each area are set out below and where action is still required this is set out in the action plan at appendix 1. 2 FINDINGS
Area Reviewed: Lone working risk assessments
2.1 The 13/14 audit of the Health and Safety (H&S) service found that a number of service areas who had an element of lone working did not have formal risk assessments or workplace instructions in place.
2.2 The action agreed with the previous Health and Safety manager at that time has not been completed and is not considered feasible. Therefore, two other actions have initially been proposed and these are detailed in points 1-2 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1.
Area Reviewed: Coverage of Health and Safety services for council properties
2.3 The 14/15 audit found that the documentation resulting from asbestos reviews, fire risk assessments, etc. was stored in multiple file areas. The service now uploads these documents to Techforge (asset management software system) and stores these documents by site rather than file type. This element of the action can be considered as complete.
2.4 The audit also found that there wasn’t a comprehensive premises register in place detailing the health and safety obligations of the council. It was agreed that a review would be undertaken to establish H&S obligations for each council property/service area. This review has not taken place and no assurance can be given that all properties are receiving the required H&S services.
2.5 There is a lack of a corporate approach to the management of the health and safety obligations of the council. These obligations are the responsibility of a number of service areas operating in isolation, including the corporate H&S team, Property Services, Facilities Management and Housing. Therefore, there can be no assurance that they are undertaking their responsibilities consistently and comprehensively.
2.6 In the case of leased council property, the service also faces the obstacle of historical lease documents, which do not specify the H&S obligations of the council and leaseholder for some council owned commercial properties. A guidance document is now issued to new tenants of these properties, stating that they are responsible for the monitoring of water, electrical and fire related risks but that the council has some responsibility for asbestos monitoring. This issue is addressed in ‘Asbestos Reviews’ (2.20 – 2.21).
2.7 Appropriate actions, responsible officers and timescales need to be agreed to address the requirements of this finding. Three actions have initially been proposed and these are detailed in points 3-5 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1. Area Reviewed: Health and Safety audits – coverage, follow ups and escalation
2.8 The 14/15 audit found Health and Safety audit reports were not always followed up within a reasonable timeframe or escalated where actions had not been completed. It was agreed that the reporting and escalation process would be revised. A new escalation policy has been approved and is published on the council intranet. Audit sites are now required to complete an action plan within 30 days of the visit, detailing how they are going to meet the requirements of findings and to what timescale. The H&S auditor reviews these plans to ensure that the proposed timescales are proportionate to the action. If the site fails to submit an action plan, or if they suggest a timescale which is not proportionate to the action, the issue will be escalated to relevant service heads and assistant directors. These actions satisfactorily address the issue previously identified and there is now an improved management of risk.
2.9 The 14/15 audit also found that agreed actions from H&S audits were not given a risk rating to indicate the importance of the action and how follow up processes should be concentrated. Actions are now rated by importance using priorities 'high', 'medium' and 'low'.
2.10 The 14/15 audit also found that over a third of sites that had been given a high risk rating on the audit programme had not been visited in over 4 years and a number of sites had never been visited at all. It was agreed that the audit programme would be reviewed and revised. Follow up testing demonstrated that all high risk sites have now either been visited in the previous two years or have visits booked in for 2016 or 2017. The percentage of premises which have never been visited on the audit programme has also reduced from 42% to 6%. These actions satisfactorily address the issue previously identified and there is now an improved management of risk.
2.11 It should be noted that the service implements a follow up process to ensure completion of action plans rather than individual actions. Following audits, services are required to return an action plan to the H&S auditor within 30 days. Actions are then checked for completion during the next audit.
Area Reviewed: Reporting of incidents under RIDDOR
2.12 The 14/15 audit found that there were significant delays in the reporting of incidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR). It was agreed that an ICT system for the reporting of accidents and incidents would be put in place, with the functionality for production of management information. The Incident Portal was successfully launched in April 2016.
2.13 Whilst there is not sufficient data available yet to determine whether this software will have a positive impact on the timeliness of RIDDOR submissions, automation increases the likelihood of managers submitting incident details to the required timescale. Management information will also allow the H&S service to target repeat offenders. The service has met the requirements of the agreed action and therefore, it can be considered as complete. However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure effective management of this risk.
**Area Reviewed: Follow up of incident investigations**
2.14 The 14/15 audit found that no follow up of incident investigations was undertaken to ensure that the circumstances leading to the incident had been rectified. It was agreed that a review would be undertaken of the reporting and escalation process. The H&S auditor now produces a monthly report which is circulated to the Chief Executive, Directors and Assistant Directors, listing current incident investigations and whether they have been completed. In the future, this will be replaced by a report automatically generated from the new incident reporting system. The system has an action tracking feature which will prompt managers to complete actions. If the action is still outstanding after four weeks, an email will be automatically generated to notify the relevant assistant director. The software will also allow H&S staff to amend the details and timescales of actions to ensure that they are appropriate to the severity of the incident.
2.15 There was not enough data available at the time of this audit to establish whether actions are being tracked until completion, however, the functionality of the new software increases the likelihood that the H&S service will be able to implement an effective follow up process. The service has met the requirements of the agreed action and, therefore, it can be considered as complete. However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure effective management of this risk.
**Area Reviewed: Contracts and framework agreements**
2.16 The 14/15 audit found that there was no contract or framework agreement in place for asbestos reviews and work and that new contracts needed to be put in place for water monitoring and fire risk assessments. There are now contracts in place for asbestos reviews and fire risk assessments and a water monitoring provider is accessed via the North Yorkshire County Council framework agreement. These actions satisfactorily address the issue previously identified and there is now an improved management of risk.
**Area Reviewed: Fire risk assessment (FRA) follow ups**
2.17 The 14/15 audit found that risk ratings were not given to actions or properties to indicate which actions should be completed and followed up as a priority. Actions are now assigned a risk rating, either 'high', 'medium' or 'low' and guidance is given as to the required completion timescales for each rating. The Health and Safety Advisor specialising in Fire Safety is in the process of assigning risk ratings to properties in her premises register.
2.18 It was also found that actions resulting from fire risk assessments were not followed up in a manner that would provide the council with assurance over the management of fire risk. It was agreed that a formal mechanism of reviewing fire risk assessments would be implemented and that areas of significant risk which had not been addressed in a timely manner would be escalated. The FRA officer implements a generally risk based approach to follow ups of actions arising from assessments, requesting the assessed properties to provide her with a completed action plan and notifying the relevant assistant directors if she considers their management of fire risk to be unacceptable. However, the follow up and escalation process is not formalised and there are no stated parameters to indicate when these processes should be triggered.
2.19 Revised completion dates have been agreed for these actions, please see points 6-7 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1.
2.20 It should be noted that the service implements a follow up process to ensure completion of action plans rather than individual actions. Following assessments, services are required to return an action plan to the H&S adviser within 30 days. Actions are then checked for completion during the next assessment.
Area Reviewed: Asbestos reviews
2.21 The 14/15 audit found that it was not always possible to identify up to date annual asbestos reviews and/or management plans for council occupied non-domestic premises. It was agreed that the Asbestos and Legionella Officer would complete a review of the asbestos register and associated management plans to ensure they were in place for all relevant properties. Testing demonstrated that there are still properties without this documentation in place, due to either the Asbestos and Legionella Officer being unaware of whether the council is responsible for leased commercial properties, or the property potentially being missed during the review.
2.22 The guidance document issued to new tenants of commercial properties states that the council will provide an asbestos survey when they move in and will arrange regular safety checks where asbestos is present. The corporate Health and Safety team will provide these checks when requested by Property Services. The lack of asbestos documentation available for commercial properties would suggest that this requirement is not being effectively communicated.
2.23 A revised completion date has been agreed for this action, please see point 8 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1.
Area Reviewed: Asbestos and Legionella representatives
2.24 The 14/15 audit found that there were no up to date lists of site representatives for asbestos (SALOs) and legionella (SLRs) or officers assigned the responsibility for these across the council. It was agreed that representatives would be established for each site. Corporate representatives have now been assigned and they are due to receive the relevant mandatory training in July 2016. This action satisfactorily addresses the issue previously identified and there is now an improved management of risk.
2.25 The Asbestos and Legionella Officer has updated the list of SALO and SLR representatives for school sites, however, there are still no representatives in place for any other site. Annual review forms are often sent to the H&S service with the ‘responsible officer’ field blank, suggesting that it is difficult to persuade employees to take ownership of these responsibilities. It is recommended that the service challenges sites that are unwilling to nominate a representative and that this is escalated to the corporate representatives as required.
2.26 A revised completion date has been agreed for this action, please see point 9 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1.
Area Reviewed: Legionella monitoring
2.27 The 14/15 audit found that insufficient monitoring information was received from the water monitoring provider to ensure that the required testing was being completed. It was agreed that the Asbestos and Legionella Officer would check the performance of the contractor on a bimonthly basis to ensure that this monitoring information was up to date. The documentation demonstrating the completion of monthly monitoring and annual water sampling was available for all properties tested. In the majority of cases, documentation was also available for the biannual water risk assessments. Whilst the monitoring information is not totally comprehensive, improvements have been made and the risk has been satisfactorily reduced. It is suggested that the service continues to monitor the performance of the contractor to ensure the completion of testing and successful upload of documentation.
Area Reviewed: Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) monitoring
2.28 The 14/15 audit found that the HAVS monitoring system was ineffective due to errors, omissions, incorrect points calculations and delays in submission of the monitoring forms. It was agreed that the monitoring arrangements would be reviewed and any failure to implement the system would be escalated. The current Shared Head of Health and Safety has proposed the purchase of vibration monitoring equipment which could be fitted to relevant applicable tools. Employees would have individual swipe cards, allowing them to sign in and out of the equipment. Exposure time could then be monitored via reports from the associated software system. CES managers have now agreed to the purchasing of this equipment and, in the future, will be undertaking monitoring on a dip sample rolling programme basis. In the interim, there is no effective monitoring system in place.
2.29 A revised completion date has been agreed for this action, please see point 10 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1. If the monitoring equipment is not purchased then alternative action will need to be considered. Area Reviewed: Health Surveillance
2.30 The 14/15 audit found that the processes for keeping the list of employees who require health surveillance up to date were not working effectively. It was agreed that occupational health training for managers would be undertaken and that the H&S service would have to continue to rely on managers to provide them with updates. Four training sessions were offered via the Work Force Development Unit during the financial year 15/16. The agreed action has been completed but there still seems to be issues receiving information from the services.
2.31 The list of employees requiring health surveillance is maintained by Business Support. However, there is no formal process to ensure that managers provide up to date information to the Business Support Officer. Managers must undertake an annual risk assessment of their site, identifying hazardous materials and activities that could potentially pose a threat to the health and safety of their staff. This would be an opportune time for managers to review and update the list of employees requiring health surveillance and it is recommended that this process is added to the risk assessment policy.
2.32 In order to sufficiently address the original finding, the agreed action for this area has been revised. Please see point 11 of the Action Plan in Appendix 1. 3 CONCLUSIONS
3.1 The service has successfully implemented five actions and partially completed two actions from the 13/14 and 14/15 audits.
3.2 Five agreed actions and partial actions have not been completed and have either been revised and/or a new timescale for completion has been agreed.
3.3 Two agreed actions are no longer appropriate to meet the requirements of the finding and have been revised.
## APPENDIX 1 – ACTIONS AGREED TO ADDRESS CONTROL WEAKNESSES
| Action Number | Report Reference | Issue | Risk | Agreed Action | Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |---------------|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|---------------------|-----------| | 1 | 2.1 – 2.2 | Risks are not fully documented for services with an element of lone working | Staff are at increased risk of physical harm | The Health and Safety Auditor (AF) to take a sample of high risk service areas (e.g. social care) and assess the appropriateness of their documentation. | 2 | Head of Health and Safety | April 17 | | 2 | 2.1 – 2.2 | Risks are not fully documented for services with an element of lone working | Staff are at increased risk of physical harm | H&S to run a campaign to increase the awareness of the necessity of completing lone working risk assessments. | 2 | Head of Health and Safety | June 17 | | 3 | 2.4 – 2.7 | There is no single premises register in place, identifying the health and safety obligations the council has for each property | Services may not be provided to properties that require it | H&S to regularly liaise with Property Services, Facilities Management and Housing to ensure there is corporate oversight and that all obligations are being met. | 2 | Head of Health and Safety | April 17 | | 4 | 2.4 – 2.7 | There is no single premises register in place, identifying the health and safety | Services may not be provided to properties that require it | Premises registers for each H&S service to be compared with assets listed on | 2 | Head of Health and Safety | April 17 | | | | obligations the council has for each property | Techforge to ensure that they are complete. | Property Services will now forward a report on a quarterly basis, detailing all acquisitions and disposals for the period. H&S service will update their premises registers to reflect changes. | 2 | Head of Health and Safety | Complete | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 5 | 2.4 – 2.7 | There is no single premises register in place, identifying the health and safety obligations the council has for each property | Services may not be provided to properties that require it | | | | | 6 | 2.17 | FRA actions are not followed up in a manner that provides the organisation with assurance over the management of fire risk | Actions from FRAs may not be completed, increasing the likelihood and impact of a fire | Complete the risk rating of properties requiring fire risk assessments. | 3 | Head of Health and Safety | Oct 16 | | 7 | 2.18 – 2.19 | FRA actions are not followed up in a manner that provides the organisation with assurance over the management of fire risk | Actions from FRAs may not be completed, increasing the likelihood and impact of a fire | Formalise the follow up and escalation processes, stating trigger points which would instigate these processes. | 3 | Head of Health and Safety | Oct 16 | | 8 | 2.21 – 2.23 | Asbestos risk registers and associated asbestos management plans are not being reviewed | Reviews are not taking place which could mean that changes that affect asbestos | Undertake a search of all premises files to identify the properties with missing reviews and management | 3 | Head of Health and Safety | Dec 16 | | | | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | | | reviewed in council occupied non-domestic premises in accordance with statutory requirements | management may not be identified. | plans. Ensure coverage of these properties in the next review programme. Requirements for asbestos checks for commercial properties to be communicated by Property Services in a timely fashion, as per action 3. | | | | 9 | 2.24 – 2.26 | There are no up to date lists of site representatives for asbestos and legionella | Asbestos and legionella risks may not be managed appropriately, increasing the likelihood of exposure to asbestos or legionella bacteria | Complete the review of SALOs and SLRs by chasing and escalating review forms with the ‘responsible officer’ field left blank. | 2 | Head of Health and Safety Sep 16 | | 10 | 2.28 – 2.29 | HAVS monitoring is incomplete because of missing, delayed, inaccurate or incomplete monitoring forms | An employee may develop HAVS because frequent exceeding of the safe limit was not identified and addressed | A decision will be made as to how the HAVS monitoring system will operate in the future. | 2 | Head of Health and Safety Sep 16 | | 11 | 2.30 – 2.32 | The processes for keeping the list of employees who require health surveillance up to | Early signs of ill health are not identified because health surveillance is not undertaken | Adjust the risk assessment policy to ensure that managers are required to provide an annual | 3 | Head of Health and Safety April 17 | | Date are not working effectively | Update of employees requiring health surveillance to Business Support. |
\*The priorities for actions are:
Priority 1: A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management.
Priority 2: A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management.
Priority 3: The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0606-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 29807,
"total-output-tokens": 5542,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
849,
1
],
[
849,
3231,
2
],
[
3231,
5757,
3
],
[
5757,
8878,
4
],
[
8878,
11847,
5
],
[
11847,
14592,
6
],
[
14592,
17486,
7
],
[
17486,
18842,
8
],
[
18842,
19250,
9
],
[
19250,
21367,
10
],
[
21367,
23026,
11
],
[
23026,
24557,
12
],
[
24557,
25119,
13
]
]
} |
2edd44aafae596f445522c58cd915799f29ac590 | High Needs SEN City of York Council Internal Audit Report 2015/16
Business Unit: Children’s Services, Education and Skills, Responsible Officer: Interim Assistant Director, Education and Skills Service Manager: Head of Disability Services and Special Education Needs Date Issued: 27 July 2016 Status: Final Reference: 11120/001
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | Overall Audit Opinion | High Assurance | Summary and Overall Conclusions
Introduction From September 2014 a new SEN code of practice was introduced by the Department for Education. The changes mean that children with special educational needs who have a high level of need will start to be issued with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Education, Health and Care Plan will slowly replace the previous Statements.
The council is also undertaking an Inclusion Review, looking at the way in which provision in the authority is organised and how it serves the needs of the children within the authority.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system will ensure that:
- SEN Payments made are correct, timely and appropriate.
- Budgets are appropriately monitored
- Suitable and sufficient information is available to aid financial benchmarking and decision making
Key Findings It was found that payments made for High Needs SEN were correct, and supported by appropriate documentation. Clear information is available to all people including council staff, external institutions, funding recipients and parents to support funding decisions and reviews.
The council is in the process of implementing the national change from Statements to Education, Health and Care Plans. Plans for learners are subject to regular reviews, including their effectiveness and funding level. Some future budgetary pressures are forecast, however the council is currently undertaking an inclusion review looking at the effectiveness of provision across the city. After the results of this the council should be in a position to make informed budgetary decisions.
Information such as the number of recipients and their type of need and funding level is available internally to monitor the provision, but not all provision is benchmarked. Use of benchmarking data could increase understanding about York’s provision in comparison with other local authorities.
Two separate teams are responsible for the administration of High Needs SEN funding depending whether the provision is pre or post maintained education. With the loss of a key member of staff from the post maintained education team it should be considered whether the split is meaningful or whether the two parts of the service could be more closely aligned for better integration and increased resilience. Overall Conclusions
It was found that the arrangements for managing risk were very good. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided High Assurance.
## 1 Benchmarking
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | SEN provision is not benchmarked. | The authorities SEN provision may not be comparable to other authorities’ SEN provision. Areas for review may not be identified and highlighted to ensure provision is effectively provided and budgeted for. |
### Findings
The authority holds a lot of information regarding the High Needs SEN provision, including number of recipients, the banding in which their needs fall and the type of need that they have.
They authority do not however undertake formal benchmarking for all High Needs SEN provision, which may aid in understanding how comparable its provision for SEN is to other authorities' provisions to aid future planning and budget setting.
### Agreed Action 1.1
Benchmarking will be undertaken
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | SEN Information & Finance Co-ordinator | April 2017 |
### Agreed Action 1.2
Benchmarking will be undertaken
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Learning Skills La 16-19 Manager | April 2017 | Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0607-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 9640,
"total-output-tokens": 1569,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
427,
1
],
[
427,
2839,
2
],
[
2839,
3108,
3
],
[
3108,
4316,
4
],
[
4316,
6510,
5
],
[
6510,
7110,
6
]
]
} |
d07044684d73a576554630a1ec269987c9cabb7f | Morning Nichola
I refer to your enquiry below and our subsequent discussion at your offices. The drawing demonstrates rebuilding of the frontage walls on each side of the access and minor extension of the dropped kerb crossing. Whilst the wall height is not annotated on the drawing, it is understood that these will be rebuilt to a height unlikely to obstruct exit visibility. I note that scrub vegetation is to be removed. Ideally the areas to be maintained clear of obstruction should be identified on the drawing. I think that we have suggested all areas of the site within 2.4m of the carriageway edge, but appreciate that this requirement may well be included within the Conditions. The grip to contain surface water run-off should prove to be an improvement on the existing situation. The Highway Authority recommends that some form of barrier is installed to contain run-off however, if an issue were to arise, this would be covered by Section 163 of the Highways Act 1980. Hope that the above comments are of use.
Regards
Nick
From: Howarth Nicola [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 August 2014 15:15 To: Knowles,Nick (Economy, Transport & Environment) Subject: FW: Shire Hill Proposed Entrance
Hi Nick,
I hope you are well?
David Marchington has sent a plan through showing the proposed site entrance improvements at Shire Hill (see email below and attachment).
Can you confirm whether this plan is sufficient and that you are happy with the improvements undertaken/proposed at the site access including the felling of trees to improve visibility. If this is the case are you able to confirm the withdrawal of your initial objection?
I'm in on Thursday, if you are visiting our offices we could have a chat about it?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Nicola
From: David Marchington [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 August 2014 15:08 To: Howarth Nicola Cc: Mark Oldridge Subject: FW: Shire Hill Proposed Entrance
Dear Nicola, Please find attached plan of the proposed entrance at Shire Hill Quarry.
The changes are as previously discussed:
- Take down existing and rebuild the dry stone walls either side of the entrance.
- Install one dropped kerb and replace existing with 4 lowered kerbs to increase splay access.
- Install a further drainage grip to the verge above the new wall on the western edge to catch cross-fall runoff from the entrance apron.
- Resurface with new Macadam Base Course and Surface Course where required.
- Entrance width anticipated to be 11m.
I trust this is sufficient to requirements at this stage and look forward to your comments in due course.
Kind regards
David.
David Marchington
Marchington Stone Ltd Buxton Road, High Lane, Stockport, SK6 8DX T: 01663 765000 F: 01663 763777 www.marchingtonstone.co.uk
Company Registration No. 00977250
This email or email thread section has been classified CONTROLLED - This email requires controlled access by Council personnel and / or intended recipient(s) only. This email may contain business or personal information.
Think before you print! Save energy and paper. Do you really need to print this email?
Derbyshire County Council works to improve the lives of local people by delivering high quality services. You can find out more about us by visiting 'www.derbyshire.gov.uk'. If you want to work for us go to our job pages on 'www.derbyshire.gov.uk/jobs'. You can register for e-mail alerts, download job packs and apply on-line.
Please Note This email is confidential, may be legally privileged and may contain personal views that are not the views of Derbyshire County Council. It is intended solely for the addressee. If this email was sent to you in error please notify us by replying to the email. Once you have done this please delete the email and do not disclose, copy, distribute, or rely on it. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this email may be disclosed.
Derbyshire County Council reserves the right to monitor both sent and received emails. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0608-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5197,
"total-output-tokens": 1120,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1975,
1
],
[
1975,
4054,
2
],
[
4054,
4282,
3
]
]
} |
9814ec4261eb56ea12d5d7e7c585be634187a5ca | To: Coverland UK Limited\
C/o John Church Planning Consultancy Ltd\
Victoria Buildings\
117 High Street\
Clay Cross\
CHESTERFIELD\
S45 9DZ
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER
In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for Full Planning Permission, details of which are as follows:
Office Code No. NP/DDD/1213/1144\
Date received: 20 December 2013\
Proposal: Erection of agricultural building\
Location: Land at Bramley Lane, Hassop Common, Bakewell\
Parish: Calver
THE DECISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Statutory Time Limit
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission.
Approved Plans
2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the amended plans: Drawing No.s 987-01 revision E; 987-02 revision E; 987-03 revision E; and 987-04 revision E, all received by the National Park Authority on 15 April 2014, subject to the following conditions or modifications:
Continued overleaf...
Signed \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date 10 October 2014
Attention is called to the notes at the end of this Decision Notice Great Crested Newts
3 Within three months of the date of this permission, mitigation measures for great crested newts, including a management plan for the conservation and enhancement of water based and terrestrial habitat for great crested newts shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the National Park Authority's ecologist. Thereafter, the mitigation measures and management plan shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.
Landscaping
4 Within three months of the date of this permission, a landscaping plan, including a management plan for the conservation and enhancement of the existing plantation within the red-edged application site, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the National Park Authority's landscape architect. Thereafter, any planting and the future management of the existing plantation shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.
Redundant Buildings and Touring Caravan
5 Within three months of the date of this permission, the buildings as specified in the Planning Statement/Agricultural Appraisal received on 1 October 2014 and all ancillary temporary structures including the touring caravan shall be permanently removed from the land.
Design Details
6 Prior to the surfacing of the proposed track and any part of the associated yard area, samples of the surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently so maintained.
7 The below cladding for the proposed buildings shall be clad in randomly coursed natural limestone within three months of the buildings being taken into use.
8 All external timberwork shall be stained or painted dark brown or black and shall be permanently so maintained.
9 The sheeting for the roofs over the buildings shall be factory colour-coated to BS 5252 Ref. No. 18B29 (dark blue) and thereafter the sheets shall not be repainted or replaced other than that colour without the prior written approval of the National Park Authority.
Reasons for Conditions:
1 To comply with Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which requires the National Park Authority to reconsider the proposal afresh after a period of years) as amended by Section 51 of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 To minimise the impact of the development on the surroundings and to safeguard the landscape character of the area and in the interests of the proper planning of the local area.
3 To protect the ecological interests of the area.
4-9 To minimise the impact of the development on the surroundings and to safeguard the landscape character of the area.
Continued overleaf... The applicant is reminded that great crested newt and their breeding sites or resting places are protected under Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is an offence for anyone intentionally to kill, injure or disturb a great crested newt, to possess one (whether live or dead), or sell or offer for sale without a licence. It is also an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used by great crested newt for shelter. The following advice is offered to help avoid any offence under wildlife legislation during the construction phase of the proposed development but it is not a comprehensive list.
- If the proposed development is not completed during the active period between April and June, any work associated with the rubble piles on site shall be completed within one or two days, and the existing rubble piles shall be carefully dismantled by hand (using hand tools) to avoid crushing any amphibians that may be sheltering inside.
- During the construction works, the foundation and wall footings should be checked on a daily basis for the presence of great crested newts.
- Nothing shall be stored in proximity to the water tank (grid ref. SK 2260 7358) during the construction phase of the proposed development and precautions shall be taken to avoid any likelihood of any spoil or other materials being deposited in the water tank, and avoid any other pollution of or damage to the water tank.
- The footprint of any areas intended for excavation work, surfacing works, or storage of plant, materials or equipment shall be checked for the presence of great crested newts before works take place are before they are taken into use for storage.
- The surfacing materials for the track shall be able to filter rainfall such as limestone ballast. No tar-based products such as tarmac shall be used for surfacing.
- Any great crested newts found during works shall be carefully placed in a sheltered location within vegetation adjacent to the water tank in terrestrial habitat. If any great crested newts are found during the construction phase of the proposed development, works shall be ceased immediately and no further works shall take place until Natural England’s advice has been sought and acted upon.
It remains open to the applicant to instruct a suitably qualified ecologist to supervise the works, or submit a full set of mitigation measures prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist to be agreed with the Authority’s ecologist prior to the commencement of the proposed development to obtain greater certainty in this matter.
Note: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 38(3) of the Act also provides that the development plan consists of saved Local Plan policies and the adopted Core Strategy.
The Authority’s Planning Committee has assessed the proposals against Development Plan policies and any other material considerations, including amendments requested by officers and additional information, which have served to overcome any concerns and which would ensure that the development follows guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policies in the Development Plan.
Core Strategy Policies include: GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, L1, L2 & L3
Relevant Local Plan policies include: LC4, LC13, LC16 & LC17 STATEMENT OF APPLICANT’S RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION OR FROM THE GRANT OF PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
Please note, only the applicant possesses the right of appeal. You must use a Planning Appeal Form/Householder Appeal Form
- If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- If you want appeal against your local planning authority’s decision then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this notice.
- Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Secretary of State at Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN or online at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs.
- The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.
- The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.
- In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based its decision on a direction given by him.
Purchase Notices
- If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.
- In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London) or, where the land is situated in a National Park, the National Park Authority for that Park in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council or Authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To: Coverland UK Limited\
C/o John Church Planning Consultancy Ltd\
Victoria Buildings\
117 High Street\
Clay Cross\
CHESTERFIELD\
Derbyshire\
S45 9DZ
Dear Sir or Madam
Please find attached a copy of the approval notice for the development outlined below.
Please read this notice carefully. It is particularly important that you comply with any conditions which require details to be submitted and agreed, or some other action to be taken, before work commences. These are often known as “pre-conditions” and usually start with words such as “Prior to the commencement of development” or “Before any work takes place”, but there may be other similar words, so please read this notice carefully.
Failure to comply with pre-conditions could result in any work carried out being unlawful and the permission not implemented. Similarly, failure to comply with the conditions and/or the approved plans could result in abortive work and possible enforcement action.
If you are employing a builder or other contractor to carry out the work you should ensure that he has a copy of the approval notice and approved plans before starting work.
If you wish to amend the approved plans in any way, you must first agree this with us. There is a formal process for submitting and agreeing both minor (“non-material amendments”) and more significant amendments to the approved plans. Details can be found on the Authority’s web site at http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/planning/advice/do-i-need-permission
Please return the first tear-off section at the bottom of this letter before work commences and the second tear-off section once the work has been completed. Two pre-paid labels are enclosed for your use.
Yours faithfully
John Scott\
Director of Planning To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE
APPLICATION No: NP/DDD/1213/1144
Site Address: Land at Bramley Lane, Hassop Common, Bakewell,
Development: Erection of agricultural building
The above development was **completed** on \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Signed: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Name (in block capitals): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE
APPLICATION No: NP/DDD/1213/1144
Site Address: Land at Bramley Lane, Hassop Common, Bakewell,
Development: Erection of agricultural building
The above development **commenced** on \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Signed: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Name (in block capitals): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0609-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 14464,
"total-output-tokens": 3116,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1571,
1
],
[
1571,
4363,
2
],
[
4363,
7876,
3
],
[
7876,
10431,
4
],
[
10431,
10431,
5
],
[
10431,
12191,
6
],
[
12191,
12191,
7
],
[
12191,
13107,
8
]
]
} |
6a7fad9d89ae8272618287dd2fabf5c4a51b1b43 | I was consulted on listed building consent application NP/DDD/0414/0444 and my comments of the associated discharge of conditions application NP/DDD/0414/0444 are as follows:
**Condition 3 external face to the proposed bathroom vent** The research on traditional vents is welcomed; see information provided on Conservation Vent Grille (Cast Iron Air Brick Company) by the applicant. However, this vent will project out from the external wall face. I would suggest that the agent investigates a simple flush fitted cast iron grate/air brick, painted in a recessive colour (black/dark grey) or the same colour as the surrounding stonemasonry, so that the new feature is discreet. Examples of simple flush fitted grates can be seen at the following:
http://www.castironairbricks.co.uk/product-category/cast-iron-air-bricks/ http://www.longbottomfoundry.co.uk/gutters-pipes-fittings.htm http://www.britannia.uk.com/services/cast-iron-air-bricks
The above names are not a recommendation but are examples of the grill/air brick type that would be preferable in this proposed location.
**Condition 4 proposed flue for the Living Room wood-burner** As noted in my comments on the initial listed building consent application, there is no objection in principle to the introduction of a flue, for a new wood-burner, in the lounge. This is because the lounge is situated within a single storey structure built to the rear elevation of the property in 1984 (see planning permission NP/WED/284/75). The proposed flue will therefore not physically affect any historic fabric. However, full details of the proposed flue, including height and finish, were requested so that the new works do not detract from the host building.
There is no objection in principle to the proposed width (although it would be preferable if it was narrower) and proposed black powder-coated finish. However, I am concerned about the proposed height as proposed in the discharge of conditions application. The information accompanying the discharge of conditions application states, ‘The proposed flue will finish 600mm above the ridge line. Firstly, there is no indication whether the ridge line is the ridge to the principal building or the ridge of the rear lean-to extension. This needs to be clarified. I would also suggest that the agent discusses the proposed work with the local Building Control Department to establish if the flue has to be so tall. In addition, if the flue is so tall will it require bracing/support to keep it in-situ? Additional information is therefore required before this proposed works can be assessed fully and the condition discharged.
**Condition 5 Living Room tri-fold wooden doors** The removal of the u-pvc doors from the rear extension is welcomed. As stated in my comments on the application, there are no objections to the introduction of the tri-folding doors. I support setting the proposed doors back from external wall face. A drawing showing the full details of the doors would have been preferable. There is no objection in principle to timber doors with Argon filled double glazing. Details of the proposed paint finish should be provided along with the new door furniture. This condition cannot be discharged without this information.
**Condition 6 new windows** The removal of the u-pvc windows is welcomed and the introduction of timber windows is supported. However, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed windows. These comprise:
01. I cannot support *stick-on glazing bars* and *trickle vents* for replacement windows in a historic building. This is because these details will detract from the character of the heritage asset.
02. I would therefore recommend true glazing bars with a moulded profile at a width of 18mm. The proposed ovolo profile to the internal face of the glazing bars is welcomed.
03. Ideally, the glazing should be puttied-in and beads omitted.
04. The windows should be set back approximately 75mm from the external wall face unless there is a justification not to.
05. The drawings of the proposed windows submitted with the discharge of conditions application are small with no annotated scale. Dimensions of the proposed windows sections should be provided so that the sizes and proportions can be assessed. Ideally, drawings of the proposed windows, at an appropriate scale, should be submitted.
06. Ideally, the proposed double casements, comprising one opening window and one fixed window, should have balanced proportions.
07. The drawing of a proposed casement submitted with the listed building consent application showed flush fitting casements, with no storm-proofing detail. The flush-fitting units are welcomed but there should be clarification that each window will have this same detail.
08. It would be preferable if the windows opened inwards rather than outwards. It this is not possible a justification should be provided.
09. We have not sourced any evidence of the former windows to the 2nd floor window openings and the design of the original windows may have been different to that of the proposed. However, I would suggest that the windows to the 2nd floor front elevation should not be top hung. I would suggest that as many of these windows as possible are fixed and that any proposed opening windows are pivot hung at the sides or inward opening hoppers with hinges at the base. These windows are too large to be side hung. In summary, details should be supplied on which windows are to be fixed and those that will open. Details of how the opening lights will be hung should also be provided.
10. Solid timber would be preferable to laminated timber for the new window frames.
11. Details of the proposed paint colour and finish for the windows should be provided. Ideally a colour swatch of the RAL number should be submitted.
12. Details of the proposed window furniture should be provided.
I would suggest that this condition is not discharged until the outstanding information has been supplied and the above matters resolved.
Rebecca Waddington Conservation Officer Cultural Heritage Section Peak District National Park Authority 16 September 2014
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0610-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4480,
"total-output-tokens": 1361,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3836,
1
],
[
3836,
6132,
2
]
]
} |
587e042f78379e3ac201c6f12bcb54b242983c60 | Application for Planning Permission. Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Publication of applications on planning authority websites. Please note that the information provided on this application form and in supporting documents may be published on the Authority's website. If you require any further clarification, please contact the Authority's planning department.
1. Applicant Name, Address and Contact Details
| Title: | Mr | First name: | Brian | Surname: | Cole | |--------|----|-------------|-------|----------|------| | Company name: | Greene King Pub Partners | | Street address: | Bury St Edmunds | | Town/City: | England | | County: | | | Country: | United Kingdom | | Postcode: | IP33 1QT |
Are you an agent acting on behalf of the applicant?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
2. Agent Name, Address and Contact Details
| Title: | Miss | First Name: | Lyndsey | Surname: | Bennett | |--------|------|-------------|---------|----------|---------| | Company name: | Concept IDL | | Street address: | Suite 1 | | Town/City: | Sheffield | | County: | | | Country: | | | Postcode: | S9 1xz |
| Telephone number: | 01284 763222 | | Country Code: | National Number: | Extension Number: | | Mobile number: | | | Fax number: | | | Email address: | [email protected] |
3. Description of the Proposal
Please describe the proposed development including any change of use:
New proposed extension to create link between areas to include refurbishment of of barn area. Extension formed from stonework to match existing with oak framed windows/ doors. Barn area to be incorporated within licensed area as dining/ function room. Provide new fire escape platform from new barn area to r/s elevation. Provide new fire escape staircase from accommodation with new spiral staircase. Provide new extract and fresh air input to kitchen thro barn roof.
Has the building, work or change of use already started?\
☐ Yes ☐ No 4. Site Address Details
| Full postal address of the site (including full postcode where available) | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | House: | Suffix: | Description: | | House name: | The Bridge Inn | | Street address: | Calver Bridge | | Calver | | Town/City: | Hope Valley | | County: | Derbyshire | | Postcode: | S32 3XA |
Description of location or a grid reference (must be completed if postcode is not known):
| Easting: | 424555 | | Northing: | 374487 |
5. Pre-application Advice
Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, please complete the following information about the advice you were given (this will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently):
| Officer name: | |----------------| | Title: Mr | | First name: Adam | | Surname: Maxwell | | Reference: NP/DDD/0313/0200 | | Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 03/03/2014 (Must be pre-application submission) |
Details of the pre-application advice received:
Previous planning application
6. Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way
Is a new or altered vehicle access proposed to or from the public highway?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Is a new or altered pedestrian access proposed to or from the public highway?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Are there any new public roads to be provided within the site?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Are there any new public rights of way to be provided within or adjacent to the site?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Do the proposals require any diversions/extinguishments and/or creation of rights of way?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
7. Waste Storage and Collection
Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Have arrangements been made for the separate storage and collection of recyclable waste?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
8. Authority Employee/Member
With respect to the Authority, I am: (a) a member of staff\
(b) an elected member\
(c) related to a member of staff\
(d) related to an elected member
Do any of these statements apply to you?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
9. Materials
Please state what materials (including type, colour and name) are to be used externally (if applicable):
Walls - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: sandstone
Description of proposed materials and finishes: no match existing 9. (Materials continued)
Roof - description: Description of existing materials and finishes:
- slate - pitched
- flat roof - felt
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
- New flat roof to match existing
Windows - description: Description of existing materials and finishes:
- Timber painted
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
- Oak/ timber framed windows
Doors - description: Description of existing materials and finishes:
- Timber
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
- To match existing or oak
Boundary treatments - description: Description of existing materials and finishes:
- No works
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
- New close boarded fence and gate where new spiral fire escape
Vehicle access and hard standing - description: Description of existing materials and finishes:
- No works
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
- No works
Are you supplying additional information on submitted plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, please state references for the plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement:
- 1701-01 Existing layout
- 1701-02F proposed layout
- 1701-03E existing ad proposed elevations
- 1701-04 os map
- 1701-05 rev B
10. Vehicle Parking
Please provide information on the existing and proposed number of on-site parking spaces:
| Type of vehicle | Existing number of spaces | Total proposed (including spaces retained) | Difference in spaces | |----------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------|----------------------| | Cars | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Light goods vehicles/public carrier vehicles | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Motorcycles | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Disability spaces | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Cycle spaces | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other (e.g. Bus) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Short description of Other: No change to car-park
11. Foul Sewage
Please state how foul sewage is to be disposed of:
- Mains sewer: ☒ Package treatment plant: ☐ Unknown: ☐
- Septic tank: ☐ Cess pit: ☐
- Other: ☐
Are you proposing to connect to the existing drainage system?\
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown 12. Assessment of Flood Risk
Is the site within an area at risk of flooding? (Refer to the Environment Agency’s Flood Map showing flood zones 2 and 3 and consult Environment Agency standing advice and your local planning authority requirements for information as necessary.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, you will need to submit an appropriate flood risk assessment to consider the risk to the proposed site.
Is your proposal within 20 metres of a watercourse (e.g. river, stream or beck)?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere?
☐ Yes ☐ No
How will surface water be disposed of:
☐ Sustainable drainage system ☐ Main sewer ☐ Pond/lake
☐ Soakaway ☐ Existing watercourse
13. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
To assist in answering the following questions refer to the guidance notes for further information on when there is a reasonable likelihood that any important biodiversity or geological conservation features may be present or nearby and whether they are likely to be affected by your proposals.
Having referred to the guidance notes, is there a reasonable likelihood of the following being affected adversely or conserved and enhanced within the application site, OR on land adjacent to or near the application site:
a) Protected and priority species
☐ Yes, on the development site ☐ Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development ☐ No
b) Designated sites, important habitats or other biodiversity features
☐ Yes, on the development site ☐ Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development ☐ No
c) Features of geological conservation importance
☐ Yes, on the development site ☐ Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development ☐ No
14. Existing Use
Please describe the current use of the site:
Public House
Is the site currently vacant?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Does the proposal involve any of the following?
If Yes, you will need to submit an appropriate contamination assessment with your application.
Land which is known to be contaminated?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Land where contamination is suspected for all or part of the site?
☐ Yes ☐ No
A proposed use that would be particularly vulnerable to the presence of contamination?
☐ Yes ☐ No
15. Trees and Hedges
Are there trees or hedges on the proposed development site?
☐ Yes ☐ No
And/or Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes to either or both of the above, you may need to provide a full Tree Survey, at the discretion of your local planning authority. If a Tree Survey is required, this and the accompanying plan should be submitted alongside your application. Your local planning authority should make clear on its website what the survey should contain, in accordance with the current ‘BS5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’.
16. Trade Effluent
Does the proposal involve the need to dispose of trade effluents or waste?
☐ Yes ☐ No
17. Residential Units
Does your proposal include the gain or loss of residential units?
☐ Yes ☐ No
18. All Types of Development: Non-residential Floorspace
Does your proposal involve the loss, gain or change of use of non-residential floorspace?
☐ Yes ☐ No 19. Employment If known, please complete the following information regarding employees:
| | Full-time | Part-time | Equivalent number of full-time | |----------------------|-----------|-----------|-------------------------------| | Existing employees | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Proposed employees | 0 | 0 | 0 |
20. Hours of Opening If known, please state the hours of opening (e.g. 15:30) for each non-residential use proposed:
| Use | Monday to Friday | Saturday | Sunday and Bank Holidays | |----------------------|-------------------|----------|--------------------------| | | Start Time | End Time | Start Time | End Time | Not Known |
21. Site Area What is the site area? 2,330 sq.metres
22. Industrial or Commercial Processes and Machinery Please describe the activities and processes which would be carried out on the site and the end products including plant, ventilation or air conditioning. Please include the type of machinery which may be installed on site:
N/A Is the proposal for a waste management development? ☐ Yes ☐ No
23. Hazardous Substances Is any hazardous waste involved in the proposal? ☐ Yes ☐ No
24. Site Visit Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land? ☐ Yes ☐ No If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one) ☐ The agent ☐ The applicant ☐ Other person
25. Certificates (Certificate A) Certificate of Ownership - Certificate A Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 Certificate under Article 12 I certify that the applicant certifies that on the day 21 days before the date of this application nobody except myself/the applicant was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of any part of the land to which the application relates, and that none of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, an agricultural holding ("agricultural holding" has the meaning given by reference to the definition of "agricultural tenant" in section 65(8) of the Act).
Title: Miss First name: Lyndsey Surname: Bennett Person role: Agent Declaration date: 24/10/2014 ☒ Declaration made
26. Declaration I/we hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information. I/we confirm that, to the best of my/our knowledge, any facts stated are true and accurate and any opinions given are the genuine opinions of the person(s) giving them.
☒ Date 24/10/2014
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0611-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 5345,
"total-output-tokens": 3329,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1909,
1
],
[
1909,
4240,
2
],
[
4240,
6973,
3
],
[
6973,
10319,
4
],
[
10319,
13090,
5
]
]
} |
8a865c9184b034cb6f7f23716dc7afde328b28a7 | Apprenticeship Description
| Date | 21/01/2019 | |------------|------------| | Apprenticeship Title | Customer Service Practitioner | | Training Provider | RWP Training Ltd | | Weekly Wage | £144.30 (if 19 years old or over, after 12 months your salary will increase to minimum wage for your age) | | Working Week | Library opening hours | | Expected Duration | 12 months |
Vacancy description
As a Customer Services apprentice within Cumbria County Council you will receive:
- High quality training and development opportunities
- Personalised support from managers and mentors
- The opportunity to work alongside skilled and experienced staff gaining valuable job specific and transferable skills that will support you in your future career
Key job specific activities
As a Customer Services apprentice your duties will be to assist colleagues with the following:
- To carry out library duties and procedures as laid down in the Staff Guidelines, in a polite, welcoming and efficient manner to achieve an effective service.
- Whilst on duty within a library setting, to take responsibility for customer service, cash handling, the building environment and to have an awareness of health and safety procedures.
- To maintain and update readers' registration and joining procedures, amending computer records as and when required, arranging overdue notices and dealing with customer enquiries arising from this.
- To carry out routine clerical procedures connected with stock.
- To be an active part of creating displays and promotional activity.
- To assist with services to children or adult groups within a library setting or as part of an outreach programme.
- To assist customers in their use of ICT, digital equipment and software.
- To assist with the cataloguing and indexing of Local Studies collections to ensure they are available to researchers.
- To advise customers on the range of archive and local studies sources available for use by customers.
- To take part in outreach events such as school visits, drop ins, book launches and exhibitions as Cumbria County Council required.
- To provide support to teams assigned to special collections and all departments within the library setting
- Monitor and maintain the tea and coffee supplies for the public
### Key Information
| Qualifications required: | A good standard of English, Maths and ICT and be prepared to learn further. | |--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Desired Skills | We welcome applications from self-motivated individuals who are able to work as part of a team and are willing to learn and develop the following skills: | | | - Excellent communication skills | | | - Excellent organisation and planning skills | | | - Excellent listening and observation skills | | | - Excellent customer services skills | | | - Excellent levels of IT competency (Microsoft office software including Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook) | | | - Excellent time management skills | | Personal Qualities and Behaviours | All County Council employees must adhere to the Council Behaviours which are: | | | - Communicate in a clear and constructive way | | | - Act with honesty and respect for others | | | - Demonstrate a positive flexible attitude | | | - Take responsibility for our actions | | | - Be committed to one team |
### Training provided
- Level 2 Apprenticeship in Customer Services
- Functional Skills in Maths and English if required
Cumbria County Council works with a range of high quality training providers, who deliver qualification and training courses for apprentices employed by the council.
These training providers will undertake the initial aptitude assessments; support with the recruitment process; deliver the qualification training (and ongoing assessments) and work closely with council staff to support apprentices to successfully complete their apprenticeship and move on to further training or employment.
### Disclosure and Barring Service – DBS Checks
- This post does not require a DBS check.
### Other Factors
- You must ensure that you are able to travel to and from the work location specified on a daily basis. A maximum of up to £15.00 per week will be paid to support your travel from home to work.
- Following the successful completion of the apprenticeship programme many of our apprentices have moved on to either a higher level apprenticeship or have secured permanent employment with the council or other employers and have embarked on an exciting career pathway. Whilst there is no guarantee that a position would become available at the end of your apprenticeship, Cumbria County Council works in partnership with other organisations throughout the county to maximise the opportunities that are available to apprentices. The skills you learn and the qualifications gained will be transferable to other roles either within the County Council or with other employers.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0677-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5852,
"total-output-tokens": 1110,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2102,
1
],
[
2102,
5286,
2
],
[
5286,
5286,
3
]
]
} |
5387b5f059970edf9e558e53a180aed23b906f6e | DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT FOR –
“Internal layout improvements to existing second floor accommodation and proposed installation of dormer windows”
Riverside Cottage
Leek Road, Waterhouses
On behalf of Mr & Mrs Whitta 27th June 2016 DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT REF: Riverside Cottage, Waterhouses
This document has been prepared to support a Householder Planning Application in order to introduce the proposed layout & access improvements at Riverside Cottage, Leek Road, Waterhouses.
This statement will be based on providing an introduction to the site, its history, some local planning history and a look at the planning policy context; SITE LOCATION:
Waterhouses is a village in the south of the Staffordshire Peak District on the road from Leek to Ashbourne.
Much of the village is close to the River Hamps, a tributary of the River Manifold, and at the southern end of the track of the former Leek and Manifold Valley Light Railway (now the Manifold Way), which ran to Hulme End. Nearby is the Cauldon cement plant of Lafarge Cement, and a large Tarmac limestone quarry.
FIGURE 1: Location of Waterhouses in Context with the Boundary of Peak District National Park There are a variety of architectural styles within the locale of Waterhouses, but predominantly the traditional form and appearance of stone dwellings appears to characterise the setting.
There exits a variety of built heritage in the area ranging from what are presumably C18/C19 dwellings to a number of much later modern homes.
The architectural styles can vary quite significantly, but generally the materials palate is duplicated throughout the village and is typical of the district. INFORMATION ON RIVERSIDE COTTAGE:
Our desktop survey has identified a structure being present on the application site as early as the 1881 Ordinance Survey Map.
The 1881 and 1967 records of the Ordinance Survey Maps illustrated below demonstrate the immediate vicinity has largely been undeveloped with regards to the new residential developments. The local topography and geography of the surrounding area appears to have promoted largely quarrying and presumably some level of agricultural uses historically. The site lies outside the main settlement of the village. Consequently the position is somewhat isolated bar a few other residential dwellings along the Leek Road / River Hamps. We understand Riverside Cottage is not a Listed Building and not within a Conservation Area.
We understand Riverside Cottage lies on the boundary between the Peak District National Park and Staffordshire Moorlands district. Indeed it would appear that traditionally the boundary of the National Park followed the line of the River Hamps (i.e everything North of) whereas the application site lies just south of the River. THE EXISTING COTTAGE:
Riverside Cottage exhibits a typically familiar form and appearance one might expect for the area. A double fronted detached property formed in stone with reasonably small window openings.
The roof is gable ended, relatively steep and finished with Staffordshire Blue clay tiles.
The accommodation is split over 3 floors with existing bedroom space within the roof.
The site is long and narrow, set between the leek road and River Hamps. THE PROPOSED DESIGN:
Riverside cottage has an existing second floor habitable room within the roof space. This is presumably part of the original fabric given the presence of a hearth and grate of some considerable age within the chimney stack. Generally proposed plans revolve around internal alterations and predominantly making improvements to the existing layout and access arrangements.
The existing access to the Second Floor space is via an extremely step staircase. Using these stairs feels rather dangerous to the uninitiated, the goings of each step are very short making a slip on the stairs feel like it could be an inevitability.
The brief of the project is to improve access to the second floor and make the necessary alterations to ensure this space is improved, useable and has an effective layout. The proposals revolve around the installation of a new staircase, accessed from a different position on the hallway. The resultant new layout ensures a better proportioned staircase can be incorporated, thus allowing safer access to the second floor spaces.
Whilst the second floor roofspace has a reasonable footprint, headroom is quite limited either side of the ridge.
2 dormer windows are proposed to be incorporated to both sides of the roof structure. These would be sized to suit the massing of the existing building and formed in traditional materials to match the existing materials palette. The ridge height of the dormers would be below the main ridge of the house. There are existing examples of dormer windows located within Waterhouses, both modern interventions and traditional forms. Given the proposed approach in being sensitive to the design and positioning of the dormers, it is not anticipated that their introduction will be a detriment to the surrounding character and appearance of the locale.
Example images, Rocester Ln, Earlsway, Hamps Valley Road and Portland Place. CONTEXT & CONCLUSIONS:
Position & Context: Riverside Cottage is in a relatively isolated position and is read on its own merit rather than against the backdrop of Village setting. The proposals would not set a precedent and would not affect any neighbouring dwellings.
The Use: The applicants are a family, and have resided at the property for many years. The proposals have stemmed from a requirement to provide sleeping accommodation that is safe to access and practical to use. The proposals should serve to ensure the provision of family dwelling that meets the requirements of modern family living.
Design: Throughout the design process the applicants have held a strong opinion that the proposals should enhance the spaces without detrimentally affecting the external aesthetics of the Cottage. We trust the proposed designs are sensitive to the original character through careful consideration of proportion and materials pallete.
Site Location: We note the requirements of Planning within the National Park setting but would hope the application is considered on the basis that Riverside Cottage appears to straddle the boundary between the Peak National Park and Staffordshire Moorlands district.
Planning Context: Clearly there are existing examples of other Dormer Windows within the locale. These would appear to have been considered acceptable development and we note some of the later developments such as Portland Place in Waterhouses will likely have been approved fairly recently.
In summary, given the above in context we feel the proposals would only serve to enhance Riverside Cottage and provide much more suitable accommodation to the applicant’s family. It is not anticipated any of the proposals would have a negative effect to the surrounding area nor character of the village setting.
Produced by Joe Grey: For and on behalf of Derek Trowell Architects.
Derek Trowell Architects, 1 - 3 Greenhill, Wirksworth, DE4 4EN / TEL: 01629 825 491 www.derektrowellarchitects.co.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0678-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 17409,
"total-output-tokens": 1781,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
235,
1
],
[
235,
642,
2
],
[
642,
1176,
3
],
[
1176,
1668,
4
],
[
1668,
2181,
5
],
[
2181,
2782,
6
],
[
2782,
3246,
7
],
[
3246,
4743,
8
],
[
4743,
5162,
9
],
[
5162,
7166,
10
]
]
} |
6d2985c42b4ad28ab7189f502b1457b9d145e04b | To: Mr Paul Derbyshire\
C/o Maxine Parker\
4 Turnpike Close\
Diggle\
Oldham\
OL3 5PH
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER
In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for Full Planning Permission, details of which are as follows:
Office Code No. NP/O/0616/0584\
Date received: 27 June 2016\
Proposal: Alterations and conversion of outbuilding to ancillary residential accommodation.\
Location: Running Hill House, Running Hill Lane, Dobcross\
Parish: Saddleworth
THE DECISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is
GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the following approved plan: drawing number '31. B' received by the Authority on the 5th September 2016 subject to the following conditions or modifications.
Continued overleaf...
Signed\
Date 12 September 2016
Attention is called to the notes at the end of this Decision Notice 3 The roof shall be clad with natural stone slates.
4 The external doors and windows shall be of timber construction. Prior to the installation of any new window or doors, details of their precise design, recess and external finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and permanently so maintained thereafter.
5 Prior to the installation of the roof lights, details of their precise design, size and position shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and permanently so maintained thereafter.
6 The rainwater goods shall be black. The gutters shall be fixed directly to the stonework with brackets and without the use of fascia boards. There shall be no projecting or exposed rafters.
7 All works associated with the development shall be undertaken outside the breeding bird season (March - August).
8 The development hereby approved shall remain ancillary to Running Hill House throughout its lifetime, and Running Hill House and the development hereby approved shall be maintained as a single planning unit in perpetuity.
Reasons for Conditions:
1 To comply with Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which requires the National Park Authority to reconsider the proposal afresh after a period of years) as amended by Section 51 of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2-6 In the interests of the character and the appearance of the development and to ensure that the development respects the character and appearance of the listed building
7 To protect the ecological interests of the site.
8 The creation of an independent dwelling or otherwise separate planning unit would raise further material planning policy and amenity considerations over which the Authority wishes to retain control.
Footnotes
The Authority’s Officers have assessed the proposal against Development Plan policies and any other material considerations and have recommended amendments which overcome any concerns and which ensure that the development follows guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Core Strategy Policies include: GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, GSP4, DS1, L3
Relevant Local Plan policies include: LC4, LC6 and LH4 Please note, only the applicant possesses the right of appeal. You must use a Planning Appeal Form
- If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- As this is a decision to refuse, or approve planning permission subject to conditions for a householder application, if you want to appeal against your local planning authority's decision then you must do so within 12 weeks of the date of this notice.
- Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Planning Inspectorate, Room 3Q, Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN (Tel: 0303 444 5000, email: [email protected]) or can be made online via the Planning Inspectorate website at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/.
- The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.
- The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.
- In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based its decision on a direction given by him.
**Purchase Notices**
- If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.
- In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London) or, where the land is situated in a National Park, the National Park Authority for that Park in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council or Authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To: Mr Paul Derbyshire\
C/o Maxine Parker\
4 Turnpike Close\
Diggle\
Oldham\
OL3 5PH
Dear Sir or Madam
Please find attached a copy of the approval notice for the development outlined below.
Please read this notice carefully. It is particularly important that you comply with any conditions which require details to be submitted and agreed, or some other action to be taken, before work commences. These are often known as “pre-conditions” and usually start with words such as “Prior to the commencement of development” or “Before any work takes place”, but there may be other similar words, so please read this notice carefully.
Failure to comply with pre-conditions could result in any work carried out being unlawful and the permission not implemented. Similarly, failure to comply with the conditions and/or the approved plans could result in abortive work and possible enforcement action.
If you are employing a builder or other contractor to carry out the work you should ensure that he has a copy of the approval notice and approved plans before starting work.
If you wish to amend the approved plans in any way, you must first agree this with us. There is a formal process for submitting and agreeing both minor (“non-material amendments”) and more significant amendments to the approved plans. Details can be found on the Authority’s web site at http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/planning/advice/do-i-need-permission
Please return the first tear-off section at the bottom of this letter before work commences and the second tear-off section once the work has been completed. Two pre-paid labels are enclosed for your use.
Yours faithfully
John Scott\
Director of Planning To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE
APPLICATION No: NP/O/0616/0584 Site Address: Running Hill House, Running Hill Lane, Dobcross, Development: Alterations and conversion of outbuilding to ancillary residential accommodation.
The above development was completed on \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Signed: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Name (in block capitals): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE
APPLICATION No: NP/O/0616/0584 Site Address: Running Hill House, Running Hill Lane, Dobcross, Development: Alterations and conversion of outbuilding to ancillary residential accommodation.
The above development commenced on \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Signed: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Name (in block capitals): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0679-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 11829,
"total-output-tokens": 2236,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1436,
1
],
[
1436,
3822,
2
],
[
3822,
6480,
3
],
[
6480,
6480,
4
],
[
6480,
8172,
5
],
[
8172,
8172,
6
],
[
8172,
9194,
7
]
]
} |
0544d40281262b83e685cb5382d8e964f4c7af36 | DELEGATED ITEM REPORT – CREATION OF INDEPENDENT HOLIDAY LET UNIT AND ALTERATIONS TO BUILDING – THE POTTING SHED
Planning Case Officer: Mark Nuttall Authorised by: JK Date of Report: 6 September 2016
National Guidance: NPPF Core Strategy: GSP3, DS1, RT2, T1 Local Plan Codes: LC4, LH4, LR6, LT11 and LT18
List of Background Papers (not previously published) Nil
Human Rights Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.
Report:
Site and surroundings The site is located at the northern end of Wormhill.
The Potting Shed is a single storey building adjacent to the Conifers - a bungalow dwellinghouse with stone walls and concrete tiled roof. Formerly an outbuilding, the Authority has previously granted The Potting Shed permission for use as holiday accommodation ancillary to the Conifers.
The building is mostly rendered with stonework to one end. It has a blue slate roof.
The property is situated in the Wormhill and Hargatewall Conservation Area.
Proposal To use The Potting Shed as an independent holiday let unit, effectively removing the ancillary tie to The Conifers that was previously imposed. Some alterations are also proposed to The Potting Shed as part of the proposal.
Key issues
- The impacts of the proposed alterations on the appearance of the building
- The impact of the proposal to remove the ancillary tie on neighbouring amenity
- The impact of the proposal to remove the ancillary tie on highway safety
History 1965 – Planning permission granted for the erection of the Conifers 2001 – Planning permission granted for conversion of the Potting Shed to holiday let accommodation ancillary to the Conifers. Policy
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 115 in the NPPF states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks along with the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage.
Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out core planning principles including supporting sustainable economic development and high standards of design taking into account the roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty within the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities.
Paragraph 28 in the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas and should take a positive approach to sustainable new development. Planning policies should support the sustainable growth of all types of business both through conversion and well-designed new buildings and should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.
Development Plan
Relevant policies in the Development Plan (listed at the top of this report) are broadly consistent with national planning policies in the NPPF because they promote the conversion of existing buildings, and leisure and tourism development in the Peak District where it is consistent with the conservation and enhancement of the National Park’s scenic beauty, cultural heritage and wildlife interests. GSP1 also sets outs the Sanford Principle whereby conservation of the National Park landscape takes precedence over recreational interests where there is irreconcilable conflict between the two statutory purposes of the National Park’s designation.
Core Strategy policy DS1 states that in settlements, amongst other things, extensions to existing buildings and the conversion or change of use of traditional buildings for visitor accommodation, preferably by re-use of traditional buildings will be acceptable in principle.
Local Plan policy LC4 states that where development is acceptable in principle it will be permitted provided it is of a high standard of design that respects and conserves the landscape, built environment and characteristics of the area.
Local Plan policy LC5 states that development in conservation areas should assess and clearly demonstrate how the existing appearance of the conservation area will be preserved and, where possible, enhanced.
Core Strategy policy RT2 relevant in regard to the principle of the use of part of the building as a holiday let. In these respects, RT2 says that proposals for hotels, bed and breakfast and self-catering accommodation must conform to the following principles:
A. The change of use of a traditional building of historic or vernacular merit to serviced or self-catering holiday accommodation will be permitted, except where it would create unacceptable landscape impact in open countryside. The change of use of entire farmsteads to holiday accommodation will not be permitted. B. Appropriate minor developments which extend or make quality improvements to existing holiday accommodation will be permitted. C. New build holiday accommodation will not be permitted, except for a new hotel in Bakewell.
T1, LT11 and LT18 require that transport infrastructure and access arrangements are safe and conserve the National Park’s valued characteristics. The design and number of parking spaces associated with residential development, including any communal residential parking, must respect the valued characteristics of the area, particularly in Conservation Areas. Comment
Removal of ancillary tie The building already has a lawful use as a holiday let ancillary to The Conifers, as detailed above. Removal of the tie that currently retains The Conifers and Potting Shed as a single planning unit would result in two planning units; one holiday let and one dwelling, each of which could be occupied or owned independently of the other. The reason for the condition retaining the two as a single planning unit was that the Authority wished to retain control over the use of the site as the building is unsuitable for occupation as an independent dwelling.
Current planning policy does not require holiday let conversions to remain ancillary to host buildings; they are acceptable in principle under current planning policy as independent units, providing that they are controlled to be occupied only as holiday units, and not as permanent dwellings.
Whilst the Potting Shed is not of such a character that would likely be considered appropriate for conversion to holiday let under current policy RT2 the use is already established, having been permitted under previous planning policy.
The only issues to be addressed therefore in determining whether or not to permit the lifting of the tie are the impacts that this would have on the amenity of the two properties and highway safety.
Due to the position of openings and distances between them, the occupation of either unit independently from the other would not be unneighbourly; neither property would significantly overlook or overbear the other. The proposed sub-division of curtilage is such that each would be self-contained and have sufficient amenity space too. There are therefore no objections to the proposal on amenity grounds.
Access would remain unaltered, with the Conifers affording a right of access over their land to one of the entrances to the Potting Shed. This would ensure that vehicles continue to be able to enter and leave the site in forward gear and entrance and exit visibility would remain unchanged. There are therefore no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
Alterations to holiday let The proposed changes are to facilitate adding an additional bedroom and a fire door to the holiday let unit. The external alterations are limited to replacing the existing metal garage door with a timber boarded one. This would improve its appearance, having a more traditional character. The only other change is to replace a window with a door on the front elevation. This does not have a significant impact on the appearance of the building and is considered acceptable.
Environmental Management
There are no physical changes proposed to the existing house and converted shippon, and so no environmental management measures are considered necessary to comply with planning policy.
Consultation:
Derbyshire County Council – Highways - The property is served by two accesses and there is an acceptable level of parking and turning associated with the proposed uses on site. It is not considered that the proposals would have any significant effect on highway safety at this location and as such this Authority would not wish to raise objections. High Peak Borough Council – No response at time of writing. Wormhill and Green Fairfield Parish Council – No objection
Officer recommendation:
That the application is Approved subject to the following conditions: 3 year time limit In accordance with submitted plans Use only as short term holiday let Timber garage doors
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0680-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7234,
"total-output-tokens": 1878,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1691,
1
],
[
1691,
5497,
2
],
[
5497,
8883,
3
],
[
8883,
8990,
4
]
]
} |
6d3ed66f869ec07b729ed2dd1ab41b1a7341157d | TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, SECTION 174
APPEALS BY BLEAKLOW INDUSTRIES LTD PURSUANT TO THE SERVICE OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES RELATING TO LAND AT BACKDALE QUARRY, HASSOP AVENUE, DERBYSHIRE DE45 1NS
APPELLANT'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Statement sets out Grounds of Appeal pursuant to the service of two Enforcement Notices, dated 7 July 2016, relating to land at the above address. The Notices refer, respectively, to:
1. Without planning permission, the material change of use of the land, shown edged red and hatched black on the attached plan, to an unlawful use for the parking of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) including cabs and lorry bodies, and associated vehicles, not incidental to other permitted use on the site, and the storage of a caravan.
2. Without planning permission, the material change of use of the land, shown edged red and hatched black on the attached plan, to use for storage of imported building, landscaping or reclaimed materials, logs, steel container, pallets, crates and mobile buildings.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Backdale Quarry is located at the north-east of Hassop Road (B6001), which is known locally as Hassop Avenue, approximately 1.25 kilometres north-east of the small settlement of Hassop and a slightly longer distance to the south-west of the larger village of Calver. There is a long and complex history with regard to mineral extraction at the Quarry, culminating in the confirmation by the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government on 6 June 2016 of the Peak District National Park (Deep Rake, Hassop), (Longstone Edge East) Prohibition Order 2013.
2.2 The effect of the Order is to prohibit the resumption of the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste within an area that includes Backdale Quarry. The Order sets out a modified schedule of restoration requirements relating, predominantly but not exclusively, to the Quarry.
2.3 The appeal site is served by a single vehicular and pedestrian access from Hassop Road, the frontage to which, on its north-western side, comprises a dense stand of trees, punctuated only by the site entrance. Immediately to the north-west of the access, there are a range of substantial buildings and storage silos, comprising former quarry plant that until recently, has been used for the production of slaked lime putty and associated materials, used in the construction industry. These buildings are the subject of a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development, under the provisions of Section 191 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, issued by the Peak District National Park Authority on 30 June 2014. The area containing this plant and its associated structures is not the subject of the restoration requirements or the Prohibition Order. Land adjoining the buildings that is subject to the Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development, immediately to the south-west and south-east of the plant is, however, subject partially to the Enforcement Notice relating to the alleged unauthorised parking of Heavy Goods Vehicles, including the vehicular access to Hassop Road. The plant and its associated structures are excluded.
2.4 To the south-west of the above area, the Quarry has three distinctly separate, generally level platforms to which the Enforcement Notices relate. The Notice relating to the parking of Heavy Goods Vehicles includes the vehicular access, as stated above, and it comprises an area of about 1600 square metres in area which includes the access to the floor of the Quarry to which the second Enforcement Notice relates. This latter area contains two separate platforms, one to the immediate north-west of the substantial stand of frontage trees, the other within the more enclosed, open floor of the Quarry.
2.5 To the north-east of Backdale Quarry, at a crossroads located approximately 250 metres from its access, Bramley Lane leads in a westerly direction to Longstone Edge. There are substantial screen mounds and tree cover to the south of Bramley Lane above the Quarry’s faces. The Quarry floor is not visible to users of this unmade highway. There is also a recently diverted public footpath (FP10) through the trees on the Hassop Road frontage to the Quarry and a further public footpath, some distance to the north-west of the Quarry’s upper edge. There are no views into the Quarry from this latter path and only limited views into the Quarry, predominantly of the plant and silos, from the diverted FP10, as it crosses the Quarry’s entrance.
2.6 A further public footpath heads in a south-westerly direction from that section of Bramley Lane leading eastwards from the crossroads. The footpath leads through Bramley plantation and Bank Wood. From a short, restricted section of this path to the north of a memorial “Rennie family” seat, there are views into the rear platform comprising the Quarry’s floor. Open views of the frontage sections of the Quarry’s platforms and of the Heavy Goods Vehicles parking areas are prevented both by the topography and very extensive intervening woodlands. These restricted views will, it is considered, continue to prevail through the winter months, even after leaf fall, because of the dense nature of the woodlands and their species.
2.7 The Prohibition Order to which reference was made above, will effectively preclude access to the open rear Quarry floor beneath the surrounding steep faces. However, as can be seen from the drawing number PPLEINCI405 4C which accompanies the Prohibition Order, an open level platform is retained between the longitudinal bund that runs broadly north to south through the site. This bund will be reinforced by the re- contouring of the existing land form which will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally. (See Appendix A).
2.8 There is an undetermined planning application (code: NP/DDD/0315/0239) which is programmed to be determined at the meeting of the National Park Authority’s Planning Committee in September 2016. The development relates to a new 1000 square metres employment building. This is proposed to replace the existing slaked lime production plant and its associated storage silos, located close to the site’s access from Hassop Road. Details of the proposed layout can be seen on drawing number: CL.206312.105 REV G which forms Appendix B to this Statement.
2.9 Apart from the existing plant, there are three other buildings within the Quarry:
1. To the north of the Quarry entrance, a long-established portacabin-type building that previously served as the administrative and sales office for Bisaklow Industries Ltd.
2. To the south of the plant, to the immediate rear of the frontage wooded area, there is a substantial garage building, constructed of corrugated sheeting.
3. To the south-east of the plant, at a distance of approximately 60 metres, there is a weighbridge and its long-established associated linked administrative building.
2.10 The buildings at 1 & 2, above, are outside the areas to which the two Enforcement Notices relate. The weighbridge building lies within the area to which the Enforcement Notice in respect of the “storage” use relates. 3.0 GROUNDS FOR THE APPEALS
Ground (a)
3.1 The Ground (a) appeal relates to the service of the second Enforcement Notice identified in paragraph 1.1 of this Statement. This Notice relates to the open storage of materials, some of which are stacked upon, or enclosed within, pallets and crates.
3.2 The Prohibition Order, which requires the completion of site restoration works by September 2017 effectively separates the rear portion of the area to which the Enforcement Notice relates from the area to the front, lying between the existing/proposed bund and the woodland along the frontage to Hassop Road. This appeal does not seek to include within Ground (a) this rear area and the appeal under this Ground is therefore confined to the latter area. It is delineated on the plan attached as Appendix C.
3.3 The appellant considers that there is justification for the grant of planning permission, albeit on an initial temporary two years basis, whilst, in the presumption that planning permission is likely to be granted, the employment unit to which reference is made in paragraph 2.8 above is developed. Companies associated with Bleaklow Industries Ltd are involved in a number of strictly local developments where the use of quality building materials is essential. This requirement relates, in part, to the proposed construction of the new employment building which will be carried out to a very high standard. Other developments in the nearby area will also draw on these stored materials. Indeed, the appellants’ associated Companies are working closely with the National Park Authority to secure environmental improvements, particularly the reconstruction of dry stone field boundary walling within nearby upland areas. Opportunities to store conveniently such materials for short-term usage are few and far between locally. 3.4 The Authority’s reasons for issuing the Enforcement Notice include, at c), the visual impact of the storage materials. It is alleged that this results in a detrimental visual impact for footpath users, in particular, and, to a lesser extent for persons using the adjacent roads and open access land. The appellant refutes that there is such adverse visual impact from footpaths in the area.
3.5 Paragraph 2.6, above, refers to a public footpath to the south-east of the appeal site, leading from Bramley Lane, through Bramley plantation and Bank Wood wherefrom, over a short distance, as the Inspector will be able to observe, there is a view into the rear area of the Quarry. There are no direct views, however, into the frontage sections of the Quarry’s platforms or of the area wherein heavy vehicle parking takes place. The reasons for issuing the Enforcement Notices are, accordingly, considered to be fundamentally flawed. The Authority has been pressed to explain which footpaths provide for views of the storage area to which this Enforcement Notice relates. An exchange of correspondence with the Authority has evidenced a fundamental misunderstanding about visibility of the Quarry floor from public footpaths in the area. The exchange of correspondence is attached at Appendix D. The Authority’s response mentions the footpath to which reference is made above but also the footpath running along the front of the Quarry entrance and “along the north of the site adjacent to Bramley Lane”.
3.6 As a first consideration, there are no open views of the stored materials from the diverted Footpath 10 which is the one that crosses in front of the site access. Equally, there are no views into the Quarry floor from public rights of way adjacent to Bramley Lane. (See paragraph 2.5 above). These considerations are all the more important when the Authority’s “Delegated Enforcement Report” dated 7 June 2016, is examined (see Appendix E). In paragraph 2 of the introduction to that Report, it is stated that “open access land gives the public the right to access open country, much of which is unenclosed, without keeping to public paths. A public footpath runs along the northern edge of the site atop the remaining cliff face which provides public views down into the areas used for storage and haulage. Another footpath runs along the roadside of the site which has recently been subject to a diversion order as a result of alterations to the site access\*. It is further stated that whilst the site does have significant tree cover to the south and south-west at present, "many mature trees have been removed in recent years leading to a wider mouth at the entrance providing some views into the site from the highway and roadside footpaths".
3.7 Since the reasons for serving the Enforcement Notice cannot be severed from its requirements, the Inspector is asked to examine the claims set out above in the light of the appellant's rebuttal. There are, it is submitted, no such views from "open access land". There is no public footpath "along the northern edge of the site atop the remaining cliff face." The nearest public footpath in a north-westerly direction provides no public views down into the areas used for storage and haulage because of the topography of the site and the physical separation between the public right of way and the Quarry area. There are only very short-term, oblique views of the HGV parking area and area used for storage to its rear from that point in the footpath FF10 where it crosses the site entrance.
3.8 Of equal concern is the allegation that "many mature trees have been removed in recent years leading to a wider mouth at the entrance". The appellant has owned the site since 2012. The Company has no knowledge of any trees that may have been removed prior to that time but, since 2012, only one tree, which was leaning dangerously, has been removed and its absence has been compensated for by considerable additional screen planting the nature of which has been accepted by the National Park Authority.
3.9 It is considered that the Enforcement Notice in respect of the storage areas and, moreover, the area used for the parking of HGV's and associated vehicles was predicated by an entirely false appreciation of the public visibility of the areas to which the Notices relate. This has, in turn, resulted in the submission of appeals that could, quite reasonably, have been avoided. The appellant submits, strongly, that there is a significant injustice in the service of the Notices and, as a consequence, their excessive requirements and inappropriately short periods for compliance.
3.10 Since it is considered that the area to which the Ground (a) appeal relates is discreetly sited and not open to prominent view, it is submitted that a two years temporary planning permission will be appropriate. It is not considered that any short-term harm, however limited, will result from such a grant of temporary planning permission and that, as a matter of balance, such a permission will assist the site owner to both satisfy the requirements of the Prohibition Order and implement a beneficial proposed planning permission.
3.11 The appellant’s Hearing Statement will set out full details based on the above Grounds.
Ground (d)
3.12 The Ground (d) appeal relates to the service of the Enforcement Notice identified in paragraph 1.1, above.
The parking of Heavy Goods Vehicles by the site user, Alfred Sammans, a local Haulage Contractor, was commenced in April 2005. His Company operates from premises at Mount Pleasant Garage, Grindleford, approximately 4 miles to the north. Those premises are severely constrained and this has resulted, historically, in some of his Heavy Goods Vehicles being operated from other locations. Prior to April 2005, Mr Sammans had used a facility at Darlton Quarry, Stoney Middleton, which was then expected to close. The availability of an area at Backdale Quarry, adjacent to the slaked lime plant was attractive because, although separated by the 4 miles from the Company's base at Grindleford, it afforded easy access and the then Quarry operator used the Company's services from time to time.
3.13 Evidence will be provided to support the claim that the use at Backdale Quarry for the parking of Heavy Goods Vehicles and associated matters, as referred to in the Enforcement Notice, has taken place on a continuous basis since April 2005.
3.14 Indeed, during May 2005, there was an incident whereby malicious damage was caused to plant at the Quarry and several of Mr Sammans' lorries were damaged by the application of super glue to door locks. Pursuant to that, Mr Sammans contributed, with the site operator, to the engagement of a local security firm to oversee the site from a crime prevention point of view.
3.15 Mr Sammans did operate on behalf of the Quarry operator but his vehicles parked at the Quarry were also operating for other users, particularly a Rotherham-based Company and also, initially, the operators of Darlton Quarry, Tarmac PLC.
3.16 It is clear that the use of the site for the purposes of parking Heavy Goods Vehicles, articulated trailers and staff means of transport was not solely ancillary to operations at Backdale Quarry between 2005 and 2009.
3.17 In 2009, quarrying ceased. Since that time, Mr Sammans has continued to operate part of his fleet of vehicles from the land servicing a wide customer base. It is submitted that it is clear that, on the date the Enforcement Notice was served, the ten years' time limit in respect of the change of use to the purposes of Heavy Goods Vehicle parking had been considerably exceeded. It is for that reason that the Ground (d) appeal should succeed. 3.18 The Enforcement Notice relating to "use for storage and imported building, landscaping or reclaimed materials, logs, steel container, pallets, crates and mobile buildings" fails to recognise that the one "mobile building," located within the area to which the Notice relates, is that identified in paragraph 2.9, above whereby there is a long-established associated linked administrative building servicing the weighbridge. It contains the equipment to monitor and provide the information in respect of weighed vehicles. This building has been in place for considerably more than four years. The building is a permanent one and is fixed to the ground. The appellant submits that the retention of this building is also immune from action, this time arising from its presence in the current location for a period of considerably more than four years prior to the service of the Enforcement Notice.
**Ground (g)**
3.19 The appeals under this ground are, in the case of each Enforcement Notice, that the time given to comply with the Notices is too short. If, therefore, the Ground (d) appeal in respect of the Heavy Goods Vehicle parking does not succeed, it is most strongly submitted that the period of just one month after the Notice takes effect is far too short a period for the operator of the Heavy Goods Vehicles to find alternative parking accommodation. This is particularly so in the context of available sites within nearby areas of the Peak National Park. It has already been indicated above that the main operating base of Alfred Sammans is overcrowded and that it is severely constrained by the immediate proximity of housing development. No other immediately available alternative sites appear available in the nearby area that could be prepared and used within one month of the Enforcement Notice taking effect, bearing in mind that negotiations for the lease or purchase of such an alternative location would inevitably take a period of time to complete, quite apart from the necessity to prepare any suitable location in the interests of operational efficiency and safety. 3.20 The site to which this Enforcement Notice relates is not subject to the restoration requirements of the Prohibition Order but, nevertheless, it is considered that, should the Ground (c) appeal not succeed, a minimum period of nine months should be allowed in order that a suitable alternative location be identified and developed. The Authority has been aware of the use for many years and has not previously considered it expedient to take enforcement action.
3.21 Insofar as the Enforcement Notice relating to the open storage is concerned, a considerable amount of material would require to be moved off site within a period of two months of the Enforcement Notice taking effect. Again, this is far too short a period of time, given the nature of the materials involved, to identify, seek control of and develop an alternative location, bearing in mind that discreetly located, nearby sites for this type of use are difficult to identify within the National Park. Insofar, however, as the platform within the Quarry floor, itself is concerned, it is considered reasonable, having regard to the restoration requirements of the Prohibition Order, that a maximum period of six months for compliance be regarded as realistic. Insofar as the storage of materials between the screen bund and the wooded frontage to Hassop Road is concerned, there is an even larger amount of materials to relocate. Bearing in mind that it is hoped that the site will be developed quickly by the erection of the employment unit and that this will utilise a significant amount of stored materials, it is considered that a minimum period of twelve months would be appropriate in that case.
3.22 If considered necessary, it is requested that the Inspector decides accordingly. area to which Ground (a) relates (see paragraph 3.2 of Grounds of appeal) Dear John,
Very sorry about not getting back to you sooner on this, I had just wanted to clarify with our legal team last and other issues kept cropping up. However please find below a response to each of the points raised:
1. The footpaths implied run along the front of the quarry entrance, along the north of the site adjacent to Bramley Lane and on the other side of the valley through the Bramley Plantation. The roads are the B6001/Hassop Road and the open access land is a large area to the North-East of the open quarry face above Back Dale Wood; running East below Bleaklow Farm to just North of Great Longstone.
2. This is a relic from when drafting the original Enforcement Notice document combining both breaches. It was later decided to serve the two notices for clarity, however the typo was left in error, but we believe the context of the Notice and the description of the breach and steps set out in the notice are sufficiently clear as to what activity is referred to.
3. If you are referring to the Enforcement Notice regarding to haulage use, this was served as a result of the observation of the operator believed to be using the site and from the PCN response. If you refer to the annex attached to the Enforcement Notice referring to storage and believe this includes Alfred Arthur Sammons in the Annex, we wonder if this could be the result of the haulage use Annex form being attached to the storage Notice. However if this is the case the information included within the Annex is identical and relevant to the notice to which it was attached and in actual fact the only Notice served directly to Alfred Arthur Sammons was a copy of the haulage notice. In addition both notices were attached to the entrance gate of the premises for the attention of all site occupiers.
I hope this sufficiently answers your queries however if you want to discuss further or raise any other points please feel free to get back in touch.
Regards
Chris
From: mell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 July 2016 15:43 To: Anslow-Johnson Christian Cc: Newman Jane Subject: Enforcement Notice: Land at Backdale Quarry, Hassop Avenue, Hassop. H110B
H110B
I refer to the letter addressed to my client, Bleaklow Industries Ltd on 7 July 2016, attaching an Enforcement Notice relating to the above property. I am instructed with regard to the Notice and there are three matters upon which I request clarification.
1. Reason c) refers to ".. a detrimental visual impact for footpath users in particular and to a lesser extent for persons using the adjacent roads and open access land....." Since it is an expectation of a Enforcement Notice that it is specific as to its reasons, I should be grateful if you will identify the public footpaths in question and also the relevant adjacent roads and open access land.
2. Reason: f) refers to "... storage of materials and the parking..." (My emphasis). Having regard to the matters which appear to constitute the breach of control, I note that no allegedly unauthorised parking is mentioned. Can you please be specific as to this reason?
3. I note that a copy of the Enforcement Notice was served on Alfred Arthur Sammans. We are not aware that Mr Sammans has an interest in the land to which the Enforcement Notice relates and perhaps you will clarify the reason for serving the Enforcement Notice upon him.
As you will appreciate, there is some urgency, from a timescale point of view, that this information is provided speedily and I look to your co-operation in that respect.
With regards,
John Church
John Church Planning Consultancy Limited Victoria Buildings 117 High Street Clay Cross Chesterfield Derbyshire S46 9DZ Tel: 01246 861174 Fax: 01246 861097 E-mail: [email protected]
This e-mail and files or other data transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited and you must not take any action in reliance upon it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Thank you.
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk
Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, DE45 1AE t:01629 816200 www.peakdistrict.gov.uk Twitter: @peakdistrict The Peak District: where beauty, vitality and discovery meet at the heart of the nation.
This email is confidential, may be legally privileged and/or contain personal views that are not the Authority's. It is intended for the addressee. If received in error please notify us and delete immediately. Under Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation contents may be disclosed and the Authority reserves the right to monitor sent and received emails.
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: Delegated Enforcement Report
Case Officer: CAJ P-File No: 2832 Date of Report: 7th July 2016 Enforcement No: 15/0021
National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraph 115 Core Strategy: GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, L1 Local Plan Policies: LC1, LC21, LT10
Introduction
This report seeks delegated authority for enforcement action to be taken in relation to the use of land to the North-West of the B6001 Hassop Road at the former Backdale Quarry site for the mixed use of storage and haulage. The land in question is a former quarry with historic permissions for the extraction of fluorspar and (in part of the quarry site) and established use as slaked lime production.
To the west of the site is Hassop Common, an extensive area of open and wooded land which is designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as open access land. Open access land gives the public the right to access open country, much of which is unenclosed, without keeping to public paths. A public footpath runs along the northern edge of the site atop the remaining cliff face which provides public views down into the areas used for storage and haulage. Another footpath runs along the roadside of the site which has recently been subject to a diversion order as a result of alterations to the site access.
The land falls within part of the both ‘limestone hills & slopes’ and ‘estate lands’ in the Authority’s Landscape Character Strategy and Action Plan (2009). The area is characterised by high undulating sloping topography, rich wildlife habitats, occasional small or large groups of trees with varying open views and small villages and outlying estate farmsteads. The site does have significant tree cover at to the south and south west at present, although none are protected by TPOs or within conservation areas and many mature trees have been removed in recent years leading to a wider mouth at the entrance providing some views into the site from the highway and roadside footpath.
Site History
The most relevant case history is as follows:
November 1996 – advertisement consent application granted for erection of signage for Bleaklow Industries
July 2003 - it came to the Authority’s notice that a new operator, Merrimans, had arrived on site and had started to work at Backdale.
August 2003 – PCN responses show that the site is being worked predominantly for limestone which the Authority considers not in line with the 1952 planning permission. November 2004 - enforcement notice issued in relation to limestone extraction.
January 2006 – Stop Notice Issued in relation to limestone extraction.
March 2006 – Enforcement Notice declared a nullity
April 2006 – Temporary Stop Notice served in relation to limestone extraction
May 2006 – Enforcement and Stop Notices served in relation to limestone extraction. Mineral extraction ceases.
April 2007 – Planning Inspectors upheld and varied EN
July 2007 – Stop Notice withdrawn
September 2007 – Mineral working resumed
January 2008 – Stop Notice served regarding extraction of limestone. Exportation and processing of minerals (crushing and screening) continues.
March 2008 – High Court allows appeal against Inspectors decision
March 2009 – Court of Appeal allows appeal against High Court decision
September 2009 – No exportation of mineral or associated activity evident on the site
January 2013 – A Prohibition Order is served to achieve the cessation of mineral working under the 1952 planning permission 1892/9/69
July 2013 - lawful development certificate application submitted but later withdrawn for the manufacture of slaked lime putting and pre-mixed mortars from imported materials and use of land for ancillary offices.
January 2014 – lawful development certificate was submitted and granted for the manufacture of slaked lime putting and pre-mixed mortars from imported materials and use of land for ancillary offices. The area the subject of the LDC is shown on the attached plan (edged red)
March 2015 – a planning application was submitted for the restoration of the quarry, construction of new employment building, associated landscaping operations and access improvements. This is subsequently under determination subject to the outcome of the prohibition order. January 2018 – a public enquiry was undertaken to arrange the restoration scheme of the site in line with the authority’s recommendation. June 2016 – Secretary of State confirms Prohibition Order with modified restoration and aftercare scheme.
**Breach of Planning Control:**
Although winning and working of minerals and deposit of waste has ceased the quarry is still a disused quarry subject to restoration and aftercare. Mineral development is "operational" development. Part of the site (a planning unit in its own right) is subject to a CLUED for lime slaking and ancillary offices.
It appears on the evidence available that part of the site is currently being used for storage of construction and building materials and another part is use as a haulage yard for overnight and daytime parking of HGV vehicles and parking for drivers’ personal cars.
There has been a historic mixed use of mineral working (largely unauthorised since the mid 1990’s). Haulage vehicles were associated with this use, and associated parking of haulage vehicles overnight and during the day was ancillary to this use. In a meeting between the Authority and the landowner on 08/06/16 the owner’s agent stated that the haulage use of the site was previously associated with ‘carting minerals’. The exportation of mineral won and worked on the site continued until September 2009.
In addition the mineral extraction operations, part of the disused quarry site has a separate Lawful Use Certificate for the processing of slaked lime, as it was proven that the use had been carried out for the ten years preceding January 2014. The limestone used in this process was stated to be imported to the site and exported for sale (no sales take place on the site). That use is sui generis and the nature and extent of that use is set out in the LDC.
In March 2012 Bleaklow Industries Ltd changed hands and since that change of ownership the land has been used for the storage of varying building materials including reclaimed materials, timbers, stone, aggregate, drainage pipe and others. It is understood that these materials are not being offered for sale at the site as a builder’s merchant, but are instead as a result of and for use in other construction projects by the site owner. The beginning of this storage started a mixed use of the site for storage of materials and haulage associated with the previous operations, subsequently becoming a use in its own right.
The issue of a historic use for HGV parking has been suggested on a PCN response from the company, but this has not been substantiated. In addition it should be noted that throughout previous enforcement enquiries from member of the public and site monitoring there has been no mention of this independent use. In fact only the most recent enquiries mention this specifically, suggesting an increase in activity not previously noted other than incidental to the undertaking of works with previous permissions.
On site the haulage use and the storage use appear in distinct areas of the disused quarry site. There is an area of logs/branches which largely separates the two areas, bearing in mind that heavy vehicle access is taken to all parts of the site.
In this report “Planning Unit A” relates to the land used for the mixed use for HGV parking and operating (with associated parking) and for slaked lime production. “Planning Unit B” refers to the land used for the storage of construction and building materials.
All access to the site is taken through the main entrance.
There is currently no planning permission in place for this use and S.171A(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says that carrying out development, in this case a material change of use, without the required planning permission constitutes a breach of planning control.
**Relevant Policy** The National Planning Policy Framework states in paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks.
Policy GSP1 of the Authority’s Core Strategy, ‘Securing National Park purposes and sustainable development’ states that all development shall be consistent with the National Park’s legal purposes and duty, which aim to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage in the National Park. It also states that where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the statutory purposes, the Sandford Principle will be applied and the conservation and enhancement of the National Park will be given priority.
Policy GSP2, of the Core Strategy, ‘Enhancing the National Park’, states, amongst other things, that opportunities for enhancing the valued characteristics of the National Park will be identified and acted upon.
Policy GSP3, ‘Development management principles’, states that development must respect, conserve and enhance all valued characteristics of the site and buildings that are subject to the development proposal. The policy states that particular attention will be paid to, amongst other things, scale of development appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park; form and intensity of proposed use or activity and impact on access and traffic levels.
Policy L1 of the Core Strategy, ‘Landscape character and valued characteristics’, states that development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character, as identified in the Landscape Strategy and Action Plan, and other valued characteristics.
Policy E2 of the Core Strategy ‘Businesses in the countryside’ requires that Proposals for business development in the countryside outside the Natural Zone and the named settlements in policy DS1, must take account of the following principles: ‘Businesses should be located in existing traditional buildings of historic or vernacular merit in smaller settlements, on farmsteads, and in groups of buildings in sustainable locations’.
Saved Local Plan policy LC21, ‘Pollution and disturbance’, states that development that presents a risk of pollution or disturbance that could adversely affect, amongst other things, the amenity, ecology, or other valued characteristics of the area; or existing recreation activities, will not be permitted unless adequate measures to control emissions within acceptable limits are put in place, and (when the permitted use finishes) appropriate removal of any pollutants from the site is assured.
Saved Local Plan policy LT10, ‘Private non-residential (PNR) parking’ states, amongst other things; that in new development parking must be of a very limited nature or accompanied by on-street waiting restrictions, especially in areas served by good public transport.
Comment
In this case, the land is situated in an open countryside location close to open commons and is visible from the adjoining road and clearly visible from nearby public rights of way, including the public footpaths which cross the land. It is considered that the use of the land for mixed use storage of materials and HGVs has a detrimental impact on the valued characteristics of the local area contrary to the NPPF para 115 and GPS1. The valued characteristics are listed in paragraph 9.15 of the Core Strategy. In this case the following valued characteristics are considered to be particularly relevant:
- natural beauty, natural heritage, landscape character and diversity of landscapes;
- opportunities to experience tranquility and quiet enjoyment
- sense of wilderness and remoteness;
- distinctive character of hamlets, villages and towns;
- clean earth, air and water; It is understood that the operator of the haulage company has an agreement to use the site as a parking depot for overnight and daytime storage of vehicles as well as drivers' personal vehicles. This is contrary to policy LT10.
It is clear from our records that the haulage use on the land was ancillary to the exportation of won and worked minerals on the land until September 2009. From 2009 to now is a period of 7 years and therefore a lawful use cannot have accrued.
It appears from our records that storage commenced in 2012. This use appears from our records to have carried on for a period of 4 years and therefore a lawful use cannot have accrued.
The slaked lime putty business is described in the CLUED as independent from the surrounding quarry area and is limited as follows (1) hours of operation between 8am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 1 pm on Saturdays, except on public and bank holidays No more than 16 lorry movements (8 in and 8 out per day) Outside storage of raw materials confined to the storage bunkers on the upper tier to a maximum height of 2m Parking limited to area next to the plant, the rear upper level and the area in front of the "office" Slaked lime production no more than 1920 tonnes per annum).
Both unauthorised uses are not considered to be an appropriate development because they do not encourage understanding or enjoyment of the National Park and the activity is likely to detrimentally impact on other people's existing and appropriate recreational activities including the quiet enjoyment of the National Park. This is contrary to GPS2 and GPS3.
In particular, those persons using the adjacent roads, public footpath network and the nearby open access land are likely to suffer significant noise, dust and traffic impacts as a result of the movement of heavy goods vehicles. This is contrary to GPS2.
The presence of materials and vehicles on the land and the increased vehicle movements along highways results in a detrimental visual impact for footpath users in particular and to a lesser extent for persons using the adjacent roads and open access land. This is contrary to GPS2.
The development perpetuates and intensifies the industrialised character of the site on the locality. The impacts of the site are contrary to GPS3 L1 and LC1. The haulage aspect of the use in particular is a commercial activity which is contrary to policy E2 of the local plan as it is not within a listed settlement.
The B6001 road, which the access land opens onto, is a busy classified road with a 50mph speed limit at this location with adequate visibility splays for this speed limit. However this road is regularly subject to motorists significantly exceeding this speed limit and commonly performing high speed overtakes past the junction into the site. The overhanging trees lining both sides of the highway and the sloping topography mean visibility down the entire stretch of the road is also inhibited during the majority of the spring and summer months. The continued unauthorised use of the access would be likely to lead to increased highway safety concerns. The movements associated with haulage and transportation of goods exacerbates these issues due to the slow movement of large vehicles and the potential need to stop at the entrance to the site on both sites of the road. This is contrary to policy LC21.
The current mixed use for haulage/parking and for slaked lime production represents a material change in the use of the "Planning Unit A" because:
(a) it is not linked to levels of slaked lime production,
(b) the hours of movement are not in accordance with the CLUED operational hours,
(c) operatives are not remaining on the site to slake lime not transporting slaked lime product, and therefore represents an intensification in the vehicular movement, comings and goings and has a detrimental effect in terms of the visual impact of the activity at the site, as seen from the adjoining road (B6001) and nearby viewpoints.
In respect of "Planning Unit B" the change of use has resulted in a prolongation and intensification of the industrial character of the site, over and above the activity that is otherwise permitted (which related to the restoration and aftercare of the disused quarry). The use also has a material adverse effect on the restoration and aftercare of the former quarry site. No lawful use appears to have accrued and therefore it is expedient to take enforcement action to secure cessation of the uses.
**Human Rights**
In determining whether to take enforcement action, consideration must be given to the rights and freedoms afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol to the Convention on Human Rights state that a person is entitled to the right to respect for private and family life, and the peaceful enjoyment of his/her property.
However, these rights are qualified in that they must be set against the general interest and the protection of the rights and freedom of others.
In this case, it is considered that the landowner's operation of i) storage & ii) HGV parking use out of his property does not outweigh the significant harm that the unauthorised development has on the valued characteristics of the National Park, when having regard to the rights and freedoms of others. This is because of the significant adverse effect that retention of the unauthorised development would have on the landscape quality of the National Park taking into account the retention of the unauthorised development would undermine the application of local and national planning policies adopted by the Authority and the Government to safeguard a landscape of exceptional value, which the nation has chosen to safeguard because of its scenic beauty.
Article 6 otherwise states that, in relation to a person's civil rights and obligations, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. In this case, anyone served with legal notice(s) has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against such notice(s). As a result it is considered that the rights afforded under this Article would not be adversely affected.
**RECOMMENDATION:**
That formal enforcement action be AUTHORISED to secure:
(a) the cessation of the use of Planning Unit A for:
i) the parking of heavy goods vehicles not directly associated with the production of slaked lime
(b) the removal from the land of any associated materials and vehicles, within a period of one month from the date the notice becomes effective;
(c) the cessation of the use of Planning Unit B for the storage of builders/reclaimed materials and
(d) the removal from the land of the builders/reclaimed materials and associated pallets, "mobile buildings", and other paraphernalia within a period of two months from the date the notice becomes effective. SCREENING OPINION
T&CP (Environmental Impact Assessment) (E&W) Regulations 1999
ENF: P2382
Location: Land at Backdale Quarry, Hassop Avenue, Hassop
Development:
c) Material change of use of the land for a mixed use of storage and use as a haulage yard.
d) PLEASE INDICATE BELOW WHICH SCHEDULE THE PROPOSAL FALLS WITHIN AND FOR SCHEDULE 2 PROJECTS INDICATE WHETHER AN EIA IS REQUIRED GIVING REASONS
1. The proposal falls within Schedule 1 and therefore an EIA has to be provided.
2. The proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the regulations and an EIA is required for the following reasons:
3. The proposal falls within Schedule 2 Part 10(b)– Urban Development Projects, of the regulations and is located within a ‘sensitive area’ as defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIA Regulations. The Peak District National Park Authority, as the relevant Planning Authority, and in consideration of sufficient information for the purpose, has adopted a screening opinion that the proposed development as described falls within Schedule 2, [10 Infrastructure projects (c) Construction of intermodal transhipment facilities and intermodal terminals] of the EIA Regulations and IS not EIA DEVELOPMENT for the following reasons:
The development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size and location. The site lies within the National Park which is a sensitive area for the purposes of the regulations. The impacts are not considered to be of such complexity or magnitude to warrant an environmental impact assessment considering the below factors.
Traffic, Noise and Dust
It is considered that due to the scale of the development, noise and dust impacts associated with the development are not significant. The land used for the haulage and associated development is screened and views of the development are limited. The development is not considered likely to have a significant effect on the ecological interests at the quarry or the known palaeontological interest, due to the location within the quarry of the planning unit relating to haulage and associated activity. Conclusion
An ES is not required to be produced in order to assess the effects of the proposed changes on the environment of the National Park as they are not considered likely to be significant or permanent in nature.
The development is not likely to have significant effects on the environment within this part of the National Park such as to adversely affect one or more of the interests identified in schedule 3 of the EIA Regulation 2011.
Signed
Jane Newman Minera's Team Manager Peak District National Park Authority
Date
01629 816 265
Chris Anslow - Johnson
01629 816 224
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0681-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 25656,
"total-output-tokens": 10899,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1444,
1
],
[
1444,
3583,
2
],
[
3583,
5727,
3
],
[
5727,
7194,
4
],
[
7194,
9033,
5
],
[
9033,
11217,
6
],
[
11217,
13351,
7
],
[
13351,
15098,
8
],
[
15098,
16768,
9
],
[
16768,
18864,
10
],
[
18864,
20624,
11
],
[
20624,
20624,
12
],
[
20624,
20624,
13
],
[
20624,
20698,
14
],
[
20698,
23532,
15
],
[
23532,
25907,
16
],
[
25907,
28350,
17
],
[
28350,
30147,
18
],
[
30147,
33984,
19
],
[
33984,
37697,
20
],
[
37697,
41457,
21
],
[
41457,
44628,
22
],
[
44628,
46761,
23
],
[
46761,
47347,
24
]
]
} |
20d8b41bd2154beaf38c22cdd385bca79e547938 | Dear Mr Thornely
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Variation of Condition 2 & 3 (time limits & restrictions) of planning permission NP/HPK/0905/0896 to allow continuation of mineral working, deposit of mineral waste and restoration for a further 10 years and for the permission to endure for the benefit of Mr J Merrick and Mrs B Merrick, Chinley Moor Quarry, Chapel Road, Hayfield
I write in regard to the above planning application, and following the site visit and discussions held with Mr Merrick on 9th September 2016.
It was positive to see that progress was made to backfill against the quarry face which adjoins the neighbouring land. Working has taken place extensively in this location, potentially outside of the permitted extraction area and is very close to the site boundary and fencing of the neighbouring landowner. It is important that these works are completed to improve stability in this area. I would also remind you that the current working plans show an approximate stand-off of 2.5 metres and this should be adhered to.
Progress has been made on improving the visual appearance of the larger building. Works have been undertaken by Mr Merrick to reduce the height and depth of it and he has confirmed that the building will be re-sheeted and the debris around the structure removed. We have agreed that the smaller building will be rebuilt in part on the same site and scale of the existing hut in accordance with the plans which have been submitted should planning permission be granted by Planning Committee.
We agreed on site that works to the building and to the quarry face should be complete by mid-October 2016 and I will arrange with Mr Merrick a date to undertake another site visit to check that the works have been completed. In order to meet this timescale and if there is shortage of material on site (as stated by Mr Merrick at the site meeting), I would suggest that the material... that has been used to fill the void below the working quarry face can be placed against the quarry face where further backfilling is required.
I also informed Mr Merrick that a representation has been made by Friends of the Peak District who express support for the planning application proposals. However they comment that it was their understanding that over the period of the previous permission that ‘the site would be tidied up especially in respect of the ramshackle building structures on site. This has not occurred and this represents a breach of faith for us’…we would therefore wish to see our support and any further grant of permission to be strictly conditional on dealing with this issue and further extraction being dependant on fulfilling pre-commencement conditions including the demolition/removal of the current structure and the erection of new structure of design etc to be agreed by the PDNPA.’
I can confirm that the Authority is still awaiting up to date title evidence and also title evidence for the minerals,(which are excluded from Mr and Mrs Merrick’s title) to be provided. Can you also please provide the contact details of Mr Merrick’s solicitors, so our legal department can correspond direct in the drafting of the Section 106 agreement.
I look forward to receiving the information requested. Should you wish to discuss any matters please do not hesitate to contact me on Tel: 01629 816342.
Yours sincerely
Nicola Howarth MRTPI Minerals Planner
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0682-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 5311,
"total-output-tokens": 790,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1928,
1
],
[
1928,
3412,
2
]
]
} |
35fbf879e92f623f1b629fad8348859886619313 | Longshaw Estate Car Park, Derbyshire: An Archaeological Watching Brief
ARS Ltd Report No.2015/107 OASIS No: archaeol5-217051
Compiled By: Caitlin Halton Archaeological Research Services Ltd Angel House Portland Square Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1HB
Checked By: Chris Scott MCIfA Tel: 01629814540 [email protected] www.archaeologicalresearchservices.com Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 2 LOCATION AND GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 2 3 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................... 2 4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 3 5 METHOD STATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 4 6 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 4 7 POTTERY .......................................................................................................................................... 5 8 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 5 9 PUBLICITY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND COPYRIGHT ......................................................................... 6 10 STATEMENT OF INDEMNITY ........................................................................................................... 6 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX 1- FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDIX 2- CONTEXT REGISTER ....................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX 3- WRITTEN SCHEME IF INVESTIGATION ......................................................................... 17 APPENDIX 4- OASIS FORM ................................................................................................................... 22
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site location Figure 2. Plan site excavated Figure 3. South west facing view of car park showing top soil (001) and natural substrate (003). Scale = 1 x 2m. Figure 4. South east facing section of service trench. Scale = 1 x 1m Figure 5. South east facing section of service trench. Figure 6. South east facing section of service trench over the bridge. Scale = 1 x 1m. Figure 7. South east facing section of service trench in front of the den. Scale = 1 x 1m. Figure 8. Service trench over the bridge aligned north east curving east towards the carpark. Scale = 1 x 1m. Figure 9. North west facing section of service trench underneath road/Car park of the Adventure Centre. Scale = 1 x1m. Executive Summary
Project Name: An Archaeological Excavation at Longshaw Estate Car Park, Derbyshire Site Code: LEWCP 15 Planning Authority: Peak District National Park Authority Location: Longshaw Estate, Sheffield Geology: Rossendale Formation- Mudstone and Siltstone sedimentary bedrock formed in the Carboniferous Period. (BGS, 2015) NGR: SK 26620 80058 Date: July 2015
In March and June 2015 Archaeological Research Services Ltd was commissioned by the National Trust to undertake an archaeological watching brief during the refurbishment and extension of Woodcroft car park, Longshaw, Sheffield.
The objective of the watching brief was to ensure that any archaeological features or deposits encountered during the refurbishment of the car park were appropriately recorded and interpreted.
The ground works did not uncover any archaeological features or deposits. Six fragments of 19th- early 20th century pottery, including white stoneware and white earthenware were identified in the top soil. 1 Introduction
1.1 In March and June 2015 Archaeological Research Services Ltd was commissioned by the National Trust to undertake an archaeological watching brief at Longshaw Estate’s Woodcroft car park.
1.2 Planning permission was granted by the Peak District National Park Authority. Condition No. 15 of the planning permission required that:
“The development shall not proceed other than in full accordance with an archaeological watching brief with appropriate salvage, recording and protection provisions that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Authority before work commences on site. Reason - To ensure any archaeological interest that may be found on the site is recorded and appropriate action taken to salvage or protect the interests during construction.”
2 Location and Geology
2.1 The Woodcroft car park of Longshaw Estate is located off the A6187 to the north-east of Longshaw Lodge and is centred at SK 426618 380035(Figure 1).
2.2 The underlying geology of the site is comprised of mudstones and siltstones of the Rossendale and Marsden Formations (BGS 2015).
2.3 The soils of the PDA belong to the Wilcocks 1 Soil Association (721c), which are cambic stagnohumic gley soils (SSEW 1983a). These soils form as drift from Palaeozoic sandstone, mudstone and shale and are characterised as ‘slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy and fine loamy over clayey upland soils with a peaty surface horizon. Coarse loamy soils affected by groundwater in places. Very acid where not limed’ (SSEW 1983b).
3 Historical and Archaeological Background
3.1 Prehistoric remains in the Peak District are numerous, especially within the moorlands of Hathersage and Totley Moss. Within Longshaw Estate, ring cairns containing urns and human bones have been unearthed to the north of the PDA. Quarrying took place in the area from at least the 15th century, with Yarncliffe Quarry utilizing the natural rock outcrops of the Peaks to make millstones. (National Trust, n.d.)
3.2 Before the construction of modern roads in the 18th century, the landscape of the moorlands was crossed by numerous braided ways and paved causeways forming direct routes (where the topography of the area allowed) between towns and estates. After many years of use, many of these braided ways became sunken, due to the susceptibility of sandstone and shale to erosion. One such braided hollow way heading from Hathersage to Chesterfield crossed Lawrence Field, to the (south-east) of the PDA (Barnatt 2004, 104). This route became disused by the early 19th century.
3.3 Comprised of 1087 acres of moor and woodland, Longshaw Estate stretches almost down to Grindleford and includes the area around Millstone Edge and Bole Hill. The National Trust obtained the entire estate in 1931. With the estate lies two Grade II Listed Buildings: Longshaw Lodge (NHLE No. 1109833) and the Chapel to Longshaw Lodge (NHLE No. 1335025). Built in 1827 as a shooting box for guests of the Duke of Rutland, Longshaw Lodge has since been used as a hospital for wounded soldiers during WWI and is now private flats, though the National Trust maintains a café and shop for tourists on site. The area of the PDA is utilised as the main car park of the estate, called ‘Woodcroft’. This triangular tract of land appears on maps as early as 1878.
4 Aims and Objectives
4.1 Regional Research Aims and Objectives
4.1.1 Research topics identified in *East Midlands Heritage: An Updated Research Agenda and Strategy for the Historic Environment of the East Midlands* (Knight et al, 2012) applicable to this programme of works include researching regional communications infrastructure and exploring the landscape legacy of rural leisure pursuits.
- The medieval period is important for the study of communication routes, which the physical infrastructure, such as roads, and their associated landscape features, such as hollow-ways, remain little researched (Research Objective 7J, p. 106).
- The 19th century landscape of the midlands provided the locale for fox hunting and other leisure pursuits. Further research into the landscape and social history of these pursuits would allow for the identification of associated small and large-scale landscape features that are largely neglected by the Historic Environment Records (Research Objective 9F, p. 129).
4.2 Watching Brief Objectives
4.2.1 The objective of the watching brief is to ensure that any potential archaeological remains exposed during the groundworks associated with the refurbishment and extension of Woodcroft car park, are fully recorded and interpreted, and that any remains disturbed are recovered.
5 Method Statement
5.1 ARS Ltd provided an archaeologist at all times during the ground-works.
5.2 The investigation was conducted in accordance with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Code of Conduct (2014a) and Standards and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Briefs (2014b).
5.3 The mechanical excavator used during the ground-works was fitted with a toothless ditching bucket.
5.4 A photographic record was maintained including photographs of the areas of excavation. All images were taken in digital format and contain a graduated photographic scale.
5.5 A single context record systems was used and maintained during the watching brief.
6 Results
The results have been split into two areas of excavation, the car park and the service trench. The service trench ran north east-south west from the car park, along the edge of the previous path, over the bridge, and past the den area leading to the visitor centre (Figure 2).
Car park
6.1 The stripping of the car park revealed a dark loamy brown top soil (001). (001) had a maximum depth of 0.35m and included six fragments of pottery. Below (001), a yellow orangey sandy silty clay with limestone inclusions (003) had an unknown depth and is the natural substrate (Figure 3).
Service trench
6.2 The service trench was c.150m in length and ranged between 0.4-0.5m wide with a maximum depth of 0.55m to the natural horizon (003). The stratigraphic sequence to the bridge (c.50m) comprised of a layer of topsoil (001), consisting of a dark brown silt, with a maximum depth of 0.5m. Below topsoil (001), a mid-brown silty sub soil (002) had an overall thickness of 0.20m. (002) was only visible along the trench at 14-18m. Otherwise (001) overlaid the natural substrate (003) (Figure 5). 6.3 The stratigraphic sequence along and over the bridge to the entrance of the den area, (Figure 6 and 7) comprised of a gravel layer path (004) from the carpark to the walking trails and Visitor centre. Below (004), a layer of topsoil (001) 0.05m thick lay above the natural substrate (003).
6.4 From the western end of the bridge to the road, the stratigraphic sequence comprised of (004) a gravel deposit which overlay a hard-core deposit (005). (005) had a maximum depth of 0.20m. Directly below was a thin layer of top soil (001) (0.03m thickness) and (003) (Figure 7).
6.5 At the western extent of the service trench, the stratigraphic sequence was as followed; gravel (004) with a depth of 0.05m, hard-core (005) with a depth of 0.20m, (006) with a depth of 0.15m, topsoil (001) with a depth of 0.05m and the natural substrate (003). (006) consisted of a red silty sand with red brick inclusions with a thickness of 0.15m (Figure 9) and was identified below (005). This is thought to be a demolition layer or potentially, imported material for the construction of the road/car park. Directly below (006) a layer of topsoil (001) that had a depth of 0.05m, lay above the natural substrate.
6.6 No archaeological features or deposits were identified during the ground works for the carpark or service trench.
7 Pottery
7.1 Six fragments of 19th- early 20th century pottery were recovered from (101), including one fragments of a white stoneware jar and fine white earthenware fragments, mainly from plates (one of which was blue-and-white transfer-printed earthenware). The pottery represents utilitarian and refined wares used for storage and consumption of food and drink. The finds are by no means unusual in any respect for a site of this nature; parallels can be formed on most sites in this region producing material of this date.
8 Discussion
8.1 The watching brief was carried out to identify if archaeological remains were exposed during the groundworks associated with the refurbishment and extension of Woodcroft car park. The watching brief revealed no archaeological features or deposits within the development area.
8.2 The small amount of pottery identified in the top soil represents utilitarian and refined wares, used for storage and consumption, which are not unusual for the nature of the site or archaeologically significant. 9 Publicity, Confidentiality and Copyright
9.1 Any publicity will be handled by the client. Archaeological Research Services Ltd will retain the copyright of all documentary and photographic material under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act (1988).
10 Statement of Indemnity
10.1 All statements and opinions contained within this report arising from the works undertaken are offered in good faith and compiled according to professional standards. No responsibility can be accepted by the author/s of the report for any errors of fact or opinion resulting from data supplied by any third party, or for loss or other consequence arising from decisions or actions made upon the basis of facts or opinions expressed in any such report(s), howsoever such facts and opinions may have been derived.
11 Acknowledgements
11.1 Archaeological Research Services Ltd would like to thank all those who contributed to the outcome of this project, in particular Mark Evans (site manager), Alan Morris of Jager Associates Ltd and Rachael Hall, Richard Vink and Trevor Guyler of the National Trust.
References
British Geological Survey (BGS). 2015. Geology of Britain viewer. Available online at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home/html [Accessed 1st July 2015].
Barnatt, J. and Smith, K. 2004. The Peak District: Landscapes through time. Macclesfield: Windgather Press.\]
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). 2014a. Code of Conduct. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). 2014b. Standard and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Briefs. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.
Knight, D., Vyner, B., and Allen, C. 2012. East Midlands Heritage: An Updated Research Agenda and Strategy for the Historic Environment of the East Midlands. Nottingham. National Trust. N.d. *Longshaw, Burbage and the Eastern moors*. Available at http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/longshaw-burbage-and-the-eastern-moors/history/ [Accessed 1st July 2015]
Soil Survey of England and Wales. 1983a. *Sheet 3: Soils of Midland and Western England*.
Soil Survey of England and Wales. 1983b. *Legend for the 1:250,000 Soil Map of England and Wales*. Appendix 1- Figures Figure 1: Site location Figure 2. Plan site excavated Figure 3. South west facing view of car park showing top soil (001) and natural substrate (003). Scale = 1 x 2m.
Figure 4. South east facing section of service trench. Scale = 1 x 1m Figure 5. South east facing section of service trench. Figure 6. South east facing section of service trench over the bridge. Scale = 1 x 1m.
Figure 7. South east facing section of service trench in front of the den. Scale = 1 x 1m. Figure 8. Service trench over the bridge aligned north east curving east towards the carpark. Scale = 1 x 1m. Figure 9. North west facing section of service trench underneath road/Car park of the Adventure Centre. Scale = 1 x1m.
### Appendix 2- Context Register
| Context No. | Type | Description | |-------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------| | 001 | Layer | Top soil | | 002 | Layer | Layer of Mid brown loamy silt | | 003 | Layer | Silty sandy clay with Limestone inclusion | | 004 | Layer | Gravel | | 005 | Layer | Hardcore | | 006 | Layer | Demolition/Imported sandy material with brick inclusions | | 007 | Layer | Silty Sand | Appendix 3- Written Scheme if Investigation 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Planning permission has been granted by the Peak District National Park Authority for the refurbishment and extension of Woodcroft car park, Longshaw, Sheffield.
1.2 The archaeological supervision, monitoring and recording will conform to current national guidelines, as set out in the Institute for Archaeologists ‘Standards and guidance for archaeological watching briefs’ (CIFA 1999). All appropriate English Heritage guidelines on archaeological practice will also be followed (www.helm.org/server/show/nav.7740).
1.3 The archaeological supervision, monitoring and recording will be undertaken by Archaeological Research Services on behalf of the National Trust. The work will be overseen by the National Archaeologist for the East Midlands.
2.0 Programme of works
2.1 Full details of the car park refurbishment and extension and redevelopment are detailed in the planning application design and access statement.
3.0 Archaeological Monitoring Requirements
3.1 Archaeological Monitoring and Recording
3.1.1 The objective of the archaeological supervision, monitoring and recording is to ensure that any archaeological features, exposed during the ground works(^1) associated with the refurbishment and extension of Woodcroft car park are fully recorded and interpreted, and that any remains disturbed are recovered.
(^1) Ground works include topsoil stripping, excavation of drainage and all other service trenches. 3.1.2 Archaeological Research Services will be responsible for ensuring that they maintain a good line of communication with the National Trust and the main contractors undertaking the on-site works.
3.1.3 The mechanical excavator used during the ground-works will be fitted with a toothless ditching bucket unless agreed otherwise with the National Trust Archaeologist (i.e. in the case of the removal of hard surfaces).
3.1.4 The on-site archaeologist will, in conjunction with the National Trust Archaeologist, determine the frequency of the archaeological monitoring.
3.1.5 Any archaeological features or deposits encountered during the works, must, following cleaning and investigation be recorded contextually, drawn in plan and section at appropriate scales and photographed in colour (digital format is acceptable). The archaeologist will be afforded adequate time by the main contractor to confirm the identification of archaeological remains and to make an assessment of the potential significance of the remains and the impact of continued development work.
3.1.6 Accurate scale drawings (plan and section) will be produced at an appropriate scale (usually 1:20 or 1:50) of any archaeological features/deposits and/or a ‘natural’ profile to illustrate the site soil stratigraphy. Where appropriate a base plan will also be produced, at an appropriate scale, to map any archaeological features/deposits or finds concentrations. OD heights will be included on all section drawings.
3.1.7 In the unlikely event that human remains be encountered they should be left in situ and only removed if absolutely necessary. The contractor must comply with all statutory consents and licences regarding the exhumation and reinterment of human remains. The National Trust Archaeologist, Police and Coroner must be informed if it is suspected that the remains have been buried for less than 50 years.
3.1.8 If any artefactual material is recovered during the archaeological monitoring, analysis of the material will be completed by the relevant specialists. If the objects are deemed to be unstable they will be assessed by the National Trust Conservator and appropriate works will be undertaken.
3.1.9 Upon completion of site work the contractor will compile a post-excavation report of their findings. This report must include a brief non-technical summary of the project; a description of the site location, topography and geology; a brief account of the archaeological and historical background of the site; description and analysis of the fieldwork; discussion and conclusions of the findings, including consideration of the importance of the findings on a local, regional and national basis; any specialist reports; a summary table of the archaeological contexts encountered including descriptions and interpretations; geo-referenced location plans at an appropriate scale; plan and section drawings of any significant features and deposits at an appropriate scale; colour photographs including general views and appropriate records of significant features and deposits; acknowledgements and bibliography of sources used.
3.1.10 All aspects of the investigation must be conducted in accordance with the Institute of Field Archaeologist’s ‘Code of Conduct, the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Recording’ (1999). 4.0 General Requirements of the Archaeological Contractor
4.1 The Contractor will be fully responsible for developing and operating a safe system of working. A full site specific Risk Assessment must be in place and approved by the National Trust prior to commencement of any work. The Contractor must abide by the health and safety regulations of the main site contractor. Please note as such that this may include a health and safety induction with the main contractor.
4.2 The Contractor will observe National Trust bye-laws at all times when on site. A full copy of this document will be sent to the appointed Contractor, and should be signed and returned by them prior to the commencement of work on site.
4.3 The Contractor will liaise fully with the National Trust’s Project Manager regarding access and agreed times of work.
4.4 The Contractor will note that the National Trust will retain copyright over all products from this investigation, while fully acknowledging the originators rights of recognition.
5.0 Monitoring arrangements and Publication
5.1 The project will be initiated in consultation the National Trust Archaeologist and the Project Manager, who can be contacted for guidance during the course of site works. Any problems or unexpected discoveries should be reported immediately to the National Trust Archaeologist. The National Trust Archaeologist will inform the Peak District National Park Authority’s Senior Conservation Archaeologist should any unexpected discoveries be made during the excavations. An appropriate course of action will then be determined by the Project Manager, the National Trust Archaeology and the Peak Park’s Senior Conservation Archaeologist.
5.2 A digital draft of the report resulting from the monitoring must be supplied to the National Trust and the Peak Park for comment before the report is finalised. It is expected that the draft report for comment will be submitted within four weeks of the completion of the fieldwork. The National Trust will comment upon the draft report within two weeks of the date of receipt.
5.3 Archaeological Research Services will be responsible for completing and submitting an OASIS record.
5.3 Archaeological Research Services will supply the National Trust with four hard copies and four digital copies of the final report. Archaeological Research Services will be responsible for depositing copies of the final report with the Peak District National Park Authority and Sheffield City Council HER.
6.0 Archive deposition
6.1 All materials arising from this survey will be supplied to the National Trust in standard archiving boxes upon completion of the project. The National Trust will assume responsibility for the archiving of this material, either in regional or central filing systems. 7.0 Insurance coverage
7.1 The Contractor will carry public liability insurance to the value of not less than £2 million. Proof of this is required prior to the commencement of any works on site.
8.0 Contacts
Rachael Hall Archaeologist National Trust Hardwick Consultancy Office The Croft Doe Lea Chesterfield S44 5QJ
Mobile: 07920028298 [email protected]
Richard Vink Project Manager National Trust Dark Peak Estate Edale End Hope Valley Sheffield S33 6RF
Office: 01433 670905 [email protected] Appendix 4- Oasis Form OASIS DATA COLLECTION FORM: England
List of Projects | Manage Projects | Search Projects | New project | Change your details | HER coverage | Change country | Log out
Printable version
OASIS ID: archaeol5-217051
Project details
Project name: An Archaeological Watching Brief at Longshaw Estate Car Park, Derbyshire.
Short description of the project: In March and June 2015 Archaeological Research Services Ltd was commissioned by Peak District National Park Authority to undertake an archaeological watching brief for the refurbishment and extension of Woodcroft car park, Longshaw Sheffield. The ground works did not uncover any archaeological features or deposits. There was no residual artefacts retrieved from the top soil.
Project dates: Start: 17-03-2015 End: 25-06-2015
Previous/future work: No / No
Type of project: Recording project
Site status: National Trust land
Current Land use: Woodland 6 - Parkland
Monument type: NONE None
Significant Finds: NONE None
Investigation type: "Watching Brief"
Prompt: Planning condition
Project location
Country: England
Site location: DERBYSHIRE DERBYSHIRE DALES HATHERSAGE Longshaw Estate
Study area: 0.99 Hectares
Site coordinates: SK 26620 80058 53.3165120153 -1.60037223558 53 18 59 N 001 36 01 W Point
Project creators
Name of Organisation: Archaeological Research Services Ltd
Project brief originator: Archaeological Research Services Ltd
Project design originator: Archaeological Research Services Ltd Project director/manager: Chris Scott Project supervisor: Caitlin Halton
**Project archives**
| Physical Archive Exists? | No | |--------------------------|----| | Digital Archive recipient | National Trust | | Digital Contents | "none" | | Paper Archive recipient | National Trust | | Paper Contents | "none" |
**Project bibliography 1**
| Publication type | Grey literature (unpublished document/manuscript) | |------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Title | An Archaeological Watching Brief at Longshaw Estate Car Park, Derbyshire | | Author(s)/Editor(s) | Archaeological Research services Ltd | | Date | 2015 | | Issuer or publisher | Archaeological Research Services Ltd | | Place of issue or publication | Bakewell |
Entered by: Caitlin Halton ([email protected]) Entered on: 7 July 2015
______________________________________________________________________
**OASIS:**
Please e-mail Historic England for OASIS help and advice © ADS 1996-2012 Created by Jo Gilham and Jen Mitcham, email Last modified Wednesday 9 May 2012 Cite only: http://www.oasis.ac.uk/form/print.cfm for this page
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0683-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 29,
"total-input-tokens": 43972,
"total-output-tokens": 7247,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
377,
1
],
[
377,
3621,
2
],
[
3621,
4626,
3
],
[
4626,
6858,
4
],
[
6858,
9170,
5
],
[
9170,
11057,
6
],
[
11057,
13418,
7
],
[
13418,
15252,
8
],
[
15252,
15626,
9
],
[
15626,
15646,
10
],
[
15646,
15670,
11
],
[
15670,
15670,
12
],
[
15670,
15700,
13
],
[
15700,
15700,
14
],
[
15700,
15884,
15
],
[
15884,
15939,
16
],
[
15939,
16118,
17
],
[
16118,
16228,
18
],
[
16228,
16347,
19
],
[
16347,
17113,
20
],
[
17113,
17157,
21
],
[
17157,
17157,
22
],
[
17157,
18611,
23
],
[
18611,
21941,
24
],
[
21941,
24736,
25
],
[
24736,
25270,
26
],
[
25270,
25293,
27
],
[
25293,
26774,
28
],
[
26774,
27863,
29
]
]
} |
5401f80d163e7afb95d097a65198b8db7d280a7b | Pre-works Road Condition Survey of Derwent Lane Howden Micro Hydropower Project
OVERVIEW/COMMENT ON RESULTS OF SURVEY
Overall, the inspected length of Derwent Lane from the A57 to the Roundabout at the Visitors center appears to be in reasonable structural condition. However there are several areas of Rutting and Surface Fretting which are shown in the schedule.
From the Roundabout continuing along Derwent Lane to the Bridge the road is of a poorer condition. There is amongst other deformities an abundance of Haunch Erosion due mainly to this being a single track road with no edge support and used by agricultural machinery.
There are some random areas of carriageway patching, irregular reinstatement and potholing (large and small) which are noted and their respective location and condition are shown.
Surface water drainage appears to be good although there are a couple of areas where ponding is evident. DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL DEFECTS IDENTIFIED & ASSESSED DURING ROAD CONDITION
SURVEY OF DERWENT LANE
A. Surface Fretting/Loss of Surface Dressing Chippings 'Fretting' - a common occurrence, due either to ageing and embrittlement of the bituminous binder, leading initially to loss of fine aggregate, or loss of surface dressing chippings through traction by vehicles, particularly at junctions and around bends. Lack of embedment in the early life of a surface dressing can also result in loss of chippings, particularly during cold weather. Fretted surfaces have an open rugous appearance and remain damp longer than sealed surfaces after rain. Progression of fretting can lead to formation of potholes.
B. Wheeltracking/flutting The formation of longitudinal surface depressions in the wheel tracks, caused by the deformation of unstable/bitumen-rich surfacing material subjected to repeated trafficking (channelisation) by vehicles. If accompanied by extensive cracking and crazing this defect may also indicate structural distress in the underlying road base/foundation.
C. ‘Pushing’ of Surfacing Layers Similar causes as rutting, but usually along the inside edge of wheel tracks, particularly around an outside bend and on the braking approaches to junctions. In extreme cases, the bitumen bound surfacing material can ride up the face of an adjoining kerbline.
D. Haunch Erosion/Deformation. In the absence of edge support (kerbs or hard shoulder construction), pavement haunches or shoulders, are vulnerable to settlement and structural damage, i.e. cracking, crazing, erosion, rutting and general deformation from overrunning heavy vehicles. This is particularly noticeable on the inside of bends, and in the vicinity of ditches and where no positive drainage or edge support exists.
E. Potholes These are relatively small holes in a road surface caused by the loss of aggregate from the bitumen bound matrix. Formation of potholes in an aging surface is accelerated by ingress of water and freezing conditions. Whilst the initial depth of a pothole will usually be limited to the thickness of the surfacing course, if the deterioration is not remedied by patching, the depth and overall size will continue to increase, particularly under adverse weather conditions and heavy traffic.
F. Patched/Reinstated Road Surfaces Whilst such repairs properly address weaknesses and defects in existing surfaces, and in some cases the underlying layers and foundations, and lessen the likelihood of further deterioration, any cutting through pavement layers interrupts the structural continuity of the pavement structure, thereby weakening it.
## SCHEDULE FOR THE PREWORKS ROAD CONDITION SURVEY FOR DERWENT LANE
**Sheet 1 of 2**
| Photo Number | Chainage (m) | Position in Road (Nearside=Res side) | Description/Defects/Notes | |--------------|--------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Start at A57 White Lines as Zero | | | | | 1 | 5.0 – 21.1 | Central (C) | Fretting along the center of road near to overbanding | | 2 | 92.9 | Nearside (N) | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | | 108.6 | | Cattle grid | | 3 | 110.9 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 4 | 409.9 | N | Cracking and Fretting on old repair | | 5,6,7 | 488.9 – 650.1| N | Surface Fretting/Loss of Surface Chippings | | 8 | 642.2 | C | Potholes | | 9 | 1264.6 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 10 | 1347.7 | N | Sunken Deformation and Cracking | | 11 | 1522.5 | N | Sunken Deformation (already marked for repair) | | 12 | 1559.8 | N | Fretting around Gully | | 13 | 1762.3 | N | Loss of surface dressing for 10m | | 14 | 1826.8 | N | Loss of surface dressing | | 15 | 1848.3 | N | Loss of surface dressing | | 16 | 1924.7 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 17 | 1940.6 | N | Loss of surface dressing for 10m | | | 2138.7 | | Derwent Monument | | | 2430.8 | | Cattle grid | | 18 | 2800.7 | N | Pothole next to Gully | | 19 | 2914.7 – 2963.9| N | Loss of surface dressing | | 20,21,22 | 3058.3 | N | Potholes | | 23,24,25 | 3086.3 – 3106.7| N | Potholes | | 26 | 3135.6 | N | Pothole | | 27 | 3180.5 | N | Pothole | | 28 | 3188.8 | N | Pothole | | 29 | 3201.1 | N | Loss of surface area near Gully | | 30 | 3237.9 | N | Old Repair areas showing start of material loss | | 31 | 3266.8 | N | Old Repair areas showing start of material loss | | 32 | 3290.3 | N | Pothole | | 33 | 3333.7 | Offside (O) | Sinking to MH Cover | | Photo Number | Chainage (m) | Position in Road (Nearside=Res side) | Description/Defects/Notes | |--------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------| | 34 | 3343.6 | N | Pothole | | 35 | 3348.5 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 36 | 3359.1 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 37 | 3392.8 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 38 | 3533 | N | Pothole | | 39 | 3641.4 | N | Humped area with Fretting | | 40 | 3726 | N | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 41,42,43,44 | 3726.5 -- 3788.9 | | Various Cracking, fretting and Deformation to the road towards the Roundabout | | 45 | | | Cracking at Roundabout | | 46 | | | Pothole at Roundabout | | | 3843.9 | | Gate |
Starting at the Gate at the Roundabout as Zero
| Photo Number | Chainage (m) | Position in Road (Nearside=Res side) | Description/Defects/Notes | |--------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------| | 47 - 54 | 0 - 175 | | Poor surface from the Gate with Various Cracking, fretting and Deformation | | 55,56 | 177 | | 2No Gullies with Potholes and sunken areas | | 57 | 204 – 220.3 | C | Potholes | | 58,59 | 231.9 | O | Sunken area and Patch repair near Gully | | 60 | 238 | | Fretting to large area at the Bridge | | 61 | 432 | O | Ponding at the Path Crossing (old Repair) | | 62 | 454.8 | C | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 63 | 461.2 | O | Fretting | | 64 | 493.9 – 506.1 | | Old repair Rutting | | 65 | 626.3 | N | Old repair trench has cracking, Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 66 | | | Old patch not over banded | | 67,68,69,70 | 656.7 | | Various Cracking, fretting and Deformation to the road towards the Junction to Derwent Dam | | 71 | 726.2 | N | Old patch with surface loss | | 72 | 744 | | Worn trench repair | | 73 | 749 | O | Standing water to offside edge | | 74,75 | 757.2 – 781.7 | | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 76 | 804.5 | O | BT Manhole cover with erosion to edge | | 77 | 815.1 | C | Surface loss around old trench | | 78 | 820.8 | N | Surface loss around old trench | | 79 | 823.5 | N | Surface loss around old trench | | Photo Number | Chainage (m) | Position in Road (Near side=Res side) | Description/Defects/Notes | |--------------|--------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------| | 80,81,82 | 911.2 – 929.8| O,N | Potholes to Farm entrance and sunken areas | | 83,84 | 984.5 | N | Various Cracking, Fretting, Haunch Erosion/Deformation at Telegraph pole | | 85,86 | 997 | O,N | Various Cracking, Fretting, Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 87 | 1026.4 | | Hump and Fretting | | 88 | 1033.4 | O | Tarmac loss around old trench | | 89,90 | 1053 – 1070.7| O | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 91 | 1077.5 | O | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 92,93 | 1100.7 – 1151.7| | Fretting/Loss of surface dressing | | 94 | 1169.2 | O | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 95,96,97 | 1187 – 1240.5| | Cracking, Fretting, Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 98 | 1338.8 | N | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 99,100 | 1388.6 | | Various Cracking, Fretting, Haunch Erosion/Deformation at Bend | | 101 | 1426.9 | O | Pothole | | 102 | 1451.7 – 1467.9| | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 103 | 1555.8 – 1565.6| | Fretting | | 104 | 1638.5 | N | Fretting to new Trench | | 105 | 1677 | N | Fretting to new Trench | | 106 | 1732.8 – 1741.4| | Potholes with old spray marks around | | 107 | 1759.1 | N | Pothole | | 108,109,110 | 1764 – 1804.6| | Various Cracking, Fretting, Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 111 | 1818.9 | N | Pothole | | 112 | 1836.3 | N | Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 113 | 1889.8 | O,N | Cracking, Haunch Erosion/Deformation | | 114 - 117 | 1890.3 – 1953| | Fretting and Rutting | | | 1953 | | End of Tarmac |
Start at the Junction towards Derwent Dam as Zero
| Photo Number | Chainage (m) | Position in Road (Near side=Res side) | Description/Defects/Notes | |--------------|--------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------| | 118 | 74.7 | C | 2 small fretting areas | | 119 | 370 | | Hump in Road | | 120 | 414 | O | Pothole to edge of road at the entrance to the house | | | 436.8 | | End at the Gate at the House |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0685-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 24587,
"total-output-tokens": 4394,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
922,
1
],
[
922,
3569,
2
],
[
3569,
3569,
3
],
[
3569,
7141,
4
],
[
7141,
10922,
5
],
[
10922,
14367,
6
],
[
14367,
14367,
7
],
[
14367,
14367,
8
],
[
14367,
14367,
9
],
[
14367,
14367,
10
],
[
14367,
14367,
11
],
[
14367,
14367,
12
],
[
14367,
14367,
13
],
[
14367,
14367,
14
],
[
14367,
14367,
15
],
[
14367,
14367,
16
],
[
14367,
14367,
17
],
[
14367,
14367,
18
],
[
14367,
14367,
19
],
[
14367,
14367,
20
],
[
14367,
14367,
21
],
[
14367,
14367,
22
],
[
14367,
14367,
23
]
]
} |
4623704e35725332e2ea10e8b58e68d706d572ac | Package Sewage Treatment Plant’s (or PSTP’s) are often a suitable option where groundwater in the surrounding environment is vulnerable, drainage field percolation values are restrictive, or direct discharge to watercourse or surface water sewer is the preferred discharge method.
In addition to the anaerobic digestion taking place in the primary settlement tank (as septic tanks) the Ensign unit allows the clarified water to pass into a second ‘aeration’ chamber where it is treated to remove the dissolved constituents. Here aerobic bacteria, supported by diffused air and mobile media, ensure full treatment is achieved before the treated effluent (and ‘sloughed off’ bacteria) flow to a final settlement chamber prior to discharge.
- PSTP’s should be sized using the latest version of British Water Flows & Loads which provides detailed information on sewage production figures and sizing calculations.
- Regulatory authorities for the control of pollution in the UK normally require treatment plants conforming to BSEN12566:3 to be demonstrated as capable of producing a minimum effluent discharge quality of 20:30:20 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand; Suspended Solids; Ammoniacal Nitrogen in mg/ltr), although in certain areas more stringent site-specific qualities may be required.
- No surface water should enter the system as this can reduce the system’s capacity and cause solids to be flushed out which may prematurely block drainage field or cause pollution.
- As with septic tanks sludge should be removed annually or in line with manufacturers instructions.
MARSH INDUSTRIES Units 3-13 Addington Park Industrial Estate Little Addington, Kettering, Northamptonshire NN14 4AS [email protected] | +44 (0)1933 654582 www.marshindustries.co.uk ENSIGN BENEFITS
> Tested to BSEN12566:3 and CE-marked to ensure compliance with latest environmental and Building Regulations requirements Class-leading effluent quality of 11.5:19.2:8.4 (BOD:SS:NH4) ensures discharges well within national consent standards Three chamber system correctly sized for separation and retention of solids improves final effluent quality Standard or shallow options enable suitability for all site conditions (including driveways - subject to plinth/surround to prevent superimposed loadings) Shallow option ideal for groundworks involving bedrock or high water table as the low profile allows for safe, cost effective installation Low energy compressors ensure minimal running, maintenance and servicing costs High specification bio-media (310m³ per m²) and membrane diffusers ensure even circulation to eliminate ‘dead spots’ Internal recirculation (from final to primary chamber) continues treatment process to provide higher effluent quality whilst balancing flow over 24 hour period or periods of intermittent use Integral lifting eyes for improved on-site handling Unique ‘keying-in’ lip to assist anchoring into granular or concrete surround Optional extras include patented Polylok filter to further reduce suspended solids and extend life of drainage field; extensions for deep installations; pumped outlets for sites with adverse levels; and many more
ENSIGN SPECIFICATIONS
| Model | Length | Width | Height | Inlet | Ø | Outlet | Ø | |-------|--------|-------|--------|-------|---|--------|---| | 6 | 2602 | 1650 | 1935 | 550 | 110| 625 | 110| | 10 | 2602 | 1650 | 1935 | 550 | 110| 625 | 110| | 12 | 2860 | 1912 | 2139 | 550 | 110| 625 | 110| | 16 | 2860 | 1912 | 2284 | 720 | 110| 800 | 110| | 20 | 3650 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160| | 25 | 3650 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160| | 30 | 4550 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160| | 35 | 4550 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160| | 40 | 5200 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160| | 45 | 5200 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160| | 50 | 5200 | 1912 | 2284 | 770 | 160| 850 | 160|
All dimensions in mm
ENSIGN SHALLOW SPECIFICATIONS
| Model | Length | Width | Height | Inlet | Ø | Outlet | Ø | |-------|--------|-------|--------|-------|---|--------|---| | 6 | 2860 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 110| 575 | 110| | 10 | 2860 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 110| 575 | 110| | 12 | 2860 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 110| 575 | 110| | 16 | 3400 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 110| 575 | 110| | 20 | 4550 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 160| 575 | 160| | 25 | 4550 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 160| 575 | 160| | 30 | 5500 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 160| 575 | 160| | 35 | 5500 | 1912 | 1600 | 500 | 160| 575 | 160|
All dimensions in mm
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0686-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 6145,
"total-output-tokens": 1801,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1762,
1
],
[
1762,
4713,
2
]
]
} |
c2c085d860d86e4fce78a6c6921fe9055bfa3ae1 | Bat Survey Report
Long Roods Farm, Ashford Lane
Ashford in the Water, Derbyshire
Produced by: Protected Species Surveys Contact: email: [email protected] Client: Oldfield Design Location: Ashford Lane, Ashford in the Water, Derbyshire Date: October 2016 CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 4 3.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 5 4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 6
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Plan Figure 2: Proposed Working Area 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Protected Species Surveys was commissioned by Oldfield Design to conduct a building assessment survey of a single storey stone built extension with a lean-to slate tiled roof at Long Roods Farm, Ashford Lane, Ashford in the Water, Derbyshire with respect to roosting bats. The purpose of the survey was to determine the potential of the building to support roosting bats in support of a planning application for a single storey extension on the western elevation of the building to replace the existing pump room.
1.2 The location of the works affects a single storey stone built extension on the western elevation on the main farm house. The site is located off Ashford Lane, Ashford in the Water, Derbyshire (central grid reference SK 186 711) set within a rural location of the Derbyshire Peak District (see Figure 1). A mix of arable and grazing pasture surrounds the site on all aspects and the wider area. Monsal viaduct (SSSI) is present approximately 275m north-east with the River Wye (SSSI) 478m north-east.
Site Proposals
1.3 The single storey extension (pump room) is to be demolished to facilitate a newly constructed single storey extension and conservatory (Figure 2).
Figure 1: Site Location (highlighted in red) 2.0 METHODOLOGY
Building Survey
2.1 The internal / external building assessment was carried out on 9th September 2016 to search for potential bat access points and evidence of bat activity in accordance with Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (BCT, 2016)(^1).
2.2 A licensed bat worker from Protected Species Surveys (Natural England Licence Number 2015-12339-CLS-CLS) with over nine years’ experience of bat work completed the building assessment of all buildings affected by the proposals within the site boundary.
2.3 Features such as small gaps under barge/soffit/fascia boards, raised or missing ridge tiles and gaps at gable ends, which have potential to be used as access points, were sought. Evidence that bats actively used potential access points includes staining within gaps and bat droppings or urine staining under gaps, a note being made wherever these were present. Where access to potential access points was possible a full inspection using an endoscope was completed to identify current or previous evidence of use such as the physical presence of bats or bat droppings. Indicators that potential access points had not recently been used included the presence of cobwebs and general detritus within the access. From this, features of likely / potential value for bats can be broadly identified and a decision made over the selection of locations for more detailed work if required.
Birds
2.4 During the survey evidence of current or previous usage of the building by other avifauna was also sought. Evidence sought included the presence of active or redundant nests in the buildings.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edn). Bat Conservation Trust, London. 3.0 RESULTS
Building Survey
3.1 Building 1 (B1) was a single-storey stone built pump room with a lean-to slate tiled roof (plate 1). This building adjoined the western aspect of the main farm house building. A stone wall bordered the northern aspect of the pump room. Potential bat access points were limited to occasional gaps between the roof tiles. No roof void or underfelt was present within the building. No external or internal evidence of use by bats was identified during the survey including use of endoscope. The building was considered to offer negligible potential to support roosting bats.
Plate 1: View of small pump house with lean-to roof
Birds
3.2 During the building assessment no evidence of nesting birds was observed. Therefore, the presence of nesting birds has been identified as a statutory constraint to the proposals. 4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The initial building assessment carried out on 9th September 2016 comprised an internal and external bat and breeding bird scoping survey of the small single storey stone built pump room adjoining the western aspect of the main farm house by a licensed ecologist. Potential bat access points/roosting features were limited to occasional gaps within the lean-to roof, further inspections were carried out using an endoscope. No evidence of roosting bats was observed during the building inspection. The small pump house was considered to offer negligible potential to support roosting bats.
4.2 From the results of the completed building assessment it has been concluded that bats are not a statutory ecological constraint to the proposed works.
4.3 In the event the proposed works have not commenced within 12 months of the nocturnal assessments, it is recommended that an updated building assessment is undertaken to determine the current status of the site in terms of bats.
4.4 In the unlikely event that evidence of bat occupation or live bats are discovered during any stage of works, all works must stop immediately and further advice should be sought from Protected Species Surveys.
Birds
4.5 No evidence of nesting birds was identified during the building assessment. Therefore, the presence nesting birds are not a statutory constraint to the proposed operations. Client: Oldfield Design
Site Location: Long Rood Farm, Ashford Lane Ashford in the Water, Derbyshire
Date: October 2016
Proposed single storey extension and conservatory
Existing pump house building
Figure 2: Proposed Working Area
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0687-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 11982,
"total-output-tokens": 1611,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
268,
1
],
[
268,
837,
2
],
[
837,
2092,
3
],
[
2092,
3881,
4
],
[
3881,
4731,
5
],
[
4731,
6149,
6
],
[
6149,
6384,
7
]
]
} |
c4a2d1b1a19f6d786bb2d5f9f8c57fa537b24c19 | Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Emergency Services Network (ESN) – Briefing Note
I write to introduce myself as Director of the Home Office’s procurement programme for the new mobile telecommunications service that is being rolled out for the Police, Fire and Ambulance Services in England, Scotland and Wales. I would like to ask for your support in delivering this critical national infrastructure programme.
The Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP – the Programme) is responsible for delivering a smarter, better and cheaper communications capability that will replace the system currently used by our three Emergency Services (3ES) known as Airwave. We are already working to deliver the new service – the Emergency Services Network (ESN) – in conjunction with a number of industry partners, most notably EE.
My team have produced the enclosed briefing note about ESN and its constituent parts – I hope you will find to be a useful high level introduction to: who is involved in delivering ESN and who it is for; why it is required; how it is being procured; and where and when it is required. The brief highlights key messages including the important benefits that will be derived once ESN is operational.
A positive relationship between the Programme and land and property stakeholders is clearly essential to the successful delivery of ESN. My team have already undertaken a considerable amount of work (in conjunction with EE) on site options that would deliver ESN to the appropriate levels of coverage required to meet the operational needs of our 3ES. Existing telecoms installations are routinely considered in the first instance. The final locations remain subject to further study and feasibility reporting and we are now at the point where site visits and engagement with planning authorities and potential landowners must commence.
Depending on contractual arrangements, local engagement could be undertaken by staff from the Home Office or from a variety of industry suppliers – but we are all working to the same end of delivering ESN. The land and property leads in my team are Duncan Edgar ([email protected]) and Laura Doran ([email protected]) who are on hand to answer any further queries you may have, including providing a personal briefing if that would be of benefit. Duncan is our focal point of contact for England and National Parks and Laura is our focal point for Scotland and Wales.
2 February 2016 I very much hope that through Duncan and Laura the Programme will build a good working relationship with you and your respective teams so that we are collectively able to support the delivery of ESN across England, Scotland and Wales to better enable our 3ES to cut crime, fight fires and save lives.
Thank you in anticipation for your help and continued interest as the Programme proceeds.
Yours faithfully,
Gordon Shipley Programme Director ESMCP 0207 035 8448 [email protected]
1. **Introduction.** The purpose of this briefing note is to explain: who is involved in delivering the Emergency Services Network (ESN); why is it required; how is it being procured; who is it being procured for; where is it required; and when is it required.
2. **Why the Home Office?** The Home Office (HO) is the lead government department for border control, immigration and passports; drugs and alcohol policy; counter-terrorism; crime; and police and fire, which along with the ambulance services makes up the three Emergency Services (3ES). UK’s Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) is a fundamental enabler for these important public safety services to be delivered effectively for the national good.
3. **Why ESN?** The 3ES and over 300 other public safety and national contingency organisations across England, Scotland and Wales are required to protect the public and save lives. Today they use a mobile radio system (Airwave) to communicate within and between the 3ES but this needs replacement. Airwave delivers a secure and resilient critical voice communications with high levels of coverage and availability, but the technology cannot deliver broadband data services, it is very expensive and contracts are beginning to expire. The HO will not be extending the contracts for Airwave beyond those necessary to achieve an efficient transition to the new service, ESN.
4. **How will ESN be procured?** The Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP) is the HO-led programme responsible for replacing Airwave. ESMCP aims to provide an integrated critical voice and broadband data communications service for the 3ES that meets the public safety requirements for functionality, coverage, availability and security. The chosen technology will be based on enhancing a commercial 4G network, configured to give the 3ES priority over other users. Police, Fire and Health are all represented on the Programme at strategic and operational levels, including the relevant government departments and devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales. ESMCP is progressing in close collaboration with the 3ES, who provided the requirements for their future communications and will be responsible for transitioning on to the new service, ESN.
5. **What is ESN?** The new service, to be known as the Emergency Services Network (ESN), will be delivered across England, Scotland and Wales (there is a map of predicted infrastructure locations – a mix of existing and new sites – at Annex A). ESN is being procured competitively to provide a high-quality service that makes full use of the latest technology in the telecoms sector, and has a number of related projects (see table below) to provide the capability, resilience and security required for what will be a key part of the CNI supporting public safety. ESN will act as a platform for business applications being developed by the 3ES and other users. ESMCP comprises:
| 1. Delivery Partner (DP) (Kellogg Brown and Root). A delivery partner to: oversee the build-out of ESN; programme manage and report on transition; provide cross-Lot integration; training support; vehicle installation reference design and assurance; and delivery support. | | 2. User Services (US) (Motorola). A service provider for: end-to-end systems integration; public safety functionality; account management; network and IT infrastructure; technical interfaces; user device approval and management; application approval and hosting; customer support; and service management. | | 3. Mobile Services (MS) (EE). A mobile network operator (MNO) to provide an enhanced radio access service with highly available national coverage and an interface to US and the EAS. | | 4. Extended Area Services (EAS). Additional infrastructure over which EE will extend their network into rural areas. | | 5. Air to Ground Services (A2G). Additional infrastructure over which EE will extend their network to provide a national service above 500ft. | | 6. London Underground Services (LUS) (TfL). Additional infrastructure over which EE will extend in the London Underground. | | 7. Devices (handheld, vehicle and airborne). A range of commercial, ruggedized and specialist devices to be used by officers and installed in a range of vehicles. | | 8. Control rooms. Conversion of control rooms to accommodate ESN and connections over the | 6. **When will ESN be deployed?** ESN is required to be in place so that the 3ES can transition when Airwave contracts expire between 2017 and 2019. There will be a 21 month mobilisation phase to design, build, test and assure ESN that will run between December 2015 and September 2017, followed by a transition phase that will enable users to transition from Airwave to ESN. Throughout transition there will be interoperability between the two systems.
7. **Where will ESN be deployed?** A key requirement of ESN is to deliver coverage to major and minor roads which will require additional infrastructure to be provided by the MS and EAS suppliers – approximate locations have already been identified. Positive relationships with stakeholders such as the devolved Governments, Local Planning Authorities, National Parks and potential landowners will therefore be vital to the successful delivery of ESN. Different contractual arrangements within ESMCP will collectively deliver infrastructure for the ESN as follows:
a. **Mobile Services (MS).** EE has prepared a radio plan which identifies potential sites they will deliver for ESN and from which they intend to offer a commercial service (blue dots). EE will operate these sites, many of which will become part of their core network. Some sites will be retained by HO for use by the follow-on MS supplier.
b. **EAS.** The EAS project will extend the coverage provided by EE. This requires telecoms infrastructure to be secured in defined but primarily rural, remote and commercially unviable areas where little or no MNO coverage exists (red dots). The HO will be acting as the prime contractor to contract with Acquisition, Design and Build (ADB) suppliers for EAS sites and transmission suppliers for their backhaul. Sharing existing sites will be negotiated where possible but EAS coverage needs will mainly require new sites that the HO will then own and operate and from which it hopes to offer a commercial service. EE will install their active equipment and connect this to their core network. All sites will be retained by HO for use by the follow-on MS supplier.
c. **A2G.** The EAS team are also undertaking site acquisition for the A2G system that provides communications to emergency services aircraft above 500ft (green dots). It is anticipated that A2G can be delivered through site sharing arrangements.
8. EAS/A2G sites that are being delivered by HO and the sites being delivered by the MS supplier may be in the same local planning authority’s area of interest. Every effort will be made to ensure a coordinated approach to the relevant local planning authority.
9. **Key Messages.**
- ESN is providing critical national infrastructure to enable communications and interoperability for the police, fire and ambulance services in England, Scotland and Wales (including extension into remote areas) to help them cut crime, fight fires and save lives.
- ESN will provide the same capability as Airwave as well as an integrated 4G mobile broadband data service using the latest generation of mobile technology.
- Government has provided £1bn of investment to build and operate ESN but your support for the locating of new or enhanced equipment in rural locations will be vital to delivering the network by 2017, thereby improving public safety and reducing cost to the tax payer.
- In addition to the 3ES, ESN may offer a 4G mobile service to local EE customers, providing access to digital services that are increasingly essential to everyday life and business, and a 999 service to all mobile users. Other MNOs will have access to upgrade the new infrastructure should they wish to install their own equipment and offer services in future.
- Satellite solutions for backhaul are being considered where more cost-effective or timely. Annex A: Predicted infrastructure locations for ESN
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0688-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9950,
"total-output-tokens": 2506,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2482,
1
],
[
2482,
2985,
2
],
[
2985,
7342,
3
],
[
7342,
11177,
4
],
[
11177,
11228,
5
]
]
} |
cc83b8e121c5fe9080bcacfe6c32fa24152569ad | HALO System 10 System 10 - Flush Sash Flush 70 HALO SYSTEM 10
‘HALO System 10’ is a 70mm chamfered window and door system.
- Kenrick locking on windows (with night vent position)
- Yale locking on doors
- Black gasket only
- Black warmedge spacer bar as standard (white optional)
- Trickle vents can be fitted into sashes or large heads
SYSTEM 10 - FLUSH SASH
‘System 10-Flush Sash’ is a reverse butt welded chamfered casement window with a flush sash.
- Maco Rail (No night vent position) to PAS24.
- Spring Catch Restrictor available
- Optional - DGS Shootbolt lock (night vent secured by shootbolts only)
- Shootbolt into black keep (may cause gasket to distort).
- Black gasket only
- Black warmedge spacer bar as standard (white optional)
- Trickle vents can be fitted into sashes or large heads
MAXIMUM CASEMENT SASH SIZES
Top Hung - 1250mm wide x 1250mm high - Maximum area 1m² Side Hung - 700mm wide x 1350mm high SYSTEM 10 - FLUSH SASH
Please Note: Flush sash and direct glaze fixed panes have different beads to accommodate 28mm sealed units.
D.G Bead P10432
D.G Bead P10431
CROSS SECTION SYSTEM 10 FLUSH ‘Flush 70’ offers the appearance of a traditional timber window, the 70mm frame depth and flush casement design combine to offer a cost effective alternative to timber.
‘Flush 70’ is an equal sightline sculptured frame inside / flush outside Maco Rail (No lockable night vent position) or DGS Shootbolt lock (night vent available on shootbolt)
- Maco Rail (No night vent position) to PAS24
- Spring Catch Restrictor available
- Optional - DGS Shootbolt lock (night vent secured by shootbolts only)
- Shootbolt into black keep (may cause gasket to distort)
- 70mm Halo Rustique Sculptured Outer Frame
- Flush Fitted Welded Sashes
- Mechanically Jointed Transoms and Mullions with arris detail
- Traditional Furniture Options
- Trickle vents can be fitted into sashes or large heads
- Available “A” Rated ASTRAGAL BARS
20mm astragal bar available in all colour options for both standard and flush sash
20mm Choices Astragal Bar (STANDARD) ‘Clip Fit’ with 18mm integral bar
Available in: Rosewood, Golden Oak, White Ash, Clotted Cream, Anthracite Grey and Irish Oak.
20mm External ‘Stick On’ Astragal Bar ‘Stick On’ with 18mm integral bar
Available in: Chartwell Green, Painswick and Schwarzbraun Black.
COLOUR OPTIONS
| NON FOIL | STANDARD FOILS (Stock Items) Available both sides or on Smooth White | SPECIAL FOILS Available both sides or on Smooth White *Supplied on a White base substrate | Available on Smooth White only | |----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Smooth White | Rosewood | Schwarzbraun Black | Chartwell Green | | Golden Oak | Irish Oak | Cream* | Painswick Grey | | | | White Ash both sides only | | Please Note
There is no lockable night vent position with the standard locking option on ‘System 10-Flush Sash’ or ‘Flush 70’, a spring catch restrictor or shootbolt locking is available.
Hinge Choices
As well as the standard friction hinges used there is also the option of upgrading to Integrated Restrictor hinges, Egress/Easy Clean or Mega Trojan hinges.
The Egress/Easy Clean option will give a 450mm clear opening with a slim frame to centre mullion position of 590mm (Fig.1).
The Mega Trojan option will give a 450mm clear opening with a slim frame to centre mullion position of 560mm.
Please Note:
When using the Mega Trojan with standard sash and slim frame there is approx 5mm clearance between the open sash and the edge of the frame (Fig.2). When used with the Flush sash the clearance is 20mm (Fig.3). These points are significant where render or hanging tiles are present. HANDLE CHOICES
A wide range of handle options are available to choose from, starting with the standard cranked handle all the way through to the highly decorative Tear Drop, Pear Drop and Monkey Tail designs.
The ‘cranked’ range offers a choice of 8 colours including: White, Black, Hardex Gold, Hardex Chrome, Hardex Satin, Hardex Bronze, Hardex Graphite and an Antique ‘hammered’ Black. The Pear Drop is available in both Black and Pewter with matching operational or dummy retaining stays also available. The Monkey Tail handle is available in black with a matching retaining stay and there is also a version of the Monkey Tail available in an Antique Black finish (no matching stay).
STANDARD HANDLES
1 - WHITE 2 - BLACK 3 - HARDEX GOLD 4 - HARDEX CHROME 5 - HARDEX BRONZE 6 - HARDEX SATIN 7 - HARDEX GRAPHITE 8 - ANTIQUE BLACK
The Classic Range
CLASSIC BLACK MONKEY TAIL CLASSIC PEWTER MONKEY TAIL\* CLASSIC BLACK PEAR DROP CLASSIC PEWTER PEAR DROP\*
The Classic Range is: Handmade so exact match is not guaranteed.
\*Colour is described as Pewter Patina. The Elegance Range
ANTIQUE BLACK MONKEY TAIL HARDEX GOLD MONKEY TAIL HARDEX CHROME MONKEY TAIL GRAPHITE MONKEY TAIL
The Elegance Range is: Machine made so all match. Matching ‘Dummy Stay’ for all window types.
The Tear Drop Range
HARDEX CHROME TEAR DROP GRAPHITE TEAR DROP HARDEX GOLD TEAR DROP ANTIQUE BLACK TEAR DROP
The Tear Drop Range is: Machine made so all match. Matching ‘Dummy Stay’ for all window types. MAIN PROFILES
Sculptured profiles used for Flush 70
56mm Outerframe P10531
72mm Outerframe P10532
70mm Transom P10533
95mm T Transom P10504
116mm Midrail P10505
70mm Z Transom P10506
95mm Z Transom P10510
Internally beaded sash P10508
Flush sash P10527
Tilt and Turn Sash P10506
Door Sash – Open In P10510
Door Sash – Open Out P10511
32mm\* D.G Bead P10427
28mm D.G Bead P10429
32mm\* D.G Bead P10432
28mm D.G Bead P10431
40mm D.G Bead P10437
- 32mm beads used for 28mm glazing in Flush sash. SUNDRY PROFILES
2mm COUPLER 24mm COUPLER 90° Corner Post
Variable Angle Bay Kit 150° Angle Bay Kit 135° Angle Bay Kit
85mm Cill
150mm Cill
180mm Cill BS 3675-1:2009 Performance of windows and doors.
Fabricated and installed in accordance with the latest issue(s) of the VEKA Group - Halo Flush Sash technical manual.
The windows are double glazed, internally beaded, multipoint locking, with welded transoms/mullions, tee joints and are classified WK or WKT (Flush Sash)
**PAS24 Requirements**
- Securistyle Stays
- Maco R.A.I.L. locking (Opposing mushroom cams)
- Key locking handle
- 1 Pair of run up blocks per sash
- 1 Pair of hinge protectors per sash
- Side hung Flush Sash maximum sizes - 620mm wide x 1270mm high
Please Note: There is no lockable night vent position with the standard locking option, a spring catch restrictor is available.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0689-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 16807,
"total-output-tokens": 2369,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
47,
1
],
[
47,
929,
2
],
[
929,
1126,
3
],
[
1126,
1931,
4
],
[
1931,
2913,
5
],
[
2913,
3807,
6
],
[
3807,
4873,
7
],
[
4873,
5292,
8
],
[
5292,
5802,
9
],
[
5802,
5961,
10
],
[
5961,
6664,
11
]
]
} |
b203b9f838b1cd5a54fbeaf319e4fd80bcccedef | Payment out of the EFRBS is a serious ill-health lump sum
Before the payment is made, has the “responsible person” (NIM02765) received written evidence from a registered medical practitioner that the employee is expected to live for less than one year?
Yes
Does the lump sum extinguish the individual’s entitlement to benefits under the arrangement (NIM02771)?
No
Payment cannot be disregarded in the calculation of earnings.
Yes
Is the lump sum paid before the individual is aged 75?
No
Yes
Payment can be disregarded in the calculation of earnings. See NIM14610 for the Class 1A position.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4226-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1072,
"total-output-tokens": 192,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
600,
1
]
]
} |
2ef50ff9f3416a8bceb0aa80d51e019ff2fc9b31 | OAPF and DIFs
Greater London Authority, Transport for London, Wandsworth Council and Lambeth Council
Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Development Infrastructure Funding Study Overview
- 19 schemes completed or under construction
- 31 sites with planning permission granted
- 25 thousand new jobs
- 3 tube stations
- 2 town centres
- 6.5m sq ft of commercial space with planning approval
- £15b+ total development value
- 20 thousand new homes
- 3.5-4k Affordable homes A unique place A unique partnership Vision and Planning
Shared Vision
“By 2030 the 227 hectares of Nine Elms and Vauxhall will become an exemplar and distinctive quarter of central London. As an integral part of the London offer, defined by Lambeth Bridge through Vauxhall to Battersea Power Station and Chelsea Bridge, high quality buildings and public spaces will provide opportunities for jobs and the choice of a variety of homes. New cultural and leisure development in this Thames River front location, supported by high quality services, especially public transport, will make this a successful and sustainable place where people will want to be.”
Annual business planning process which reviews capital spend programme
Approval of spend retained by the boroughs DIFs Study Oct 2010
looked at both the projected phasing of development of homes and commercial space up to 2031 and the likelihood of this being brought forward (16,000 homes and 5.4M sq ft of commercial space)
also took into account expected levels of affordable housing (though not itself classed as infrastructure)
infrastructure included utilities (energy, waste, water, gas), education, health, public space, parks, employment, culture, transport (including the NLE), community centres, emergency services
infrastructure was then costed and tested against what could be funded through a DIFs tariff (which would become CIL) and other sources – exceptions were river path and linear park
anticipated NLE complete in 2019
assisted boroughs in setting tariffs and agreeing allocation of funds for infrastructure
overall only a £50m gap over 20 years but some cash flow issues Phasing and Infrastructure Study Oct 2011
need for an updated view of development over time, expected population growth and a ‘balance sheet’ of when funding would be expected to come in and the infrastructure needs to be met
collected phasing info from each development, identified infrastructure funding required over time and level and timing of funding
outlined a series of phasing scenarios from optimistic to pessimistic - case for NLE used the most pessimistic scenario
calculated population yields for each scenario and plotted funding requirements and anticipated funding to identify gaps
anticipated residential units had increased to 18,000
faster than anticipated delivery improved the income forecast over next 5-10 years and plugged some gaps Northern Line Extension
- New tube link to serve Nine Elms and Battersea
- Wider economic benefits up to £7.9bn and up to £4.5bn in additional tax revenue for exchequer
- Allowed greater densities and 3x the number of jobs
- £1bn underwritten by government guarantee – financed by development levy and future business rate revenue
- “Enterprise Zone”
- Open by January 2020 – on site now Infrastructure
Utilities Primary Substations District Heating Network Telecoms Waste management Drainage strategy
Social Infrastructure New primary schools Additional GPs New community facilities
Parks and open spaces New linear park Improved river path New park at Battersea Power Station Strategic Links
Leisure and Sports Swimming Pool Football pitches New cultural activities Shops and entertainment
Transport Vauxhall gyratory Northern line extension Cycling Strategy Pedestrian and cycle bridge Bus provision Riverbus services Benefits and Challenges
Benefits
gave us assurance that over the programme lifetime we could fund our infrastructure – and identified when there may be cashflow issues
provided a level of financial certainty which helped make the case for the NLE
alongside the Phasing Study, provided us with a capital programme to inform our business planning and performance
evidence for Lambeth and Wandsworth Councils to set DIFs and then CIL tariffs and forward plan the capital spend
fed into further studies such as construction logistics planning, education and health provision, utilities loading, skills forecasting etc. which has influenced partnership working, project planning and community benefits mapping Benefits and Challenges
Challenges
- getting the data takes time
- phasing scenarios never 100% accurate and immediately out of date – need to refresh and review
- some partners are slow to engage and feed in their infrastructure requirements
- particularly regarding utilities planning and provision, you can never start too early
- needed to set up an SPV in order to talk collectively with utility companies
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4227-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 20483,
"total-output-tokens": 1616,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
173,
3
],
[
173,
468,
4
],
[
468,
468,
5
],
[
468,
483,
6
],
[
483,
504,
7
],
[
504,
1241,
8
],
[
1241,
2127,
9
],
[
2127,
2890,
10
],
[
2890,
3279,
11
],
[
3279,
3817,
12
],
[
3817,
4528,
13
],
[
4528,
4941,
14
],
[
4941,
4941,
15
],
[
4941,
4941,
16
]
]
} |
a3f6887d2b7c60bbebc61d7bba11a1038fe08e97 | Information Management Assessment
Action plan progress review
Northern Ireland Office
Reviewed September 2017
Published December 2017
Working with government to raise standards in information management Contents
Background and action plan development 00 Executive summary 00 Progress to address recommendations and risk areas 00 Next steps 00
© Crown copyright 2017.
You may use and re-use the information featured in this report (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Any enquiries regarding the use and re-use of this information resource should be sent to [email protected] Background
The Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme is the best-practice model for government bodies wishing to demonstrate commitment to the principles of good information management.
The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) IMA took place in February 2016. This progress review summarises key developments since the IMA. Areas where continued attention is still needed are listed below under ‘Next Steps.’
Action plan development
NIO produced a detailed action plan in summer 2016 and reported on delivery of this to the departmental Audit and Risk Committee. This is a good practice approach to ensuring senior scrutiny of progress to address recommendations and improve capability in information and records management. NIO’s IMA and action plan were covered in the department’s annual report and accounts for 2016/17 under the heading of risk management and control, reflecting the importance attached to participation in our programme.
The National Archives formally assessed progress against the action plan in September 2017. The IMA report and action plan are both published on The National Archives’ website.¹
¹ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/ Executive summary
Value of information
- The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) continues to promote the importance of records management to its staff through briefings, workshops and guidance and has reviewed and updated its Knowledge and Information Management Strategy.
- NIO’s approach to information asset management has continued to improve with the formalisation of the Information Assurance Coordinator role, updated and improved guidance and training for Information Asset Owners and the beginning of work to review the Information and Data Asset Registers.
Digital information and supporting technology
- As predicted at the time of the IMA, the upgrade of NIO’s system for electronic management from TRIM to Content Manager 9 (CM9) and move to a Google platform and the incompatibility between these two tools has had a negative impact on work practices and records capture within NIO. NIO is working hard to mitigate this through technical solutions, training, guidance and support and should continue to monitor the situation carefully.
- NIO has recognised the need for greater skills and support to ensure that digital information is managed effectively throughout its lifecycle and are restructuring the Records and Information Management team to meet this need.
Information risk, governance and oversight
- NIO has made progress in raising the profile of information risk but needs to recognise that this is an ongoing task.
- The Records and Information Management team have worked extremely hard to support staff in records and information management through guidance and training. Policy and guidance relating to information and records management has been updated to reflect the move to Google and CM9.
- NIO is yet to develop a formal approach to monitoring compliance with the information management policy.
Records review and transfer
- NIO has streamlined its approach to appraisal and selection of paper records which is enabling it to better keep pace with the transition to the 20 Year rule and move towards compliance with the Public Records Act. By documenting its approach and capturing the knowledge of reviewers it is ensuring that it has the capability to carry out this work in the long term.
- NIO has made good progress in laying the foundations for disposal of its digital information, both in terms of starting to think about skilling the team to carry out the appraisal, selection and transfer of digital information and in preparing to apply disposal instructions to information on CM9. Progress to address recommendations and risk areas
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | IMA 2016 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------------|---------------------------------| | Communicating and realising value | Good practice | Good practice | | Managing information as an asset | Satisfactory | Progressing towards good practice |
Situation at the time of the IMA
- The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) had a strong culture of information and records management and information security but needed to ensure that this was maintained as the department moved to more open and flexible working.
- A Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) strategy for 2015-20 had been drafted and was awaiting sign off.
- NIO had made a good start on building a process for the management of its information assets but needed to embed this across the organisation including training and guidance for Information Asset Owners (IAO).
- The Knowledge and Information Strategy was signed off in June 2016. It was reviewed and updated in June 2017 and no substantial changes were made. See next steps
- Work to promote good records management practice includes briefings for staff at induction, reminders at Deputy Directors’ meetings and at business area/team briefings and fun approaches such as the board game on records transfers and the six simple rules for information management.
- The Information Assurance Coordinator (IAC) role has been formalised and NIO is now adopting a more active approach to information asset governance. The IAC delivers one-to-one briefings to Information Asset Owners, explains the responsibilities of an IAO and makes available the links to NIO guidance. The IAC also checks that all IAOs have undertaken mandatory Civil Service learning on information handling.
- IAO guidance has been reviewed and an IAO questionnaire has been developed along with a one page overview of IAO responsibilities. The role is held at deputy director level and is now recognised in performance management objectives. See next steps
- NIO is currently reviewing the Information and Data Asset Registers (IDARs) and gathering feedback from IAOs, in particular on how adequately the registers document information risk. 2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | IMA 2016 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|-------------------|----------------------| | Supporting information through technology | Development area | Development area | | Digital continuity and IT change | Development area | Progressing towards satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
- NIO was about to undergo a major change in its technology environment as it moved to a new IT platform including Google and mobile technology. There were concerns about the impact of this on the use of NIO’s established system for digital records management, TRIM, and on the management and handling of digital information more generally.
- NIO needed to start developing a strategy/plan for dealing with older digital information in TRIM and on shared drives including an approach for appraisal, selection and transfer of records of historical value to The National Archives.
- As anticipated at the time of the IMA the upgrade from TRIM to CM9 and move to a Google platform and the lack of integration between these two tools has had an impact on work practices and records capture within NIO. There is no simple way to move emails/documents between Google Drive/Gmail and CM9 and NIO has had to devise workarounds. Statistics show growing use of Google Drive. NIO needs to monitor the situation carefully and continue to mitigate risks around record capture through strategy, policy, training, guidance and support whilst exploring a more long term solution. See next steps
- The 90 day deletion of emails has not been activated since the move to Gmail to minimise any loss of important emails as the department adjusts to this new system.
- NIO has tested DROID (The National Archives file profiling tool) and found it a useful tool for finding out about the digital information that is held including age, format, dates etc. However, due to the manual work needed to use the information created by DROID, NIO is also starting consider testing other e-discovery tools. Further work on this has been deferred until 2018. See next steps
- NIO has taken steps to resource the KIM team to focus efforts on managing digital continuity and grow skills in this area (See section 5). This is good practice 3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | IMA 2016 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------------|---------------------------| | Recognising information risk | Development area | Progressing towards satisfactory | | Establishing control | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | | Providing guidance | Satisfactory | Good practice | | Measuring impact | Development area | Development area |
Situation at the time of the IMA
- NIO’s approach to information risk, particularly risks relating to information management was fragmented. Information risk in its wider sense was not necessarily understood across the organisation or recognised at Board level.
- The Records and Information Management (R&IM) team provided a good service to the business and there was a clear plan in place for KIM work.
- NIO had good policies and guidance in place for information management but needed to ensure that these were updated in line with the move to a new IT environment and mobile working.
- NIO was yet to develop an approach to monitoring compliance with information and records management policy.
- Information risk is now a permanent agenda item for the Departmental Security Committee, which meets every six weeks. In addition a report on information assurance goes to the Audit and Risk Committee twice a year and Directors are expected to report any information risks in monthly dashboards which are submitted to the Executive Management Committee. Also positive to see that a risk around management of digital information was included in the top prioritised NIO risks for June 2017.
- The IAC is developing a process for IAOs to report on information risk and mitigation via the quarterly IDAR updates. See next steps
- The complicated nature of the workarounds required to make record keeping work within Google and CM9 has meant extra pressure on information management staff to prepare guidance, deliver training and provide ongoing support. This has impacted on their ability to deliver other work in particular measuring compliance with records management policy. See next steps
- The Information Management Policy has been updated to reflect the move to Google and CM9 and now includes a section on social media. This is good practice
- In addition to comprehensive guidance on how to use CM9, NIO has produced succinct and easy to read guidance on social media and safe handling of information, managing email (‘Get it Filed’), and on naming conventions. NIO also plans to review its guide to remote working later in 2017/18. This is good practice • Record Retention/Disposal Schedules have been completed for all business areas and most are now published on the NIO intranet. NIO should now publish these on GOV.UK as recommended by Sir Alex Allan in his Report on Records Review. See next steps • The situation around facilities for training remains difficult though new kit has helped and there is now a dedicated room in Belfast that can be used for training. • Statistics gathered on systems use give an indication of records management practice but NIO has yet to progress work on monitoring compliance with information and records management policy. See next steps
4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | IMA 2016 | Review 2017 | |----------------------------------------|----------------|-------------| | Oversight of records and selection | Satisfactory | Good practice | | Implementing disposal decisions | Development area | Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
• NIO had a team of knowledgeable and experienced part-time file reviewers who carry out appraisal and selection and sensitivity review of paper files to be transferred to The National Archives. • However, there was no overall departmental guidance for appraisal and selection or sensitivity review and NIO needed to capture and document the knowledge of its reviewers. • NIO was slightly behind in its transition to the 20-year rule, was starting to plan to address this as well as an increase in the volume of paper files. • NIO was not yet able to apply auto disposal to TRIM and needed to develop an approach for the appraisal and selection and sensitivity review of digital information and ensure that it acquired new skills within the team to be able to carry out this work.
• Steps are being taken to capture the knowledge of reviewers, for example, the review team have produced ‘A Guide to Sensitivity Review’ and a summary of key events in Northern Ireland from the early 1970s to the early 2000s. This is good practice • The transfer team trialled and then adopted a new macro method of records appraisal. NIO reported that this has resulted in a 30% reduction in time spent on close scrutiny review. As a result the team is about to finish reviewing the 1991 records. This is good practice. NIO needs to ensure this progress continues in order to move towards compliance with the 20 Year Rule and Public Records Act. See next steps • Approval was given in August 2017 to expand KIM team resource to create two new Digital Continuity Officer posts to enable the team to increase focus on the continuity of digital records and to ensure readiness for digital transfers to The National Archives by 2024. The post of System Administrator has also been upgraded to recognise greater responsibility for digital continuity issues. Five NIO staff have also attended the digital transfer training at The National Archives. **This is good practice**
- NIO is in the process of transitioning to a new paper storage contract which will also include preparation of files for transfer. Moving this work to a contractor should ease pressure on the Records and Information Management team. NIO should ensure that it has a process in place for quality assuring this work. **See next steps**
- NIO needs to develop an approach to appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of digital information across all systems. The collection of confidential records that have recently been identified may be prove to be a good set of records to develop and test the process of digital transfer and NIO should work with The National Archives on this. **See next steps**
- The project to reduce the file plan within CM9 to a single level has been completed but there is a further work that needs to be done before retention periods can be applied to this. NIO have identified a business area to test this out with in the coming months. **See next steps** Next Steps
The National Archives will continue to support the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) in its work on information and records management. Outstanding recommendations will be reviewed at the time of the department’s IMA reassessment. It is recommended that NIO focusses on the following:
- Review the IMA strategy to ensure appropriate direction is set to tackle key cultural and IT related challenges.
- Update Information Asset Owner (IAO) guidance as NIO’s approach to information security develops. NIO should tailor the IAO handbook to reflect its own requirements, following the example of other IMA programme members such as the Ministry of Justice and Home Office.
- Continue to develop and improve the Information and Data Asset Register.
- Continue to raise the profile of information risk and increase understanding of this.
- Monitor the situation around incompatibility with CM9 and Google carefully and continue to mitigate risks around record capture through training, guidance and support whilst exploring a more long term solution to the problem.
- Update guidance on remote working and ensure that this covers information and records management.
- Develop a proportionate approach to monitoring compliance with information and records management policy. Good practice approaches within the IMA programme include HM Treasury.
- Ensure that it has a process in place to quality assure file preparation work carried out by the outside contractor.
- Keep pace with the transition to the 20 Year Rule by continuing its more streamlined approach to appraisal and selection.
- Put in place a plan to apply disposal instructions to the file plan in CM9. NIO needs to develop an approach to appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of digital information across all systems perhaps starting with confidential records.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4228-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 17800,
"total-output-tokens": 3819,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
208,
1
],
[
208,
676,
2
],
[
676,
1917,
3
],
[
1917,
4448,
4
],
[
4448,
6738,
5
],
[
6738,
9034,
6
],
[
9034,
11636,
7
],
[
11636,
14310,
8
],
[
14310,
15581,
9
],
[
15581,
17426,
10
]
]
} |
2e4c467aae86d4cff4284eb2ee8d2cf9b74ee0c9 | Northern Ireland Office Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
1 Northern Ireland Office (NIO) should build on the good work it has already done to establish a process for information asset management by fully embedding this across the organisation.
[Commentary on progress against main recommendation heading]
Commentary last updated:
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|----------------|--------------| | Provide IAOs with definition of Info. Asset | Head of KIM | | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | | Create ‘Profile’ of IAO with list of role responsibilities; circulate to IAOs and put a short note on the intranet | Head of KIM | | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | | Liaise with Corporate Governance to verify completion of Information & Data Asset Registers (IDARs) by business areas | Head of KIM | | Quarterly (always) | | | Study populated IDARs to gain understanding are regarded by business areas as key groupings of valuable information. These findings should be assessed in comparison with Records Retention/Disposal Schedules | Head of KIM & Records Manager | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Link up IAOs with TNA training. Invite TNA speaker to address Deputy Directors meeting | Head of KIM | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Recommend via note to Directors that IAO responsibilities be recognised in Deputy Directors Annual Objectives | Head of KIM | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | 2. **NIo should take steps to ensure that it continues to provide a supportive environment for the management of digital information and records as it moves to a new IT platform.**
[Commentary on progress against main recommendation heading]
Commentary last updated:
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|----------------|--------------| | Continue to remind staff of the need to save records to TRIM, through advice on intranet, requests to line managers & Deputy-Directors and messages linked to NIO activities/events | Head of KIM | | On-going | | | Continue routine guidance (via intranet, through briefings to Business Areas and in training sessions) on records naming | K&IM team | | On-going | | | Ensure Systems Administrator has oversight of Google Drive to monitor staff use | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 2nd Quarter 2016 | COMPLETED | | Gather statistics on use of Google Drive (c.f. use of TRIM); provide Deputy-Directors and LIMs with stats on records creation by Business Area to underline their responsibility for creating corporate records | System Administrator | | On-going | | | Liaise with ITAssist to ensure awareness of any problems of staff access to TRIM, such as on mobile devices | System Administrator | | On-going | | | Task | Responsible Party | Timeframe | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Engage with Cabinet Office (and Head of Estates & Services) on IT Strategy | KiM Head & Deputy Head; System Administrator | On-going | | Liaise with ITAssist & HP on availability of TRIM compatible with Google products | Head of KiM; System Administrator | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | Draft Note to Board on limiting shared mailboxes recommending 180 day deletion | Head of KiM | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | Continue work on “flattening” Corporate File Plan by removing Level 2 and Level 3 Folders | System Administrator | 3rd Quarter 2017 | | Enable automatic disposal within TRIM, based on date triggers and in accordance with sanctioned Disposal Schedules | Head of KiM & System Administrator | 4th Quarter 2017 | | Review and refresh LIM training & guidance in light of new IT; re-activate LIM Forum; ensure LIMs act as first point of contact in providing information management assistance to staff | System Administrator | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | All aspects of the implementation of the CFP re-structure will be progressed as per the KiM Strategy | Head of KiM | 4th Quarter 2017 | Northern Ireland Office Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
3 NIO should take steps to ensure that its digital information remains complete, available and usable for as long as it needs it to be.
[Commentary on progress against main recommendation heading]
Commentary last updated:
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|----------------|----------| | Review Information Management Policy to ensure it includes statement of requirements for information capture and retention in EDRMS (that information must remain complete, available and usable) | Head of KIM | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Complete Corporate File Plan re-structure, enabling open access to most of the File Plan | System Administrator | | 4th Quarter 2017 | | | Negotiate with ITAC to gain detailed profile of shared drives; include use of DROID software | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Devise plan for appraisal and disposal of information in retained shared drives | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Ensure TRIM is regularly upgraded by IT Assist (in-line with their NICS clients); continue to monitor currency, availability and accessibility of all NIO information | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | On-going | | NIO needs to ensure that information risks are properly understood across the organisation especially at Board level and are recorded, monitored and mitigated as part of the risk management framework.
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------| | Provide Board with Brief on information risks both generally and in association with the shift to new IT and flexible working | Head of KIM | | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | | Arrange TNA speaker to Board to discuss information risk | Head of KIM | Scheduled | July 2016 | | | Review Risk Management Policies to ensure information risk is adequately covered | Head of KIM with Head of Corporate Governance | In progress | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Work with Corporate Governance to assess how well information risk is identified and addressed in Risk Registers; consider how best to approach business areas to assist them with completing Risk Registers | Head of KIM with Head of Corporate Governance | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Review how information risk has been managed in other departments – ask IMC to provide introductions to ‘opposite numbers’ in MOD, Home Office, DfE and others | Head of KIM & IMC (TNA) | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | As it moves towards a new IT environment and more open and flexible working, NIO needs to update its information and records management policies, guidance and training accordingly and ensure that it has the right staff in place to support this. It would also benefit from exploring ways of measuring compliance with policy and guidance.
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|----------| | Review Information Management Policy in the context of the changes to IT and work practice, to ensure it contains clear guidance relating to flexible/remote working and to the use on multiple applications; issue reminders to staff via intranet (with link to guidance) | Head of KIM | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Ensure Local Information Manager (LIM) responsibilities are incorporated in their annual performance objectives; enlist support of HR; promote this to line managers and by direct reminders to LIMs | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 2nd Quarter 2017 | | | Use targeted training to ensure LIMs are competent Google users as well as being proficient in TRIM | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Review LIM role description; ensure LIMs promote saving to TRIM in their business areas | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | | Action Plan | Responsible Officer(s) | Timeframe | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Continue to promote Head Start Scheme (for joiners/movers/leavers) – promoting it via intranet; reinforcing it with line managers. Review effectiveness of existing scheme. | Records Manager | 2nd Quarter 2017 | | Complete review of Retention Schedules; publish Schedules on NIO internet site, as well as the intranet | Head of KIM & Records Manager | 2nd Quarter 2017 | | Re-circulate guidance on Secure Remote Working to remind staff and to inform new staff of their responsibilities to handle information appropriately | Head of KIM & Information Assurance Coordinator | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | Ensure new staff have completed the mandatory training in information handling | Information Assurance Coordinator | 3rd Quarter 2016 | | Review TRIM training modules; refresh TRIM guidance; run TRIM “train the trainer” sessions for all R&IM staff to create a greater TRIM training resource | Head of KIM & System Administrator | 1st Quarter 2017 | | Provide targeted records & information handling and TRIM training to new staff | KIM Head & Deputy Head; System Administrator | Ongoing (focus on 2016) | | Continue to look/press for suitable IT training venues | Head of KIM | Ongoing (focus on 2016) | | Undertake TRIM audits to monitor volumes of records created, finalised and closed | System Administrator | Ongoing (bi-annually) | | Explore ways of monitoring business area compliance with information management policy | Head of KIM | 2nd Quarter 2017 | | Begin discussions with colleagues in other government departments in order to devise a process for benchmarking NIO information management processes and compliance | KIM Head & Deputy Head | 3rd Quarter 2016 | Northern Ireland Office Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
6. NIO should review its current approach to appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of its paper files to ensure that it can keep pace with the transition to the 20 year rule.
[Commentary on progress against main recommendation heading]
Commentary last updated:
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|--------| | Devise process to document the knowledge of the sensitivity reviewers: particularly selection criteria for records retention | Reviewers | Work commenced with “A Guide to Sensitivity Review in the Northern Ireland Office” | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Develop more ‘streamlined’ approach to records appraisal: classing records to facilitate two-speed appraisals & review of certain groups of records by Records staff, enabling reviewer time to be focused on records of greater sensitivity | KIM Deputy Head; Reviewers; IMC | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Develop out-sourced or partnered solutions for basic file preparation work in order to free Records staff for more skilled review work | KIM Deputy Head; Records Manager | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Increase reviewer resource | KIM Deputy Head | | 2nd Quarter 2017 | | Northern Ireland Office Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
7 NIO needs to start developing an approach for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of its digital information.
[Commentary on progress against main recommendation heading]
Commentary last updated:
| Enabling/supporting actions | Owner | Commentary on progress | Completion due | Status | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------|----------| | Liaise with IMC to acquire knowledge on digital continuity; include TNA training and guidance, engagement with other govt. departments and discussions with those who have tested new tools for digital transfers | Head of KIM & IMC | | 4th Quarter 2016 | | | Identify issues around managing transfers of sensitive digital records, including tools and methods for sensitivity review | Head of KIM | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Re-structure R&IM team to deploy greater resources in electronic records management | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 3rd Quarter 2017 | | | Develop roadmap for digital transfers | Head of KIM | | 1st Quarter 2017 | | | Negotiate with ITAC to use DROID software on NIO records holdings | Head of KIM & System Administrator | | 3rd Quarter 2017 | | | Engage with TNA to access digital transfer training for R&IM staff | Head of KIM | | 3rd Quarter 2017 | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4229-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 19216,
"total-output-tokens": 3377,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2019,
1
],
[
2019,
3831,
2
],
[
3831,
5433,
3
],
[
5433,
7188,
4
],
[
7188,
9161,
5
],
[
9161,
11299,
6
],
[
11299,
13939,
7
],
[
13939,
15981,
8
],
[
15981,
17979,
9
]
]
} |
cda5d07551174d4164c271b3ffd584bc1453931e | Information Management Assessment
Northern Ireland Office
Reviewed February 2016
Published October 2016
Working with government to raise standards in information management Statement of commitment
The following statement was provided by the Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO). It is published on the department’s external webpages.
The NIO announces a review of processes and systems to meet its corporate obligations
The Northern Ireland Office recognises the importance of meeting its corporate obligations to effectively manage, protect and exploit its information.
To show the strength of the department’s commitment, I have asked The National Archives to review our processes and systems. The National Archives regularly conducts assessments of information management practices and compliance within government departments.
The report they produce will help me to support all aspects of knowledge and information management across the department. It will help to make sure that our information, knowledge and records are appropriately captured, managed and preserved, and information risks and sensitivities are appropriately handled.
Sir Jonathan Stephens KCB Permanent Secretary, Northern Ireland Office
IMA background
The Information Management Assessment (IMA) entailed a detailed review of supporting documentation followed by interviews with senior staff, specialists and practitioners in the department’s London and Belfast offices. These were conducted between 1 and 4 February 2016.
The following report provides a summary of good practice and risks identified. IMA reports and departmental action plans are published on The National Archives’ website at:
nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/ima-reports-action-plans.htm Glossary
ALBs – Arm’s Length Bodies DRO – Departmental Records Officer DROID – Digital Record and Object Identifier EDRM – Electronic Document and Records Management FOI – Freedom of Information HP – Hewlett Packard IAC – Information Assurance Coordinator IAO – Information Asset Owner IAR – Information Asset Register IDAR – Information and Data Asset Register IMA – Information Management Assessment IMC – Information Management Consultant ITAC – IT Assist Confidential KIM – Knowledge and Information Management LIM – Local Information Manager NIO – Northern Ireland Office PST – Personal Storage Table R&IM – Records and Information Management SIRO – Senior Information Risk Owner TRIM – NIO’s EDRM system Key findings of the assessment
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | Communicating and realising value | Good practice | |--------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------| | Managing information as an asset | Satisfactory |
- The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) has a strong culture of information and records management and also information security. Responsibilities of staff are clearly set out in the Information Management Policy and associated guidance, and staff recognised the importance of protecting and managing information appropriately. There is increasing recognition of the importance of information and records management at senior levels. The Departmental Records Officer (DRO), also the Deputy Director for the Business Delivery Group, attends Board meetings. The Permanent Secretary takes a particular interest in the records of the department. The Information Management Assessment (IMA) statement of commitment was published externally and this is another strong indicator of his support for information and records management.
- NIO is facing a significant cultural change in the next year with a move to more open and flexible working: it needs to take steps to ensure that it maintains its strong approach to information and records management and information security throughout this period and beyond. See recommendations 2 and 5.
- NIO’s draft Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Strategy for 2015-20 is succinct and clearly reflects goals around the protection, management and exploitation of NIO’s information. Sign-off of the strategy has been held back to enable NIO to incorporate findings from this IMA. NIO needs to ensure that this KIM Strategy is aligned with any future IT Strategy. See recommendation 2.
- Robust and effective procedures are in place for dealing with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and the shared service arrangement with the Wales Office is working well.
- NIO has made a good start on building a process for the management of its information assets. The responsibilities of the Information Asset Owner (IAO) role are well defined and the role is senior enough to have influence and responsibility. NIO has also developed a straightforward Information and Data Asset Register (IDAR) template and the examples reviewed in this IMA had been populated well. NIO should build on the work it has already done by fully embedding this across the organisation, including developing a description of an information asset and improving training for IAOs. See recommendation 1.
2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | Development area | |--------------------|------------------| | Supporting information through technology | Development area | | Digital continuity and IT change | Development area |
- NIO is facing a major change in its technology environment as it moves to a new IT platform, with support provided jointly by Common Technology Services (based within the Cabinet Office) and IT Assist. While this change brings with it some clear benefits, it also raises considerable risks around the ongoing success of TRIM (NIO’s electronic document and records management system) and the impact of mobile technology on a department used to working in a tightly controlled environment (see below). NIO needs to ensure that these risks are recognised and monitored as part of the NIO risk management framework and mitigated through communications, training, guidance and technical solutions. See recommendation 2.
- Take-up of TRIM at NIO is good and work to improve and enhance the system (including improving and opening up the file plan structure, enabling auto disposal and plans to upgrade to new and better versions of the product) is to be commended. NIO also took a clear decision to continue using TRIM as this system supports its requirements for information and records management. There was a lot of positivity for the system among staff, who recognised that it was a good tool and that there were benefits in keeping corporate information in a shared space. However, the move to the new IT platform will make Google Docs and Google Drive available for staff to use, although for the time being these will not integrate with TRIM. There is a very real risk that TRIM’s status as the main system for corporate information will be undermined, with staff preferring to use Google Docs and Google Drive. NIO should take steps to ensure that it continues to provide a supportive environment for the management of digital information and records as it moves to the new IT platform. See recommendation 2.
- NIO does not have legacy information fragmented across many different systems, as in some departments. However, legacy shared drives do exist and NIO needs to develop a strategy/plan for how it will handle these. This should include identifying what information the drives contain, deciding which records are of value and need to be kept, and applying disposal. The earliest information in TRIM is over ten years old and NIO needs to monitor this information to ensure that it remains complete, available and usable. NIO should also develop an approach for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of legacy information on shared drives and older information in TRIM. See recommendations 3 and 7.
3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | Development area | |--------------------|------------------| | Recognising information risk | Development area | | Establishing control | Satisfactory | | Providing guidance | Satisfactory | | Measuring Impact | Development area |
- NIO’s approach to information risk, particularly risks relating to information management, appears fragmented. Information risk in its wider sense is not necessarily understood across the organisation or recognised at Board level. Many staff we spoke to thought information risk was purely concerned with the security and protection of information rather than the wider issue of information availability and use. NIO is facing some serious risks to the availability and security of its information (see section 2) as it moves to a new IT platform and more open and flexible working. We found little evidence to suggest that information risks are being routinely identified and documented. NIO needs to ensure that information risks are understood across the organisation, especially at Board level, and are recorded, monitored and mitigated as part of the risk management framework. See recommendation 4.
- The Records and Information Management (R&IM) team provides a good service to the business and our interviews revealed a lot of internal support for the team. There is a clear plan in place for KIM – the KIM strategy includes an action timeline of all activities for 2016 and this is reflected in the R&IM business plan. At present, the R&IM team has sufficient capability to carry out its planned activities and this should continue as NIO upgrades TRIM and moves towards a new IT environment. See recommendation 5.
- NIO has good policies and guidance in place for information management. As it moves towards a new IT environment and more open and flexible working, NIO needs to update these policies, guidance and training accordingly. It would also benefit from exploring ways of measuring compliance with policy and guidance as there is no formal process in place for this at present. See recommendation 5.
4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | | |-------------------|---| | Oversight of records and selection | Satisfactory | | Implementing disposal decisions | Development area |
- The Departmental Records Officer (DRO) and Records and Information Management team (R&IM) are together fulfilling all aspects of the DRO role as set out in The National Archives’ guidance.
- NIO has three very knowledgeable and experienced part-time file reviewers who carry out appraisal and selection and sensitivity review of paper files to be transferred to The National Archives. They are all former senior civil servants and have a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues and potential sensitivities. The National Archives' Information Management Consultant recognised the standard of NIO’s appraisal and selection work as ‘excellent’ and closure applications are usually approved without challenge. However, there is no overall departmental guidance for appraisal and selection or sensitivity review and NIO need to capture and document the knowledge of these reviewers. See recommendation 6.
- Despite having good processes in place for its digital records NIO is not currently appraising, selecting, sensitivity reviewing or transferring its digital records and is not yet able to apply auto-disposal to TRIM. The age of some of its digital records (some information in TRIM is over ten years old and there is also legacy information on shared drives that predates TRIM) means it should tackle this as soon as possible. Liaising with The National Archives and learning from other government departments, NIO needs to develop an approach for the appraisal and selection and sensitivity review of digital information and ensure that it acquires new skills within the team to be able to carry out this work. See recommendation 7.
- NIO is currently slightly behind in its transition to the 20-year rule. The increase in volume of paper files from the late 1980s onwards will exacerbate this issue and NIO could fall further behind as a result (see section 4.1). NIO is starting to think about how to address this and has a plan to catch up, which will be presented to the Advisory Council for approval. It has also been liaising with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to find out more about their approach to dealing with backlogs. NIO should also liaise with The National Archives on this: we shall be able to provide further advice and support. See recommendation 6.
## Highlights table
The following are among the areas of good practice identified at the time of the assessment. They include systems and approaches that other government organisations may find helpful in mitigating information and records management related risks, some of which will be included in the IMA Good Practice Report:
| Highlights of the 2016 IMA | |---------------------------| | The Deputy Director for the Business Delivery Group is the Northern Ireland Office’s (NIO) Departmental Records Officer (DRO) and attends Board meetings. This arrangement has been beneficial for NIO, for example in prioritising information and records management issues, such as the need to retain TRIM. | | NIO has well-organised and robust processes in place for handling Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The department currently also provides a shared service for FOI to the Wales Office and the work is shared between two staff members, one of whom is based in Belfast and the other in London. Requests come into the central FOI team but are then passed to the relevant business area. Requests are tracked using a word document saved on TRIM which, given the size of the department and the relatively low number of requests, seems sufficient. The tracking document is circulated to the Permanent Secretary on a weekly basis. The FOI team is on hand to give business areas advice and to monitor the progress of the requests. FOI is taken seriously by business areas. For example, one interviewee felt that there is a good FOI culture and a competitive attitude towards the FOI statistics. All records of requests are held on TRIM. | | Business areas are expected to populate an Information and Data Asset Register (IDAR). We were provided with the template prior to the IMA and | were able to view two completed examples. Overall the template is very good and includes the headings that we would expect, including business requirements and retention. The completed examples we viewed had been populated well. We are particularly pleased to note that sensible groupings of information assets have been listed, rather than just listing assets at a system level or just listing those that contain personal data.
Take-up of TRIM is better at NIO than we often see for traditional Electronic Document and Records Management (EDRM) systems, which is probably largely due to the fact that NIO has, up to now, eliminated or controlled alternative areas for storing information. During the assessment we found a lot of positivity towards TRIM from users, despite a few issues. Staff generally find it easy to save documents and emails into TRIM. There was recognition that it is a good tool and of the benefit of keeping important corporate information in a shared space. A user from a policy area said that it was ‘good to be able to access historical documents’ and had asked for a link in the file plan to previous work on a Bill so they could learn from these records. One or two interviewees said they disliked it at first but, once they got used to using it, they found it helpful. One interviewee compared TRIM to an EDRM that they had used in another government department which had been difficult to search, saying that TRIM was ‘much easier to use’.
Following on from recommendations of the audit in 2014, the DRO was able to successfully secure additional resource. This included separating out a more strategic role at Band A level with responsibility for information and records management policy and guidance, and a role to provide additional support for TRIM.
At the time of the IMA the Records & Information Management team was about to take on an apprentice at Band E for 18 months. This was successfully tried in the FOI team, providing additional resource for the team and a career development opportunity. The interviews revealed a lot of internal support for the R&IM team and the service that they provide. Staff felt that they could either pick up the phone to get help or just speak to someone from the R&IM team. The TRIM administrator, along with her colleague, prioritises requests for help from the business, dealing with them quickly and effectively.
NIO has three very knowledgeable and experienced part-time file reviewers. They are all former senior civil servants and have a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues and potential sensitivities. Appraisal decisions are quality-checked by the Head of R&IM. The National Archives’ Information Management Consultant (IMC) recognised the standard of NIO’s appraisal and selection work as ‘excellent’ and is generally able to approve selection decisions without need for re-review.
## Recommendations to address risk areas
### Recommendation 1
**Northern Ireland Office (NIO) should build on the good work it has already done to establish a process for information asset management by fully embedding this across the organisation**
This would be supported by:
- defining what an information asset is to the department and including this in the documentation for Information Asset Owners (IAO)
- ensuring that business areas are completing their Information and Data Asset Register (IDAR) as directed
- considering how the Records and Information Management team could use the populated IDARs to gain a greater sense of what business areas regard as their key groupings of valuable information
- raising staff awareness of the purpose of the IAO role, possibly via the intranet
- improving training provision for IAOs, including making further use of The National Archives’ IAO training.
### Recommendation 2
**NIO should take steps to ensure that it continues to provide a supportive environment for the management of digital information and records as it moves to a new IT platform**
This would be supported by:
- recognising the risk of staff moving away from the TRIM EDRM system because of the availability of Google Docs/Drive and the lack of integration between TRIM and Google at Board level; and managing and mitigating this as part of the NIO risk management framework
- considering the possibility of limiting access to Google Docs/Drive until integration with TRIM is possible • giving the R&IM team oversight of Google Drive so it can monitor use • making it absolutely clear that staff are to continue to store records in TRIM through communications, policy, guidance and training • ensuring that managers support and promote this • moving to a version of TRIM that integrates with Google as quickly as is technically possible • ensuring that TRIM is accessible on mobile devices • aligning the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Strategy with any future IT strategy • implementing automatic disposal within TRIM • considering what statistics it needs to monitor usage of existing systems, as well as newly-available applications such as Google Docs and Google Drive, and ensuring that it has arrangements in place for IT Assist and Cabinet Office to provide these to them • reminding staff about guidance on naming conventions • reviewing the approach to deletion for shared mailboxes • using the KIM strategy to provide direction for this work.
Recommendation 3
NIO should take steps to ensure that its digital information remains complete, available and usable for as long as it needs it to be
This would be supported by:
• ensuring that it has oversight of Microsoft Outlook, personal and shared drives (either directly or indirectly), as well as other systems such as Google Docs/Drive • monitoring information in TRIM in terms of whether it remains complete, available and usable • developing a strategy/plan for dealing with the shared drives including identifying what information the drives contain, deciding which records are of value and need to be kept and applying disposal • running DROID (The National Archives’ file profiling tool) over its shared drives to get an idea of age and format and, at a high level, what the records may cover. It would also help NIO to identify duplicate or redundant records • continuing regular contact between NIO, IT Assist and the Cabinet Office and strengthening this relationship as NIO moves towards its new IT arrangement; ensuring that the R&IM team is able to contribute towards IT decisions/projects that have an impact on information and records management • defining its requirements for its digital information and setting out how it intends to meet these.
### Recommendation 4
NIO needs to ensure that information risks are properly understood across the organisation – especially at Board level – and are recorded, monitored and mitigated as part of the risk management framework.
This would be supported by:
- providing a more detailed description of information risk with examples and communicating this to staff, particularly IAOs and project managers
- looking at how other departments have done this, in particular the Ministry of Defence, Home Office and Department for Education
- ensuring that information risks are being identified and recorded on risk registers as part of the risk management process
- monitoring and mitigating risks to the availability and security of NIO’s information as it moves to more flexible and open working as part of the NIO risk management framework; ensuring that the Board has sight of these as necessary
- mitigating these risks through communications and updated guidance and training for staff that reflect the new IT environment and emphasise the continued need to protect and manage information appropriately
- liaising with The National Archives to arrange an information security Board-level briefing to help raise awareness of information risk and information security, including cyber threats.
### Recommendation 5
As it moves towards a new IT environment and more open and flexible working, NIO needs to update its information and records management policies, guidance and training accordingly, and ensure that it has the right staff in place to support these. It would also benefit from exploring ways of measuring compliance with policy and guidance.
This would be supported by:
- ensuring that Local Information Managers’ (LIM) responsibilities are included in their annual performance agreements
- using LIMs help to promote and monitor the use of TRIM as well as the use of new systems, Google Docs and Google Drive
- training LIMs on new versions of TRIM and other systems as necessary, making them aware of updated guidance and encouraging them to promote this to staff in their business areas
- reminding staff about the existence of information and records management guidance, possibly through communications on the NIO intranet and via LIMs – particularly the Information Management Policy and high-level guidance on what records to keep
- publishing retention schedules in line with the recommendations in Sir Alex Allan’s Report on Records Review 2014 and The National Archives’ guidance
- updating guidance and policies to reflect the move to a new IT environment and the move to more flexible working. For example, the Information Management Policy needs to make it clear that staff are to save records to TRIM rather than keeping them in Google Drive
- making sure guidance around the security and protection of information includes clear rules around the use of mobile technology and on working outside the office
- reviewing the practice of line managers providing induction training in information and records management to see how well it is working, and considering what additional support the R&IM team can provide to line managers and LIMs on this
- providing adequate facilities for future TRIM training
- considering what other government departments, such as HM Treasury, have done to establish a process for benchmarking/measuring compliance and thinking about how they could develop an approach to fit NIO.
- Using the KIM strategy to provide direction for this work.
Recommendation 6
NIO should review its current approach to appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of its paper files to ensure that it can keep pace with the transition to the 20-year rule
This would be supported by:
- continuing to prioritise and carry out this work
- capturing the knowledge of NIO’s existing reviewers and documenting its selection criteria.
- further exploring macro approaches to appraisal to speed up and streamline the process of paper appraisal and selection.
- liaising with its Information Management Consultant (IMC), who will be able to provide further advice and support.
Recommendation 7 NIO needs to start developing an approach for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of its digital information
This would be supported by:
- liaising with its IMC on methods of digital appraisal and learning from other government departments’ work on this
- following the work that The National Archives and other government departments are doing on digital sensitivity review, particularly around tools to assist the process
- reading the research report *The application of technology-assisted review to born-digital records transfer, Inquiries and beyond*, recently published by The National Archives
- signing up for The National Archives digital transfer training
- acquiring and using DROID
- using the legacy information on shared drives that predates TRIM as a starting point for this work. 1 The value of information
1.1 Communicating and realising value
Goal: The organisation establishes information’s value in principle and supports its realisation in practice
Establishing the importance of information
The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) currently has a strong culture of information and records management and information security. The Information Management Policy and associated guidance clearly sets out the responsibilities of staff, managers and the Records and Information Management (R&IM) team for the information NIO creates and holds. According to the Information Management Policy:
The NIO expects that staff will:
- treat information as a corporate asset
- take responsibility for the information they create, capture or maintain
- play an active role in managing the information of their business unit
- make information accessible to colleagues
- protect corporate information from misuse or inappropriate disclosure.
NIO managers will:
- take responsibility for the management of information created and used in their business areas
- ensure the information has appropriate access and security permissions
- encourage sharing of information and knowledge by and among their teams
- ensure knowledge transfer through the Headstart starters and leavers scheme. The Records & Information Management Team will:
- maintain corporate paper and electronic records and information systems (TRIM)
- ensure capture and transfer of the public record
- support staff through training and guidance.
Staff interviewed clearly recognised the importance of protecting information and keeping it secure, as well as the need to keep records within the designated systems. For example, many interviewees spoke about giving records meaningful titles and saving them in well-structured sections of the file plan within TRIM (NIO’s system for electronic document and records management), so that they and other staff can easily find and use these records. One interviewee described the role of records management as ‘making sure that key conversations are saved to TRIM’. All staff we spoke to had completed the Responsible for Information e-learning and several reported scoring 100%.
The Deputy Director for the Business Delivery Group is NIO’s Departmental Records Officer (DRO) and attends Board meetings. This arrangement has been beneficial for NIO – for example, in prioritising information and records management issues, such as the need to retain TRIM. We also received good indications that information and records matters are being raised at Board level: for example, the options paper on email deletion (see section 2.1). This is good practice. As one senior interviewee put it, information and records management has to be high up on NIO’s list of priorities because of what they are dealing with – for them ‘20 years ago is now.’ We heard from more than one interviewee that the Permanent Secretary, having worked for NIO at a senior level in the past, takes a particular interest in the records of the department. The fact that the Information Management Assessment (IMA) statement of commitment was published externally is also a strong indicator of their support for information and records management. NIO is facing a huge cultural change in the next year with a move to more open and flexible working: it needs to take steps to ensure that it maintains its strong approach to information and records management and information security throughout this period and beyond. See recommendation 2.
**Setting goals for information and its management**
NIO has a draft Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Strategy for 2015-18. It is succinct and to the point, and clearly reflects goals around the protection, management and exploitation of NIO’s information. It also includes a delivery timeline with milestones. The KIM Strategy has been approved by the DRO but not yet signed off by the Board. Sign-off has been held back to enable any key points from the IMA to be included. There is no separate IT strategy at the moment. In the future, NIO will align with the Cabinet Office IT strategy as they jointly move to a new IT platform (see section 2).
The Northern Ireland Office strategy for knowledge and information management provides a framework to:
- support regulatory compliance
- nurture a culture that values information and knowledge
- manage information throughout its lifecycle
- ensure digital continuity
- enable information risk assessment and information risk management
- define an approach to information governance.
In terms of implementation, the strategy contains a table of key objectives for delivery and a timeline of when these will be delivered. These are also reflected in the R&IM business plan for 2015-16.
NIO needs to ensure that the KIM Strategy reflects and aligns with any new IT Strategy. The KIM Strategy should also provide direction for work to address IT and cultural change, such as the updating of NIO’s information and records management. policies, guidance and training. The strategy should also say how progress against milestones is to be monitored. See recommendations 2 and 5.
Enabling public access to information and supporting transparency and re-use
NIO has well organised and robust processes in place for handling Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. NIO currently also provides a shared service for FOI to the Wales Office and the work is shared between two staff members, one of whom is based in Belfast and the other in London.
Requests come into the central FOI team but are then passed to the relevant business area. Requests are tracked using a word document saved on TRIM which, given the size of NIO and relatively low number of requests, seems sufficient. The tracking document is circulated to the Permanent Secretary on a weekly basis. The FOI team is on hand to give business areas advice and to monitor the progress of the requests. We saw evidence that FOI is taken seriously by business areas. One interviewee felt that there is a good FOI culture and a competitive attitude towards the FOI statistics. We were told that the Permanent Secretary takes an interest and people do not want to be the one to let the side down (or to be chased up to find out why). All records of FOI requests are held on TRIM. This is good practice.
NIO’s FOI figures have improved in the past year. The department received 58 FOI requests in the quarter – the fifth lowest number among departments of state. Of those received in Q3 2015, 95% met the 20-day deadline and 90% were answered ‘in time (i.e. meeting deadline or within permitted extension)’. This is an improvement on figures for Q1 (89%) and Q2 (85%), which is the minimum level set by the Information Commissioner’s Office, below which monitoring may take place. Figures were not notably different for these quarters (65 for Q1 and 61 for Q2), so variation in performance may be due to the complexity of the requests received, resourcing or a range of other issues.
In Q3 2015, 58% of resolvable requests were granted in full – this is above the average for both departments of state (46%) and for all monitored bodies (44%). 33% were withheld in full, which is just below the average for both departments of state (34%) and all monitored bodies (35%).
On 30 January 2016, there were 271 publications by the NIO on GOV.UK. This is one of the lowest volumes among departments of state. 18 are classed as FOI releases – again, one of the lower volumes among departments of state. However, 140 of these are classed as transparency data – one of the highest in percentage terms and the thirteenth highest by volume among departments of state (ahead of Ministry of Justice, Department for Transport and Department of Health, for example).
NIO has published six datasets on data.gov.uk. The website gives the department an average score for openness of 3.0 and has received a total of 18 stars.
### 1.2 Managing information as a valued asset
| Goal: The organisation protects, manages and exploits its information assets to achieve maximum value |
**Defining and cataloguing information assets**
There is no overall definition of an information asset, which can sometimes lead to confusion about what should be recorded on an Information Asset Register (IAR). However, this may not be an issue within NIO as their assets are well catalogued (see below). Nonetheless, it would still benefit NIO to define what an information asset means to the department and to include this in the documentation for Information Asset Owners (IAO). See recommendation 1.
Business areas are expected to populate an Information and Data Asset Register (IDAR – the NIO equivalent of an Information Asset Register). We were provided with the template prior to the IMA and were able to view two completed examples. Overall, the template is straightforward and includes the headings that we would expect, including business requirements and retention. The completed examples reviewed in this IMA had been populated well. We are particularly pleased to note that proportionate groupings of unstructured information have been identified as information assets, rather than just listing assets at a system level or those that contain personal data. It is unclear whether all business areas complete the IDAR in this way, but if they do then this should provide the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) with the assurance that they require. **This is good practice.**
It was not clear how far the R&IM team is involved with this process. The Head of KIM and R&IM team should consider how they could use the populated IDARs to help gain a greater sense of what business areas feel to be their key groupings of information. **See recommendation 1.**
**Ownership of information assets**
The role and responsibilities of the IAO are clearly defined and they report annually to the SIRO on the security and use of their assets. The role is generally held at Deputy Director level. According to the Information Risk Policy:
> Information Asset Owners are senior individuals who command their business unit. Their role is to understand what information is held, what is added and what is removed, how information is moved, and who has access and why. As a result they are able to understand and address risks to the information, and ensure that information is fully used within the law for the public good, and provide written input to the SIRO annually on the security and use of their assets.
There is also a one-page Terms of Reference for IAOs that is slightly higher-level but is in the same vein as the above.
There is little awareness of the IAO role among staff across the organisation. Some interviewees had not heard of the role and others did not really know what the responsibilities of the IAO were. NIO would benefit from some brief communications on this, possibly via the intranet, to raise staff awareness of the role and its purpose.
See recommendation 1.
NIO has no internal training for IAOs, although two members of staff have been on The National Archives’ information assurance training. Guidance is available to IAOs but there is no formal network across NIO. NIO would benefit from creating opportunities for IAOs to share views, knowledge and approaches and from improving training provision, including making further use of The National Archives’ IAO training. See recommendation 1 2 Information and supporting technology
2.1 The technology environment
Goal: The technology environment supports the management, protection and exploitation of information
Corporate storage of information
Electronic Document and Records Management (EDRM)
The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) uses TRIM as the designated corporate system for managing its digital information and has done so since 2004, as does the rest of the Northern Ireland Administration. There are currently 1.2 million documents within the system. TRIM is a traditional EDRM and is capable of full lifecycle management including audit trail, structure, context, metadata, access restrictions, disposal, etc.
At present, disposal of digital records in TRIM has to happen manually and it is not yet possible to apply automatic disposal. However, this is not an issue with the software itself but the way the folder structure has been set up. This is being addressed through work to ‘flatten out’ the file plan by eliminating level 2 and 3 folders. Once the file plan has been simplified in this way, disposal instructions can be applied to the remaining folder structure. See recommendation 2.
Staff have ‘personal’ and ‘personnel’ areas in TRIM outside the main file plan. The ‘personal’ area is only to be used for information of use to the individual and not of corporate value, and is subject to a 50 document limit. The TRIM administration team have oversight of these. The ‘personnel’ area is for performance reviews, objectives and Human Resources documents: this is not subject to a limit. Interviewees did seem to recognise that these areas are not for saving corporate records and were generally using them for the purposes defined above. In March 2016, the NIO planned to roll out a new IT platform across the department. Whereas the department presently receives IT services from ITAC, based in the Department of Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland), in future it will receive IT services from IT Assist (also based in the Department of Finance and Personnel) with Common Technology Services (in the Cabinet Office) in providing technical design and partnering with IT Assist. The provision of a shared IT service arises from NIO’s insistence on retaining TRIM as its EDRMS rather than moving to use Google, as the Cabinet Office has done. At present it is unclear how this relationship will work, although there are regular project meetings and it seems that there is regular and dynamic contact between NIO, ITAC, IT Assist and the Cabinet Office.
In the short term, NIO is moving from Hewlett Packard (HP) TRIM 7.1.2 to 7.3.5, and will remain on ITAC infrastructure and servers, hosted by IT assist. By the end of March NIO came off confidential (IL4) and shifted to official (IL3) and will shortly move to HP TRIM 8.3, as version 7.3.5 will be out of support in the next year. Another upgrade – to HP TRIM RM 9.0 – is due in June, which should integrate with Google. However, at the time of the IMA this was still being designed and had not been available to ITAC to test. TRIM 7.1, 7.3 and 8.3 do not support integration with Google.
As part of the move to a new IT platform, NIO will have access to Google Hangouts and other collaborative features such as Google Docs, allowing drafting and sharing. However, until HP TRIM RM 8.4 (integration between this version of TRIM and Google is still not yet proven) is introduced, any documents generated via this route will be stored in Google Drive rather than TRIM. There is major risk here that staff will not use two systems or file twice and will, as a result, move away from storing documents in TRIM. In fact there may already be a growing misapprehension that NIO will no longer use TRIM. For example, one interviewee reported hearing a Deputy Director saying that when Google came in they would be using that for their records. When told that they would still need to use TRIM, they said that they would not. Even with full integration in the future, it is likely that TRIM’s status as the main system for corporate information will have been undermined, with staff preferring to use Google Docs and Google Drive. There is also the question of whether TRIM will be available on mobile devices. This risk should be recognised and monitored as part of the risk management framework: it should be mitigated through communications, training, guidance and technical solutions, including work to enhance TRIM and make it easier to use. NIO should consider limiting access to Google Docs until integration is possible or, at the very least, give the Records and Information Management (R&IM) team oversight of Google Drive so they can monitor use. Policy, guidance and training needs to clearly state that staff must continue to store records in TRIM and managers need to support and promote this. See recommendation 2.
The move to the new IT platform will open up effective mobile working to staff through the provision of laptops, smartphones, etc. While this has many benefits, it will also be a major change for an organisation used to working in a secure environment. Some of the new apps available to staff may also raise risks in themselves: for example, an interviewee who had used Google Hangouts in the past in another government department said that it was possible to accidentally message the wrong person. Security around NIO systems has, up to now, been tight and the cultural impact of a move to a more open approach should not be underestimated. There is a risk that information could be less well protected/handled by staff than it is currently. Again, NIO must ensure that this risk is recognised and mitigated through communications, guidance, training and technical solutions. See recommendation 2.
Email
NIO currently uses Microsoft Outlook as its email system. It is straightforward to get emails into TRIM and interviewees did not raise any issues with this. There is a 90-day deletion rule for email. This policy originally came from ITAC rather than NIO itself; however, the approach was formalised via an options paper presented to the NIO Board. Shared mailboxes are currently exempt from the deletion rule. We found evidence that this was creating duplication in the Private Office and NIO would benefit from reviewing this approach. Staff we interviewed generally saw the deletion period as a positive thing that encouraged them to manage their inboxes and put important emails in TRIM. None of them confessed to consistently losing emails of importance, although there had for some been a rush to save emails when the rule was initially activated. Staff did not generally appear to be using Personal Storage Table (PST) files to store emails, which can often happen when there are deletion rules in place.
NIO will not change from Microsoft Outlook to Google Mail for the foreseeable future. A change to Google Mail has been contemplated and the newest version of TRIM is supposed to be fully compatible with Google Mail. No final decision has been made by the IT project team on which email system will be used in the long term.
**Personal drives**
Personal or ‘H’ drives exist but we saw no evidence of widespread use by staff to store corporate information. The H drive at 1 Horse Guards Road totals 13GB and at Stormont 25 GB, which is small. Staff we interviewed did not use H drives to store corporate information; in general they preferred to use their personal and personnel areas in TRIM if they did need to store documents outside the main TRIM file plan. Some used their personal areas for draft working and then transferred the records into TRIM.
**Shared drives**
Shared drives do exist as there are certain types of documents that cannot be stored on TRIM – for example, linked spreadsheets. The shared or ‘common’ drive at 1 Horse Guards Road totals 10.5GB and at Stormont is 469MB, which is small. Staff we interviewed did not generally use the shared drives for storing corporate records: in fact, some did not use them at all and others did not even know they existed. Finding, accessing and protecting information
Take-up of TRIM is better at NIO than we often see for traditional EDRM systems: this is probably largely due to the fact that NIO has, up to now, eliminated or controlled alternative areas for storing information. During the assessment we found a lot of support for TRIM from users, despite a few issues (see below). Staff generally find it easy to save documents and emails into TRIM. There was recognition that it is a good tool and that it is beneficial to keep important corporate information in a shared space. Even where interviewees had disliked it at first they reported changing their mind once they had got used to using it. A user from a policy area said that it was ‘good to be able to access historical documents’ and had asked for a link in the file plan to previous work on a Bill so they could learn from these records. One interviewee compared TRIM to an EDRM that they had used in another government department that had been difficult to search, saying that TRIM was ‘much easier to use’. This is good practice.
Practice within TRIM among staff has been patchy in the past: the R&IM team hasn’t always had the resource to tackle this, which has led to some of the issues described below. However, the introduction of the TRIM Systems Administrator role has led to a real drive to improve practice across NIO and make TRIM work better.
There is a very real risk that this good use of TRIM could be lost/damaged if full integration between Google applications is not achieved quickly or is not achieved at all (see above). See recommendation 2.
Some interviewees – though by no means all – did experience some issues around searching TRIM, reporting that it was sometimes difficult to find what they needed. In part, this is due to a lack of awareness of the advanced search capability available within TRIM or how to use this. At present it is not possible to search the content of documents in TRIM, so the success of a search is often reliant on how well a record has been titled. Interviewees reported that titling of records could be poor, with spelling mistakes or titles that were not meaningful. Future upgrades of TRIM will enable full text searching, which should help, as would reminding staff of the existing guidance on naming conventions. LIMs and the R&IM team already provide support to staff on searching TRIM and this should continue. See recommendation 2.
Access to TRIM is currently very restricted. Areas of the file plan are locked down to specific teams which can make it difficult to access information across team boundaries. According to one interviewee, ‘You used to have to make a business case as to why areas need to be locked down, but we have drifted away from this and gone back to being more locked down.’ The situation has been further complicated as access permissions have often been set at individual rather than team or group level. This raises particular issues when those individuals leave the organisation. Access privileges are not always quickly updated when people move teams, meaning that some have access to areas of the file plan that they should not. There are plans to tackle this and there is agreement that NIO should move to a more open file plan; however, owners need to be identified in order to do this and this takes time. NIO should ensure that this work is carried through to conclusion as a more open file plan will make it easier for staff to find and share information. NIO is also in the process of reviewing the classification of information in TRIM as it moves away from a confidential platform, which is positive. See recommendation 2.
2.2 The continuity of digital information
Goal: The organisation is taking proactive steps to ensure the continuity of its information, over time and through change.
Oversight of information
From a digital continuity point of view, NIO benefits from having the majority of its information in one system, TRIM. The R&IM team has full oversight of this and the TRIM Administrators play a crucial role here. However, there are other systems of which the team itself does not have direct oversight – including Microsoft Outlook, personal and shared drives – though it can obtain information from IT Assist when required. As NIO moves to a new IT environment, it needs to ensure that it can get oversight of these areas (either directly or indirectly), as well as of other systems that will available on the new IT platform. See recommendation 3.
Some information in TRIM is now over ten years old and NIO needs to monitor this information to ensure it remains complete, available and usable. Using a tool like DROID (The National Archives' file profiling tool) may help with this process (see below). It also needs to make plans for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of information from TRIM (see section x). See recommendations 3 and 7.
There are legacy shared drives that predate the move to TRIM in 2004. They may contain information of business or historical value that needs to be kept or may need to be transferred to The National Archives. NIO has not yet considered how it will deal with these, in terms of identifying what information the drives contain and which records are of value and need to be kept, and applying disposal: it is recommended that a strategy/plan for the shared drives is developed. As part of this, NIO would benefit from running DROID over its shared drives. This would give NIO information on the age and format of the records as well a high-level indication of what they cover. It would also help NIO to identify duplicate records. NIO also needs to develop an approach for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of this information (see section 4). See recommendations 3 and 7.
Digital continuity planning/IT change
The R&IM team has been consulted throughout the process of selecting a new IT platform. There has been regular contact between the Project Manager and System Administrator for TRIM throughout. NIO was also able to secure senior management support for the decision to keep TRIM. There also seems to be regular and dynamic contact between NIO, ITAC, IT Assist and Cabinet Office. NIO should ensure that this relationship continues and strengthens as its moves towards its new IT arrangement and that the R&IM team is able to contribute to IT decisions/projects that have an impact on information and records management. See recommendation 3. NIO does not yet have a plan to ensure the continuity of its digital information, either on a standalone basis or as component of wider strategy, although there are pieces of work already happening that might form part of such a strategy. NIO should define its requirements for its digital information and set out how it intends to meet these. See recommendation 3. 3 Information risk, governance and oversight
3.1 Recognising information risks
Goal: The organisation defines and manages information risks to minimise threats and maximise opportunities
Documenting and defining information risks
Section 5 of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) Information Risk Policy defines information risk in this way:
Information risks are threats to:
i) **Confidentiality** – resulting in unauthorised access or disclosure of information;
ii) **Integrity** – resulting in inaccurate, incomplete or corrupted information; and
iii) **Availability** – resulting in authorised users being unable to access information when required.
Despite this, information risk in its wider sense is not well understood across the organisation. Many staff we spoke to thought information risks relate purely to security and protection of sensitive information rather than the issue of information availability. While it is positive that the importance of security and protection of information is recognised, NIO should build on the definition above to provide a more detailed description of information risk, with examples, and communicate this to staff, particularly Information Asset Owners (IAO) and Project Managers. NIO would benefit from exploring what other government departments have done here, in particular the Home Office. See recommendation 4. According to the Departmental Risk Management Policy:
Key risks at departmental and strategy levels will be recorded in risk registers according to the specified template. Registers will include details of the impact and likelihood of each risk identified, indicate ownership and specify an action plan for implementation. Risk Registers should also record residual risk taking into account the effect of action taken.
Information-related risks are included on the Business Delivery Group business plan for 2016-17. However, we found little evidence to suggest that information risks are routinely documented across the department; NIO needs to ensure that information risks are being identified and recorded as part of the risk management process. See recommendation 4.
Implementing an information risk management approach
NIO has an Information Risk Policy (IRP) and this is currently under review. The Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) appeared to take their responsibilities seriously and had asked for a specific objective relating to this role. They also felt it was important to ensure that sufficient time was allocated to the role.
According to the IRP:
1.4 Risk ownership resides at the very top of the NIO with the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) on behalf of the NIO Management Board owning the information risk. All Directorates and Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) must have an Information Asset Owner (IAO) who will own and take responsibility for all information risks within their business area. The IAO reports quarterly to the Departmental Security Committee (DSC) their risk management decisions, which may be escalated to the NIO Management Board through the Audit Committee. 1.5 Risk management involves everyone in the NIO, the Corporate Governance Unit, the Information Assurance Coordinator and the Information Risk Guidance policy will provide practical advice and guidance on the implementation of an effective risk management process.
1.2 Information risk management as defined in this policy is a continuous process which lasts for the whole lifecycle of the information (electronic and paper), by preparing quarterly risk assessments for each business area. This enables the SIRO to prepare their annual information risk report, and the Director General’s [now Permanent Secretary] Statement of Internal Control (SIC).
The main risk register is largely focussed on political risks and the expectation is that information risk will generally be managed below Board level. In addition, while the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) team has a risk register in place, this focuses on risks relating to service delivery rather than wider risks to NIO stemming from a failure to capture or keep the right information.
IT risks are currently managed within the IT change project: although information and records management considerations have been key drivers for decisions taken, information and records management or cyber-related impacts are not clear from project risk descriptions. We saw limited indication that these risks were present on departmental risk registers or being raised by IAOs.
There are some serious risks to the availability and security of NIO’s information around the move to more flexible and open working. This could have an impact on the security of NIO’s information and its ability to manage its information (see section 2). These risks must be monitored and mitigated as part of the NIO risk management framework. An information security Board-level briefing, which The National Archives will provide, is also recommended to help raise awareness of information risk and information security, including cyber threats. See recommendation 4.
NIO has an Information Assurance Coordinator (IAC). This role is currently being covered part-time by one of the FOI staff. The IAC has responsibility for completing the annual security health check for the Cabinet Office. It is also their responsibility to remind staff to do the Responsible for Information e-learning. The IAC sends out a request to Deputy Directors and asked them to cascade across the core department and Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs).
Information and records management was subject to an audit in March 2014 – carried out by Roger Smethurst of the Cabinet Office – which was positive. This reported that:
NIO’s record keeping is strong in both electronic and paper records management. On the whole, its implementation of electronic records management compares very favourably to other government departments. In particular there is a good culture of record keeping and very favourable evidence of records capture. However, there are also patches of non-compliance, unfortunately more noticeable at a senior level.
There are significant opportunities to improve records search linked to (a) an over burdensome access control model, (b) a bloated, unwieldy and out-of-date file structure, (c) a lack of understanding across the department of the ability of the records team to conduct more thorough, complete and detailed searches which means that their skills and access rights are under-utilised; and (d) a need to re-introduce and maintain more searchable titles for documents and records.
User training, better online guidance or desk aids, induction and leaving processes are also areas for improvement. Whilst operational delivery of records management is largely sufficient (save for some possibilities for short-term resource), strategic and policy leadership for records management across the department is missing.
NIO has taken the report very seriously and the Records and Information Management (R&IM) Team Plan for 2015-16 includes actions to address the recommendations. Evidence of ongoing work in all these areas has been identified during this IMA.
### 3.2 Establishing control
**Goal:** The organisation has effective governance structures in place that foster communication and strategic planning
#### Governance structures
There are no formal boards to support communication and collaboration between information management, information assurance and IT colleagues. In a small department like NIO a formal board may not be required, provided there is regular cross team communication. We gained a reasonable level of assurance that Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), IT and information assurance professionals are currently working together as needed, in an effective manner. For example, the R&IM team has been consulted throughout the process of selecting a new IT platform and there are regular project meetings; there appears to be good contact between NIO, ITAC, IT Assist and Cabinet Office colleagues.
#### Supporting the business
The Information Management Policy clearly sets out the responsibilities of the R&IM team, which are to maintain corporate paper and electronic records and information systems (TRIM), ensure capture and transfer of the public record and support staff through training and guidance. The team consists of eight staff overall plus three part-time reviewers. Currently the team is focusing on:
- ensuring NIO compliance with statutory requirements
- supporting shared service for FOI
- delivering high-quality information management services to support department business
- supporting knowledge capture and access.
The following projects are listed in the R&IM Business Plan 2015-16:
- implement the Recommendations from the Smethurst Review
- develop and communicate a strategic plan to underpin effective information management training and implementation
- progress Information Maturity Model, in collaboration with ITC and Information Assurance
- overhaul the Corporate File Plan to facilitate broader end-user access
- devise a roadmap for the review and transfer of digital records before 2020
- prepare for The National Archives’ Information Management Assessment.
Following on from recommendations of the audit in 2014, the Departmental Records Officer was able to successfully secure additional resource. This included defining a more strategic role at Band A level, with responsibility for information and records management policy and guidance, and a role to provide additional support for TRIM. Currently these roles are time-limited (two years); NIO must ensure that it retains this resource (the draft KIM strategy asks that these roles be extended for another two years) as it upgrades TRIM and moves towards a new IT environment in order to support planning and ensure successful implementation. See recommendation 5.
At the time of the IMA, the R&IM team was about to take on an apprentice at Band E for 18 months. This approach has already been successfully tried in the FOI team, providing additional resource for the team and career development opportunities. **This is good practice.**
The interviews revealed a lot of support for the R&IM team and the service that they provide. Staff felt that they could either pick up the phone to get help, or just pop over to speak to someone from the R&IM team. The TRIM administrator, along with their colleague, prioritises requests for help from the business, dealing with them quickly and effectively. **This is good practice.**
There is a clear plan in place for KIM. The KIM strategy includes an action timeline of all activities for 2016 and this is reflected in the R&IM business plan.
**Support networks**
NIO has Local Information Managers (LIM) within business areas. They are usually at Executive Officer (EO) level, although some are Higher Executive Officers (HEOs). According to the LIM Training Handbook
They play a crucial role in the Northern Ireland Office. The success of the EDRMS depends largely on LIMs making logical decisions in regard to the creation, titling and content of electronic folders, sharing (or restricting) access to information, closing folders and reducing duplication.
Their main responsibilities are to:
- be the first point of contact for end users on issues relating to folder creation, storage and retrieval; and on efficient distribution of information within the team/division
- apply the policies and procedures that relate to the use of the corporate file plan and EDRM effectively within the team/division
- identify local information and record management training needs
- liaise with R&IM about requests and queries about any of the above. They need the following skills:
- strong knowledge of his/her business unit’s role
- ability to disseminate Information Management policy and procedures within their business unit
- ability to network with other Local Information Managers and Record Managers at Forums and other events
- IT proficiency
- good working knowledge of the Corporate File Plan and its structure, which is based on functions, activities, and transactions
- understanding of how to name, store, and retrieve electronic information, and how to manage existing paper files
- knowledge of the record management functionality of the EDRM software (HP TRIM context)
- ability to identify and react to local problems relating to the Corporate File Plan; ability to articulate points of view and put requests to R&IM.
It was not clear whether these responsibilities are consistently included in annual performance agreements for LIMs. NIO should encourage line managers and their LIMs to do this to ensure that the important work LIMs are doing is recognised and that they received appropriate credit for this. See recommendation 5.
Most of the LIMs we interviewed were conscientious and proactive in their role. They were carrying out activities such as opening and closing folders, providing advice on how to save or open documents, helping colleagues to search TRIM and assisting with access permissions. One went a bit further than this, telling their team ‘why they should keep good records’, asking them to title things properly and tackling ‘repeat offenders.’
As well as the LIM handbook, the R&IM team provide training for new LIMs. LIMs we interviewed said they are easily able to go and speak to fellow LIMs on issues when they need to, although they did not appear to be aware of any forums specifically for LIMs. In addition, the LIMs we spoke to had good contact with the R&IM team, in particular the TRIM administrators, and could get the help and support they required.
The role of LIMs will become even more important in the move to a new IT platform, in particular in helping to promote and monitor use of TRIM and in monitoring use of new systems such as Google Docs and Google Drive. There are plans to assess the role of the LIM and training needs in order to strengthen the role. There are also plans to introduce LIM forums, which would be a very positive step. All LIMs should receive training in new versions of TRIM and other systems as necessary, should be made aware of updated guidance, and should promote this to staff in their business areas. See recommendation 5.
### 3.3 Providing direction
| Goal: The organisation gives staff the instruction they need to manage, protect and exploit information effectively |
#### Knowledge and Information management policy and guidance
NIO has an up-to-date, clear, succinct and easy-to-read Information Management Policy that covers information management, information security, information governance and managing corporate knowledge. It clearly sets out responsibilities for information management across NIO and also states guiding principles:
- Northern Ireland Office recognises and values information as a corporate asset.
- We manage information to support business needs
- We maintain information to meet our statutory obligations
- We identify information for preservation of the historic record
- We do not keep information longer than required
- We recognise and manage information risk. Annex B of the policy covers what type of information should be kept and where. It also includes a helpful statement about the record status of email:
The same rules apply to email as to any other form of correspondence. Attachments to email are often important documents. It is for the individual to decide if an email and/or attachments meet the criteria for retention, depending on their business content, context and importance.
This is good practice.
Other information and records management guidance is available in the Records Management area of the NIO intranet: it is easy to find and not buried at too low a level. The guidance covers subjects like FOI ‘how to’s’, how to use TRIM, naming conventions and the work of LIMs.
When we viewed the intranet, both FOI and Records Management were appearing in the list of most active pages, suggesting that staff access these regularly. The R&IM team are also able to put messages regarding information and records management in the news feed. For example, it has included a reminder to complete the Responsible for Information e-learning. The team also writes a blog that communicates key messages in an entertaining, engaging and humorous way. Recent posts included one on FOI entitled The excitement of statutory compliance and another on the work they are doing in TRIM: Flattening the file plan – the impossible dream. This is good practice.
Staff we interviewed are generally aware of the guidance but don’t necessarily refer to it that often. When pressed on this, several said that they are able to get good and timely advice from LIMs and from the R&IM team when they need it. There are plans to refresh the guidance; NIO would benefit from reminding staff about its existence and promoting it, possibly through communications on the NIO intranet and via LIMs. See recommendation 5. NIO is facing a significant cultural change as it moves to a new IT environment and more flexible and open working. It is essential that guidance is updated to reflect this and is communicated and promoted to staff. For example, the information management policy needs to make it clear that staff still need to save records to TRIM rather than keeping them in Google Drive, as well as clearly setting out how Google should be used. Guidance around the security and protection of information needs to include clear rules around the use of mobile technology and on working outside the office. See recommendation 5.
What to Keep
The Information Management Policy sets out at a high level what records should be kept:
We should retain information that is used to support and inform decision making; for example, project documentation or evidence supporting policy development. Other examples include:
- submissions to senior management and to ministers and their responses
- Terms of Reference, Memoranda of Understanding and other agreements; committee papers, records of meetings, reports
- correspondence, consultations/discussions with external stakeholders
- official correspondence; Parliamentary business; FOI & Data Protection (DPA) requests & responses
- memos, internal records of business discussions and records of commercial transactions.
- financial information; Human Resources and management information.
In addition, every business area has a retention schedule listing key records that need to be kept and for how long. These are developed jointly between the R&IM team and the business area. Staff interviewed do not really use the guidance or the retention schedules to help them decide what to keep and tend to rely on their own judgement to decide what documents to save on TRIM. However, the staff interviewed do seem to be making sensible decisions about what records to keep. An example of good practice is the Secretary of State’s Private Office box papers, which include keeping submissions, letters and policy advice/issues. Any papers with comments are scanned into TRIM; emails are also saved to TRIM so there is a clear record of decisions. There does seem to be a strong record keeping culture at NIO, to the point where the department probably keeps too much rather than too little. NIO may benefit from reminding staff about the high-level guidance on what type of records to keep, possibly through communications on the NIO intranet and via LIMs. See recommendation 5.
NIO does not appear to have published its retention schedules, as recommended in Sir Alex Allan’s Report on Records Review and The National Archives’ guidance, and it should work towards doing this. See recommendation 5.
Providing training
At present, responsibility for induction training in the basics of information and records management rests with line managers. However, it is unclear whether this routinely takes place and, if it does, whether a consistent message is being conveyed. NIO should review this practice to see how well it is working and consider what additional support it can provide to line managers and LIMs. See recommendation 5.
The R&IM team has been providing TRIM training. Feedback on this from staff we interviewed is positive: most find it useful and helpful. TRIM training will continue to be provided, as will training on Microsoft Office and Google. However, it has become increasingly difficult to run the TRIM training due to insufficient facilities. In particular, there were problems with the IT set up, both in Belfast and London. This has led the Systems Administrator to provide one-to-one sessions as required instead, although they felt this was too labour-intensive to be a long-term solution. The move to a new IT provider and provision of new and better laptops should ease this problem. NIO needs to ensure that adequate facilities are provided for the training going forward, as this will be crucial in staff acceptance of new versions of TRIM. See recommendation 5.
### 3.4 Measuring impact
**Goal:** The organisation measures performance in practice and takes informed risk-based action as a result.
#### Measuring compliance with policy
At present, there is no formal process for monitoring whether business areas are complying with information and records management policy. However, the draft KIM strategy mentions planned audits on records creation by business group, the information survey and monitoring of the use of retention schedules by LIMs: all of these will help NIO to measure compliance. At present, statistics gathered largely centre around TRIM use rather than email or the shared and personal drives. As NIO moves to its new IT arrangement, it will become increasingly important to monitor staff use of existing systems as well as newly-available applications such as Google Docs and Google Drive. This would enable the R&IM team to react to any issues quickly – for example, if a business area is saving all its records in Google rather than in TRIM. NIO should consider exactly what statistics it needs and ensure that it has arrangements in place for ITAC and Cabinet Office to provide these. See recommendation 2.
Currently there is no regular assessment or benchmarking process, and NIO does not yet have anything that gives business areas a sense of what good performance looks like in information and records management, such as a maturity model. In terms of benchmarking, NIO would benefit from looking at the approach of other departments, in particular HM Treasury; however, as a small department, we recognise that NIO would need to develop an approach to fit its own circumstances. See recommendation 5. 4 Records, review and transfer
4.1 Oversight of records and selection
Goal: The organisation understands the value of its records and can consistently identify those with enduring historical value.
Position of the Departmental Records Officer (DRO)
The DRO is a senior level post within NIO. The current DRO is Deputy Director for the Business Delivery Group. As a result, in practice the DRO duties are delegated to the Head of KIM and carried out by the R&IM team. The DRO and their team are fulfilling all aspects of the role as set out in The National Archives’ guidance. The Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) is the DRO’s line manager and they appear to have a good working relationship.
Priorities for the DRO currently centre on the move to a new IT platform and more flexible and open working: particularly the challenges this raises in ensuring that the good culture of records management and information security is maintained, and that the success of TRIM as the designated corporate system for Electronic Records Management (ERM) continues (see also section 3.2).
At a time where posts are being cut within the Business Delivery Group, the DRO has managed to increase resource within the R&IM team. At present, the team is able to carry out the work described above successfully; NIO needs to ensure that this continues. See recommendation 5
Oversight, control and use of records
NIO appears to have good oversight and control of its paper records, which are stored with Iron Mountain. The R&IM team recently carried out an audit of everything kept by Iron Mountain and cross-checked this with paper files listed on TRIM. According to one member of the team, ‘Everything is where it is supposed to be now.’ Most staff interviewed do not really need to access paper records often, with the majority of information needed stored on TRIM. When one interviewee does need to access paper files, they are able to obtain the files easily and find the information they need.
According to the Government and Remote Services Department at The National Archives (which oversees the requisition of accessioned records back to departments), the team has a good working relationship with NIO and there are no significant issues to report in terms of business-as-usual requisitions, outstanding or misplaced records with this department.
There are a number of Inquiries having an impact on NIO at present: these require access to the department’s records, including a small amount (six at the time of the IMA) requisitioned from The National Archives via Government and Remote Services. Depending on circumstances, originals or copies are provided. In some instances originals are demanded (e.g. for the Criminal Cases Review Commission). DRO approval is required to send documents outside the department: locations are updated in TRIM and the business area responsible is sent periodic requests on the status of loaned files.
NIO has provided accurate figures for the twice-yearly Records Transfer Report.
**Appraisal and selection**
NIO has three very knowledgeable and experienced part-time file reviewers. They are all former senior civil servants and have a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues and potential sensitivities. Appraisal decisions are quality-checked by the Head of R&IM. The National Archives’ Information Management Consultant (IMC) recognises the standard of NIO’s appraisal and selection work as ‘excellent’ and is generally able to approve selection decisions without need for re review. **This is good practice.** Appraisal of paper records is currently carried out using a file-by-file approach, reading each file to make a decision on whether it is of historical value or not. This method of appraisal is time-consuming. NIO reviewers stated that the volume of files for review is increasing. The end of the practice of first review (files reviewed five years after closure to see if they are of continuing value) in the late 1980s means that low-value material is no longer being weeded out. Pair this with the requirement to review two years’ worth of material every year to keep pace with the transition to the 20-year rule, and NIO is facing a major challenge.
NIO needs to consider how it can streamline the appraisal process and make it more efficient. It is starting to explore the possibility of a more macro approach using Series Level Appraisal Questionnaires: it should engage with its Information Management Consultant, who will be able to provide further advice and put the department in touch with other government departments who have tried this approach. See recommendation 6.
At present, there are no documented criteria for selection to help determine what is of historical value and should be selected for preservation at The National Archives. The process is very much reliant on the knowledge and experience of reviewers; NIO needs to think about how it can capture the knowledge of these reviewers and document its selection criteria to ensure that the process continues smoothly in the future. It should liaise with its IMC, who will be able to provide further advice and support on this. See recommendation 6.
NIO recognises that file-by-file review will not be sustainable for digital information and doesn’t feel that it currently has the skills to carry out digital appraisal. NIO needs to develop an approach for the appraisal and selection of digital information. This should include consideration of the legacy information on the shared drives that predate TRIM, and also ensuring that the team has the right skills. It should also sign up for The National Archives’ digital transfer training. See recommendation 7. 4.2 Implementing disposal decisions
Goal: The organisation understands the process for records disposal and consistently implements decisions in line with defined plans
Triggers for disposal
Paper records are identified for disposal through retention/disposal scheduling and through the annual appraisal and selection processes. Destruction of registered files must be signed off by the Head of Records and Information Management. TRIM is updated to show the status of destroyed records. Signed review sheets authorising destruction are retained. Secure on site shredding is used to destroy files.
At present, disposal from TRIM has to be carried out manually. Files for disposal are tagged and this is then carried out by the TRIM Administrator. NIO is working to address this issue by simplifying the file plan so disposal instructions can be applied (see section 2.1).
Sensitivity review
The knowledgeable and experienced former civil servants mentioned in section 4.1 also carry out sensitivity review of paper records. The process is time-consuming – they read files from ‘cover to cover’. However, it would be hard to streamline or speed up the process as even the most innocuous records can have sensitivities. The type of sensitivities found within NIO records – in particular around national security, international relations and ‘legacy issues’ – are likely to be current for decades and the impact of release potentially severe (for example, loss of life if names of informants or agents are revealed). The team estimates that they are able to release around 90% of files with redaction rather than having to close the whole file. Given the sensitivity of the information it holds, NIO should ensure that it continues to allocate appropriate resource to this work. See recommendation 6. NIO uses a number of pieces of guidance to inform sensitivity review. These include The National Archives’ guidance and Cabinet Office Guidance on Security and Intelligence Related Records – ‘The Red Book’ – which contains some guidance specifically relating to Northern Ireland matters, as well as some internal notes. Again the process is, at least in part, dependent on the knowledge and experience of current review staff. NIO should ensure that it captures the knowledge of these staff members where it isn’t already included in existing guidance. See recommendation 6.
The quality of NIO’s closure applications to the Advisory Council is generally good. A significant number of applications are submitted, with few challenges from the Advisory Council. The team receives useful advice and feedback from the Schedule Application Manager at The National Archives.
NIO has not yet started to develop an approach for the sensitivity review of digital information and needs to acquire new skills to deal with this. NIO should follow the work that The National Archives and other government departments are doing on digital sensitivity review, particularly around tools to assist the process, and should start to plan and develop an approach. A good starting point would be the research report on The application of technology-assisted review to born-digital records transfer, Inquiries and beyond recently published by The National Archives.¹ See recommendation 7.
Transfer and planning
NIO is currently slightly behind in its transition to the 20-year rule. At the time of the IMA, it was reviewing files for 1989, had transferred files up to 1986 and files for 1987-88 were at the preparation and Advisory Council stage. The Head of R&IM considered NIO to be around three to four months behind the ideal transfer time for the year. The increase in volume of paper files from the late 1980s onwards will exacerbate this issue and NIO could fall further behind as a result (see section 4.1). NIO is starting to think about how to address this and has put together a spreadsheet
¹ nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/policy-process/reviewing-digital-records-management-government/research/ to work out how to catch up: the plan is to take this to the Advisory Council for approval. NIO has also been liaising with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to find out more about their approach. NIO should also liaise with its IMC on this, who will be able to provide further advice and support. See recommendation 6.
NIO has not yet developed an approach for the appraisal, selection and sensitivity review of digital information, although it is starting to prepare a roadmap. It is important that NIO starts to plan for this, starting with legacy information on the shared drives that predate TRIM. NIO has attended The National Archives’ Digital Transfer User Group meetings: it should to continue to engage with and learn from The National Archives’ and other government departments’ experience. NIO should also sign up for the new Digital Transfer Training at The National Archives. See recommendation 7.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4230-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 51,
"total-input-tokens": 91583,
"total-output-tokens": 18821,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
177,
1
],
[
177,
177,
2
],
[
177,
1795,
3
],
[
1795,
2506,
4
],
[
2506,
4631,
5
],
[
4631,
6751,
6
],
[
6751,
8645,
7
],
[
8645,
10706,
8
],
[
10706,
12484,
9
],
[
12484,
14268,
10
],
[
14268,
16308,
11
],
[
16308,
17147,
12
],
[
17147,
18661,
13
],
[
18661,
20914,
14
],
[
20914,
22998,
15
],
[
22998,
25054,
16
],
[
25054,
25875,
17
],
[
25875,
27171,
18
],
[
27171,
29113,
19
],
[
29113,
30900,
20
],
[
30900,
33062,
21
],
[
33062,
34810,
22
],
[
34810,
36769,
23
],
[
36769,
37319,
24
],
[
37319,
39042,
25
],
[
39042,
41531,
26
],
[
41531,
43675,
27
],
[
43675,
45387,
28
],
[
45387,
47675,
29
],
[
47675,
49751,
30
],
[
49751,
51895,
31
],
[
51895,
52261,
32
],
[
52261,
53632,
33
],
[
53632,
55337,
34
],
[
55337,
57195,
35
],
[
57195,
58977,
36
],
[
58977,
60593,
37
],
[
60593,
62343,
38
],
[
62343,
64005,
39
],
[
64005,
65798,
40
],
[
65798,
67454,
41
],
[
67454,
69303,
42
],
[
69303,
70887,
43
],
[
70887,
73068,
44
],
[
73068,
75001,
45
],
[
75001,
76725,
46
],
[
76725,
78560,
47
],
[
78560,
80697,
48
],
[
80697,
82501,
49
],
[
82501,
84726,
50
],
[
84726,
85646,
51
]
]
} |
8acd599243e67f5bb66a47ef8d770aac38857022 | Llŷn – disgrifiad cryno
Penrhyn eang ac eiconig yw Llŷn, sy’n ymestyn allan i Fôr Iwerddon, a’i llawr gwlad arfordirol â chefnidir o fryniau sy’n cynnwys amlinell wych Yr Eifl: mynyddoedd sydd fel petaent yn plymio’n syth i’r môr. O bennau’r mannau uchel hyn, ceir golygfeydd eang dros Fae Caernarfon i Ynys Môn, a thros Fae Tremadog at y Rhinogydd. Mewn tywydd clir iawn gellir gweld, yn y pellter, arfordiroedd Sir Benfro a Cheredigion i'r de, a Mynyddoedd Wicklow dros Fôr Iwerddon i'r gorllewin.
Mae'r ardal yn cynnwys y rhan helaethaf o Ardal o Harddwch Naturiol Eithriadol Llŷn, ardal y mae rhannau helaeth ohoni'n Arfordir Treftadaeth. Mae'r ardal yn cynnwys Ynys Enlli, dros Swnt Enlli i'r de orllewin: ac y mae pobl yn byw ar yr ynys o hyd. Roedd anheddiad Cristnogol hynafol ar Enlli: mae llawer o seintiau'r Eglwys gynnar wedi'u claddu arni ac, o'r herwydd, fe ddaeth yn gyrchfan pererinion. Yn draddodiadol, cam olaf y bererindod hon oedd y daith o bentref Aberdaron, lle bu'r bardd Eingl-gymreig enwog R. S. Thomas yn ficer, ar un adeg.
Y pentrefi mwyaf yw Morfa Nefyn ac Abersoch, yr olaf yn boblogaidd iawn gyda thwristiaid a gwersyllwyr oherwydd ei thraethau tywodlyd cysgodol a'r hwylio. Ar wahân i'r mannau sy'n denu'r tyrfaoedd, mae gwlad Llŷn fel petai ar wahân i weddill Cymru. Mae'n ardal wledig iawn, ac yn un o gadarnleoeedd yr iaith Gymraeg o hyd. Mae Canolfan Iaith a Threftadaeth Cymru Nant Gwrtheyrn yno, ar lan y môr mewn dyffryn diarffordd yng nghanol yr Eifl. Yn draddodiadol, cam olaf y bererindod hon oedd y daith o bentref Aberdaron, lle bu'r bardd Eingl-gymreig enwog R. S. Thomas yn ficer, ar un adeg.
The largest settlements are in the Morfa Nefyn and Abersoch areas, the latter being very popular with tourists and campers for its sheltered sandy beaches and boating. Honeypots aside, Llŷn feels physically remote from the rest of Wales. It is a very rural area, remaining a stronghold of the Welsh language. The Nant Gwrtheyrn Welsh Language and Heritage Centre is situated by the sea in a remote valley by Yr Eifl / The Rivals. Elsewhere, agriculture remains a way of life and the pattern of small stone-built villages, farms and cottages, often whitewashed or pebble-dashed and merging into their landscape, resembles parts of south west Ireland. There is relatively little other development.
Summary description
Llŷn is a broad and iconic Welsh promontory extending out into the Irish Sea, its coastal lowlands set against a backdrop of hills which include the spectacular profiles of Yr Eifl / The Rivals that appear to fall directly into the sea. These high vantage points afford panoramic views over Caernarfon Bay to Anglesey, and over Tremadoc Bay to the Rhinogydd. In very clear weather there are distant prospects south to the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire coasts, and west over the Irish Sea to the Wicklow Mountains.
The area incorporates the greater part of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which has large sections of Heritage Coast. The area includes Bardsey Island, across Bardsey Sound to the south west. Still inhabited today, Bardsey had an ancient Christian settlement, was the burial place of many saints of the Early church, and in consequence become a place of pilgrimage. Traditionally, the last stage of this journey was from the village of Aberdaron, whose one time vicar was the famous Anglo-Welsh poet R.S. Thomas.
The Key Characteristics
A peninsula – Wales’ longest, extending into the Irish Sea.
A northern spine of distinctively profiled, angular hills - formed of erosion resistant igneous rocks, some mountainous with an upland character, often with exposed rock and scree. Rocky headlands and sandy bays - Igneous rock headlands and coastal cliffs form anchor points for smoothly curved shorelines and coves.
Very high cliffs – where the Rivals rise abruptly from the coast and form a prominent backdrop in longer distance views.
Coastal lowlands overlain with localised glacial deposits – some of which form soft cliffs on meeting the coastline.
Ecological interest of the coastline - is internationally and nationally recognised, as are the Cors Geirch marshlands, which occupy the site of a former glacial lake.
Glacial melt water-formed minor river valleys - such as the Afon Soch that dissects the area.
Soils - Seasonally wet, deep loam soils, with stony loams occurring on the hard igneous rocks.
Predominantly pastoral farmland in the lowlands - with geometric and occasionally irregular shaped fields set within a network of hedgerows or ‘cloddiau’ hedgebanks.
Sheep grazing and areas of open moor in the uplands - with stone walls and fences in localised areas.
A generally windswept landscape - especially in coastal areas, but with localised shelter in minor valleys and on lea slopes where there are occasional woodlands.
Prehistoric and funerary remains - are well represented with numerous ritual and monumental sites including chambered tombs, standing stones, cairns, ring ditches and Iron Age hillforts on the higher summits such as Tre’r Ciri, Carn Fadryn and Garn Boduan. Early Christian ecclesiastical sites such as St Mary’s Abbey on Bardsey Island are also notable.
Settlement pattern - focuses around the coastline by sheltered headlands or river mouths, none larger than village-scale. Small villages and hamlets cluster around parish churches in the interior.
Tourism – recognised as an AONB with various popular ‘honeypots’ around the coastline including Nefyn, Aberdaron, Abersoch and Llanbedrog. Caravan and chalet sites are common around Abersoch. Watersports are very popular in the Abersoch area.
Visual and Sensory profile
The Llŷn peninsula has a reputation for different weather on each side. The coastline includes high cliffs, caves, stacks and islands, and a series of curved sandy beaches between protruding rocky headlands, all of which contribute greatly to its natural beauty and character. The marine influence ensures a mild climate; however, many parts are exposed to prevailing south westerly winds, to the extent that trees and hedges noticeably lean away, especially towards the end of the peninsula. The colours of the natural vegetation create a strong visual impression from a palate that varies according to the season. Some of Llŷn’s most memorable characteristics include the lush green of its pastures, the purple of the heather on the hills and yellow of the gorse in the heaths and rough pasture.
Many isolated, steep sided, rounded or pointed, high hills with exposed rock and scree rise up across the area. The main range and the highest hills run in a chain close to the north west coast, where most dramatically at Yr Eifl / The Rivals they plunge down into the sea. Flanked by towering headlands and steep slopes on either side, and by the sea to the west, the narrow valley of Nant Gwrtheyrn is almost land- and sea-locked, creating a very unusual sense of drama and physical isolation. Dramatic vistas of the approaches to the hills of Llŷn are to be particularly gained from the A499 Caernarfon to Pwllheli road, as it is flanked by Gyrn Ddu and Yr Eifl / The Rivals. Llŷn is a largely tranquil, peaceful agricultural area, although the volume of summer visitors, campers and water sports in and around the larger villages along the coast at Morfa Nefyn, Abersoch and Aberdaron enliven the area and its limited amenities considerably.
The angular skylines of steep sided rocky hills: Garn Fadrun © John Briggs
The windswept coastal fringe at Uwchmynydd: distinctive hedgerow patterns but very few trees. © John Briggs
Looking down Llŷn from Yr Eifl, showing the spine of angular hills and the lowlands. © John Briggs The dramatic cliffs where the northern spine of uplands plunges into the sea. © John Briggs
Abersoch - rock headlands forming anchor points for smoothly curved shorelines and coves. © John Briggs
Gryn Goch, Gryn Ddu and Moel-Pen-llechog from the slopes of Yr Eifl above Trefor village. © John Briggs
**Geological Landscape influences**
Lŷn forms a broad peninsula that extends a considerable distance into the Irish Sea. The alignment of the northern coastline follows a major geological fault system. The Precambrian rocks of Lŷn are overlain to the east by younger Cambrian and Ordovician sedimentary and volcanic strata, which in places have been intruded by igneous rocks that form prominent steep, angular hills such as Carn Fadryn (371m) in the central zone, and a spine of hills along the north coast, the highest being Yr Eifl / The Rivals (564m).
Successive advances of glacier ice have left glacial striations and far-travelled boulders. Melt waters excavated impressive channels that are now either dry valleys or occupied only by small streams, such as Afon Soch and Afon Horon. The thickest deposits of drift occur in large embayments at Porth Neigwl, Porth Ceiriad and Aberdaron Bay. In northern Llŷn, mounds and ridges of sand and gravel banked against the seaward side of the hills are believed to have accumulated when the Irish Sea ice sheet became ‘pinned’ against the northern edge of the hills. Ice was still able to extend through a gap in the hills west of Garn Boduan to occupy the present wetland area of Cors Geirch. Melting ice left a series of ice-dammed lakes that became in-filled with sand and gravel terraces. Today, the various peat bogs, sand dunes, screes and alluvial fans of the post-glacial period across Llŷn are still visible.
The rugged tip of Llŷn and northern coastlines are characterized by short headlands separated by narrow embayments, the positions of which are controlled by variations in rock type and the presence of geological fault lines. The drift-filled embayments at Porth Neigwl, Porth Ceiriad and Aberdaron present narrow sandy beaches, flanked by long, erosion-resistant headlands backed by cliffs dominated by soft glacial deposits that contribute cobbles to the upper beach. The beaches face to the south or south-west, directly into the dominant south westerly Atlantic swell.
**Landscape Habitats influences**
Much of the area is enclosed pastoral farmland where hedgerows and hedge banks (including traditional 'cloddiau') provide both shelter for stock and ecological interest. This shelter is especially notable towards the end of the peninsula where there are prevailing south westerly winds and very few trees.
In contrast to this are a few sheltered small valleys where scrub and deciduous woodland occur, including those of the Afon Daron, Afon Horon, Afon Soch and Nant y Gledrydd. Woodland and scrub is also present in the shelter of some north east facing hillsides, such as on Mynydd Rhiw, and at Machroes and Llanbedrog. There are also various woodlands associated with country estates, such as at Nanhoron and Plas Boduan. Breaking these patterns entirely are a few isolated blocks of coniferous plantation, some of which even straddle exposed hillsides, notably at Garn Boduan.
Elsewhere there are a number of upland habitats associated with the hills. There is a distinct ridge of these running from the south to north coasts, characterised by acid grassland and dry heath habitats together with areas of bracken and coniferous plantation. Along the northern spine the upland areas are higher, more extensive and include Yr Eifl / The Rivals, Bwlch Mawr, Gyrn Ddu, Gyrn Goch and Moel Bronmiod, where heath habitats are more dominant. There are a number of other isolated hills with heath, including Mynydd Rhiw and Carn Fadryn. Exposed crags and screes on some of the steeper upland hillsides result in a notably limited vegetation cover.
Wet flushes add to the ecological interest of upland areas, whilst a small number of bog/mire sites are also present, most notably at Cors Llyferin (SSSI), Cors Geirch (SSSI, SAC, Ramsar), Aber Geirch (SSSI) and Cors Hirdre (SSSI, SAC). These sites are generally associated with poorly draining ground-water gley or peat soils and are of great ecological value, particularly in relation to rare plants and invertebrates. Much of the Llyn coastline is in the Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau SAC with SSSI covering almost the entire length of coastline. Bardsey Island (SSSI, SPA, SAC and NNR) and the hard cliffs that extend around the southern tip of the Llyn (SSSI, SPA, SAC) are of particular significance for their breeding seabird colonies.
**Historic Landscape influences**
Llŷn’s landscape exhibits a rich diversity of archaeological features ranging from Mesolithic settlements and hunting sites, Neolithic chambered tombs to Bronze Age farmsteads, funerary and ritual sites, and Iron Age hill forts. The area’s proximity to Ireland may have played a formative role in the early settlement of Lŷn. There is little evidence for Roman settlement, but Medieval relics include ecclesiastical sites such as the ‘clas’ church at Clynnog Fawr, the chapel and well at Capel Anelog and the ruins of St Mary’s Abbey on Bardsey Island, a site of Medieval pilgrimage that is steeped in myth and legend. Historic parks and gardens including Cefnamlwch and part of the landscape setting of Boduan are significant landscape elements.
Settlement pattern is represented primarily by compact nucleated coastal fishing villages such as Aberdaron, Abersoch and Morfa nefyn, which today are much sustained by tourism. Nefyn was founded as a Medieval borough in the 13th century. Local stone and slate are much in evidence, and walls are often rendered with whitewash. Trefor, the workers’ village at the foot of The Rivals granite quarry, and Nant Gwrtheyrn nearby are the only industrial-era settlements here, although Nant Gwrtheyrn has found a new lease of life as the Welsh Language and Heritage Centre. Settlement is otherwise confined to isolated whitewashed cottages and clifftop villas, though modern buildings merge less well as they are often of standardised designs, estate and caravan site developments fitting poorly with the long-established historic landscape.
**Cultural Landscape influences**
Traditionally this has been, and remains, a last embattled bastion of Welsh identity and tradition, remote from centres of authority, though well situated on the Celtic seaway between Britain and Ireland, and as such known to classical antiquity. Bardsey, the monastic island near the tip of the peninsula, also touches a pre-Christian Celtic past in its evocation of the magical other-world island in the setting sun. The 20th century artist Brenda Chamberlain celebrated Bardsey in Tide Race. Influence from Ireland is suggested in Lŷn’s prehistoric archaeology, though modern scholarship discounts the suggestion that the name Lŷn is cognate with Leinster. More recently, in the contest to establish a reliable route to Ireland at the beginning of the 19th century, the southerly route via Porth Dinllaen lost to Telford’s northerly route across Anglesey to Holyhead.
Lŷn’s long sense of separation even from the rest of Wales and its remoteness from centres of authority is reflected in the way in which Catholicism survived, and Puritanism grew, even in neighbouring gentry houses in the 17th century. More recently the work of the priest-poet R.S. Thomas, one time vicar of St Hywyn (Aberdaron) with St Mary (Bodferi), and rector of Rhiw with Llanfaelrhys, has celebrated the traditional Welsh-language culture of the area, and its strong identity. This is reflected also in the establishment of the Welsh Language Centre in Nant Gwrtheyrn. Tourism is nevertheless an inescapable part of the modern cultural landscape.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4232-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 14697,
"total-output-tokens": 4137,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
373,
1
],
[
373,
3668,
2
],
[
3668,
7142,
3
],
[
7142,
7694,
4
],
[
7694,
8379,
5
],
[
8379,
12043,
6
],
[
12043,
15536,
7
]
]
} |
a4211bc493de152697eaba65fb5a04eceba203a5 | Rhos – Disgrifiad cryno
Yn gymharol anhysbys i dwristiaid, mae cefn gwlad tonnog y cantref hwn yn dirwedd ddeniadol, annirnad ei hapêl. Prin yw ei boblogaeth, ond fe’i croesir gan rwydwaith o fflydd cefn gwlad culion, gydag ambell i bentref cnewyllol o dai cerrig gwyngalchog â thoi llechi, neu aneddiadau llawr dyffryn fel Llanfair Talhaearn a Llangernyw. Mae llawer o’r eithaf bryniog, ond ceir sawl dyffryn, hefyd. Yn hanesyddol, dyma fagwrfa ysgrifenwyr a beirdd o bwys, fel Twm o’r Nant, y bardd a’r anterliwtiwr, a’r athrylith anwadal hwnnw, Robert Roberts, y ‘Sgolor Mawr’. Yma hefyd cafwyd gweddillion y Cymro cyntaf, fu’n byw mewn ogof ym Mhontnewydd yng ngwaelodion Dyffryn Elwy tua 225,000 o flynyddoedd yn ôl. Ywen mynwent Llangernyw yw un o’r pethau byw hynaf yn y byd. Mae’r ardal yn gadarnle i’r Gymraeg.
Summary description
Comparatively little known by tourists, this is nevertheless a subtly appealing and attractive rural landscape of rolling and undulating countryside. It is sparsely settled, but is traversed by a network of narrow rural lanes and interspersed only occasionally with compact, nucleated villages of stone, slate and white-washed render, or by valley-floor settlement such as Llanfair Talhaiarn and Llangernyw. Much of the area has a character verging on upland, yet the Rhos Hills include some lowland valleys. Historically the area nurtured some important writers and poets, such as Twm o’r Nant, the poet and writer of interludes, and the erratic genius Robert Roberts ‘Sgolor Mawr’. Within this area lived the first attested Welsh man, in a cave at Pontnewydd in the Lower Elwy Valley, around 225,000 years ago. The yew tree in Llangernyw churchyard is one of the oldest living things in the world. This area remains strongly Welsh in speech.
Key Characteristics
| Rural inland foothills and valleys | that rise to the adjacent Denbigh Moors to the south. | |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Bedrock geology | is composed primarily of Silurian sandstone and argillaceous rock of the Ludlow and Wenlock Series, in addition to small areas of Carboniferous limestone and areas of slaty mudstone and siltstone. | | Extensive drift deposits | glacial till overlays the solid geology giving rise to the undulating land form of the area. | | River valleys and flood plains | river alluvium and fluvio-glacial river terrace deposits are present. | | An undulating land form | comprising a series of ridges and valleys associated with the river catchment, including the Cledwen and the Aled. A range in grades of slope. | | Soils | well drained fine loamy/silty typical brown earth soils, with seasonally wet silty soils over shale in the river valleys. | | Sheep grazed pasture | predominant land cover | | Occasional woodlands | often occurring on the river valley slopes, for example on the Clywedog and the Ystrad, and running up riverside slopes. | | Mixed field patterns | often geometric but varies widely in scale, from small to large size fields. A denser network of mixed hedgerows with more trees in sheltered valleys, running up to sparse, windswept hedges and fences occupying areas of former moorland. | | Archaeology | a number of sites occupy the more elevated parts of the area, including Neolithic burial chambers, Bronze Age round barrows and cairns, and Iron Age hillforts such as Mynydd Y Gaer. The Pontnewydd Cave is internationally renowned for evidence of the earliest known humans in Wales. | | Sparsely settled | affording rural peace and tranquillity, with wide views from the higher points and a sense of intimacy and enclosure in the valleys close by. |
Visual and Sensory profile
This quiet pastoral landscape of rolling hills and valleys lies between the better-known areas of the Conwy Valley, the Vale of Clwyd, the Denbigh Moors and the restless coastal strip to the north. The land rises gradually to the south with the Denbigh Moors acting as a bleak southern skyline from the higher vantage points. The majority of rivers flow to the north and east towards the Vale of Clwyd. The valleys of the Elwy, Aled, Cledwen and Ystrad with their steep sides and narrow valley floors form enclosed and intimate landscapes in their own right. Fringing some of the valleys (in particular the Elwy) are a series of distinctive rounded, open hills with bracken and small rock outcrops on the upper slopes giving way to moorland heath on the tops. These form natural focal points and present a contrast in the otherwise, gently rolling, green landscape.
The majority of the small, rural, nucleated settlements are situated within the valleys and joined by a sparse network of main roads, although not generally busy, tend to reduce tranquillity locally. The general settlement pattern, however, is of widely scattered, small rural farmsteads stewarding the land. Occasional parklands such as at Dol Wen provide a contrast with its formal valley floor location and water features enhanced by the backdrop of steep forested hills to the south.
Deciduous woodland clothes the steep valley sides in many places, adding a sense of drama and enclosure. There are also occasional small copses, however, there are rectilinear coniferous forestry plantations west of Hafodunos Hall, near Llangernyw, which together with the backcloth of Eryri to the west, create an appreciably singular character. From these western hills and ridges, more open to the north, Eryri is widely visible.
Moorland fringes with woods running up stream valleys. Denbigh Moors beyond. © John Briggs
A quiet, rural, undeveloped area, mainly with pasture. Sparse settlement. © John Briggs Llansannan, one of the small nucleated villages tucked into sheltered valleys. © John Briggs
A number of higher rounded hills and small areas of moorland occur within the Rhos Hills area, of which the distant example in this view is east of Llansannan. © John Briggs
**Geological Landscape influences**
This is an area of undulating land form that forms the foothills of the Denbigh Moors to the south. The highest point reaches 420m, but there are a number of lower hills – Moel Tywysog, Moelfre Uchaf, Mwdwl Eithin and Foel Gasyth. The bedrock geology consists predominantly of Silurian sedimentary rocks; the sequence is dominated by turbidites, a rock type consisting of repetitive sequences of sandstones, siltstones and mudstones, which were deposited by turbid currents at the edge of a once ancient sea in the area. In the east of the area, there are faulted blocks of Lower Carboniferous limestone, which form the western side of the Vale of Clwyd. This area of limestone underlies the higher parts of Denbigh, including around the castle, and forms a ridge which extends to the coast at Abergele. At Pontnewydd, the Afon Elwy has cut a deep gorge in the limestone creating prominent cliffs which dominate the valley sides.
The area's landscape has been radically re-shaped by several episodes of glaciation and was influenced by Welsh ice sheets moving from the south and west, and by Irish Sea ice sheets from the north. The greater part of the area is, therefore, covered by till (boulder clay) deposited from the retreating Welsh ice sheets, with till from the Irish Sea ice sheets blanketing the eastern slopes alongside the Vale of Clwyd. Major swarms of drumlins (ice-moulded mounds of sediment) contribute towards the undulating, 'basket of eggs' character of the area east of Eglwysbach, around Llansannan, and between Llanefydd and Llanrhaiadr. The drumlins vary in size, but are commonly about 400m long and 150m wide, and between 3 to 30m in height. The orientation of these landforms provides important information about the directions of ice movement across the region. Caves found along the limestone crop were occupied and used by humans and animals at various times in the later parts of the Quaternary Ice Ages. Human and animal bones, stone tools and other artefacts provide vital evidence for changing climatic and environmental conditions.
A further important influence on the area is fluvial or river processes, whereby a number of streams and rivers dissect the area, contributing to its undulating topography. Rivers such as the Caledfryn, the Aled and the Derfyn flow southwards off the Denbigh Moors to form tributaries of the Elwy which itself joins the Clwyd north of St Asaph.
**Landscape Habitats influences**
The name Rhos (‘heath’ or ‘moor’) reflects what were once extensive semi-natural rough grazings in the area, now limited to small remnants of heath and moor on the hills and in patches of wetter land. Areas of wet land and small natural lakes remain. Chwythlyn is a small mesotrophic lake in the west of the area, showing a gradation of habitats from open water through reedbeds to willow and alder carr. Reed buntings breed in the reeds and there is a varied duck population in winter. Llyn Ty’n y Llyn is a similar small lake with an extensive bog moss habitat forming a floating mat over the open water, enabling scrub encroachment.
This agricultural landscape of small fields and woods is much influenced by the geology of sandstone and occasional limestone outcrops, creating sandy and loamy soils, occasionally calcareous in nature. The agricultural landscape is one of predominantly sheep-grazed pastures, set in a network of small fields, bounded by mature hedges and individual trees. Steeper slopes where improvements are difficult to manage and maintain are now often covered in gorse or bracken, creating both varied habitats and splashes of colour in the landscape across the seasons.
The landscape is well wooded, especially in the narrow valleys of the Elwy, Meirchion and small tributaries of the Conwy. The Elwy valley north of Henllan, is of interest for its caves, semi-natural broadleaved woodland, its rare flowering plant assemblage and its scarce bryophytes. The woodland is mainly ash and oak, with a hazel understorey, but, based on limestone, has an important wooded limestone pavement with an area of calcareous grassland adjoining. Coed Llys Aled near Llansannan, is a good example of mixed broadleaved woodland developing on acid soils, with sessile oak and rowan predominant, and a diverse ground flora including oak fern, rare in North Wales, and sweet cicely. Other extensive valley-side woodlands occur in the valleys of the Clywedog and Nant Mawr, just north of Ruthin. There are few conifer plantations in this character area, notably at Wenlili in the south-west and Coed Bryndansi in the north-west
**Historic Landscape influences**
Despite its name, the area as a whole was made up of some good corn-growing land and some good pasture and meadowland. Its prosperity is reflected in a number of historic parklands and landed estates, which developed from Medieval settlements. These include the 17th century estate of Garthewin, with later additions and its associated estate buildings, lodges, cottages and terraces. Hafodunos Hall (built in 1861 by the Sandbach family) and its landscape setting, to the south of Rhos y Mawn is particular notable. The estates sponsored the enclosure of the higher ground of the area, and the building of large courtyard farms. The area is also home to some small nucleated villages. Llanfair Talhaiarn is the largest, a picturesque location adjacent to the Elwy, built around a small village square. Henllan boasts a small castle.
The Elwy Valley is the location of Pontnewydd Cave, internationally renowned as the source of the oldest known human remains in Wales. Early Neanderthal bone and teeth fragments found there have been scientifically dated and prove that the cave was in use about a quarter of a million years ago. Further evidence of early archaeology in the area is provided by various prehistoric funerary and ritual monuments, with sites including the Neolithic chambered tomb at Tyddyn Bleiddyn, Cefn, round barrows and cairns on the higher summits, and the Iron Age hillfort at Mynydd y Gaer.
**Cultural Landscape influences**
This area nurtured some of the most remarkable men of modern Wales. Twm o’r Nant (1739-1810), the poet and writer of satirical interludes, was born, bred and married within this area. A later writer in a different tradition, but who took an equally acerbic view of his countrymen and in particular the rich and pompous, was Robert Roberts ‘Sgolor Mawr’ (1834-1885), clergyman, scholar, newspaperman, grammarian, alcoholic, who was born in Hafod Bach, Llangernyw and whose career included working as a tutor, a curate, a gold-digger at Ballarat, and as a journalist before returning home to die of drink and drug-addiction. His Life and Opinions, unpublished until after his death, is not only a remarkable portrait of 19th century Wales, but one of the most extraordinary of Victorian spiritual autobiographies. Another satirist was the architect-poet John Jones (Talhaiarn, 1810-1869), who was born and died (by his own hand) in the Harp Inn, Llanfair Talhaiarn; he worked on the Crystal Palace and on Rothschild’s mansion at Mentone. The philosopher Sir Henry Jones (1852-1922) was also a son of Llangernyw; a lecturer variously at Aberystwyth, Bangor, St Andrew’s and Glasgow, developing the interpretation of Hegel propounded by his own professor, Edward Caird, at Glasgow, whom he eventually succeeded. His birthplace is preserved as a museum.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4233-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 13376,
"total-output-tokens": 3506,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
549,
1
],
[
549,
4181,
2
],
[
4181,
5825,
3
],
[
5825,
6391,
4
],
[
6391,
10222,
5
],
[
10222,
13554,
6
]
]
} |
e6e330d92eb6fdfd1ebe0d673038c967f8f21b59 | Epynt – disgrifiad cryno
Mae Epynt yn nwyrain y Canolbarth, a’i chraidd yw llwyfandir tywodfaen, gwyntog Mynydd Epynt, a groestorir gan ddyffrynnoedd (lle ceir tir pori) a nentydd cyflym. Defnyddir llawer o’r llwyfandir yn faes hyfforddi milwrol, a chafodd hyn sawl effaith anarferol ar gymeriad y dirwedd. Cyflyngir mynediad y cyhoedd i dir agored, ac y mae amryw dirweddau a thydynnod amaethyddol yn wag ers eu meddiannu ar gyfer hyfforddiant milwrol yn y 1940au. Ceir planhigfeydd conwydd newydd, hynod ar yr hyn sydd, fel arall, yn llwyfandir o weunydd agored, uchel.
Mae rhannau deheuol y llwyfandir yn is, ac o ganlyniad mae tiroedd wedi’u cau yn rhannau uchaf ochrâu’r dyffrynnoedd, a cheir rhwydwaith o lonydd culion a gwrthwynebedd trwchus. Prin yw’r boblogaeth, gydag ychydig aneddiadau yng ngwaelodion ar gyfer hyfforddiant milwrol. Mae patrwm o dyddynnod carreg gwasgaredig, llawer ohonynt wedi’u rendro a’u gwyngalchu. Mae llawer o ddefaid yn y bryniau, a llawer o engheiffiau o wahanu pendant rhwng tir agored y fyddin, nad yw wedi'i wella ac, yn is i lawr, porfeydd amgaeedig, wedi'u gwella, lle mae amaethu'n parhau heddiw. Yn hanesyddol, cysylltwyd y fro â cheffylau, ac y mae'r enw “Epynt” yn tarddu o ddau air Brythonaidd sy’n golygu “llwybrau'r ceffylau”.
**Summary description**
Epynt lies in central eastern Wales and is defined by the windswept, sandstone plateau of Mynydd Epynt, which is intersected by pastoral valleys and fast flowing streams. Much of the plateau is used as a military training range and this has had a number of unusual effects on landscape character. Public access is limited on the unenclosed land whilst some former agricultural landscapes and farmsteads have been abandoned since their compulsory acquisition for military training in the 1940s. Curious new coniferous plantations appear on the otherwise open high moorland plateau.
The southern parts of the plateau are lower in altitude and in consequence have field enclosures running higher up valley sides, and a network of narrow lanes and thick hedgerows. The area is sparsely populated, with the few hamlets located in the lower valleys. There is a pattern of scattered stone farmsteads, rendered and whitewashed in many cases.
There are many sheep in the upland area and many instances of a clear division between the unimproved, open military range, including abandoned fields, and the improved, enclosed field pastures of lower levels that continue to be farmed today. The area has historically been associated with horses and the name ‘Epynt’ is derived from Brythonic words ‘ep’ + ‘hynt’, meaning "horse paths".
**Key Characteristics**
| Upland plateau | formed from Devonian Old Red Sandstone, fringed by an outcrop of earlier, Silurian shales of the Ludlow Series. Higher to the north. | | Radiating small valleys and fast flowing streams | feeding the adjacent Usk, Wye and Tywi rivers. | | Rough sheep grazing on higher ground | | Pasture and hedgerows in geometric pattern in lower valleys | | Large and small conifer blocks | are a feature of the plateau. | | Military training activities and impacts | – on much of the plateau, with live firing and low flying military aircraft. | | Upland and wet habitats | with Mynydd Epynt the home of slender green feather-moss – a feature of upland flushes. | | Archaeology | Prehistoric ritual, religious and defensive features, including Bronze Age round barrows and Iron Age hillforts. Deserted medieval settlements are also in evidence. | | Settlement is sparse | concentrated in the valleys and at stream crossing points. | | Sense of tranquillity | wildness and remoteness on the tops, with views over sheltered valleys, with their mosaic of pasture fields, woodlands and quiet hamlets. |
**Visual and Sensory profile**
The Mynydd Epynt plateau is an untamed and remote, windswept landscape, with occasional geometric conifer blocks standing out on the skyline in contrast to the curved form of the topography. Settlement is sparse, with high levels of exposure instilling a sense of wildness, particularly in adverse weather conditions. Bridleways run for miles across the open moorland that forms gentle ridges between valleys.
Military infrastructure stands out from the remote character of the plateau in places, while the flying of red flags and sight of the occasional military vehicle are vivid indicators of the primary contemporary use of this landscape.
In contrast, the radiating valleys contain a rich mosaic of pasture fields, woodlands and fast-flowing streams. They have a softer, more sheltered, agricultural character, with narrow lanes and thick hedgerows. The valleys are peaceful and their hamlets are compact. Individual farmsteads are linked by a network of rural lanes. In this otherwise unified visual character, modern farm buildings occasionally draw the eye.
The effect of military operations resulted in some ‘abandoned’ former agricultural areas, complete with associated farmsteads. Effectively they are preserved in time and in some places the boundary between the unimproved range and the remaining farmed areas is marked by the extent of improved pasture.
The area as a whole largely retains a strong sense of tranquillity and remoteness with its low population density and lack of artificial lighting retaining dark night skies throughout. The high summits afford extensive views across the area and beyond, and notably north from the highest land, across the adjacent lowland Heart of Wales landscape. The southern-most parts of Epynt form a gentle, enclosed, rural, agricultural landscape. Field enclosures extend up most if not all of the valley sides in these areas and the wilder, open areas on their tops or to the north are hard to appreciate from valley bottoms. This view is north of the small village of Upper Chapel © John Briggs
The Epynt plateau slopes gently down on the southern side. Here the division between upland open and lowland enclosed landscapes is subtle, although it is clear here to see the distinction being expressed by the limit of improved pasture. © John Briggs Many qualities of mid and east Wales upland areas are seen in Epynt, however military presence, limited public access, and some curiously shaped plantations distinguish Epynt.
© John Briggs
The unenclosed high upland plateau of the Epynt military ranges, with an incongruous group of small plantations, presumably for cover and shelter. There are many of these about the range.
© John Briggs Viewpoint from the highest point on the B5419 road, looking north, down Cwm Graig-ddû. The Heart of Wales lowlands spreads across the middle distance, with the Cambrian Mountains rising to the left. © John Briggs
A detail in Cwm Graig-ddû showing the steep northern escarpment of Epynt and a clear division between improved, enclosed lowland pastures and open, unimproved upland moor and heath. © John Briggs Geological Landscape influences
This area is dominated by the uplands of the Epynt plateau, flanked to the north by the Irfon Valley, to the east by the Wye Valley, to the south by the Usk Valley and to the west by the Afon Brân and Afon Gwydderig which are tributaries of the Afon Tywi. The highest ground is in the northern sector of the plateau, with hills rising to over 450m, including Drum Ddu (474m), Banc y Celyn (472m) and Bryn Du (463m).
The plateau is dissected by river valleys, some draining south and south-east into the River Usk, including the Honddu, Afon Ysgir, Nant Brân and Cilieni, some draining north-east and east into the River Wye, including the Duhonw and Nant yr Offeiriad, and others draining north-east into the Afon Irfon, including the Cledan and Afon Dulas.
The oldest rocks are Ordovician marine mudstones and crop out in the Crychan Forest area. There are later mudstones and fine-grained, locally conglomerate, sandstones. Exposed to the north and north-west of the Mynydd Epynt escarpment are a variety of mudstone, siltstone and sandstone formations. On the Epynt Plateau are mudstones, sandstones and conglomerates, which record terrestrial deposition in a wide range of dominantly fluvial environments such as meandering channels and floodplains. Within these red beds a thin, but distinctive, band of airfall ash, recording distant volcanic activity. Strong folding of strata, is seen in the Crychan Forest area. Bedding is vertical and locally overturned on the tract of land known as the Myddfai Steep Belt.
The area is strongly dissected by NE-striking faults, many of which control the orientation of present-day river valleys, for example the Dulas Valley. On the Mynydd Epynt escarpment, bedding is inclined steeply to the south-east but dips progressively decrease towards the NE-trending Pentre Bach Syncline on Mynydd Epynt, where gentle dips have created distinctive arrays of scarp features.
North of the Usk Valley, ice that accumulated in the Cambrian Mountains (the Central Wales Ice Sheet) flowed south-eastwards into the Irfon Valley where it was deflected by the Mynydd Epynt escarpment. One tongue of ice escaped south-west across the Sugar Loaf col into the Tywi Valley via the Afon Brân, whilst another tongue flowed east into the Wye Valley. For a time the ice-sheet overtopped the Mynydd Epynt escarpment and flowed south into the Nant Brân and Cilieni valleys, finally merging with the Usk glacier. The effect was to over-steepen and over-deepen valleys and to deposit glacial material (till) both in the valleys and in hollows on the higher ground. Hummocky glacial deposits, occur in many of the river valleys (e.g. the Hondu and Cilieni). Those deposits forming cross-valley moraines, such as in the Hondu Valley, mark stand-still periods during valley glacier retreat, whilst thick sequences of silts record deposition in an impounded lake ahead of the ice front. The modern drainage system was established at the start of the Holocene, about 11,500 years ago, since when the glacial deposits have been progressively re-worked and re-deposited on the valley floors as alluvial gravels, sands, silts and clays. Scattered landslips are present in many areas, occurring where thick deposits of till blanketing over-steepened valley flanks have been undercut by meandering rivers and streams.
The underlying sandstone geology has produced well drained, coarse sandy and loamy soils of an acidic nature. The steep north and west slopes of the plateau are waterlogged with peat deposits occurring in places. Landscape Habitats influences
The military range includes both previously improved agricultural land as well as semi-natural rough grazing on the plateau top. During military use, grazing has continued, essentially as ranching, throughout the semi-natural and agriculturally improved areas.
Habitats on the range have been degraded as a result of many years of artillery bombardment and infantry use, however, small areas of moorland have been protected as SSSI. There is little heather on the Epynt plateau, but a range of semi-natural habitats occur, including large areas of semi-natural acid grassland and wet purple-moor grass dominated by degraded blanket bog, with wet flushes, bracken and scrub communities.
The wetter areas are home to an interesting variety of amphibians, including frogs, toads, lizards and newts. Mynydd Epynt SAC and SSSI comprises small areas of important habitat, where waterlogged soils have produced upland flushes supporting many interesting bryophytes such as slender green feather-moss, and grassland fungi, including 20 species of waxcap. The unusual management combination of military use and extensive sheep grazing, coupled with the very wet climate, helps maintain conditions ideal for mosses and fungi. Other notable habitats include fen-meadows such as Blaen Cilieni, one of the largest such sites in Brecknock, where marsh fern thrives in its only location in Powys.
Around the edge of the moorland, the former enclosed land has been used as part of the training area, with previously improved grassland now slowly reverting to rough grassland, often heavily grazed, with again a variety of interesting mosses and bryophytes that are dependent on the high rainfall of the area. More recently, a programme of hedge restoration and replanting has been undertaken in these areas, creating both military training obstacles and new habitats. Along with the 45 km of restored hedges, small areas of natural woodland have also been enclosed, and protected from grazing, leading to recolonisation by wood warbler and spotted flycatcher.
Bordering the range, and partly extending into it from the west there the large coniferous plantations of the Crychan Forest are a favoured haunt for red squirrel. To the east, additional large areas of conifer plantations occur around Llaneglwys. There is little broadleaved woodland in the area, other than some small blocks along valley sides and dingles, where undisturbed by military use.
Historic Landscape influences
Remains of settlement and human interaction with the Epynt area are evident in the landscape dating back thousands of years. On the higher ground of the plateau are a series of prehistoric ritual and funerary monuments, including Bronze Age round barrows and cairns. Areas overlooking the numerous valleys that cut through the plateau are the location of Iron Age hill forts and defensive enclosures.
Evidence for later, Medieval settlement and agriculture is present in the remains of deserted hut settlements, farmsteads and platform houses. The Norman period saw the construction of a series of defensive castles and enclosures, with the motte of Castell Madoc overlooking the Honddu stream being a particular example. These defensive structures are often found in strategic locations alongside watercourses or on lower valley slopes.
Settlement is sparse; concentrated in the valleys and at stream crossing points. The Sennybridge Training Area (SENTA) occupies the west of the area, with live firing and low flying military aircraft. This training area was established at the beginning of the Second World War, with the occupants of 54 farms being dispossessed. Many former buildings – farmsteads and pubs – stand empty and forlorn.
**Cultural Landscape influences**
This is an upland area which has traditionally looked southwards to Brecon but which nurtured its own strong traditions – of farming, of horse-breaking and of droving. It was also something of a nursery of clerics, beginning with St Cynog himself (fl. 500), son of Brychan, the founder-king of Brycheiniog. Merthyr Cynog was the birthplace of David Price the Orientalist (1762-1835), who went off to India and having enriched himself at the siege of Seringapatam, returned to Wales and to Brecon to write his Mahommedan History. Sadly, little is known of the bard Dafydd Epynt (fl. c. 1460).
This distinct and discrete landscape area, is little known in Wales through restricted access to the 30,000 acres of military training range, centred on Sennybridge. Although in today’s landscape, the sounds of live firing and the presence of low-flying military aircraft across the training area are intrusive and can create a sense of insecurity for some, they are a potent reminder of a modern world and its affairs beyond Wales.
In recent years the military authorities have actively encouraged public access, examples being the development of guided-walk trails on the Epynt Way designed to cater for the disabled, including wheelchair users. The Army has also initiated an active and extensive conservation programme within the site. Various drovers’ routes cross Mynydd Epynt, and the remoteness of the Drovers Arms bears witness to the trade which lasted throughout Wales, from the 14th century until the coming of the railways.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4234-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 18527,
"total-output-tokens": 4100,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
934,
1
],
[
934,
3960,
2
],
[
3960,
5514,
3
],
[
5514,
6106,
4
],
[
6106,
6501,
5
],
[
6501,
6911,
6
],
[
6911,
10486,
7
],
[
10486,
13730,
8
],
[
13730,
15797,
9
]
]
} |
07e3e3971fb985ac4a8a09cc84ecc6ae1a2d62f8 | Penrhyn Gŵyr – Disgrifiad cryno
Mae Penrhyn Gŵyr yn ymestyn i’r môr o ymyl gorllewinol ardal drefol ehangach Abertawe. Golyga ei ddaeareg fod ynddo amrywiaeth ysblennydd o olygfeydd o fewn ardal gymharol fechan, o olygfeydd carreg galch Pen Pyrrod, Three Cliffs Bay ac Oxwich Bay yng nglannau’r de i halwyndiroedd a thwyni tywod y gogledd. Mae trumiau tywodfaen yn nodweddu asgwrn cefn y penrhyn, gan gynnwys y man uchaf, Cefn Bryn: a cheir yno diroedd comin eang.
Canlyniad y golygfeydd eithriadol a’r traethau tywodlyd, euraidd wrth droed y clogwyni yw bod yr ardal yn denu ymwelwyr yn eu miloedd. Gall y prifyrdd fod yn brysur, wrth i bobl heidio at y traethau mwyaf golygfao. Mae pwysau twristiaeth wedi newid y cymeriad diwylliannol. Dyma’r AHNE gyntaf a ddynodwyd yn y Deyrnas Unedig ym 1956, ac y mae’r glannau wedi’u dynodi’n Arfordir Treftadaeth, hefyd. Erys yr ardal yn un wledig iawn. Mae’r trumiau’n ffurfio cyfres o rostiroedd uchel, graddol, agored. Rheng y bryniau ceir tirwedd amaethyddol gymysg, yn amrywio o borfeydd bychain â gwrychoedd uchel i gaeau mwy, agored. Yn rhai mannau mae’r hen batrymau caeau lleiniog yn parhau, gyda thirwedd “Vile” Rhosili yn oroesiad eithriadol. Ar lannau mwy agored y gorllewin, ac ar dir uwch, mae traddodiad cloddiau pridd a charreg yn parhau, sy’n nodweddiadol o ardaloedd lle bo coed yn brin. Nodwedd hynod yw’r gyfres o ddyffrynnoedd bychain, serth, sy’n aml yn goediog, sydd â’u nentydd yn aber ar hyd glannau’r de.
Mae cefnen hir Cefn Bryn yn gwahanu’r gogledd a’r de. Bu i lannau’r gogledd, o Dre-gŵyr i Groffty, orffenol diwydiannol graddfa fechan, a adlewyrchir yng nghymeriad yr aneddiadau: Tre-gŵyr, Pen-clawdd a Chroffty, er enghraifft. Yno mae’r glannau yn halwyndir agored, gyda sianelau lleidiog yn llifo allan i aber Llwchwr. Mae’r ardaloedd gorllewinol a deheuol ehangach yn bendant yn rhai amaethyddol, gyda ffermydd, ystadau maenorol a sawl pentref bychan. Mae eto gornelai tawel yn y dirwedd wledig hon, gydag aneddiadau hanesyddol o adeiladau gwyngalchog yn atgyfnerthu ymdeimlad traddodiadol o gymeriad bro. Mae yma helaethrwydd o weddillion archeolegol, gyda thystiolaeth nodedig o breswyliad dynol ers miloedd lawer yn goroesi yn ogofeydd y glannau.
Summary description
Gower is a coastal peninsula starting at the western edge of greater urban Swansea. Its geology gives rise to a wide variety of scenery in a relatively small area - from the south coast's superb limestone scenery at Worm’s Head, Three Cliff Bay and Oxwich Bay to the salt marshes and dune systems in the north. The most prominent inland features are the large areas of common, dominated by sandstone ridges including the high ground of Cefn Bryn. The outstanding scenery and golden sandy beaches backed by cliffs led to the area becoming an extremely popular tourist destination. Key roads can become busy and the most scenic beaches can become honey pots. Tourism pressures have changed the cultural character. It was the first AONB to be designated in the UK in 1956, while the coastline is also designated as Heritage Coast.
The area remains very rural. The ridges form a series of gentle, open, heath-covered ‘downs’. Between the hills there is a mixed agricultural landscape varying from small pastures enclosed with high hedges to larger open fields. In some areas, old strip field patterns remain, with the ‘Vile’ landscape at Rhossili being exceptional in it’s survival. In the more exposed western coastal and higher ground, the tradition of stone-faced earth hedge banks remains. This is typical in areas where there are few trees. A notable feature is the series of small but steep-sided and often wooded valleys, whose streams issue along the south coast.
The long spine ridge of Cefn Bryn separates north and south areas. The northern coast from Gowerton to Crofty had a small-scale industrial past, reflected in the character of their settlements, for example Gowerton, Penclawdd and Crofty. There the coast is open salt marsh, with muddy channels running out into the Burry inlet. This is the extensive and ecologically important estuary of the River Loughor. The larger southern and western areas are distinctly agricultural with farmsteads, manor estates and a number of small villages. There are still peaceful corners in this rural landscape, with historic settlements of whitewashed buildings reinforcing a traditional sense of place. The area is exceptionally rich in archaeology with remarkable evidence of human occupation over millennia surviving in coastal caves. Key Characteristics
Coastal peninsula - with exposed cliffs and sandy bays to the south and west and sheltered estuary with saltmarsh to the north. The neck of the peninsula is defined by the edge of the built up area of greater Swansea.
Carboniferous Limestone plateau – but intersected by the prominent Cefn Bryn ridge of old red sandstone. Millstone Grit separates coal measures to the NE.
Limestone cliffs and raised beaches – to the south on an exposed coast, with ESE-trending rocky headlands.
Sandy bays – on the south coast, popular for recreation and very scenic, e.g. Three Cliffs Bay – with a stream issuing across the sand and a natural arch on the cliff.
Mud flats and salt marsh – extensive areas in the Burry (Lougher) estuary to the north
Sand dunes – to the west, and long, open undeveloped beaches
Open heath and common especially on long, low hills across the spine of the area.
Narrow, twisting, small limestone valleys - often wooded, and emerging on the south coast. Some sections are dry (see geological influences), others have streams.
‘Vile’ Field system – medieval / post-medieval relict open strip field system and traditional boundaries, tracks and paths, Rhossili. Many long, thin or irregular shaped fields elsewhere, clusters of small fields, some larger improved ones.
Hedgebanks – stone-faced earth field enclosures in windswept areas and thicker hedgerows in sheltered valleys and further east.
Archaeology - with features dating from most phases of prehistory and history, from the Upper Palaeolithic period to the recent past. Notably at Paviland Cave, one of the most significant sites in Britain, radiocarbon dated remains 28,000BP.
Woodlands – a focus of sheltered valleys as well as plantations on Parc-le-Breos and areas closer to Swansea. Some mixed and coniferous plantations occur on the Millstone Grit areas. Broadleaved and mixed woodlands fringe streams and occupy some slopes in the east.
Commons – extensive and important for their dry and wet lowland heath habitats and as strongholds for populations of the southern damselfly and marsh fritillary.
Scattered settlements –clustered around Medieval churches or castles, linked by a network of often rural roads. Settlements abutting open commons. Retains rural, traditional character – in contrast to the immediately adjacent greater Swansea.
Very scenic - the area became Britain’s first AONB in 1956. A number of iconic, ‘voted best’ views, including Rhossili Bay, Three Cliffs Bay and Worms Head.
Tourism and recreation - traffic and the close proximity of Swansea bring large number of visitors. Honey pots result by popular beaches.
Swansea Airport - lies amidst flat heath land to the east, however in recent years use has just been for light aircraft.
Visual and Sensory profile
The overriding visual image is that of an area of outstanding natural beauty. It’s varied coastline is a principle defining feature and gives rise to a number of iconic ‘voted best’ views. The change in character between the adjacent developed, urban edge of greater Swansea to the east, and the tranquil, unspoilt, rural, remoter western end of Gower is remarkable. In particular, Rhossili Down slopes smoothly down to the vast empty sandy beach of Rhossili Bay. The beach is backed by dunes. To the north end of the bay the headland of Burry Holme is a visual feature. To the south end of the bay Worms Head forms a thin, strangely profiled peninsula at low tide, becoming an island at high tide. At Three Cliffs Bay the semi-enclosed sandy beach is framed by rocky headlands and a stream issues across the sand and past a natural rock arch on the cliff. There are many other examples of outstanding scenic coastal places too. The close proximity of Swansea and the numbers of tourists lead to busy honey pots forming in popular places, with many people enjoying beach recreation, walking and surfing.
Inland the countryside is gentle compared to the drama of the main upland areas of Wales. However there is a very appealing, intimate relationship of patterns field boundaries, land use and settlements, to topography. The heaths emphasise the hills (or ‘downs’), which are important features of the peninsula. These hills offer wide views from the South Wales valleys to the Exmoor hills. As with the Gwendraeth Vales to the north, the Gower marks the transition from industrial and urban Wales to the east and an open, rural Wales to the west. Gower provides a compact taste of the west without a long drive from Swansea.
Settlements of whitewashed buildings are linked by a network of minor roads, fringed by high, flower rich verges. Woodland areas to the east and the high road verges create a sense of enclosure.
This combination of exceptional scenic qualities led to the Gower becoming Britain’s first AONB in 1956. In addition, its coastline is designated as a Heritage Coast. The sense of place is one of a relaxed society in an unspoilt and well-protected landscape. However its popularity with visitors can result in congestion along the roads and narrow lanes during peak season. On occasions this erodes the peaceful and remote qualities of the area, while the extensive static caravan and chalet parks at Llangennith, Wern-halog, Kennexstone, Llanddewi, Horton and Port Eynon and Caswell Bay, and the numerous summer camping sites, add visible distractions that increase awareness of busyness. Swansea Airport, the main A 4118, Sketty to Port Eynon road and golf courses at Fairwood, Langland, Clyne and Pennard, are further modern features impinging on the area's otherwise historic ambience, while night-time light pollution from Swansea affects the eastern edge of the area. Rhossili Bay from Rhossili Down © John Briggs
Sweeping open fields between Cefn Bryn (Reynoldston) and Rhossili Down open hills © Crown Copyright (2011) Visit Wales, all right reserved
Near Mewslade looking towards Worms head. © Crown Copyright (2012) Visit Wales, all right reserved Reynoldston, showing the close relationship of the village to Cefn Bryn ‘down’. © Getmapping
Llanddewi with Rhossili Down in the background. © John Briggs
Salt marsh near Pen-clawdd © Luc Geological Landscape influences
This coastal peninsula shows a close relationship between topography, the shape of the coastline and geology. It reflects rock type and structure including folds and faults. The exception is along the northern coast where depositional landforms of sand spits, sand dunes and saltmarsh partly obscure the underlying geology.
The highest ground is formed by Rhossili Down and Llanmadoc Hill in the west, and the prominent ridge of Cefn Bryn, trending WNW-ESE through the central area of the peninsula. The summits of these hills are at c.180m. There are possible remnants of other plateau surfaces at lower levels, but most of the landscape has been very heavily modified and dissected by glacial and periglacial processes and rivers, and the whole area has also been bevelled by the passage of ice. Along the south coast of the peninsula, the former existence of a plateau surface at 60m can be easily discerned from numerous viewpoints. These plateau surfaces are thought to represent marine erosion surfaces similar to, but much more extensive than, the modern wave-cut platforms, that resulted from relatively long periods of constant sea level, interspersed with periodic uplift. The marine planation occurred towards the end of the Cretaceous Period (c.70 million years ago) when sea level was globally high, and was followed by sea level fall and tectonic uplift of the land during the Tertiary Period.
In order of decreasing age, the bedrock geology of Gower Peninsula comprises conglomerates of the Old Red Sandstone (which form the highest ground) and typical sequences of the Carboniferous Limestone, Millstone Grit and Coal Measures. The latter two sequences are dominated by shales, but also include some resistant sandstones. In the southern part of the peninsula these sequences are folded and subsequent erosion has not only cut across the folds but also exploited the softer shales to form valleys and embayments. To the north of Cefn Bryn the rocks dip northwards and in the north-eastern part of the peninsula they can be followed in sequence, with resistant sandstone units standing out as south-facing escarpments with intervening boggy ground (e.g. Barland Common) developed on the shales.
In many places, particularly along the coast, lines of weakness have been exploited and accentuated by marine erosion and now frequently form gullies in the foreshore and cliffs, extending towards valleys in the coastal slope referred to locally as ‘slades’ (e.g. Mewslade).
Another distinctive feature of the Gower topography is the karst scenery (sinkholes and cave systems) developed on and in the limestone. In places (e.g. Llethrid and Bishopston valleys) the collapse and subsequent erosion of cave passages have led to the development of limestone gorges with some higher-level caves having been truncated (e.g. at Cat Hole in the Llethrid Valley). These caves were once used as shelter by animals including cave lion and bear. Bones of many different creatures and their prey are preserved within the cave sediments and provide a good indication of climatic changes during the ‘Ice Age’. The caves also show evidence of temporary human habitation. Although climate during the Ice Age (c. 2.6 million to 11,500 years ago) was generally colder than today, it was warmer for relatively short periods, causing higher sea level, fragmentary evidence of which remains around much of the southern coastline in the form of raised beach deposits.
During colder climatic conditions glaciers moved out of the higher ground to the north-east of Gower along what are now the main river valleys. Ice from the Irish Sea area also advanced over Pembrokeshire towards Gower and at times either butted up against the western hills or even passed over the whole peninsula. This caused significant erosion and modification of the topography, and as the ice melted torrents of water deepened the valleys. The ice also deposited ‘boulder clay’ in many areas and locally there are sands and gravels deposited by meltwaters. Arthur’s Stone on Cefn Bryn is an example of a glacially transported rock. Although the ice sheets did not reach the southern part of the peninsula during the most recent glaciation of south-west Wales, the intense cold created frost-shattered scree under cliffs and crags. Solifluction, a process which occurs when soil saturated with water from melting snow and subsurface ice flows downhill over frozen ground, created the distinctive terraces of the southern and south-western coast (e.g. between Port Eynon and Oxwich Head and perhaps most notably along the seaward margins of Rhosili Down).
**Landscape Habitats influences**
Inland, soils broadly follow the underlying geology with generally fine and well drained loamy soils with some seasonal waterlogging where they lie above shaley limestones, and acidic soils over the bands of Millstone Grit. The peninsula supports a mixed agricultural landscape, but with grazing concentrated in the less productive areas. The saltmarshes and dune grasslands along the north coast are grazed by a variety of free-roaming livestock, whereas inland the higher ridges and hills are of a heathy character and common grazed by sheep, ponies and cattle. Elsewhere, the chequerboard pattern of regular, medium to large-scale fields is used for cereal cropping, horticulture, dairying and sheep rearing. The fields are mainly bounded by hawthorn hedgerows or hedgebanks, fringed by often wildflower-rich grass verges along roads, which are of considerable ecological value. The undulating land to the east of the Cefn Bryn ridge is characterised by swathes of mixed and broadleaved woodlands fringing streams and clothing gentle slopes. Where Millstone Grit is present, there are blocks of mixed and coniferous plantations.
The areas of common land found across the southern half of the landscape include a complex of SSSIs, falling within the Gower Commons SAC. Formed on the underlying, poorly draining surface-water gley soils, they include Fairwood, Pengwern, Welshmoor and Cefn Bryn Commons, which are important for a variety of habitats and species, including wet and dry heath and molinia meadows, the latter habitat supporting the nationally scarce soft-leaved sedge. The only South Wales populations of the southern damselfly and marsh fritillary are found within the commons, with the SAC supporting the second most important area for the southern damselfly in Wales.
Another distinct and ecologically valuable feature which is also part of Cefn Bryn Common but is distinct from the other areas is the dry heath and bracken habitats along the Cefn Bryn Ridge, the habitat differing here due to the much more freely draining podsolic soils. There is a similar, significant area of habitat present further west at Rhosilli Down, which is also part of the Gower Commons SAC.
Deciduous woodland areas are more prevalent within the eastern half of the area, where many fringe streams. The most significant woods are those at Nicholaston and others surrounding Oxwich Bay, Bishopston and Parkmill, which form the Gower Ash Woods SAC.
The southern coast is dominated by steep limestone cliffs interspersed with sandy bays, the most significant being Oxwich, which also has associated sand dunes and an extensive reed-bed area just inland. Much of the southern coastline is within the Limestone Coast of South West Wales SAC, which includes much of the generally agriculturally unimproved, calcareous/coastal grassland that fringes the cliff tops.
The north coast falls within the Burry Inlet SAC, SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI, which is characterised by extensive areas of mud-flat, salt-marsh and coastal grazing marsh, supporting a wide range of species, notably wading bird and wildfowl populations.
**Historic Landscape influences**
Archaeologically the Gower coast is particularly noted for its Upper Palaeolithic cave sites, notably Longhole, Paviland and Deborah’s Hole, which were occupied during warmer intervals at the end of the last Ice Age (c. 38000 – 8000 years ago). Well-defined remains of later, Iron Age settlements and forts occupy the headland at the Knave and Thurba Head, where there are also good examples of recent limekilns. The recently conserved salthouse at Port-Eynon, remains a unique example in Wales of a 16th century coastal saltworks.
Inland, the central ridge of Cefn Bryn is undoubtedly one of the richest archaeological areas of South Wales, containing dense concentrations of monuments providing evidence of human activity from at least the 4th or 3rd millennium BC, including a Neolithic tomb and possible settlement and Bronze Age funerary and ritual monuments. In the Medieval period, the imposition of the manorial system on Gower was an important influence on the land use on the ridge, which fell within the ‘Welshry of the Lordship of Gower’. Generally, that area had poorer soils and Cefn Bryn was manorial waste over which commoners rights were established and exist to the present day. Anglo-Norman influence is also apparent elsewhere in the landscape, with stone castles such as Oystermouth, Penrice and Oxwich in the south and Bovehill and the fortified manor of Weobley castle to the north, each occupying prominent locations with views across Swansea Bay and the Burry estuary respectively. Settlements such as Llanmadoc and Cheriton also reflect Anglo-Norman influences, while St Cadog Church at Cheriton is acknowledged to be one of the most beautiful of the Gower churches. Of outstanding importance from this period is the Penrice manorial estate, complete with ruined castle, gentry house, home farm and historic park and garden, which have grown around Penrice hamlet and survived without being broken up.
Rhossili and the Rhossili Down area to the west are also archaeologically very rich. In addition to the Iron Age promontory forts on the clifftops, Rhossili Down contains a number of Neolithic burial chambers and Bronze Age cairns. At the foot of the Down is the site of the deserted Medieval village and former church of Rhossili, which were be-sanded in the later Medieval period. The most significant survival, however, is the remarkable ‘Vile’, Medieval open field system, extending to about 390ha in extent and divided into the characteristic strips bounded by stone faced earth banks known as ‘landshares’. The practically unique survival of this Medieval open field system is of national importance.
Further north, Burry Holms island contains an Iron Age promontory fort and also the remains of a Medieval chapel. Inland, the church at Llangennith, itself the largest in Gower, is dedicated to St Kenyth who was reputedly washed ashore on Burry Holms. To the south of the church lay a Medieval college and priory, making Llangennith one of the most notable Medieval settlements on the Gower. Hardings Down to the south east contains a number of important prehistoric sites, including two Iron Age hillforts in close proximity. The Loughor estuary to the north was also a hub of early settlement and many of the hills or promontories overlooking it had their own fortified settlement such as The Bulwark to the south west of Cheriton.
The C19th saw industrialisation of north Gower around Penclawdd and Crofty where coal was extracted, and limestone quarrying from the cliffs stretching from Pwll Du to Rhossili on the southern and eastern cliffs.
**Cultural Landscape influences**
The cultural essence of Gower's landscape has changed radically over the past 50 years. Agriculture, which has been the traditional mainstay, is gradually being replaced by tourism and a residential population whose increasing presence is displacing long-held family farms. Outside the boundary of, but close to the AONB area, many commuter housing estates of undistinguished appearance have been permitted, their presence also shifting the balance. However, today’s pattern of scattered nucleated settlements remains largely true to their historic development, often centred on churches or castles in a compact form.
The exceptionally picturesque beaches have attracted several very large static caravan parks associated, particularly, with Horton and Port Eynon on the southern coast, and Broughton Burrows in the north west. Seasonally, many farmers open their fields as camp grounds. Two of those beaches – Three Cliff Bay and Rhossili Bay, coupled with the intriguing topography of Worm’s Head, have become iconic images of the glories of Gower. The southern and western coasts are a mecca for surfers, and Rhossili Down is popular with hang-glider enthusiasts. Place names south of Cefn Bryn owe their origins to Anglo-Norman dominance, while those north of the ridge are of Welsh provenance, a pattern which reflects the division imposed between the better lands confiscated by the former and poorer land retained by the latter. The distinctive Gower dialect which corrupted the pronunciation of some names has, however, virtually disappeared.
Outside influences have also affected many of the long-established gentry estates, with some like Kilvrough Manor and Stout Hall, becoming field studies or alternative therapy centres, the latter until the late 20th century being a field trip centre for the London Borough of Merton.
Industry, apart from agriculture, has also declined. Limestone quarrying ceased in the C19th, while coal mining lingered on into the early part of the 20th century. However, the abiding traditional cultural image associated with north Gower is the still-active cockle gathering off Penclawdd in the Burry (Loughor) estuary.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4235-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 21755,
"total-output-tokens": 6128,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
865,
1
],
[
865,
4542,
2
],
[
4542,
8131,
3
],
[
8131,
10246,
4
],
[
10246,
10532,
5
],
[
10532,
10722,
6
],
[
10722,
12674,
7
],
[
12674,
16369,
8
],
[
16369,
19761,
9
],
[
19761,
23353,
10
],
[
23353,
24346,
11
]
]
} |
54ad6d80aca0f6f858cc14c148aabe73a0804e14 | National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme Round 16, December 2020: educational bulletin
Introduction
The National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme exists to increase awareness of National Minimum Wage Legislation and to act as a deterrent to the minority of employers who may be tempted to underpay their workers.
In 2018 the Government undertook a review of the Naming Scheme in order to ascertain its effectiveness and ensure Naming was used in the most efficient way. The review was published on 11th February 2020 and can be found here: Naming employers who fail to pay minimum wage to be resumed under revamped rules.
As part of this review the Government has committed to be more transparent about the types of breaches we most commonly find. This bulletin includes statistics regarding breaches of National Minimum Wage legislation in this naming round, and some information on the most common type of breach among employers in this naming round. Employers named in Round 16
139 employers from across the UK were named as part of Round 16 of the Minimum Wage Naming Scheme.
Notes: Geography information is based on employer address postcode (trading address). In some cases, this may be where the minimum wage underpayment occurred. Information from one employer with an unknown address is not shown, but is included in the total figures presented. Contains National Statistics Data © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2014 Main reasons for minimum wage underpayment in Round 16
Table 1 below shows the most common minimum wage breaches identified for employers named for minimum wage underpayment in Round 16.
**Breaches most commonly associated with employers include:**
- deducting pay from workers’ wages,
- failing to pay workers for working time, and
- paying below the apprenticeship rate.
Table 1. Main reasons for minimum wage underpayment in Round 16
| Type of underpayment | Further information | |----------------------|---------------------| | Deductions or payments that take pay below the minimum wage | Deductions include:
- Food / meals
- Parking permits travel costs
- Cost of, or lost, work equipment and / or Personal Protective Equipment
- Stock or till shortage
- Training costs
- Christmas savings schemes
- Uniform
- Childcare costs
- Salary sacrifice schemes
- Worker purchase of clothes to meet dress code | | Unpaid working time takes pay below the minimum wage | Unpaid working time includes:
- Additional work before and after a worker’s shift
- Rounding clock-in time to the nearest hour
- Travel time
- Issues with final pay where employment has come to an end
- Pay is delayed / underpaid due to cashflow / cessation in trading / or ad hoc payments
- Paid for ‘regular’ hours or day rate, but a worker has worked for more time than this
- Incorrectly classifying a worker as salaried— and the fixed salary does not cover all of the hours worked | | Failure to pay the correct rate to apprentices | This includes instances where a worker:
- Is an apprentice aged over 19, and has completed the first year of their apprenticeship
- Is incorrectly classified as an apprentice and paid the apprentice rate | | Type of underpayment | Further information | |----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Has finished their apprenticeship but has not had their pay increased to reflect the higher minimum wage rate to which they are entitled | | | Failure to pay the uprated minimum wage | This includes: | | | • Failure to increase a worker’s pay when they become eligible for a new minimum wage rate following a birthday | | | • Failure to uplift after the increase to the minimum wage rates on the 1st April | | Hourly rates of pay below the minimum wage | The worker’s / workers’ hourly rate is below the minimum wage rate to which they are entitled | | Failure to correctly apply the accommodation offset | This includes: | | | • Accommodation rate above offset | | | • Living accommodation not provided | | Worker status error | This includes instances where the worker is incorrectly treated as self-employed |
Note: Some employers had underpayments for more than one reason.
We find that deductions and payments from the worker to the employer that take pay below the minimum wage are the most common reason for underpayment.
**Common risks of non-compliance include:**
- A worker voluntarily purchasing goods or services from the employer, if the employer allows the worker to purchase them via deductions from pay;
- A worker incurring costs from expenditure connected with the job – for example PPE, uniform, meals, training or travel costs.
The information below provides a brief outline of the common risks and links to more detailed guidance.
**What counts as pay for minimum wage purposes?**
Minimum wage is calculated by determining the worker’s total remuneration in a pay reference period and checking that the average hourly rate of pay for that period is at least the relevant minimum wage rate.
For further information on what counts as pay for minimum wage purposes and on the steps to ensure compliance, please consult [Calculating the Minimum Wage](#). Deductions from pay that reduce pay for minimum wage purposes
Certain deductions from a worker’s pay, or payments made by the worker to the employer, reduce pay for minimum wage purposes.
A deduction, or payment from a worker to an employer (or to a third party), becomes a minimum wage issue when it risks reducing the worker’s pay below their minimum legal entitlement. This requires consideration of:
- Deductions an employer makes from a worker’s pay;
- Deductions from a worker’s pay which are paid by the employer to a third party;
- Payments a worker makes to their employer; and
- Payments a worker makes to a third party (whether or not it is reimbursed).
A payment will not reduce pay for minimum wage purposes if (i) a worker chooses to buy goods or services from their employer which are not required in connection with their employment, and (ii) the worker pays for the goods or services via a payment to the employer.
However, if the same purchase is paid for via a deduction from wages then this will reduce pay for minimum wage purposes, even if the worker freely chooses to make the purchase and/or signs their agreement to the purchase.
Payments and deductions are often made in connection with the issues set out below (note that the issues listed are not exhaustive).
- Uniforms
- Meals
- Transport
- Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
- Saving Schemes
- Salary sacrifice arrangements
For further information see: Deductions from pay and payments by workers that reduce minimum wage pay
Deductions that will not reduce a worker’s pay for minimum wage purposes
- Living accommodation- providing the amount deducted is not more than the accommodation offset. For more information see National Minimum Wage and Living Wage: accommodation.
- Deductions to account for an accidental overpayment of wages.
- Payments to a third party a worker asks an employer to deduct from their pay, for example a trade union subscription.
- Other deductions relating to tax and National Insurance contributions as these are not for the employer’s own use and benefit. For further information see: Deductions from pay and payments by workers that do not reduce minimum wage pay, and scroll down to deductions that do not reduce pay.
**Record-keeping**
Employers’ records must be sufficient to show that they are paying each worker at least the minimum wage for every pay reference period worked. Employers must be clear on what elements count as pay for Minimum Wage purposes and they must ensure that any deductions made do not take the worker’s pay below the minimum wage rate. Please consult Calculating the Minimum Wage: record-keeping
**Further sources of information**
Workers and employers can contact the Acas Helpline on 0300 123 1100 or visit their website for free, confidential and impartial advice. Additionally, workers who believe that they have been underpaid the Minimum Wage can submit a complaint to HMRC here.
HMRC will protect the anonymity of workers who make a complaint and will follow up on every worker complaint received, even those which are anonymous. This includes complaints made to the ACAS helpline, via the online complaint form and those received from other sources.
The Government has also produced an online tool to help workers discover if they may have been underpaid, see National Minimum Wage and Living Wage calculator for workers.
For more information on National Minimum Enforcement see National minimum wage law: enforcement, and for enforcement statistics from the 2018/19 financial year see the Enforcement and Compliance report.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4236-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 10125,
"total-output-tokens": 2121,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
946,
1
],
[
946,
1426,
2
],
[
1426,
3219,
3
],
[
3219,
6700,
4
],
[
6700,
8780,
5
],
[
8780,
10294,
6
]
]
} |
59232affcf46fd8bda690663d378dd1ea0abee9e | The following Flowchart should be used when determining whether or not salaried hours work is being performed.
Is the worker entitled under their contract to be paid an annual salary or annual salary and performance bonus or salary premium (from 6 April 2020) (See NMWM07034)
Yes
Can the employer provide additional evidence of how the worker’s entitlement to an annual salary is calculated?
No
Does the worker’s contract provide a basic number of hours per year or are the basic hours per year ascertainable? (See NMWM07030)
No
Can the employer provide an explanation of how the basic hours are ascertained?
Yes
Is the only payment that a worker is entitled to receive for the basic hours annual salary (and performance bonus or salary premium (from 6 April 2020)) (See NMWM07034 & 07036)
No
Is the worker paid either in equal monthly, weekly, two-weekly (from 6 April 2020), or four-weekly (from 6 April 2020) instalments (or varying monthly instalments resulting in equal quarterly amounts) unless a permitted variation applies. (See NMWM07038)
Yes
Worker is performing salaried hours work (See NWMM07020)
No
Worker is not performing salaried hours work. Establish what other type is work is being performed (See NMWM07010)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4237-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1688,
"total-output-tokens": 371,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1241,
1
]
]
} |
c7d58667e2957abfe5df89263a594cf2e2d21a07 | National Neonatal Audit Programme 2020 Annual report on 2019 data
“This is a photo of my son, Benjamin (born at 33+4 weeks) being soothed by his older sister as he receives phototherapy in his incubator.”
Rebecca Owen, Mother The National Neonatal Audit Programme is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) as part of the National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcomes Programme (NCAPOP). HQIP is led by a consortium of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing, and National Voices. Its aim is to promote quality improvement in patient outcomes, and in particular, to increase the impact that clinical audit, outcome review programmes and registries have on healthcare quality in England and Wales. HQIP holds the contract to commission, manage and develop the NCAPOP, comprising around 40 projects covering care provided to people with a wide range of medical, surgical and mental health conditions. The programme is funded by NHS England, the Welsh Government and, with some individual projects, other devolved administrations and crown dependencies www.hqip.org.uk/national-programmes.
Data management, analysis and statistical services are provided by the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit, Imperial College London.
© 2020 Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP)
Published by RCPCH November 2020. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is a registered charity in England and Wales (1057744) and in Scotland (SCO38299)
Cite as: National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP) 2020 annual report on 2019 data. RCPCH: London, 2020.
# Table of contents
**Executive summary**\
5
**NNAP Recommendations**\
7
1. **Introduction**\
14
1.1. Scope\
14
1.2. NNAP governance\
14
2. **Results, key findings and recommendations**\
16
2.1. Antenatal steroids\
16
2.2. Antenatal magnesium sulphate\
19
2.3. Birth in a centre with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)\
22
2.4. Promoting normal temperature on admission for very preterm babies\
24
2.5. Parental consultation within 24 hours of admission\
27
2.6. Parental presence at consultant ward rounds\
30
2.7. On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)\
32
2.8. Late onset infection\
36
2.9. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)\
40
2.10. Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)\
45
2.11. Minimising separation of mother and baby (term and late preterm)\
48
2.12. Maternal breastmilk feeding\
50
2.13. Follow-up at two years of age\
56
2.14. Mortality until discharge in very preterm babies\
59
2.15. Nurse staffing on neonatal units\
64
2.16. Spine Plots\
68
3. **Local quality improvement case studies**\
69
4. **Methods**\
82
4.1. Audit measures and measure development\
82
4.2. Data flow\
85
4.3. Case ascertainment and unit participation\
86
4.4. Data quality and completeness\
86
4.5. Outlier identification and management\
87
4.6. Managing small numbers in the NNAP\
87
4.7. Developing key findings and recommendations\
87
5. **Driving improvements in neonatal care**\
88
5.1. Recommendations and action plan development\
88
5.2. Useful resources\
88
5.3. Information for parents, carers and families\
89
5.4. Future developments in the NNAP\
90
**Index of appendices**\
91 Executive summary
Background
1 in 7 babies have too low a birth weight or have a medical condition that requires specialist treatment. In this report the National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP) focuses on key measures of the care provided to babies in 2019 in the 181 neonatal services in England, Wales, Scotland and the Isle of Man.
The NNAP uses routine data collection to report on a range of care processes and outcomes throughout the pathway of neonatal care, from antenatal interventions to follow-up of developmental outcomes after discharge from neonatal care. For most audit measures, this 2020 report looks at care provided to babies with a final discharge from neonatal care between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019. This report includes network level reporting of mortality until discharge from the neonatal unit, and adherence to neonatal nurse staffing standards, for only the second time. In this report we also describe the rates of maternal breastmilk feeding at 14 days of age, for the first time.
Conclusion
UK neonatal professionals, together with the NNAP team, have demonstrated that aspects of neonatal care continue to improve. Examples include ongoing improvements in use of magnesium sulphate, and improvements in thermal care of very preterm infants – which is as good or better than any nation in the world. Such improvements show that we can modernise our care. Processes, such as measures of parental partnership in care, on-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity and developmental follow-up, are also improving.
Neonatal professionals, working with parents and others, need to use this demonstrated ability to deliver improvement to address the marked variations in care that this report highlights. The important variations observed in measures of process are now clear in outcomes such as infection, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotising enterocolitis and death. Neonatal care should continue to improve and we need to learn from one another – to be partners in improvement.
The recommendations this report makes are designed to support networks and hospitals in planning and delivering improvements to their care. They have been developed by a large multi-professional consensus group with wide representation. Careful attention has been given to describing, and making recommendations about improving, neonatal unit nurse staffing. Some recommendations may not be applicable or helpful to every service, but all networks and units should relate each recommendation to their own priorities and their audit results. Unit and network level results are visible on NNAP Online. Key Messages
Key message 1: Mortality until discharge home in very preterm babies
Rates of mortality in very preterm babies (less than 32 weeks’ gestational age) vary widely among the 14 networks, from 4.5% to 9.0%. Variations in case mix do not explain differences in mortality.
Key message 2: Neonatal outcomes
This audit shows that outcomes, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and late onset neonatal infection, vary strikingly between neonatal units and networks in a way that is unlikely to be explained by patient characteristics.
Key message 3: Ongoing improvement in care processes
Improvements in care processes, such as thermoregulation (cold babies experience more complications) and administration of intravenous magnesium sulphate (which improves neurodevelopmental outcome in the least mature babies) demonstrate the ability of perinatal teams to alter their care in light of published quality improvement objectives. However, unwarranted variation in these and other measures of care persists among neonatal units and networks, which identifies further opportunities for improvement of care. Nurse staffing, in particular, remains well below nationally agreed desired levels.
Key message 4: Rates of breastmilk feeding
The proportion of very preterm infants fed with some of their mother’s own milk at the time of discharge has remained persistently low over 5 years, with marked geographical variation. NNAP Recommendations
Recommendation (1) – Antenatal Steroids (Key Finding A):
Neonatal units and obstetric services should work as a perinatal team to:
- Optimise the timing and dosing of antenatal steroids for eligible babies
- Avoid the inappropriate use of multiple courses
- Adopt evidence-based practices to predict preterm birth, by using the following guidance and methodologies to guide improvement:
- BAPM Perinatal Optimisation Care Pathway Toolkit
- Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in PreTerm Labour (PReCePT) quality improvement programme
- Scottish Patient Safety Programme
To help reduce the severity of respiratory disease and other serious complications in preterm babies.
The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) should:
Consider developing reporting of antenatal steroid use in order to encourage timely exposure of eligible infants to it.
Recommendation (2) – Antenatal magnesium sulphate (Key finding B):
Neonatal networks, units and obstetric services should work as a perinatal team to:
- Ensure that all women who may deliver their baby at less than 30 weeks’ gestational age are offered magnesium sulphate where possible
- Adopt and implement the following guidance and methodologies to guide improvement:
- BAPM Perinatal Optimisation Care Pathway Toolkit
- Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in PreTerm Labour (PReCePT) quality improvement programme
- Scottish Patient Safety Programme
To help reduce the risk of babies who are born prematurely developing cerebral palsy. Recommendation (3) – Birth in a centre with a NICU (Key finding C):
Departments of Health in England, Scotland and Wales and Neonatal Networks should:
Prioritise structural changes and operational management to ensure that babies who require intensive care are cared for in the units best equipped to deliver it.
Local Maternity Systems (LMS) and equivalent bodies in devolved nations should:
- Ensure that appropriate clinical pathways exist
To enable delivery of intensive care to all infants where this is required, with a minimum of postnatal transfers.
Recommendation (4) – Parental consultation within 24 hours of admission (Key finding D, E):
Neonatal units with lower rates of parental consultation, and particularly those with low outlying performance, should:
- Reflect on their rates of parental consultation
- Use a quality improvement approach and consider using novel means such as video calls where parents are unable to enter the neonatal unit
In order to improve parental partnership in care.
Recommendation (5) – Parental presence at consultant ward rounds (Key findings F, G):
Neonatal units, in collaboration with parents, should:
Build relationships and trust between parents, family members and neonatal unit staff by:
- Understanding the unique role of parents as partners in care, and involving them in developing and updating care plans and decision making
- Empowering parents to feel comfortable and able to contribute to discussions about their baby’s care
- Taking the time to explain to parents why decisions about aspects of care are being suggested
- Reflecting on audit results with parents, identifying the reasons for any gaps in parental presence on ward rounds, any lack of consultant wards or documentation of consultant ward rounds, and working with parents to address any barriers to participation identified
So that parents are partners in the care of their baby in the neonatal unit. Recommendation (6) – On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (Key findings H, I, J, K):
Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) with persistently low levels of ROP screening should ensure that:
- Babies requiring ROP screening are accurately identified
- Safety systems for appropriate ROP screening are in place
So that babies who are at the highest risk of loss of vision, can be screened and receive timely treatment if required.
Neonatal Networks with low rates of ROP screening should:
- Implement a mechanism for real time measurement of their unit’s adherence to ROP screening guidelines
So that they can identify where related quality improvement activities need to be undertaken.
Recommendation (7) – Infection (Key Findings L, M, N, O):
Neonatal units with higher reported rates of infection should:
- Compare practices with units with lower rates of infection, identified via NNAP Online and consider whether their rates of infection could be decreased
- Ensure that their use of evidence-based infection reduction strategies is optimised
In order to minimise the number of babies infected in their units.
Neonatal networks and units with both low and high rates of infection should:
- Facilitate invitations for units with higher rates of infection to visit units with lower rates in order to jointly agree whether potentially better practices could be used and consider requiring units to participate in such quality improvement activity
- Ensure that the proposed visits should be multidisciplinary and focussed on identification and implementation of potentially better practices including “infection prevention bundles”
In order to reduce the risk of exposing sick and premature babies to infection. Recommendation (8) – Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (Key Finding P):
**Neonatal units with high treatment effect should:**
- Seek to identify potentially better practices from neonatal units with lower treatment effect
**Neonatal units and networks should:**
- Seek to understand the extent to which care practices explain the differences in rates of BPD
- Implement potentially better care practices, including any identified from NICE guidance about specialist respiratory care
**The British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) should:**
- Consider developing a care pathway identifying potentially better practices and the optimal means for their implementation
In order to reduce the proportion of babies affected by bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
Recommendation (9) – Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (Key findings Q, R):
**Units with validated NEC data should:**
- Compare their rates of NEC to those of other comparable units with validated data, and if their rates of NEC are relatively high, seek to identify and implement potentially better practices
In order to reduce the associated higher risk of mortality and, for those babies who survive, the risk of longer term developmental, feeding and bowel problems.
**All neonatal units should:**
- Ensure the accurate recording of NEC diagnoses
In order to facilitate valid comparisons of the rates of NEC, and the development of preventative measures based on variations in rates of NEC. Recommendation (10) – Minimising separation of mother and baby (term and late preterm) (Key finding S):
**Neonatal networks should:**
- Review the admission durations of their units, alongside admission rates, as part of planning maximally effective use of neonatal bed days
**Neonatal and maternity teams should:**
- Ensure discharge practices minimise inappropriate separation of mother and baby
- Consider introducing measures to facilitate timely discharge such as criterion-based discharge
- Consider delivering some care as transitional care
So that babies born at term and late preterm admitted to neonatal units are not separated from their mothers for longer than is necessary.
Recommendation (11) – Breastmilk feeding at discharge home (Key findings T, U, V):
**Neonatal units and networks should:**
Focus on both the early initiation and sustainment of breastmilk feeding in conjunction with parents by:
- Reviewing data and processes in order to undertake selected quality improvement activities suited to the local context
- Removing barriers to successful breastmilk feeding by ensuring that appropriate and comfortable areas are provided with adequate, regularly cleaned expressing equipment
- Seeking and acting on feedback from local parents on their experience of starting and sustaining breast feeding
- Working to achieve and sustain both UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative Neonatal Unit accreditation and Bliss Baby Charter accreditation
- Implementing the guidance and evidence-based care practices set out in the BAPM Maternal Breastmilk Toolkit
- Working with local parents to review and improve local practices around the early communication of the benefits of breastmilk, ideally prior to birth wherever possible
So that the many health benefits to the preterm baby and the mother of breastfeeding can be realised. Recommendation (12) – Follow-up at two years of age (Key finding W):
Neonatal units should:
Produce detailed plans to provide or organise follow up of care for preterm babies in accordance with NICE guidance and consider arrangements for:
- Communicating with families about follow up at discharge
- Families who live far from the hospital of care
- Families who do not attend appointments
- Families who move to different areas
- Completing and documenting assessments made
So that very preterm babies can be monitored and checked for any problems with movement, the senses, delays in development or other health problems and so that parents can get reassurance about how their baby is developing, and any support that they might need.
The British Association for Neonatal Neurodevelopmental Follow Up (BANNFU) should:
- Describe and promote best practice and successful models of delivery of high rates of follow up using appropriate instruments
To improve the long-term outcomes of all babies that have had neonatal care.
Recommendation (13) – Mortality until discharge home in very preterm babies (Key finding X):
Neonatal networks and their constituent neonatal units should, following a review of local mortality results, take action to:
- Consider whether a review of network structure, clinical flows, guidelines and staffing may be helpful in responding to local mortality rates
- Consider a quality improvement approach to the delivery of evidence-based strategies in the following areas to reduce mortality: timely antenatal steroids, deferred cord clamping, avoidance of hypothermia and management of respiratory disease
- Ensure that shared learning from locally delivered, externally supported, multi-disciplinary reviews of deaths (including data from the local use of the Perinatal Mortality Review Tool) informs network governance and unit level clinical practice
The patient safety team in NHS Improvement and equivalent bodies in the devolved nations should:
- Facilitate national dissemination of learning from mortality reviews Recommendation (14) – Nurse staffing in neonatal units (Key finding Y):
Departments of Health in England, Scotland and Wales should:
- Ensure that sufficient resources are available for the education and employment of suitably trained professionals to meet and maintain nurse staffing ratios described in service specifications
Universities and Health Education England or equivalent bodies in the devolved nations should:
- Consider revising, renewing and standardising models of specialist neonatal nursing education
In order that future rises in numbers of nurses who are qualified in speciality result in the comparable increments in nursing expertise in different neonatal networks, universities and Health Education England
Neonatal Units and Neonatal Networks should:
- Prioritise data quality assurance in submitting nurse staffing data
- Monitor adherence to recommended nurse staffing standards
- Develop action plans to address any deficits in nursing staffing and skill mix
So that babies and their parents are cared for at all times by the recommended number of trained professionals.
1. Introduction
Established in 2006, the National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP) is a national clinical audit of NHS-funded care for babies admitted to neonatal services in England, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man. Approximately 1 in 7 babies will require neonatal care because they are born too early, have too low a birth weight or have a medical condition that needs specialist treatment.
The audit reports on key measures of the process and outcomes of neonatal care and supports professionals, families and commissioners to improve the care provided to babies requiring specialist treatment. The NNAP aims to assess the care given to babies admitted to neonatal units and identify areas for quality improvement. For more about our aims, see Appendix I: Aims of the NNAP.
The NNAP is delivered by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) and funded by NHS England, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
This is the 12th annual NNAP report published by the RCPCH. Previous reports can be downloaded from: www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme.
1.1. Scope
Since starting in 2006, the scope of the audit has evolved to reflect developments in care delivery and progress made by neonatal services in delivering that care. Progress in data completeness and national compliance in the audit measures from the point of their introduction show the power of national reporting to drive change. Long-standing measures such as administration of antenatal steroids and on-time retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening now achieve high rates of data completeness and high rates of compliance nationally. Variation still exists regionally and locally, highlighting the importance of continuing to report and benchmark through audit.
The audit continues to evolve. Measures included in the audit are reviewed and developed in consultation with stakeholders and with consideration of new guidelines and evidence. A full guide to the audit measures for the 2019 data year is available at: https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/work-we-do/quality-improvement-patient-safety/national-neonatal-audit-programme-nnap/about
1.2. NNAP governance
The audit is governed by a Project Board, chaired by the RCPCH Vice President for Science and Research. It comprises members from key stakeholder organisations and groups, including several parent representatives. The Methodology and Dataset Group assists the Project Board with technical matters, such as analysis planning, presentation of results, and development and review of measures. The Project Board is responsible for overseeing the audit and providing oversight and advice to the programme. Clinical accountability is provided by the Vice President for Science and Research. Clinical leadership is provided by the NNAP Clinical Lead and organisational and contractual accountability is provided by the RCPCH Director of Research and Quality Improvement. The Neonatal Data Analysis Unit (NDAU) provide data analysis, statistical expertise, data management and data storage.
Appendix D includes more information about governance of the NNAP and a list of Project Board and Methodology and Dataset members. 2. Results, key findings and recommendations
2.1. Antenatal steroids
Is a mother who delivers a baby between 23 and 33 weeks’ gestational age inclusive given at least one dose of antenatal steroids?
Babies born at less than 34 weeks’ gestational age sometimes have breathing difficulties in the first few days after they are born. Antenatal steroids are a powerful health intervention, given to mothers by obstetricians and midwives before delivery of a preterm baby. Antenatal steroids help reduce breathing difficulties (respiratory distress syndrome) and reduce the likelihood of other serious complications, such as bleeding into the brain. The NNAP developmental standard is that 85% of eligible mothers should receive at least one dose of antenatal steroids. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
12,397 eligible mothers were identified from data submitted for 14,182 babies by 181 neonatal units and 22 places of birth not allied with an NNAP participating unit. If the mother delivered at home, in transit, in an unknown location or in a maternity unit not allied to an NNAP participating unit, these results are not included in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Figure 2 does not include the Isle of Man.
Table 1. Administration of antenatal steroids, by neonatal unit level.
| Unit level | Eligible mothers | With data entered | Steroids given | Steroids not given | Missing data | |------------|------------------|-------------------|----------------|-------------------|--------------| | Other\* | 251 | 243 | 103 (42%) | 141 (58%) | 7 (2.8%) | | SCU | 1,061 | 1,048 | 930 (88.7%) | 118 (11.3%) | 13 (1.2%) | | LNU | 4,667 | 4,653 | 4,300 (92.4%) | 353 (7.6%) | 14 (0.3%) | | NICU | 6,418 | 6,404 | 5,944 (92.8%) | 460 (7.2%) | 14 (0.2%) | | Total | 12,397 | 12,348 | 11,277 (91.3%) | 1,072 (8.7%) | 48 (0.5%) |
\*Delivered at home, in transit, in an unknown location or in a maternity unit not allied to an NNAP participating unit. Rates of administration of antenatal steroids are presented by dots. NICUs are shown in pink, LNU in blue and SCUs in grey. The 95% confidence intervals for a unit are shown by a vertical line with each dot. The developmental standard is shown by a bold dashed line, and the national rate is indicated by a grey dotted line. Neonatal units are presented in the ascending order of the rates and can be identified on NNAP Online.
Rates of administration of antenatal steroids are presented by black dots and the 95% confidence intervals are indicated by vertical bars. The networks are presented in the ascending order of the rates. The national rate is represented by the line with short dashes and the developmental standard is represented by the line with long dashes. Figure 3. Administration of antenatal steroids, cases with data entered, by NNAP reporting year (2009 to 2019).
Note: The gestational age inclusion criteria changed in 2018 from 24 to 34 weeks inclusive to 23 to 33 weeks inclusive.
Key Findings and Recommendations
Key finding (A) – Antenatal Steroids
At least one dose of antenatal steroids was administered to 91.3% (11,277 of 12,397) of women whose baby was born at 23-33 weeks’ gestation and was admitted for neonatal care. This national level coverage was higher than in 2018 (90.5%). Some rapid improvements since 2018 can be seen in many networks, but low outliers can also be detected at both unit and network levels.
Recommendation (1):
Neonatal units and obstetric services should work as a perinatal team to:
- Optimise the timing and dosing of antenatal steroids for eligible babies
- Avoid the inappropriate use of multiple courses
- Adopt evidence-based practices to predict preterm birth, by using the following guidance and methodologies to guide improvement:
- BAPM Perinatal Optimisation Care Pathway Toolkit
- Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in PreTerm Labour (PReCePT) quality improvement programme
- Scottish Patient Safety Programme
To help reduce the severity of respiratory disease and other serious complications in preterm babies.
The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) should:
Consider developing reporting of antenatal steroid use in order to encourage timely exposure of eligible infants to it. 2.2. Antenatal magnesium sulphate
Is a mother who delivers a baby below 30 weeks’ gestational age given magnesium sulphate in the 24 hours prior to delivery?
Giving magnesium sulphate to women who are at risk of delivering a preterm baby reduces the chance that their baby will develop cerebral palsy by 32%. The NICE quality standard Preterm Labour and Birth recommends that all women who may deliver their baby at less than 30 weeks’ gestational age are offered magnesium sulphate where possible. The NNAP developmental standard is that 85% of eligible mothers should receive antenatal magnesium sulphate, which maps to the target in the NHSE PRECEPT programme. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
3,991 eligible mothers were identified from data submitted for 4,469 babies by 179 neonatal units and 12 places of birth not allied with an NNAP participating unit. If the mother delivered at home, in transit, in an unknown location, Isle of Man or in a maternity unit not allied to an NNAP participating unit, these results are not included in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Figure 6 does not include the Isle of Man.
Table 2. Administration of magnesium sulphate, by neonatal unit level.
| Unit level | Eligible mothers | With data entered | Magnesium given | Magnesium not given | Missing (% of eligible mothers) | |------------|------------------|-------------------|-----------------|---------------------|--------------------------------| | Other\* | 98 | 95 | 27 (28.7%) | 68 (71.3%) | 3 (3.1%) | | SCU | 178 | 175 | 127 (72.6%) | 48 (27.4%) | 3 (1.7%) | | LNU | 1,080 | 1,067 | 867 (81.2%) | 200 (18.8%) | 13 (1.2%) | | NICU | 2,635 | 2,623 | 2,230 (85%) | 393 (15%) | 12 (0.5%) | | Total | 3,991 | 3,960 | 3,251 (82.1%) | 709 (17.9%) | 31 (0.8%) |
\*Delivered at home, in transit, in an unknown location or in a maternity unit not allied to an NNAP participating unit. Figure 4. Caterpillar plot of the rates of compliance for administration of magnesium sulphate: neonatal units, 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation.
Figure 5. Caterpillar plot of the rates of compliance for administration of magnesium sulphate: neonatal networks, 2018 and 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Key Findings and Recommendations
Key finding (B) – Antenatal magnesium sulphate
The rate of administration of antenatal magnesium sulphate has risen markedly by over 10% since 2018 (2016 – 53%; 2017 – 64%; 2018 – 72%; 2019 – 82%). Rates of missing 2019 data are very low (\<1%). The lower rates of magnesium sulphate administration in the Wales and Scotland neonatal networks in 2019 may be indicative of the effectiveness of the PReCePT quality improvement programme, which is centrally funded and regionally delivered in England.
Recommendation (2):
Neonatal networks, units and obstetric services should work as a perinatal team to:
- Ensure that all women who may deliver their baby at less than 30 weeks’ gestational age are offered magnesium sulphate where possible
- Adopt and implement the following guidance and methodologies to guide improvement:
- BAPM Perinatal Optimisation Care Pathway Toolkit
- Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in PreTerm Labour (PReCePT) quality improvement programme
- Scottish Patient Safety Programme
To help reduce the risk of babies who are born prematurely developing cerebral palsy. 2.3. Birth in a centre with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)
Is an admitted baby born at less than 27 weeks’ gestational age delivered in a maternity service on the same site as a designated NICU?
Babies who are born at less than 27 weeks’ gestational age are at high risk of death and serious illness. National recommendations in England and Scotland\\textsuperscript{iii, iv, v} state that neonatal networks should aim to configure and deliver services to increase the proportion of babies at this gestational age being delivered in a hospital with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on site. This is because there is evidence that outcomes improve if such premature babies are cared for in a NICU from birth. At least 85% of babies born at less than 27 weeks’ gestational age should be delivered in a maternity service on the same site as a NICU. Whether networks are optimally configured should be considered when interpreting high rates of performance on this measure. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
Figure 7. Caterpillar plot of the rates of birth of babies of less than 27 weeks’ gestation in a centre with a NICU: neonatal networks, 2018 and 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. The Isle of Man is not included in this figure. Table 3. Birth of babies of less than 27 weeks’ gestation in a centre with a NICU by NNAP reporting year, 2018-2019. Isle of Man is included here.
| Year | Babies | Delivery location | |------|--------|-------------------| | | | Hospital with Designated NICU (%) | Other (%) | | 2018 | 1,620 | 1,204 (74.3%) | 416 (25.7%) | | 2019 | 1,546 | 1,198 (77.5%) | 348 (22.5%) |
Key findings and Recommendations
Key finding (C) – Birth in a centre with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)
The proportion of babies born at less than 27 weeks’ gestation in a hospital with an on-site NICU has improved only marginally from 2018 to 2019 (from 74.3% to 77.5%). This is a major concern because of the evidence that outcomes are improved when the least mature babies are cared for in a NICU. Most networks have improved only marginally since 2018, although the London North Central and East, and Wales networks have achieved improvements of more than 12% in a single year.
Recommendation (3):
Departments of Health in England, Scotland and Wales and Neonatal Networks should:
Prioritise structural changes and operational management to ensure that babies who require intensive care are cared for in the units best equipped to deliver it.
Local Maternity Systems (LMS) and equivalent bodies in devolved nations should:
- Ensure that appropriate clinical pathways exist
To enable delivery of intensive care to all infants where this is required, with a minimum of postnatal transfers. 2.4. Promoting normal temperature on admission for very preterm babies
Does an admitted baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age have a first temperature on admission that is both between 36.5–37.5°C and measured within one hour of birth?
Low admission temperature is associated with an increased risk of illness and death in preterm babies. Low temperature (or hypothermia) is a preventable condition in vulnerable newborn babies. Staff on the neonatal unit need to know if a baby is too cold or too hot, so they can take appropriate action.
This NNAP measure assesses neonatal units’ success in achieving a normal first temperature within an hour of birth in very preterm babies. The NNAP developmental standard is that temperature should be taken within an hour of birth for all eligible babies. At least 90% of babies should have a temperature taken within an hour of birth with the result in the normal range. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
7,435 babies were born very preterm (gestation less than 32 weeks) in 180 NNAP units and 8 ‘Other’ places of birth not associated with an NNAP participating unit. For 3 babies the temperature was reportedly not taken, and for 19 babies temperature and/or timing data were missing. Place of delivery is classified as ‘Other’ if the mother delivered at home, in transit, in an unknown location or in a non-NNAP unit. Figure 8 and Figure 9 do not include ‘other’ delivery locations and Figure 9 does not include the Isle of Man.
Table 4. Temperature on time and within normal range, by neonatal unit level.
| Unit Level | Babies | With data entered | Temperature taken on time | After hour | Not taken | Unknown | |------------|--------|-------------------|---------------------------|------------|-----------|---------| | | | | < 32°C | 32-35.9°C | 36-36.4°C | 36.5-37.5°C | > 37.5°C | | | | Other\* | 85 | 83 | 2 (2.4%) | 28 (33.7%) | 7 (8.4%) | 27 (32.5%) | 6 (7.2%) | 12 | 1 | 2 | | SCU | 450 | 447 | 0 (0%) | 20 (4.5%) | 71 (15.9%) | 287 (64.2%) | 48 (10.7%) | 21 | 0 | 3 | | LNU | 2,468 | 2,465 | 0 (0%) | 96 (3.9%) | 306 (12.4%) | 1,698 (68.9%) | 312 (12.7%) | 53 | 0 | 3 | | NICU | 4,432 | 4,421 | 2 (0%) | 114 (2.6%) | 482 (10.9%) | 3,174 (71.8%) | 547 (12.4%) | 100 | 2 | 11 | | Total | 7,435 | 7,416 | 4 (0.1%) | 258 (3.5%) | 866 (11.7%) | 5,186 (69.9%) | 913 (12.3%) | 186 | 3 | 19 |
\*Delivered at home, in transit, in an unknown location or in a maternity unit not allied to an NNAP participating unit. Figure 8. Caterpillar plot of the rates of compliance for very preterm infants’ temperature on admission (measured on time, and in normal range): neonatal units, 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Units are presented in ascending order of the rates and can be identified on NNAP Online.
Figure 9. Caterpillar plot of the rates of compliance for temperature on admission: neonatal networks, 2018 and 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Figure 10. Temperature on time and within normal range, very preterm infants, by NNAP reporting year (2013-2019).
NOTE: For 2015-2019 data babies born at less than 32 weeks were included in the audit measure. In previous years, only babies born at less than 29 weeks were included.
Key findings
70.3% (5,186 of 7,382) of very preterm babies had a normal first temperature within an hour of admission. This is a further improvement on previous years (2015 – 58.1%; 2016 – 60.8%; 2017 – 64.4%; 2018 – 67.4%) and was achieved without any increase in hyperthermia. All networks except for one, have improved. Two networks have made striking improvements in thermoregulatory management (East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber).
There has been a further reduction in marked hypothermia (temperature less than 36.0°C), which has strongest relationship with adverse outcome (2015 – 8.8%; 2016 – 6.9%; 2017 – 5.6%; 2018 – 4.4%; 2019 – 3.1%)
Networks vary importantly, with three high outlying performers, and three low outlying networks. At unit level, success in keeping babies warm varies strikingly by unit (60-80%). The same unit was identified as a high performing outlier as in the 2018 data. Two low performing outlier units are identified. 2.5. Parental consultation within 24 hours of admission
*Is there a documented consultation with parents by a senior member of the neonatal team within 24 hours of a baby’s first admission?*(^{v,vi,vii})
It is important that families understand and are involved in the care of their baby. This first consultation provides an opportunity for a senior staff member to meet the parents, listen to their concerns, explain how their baby is being cared for and respond to any questions. This measure of care assesses whether parents have been spoken to by a senior member of the neonatal team within the first 24 hours of their baby being admitted. It applies to all babies who require care on a neonatal unit. A consultation should take place with 24 hours of first admission for every baby. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
**Results**
There were 72,459 first episodes of care (lasting at least 12 hours) reported by 181 neonatal units considered for this question. Babies who did not receive Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) 1, 2, or 3 on a neonatal unit during their first day of care or whose admission was for less than 12 hours were excluded from the analysis; this left 54,097 first episodes eligible for the audit measure. Data were missing or “unknown” for 862 episodes (1.6%).
Figure 12 does not include the Isle of Man.
**Table 5. Time of first consultation, by neonatal unit level.**
| Unit level | Eligible admissions | With data entered | Time of first consultation | Unknown | |------------|---------------------|-------------------|---------------------------|---------| | | | | Within 24 hours | Before admission | After 24 hours | No Consultation | | | SCU | 6,456 | 6,330 | 6,107 (96.5%) | 84 | 97 | 42 | 126 | | LNU | 22,962 | 22,695 | 22,007 (97%) | 238 | 275 | 175 | 267 | | NICU | 24,679 | 24,210 | 23,365 (96.5%) | 181 | 416 | 248 | 469 | | Total | 54,097 | 53,235 | 51,479 (96.7%) | 503 | 788 | 465 | 862 (1.6%) | Figure 11. Caterpillar plot of the rates of first consultation within 24 hours of admission: neonatal units, 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Units are presented in ascending order of the rates and units can be identified on NNAP Online.
Figure 12. Caterpillar plot of the rates of first consultation within 24 hours of admission: neonatal networks, 2018 and 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Key Findings and Recommendations
Key finding (D) – Parental consultation within 24 hours of admission
Only 3.3% of babies have no record of a consultation between parents and medical staff within 24 hours of admission to the neonatal unit. This is an improvement on 2018 (4.1%). Of the five lowest performing networks in 2018, four have made substantial improvements in 2019, making an important contribution to the overall improvement across all networks.
Key finding (E) – Parental consultation within 24 hours of admission
Performance overall at unit level was generally good, but there was a wide variation in how successful units were at meeting this standard (range 82 – 100%, with one exception of 67%). Units of all levels have good and bad performance, and 33 are identified as having unusually low (outlying) performance.
Recommendation (4):
Neonatal units with lower rates of parental consultation, and particularly those with low outlying performance, should:
- Reflect on their rates of parental consultation
- Use a quality improvement approach and consider using novel means such as video calls, where parents are unable to enter the neonatal unit
In order to improve parental partnership in care. 2.6. Parental presence at consultant ward rounds
For a baby admitted for more than 24 hours, did at least one parent attend a consultant ward round at any point during the baby’s admission?\\textsuperscript{v, vi, viii}
Neonatal care is very stressful for babies and parents. Professionals, parents’ advocates, and parents agree that including parents in consultant ward rounds supports parental partnership in care. Consultant ward rounds occur regularly (usually daily) on neonatal units. This measure looks at the proportion of admissions where parents were present on a consultant ward round on at least one occasion during a baby’s stay. We acknowledge that this measure is an imperfect and incomplete description of this element of parental partnership in care, but feel that the measure has potential utility in assessing the spread of shared care planning. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
66,577 babies were admitted for more than 24 hours. Of these admissions, 5,203 (7.8%) had missing data for every day of their stay, leaving 61,374 admissions for inclusion in this measure.
Table 6: Parent present on one or more consultant ward rounds, by length of stay.
| Length of stay (days) | Eligible admissions | With data entered | Parental presence on one or more ward rounds | Missing data | |-----------------------|---------------------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------| | | | | Parent not present | Parent present | | | ≤7 days | 35,666 | 31,147 | 7,279 (23.4%) | 23,868 (76.6%) | 4,519 (12.7%) | | 8-14 days | 12,240 | 11,762 | 1,535 (13.1%) | 10,227 (86.9%) | 478 (3.9%) | | 15-21 days | 6,361 | 6,239 | 657 (10.5%) | 5,582 (89.5%) | 122 (1.9%) | | 22-28 days | 3,501 | 3,467 | 315 (9.1%) | 3,152 (90.9%) | 34 (1%) | | >28 days | 8,809 | 8,759 | 538 (6.1%) | 8,221 (93.9%) | 50 (0.6%) | | Total | 66,577 | 61,374 | 10,324 (16.8%) | 51,050 (83.2%) | 5,203 (7.8%) |
Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (F) – Parental presence at consultant ward rounds
The reduction in missing data (2018 – 11.6%; 2019 – 7.8%) and the fact that in 2019 parents joined a consultant ward round on one or more occasion for more than 75% of all eligible admissions, suggests that this practice is gaining wider acceptance in neonatal care. Key finding (G) – Parental presence at consultant ward rounds
Rates of parental attendance at consultant ward rounds vary across all units as a whole and across levels of units (e.g. NICUs vary from 45 – 100%). This illustrates that significant progress remains to be made in prioritising this form of parental partnership in care.
Recommendation (5):
Neonatal units, in collaboration with parents, should:
Build relationships and trust between parents, family members and neonatal unit staff by:
- Understanding the unique role of parents as partners in care, and involving them in developing and updating care plans and decision making
- Empowering parents to feel comfortable and able to contribute to discussions about their baby’s care
- Taking the time to explain to parents why decisions about aspects of care are being suggested
- Reflecting on audit results with parents, identifying the reasons for any gaps in parental presence on ward rounds, any lack of consultant wards or documentation of consultant ward rounds, and working with parents to address any barriers to participation identified
So that parents are partners in the care of their baby in the neonatal unit. 2.7. On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)
Does an admitted baby born weighing less than 1501g, or at gestational age of less than 32 weeks, undergo the first retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening in accordance with the NNAP interpretation of the current guideline recommendations?
Babies born very early or with a very low birth weight are at risk of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). This condition affects the development of the blood vessels in the back of the eye. ROP can lead to loss of vision, but this is usually prevented by timely treatment. Therefore, screening babies for ROP at the right time is important to help babies have the best vision in the future. By ‘on time’ we mean within a three-week period centred on the target week. All eligible babies should be screened ‘on time’.
For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
There were 9,047 babies born with a birth weight less than 1,501g or with a gestational age at birth less than 32 weeks in an NNAP contributing unit. Of these babies, 17 were excluded because they did not have a recorded episode of care in a neonatal unit until after the closure of the ROP screening window. 24 babies were removed as a responsible unit could not be assigned. Further, 25 babies were excluded because they were transferred to non-neonatal units before, or during, the ROP screening window. Finally, 567 babies were excluded because they died before the closure of the screening window. This left 8,414 babies eligible for ROP screening in 181 neonatal units.
The Isle of Man is not included in Figure 15.
Table 7. Timing of ROP screening, by neonatal unit level.
| Unit level | Eligible babies | Any screen | Screened Early | Screened on time | Screened late | No screen | |------------|-----------------|------------|----------------|------------------|---------------|-----------| | | | | | | | | | SCU | 795 | 774 (97.4%)| 4 (0.5%) | 628 | 124 | 752 (94.6%)| 18 (2.3%) | 21 (2.6%) | | LNU | 3,214 | 3,187 (99.2%)| 15 (0.5%) | 2,619 | 497 | 3,116 (97%)| 56 (1.7%) | 27 (0.8%) | | NICU | 4,405 | 4,345 (98.6%)| 13 (0.3%) | 3,786 | 400 | 4,186 (95%)| 146 (3.3%)| 60 (1.4%) | | Total | 8,414 | 8,306 (98.7%)| 32 (0.4%) | 7,033 | 1,021 | 8,054 (95.7%)| 220 (2.6%)| 108 (1.3%)| Figure 14. Caterpillar plot of the rates of on-time ROP screening: neonatal units, 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Units are presented in ascending order of the rates and units can be identified on NNAP Online.
Figure 15. Caterpillar plot of the rates of compliance with on-time ROP screening: neonatal networks, 2018 and 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (H) – On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)
After more than 10 years of measurement in the NNAP, 1.3% of babies still have no record of screening at any time, and a further 2.6% (220 of 8,414) of babies were screened after the NNAP interpretation of national screening guidance. Limited availability of ophthalmology screening in SCUs might explain some missed or delayed screening, but the majority (146/220) of late or missed screens were for babies in NICUs.
Key finding (I) – On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)
Networks also vary significantly in their delivery of on-time screening. Three networks can be identified as low outliers, including one identified also in 2018 and 2017. Three NICUs in these networks can be identified as low outliers in 2019, with on-time screening rates of 52%, 66% and 73%, suggesting a role for leading units in driving regional quality improvement.
Key finding (J) – On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)
Ten un-screened babies were less than 30 weeks’ gestation and below 1,000g in birthweight, and thus at a high risk of life-changing disease. For 49 babies we were unable to ascertain if screening had happened at all, usually because of transfer to non-NNAP units.
Key finding (K) – On-time screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)
70 out of 181 units (38.6%) screened all their babies on time, which is an improvement on 2018 data (33.9%). Recommendation (6):
**Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) with persistently low levels of ROP screening should ensure that:**
- Babies requiring ROP screening are accurately identified
- Safety systems for appropriate ROP screening are in place
So that babies who are at the highest risk of loss of vision, can be screened and receive timely treatment if required.
**Neonatal Networks with low rates of ROP screening should:**
- Implement a mechanism for real time measurement of their unit’s adherence to ROP screening guidelines
So that they can identify where related quality improvement activities need to be undertaken. 2.8. Late onset infection
Sick and premature babies are prone to infection with a variety of germs, including some that are normally harmless to healthy people. Infections increase the risk of death, can lengthen the stay in the neonatal unit and may worsen the long-term developmental outlook for babies. Neonatal unit staff and parents can reduce the risk of infection by following good infection prevention and control practice.
The NNAP reports two measures of late onset bloodstream infection. To look for infection in babies, neonatal staff usually take blood cultures to check whether bacteria or other organisms are present in their blood. Units are encouraged to report positive blood cultures: that negative blood cultures are underreported is accepted as likely, or even inevitable. The NNAP reports rates of blood cultures positive for bacteria, fungi or yeasts, as well as a measure of bloodstream infection that occurs on the same day as a central line is present. Neither measure takes account of case mix, so when comparisons between trusts are made, case mix should be considered as one possible explanation for any differences in rates. A significant strength of the bloodstream infection measure is that it is not undermined by any differences in use of central venous access that might exist between units.
For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Late onset bloodstream infection
Late onset bloodstream infection: does an admitted baby have one or more episodes of bloodstream infection, characterised by one or more positive blood cultures taken, after 72 hours of age?
Results
Some organisms grown may either represent true bloodstream infection or contamination of the blood culture sample with skin organisms. For this reason, results for bloodstream infection are presented in two columns. One column presents the number of babies from whom a blood culture grew any organism. The other column presents the number of babies for whom one or more culture grew an organism of clear pathogenicity. Clearly pathogenic organisms were those whose growth indicates significant infection with or without the presence of clinical confirmation. A list of such organisms is presented in Appendix E. Babies contribute to the denominator for this measure for all units in which they were cared for, after the age of 72 hours.
Overall, 15,030 blood cultures were reported from 53,230 babies who were admitted to 181 neonatal units at or after 72 hours of age. Of these blood cultures, 90.7% have a result entered. For very preterm babies, 8,802 blood cultures were reported from 7,634 babies; for moderate and late preterm and term babies, 6,228 blood cultures were reported from 45,596 babies. Comparisons of rates of infections between years should not be made because of revised methodology in this year’s report.
In 113 of 180 units, our survey of units told us that all positive blood cultures were reported to the audit, with implications for the comparability of data between hospitals. Table 8a. Positive blood cultures, by gestational age group (\<32 weeks and ≥32 weeks).
| Gestational age group | Babies | Number of babies with any positive blood culture | Number of babies with growth of clearly pathogenic organism | |-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | < 32 weeks | 7,634 | 1,213 | 376 | | ≥ 32 weeks | 45,596 | 350 | 96 | | Total | 53,230 | 1,563 | 472 |
Note: In previous years, rates of late onset bloodstream infection were presented using a denominator of all admitted babies, not just those present on the unit at, or after, 72 hours of age. In addition, a new organism list was used to classify cultures in this year’s report – see Appendix E
Table 8b. Positive blood cultures, by gestational age group (\<32 weeks and ≥32 weeks) from units who confirmed validation of their positive blood cultures data.
| Gestational age group | Babies | Number of babies with any positive blood culture | Number of babies with growth of clearly pathogenic organism | |-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | < 32 weeks | 5,459 | 916 | 342 | | ≥ 32 weeks | 27,381 | 232 | 66 | | Total | 32,840 | 1,148 | 408 |
Note: In previous years, rates of late onset bloodstream infection were presented using a denominator of all admitted babies, not just those present on the unit at, or after, 72 hours of age.
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI):
Central line associated bloodstream infection: how many babies have a positive blood culture (any species) with a central line present, after the first 72 hours of life, per 1000 central line days?
Results
53,230 babies who stayed for more than 72 hours in 181 neonatal units received 978,126 days of care. In total, 15% of all care days included a central line and 979 bloodstream infections were reported for these central line days. Line days were attributed to the unit in which they occurred, and infections were attributed to the unit in which the blood culture was taken. Comparisons of rates of infections between years should not be made because of revised methodology in this year’s report. Table 9a. Babies with central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), by gestational age group.
| Gestational age group | Babies | Babies with one or more CLABSI episode (any growth) | Babies with central line associated bloodstream infection that was clearly pathogenic | Line days | Babies with one or more CLABSI episode (any growth) per 1000 central line days | |-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | < 32 weeks | 7,634 | 630 | 187 | 101,084 | 6.23 | | ≥ 32 weeks | 45,596 | 132 | 35 | 45,930 | 2.87 | | Total | 53,230 | 762 | 222 | 147,014 | 5.18 |
Note: In previous years, rates of CLABSI were presented using a denominator of line days for all admitted babies, not just those present on the unit at, or after, 72 hours of age.
Table 9b. Babies with CLABSI, in units who confirmed validation of their cultures data, by gestational age.
| Gestational age group | Babies | Babies with one or more CLABSI episode (any growth) | Babies with central line associated bloodstream infection that was clearly pathogenic | Line days | Babies with one or more CLABSI episode (any growth) per 1000 central line days | |-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | < 32 weeks | 5,459 | 476 | 139 | 63,632 | 7.48 | | ≥ 32 weeks | 27,381 | 95 | 27 | 28,359 | 3.35 | | Total | 32,840 | 571 | 166 | 91,991 | 6.21 |
Note: In previous years up to 2017, rates of central line associated bloodstream infection were presented using a denominator of line days all admitted babies, not just those present on the unit at or after 72 hours of age.
Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (L) – Late onset bloodstream infection
The rate of bloodstream infections is lower than in previous years, at least in part because of the changes in how the NNAP reports infection rates and how it has revised the denominators and improved and clarified the list of “clearly pathogenic organisms” - see Appendix E of this report.
Key Finding (M) – Late onset bloodstream infection
113 out of 181 (63%) units confirmed that all positive blood cultures had been submitted to the audit. This is slightly lower than in 2018 (66%) and may be due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as the data validation window was planned to end around the time that preparations for COVID-19 were at their peak. Key Finding (N) – Late Onset bloodstream infection
The proportion of very preterm infants experiencing infection with clearly pathogenic organisms varied between 0% and 12.8% in the NICUs which reported all of their positive blood cultures to the NNAP, variation which is very unlikely to be explained by case mix.
Key finding (O) – Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI):
The rate of CLABSI for babies born at less than 32 weeks’ gestation in the 39 of 54 NICUs which have submitted all their positive blood cultures to the unit is 8.06. This is higher than the comparable rate for all NICUs of 5.40, reflecting complete reporting.
Recommendation (7):
Neonatal units with higher reported rates of infection should:
- Compare practices with units with lower rates of infection, identified via NNAP Online and consider whether their rates of infection could be decreased
- Ensure that their use of evidence-based infection reduction strategies is optimised
In order to minimise the number of babies infected in their units.
Neonatal networks and units with both low and high rates of infection should:
- Facilitate invitations for units with higher rates of infection to visit units with lower rates in order to jointly agree whether potentially better practices could be used and consider requiring units to participate in such quality improvement activity
- Ensure that the proposed visits should be multidisciplinary and focussed on identification and implementation of potentially better practices including “infection prevention bundles”
In order to reduce the risk of exposing sick and premature babies to infection. 2.9. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)
Does an admitted baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)?
Babies born preterm often do not have fully developed lungs and may require support with their breathing from a ventilator or another device. Simply being born early can cause some ongoing breathing difficulties but being on a ventilator can cause additional damage to the lungs. When a baby needs additional oxygen or support with breathing until near term, their condition is called bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or ‘chronic lung disease’. BPD may be associated with breathing problems later in life and put these babies at increased risk of chest infections. NNAP reports on the proportion of babies born very preterm who are still receiving help with their breathing or supplementary oxygen four weeks before their due date. Only babies who survive their early course can develop BPD, and therefore it is important that we consider rates of BPD alongside rates of death. For this reason, we report the combined outcome of ‘BPD or death’.
Differing rates of BPD between units and networks might be the result of differing treatments or might result, at least in part, from differences in the readiness of clinicians to administer oxygen to very preterm infants.
Where rates of BPD differ, it may also be that case mix explains the variation. For this reason, we have considered the baseline characteristics of the babies cared for in units and networks. ‘Treatment effect’ is the difference between the rate of BPD or death in babies cared for in a unit or network compared to the observed rate for a matched group of babies with very similar case mix, cared for in all neonatal units. A positive treatment effect indicates that the rate of significant BPD or death is higher in the unit or network of interest than for a comparable group of babies cared for in all neonatal units, which is not desirable. Where the 95% confidence interval for this effect does not include zero, the treatment effect is unlikely to be a chance finding. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
24,314 babies born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age, discharged between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019 as reported by 182 neonatal units, and 34 other places of birth not associated with an NNAP participating unit. Babies were assigned to their recorded place of birth for this analysis. In Table 10, responses are assigned ‘Other’ if the mother was recorded as delivering the baby at home, in transit, in an unknown location, Isle of Man or in a maternity unit not allied with a NNAP participating unit in the first neonatal unit admission. ‘Other’ responses are not included in Figure 17 and Figure 18 or the ‘Total’ row in Table 10. Of the 24,314 babies born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age, 21,884 babies had enough data entered to attribute BPD and did not die before 36 weeks’ corrected gestational age. Table 10. Rates of BPD or death, by neonatal network.
| Neonatal Network | Eligible babies | With data entered | No BPD | BPD | Death before 36 weeks' corrected gestational age | BPD or death | Missing data | |-----------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------| | East Midlands | 1,513 | 1,511 | 1,023 | 366 | 122 | 488 (32.3%) | 2 | | East of England | 1,890 | 1,883 | 1,259 | 530 | 94 | 624 (33.1%) | 7 | | North Central & North East London | 1,650 | 1,640 | 1,055 | 512 | 73 | 585 (35.7%) | 10 | | North West London | 1,097 | 1,095 | 718 | 301 | 76 | 377 (34.4%) | 2 | | North West | 2,865 | 2,853 | 1,735 | 841 | 277 | 1,118 (39.2%)| 12 | | Northern | 1,050 | 1,047 | 602 | 365 | 80 | 445 (42.5%) | 3 | | Scotland | 1,608 | 1,601 | 986 | 485 | 130 | 615 (38.5%) | 7 | | South East Coast | 1,675 | 1,669 | 1,045 | 488 | 136 | 624 (37.4%) | 6 | | South London | 1,478 | 1,476 | 887 | 491 | 98 | 589 (39.9%) | 2 | | South West | 1,439 | 1,435 | 880 | 467 | 88 | 555 (38.7%) | 4 | | Thames Valley & Wessex | 1,885 | 1,878 | 1,242 | 514 | 122 | 636 (33.9%) | 7 | | Wales | 988 | 987 | 622 | 283 | 82 | 365 (37.0%) | 1 | | West Midlands | 2,370 | 2,349 | 1,447 | 655 | 247 | 902 (38.4%) | 21 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 2,264 | 2,259 | 1,504 | 581 | 174 | 755 (33.4%) | 5 | | Total | 23,772 | 23,683 | 15,005 | 6,879| 1,799 | 8,678 (36.6%)| 89 | | Other\* | 542 | 523 | 296 | 161 | 66 | 227 (43.4%) | 19 |
\*Includes deliveries at home, in transit, in an unknown location or in a maternity unit not allied with a NNAP participating unit in the first neonatal unit admission. Also includes Nobles Hospital, Isle of Man. Figure 17. Caterpillar plot of the rates of BPD or death (2017-2019): neonatal units (TOP) and ‘treatment effect’ on rates of BPD or death (BOTTOM). (LNUs and NICUs only) 2017 – 2019.
Rates of the combined outcome of significant BPD or death. Rates are marked with red (NICUs) and blue dots (LNUs) and the 95% confidence intervals are indicated by vertical bars. Neonatal units are presented in ascending order of the rates. For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Figure 18. Caterpillar plot of the rates of significant BPD or death (2017-2019): neonatal networks (TOP) and ‘treatment effect’ on rates of significant BPD or death (BOTTOM).
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation.
Table 11. Rates of BPD only, and the combined outcome of BPD and death, by NNAP reporting period (2013-2019).
| NNAP Year | Babies | With data entered | BPD | BPD or death | Missing data | |-----------|--------|-------------------|-----|--------------|--------------| | 2013-2015 | 21,805 | 21,673 | 6,508 (30%) | 132 (0.6%) | | 2014-2016 | 22,049 | 21,978 | 6,792 (30.9%) | 71 (0.3%) | | 2015-2017 | 24,517 | 22,595 | 6,971 (30.9%) | 8,851 (39.2%) | 42 (0.2%) | | 2016-2018 | 23,849 | 23,773 | 6,931 (29.2%) | 8,671 (36.5%) | 76 (0.3%) | | 2017-2019 | 23,772 | 23,683 | 6,879 (29%) | 8,678 (36.6%) | 89 (0.4%) |
Note: Prior to 2015-2017, the combined outcome of BPD or death was not reported. Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (P) – Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)
Overall, about one third of surviving very preterm infants develop BPD. There is huge variation in the rate of BPD or death between units (range 9.1 - 57%) and between networks (32-42%). This variation occurs across both LNUs and NICUs and cannot be accounted for by case mix (range of treatment effect attributable to neonatal network negative 3.1% to positive 4.5%).
Sixteen units are identified as having outlying high treatment effect, meaning that babies born in these units are more likely than expected to be diagnosed with BPD, or die, than comparable babies cared for in all units. Eight units have outlying low treatment effect, suggesting that treatment in these units leads to lower rates of BPD or death.
Recommendation (8):
Neonatal units with high treatment effect should:
- Seek to identify potentially better practices from neonatal units with lower treatment effect
Neonatal units and networks should:
- Seek to understand the extent to which care practices explain the differences in rates of BPD
- Implement potentially better care practices, including any identified from NICE guidance about specialist respiratory care
The British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) should:
- Consider developing a care pathway identifying potentially better practices and the optimal means for their implementation
In order to reduce the proportion of babies affected by bronchopulmonary dysplasia. 2.10. Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)
Does an admitted baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age meet the NNAP surveillance definition for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) on one or more occasions?
Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is a devastating illness which can follow preterm birth. Bowel inflammation prevents milk feeding and surgery may be needed. Babies who develop NEC typically stay in hospital for a long time. Rates of mortality in babies with NEC are high, at over 20%. Babies who survive NEC can have developmental as well as long-term feeding and bowel problems. Reporting of NEC is based on a surveillance definition, and cases and denominators are attributed to the unit at which the baby is nursed at 48 hours. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
117 of 180 (65%) NNAP neonatal units provided assurance of the accuracy of their data for this outcome. This is a slight decrease on 2018 when 71% of units provided such assurance. We note that the final 2 weeks of the planned data assurance window coincided with the beginning of lockdown measures to address COVID19. The window was extended to allow more time for data assurance.
There were 7,692 babies who were born very preterm and survived to 48 hours after birth. For 174 babies it was not possible to determine whether the baby had NEC at any point in their neonatal care. 413 of these 7,692 (5.5%) are known to have had NEC according to the surveillance definition used by NNAP. This is similar to previous years (2018: 410 of 7810, 5.5%; 2017: 428 of 8,228, 5.6%), although incomplete and unvalidated data could affect all years.
Table 12. NEC status, by neonatal unit level – all units.
| Unit level at 48 hours | Babies | With data entered | NEC status | Missing data | |------------------------|--------|-------------------|------------|--------------| | | | | Died prior to discharge, but no NEC | No NEC | NEC | Total missing | Death before discharge | Alive at discharge | | Other | 18 | 14 | 0 | 13 | 1 (7.1%) | 4 (22.2%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (22.2%) | | SCU | 158 | 154 | 0 | 150 | 4 (2.6%) | 4 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (2.5%) | | LNU | 2,261 | 2,215 | 16 | 2,129 | 70 (3.2%) | 46 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 46 (2%) | | NICU | 5,255 | 5,135 | 334 | 4,463 | 338 (6.6%) | 120 (2.3%) | 36 (0.7%) | 84 (1.6%) | | Total | 7,692 | 7,518 | 350 | 6,755 | 413 (5.5%) | 174 (2.3%) | 36 (0.5%) | 138 (1.8%) | Table 13. NEC status, units who provided assurance that their NEC diagnosis data was complete.
| Unit Level | Babies | With data entered | Died prior to discharge but no NEC | No NEC | NEC | Total missing | Missing died | Missing alive | |------------|--------|-------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|-----|---------------|--------------|--------------| | SCU | 109 | 107 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | 0 | | LNU | 1,317 | 1,301 | 1,261 | 0 | 13 | 16 (1.2%) | 16 (1.2%) | 0 | | NICU | 3,630 | 3,596 | 3,122 | 12 | 235 | 22 (0.6%) | 22 (0.6%) | 0 | | Total | 5,056 | 5,004 | 4,488 | 12 | 248 | 40 (0.8%) | 40 (0.8%) | 0 |
Table 14. NEC status, by network – all units.
| Network | Babies | With data entered | Died prior to discharge, but no NEC | No NEC | NEC | Alive at discharge | Death before discharge | Total missing | |----------------------------------|--------|-------------------|------------------------------------|--------|-----|--------------------|------------------------|---------------| | East Midlands | 481 | 468 | 19 | 414 | 35 | 10 (2.1%) | 3 (0.6%) | 13 (2.7%) | | East of England | 611 | 602 | 15 | 550 | 37 | 7 (1.1%) | 2 (0.3%) | 9 (1.5%) | | North Central & North East London| 525 | 505 | 20 | 457 | 28 | 15 (2.9%) | 5 (1%) | 20 (3.8%) | | North West London | 394 | 391 | 16 | 359 | 16 | 2 (0.5%) | 1 (0.3%) | 3 (0.8%) | | North West | 913 | 900 | 58 | 803 | 39 | 9 (1%) | 4 (0.4%) | 13 (1.4%) | | Northern | 354 | 309 | 12 | 269 | 28 | 35 (9.9%) | 10 (2.8%) | 45 (12.7%) | | Scotland | 569 | 556 | 29 | 498 | 29 | 11 (1.9%) | 2 (0.4%) | 13 (2.3%) | | South East Coast | 526 | 513 | 29 | 456 | 28 | 8 (1.5%) | 5 (1%) | 13 (2.5%) | | South London | 493 | 481 | 15 | 433 | 33 | 11 (2.2%) | 1 (0.2%) | 12 (2.4%) | | South West | 451 | 445 | 20 | 409 | 16 | 6 (1.3%) | 0 (%) | 6 (1.3%) | | Thames Valley & Wessex | 576 | 572 | 17 | 524 | 31 | 4 (0.7%) | 0 (%) | 4 (0.7%) | | Wales | 316 | 316 | 21 | 283 | 12 | 0 (%) | 0 (%) | 0 (0%) | | West Midlands | 749 | 738 | 50 | 639 | 49 | 10 (1.3%) | 1 (0.1%) | 11 (1.5%) | | Yorkshire & Humber | 715 | 707 | 29 | 647 | 31 | 6 (0.8%) | 2 (0.3%) | 8 (1.1%) | | Other\* | 19 | 15 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | | Total | 7,692 | 7,518 | 350 | 6,755 | 413 | 138 (1.8%) | 36 (0.5%) | 174 (2.3%) |
\*Includes Isle of Man
NB there are no networks for which all units confirmed they had validated data for all their admissions. Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (Q) – Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)
5.5% of very preterm infants were diagnosed with NEC in 2019.
Rates of NEC appear to vary more than two-fold between neonatal networks, although missing data, as much as ~13% in one neonatal network, can make comparisons between networks imprecise. Differences between neonatal networks are unlikely to be fully explained by differences in case mix but should be considered alongside mortality figures for the networks – rates of NEC appear to be lower where mortality is higher, which you can see in Appendix H.
Key Finding (R) – Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)
117 out of 181 (64%) NNAP units confirmed that their submitted NEC data were validated as accurate; this was less than in 2018 (129 – 71%). The overall rate of missing data decreased from 5.4% in 2018 to 2.3% in 2019. Units who indicated that they had their NEC data included 38 out of 54 (70%) NICUs and these accounted for 5,056 out of 7,692 eligible babies across all unit levels. Restricting measurement of the rate of NEC to NICUs with validated data did not alter the rate of NEC substantially (6.5% compared to 6.4%).
Recommendation (9):
Units with validated NEC data should:
- Compare their rates of NEC to those of other comparable units with validated data, and if their rates of NEC are relatively high, seek to identify and implement potentially better practices
In order to reduce the associated higher risk of mortality and, for those babies who survive, the risk of longer term developmental, feeding and bowel problems.
All neonatal units should:
- Ensure the accurate recording of NEC diagnoses
In order to facilitate valid comparisons of the rates of NEC, and the development of preventative measures based on variations in rates of NEC. 2.11. Minimising separation of mother and baby (term and late preterm)
1. For a baby born at gestational age greater than or equal to 37 weeks, who neither had surgery, nor were transferred during any admission, how many special care or normal care days were provided when oxygen was not administered?
2. For a baby born at 34-36 weeks’ gestational age, who neither had surgery nor were transferred during any admission, how many special care or normal care days were provided when oxygen was not administered?
Some babies admitted to neonatal units may be separated from their mothers for longer than necessary. It may be possible to care for some such babies in transitional care, a setting which takes an interdisciplinary approach with both midwives and neonatal staff delivering high-quality care to both mother and baby, avoiding separation.\\textsuperscript{x1}
This measure describes the number of separation days for each admission to a neonatal unit. Separation days are defined as days of low dependency care when breathing support is not needed. Even when a neonatal unit admission is unavoidable, there may still be opportunities to reduce separation care days. Average numbers of separation days for a unit or network should be interpreted alongside the rates of admission of term, and late preterm babies per 1,000 live births. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
86.9% (25,110 of 28,893) of admitted babies born at 37 weeks’ gestational age or greater, who did not have surgery and were not transferred, had some special care days on which oxygen was not administered, or some normal care days. 57,273 special care days and 27,420 normal care days (84,693 days in total) were provided to these 28,893 babies.
93.8% (13,077 of 13,936) of admitted babies born at 34 to 36 weeks’ gestation, who did not have surgery and were not transferred, had some special care days on which oxygen was not administered, or some normal care days. 70,585 special care and 20,211 normal care days (90,796 days in total) were provided to these 13,936 babies. Table 15. Term babies spending one or more days receiving special or normal care, by neonatal unit level (includes only those special care days when oxygen was not administered).
| Unit Level | Babies | Babies who spent one or more eligible days in normal or special care | Number of eligible care days | Average number of separation days per baby | |------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------| | | | | Special care | Normal care | Total days | | | SCU | 3,778 | 3,383 (89.5%) | 7,369 | 3,769 | 11,138 | 2.9 | | LNU | 11,988 | 10,552 (88%) | 22,973 | 11,963 | 34,936 | 2.9 | | NICU | 13,127 | 11,175 (85.1%) | 26,931 | 11,688 | 38,619 | 2.9 | | Total | 28,893 | 25,110 (86.9%) | 57,273 | 27,420 | 84,693 | 2.9 |
Table 16. Late preterm babies receiving special or normal care, by neonatal unit level (includes only those special care days when oxygen was not administered)
| Unit Level | Babies | Babies who spent one or more eligible days in normal or special care | Number of eligible care days | Average number of separation days per baby | |------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------| | | | | Special care | Normal care | Total days | | | SCU | 2,052 | 1,981 (96.5%) | 10,927 | 3,467 | 14,394 | 7 | | LNU | 6,307 | 6,006 (95.2%) | 33,794 | 10,321 | 44,115 | 7 | | NICU | 5,577 | 5,090 (91.3%) | 25,864 | 6,423 | 32,287 | 5.8 | | Total | 13,936 | 13,077 (93.8%) | 70,585 | 20,211 | 90,796 | 6.5 |
Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (S) – Minimising separation of mother and baby (term and late preterm)
Striking variation persists across 2018 and 2019 in the average number of term baby separation days between units of all levels (range 1-5 days), which is very unlikely to be explained by case mix alone.
There was a shorter average stay in NICUs compared to LNU and SCUs (NICU 5.8 days, n=5,557; LNU and SCU 7 days, n= 8,359) and a striking variation in the average duration of stay between units of the same level (NICUs 1.5-10.4; LNUs 2.6 - 12; SCUs 2.6 – 10.4).
Recommendation (10):
Neonatal networks should:
- Review the admission durations of their units, alongside admission rates, as part of planning maximally effective use of neonatal bed days
Neonatal and maternity teams should:
- Ensure discharge practices minimise inappropriate separation of mother and baby
- Consider introducing measures to facilitate timely discharge such as criterion-based discharge
- Consider delivering some care as transitional care
So that babies born at term and late preterm admitted to neonatal units are not separated from their mothers for longer than is necessary. 2.12. Maternal breastmilk feeding
Breastmilk feeding is unquestionably beneficial to the baby and the mother. During neonatal care it protects against necrotising enterocolitis and infection. It helps to protect babies from later infection, diabetes, asthma, heart disease, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome. Premature babies are vulnerable to infection, and their own mother’s milk provides an important line of defence through protective antibodies. Breastfeeding also helps to build the relationship between the mother and baby. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Early Breastmilk Feeding
Does a baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age receive any of their own mother’s milk on day 14 of life? This measure is designed to help units understand their rates of mothers’ own milk feeding during babies’ stay in greater detail, and is supported by the publication of graphics describing milk use in very preterm infants for each unit and network – see Figure 19 and NNAP Online.
Results
Of the 7,359 babies born at less than 32 weeks, 7,345 had data available from day 13-15 of life. Of these 7,345 babies, 82.4% (6,054 babies) were receiving some of their own mothers’ milk at 14 days of life. Data were missing for 14 (0.2%) eligible babies.
Table 17. Breastmilk feeding on day 14 of life, by neonatal unit level.
| Unit level at 48 hours | Babies | With data entered | Enteral feeds at day 14 | Missing data | |------------------------|--------|-------------------|------------------------|--------------| | | | | Any of own mother’s milk | None of own mother’s milk | | | Other | 1 | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | | SCBU | 154 | 153 | 116 (75.8%) | 37 (24.2%) | 1 (0.6%) | | LNU | 2,230 | 2,228 | 1,870 (83.9%) | 358 (16.1%) | 2 (0.1%) | | NICU | 4,974 | 4,963 | 4,067 (81.9%) | 896 (18.1%) | 11 (0.2%) | | Total | 7,359 | 7,345 | 6,054 (82.4%) | 1,291 (17.6%) | 14 (0.2%) | Table 18. Breastmilk feeding on day 14, by neonatal network.
| Network | Babies | With data entered | Enteral feeds at day 14 | Any of own mother’s milk | None of own mother’s milk | Missing | |----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|---------| | East Midlands | 464 | 462 | 382 (82.7%) | 80 (17.3%) | 2 (0.4%) | | East of England | 596 | 592 | 484 (81.8%) | 108 (18.2%) | 4 (0.7%) | | Isle of Man | 1 | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | | North Central & North East London | 504 | 501 | 439 (87.6%) | 62 (12.4%) | 3 (0.6%) | | North West London | 380 | 379 | 326 (86%) | 53 (14%) | 1 (0.3%) | | North West | 870 | 870 | 688 (79.1%) | 182 (20.9%) | 0 (0%) | | Northern | 335 | 335 | 256 (76.4%) | 79 (23.6%) | 0 (0%) | | Scotland | 541 | 539 | 443 (82.2%) | 96 (17.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | | South East Coast | 499 | 499 | 407 (81.6%) | 92 (18.4%) | 0 (0%) | | South London | 482 | 482 | 416 (86.3%) | 66 (13.7%) | 0 (0%) | | South West | 438 | 437 | 372 (85.1%) | 65 (14.9%) | 1 (0.2%) | | Thames Valley & Wessex | 557 | 556 | 488 (87.8%) | 68 (12.2%) | 1 (0.2%) | | Wales | 300 | 300 | 246 (82%) | 54 (18%) | 0 (0%) | | West Midlands | 703 | 703 | 576 (81.9%) | 127 (18.1%) | 0 (0%) | | Yorkshire & Humber | 688 | 688 | 529 (76.9%) | 159 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | | Total | 7,358 | 7,344 | 6,053 (82.4%) | 1,291 (17.6%) | 14 (0.2%) | Figure 19. Use of mother’s own milk in very preterm infants by day of life. Neonatal networks, 2019.
These figures illustrate mother’s own milk use for very preterm infants (gestation at birth less than 32 weeks), by the unit of care, on each day of life. Unit, and network, level figures are available on NNAP Online and enable comparisons of changes over time in usage of mothers’ own milk.
Key Black: nil by mouth Dark grey: inpatient and not fed own mother’s milk Green: inpatient and fed at least partially with own mother’s milk Light grey: discharged home after receiving none of own mother’s milk on last day of hospitalisation Light green: discharged home after receiving some own mother’s milk on last day of hospitalisation White: missing data Breastmilk feeding at discharge home
*Does a baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age receive any of their own mother’s milk at discharge to home from a neonatal unit?*
For very preterm babies who received all their care in one neonatal unit without being transferred this measure describes the proportion receiving any of their own mother’s milk when they were discharged home.
**Results**
Of the 6,756 eligible babies born at less than 32 weeks, there were 6,747 babies with data available from the final or penultimate day of care. Data were missing for 9 (0.1%) eligible babies. Of the 6,747 babies with data entered, 58.3% (3,935 babies) were receiving any of their mothers’ own milk at time of discharge.
**Table 19. Breastmilk feeding at discharge home, by neonatal unit level.**
| Unit level | Babies | With data entered | Enteral feeds at the time of discharge | |------------|--------|-------------------|---------------------------------------| | | | | Any breast milk | No breast milk | Missing data | | SCU | 918 | 918 | 475 (51.7%) | 443 (48.3%) | 0 (0%) | | LNU | 3,013 | 3,010 | 1,825 (60.6%) | 1,185 (39.4%) | 3 (0.1%) | | NICU | 2,825 | 2,819 | 1,635 (58%) | 1,184 (42%) | 6 (0.2%) | | Total | 6,756 | 6,747 | 3,935 (58.3%) | 2,812 (41.7%) | 9 (0.1%) | Figure 20. Breastmilk feeding at discharge home, by NNAP reporting year (2013 to 2019), for very preterm babies
Note: The eligibility for this measure has changed between 2018 and 2019. From 2019 onwards, only very preterm infants (those born at less than 32 weeks’ gestation) are included in this measure, replacing previous eligibility of less than 33 weeks’ gestation.
Key findings
Key finding (T) – Early Breastmilk Feeding
82% of very preterm babies experienced the benefits of having received some of their own mother’s milk on 14 days of age.
Key Finding (U) – Early Breastmilk Feeding
There is wide variation in the proportion of babies receiving some of their own mothers’ milk on 14 days of age by neonatal network (76-88%), consistent with known geographical variation in breastmilk feeding of term babies in the UK. This variation is seen in the plots representing milk feeding of different networks and units in Figure 19.
It is of concern that NICUs do not, on average, have higher rates of babies receiving some of own mother’s milk feeding at 14 days than SCUs or LNUs, given that smaller and sicker babies are more likely to need and benefit from their own mother’s expressed breast milk.
There is wide variation among neonatal units in the proportion of babies fed some of their own mother’s milk on day 14 (NICU range 68 – 92%), but only two NICUs can be identified to have low outlying rates.
Key finding (V) – Breastmilk feeding at discharge home
Around 6 in 10 very preterm babies were receiving some of their own mother’s milk as part of their feeding at discharge home. This has not changed significantly since 2013, which is concerning given the importance of breastmilk to the health of preterm babies. Recommendation (11):
**Neonatal units and networks should:**
Focus on both the early initiation and sustainment of breastmilk feeding in conjunction with parents by:
- Reviewing data and processes in order to undertake selected quality improvement activities suited to the local context
- Removing barriers to successful breastmilk feeding by ensuring that appropriate and comfortable areas are provided with adequate, regularly cleaned expressing equipment
- Seeking and acting on feedback from local parents on their experience of starting and sustaining breast feeding
- Working to achieve and sustain both UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative Neonatal Unit accreditation and Bliss Baby Charter accreditation
- Implementing the guidance and evidence-based care practices set out in the BAPM Maternal Breastmilk Toolkit
- Working with local parents to review and improve local practices around the early communication of the benefits of breastmilk, ideally prior to birth wherever possible
So that the many health benefits to the preterm baby and the mother of breastfeeding can be realised. 2.13. Follow-up at two years of age
Does a baby born at less than 30 weeks’ of gestational age receive medical follow-up at two years corrected age (18-30 months gestationally corrected age)?
It is important that the development of very preterm babies is monitored after the baby is discharged from the neonatal unit. This measure looks at whether there is a documented medical follow-up consultation at two years of age for babies born at less than 30 weeks’ gestational age between July 2016 and June 2017 who survived and were discharged home from the neonatal unit.
The follow-up consultation assesses whether there are any significant problems with movement, the senses, and general development or other health problems. Babies born very early encounter these problems more often than those born at full-term. It is important for those involved in the care of babies to know how they are developing as they get older, so that they can arrange appropriate treatment.
Results
There were 4,221 babies born at less than 30 weeks’ gestational age between July 2016 and June 2017 who survived and were discharged from a neonatal unit to home, to a ward or to foster care. Of these, 70.8% (2,987 of 4,221) had at least some two-year follow-up health data entered. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Figure 21. Caterpillar plot of the rates of two-year follow-up assessment: neonatal units, 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation. Units are presented in ascending order of the rates and units can be identified on NNAP Online. Figure 22. Caterpillar plot of the rates of two-year follow-up assessment: neonatal networks, 2019.
For help interpreting these caterpillar plots, please see appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation.
Figure 23. Two-year follow-up rates, by NNAP reporting year (2012-2019).
Key findings
Key finding (W) – Follow-up at two years of age
There is marked variation between neonatal networks in rates of follow up (range 48 – 82%). No network is close to recording at least some clinical follow up data for all its babies. One network has recorded a marked decline in follow-up rates since 2018.
Neonatal units record a wide range of follow up achievement from 0 – 100%. All unit types show some exceptional, and low rates of follow up. Recommendation (12):
Neonatal units should:
Produce detailed plans to provide or organise follow up of care for preterm babies in accordance with NICE guidance and consider arrangements for:
- Communicating with families about follow up at discharge
- Families who live far from the hospital of care
- Families who do not attend appointments
- Families who move to different areas
- Completing and documenting assessments made
So that very preterm babies can be monitored and checked for any problems with movement, the senses, delays in development or other health problems and so that parents can get reassurance about how their baby is developing, and any support that they might need.
The British Association for Neonatal Neurodevelopmental Follow Up (BANNFU) should:
- describe and promote best practice and successful models of delivery of high rates of follow up using appropriate instruments
To improve the long-term outcomes of all babies that have had neonatal care. 2.14. Mortality until discharge in very preterm babies
What proportion of very preterm babies die before discharge home, or before reaching 44 weeks’ of post-menstrual age (whichever occurs sooner)?
Mortality is a tragic outcome of neonatal care, that is unlikely to be preventable in all cases. The NNAP reports mortality until discharge, or 44 weeks’ post-menstrual age (whichever occurs sooner) for a three-year cohort of babies born at 24 to 31 weeks’ gestational age inclusive, between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019.
We chose to report this measure of mortality to supplement other measures of mortality, such as that reported by Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries in the UK (MBRRACE-UK). The NNAP measure focuses only on very preterm babies (those born at less than 32 weeks’ of gestation), because they experience higher mortality. MBRRACE-UK report mortality for all gestation ages. Also, unlike MBRRACE-UK, NNAP reporting is limited to those babies born alive and admitted to neonatal units. An important additional strength of NNAP mortality reporting is that it describes mortality rates up to the point of hospital discharge. MBRRACE-UK report neonatal mortality, defined as that occurring before 28 days of age, by centre. There is evidence that substantial numbers of babies die after 28 days\\textsuperscript{xiii}. MBRRACE-UK have published data showing national rates of infant mortality (death before a year of age) for a subset of very preterm babies\\textsuperscript{xiii}.
We present both actual, or crude rates of mortality, as well as estimates of the treatment effect. This treatment effect is defined by comparing the mortality of very preterm babies within a network to the mortality of a group of babies in the whole country, matched for background variables. These background variables are: birthweight; gestation; birth year; maternal age; number of previous pregnancies; maternal ethnicity; multiplicity; maternal smoking; medical problems of pregnancy; placental abruption; onset of labour. Deprivation is not matched for in this analysis. This treatment effect measure presents an answer to the question “what would the outcome for a network’s babies have been, had they been cared for elsewhere”.
NNAP mortality reporting will facilitate mortality focussed quality improvement initiatives between neonatal networks. Crude mortality alone is reported for Scotland because of incomplete participation. Mortality is not reported for the Isle of Man as it is not part of a neonatal network. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
23,906 babies were eligible for inclusion in this measure. One baby was excluded from the analysis on the account of unknown birthweight and mortality outcome was unknown for 138 babies. The total number of babies included in the analysis was 23,767. Before the final extract of data was taken, a review exercise was conducted with neonatal units to reduce the number of babies with unknown mortality outcome. Table 20. Rates of mortality before discharge of very preterm infants born 1st July 2016 – 30th June 2019: crude rates and treatment effect: neonatal networks.
| Network | Total eligible babies | Missing survival status\* | Total included in the analysis | Died before 44 weeks PMA | Survived to 44 weeks PMA or discharge home | Crude mortality rate (%) | Treatment effect | Standard error | |----------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------|----------------| | East Midlands | 1,484 | 8 | 1,476 | 108 | 1,368 | 7.32 | 1.28 | 0.71 | | East of England | 1,883 | 9 | 1,874 | 84 | 1,790 | 4.48 | -1.77 | 0.52 | | North Central & North East London| 1,665 | 14 | 1,651 | 74 | 1,577 | 4.48 | -2.46 | 0.53 | | North West London | 1,087 | 4 | 1,083 | 65 | 1,018 | 6.00 | -0.91 | 0.86 | | North West | 2,924 | 14 | 2,910 | 221 | 2,689 | 7.59 | 0.62 | 0.48 | | Northern | 1,065 | 19 | 1,046 | 70 | 976 | 6.69 | -0.08 | 0.82 | | Scotland | 1,662 | 21 | 1,641 | 113 | 1,528 | 6.89 | -0.54 | 0.58 | | South East Coast | 1,673 | 11 | 1,662 | 109 | 1,553 | 6.56 | -0.65 | 0.77 | | South London | 1,468 | 4 | 1,464 | 88 | 1,376 | 6.01 | -0.20 | 0.73 | | South West | 1,425 | 4 | 1,421 | 85 | 1,336 | 5.98 | -0.98 | 0.56 | | Thames Valley & Wessex | 1,916 | 15 | 1,901 | 103 | 1,798 | 5.42 | -1.01 | 0.81 | | Wales | 981 | 3 | 978 | 65 | 913 | 6.65 | 1.01 | 0.81 | | West Midlands | 2,405 | 7 | 2,398 | 215 | 2,183 | 8.97 | 2.62 | 0.61 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 2,268 | 6 | 2,262 | 167 | 2,095 | 7.38 | 1.00 | 0.58 | | Total | 23,906 | 139 | 23,767 | 1,567 | 22,200 | 6.59 | | |
- This includes 1 baby with missing birth weight Figure 24. Caterpillar plot of crude mortality until discharge and treatment effect: neonatal networks. Very preterm infants (\<32 weeks’ gestational age) born 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2019
Dots indicate rates of crude mortality (upper panel) and treatment effect (lower panel). The vertical lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals. Scotland is not included in the treatment effect analysis. Key findings and recommendations
Key finding (X) – Mortality until discharge home in very preterm babies
Mortality before discharge, or 44 weeks’ post-menstrual age, of very preterm infants admitted for neonatal care, varies between neonatal networks from 4.5 – 9%. A similar pattern of variation is seen in mortality of the least mature babies – those born at less than 28 weeks’ of gestation, whose mortality varies from 9.5 – 21%.
The variation is not explained by differences in case mix. Where the mortality for a network’s cases is compared to mortality of a similar group of babies cared for in the whole country, significant differences in outcome are seen. These are presented as estimated treatment effect for care of very preterm babies admitted in the units of each network, and vary from negative 2.5% to positive 2.6%. Two networks can be identified as having “excellent” low (outlying) mortality treatment effect, and one network can be identified as having high (outlying) mortality treatment effect.
The rate of missing data in 2019 (0.5%) in this report is much lower than in the previous report (1.4%). Recommendation (13):
**Neonatal networks and their constituent neonatal units should, following a review of local mortality results, take action to:**
- Consider whether a review of network structure, clinical flows, guidelines and staffing may be helpful in responding to local mortality rates
- Consider a quality improvement approach to the delivery of evidence-based strategies in the following areas to reduce mortality: timely antenatal steroids, deferred cord clamping, avoidance of hypothermia and management of respiratory disease
- Ensure that shared learning from locally delivered, externally supported, multidisciplinary reviews of deaths (including data from the local use of the Perinatal Mortality Review Tool) informs network governance and unit level clinical practice.
**The patient safety team in NHS Improvement and equivalent bodies in the devolved nations should:**
- Facilitate national dissemination of learning from mortality reviews. 2.15. Nurse staffing on neonatal units
What proportion of nursing shifts are numerically staffed according to guidelines and service specification?
What proportion of shifts have sufficient staff qualified in speciality (QIS)?
How many additional nursing shifts are required to be worked to meet guidelines and service specification?
Neonatal units in England are commissioned according to the NHS England service specification(^3). Services in Scotland and Wales are commissioned on a comparable basis according to the British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) standards(^4). Higher nurse staffing levels are associated with improved outcomes(^5). Direct caring staffing ratios of one nurse per intensive care baby, one nurse to two high dependency babies, and one nurse for four special care babies with an additional shift coordinator are recommended. Furthermore, at least 70% of registered nursing staff on duty should have a neonatal specialist qualification.
Staffing variation may be due in part to the unplanned nature of neonatal care, with variation in demand. Appointing, retaining and providing career progression for a highly specialised nursing workforce also presents a challenge to neonatal services.
This measure describes the proportion of nursing shifts that met the service specification. This is done by comparing the maximum number of babies on a neonatal unit during each shift to the number and type of nurses working on that shift. We also report the average number of additional nurses that would be required to address any shortfall. For more information on this measure, check out our measures guide.
Results
173 units were eligible for inclusion in this measure; 7 units were excluded, as less than 25% of their shifts were recorded and 1 unit did not enter any shifts for the period. Units where more than 50% of shifts are staffed with three registered nurses or fewer are excluded from the calculation of the number of shifts meeting the qualified in specialty (QIS) element of the service specification; 55 units were excluded. This is because of the challenges of the audit applying the QIS criterion of the recommendations to shifts with small numbers of nurses.
Table 21. Compliance with neonatal nurse staffing standards: neonatal unit level.
| Unit level | Eligible shifts | Eligible QIS shifts | Shifts meeting sufficient staffing specification (%) | Shifts meeting qualified in speciality specification (%) | Additional nurse shifts required | Additional average number of nurses per unit per shift required | |------------|-----------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | SCU | 29,686 | 4,380 | 22,953 (77.3%) | 2,519 (57.5%) | 5,023.4 | 0.2 | | LNU | 58,332 | 44,710 | 42,370 (72.6%) | 21,706 (48.5%) | 21,199.0 | 0.4 | | NICU | 37,591 | 36,983 | 21,369 (56.8%) | 13,847 (37.4%) | 41,630.4 | 1.1 | | Total | 125,609 | 86,073 | 86,692 (69.0%) | 38,072 (44.2%) | 67,852.8 | 0.5 | Table 22. Compliance with neonatal nurse staffing standards: neonatal networks.
| Network (Neonatal ODN) | Eligible shifts | Eligible QIS shifts | Shifts meeting sufficient staffing specification (%) | Shifts meeting qualified in speciality specification (%) | Additional nurse shifts required | Average number of additional nurses per unit per shift required | |------------------------|-----------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | East Midlands | 7,300 | 5,840 | 5,587 (76.5%) | 1,305 (22.3%) | 3,039.6 | 0.4 | | East of England | 12,410 | 8,760 | 9,621 (77.5%) | 4,378 (50%) | 2,721.95 | 0.2 | | Isle of Man | 730 | 0 | 602 (82.5%) | . (%) | 104,225 | 0.1 | | North Central & North East London | 3,156 | 2,674 | 1,834 (58.1%) | 1,875 (70.1%) | 3,682.525 | 1.2 | | North West London | 4,258 | 2,920 | 1,899 (44.6%) | 1,392 (47.7%) | 12,239.18 | 2.9 | | North West | 15,330 | 10,950 | 10,619 (69.3%) | 6,731 (61.5%) | 7,802.825 | 0.5 | | Northern | 7,786 | 2,190 | 5,267 (67.6%) | 762 (34.8%) | 2,240 | 0.3 | | Scotland | 8,030 | 7,300 | 6,293 (78.4%) | 3,858 (52.8%) | 2,646.525 | 0.3 | | South East Coast | 9,490 | 5,840 | 6,818 (71.8%) | 2,213 (37.9%) | 3,473.775 | 0.4 | | South London | 7,300 | 5,840 | 4,148 (56.8%) | 2,595 (44.4%) | 4,888.125 | 0.7 | | South West | 8,760 | 6,570 | 5,470 (62.4%) | 2,783 (42.4%) | 5,942.35 | 0.7 | | Thames Valley & Wessex | 10,220 | 5,840 | 6,847 (67%) | 2,290 (39.2%) | 4,863.25 | 0.5 | | Wales | 7,480 | 5,290 | 6,071 (81.2%) | 2,007 (37.9%) | 2,664.625 | 0.4 | | West Midlands | 10,220 | 7,300 | 5,945 (58.2%) | 2,150 (29.5%) | 7,780.8 | 0.8 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 13,139 | 8,759 | 9,671 (73.6%) | 3,733 (42.6%) | 3,763.025 | 0.3 | | Total | 125,609 | 86,073 | 86,692 (69.0%) | 38,072 (44.2%) | 67,852.8 | 0.5 | Figure 26. Adherence to recommended nurse staffing levels. Neonatal units England, Wales, Scotland, 2019.
On the horizontal axis is a measure of unit activity related to staffing – namely, the number of nurse shifts required to deliver adequate staffing according to the guidelines for all 2019 shifts, based on the babies present on each shift. The vertical axis shows the proportion of these nurse shifts reported to be staffed according to guidelines.
A unit’s annual workload is defined as the total number of shifts that would have been necessary for adequate staffing over the year. For instance, a unit that required four nurses to care for its babies for every one of its 730 shifts had a workload of $4 \\times 730 = 2920$.
Key findings and recommendations
Key Finding (Y): Nurse staffing in neonatal units
Nurse staffing on neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales remains significantly below nationally recommended levels. Overall, 69% of shifts are numerically staffed according to national recommendations – showing modest improvement on 2018 data (64%), but such high levels of understaffing in some units are a serious cause of concern.
As in 2018, NICUs experience the highest proportion of shifts not staffed according to the recommendations when compared to SCUs and LNUs, although neonatal units of all levels report increases in the proportion of shifts staffed adequately. This is of particular concern as the babies in a NICU are usually the most unwell and require the most attention.
Considerable variation exists between neonatal units in their reported staffing. For example, NICUs adherence to the numerical staffing criterion ranged from 3.4% to 99% of shifts.
The proportion of nursing shifts with sufficient staff with the relevant specialist qualification remains problematic. Just 44% of shifts were staffed according to this element of the recommendations. On average, NICU adherence to this element of national recommendations has worsened, in contrast to modest improvements seen in other measurements of staffing. Recommendation (14):
Departments of Health in England, Scotland and Wales should:
- Ensure that sufficient resources are available for the education and employment of suitably trained professionals to meet and maintain nurse staffing ratios described in service specifications
Universities and Health Education England or equivalent bodies in the devolved nations should:
- Consider revising, renewing and standardising models of specialist neonatal nursing education
In order that future rises in numbers of nurses who are qualified in speciality result in the comparable increments in nursing expertise in different neonatal networks, universities and Health Education England
Neonatal Units and Neonatal Networks should:
- Prioritise data quality assurance in submitting nurse staffing data
- Monitor adherence to recommended nurse staffing standards
- Develop action plans to address any deficits in nursing staffing and skill mix
So that babies and their parents are cared for at all times by the recommended number of trained professionals. 2.16. Spine Plots
In Figure 27 we present spine plots that allow neonatal networks and units to review their performance in all NNAP measures in a single compact diagram.
Each network is presented as a panel alongside the other networks. Performance on each measure is shown with a black disk positioned on a horizontal line for each measure. The line extends from the lowest to the highest value for that measure among all the networks.
The rates are scaled so that the national rates are aligned to a single vertical line for all measures and orientated so that better performance is to the right hand side. A grey bar describes the expected range - two standard deviations either side of the national rate, akin to a funnel plot. No standard deviations are presented for the nurse staffing measure.
The measures of “BPD or death” and “Mortality” are represented by ‘treatment effect’ – favourable outcomes are presented as a dot to the right of the line. Unit level plots can be seen on NNAP Online.
Figure 27: Spine plots by neonatal network 3. Local quality improvement case studies
Case study 1: Do all low gestation babies in the Yorkshire and Humber Neonatal ODN receive all of the appropriate early interventions; identified locally as the ‘Big 5’?
Presented by
Charlotte Bradford, Senior Information Manager, Yorkshire & Humber Neonatal ODN
Background:
To determine whether individual low gestation babies receive five, core, early care interventions. Ultimately, to determine whether provision of the ‘Big 5’ impacts on BPD outcome/mortality as well providing a focus for future QI projects.
Historically, the provision of individual clinical interventions has been reviewed in isolation; to date reviewing interventions at baby level hasn’t been performed.
The network wanted to understand whether units achieving high rates of provision for one element of care did so for all, or whether in fact concentrating on one element to improve their rate of achievement meant that it was at the detriment of other elements of care.
Reviewing whether each low gestation baby receives the ‘Big 5’ identified as:
- Delivery in appropriate location for gestational age
- Antenatal steroids
- Maternal Magnesium Sulphate
- Physiologically-based cord clamping
- Normothermia on admission
All measures based on NNAP criteria apart from Deferred Cord Clamping (DCC) as that was not a measure when this work was commenced but has subsequently been brought in line with the NNAP criteria for DCC.
Measures:
A retrospective review of ‘Big 5’ data from BadgerNet from all 18 units in the Network, for all infants born \<32 weeks. Data collated by the ODN with unit level summaries and network level, unit comparisons, to review the number of babies receiving 100% provision of the ‘Big 5’.
A quarterly review of the data at unit level, as well as Unit type, LMS footprint & Network overviews are provided. The initial phase of the project was to determine what the baseline for the provision of the ‘Big 5’ was. Review and discussion has taken place around the ‘weighting’ given to some elements and whether there should be ‘grades’ of compliance. These continue to be reviewed.
**Our improvement plan:**
The main change that this project has brought about is the focus on the baby rather than the individual elements of care.
**Outcomes**
This alternative approach to reviewing quality of care in individual babies is already contributing to improving working relationships between obstetric and neonatal services. Presenting the data in a relevant & easy to digest format supports clinicians to take responsibility for the care they provide by reporting meaningful and measurable metrics which can be linked to outcomes. There is scope for further extensive data review, which will be used to direct QI initiatives both at Unit and Network level to improve clinical outcomes.
Initial results from Q1 19/20 data demonstrated that only 17% (32) of cases across the Network had 100% provision of the ‘Big 5’.
- In NICUs the range was from 0% (0/23) to 38% (10/26)
- In LNUs the range was from 0% (0/9) to 33% (1/3)
- In SCUs all of the 4 units achieved 0%
Deferred cord clamping was the most common reason for not achieving the ‘Big 5’ at all unit levels.
- If DCC is not factored in compliance ranges from 0% to 100% with the mean being 47%.
By Q4 19/20 the data demonstrated that there have been improvements at NICU level but that other unit types are not seeing such significant changes.
- In NICUs the range was from 19% (3/16) to 52% (14/27)
- In LNUs the range was from 0% (7 units) (0/9) to 22% (2/9)
- In SCUs all 4 units achieved 0% - they will never achieve 100% though as none of these babies should be delivered in a SCU setting. However one unit did achieve all of the other criteria for the 2 babies that they admitted. Previous quarters the unit has achieved 0% and 50%.
DCC continues to be one of the main factors contributing to units not achieving the ‘Big 5’. It is clear that there is still a considerable way to go before we see the Big 5 being achieved for all babies.
It is hoped that continual monitoring along with the introduction of the DCC question in the NNAP audit will help to improve this, both in terms of change in clinical practice and as well as data recording. Further work will be focused on:
- Refining the reporting process and feeding back to maternity and obstetric colleagues via the LMS
- Reviewing if type of delivery or location of delivery impacts on receipt of ‘Big 5’
- Reviewing final outcomes in relation to receiving the ‘Big 5’, specifically relating to BPD & mortality
- Reviewing the impact of increased provision of DCC and its introduction into the NNAP dataset
Sample of a unit level summary Case study 2: Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in Preterm Labour (PReCePT): National implementation programme and nested randomised controlled trial
Presented by
Karen Luyt (PReCePT Programme Clinical Lead and PReCEPT Study Chief Investigator), Ellie Wetz (Programme Manager, West of England AHSN on behalf of the AHSN Network), Pippa Craggs (PReCePT2 Project Manager, University Hospitals Bristol & Weston NHS Foundation Trust)
Background
Being born preterm is the leading cause of Cerebral Palsy (CP), with lifelong impact on children and families. Magnesium Sulphate (MgSO4) given intrapartum during preterm labour reduces the relative risk of CP in very preterm infants by 30%(^1). The NNT (below 30 weeks’ gestation) to prevent one case of CP is 37(^2), and yet UK use was inconsistent(^3), leading to preventable health inequalities.
In West-England we co-designed, with parents, obstetric, midwifery and neonatal clinical teams, a scalable Quality Improvement (QI) initiative called PReCePT (Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in Preterm Labour), which was piloted as PReCePT1 in five maternity units from 2015. The uptake of MgSO4 increased from 21% to 88% within 6 months(^4). PReCePT1 influenced the UK national preterm labour guideline, which recommends intrapartum MgSO4 in preterm labour, < 30 weeks’ gestation(^6).
PReCePT1 achieved: a) scalable QI intervention ready for national adoption/spread b) development of the national metric for MgSO4 uptake, in partnership with NNAP.
In 2018 the Health Foundation funded us to scale-up and research how best to support teams to adopt PReCePT. The national implementation of PReCePT was commissioned by NHS England to be delivered by the Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) across England(^8).
Measures
The primary measure is percentage uptake of MgSO4 per unit as reported by NNAP. The size of the national adoption problem became evident in the 2017 NNAP report. Only 44% of preterm babies received the benefit of MgSO4 neuroprotection, with large variability (26-71%) between ODNs.
Our improvement plan
The Aim: for every maternity unit to adopt the NICE NG25 guidance and achieve 85% uptake of administration of MgSO4 to eligible mothers in preterm labour in England by April 2020. A novel network QI delivery model:
- delivery by 15 AHSNs, aligned to Neonatal ODNs, in all 152 maternity/neonatal units
- regional QI and clinical leads, working with unit-level midwife champions (clinical time funded)
- PReCePT obstetric and neonatal lead in each unit, enabling a perinatal team approach
- standardised QI resources (toolkit, implementation guide, training presentations and promotional collateral)(^8)
- nested randomised control research trial, in 40 maternity units, designed to assess the effectiveness of two different QI implementation methods(^9)
**Outcomes**
Mean average MgSO4 uptake achieved in England in 2019 was 84.9% Variability between English ODNs was substantially reduced (Range in 2016: 26-71% vs. range in 2019 77.5-93.7%). The likely impact will be a substantial ongoing reduction of avoidable cerebral palsy. PReCePT enabled a national perinatal QI network and will provide best practice evidence for national scaling up of perinatal QI initiatives.
**Challenges and learnings**
**Lessons learnt to foster success:**
- Place babies and families at the heart of the programme - parent advisers have strongly advised that MgSO4 be offered to all eligible mothers to help improve the life chances of preterm babies – video clips(^{10,11})
- Funded support/time for front-line clinicians to deliver the project key to successful delivery
- Fostering a perinatal team, joining together obstetric, midwifery and neonatal clinicians – developing perinatal clinical leadership in every unit – video clip(^2)
- National strategic alignment to the Maternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme and ODNs
- Positive use of social media to engage a truly national PReCePT community-@PReCePT_MgSO4 @PReCePT_Study
**Challenges:**
- Designing a project that was responsive to differences in unit level culture and microsystems
- High number of stakeholders to engage/coordinate with, challenged by regional variation
- Access to real-time data to support the monitoring of MgSO4 uptake Top tips for implementation
- Engage and empower perinatal clinicians to lead at local and regional level
- Provide the QI skills, evidence and support to effect change
- Create a social media community of practice and communication plan
- Development a metric for national measurement of MgSO4 uptake, utilising routine data
- Influence national policy; MgSO4 neuroprotection has become routine practice by inclusion in the NHS Long-Term plan\\textsuperscript{13}, “Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle”\\textsuperscript{14} and NICE guidance\\textsuperscript{6}, enabling sustainability of uptake.
References
01. Doyle LW, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Marret S, Rouse D: Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2009(1): Cd004661.
02. Crowther CA, Middleton PF, Voysey M, Askie L, Duley L, Pryde PG, Marret S, Doyle LW; AMICABLE Group. Assessing the neuroprotective benefits for babies of antenatal magnesium sulphate: An individual participant data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 4;14(10):e1002398
03. Lea CL, Smith-Collins A, Luyt K. Protecting the preterm brain: Current evidence-based strategies for minimising perinatal brain injury in preterm babies and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes. Arch Dis Child Fetal and Neonatal. 2016 Dec 23. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311949.
04. Burhouse A, Lea C, Ray S, Bailey H, Davies R, Harding H, Howard R, Jordan S, Menzies N, White, Luyt K. Preventing cerebral palsy in preterm labour: a multiorganizational quality improvement approach to the adoption and spread of magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection. BMJ Open Quality 2017;6:e000189.
05. NHS Scotland. The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland. 2017. https://www.gov.scot/publications/best-start-five-year-forward-plan-maternity-neonatal-care-scotland-9781786527646/
06. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015) Preterm labour and birth. NICE guideline (NG25). 2015.
07. Health Foundation Scaling-up Improvement award. https://www.health.org.uk/improvement-projects/precept2-reducing-brain-injury-through-improving-uptake-of-magnesium-sulphate
08. https://www.ahsnnetwork.com/about-academic-health-science-networks/national-programmes-priorities/precept/
09. Finding the best way to scale up a perinatal Quality Improvement initiative: The PReCePT study. https://arc-w.nihr.ac.uk/research/projects/preventing-cerebral-palsy-in-pre-term-babies-the-precept-study/
10. **PReCePT: A mum’s perspective** [https://vimeo.com/301193950](https://vimeo.com/301193950)
11. **PReCePT families** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMEjXrBGxpA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMEjXrBGxpA)
12. **PReCePT Perinatal Teams** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJtKnZz8BY&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJtKnZz8BY&feature=youtu.be)
13. [https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/chapter-3-further-progress-on-care-quality-and-outcomes/a-strong-start-in-life-for-children-and-young-people/maternity-and-neonatal-services/](https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/chapter-3-further-progress-on-care-quality-and-outcomes/a-strong-start-in-life-for-children-and-young-people/maternity-and-neonatal-services/)
14. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle. Element 5, p38 [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/saving-babies-lives-care-bundle-version-two-v5.pdf](https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/saving-babies-lives-care-bundle-version-two-v5.pdf)
**Acknowledgements**
- West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN)
- National Academic Health Science Network
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
- The Health Foundation
- National Institute for Health Research Applied Health Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West)
**Supportive Quotes from service users and perinatal teams**
 PReCePT2: “In the first PReCePT project we learned that the whole perinatal team needed to be developed to work as one, and I’m really pleased to see that this is what’s happening up and down the country”
Monica Bridge Parent advisor
PReCePT2: “PReCePT has had a big impact on our practice. The collaboration between obstetricians and neonatologists has definitely changed. Our guidelines have been improved so that everybody knows exactly what to do when there is a preterm labour”
Monique Sterrenburg Consultant obstetrician, The Jessop Wing, Sheffield PReCePT2: “PReCePT has definitely helped Medway Hospital’s perinatal team. Communication has really opened up and helped us to work as a multidisciplinary team to ensure that we’re hitting our targets and protecting these babies”
Jenny Woolley Midwife, Medway Hospital
PReCePT2: “PReCePT has provided the platform for us to create that environment where midwifery, obstetrics and neonatology come together and communicate effectively to provide the best possible care for mother and babies”
Sankara Narayanan Consultant neonatologist, Watford General Hospital Case study 3: Keeping mothers & babies together: getting it right first time
Presented by
Shanthi Shanmugalingam, Lorraine Gallagher, Rose Villar. Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
NNAP Measure: Minimising inappropriate separation of mother and term baby
Background:
The Atain (avoiding term admissions into neonatal units) programme aims to address rising term (≥37(^{+0}) weeks) admissions by identifying the main reasons for admissions (respiratory conditions, hypoglycaemia, jaundice, asphyxia). Observation of the clinical journey for infants with risk factors for postnatal compromise (‘at-risk’ infants) highlights the complex pathways our teams were navigating. Clinical guidelines differed according to the specific risk factor in frequency and length of observations and support offered leading to variation in care delivery. This extended to the management of late preterm (34(^{+0})-36(^{+6}) weeks) infants who were often pre-emptively separated from their mothers. Parent diaries highlighted how disempowered and vulnerable they felt in looking after their ‘at-risk’ baby. The need for standardisation and simplification was clear.
Aim:
We extended the NNAP measure to include both term and late preterm infants and aimed to reduce neonatal admissions to 6% by creating a single unified pathway of care for all ‘at risk’ infants.
Our improvement plan:
The traditional approaches of focusing on individual risk factors fail to address the underlying drivers of unwarranted variation in care delivery. The Royal Free Keeping mothers and babies together (KMB2) pathway centres on standardising care through the introduction of a single, simplified pathway focussing on the following key elements:
1. Standardised assessment of early respiratory distress
2. First hour care bundle
3. Orange ‘hat-risk’ nudge
4. Unified observation regime for all at-risk infants and revised Newborn Early Warning Trigger Tool (NEWTT) chart
5. Written information for families.
We started by devising a unified observation regime. Each step was tested, revised using rapid plan-do- study-act (PDSA) cycles and embedded before incremental introduction of another facet of the pathway. Collaboration with families and staff has been central in producing the pathway. The pathway team includes a father. Focus groups, one-to-one interviews and video feedback were used to inform the development of the pathway documents and continued to ensure rapid revision and retesting to hone the accessibility and utility of the pathway. Measures & Outcomes:
The baseline admission rate for infants born after 34 completed weeks’ gestation was 8.3%. We reduced this to 6.7% over a 2 year period (November 2017-November 2019). We continue to work towards achieving our target of 6%. Each PDSA cycle was tested using both qualitative (questionnaires, focus groups and interviews) and quantitative (e.g. number and quality of NEWTT charts and first hour care bundles being completed and obstacles to this) process measures. These measures were used to revise each step. Balancing measures included length of stay of mothers on the postnatal wards and presentation or readmission through accident & emergency departments within 7 days of birth. Both of these measures remained unchanged indicating that these infants are being safely transitioned home.
Sustainability
Sustainability has been primarily achieved by involving frontline staff in designing, refining and implementing the pathway and ensuring we achieved our brief of simplifying the process. During the implementation phase, the Trust introduced electronic patient records (EPR). We digitalised the pathway within the EPR to support sustainability and our midwifery team have welcomed this introduction reporting it was “straight forward…makes sense.”.
Challenges and learning
We initially tried to implement the whole pathway at once, which resulted in staff rejecting it as too complex. Implementing a single aspect of the pathway, with rapid revision and refinement based on staff and parent feedback, proved more successful. Challenging preconceptions was difficult. Taking the lead from Richard Thaler’s Nudge theory, we wanted to introduce orange hats for ‘at risk’ infants so they can be easily identified on a busy postnatal ward as requiring extra observations and feeding and temperature support. Staff were concerned that families would feel stigmatised. Parents were overwhelmingly enthusiastic citing increased confidence to ask for the extra support they needed. Hearing this directly from parents led to rapid adoption.
Top tips for implementation
- It was important that the vision was clear and the name of the project was chosen to reflect this. One parent commented, “the name of the pathway…really captured what it was setting out to do”.
- Engagement with all members of the team was crucial. Using a variety of feedback methods ensured a wide reach.
- The role of the parent voice cannot be underestimated.
- Communication within and across our teams has been important. Involving all the team by actively seeking feedback and acting on it brought a whole team ethos to this work.
- Board level support was important in terms of support offered but also in recognising and celebrating our successes.
- Spreading learning is important to ensure other teams were not reinventing the wheel. We have presented the KMB2 pathway at national and international conferences, through medical literature and shared widely through social media (our twitter handle is @MumBaby2gether). The pathway (in whole or aspects) has been adopted by Trusts across the UK and is available to all NHS Trusts via the NHS Improvement hub. Acknowledgements
The maternity and neonatal teams at both Barnet and Royal Free Hospitals have positively embraced the KMB2 pathway. Their energy, drive and passion has been matched by the families who have contributed to producing this pathway.
Measures (Run Charts) Case study 4: Improving Achievement and Documentation of Parental Consultation Within 24 Hours of Admission
Presented by
Dr. Kristin Tanney (Clinical Lead), Dr. Sajit Nedungadi (NNAP Lead), Dr. Ngozi Edi-Osagie (Clinical Head of Division, Newborn Services), Ms. Kath Eaton (Lead Nurse, Newborn Services), Mr. Marc Hutchison-Saxon (Neonatal Critical Care Audit Facilitator), Mrs. Chris Ashworth (Divisional Director, Newborn Services) Newborn Intensive Care Unit, St. Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Background
We have struggled to achieve required standards in providing and documenting senior clinician updates for parents in the first 24 hours of admission. In 2018, NNAP reported us at 81% vs NA of 95.9%. We deemed the problem to be multi-factorial, related to: high turnover of babies and doctors; transition of babies from room to room; change in NNAP standard which excluded Tier 1 ANNPs from communications; switchover to electronic patient records with resultant documentation challenges. The aim of the project was to raise awareness of the issue, improve quality of parental discussions and documentation, and to reach (and ideally surpass) the NA success. Stakeholders involved: NNAP team as in author list above, Neonatal Consultants, senior clinical fellows and trainees, senior nursing staff, and our NICU parents.
Measures
With our audit facilitator emailing daily any outstanding parental updates, and a monthly visualisation of NNAP parameters on the NICU dashboard, we have been able to follow improvements closely.
Our improvement plan
By discussing outstanding updates at handovers, making parents aware that they should have a senior update soon after baby’s admission and involving the Room Lead nurse in the process, there were frequent reminders and prompts. Circulating monthly data on individual consultants’ success has had a positive effect on communication and documentation, introducing an important element of competition. Barriers to success included: nuances in our EPR leading to suboptimal documentation, occasional language barriers, availability of senior doctors to give updates out of hours, and keeping consultants engaged in the project. We have overcome these barriers by making tweaks to our EPR communication tabs, increasing our use of BigWord, targeted daily consultant emails, introduction of a “twilight” registrar shift, and the publication of the Consultant Leader Board.
Outcomes
We were delighted to see that expected Q1 2020 NNAP data sees us at 95.1%, above the NA of 94%, and in keeping with the expected 93% for 2019. We are confident that the results reflect our commitment to providing timely, high-quality updates for parents of our NICU babies. We will work to sustain the improvement, keeping all above measures in place.
Challenges, learnings and top tips for implementation
As this QI project has been very successful, we would not do anything differently were we to do it again, and would be happy to share our story and interventions with other units facing similar challenges. 4. Methods
4.1. Audit measures and measure development
The NNAP has developed the measures reported here with its partners and with input from audit users, professional organisations, parent support organisations, neonatal networks, national initiatives or members of the NNAP Methodology and Dataset Group and Project Board.
Table 4.1 summarises the measures included in the 2019 data report.
The NNAP sets standards for measures included in the audit where it is appropriate to do so. The developmental standard is a long-term goal to which units and networks should work. Where standards do not already exist as part of national guidelines and guidance, the standard is set by consensus with the NNAP Methodology and Dataset Group, Project Board, and other key stakeholders.
The comparison standard is set at the national mean rate for the year of analysis. Outlier analysis compares units and networks to this standard to determine whether there is enough evidence to identify them as high or low outliers.
Table 4.1. NNAP audit questions, standards and associated guidelines
| NNAP question | Start year | Measure type | Developmental standard | Comparison standard | Associated guidelines | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Is a mother who delivers a baby between 23 and 33 weeks’ gestational age inclusive given at least one dose of antenatal steroids? | 2008 | Process | 85% of mothers should receive at least one dose of antenatal steroids. | National rate | NICE guideline [NG25], Preterm Labour and Birth | | Is a mother who delivers a baby below 30 weeks’ gestational age given magnesium sulphate in the 24 hours prior to delivery? | 2016 | Process | 85% of mothers should be given magnesium sulphate in the 24 hours prior to delivery. | National rate | NICE guideline [NG25], Preterm Labour and Birth | | Is an admitted baby born at less than 27 weeks’ gestational age delivered in a maternity service on the same site as a designated NICU? | 2017 | Process | 85% of babies born at less than 27 weeks GA should be delivered in a maternity service on the same site as a NICU. | National rate (network only) | NHS England, Neonatal Critical Care Service Specification | | Does an admitted baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age have its first measured temperature of 36.5–37.5°C within one hour of birth? | 2013 | Outcome | The composite measure of timeliness and normal temperature should be met for at least 90% of babies. | National rate (for timeliness and normal temperature) | NHS England, Neonatal Critical Care Service Specification | | NNAP question | Start year | Measure type | Developmental standard | Comparison standard | Associated guidelines | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Is there a documented consultation with parents by a senior member of the neonatal team within 24 hours of a baby’s first admission? | 2013 | Process | A consultation should take place within 24 hours of first admission for every baby. | National rate | Scottish Gvt, Neonatal Care in Scotland: A Quality Framework NHS Wales. All Wales Neonatal Standards – 2nd Edition. Department of Health. Toolkit for high quality neonatal services | | For a baby admitted for more than 24 hours, did at least one parent attend a consultant ward round at any point during the baby’s admission? | 2017 | Process | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | Scottish Gvt, Neonatal Care in Scotland: A Quality Framework NHS Wales. All Wales Neonatal Standards – 2nd Edition. Bliss Family Friendly Accreditation Scheme | | Does an admitted baby born weighing less than 1501g, or at gestational age of less than 32 weeks, undergo the first ROP screening in accordance with the NNAP interpretation of the current guideline recommendations? | 2009 | Process | 100% of eligible babies should receive ROP screening within the recommended time windows for first screening. | National rate | RCPCH, RCOphth, BAPM, BLISS. Guideline for the Screening and Treatment of Retinopathy of Prematurity. | | Does an admitted baby have one or more episodes of bloodstream infection, characterised by one or more positive blood cultures taken, after 72 hours of age? | 2014-2016 | Outcome | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | How many babies have a positive blood culture (any species) with a central line present, after the first 72 hours of life, per 1000 central line days? | 2014-2016 | Outcome | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | Does an admitted baby born at less than 32 weeks develop BPD? | 2013-2015 | Outcome | None. | Treatment effect of 0%. | | | Does an admitted baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age meet the NNAP surveillance definition for NEC on one or more occasion? | 2017 | Outcome | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | NNAP question | Start year | Measure type | Developmental standard | Comparison standard | Associated guidelines | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------|------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | For a baby born at gestational age greater than or equal to 37 weeks, who did not have any surgery or a transfer during any admission, how many special care(a) or normal care(b) days were provided when oxygen was not administered? | 2017 | Process | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | For a baby born at 34-36 weeks’ gestational age, who did not have any surgery or a transfer during any admission, how many special care(a) or normal care(b) days were provided when oxygen was not administered? | 2017 | Process | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | Does a baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age receive any of their own mother’s milk at day 14 of life? | 2019 | Outcome | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | Does a baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age receive any of their own mother’s milk at discharge to home from a neonatal unit? | 2013 | Outcome | None, benchmarking only | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | | Does a baby born at less than 30 weeks’ gestational age receive medical follow-up at two years corrected age (18-30 months gestationally corrected age)? | 2012 | Process | 90% of babies with two-year follow-up data entered. | National rate | NICE guideline [NG72], Developmental follow-up of children and young people born preterm. | | 1. What proportion of nursing shifts are numerically staffed according to guidelines and service specification? | 2018 | Structure | 100% of shifts compliant with guidelines and service specification. | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | NHS England. Neonatal Critical Care Service Specification Department of Health. Toolkit for high quality neonatal services BAPM. Service Standards for Hospitals Providing Neonatal Care | | 2. What proportion of shifts have sufficient staff qualified in speciality (QIS)? | | | | | | | 3. How many additional nursing shifts are required to be worked to meet guidelines and service specification? | | | | | | | Does a baby born at less than 32 weeks’ gestational age die before discharge home, or 44 weeks’ post-menstrual age (whichever occurs sooner)? | 2018 | Outcome | None | Not applicable, no outlier analysis. | | 4.2. Data flow
Data for the NNAP analyses are extracted from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) held at the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit (NDAU). The NNRD contains a predefined set of variables (the National Neonatal Dataset) obtained from the electronic neonatal patient records of each participating NHS trust or health board.
Figure 28 describes this data flow and the feedback loop, which disseminates results and recommendations to neonatal units, networks and the wider system to inform and promote quality improvement.
Figure 28. Simplified NNAP data flow diagram 4.3. Case ascertainment and unit participation
In usual practice, every baby admitted to a participating neonatal unit is entered on the BadgerNet patient record system is eligible for inclusion in NNAP. The audit therefore achieves 100% case ascertainment in the participating organisations, unless a parent or carer has chosen to opt out of having their baby’s information submitted to the audit. For the calendar year 2019, no babies were opted out. Babies receiving special care alongside their mother in transitional care areas or postnatal wards can also be entered, but it is known that some units do not enter data for such babies. For this reason, NNAP’s measures do not concentrate on care outside neonatal units.
All neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland associated with a delivery unit are eligible to take part, including special care units (SCUs), local neonatal units (LNUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). All neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales participated in the audit in 2019.
Where there is a change in unit name, unit level or network configuration, the NNAP will apply the status as at the end of the data reporting year. For example, if the configuration of a network changes on 1 April 2019, 2019 data will be presented as per the network configuration on 31 December 2019.
4.4. Data quality and completeness
The NNAP project team produces quarterly reports. These are sent to NNAP-participating unit clinical leads and other unit staff involved in the audit, to provide regular updates on their data completeness and measured adherence to the NNAP standards. The reports are a prompt to review data accuracy and completeness. The final quarterly report serves as a summary report of their annual data in January. Following that, there is a final period for units to review and amend their data on the BadgerNet system up until 30 April. For the 2019 data report, this period was impacted by the measures to prepare for the COVID19 pandemic, and the NNAP team understand that the loss of focus this led to may have had deleterious effects on data checking processes. To mitigate this, NNAP extended the data checking window by a further two weeks. However, it remains possible that some data will neither be as complete, nor as accurate as it would have been had COVID19 not been occurring at the time of the planned closure of the data validation window.
The final data download used in the report is extracted from BadgerNet after the review period has closed. Units can also access and review their data in real-time using the BadgerNet system reporting tools.
NDAU applies a data cleaning and validation process to the raw dataset before creating the NNAP dataset used to produce the data included in this report.
Babies who were finally discharged, or have died, during the NNAP reporting period form the NNAP dataset. The exceptions to this are the datasets used for Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, Two-year follow-up and Mortality until discharge for very preterm babies. 4.5. Outlier identification and management
Performance on audit measures is presented using descriptive statistics, and data are available to review on NNAP Online. Outliers are identified by funnel plot analysis, using the national rate as the standard. Table 4.1 describes the questions to which outlier identification applies. The full NNAP statistical analysis plan for the 2019 data year is available on the RCPCH website.
The NNAP manages outlier status in line with the RCPCH policy Detection and Management of Outlier Status for Clinical Indicators in National Clinical Audits, with the specific application and timelines associated with NNAP reporting for the 2019 data year set out in the outlier management plan. All neonatal services identified as outliers for one or more NNAP measures were notified according to the policy prior to publication of this report.
4.6. Managing small numbers in the NNAP
The NNAP considers the risk of disclosure on a measure-by-measure basis from a variety of methods resulting from the publication of results based on small numbers of cases. Given the frequent occurrence of small numbers at the unit level, annualised reporting, applying blanket masking to all cells would significantly reduce the utility of published NNAP results for improvement purposes. To further minimise the risk, the NNAP does not publish demographic data about the cohort of babies included in the audit, which would have the potential to be used alongside published data for the audit measures to aid identification of a baby.
4.7. Developing key findings and recommendations
The NNAP brings together a multidisciplinary group, including parents, to identify key findings and to translate the key findings and results of the audit into a set of recommendations that can be acted upon to improve neonatal care. The recommendations are made to support the existing goals and priorities of neonatal and perinatal services and are targeted to the audience with the ability to action the recommendation.
Recommendations are designed to be specific to each audit measure. However, there are several recommendations that relate to more than one audit measure. 5. Driving improvements in neonatal care
5.1. Recommendations and action plan development
Recommendations are listed by measure in Chapter 2 and by audience in Appendix B.
What to do next:
1. Share your unit’s NNAP results with your multidisciplinary team, using NNAP Online and the NNAP results presentation template.
2. With the multidisciplinary team, set goals and develop action plans where your unit results require improvement and your unit is not meeting the audit recommendations.
3. Use the recommendations checklist to track your unit, trust/health board or network’s status.
4. Monitor your unit’s performance through the year using NNAP quarterly reports and real time data. Regularly revisit the recommendations checklist and your unit’s action plan throughout the year.
5.2. Useful resources
- **NNAP Online**: [www.nnap.rcpch.ac.uk/NNAP](http://www.nnap.rcpch.ac.uk/NNAP). Results at unit, network and national level are hosted on NNAP Online. We recommend that neonatal units and networks use NNAP Online to view their results and compare themselves against other units of the same designation. Use it to share results with the wider team, share best practice between units and networks, and to stimulate quality improvement activities.
- **NNAP results presentation template**: [www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme](http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme). Use this template to help you communicate the main national and unit level audit findings to your team.
- **NNAP recommendations checklist**: [www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme](http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme). Use this checklist to track your progress against this year’s NNAP recommendations.
- **The NNAP quality improvement map**: [www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme](http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/national-neonatal-audit-programme). Use this map to find national and international quality improvement resources, research, policies, guidelines, quality assurance programmes, audits and registries by NNAP measure area.
- **British Association for Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) quality resources**: [www.bapm.org/quality](http://www.bapm.org/quality). BAPM’s repository of quality resources, alerts, safety and improvement stories. • **RCPCH QI Central**: [www.qicentral.org.uk](http://www.qicentral.org.uk). The RCPCH quality improvement sharing hub. You can find this year’s NNAP case studies, as well as those from previous years, on QI Central.
• **Maternity and Children Quality Improvement Collaborative (MCQIC) resources**: [www.ihub.scot/improvement-programmes/scottish-patient-safety-programme-spsp/maternity-and-children-quality-improvement-collaborative-mcqic/](http://www.ihub.scot/improvement-programmes/scottish-patient-safety-programme-spsp/maternity-and-children-quality-improvement-collaborative-mcqic/). MCQIC is part of the Scottish Patient Safety Programme. A number of QI resources are available on their website.
• **Maternal and neonatal health safety collaborative resources**: [www.improvement.nhs.uk/resources/maternal-and-neonatal-safety-collaborative/#resources](http://www.improvement.nhs.uk/resources/maternal-and-neonatal-safety-collaborative/#resources). The maternal and neonatal health safety collaborative is a three-year programme to support improvement in the quality and safety of maternity and neonatal units across England. Various resources are available on their website.
### 5.3. Information for parents, carers and families
*Your baby’s care* is a parent and carer’s guide to the NNAP and the audit results. Available in English and Welsh, it tells families: what the audit is, what it aims to achieve, explains the results for key audit measures, and what families can do in response to the results. We ask units to make the booklet available to parents and carers in their unit. Your baby’s care is available here: [new link to be added for 2020 leaflet](http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/your-babys-care-measuring-standards-improving-neonatal-care-2019)
The NNAP fair processing and parent information leaflet *Your baby’s information* is available here: [www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/national-neonatal-audit-programme-your-babys-information](http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/national-neonatal-audit-programme-your-babys-information)
The NNAP unit results posters summarise a selection of the unit’s NNAP results that are most relevant to parents, families and wider members of the multidisciplinary team caring for the baby. Neonatal units display the posters in a public area, and complete a second poster, which explains the actions they are taking in response to their audit results. Designed to be used alongside *Your baby’s care*, the posters help to communicate the meaning and relevance of the audit results not only to parents, but to the wider team involved in caring for the baby and mother.
NNAP unit results posters can be downloaded from NNAP Online [www.nnap.rcpch.ac.uk](http://www.nnap.rcpch.ac.uk).
All our information for parents, carers and families is developed in collaboration with our parent, nurse and charity representatives. 5.4. Future developments in the NNAP
As a well-established programme achieving high levels of engagement with the multi-professional neonatal clinical community, the NNAP can respond quickly to changing quality improvement priorities. The NNAP has made considerable positive impact since its launch in 2006; achieving improvements across many areas of clinical practice, from antenatal interventions, achieving normothermia on admission, to parental involvement in care and clinical follow-up at two years of age. Variation remains, and the audit will continue to support neonatal units and networks to achieve best practice in these areas.
Following feedback from audit users, the NNAP has introduced a measure of deferred cord clamping in very preterm infants from 2020. There is evidence that the practice leads to a large reduction in mortality. By reporting this measure the NNAP has an opportunity to facilitate benchmarking and review of practise.
In 2021 the NNAP anticipates commencement of measurement of intraventricular haemorrhage, post haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation and periventricular leukomalacia according to consensus definitions.
The NNAP will continue to work closely with the wider neonatal community, through its participants, stakeholder groups and national programmes of work. There are opportunities to work with NHS Digital and the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) to improve data linkage between the processes and outcomes of neonatal care and maternity care in England. Index of appendices
Appendix A: Data completeness and unit participation Appendix B: NNAP recommendations by audience Appendix C: Glossary and abbreviations Appendix D: NNAP governance Appendix E: Pathogens in the NNAP Appendix F: Neonatal care system and QI map Appendix G: Methodology and Interpretation Appendix H: Mortality vs NEC graph Appendix I: Aims of the NNAP
Appendices are available at: www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/national-neonatal-audit-programme-annual-report-2019-2018-data i Oddie S., Tuffnell D. J., McGuire W. Antenatal magnesium sulfate: Neuro-protection for preterm infants. *Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition* 2015;100: F553-F557. Available at: https://fn.bmj.com/content/100/6/F553
ii National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. *Preterm labour and birth. NICE guideline (NG25)* 2015. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG25
iii NHS England. *Neonatal Critical Care Service Specification*. 2016. Available from https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/group-e/e08/
iv NHS England. *Implementing Better Births: Integrating Neonatal Care into Local Maternity System Transformation Plans*. 2017.
v Scottish Government. *Neonatal Care in Scotland: A Quality Framework*. 2013. Available from http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00415230.pdf
vi Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, NHS Wales. *All Wales Neonatal Standards - 2nd Edition*. 2013. Available from http://www.wales.nhs.uk/document/219405.
vii Department of Health. *Toolkit for high quality neonatal services*. 2009. Available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123200735/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_107845.
viii Bliss. *Bliss Family Friendly Accreditation Scheme*. 2015. Available from https://shop.bliss.org.uk/en/products/health-professional-resources/baby-charter-booklet
ix Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of Ophthalmologists, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, BLISS. *Guideline for the Screening and Treatment of Retinopathy of Prematurity*. 2008. Available from https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2008-SCI-021-Guidelines-Retinopathy-of-Prematurity.pdf
x Stoll B.J., et al. Neurodevelopmental and Growth Impairment Among Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants With Neonatal Infection. *JAMA* 2004; 292(19): 2357–2365. doi:10.1001/jama.292.19.2357. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547163
xi British Association of Perinatal Medicine. *Neonatal Transitional Care – A Framework for Practice*. 2017. Available from: https://www.bapm.org/resources/24-neonatal-transitional-care-a-framework-for-practice-2017
xii Berrington J.B., et al. Deaths in Preterm Infants: Changing Pathology Over 2 Decades. *J Peds*;160(1):49-53. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868028
xiii Smith, L., et al. on behalf of the MBRRACE-UK collaboration. *MBRRACE-UK Supplementary report on survival up to one year of age for babies born before 27 weeks’ gestational age*. 2019. Available at: https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/downloads/files/mbrrace-uk/reports/MBRRACE-UK%20supplementary%20tables%20on%20births%20before%2027%20weeks%20gestation%202016.pdf
xiv British Association for Perinatal Medicine. *Service Standards for Hospitals Providing Neonatal Care (3rd edition)*. Available at: https://www.bapm.org/resources/32-service-standards-for-hospitals-providing-neonatal-care-3rd-edition-2010 Watson S., et al. On behalf of the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit (NDAU) and the Neonatal Economic, Staffing, and Clinical Outcomes Project (NESCOP) Group. The effects of a one-to-one nurse-to-patient ratio on the mortality rate in neonatal intensive care: a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study. *Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition*. 2016;101:F195-F200. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26860480. National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP) 2020 Annual report on 2019 data
©2020 Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. Published by RCPCH November 2020
Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) Dawson House, 5 Jewry Street, London EC3N 2EX
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 5-11 Theobalds Road, London, WC1X 8SH
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) is a registered charity in England and Wales (1057744) and in Scotland (SC038299).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4238-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 94,
"total-input-tokens": 232334,
"total-output-tokens": 45420,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
228,
1
],
[
228,
228,
2
],
[
228,
1602,
3
],
[
1602,
3266,
4
],
[
3266,
5895,
5
],
[
5895,
7361,
6
],
[
7361,
8881,
7
],
[
8881,
10821,
8
],
[
10821,
12563,
9
],
[
12563,
14026,
10
],
[
14026,
15877,
11
],
[
15877,
17938,
12
],
[
17938,
19044,
13
],
[
19044,
21674,
14
],
[
21674,
22299,
15
],
[
22299,
24482,
16
],
[
24482,
25253,
17
],
[
25253,
26751,
18
],
[
26751,
28990,
19
],
[
28990,
29445,
20
],
[
29445,
30575,
21
],
[
30575,
31938,
22
],
[
31938,
33433,
23
],
[
33433,
36211,
24
],
[
36211,
36794,
25
],
[
36794,
38042,
26
],
[
38042,
40200,
27
],
[
40200,
40745,
28
],
[
40745,
41966,
29
],
[
41966,
44655,
30
],
[
44655,
45843,
31
],
[
45843,
48401,
32
],
[
48401,
48910,
33
],
[
48910,
50405,
34
],
[
50405,
51038,
35
],
[
51038,
54078,
36
],
[
54078,
57034,
37
],
[
57034,
61035,
38
],
[
61035,
62683,
39
],
[
62683,
65681,
40
],
[
65681,
68978,
41
],
[
68978,
69506,
42
],
[
69506,
70547,
43
],
[
70547,
72053,
44
],
[
72053,
74756,
45
],
[
74756,
79103,
46
],
[
79103,
80917,
47
],
[
80917,
83020,
48
],
[
83020,
86835,
49
],
[
86835,
89077,
50
],
[
89077,
92021,
51
],
[
92021,
92778,
52
],
[
92778,
94218,
53
],
[
94218,
95957,
54
],
[
95957,
97053,
55
],
[
97053,
98685,
56
],
[
98685,
99424,
57
],
[
99424,
100408,
58
],
[
100408,
103459,
59
],
[
103459,
108006,
60
],
[
108006,
108404,
61
],
[
108404,
109530,
62
],
[
109530,
110495,
63
],
[
110495,
114365,
64
],
[
114365,
119404,
65
],
[
119404,
121466,
66
],
[
121466,
122521,
67
],
[
122521,
123572,
68
],
[
123572,
125437,
69
],
[
125437,
127841,
70
],
[
127841,
128295,
71
],
[
128295,
130555,
72
],
[
130555,
132588,
73
],
[
132588,
135105,
74
],
[
135105,
136526,
75
],
[
136526,
137084,
76
],
[
137084,
137647,
77
],
[
137647,
140185,
78
],
[
140185,
143347,
79
],
[
143347,
143617,
80
],
[
143617,
146701,
81
],
[
146701,
149781,
82
],
[
149781,
153690,
83
],
[
153690,
158079,
84
],
[
158079,
158663,
85
],
[
158663,
161700,
86
],
[
161700,
163883,
87
],
[
163883,
166181,
88
],
[
166181,
169053,
89
],
[
169053,
170574,
90
],
[
170574,
171064,
91
],
[
171064,
174083,
92
],
[
174083,
174537,
93
],
[
174537,
175017,
94
]
]
} |
24a40b93d4583e07e237590251fa3f880c0a710a | # Contents
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | Introduction | 3 | | How the data is collected | 4 | | What is done with the data after submission | 5 | | Data Cleaning | 5 | | Validation | 6 | | Production of Analysis database | 7 | | Analysis | 8 | | Coverage | 8 | | Data Period | 9 | | Registrations | 9 | | Definition of the Care Processes | 10 | | Definition of the Treatment Targets | 12 | | Structured Education | 13 | | Disclosure Control – Changes in 2016-17 | 14 | | Appendix A: Data Flow Diagram | 15 | Introduction
The National Diabetes Audit (NDA) is managed by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) on behalf of NHS England and delivered by NHS Digital formerly the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), working in collaboration with Diabetes UK and Public Health England (PHE).
The NDA is a major national clinical audit, which measures the effectiveness of diabetes healthcare against NICE Clinical Guidelines and NICE Quality Standards, in England and Wales. The NDA collects and analyses data for use by a range of stakeholders to drive changes and improvements in the quality of services and health outcomes for people with diabetes.
The NDA answers five key questions:
1. Is everyone with diabetes diagnosed and recorded on a practice diabetes register?
2. What percentage of people registered with diabetes received the nine NICE key processes of diabetes care?
3. What percentage of people registered with diabetes achieved NICE defined treatment targets for glucose control, blood pressure and blood cholesterol?
4. What percentage of people registered with diabetes are offered and attend a structured education course?
5. For people with registered diabetes what are the rates of acute and long term complications (disease outcomes)?
The NDA supports improvement in the quality of diabetes care by enabling participating NHS services and organisations to:
- assess local practice against NICE guidelines
- compare their care and care outcomes with similar services and organisations
- identify gaps or shortfalls that are priorities for improvement
- identify and share best practice
- provide comprehensive national pictures of diabetes care and outcomes in England and Wales
Through participation in the audit, local services are able to benchmark their performance and identify where they are performing well and improve the quality of treatment and care they provide. On a national level, wide participation in the audit also provides an overview of the quality of care being provided in England and Wales.
A Quality Improvement Toolkit has been developed in collaboration with the RCGP to help practices use their diabetes data to improve services http://www.rcgp.org.uk/clinical-and-research/toolkits/quality-improvement-toolkit-for-diabetes-care.aspx(Opens in a new window)
This document provides you with the information and links you need to understand how the audit data is collected and analysed. How the data is collected
Information is collected from GP practice administrative data via pre-agreed extracts of their computer system. Data is extracted from general practice clinical systems and specialist service units in secondary care hospitals. For the 2016-17 audit collection, a primary care specification was developed containing all the read codes for extraction and information about time periods the data needed to capture, this was used as the basis of each system supplier extract and the MiQUEST queries. Clinical System suppliers (EMIS, INPS and Microtest) developed in house queries that GP practices ran on their administrative systems and submitted the resulting CSV files to NHS Digital via the Clinical Audit Platform. For TPP, practices confirmed within their systems that they wanted to participate in the NDA by the 10th July 2017, after this date TPP automatically extracted the data from those practices confirming participation and submitted it directly to NHS Digital on their behalf. For other clinical systems or TPP practices missing the deadline for automatic extraction, MiQUEST queries were made available from the NDA website for practices to run within their administrative systems and submit the resulting CSV files to the Clinical Audit Platform. For Wales, GP practices confirmed that they wanted to participate in the NDA and NHS Wales Informatics Service collected the data on their behalf and transferred to NHS Digital.
For Specialist Services an excel template specification was available for specialist services to complete. Guidance was given for what data items needed to be returned and the corresponding date ranges. Specialist services worked with their IT departments and Audit Teams to develop bespoke extracts from their administrative systems to be able to return the data. Where specialist services were not able to electronically extract the data, they were still able to participate in the NDA by submitting a list of the NHS numbers of the patients registered to their clinics which is routinely available from their Patient Electronic System (PAS). This was then matched to primary care records to be able to generate a report for the specialist service.
The audit is collected and disseminated in England under S254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, known as a Direction. This means in England it is mandatory for GP practices and Specialist Services to participate. In Wales the Confidentiality Advisory Group has granted permission to collect the NDA under Regulation 5 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 (known as Section 251 support), it is voluntary for GP practices and specialist services in Wales to participate in the NDA. The NDA operates under an “opt in” model so remain open and transparent with practices and specialist services about what data is being collected. The participation rate was 95.3 per cent of all GP practices in England and Wales for 2016-2017. Further information on submitting data to the NDA can be found here.
The information collected from GP practices for the audit are individual level data and so contain demographic information such as age, sex, ethnicity, diabetes duration and some geographic variables such as IMD centiles and postcode.
A full list of the information collected from GP systems can be found here a list of variables which feed the analysis database can be found here.
In previous audit years only the most recent dates and measurements for the care processes have been collected. In 2016-17 multiple readings for HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol and BMI have been collected.
Whether a person has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness has also been collected for the first time in the NDA for 2016-17.
A data flow diagram can be found in Appendix A. What is done with the data after submission
Data Cleaning
Cleaning rules are applied to the data on submission to ensure correct information is being received as part of the audit. The following cleaning rules are applied to these variables.
These ensure that the data received as part of the audit are within certain acceptable limits. Data outside of these limits is deemed to be invalid and therefore set to unknown or null.
| Rule statement | Valid codes and values | Invalid codes and values set to unknown values | |----------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | SEX | 1, 2 | NULL | | ETHNICITY | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, W | NULL | | DIABETES_TYPE | 01, 02, 06, 08 | NULL | | ALBUMIN_TEST | 01, 02, 03, 04 | NULL | | ALBUMIN_STAGE | 01, 02, 03 | NULL | | EYE_EXAM_VALUE | 01, 02, 03 | NULL | | FOOT_EXAM_VALUE| 01, 02, 03 | NULL | | SMOKING_VALUE | 1, 2, 3, 4 | NULL | | ED_REVIEW_VALUE| 01, 02 | NULL | | ED_REVIEW_DATE | | NULL | | ED_OFFER_VALUE | 01, 02 | NULL | | ED_OFFER_DATE | | NULL | | ED_ATTEND_VALUE| 01, 02 | NULL | | ED_ATTEND_DATE | | NULL | | Clean_IHD_VALUE| 1 | NULL | | DIAGNOSIS_DATE | >=01/01/1907 and \<= audit end date (\<31/03/20xx) and >= BIRTH_DATE | NULL | | BIRTH_DATE | >=01/01/1907 and \<= audit end date (\<31/03/20xx) and \<= DIAGNOSIS_DATE | NULL | | SYSTOLIC_DATE & DIASTOLIC_DATE | SYSTOLIC_DATE = DIASTOLIC_DATE and >= audit start date (01/01/20xx) and \<= audit end date (\<31/03/20xx) | NULL | | HBA1C_mmol_Value| Between 20 and 195 | NULL | | HBA1C-%\_Value | >= 3.979993595 and < 20 | NULL | | BMI | >=12 and \<=90 | NULL | | SYSTOLIC_VALUE | >=70 and \<=300 | NULL | | DIASTOLIC_VALUE| >=20 and \<=150 | NULL | | CREATININE_VALUE| >=20 and \<=1200 | NULL | | CHOLESTEROL_VALUE| >=1 and \<40 | NULL | Certain records are excluded completely from the extracts submitted by the GP practices and specialist services units.
Records are rejected for the following reasons:
- A specialist service care record submitted with only NHS number and no corresponding primary care record.
- A primary care record does not come from a GP practice which is eligible for the NDA
(A list of eligible GP practices is obtained from NHS Digital corporate reference library, which is updated weekly using data from the Organisation Data Service (ODS) for England. We also sought feedback from Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) contacts to ensure their GP practice list is up to date).
NHS Wales Informatics Service (NWIS) supplied the list of eligible GP practices and associated LHB.
**Validation**
A provisional report is produced for each CCG which provides a comparison to the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) data on people registered as having diabetes and an overall figure on the care process completion and the treatment target achievement. This provides an opportunity for CCGs to address any data quality issues with the GP practices and NHS Digital, and re-submit the data.
Internal validation is completed on receipt of the automated extracts to ensure that there are no systematic issues with the data, and these are resolved where possible within the collection window.
Any data quality issues with the data are highlighted alongside analysis to ensure readers are made aware and further details are provided in the data quality statement accompanying the report.
For example, “Albumin Care Process” - there is a known issue with the recording of this element of the collection in 2012-13, which was rectified for later collections but needs considering when looking over time.
“There is a ‘health warning regarding the screening test for early kidney disease (Urine Albumin Creatinine Ratio, UACR). An issue with data supplied to NHS Digital for the 2012-2013 audit was brought to our attention prior to publication, which is believed to be restricted to Urine Albumin data extraction across a number of practices. Caution should be borne in mind when looking at the variation across CCGs for this care process.” Production of Analysis database
Most individuals within the NDA will have one record only which can be used to determine demographic and diagnostic information. The majority of records will come from primary care (GP extracts).
The demographic fields include:
- Age
- Sex
- Ethnicity
- Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)
- GP practice code
- Diagnosis year
- Diabetes type
- Diagnosis of Learning Disability (LD)
- Diagnosis of Serious Mental Illness (SMI)
Diagnostic information includes dates and values for each of the care processes.
Where data is received from more than one organisation a single record per person is created through the ‘golden record’ process.
Golden Record
Information for the same person can be submitted by several organisations, for instance if the person has moved GP practices during the period, and/or attended one or more hospital based specialist services. For analysis purposes a single record is created for each person.
The GP recording the most recent activity is assigned as the person’s ‘current’ GP practice, as at the end of the audit period. Similar, the specialist service recording the most recent activity is assigned as the person’s ‘current’ hospital. If no GP or hospital data was received for a person then these data fields are left blank.
Demographic information is taken from the current GP practice where this is valid. If this isn’t the case, any other records are considered, and if they are not contradictory then this information is used. For example, if a current GP practice listed the sex as female, we would use this in the first instance. If the current practice submitted sex as ‘unknown’, other records for that person would be considered. If these records were a mixture of ‘male’ and ‘female’, sex would be left as ‘unknown’. If the other records agreed that the only valid value for that person was ‘female’ then they would be assigned as ‘female’ in the data.
The exception to this in demographics is the diabetes type. For this the value from specialist services is used where this is available, and not contradictory. Where it isn’t available from hospital data, the diabetes type is taken from the current GP practice. If this is ‘unknown’ then other primary care records are considered, and the value used from these if they are not contradictory.
For care processes the most recent date per person is used, with the lowest measurements taken that day assigned to the golden record. The record can therefore be made up of information from a mixture of GP practices and specialist services. Analysis
Coverage
The NDA provides a detailed picture of the clinical processes and care pathway for those diagnosed with diabetes. Some of the information collected as part of the audit is collected and published via the QOF. QOF is an aggregated return which provides information for nearly all GP practices in England. The QOF information is used within the report when discussing coverage.
CCGs, Local Health Boards (LHBs), GP practices and adult outpatient specialist service units submit data about the care that is being delivered for people with diabetes in their organisation. This will include children that have been treated in an adult care setting, however it does not cover paediatric units. For the full picture on the paediatric care for children with diabetes, please refer to the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA) which is conducted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH)(^1).
The suite of NDA reports uses three separate cohorts of patients from England and Wales:
- Primary care patients – These are patients who are registered with a participating GP practice.
- Specialist service patients – These are patients that have a specialist service record; however they may or may not be registered with a participating GP practice. Information is collected from hospitals and trusts via a bespoke data collection system.
- All patients – Any patient from participating GP practices and specialist service units.
The audit changed from an opt-out to an opt-in model from 2013-2014. A reduction in participation was observed in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Due to variation in participation caution should be taken when looking at local level analysis (CCGs and LHBs) for low participation years, and across time periods.
Prior to 2013-2014 the approach to the audit was opt out, this meant that GP practices had to tell NHS Digital that they did not wish to participate; this was normally a small number of practices. The drop in participation in 2012-2013 was expected due to the restructuring of the NHS in April 2013. This organisational transition disrupted many well established organisations and systems.
A large amount of work was completed to improve participation in the audit the last two audit years, with a record 95.3% participation in 2016-17.
| Audit year | Total number of practices | Number of participating practices | National participation rate | |------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | 2011-2012 | 8,549 | 7,515 | 87.9% | | 2012-2013 | 8,476 | 5,991 | 70.7% | | 2013-2014 | 8,232 | 4,699 | 57.1% | | 2014-2015 | 8,198 | 4,696 | 57.3% | | 2015-2016 | 8,021 | 6,609 | 82.4% | | 2016-2017 | 7,742 | 7,375 | 95.3% |
(^1)National Paediatric Diabetes Audit, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health [http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/npdat](http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/npdat) Data Period Data is collected covering a 15 month period between 1st January in the first year and 31st of March in the second year.
Registrations This relates to the number of people registered with a GP or with a specialist service unit and covers the all patients cohort. It is expected that the majority of patients should be registered with a GP, however there are instances where this is not the case. This may be because their registered GP practice has failed to participate. Definition of the Care Processes
It is vital that people with diabetes receive all nine of the NICE recommended key health tests and measures. These tests help to monitor and manage diabetes, as well as to reduce the risk of complications such as stroke, heart disease and amputations.
For each of the care processes the date fields are used to determine if the care process has been performed. The most recent date is used in the audit year and these are matched back on to the relevant cohort of patients. The denominator for the care processes are the total number of people aged 12 or over within the relevant cohort with the exception of HbA1c (where all patients are used).
A care process can take place in any setting for example the blood test or the smoking review can be done in hospital or in the registered GP practice and it will still count towards the GP practice, CCG, LHB and the specialist service unit.
The nine annual health checks for people with diabetes are:
1. **Blood Pressure** Blood Pressure is a measurement of the force of blood flow inside your arteries. Your blood pressure is stated as two figures, e.g. 130/80. The first figure is known as the systolic pressure and relates to the pressure as the heart contracts and pushes blood through the arteries. The other figure is the diastolic pressure measured when the heart relaxes to refill with blood.
A blood pressure measurement should be taken for all registered patients with diabetes at least once a year. This information is collected as part of the audit. Records are only used within the care process completion indicator if there is a diastolic and systolic date and these are the same. Where a patient aged 12 or over has a diastolic and systolic date in the audit year at any organisation participating in the audit the care process is considered complete.
2. **Weight and BMI measurement** Body Mass Index this should be recorded for all patients with diabetes. This should be measured and recorded annually by the GP or specialist service unit.
The date of this record is used to determine if the care process has been completed in the audit period. Where a patient aged 12 or over has a BMI date in the audit year at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
3. **Serum creatinine test (creatinine is an indicator for renal function)** This should be measured and recorded annually by the GP or specialist service unit. The date of this record is used to determine if the care process has been completed in the audit period. Where a patient aged 12 or over has a creatinine date in the audit year at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
4. **Urinary albumin test (or protein test to measure the kidney function)** This should be measured and recorded annually by the GP or specialist service unit. The date of this record is used to determine if the care process has been completed in the audit period. Where a patient aged 12 or over has an albumin date in the audit year at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
5. **Cholesterol (Triglycerides are another type of fat in the blood)** If you have raised cholesterol and raised triglycerides you have an increased risk of Cardio Vascular Disease (CVD). This should be measured and recorded annually by the GP or specialist service unit. The date of this record is used to determine if the care process has been completed in the audit period. Where a patient aged 12 or over has a cholesterol date in the audit year at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
6. **Eye check (retinopathy screening)** Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes. It occurs when high blood sugar levels damage the cells at the back of the eye, known as the retina. Patients with diabetes should be offered screening on an annual basis.
Unfortunately, the variation in the use of terminology and its impact on the consistency of data extraction from electronic clinical records rendered this element of the data unreliable as a measure of this care process. The NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (NHS DESP) records every digital eye screening and we believe that its records should now be used as the preferred measure for this annual care process.
7. **Foot check** Patients with diabetes should have an annual foot check, as diabetes can limit the blood supply to your feet and cause a loss of feeling. This can mean foot injuries do not heal well. A patient is more likely to have a limb amputated when they have diabetes. Where a patient aged 12 or over has a foot exam date in the audit year at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
8. **Smoking Status** Where a patient aged 12 or over has a smoking status date in the audit year at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
9. **Blood test (HbA1c – blood glucose levels)** This indicates your blood glucose levels for the previous two to three months. The HbA1c measures the amount of glucose that is being carried by the red blood cells in the body. This care process is appropriate for all ages where a patient of any age has an HbA1c date in the audit period at any organisation the care process is considered complete.
**All 8 Care Processes** – this is where the person has to have received all eight care processes (excluding eye screening) where appropriate. The requirement is that everyone has their HbA1c measured annually, and everyone aged 12 or over should have all eight care processes annually. So, an 11 year old will only be required to have their HbA1c value tested and so if this has been done they will have achieved the all care process element, However, an adult aged 25 will have to have received all eight different care processes to have achieved the all eight care processes. Definition of the Treatment Targets
There are targets relating to three of the care processes; “blood tests” (HbA1c), cholesterol and blood pressure. For a patient to appear in the denominator group for each of the targets section they need to have the date that the measurement was taken and a result recorded.
The most recent date is used in each audit year and the best result for the test is taken if two tests were completed on the same day. These are matched back on to the relevant cohort of patients. A care process and therefore the target result are taken from any setting and it will count towards the GP practice/CCG and specialist service unit targets.
The seven targets for the three care processes for people with diabetes are:
1. **Blood test (HbA1c – blood glucose levels).** This is vital to measuring the long term glucose levels within the patients’ blood; the aim should be to keep these at normal levels. The most recent result is taken for use within the calculation and if there were two tests completed on the same day the lowest value is used.
There are three cumulative levels of the target: a. The HbA1c value is less than 48 mmol/mol (\<48) b. The HbA1c value is less than or equal to 58 mmol/mol (≤58) c. The HbA1c value is less than or equal to 86 mmol/mol (≤86)
2. **Cholesterol** If you have raised cholesterol and raised triglycerides you have an increased risk of CVD. This target measures the cholesterol levels of patients with diabetes. The most recent result is taken for use within the calculation and if there were two tests completed on the same day the lowest value is used.
There are two cumulative levels of the target: a. The cholesterol value is less than to 4 mmol/l (\<4) b. The cholesterol value is less than to 5 mmol/l (\<5)
3. **Blood Pressure** This is a flat target that the patient’s blood pressure (BP) should be less than or equal to 140/80. The most recent result is taken for use within the calculation and if there were two tests completed on the same day the lowest value is used.
**All Targets** – this is where the person has achieved HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, cholesterol < 5mmol/l and blood pressure \<=140/80. Structured Education
Care process completion and treatment target achievement is calculated for each audit year using data from that audit year collection. Structured education information is calculated on a different basis. The most recent year’s data collection is used to provide as complete historic information for each person as possible.
Also, whereas care processes and treatment targets look at the 15 month audit period, structured education primarily looks at diagnoses within a calendar year and whether education was offered or attended in the 12 months following diagnosis. Disclosure Control – Changes in 2016-17
Disclosure control has been applied to mitigate the risk of patient identification.
In previous years the data for practices was removed from the publication where the practice list size was less than 1,000. Data for additional practices was removed where differencing would reveal suppressed data.
This was compliant with the Anonymisation Standard for Publishing Health and Social Care Data, but data for all practices that had submitted data was not available. In addition, providing data for CCG, LHBs, specialist services or GP practices broken down by demographics such as age required additional ad-hoc suppression that was time consuming and meant much of this information was not practical to produce.
A new suppression method has been implemented for the 2016-17 audit. All numbers are rounded to the nearest 5, unless the number is 1 to 7, in which case it is rounded to ‘5’. This allows for more granular data to be made available, and also for data for all GP practices to be made available.
Rounded numbers are used to calculate rates such as care process completion and treatment target achievement. At CCG/LHB level and above this makes virtually no difference to the resultant rates. At GP level, where the numbers are small, this rounding can have a relatively large impact on the resultant rates, but where numbers are small, rates are volatile and should already be treated with caution. Appendix A: Data Flow Diagram
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4135-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 15,
"total-input-tokens": 31566,
"total-output-tokens": 6783,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
964,
2
],
[
964,
3421,
3
],
[
3421,
7251,
4
],
[
7251,
10389,
5
],
[
10389,
12607,
6
],
[
12607,
15175,
7
],
[
15175,
18485,
8
],
[
18485,
18970,
9
],
[
18970,
22063,
10
],
[
22063,
24814,
11
],
[
24814,
27024,
12
],
[
27024,
27614,
13
],
[
27614,
29067,
14
],
[
29067,
29096,
15
]
]
} |
779abc3d3339cd24dcb52552b2965e95cad07329 | التحذيرات
الحظر القومي: ظل بالمنزل حالات فيروس الكورونا تزداد بسرعة في الدولة. اعرف ما يمكنك أن تفعله ولا تفعله.
نشر في 4 يناير 2021 آخر تحديث 6 يناير 2021 - انظر إلى كل التحديثات
من: مكتب مجلس الوزراء
المنشورات
ملخص: ما يمكنك أن تفعله ولا تفعله أثناء الحظر القومي لمن هذا الدليل اليدين. الوجه. المساحة. مني يمكنك مغادرة بيتك مقابلة أشخاص آخرون التمرين كمامات الوجه حلقات الدعم ورعاية الأطفال إذا كنت تنتهك القواعد حماية الناس الأكثر عرضة لخطر الإصابة بفيروس كورونا الذهاب إلى العمل الذهاب للمدرسة أو الكلية الجامعات رعاية الأطفال التنقل السفر الدولي المبيت خارج البيت زيارات دور العناية الجنائز الرفاق والشراكات المدنية والخدمات الدينية دور العبادة الرياضة والنشاط البدني الرحل من السكن الدعم المالي الأنشطة التجارية والأماكن الأنشطة التجارية والأماكن التي يمكن ان تظل مفتوحة العناية الصحية والخدمات العامة
ملخص: ما يمكنك ان تفعله ولا تفعله اثناء الحظر القومي
يجب عليك ان تظل بالمنزل أهم عمل يمكنك فعله او البقاء بالمنزل لحماية الخدمات الصحية وإنقاذ الأرواح.
يجب عليك ان تتبع هذا الدليل فورا. هذا هو القانون.
مغادرة البيت يجب عليك ألا تغادر بيتك أو تكون خارجه إلا عند الضرورة. يمكنك مغادرة البيت لكي:
- تتسوق للضروريات لك أو لشخص معرض للخطر أو توفير خدمات طوعية أو خيرية إذا لم تتمكن من فعل هذا من البيت.
- التمرين مع عائلتك (أو حلقة المساندة) أو مع شخص آخر، ويجب أن يكون هذا محدوداً لمرة باليوم ويجب عليك ألا تخرج من منطقتك المحلية.
- مقابلة حلقة المساندة أو حلقة رعاية الأطفال عند الضرورة ولكن إذا كان مسموحًا لك قانونيًا أن تنشئ حلقة.
- الحصول على المساعدة الطبية أو لتجنب الإصابة أو المرض أو الأذى (بما فيه التعسف المنزلي).
- حضور التعليم أو رعاية الأطفال - لهؤلاء المقبولين.
- حضور المواقف الطبية أو لحضور المواعيد الطبية أو التمرين.
- إذا كنت شديد المرض فيجب عليك الخروج فقط لحضور المواعيد الطبية أو التمرين أو عند الضرورة. يجب عليك ألا تذهب للعمل.
مقابلة الآخرين
لا يمكنك مغادرة بيتك لمقابلة اجتماعياً أي شخص لا تعيش معهم أو ليس في حلقة المساندة (إذا كان مسموح لك قانونيًا لتكوين حلقة).
يمكنك التمرين لوحدك أو مع شخص آخر أو مع عائلتك أو حلقة المساندة. ويجب أن يكون هذا محدوداً لمرة باليوم ويجب عليك ألا تخرج من منطقتك المحلية.
لا يمكنك مقابلة أشخاص آخرين لا تعيش معهم، أو لم تنشئ معهم حلقة مساندة إلا لسبب مسموح به. البقاء على بعد 2 متر عن أي شخص ليس من عائلتك.
التعليم
ستظل الكليات والمدارس الثانوية مفتوحة فقط للأطفال المعرضون وأطفال الموظفين الحرجون سيتعلمون كل الأطفال الآخرون عن بعد حتى نصف فصل فبراير.
ستظل أماكن السنوات المبكرة مفتوحة.
سيستمر توفير التعليم العالي عبر الإنترنت حتى منتصف فبراير للجميع ما عدا دورات الموظفين الحرجون.
لمن هذا الدليل
هذا الارشادات للأشخاص الذين يتمتعون بلياقة جيدة. هناك إرشادات متفرقة لـ الأسر التي لديها إصابة محتملة أو مؤكدة بفيروس كورونا و سيتم تقديم نصائح إضافية في كل مستوى قريبًا لـ الأشخاص المعرضين بشدة للإصابة بفيروس كورونا. إذا كنت شديد العرضة للمرض يجب عليك ان تتبع توجيهات الوقاية المستمرة وجب عليك ألا تحضر العمل أو الكلية أو الجامعة. يجب عليك ان تحد الوقت الذي تقضيه خارج البيت. يجب عليك الخروج فقط لحضور المواعيد الطبية أو التمرين أو عند الضرورة.
اليدين. الوجه. المساحة.
واحد من كل ثلاثة أشخاص مصابين بفيروس كورونا (COVID-19) لا تظهر عليه أعراض وسينشره دون أن يدرك ذلك.
تذكر - "اليدين. الوجه. المساحة
• اليدين - اغسل يديك بانتظام ولمدة 20 ثانية. الوجه - ارتدي كمامة في الأماكن الداخلية حيث قد يكون التباعد الاجتماعي صعبًا، وحيث ستتواصل مع أشخاص لا تقابلهم عادةً
المساحة - ابق بعيدًا عن الأشخاص الذين لا تعيش معهم بمسافة مترتين قدر الإمكان، أو مترًا واحدًا مع اتخاذ احتياطات إضافية (مثل ارتداء الكمامة)
يجب أن يتبعوا قواعد بشأن مقابلة الآخرين بأمان.
متى تستطيع أن تغادر المنزل
يجب عليك ألا تغادر بيتك أو تكون خارجه إلا إذا كان عندك سبب وجيه. هذا هو القانون. يمكن للشرطة اتخاذ إجراءات ضدك إذا غادرت البيت بدون سبب وجيه وغرمك (مخالفة العقوبة المحددة).
يمكن أن تحصل على إشعار عقوبة ثابتة بقيمة 200 جنيه إسترليني عن المخالفة الأولى، وتتضاعف لكل جريمة أخرى لملغ أقصاه 6,400 جنيه إسترليني.
وتشتمل الأسباب الوجيهة على:
العمل
يمكنك مغادرة بيتك فقط لغرض العمل إذا لم يمكن لك العمل من البيت. ويشمل هذا ولا يقتصر على الأشخاص ضمن البنية التحتية الحرقة والبناء أو الصناعة والتي تتطلب الحضور الشخصي.
التطوع
يمكنك مغادرة البيت لتقديم خدمات طوعية أو خيرية.
الأنشطة الضرورية يمكنك مغادرة بيتك لشراء الحاجيات من المحلات أو للحصول على خدمات. يمكنك أيضاً مغادرة بيتك للقيام بهذه الأمور نيابة عن شخص معوق أو معرض للخطر أو معزول ذاتياً.
التعليم والعناية بالأطفال
يمكنك مغادرة بيتك فقط للتعلم أو رعاية الأطفال المسجلة أو النشاطات المشرف عليها للأطفال حيث يتأهل الطفل للحضور. ويتقيد الحصول على التعليم ونشاطات الأطفال لطلبة المدارس. راجع معلومات إضافية عن التعليم والعناية بالأطفال.
يمكنك أيضاً إن تنشئ حلقة رعاية الأطفال.
مقابلة الآخرون والعناية
يمكنك ان تغادر المنزل:
- لمقابلة حلقة المساندة (إذا كان مسموحًا لك قانونيًا أن تنشئ حلقة).
- لتوفير رعاية الأطفال الرسمية للأطفال دون سن ال 14 كجزء من حلقة رعاية الأطفال (مثل ليتمكن الأهل من الذهاب للعمل وليس لتمكين التواصل الاجتماعي ما بين البالغين).
- لتوفير العناية للمعوقين أو المعرضين للخطر.
- لتقديم المساعدة في حالات الطوارئ.
- لحضور حلقة مساندة (لحد 15 شخصًا).
- لتوفير عناية الراحة لشخص معرض أو معوق أو استراحة قصيرة لطفل تحت العناية.
التمرن يمكنك التمرين لوحدك أو مع شخص آخر أو مع عائلتك أو حلقة المساندة. ويجب أن يكون هذا محدوداً لمرة باليوم ويجب عليك ألا تخرج من منطقتك المحلية. ويجب عليك ان تحافظ على التباعد الاجتماعي. راجع التمرين
الأسباب الطبية
يمكنك ان تغادر المنزل لسبب طبي بما فيه إجراء فحص فيروس الكورونا او لحضور موعد طبي او للطوارئ.
الولادة
يمكنك ان تغادر المنزل مع شخص يولد او للحصول على خدمات ولادة أخرى او لتكون مع رضيع يحصل على عناية حريصة ما بعد الولادة. يوجد توجيهات الصحة القومية حول الحمل وفيروس الكورونا
الأذى
يمكنك مغادرة المنزل لتجنب الإصابة او المرض او للهرب من خطر الأذى (مثل التعصف المنزلي).
الزيارات الاستراحية
يمكنك ان تغادر منزلك لزيارة شخصاً يحتضر أو يعيش بعناية منزلية (إذا كان مسموحًا بموجب توجيهات العناية المنزلية) أو منزل أو بمستشفى أو لترافقهم لحضور موعد طبي.
أسباب العناية بالحيوان
يمكنك مغادرة منزلك لأسباب عناية حيوانية، مثل استخدام خدمات طبيب بيطرى للنصيحة أو العلاج. العبادة الجماعية والأحداث الحياتية
يمكنك مغادرة منزلك لحضور عبادة جماعية أو لحضور جنازة أو حدث معني بالموت أو لزيارة مقبرة أو حديقة ذكرى أو لحضور حفل زفاف. يجب عليك اتباع الإرشادات الوطنية حول الاستخدام الآمن لأماكن العبادة، ويجب عليك ألا تختلط مع أي شخص خارج عائلتك أو حلقة المساندة. ولكن، أحداث الزفاف والجنائز والدينية أو الذكري المعنية بموت شخص تخضع لحدود عدد الحاضرون.
أسباب معقولة أخرى
هناك أسباب معقولة أخرى. يمكنك مغادرة بيتك للإيفاء بالتزامات قانونية أو لإجراء نشاطات معنية بشراء أو بيع أو تأجير أو استئجار ملكية سكنية أو حينما يكون معقولاً للتصويت بانتخابات أو استفتاء.
مقابلة أشخاص آخرون
يعتبر ضد القانون أن تقابل اجتماعياً مع عائلتك أو أصدقائك إلا إذا كانوا جزء من عائلتك أو حلقة المساندة. لا يمكنك مغادرة بيتك للأغراض الترفيهية أو التسلية (مثل النزهة أو جمعة اجتماعية).
التمرن
يجب عليك أن تقلل الوقت الذي تقضيه خارج البيت، ولكن يمكنك مغادرة بيتك للتمرن. يجب أن يكون هذا محدوداً لمرة باليوم ويجب عليك ألا تخرج من منطقتك المحلية.
يمكنك التمرن أو زيارة الأماكن العامة الخارجية:
- لوحدك
- مع أشخاص تعيش معهم لمقابلة حلقة المساندة إذا كان مسموحًا لك قانونيًا أن تنشئ حلقة.
إذا كنت في حلقة رعاية الأطفال أو، عندما تكون وحيدك، مع شخص واحد من عائلة أخرى.
وتشمل هذا ولكن لا يقتصر على الركض أو ركوب الدراجة الهوائية أو المشي أو السباحة. يمكن للتمرين الشخصي أن يستمر على أساس شخص لشخص إلا إذا كان الجميع من نفس العائلة أو حلقة المساندة.
الأماكن العامة في الهواء الطلق تشمل:
- الحدائق والشواطئ والريف المتاح للجمهور والغابات
- الحدائق العامة (سواء كنت تدفع رسوم لدخولها أم لا)
- أراضي المواقع الأثرية
- ملاعب الأطفال
يجب على أماكن الرياضة الخارجية أن تغلق، مثل:
- ملاعب التنس
- ملاعب الغولف
- برك السباحة
لا يحسب الأطفال دون سن 5 مع معتنين لشخص ذو إعاقة والذي يحتاج لعناية مستمرة نحو حد التجمع بالخارج.
إذا كنت (أو شخص بعنايتك) مصابًا بحالة صحية والتي تتطلب ترك البيت بانتظام للحفاظ على صحتك - بما فيه التنقل خارج المنطقة المحلية أو التمرين عدة مرات باليوم - فيمكنك فعل هذا. عندما تتواجد حول أشخاص آخرين، ظل على مسافة مترين من أي شخص ليس من عائلتك - أي الأشخاص الذين تعيش معهم - أو حلقة المساندة. وإذا لم يمكن هذا، ظل على مسافة متر مع احتيادات إضافية (مثل لبس الكمامة).
كمامات الوجه
يجب أن تلبس الكمامة في العديد من الأماكن الداخلية مثل المتاجر أو دور العبادة حيث تظل هذه مفتوحة وفي وسائل النقل العام إلا إذا كنت معفيًا. هذا هو القانون. أقرأ التوجيهات حول الكمامة.
حلقات المساندة ورعاية الأطفال
يجب عليك أن تلبسي قوانين تأهيل معينة لتكون حلقة مساندة أو رعاية الأطفال. وهذا يعني أنه لن يستطيع كل شخص أن يكون حلقة.
تعتبر حلقة المساندة شبكة مساندة تربط عائلتان. يمكنك أن تنشئ حلقة مساندة مع عائلة أخرى من أي حجم إذا لبيت قوانين التأهيل.
يعتبر ضد القانون أن تنشئ حلقة مساندة إذا لم تتبع هذه القوانين.
يمكنك مغادرة منزلك لزيارة حلقة المساندة الخاصة بك (وللمبيت عندهم). ولكن، إذا أنشأت حلقة مساندة، فيفضل أن تكون مع عائلة تسكن بالمنطقة المحلية. وسيساعد هذا بمنع انتشار الفيروس من منطقة يكون بها عدد المصابون أكبر.
إذا كنت تعيش مع عائلة تضم شخصا دون 14 عاما، فيمكنك أيضا أن تكون حلقة رعاية الأطفال. وهذا يمكن لأصدقاء أو عائلة من عائلة أخرى أن توفر رعاية أطفال غير رسمية.
يجب ألا تتقابل اجتماعيا مع حلقة رعاية الأطفال ويجب أن تتجنب رؤية أعضاء حلقة رعاية الأطفال والمساندة بنفس الوقت.
هناك إرشادات منفصلة لـ حلقات المساندة و حلقات رعاية الأطفال. أين ومتى يمكنك التجمع بمجموعات أكبر
ما تزال هناك ظروفًا يسمح بها لك التجمع مع آخرين من خارج عائلتك أو حلقة المساندة بمجموعات أكبر، ولكن لا يجب أن تتم هذا للتزاور وإنما للأغراض المسموحة فقط. وستشمل لائحة كاملة عن هذه الظروف مع التوجيهات، وتشمل:
- للعمل والخدمات التطوعية والخيرية، حيث لا يمكن عمل ذلك من البيت. ويمكن أن يشمل هذا العمل بمنازل الآخرين عند الضرورة - مثل، المربون أو المنظمون أو موظفي العناية الاجتماعية الذين يزودون مساعدة للأطفال والعائلات أو الخريفيون. راجع التوجيهات في العمل بسلامة في منزل الآخرين. عندما لا يحتاج اجتماع عمل أن يتم في بيت أو حديقة خاصة، فيجب ألا يتم - مثلًا، رغم أنه يمكنك الاجتماع بمدرب شخصي، فيجب عليك أن تقوم بهذا في مكان خارجي.
- في حلقة رعاية الأطفال (الأغراض رعاية الأطفال فقط)
- وعند التأهيل لاستخدام هذه الخدمات، للتعليم أو رعاية الأطفال المسجلة أو نشاطات الأطفال المشرف عليها. ينطبق الحصول على التعليم ومرافق رعاية الأطفال. راجع معلومات إضافية عن التعليم والعناية بالأطفال.
- للترتبات التي لا يعيش فيها الأطفال في نفس المنزل مع والديهم أو أولياء أمورهم.
- للسماح بالاتصال بين الوالدين والأطفال تحت الرعاية، وكذلك بين الأشقاء في الرعاية للوالدين أو الأوصياء بالتبني المحتملين لمقابلة طفل أو أطفال قد يتم وضعهم معهم.
- لوضع أو تسهيل وضع الخدمات الاجتماعية لطفل بالعناية.
- شريك الولادة (الشخص المرافق للمرأة عند الولادة)
- لتقديم المساعدة في حالات الطوارئ، وتجنب الإصابة أو المرض، أو الهروب من مخاطر الأذى (بما فيه التعسف المنزلي). لزيارة شخص ما يحتضر في المنزل، أو لزيارة شخص يتلقى العلاج في مستشفى أو دار رعاية المسنين أو دار رعاية، أو لمرافقته أحد أفراد الأسرة أو صديق في موعد طبي للوفاء بالتزام قانوني، مثل حضور خدمة المحكمة أو هيئة المحلفين.
للجمعيات داخل أماكن إقامة العدالة الجنائية أو مراكز احتجاز المهاجرين تقديم الرعاية أو المساعدة لشخص معرض للخطر أو توفير فترة راحة لمقدم الرعاية
لحضور حفل زفاف أو ما يشبهه. يجب أن يتم هذا بظروف استثنائية ويتعدد بعد أقصاه 6 أشخاص.
للجنائز - لحد 30 شخص فقط. يمكن للعراة والأحداث الحفلية المعنية أن تستمر بمجموعات أقصاه 6 أشخاص.
للرياضيين النخبة (فريق دعمهم إذا لزم الأمر، أو الآباء / الأوصياء إذا كانوا أقل من 18 عامًا) للتنافس والتدريب.
لتسهيل الرحيل من منزل
حلقات مساعدة والتي يجب أن توفر شخصيا يمكن تستمر بعد أقصاه 15 مشاركا، حيث يتم تنظيمها رسميا وتتوفر المساعدة المشتركة والعلاج أو أي نوع من المساعدة - ولكن يجب أن تتم في أماكن غير البيوت الشخصية.
عندما تضم المجموعة شخصًا مشمولًا بالاستثناء (على سبيل المثال، شخص يعمل أو يتطوع)، لا يتم احتسابهم عمومًا كجزء من حد التجمعات. هذا يعني، على سبيل المثال، أن تاجرًا يمكنه الذهاب إلى منزل دون خرق الحد، إذا كان هناك للعمل، ولن يتم احتساب المسؤول في حفل الزفاف ضمن الحد المسموح به.
في حالة انتهاء القواعد
يمكن للشرطة اتخاذ إجراءات ضدك إذا التقيت في مجموعات أكبر. ويشمل ذلك فض التجمعات غير القانونية وإصدار الغرامات (غرامات المخالفات المحددة). يمكن أن تحصل على إشعار عقوبة ثابتة بقيمة 200 جنيه إسترليني عن المخالفات الأولى، وتتضاعف لكل جريمة أخرى لملغ أقصاه 6,400 جنيه إسترليني. إذا كنت تقيم أو تشارك في عقد تجمع غير قانوني لأكثر من 30 شخصًا، فيمكن للشرطة إصدار غرامات قدرها 10,000 جنيه إسترليني.
حماية الأشخاص الأكثر عرضة لخطر الإصابة بفيروس كورونا
إذا كنت معرضًا طبيًا، فقد تكون بخطر أكثر للمرض الشديد الناجم عن فيروس الكورونا. هناك نصائح إضافية لخصوص الأشخاص المعرضون بشدة للإصابة بفيروس كورونا. لؤلؤة شديدة المرض يجب عليهم أن يتبوعوا توجيهات الوقاية المستمرة.
ويجب عليهم ألا يحضروا العمل أو الكلية أو الجامعة. يجب عليك ان تحد الوقت الذي تقضيه خارج البيت. يجب عليك الخروج فقط لحضور المواعيد الطبية أو التمرين أو عند الضرورة.
الذهاب إلى العمل
يمكنك ان تغادر بيتك للذهاب للعمل إذا لم تستطيع ان تعمل من البيت.
عندما لا يستطيع الناس القيام بذلك، فيجب عليهم الاستمرار في الذهاب إلى مكان عملهم. ويشمل هذا ولا يقتصر على الأشخاص الذين يعملون في:
- البنية التحتية القومية الحرجة
- البناء
- الصناعة
- رعاية الأطفال أو التعليم
- الخدمات العامة الضرورية
وهذا ضروريا لتشجيع الدولة عاملة وتساند القطاعات والموظفين. وإذا لزم أن تعمل بمنزل شخص آخر - مثل جلسات الأطفال أو عاملون النظافة أو الحرفيون - يمكنك أن تستمتع بهذا. إلا أن عليك أن تتجنب الاجتماع للعمل في بيت أو حديقة خاصة حيث قد لا توجد تدابير مكافحة فيروس الكورونا.
على المستخدمين والموظفين أن يناقشوا ترتيبات العمل ويجب على المستخدمين أن يتخذوا كل خطوة ممكنة لتسهيل على موظفيهم العمل من البيت بما فيه تزويد تقنية معلومات ومعدات مناسبة تمكينهم من العمل عن بعد. عندما لا يمكن للناس أن يعملوا من بيوتهم، على المستخدمين أن يتخذوا الخطوات لمساعدة الموظفين في تجنب الأوقات والطرق المكتظة في وسائل النقل العام.
يمكن تقليل خطر انتقال العدوى إلى حد كبير إذا تم اتباع إرشادات أمان COVID-19 عن كثب. يجب إيلاء المزيد من الاهتمام لأولئك الأشخاص المعرضين لخطر أكبر.
الذهاب للمدرسة أو الكلية
ستظل الكليات والمدارس الابتدائية (الاستقبال وما بعده) والثانوية مفتوحة فقط للأطفال المعرضون للخطر وأطفال الموظفين الحرجون سيتعلم كل الأطفال الآخرون عن بعد حتى نصف فصل فبراير.
الامتحانات
في تلك الظروف، لم يمكن للامتحانات أن تعقد في الصيف كما كان مخططًا. وستعمل وزارة التعليم مع مديرية المؤهلات للاستشارة بسرعة وضع ترتيبات بديلة والتي ستمكن الطلبة من التقدم بانضباط.
يمكن للموردين أن يستمروا بالامتحانات المهنية والفنية التي ستعقد في يناير إذا شعروا بأنه يمكن القيام بذلك. الجامعات
ويجب على الطلبة الذين يحصلون على تدريب ويدرسون الدورات التالية أن يرجعوا للتعلم الوجه لوجه كما هو مخطط:
- الطب وطب الأسنان
- المواضيع الملزمة للطب/الصحة
- علم البيطرة
- التعليم (بما فيه تدريب المعلمين)
- العمل الاجتماعي
- الدورات التي تتطلب تقييم من هيئات تنظيمية أو تشريعية أو مهنية أو/و نشاط إلزامي تم جدولته لشهر يناير ولا يمكن إعادة جدولته (ستبلغ جامعتك إذا انطبق هذا عليك).
يجب أن يتم فحص الطلبة العائدون مرتين عند عودتهم للجامعة أو الاعتزال الذاتي لمدة عشرة أيام عوضا.
يجب على الطلبة الذين لا يدرسون هذه الدورات أن يظلوا بمكانهم متى ما كان ممكنًا، أو يبدأ أو فصلهم عبر الإنترنت حسب تسهيل الجامعة أو الكلية حتى منتصف فبراير على الأقل. ويشمل هذا الطلب في الدورات العملية غير المبينة في اللائحة أعلاه.
ونشرنا أيضا توجيهات للجامعات والطلبة حول كيف يمكن للطلبة أن يعودوا للتعليم العالي في فصل الربيع. يبين هذا التوجيه كيف سنساند مزودي التعليم العالي ليتمكن الطلبة من العودة بسلامة بعد فرصة الشتاء بتعاقب هذه العملية لتسهيل تقديم الفحوص للجميع.
إذا كنت تعيش بحرم الجامعة يجب عليك ألا تتنقل بين بيتك الدائم وسكن الطلبة أثناء الفصل. لهؤلاء الطلبة المؤهلين للتعليم وجهاً لوجه، يمكنهم الالتقاء بمجموعات أكثر من العائلة كجزء من التعليم أو التدريب الرسمي متى ما كان ضرورياً. يتوقع من الطلاب اتباع الإرشادات والقيود. يجب أن يحافظ على الابتعاد الاجتماعي عن أي شخص لا تعيش معه قدر الإمكان.
رعاية الأطفال
هناك عدة طرق يمكن للوالدين ومقدمي الرعاية من خلالها الاستمرار في الوصول إلى رعاية الأطفال:
- ستظل أماكن السنوات المبكرة مفتوحة (بما فيه الحضانات وجلسات الأطفال).
- يجب أن يستمر جلسات الأطفال بالسماح للأطفال بالحضور بشكل طبيعي ما عدا للأطفال بسن المدرسة. يجب على جلسات الأطفال الذين يعتنون بأطفال بسن المدرسة (بما في ذلك أطفال سنة الاستقبال) أن يدخلوا فقط الأطفال المعرضون وأطفال الموظفين الحرجون.
- يمكن للأطفال المعرضون وأطفال الموظفين الحرجون أن يستمروا باستخدام رعاية الأطفال المسجلة ونشاطات الأطفال الأخرى (بما فيه العناية الشاملة).
- يمكن للأهالي أن ينشؤوا حلقة رعاية الأطفال مع عائلة أخرى لغرض رعاية الأطفال غير الرسمية حيث يكون الطفل دون سن 14. وهذا ليتمكن الأهالي من العمل ويجب ألا يستخدم لتمكين التواصل الاجتماعي ما بين البالغين.
- يستطيع بعض العائلات من الانتفاع من مشاركتها بحلقة مساندة.
- سيستمر جلسات الأطفال من توفير خدماتهم بما فيها في المنازل.
السفر يجب عليك ألا تترك أو تخرج خارج بيتك إلا إذا كان لديك سبباً وجياً (مثل للتعلم أو للعمل). إذا اضطررت أن تتنقل فيجب أن تظل بالمنطقة المحلية - بمعنى تتجنب التنقل خارج قريتك أو مدينتك أو الجزء من المدينة الذي تعيش به - وعليك أن تخفض عدد الرحلات التي تقوم بها بشكل عام. تشمل لائحة الأسباب التي تمكنك من ترك بيتك ومنطقتك ولا تقتصر على:
- العمل، حيث لا يمكنك العمل من بيتك.
- الحصول على التعليم ومسؤوليات العناية.
- زيارة هؤلاء في حلقية المساندة - أو حلقية العناية بالأطفال للعناية بالأطفال.
- زيارة المستشفى أو الطبيب أو موعد طبي آخر أو زيارات حيث كنت بحاجة و كنت قلفاً على صحتك.
- شراء البضائع أو الخدمات من مكان مفتوح في منطقة مستوى 4، بما فيه البضائع المفرقة الضرورية ولكن يجب أن تكون هذه في منطقتك المحلية حيثما أمكن.
- التمرين الخارجي. يجب أن يتم هذا محلياً إذا أمكن، ولكن يمكنك التنقل مسافة قصيرة داخل منطقة مستوى 4 لفعل هذا عند الضرورة (مثل، للوصول لمكان مفتوح) أو لحضور عناية أو تمرين حيوان أو الحصول على خدمات بيطرية.
يمكنك المشي أو ركوب الدراجة حيثما أمكن، والتخطيط مسبقاً وتجنب الأوقات المزدحمة والطرق في وسائل النقل العام. سيسمح لك ذلك بممارسة التباعد الاجتماعي أثناء السفر.
تجنب رحلات مشاركة السيارة مع أي شخص من خارج أسرتك أو حلقية المساندة. راجع إرشادات حول مشاركة السيارة.
إذا كنت تريد السفر، يجب عليك اتباع إرشادات السفر الأكثر أمانًا. السفر الدولي
يمكنك السفر دوليا، أو داخل المملكة المتحدة إذا كان لديك سببا قانونيا لترك البيت. إضافةً، عليك أن تعتبر نصيحة الصحة العامة في الدولة التي ستزورها.
إذا اضطررت أن تسفر دوليا (وكان مسموحًا لك قانونيا بسبب العمل مثلا) وحتى لو كنت متجهاً إلى منطقة زرتها من قبل، فيجب عليك أن تراجع القوانين في الوجهة ونصيحة السفر من وزارة الخارجية والكونغرس والتطوير.
لا يتوجب على المواطنين البريطانيين الموجودين بالخارج ان يعودوا فورا لديارهم. ولكن عليك أن تراجع الخطوط الجوية أو وكيل السفر حول ترتيبات العودة.
للأجانب، فستخضع لتوجيهات ‘البقاء بالمنزل’. يجب ألا تسفر دوليا إلا إذا سمح لك. وهذا يعني عدم سفرك للإجازة.
إذا زرت المملكة المتحدة يمكنك العودة لديارك. يجب عليك أن تتأكد إذا كانت هناك قيودا في وجهتك.
المبيت ليلًا بعيدا عن بيتك
لا يمكنك ترك بيتك أو مكان سكنك لقضاء الإجازة أو المبيت ليلًا إلا إذا كان لديك سببا معقولا لفعل هذا. وهذا يعني ان الإجازات في المملكة المتحدة والخارج ليست مسموحة.
وهذا يشمل البقاء في بيت ثاني أو كرمان إذا لم يكن مسكنك الرئيسي. ويشمل هذا البقاء مع شخص لا تعيش معه إلا إذا كان ضمن حلقة المساندة.
يسمح لك المبيت ليلًا بعيدا عن بيتك إذا:
- كنت تزور حلقة المساندة.
- كنت غير قادر على العودة إلى مكان إقامتك الرئيسي.
- كنت بحاجة لسكن أثناء الرحيل. • كنت بحاجة لسكن لحضور جنازة أو حدث تذكري معني. • كنت بحاجة لسكن لغرض العمل أو توفير خدمات تطوعية. • كنت طفلا بحاجة لسكن للمدرسة أو العناية. • كنت مشردا أو تسعى للجوء أو شخصا معرضًا للخطر تسعى المأوى أو تهرب الأذى (بما فيه التعسف المنزلي). • كنت رياضيا محترفا ومن موظفين المساندة أو أحد والديه، إذا كان الرياضي دون سن 18 وكان من الضرورة البقاء خارج البيت للتدريب أو التنافس.
إذا كنت بإجازة، فيجب عليك العودة لديارك بأقرب ما يمكن عمليا.
مزودي سكن الاستضافة، مثل الفنادق والنزل ومنتزهات الكرفان تستطيع ان تظل مفتوحة لأسباب محددة مبينة بالقانون وتشمل إذا لم يستطيع النزلاء العودة لديارهم، فيمكنهم استخدام السكن المستضيف كمسكنهم الرئيسي أو يحتاجون لسكن أثناء الرحيل أو يعتزلون ذاتيا حسب القانون أو قد يتشردون نتيجة لغلق المسكن. يمكن ان تجد لائحة كاملة عن الأسباب في التوجيهات حول إغلاق شركات وأماكن معينة في إنجلترا.
وتشجع مزودي السكن ان يعملوا مع السلطات المحلية لتوفير السكن للمجموعات المعرضة للخطر بما فيها المشردون.
زيارات دور العناية
يمكن أن تتم زيارات دور الرعاية بترتيبات مثل الشاشات الكبيرة وأكشاك الزيارة أو من وراء نافذة. لا يسمح بالزيارات القريبة التواصل وفي الأماكن الداخلية. لن يسمح بالزيارات بحالة الانتشار.
يجب عليك ان تراجع التوجيهات حول زيارات بيوت الرعاية أثناء انتشار فيروس الكورونا لتعرف كيف سيتم إجراء الزيارة. لا يمكن للسكان ان يجتمعوا مع أشخاص داخليا بزيارة خارجية (مثل زيارة أقربائهم في بيت العائلة). هناك إرشادات منفصلة لهؤلاء الذين يعيشون في السكن المساند.
الجنازات
يجب أن تتم الجنازات فقط في الأماكن المؤمنة ضد فيروس الكورونا أو في الأماكن المفتوحة العامة، إلا في ظروف استثنائية.
يمكن حضور الجنازات بعدد أقصاه 30 شخصا فقط. يمكن الأحداث الدينية أو المعنية بالمعتقدات مثل وضع الضريح ونشر الرماد أن تستمر بعدم الحضور أقصاه 6 أشخاص. أي شخص يعمل لا يحسب ضمن هذه الحدود. لا يزال ينبغي اتباع التباعد الاجتماعي بين الأشخاص الذين لا يعيشون معًا أو يشاركون حلقة المساندة.
الزفاف والشراكات المدنية والخدمات الدينية
يجب أن يتم حفل الزفاف والشراكة المدنية بحضور أقصاه 6 أشخاص. أي شخص يعمل لا يحسب ضمن هذه الحدود. وعند الإمكاني، يجب ألا تتم هذه إلا بالظروف الاستثنائية مثل زواج عاجل إذا كان أحد الأطراف مريضا جدا ولا يتوقع منه التعافي أو يعالج بعلاج شديد أو سيجري عملية جراحية مغيرة للحياة.
يجب أن تتم احتفالات الزفاف والمشاركة الاجتماعية وحفلات الاستقبال والجنازات فقط في الأماكن الآمنة لكوفيد-19 أو في الأماكن الخارجية العامة، إلا في ظروف استثنائية.
دور العبادة
يمكنك حضور أماكن العبادة من أجل تأدية العبادة. ومع ذلك، يجب ألا تختلط بأي شخص خارج اسرتك أو حلقة المساندة الخاصة بك. يجب عليك ان تحافظ على تباعد اجتماعي طوال الوقت. يجب عليك اتباع الإرشادات الوطنية حول الاستخدام الآمن لأماكن العبادة.
الرياضة والنشاط البدني
ستغلق نوادي الرياضة ومرافق الرياضة الداخلية. يجب ان تغلق ملاعب الرياضة الخارجية ونوادي الرياضة المفتوحة وبرك السباحة المفتوحة ومباني رمي السهام والقفز والرماية ومراكز ركوب الخيل. ستستمر الرياضة المفتوحة المنظمة للأشخاص المعوقين.
يمكن للرياضة المحترفة ان تستمر. يوجد توجيهات أكثر حول عودة الرياضة المحترفة.
الرحيل من السكن
لا يزال بإمكانك الانتقال إلى منزل. يجب ألا يساعد من هم خارج عائلتك أو حلقة المساندة بالرحيل إلا بالضرورة القصوى.
يمكن لوكلاء العقارات والتأجير وشركات الرحيل الاستمرار في العمل. إذا كنت تنوي الرحيل، يمكنك معاينة الممتلكات.
انبع الإرشادات الوطنية حول الرحيل بأمان، والتي تتضمن نصائح حول التباعد الاجتماعي وارتداء الكمامة.
الدعم المالي
أينما كنت تسكن، قد تتمكن من الحصول على مساعدة مالية:
- حزمة المساعدة المالية للشركات
- المساعدة المالية للشركات المغلقة نتيجة لقيود المستويات المطالبة برواتب الموظفين من خلال برنامج حفظ الوظائف بسبب فيروس كورونا (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme)
راجع إذا كنت تستطيع أن تحصل على منحة من خلال برنامج مساندة دخل الموظفين ذاتيا.
الدعم المالي إذا كنت متعطل عن العمل بسبب فيروس كورونا
الشركات والأماكن
الشركات والأماكن التي يجب أن تغلق
لتقليل التواصل الاجتماعي، تتطلب القوانين من بعض الشركات أن تغلق وتفرض قيود على كيفية توفير الشركات للبضائع والخدمات. يمكن أن تجد لائحة كاملة عن الأسباب في التوجيهات حول إغلاق شركات وأماكن معينة في إنجلترا، وتشمل:
- المتاجر غير الضرورية مثل الملابس والأدوات المنزلية ومعارض السيارات (غير التأجير) ومحلات القمار والتبخير والبضائع الإلكترونية والهواتف الجوالة وبيوت المزاد (ما عاد مزادات الماشية أو المعدات الزراعية) وأكشاك السوق التي تبيع البضائع غير الضرورية. يمكن لهذه المحلات أن تستمر بتوفير الشراء والتحصيل (حيث يتم شراء البضائع عبر الإنترنت وثم تحصيلها من المكان) وخدمات التوصيل.
- أماكن الضيافة مثل المطاعم والفنادق والفنادق السفرية (حتى 11 ليلة) والشراكات السفرية والشراكات السفرية أو التوصيل. يمكن الاستمرار بتوفير الطعام والشراب (بما فيه الكحولي) بالوصول.
- مساكن مثل الفنادق والنزل وبيوت الضيافة ومواقع التخييم، ما عدا ظروف محددة، حيث يمكن أن تستخدم كمسكن رئيسي إذا لم يستطع الشخص العودة لديه ولتوفير السكن أو المساندة للمشردين أو ضرورة البقاء مفتوحة لغرض العمل. مرافق التسلية والرياضة مثل مراكز اللياقة والنوادي الرياضية الداخلية وبرك السباحة الداخلية وملعب البولنغ والرقص الداخلية ومراكز الخيالة الداخلية وتسلق الجدران الداخلية وملاعب الغولف.
أماكن التسلية مثل المسارح وقاعات الموسيقى والسينما والمتاحف والمعارض والكازينو وقاعات التسلية وقاعات النجوم وملعب البولنغ وحلقات التزلج وسباق السيارات الصغيرة ومراكز اللعب الداخلية (بما فيه المنتزهات المفتوحة ومراكز الترامبولين)، والسيرك والمنشآت وحدائق الحيوانات وغيرها والمنشآت المائية والمنشآت المختصة.
المعالم الحيوانية (مثل حدائق الحيوانات ومنشآت السفاري ومعارض السمك ومراكز الحيوانات البرية).
المعالم الداخلية مثل الحدائق النباتية وبيوت التراث والمعالم الأرضية يجب أن تغلق أيضاً، مع المبادرات الخارجية لهذه الأماكن يمكن أن تظل مفتوحة.
مرافق العناية الشخصية مثل صالونات الشعر والتجمل والتسريح والأطافر.
محلات الأوشام والتدليك وثقب الجسم والبشرة يجب أن تغلق أيضاً.
يجب ألا يتم توفير هذه الخدمات في منازل الآخرين.
المراكز والقاعات المجتمعية يجب أن تغلق ما عدا عدد محدد من النشاطات المستندة والمبيتة أداه. يمكن للمكتبات أن تظل مفتوحة لتوفر الوصول لخدمات تقنية المعلومات والرقمية - مثلاً، لهؤلاء الذين لا يملكون بالبيت - وخدمات التقرير-التحصيل.
سيسمح لبعض الشركات والأماكن أن تظل مفتوحة لعدد صغير من النشاطات.
يمكن أن تجد لائحة كاملة عن الأسباب في التوجيهات حول إغلاق شركات وأماكن معينة في إنجلترا وتشمل:
- التعليم والتدريب - للمدارس لاستخدام مرافق الرياضة والتسلية والمجتمعية حيث يكون هذا جزء من التوفير العادي. الأغراض العناية بالأطفال والنشاطات المشرفة للأطفال، لهؤلاء المؤهلون للحضور.
- استضافة حلقات التبرع بالدم وتوزيع الطعام
- توفير العلاج الطبي
- للرياضيين المحترفين للتدريب والتنافس (مرافق الرياضة الداخلية والخارجية) والراقصون المحترفون وفنانو الرقص ليعملوا (في استوديوهات اللياقة والرقص)
- للتدريب والتمرين بدون جمهور (بالمسارح وقاعات الحفلات)
- لغرض تصوير الأفلام والبرامج التلفزيونية.
الشركات والأماكن التي يمكن أن تظل مفتوحة
شركات وأماكن أخرى يسمح لها أن تظل مفتوحة بشرط أن تتبع توجيهات مكافحة فيروس الكورونا. ويشمل هذا تلك التي توفر البضائع والخدمات الضرورية. يمكن أن تجد لائحة كاملة لهذه الشركات والأماكن في التوجيهات حول إغلاق شركات وأماكن معينة في إنجلترا وتشمل:
- المتاجر الضرورية مثل متاجر الطعام والسوبرماركت والصيدليات ومراكز البستنة وتجار مواد البناء وموردي مواد البناء ومحلات المشروبات.
- يمكن لأكشاك السوق التي تبيع البضائع الضرورية أن تبقى مفتوحة.
- يمكن للشركات التي توفر خدمات التصليح أن تظل مفتوحة بشرط أن توفر خدمات التصليح بشكل رئيسي.
- محطات الوقود ومغاسل السيارة التلقائية (ليس اليدوية) وكراجات تصليح السيارات وفحص وزارة النقل ومحلات الدراجات الهوائية وشركات التكسي وتأجير السيارات.
- البنوك والمؤسسات الإسكانية ومكاتب البريد ومزودي الفروض القصيرة للأجل ومحلات الحوالة.
- الحانوتي والمغاسل والتنظيف بالبخار. العناية الصحية والخدمات العامة
تظل NHS والخدمات الطبية مفتوحة، بما في ذلك:
- خدمات طب الأسنان
- طبيب العيون
- الخدمات السمعية
- وأخصائيون القدم
- وتقديم العظام
- وطب العظام
- خدمات طبية أو خدمات صحية أخرى بما فيه الخدمات المعنية بالصحة الذهنية.
نحن نساند الصحة القومية لتوفر خدمات عاجلة وغير عاجلة بسلام، ومن المهم أن يتقدم أي شخص يعتقد أنه بحاجة لأي نوع من العناية الطبية. معظم الخدمات العامة ستستمر وسيمكنك مغادرة بيتك لزيارتهم. ويشمل ذلك:
- مكاتب البحث عن العمل
- المحاكم وخدمات المراقبة
- مكاتب التسجيل المدني
- خدمات جوازات السفر والتأشيرات
- خدمات توفر للضحايا
- مراكز القمامة أو التكرير
- ترخيص السيارات، إذا احتجت أن تسوّق عند مغادرة البيت بشكل قانوني.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4136-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 26,
"total-input-tokens": 61393,
"total-output-tokens": 10804,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
360,
1
],
[
360,
1034,
2
],
[
1034,
2141,
3
],
[
2141,
3134,
4
],
[
3134,
4056,
5
],
[
4056,
4980,
6
],
[
4980,
5857,
7
],
[
5857,
6883,
8
],
[
6883,
7750,
9
],
[
7750,
9022,
10
],
[
9022,
10404,
11
],
[
10404,
11716,
12
],
[
11716,
12784,
13
],
[
12784,
13981,
14
],
[
13981,
15027,
15
],
[
15027,
16166,
16
],
[
16166,
17416,
17
],
[
17416,
18595,
18
],
[
18595,
19864,
19
],
[
19864,
21047,
20
],
[
21047,
21946,
21
],
[
21946,
23214,
22
],
[
23214,
24620,
23
],
[
24620,
25852,
24
],
[
25852,
26229,
25
],
[
26229,
26516,
26
]
]
} |
225bc823d26a4dc9682a4163151083549ed83143 | दिशा-निर्देश
राष्ट्रीय लॉकडाउन: घर पर रहें
देश भर में कोरोनावायरस के केसों की संख्या तेज़ी से बढ़ रही है। जानें कि आप क्या कर सकते हैं और क्या नहीं कर सकते हैं।
4 जनवरी 2021 पर प्रकाशित
पिछली बार 6 जनवरी 2021 पर अपडेट किया गया - सभी अपडेट देखें
इनके द्वारा:
कैबिनेट ऑफिस
जिस पर लागू होता है:
इंग्लैंड
विषय-वस्तु
संक्षेप: राष्ट्रीय लॉकडाउन के दौरान आप क्या कर सकते हैं और क्या नहीं कर सकते हैं।
यह दिशा निर्देश किसके लिए हैं
हाथ। चेहरा। अंतर।
आप किस कारणवश घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं
दूसरे लोगों से मिलना व्यायाम करना फेस कवरिंग सपोर्ट और चाइल्डकेयर बबल अगर आप नियमों को तोड़ते हैं उन लोगों की रक्षा करना जिन्हें कोरोनावायरस से अधिक जोखिम है काम पर जाना स्कूल या कॉलेज जाना यूनिवर्सिटी चाइल्डकेयर यात्रा अंतरराष्ट्रीय यात्रा रात भर घर से दूर रहना केयर होम में मुलाकातें अंतिम संस्कार शादियाँ, सिविल पार्टनरशिप और धार्मिक सेवाएं उपासना के स्थान खेल और शारीरिक गतिविधि घर बदलना वित्तीय सहायता व्यवसाय और वेन्यू व्यवसाय और वेन्यू जो खुले रह सकते हैं स्वास्थ्यसेवा और सार्वजनिक सेवाएं
इस पृष्ठ को मुद्रित करें संक्षेप: राष्ट्रीय लॉकडाउन के दौरान आप क्या कर सकते हैं और क्या नहीं कर सकते हैं।
आपको अवश्य ही घर पर रहना चाहिए। एनएचएस को सुरक्षित रखने और लोगों का जीवन बचाने के लिए जो एकल सर्वाधिक महत्वपूर्ण कदम हम सभी उठा सकते हैं वह है घर पर रहना। आपको तुरंत इस दिशा-निर्देश का पालन करना चाहिए। यह कानून है।
घर से बाहर जाना
आपको अपना घर छोड़ कर या अपने घर से बाहर नहीं होना चाहिए, सिवाय जहाँ आवश्यक हो। आप निम्नलिखित कारणवश अपने घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं:
- खुद के लिए या किसी दुर्बल व्यक्ति के लिए मूलभूत जरूरत के सामान की खरीदारी करने के लिए।
- काम पर जाना, या स्वेच्छिक या चैरिटेबल सेवाएं प्रदान करने के लिए, अगर आप अपने घर से इसे उचित रूप से पूरा नहीं कर पा रहे हों।
- अपने परिवार (या सपोर्ट बबल) या एक अन्य व्यक्ति के साथ व्यायाम करने के लिए, यह दिन में एक बार तक सीमित रहना चाहिए और आपको अपने स्थानीय क्षेत्र से बाहर यात्रा नहीं करनी चाहिए।
- जहाँ आवश्यक हो वहाँ अपने सपोर्ट बबल या चाइल्डकेयर बबल से मिलने के लिए, लेकिन केवल तभी अगर आपको ऐसा बबल बनाने के लिए कानून अनुमति दी गई है।
- चिकित्सीय सहायता प्राप्त करने या चोट, बीमारी या हानि के जोखिम से बचने के लिए (इसमें घरेलू हिंसा शामिल है)।
- शिक्षा या चाइल्डकेयर के लिए उपस्थित रहने हेतु - उन लोगों के लिए जो योग्य है।
अगर आप किसी अनुमत कारण हेतु अपने घर से बाहर जाते हैं, तो आपको हमेशा स्थानीय क्षेत्र में रहना चाहिए - यदि न उससे अधिक दूर जाना जरूरी हो, उदाहरणार्थ काम पर जाने के लिए। स्थानीय क्षेत्र में रहने का मतलब है उसी गांव, नगर, या शहर के हिस्से में रहना जहाँ आपका निवास स्थान है। अगर आप चिकित्सीय दृष्टिकोण से अत्यंत दुर्बल हैं तो आपको केवल चिकित्सीय अपॉइंटमेंट, व्यायाम या बिल्कुल जरूरी होने पर ही बाहर जाना चाहिए। आपको काम पर नहीं जाना चाहिए।
दूसरों से मिलना
आप ऐसे किसी भी व्यक्ति के साथ सामाजिक तौर पर मिलने-जुलने के लिए अपने घर को छोड़ कर बाहर नहीं जा सकते हैं जिसके साथ आप नहीं रहते हैं या जिसके साथ आपका एक सपोर्ट बबल नहीं है (अगर आपको ऐसा बबल बनाने के लिए कानूनी रूप से अनुमति दी गई है)।
आप खुद, एक और व्यक्ति के साथ, या अपने परिवार या सपोर्ट बबल के साथ व्यायाम कर सकते हैं। यह दिन में एक बार तक सीमित रहना चाहिए और आपको अपने स्थानीय क्षेत्र से बाहर यात्रा नहीं करनी चाहिए।
आप उन दूसरे लोगों से नहीं मिल सकते हैं जिनके साथ आप नहीं रहते हैं, या जिनके साथ आपने एक सपोर्ट बबल नहीं बनाया है, यदि न वह किसी अनुमतिप्राप्त कारणवश हो।
ऐसे किसी भी व्यक्ति से 2 मीटर की दूरी बना कर रखें जो आपके परिवार में नहीं है।
शिक्षा
कॉलेज, प्राइमरी और सेकेंडरी स्कूल केवल असहाय बच्चों और क्रिटिकल कर्मियों के बच्चों के लिए खुले रहेंगे। सभी अन्य बच्चे फरवरी महीने के हाफ टर्म तक दूरस्थ शिक्षा ग्रहण करेंगे।
अर्ली यर्स सेटिंग्स खुले रहेंगे। भावी क्रिटिकल वर्कर कोर्स के सिवाय सभी उच्च शिक्षा की व्यवस्था मध्य फरवरी तक ऑनलाइन रहेगी।
यह दिशा निर्देश किसके लिए हैं
यह दिशा निर्देश उन लोगों के लिए हैं जो फिट और स्वस्थ हैं। चिकित्सीय दृष्टिकोण से बहुत ही आसानी से कोरोनावायरस की चपेट में आने वाले लोगों के लिए और संभावित या निश्चित रूप से कोरोनावायरस संक्रमण है ऐसे परिवारों के लिए अतिरिक्त सलाह प्रदान की गई है। अगर आप चिकित्सीय दृष्टिकोण से अत्यंत दुर्बल हैं तो आपको दोबारा शील्डिंग शुरू करने के दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए और आपको काम, स्कूल, कॉलेज या यूनिवर्सिटी नहीं जाना चाहिए। आपको घर के बाहर अपने द्वारा बिताए गए समय को सीमित करना चाहिए। आपको केवल चिकित्सीय अपॉइंटमेंट, व्यायाम या बिल्कुल जरूरी होने पर ही बाहर जाना चाहिए।
हाथ। चेहरा। अंतर।
कोरोनावायरस से पीड़ित लगभग 3 व्यक्तियों में से 1 में इसके कोई लक्षण नहीं होते हैं तथा इसका अहसास किए बिना इसे फैला सकते हैं।
याद रखें - 'हाथ। चेहरा। अंतर।'
- हाथ - कम से कम 20 सेकंड के लिए अपने हाथों को नियमित रूप से धोएं
- चेहरा - इनडोर सेटिंग में एक चेहरा कवर पहनें जहां सोशल डिस्टेंसिंग मुश्किल हो सकता है, और जहां आप उन लोगों के संपर्क में आएंगे जिन्हें आप सामान्य रूप से नहीं मिलते हैं। • अंतर - जहां संभव हो उन लोगों से 2 मीटर अलग रहें जिनके साथ आप नहीं रहते हैं, या 1 मीटर अतिरिक्त सावधानियों के साथ (जैसे चेहरे के कवरिंग पहनना)।
सभी परिस्थितियों में आपको दूसरों से सुरक्षित रूप से मिलने के बारे में दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए।
आप किस कारणवश घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं
आपको अपना घर छोड़कर या उससे बाहर नहीं होना चाहिए जब तक कि आपके पास कोई ‘समुचित बहाना’ न हो। यह कानून है। अगर आप किसी ‘समुचित बहाने’ के बिना अपना घर छोड़कर बाहर जाते हैं तो पुलिस आपके विरुद्ध कार्रवाए कर सकती है, और आप पर जुर्माना भी लगाया जा सकता है (फिक्स्ड पेनल्टी नोटिस)।
पहले अपराध के लिए आपको £200 का निश्चित दंड का नोटिस दिया जा सकता है, और आगे के अपराधों के लिए दोगुना किया जाएगा अधिकतम £ 6,400 तक।
एक ‘समुचित बहाने’ में शामिल हैं:
काम
आप केवल उन्हीं काम संबंधी उद्देश्यों के लिए घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं जहाँ आपके लिए घर से अपने काम को करना अनुचित है। इसमें वह लोग शामिल हैं जो क्रिटिकल राष्ट्रीय संरचना, निर्माण कार्य या उत्पादन के क्षेत्रों में काम करते हैं जहाँ व्यक्ति का खुद उपस्थित रहना जरूरी है, लेकिन यह केवल इन्हीं तक सीमित नहीं है।
वालंटियर करना स्वैच्छिक या चैरिटेबल सेवाएं प्रदान करने के लिए भी आप घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं।
आवश्यक गतिविधियां
आप दुकानों से चीजों को खरीदने के लिए या सेवाएं को प्राप्त करने के लिए घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं। आप किसी विकलांग या दुर्बल व्यक्ति या सेल्फ-आइसोलेट करने वाले किसी व्यक्ति के लिए इन चीजों को पूरा करने के लिए भी अपने घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं।
शिक्षा और चाइल्डकेयर
आप शिक्षा, रजिस्टर्ड चाइल्डकेयर, और जहाँ बच्चा उपस्थित रहने के लिए योग्य है वहाँ बच्चों की पर्यवेक्षित गतिविधियों के लिए बाहर जा सकते हैं। स्कूल जाने की उम्र वाले छात्रों के लिए शिक्षा और बच्चों की गतिविधियों तक पहुँच सीमित है। शिक्षा और चाइल्डकेयर पर अधिक जानकारी देखें। माता-पिता और बच्चों के बीच संपर्क करने के लिए आप मौजूदा व्यवस्थाओं को जारी रख सकते हैं जहां वे अकेले रहते हैं। अगर आप 14 साल की उम्र से छोटे किसी के साथ एक परिवार में रहते हैं तो आप एक चाइल्डकेयर बबल भी बना सकते हैं।
दूसरों से मिलना और देखभाल करना
आप निम्नलिखित हेतु घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं:
- अपने सपोर्ट बबल के लोगों से मिलने के लिए (अगर आपको ऐसा बबल बनाने के लिए कानूनी रूप से अनुमति दी गई है)
- किसी चाइल्डकेयर बबल के एक हिस्से के तौर पर 14 साल की उम्र से छोटे बच्चों को अनौपचारिक चाइल्डकेयर प्रदान करने के लिए (उदाहरणार्थ, ताकि माता-पिता काम पर जा सकें, वयस्कों के बीच सामाजिक संपर्क स्थापित करने के लिए नहीं
- विकलांग या दुर्बल लोगों को देखभाल प्रदान करने के लिए
- आपातकालीन सहायता प्रदान करने के लिए
- सपोर्ट ग्रुप में उपस्थित रहने के लिए (सर्वाधिक 15 लोग)
- देखभाल को स्थगित करने के लिए जहाँ असुरक्षित व्यक्ति अथवा विकलांग व्यक्ति को देखभाल प्रदान की जा रही है, अथवा देखभाल किए गए बच्चे के संबंध में छोटा विराम प्रदान करने के लिए
व्यायाम
आप खुद, एक और व्यक्ति के साथ, या अपने परिवार या सपोर्ट बबल के साथ व्यायाम करना जारी रख सकते हैं। यह दिन में एक बार तक सीमित रहना चाहिए और आपको अपने स्थानीय क्षेत्र से बाहर यात्रा नहीं करनी चाहिए। आपको सामाजिक दूरी बना कर रखनी चाहिए। व्यायाम करना देखें।
चिकित्सीय कारण
आप कोविड-19 टेस्ट करवाने के सहित, किन्हीं भी चिकित्सीय कारण, मेडिकल अपॉइंटमेंट और आपातकालीन परिस्थितियों में घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं।
मैटरनिटी
जन्म देने वाले व्यक्ति के साथ रहने के लिए, अन्य मैटरनिटी सेवाएं प्राप्त करने या निओनेटल क्रिटिकल केयर प्राप्त करने वाले शिशु के साथ रहने के लिए आप घर छोड़कर बाहर जा सकते हैं। गर्भवती और कोरोनावायरस के विषय पर एनएचएस दिशा-निर्देश उपलब्ध हैं। हानि
चोट या बीमारी से बचने के लिए, या हानि के जोखिम से बचने के लिए (जैसे घरेलू शोषण) के लिए आप अपना घर छोड़कर जा हैं।
सहानुभूतिशील मुलाकातें
आप किसी मर रहे व्यक्ति या देखभाल गृह में मौजूद किसी व्यक्ति (यदि देखभाल गृह के मार्गदर्शन के तहत अनुमति हो) से मिलने के लिए, हास्पस, या अस्पताल, अथवा चिकित्सा संबंधी मुलाकात के लिए उनका साथ देने के लिए भी घर से जा सकते हैं।
पशु कल्याण संबंधी कारण
आप पशु कल्याण संबंधी कारणों के लिए जैसे सलाह और उपचार के लिए पशु चिकित्सा सेवाओं में शामिल होने के लिए घर से जा सकते हैं।
सांप्रदायिक उपासना और जीवन की घटनाएं
आप सांप्रदायिक उपासना के लिए किसी उपासना स्थल में जाने, किसी अंतिम संस्कार या मृत्यु से संबंधित घटना के लिए उपस्थित रहने, कब्रिस्तान या किसी समरण गार्डन में जाने, या किसी शादी समारोह में जाने के लिए घर से बाहर जा सकते हैं। आपको उपासना के स्थानों के सुरक्षित उपयोग पर दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए और अपने परिवार या सपोर्ट बबल के बाहर किसी भी अन्य व्यक्ति के साथ मिलना-जुलना नहीं चाहिए।
विवाह, अंतिम संस्कार तथा धार्मिक, आस्था पर आधारित या किसी व्यक्ति की मृत्यु से संबंधित संस्मारक घटनाएं ये सभी संख्याओं की सीमा के तहत हैं जिनमें उपस्थित हो सकते हैं।
अधिकतर समुचित बहाने अधिकतर समुचित बहाने हैं। उदाहरण के तौर पर, आप कानूनी दायित्वों को पूरा करने, या खरीदने, बेचने, आवासीय संपत्ति को किराए पर देने या किराए पर लेने, धरना देने, अथवा जहाँ चुनाव में या जनमत-संग्रह में मतदान करने के लिए यह यथोचित रूप से आवश्यक हो, घर छोड़ सकते हैं।
दूसरे लोगों से मिलना
आपको परिवार या मित्रों के साथ सामाजिक रूप से इन्दोर मिलना कानून के विरुद्ध है यदि न वे आपके परिवार या सपोर्ट बबल का हिस्सा हों। आप मनोरंजन या अवकाश के उद्देश्य हेतु घर से बाहर नहीं जा सकते हैं (जैसे कि पिकनिक के लिए या किसी सामाजिक मीटिंग के लिए)।
व्यायाम करना
आपको अपने घर के बाहर व्यतीत समय को न्यूनतम करना चाहिए। यह दिन में एक बार तक सीमित रहना चाहिए और आपको अपने स्थानीय क्षेत्र से बाहर यात्रा नहीं करनी चाहिए।
आप बाहर सार्वजनिक स्थान पर व्यायाम कर सकते हैं:
- खुद
- जिन लोगों के साथ आप रहते हैं उनके साथ
- अपने सपोर्ट बबल के साथ (अगर आपको ऐसा बबल बनाने के लिए कानूनी रूप से अनुमति दी गई है)
- एक चाइल्डकेयर बबल में जहाँ आप चाइल्डकेयर प्रदान कर रहे हैं
- अथवा, जब केवल आप हों तो अन्य परिवार के 1 व्यक्ति के साथ इसमें दौड़ना, साइकिल चलना, पैदल चलना और तैरना शामिल है लेकिन केवल इन्हीं तक सीमित नहीं है। पर्सनल ट्रेनिंग वन-टु-वन रूप से जारी रह सकती है यदि न शामिल सभी लोग एक ही परिवार या सपोर्ट बबल का हिस्सा हों।
बाहर सार्वजनिक स्थलों में शामिल हैं:
- पार्क, समुद्र तट, ग्रामीण इलाके जो जनता के लिए सुलभ हैं, जंगल
- सार्वजनिक बगीचे (चाहे उनमें प्रवेश करने के लिए आपको भुगतान करना पड़े या नहीं)
- किसी हेरिटिज साइट के ग्राउंड
- प्लेग्राउंड
आउटडोर स्पोर्ट्स वेन्यू बंद रहने चाहिए, उदाहरण के तौर पर:
- टेनिस कोर्ट्स
- गोल्फ कोर्स
- स्विमिंग पूल
5 साल से कम आयु के बच्चे, तथा एक विकलांग व्यक्ति जिसे लगातार देखभाल की जरूरत है के लिए 2 तक देखभालकर्ताओं की बाहर व्यायाम करने के लिए एकत्रित लोगों की सीमा में गणना नहीं की जाती है।
अगर आपको (या आपकी देखभाल में रहने वाले किसी व्यक्ति को) कोई स्वास्थ्य समस्या है जिसकी वजह से अपने स्वास्थ्य को बरकरार रखने के लिए आपको नियमित रूप से अपने घर से बाहर निकलना पड़ता है - इसमें अपने स्थानीय क्षेत्र से दूर यात्रा करने या दिन में कई बार व्यायाम करने की जरूरत शामिल है - तो आप ऐसा कर सकते हैं। जब अन्य व्यक्तियों के आस-पास हों, तो जो व्यक्ति आपके परिवार में – इसका अर्थ है कि जिन लोगों के साथ आप रहते हैं –अथवा आपके सपोट बबल में नहीं हैं उनसे 2 मीटर दूर रहें। जहाँ यह संभव हो, तो अतिरिक्त सावधानियों के साथ (जैसे कि फेस कवरिंग पहनकर) 1 मीटर दूर रहें।
फेस कवरिंग
आपको अनेकों इनडोर सेटिंग्स में, जैसे दुकान या पूजा स्थलों में जहाँ ये खुले रहते हैं, तथा सार्वजनिक परिवहन में फेस कवरिंग पहनना चाहिए, जब तक आपको छूट न हो। यह कानून है। फेस कवरिंग पर दिशा-निर्देश पढ़ें।
सपोट और चाइल्डकेयर बबल
सपोट या चाइल्डकेयर बबल बनाने के लिए आपको कुछ स्पष्ट योग्यता के मानदंडों को पूरा करना होगा। इसका यह मतलब है कि सभी एक बबल नहीं बना सकेंगे।
सपोट बबल एक सहायता नेटवर्क है जो दो परिवारों को जोड़ता है। आप किसी भी आकार के एक दूसरे परिवार के साथ केवल तभी सपोट बबल बना सकेंगे अगर आप योग्यता के मानदंडों को पूरा करते हैं।
अगर आप इन नियमों का पालन नहीं करते हैं तो सपोट बबल बनाना कानून के खिलाफ है।
आपको अपने सपोट बबल की विजिट करने (और उनके साथ रात भर रुकने) के लिए अपना घर छोड़ने की अनुमति दी जाती है। हालांकि, यदि आप सपोट बबल बनाते हैं, तो यदि आप स्थानीय रूप से रहने वाले परिवार के साथ इसे बनाते है यह सबसे अच्छा है। यह ऐसे क्षेत्र से वायरस को फैलने से रोकने में मदद करेगी जहाँ अधिक लोग संक्रमित हैं। अगर आप 14 साल की उम्र से छोटे किसी के साथ एक परिवार में रहते हैं तो आप एक चाइल्डकेयर बबल भी बना सकते हैं। यह एक अन्य परिवार या घर से दोस्तों या परिवार के सदस्यों को अनौपचारिक चाइल्डकेयर प्रदान करने की अनुमति देता है।
आपको अपने चाइल्डकेयर बबल के साथ सामाजिक तौर पर मिलना-जुलना नहीं चाहिए, और आपको अवश्य ही अपने चाइल्डकेयर और सपोर्ट बबल के सदस्यों से एक ही समय पर नहीं मिलना चाहिए।
सपोर्ट बबल और चाइल्डकेयर बबल के लिए अलग दिशा-निर्देश हैं।
आप कहाँ और कब अधिक बड़े समूहों में मिल सकते हैं
अभी भी ऐसी परिस्थितियां हैं जिनमें आपको अपने घर, चाइल्डकेयर या सपोर्ट बबल के बाहर अधिक बड़े समूहों में मिलने की अनुमति है, लेकिन यह मेलजोल के लिए नहीं और केवल अनुमति दिए गए उद्देश्यों के लिए होना चाहिए। इन परिस्थितियों की एक पूरी सूची विनियमों में शामिल की जाएगी, तथा शामिल करती है:
- कार्य, या स्वैच्छिक अथवा धर्मार्थ सेवाओं के लिए जहाँ घर से इन्हें उचित रूप से पूरा नहीं किया जा सकता है। इसमें दूसरे लोगों के घरों में कार्य शामिल हो सकता है जहाँ आवश्यक हो – उदाहरण के लिए, आया, कलीनर, बच्चों और परिवारों या परंपरागतियों को सहायता प्रदान करने वाले सामाजिक देखभाल कार्यकर्ता या व्यापारी के लिए। दूसरे लोगों के घरों में सुरक्षित रूप से कार्य करने के बारे में मार्गदर्शन देखें। जहाँ निजी घर या उद्यान में कार्य संबंधी मीटिंग करने की जरूरत नहीं है, तो इसे नहीं करना चाहिए – उदाहरण के लिए, यद्यपि आप एक निजी प्रशिक्षक से मिल सकते हैं, लेकिन आपको ऐसा बाहर सार्वजनिक स्थल में करना चाहिए।
- एक चाइल्डकेयर बबल में (केवल चाइल्डकेयर के उद्देश्य हेतु) • जहाँ शिक्षा, रजिस्टर्ड चाइल्डकेयर, और बच्चों के लिए परविक्षित गतिविधियों के लिए इन सेवाओं का उपयोग करने के लिए योग्य हों। शिक्षा और बच्चों की गतिविधियों तक पहुँच सीमित है। शिक्षा और चाइल्डकेयर पर अधिक जानकारी देखें। • ऐसी व्यवस्था के लिए जहाँ बच्चे अपने माता-पिता या अभिभावक दोनों के समान घर में नहीं रहते हैं • जन्मदाता मातापिता और देखभाल में बच्चों के बीच, साथ ही देखभाल में भाई बहन के बीच, संपर्क की अनुमति के लिए। • भावी गोद लेने वाले माता-पिता के लिए एक बच्चे या बच्चों से मिलने के लिए जिन्हें उनके साथ रखा जा सकता है • सामाजिक सेवाओं द्वारा किसी अन्य की देखभाल में बच्चे या बच्चों को रखना या रखना सुगम बनाना • बर्थ पार्टनरों के लिए • जरूरी सहायता प्रदान करने के लिए और चोट या बीमारी से बचने के लिए, या हानि के जोखिम से बचने के लिए • किसी मरणास्त्र व्यक्ति से मिलना, या किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति से मिलना जो किसी अस्पताल, हास्पस या केयर होम में इलाज प्राप्त कर रहा है, या किसी परिवार के सदस्य या दोस्त के साथ किसी चिकित्सीय अपॉइंटमेंट के लिए जाना • किसी कानूनी दायित्व को पूरा करने के लिए, जैसे कि अदालत या जूरी सेवा में भाग लेने के लिए • आपराधिक न्याय के आवास या आप्रवासी हिरासत केंद्रों में एकत्र लोगों के लिए • किसी दुर्बल व्यक्ति की देखभाल या सहायता प्रदान करने के लिए, या किसी केयरर को राहत प्रदान करने के लिए • शादी या समक्ष समारोह के लिए। यह केवल खास परिस्थितियों में होना चाहिए और यह 6 लोगों तक सीमित है। • अंतिम संस्कार के लिए- अधिकतम 30 तक व्यक्ति जागरण तथा अन्य जुड़े हुए अनुशासनिक आयोजन 6 तक व्यक्तियों के समूह में जारी रख सकते हैं। • अभिजात वर्ग के खिलाड़ी (तथा उनके कोच यदि आवश्यक हो, अथवा माता-पिता/अभिभावक यदि वे 18 वर्ष से कम आयु के हैं) - या आधिकारिक अभिजात वर्ग के स्पोर्ट्स पथ पर चलने वाले लोग - प्रतिस्पर्धा और प्रशिक्षण के लिए • घर बदलने की सुविधा के लिए
सपोर्ट समूह जिन्हें व्यक्तिगत रूप से वितरित किया जाना है वे 15 तक प्रतिभागियों के साथ जारी रख सकते हैं जहाँ पारस्परिक सहायता, इलाज या सपोर्ट का कोई अन्य रूप प्रदान करने के लिए औपचारिक रूप से आयोजित किया जाता है- लेकिन उन्हें निजी घर के अलावा एक परिसर में करना चाहिए।
जहाँ समूह में कोई ऐसा व्यक्ति शामिल है जिसे किसी प्रकार की छूट दी गई है (उदाहरण के तौर पर, ऐसा कोई व्यक्ति जो काम कर रहा है या वालंटियर कर रहा है), वहाँ आम तौर पर उनकी गिनती एकत्र लोगों की सीमा में नहीं होती है। अर्थात, उदाहरण के तौर पर, एक ट्रेड्सपर्सन किसी के घर में जा सकता है और इससे निर्धारित सीमा का उल्लंघन नहीं होगा अगर वे काम करने के लिए वहाँ गए हैं, और साथ ही शादी में पुरोहित की गिनती वहाँ उपस्थित लोगों की निर्धारित सीमा में नहीं होगी।
अगर आप नियमों को तोड़ते हैं
अगर आप अधिक बड़े समूहों में मिले-जुले तो पुलिस आपके विरुद्ध कार्रवाई कर सकती है। इसमें गैर-कानूनी समारोह को बंद करना और जुर्माना (निश्चित दंड के नोटिस) लागू करना शामिल है।
पहले अपराध के लिए आपको £200 का निश्चित दंड का नोटिस दिया जा सकता है, और आगे के अपराधों के लिए दोगुना किया जाएगा अधिकतम £ 6,400 तक। अगर आप 30 से अधिक लोगों के लिए एक गैर-कानूनी समारोह का आयोजन करते हैं, या उसके आयोजन में शामिल होते हैं तो पुलिस आपको £10,000 का जुर्माना दे सकती है। उन लोगों की रक्षा करना जिन्हें कोरोनावायरस से अधिक जोखिम है
यदि आप चिकित्सीय दृष्टिकोण से अत्यंत दुर्बल हैं तो आप कोरोना वायरस से गंभीर बीमारी का जोखिम अधिक हो सकता है। कोरोनावायरस के प्रति चिकित्सीय दृष्टिकोण से अत्यंत दुर्बल लोगों के लिए अतिरिक्त सलाह दी गई है। चिकित्सीय दृष्टिकोण से अत्यंत दुर्बल लोगों को दोबारा शील्डिंग शुरू करने के दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए और उन्हें काम, स्कूल, कॉलेज या यूनिवर्सिटी नहीं जाना चाहिए। आपको घर के बाहर अपने द्वारा बिताए गए समय को सीमित करना चाहिए। आपको केवल चिकित्सीय अपॉइंटमेंट, व्यायाम या बिल्कुल जरूरी होने पर ही बाहर जाना चाहिए।
काम पर जाना
आप केवल तभी काम करने के लिए अपने घर से बाहर निकल सकते हैं अगर आपके लिए घर से उचित रूप से काम कर पाना संभव न हो।
जहाँ लोगों के लिए घर से काम करना संभव न हो वहाँ उन्हें अपने कार्यस्थल में जाना बरकरार रखना चाहिए। इसमें निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में काम करने वाले लोग शामिल हैं, लेकिन इन तक सीमित नहीं हैं:
- क्रिटिकल राष्ट्रीय संरचना
- निर्माण कार्य
- उत्पादन
- चाइल्डकेयर या शिक्षा
- जरूरी सार्वजनिक सेवाएं देश में काम चलता रहे और सेक्टरों और नियोक्ताओं को समर्थित करने के लिए यह जरूरी है।
जहाँ आपके लिए दूसरों के घरों में काम करना आवश्यक हो - उदाहरणस्वरूप नैनी, कलीना या अन्य व्यापारी - वहाँ आप अपना काम कर सकते हैं। अन्यथा, आपको काम के लिए किसी निजी घर या गार्डन में मिलने से बचना चाहिए, जहाँ शायद COVID-19 सुरक्षा के उपाय कार्यान्वित न हों।
नियोक्ताओं और कर्मचारियों को उनके काम करने की व्यवस्था के बारे में विचार विमर्श करना चाहिए और नियोक्ताओं को हर संभव कदम उठाना चाहिए ताकि उनके कर्मचारियों के लिए घर से काम करने की अवस्था को अधिक सहज बनाया जा सके, जिसमें उचित आईटी और उपकरण प्रदान करना शामिल है ताकि रिमोट वर्किंग (सुदूर स्थान से काम करना) को सक्षम किया जा सके। जहाँ लोगों के लिए घर से काम करना संभव न हो, वहाँ नियोक्ताओं को उचित कदम उठा कर अपने कर्मचारियों की मदद करनी चाहिए ताकि वे व्यस्त समय के दौरान और व्यस्त मार्गों पर सार्वजनिक परिवहन का उपयोग करने से बच सकें।
अगर COVID-19-सुरक्षा के दिशा-निर्देशों का ठीक-ठीक पालन किया जाए तो इस संक्रमण के फैलने के जोखिम को काफी हद तक कम किया जा सकता है। अधिक उच्च जोखिम में हैं ऐसे सभी लोगों के लिए अतिरिक्त विचार करना चाहिए।
**स्कूल या कॉलेज जाना**
कॉलेज, प्राइमरी (रिसेप्शन से शुरू करते हुए) और सेकेंडरी स्कूल केवल असुरक्षित बच्चों और क्रिटिकल कर्मियों के बच्चों के लिए खुले रहेंगे। सभी अन्य बच्चे फरवरी महीने के हाफ टर्म तक दूरस्थ शिक्षा ग्रहण करेंगे।
**परीक्षा** इन परिस्थितियों में, ग्रीष्म काल में परीक्षाओं का योजनानुसार संचालन संभव नहीं है। तदनुसार शिक्षा विभाग Ofqual के साथ विचार विमर्श करके जल्द ही वैकल्पिक व्यवस्थाओं का कार्यान्वयन करेगा ताकि छात्र उचित रूप से आगे बढ़ सकें।
प्रदाता जनवरी के महीने में होने वाले वोकेशनल और तकनीकी परीक्षाओं को संचालित करना बरकरार रख सकते हैं, जहाँ उन्हें ऐसा करना सही लगे।
विश्वविद्यालय
निम्नलिखित कोर्स के लिए प्रशिक्षण और अध्ययन करने वाले छात्रों को योजनानुसार आमने-सामने शिक्षा के लिए वापस लौटना चाहिए:
- मेडिसिन और डेंटिस्ट्री
- मेडिसिन और स्वास्थ्य संबंधी विषय
- पशु चिकित्सा विज्ञान
- शिक्षा (प्रारंभिक टीचर ट्रेनिंग)
- सामाजिक काम
- वह कोर्स जिनके लिए प्रोफेशनल, स्टैचुटरी और रेगुलेटरी बॉडी (पीएसआरबी) आकलनों एवं अथवा अनिवार्य गतिविधि जरूरी है और जो जनवरी के लिए निर्धारित है एवं जिसे पुनः निर्धारित नहीं किया जा सकता है (अगर आप पर यह लागू हो तो आपकी युनिवर्सिटी आपको इसके बारे में सूचित करेगी)।
युनिवर्सिटी वापस लौटने के बाद वापस लौटे छात्रों को दो बार टेस्ट किया जाना चाहिए, अथवा उन्हें बदले में दस दिनों के लिए सेल्फ-आइसोलेट करना चाहिए।
इन कोर्स पर नहीं हैं ऐसे सभी छात्रों को जहाँ संभव हो उनके यथास्थान पर रहना चाहिए और कम से कम फरवरी के मध्य तक उनकी युनिवर्सिटी या कॉलेज द्वारा प्रदान की गई सुविधानुसार ऑनलाइन अपना सत्र शुरू करना चाहिए। इसमें वह छात्र शामिल हैं जो अन्य प्रैक्टिकल कोर्स पर हैं जो ऊपर सूचीबद्ध नहीं हैं।
हमने पहले विश्वविद्यालयों और छात्रों के लिए दिशा-निर्देश प्रकाशित किए हैं कि छात्र वसंत सत्र में उच्च शिक्षा के लिए सुरक्षित रूप से कैसे वापस लौट सकते हैं। यह दिशा-निर्देश निर्धारित करते हैं कि हम किस प्रकार से उच्च शिक्षा प्रदाताओं की सहायता करेंगे ताकि वे सर्दियों की छुट्टी के बाद उन छात्रों को यथासंभव सुरक्षित रूप से लौटने में मदद कर सकें जिन्हें वापस लौटने की जरूरत है।
यदि आप विश्वविद्यालय में रहते हैं, तो आपको सत्र समय के दौरान अपने स्थायी घर और छात्रावास के बीच आते-जाते नहीं रहना चाहिए।
आमने-सामने शिक्षा प्राप्त करने के लिए योग्य छात्र अपनी औपचारिक शिक्षा या प्रशिक्षण के एक हिस्से के तौर पर आप अपने परिवार से अधिक अन्य समूहों में मिल सकते हैं। छात्रों से इन दिशा-निर्देशों और प्रतिबंधों का पालन करने की प्रत्याशा की जाती है। आपको जितना संभव हो ऐसे किसी भी व्यक्ति से सामाजिक दूरी बना कर रखनी चाहिए जिसके साथ आप नहीं रहते हैं।
चाइल्डकेयर
ऐसे कई तरीके हैं जिनके द्वारा माता-पिता और केयरर चाइल्डकेयर का इस्तेमाल करना जारी रख सकते हैं:
- अलर्ट यर्स सेटिंग्स (जिसमें नर्सरी और चाइल्डमाइंडर शामिल हैं) खुले रहेंगे।
- स्कूल जाने की उम्र वाले बच्चों के सिवाय चाइल्डमाइंडर्स को सभी अन्य बच्चों को सामान्य रूप से उपस्थित रहने की अनुमति देनी चाहिए। स्कूल जाने की उम्र वाले बच्चों (रिसेप्शन के उम्र के बच्चे सहित) की देखभाल करने वाले चाइल्डमाइंड्स को केवल कमजोर बच्चों और क्रिटिकल कर्मियों के बच्चों को आने की अनुमति देनी चाहिए।
- कमजोर बच्चे और क्रिटिकल कर्मियों के बच्चे रजिस्टर्ड चाइल्डकेयर, चाइल्डमाइंड्स और अन्य चाइल्डकेयर संबंधी गतिविधियों (रैप अराउंड केयर सहित) का उपयोग करना जारी रख सकते हैं।
- जहाँ बच्चे की उम्र 14 साल से कम हो वहाँ, अनौपचारिक चाइल्डकेयर के उद्देश्य हेतु माता-पिता एक और परिवार के साथ चाइल्डकेयर बबल बना सकते हैं। यह मुख्यतः माता-पिताओं को काम पर वापस लौटने के लिए सक्षम बनाना है और वयस्कों के बीच सामाजिक संपर्क स्थापित करने के लिए इसका उपयोग नहीं किया जाना चाहिए।
- कुछ परिवार भी एक सपोर्ट बबल में होने का लाभ उठाने में सक्षम होंगे।
- नैनी घरों में भी अपनी सेवाएं प्रदान करना जारी रख सकेंगी।
यात्रा
आपको तब तक अपना घर नहीं छोड़ना चाहिए जब तक आपके पास उचित बहाना न हो (उदाहरण के लिए कार्य या शिक्षा के उद्देश्यों के लिए)। यदि आपको यात्रा करने की जरूरत है तो आपको स्थानीय रहना चाहिए – जिसका अर्थ है कि अपने गाँव, नगर या शहर के भाग जहाँ आप रहते हैं उससे बाहर की यात्रा करने से बचना – तथा समग्र रूप से आपके द्वारा की जाने वाली यात्राओं की संख्या को कम करने के लिए देखें। उन कारणों की सूची जिनसे आप अपने घर और क्षेत्र को छोड़ सकते हैं उसमें निम्नलिखित शामिल हैं, किन्तु इन तक सीमित नहीं हैं:
- काम, जहाँ आप घर से उचित रूप से काम नहीं कर सकते हैं।
- शिक्षा को एक्सेस करना तथा देखभाल संबंधी जिम्मेदारियों के लिए।
- उनसे मिलना जो आपके सपोर्ट बबल में उनसे मिलना – अथवा बाल देखभाल के लिए आपके बाल देखभाल बबल में है। • अस्पताल, चिकित्सक और अन्य चिकित्सा संबंधी मुलाकातों के लिए विजिट करना अथवा ऐसे स्थानों की विजिट करना जहाँ आपकी एक दुर्घटना हुई है या अपने स्वास्थ्य के बारे में चिंतित हैं • अपनी जरूरत का सामान या सेवाएं खरीदना, लेकिन जहाँ संभव हो यह आपके स्थानीय क्षेत्र के भीतर होना चाहिए • बाहर व्यायाम करना। जहाँ कहीं भी संभव हो इसे स्थानीय रूप से करना चाहिए, लेकिन यदि आवश्यक हो तो आप अपने क्षेत्र के अंदर कम दूरी की यात्रा कर सकते हैं (उदाहरण के लिए, एक खुले स्थान को एक्सेस करना) • एक जानवर की देखभाल और व्यायाम, अथवा पशु चिकित्सा सेवाओं में उपस्थित होना
यदि आपको यात्रा करने की जरूरत है, तो पैदल जाएं या जहाँ संभव हो सायकल से जाएं, तथा आगे का प्लान करें तथा व्यस्त समय में और मार्गों पर सार्वजनिक परिवहन से जाने से बचें। इसके सहारे आप यात्रा करते समय सामाजिक दूरी बरकरार रख सकेंगे।
अपने परिवार या अपने सपोर्ट बबल से बाहर किसी भी अन्य परिवार के साथ गाड़ी साझा करने की संभावना से बचें। गाड़ी साझा करने के बारे में दिशा-निर्देश देखें।
अगर आपको सार्वजनिक परिवहन का उपयोग करने की जरूरत हो तो आपको सुरक्षित रूप से यात्रा करने के दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए।
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय यात्रा
आप केवल अंतर्राष्ट्रीय रूप से यात्रा कर सकते हैं – अथवा युनाइटेड किंगडम के अंदर – जहाँ आपके पास सबसे पहले घर छोड़ने के लिए कानूनी रूप से अनुमति दिया गया कारण हो। इसके अलावा, आप जिस देश में जा रहे हैं वहाँ आपको उसके सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य सलाह का पालन भी करना होगा। यदि आपको विदेश यात्रा करने की जरूरत है (तथा ऐसा करने के लिए कानूनी रूप से अनुमति दी जाती है, उदाहरण के लिए, क्योंकि यह कार्य के लिए है), भले ही आप उस स्थान के लिए लौट रहे हैं जहाँ आप पहले विजिट कर चुके हैं, तो आपको अपने गंतव्य स्थान पर लागू नियमों तथा विदेशी, राष्ट्रमंडल और विकास कार्यालय (FCDO) की यात्रा सलाह पर विचार करना चाहिए।
युनाइटेड किंगडम के जो निवासी इस समय विदेश में हैं उन्हें तुरंत घर लौटने की जरूरत नहीं है। हालांकि, आपको वापस लौटने की व्यवस्थाओं के बारे में अपनी एअर लाइंस या यात्रा ऑपरेटर से पूछताछ करना चाहिए।
विदेशी नागरिक ‘घर पर रहें’ विनियमों के तहत हैं। आपको बिना अनुमति के विदेश की यात्रा नहीं करना चाहिए। इसका यह मतलब है कि आपको छुट्टी पर नहीं जाना चाहिए।
यदि आप युनाइटेड किंगडम की विजिट कर रहे हैं, तो आप घर लौट सकते हैं। आपको इसकी पूछताछ करना चाहिए कि आपके गंतव्य स्थान में कोई प्रतिबंध लगे हुए हैं या नहीं।
रात भर घर से दूर रहना
आप अपने घर या उस स्थान को नहीं छोड़ सकते हैं जहाँ आप छुट्टियों में रह रहे हैं या रात भर रुकते हैं जब तक आपके पास ऐसा करने के लिए समुचित बहाना नहीं है।
इसका अर्थ है कि युनाइटेड किंगडम और विदेश में छुट्टियां मनाने की अनुमति नहीं है।
इसमें दूसरे घर या कारवां में रुकना शामिल है, यदि वह आपका प्राथमिक आवास नहीं है। इसमें किसी के साथ रुकना भी शामिल है जिनके साथ आप नहीं रहते हैं जब तक वे आपके सपोर्ट बबल में न हों।
आपको अपने घर से दूर रात भर रुकने की अनुमति दी जाती है यदि आप: • अपने सपोर्ट बबल की विजिट कर रहे हैं • अपने मुख्य आवास के लिए वापस लौटने में असमर्थ हैं • घर जाने के दौरान आवास की जरूरत है • अंतिम संस्कार या संबंधित संस्मारक घटना में भाग लेने के लिए आवास की जरूरत • कार्य के उद्देश्यों के लिए या स्वयंसेवी सेवाएं प्रदान करने के लिए आवास की जरूरत • स्कूल या देखभाल के लिए बच्चे को आवास की जरूरत है • बेघर हैं, आश्रय तलाशने वाले या शरण की तलाश में असुरक्षित व्यक्ति हैं या अगर आप हानि से बच रहे हैं (जिसमें घरेलू शोषण शामिल है) • एक संभ्रांत एथलीट या उनके सपोर्ट स्टाफ अथवा माता-पिता है, यदि एथलीट 18 वर्ष से कम आयु का है और प्रशिक्षण या प्रतियोगिता के लिए घर के बाहर रहना आवश्यक है
यदि आप पहले से ही छुट्टी पर हैं, तो आपको जितना जल्दी व्यवहारिक हो अपने घर लौटना चाहिए।
अतिथि आवास प्रदाता जैसे कि होटल्स, बेड एंड ब्रेकफास्ट और कैरावेन पार्क कानून में निर्धारित विशिष्ट कारणों से खुले रह सकते हैं, इसमें शामिल है जहाँ अतिथि अपने मुख्य निवास पर लौटने में असमर्थ हैं, उस अतिथि आवास को अपने मुख्य निवास के रूप में उपयोग करें, घर बदलते समय आवास की आवश्यकता है, कानून द्वारा अलग-थलग रहना अनिवार्य किया गया है, या अन्यथा आवासों के बंद होने के परिणामस्वरूप बेघर हो गया हो। इंग्लैंड में कुछ व्यवसायों और वेन्यू पर दिशा-निर्देश में कारणों की पूरी सूची मिल सकती है।
आवासन प्रदाताओं को भी प्रोत्साहित किया जाता है कि बेघर सहित अन्य असुरक्षित लोगों को आवास प्रदान करने के लिए वे स्थानीय अधिकारियों को अपना सहयोग दें। केयर होम में मुलाकातें
पर्याप्त स्क्रीन, विजिटिंग पॉड्स, या खिड़कियों के पीछे जैसी व्यवस्थाओं के साथ घरों की देखभाल के लिए विजिट की जा सकती हैं। निकट-संपर्क वाली इन्डोर विजिट की अनुमति नहीं है। प्रकोप की परिस्थिति में किन्हीं भी मुलाकातों के लिए अनुमति नहीं दी जाएगी।
विजिट का संचालन कैसे किया जाना चाहिए, यह जानने के लिए आपको COVID-19 के दौरान देखभाल गृहों की विजिट करने के बारे में मार्गदर्शन देखना चाहिए। बाहर विजिट के दौरान निवासी घर के भीतर अन्य लोगों से नहीं मिल सकते हैं (उदाहरण के लिए, पारिवारिक घर में अपने रिश्तेदारों से मिलना)। सहायता प्राप्त आवास में रहने वाले लोगों के लिए अलग दिशा-निर्देश उपलब्ध हैं।
अंतिम संस्कार
अंतिम संस्कारों के लिए अनुमति दी गई है लेकिन उपस्थित लोगों की संख्या पर कड़ी सीमाएं हैं, और इसे केवल COVID-19 सुरक्षित स्थानों में या जब तक कोई असाधारण परिस्थितियां न हों सार्वजनिक बाहरी स्थानों में आयोजित होना चाहिए।
अंतिम संस्कार के लिए अधिकतम 30 लोग उपस्थित हो सकते हैं। जुड़े हुए धार्मिक, आत्म-आधारित या स्मारक कार्यक्रमों, जैसे पत्थर गाड़ना और राख बिखरना को भी अधिकतम 6 लोगों की उपस्थिति में आयोजित किया जा सकता है। कार्यरत किसी व्यक्ति को इन सीमाओं में नहीं गिना जाएगा। उन लोगों के बीच जो एक साथ नहीं रहते हैं या एक ही सपोर्ट बबल साझा नहीं करते हैं, सामाजिक दूरी का पालन किया जाना चाहिए।
शादियाँ, सिविल पार्टनरशिप और धार्मिक सेवाएं शादियों और सिविल पार्टनरशिप समारोहों में केवल 6 लोगों को ही शामिल होना चाहिए। कार्यरत कोई व्यक्ति इसमें शामिल नहीं है। इन्हें केवल असाधारण परिस्थितियों में ही आयोजित होना चाहिए, उदाहरण के लिए, एक अति आवश्यक विवाह जहां शादी करने वालों में से एक गंभीर रूप से बीमार है और उसके ठीक होने की उम्मीद नहीं है, या उसे एक कमजोरी का उपचार या जीवन बदलने वाली सर्जरी कराना है।
शादियों और सिविल पार्टनरशिप का आयोजन केवल कोविड-19 सुरक्षित स्थानों या सार्वजनिक बाहरी स्थानों में किया जाना चाहिए।
उपासना के स्थान
उपासना करने के लिए आप उपासना के स्थानों में जा सकते हैं। लेकिन, आपको अपने परिवार या सपोर्ट बबल से बाहर किसी और के साथ मिलना-जुलना नहीं चाहिए। आपको हर समय संख्या सामाजिक दूरी बनाए रखना चाहिए।
आपको उपासना के स्थानों के सुरक्षित उपयोग पर राष्ट्रीय दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए।
खेल और शारीरिक गतिविधि
इनडोर जिम और खेल सुविधाएं बंद रहेंगी। आउटडोर स्पोर्ट्स कोर्ट, आउटडोर जिम, गॉल्फ कोर्स, आउटडोर स्विमिंग पूल, आर्चरी/ड्राइविंग/शूटिंग रेंज और राइडिंग सेंटर भी बंद रहेंगे। विकलांग लोगों के लिए संगठित आउटडोर खेल को जारी रहने की अनुमति दी गई है।
अभिजात वर्ग के स्पोर्ट्स जारी रह सकते हैं। अभिजात वर्ग के स्पोर्ट्स को चरणबद्ध रूप रूप से वापस लाने के अतिरिक्त दिशा-निर्देश उपलब्ध हैं। घर बदलना
आप अब भी घर बदल सकते हैं। आपके घर या सपोर्ट बबल के बाहर के लोगों को जब तक बिल्कुल आवश्यक न हो, तब तक घर के स्थानांतरण में मदद नहीं करनी चाहिए।
इस्टेट और लेटिंग एजेंट और रिमूवल कंपनियाँ अपना काम जारी रख सकती हैं। अगर आप घर बदलने की सोच रहे हैं तो आप संपत्ति देखने जा सकते हैं।
सुरक्षित रूप से घर के स्थानांतरण के बारे में राष्ट्रीय मार्गदर्शन का पालन करें, जिसमें सामाजिक दूरी, ताजी हवा की उपलब्धता और चेहरे को ढंकने के बारे में सलाह शामिल है।
वित्तीय सहायता
आप चाहे कहीं भी रहें, आपको शायद वित्तीय सहायता मिल सकती है
- वित्तीय सहायता व्यवसायों के लिए पैकेज
- टियर के प्रतिबंधों के परिणामस्वरूप बंद व्यवसायों के लिए वित्तीय सहायता
- कोरोनावायरस जॉब रिटेंशन स्कीन के ज़रिए कर्मचारी का वेतन क्लेम करना
- जाँच कि क्या आप सेल्फ-एम्प्लॉयमेंट इनकम सपोर्ट के ज़रिए एक ग्रांट क्लेम कर सकते हैं
- अगर आप कोरोनावायरस के कारण काम नहीं कर पा रहे हैं तो वित्तीय सहायता
व्यवसाय और वेन्यू
व्यवसाय और स्थान जो बंद होने चाहिए सामाजिक संपर्क को कम करने के लिए, क्रान्ति को कुछ व्यवसायों को बंद करने और कुछ व्यवसायों के सामान और सेवाएं प्रदान करने के तरीकों पर प्रतिबंध लगाने की आवश्यकता है। इंग्लैंड में कुछ व्यवसायों और वेतन को बंद रखने के दिशा-निर्देशों में उन व्यवसायों की पूरी सूची मिल सकती है जिन्हें बन रहना होगा, लेकिन इनमें निम्नलिखित शामिल हैं:
- गैर-आवश्यक रिटेल व्यवसाय, जैसे कि कपड़े और घरेलू वस्तुओं के भंडार, वाहन शोरूम (किराये पर चलाने के लिए उपयोग होने वाले के अलावा), सट्टेबाजी की दुकानें, दर्जी, तंबाकू और सिगरेट की दुकानें, इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सामान और मोबाइल फोन की दुकानें, नीलामी घरों (पशुधन या कृषि उपकरणों की नीलामी को छोड़कर) और गैर जरूरी सामान बेचने वाले बाजार के स्टॉल ये व्यवसाय क्लिक-एंड-कलेक्ट (जहां सामान का पहले ऑर्डर दिया जाता है और फिर परिसर के बाहर से एकत्र कर लिया जाता है) और वितरण सेवाएं संचालित कर सकते हैं।
- आतिथ्य स्थल जैसे कैफे, रेस्तरां, पब, बार और सोशल क्लब; इसमें घर ले जाने के लिए भोजन और गैर-शराबयुक्त पेय पदार्थ प्रदान करने वाले (रात 11 बजे तक), क्लिक-एंड-कलेक्ट, ड्राइव-थ्रू या डिलीवरी सेवा प्रदान करने वाले व्यवसाय अपवाद हैं सभी खाद्य और पेय पदार्थों (शराब सहित) को डिलीवरी द्वारा प्रदान करना बरकरार रखा जा सकता है।
- आवास जैसे कि होटल, हॉस्टल, गेस्ट हाउस और शिविर स्थल, उन विशिष्ट परिस्थितियों को छोड़कर, जैसे कि जब ये किसी व्यक्ति के मुख्य निवास के रूप में उपयोग होते हैं, जहां व्यक्ति घर वापस नहीं लौट सकता है, बेघरों को आवास या सहायता प्रदान करने के लिए, या जब काम के लिए वहाँ रहना आवश्यक है।
- आराम और खेल सुविधाएं जैसे कि आराम केंद्र और जिम, स्विमिंग पूल, स्पोर्ट्स कोर्ट्स, फिटनेस और नृत्य स्टूडियो, राइडिंग सेंटर, क्लाइम्बिंग वाल्स एवं गॉल्फ कोर्स। • मनोरंजन स्थल जैसे कि थिएटर, कॉन्सर्ट हॉल, सिनेमा, संग्रहालय और गैलरी, कैसीनो, मनोरंजन आर्केड, बिंगो हॉल, बॉलिंग ऐलीज़, स्केटिंग रिंक, गो-कार्टिंग स्थल, इनडोर प्ले और सॉफ्ट प्ले सेंटर और क्षेत्र (रबर के पार्क और ट्रेप्पोलाइनिंग केंद्र सहित), सर्कस, मेला स्थल, मनोरंजन मेला, वाटर पार्क और थीम पार्क • पशु आकर्षण (जैसे कि चिड़ियाघर, सफारी पार्क, एकैरियरम, और वाइल्डलाइफ सेंटर) • इनडोर आकर्षण स्थलों जैसे कि वनस्पति उद्यान, ऐतिहासिक इमारतों और स्थलों को भी बंद करना होगा, हालांकि इन परिसरों के बाहरी मैदान आउटडोर व्यायाम के लिए खुले रह सकते हैं। • व्यक्तिगत देखभाल सुविधाएं जैसे कि बाल, सौंदर्य, टैनिंग और नेल सैलून। टैंटल पार्लर, स्पा, मसाज पार्लर, बॉडी और स्किन छेदन सेवाएं भी बंद रहनी चाहिए। ये सेवाएं अन्य लोगों के घरों में नहीं प्रदान की जानी चाहिए। • सामुदायिक केंद्र और हॉल को भी बंद करना चाहिए, कुछ गतिविधियों की सीमित संख्या में छूट दी जा सकती है, जैसा कि नीचे दिया गया है। आईटी और डिजिटल सेवाओं तक पहुंच प्रदान करने के लिए पुस्तकालय भी खुले रह सकते हैं - उदाहरण के लिए उन लोगों को जिनके घर पर ये सेवाएं उपलब्ध नहीं हैं - और क्लिक-एंड-कलेक्ट सेवाओं के लिए।
इनमें से कुछ व्यवसायों और स्थानों को थोड़ी संख्या में छूट प्राप्त गतिविधियों के लिए खुले रखने की अनुमति दी जाएगी। इंग्लैंड में कुछ व्यवसायों और वेतन को बंद करने के बारे में प्रदान किए गए दिशा-निर्देशों में अपवादों की पूरी सूची मिल सकती है, लेकिन इनमें निम्नलिखित भी शामिल हैं:
• शिक्षा और प्रशिक्षण - स्कूलों में खेल, आराम और सामुदायिक सुविधाओं का उपयोग करने के लिए जहां यह उनके सामान्य प्रावधान का हिस्सा है • उपस्थित रहने के लिए योग्य हैं ऐसे सभी बच्चों के लिए चाइल्डकेयर उद्देश्य और पर्यवेक्षित गतिविधियाँ • रक्तदान कार्यक्रम और खाद्य बैंकों का आयोजन करना • चिकित्सा उपचार प्रदान करना • संभ्रांत खेल व्यक्तियों के प्रशिक्षण और प्रतिस्पर्धा के लिए (इनडोर और आउटडोर खेल सुविधाओं में), और पेशेवर नर्तकों और कोरियोग्राफरों के काम के लिए (फिटनेस और डांस स्टूडियो में) • दर्शकों के बिना प्रशिक्षण और पूर्वाभ्यास करने के लिए (थिएटर और कॉन्सर्ट हॉल में) • फिल्म और टीवी के लिए फिल्मांकन के प्रयोजनों के लिए
व्यवसाय और स्थान जो खुले रह सकते हैं
अन्य व्यवसायों और स्थानों को COVID-19 सुरक्षा दिशानिर्देशों का पालन करने पर खोलने की अनुमति है। आवश्यक सामान और सेवाएं प्रदान करने वाले व्यवसाय खुले रह सकते हैं। इंग्लैंड में कुछ व्यवसायों और वेतन को बंद करने के बारे में प्रदान किए गए दिशा-निर्देशों में इन व्यवसायों की पूरी सूची मिल सकती है, लेकिन इनमें निम्नलिखित भी शामिल हैं:
• आवश्यक रिटेल सेवाएं जैसे कि खाद्य सामग्री की दुकानें, सुपरमार्केट, फार्मेसी, गार्डन सेंटर, बिल्डिंग मर्चेंट और बिल्डिंग प्रोडक्ट्स और मादक पेय के आपूर्तिकर्ता • आवश्यक रिटेल उत्पाद बेचने वाले बाजार के स्टॉल भी खुले रह सकते हैं • मरम्मत सेवाएं प्रदान करने वाले व्यवसाय भी खुले रह सकते हैं, जहाँ वे मुख्य रूप से मरम्मत सेवाएं प्रदान करते हैं • पेट्रोल स्टेशन, स्वचालित (लेकिन मैनुअल नहीं) कार वॉश, वाहन मरम्मत करने वाले गेराज और वाहन परीक्षण सेवाएं, साइकिल की दुकानें, और टैक्सी और वाहन किराए पर देने वाले व्यवसाय • बैंक, बिल्डिंग सोसायटी, डाकघर, अत्यकालिक लोन प्रदाता और धन हस्तांतरण व्यवसाय • अंतिम संस्कार संचालक • लॉन्ड्री और ड्राई क्लीनर • चिकित्सा और दंत चिकित्सा सेवाएं • पशु चिकित्सक और पशुओं के पोषण और कल्याण के लिए प्रोडक्ट्स एवं खाद्य पदार्थों के रिटेलर • पशु बचाव केंद्र, बोर्डिंग सुविधाएं, और पशु सज्जा (सौंदर्य प्रयोजनों के बजाय पशु कल्याण के लिए इस्तेमाल किया जा सकता है) • कृषि आपूर्ति की दुकानें • चलने-फिरने और विकलांगता के सपोर्ट की दुकानें • भंडारण और वितरण सुविधाएं • कार पार्किंग, सार्वजनिक शौचालय और मोटरवाहन सेवा क्षेत्र • आउटडोर खेल का मैदान • व्यापार के लिए बॉटनिकल गार्डन और हेरिटेज साइट्स के आउटडोर हिस्से • उपासना के स्थान • श्रमशान और कब्रिस्तान
स्वास्थ्यसेवा और सार्वजनिक सेवाएं
एनएचएस और चिकित्सा सेवाएं खुले हैं, जिसमें निम्नलिखित शामिल हैं:
• दंत सेवाएं, • ऑटोटिशियंस, • ऑडिओलॉजी सेवाएं, • काइरोपोडी, • काइरोप्रैक्टर्स, • ऑस्टिओपैथ्स • अन्य चिकित्सीय या स्वास्थ्य सेवाएं, जिसमें मानसिक स्वास्थ्य से संबंधित सेवाएं शामिल हैं
हम आपातकालीन और सामान्य सेवाओं को सुरक्षित रूप से चलाने में NHS की सहायता कर रहे हैं, और यह ऐसे व्यक्ति के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है जो सोचता है कि उन्हें किसी भी तरह की चिकित्सा देखभाल की आवश्यकता है और मदद चाहता है।
अधिकांश सार्वजनिक सेवाएं जारी रहेंगी और आप उनका उपयोग करने के लिए घर से निकलने में सक्षम होंगे। इनमें निम्नलिखित शामिल हैं:
• जॉबसेंटर प्लस साइटें • अदालतें और प्रोबेशन सेवाएं • नागरिक पंजीकरण कार्यालय • पासपोर्ट और वीजा सेवाएं • पीड़ितों को दी जाने वाली सेवाएं • अपशिष्ट या रिसायकलिंग केंद्र • एमओटी करवाना (MOT), अगर विधिपूर्वक घर से बाहर जाने के समय आपको ड्राइव करने की जरूरत हो
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4137-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 31,
"total-input-tokens": 132758,
"total-output-tokens": 34783,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
514,
1
],
[
514,
1254,
2
],
[
1254,
2453,
3
],
[
2453,
3507,
4
],
[
3507,
4615,
5
],
[
4615,
5672,
6
],
[
5672,
6836,
7
],
[
6836,
7906,
8
],
[
7906,
9038,
9
],
[
9038,
10039,
10
],
[
10039,
11060,
11
],
[
11060,
12253,
12
],
[
12253,
13685,
13
],
[
13685,
15128,
14
],
[
15128,
16561,
15
],
[
16561,
17558,
16
],
[
17558,
18876,
17
],
[
18876,
20064,
18
],
[
20064,
21434,
19
],
[
21434,
22839,
20
],
[
22839,
24178,
21
],
[
24178,
25514,
22
],
[
25514,
26855,
23
],
[
26855,
28128,
24
],
[
28128,
29312,
25
],
[
29312,
30237,
26
],
[
30237,
31815,
27
],
[
31815,
33290,
28
],
[
33290,
34495,
29
],
[
34495,
35460,
30
],
[
35460,
36209,
31
]
]
} |
5b70dd46759727fec71678c5f7e1c35212b0533a | گانڈنس قومی لاک داؤن گھر ربوو ملک وچ کورونا وائرس دے کیس تیزی نال وده رہے نین۔ ویکھو کر کیہ گر سکدے او تے کیہ نہیں گر سکدے۔
اشاعت 4 جنوری 2021
آخر واری اب ذیث شده 6 جنوری 2021 - ساری اب ذیثس ویکھو
ار: کیہت آفس
اطلاق بوندا پی:
انکلینڈ پی
مندرجات
خلاصہ: ویکھو کم تُسی قومی لاک داؤن وچ گیم کر سکدے او تے کیہ نہیں گر سکدے ایہم گانڈنس کیڑے لوکان لئی لئی بتھ چھیرہ جگہ۔ تُسی گھروں کدون نکل سکدے او دوجیان نون نال ملنا ورزش خلاصہ: ویکھو کم تُسی قومی لاک ذاًون وج کم کر سکدے او تے کم نہیں کر سکدے
لازماً گھر رہو ایس ایس دی حفاظت کرن تے رنگیان بجاون لئی سب تون ایم کلا کم جبڑا کر سکدے بان اوه گھر وج رینا ایم۔
تہانون فوری طور تے ایس گانڈنس تے عمل کرنا جابیدا ایم۔ ایس قتون ایم۔
گھرون بابر نکلنا تہانون اپنے گھروں نہیں بابر نہیں نکلنا چاہیدا ماسوائے جتھے ضروری ہوئے۔ تُسی گھروں نکل سکدے ای؟
• اپنے یا کسی گھر محفوظ یعنی ولنراپل بندے لئی بندی ضروریات • زندگی خریدن لئی • جی ہی نسی مقبول طریقے نال گھروں نم گر سکو تے فیر کم کرن یا رضا کاران یا رقابی خدمات فراہم کرن لئی • اپنے گھرانے (یا سپورٹ بیل) یا کسی دوجے گھرانے دے اک فرد نال • ورزش کرن تے اپنے اک دن وچ اک واری نک محدود بونی چاپیدی لئے تہانون اپنے مقدمی علاقے تون بابر نہیں جانا چاہیدا • جتھے ضروری بوئے اوہے اپنے سپورٹ بیل یا جانلۂ کینر بیل نال ملن جان لئی، بر صرف جی تہانون اپنے بناون دی قانونی اجازت لئے • بیماری وچ مدد لین، زخمی، بیمار بون یا نقصان اپڑن دے خطرے تون • بجن لئی (بیشمول گھریلو تشدد دے) • تعلیم یا جانلۂ کینر لئی - صرف اوه جو مستحق نین
جب تُسی کسی منظور شدہ وجو تون گھروں بابر جاندے ای او تے تہانون صرف مقامی علاقے وچ رہنا چاہیدا لئے - ماسوائے اپیدے لئی زیادہ دور جانا ضروری بوئی، مثلًا کم تے جان لئی مقامی علاقے وچ رہن دا مطلب اپنے لئے کم تُسی جبڑے پنڈ، قصے یا شہری علاقے وچ رہن دے اوندے اندر بی رو۔
جب تُسی طبی طور تے انتباہی کموزر بینی ولنراپل او تے فیر تہانون صرف ضروری میڈیکل ایوانیمئنٹ تے، ورزش یا ضروری بوئے تے تان بی بابر جانا چاہیدا لئے تہانون کم تے نہیں جانا چاہیدا
دوجیان نون ملنا
تُسی کسی اپسے بندے نون سماجی طور تے ملن لئی گھروں بابر نہیں جا سکدے جبڑے تبادلے نال نہیں رہندا یا تبادلے سپورٹ بیل وچ نہیں (جب تہانون قانونی طور تے بناں دی اجازت بوئے تے)۔ تُسی کلے، کسے اک بور بندے نال یا اپنے گھرانے یا سپورٹ بیل نال ورزش کر سکدے اور اپنے اک دن وچ اک واری تک محدود بونی چاپیدی لی تے تبانون اپنے مقامی علاقے تون بابر نہیں جانا چاہیدا۔
تُسی دوجے ایسے لوکان نال نہیں مل سکدے جنہان نال تُسی نہیں رہندے یا جنہان نال تُسی سپورٹ بیل نہیں بنایا ہویا، ما سوائے منظور شدہ وجوہات دے۔
بر اوس بندے تون 2 میٹر دی دوری تے رہو جبڑا تبانون گھرانے وچ نہیں رہندیا۔
تعلیم
کالج، برانماری تے سیکنڈری اسکول صرف ولنراپل بچان تے کریشکل ورکرز دے بچان لئی بی گھلے ربن گے۔ باقی سب بچے فروری دی باف ترم تک ریموٹی بی پڑھن گے۔
ارلی اینرز ویلی تعلیمی ادارے کھلے ربن گے۔ مستقبل دے کریشکل ورکرز ویلی کورسز دے علاوہ اعلی تعلیم فروری دے وسط تک آن لائن بی رپ گی۔
ایہم گائڈنس کیئے لوکان لئی ایہ
ایہم گائڈنس صحتمند تے فٹ لوکان لئی ایہ جیہد لوک طبی طور تے انتبائی غیر محفوظ بیئی ولنراپل نئی تے کورونا وائرس دے ممکن با تصدیق شدہ انفیکشن والی گھرانے لئی اضافی گائڈنس محدود ایہ جی تُسی طبی طور تے انتبائی غیر محفوظ بیئی ولنراپل او تے فیر تبانون دوبارہ شروع ہون والی شیڈلنگ دی گائڈنس تے عمل کرنا چاہیدا لئی تے کم تے اسکول، کالج یا یونیورسٹی نہیں جانا چاہیدا۔ تبانون گھرون بابر گزارے جان والی ویلی نون محدود کرنا چاہیدا لئی تے تبانون صرف ضروری میڈیکل ایوائٹھمنٹ تے، ورزش یا ضروری بوئی تے تان بی بابر جانا چاہیدا لئی بته چہرہ - جگہ
کورونا وائرس والی تقیبیاً 3 وجوں 1 بندے وج کوئی علامتی نہیں بوندیان تے اوہ پتے چلے بغیر بی ایس نون پھیلا سکدے نیں۔
یاد رکھو، بته چہرہ - جگہ۔
- بته - کثرت نال اپنے بته دھوؤ تے گھٹ وگھٹ 20 سیکنڈ لئی چہرہ - عمارتان دے اندر دے ماحول جتھے سماجی دورو مشکل بوئے تے جتھے تُسی اپسے لوکان نال ملو جنہان نال تُسی عام طور تے نہیں ملدے، اپنے فیس ماسک پاو۔
- چہرہ - جتھے ممکن بوؤئے اپنے اپنے لوکان تون 2 میٹر دور رہؤ جبہ تہذیب نال نہیں رہندے، یا اضافی احتیاط نال (جیوین فیس ماسک لانا) 1 میٹر دور۔
تمام حالات وج تہانون محفوظ طریقے نال دوجیان نون ملن والی گائڈنس تے عمل کرنا چاہیدا لی۔
تُسی گھرون کدون نکل سکدے او
تہانون اپنے گھرون نہیں نکلنا چاہیدا یا اپنے گھرون بابر نہیں بونا چاہیدا ماسوائے جتھے تہذیب کول کوئی 'معقول توجیح' بوؤ۔ اپنے قانون اے۔ جی تُسی 'معقول توجیح' دے بغیر گھرون بابر نکلو تے فیر پولیس تہذیب خلاف ایکشن لی سکدی اے تے تہانون جرمانہ (فکسڈ پینلئی نوئس) جاری کر سکدی اے۔
تہانون پہلی والی جُرم کرن دے 200 £ دا فکسڈ پینلئی نوئس جاری کيتا جا سکدا اے، بر اگلے جُرم لئی دوگنا بو جاندا لی 6,400 £ دی حد تک۔
معقول توجیح وج شامل نین: کم
تُسی گھرون بابر صرف کم لئی بی جا سکدے او جتھے تبادلے لئی اپنے گھرون کم کرنا غیر معقول ہو۔ ایس وج شامل نین پر اپنی نک بی محدود نہیں، اوہ لوک جبہ کریکٹ کومی دھانچے، کنسرکشن یا مینویکچرگنج وچ کم کرے نہیں جتھے داتی طور تے حاضر بونا ضروری لیے رضا کارانہ خدمات پیش کرنا
کم یا رضاکارانہ یا رفائی خدمات فراہم کرن لئی تُسی گھرون جا سکدے او۔
ضروری سرگرمیان
تُسی دکانان تون خریداری کرن یا سروز حاصل کرن لئی جاسکدے او تُسی کسی معدود، ولنراپل یا سیلف آنسولیٹ کرن والے فرد لئی وی اپنے کرن گھرون بابر جا سکدے او۔
تعلیم تے جانلڈ کئیر
تُسی گھرون صرف تعلیم، رجسٹرڈ جانلڈ کئیر تے بچیان لئی زیر نگرانی سرگرمیان لئی بی گھرون جا سکدے او جتھے بچے اپنی نک ایک بیل بیا اسکول جان والی عمر والے بچیان لئی تعلیم تے بچیان لئی سرگرمیان نک رسائی محدود اے۔ تعلیم تے جانلڈ کئیر بارہ مزید معلومات ویکھو تُسی والدین تے بچیان وچکار رابطے دے مجودہ انتظام نون جاری رکھ سکدے او جتھے اوہ اک دوجے تون علیحدہ رہندے بون جے تُسی گھرانے وچ 14 سال تون گھٹ عمر نال رہندے او تے فیر تُسی جانلڈ کئیر بنا سکدے او۔
دوجیاں نون ملنا تے کئیر
تُسی گھرون نکل سکدے او: • اپنے سپورٹ بیل نال ملن جان لئی، (چی تہانوں اپنے بناون دی قتوں اجازت اے)۔
• اک جائیل کینر بیل دے حسے دے طور پر 14 سال تون گھٹ عمر دے بچیان نون غیر رسمی جائیل کینر مبیا کرن لئی (متلاً مان بیو نون کم کرن دے قابل بنا لئی نا کم بالغ لوکان دے درمیان سماجی رابطے بنا وج مدد دین لئی)
• معذور یا ولنرائل لوکان نون کینر فریم کرن لئی بنگامی مدد دین لئی
• کسے سپورٹ گروپ وج جان لئی (15 توزی لوکان تک) کینر فریم کرن والے کسے فرد نون آرام دیوان جتھے کر کسے محتاج یا معذور بندے نون کینر فریم کیتی جا رہی بیوئے یا کسے دیکھ بھال وج بچے دے حوالے نال وقتم دیوان لئی تسی گھرون بابر نکل سکدے او۔
ورزش
تُسی کلی، کسے اک بور بندے نال یا اپنے گھرانے یا سپورٹ بیل نال ورزش کرنا جاری رکھ سکدے او۔ اپنے اک دن وج اک واری تک محدود بونی چابیدی اے تے تہانوں اپنے مقامی علاقے تون بابر نہیں جانا چاہیدا۔ تہانوں سماجی دوری برقرار رکھنی چابیدی اے۔ ویکھو ورزش کرنا
طبی وجوہات
تُسی طبی وجوہات، کووید-19 دا ثبوت کروان سنی، میڈیکل ابوائنڈمث اتے ایمرجنسی لئی گھرون بابر جا سکدے او۔
میثرنئی
تُسی کسے اپسی خاتون نال موجود بون لئی گھرون بابر جا سکدے او جبئی بچے نون جنم دے رہی بیوئے یا دوجیان میثرنئی سروسز حاصل کر رہی بیوئے یا اپسے بچے نال موجود رہن لئی جس نون نیوینیل کریشکل کئیر مل رہی ہوئے۔ حمل تے کورونا وائرس بارے این انج ایس دی گائڈنسس موجود اے۔
گزند
نُسی زخمی بون یا بیماری تون پچن یا خطرے تو فرار بون لئی گھرون بابر جاسکدے او (جسراں کم گھریلو تشدد)۔
رحمدالان ملاقاتان
نُسی کسے قربی المرگ بندے نون یا کسے بندے نون کئیر بوم وج ملن (بشرطیک، اپس دی کئیر بوم گائڈنسس تحت اجارت بونی) باسپس، یا سپیتال، یا میڈیکل ایوانیمئنٹ ائے کسے نال جان لئی گھرون بابر جا سکدے او۔
جانوران دی فلاح دی وجوہات
جانوران دی بہبود دی وجوہات تون، جیوین مشورے یا علاج لئی وثرنی سروسز تے جان لئی گھرون بابر جا سکدے او۔
اجتماعی عبادات تے جین مرن دی تقربیان
نُسی گھرون بابر جاسکدے او کسے عبادات گاہ جو اجتماعی عبادات لئی، جنازے وچ شرکت کرن لئی یا موت نال جڑی کسے تقربی وچ شرکت کرن لئی، قیرستان یا ریمیبرنس گارڈن جان لئی یا شادی دی تقربی وچ جان لئی۔ تبانون عبادات گاوان تے محفوظ استعمال بار ہر قومی گائڈنسس تے عمل کرنا چاہیدا اے تے اپنے گھرانے یا سیورٹ بیل تون بابر والے لوکان نال اختلاط نہیں کرنا چاہیدا۔ شادیان، جنازے ائے مذہبی یا عقیدے دی بنیاد والی یا کسے دی موت نال جڑی یادگری تقربیان حاضرین جبہ حمص لئی سکدے نین اونیان دی تعداد دی حدود دی تابع نین۔
مزید معقول توجیحات مزید معقول توجیحات موجود نہیں۔ مثلاً، تُسی قانونی ذمہ داری پوری کرن یا خریدن، ویچن، کرائے تے دین یا رباش لئی کوئی گھر کرائے تے لین لئی، باز لگان لئی، یا جتھے کسی انتخابات یا ریفرنڈم وچ ووٹ پان لئی معقول طور تے ضروری بونی وی گھرون بابر جاسکدے او۔
دوچیان نون نال ملنا
اینے گھرون یا سپورٹ بیل ویلے لوکان دے علاوہ کسے نال سماجی میل ملاب کرنا غیر قانونی اے۔ تُسی تفریح یا مشغله لئی (جیوین یکنک یا سماجی ملاب) دے مقصدان لئی گھرون بابر نہیں جا سکدے۔
ورزش کرنا
اینے گھرون بابر گزارے جان والے ویلے نون تہانوں محدود کرنا چاہیدا لئے پر تُسی ورزش کرن لئی گھرون بابر جاسکدے او۔ ایہم اک دن وچ اک واری تک محدود بونی چابیدی اے تے تہانوں اینے مقامی علاقے نون بابر نہیں جانا چاہیدا۔
تُسی کسے آوٹ دُور عوامی تہان وچ ورزش کر سکدے او:
• اکلے • اینے نال ربن والے لوکان نال • اینے سپورٹ بیل نال، (جی تہانوں ایہم بناون دی قانونی اجازت بونی) • جانئڑ کینر بیل وچ جتھے کینر فریام کر رہے او • یا، جدون تُسی اکلے او، تے فیر کسے بور گھرانے نال تعلق رکھن والے
1 بور بندے نال
ایس وج شامل نہیں پر ایہنے نک محدود نہیں، دوزن، سانکلنگ، یبدل چلنے یا تیرنا ون-آن-ون دی بنیاد تے پرسنل ثرینگ جاری رہ سکدی اے ایہم کم بر کوئی اک بی گھرانے یا سپورٹ بیل وچ شامل بونی۔ آوٹ ڈور عوامی مقامان وچ شامل نین:
- پارک، ساحل، عوام لئی قابل رسائی دیہاتی علاقے، جنگل
- عوامی باغ یعنی گارڈن (پہاون تُسی داخل بون لئی پیسے دیو یا نم دیو)
- کسے تریخی مقام دی گراونڈ
- کھیڈان دے میدان
آوٹ ڈور کھیڈان دے میدان بند بونے چابیدے نین، مثلًا:
- تینس کورٹس
- گالف کورسز
- سونمنگ پولز
5 سال تون گھٹ عمر دے بچے، تے کسے معدور فرد جنہان نون مسلسل کیئر دی لوز بونے، دے 2 توزی کیئرز، آوٹ ڈورز ورزش کرن دی حدود وچ شمار نہیں کیئے جاندے۔
جے تہیں (یا جنوبی تُسی کیئر فرابم کر رہے او اوبن نون) کوئی ایسی بیماری اے جبڑی متتفاضل اے کہ تُسی اپنی صحت برقرار رکھن لئی گھروں بابر جاو - سے اپس گل دے کہ تہیں اپنے علاقے وجوں بابر سفر کرنا پوئے یا اک دن وج کئی واری ورزش کرنی پوئے - فیر تُسی اپنے کر سکدے او۔
جدون تُسی دوجے لوکان دی مجدوگی وچ او، تے اپنے گھرانے یا اپنے سیورٹ نیل وج مجدو، یعنی تہیں نال رین والے لوکان دے علاوہ 2 میٹر دی دوڑی تے ربو جنھے اپنے ممکن نہ پوئے اونھے اضافی احتیاط نال 1 میٹر دی دوڑی تے ربو (جیوین فیس ماسک پاکے)۔ فیس ماسکس
اندوز تہانوں، جیوین دوکانان یا عبادت گاوان، جتھے ایبہ گھڑیاں بیویاں بون وچ، تے پبلک ثانسپورٹ وچ، تہانوں فیس ماسک پانی چاہیدا اے ماسوا ایس گل دے کر تہانوں چھت حاصل بوئی۔ ایبہ قنون اے۔ فیس ماسک بارے گائڈنس یہو۔
سپورٹ تے چائلد کیئر بلز
سپورٹ یا چائلد کیئر بیل بنان لئی تہانوں ایلیت دے کچھ تقاضے پورے کرنے پین گے۔ ایس دا مطلب ایبہ اے کہ بر بندہ بیل نہیں بننا سکدا۔
سپورٹ بلز اک اجہا تھورک ایبہ جہڑا دوگھرانیاں نون جوز دیندا اے۔ تُسی کسے اک بور گھر نال صرف اوس صورت وچ بی سپورٹ بیل بنا سکدے او جے تُسی ایلیت دے ضانطہ بورے کریں او۔
جے تُسی ایبہاں ضابطیاں تے عمل نہیں کریں تے فیس سپورٹ بیل بنانا خلاف قنون اے۔
تہانوں ایبہ گھرون بابر نکلن تے ایبہ سپورٹ بیل کول جان (تے اوبنیا نال رات گزارن) دی اجراز اے۔ تاہم جے تُسی سپورٹ بیل بناندے او تے سب تون چنگی گل ایبہ بیوئی گی کہ تُسی ایبہ کسے مقامی ربن والے گھرانے نال بناو۔ ایس نال کسے ایسے علاقے وچون بابر وانرس دے پھیلاو نون روکن وچ مدد ملی گی جس وچ زیادہ لوکان نون انفیکشن بو چکی اے۔
جے تُسی گھرانے وچ 14 سال تون گھشت عمر والے بچے نال ربندے او تے فیس تُسی چائلد کیئر بیل بننا سکدے او ایبہ کسے بور گھرانے وچ ربن والے رشتے داران یا دوستان نون غیر رسمی چائلد کیئر فرابم کرن دا موقع دیندا اے۔
تہانوں سماجی طور تے ایبہ چائلد کیئر بیل نال نہیں ملنا چاہیدا، تے تہانوں ایبہ چائلد کیئر بیل تے سپورٹ بیل دے ارکین نال اکو ویلے ملن تون گریز کرنا چاہیدا اے۔ سپورٹ بیلز تے جائنڈ کینٹر بیلز لئی وی وکھری گائڈنس موجود اے۔
تُسی کدون تے کتنے وڈے گروہان وج مل سکدے او
بلے وی اوہ حالات موجود نیں جنہان دے تحت تُسی اپنے گھرانے، جائنڈ کینٹر یا سپورٹ بیل دے بابر لوکان نون وڈے گروہان دی صورت وج مل سکدے او بر اپھے سماجی میل جوہ لئی نہیں بونا چابیدا لئی تے صرف منظور شدہ مقاصد لئی ای بونا چابیدا لئی اپنے حالاتان دی مکمل فبرست ریگولیشن وچ شمال کیتی جانے گی، تے اپس وج شامل نیں:
• کم لئی یا رضاکاران یا رفابی سروسز مبیا کرن لئی، جتھے اپنے گھرون کرن غیر معقول بونے۔ اپس وج جتھے ضروری بونے لوکی دوجے لوکان دے گھران وج کم کرن شاہم لئی - جسراں کم آیا یعنی نئی، صفائی کرن ویلے بچیان تے خاندانان نون سپورٹ مبیا کرن ویلے وصول کینٹر ورکرز تے تریذ بیل یعنی کارگر۔ دوجے لوکان دے گھران وج محفوظ طریقے نال کم کرنبارے گائڈنس ویکھو۔ جتھے کسے نچی گھر یا گارڈن وج کام نال متعلق مینگ نہیں بوندی تے فیر اپس نون بونا ای نہیں چابیدا - مثلًا، اگرچہ تُسی اک پرنسن ترینر نون مل سکدے او، تبانون اپنے کسے اوہ ذور عوامی مقام وج کرن چابیدا لئی۔
• کسے جائنڈ کینٹر بیل (صرف جائنڈ کینٹر دے مقصد لئی)
• تعلیم، رجسٹرڈ جائنڈ کینٹر تے بچیان لئی زیر نگرانی سرگرمیان لئی بی گھرون جا سکدے او جتھے اپنے دے اپل او تعلیم تے بچیان لئی سرگرمیان تک رسائی محدود لئی۔ تعلیم تے جائنڈ کینٹر بارے مزید معلومات ویکھو۔
• اپسے بندویستان لئی جتھے بچے اپنے گھران وج نہیں رہندے جتھے اپنے دے دوین والدین یا سربرست رہندے نین کینٹر وج موجود بچیان دا اپنے نون جمن والے مان بیو تے بھن پہراوان نال رابط، کروان لئی
• اپسے بچے یا بچیان نال ممکن گود لین والے والدین دی ملاقات کرن لئی جنہان کول اپنے نون رکھویا جا سکیے سوشل سروس ولون کسے بچے یا بچیا نون کیئر وچ پلیس کرن یا پلیس کرن وچ مدد دین لئی جمن والے پارٹنر لئی بنگامی مدد دین لئی، زخمی بون یا بیماری تون بچن یا خطرے تو فرار بون لئی (گھریلو تشدد سنی) کسے مرن والے بندے نون گھر وچ ملن جانا یا کسے اپسے مرضی نون ملن جانا جسدا بسیتال، بسیسیا یا کیئر بوم وچ علاج چل ریا بونی، یا کسے دوست یا رشتے دار نال میڈیکل اپوائنٹمنٹ وچ جانا کوئی قانونی ذم، واری پوری کرن لئی، جسراں کم عدالت وچ حاضری یا جبوري سروس فوجداری انصاف یا امیگرشن حراسی مراکز دی عمارتان وچ بون والے اجتماع کسے ولنریل یعنی غیر محفوظ بندے نون کیئر یا مدد میںا کرن لئی یا کسے کیئرر نون ارام دیوان لئی کسے شادی یا بم بایم سرگرمی لئی۔ ایہم صرف غیر معمولی حالات وچ بی بونا جانیدا اے تے تے 6 توزی لوکان نک بی محدود اے۔ جنازیان لئی - ودھ تون ودھ 30 توزی افراد ویکس دے دوجی رسوماتی تقربان 6 توزی لوکان دے گروپ وچ بونا جاری رہ سکدیان نین۔ ایلیکٹ کہداریان لئی (تے اوبن دے کچھان یا جی ضروری بونی تے تے جی اوہ 18 سال تون گھٹ عمر دے بون تے فیر اوبن دے والدین/سرپرست) - یا اوہ جبہ اعلی درجے دے کہلازی بنت دے عمل ووجون گزر ری بون - مقابلے تے ترتیب لئی۔ گھر بدلو وچ مدد دین لئی 15 تک حصم لین والیان والے سپورٹ گروپس جتھے اینبان دا با نفس نفیس بونا ضروری بونی جتھے ایہم رسمی طور تے بامی مدد، تھریاپی یا کسے بور طرح دی مدد لئی منظم کیئے گئے بون - پر ایہم کسے نجی گھر وچ نہیں کسے بور مقام وچ بونے جابیدے نین۔ جہے کسے گروپ وج کوئی ایسا فرد شامل ہوئے جس نوں چھٹہ بھیئے (متلاً کوئی فرد جبڑا کم یا رضا کاران کم کر رہا بھیئے)، عام طور پر ایونٹ اجتماع دی حد وچ گنیا نہیں جاندا۔ ایس دا مطلب ایہ اے کوئی کارکرگ جد دی خلاف ورزی کیے بغیر کسے گھر وج جاسکدا اے، جی اوہے کم لئی گئے ہوئے تے کسے شادی دا نتاج خوان ایس حد وچ گنیا نہیں جاندا۔
جے تُسی صابطیان دی خلاف ورزی کرو
جے تُسی وڈے گروپان وج ملو تے فیر بولیس تبادلہ خلاف ایکشن لی سکدی اے۔ ایس وج غیر قانونی اجتماعوں نون تتر بتر کرنا تے جرمانے عائد کرنا شامل اے (فکسڈ پینلی نوٹسز)۔
تہانون پہلی وائل جُرم کرن دے 200 £ دا فکسڈ پینلی نوٹس جاری کیتا جا سکدا اے، بر اگلے جُرم لئی دوگنا بو جاندا اے 6,400 £ دی حد تک۔ جے تُسی 30 لوکان نوں وہ دا غیر قانونی اکثر کرو یا کرنا وج ملوت بائی جاوے تے بولیس 10,000 £ نک دا جرمانہ کر سکدی اے۔
کورونا وائرس دی وجم تون زیادہ خطرہ وج موجود لوکان دی حفاظت کرنا
جے تُسی طبی طور تے غیرمحفوظ بعنی ولنرائل او تے فیر تہانون کورونا وائرس دی وجم نوں بیمار ہین دا شدید خطرہ بو سکدا اے۔ اوه لوک جبڑا طبی طور تے انتبائی غیر محفوظ بعنی ولنرائل نین لئی اضافی مشورہ موجود اے۔ جبڑا لوک طبی طور تے انتبائی غیر محفوظ بعنی ولنرائل نین اونہان نون دوبارہ شروع بون والی شیڈلنگ دی گائڈنس تے عمل کرنا چاہیدا لئی تے کم تے اسکول، کالج یا یونیورسٹی نہیں جاننا چاہیدا۔ تہانون گھروں بابر گزارے جان والے ویلے نوں محدود کرنا چاہیدا اے۔ تہانون صرف ضروری میڈیکل اپوائنٹمنٹ تے، ورزش یا ضروری بونے تے تان بی بابر جانا چاہیدا اے۔ کم تے جانا
ئے سے صرف کم لئی بی گھرون جا سکدے ای جی تے سی معقول طور تے گھرون کم نے کر سکو۔
جتھے لوکی گھرون کم نے کر سکن تے اوبنن نون اپنے کم دی تھانوان تے جان ئے سفر کرن جاری رکھنا چاہیدا اے۔ ایس وچ شامل نین بر اپنن نک بی محدود نبین، اوہ لوک جبڑے کم کر دے نین:
- کریشکل قومی ذہانچے وچ
- کنسٹرکشن وچ
- مینوفیکچرنگ وچ
- چائلنڈ کینر یا تعلیم وچ
- بیلٹو کینر تے بیلک سروسز
ایہم ملک نون چلدا رکھن تے شعبہ جات تے آجیرن دی مدد کرن لئی بہت ضروری اے۔
جتھے دوھے لوکان دے گھران وچ کم کرن ضروری بوئے - جسراں کم آیا یعنی نینز، صفائی کرن والے تے کاریگر ویہر - تے سی اپنے کر سکدے ای۔ ایس تون علاوہ، تبانن نجی گھران با باغچیاں وچ کم دی غرض نال ملن نون گریز کرن چاہیدا اے، جتھے کوویڈ-19 سیکور والے اقدامات دا نفاذ نم بوبا بوئے۔
مالکان تے ملزمان نون کم کرن دے بندوست بارے گل بات کرنی چاہیدی اے تے مالکان نون اوه بر اقدام کرن چاہیدا اے جیسے ملزمان نون گھرون کم کرن وچ مدد دے، دور نون کم کرن دے قابل لئی درکار مناسب آئی تی تے آئی سے۔ جتھے لوکی گھرون کم نے کر سکن اپنے مالکان نون پبلک ٹرانسپورٹ ائے مصروف اوقات تے روئس نون بچن وچ ملزمان دی مدد کرنی چاہیدی اے۔ کالج یا اسکول جانا
کالج، برائے ایک سیکنڈری اسکول صرف ولنرائل یجیان تے کریکٹ ورکرز دے یجیان لئی بی گھلے رین گی۔ باقی سب بچے فروری دی باف ترم تک رہموئی بی پڑھن گی۔
امتحان
ایہنہ امتحانات وچ موسم گرم وچ بون ویلے امتحان نہیں بون گی۔ ایس کر کے دیارئی آف ایجکوشن آف کویل (Ofqual) نال جلدی تون جلدی اوه انتظام طے کرن بارے مشاورت کرے گا جبھر طالب علمان نون منصفان طریقے نال پیش رفت کرن دا موقع دے گا۔
فرآین کنندگان جنوری وچ بون ویلے بیشہ ورائے تے ثیکنیکل امتحان جاری رکھ سکدے نین، جتھے ایہنہ لگے ایہم کرنا ثھھکی ای۔
یونیورسٹیاں
اوہ طالب علم جبھر مندرجہ ذیل کورسز دا مطالعہ تے تربیت حاصل کر رہے نین اوہ منصوبے دے مطالب بالمشام، پڑھائی ویل پرٹ سکدے نین:
• میڈیسین تے دینشتری • میڈیسین/صحت نے جریہ مضامین • وترنری سائنسز • ایجکوشن (ابتدائی ثیجر ترینگ) • سوشل ورک اوہ کورسز جنہاں لئی پروفیشنل، سٹرچوری تے ریگولیٹری بادی (PSRB)
دی امتحانات دی لوز بوے تے یا جنوری لئی طے شدہ لازمی سرگرمی بوے جہڑی کر ری شیڈول نم کیتی جا سکے (چی ایس دا اطلاق تبدیل) تے بوے گا تے تبادی یونیورسٹی تہوان دس دے گی۔
واپس آون وایے طالب علمان نون یونیورسٹی وایس آون تون بعد دو واری ثبوت کیتا جاتے گا، یا اوبن نون ایس دی تہوان دس دن نئی سیلف-آنسولیٹ کرنا بوئے گا۔
جہڑی طالب علم ایبیان کورسز تے نبی اوبن نون جنھے ممکن بوئے اوہتے بی رینا چابیدا لے جنھے اوہ موجود نیں، تے گھٹو گھٹ فوری دے وسط نک اپنی ثرم ان لائن جاری رکھنی چابیدا لے، جیویں وی اوبن دی یونیورسٹی یا کالج نے ایس دا بندوست کیتا لے۔ ایس وج دوجے پریکٹیکل کورسز کرن وایے طالب علم وی شامل نین جہڑی اتے وایی فیرست ووج موجد نہیں۔
اسان پہلوں یونیورسٹی تے طالب علمان لئی گائڈنس کم اوہ کسراں بائی ایجکیشن ول سیرنگ ثرم دے دوران وایس لوٹ سکدے نیں شائع کیتی سی۔ ایہم گائڈنس بیان کری لے کم اسی کسراں بائی ایجکیشن فریم کنڈگان دی mدد کران گے کم موسم سرما دی چھتیان تون بعد طالب علمان دی وایسی نون کسراں وده تون وده محفوظ بنايا جاسکدا لے۔
چی تے یونیورسٹی وچ ریندے او تے تہوان ثرم ثائم دے دوران اپنے مستقل گھر تے ستوڈنٹ بوم دے وچگار بھیرے نہیں مارڈے رینا چابیدا۔
اوپنی طالب علمان لئی جہڑی بالمشاف، تعلیم حاصل کرن دے ابل نین، تے نے اپنی اپنی باقاعدہ تعلیم تے تربیت دے حصے دے طور تے اپنے گھرانے تون ودے گروپس وج مل سکدے او، جنھے ضروری بوئے۔ طالب علمان تون موقع کیتی جاندی لے کم گائڈنس تے پاندیان تے عمل کرن۔ جنھے ممکن بوئے تہوان اوپنی لوکان نال سماجی دوری برقرار رکھنی چابیدا لے جہڑی کم تبادی نال نہیں ریندے۔ جائلد کیئر
کئی اک طریقے نین جنہان دے تحت والدین تے کئیرز جائلد کیئر دا حصول جاری رکھ سکدے نین۔
• ارلی اینرز وایلی تعليمی ادارے (نرسربان تے جائلد مانذرین سنے) کہلے ربن گی۔ • اسکول جان دی عمر دے سوا جائلد مانذرین نون معمول دے مطابق حاضری دی اجارت دینی جابیدی اے۔ اسکول جان دی عمر دے بچان دی کئیر کرن والے جائلد مانذرین (رپسیشن دے بچان سنے) نون صرف ولترابل بچان تے کرشکل ورکرز دے بچان نون بی داخل کرتا جاہیدا اے۔ ولترابل بچان تے کرشکل ورکرز دے بچان رجسٹرہ جائلد کیئر، جائلد مانذرین تے دوجی جائلد کیئر سرگرمیان (رپ اراونڈ کیئر) دی ورتوں جاری رکھ سکدے نین والدین اک بور گھرانے نال غیر رسمی جائلد کیئر دے مقصد لئی جتھے بچے 14 سال تون گھٹ عمر دا بونی جائلد کیئر بیل بننا سکدے نین۔ ایس دا مین مقصد والدین نون کم کرن وج مدد دینا اے تے ایس نون بالغان دے درمیان سماجی تعلقات لئی نین ورتیا جانہا جاہیدا کچھ گھرانے سپورٹ بیل بون تون فیدا چک سکدے نین نینیز سروسز فرابم کرتا جاری رکھن گیان، سنی گھران دے اندر سفر
سفر
تبانون اینے گھرون نین نکلنا چابیدا ماسوائی جتھے تبادلے کول کوئی معقول توجیح بیوی (مثلاً کم یا تعلیم دے مقصد لئی) جی تبانون سفر کرن دی لوڑ یے جانے تے تبانون مقامی علاقے وچ بی رینا چابیدا اے - مطلب اینے پنڈ، قصے یا شهر دے اوس حصے وچ وجوں بابر نکلن تون گریز کرتا چابیدا اے جتھے تے سی رہندے او - تے مجموعی طور تے کیئے جان والے سفران دی تعداد نون محدود کرن دی کوشش کرتی چابیدی اے۔ وجوہات جنہان دی بنا تے تے سی اینے اینے گھرون تے علاقے وچ وجوں بابر جاسکدے او اونان وچ شامل نین پر اینہان تک محدود نینیں: کم، جتھے تُسی گھرون کم نہ کر سکو تعلیم دے حصول تے کیئنگ ذمی داربان لئی ایہ سپورٹ بیل وچ مجود لوکان نون ملن - یا چائلد کیئن لئی اپنے چائلد کیئن بیل کول جان لئی بسیتال، جی ہی کول تے دیگر میڈیکل ایوائیڈنس لئی جان واسطے یا ورثس جتھے تبادلے نال کوئی حادثہ پیش آگیا بیوی یا تبانو اپنی صحت دے بارے وچ کوئی خدش لاحق بیوی شیوائ تے خدمات خریدن لئی، بر اپنے جتھے وی ممکن بیوی تبادلے مقامی علاقوں تک ای محدود بونا چابیدا لئی آوٹ دوز ورزش لئی اپنے جتھے وی ممکن بیوی مقامی علاقوں وچ بی کرئی چابیدی اے یہ بر جی اپنے ضروری بیوی تے تُسی اپنے علاقوں دے اندر بی نہوزا فاصلے کے کے جاسکندے او (مثلاً کسے گھلی بیوی نہاں تک رسانی حاصل کرن لئی) کسے جانور دی کیئن کرن یا ورزش کروان لئی یا دُنگر داکثر کول لئی جان لئی جب تبانو سفر کرن یہ جانے تے جتھے ممکن بیوی بدل با سبکل تے جاو، تے پبلک ٹرانسپورٹ تے سفر کریں بیوی مصروف اوقات تے روٹان تون گریز کرو۔ ایس دی مدد تُسی سفر دے دوران سماجی دوری تے عمل کر سکو گے ایہ گھرانے یا سپورٹ بیل تون بابر والے کسے بندے نال کار شینر کرن تون پریز کرو۔ کار شینرگ نارے گائڈنس ویکھو۔ جب تبانو پبلک ٹرانسپورٹ استعمال کرنی یہ جانے تے محفوظ تر سفری گائڈنس تے عمل کرنا چابیدا اے۔
بين الاقوامى سفر
تُسی صرف أس صورت وچ یہ بين الاقوامى سفر - یوکے دے اندر سفر - کر سکدے او جتھے تبادلے کول گھرون نکلن لئی پیلان کوئی قانون وچ مجود بہت ایسے تھے، تبانوں اوس ملک دی پبلک بیلٹھ ایڈوائز تے عمل کرنا چاہیدا لے جتھے تھے ورث کر رہے او۔ جب تبانون بابر دے ملک جان لئی سفر کرن دی لوڑ ہے بی جانے (تے ایہ کرن دی تبانون قانونی طور تے اجازت لی، مثال دے طور تے، ایہ کم لئی لی)، جبے tھے اوس علاقے وچ وایس بی کیون نہیں آ رہے جتھے تھے پبلک گئے سی، tبانون اپنے منزل مقصود وچ نافذالعمل ضوابط نون تے قانون، کامن ویلٹھ تے ذیلیمہنہ افس (FCDO) دی تھرول ایڈوائز نون ویکھنا چاہیدا لی۔
بیرون ملک مجدید یوکے دے شہریان نون قوری طور تے وایس آن دی فی الحال لوڑ نہیں۔ تابم تبانون وایس آن وائل بندوبست بارے اپنی فضائی کمینی یا ثرول ایپریٹ نال گل کرنی چاہیدی لی۔
غیر ملکی شہری 'گھر رہو' والی ریگولیشن دے تابع نین ماسوائے اجازت دے tبانون بابر دے ملک سفر نہیں کرنا چاہیدا۔ اپس دا مطلب لی کہ تبانون چھھیان تے نہیں جانا چاہیدا۔
جب تھے یوکے نون ورث کر رہے او تھے تھے گھر وایس جا سکدے او تبانون چھک کرنا چاہیدا لی کہ آیا تبانون منزل مقصود تے کونی پابندیان تے نہیں۔
گھرون بابر رات رینا
تھے معقول توجیح دے سوا اپنے گھرون یا اپنی ربانش گاہ نون چھھیان لئی نہیں جا سکدے یا رات لئی قیام نہیں کر سکدے۔ اپس دا مطلب ایہ لی کہ یوکے دے اندر تے بیرون ملک چھھیان دی اجازت نہیں۔
ایس وج کسے دوجے گھر یا کاروان وج قیام وی شامل لی، جی اوہ تبانون اولین ربانش گاہ نہیں۔ اپس وج کسے بور دے گھر وج قیام کرنا وی شامل لی ماسوائے ایس گل دے کہ وہ تبانون سپورٹ بیل وج شامل نیں۔
تبانون رات گھرون بابر رین دی اجازت لی جی؟ • تُسی اپنے سپورٹ بیل کول جا رہے اور • تُسی اپنے مین ربانش گاہ جو وابس جان تون قاصر او • تبانوں گھر بدی دے دوران ربانش دی لوز اے • تبانوں جنائزہ جو یا مسلکم یادگری تقیب وچ شرکت لئی ربانش دی لوز اے • تبانوں کم یا رضاکاران یا رفای مقدان لئی ربانش دی لوز اے • تُسی بچے او جنس نون اسکول یا کیئر لئی ربانش دی لوز اے • تُسی یہ گھر او، پناہ گزین او یا پناہ دی تلاش وچ کوئی غیر محفوظ • تُسی اعلی پائے دے کھڑاری، یا اوبندا دا عمل یا والدین او، جی • کھڑاری دی عمر 18 سال نون گھٹ اے تے تربیت یا مقابلہ باری لئی • اوبندا دا گھرون بابر رینا ضروری اے
جب تُسی پیلان ای چھٹیان تے او، تے جنی جھنی عملی طور تے ممکن بوئے تبانوں گھر پر ہن جانی جانی اے۔
میمنان نون ربانش میبا کندگان جیوین بوتلز، یہ ایندہ بیز تے کاروان پارکس قنون وج بیان کیتی گئی مخصوص وجوہات دی بنی تے گھلے رہ سکدے نین، بشمول ایس گل دے جنی میمنان اپنی مین ربانش گاہ ول پرتن تون قاصر بون، میمنان وائی اوس اقامت گاہ نون بطور اپنی مین ربانش گاہ دے استعمال کریں بون، گھر بدی دے دوران اقامت گاہ دی لوز اے، قنونی تقاضی دی وجوہ تون سیلف- انسولیٹ کر رہے نین یا اقامت گاہ بند بون دی صورت وچ یہ گھر بو جان گی انگلینڈ وچ کچھ کاروباری ادارے تے تہان بند کرن بارے گانڈنس ائے وجوہات دی مکمل فیبرست ویکھی جا سکدی اے۔
اقامت فرابم کندگان نون ترغیب دتی جاندی اے کم اوه لوکل اتھارث نال تعاون کریں بوئے ولترابیل گروپس، بشمول یہ گھر لوکان نون اقامت گاہ میبا کرن لئی کم کرن۔ کئیر بومز نون وزٹ کرنا
بندوست، جسراں کم مناسب اسکرینن، وزٹنگ پوڈز تے کھڑکیاں دے بچھے تون ملاقات، کر کے کئیر بومز وج ملاقات کیتی جاسکدی اے۔ قربی-رابطے ویلیاں اندھر ملاقات دی اجائز نہیں۔ ویاہ پہلین دی صورت وج ملاقات دی کوئی اجائز نہیں دتی جائی گی۔
پہلے کرن لئی ملاقاتن کیوں بونیان چابدیان نین، تبانون کووڈ-19 دے دوران کئیر بومز دی وزٹ کرن بارہ گائڈنس چیک کرنی چابدی اے۔ کسے وزٹ آؤت (مثلاً اینی فیملی بوم وج اینی رشتے داران نون ملن) دے دوران مکین ان دوز دوجے لوکان نال نہیں مل سکدیں۔ سپورٹ لیونگ وج رین ویلی لوکان لئی اک وکھری گائڈنس موجود اے۔
جنائز
جنائز حاضرین تعداد اتے سخت یابندیان نال کرن دی اجائز لئی تے ایبم صرف کووڈ-19 سبکور تہانوان وج یا کھلی عوامی تہانوان وج بی بونی چابدی اے، ماسوا غیر معمولی حالات دے۔
جنائزان وج وده تون وده 30 توزی افراد شرکت کر سکدیں نین۔ جری بونی مذبی، عقیدے تے مبینی با یادگری والی تقربات، جویں بہتر دھرائی تے سواہ کھلارنا وی 6 توزی لوکان دی شرکت نال جاری رہ سکدیان نین۔ کم کرن ویلا کوئی وی کارکن ایس جد وج شمار نہیں کیتا جانی گا۔ لوکان دے درمیان سماجی دوری برقرار رکھنی چابدی اے جبھے اکثری نہیں رہندے یا اک سپورٹ بیل وج نہیں۔
شادیان، سول پارٹنرشپس تے مذبی عبادتان
شادیان تے سول پارٹنرشپ دی تقربان صرف 6 توزی لوکان دی موجودگی وج بی بونیان چابدیان نین۔ کم کرن ویلا کوئی وی فرد ایس وج شمار نہیں کیتا جاندا۔ ایہم صرف غير معمولی حالات وچ بی بونیان چابیدیان نین، مثل دے طور تے کوئی فوری شادی جتھے شادی کرن والے لوکان وچون اک فرد شدید بیمار اے تے اوس دے بین دی کوئی امید نہیں، یا معذور کرن والا علاج کروان یا زندگی تبدیل کرن والی سرجری کروان جاربیا اے۔
ماسوا غير معمولی حالات دے، شادیان تے سول پارتنرشرپس دی تقیبان صرف کووید-19 سیکیور تھانوان وچ یا گھلی عوامی تھانوان وچ بی بونی چابیدیا نین۔
عبادات گابوان
تُسی عبادات لئی کسے عبادات گاہ وچ جا سکدے او، بر تبانون اینے گھر یا سبیورت بیل والے لوکان دے علاوہ کسے بور نال سماجی میل ملاب کرنا نہیں چابیدا۔ تبانون بر ویلے سخت سماجی دوری برقرار رکھنی چابیدی اے۔
تبانون عبادات گابوان تے محفوظ استعمال بارے قومی گائڈنس تے عمل کرنا چابیدا اے۔
سپورٹ، جسمانی سرگرمی
ان دُور جم تے کھیڈن دیان سبیورت بند ربن گیان۔ آؤت دُور سبیورت کورنے، آؤت دُور جم، گولف کورنے، سوئینگ بولز، تیزاندازی/ڈرائیوگ/شوتینگ رینجر تے رانڈنگ مراکز نون وی بند بونا چابیدا اے۔ معذور افراد لئی منظم آؤت دُور سبیورت نون جاری ربن دی اجازت اے۔
ایلیث کھیڈن جاری رہ سکدیان نین۔ ایلیث کھیڈن دی مرحلہ وار وایسی بارے مزید گائڈنس موجود اے۔
گھر بدلی کرنا تُسی بے وی گھر بدلی کر سکدے اور تہادے گھرانے پا سپورٹ نہ تون بابر والی لوکان نون گھر بدلی وج مدد نہیں کرنی چاہیدی ماسوائی ایس گل دے کر ایہم قطعی ضروری لی۔
اسثیت تے کرائے تے دین والی ایجنت تے ریموول فرمز کم کر سکدیان نین۔ جی تُسی گھر بدلی کرنا چاہیدے او تے تُسی گھر ویکھن لئی جاسکدے او۔
محفوظ طریقے نال گھر بدلی کرن بارے قومی گائڈنس جس وج سماجی دوری، تازہ بوا اندر آن دین بارے، تے فیس ماسک یان بارے مشورہ شامل لی، آئی عمل کرو۔
مالی معاونت
تُسی جتھے وی رہ رہے او بو سکدا لی تُسی مالی مدد حاصل کر سکو
• مالی معاونت یکجگر برائے برنس • معاونت • کورونا وائرس جات ریشن اسکیم دے تحت ملازمان دے تتخواہ کلیم • کرنا • جیک کرو کم آنا تُسی سیلف امپلیمینٹ انکم سپورٹ اسکیم دے تحت • گرانٹ کلیم کر سکدے او • جی تُسی کورونا وائرس دی ووج نو کم تے نہیں جا رہے تے فیر مالی • سپورٹ
کاروباری ادارے تے تہان
کاروباری ادارے تے تہانوں نون لازمی طور تے بند بونا جابیدا لی سماجی اختلاط گھٹاؤن لئی ریگولیشن متفقین نین کر کچھ کاروباری ادارے بند بو جان تے باندیان عائد کیتیاں جان کر کچھ ادارے کسران شیوائ تے خدمات فرائم کریئے نین۔ انگلیند وچ کچھ کاروباری اداریاں نون بند کرن بارے گائڈنس وچ اوہنیا کاروباران دی مکمل فہرست ویکھی جاسکدی ای جنہان نون بند کرن دی لوز یئ، بر ایس وچ شامل نین:
• غیر ضروری ریٹیل، جیوین کیئے تے گھریلو سامان ویلے سٹورز، گڈیاں دے شو رومز (ماسوائی کرائے تے دین ویلے)، جوا خانی، درزی، تماکو تے ویپس دیاں دکانان، الیکترک دا سامان تے موائل فون دیاں دکانان، آکشن باوئسز (ماسوائی لائنو ستاک تے زرعی سامان دی بولی لان دے) تے غیر ضروری سامان وچن ویلے ستال ایہ تھاں کلک-اینڈ- کولیکٹ (جہتے سامان دا آرڈر پیشگی دتا جاندا ای دکان تون کولیکٹ کیتا جاندا ای) تے ڈیلیوری سروس دے تحت کم کرنا جاری رکھی سکدے نین
• میربانی ویلے مقامات جیوین کیئے، ریسٹورانٹس، شرک خانی، بار تے سماجی کلیز؛ ثک اؤے (رات 11 وچ تک)، کلک-اینڈ-کولیکٹ، دڑائیو- تھرو یا ڈیلیوری دے طور تے کھان تے بیغ کوحل دے بین دا سامان فرائم کرن دی استثنی دے نال۔ بر طرح دا کھان تے بین (شراب سنی) دا سامان ڈیلیوری رابین فرائم کرنا جاری رکھی جائی گا۔
• اقامت گاہوں جیوین یوئل، بوستل، گیسٹ باس تے کیمپ لان ویلے تھاوان ماسوائی مخصوص حالات دے، جیوین جتھے ایہ کسے بندے دی مین ربانش گاہ دے طور تے کم کریئے نین، جتھے کوئی بندہ گھر ویس نین جاسکدیا، یہ گھر افراد نون اقامت گاہ سیبورث فرائم کرن لئی یا جتھے کم دے مقصد لئی اوتھے قیام کرنا ضروری ای
• تفریح تے کھیڈن دیاں سپوٹلیاں جیوین تفریح مراکز تے ان دوڑ جم، ان دوڑ سوئٹنگ یوئلز، انڈور سپورث کورٹس، ان دوڑ فٹسنس تے دانس سٹودیوں، ان دوڑ رائڈنگ مراکز، تے ان دوڑ چڑھن ویلیاں دیواران تے گولف کورسز۔
• تفریح دے مراکز جیوین تھیئنترز، کنسرٹ بالز، سینماز، میوزیمزم تے گلیرز، کسینو، امیورمنٹ آرکیدز، بنگو بالز، باؤلنگ ایبلز، سکیئنگ رنگر، گو-کارٹنگ وینیوز، ان دوّر پلے تے سوفت پلے مراکز (بوا بھرن والے پارکس تے ترموپولینگ مراکز)، سرکس، میلے، فن فیئرز، چھوٹا گھر تے جانوران نال چھوٹا دلجسپیان، واثر پارکس تے تھیم پارکس تفریحی دیوان تھانوان جنھے جانور رکھے جاندے نيں (جھویں چھوٹا گھر، سفاری پارکس، ایکوریمز تے جنگلی حیات دے مراکز)
اندوز اجھی مقامات جیویں عالم نیبات دے باغات، تاریخی گھر تے عمارتیں وچ ان دوّر دلجسپی والی تھانوان نون لازماً بند بونا چابیدا ے، البته اجھی مقامات دیوان آوّد دوّر تھانوان گھلیان رہ سکدیان نیں ذاتی کینر والی تھانوان جیویں بینر، بیوٹی، ثینگ تے نیل سیلونز ثیو بارلز، سباز، مساج بارلز، جسم دے جلد وچ چھید کرن والی سروس وی لازماً بند بونیان جابیدیان نیں ایہ خدمات دوجے لوکان دے گھران وچ پیش نہیں کتابیں جانیان چابیدیان
کمیونٹی مراکز تے بالز وی بند بونی جابیدی نین ماسوائی بھیت دیتی گیان استثنی والی سرگرمیان دے: آئی تی تے ذیجیلت سروس نون رسائی فرام کرن لئی لائبریریان گھلیان رہ سکدیان نیں - مثلًا اوبن لوکان لئی جنہان دے گھر وچ ایہ نہیں - کلک-ایند-کولیکٹس سروس لئی ایہنہ وجوں کچھ کاروبار تے تھانوان نون بیت تھوزی تعداد والی مستثنی سرگرمیان لئی وی گھلیان ربن دی احاطت مل سکدی اے، سنی۔ انگلینڈ وچ کچھ کاروباری ادارے تے تھانوان بند کرن ناری گانڈنس ائے استثنات دی مکمل فرست ویکھی جا سکدی اے، بر شامل نین:
• تعلیم تے تربیت دے - اسکولان لئی کھیدان، تفریح تے کمیونٹی دی سپلیات استعمال کرن واسطے جنھے ایہم اوبنیا دی معمول دی فرابمی دا جزو اے • جائزہ کینر دے مقاصد تے بچیان لئی زیر نگرانی سرگرمیان جبھے ایہنہ وج جان دے ایل نین • خون عطیہ کرن والے سیشنز تے فوذ بینکس دی میزبانی کرن لئی طبی علاج فرام کرن لئی کاروبارات ادارے تے مقام جبہے گھلے رہ سکدے نین
کوہی-19 سیکور گائڈلاائن تے عمل کرے ہوئے دوجے کاروباری ادارے تے تھانوان نون گھلا رین دی اجارت اے۔ ضروری اشیاء تے خدمات فراہم کرن والے ادارے گھلے رہ سکدے نین۔ انگلینڈ وچ کچھ کاروباری ادارے تے تھان بند کرن بارے گائڈنس ائے کاروباری ادارے دی مکمل فہرست ویکھی جا سکدی اے، بر شامی نین:
ضروری ریٹیل جیوین فود دیان دکانان، سپرمارکٹس، فارمیسیز، گارڈن سنٹرز، بلڈنگ مرجنڈس، عمارتی اوریاں مصنوعات دے فراہم کنندگان تے آف-لانسنس
ضروری ریٹیل وچن والے مارکیٹ ستال وی گھلے رہ سکدے نین
مرمتی دی خدمات فراہم کرن والے کاروبار وی گھلے رہ سکدے نین، جہتے اواہ بنیادی طور تے مرمت کرن والیاں سروسز فراہم کرے ہوئے نین
پرول سٹیشن، اٹومبیک (بھتھان نال دھون والے نین) کار واشنگ، گڈیان دی مرمتی تے ایم او تھی سروسز، بائی سیکل دیان دکانان، ثیکسی تے گڈیان کرائے تے دین والے کاروبار
بنک، بلڈنگ سوسائٹیان، ذاکخانی، قلیل مدت لئی قرض دین والے تے مینی ترانسفر کرن والے کاروبار
فیونرل ذاریکرز
لانڈریس تے ذرائی کلینرز بیلہے کیئر تے پبلک سروسز
این ایچ ایس تے میڈیکل سروسز گھلے ربن گی، سنی:
- میڈیکل تے دیئثل سروسز
- ویئس تے جانوران دی دیکھ بھال تے بہبود لئی مصنوعات تے کھان بین
- دا سمن وچن والے ریڈیورز
- جانور بجاو مراکز، بورڈنگ سپولیات، تے ایتمل گرمرز (جانوران دی بہبود لئی ورتیاں جاسکدیان نئی نم کم جمیلیاتی مقاصد لئی)
- ایگری کلچر سپلائی شاپس
- مولتی تے معذوری دے سسلے وچ مدد دین والیان ذکان
- سٹور تے دستبروشن کرن والیان سپولتان
- کار پارکس، عوامی بیت الخلا تے موثر وہ سروس والی تھانوان
- آوٹ دوڑ پلے گراونڈز
- ورزش لئی حیاتیاتی باغان تے تاریخی مراکز دے آوٹ دوڑ حصے
- عبادت گاوان
- شمشان گھاٹ تے قیرستان
اسی این ایچ ایس دی مدد کر رہے آن کم اوہ محفوظ طریقے نال فوری تے نان ارجنت سروسز فرابم کرنا جاری رکھی، تے ایہ بہت ضروری ایہ کم کوئی فرد وی جس نون لگدا اے کم اُوس نون کسے قسم دی میڈیکل کینر دی لوز اے اوہ اگے آئے تے مدد حاصل کرے۔
زیادہ تر عوامی خدمات جاری رہن گیاں تے تُسی اوبن نون ورتن لئی گھروں بابر جا سکو گے۔ ایہنہ وچ شامل نین:
- جاب سنہر پلس سائنس
- عدالتان تے پروپیشن مراکز
- سول رجسٹریشن دفاتر
- پاسپورٹ تے ویزا سروسز
- مضروبين نون فرآم کرده سروسز
- ویسٹ یا ری سائکلنگ مراکز
- ایم او تھی حاصل کرنا جس دی تبانو قتوئی طریقے نال گھروں بابر نکلن لئی لوز بھوے۔
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4139-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 29,
"total-input-tokens": 74998,
"total-output-tokens": 21811,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
424,
1
],
[
424,
696,
2
],
[
696,
2041,
3
],
[
2041,
3264,
4
],
[
3264,
4314,
5
],
[
4314,
5336,
6
],
[
5336,
6431,
7
],
[
6431,
7561,
8
],
[
7561,
8693,
9
],
[
8693,
9627,
10
],
[
9627,
10929,
11
],
[
10929,
12421,
12
],
[
12421,
13707,
13
],
[
13707,
15067,
14
],
[
15067,
16111,
15
],
[
16111,
16869,
16
],
[
16869,
18334,
17
],
[
18334,
19737,
18
],
[
19737,
20965,
19
],
[
20965,
22293,
20
],
[
22293,
23595,
21
],
[
23595,
24837,
22
],
[
24837,
25885,
23
],
[
25885,
26737,
24
],
[
26737,
28437,
25
],
[
28437,
29922,
26
],
[
29922,
30854,
27
],
[
30854,
31583,
28
],
[
31583,
32009,
29
]
]
} |
dc978084064fe9a311c0a43d9aaec054a33290f0 | رہنمائی
نیشنل لاک داؤن گھر پر رہیں کورونا وائرس کے کیسیز پورے ملک میں تیزی سے بڑھ رہے ہیں۔ معلومات کریں کہ آپ کیا کرسکتے ہیں اور کیا نہیں کرسکتے۔
4 جنوری 2021 کو شائع بوا
آخری ابتدی 6 جنوری 2021 — تمام ابتدیس دیکھیں
منجانب:
کیسیٹ آفس
لاکو بوتا ہے:
انگلینڈ میں
فیرست
خلاصہ: قومی لاک داؤن کے دوران آپ کیا کرسکتے ہیں اور کیا نہیں کرسکتے
پہ رہنمائی کس کے لئے ہے؟
باتوں جبرہ جگہ۔
جب آپ گھر چھوڑ سکتے ہیں dوسرے لوگوں سے ملنے جلتا dیکسپرسیز کرنا چہرے کو ذہانی سپورٹ اور چاندہ کینر بدلز اگر آپ ضوابط توڑیں بین ان لوگوں کو چاندہ جنوبی کورونا وائرس سے زیادہ خطرہ لاحق ہو کام پر جانا سکول یا کالج جانا یونیورسٹیاں جائنڈ کینر سفر بین الاقوامی سفر گھر سے دور رات گزارنا کئی بوم کے ورث جنازہ شادی بیان، سول پارتنرشر اور مذہبی عبادات عبادتگاہیں کھیل اور جسمانی سرگرمی gهر بدلنا مالی معاونت کاروبار اور وینوز کاروبار اور وینوز جو گھری رہ سکتیں بین صحت کی دیکھیں، بھال اور عوامی خدمات
اس صفحے کو پرینٹ کریں
خلاصہ: قومی لاک داؤن کے دوران آپ کیا کرسکتے بین اور کیا نہیں کرسکتے
آپ ضرور گھر پر رہیں سب سے ابم واحد کام جو بہم سب کر سکتے بین وہ یہ این ایچ ایس کی حفاظت اور جانون کی بچاؤ کی لئے گھر پر رہنا۔
آپ کو فوری طور پر اس رہنمائی پر عمل کرنا جانئے، پر قانون پی۔
گھر سے نکلنا آپ کو گھر سے بابر نہیں جانا چاہئے، سوائے اس کے کہ جب یہ ضروری ہو آپ ان کامون کیلئے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں:
- اپنے یا کسی غیر محفوظ شخص کے لئے بندی ضروریات کی خریداری کرنا
- کام بر جانا، یا رضاکارانہ یا رفاعی خدمات فراہم کرنا، اگر آپ گھر سے معقول طور پر اپنا نہیں کرسکتے تو اپنے گھریلو (یا سپورٹ بیل) یا کسی دوسرے شخص کے ساتھ ورزش کریں، یا اپنے میں ایک بار نک محدود بونا چاہئے، اور آپ کو اپنے مقامی علاقے سے بابر سفر نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔
- جہان ضروری ہو اپنے سپورٹ بیل یا جائندہ کیئر بیل سے ملی، لیکن صرف اس صورت میں جب آپ کو قانونی طور پر بیل بنانے کی اجازت ہو طبی امداد حاصل کریں یا چوہ، بیماری یا نقصان کے خطرے (گھریلو زیادتی سمیت) سے بچنا تعلیم یا جائندہ کیئر مین شرکت کرنا - ان کیلئے جو اس کے اب لی بون
اگر آپ مجاز وجوہ کی بنا پر گھر جھوٹی بین تو آپ کو بمیشہ لوکل بی رینا چاہئے - جب تک کم دور جانی کی ضرورت نہ ہو، مثال کے طور پر کام بر جانا - لوکل رینا کا مطلب یہ گاون، قصبے یا شہر کا وہ حمص جہان آپ رہتے ہون، وہی رینا۔
اگر آپ طبی لحاظ سے انتبائی کمزور (ولنزیل) یس آپ کو صرف میڈیکل ایوانتیمینس، ورزش کے لئے بابر جانا چاہئے یا اگر اشد ضروری ہو آپ کو کام بر نہیں جانا چاہئے
دوسرے سے ملنا
آپ کسی اپنے شخص کے ساتھ سماجی طور پر ملاقات کرنے اپنے گھر سے نہیں جاسکتے جس کے ساتھ آپ نہیں رہتے اور نہیں سپورٹ بیل مین اس کے ساتھ بین (اگر آپ کو قانونی طور پر اس کی تشکیل کی اجازت ہے)۔ آپ اکیلے ہی، ایک دوسرے شخص کے ساتھ، یا اپنے گھریلو یا سب سے بہترین کسی کے ساتھ، ورزش کر سکتے ہیں۔ اپنے دوسرے کے ساتھ، یا اپنے گھریلو کے ساتھ، ورزش کر سکتے ہیں۔
آپ کو اپنے مقامی علاقے سے بابر سفر نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔
آپ دوسرے لوگوں سے نہیں مل سکتے جن کے ساتھ آپ نہیں رہتے، یا سب سے بہترین نہیں بناتے، جب تک کہ مجاز عذر نہیں۔
ابن گھریلو سے بابر کسی بھی فرد سے 2 میٹر کے فاصلے پر رہیں۔
تعلیم
کالج، برانڈری اور سیکنڈری سکول صرف ولنڈریل بجون اور کریشکل ورکرز کے بجون کے لئے کہلے رہی گئی۔ دوسرے تمام بچے فوری کے وسط نک دو سے تعلیم حاصل کریں گے۔
ابتدائی سالون کے مراکز کہلے رہی گئی۔ مستقبل کے کریشکل ورکرز کورسز کے علاوہ بائی ایجکشن کی فرآیند فروری کے وسط تک آن لائن رہی گئی۔
یہ رہنمائی کس کے لئے ہے؟
یہ رہنمائی ان لوگوں کے لئے ہے جو تندوست اور صحتمبہ بین۔ طبی لحاظ سے کورونا وائرس کے انتبائی خطرے سے دوجا لوگوں اور ممکنہ با تصدیق شدہ کورونا وائرس انفیکشن والے گھرائون کے لئے اگر آپ طبی لحاظ سے انتبائی کمزور بین تو آپ کو دوبارہ شروع بونی والی شیڈلنگ گانڈینس کی پیروی کرنا چاہئے۔ اور کام، اسکول، کالج یا یونیورسٹی نہیں جانا چاہئے۔ آپ کو گھر سے بابر گزارنے والی وقت کو محدود کر دینا چاہئے۔ آپ کو صرف میڈیکل ایوائنٹمینٹس، ورزش یا اگر ضروری بو تو بابر جانا چاہئے۔
باتے جبھے۔ جگم تقریباً 3 افراد میں سے 1 مین کورونا وائرس کی کوئی علامت نہیں بوٹی اور بوسکتا ہے وہ محسوس کیے بغیر بی اسے پہیلا ربا بو۔
یاد رکھیں، باتھ، جگہ۔
• باتھ - اپنے باتھ باقاعدگی سے اور 20 سیکنڈز کی لیے دھوئیں۔ • چہرہ - اندرونی ماحول میں چہرے کو دہانی جبہ شاہد معاشرتی دوری مشکل ہو، اور جبہ آپ ان لوگوں کے قریب آئی گئی جن کیساتھ آپ عام طور پر ملاقات نہیں کرتے ہیں۔ • جگہ - جن لوگوں کیساتھ آپ نہیں رہتے ہیں تو جبہ بھی ممکن ہو ان سے 2 میٹر کے فاصلے برہنے، یا 1 میٹر اضافی احتیاطی تدابیر رکھیں۔
تمام حالات میں آپ کو دوسروں سے بحفاظت ملنے کے قواعد کی پیروی کرنی چاہئے۔
جب آپ گھر چھوڑ سکتے بیں
آپ کو اپنا گھر چھوڑنے یا بابر نہیں جانا چاہئے سوائے اس کے جب کوئی 'معقول عذر' بو، پی ٹی ٹوئن ہو، اگر آپ بیگر کسی 'معقول عذر' کے گھر چھوڑ جاتے ہیں، تو پولیس آپ کی خلاف کارروائی کر سکتی ہے اور جرمنی (فکسڈ پینلشی نوئس) جاری کرسکتی ہے۔
پہلے جرم کے لئے آپ کو 200£ جرمنی کا نوئس دیا جاسکتا ہے، اور بھر بر بار جرم کرنے پر دوگنا بونا رہے گا، 6,400£ نک۔
معقول عذر مین شامل بیں:
کام آپ صرف کام کے مقاصد کے لئے گھر چھوڑ سکتے ہیں جب آپ کے گھر سے ابتدائی کام کرنے غیر معقول ہے۔ اس میں وہ لوگ شامل ہیں، لیکن ان نے محدود نہیں ہے، جو ابم قومی انفرادیکرچ، کنسٹرکشن یا مینوویکرچنگ کے کام کرتے ہیں جبہاں نفس نفس حاضری کی ضرورت بوتی ہے۔
رضائکارانہ خدمات
رضائکارانہ یا رفاعی خدمات فراہم کرنے کے لئے بہی آپ گھر سے بابر جاسکتے ہیں۔
لازمی سرگرمیان
آپ دکانوں سے چیزیں خریدنے یا خدمات حاصل کرنے کے لئے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں۔ آپ کسی معدور یا کمزور شخص یا خود کو اگلے تہلکے رکھنے والے شخص کی جانب سے ان کاموں کے کرنا کیلئے بہی اپنے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں۔
تعلیم اور چائلڈ کیئر
آپ صرف تعلیم، رجسٹرڈ چائلڈ کیئر، اور بچوں کیلئے زیر نگرانی سرگرمیون کے لئے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں جب ہم شرکت کرنے کا ابتدائی سکول کی عمر کے طلاہے کے لئے تعلیم اور بچوں کی سرگرمیون نک رسائی محدود ہے۔ تعلیم اور چائلڈ کیئر کے بارے میں مزید معلومات دیکھیں آپ لوگ والدین اور بچوں کے مابین رابطے کے لئے موجودہ انتظامات جاری رکھ سکتے ہیں جبہاں وہ اگلے رہتے ہیں۔ اگر آپ کسی اپسے گھرانے میں رہتے ہیں جبہاں کسی کی عمر 14 سال سے کم ہو تو آپ چائلڈ کیئر نیل بھی بناسکتے ہیں۔
دوسرے سے ملنا اور کئیر
آپ گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں: ورزش
آپ خود اکیلے، ایک دوسرے شخص کے ساتھ، یا اپنے گھریلو یا سپورٹ بیل کیساتھ ورزش جاری رکھیں سکتے ہیں۔ یہ ایک دن میں ایک بار نک محدود بونا جانئے، اور آپ کو اپنے مقامی علاقے سے بابر سفر نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔ آپ کو سماجی فاصلہ برقرار رکھنا دیکھیں اینکسرسائز کرنا۔
طبی وجوہات
آپ طبی وجوہات کی بناء پر گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں، بشمول کوویڈ-19 ثبوت، طبی ایوانئمینٹ اور بینگامی صورتحال کی۔
زجگی
آپ اس وقت گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں جب آپ کو کسی کے ساتھ بچے کی پیدائش کے وقت موجود بونا ہو یا زجگی کی دیگر خدمات تک رسائی حاصل کرنا ہو، یا کسی اپسے نومولود بچے کی ساتھ موجود بونا ہو جو نیونیٹل کریشکل کتنی لے ربا ہو جمل اور کورونا وائرس سے متعلق این انج ایس کی رہنمائی موجود ہے
نقصان
آپ چوہ یا بیماری سے بچنے یا نقصان سے بچنے (جیسے گھریلو زیادتی) کیلئے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں۔
عیادات کی ملاقاتیں
آپ کسی ایسی شخص سے ملنے کے لئے بھی گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں جب وہ مر ربا ہو یا جب کوئی کینر ہوئے (اگر کینر ہوئے کی رہنمائی کے تحت احاطت دی گئی ہو)، باسپس، یا بسیئٹل مین ہو یا طبی اپوائنٹمنٹ کے لئے ان کے ساتھ جاسکتے ہیں۔
حیوانات کی فلاح کی وجوہات
آپ جانوروں کی بہبود کی وجوہات کی بناء پر، جیسے مشورہ یا علاج کے لئے ویئرین سروسز پر جانے کیلئے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں۔
اجتماعی عبادات اور زندگی کے واقعات
آپ اجتماعی عبادات کی کسی مقام پر حاضری دینے اور شرکت کرنے کے لئے، کسی جنازے یا موت سے متعلق کسی تقرب میں شرکت کے لئے، قبرستان یا کسی یادگاری باغ میں جانے کے لئے، یا شادی کی تقرب میں شرکت کے لئے گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں۔ آپ کو عبادات گاہوں کے محفوظ استعمال کے بارے میں قومی رہنمائی کی پیروی کرنے چاہئے اور آپ کو اپنے گھر یا سپورث بیل سے بابر کسی کے ساتھ گھل ملنا نہیں چاہئے۔ شادیوں، جنازے اور مذبہی، عقائد یا مینی یا کسی کی موت سے منسلک یادگار واقعات سب کا انحصار شرکت کر سکتے ہیں۔ مزید معقول غذر
مزید معقول غذر موجود بہن. مثال کے طور پر، آپ قانونی ذمہ داریون کو پورا کریں، یا رہائشی املاک خریدنیں. بچنی، لیکنگ یا کرائے پر دینے سے متعلق سرگرمیاں انجام دینیں، یا پیکنگ کے مقصد کے لئے بھی گھر سے نکل سکتے ہیں، یا جب انتخابات یا ریفرنڈم میں ووٹ دالیں کے لئے معقول حد تک اپنا کرنا ضروری ہو۔
دوسرے لوگوں سے ملنے جلنا
اقرب و اخیار کیساتھ سماجی طور پر ملنا غیرقانونی ہے جب نک کر وہ آپ کے گھرانے یا سبھور بیل کا حمص نہ بون. آپ تفریحی یا شوقی مقصد کے لئے گھر سے بابر نہیں نکل سکتے (جسے بکنگ یا سماجی میشنگ کہلائے)۔
ایکسرسائز کرنا
آپ کو اپنے گھر سے بابر گزارنے والے وقت کو کم سے کم کرنا چاہئے۔ لیکن آپ ایکسرسائز کیلئے گھر سے بابر جاسکتے ہیں۔ یہ ایک دن میں ایک بار تک محدود بونا چاہئے، اور آپ کو اپنے مقامی علاقے سے بابر سفر نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔
آپ آؤٹ ڈور عوامی مقام پر ورزش کرسکتے ہیں:
• خود اکیلے • ان لوگوں کیساتھ جن کے ساتھ آپ رہتے ہیں اپنے سبھور بیل یا جانلڈ کیئر بیل کیساتھ (اگر آپ کو قانونی طور پر اسے بنانے کی اجارت ہو) • جانلڈ کیئر بیل میں جب آپ جانلڈ کیئر فراہم کرتے ہوں یا جب آپ اکیلے ہوں تو کسی دوسرے ایل خانے کے 1 شخص کیساتھ۔ اس میں دوزنا، سانیکلنگ، واکینگ اور تیراکی شامل بیں لیکن ان نک محدود نہیں ہے۔ وہ تو وہ ذاتی تربینگ جاری رہ سکتی ہے جب نک کر بر شخص ایک بی گھرانے یا سپورٹ بیل میں نم بو۔
آؤٹ ڈور عوامی مقامات میں شامل بیں:
- پارک، ساحل سمندر، عوامی دسترس والے دیپی مضافات (کثری سائڈ)، جنگلات
- عوامی باغات (جہاں آپ ان میں داخل بونے کے لئے ادائیگی کریں یا نہ کریں)
- ورثے والے مقامات
- کھیلون کے میدان
پیروئی کھیلون کے مقامات کو بند کرنا ضروری ہے، مثال کے طور پر:
- ٹینس کورٹس
- گولف کورٹس
- سومنگ یولز
5 سال سے کم عمرکے بچے اور مستقل دیکھ بھال کے طلبیگار ایک معذور شخص کیلئے 2 کنیوز آؤٹ ڈور اجتماع کی حد کے حساب میں شمار نہیں کیے جاتے۔
اگر آپ (یا آپ کی دیکھ بھال کے تحت ایک فرد) کسی عارضی میں مبتلا بیں اور اپنی صحت کو برقرار رکھنے کے لئے آپ کو معمول کے مطابق گھر سے نکلنا پڑتا ہے - اس میں اگر آپ کے مقامی علاقے سے بار بار سفر کرنا یا دن میں کئی بار ورزش کرنا شامل ہے - تو آپ ایسا کرسکتے ہیں۔
جب دوسروں افراد کے آس پاس بون اور وہ آپ کے ابہ خانم نم بون- جس کا مطلب ہے کہ آپ جن لوگوں کے ساتھ رہتے ہیں - یا آپ کا سپورٹ بیل، تو ایسے کسی نہیں فرد سے 2 میٹر کے فاصلے پر رہنے کے لیے اضافی احتیاطی تدابیر (جیسے چہرے کا دہانیتا) کے ساتھ 1 میٹر کے فاصلے پر بھی رہنے کا مطالبہ کیا جاتا ہے۔
جبہہ کا دہانیتا
آپ کو بہت سارے انتخاب مقامات میں چہرہ دہانیتا جاپے، جیسے دکانیں یا عبادات گاہ جہان پر کہلی بون، اور پبلک ٹرانسپورٹ پر، جب نک کم آپ مستثنی نہ ہوں، پہلے قانون پر۔ چہرہ دہانیتا سے متعلق رہنمائی پڑھیں۔
سپورٹ اور جائیلہ کیئر بلبلز
سپورٹ یا جائیلہ کیئر بلبلز بنانے کے لئے آپ کو ابیلیت کے کچھ قواعد پورے کرنا ہوگا۔ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ بر کوئی بلبلز بنانے کے قابل نہیں ہوگا۔
ایک سپورٹ بلبلز ایک سپورٹ نیٹ ورک پر جو دو گھرانے کو جوڑتا ہے۔ آپ دوسرے گھرانے کے ساتھ سپورٹ بلبلز بنانے سکتے ہیں اگر آپ ابیلیت کی قواعد کو پورا کریں:
اگر آپ ان اصولوں پر عمل نہیں کرتے تو سپورٹ بلبلز تشکیل دینا قانون کے خلاف ہے۔
آپ کو سپورٹ بلبلز سے ملنے (اور ان کے ساتھ رات گزارنے) کے لئے اپنے گھر سے نکلنے کی اجازت ہے۔ تاہم، اگر آپ سپورٹ بلبلز تشکیل دیتے ہیں تو بہتر ہوگا کہ یہ اپنے ابیلیت کے ساتھ ہو جو مقامی طور پر رہتا ہو۔ اس سے اپنے علاقے میں وارسی پہنچنے کی رواج تھام میں مدد ملے گی جبہہ زیادہ لوگ متاثر ہوں۔
اگر آپ کسی اپسے گھرانے میں رہتے ہیں جبہہ کسی کی عمر 14 سال سے کم ہو تو آپ جائیلہ کیئر بلبلز بناسکتے ہیں۔ اس سے فیملی یا دوستوں کو آپ کہاں اور کب ہے؟ گروپوں میں مل سکتے ہیں
اب بھی ایسی صورتیں موجود ہیں جن میں آپ کو اپنے ایک خانے یا سہورہ بدل سے بابر دوسروں سے بھی گروپوں میں ملنے کی اجازت ہے، لیکن یہ سماجی میل جو کہ کئی نبی بھی ایک مقصد کے لئے بونا چاہئے جن کی اجازت ہے۔ ان صورتوں کی مکمل فہرست قواعد و ضوابط میں شامل کی جاتی گی، اور ان میں شامل ہیں:
• کام کرنا یا رضاکارانہ ہو فلاحی خدمات فراموش کرنا کے لئے جب ان امور کا گھر سے سرائجام دنیا نامعلوم ہو، اس میں دوسرا لوگوں کے گھروں میں کام بھی شامل ہوسکتا ہے جو ضروری ہو - مثال کے طور پر نینیوں، صفائی کرنا وہی، بجوا اور فیملیز کو مدد فراموش کرنا وہی سوشل ورک، یا کاریگر افراد۔ دوسرا لوگوں کے گھروں میں محفوظ طریق سے کام کرنا کے ناراض میں رہنمائی ملاحظہ کریں۔ جب ورک میشک کو کسی نجی گھر یا باغ میں منعقد ہوئے کی ضرورت نہیں بونی، تو اپنا نبی بونا چاہئے - مثال کے طور پر، اگر آپ ذاتی ثریئر سے مل سکتے ہیں، آپ کو اپنے ذریعہ عوامی جگہ میں اپنا کرنا چاہئے۔
• جائزہ کینٹر بیل میں (صرف بچوں کی دیکھ بھال کے مقاصد کے لئے) جبان تعلیم، رجسٹرڈ چائلنگ کینٹر اور بچوں کے لئے زیرگرمانی سرگرمیوں کے لئے ان خدمات کے استعمال کرنا کی اجازت ہو۔ تعلیم اور بچوں کی سرگرمیوں نے رسائی محدود ہے۔ تعلیم اور جائزہ کینٹر کے بارے میں مزید معلومات دیکھیں ان حالات کی لئے جہان بچے اس گھر میں نہیں رہتے جہان دونوں والدین یا سرپرست رہتے بیں اصلی والدین اور کئی میں رکھے گئے بچوں کے درمیان اور کئی میں موجود بین پہلوان کے مابین رابطہ کا موقع دینے کی لئے ممکن طور پر گود لینے والے والدین کو کسی بچے یا بچوں سے ملنے کی لئے جنوبی اس کے سب سے کریں کا امکان بو سوشل سروس کے ذریعہ کسی دوسرا کے بان کسی بچے یا بچوں کو نگہداشت میں رکھنے یا رکھنے میں سہولت فراہم کرنا کی لئے اصلی والدین کیلئے بنگامی امداد فراہم کرنا، اور جون یا بیماری سے بچنے، یا نقصان کے خطرے (بشنوم گھریلو زیادتی) سے بچنے کی لئے کسی اپنے شخص کی عیادت کرنا کی لئے جو وفات پار رہا ہو، یا کسی سے ملنے کی لئے جو بسپتال، باسپس یا کسی بھی میں زیر علاج ہو، یا فیملی کے کسی رکن یا دوست کے ساتھ میڈیکل ایوانمئنٹ کی لئے جانے کی لئے کسی قانونی ذم داری کو نہیں کی لئے، جیسے عدالت یا جیوری سروس میں حاضر بونا فوجداری انصاف کی رابشگہ یا امیگریشن کے حراستی مراکز کے اندر اجتماعات کی لئے کسی کمزور یا ولترابیل شخص کی نگہداشت کرنا یا امداد فراہم کرنا یا نگہداشت کرنا یا والے کو آرام فراہم کرنا کی لئے شادی بیان یا اپنی بی کسی تقیب کیئے یا صرف غیر معمولی حالات میں بونا جانے اور یا صرف 6 افراد نک محدود یا تجبیز و تکفین کیئے - زیادہ سے زیادہ 30 افراد نک. ویکس (شب بیداری) اور دوسرا منسلک رسمی تقاریب 6 افراد نک کے گروپ میں جاری رہ سکتی ہیں ایلیٹ کیپیلیزیون (اور اگر ضروری بو تو ان کے کچھ، یا والدین / گارڈینز اگر 18 سال سے کم عمر بون) - یا وہ جو افیشل ایلیٹ سپورٹس پانہوے میں شامل بون - کیئے مقابلہ کرنا اور تربیت حاصل کرنا دوسرا گھر منتقل بونے میں سہولت فراہم کرنا سپورت گروپ جنوبی ذاتی طور پر دیلیوریونا بو 15 شرکاء کی ساتھ جاری رہ سکتی ہیں جبہ بابیم امداد، تہواری یا کسی بھی طرح کی امداد فراہم کرنے کے لئے باضابط، طور پر ایتمام کیا گیا بو- لیکن انبیئ نجی گھر کے علاوہ کسی اور احاطے میں بونا چاہئے۔
جبہ کسی گروہ میں کسی ایسی فرد شامل ہے جسے جسے استثنائی حاصل ہو (مثال کے طور پر، کوئی شخص جو کام کر رہا ہو یا رضاکارانہ خدمات انجام دے رہا ہو)، وہ عام طور پر اجتماع کی حد کے حسے میں شمار نہیں کیے جاتے۔ اس کا مطلب ہے، مثال کے طور پر، ایک کاریگر کسی حد کی خلاف ورزی کے بغیر کسی گھر میں جاسکتا ہے، اگر وہ کام کے لئے آئے بون، اور شادیوں میں نکاح خوان کو حد میں شمار نہیں کیا جاتا۔
اگر آپ ضوابط توزیع بین
اگر آپ بھی گروپوں میں ملے بین تو پولیس آپ کے خلاف کارروائی کر سکتی ہے۔ اس میں غیر قانونی اجتماعات کو منتشر کرنے اور جرمانے (مقررہ جرمانے کے نوٹس) جاری کرنا شامل ہے۔
پہلے جرم کے لئے آپ کو 200£ جرمانے کا نوٹس دیا جاسکتا ہے، اور پھر بر بار جرم کرنے پر دوگنا بونا رہے گا، 6400£ تک۔ اگر آپ 30 سے زائد افراد پر مشتمل ایک غیر قانونی اجتماع منعقد کرتے ہیں، یا اس کے انعقاد میں شامل بین تو پولیس 10,000£ کے جرمانے جاری کرسکتی ہے۔
ان لوگوں کو بچانا جنوبی کورونا وائرس سے زیادہ خطرہ لاحق بو
اگر آپ طبی لحاظ سے کمزور (وولنریل) ہیں تو آپ کو کورونا وائرس سے شدید بیماری کا زیادہ خطرہ ہوسکتا ہے۔ جو لوگ طبی لحاظ سے کورونا وائرس کے خطرے سے شدید طور پر دوجارہ ہیں ان کیلئے مزید معلومات دستیاب ہیں۔ جو لوگ طبی لحاظ سے انتہائی کمزور ہیں ان کو دوبارہ شروع بونے والی شیڈلنگ کام پر جانا
اگر آپ گھر سے معقول حد تک کام نہیں کرسکتے بین تو آپ کام کے لئے اپنے گھر سے بابر جاسکتے ہیں۔
جبان لوگ ایسا نہیں کرسکتے بین اپنے اپنے کام کی جگہ تک سفر کرنا جاری رکھنا چاہئے اس میں وہ لوگ شامل ہیں، لیکن ان تک محدود نہیں ہے، جو کہ کام ہے:
- کریشکل نیشنل انفراسترکچر
- کنسٹرکشن
- مینیویکرجنگ
- چائنڈ کینٹ اور تعلیم
- ایم عوامی خدمات
یہ ملک کو چلتی رہنے اور سیکٹرز اور ایمیلائرز کو سپورٹ دینے کے لئے ضروری ہے۔
جبان آپ کو دوسرا لوگون کے گھروں میں کام کرنے کی ضرورت ہو - جبے نینز، کلینر یا کارگر افراد - تو آپ یہ کام کر سکتے ہیں۔ بطور دیگر، آپ کو نجی گھر یا گارڈن میں کام کیلئے اپنے سے گریز کرنا چاہئے، جبکہ بر ہو سکتا ہے کہ COVID-19 والی محفوظ تدابیر مستعمل نہ ہو۔
آجرون اور ملازمین کو اپنے کام کے انتظامات پر تبادلہ خیال کرنا چاہئے، اور آجرون کو گھر سے کام کرنے والے اپنے ملازمین کی سہولت کے لئے بر ممکن اقدام اٹھانا جانئے، بشمول دور دراز سے کام کرئے کے قابل بنانے والے مناسب آئی تھی اور آلات کی فراہمی، جہاں لگا گھر سے کام نہیں کرسکتے، وہ آجرون کو ملازمین کو عوامی ثانیسپورٹ کے مصروف اوقات اور راستوں سے بجنے میں مدد کی لئے اقدامات کرنا جانئے۔
اگر 19-COVID سیکور گائڈلائنز پر سختی سے پر عمل کیا جائے تو منتقلی کے خطرے کو کافی حد تک کم کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ جن لوگوں کو زیادہ خطرہ لاحق بو ان پر اضافی توجہ دینے چاہئے۔
سکول یا کالج جانا
کالج، برائمری (رسیشن سے آگے) اور سیکنڈری سکول صرف ولزیانل نجون اور کریکل ورکرز کے بجھے کے لئے کہلے رہے گے۔ دوسرے تمام بچے فروری کے وسط تک دور سے تعلیم حاصل کریں گے۔
امتحانات
ان حالات میں، بلان کے مطابق موسم گرم کے امتحانات کا منعقد بونا ممکن نہیں۔ اسی مطابقت سے محکمہ تعلیم افکوال (Ofqual) کے ساتھ مل کر تیزی سے مشورہ کرئے کے لئے متبادل انتظامات ترتیب دی گئی گا تاکہ طلباء کو منصافانہ پیش رفت کی سہولت ملی۔
پروانڈز پیش، ورامن اور تکنیکی امتحانات جاری رکھے سکتے ہیں جو جنوری میں بونی بین، جب وہ فیصلہ کرئے کہ اسیا کرنا درست ہے۔
یونیورسٹیاں
وہ طلبا جو مندرجہ ذیل کورسز کی تربیت اور تعلیم حاصل کر رہے بین ائھیں منصوبہ بندی کے مطابق روبو سیکھنا جانئے: • میدیسن او دندانسازی • مضامین جو طب / صحت سے منسلک بین • علم بیطاری (ویترنیری) • ایجوسکشن (ابتدائی تربیت اساتذہ) • سوشل ورک • کورسز جن کی لئے پروفیشنل، سٹیتیوری او ریگولیٹری بادی (PSRB)
کی تشخیص ضروری بو اور یا ایک ایسی لازمی سرگرمی بو جنوری کیلئے طی شده ہے اور جنوبی دوبارہ شیڈول نہیں کیا جاسکتا (اگر یہ آپ بر لیگو بونا یہ تو آپ کی یونیورسٹی آپ کو مطلع کرے گی).
واپس آئے وہ طلباً کو یونیورسٹی وایسی یہ دو دار ثبوت کیا جانا چاہئے، یا بصورت دیگر انسان دس دن کی لئے خودساختی علیحدگی اختیار کریں چاہئے۔
جو طلباً ان کورسز میں نہیں بین، انسان امکان کے مطابق وہان رنہ چاہئے جہاں پر وہ موجود بین، اور اپنی یونیورسٹی یا کالج کی سپولت کے مطابق، کم از کم فروری کے وسط تک اپنا ترم آن لائن شروع کرنا چاہئے۔ اس میں دیگر عملی کورسز کے طالب علم شامل بین جو مذکورہ بالا فہرست میں نہیں بین۔
اس سے قبل بم یونیورسٹیوں کو اس سلسلے میں بدلت شائع کرچکی بن کر کس طرح موسوم بہار کے ترم میں طلباً اعلیٰ تعلیم میں بحفاظت وایس جاسکتی ہے۔ اس رنگیتی میں یہ بنایا گیا ہے کہ بم موسوم سرما کے وقیہ کے بعد اسی طالبہ کی اعانت کرنا چاہئے لئے اعلیٰ تعلیم کے قریب کنندگان کی مدد کریں گی جنہوں نے ممکن طور پر محفوظ طریقے سے وابس آنا بوگا۔
اگر آپ یونیورسٹی میں رہتے ہیں تو آپ کو ترم کے دوران اپنے مستقل گھر اور طلباً گھر کے درمیان آگے بچھے حرکت نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔
ان طلباً کی لئے جو روبو سیکھنے کے اب لین، آپ اپنی رسمی تعلیم یا تربیت کے لئے جہاں ضروری بو، اپنے اب لین خانے سے پہلے گروپوں میں مل سکتے ہیں۔
طلباً کو رنگیتی اور پاندیون پر عمل کرنا چاہئے کی توقع کرنا چاہئے۔ جب بھی ممكن یو تو آپ کو ان سے سماجی فاصلہ برقرار رکھنا چاہئے جن کیساتھ آپ نہیں رہتے ہیں۔
چائلڈ کینٹر
والدین اور کینٹرز چائلڈ کینٹر تک کئی طریقے سے رسائی کو جاری رکھ سکتے ہیں۔
ابتدائی سالون کے مراکز (ترسریز اور چائلڈمینڈرز کے بھی شامل) کہلے رہی گے۔
چائلڈ مینڈرز کو معمول کے مطابق بچوں کو آئے کی اجارت دینی چاہئے ماسوائے سکول کی عمر والے بچوں کی اسکول کی عمر والے بچوں (رسیشن کے بچوں کے بھی شامل) کی دیکھی، بھال کرئے والے چائلڈ مینڈرز کو صرف ولنرائل بچوں اور کریشکل ورکرز کے بچوں کو بی آئے کی اجارت دینی چاہئے۔
ولنرائل بچے اور کریشکل ورکرز کے بچے رجسٹرڈ چائلڈ کینٹر، چائلڈ مینڈرز اور چلدرون کینٹر کی دیگر سرگرمیون (بھی شامل ریپ اراونڈ کینٹر) کا استعمال جاری رکھ سکتے ہیں۔
والدین غیر رسمی چائلڈ کینٹر کے مقاصد کے لئے ایک دوسرا گھرانے کے ساتھ چائلڈ کینٹر کا بیل تشکیل دی سکتی ہے، جب بھی 14 سال سے کم عمر کا بو یہ بندیڈ طور پر والدین کو کام کرئے کے قابل بنائے کی لئے یہ اور بیٹوں کو اسے سماجی رابطہ کیلئے استعمال نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔
چچھ گھرانے سپورٹ بیل مین رہنے سے بهی مستفيد ہو سکتے گے نینیز خدمات فراہم کرنا جاری رکھ سکیں گی، بھی شامل گھروں کے اندر
سفر آپ کو اپنے گھر سے نہیں نکلتا چاہتے جب تک کوئی معقول عذر موجود نہ ہو (جیسے کام یا تعلیم کے مقاصد سے متعلق). اگر آپ کو سفر کرنے کی ضرورت ہے تو آپ کو لوکن رنہ جانی - یعنی اپنے گاؤں، قصیہ یا شہر کے جس حصے میں آپ رہتے ہیں وہاں سے بابر جانی سے گزر کرنا - اور اپنے مجموعی سفر کو کی تعداد کو کم کریں. جن وجوہات کی بناء پر آپ اپنے گھر اور علاقے سے نکل سکتے ہیں ان کی فہرست میں شامل ہیں، لیکن ان تک محدود نہیں ہیں:
- کام، جب آپ گھر سے معقول طور پر کام نہیں کرسکتے
- تعلیم نک رسائی اور کئی ذمہ داریاں پوری کرنا
- آپ کے سبھوں بیلر - یا چائلڈ کیئر کیئر بیلر - میں شامل افراد سے ملنے
- بسپتال، جی ہی اور دیگر میڈیکل ایوانمینٹس یا اپنی ملاقاتیں جب آپ کو حادثہ ہو یا آپ اپنے صحت کے بارے میں فکر مند ہوئے
- ضروری اشیاء یا خدمات خریدنے، لیکن جبہ بھی ممکن ہو یا آپ کے مقامی علاقے میں بونی چاہئے
- آؤٹ ڈور ورزش، یا جبہ بھی ممکن ہو مقامی طور پر کیا جانا چاہئے، لیکن اگر ضروری ہو تو آپ اپنے علاقے میں تھوڑا فاصلہ طے کرسکتے ہیں (مثال کے طور پر، کہلی جگم تک رسائی حاصل کریں کیئر کیئر)
- جانور کی دیکھ بھال اور ورزش، یا ویئری خدمات کے لئے جانا
اگر آپ کیئر کیئر سفر کرنے ضروری ہو تو جبہ ممکن ہو پیدل چلیں یا سائیکل چلائیں، اور آگے کی منصوبہ بنندی کریں اور مصروف اوقات اور راستوں سے گزر کریں اس سے سفر کے دوران آپ سماجی دوری بر عمل کریں کے قابل ہون گے۔
اپنے گھر کے یا اپنے سبھوں بیلر سے بابر کسی کے ساتھ گازی شینگنگ کے ذریعے سفر کریں سے گزر کریں. کار شینگنگ سے متعلق رہنمائی دیکھیں۔
اگر آپ کو سفر کرنے کی لئی بیلک ثانسپورٹ کی ضرورت ہو تو آپ کو محفوظ سفر کی رہنمائی بر عمل کرنا چاہئے. بين الاقوامی سفر
آپ صرف بين الاقوامی سطح بر - یا یوکے کی اندر - سفر کر سکتے بیں جبان آپ کو پہلے قانونی وجوہ کی بنیاد پر گھر سے نکلنے کی اجازت دی گئی بو علاوہ ازین، آپ کو اس ملک کے پیلک بیلته یعنی صحت عامہ کی بداءات پر گور کرنا چاہئے جبان آپ جا رہے بوند
اگر آپ کا بیرون ملک سفر کرنا ضروری بو (اور آپ کو قانونی طور پر اس کی اجازت ہے، مثال کی طور پر، یہ کام کے لئے ہے)، اگرچہ آپ اس جگہ پر وابستہ جا رہے ہوں جبان آپ پہلے گئے ہوں تو آپ کو اپنی منزل مقصود میں لاگو قواعد اور فارن، کامن وبلتھے اینڈ ڈیویلمنٹ آفس (افس سی ڈی او) کے سفری مشورے کو دیکھنے جانئے۔
فی الحال بیرون ملک برطانیہ کے رابطہ ہوں کو فوری طور پر وطن واپس آنے کی ضرورت نہیں ہے۔ نامی، آپ کو واپسی کے انتظامات کے لئے اپنی ایثر لائن یا ثریول آپریٹر سے پہلے لگا لینا جانئے۔
اگر ملک شہریون کے لئے گھر پر قیام کے قواعد کا اطلاق بوتا ہے آپ کو بیرون ملک سفر نہیں کرنا چاہئے جب تک اس کی اجازت نہ ہو۔ اس کا مطلب ہے کہ آپ کو بالیڈے پر نہیں جانئے۔
اگر آپ برطانیہ آئے بیں تو آپ گھر واپس جاسکے بیں۔ آپ کو یہ دیکھنا چاہئے کہ آپ آپ کی منزل مقصود پر کوئی پابندیان تو نہیں بیں۔
گھر سے دور رات گزارنا
آپ ابنا گھر یا وہ جگہ نہیں چھوڑ سکتے جبان آپ جھیلی گزار رہے بون یا رات گزارنے کیلئے مقيم بون جب تک آپ کی پاس اپنا اسیا کریں کا کوئی معقول عذر نہ بو اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ برطانیہ کے اندر اور بیرون ملک تعطیلات گزارنے کی اجازت نہیں ہے۔ اس میں دوسرے گھر یا کاروان مین رینا بھی شامل ہے، اگر یہ آپ کی بندی ربانی گھا نہیں ہے۔ اس میں کسی کی ساتھی رینا بھی شامل ہے جس کے ساتھ آپ نہیں رہتے اگر یہ آپ کے سیورث بلبل مین شامل ہونے。
آپ کو گھر سے دور رات گزارنے کی اجازت یہ اگر آپ:
• اپنے سیورث بیل سے مل رہے بین • اپنی اصلی ربانی گھا پر وابستہ نہیں جاسکتے • کو گھر منتقل کریں وقت ربانی کی ضرورت ہے • کو تجہیز و تکفین یا متعلقہ پادگاری تقیب مین شرکت کے لئے ربانی کی ضرورت ہے • کو کام کے مقام کے لئے، یا رضاکاران خدمات فراہم کریں کے لئے ربانی کی ضرورت ہے • اپنے بچے بین جس کو اسکول یا کنیا کی لئے ربانی کی ضرورت ہے • بے گھر شخص بین، پناہ مانگ رہے بین یا بطور ایک ولنریل شخص کے • پناہ گاہ کی تلاش مین بین، یا نقصان سے بجاو کی تلاش مین بین (مثال کے طور پر گھریلو زیادتی) • نامور کھلاڑی بین یا ان کا سیورث عمل یا والدین بین، اگر ایتھلیٹ 18 سال سے کم یہ اور نریت یا مقابلہ کیلئے آپ کی گھر سے بابر موجودگی ضروری ہے
اگر بیلے سے بی بالیتے بی بین، تو عملی طور جتنہا جلدی ممکن ہو آپ کو اپنے گھر وابستہ جانے چاہئے۔
مہمہ کو ربانی فراہم کریں والے مقامات جسیں بوتل، بی اینڈ بی اور کاروان پارکس قانون مین طے شدہ خاص وجوہات کی بناء پر کہلے رہ سکتے بین، بشمول اس کے کہ جب مہمہ اینڈ اصلی ربانی گھا پر وابستہ نہیں جاسکتے بون، اس مہمہ خانے کو اینڈ ربانی گھا کے طور پر استعمال کر رہے بون، گھر کی منتقلی کے دوران ربانی کی ضرورت ہو، قانونی ضرورت کے مطابق خودساخت، علحدگی اختیار کر رہے بون، یا بصورت دیگر ربانیگاہ کے بند بونے کے نتیجے میں ہے گھر بون۔ انگلینڈ میں کچھ خاص کاروبار اور مقامات کو نہیں کرنے سے متعلق رہنما میں وجوہات کی مکمل فہرست مل سکتی ہے۔
ربانش فرآں کرنے والوں کو بھی ہے گھر افراد سمتی ولترابیل گروپوں کو ربانش فرآں کرنے کے لئے مقامی حکام کے ساتھ بابی تعاون کے ساتھ کام کرنے کی ترغیب دی جاتی ہے۔
کئیر بوم کے وزن
کئیر بومز میں ملاقاتوں کا اعتماد مستحکم سکریننگ، وزنگ پاڑ اور کھڑگی کے بیچ ملاقاتوں جسیں انتظامات کی مدد سے بوسکتا ہے۔ قربی میل والے کے انتخاب ملاقاتوں کی اجازت نبی ہے۔ پہلاؤ کی صورت میں کسی قسم کے وزت کی اجازت نبی ہوگی۔
آیکو کوویڈ 19 کے دوران کئیر بومز کے بارے میں رہنما کو دیکھ لینا چاہئے تاکہ معلومات کریں کہ ملاقاتوں کیسے کی جاتیں۔ ربانشی بابر جانے کے موقع پر لوگوں سے انتخاب نبی مل سکتے ہیں (مثال کے طور پر، خاندانی گھر میں اپنے رشتے داروں سے ملنے کے لئے)۔ سیورئٹ لیونگ میں موجود افراد کلئے الگ رہنما موجود ہے۔
جنائزہ
جنائزہ کو حاضری پر سخت حدود کے ساتھ اجارت دی جاتی ہے، اور سوانی استثنائی حالات کے یہ صرف کوویڈ-19 محفوظ مقامات میں یا آوٹ ڈور عوامی مقامات میں بونے چاہئے۔
تجبیز و تکفین میں زیادہ سے زیادہ 30 افراد نک شرکت کرسکتے ہیں۔ منسلک مذہبی، عقیدہ پر مبنی یا یادگاری واقعات جسیں سٹون سیئنگ (تنصیب سنگ) اور راکھ کا بکھیرنا بھی 6 افراد نک کی حاضری کے ساتھ جاری رہ سکتا ہے۔ کوئی بھی کام کرنے والا اس حد میں شمار نبی بونا۔ ان لوگوں کے مابین شادی بیاہ، سول پارٹنرشپ او مذبی عبادات
شادیوں اور سول پارٹنرشپ کی تقربات کے انعقاد میں صرف 6 نک افرادیوں چاہئے۔ کوئی بھی کام کرے وہاں ایک اسی کی طرح ہے ایک اسی فوری شادی جب شادی کرے وہاں میں سے ایک شدید بیمار ہو اور اس کی صحتی بات توقع نہیں ہے۔ وہ مفتوح کرے وہاں علاج ہو زندگی کو بدلتے وہاں سرجری سے گزرتے وہاں۔
شادی اور سول پارٹنرشپ شب کی تقربات صرف کووید-19 محفوظ مقامات با آوث دوور عوامی جگہ میں بی بونی چاہئے جب نک کم استثنائی حالات نہ ہوں۔
عبادت گاہیں
آپ کسی عبادت گاہ میں عبادات کیلئے جا سکتے ہیں۔ تاہم، آپ کو اپنے گھر یا سیورٹ بیل سے بار کسی سے بھی اختلاط نہیں رکھنا چاہئے۔ آپ کو تمام اوقات میں سختی کیساتھ سماجی فاصلہ برقرار رکھنا چاہئے۔
آپ کو عبادات گاہوں کے محفوظ استعمال کے بارے میں قومی رہنمائی کی پیروی کریں چاہئے۔
کھیل اور جسمانی سرگرمی
اندھور جم اور کھیل کی سببیت گاہ بند رہیں گی۔ آؤٹ دوور سپورٹس کورٹ، آؤٹ دوور گولف کورس، آؤٹ دوور سوئینگ پول، تیر اندوزی/ڈرائیونگ/شوتینگ رینجر اور سواری کے مراکز بھی بند ہوں۔ معدود افراد کیلئے منظم آؤٹ دوور کھیل جاری رہیں گے۔ گھر کی منقلی
آپ اب بھی گھر منتقل کرسکتے ہیں آپ کے گھر یا "سپورٹ نیلی" سے بابر والے افراد کو گھر منتقل کرنے میں مدد نہیں کرنی چاہئے جب تک کہ یہ بالکل ضروری نہ ہو۔
اسی طرح اور مکانات کے کرائے کے انجنئر اور ریموول فرمن کا کام جاری رہ سکتا ہے۔ اگر منتقلی کا ارادہ رکھتے ہیں تو آپ مکان دیکھنے کیلئے جا سکتے ہیں۔
گھر کی منتقلی کے بارے مس قومی ریٹائرمنٹ کی پیروی کریں، جس میں سماجی دوری، نازہ ہوا کو اندر آئے کا موقع دینے اور جبری کو ذہانی کے بارے میں مشورہ شامل ہے۔
مالی معاونت
آپ جہان کہیں بھی رہتے ہیں پر مالی مدد حاصل سکتے ہیں:
- مالی معاونت کاروباروں کی لئے بیکجے
- مالی معاونت
- کرونا وائرس جان ریشنشن سکیم کی تحت ایمیلائی ویجز کلیم کریں
- جیک کریں کہ کا آپ سلف ایمیلائی اینکم سپورٹ سکیم کی تحت گرانٹ کلیم کر سکتے ہیں
- مالی مدد اگر آپ کرونا وائرس کی وجوہ سے کام سے فارغ ہیں
کاروبار اور وینیوز کاروبار اور مقامات جن کا بند بونا ضروری ہے
سماجی رابطے کو کم کرنا کے لئے، قواعد و ضوابط کی رو سے کچھ کاروباروں کو بند کرنا اور کچھ کاروباروں پر اشیاء اور خدمات کی مہیا کرنا کے طریقے کے سلسلے میں پانچینیان عائد کرنا کی ضرورت بھی ہے۔ جن بڑسوسا کا بند بونا ضروری ہے ان کی مکمل فہرست انگلیزی میں کچھ خاص کاروبار اور مقامات کو بند کرنا سے متعلق رہنمائی کی وجوبات میں مل سکتی ہے، لیکن ان میں شامل ہیں:
• غیر ضروری خورده اشیاء، جیسے کہ اور گھریلو سامان کی دکانیں، گازیون کے شوپنگ (کرائے کے علاوہ)، جونی کی دکانیں، درزی، تمباکو اور ویب کی دکانیں، الیکٹرانک سامان اور موبائل فون کا دکانیں، نیلام گھر (سوائے موشیون یا زرعی سامان کی نیلامی کی) اور غیر ضروری سامان فروخت کرنا والے منڈیوں کے استعمال۔ یہ مقامات کلیک ایند کلیکت (جہان سامان کا بہل سے آرڈر دی جاتی ہے اور احاطہ میں جمع کیا جاتا ہے) اور ڈیلیوری سروس کے ذریعے کام حاری رکھ سکتے ہیں۔ میہمان نوازی کے مقامات جیسے گیفت، ریستوران، بپ، بار اور سوشل کلب؛ نیک اون (رات 11 بجے تک)، کلک ایند کلیکت، ذرائیو تھرو یا ڈیلیوری کے ذریعے کہانے بینے کی فراہمی کی رعایت کے ساتھ، تمام کہانے بینے کی چیزین (بشمول الکحل) ڈیلیوری کے ذریعے فراہم کی جاسکتی ہیں۔
• رہائشی مقامات جیسے بھٹلز، باسٹلز، گیست باوزس اور کمپیسائنس، سوائے خاص حالات کے، جیسے کہ یہ کسی کی مرکزی رہائش گاہ کے طور پر کام کرتی ہے، جب اور شخص گھر وابستہ نہیں جاسکتا ہے، یہ گھر افراد کو رہائش یا امداد فراہم کرنا کے لئے، یا جب کام کے مقامات کے لئے ویا رہنا ضروری ہو۔
• تفریحی گھیلون کی سہولت گاہیں، جیسے تفریحی مراکز اور انڈور جم، سوئینگ ہو، سپورٹس کورٹ، فٹسنس اور دانس سٹودیوز، گھڑ سواری کے مراکز اور چھڑھے والی دیواریں اور گولف کورس۔ تفصیلی مقامات جیسے تھیئر، کنسرٹ بال، سینما گھر، موزیم اور گلری، کیسینو، تفریحی آرکیدز، بنگو بالز، بولینگ ہیز، سکیٹنگ رنگر، گو-کارٹنگ و بینیور، انڈور یل اور سافٹ یل مراکز اور اپریاز (بیشمول انفلٹیل پارکس اور ثریمولینگ سینٹرز)، سرکس، میلون کے میدان، فن فنیز، مقامات، وائر پارکس اور تھیم پارک جانورون کے دلکش مقامات (جیسے چڑیا گھر، سفاری پارکس، ایکویریم اور وائلڈ لائف مراکز)
انڈور دلکش مقامات جیسے نباتاتی باغات، لوك ورث کے مراکز اور لینڈمارکس کو بھی بند کرنا ضروری ہے، اگرچہ ان احاطوں کے برونی میدان اٹھ دوڑ وریش کیلئے کہلے رہ سکتے ہیں۔
ذاتی تغییرات کی سبب گاہی جیسے بال، بیوٹی، ثانگ اور نیل سیلون، ثانگ پارلر، سبزی، مساج پارلر، جسم اور جلد جھیدنے والی سروز کو بھی بند کرنا ہوگا۔ یہ خدمات دوسے لوگوں کے گھروں میں فراہم نہ کی جاتی ہے۔
کمیونٹی مراکز اور بال بند بونگے سوائے محدود چھوٹی چھوٹی سرگرمیون کے، جیسے کہ ذیل میں بتایا گیا ہے۔ آنی ثی اور ذیجیئل سروز نک رسائی فریم کرنا کے لئے لانپریزان بھی کہلی رہ سکتی ہیں۔ مثال کے طور پر ان لوگوں کے لئے جن کے گھروں میں یہ نہیں - اور کلک اینڈ کلیکٹ سروز کیلئے
ان میں سے کچھ کاروبار اور مقامات کو محدود مستثنی سرگرمیون کے لئے بھی کہلا رہے ہیں۔ اینگلینڈ میں کچھ خاص کاروبار اور مقامات کو بند کرنا سے متعلق ریٹائری میں استثنات کی مکمل فہرست مل سکتی ہے۔
لیکن ان میں شامل ہیں:
• تعلیم اور تربیت - اسکولوں کی لئے کھیلوں، تفریحی اور کمیونٹی سپورٹس کا استعمال جہان پر یہ ان کی معمول کی فرآینڈ کا حصہ ہونے ان بچوں کے لئے جانئے کہ کتنے مقاصد والی زیر نگرانی سرگرمیان جو شرکت کرئے کے ایل بون خون کا عطیہ دینے والے سیشن اور فوٹوں بینکوں کی میزبانی کرنا طبی علاج فرآیند کرنا ابلیت کہیلیون کے افراد کو تربیت اور مقابلاً کرئے کے لئے (اندوز اور آؤٹ ڈور کہیلیون کی سپلیٹس گاون مین)، اور پیشہ ور رقاص اور کوریوگرافر کے کام کرئے کے لئے (فٹنس اور دانس سٹودیوز مین) سامعین کے بغیر تربیت اور مشق کے لئے (تھیٹر اور کنسرٹ بالون مین) فلم اور ثیا وی فلم بندی کے مقاصد کے لئے
وہ کاروبار اور وینیوز جو کہلے رہ سکتے بیں
کووید-19 محفوظ بذایات بر عمل کرئے بونے دوسرے کاروبار اور وینیوز کو کہلا رہے کی اجازت ہے۔ ضروری اشیاء اور خدمات فرآیند کرئے والے کاروبار کہلے رہ سکتے بیں۔ انگلینڈ میں کچھ خاص کاروبار اور مقامات کو بند کرئے سے متعلق ریٹائری میں کاروباروں کی مکمل فہرست مل سکتی ہے، لیکن ان میں شامل ہیں:
خوراک کی دکانیں، سیر مارکیٹ، فارمیسیز، گارڈن سنٹرز، بلڈنگ مرچنس اور بلڈنگ پروڈکٹس کے سیلائرز اور آف لانسنس جیسے ضروری خوراک فروش ضروری خوراک فروخت کرئے والے مارکیٹ سٹال بھی کہلے رہ سکتے ہیں
مرمت کی خدمات فرآیند کرئے والے کاروبار بھی کہلے رہ سکتے بیں، جب ان کا بندی کام مرمت کی خدمات پیش کرنا ہو پہلے سٹیشن، خودکار (لیکن دستی نہیں) کار واش، گاؤڑی کی مرمت ویلے گاراج اور ایم او ثیا خدمات، سائیکل کی دکانیں، اور ثیکسی اور گازیون کے کرائے والے کاروبار بنک، بلڈنگ سوسائٹیز، ذاکخانی، قلیل مدتی فرض فراہم کرنے والے اور رقم کی منتقلی والے کاروبار جنارون کی ذاثرکترز لانڈری اور ذرائی کلنترز میڈیکل او دیئثل سروسز جانورون کی دیکھ بھال اور فلاح و بہبود کی لئے مصنوعات اور کھانے پینے کی بیطاری (ویٹ) اور خورده فروش جانورون کی تحقیق کے مراکز، بورڈنگ کی سپلیتیاں، اور جانورون کی دیکھ بھال کرنے والے (جمالیاتی مقاصد کے بجائے جانورون کی فلاح و بہبود کی لئے استعمال کی جاسکتی ہے) زرعی سامان کی فراہمی کی دکانیں نقل و حمل کی معاون دکانیں سٹوریج اور دستی بھوشن کی سپلیتیاں کار پارک، عوامی بیت الخلاء اور موثرہ سروس والے مقامات آئٹھ دوڑ کھیلوں کے میدان ورش کے لئے نباتاتی باغات کے بیرونی حصے اور بیریٹیج والے مقامات عبادات گاہیں کریمیٹورم او قبرستان
صحت کی دیکھ بھال اور عوامی خدمات این ایس اور طبی خدمات کہلائے رہی گی، جن میں شامل ہیں:
• دیئثل سروسز • آئٹھشنز • آئٹھولوژی سروسز • کارپوریکٹرز • کارپوریکٹرز • اوسٹیوپیتھس دیگر طبی یا صحت کی خدمات، بشمول ذبیحی صحت سے متعلق خدمات
بم محفوظ طریقے کیساتھ فوری اور غیر بنگامی خدمات انجام دینے کے لئے این ایچ ایس کی حمایت کر رہے ہیں، اور یہ ضروری ہے کہ جو بھی پہ سمجھتا ہو کہ انبی کسی بھی قسم کی طبی دیکھ بھال کی ضرورت ہے وہ اٹھی اور مدد حاصل کریں۔
عوامی خدمات کی اکثریت جاری رہی گی اور آپ وہاں ہوں گے لئے گھر سے نکل سکیں گے۔ اس میں شامل ہیں:
• جاب سنتھ پلس سائنس • عدالتی اور بروپیشن خدمات • سول رجسٹری دفاتر • پاسپورٹ اور ویزا خدمات • مئاتین کو فراہم کی جانے والی خدمات • فضیلہ یا ری سائیکلنگ کے مراکز • ایم او تی حاصل کرنا، اگر قانونی طور پر گھر چھوڑنے وقت آپ کو گازی جلانے کی ضرورت ہو تو
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4140-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 29,
"total-input-tokens": 75644,
"total-output-tokens": 22080,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
451,
1
],
[
451,
1175,
2
],
[
1175,
2449,
3
],
[
2449,
3623,
4
],
[
3623,
4583,
5
],
[
4583,
5668,
6
],
[
5668,
6247,
7
],
[
6247,
7315,
8
],
[
7315,
8365,
9
],
[
8365,
9381,
10
],
[
9381,
10568,
11
],
[
10568,
11718,
12
],
[
11718,
13168,
13
],
[
13168,
14561,
14
],
[
14561,
15384,
15
],
[
15384,
16459,
16
],
[
16459,
17904,
17
],
[
17904,
18953,
18
],
[
18953,
20414,
19
],
[
20414,
21693,
20
],
[
21693,
23051,
21
],
[
23051,
24308,
22
],
[
24308,
25290,
23
],
[
25290,
26090,
24
],
[
26090,
27623,
25
],
[
27623,
28966,
26
],
[
28966,
30196,
27
],
[
30196,
31051,
28
],
[
31051,
31667,
29
]
]
} |
ab9b7c6cf6e624a3fbe135b3ccd23f948692cf49 | Contents
The Coding Process
Purpose.............................................1 Objectives..........................................2 Application...........................................4 Coding Process...................................5
Guidance Notes (separate document)
Code Content Community Engagement
Glossary
References
Credits
- Glossary, references and credits are included in this document and cover the content of both the coding process and guidance notes The Coding Process Purpose
01. The purpose of the National Model Design Code is to provide detailed guidance on the production of design codes, guides and policies to promote successful design. It expands on the ten characteristics of good design set out in the National Design Guide, which reflects the government’s priorities and provides a common overarching framework for design.
02. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes clear that local planning authorities should ensure that visual tools such as design codes and guides are used to inform development proposals to provide maximum clarity about design expectations at an early stage and reflect local character and preferences. They should provide a framework for creating high-quality places, with a consistent and high-quality standard of design to inform development proposals.
03. It also makes clear that the level of detail and degree of prescription within design codes and guides should be tailored to the circumstances and scale of change in each place and should allow a suitable degree of variety where this would be justified.
04. Design coding is one tool available to local planning authorities, communities and developers to define and deliver design quality, in addition to design guides, planning briefs, heritage characterisation studies, standards and masterplans as set out in the NPPF and planning practice guidance.
05. A design code is a set of simple, concise, illustrated design requirements that are visual and numerical wherever possible to provide specific, detailed parameters for the physical development of a site or area. This guide is a toolkit to guide local planning authorities on the design parameters and issues that need to be considered and tailored to their own context when producing design codes and guides, as well as methods to capture and reflect the views of the local community from the outset, and at each stage in the process.
06. The National Model Design Code forms part of the government’s planning practice guidance and should be read as part of the National Design Guide, and alongside the planning practice guidance notes referenced in Part 3 of the National Design Guide, Manual for Streets, and other forthcoming guidance relating to the natural and environmental characteristics of development. This guidance is not a statement of national policy, however, the government recommends that the advice in this guidance on how to prepare design codes and guides is to be followed. Objectives
07. The National Planning Policy Framework expects local planning authorities to develop local design codes or guides, taking account of the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code. This guidance sets out clear design parameters to help local authorities and communities decide what good quality design looks like in their area, based on local aspirations for how their area will develop, following appropriate local consultation.
08. The National Model Design Code sets out design considerations which local planning authorities will be expected to take into account when developing local design codes and guides and when determining planning applications.
09. Design codes are important because they provide a framework for creating healthy, greener, environmentally responsive, sustainable and distinctive places, with a consistent and high-quality standard of design. This can provide greater certainty for communities about the design of development and bring conversations about design to the start of the planning process, rather than the end. Creating more beautiful places requires a greener approach, with more energy efficient buildings, integrating with the natural environment and contributing positively to the net zero carbon target by 2050.
10. The government understands that quality design does not look the same across different areas of the country, for instance, that by definition, local vernacular differs and design priorities differ for scale and types of development.
11. The National Model Design Code sets a baseline standard of quality and practice which local planning authorities are expected to take into account when developing local design codes and guides and when determining planning applications, including:
- The layout of new development, including street pattern;
- How landscaping should be approached including the importance of streets being tree-lined;
- The factors to be considered when determining whether façades of buildings are of sufficiently high quality;
- The environmental performance of place and buildings ensuring they contribute to net zero targets;
- That developments should clearly take account of local vernacular and heritage, architecture and materials.
12. Design codes can provide a more specific steer on what is acceptable when they are visual and numerical rather than relying on detailed policy wording, as well as being easier to engage with. They can also give developers greater certainty about what may be acceptable when seeking planning permission, and can help lead to faster decisions based on whether a proposal complies with a code, which can help to speed up the delivery of development.
13. For larger schemes, design codes can help to maintain consistency in the delivery of development over a longer period of time. Codes also set out a necessary level of detail in sensitive locations, for example, with heritage considerations, and they can set out specific ways to maintain local character. Design codes and guides can also be helpful in facilitating custom-build, self-build and the use of modern methods of construction.
14. When preparing design codes and guides, communities need to be involved at each stage of the process in order to gain measurable community support that is appropriate for the scale and location of new development. This will address the ambition in a new planning system to bring democracy forward so that communities decide what good design means locally and that this is enshrined in design codes and guides.
15. Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that development that is not well designed should be refused permission, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents which use visual tools such as design codes and guides. Conversely, it states that significant weight will be given to development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents which use visual tools such as design guides and codes.
16. In the absence of local design guidance, local planning authorities will be expected to defer to the National Design Guide, National Model Design Code and Manual for Streets which can be used as material considerations in planning decisions. This supports an aspiration to establish a default for local design principles and settings as part of forthcoming planning reforms that lead to well designed and beautiful places and buildings. Application
17. This document should be used as a basis for the production of design codes and guides by local planning authorities. It uses information that should be readily available to the local authority and is intended to be applied flexibly according to local circumstances as not all characteristics and design parameters may be relevant.
18. The document provides design guidance and needs to be used alongside the National Design Guide to inform local design guides and decision making as well as to inform design codes and guides. The area covered by the design code and the level of detail is to be determined locally. A coding plan will be needed to show the area covered by the code or guide. There is an option to use area types so that the guidance can be adjusted to reflect local character. The commentary in Part 2 provides a checklist of content for design guidance or policies that local authorities may consider including in their local plans if a design code is not appropriate.
19. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that design policies should be developed with local communities, so they reflect local aspirations. Local authorities may collaborate with developers and landowners on design codes, particularly in relation to specific sites. Developers and landowners may also choose to prepare their own design code as part of a planning application.
20. Through preparing local plans and supporting supplementary planning guidance, local planning authorities should develop an overarching design vision and objectives that can inform design codes, guides and other tools that inform the design of the built and natural environment in their area, whether prepared by them or other parties. Local planning authorities should follow the advice in the plan making Planning Practice Guidance, particularly when producing design codes or guides as a supplementary planning document. Neighbourhood planning groups may choose to produce their own design codes or guides as part of the neighbourhood plan process. Coding Process
21. The process of preparing a local design code is based on the following seven steps:
22. Analysis 1A - Scoping: Agreeing on the geographical area to be covered by the code and the policy areas that it will address. 1B – Baseline: Bringing together the analysis that will underpin the code and inform its contents.
23. Vision 2A – Design Vision: Dividing the area covered by the code into a set of typical ‘area types’ and deciding on a vision for each of these area types. 2B – Coding Plan: Preparing a plan that maps out each of the area types and also identifies large development sites from allocations in the local plan. 2C – Masterplanning: On larger sites working with land owners and developers to agree a masterplan for each of the development sites establishing the key parameters and area types.
24. Code 3A – Area Type Guidance: Developing guidance for each area type by adjusting a set of design parameters. 3B – Design Code Wide Guidance: Agree on a set of policies that will apply equally across all area types. 1.A Scoping
25. The first step is to decide on the scope of the code, in particular which parts of the local area it needs to cover, and which policy areas it addresses.
Coverage:
23. In terms of geographical coverage some authorities may wish to create a code that covers their entire area. Codes may cover all existing built-up areas, or just new development sites. The options are therefore that the code covers:
- The whole local authority area including all existing settlements and development sites.
- Selected parts of existing settlements and development sites.
- Just development sites.
24. There are benefits in having a single design code covering one of the above options, rather than having separate design codes for each site.
Content:
25. The guidance notes include all of the potential issues that might be covered by a design code. These are organised under the ten headings of the National Design Guide and include sub-headings. Codes are not expected to cover all of these issues, and the context and scale of development will determine the appropriate issues that need to be included.
26. Some design parameters are an essential component of design codes for their effective use such as movement pattern, built form, height, land use, character of buildings and public spaces, open space and density while others are discretionary (see Figure 2). The latter include, for example, housing standards that are crucial but may be dealt with elsewhere in local plans.
27. All design codes should include as a minimum:
- Movement strategy where appropriate
- Access and street hierarchy where appropriate
- Landscape and open space strategy
- Land use and mix
- Density
- Heights
- Number of homes
- Identity and character of buildings and public spaces
28. Some issues will depend on the decision about the coverage of the code. Codes that cover large scale development will need to include guidance on creating a new street network, public transport routes, planning and designing green spaces and providing schools and other facilities. By contrast in existing built-up areas where the street network etc. already exists, these elements of the code will be less relevant (see Figure 2). Consultation
The scoping stage should include the development of a consultation strategy for the code based on the guidance set out in the community engagement section of the guidance notes.
The engagement process will be heavily dependent on the geographical coverage of the code and the extent to which it applies to existing settlements. This in itself should be the subject of an initial consultation exercise that will:
- Provide briefing and training to community groups involved with the built environment about what a code is and how it is developed.
- Consult with groups about whether they wish their area to be included within a code.
- Discuss with the groups who wish to be involved, what the code should cover.
The results of this initial engagement will feed into a consultation strategy that will include the stages at which consultation will take place, what techniques will be used and how the community will be engaged.
| If the design code covers... | URBAN EXTN. | INFILL SITE | SMALL SITES | |-----------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | **Context** | | | | | C.1.i Character Types | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | C.1.ii Site Context | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | C.1.iii Site Assessment | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | C.2.i Historic Assessment | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | C.2.ii Heritage Assets | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | **Movement** | | | | | M.1.i Street Network | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.1.ii Public Transport | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.1.iii Street Hierarchy | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.2.i Walking + Cycling | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.2.ii Junction + Crossings | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.2.iii Inclusive Streets | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.3.i Car Parking | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.3.ii Cycle Parking | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | M.3.iii Services + Utilities| ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | **Nature** | | | | | N.1.i Network of Spaces | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.1.ii OS Provision | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.1.iii Design | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.2.i Working with Water | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.2.ii SUDS | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.2.iii Flood Risk | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.3.i Net Gain | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.3.ii Biodiversity | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | N.3.iii Street Trees | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| If the design code covers... | URBAN EXTN. | INFILL SITE | SMALL SITES | |-----------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | **Built Form** | | | | | B.1.i Density | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | B.1.ii Party Wall | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | B.1.iii Types and Forms | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | B.2.i Blocks | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | B.2.ii Building Line | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | B.2.iii Height | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | **Identity** | | | | | I.1.i Local Character | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | I.1.ii Legibility | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | I.1.iii Masterplanning | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | I.2.i Design of buildings | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | **Public Space** | | | | | P.1.i Primary | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.1.ii Local + Secondary | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.1.iii Tertiary | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.2.i Meeting Places | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.2.ii Multi-functional | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.2.iii Home Zones | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.3.i Secured by Design | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | P.3.ii Counter Terrorism | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | **Uses** | | | | | U.1.i Efficient Land Use | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | U.1.ii Mix | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | U.1.iii Active Frontage | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | | U.2.i Housing for All | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Figure 2. Design Code Coverage
- Issues that you would expect to be covered in a code
- Issues that may be covered elsewhere and so not included in the code
1. Baseline
2. Design codes need to be based on an analysis of the area covered. The purpose of the analysis is to understand the area and inform a vision that will, in turn, form the basis for the code.
3. Local planning authorities will need to have an understanding of their area informed by recent evidence such as characterisation studies or site analysis, with input from the community, to support design coding. Local planning authorities may already hold this information, so it is possible that they will not need to carry out further analysis for the purpose of producing a design code. The analysis could include:
- Topographical, ecology, river and waterways, flood risk
- Open space and green infrastructure
- Local character
- Heritage assets, including conservation areas
- Land use, economic uses
- Built form, density, massing
- Community infrastructure and schools
- Public transport accessibility
- Road/street hierarchy
31. This analysis will feed into the identification of the ‘area types’ described in the next two steps as well as providing a baseline on issues such as street hierarchy, open space provision, public transport and community facilities that will inform elements of the code. Figure 4. Street Hierarchy: Parts of the design code relate to the character of different street types. This would be facilitated by classifying all of the streets of the local area on the basis of a street hierarchy. This can be done by identifying primary streets and secondary streets, the remainder being local streets.
Figure 5. Transport Accessibility: Parts of the design code may allow an increase in densities or building heights in areas of high public transport accessibility. If this is the case, it will be important to have a plan showing public transport accessibility such as a public transport accessibility level plan or equivalent.
Figure 6. Open Space Provision: The Nature section of the design code relates to open space provision, ecology, green and blue environments and their resilience. There may be value in having an authority-wide plan showing each type of open space and natural designations and their relevant proximity zones.
Figure 7. Land Use Pattern: The use section of the design code relates to land use pattern, including cultural spaces, schools and other community facilities and again it may be useful to have an authority-wide plan showing the location of existing facilities. 2. A Design Vision
32. Design codes need to be based on a vision for how a place will develop in the future, as set out in the local plan. This vision needs to be developed with the local community and is likely to be an important part of the community engagement process.
33. Local planning authorities may wish to create a vision statement which sets out the specific aims for the design code. These visions need to be aspirational and set the context for the subsequent development of the code covering:
- An appreciation of the existing area or site, its natural, topographical, historical and heritage features.
- Its character and appearance.
- The mix of uses and facilities.
- The amount and character of green space.
- The way in which it deals with traffic, parking, walking and cycling.
- Sustainability including energy efficiency.
34. When preparing a design code for the whole local planning authority area, one approach is to divide the existing built-up area to be covered by the code into area types. These are areas of character that will be used to set common parameters in the code. If the code is covering a small area, then this stage may not be necessary. However, many places will include a number of different area types which will need to be analysed and mapped.
35. Area types can be identified through characterisation studies, GIS analysis or a combination of these and the experience of planning officials and local communities.
36. Area types are based both on the existing character of the place and how the local authority and community expect the area to develop in the future. In Step 2B we describe ten possible area types as a starting point.
37. The area types should be analysed using a standard worksheet (See Fig 8). This is something that can be done as part of consultation events with local communities. This analysis will feed into a vision for what that area type should become in the future.
Consultation
The design visioning process will be an important focus for consultation. This could be undertaken through a series of workshops across the local area that involve communities and stakeholders in the analysis of existing character and visioning of how this character may change.
Wider surveys may also be necessary to ensure widespread local input beyond workshop attendees. This can include ‘walking workshops’, photographic surveys and visual preference surveys to understand the aspects of local character that people value and those that they would like to change. Figure 8. Extracts of Example Area type Worksheet See guidance notes appendix for template 2.B Coding Plan
38. The analysis will feed into a plan similar to Figure 9, that shows the areas of the authority to which the code will apply along with the distribution of the area types. The plan also shows major development sites based on local plan allocations that will be subject to the masterplanning exercise in Step 2c.
39. The existing built-up area to be covered by the code needs to be identified as an area type or a mixture of area types as illustrated in Figure 10.
40. Some places will include only a few area types, and some may include examples of all ten types. A limited number of area types should be identified to avoid the design code being too complex.
41. Area types can include other uses, such as a small factory or school within a suburban area type. The principle being that, if that site came up for development, then it would be appropriate to be guided by the identified area type. High rise city This could apply to parts of large city centres where there would be no or limited restrictions on height.
Town/City centre A typical dense city typology with over 120 dwellings per hectare (dph) and a strong mix of uses.
Industrial areas Industrial areas of single storey manufacturing and storage units.
Business, science or retail parks: Areas of retail, office development, science and technology parks.
Local centres This relates to district and neighbourhood centres and high streets, typically 3-5 storey blocks with other uses at ground floor.
Urban neighbourhood Urban neighbourhoods with net housing densities of 60-120 dph and a mix of uses.
Suburbs Neighbourhoods with net residential densities of 40-60 dph. A mix of short terraces and semi-detached units.
Outer suburbs Lower density suburbs with net densities of 20-40 dph, few apartments and less of a mix of uses.
Villages Villages have their own distinctive character often with 2 and 3 storey buildings in an informal layout.
Rural settlements Rural areas may include rural building and settlement types. 2.c Master planning
42. If a design code is being prepared for larger sites, it may be necessary to produce a masterplan as part of the design coding exercise. This masterplan will establish a new street network, decide which area types apply, along with various other parameters.
43. These development sites will usually have been allocated in the local plan and will generally be larger sites. Smaller sites can be dealt with within the area type framework.
Who is responsible? 44. The coding framework for development sites can be produced, by the landowner/developer on their own, in partnership with a local planning authority, or by the local planning authority on its own. This would be done when the site is allocated for development in the local plan and included in a design code.
What the masterplan includes: 45. Figure 11 shows a notional masterplan for one of the development sites identified on the coding plan in step 2b. The level of detail will vary depending on whether the authority or developer is preparing the masterplan and the complexity of the site. It will also depend on where the site is in the planning process – local plan preparation, pre-application, community consultation, outline or detailed application stages. Landscape can be a major driver in a design process at masterplanning scale. The exercise may include an illustrative masterplan that shows what the area could be like in the future for the purposes of consultation, but the detailed plan would be illustrative.
Consultation The masterplanning exercise for development sites needs to be subject to a separate community engagement exercise. This will need to be coordinated with the consultation on the local plan allocation as well as consultation being undertaken by the owner/developer.
Figure 11. Development Site Masterplan: The aim of the masterplan is to provide a framework for the application of the design code to the site. This is likely to include:
- The landscape strategy, taking account of existing natural features and new structural elements.
- The amount and position of open space provision.
- The number of homes and other uses (from the local plan allocation).
- The points of access and connection to the wider street network.
- The broad position of the primary and secondary streets but not local streets.
- The position of the local centre if relevant.
- The area types that will apply to different parts of the site (which will in turn reference rules on density, height, street building line etc.) 3.A Guidance for Area types
46. This section describes the area type policies that authorities should consider when creating design codes or guides. These issues will need to be addressed for each area type. If the code is not using an area type approach, these issues will need to be considered for the whole code area.
47. This section should be read in conjunction with the guidance notes and the relevant sections are indicated for each issue.
48. The issues covered are:
- **Movement**: The guidance relating to the network of streets, active travel, and public transport relates to all area types. The key variables being the street types and parking arrangements.
- **Nature**: Most of the guidance on nature also applies to all area types, the potentially being open space standards, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and urban greening.
- **Built Form**: This is the main issue that varies by area type including density, grain, building line and height.
- **Identity**: The design of buildings will vary by area type and may vary to a lesser degree within area types.
- **Public Space**: The character of each type of street will vary by area type.
- **Use**: The opportunities for intensification, mix of uses and housing types mix of uses, and active frontage will all vary by area type.
- **Homes and Buildings**: Guidance of privacy distances and garden/balcony sizes may vary by area type.
47. We have used the town centre, urban neighbourhood and suburban area types as examples in this section. These are purely illustrative, and the suggested settings are illustrative and should not be taken as a policy suggestion.
Figure 12. Illustrative Area types Movement
50. Well-designed places should be accessible and easy to move around. This can be achieved through a connected network of streets, good public transport, the promotion of walking and cycling and well-considered parking and servicing. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Movement. The following might require area type-specific guidance:
i **New streets:** All new streets should be safe and overlooked and correspond to their role in the street hierarchy and area type - e.g. a primary street in an urban centre will have a different character to one in a village. See M.1.iii - Street Hierarchy
ii **New junctions:** Guides might specify traffic signalled junctions on high streets and less formal, unmarked junctions on local streets. See M.2.ii - Junctions and Crossings
iii **Car parking:** Standards for all uses will be set in the local plan, but the ways in which they are accommodated will vary. See Fig 13 and 14 and M.3.i - Car Parking
iv **Cycle parking:** Standards will be set in the local plan and specified in codes according to context. e.g. public cycle parking on a high street or private cycle storage in a dwelling. See M.3.ii - Cycle Parking
**Figure 13. Parking Arrangements**
**Town centre:** New provision should be at basement, semi-basement or decked. New surface parking might be prohibited where there is a clear and compelling justification.
**Urban neighbourhood:** Likely to be on-street (for visitors), within the building (townhouse), or to the rear in gardens or parking courts.
**Suburbs:** Likely to be in-curtilage, at the front (with suitable landscaping) or to the side of the property, so cars don’t dominate the street. Visitor parking is likely to be on-street.
**Figure 14. Residential Parking Options:**
- Car barns or decked parking structures
- Within an integral garage in a town house
- In the rear garden
- On-street in defined bays
- Parking courts within blocks, normally gated
- At the front of the property
- At the side of the property often with a garage
**UNALLOCATED**
**ALLOCATED** Nature
51. Nature and green spaces should be woven into the fabric of our villages, towns and cities. This provides benefits in terms of health and wellbeing, biodiversity, climate and flood mitigation. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Nature. Most of the guidance on nature will be general. The following might require area type-specific guidance:
i **Open spaces**: Open space standards may vary, with less open space in smaller, accessible pockets required in town centres and more generous provision in suburbs. Key principles for integrating green space can be adapted for different contexts. See Fig 15 and N.1.iii Open Space Design
ii **Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)**: In urban areas, these may be integrated into the built environment, while suburbs could make use of natural/landscape features. See Fig 16 and N.2.ii Sustainable Drainage
iii **Green infrastructure**: Urban area types might include requirements for green roofs and walls, lower density areas for more natural green spaces and habitats. See N.3.ii Planning for Biodiversity
**Figure 15. Open Space Design (top)**: Key principles of how green space can be integrated to improve the environment and liveability, and which can be tailored to different contexts.
**Figure 16. SuDS Toolkit (bottom)**: A variety of tools that can boost sustainable drainage in different contexts. Built Form
52. Built form refers to the three-dimensional arrangement of buildings, blocks, streets and spaces. This will form the core of the design code and the settings for each element of built form will vary considerably by area type. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Built Form.
i Density: Codes should define density ranges, which are likely to be higher for town and local centres and lower in suburbs (example below). Mixed use schemes can be calculated on a pro-rata basis. See B.1.i Density
Town Centres: >200d/ha Urban Neighbourhoods: 60-120d/ha Suburbs: 30-50 d/ha
ii Floor area ratio: Calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the building by the area of the plot, FAR can be used to regulate the density of non-residential uses (example below) See B.1.i Density
Town Centres: >2 Urban Neighbourhoods: >1 Suburbs: \<0.5
iii Party wall: How buildings adjoin or relate to their neighbours. Likely variation in guidance by area type is shown in Fig 17. See B.1.ii Party Wall Condition
iv Grain: The pattern of plots in an urban block/area. New development should, where possible, be sympathetic to the existing grain. The grain is likely to be finer (smaller plot size) in town/local centres and coarser (larger plot sizes) in suburbs. See B.1.iii Building Types and Forms
v Public/private: New development should create a clear separation between the public fronts of buildings and the private rears within the centre of development blocks. This is normally achieved using blocks. Likely variation by area type is shown in Fig 18. See B.2.i Blocks
Figure 17. Party Wall Conditions
Town centres: Buildings should be allowed to join on either side and to the rear.
Urban neighbourhoods: Buildings should be allowed/required to join on either side.
Suburbs: Buildings are either detached or only join on one side.
Figure 18. Block Types
Town centre courtyard blocks Urban neighbourhood perimeter blocks Suburban informal blocks Built Form
Figure 19. Examples of Typical Area Type Built Form Settings
**Town centre:**
- Density: >200d/ha
- FAR: >2
- Party Wall: Side and rear
- Block Type: Courtyard
- Building Line: Continuous
- Set Back: 0-1m
- Eaves Height: 18m
**Urban neighbourhood:**
- Density: >60-120d/ha
- FAR: >1
- Party Wall: Both sides
- Block Type: Perimeter
- Building Line: 75%
- Set Back: 1-3m
- Eaves Height: 12m
**Suburb:**
- Density: 30-50 d/ha
- FAR: >0.5
- Party Wall: One side
- Block Type: Informal
- Building Line: 50%
- Set Back: 3-6m
- Eaves Height: 9m
**vi Building line:** The building line is created by the primary front face of buildings along a street and is a key element of design codes. New development should follow the established building line where it exists. Where there is no building line (for example on the periphery of a town centre or a development site), codes should set one. Coding for building lines can include:
- **Variation:** The extent to which buildings can be set forward or back from the line.
- **Projections:** Allowance for elements such as balconies.
- **Compliance:** The percentage of the building line that should be occupied by development.
- **Set-Back:** The distance that buildings are set back from the pavement.
Figure 20 shows how building line guidance might change by area type.
See B.2.ii Building Line vii Heights: The height of buildings will be a key element of design codes. This is regulated through eaves heights, total heights and exceptions. Figure 21 shows how heights might vary by area type. See B.2.iii Height
vii Tall buildings: In many areas codes will need to make provision for taller buildings. Some city area types may include no limit on height. However, in most area types codes can either indicate zones where taller buildings can be considered or indicate the circumstances where exceptions to the height coding might be considered. See B.2.iii Height Para 118 -119
Figure 20. Building Line: In urban areas, the building line will be continuous and the set-back limited. In suburban and rural areas the set-back will be greater and there will be much more variation.
Figure 21. Heights
Town centre heights: An example showing an eaves height of 18m and a maximum height of 23m, allowing 5 storeys of housing or 4 storeys of offices over active ground floor uses.
Urban neighbourhood and suburban heights: An example showing an eaves height of 12m and 9m with maximum height of 3m above this, allowing for 4 or 3 storeys of housing. Identity
53. The identity of an area comes not just from its built form and public spaces but from the design of its buildings. This is not about architectural style, but about key principles of building design. All new buildings should relate to the architectural character and materials of the surrounding area. In local design codes guidance on identity will vary considerably by area type, informed by the worksheet at the appendix of the guidance notes, and may include guidance on the following components. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Identity, in particular Section I.2.i Building Design Principles
i The base of the building: The ground floor may be treated differently to the upper floors to create a relationship with the street. It may use different materials and include active uses, especially in the context of a town/local centre.
ii Thresholds: Entrances should be emphasised in the architectural treatment of façades. This can include porches, recessed doors and other entrance features.
iii Boundaries: The treatment of boundaries has a significant role to play in creating character. Figure 23 shows how guidance on boundaries might change according to area type.
iv Roofscape: Variation in eaves height and roof forms will vary based on the character of the local area. Historic town centres, villages and suburbs tend to have a variety of roof types whereas a Georgian inner neighbourhood, for example is typically uniform. v Windows: Guidance may be provided on the design of windows based on the character of the area. The proportion of glazing may vary with city centres allowing fully glazed façades but elsewhere the glazing ratio might be limited to 35%. Guidance can also direct the orientation of the windows and the depth of reveals.
vi Variation in frontages: Guidance may be provided on the level of articulation such as set-backs, porches, balconies and bays, especially if the character of such features are particular to the existing area. Fig 26 shows how frontage variation can create different characters.
vii Detailing: Guidance may be provided on the use of colour, quality of materials and detailing, drawn from the surrounding context, e.g. an area might be characterised by the use of a particular type of brick. A degree of complexity will ensure that buildings are attractive from a distance and close-up. Fig 27 shows how depth and interest can be created with window details.
Tall building design principles: Tall buildings may be permitted in certain area types which will require guidance on their design. Key principles are set out below. See I.2.i Para 49 for more detail
- **Top:** Consider the impact on the skyline. Services need to be concealed, and both the street views and the long views need to be considered.
- **Form:** Should be well-proportioned in terms of slenderness when viewed from all frontages.
- **Materials:** The use of materials to be consistent and simple.
- **Base:** Consider following the building line at street level, which may require a base to the building that is scaled to the surrounding buildings.
- **Public realm:** Public spaces around the base to be generous, well designed and contribute positively to the local context.
- **Entrance:** The entrance needs to clearly marked.
- **Micro-climate:** Needs to be considered in terms of overshadowing and wind. It may be necessary to protect the surrounding public realm from down draughts.
- **Active frontage:** If required by the design code the ground floor of the tall building needs to include active frontages. Public Space
**Primary streets:** Designed to take through traffic and public transport See P.1.i Primary Streets
**High streets:** The focus for local shopping centres, often with traffic but sometimes traffic-free See P.1.i Primary Streets
**Secondary streets:** Taking local traffic into neighbourhoods and often the location of shopping parades and local services such as shops See P.1.ii Local and Secondary Streets
**Local streets:** Providing vehicle access only to the properties on the street but with through pedestrian and cycle traffic See P.1.ii Local and Secondary Streets
______________________________________________________________________
**Town centres**
- Enclosure Ratio: 1:2
- Active Frontage: 30%
- 25-35m
**Urban neighbourhoods**
- Enclosure Ratio: 1:2
- Active Frontage: 10%
- 25-30m
**Suburbs**
- Enclosure Ratio: 1:5
- Active Frontage: 10%
- 28-35m
______________________________________________________________________
**Enclosure Ratio:**
- 1:1
- 1:1.5
- 1:2
- 1:2.5
- 1:3
- 1:3.5
**Active Frontage:**
- 0%
- 50%
- 60%
- 70%
- 80%
- 100%
54. The quality of public space is partly about the way it is designed and partly about the way it is enclosed by well-proportioned buildings. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Public Space. Streets are a component of public space which will vary considerably by area type. Section P.1 details different types of street, showing how urban form can be coordinated with the guidance in Manual for Streets.
Figure 28. (Opposite) Street Matrix: An illustrative example showing how street character and form might change by area type and by position on the street hierarchy.
Figure 29. Street Types: The guidance notes contain a range of examples of the design of street types from major cities to market towns and villages. The excerpt below shows how the identity of a primary street can vary considerably depending on context; from an urban primary street with tall buildings and a public transport hub to a market town high street with mid-density buildings and a market square. Use
55. Sustainable places include a mix of uses that support everyday activities including space to live work and play. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Use. The following components are likely to vary by area type.
i **Intensification**: Making more efficient use of land. In urban areas this might mean infill development or development of airspace. In suburban areas it might mean garden development. See U.1.i Efficient use of land.
ii **Mix**: A mix of uses will likely be a requirement in centres, will be encouraged in urban neighbourhoods and may be permitted but not required in suburbs See U.1.ii Mix
iii **Active frontage**: Ground floor uses that create interest and activity. Requirements for such uses will likely be higher in town/local centres than suburbs and will also vary by street type. See U.1.iii Active Frontage
iv **Housing**: The mix of housing tenures and types will vary with apartments being the norm in town centres and a greater mix being required in urban neighbourhoods and suburbs See U.2. Housing Mix
v **Schools**: Guidance on schools will likely be based on similar principles of integrating with the existing built form, but urban areas are likely to require more dense solutions. See U.3.i Schools
**Figure 30. (Right) Active Frontage**: An example of uses that can create activity at the level of the street, e.g. community facilities, cafes and restaurants, shops and offices.
**Figure 31. (Below) School Design**: Both the suburban (left) and urban (right) schools complete the block and address the existing building line, but differ in height and density according to their context. Homes and Buildings
56. Well-designed homes and buildings are functional, accessible and sustainable. Detailed information is provided in Guidance Note Code Content: Homes and Buildings. The majority of issues are unlikely to vary by area type, the elements that may vary are detailed here.
i Lighting, aspect and privacy: In more urban areas there may be a need for more lighting and shorter privacy distances might be acceptable, while in suburban areas lighting might be more minimal and privacy distance might be greater. See H.2.i Lighting Aspect and Privacy
ii Gardens and balconies: Codes might specify minimum sizes for gardens and balconies to improve well-being and amenity. In more urban areas this might be smaller, while in suburban areas larger garden spaces might be specified. See H.2.iii Gardens and Balconies
Figure 32. Privacy Distances: These are the distances between dwellings to ensure private amenity, in particular the distance between the windows of habitable rooms. The illustration shows how minimum distances might be specified.
Figure 33. Gardens: Illustration showing how private gardens, shared gardens and parking might be specified in a courtyard layout. 3.B Code Wide Guidance
59. In addition to the guidance in step 3a, the following guidance relates to all development within the area covered by the design code or guide regardless of area type. All of this must be referenced back to a policy within the local plan.
Context
57. An understanding of the context history and character of an area must influence the siting and design of new development as set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Context. This should be informed by:
i **Character studies:** All schemes should consider their context and schemes over a specified size should be accompanied by a context study See C.1 Character Studies
ii **Historic assets:** Schemes should respect the historic assets of the site and its surroundings, making use of existing structures where possible See C.2 Cultural Heritage
Figure 34. Context Study Extract See C.1.ii for example of context study content Movement
58. A connected network of streets, good public transport and the promotion of walking and cycling are key principles, as set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Movement and summarised below:
i Connected places: All schemes should contribute to the creation of an integrated, walkable and safe street network:
- New streets should link at either end to other streets where possible. See M.1.i The Street Network
- Cul-de-sacs are acceptable only as tertiary streets.
- All new streets should be allocated to a level of the street hierarchy and follow the appropriate guidance. See M.1.iii Street Hierarchy
- All development should be within easy reach of public transport. See M.1.ii Public Transport
ii Active travel: New development should contribute to the creation of well-lit, direct and overlooked pedestrian and cycle routes. See M.2 Active Travel
- Low traffic neighbourhoods may be appropriate but only where supported by the local community.
- All streets should be accessible to all members of the community.
- All new streets other than local and tertiary streets should include separate cycle lanes.
- Junctions should be designed in accordance with Manual for Streets to be safe, convenient and attractive for all users. See M.2.ii Junctions and Crossings
iii Car parking: The arrangements for car parking can have a major impact on the quality of place. They should aim to minimise the impact of the car and solutions will vary depending on context, as set out in Section 3A P17. See M.3.i Car Parking
iv Cycle parking: Provision of the storage of cycles for residents, workers and visitors needs to be integrated into all development. See M.3.ii Cycle Parking
v Servicing: New development should integrate the requirements of utility providers, refuse collection and emergency access without compromising the quality of place by obstruction of movement or visual intrusion. See M.3.iii Services and Utilities
Figure 35. A Hierarchy of Streets Extract See M.1.iii for example street hierarchy diagram
Figure 36. Junction Options Extract See M.2.ii for examples of junction types
Figure 37. Refuse Collection Options Extract See M.3.iii for types of refuse provision Nature
60. All development should enhance the natural as well as the built environment as set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Nature. Most of the guidance will apply to all area types and is summarised below:
i Green infrastructure: New development should contribute towards the creation of a network of green spaces. Summary below. See N.1.i Network of Spaces
- The requirement for new green space should be based on the government’s open space and recreation guidance.
- All housing schemes over 15 dwellings should include a Local Area of Play (LAP).
ii Water and drainage: Schemes should make the most of waterside locations and address sustainable drainage and flooding:
- Schemes should make the most of their waterside location, facing onto the water and retaining public access to the water’s edge. See N.2.i Working with Water
iii Biodiversity: All schemes will be expected to follow national policy by achieving a 10% net gain in biodiversity.
- Schemes should incorporate biodiversity design principles, e.g. creating and enhancing habitats. See N.3 Biodiversity
- All new streets should include street trees. See N.3.iii Street Trees
All schemes should integrate sustainable drainage systems into the early stages of design to achieve greenfield run-off rates. See N.2.ii Sustainable Drainage
All schemes should take account of flood risk and the need for active flood resilience measures. See N.2.iii Flood Risk
Figure 38. Biodiversity Design Principles Extract. See N.3.ii for a range of biodiversity design principles
Figure 39. Street Trees Extract See N.3.iii for street tree design principles Built Form
61. Most of this guidance will change based on context and area type as set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Built Form. The following will apply to all development:
i Public and private: There should be a clear separation between public and private space, which will generally be achieved through development blocks. New development should repair the existing block structure, where possible. See B.2.i Blocks
Identity
62. All schemes should be designed to respect and enhance the existing character of the surrounding area. The principles set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Identity will apply to most development (summary below)
i Sense of place: All schemes should be designed to enhance local character and legibility by:
- Making use of local materials and detailing.
- Incorporating legibility and wayfinding strategies
- Being guided by a strong masterplan.
See I.1 A Sense of Place
ii The identity of buildings: All buildings should take account of the principles set out in I.2 The Identity of Buildings
Public Space
63. Details about how guidance might change by context and area type is set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Public Space. The key principles below will apply more broadly:
i Streets: The design of streets should be based on their place in the street hierarchy and their context. See P.1 Streets
ii Social interaction: Public spaces should encourage activity and social interaction. See P.2.i Meeting Places
iii Multi-functional streets: Streets should aim to accommodate a range of travel modes. See P.2.ii Multi-functional Streets
iv Secured by design: All schemes should aim to create a safe and secure environment See P.3.i Secured by Design
Figure 40. Blocks Extract: See B.2.i for more detail on Blocks
Figure 41. Creating Identity Extract: See I.1.iii for masterplanning principles to create a sense of place
Figure 42. Street Design Extract: See P.1 for examples of street design in different contexts Use
64. Much of the guidance on use will vary by context or area type as set out in Guidance Notes Code Content: Use. The following guidance could apply more generally:
i **Intensification:** Making more efficient use of land is encouraged taking into account context and constraints. See U.1.i Efficient Use of Land
ii **Variety of activity:** A mix of different uses is encouraged, to create variety and activity. See U.1.ii Mix
iii **Housing mix:** All schemes should include a mix of tenures and house-types including live/work and custom-build units where possible. See U.2 Housing Mix
iv **Schools:** Should be designed as part of the neighbourhood, integrating into the existing building line and block pattern. See U.3.i Schools
v **Community facilities:** Larger schemes should make provision for new community facilities. See U.3.ii Community Facilities
vi **Local services:** All new housing should be within walking distance of a range of local services including shops and health facilities. See U.3.iii Local Services
Homes and Buildings
65. Standards relating to the design of homes and buildings are important and can be included in design policies with the detailed design of inter-related requirements resolved at project level. The following may be included (See Guidance Notes Code Content: Homes and Buildings for more information):
i **Space standards:** Nationally described space standards may be included in codes. See H.1.i. Space Standards
ii **Accessibility:** Codes can identify accessibility standards as set out in Part M of the Building Regulations. See H.1.ii Accessibility
iii **Lighting, aspect and privacy:** All habitable rooms should receive adequate levels of daylight. Single aspect north-facing dwellings should be avoided. See H.2.i Lighting, Aspect and Privacy
iv **Secured by design relating to the home:** Codes may incorporate guidance on the security of the home in accordance with Part Q of the Building Regulations. See H.2.ii Security
Figure 43. Facilities Extract: See U.3.ii for suggested facilities that should be accessible in all neighbourhoods
Figure 44. Security and the Home Extract See H.2.ii for more guidance on security and the home Resources
66. Standards relating to sustainability are important and can be incorporated into codes or covered in other policy, and the detail design of inter-related requirements resolved at project level. They might include the following (See Guidance Notes Code Content: Resources):
i Energy efficiency standards: Local authorities can set policies for higher energy efficiency standards for their area or specific development sites. See R.1.ii Energy Efficiency
ii Passive energy design: Development should be designed to optimise passive solar gain without risking overheating. Orientation should be optimised in as far as it does not contradict other policies in this guide. See R.1.ii Energy Efficiency
iii Local low energy networks: May be encouraged by codes. See R.1.iii Neighbourhood Energy Issues
iv Environmental standards: Codes may set standards for new development to meet relating to:
- Embodied energy
- BREEAM Ratings
- Modern Methods of Construction
- Water usage
See R.2 Sustainable Construction
Lifespan
67. Lifespan relates to way schemes are managed and the way that residents are involved in design and management. These issues can be included in design codes and may include the following (See Guidance Notes Code Content: Lifespan for more information):
i Management plans: These set out the approach to adoption and management, including the potential for community management. They may be a requirement for schemes over a certain size. See L.1.i Management Plan
ii Community participation: Codes may require that consultation take place on all schemes prior to the submission of a planning application. See L.1.ii Participation in Design
Figure 45. Low Energy Networks Extract See R.1.iii for examples of low energy network tools
Figure 46. Management Plan Extract See L.1.i for example management plan Glossary
Area type
Parts of the local area that share common features and characteristics.
For example, a suburban area type might bring together a number of different housing estates with common densities, heights, building line, party wall condition etc.) under the umbrella term “outer suburbs”.
Common rules and parameters can then be applied to the “outer suburbs” area type in the design code.
Example area types are provided in the National Model Design Code, but in practice area types should be defined locally.
Area type matrix
A table detailing the elements of the design code that are likely to differ between area types.
Area type work sheet
A set of prompts and sections to be completed, detailing the key elements and features that should be considered when undertaking a character study. This is not an exhaustive list and should be adapted locally.
Character study
A process of analysis at area type level to determine the elements and features that contribute to the unique character of a place. This process can be used to determine existing area types, using the area type work sheet.
Coding plan
A plan at local authority level showing the local areas to which a code will apply. The coding plan can show:
- Existing built-up areas
- Landscape designated areas
- Heritage areas
- Protected open space
- Special policy areas
- Development areas | **Context study** | **Development area** | **Site study** | |-------------------|----------------------|---------------| | A mapping exercise detailing spatial information about the area surrounding a site. A suggested list of information that could be included is provided within the context section of Guidance Note: Code Content. | Parts of the local area where radical, rather than incremental change is planned. These might include regeneration areas where significant change is expected to the existing urban form, urban extensions and new settlements. | A mapping or diagrammatic exercise, detailing spatial information about a site and its immediate surroundings. A suggested list of information that could be included is provided within the context section of Guidance Note: Code Content. |
| **Design code** | **Framework plans** | **Historic study** | |-----------------|---------------------|-------------------| | A set of illustrated design requirements that provide specific, detailed parameters for the physical development of a site or area. | A set of plans at local area or settlement level that detail spatial information, for example, street hierarchy, transport accessibility, open space, land use and patterns of built form. | A mapping and research exercise detailing historical information about the area surrounding a site. Suggestions about information that could be included is provided within the context section of Guidance Note: Code Content. |
| **Design vision** | **Site study** | |-------------------|---------------| | A clear articulation of what an area should be like in the future, developed with the local community. Local planning authorities may wish to create a vision statement setting out specific aims of the design code. | A mapping or diagrammatic exercise, detailing spatial information about a site and its immediate surroundings. A suggested list of information that could be included is provided within the context section of Guidance Note: Code Content. | References There are many other guides to urban design and placemaking that provide more detailed guidance on the themes set out within this document to inform local design codes. The following is a list of key references that provide further information to the guidance set out within the National Model Design Code.
**Key references**
**Manual for Streets**, Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007, [www.gov.uk/government/publications/manualfor-streets](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manualfor-streets)
**Manual for Streets 2**, Department of Transport, 2010, [www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets-2](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets-2)
**National Planning Policy Framework**, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019, [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2)
**Planning Practice Guidance**, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2016, [www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practiceguidance](http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practiceguidance)
**Context**
**Understanding Place, Historic Area Assessments**, Historic England, 2017, [https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/understanding-place-historic-area-assessments/](https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/understanding-place-historic-area-assessments/)
**Movement**
**Cycle infrastructure design (Local Transport Note 1/20)**, Department for Transport, 2020, [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120)
**Highway Tree Management Operations Note 51**, Forestry Commission, 2019 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highway-tree-management-operations-note-51](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highway-tree-management-operations-note-51)
**Inclusive Mobility, Making transport accessible for passengers and pedestrians**, Department for Transport, 2005, [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-mobility](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-mobility) Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 6 Traffic Control, Department for Transport, 2019, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, an Overview, Department for Transport, 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-regulations-and-general-directions-2016-an-overview
Nature
Environment Bill 2020, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environment-bill-2020 (forthcoming)
National Framework of Green Infrastructure Standards (forthcoming guidance to be announced)
A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2018, www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan
Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances, Environment Agency, 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances
Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play Beyond the Six Acre Standard, England, Fields in Trust, 2015, http://www.fieldsintrust.org/guidance
Improving access to greenspace A new review for 2020, Public Health England, 2020, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904439/Improving_access_to_greenspace_2020_review.pdf
Flood risk emergency plans for new development, Environment Agency and ADEPT, 2019, https://www.adeptnet.org.uk/floodriskemergencyplan
National Area Type Profiles, Natural England, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-character-area-profiles-data-for-local-decision-making/national-character-area-profile
Nature Nearby - Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance (NE265), Natural England, 2010, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605145320/http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/40004?category=47004
Open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space
Sustainable drainage systems: non-statutory technical standards, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-drainage-systems-non-statutory-technical-standards
The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (JP029), Natural England, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5850908674228224
The Mosaic Approach: Managing Habitats for Species (B2020-009), Natural England, 2013, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6415972705501184 The Right Tree in the Right Place for a Resilient Future – Urban Tree Manual, Forestry Commission and Forest Research, https://www.forestrypolicy.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/urban-tree-manual/
The SuDS Manual (C753), CIRIA, 2015, https://www.susdrain.org/resources/SuDS_Manual.html
Built Form
Increasing Residential Density in Historic Environments, Historic England, 2018, https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/increasing-residential-density-in-historic-environments/
Identity
Streets for All, Advice for Highway and Public Realm Works in Historic Places, Historic England, 2018, https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/streets-for-all/
Public Space
Hostile Vehicle Mitigation, Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, https://www.cpni.gov.uk/hostile-vehicle-mitigation-0
Influence of bollards on pedestrian evacuation flow (TAL 01/16), Department for Transport, 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/influence-of-bollards-on-pedestrian-evacuation-flow-tal-0116
Integrated Security, A Public Realm Design Guide for Hostile Vehicle Mitigation - Second Edition, Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, 2014, https://www.cpni.gov.uk/system/files/documents/40/20/Integrated%20Security%20Guide.pdf
Secured By Design, Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited, 2020, www.securedbydesign.com
Using bollards to reduce threats from vehicles (TAL 02/13), Department for Transport, 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tal-213-bollards-and-pedestrian-movement
Vehicle security barriers within the streetscape (TAL 01/11), Department for Transport, 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-security-barriers-within-the-streetscape
Use
DH health building notes, Department of Health and Social Care, 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/health-building-notes-core-elements
School design and construction, Department of Education, 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/school-design-and-construction
Homes and Buildings
Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-housing-standards-nationally-described-space-standard Resources
BREEAM Technical Standards, BRE, www.breeam.com
Future Homes Standards changes to Part L and Part F of the Building Regulations for new dwellings, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-standard-changes-to-part-l-and-part-f-of-the-building-regulations-for-new-dwellings
Lifespan
Community engagement: guidance for local authorities, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-engagement-and-eu-exit-guidance-for-local-authorities
## Credits
Unless otherwise stated the illustrations, diagrams and maps were produced by URBED for MHCLG
| Section | Page | Information | Image Credit | |--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | **Main Document** | | | | | Front Cover - Background | N/A | Masterplan for The Avenue, Saffron Walden, Pollard Thomas Edwards | Pollard Thomas Edwards | | Front Cover - Images | N/A | Portobello Square, London, PRP Architects LLP | PRP Architects LLP | | Front Cover - Images | N/A | Carrowbreck Meadow, Norwich, Hamson Barron Smith | Jefferson Smith (Photographer) | | Front Cover - Images | N/A | The Avenue, Saffron Walden, Thomas Pollard Edwards | Tim Crocker Architectural Photography | | Front Cover - Images | N/A | Nansledan, Newquay, Cornwall, ADAM Architecture | ADAM Architecture | | The Coding Process | Section Break | Gas holders, Kings Cross, Wilkinson Eyre Architects | James O Davies, Historic England | | Glossary | Section Break | Brandon Yard, Bristol. AWW Architects | James O Davies, Historic England | | References | Section Break | Beaulieu, Chelmsford, Gardner Stewart Architects | The Land Trust/Countryside Properties | | Credits | Section Break | Brandon Yard, Bristol. AWW Architects | James O Davies, Historic England | | Section | Page | Information | Image Credit | |------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Front Cover | As Main Document | | | | Code Content | Section Break | Brandon Yard, Bristol. AWW Architects | James O Davies, Historic England. | | Context | P2 | Nansledan, Newquay, Cornwall, ADAM Architecture | ADAM Architecture | | Movement | P7 | Kensington High Street, London | Public Domain, HTUK at English Wikipedia | | Movement | P9 | PTAL Plan, Croydon, London | Interactive PTAL map-www.tfl.gov.uk | | Movement | P11 | Orford Road, Waltham Forest, London, before and after images | [email protected] | | Movement | P15 | Public Cycle Parking Example | Public Domain, Cyclestreets.net | | Movement | P15 | Apartment Cycle Parking Example | David Hawgood, licensed for reuse under Creative Commons Licence | | Movement | P15 | Residential Street Cycle Parking Example | David Hawgood, licensed for reuse under Creative Commons Licence | | Movement | P15 | Workplace Cycle Parking Example, Central St Giles, Google HQ | Cycle Works | | Nature | P18 | Freiburg, Germany | URBED | | Nature | P19 | Stanage Edge, The Peak District | URBED | | Nature | P19 | Victoria Mill Park, Manchester | URBED | | Nature | P19 | Heaton Park, Manchester | URBED | | Nature | P19 | The University of Manchester, Burlington Street Campus | URBED | | Section | Page | Information | Image Credit | |-----------|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | Nature | P19 | Central Park, Chelmsford | Jane Houghton, Natural England | | Nature | P20 | Grove Terrace Gardens, Highgate Road, London | Forestry Commission | | Nature | P20 | Communal Gardens, Accordia, Cambridge | URBED | | Nature | P20 | Food Growing, Levenshulme, Manchester | URBED | | Nature | P20 | Private Gardens, The Malings, Newcastle | URBED | | Nature | P20 | Balconies, Timekeepers Square, Salford | URBED | | Nature | P20 | Deansgate Castlefield Metrolink Stop Design by SimpsonHaugh. | Jan Chlebik (Photographer) | | Nature | P23 | Central Park, Chelmsford | Jane Houghton, Natural England | | Nature | P25 | RIBA Home for All Seasons, JTP Architects | JTP Architects/TEDS | | Nature | P26 | Bee Brick | Green and Blue | | Nature | P26 | Hedgehog Street | Peoples Trust for Endangered Species | | Built Form| P29 | Timekeepers Square, Salford, Buttress Architects | Buttress Architects | | Built Form| P35 | The Roof Gardens, Salford, Ollier Smurthwaite Architects | URBED | | Built Form| P35 | Lenton Green, Nottingham, JTP | URBED | | Built Form| P35 | Marmalade Lane, Cambridge, Mole Architects | TOWN. | | Section | Page | Information | Image Credit | |--------------------------|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | Built Form | P35 | Accordia Sky Villas, Cambridge, Alison Brooks Architects | URBED | | Built Form | P35 | Donnybrook Quarter, Tower Hamlets, Peter Barber Architects | Morley von Sternberg (Photographer) | | Identity | P42 | Tibby's Triangle, Southwold, Ash Sakula Architects | Peter Cook (Photographer) | | Identity | P43 | Chelmsford Wayfinding Project, IS Group | IS Group | | Identity | P43 | Timekeepers Square, Salford, Buttress Architects | Buttress Architects | | Identity | P49 | 121 Upper Richmond Rd, London, Allford Hall Monaghan Morris | Rob Parrish (Photographer) | | Identity | P49 | Blackfriars Circus, London, Maccreanor Lavington | Tim Crocker Architectural Photography | | Identity | P49 | 67 Southwark Street, London by Allies and Morrison | Nick Guttridge (Photographer) | | Identity | P49 | Mapleton Crescent, London, Metropolitan Workshop | Simon Kennedy (Photographer) | | Public Space | P50 | Goldsmith Street, Norwich, Mikhail Riches | Tim Crocker Architectural Photography | | Public Space | P61 | Abode at Great Kneighton, Proctor and Matthews Architects | Tim Crocker Architectural Photography | | Use | P64 | Wapping Wharf, Bristol, Alec French Architects | Alec French Architects | | Homes and Buildings | P73 | Derwenthorpe, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation | Joseph Rowntree Foundation | | Section | Page | Information | Image Credit | |--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Resources | P78 | Officers Field, Weymouth, HTA Design | Richard Downer (Photographer) | | Resources | P80 | Micro-climate Modelling | Dr Brian Miller of Wilde Analysis, part of the Wilde Group of Companies | | Lifespan | P83 | The Malings, Newcastle, Ash Sakula | Jill Tate (Photographer) | | Community Engagement | Section Break | Masterplanning Workshop | URBED | | Community Engagement | P88 | Gleadless Valley Consultation 2018 | URBED | | Community Engagement | P91 | Old Trafford Consultation 2008 | URBED |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4141-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 51,
"total-input-tokens": 99435,
"total-output-tokens": 18572,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
481,
3
],
[
481,
500,
4
],
[
500,
2988,
5
],
[
2988,
5455,
6
],
[
5455,
7650,
7
],
[
7650,
9699,
8
],
[
9699,
10765,
9
],
[
10765,
12981,
10
],
[
12981,
18231,
11
],
[
18231,
19452,
12
],
[
19452,
20674,
13
],
[
20674,
23205,
14
],
[
23205,
23297,
15
],
[
23297,
24216,
16
],
[
24216,
25314,
17
],
[
25314,
27842,
18
],
[
27842,
27842,
19
],
[
27842,
29526,
20
],
[
29526,
31617,
21
],
[
31617,
33011,
22
],
[
33011,
34997,
23
],
[
34997,
36354,
24
],
[
36354,
37510,
25
],
[
37510,
38996,
26
],
[
38996,
41108,
27
],
[
41108,
42053,
28
],
[
42053,
43063,
29
],
[
43063,
44730,
30
],
[
44730,
45924,
31
],
[
45924,
46835,
32
],
[
46835,
49064,
33
],
[
49064,
50690,
34
],
[
50690,
52665,
35
],
[
52665,
54885,
36
],
[
54885,
56729,
37
],
[
56729,
56729,
38
],
[
56729,
58108,
39
],
[
58108,
60122,
40
],
[
60122,
60133,
41
],
[
60133,
62418,
42
],
[
62418,
65089,
43
],
[
65089,
67372,
44
],
[
67372,
67949,
45
],
[
67949,
67949,
46
],
[
67949,
70099,
47
],
[
70099,
73311,
48
],
[
73311,
75868,
49
],
[
75868,
78361,
50
],
[
78361,
79711,
51
]
]
} |
102b8db2b978b6c47d538631b59c5d31310ef7a2 | National Strategy for Business Archives (England and Wales)
July 2009
# Contents
01. Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 3
02. Scope .................................................................................................................................. 5
03. Strategic goals ..................................................................................................................... 6
04. Strategy context and background ....................................................................................... 7
05. Current status review ......................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Corporate archives sector ............................................................................................. 10 5.2 The National Archives .................................................................................................. 10 5.3 Local authority archives ............................................................................................... 10 5.4 University archives ....................................................................................................... 11 5.5 National, local and independent museums .................................................................. 11 5.6 ‘Subject’ and community archives ............................................................................... 11 5.7 Professional training ..................................................................................................... 12
06. Strategic risk ....................................................................................................................... 13 6.1 Vulnerability of business archives ............................................................................... 13 6.2 Corporate archives sector sustainability ...................................................................... 13 6.3 Collections management issues in public sector archives ......................................... 14
07. Strategic actions .................................................................................................................. 15 7.1 Raising awareness among businesses of the value of keeping archives .................... 15 7.2 Recognising and evaluating business archives ............................................................ 15 7.3 Developing stronger networks and partnerships .......................................................... 16 7.4 Leadership, education and professional training .......................................................... 16
08. Implementation .................................................................................................................... 18 8.1 Raising awareness among businesses of the value of keeping archives .................... 18 8.2 Recognising and evaluating business archives ............................................................ 19 8.3 Developing stronger networks and partnerships .......................................................... 20 8.4 Leadership, education and professional training .......................................................... 21
09. Resourcing strategy implementation .................................................................................. 23
10. Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 24 10.1 Business data ............................................................................................................... 24 10.2 Heritage Lottery Funding for archives ........................................................................ 25 10.3 University Archives funding opportunities and activities ......................................... 26 10.4 Historical context – managing business archives ....................................................... 27 10.5 Corporate Archives SWOT analysis ............................................................................ 28 List of contributing organisations and individuals .............................................................. 29
11. Executive summary
Business archives and society
Britain was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and the historical records of British businesses provide crucial commentary not only on Britain’s economic, political and social development, but also on that of many countries around the world.
The lessons of business success and failure inform the thinking of current business leaders and can drive competitive advantage in the global economy. Socially and culturally, business is inclusive; it drives and funds national and local economies, touching the lives of all British citizens whether they are business employees or consumers. Business success and failure also defines communities – economically and physically – and consequently the people of those communities. It is critical for social cohesion and cultural identity that the business legacy is neither forgotten, nor captured only in transient human memory.
The business archive collections that survive capture only a fraction of the record of British business history, under-representing the wide range of commercial and industrial activity, and are often inaccessible because they are complex, un-catalogued, or reside within the private enterprises that own them. Many enterprises are unaware of the value of their archives and routinely destroy them.
Why do companies manage their archives?
Around 20% of FTSE 100 companies, and many private companies employ professional archivists to actively exploit their business records. Why?
**Growth**
Archives can be used in marketing and customer relations to increase brand knowledge and awareness. Archives have direct commercial value as a source of new product innovation – they are literally full of ideas that can be re-discovered and re-packaged for today’s market, delivering authentic classic, retro and vintage style.
**Differentiation**
Every company is unique – with its own story of achievement, company culture, reputation, products and people. Telling a company’s story – through product literature, websites and employee induction materials – can create the kind of loyalty and pride that in tough markets leverage a real competitive advantage.
**Protection**
The archive is the memory of the business – holding knowledge and evidence of commercial activities, forgotten when people move on. Archives can provide evidence against litigation, trademark infringement, or assault on reputation. More routinely, they are an unparalleled source of management information.
Exposure to the corporate memory shows today’s employees, from boardroom to shop floor, that a company has already weathered political and economic uncertainties, technological and organisational change, growth and recession. Whatever the business, whatever the sector, by keeping archives companies capture today’s experience, knowledge and company know-how for tomorrow’s management team. It’s a powerful tool, which is company-generated as part of day-to-day business activity. National strategy
The national strategy for business archives will raise the profile of these archives, ensuring that they are utilised by businesses and researchers alike and that future collections are more representative of the UK’s diverse economic activity.
Strategy implementation will promote the commercial value of archives to the business community, encouraging wider and better business sector management of archives. It will recognise national centres for business archives, and through appropriate schemes encourage improved care and management of such archival collections. It will establish effective networks and partnerships between archivists in the public and private sector and other specialists responsible for the management and exploitation of business archives. Finally it will improve the capability and status of business archivists and business collections through better leadership, education and professional training. 2. Scope
This strategy makes recommendations for business archives in the public and private sector in England and Wales only, though the strategic goals are endorsed by The National Archives of Scotland and the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland.
It addresses archives held and used as commercial assets by companies in the private sector. It also covers the archives of companies (some defunct) held in local authority, university and community archives, libraries and the museums sector (national, local and independent).
Additionally, the strategy targets historical records located within businesses but currently neglected as commercial assets, and which are often routinely destroyed despite their potential value to the business, or eventually to researchers. Similarly, archives that become vulnerable when businesses come under new ownership, or relocate, are considered.
Definitions:
- Business is commercial or industrial activity: manufacturing or trading or supplying goods and services (usually) for profit. Businesses can be large (eg FTSE-listed), or small and medium size enterprises, and can be privately or publicly funded.
- Business records are the physical evidence of business activity – created, received, and maintained as evidence and information(^1) – and exist in a variety of media formats including paper, digital and audio-visual. Business archives are records that companies or collecting repositories choose to keep permanently, for commercial, legal and historical reasons.
(^1) See ISO 15489-1:2001(E) 3. Strategic goals
To promote, manage and exploit the archival legacy of British business by:
i. raising awareness among businesses of the value of their records and archives, and providing guidance and support from the professional archive community
ii. increasing the number of corporate sector business archives and of business collections in public sector repositories
iii. raising the profile of business records with the public, and throughout the national archival network, while promoting wider usage and exploitation
iv. raising standards in the care of business archives through best practice exemplars, professional training and an improved funding and support infrastructure. 4. Strategy context and background
Business context
Analysis of recent Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform data gives an insight into the structure of the UK business community, and can be used to ensure that the strategy is targeting the most appropriate and representative sections of British business.
There are approximately 4.5 million private sector enterprises in the UK, of which 3.3 million have “no employees” (i.e. consist of sole proprietors). This strategy is targeting the remaining 1.2 million enterprises that have employees, broken down in the traditional classification of large (over 250 employees), medium (50-249 employees), small (10-49) and micro (1-9 employees) enterprises.
Current data (see appendix 10.1) shows that as company size grows so does the number in employment, and economic value. Focusing implementation of the strategy on large enterprises would capture around 48% of the number of people in employment and over 52% of the turnover generated in the private sector. Extending this to encompass medium and small sized enterprises increases coverage to 80% of the number of people in employment and 84% of turnover generated respectively.
While the strategy focuses on large businesses, where many in-house corporate archives exist, it also addresses medium and small businesses. This targets the key players; but it also captures businesses that are large in terms of economic contribution, but small in terms of employee size (an increasing phenomenon of modern business in the ‘knowledge sector’ as well as traditional industries where fewer people are employed as non-core activities are outsourced).
Cultural and professional context
Strategy background
In 2003 the Archives Task Force published Listening to the Past, Speaking to the Future, which included a recommendation for a national strategy for business archives for England and Wales.
In January 2004, Sir Nicholas Goodison delivered a report to the Treasury entitled Securing the Best for our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support. The report was wide-ranging and covered galleries, libraries, and record offices; there were also implications for corporations. The report stated:
“The risks to important business archives are particularly acute. Many companies conserve their archives professionally….other companies are more careless about these important historical records”.
The report recommended that the Inland Revenue issue a statement of practice making it clear that companies could include the care and conservation of their business archives, and the cost of providing access to them, in their costs before the calculation of corporation tax. This has now been reflected in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ Guidance. The National Archives subsequently convened a meeting of key stakeholders to begin the process of formulating a national strategy for business archives. Work began in 2006 after funding had been secured.
Funding and investment
Since 1994, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has awarded £151m to 466 projects in archives with 55 awards totalling around £21m in the last financial year (see Appendix 10.2 for a breakdown). Recent examples of business archives projects include Documenting the Workshop of the World, Pay and Power, The Works, Yorkshire Made, and Made in Suffolk. HLF grants are awarded to predominantly public sector institutions (including community archives), but are available to private sector archives working in collaboration with public sector partners to create a resource with demonstrable public benefit.
The National Cataloguing Grants Programme for Archives is another source of funding for public sector business records collections. The scheme is currently funded by a consortium of charities led by The Pilgrim Trust (and administered by The National Archives) and has secured £1.3m in project funding for archive cataloguing over the next 5 years.
Other independent funding opportunities are available and in the university sector, for example, 54% of university archives with business collections acquired external funding for them, with a third of these sponsors coming from the corporate sector (see Appendix 10.3).
Cultural partnerships
In April 2000 the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) was launched as a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. MLA is the strategic body for museums, libraries and archives in England, promoting collaboration and best practice to inspire innovative, integrated and sustainable services for all. In 2004, CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales was established as a policy division of the Welsh Assembly Government. CyMAL’s role is to provide policy making advice to the Minister for Heritage and to support the development of museums, archives and libraries in Wales.
In July 2008 MLA announced the publication of Public Libraries, Archives and New Development: A Standard Charge Approach, a report which will help local authorities ensure that the right planning guidance is in place to raise funds for libraries and archives as UK towns and cities develop further.
______________________________________________________________________
2 BIM42501 - Specific deductions: administration: business archives www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM42501.htm National and international perspective
Within Europe there are differences in the ways in which business archives are treated. The Danish National Business Archive (established 1948), the Central Archives for Finnish Business Records (established 1981) and the collection of key business archives held by the National Archives in Norway follow a centralised approach. In France a central business archive – Le Centre des Archives du Monde du Travail – was opened in 1993 and in Germany and Sweden there are a number of successful, long-standing regional business archives. International co-operation in business archives has also begun to increase through the efforts of the International Council on Archives, which has a separate Section on Business and Labour Archives.
In Scotland, the National Archives of Scotland, the Business Archives Council of Scotland and the University of Glasgow have, since 1977, worked in partnership to fund a records surveying officer with responsibility for liaising with private sector businesses in a research and advisory capacity. The Scottish Business Archive at the University of Glasgow is a de facto national business archive repository (although it receives no governmental funding). It contains the largest dedicated collection of business records in the United Kingdom.
The national strategy for business archives: England and Wales
The strategy has been funded by a consortium of interested bodies:- The National Archives, Business Archives Council, Society of Archivists, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, the Welsh Assembly Government through CyMAL, and the Economic History Society. It was developed by archives consultancy Logan McCabe Ltd under the direction of a monitoring group established by the main funding bodies. 5. Current status review
In England and Wales there is no unified approach to managing business records (see Appendix 10.4 for historical development) and very limited statutory requirements to maintain business archives. Archives are maintained formally in both private and public repositories, and informally by individuals, community groups and within companies.
5.1 Corporate archives sector
Around 20% of FTSE 100 companies have in-house archives and/or records management teams. These companies have recognised and are reaping the benefits to corporate identity and compliance, innovation, and employee and customer engagement that archive management can bring. The teams are relatively new to the corporate landscape and have developed differently – with some heads of repositories having responsibility for archives, museum and art collections, libraries, (electronic) records management programmes and records centres. The small size of the profession and the diversity of roles make comparisons and assumptions about the sector difficult, though careers in corporate archives are attractive as they generally offer higher remuneration than the public sector, and scope for more entrepreneurial ways of working. Corporate archivists’ views on the sector were captured at a professional conference in 2007 (see Appendix 10.5).
5.2 The National Archives
The National Archives has major holdings of business records largely generated by British industries nationalised in the 20th century, though acquisition of private sector business records is beyond its statutory duty. The National Archives, in conjunction with other bodies, provides leadership advice and support to the UK’s network of archival repositories, and its unique resource – The National Register of Archives – has an online index to historical records of British businesses deposited in public repositories or remaining in private hands.
Wales does not currently have a separate national archives. While the National Library of Wales does not normally collect business records, it is willing to act as a repository of last resort if important Welsh records of this kind are at risk.
5.3 Local authority archives
There are over 120 county and city archives in England and Wales, forming an established regional network of repositories, many of which have significant collections of business archives. There are high concentrations within the industrial cities of the Midlands and the North of England, with the City of London Corporation’s Guildhall Library and London Metropolitan Archives managing the largest single collection of business archives in England and Wales. While the majority of extant business archives are located in local authority archives, many offices have resourcing and collections management issues. In response to an online questionnaire in 2008, members of the Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government (ACALG) expressed concerns about cataloguing backlogs, low usage of collections, the voluminous nature of existing and potential collections and lack of in-house expertise in managing business archives. Local authority archives have a key role in the current and future preservation of business records, and need support to overcome these issues, if they are to satisfy the growing public interest in business collections.
5.4 University archives
In 2007, The National Archives sent a questionnaire to universities in England to find out about their business archives collections. Thirty-six responded, of which twenty-eight had business collections.
The data shows that the university sector is active in collecting business records/archives and successful in securing funding from third parties. Among universities with business collections, 54% have secured funding for collections management from external sources, 41% of the donations coming from the corporate sector (usually the parent companies), although the latter figure does not represent the financial value of donations. These university archives are also successful in using business records to further the teaching and research agenda of their universities, and for training and outreach purposes (feedback is captured in Appendix 10.3).
5.5 National, local and independent museums
National and large regional museums and libraries hold significant business collections. For example, the National Railway Museum and the V&A are repositories for the archives of business sectors such as railways and design and fashion. The museums sector has good relations with trade and industry, and regional development agencies, and many exhibitions attract sponsorship from business because of the advertising and marketing opportunities they deliver. In addition there is executive liaison between the professions as the Chief Executive of The National Archives is a member of the National Museum Directors’ Conference.
5.6 ‘Subject’ and community archives
There is a growing number of community, geographic or subject-based archives holding business records in England and Wales. These collections often exist outside the professional archive sector and may be managed by associated specialists such as information managers, or volunteers and community champions. They are recognised as significant contributors to the business archives network, and are often particularly rich in audio-visual and oral testimonies, as they illustrate an employee-led experience of working for a business (as opposed to the more formal company-led structure of business records). These business collections may lack the professional support and funding available to more traditional or established collecting institutions.
3 For example, Ebbw Vale Works Archival Trust in Gwent (steel industry) and BATA Reminiscence and Resource Centre, Essex (shoe industry). 5.7 Professional training
There are seven courses in the UK and Republic of Ireland awarding post-graduate degrees in archives and records management – Aberystwyth, Dundee, Glasgow, Liverpool, Northumbria, University College London, and University College (Dublin). Of these courses, two have discrete business archives modules taught by practitioners from the corporate sector. The modules are taught on a voluntary basis with nominal fees.
The courses inevitably have to concentrate on training students in generic rather than sector-specific archival skills and consequently there is a real need to support and strengthen the development of those dealing with business archives after qualification, particularly when they may be faced with challenges posed by highly technical records or are based in collecting institutions which may lack relevant expertise in business archives.
Practising professionals have expressed concern that newly qualified archivists lack skills and confidence in managing and exploiting business records and there is clearly a need for access to more specialised training in this area. 6. Strategic risk
6.1 Vulnerability of business archives
i. Rarity of professional teams Only a tiny minority of British companies employ professional archivists and records managers to manage their records and therefore destruction decisions are often taken by other company employees untrained in record keeping.
ii. Failing business Other than ad hoc rescue work there is currently no systematic provision or guidance at national or local level for the records of failing businesses.
iii. Statutory limitations There is no legislative requirement to keep records of historical interest even though they deliver cultural and socio-economic memory for future generations. Companies routinely destroy them, as they are often perceived as a liability to store, and to make available for legal discovery. Also the Data Protection Act is often misinterpreted as an instruction to destroy any records that contain personal data.
iv. Provision for 21st century companies There is no clear picture of how the records of new companies are being managed, in particular internet-based companies.
v. Electronic records While paper documentation of 19th and 20th century companies can be managed retrospectively, the electronic legacy generated in the recent past defies retrospective management and there is a serious risk of loss of born-digital company records of archival value. This issue needs to be addressed across the profession.
6.2 Corporate archives sector sustainability
i. Economic recession Economic downturn may result in lack of investment or closure of corporate archives. There is no provision in the national archive network specifically to deal with corporate archives which are not sustained.
ii. Globalisation, mergers, acquisitions, private equity buy-outs, organisational change and relocation These events threaten the operation of a corporate archive, which may not be perceived as a core business activity.
iii. Low awareness of the value of business archives to companies Only a tiny percentage of British companies use their archives to help gain competitive advantage. Records are disposed of because their value is unseen. iv. Business sector representation The scope of the current business archive sector reflects only a certain part of British corporate life – there is a heavy bias towards FTSE 100 banking and financial services companies, with some representation of companies that have significant histories (100 years or so), or long-established brands.
v. Continuity Corporate sector archives need integrated records management programmes embedded in their parent companies to ensure the archives remain dynamic and sustainable.
6.3 Collections management issues in public sector archives For many businesses, depositing archives has been a good way of ensuring their preservation, but the public institutions accepting such collections face considerable challenges:
i. Cataloguing Business collections can represent local communities more inclusively and richly than many other archival sources yet because of cataloguing backlogs they are often inaccessible to the communities they represent.
ii. Usage Business collections in the public sector can be under-utilised because the records are difficult for archivists and researchers to use and exploit. This is unsustainable, as they are stored and managed at public expense.
iii. Storage Business collections can be voluminous particularly if ‘rescued’ from failing companies with no time to appraise and weed. Lack of storage capacity seriously undermines attempts to encourage expansion of business collections.
iv. Access Businesses can be deterred from depositing material in publicly-funded record offices by the prospect that legislation to promote public access could lead to access by competitors or potential litigants even though the Freedom of Information Act does not automatically apply.
v. Terms of deposit Financial support by depositors for cataloguing, exhibition and outreach in connection with business archives varies enormously, along with other terms of deposit. This impacts on long-term collections management and usage. 7. Strategic actions
7.1 Raising awareness among businesses of the value of keeping archives
This strategy seeks to increase awareness and appreciation of the value of business archives among large companies that are in a position to employ archivists, and also among smaller companies that are currently unaware of the benefits of managing and exploiting their historical records. Based on case studies and practical advice from successful corporate archives, and promoted through business organisations (rather than coming from the archive community), two key initiatives are proposed:
- An advisory leaflet on managing business archives designed to promote the value of these archives
- A best practice website that gives businesses practical guidance on how to establish and exploit their archives.
Together these initiatives will demonstrate the value of archives to businesses, communicate professional standards to new audiences, and ultimately help preserve business archives at risk.
7.2 Recognising and evaluating business archives
Business archives are held across a wide variety of institutions in the public and private sectors, with facilities varying in terms of quality of storage, preservation, management and provision of access. Business archives are not always held in the most obvious places, and sometimes it is difficult for businesses or researchers to identify where the records of particular industries or sectors are located. The position will be addressed by three new initiatives:
i. The National Archives will establish an online register of the specialisms of institutions collecting business archives, for the guidance of depositors and users. Subject to further discussions with the sector, institutions on the register might be authorised to describe themselves for example as “A National Centre for the Archives of Shipbuilding”.
ii. As part of its strategic leadership of the archives sector, The National Archives will seek to identify organisations willing to establish centres for business archives of national importance. These centres will complement existing provision, not duplicate or replace it. They might constitute homes of last resort for business archives ‘orphaned’ as a result of business failure, merger or international takeover.
iii. The National Archives will ensure that future developments of its systems for recognising and measuring suitable facilities and service quality of public sector archives are also open to corporate archives. The terms of assessment for accreditation of private sector archives will acknowledge that public access to such archives is discretionary. 7.3 Developing stronger networks and partnerships
Business archives exist in diverse archive communities represented by different professional bodies. In order to promote a more cohesive and supportive sector, and to counter the professional isolation often felt by corporate archivists embedded in companies, archivists need to work on developing networks and alliances across public and private archives, sharing best practice and skill-sets, and developing awareness of the sensibilities of each sector. This is particularly important today when economic recession threatens the corporate archives sector, and when public repositories may need to handle an influx of records as businesses and industries fail.
Business archivists need to develop partnerships with existing and new user groups (including industry experts), to help de-mystify business records, ‘translating’ business language and showing how business records can meet users’ research needs. Also by investing in outreach opportunities, and offering professional support and advice to the business community, public sector archives can create more productive partnerships with local companies in terms of deposits of future collections and potential sponsorship.
A Business Archives Strategy Group will be formed to monitor implementation of the strategy. This Group will be a sector group within the structure of the National Council on Archives and will be able to further develop partnerships between the corporate archives sector and other archive groups. Beyond the archives sector, it will liaise with trade and professional organisations to improve understanding and advocate best practice in archive management.
7.4 Leadership, education and professional training
There needs to be energetic leadership to implement the strategy, improving the capability and status of business archivists and business collections. The National Archives, the Business Archives Council, the Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government, and the Society of Archivists Business Records Group will provide professional leadership in the following areas:
i. crisis management – providing a timely and integrated response to collections at risk, as large companies fail or disinvest from their archives
ii. dialogue with liquidators and receivers – identifying a fast-track mechanism for involvement with failing business
iii. education – working with higher education authorities to increase student exposure to business archives within schools and further education institutes including business schools, and professional archive courses, as well as promoting a research agenda for business archives (eg investigating electronic records issues, or measuring the commercial benefits of keeping archives) iv. cross-domain advocacy – engaging with the museums and libraries sectors to influence teaching and dissemination of archival principles and to share best practice
v. international outreach – observing, interacting and networking with international bodies such as the International Council on Archives (Section on Business Archives) to ensure engagement with new professional trends and learning initiatives, and to contribute to raising standards worldwide.
## 8. Implementation
### 8.1 Raising awareness among businesses of the value of keeping archives
| Ref | Action | Implementation | Strategy goal | |-----|--------|----------------|---------------| | 8.1.1 | Publish an advisory leaflet on managing business archives to show companies the benefits of investing in their archives | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I II | | 8.1.2 | Develop best practice website with practical guidance on managing business records and archives (including case studies, advice and accreditation scheme) to encourage businesses to actively manage their archives | BAC BRG THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I II | | 8.1.3 | Publish best practice website online with links to business organisations and professional sites | BAC BRG NCA | I II | | 8.1.4 | Promote the strategy, website and advisory leaflet on managing business archives | NCA BRG | I II | | 8.1.5 | Explore with Regional Development Agencies the opportunities for promoting the advisory leaflet on managing business archives and website to small- and medium-sized enterprises | ACALG BAC BRG CyMAL NCA THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I II | | 8.1.6 | Work with Business in the Community to add archive management to the Corporate Social Responsibility community index | BAC NCA | I II |
## 8.2 Recognising and evaluating business archives
| Ref | Action | Implementation | Strategy goal | |-----|--------|----------------|---------------| | 8.2.1 | Explore the potential to create one or more national centres for business archives (in England) | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | II III | | 8.2.2 | Include corporate archives in private and cross-domain collections in the scope of any wider accreditation scheme developed by The National Archives and MLA | BAC CyMAL MLA THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | IV | | 8.2.3 | Promote accreditation scheme to members | BAC | IV | | 8.2.4 | Create scheme for recognising public sector business archives collecting activity | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | IV | | 8.2.5 | Collect data to create a national map showing distribution of business archives collections, represented sectors of the economy, capacity issues etc, to inform future policy | CyMAL MLA THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | IV VI | | 8.2.6 | Further develop the National Register of Archives as a proactive tool to monitor the continuing care of and access to business archive collections | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | III IV |
## 8.3 Developing stronger networks and partnerships
| Ref | Action | Implementation | Strategy goal | |-----|--------|----------------|---------------| | 8.3.1 | Develop partnerships between the corporate archives sector and public and university sectors to promote employee secondment, skills exchange, outreach support, information sharing on usage of archives, public relations etc | ACALG BAC BRG CyMAL MLA UAS | III IV | | 8.3.2 | Develop a stronger network of archivists working with business archives by organising/participating in professional events and conferences in London and regionally | BAC BRG RMS | III IV | | 8.3.3 | Promote cross-domain flexibility in approaches to custodianship of business archives to ensure sustainability of collections | ACALG BAC CyMAL MLA | III IV | | 8.3.4 | Maintain and develop links with other national and international strategies and activities | BAC BRG THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I II III IV | | 8.3.5 | Develop better professional links and support for community/charitable institutions that hold or may acquire business archives | ACALG BRG | III IV | | 8.3.6 | Develop partnerships with universities and academic organisations to understand and support research interests or academics and to exploit their knowledge | ABH BAC BRG MLA | III IV | | 8.3.7 | Proactively develop relationships with national and local businesses and trade organisations through outreach, historical research, records advisory services etc to promote and encourage better in-house archival management, or deposit of records | ACALG THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I II |
## 8.4 Leadership, education and professional training
| Ref | Action | Implementation | Strategy goal | |-----|--------|----------------|---------------| | 8.4.1 | Create a crisis management team representing all parts of the archive sector to organise agreed responses to business archives under threat | BAC<br>BRG<br>THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | II<br>III | | 8.4.2 | Engage with the Insolvency Practitioners Association to develop agreed process to save business archives at liquidation stage of business failure | ACALG<br>BAC<br>THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | II | | 8.4.3 | Investigate potential of using business records and archives as part of business and management school curricula and other more diverse academic disciplines | ACALG<br>BAC<br>BRG<br>UAS | III | | 8.4.4 | Promote the use of business archives in an educational context (primary and secondary schools) | ARCW<br>MLA<br>SOA | III | | 8.4.5 | Encourage universities to undertake research to measure the benefits that professional archivists and records managers bring to businesses and society (eg Nottingham University International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility) | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I<br>III | | 8.4.6 | Identify research interests in business archives and records management in liaison with universities (to include digital records) | FARMER<br>THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | III<br>IV | | 8.4.7 | Encourage managers of archive and records management post-graduate courses to ensure students are fully exposed to business archives (including digital), and have opportunities to visit and take up placements in corporate archives | FARMER | IV | | 8.4.8 | Encourage wider training and continued professional development opportunities (CPD) in business archives (including digital records). MLA to invite business archives to participate in CPD and placement programmes as part of their strategic commissioning programme. | BAC<br>BRG<br>FARMER<br>MLA | IV | | Ref | Action | Implementation | Strategy goal | |------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| | 8.4.9| Liaise with international bodies to raise standards in business archives management | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | III IV |
## 9. Resourcing strategy implementation
| Ref | Action | Implementation | Strategy goal | |-----|--------|----------------|---------------| | 9.1 | Recruit and engage Business Archives Advice Manager to support business archives including implementation of the strategy | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES | I II III IV | | 9.2 | Encourage public/private sector archivists’ collaboration to take advantage of third party funding (with advice from the NCA Archive Lottery Adviser) | ACALG BAC BRG | IV | | 9.3 | Encourage partnerships between academics and archivists to secure joint funding as part of academic research grants | ABH ACALG ARCW BAC BRG MLA UAS | IV | | 9.4 | Encourage collaborative working between local authority and specialist repositories, community archives and other cultural organisations (ie museums and libraries) to maximise grant and funding opportunities for business archives | ACALG BAC BRG CyMAL MLA UAS | IV | | 9.5 | Convene and sponsor Business Archives Strategy Group (drawn from all archive sectors) to implement strategy | NCA | I II III IV |
**Abbreviations:**
- ABH: Association of Business Historians
- ACALG: Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government
- ARCW: Archives and Records Council Wales
- BAC: Business Archives Council
- BRG: Business Records Group of the Society of Archivists
- CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales
- FARMER: Forum for Archives and Records Management Education and Research
- MLA: Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
- NCA: National Council on Archives
- RMS: Records Management Society
- SOA: Society of Archivists
- UAS: University Archives ‘sector’
NB Some of these bodies will change under current restructuring proposals. Successor bodies will pick up strategy implementation as appropriate. 10. Appendices
10.1 Business data
Figure 1 (below) shows a breakdown of the 1.2 million enterprises that “have employees” using the groupings:
- Large enterprise: Over 250 employees
- Medium enterprise: 50 to 249 employees
- Small enterprise: 10 to 49 employees
- Micro enterprise: 1 to 9 employees
Source: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Statistics, 2007 10.2 Heritage Lottery Funding for archives
From April 1994 until March 2007 there have been awards of £151 million granted to 466 projects in archives including:
- £7.6m to 12 projects in the UK’s national archives
- £47.5m to 182 record office projects
- £31.2m to 48 university archive projects
- £65.1m to 224 projects in other types of archive, including museums
- £21.5m to 36 projects focusing on Designated collections in archives (England)
- £2.1m to 39 “Access to Archives” (A2A) projects; £159,000 to 4 “Archives 4 All” projects, £2.9m to Scottish Archive Network; and £365,000 to Archives Network Wales
- £22.2m to 36 projects in film and sound archives
- £5.1m to 10 projects that conserve or refurbish archive buildings
- £48m to 24 projects for new build or extensions to archive buildings
- £34m to 84 projects to acquire material for archives
There has been an additional £13 million awarded to archives and library projects led by community organisations. Recent examples of business archives projects receiving grants are:
- Documenting the Workshop of the World, Black Country history, £442,000
- Pay and Power, history of work and politics in the West Midlands, £418,000
- The Works, history of Ebbw Vale steelworks, £43,700
Access to Archives (A2A) projects:
- Yorkshire Made, catalogue of business archives, Yorkshire, £45,000
- Made in Suffolk, catalogue of business archives, Suffolk, £35,800
Source: HLF Policy & Research Dept Data Briefing, September 2007 10.3 University Archives funding opportunities and activities
Examples of organisations providing funds for business archives collections in university archives:
01. Corporate sector (e.g. depositing company)
02. Heritage Lottery Fund
03. Access to Archives (A2A)
04. Arts and Humanities Research Council
05. National Manuscripts Conservation Trust
06. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
07. Joint Information Systems Committee
08. Leverhulme Trust
09. British Academy
10. Bay Foundation
University archivists, with business collections, reported significant usage of the archives by their organisations:
- archive staff usage for teaching - 43%
- archive staff usage for research - 36%
- archive staff usage for outreach - 50%
- university staff usage for teaching - 68%
- university staff usage for research - 61%
- student research - 50%
Source: The National Archives university archives survey questionnaire, 2007 10.4 Historical context – managing business archives
1856 Companies Act made compulsory the indefinite retention of certain very limited kinds of documentation
1934 Business Archives Council formed
1930s Bank of England and Midland Bank made provision for their archives (the former appointing an archivist)
1945 National Register of Archives (NRA) founded
1950s NRA made business collections visible by indexing businesses separately, and some county and municipal record offices began to accession business archive collections as gifts and loans
1960s Archivists and research librarians appointed in more businesses
1960/70s Growth in interest in business and economic history resulting in funding for survey work (e.g. pioneering work of Glasgow University\* and the Business Archives Council)
1970/1980s Significant decline in manufacturing and ‘heavy’ industry resulted in county and municipal record offices ‘rescuing’ many records of defunct companies
1980/90s Increase in number of corporate archives posts created to take advantage of marketing, evidential and business value of records to corporations, often as an adjunct to records management programmes
2008 Around 20% of FTSE companies engage corporate archivists or records managers; within a professional population of around 80 business archivists 10.5 Corporate Archives SWOT analysis
Strengths (top 5 by percentage):
1. Depth, diversity, historical value of collections 27%
2. Expertise of people – as entrepreneurs, leaders, managers, experts 27%
3. Add value to business 20%
4. Networks and partnerships 20%
5. Academic support and interest 5%
Weaknesses (top 5 by percentage):
1. Access, usage, unrepresentative nature 29%
2. Public image and awareness 23%
3. Political awareness & “clout” (within business and professionally) 23%
4. Lack of funding 17%
5. Vulnerability (lack of skills re electronic media, not embedded in businesses (personality-dependent) 9%
Opportunities (top 5 by percentage):
1. Cultural, educational partnerships (including Heritage Lottery Funding) 29%
2. Corporate Social Responsibility, business exploitation 24%
3. Internet, web access, digitisation 18%
4. Community, social and family history growth 18%
5. Improved Public Relations 12%
Threats (top 5 by percentage):
1. Recession & business failure (cost-cutting, lack of funding for managing, storing, cataloguing) 47%
2. Organisational change (mergers and acquisitions, globalisation, relocation, complexity) 31%
3. Low public and companies awareness about the value of business archives, low priority 5%
4. Fragmentation of professional voice 5%
5. Ability to recruit into private sector; skills deficit re business records 5%
Source: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) questionnaires to Business Archives Council Conference delegates, 2007 List of contributing organisations and individuals
Strategy Monitoring Group
Mary Ellis CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales Judy Faraday Museums Libraries and Archives Council Terry Gourvish Business Archives Council Bruce Jackson Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government Norman James The National Archives Nick Kingsley The National Archives Sara Kinsey Business Archives Council Aileen McClintock Public Record Office of Northern Ireland Chris McKenna Association of Business Historians Lesley Richmond Glasgow University Archives Service Alison Turton Society of Archivists
Strategy Advisory Committee
Sophie Clapp Boots UK Ltd Eamon Dyas News International Limited Judy Faraday John Lewis Partnership David Hay BT Group plc Peter Housego BP plc Christine McCafferty Diageo plc Sue Garland Diageo plc Karen Sampson Lloyds Banking Group Jeannette Strickland Unilever PLC Mark Weaver Astra Zeneca
Groups
Executive members of the Business Archives Council Members of the Association of Business Historians Members of the Business Archives Council Members of the Society of Archivists’ Business Records Group Members of the Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government
Individuals
We are grateful to the many individuals whose ideas, opinions and professional expertise helped shape the strategy. Specific thanks are due to Robert Brown, Business Records Development Officer at The National Archives from 2006-2007, for his initial research and development of the strategy.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4142-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 30,
"total-input-tokens": 51610,
"total-output-tokens": 10743,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
71,
1
],
[
71,
4307,
2
],
[
4307,
7303,
3
],
[
7303,
8253,
4
],
[
8253,
9808,
5
],
[
9808,
10501,
6
],
[
10501,
12924,
7
],
[
12924,
15800,
8
],
[
15800,
17583,
9
],
[
17583,
20237,
10
],
[
20237,
23413,
11
],
[
23413,
24533,
12
],
[
24533,
26687,
13
],
[
26687,
28677,
14
],
[
28677,
31322,
15
],
[
31322,
34095,
16
],
[
34095,
34557,
17
],
[
34557,
35812,
18
],
[
35812,
36924,
19
],
[
36924,
38517,
20
],
[
38517,
40455,
21
],
[
40455,
41005,
22
],
[
41005,
42782,
23
],
[
42782,
43204,
24
],
[
43204,
44693,
25
],
[
44693,
45612,
26
],
[
45612,
46946,
27
],
[
46946,
48454,
28
],
[
48454,
49982,
29
],
[
49982,
49982,
30
]
]
} |
14950fadab34be112216ada4bb2b2c31f10cffe0 | Education and Training (formerly ‘Learner Responsive’)\
National Success Rates Tables for the academic year 2010/11
Guidance Notes
What is new in the 2010/11 Tables?
- The ‘Headline’ worksheet in the ‘Institutions’ table has been enhanced to include the ‘Length’ dimension. This restores the ability of users to analyse success rates for a provider by ‘Long’ qualification length.
- The Education and Training National Success Rates Tables were revised on 9th August 2012 to correct an error in unknown levels mainly in the ‘Other’ qualification category. Further detail of this revision is available in the revision paper available at the National Success Rates Tables pages of the Data Service website. Success Rates information available elsewhere is not affected. This includes the Statistical First Release, FE Choices and the individual Qualification Success Rate and Minimum Levels of Performance reports that providers receive on their own data.
- The Tables have been renamed the ‘Education and Training’ National Success Rates Tables to reflect the terminology of the Statistical First Release, from which they are a cascade publication.
- Success rates data for 2010/11 have been added to the tables, and those for 2007/08 removed.
- The definitions of A, AS and A2 Level qualifications have been brought into line with those used in the Learner Responsive 2010/11 Qualifications Success Rates (QSR) reports for individual providers. These definitions have been applied to the 2008/09 and 2009/10 data in the tables in order to provide a consistent view of these qualifications.
- The Qualifications tables have been re-organised to arrange qualification types according to the classification used in the Learner Responsive 2010/11 individual provider QSR reports. The first of the reports now shows A, AS, A2, GCSE, NVQ, BTEC/OCR and International Baccalaureate qualifications; the second shows all other Long and Short qualifications (including 14-19 Diplomas). For ease of use, the ‘Other’ qualifications are arranged in 17 worksheets according to their Sector Subject Area (Tier 1) classification.
- Consistent with the Learner Responsive 2010/11 QSR reports for individual providers the tables include data from the University for Industry (Ufi) for the first time.
- The now obsolete ‘Local Office’ dimension has been removed from the Institutions tables. A report showing success, retention and achievement rates by the Local Authority areas in which an institution delivers provision has been added.
- The UKPRN identifier has been added to the Institutions tables.
- The percentiles worksheets for Learner Home Postcode and Delivery Location Postcode have been removed from the ‘Overall’ report.
- To prevent the possible identification of individual learners the reports do not show any qualifications where the number of starters (including transfers) for a year is less than 30. In addition, qualifications where starters exist only at a single institution for a given year are not shown in the Qualification Aims reports. Qualifications that have been removed from reports for these reasons are, for the first time, listed in a supplementary report, ‘Excluded Aims 2010/11’. Counts such as Starters are rounded to the nearest ten. Any value of less than 5 is shown as a dash (‘-’). Values in the range 5 – 9 are rounded to 10.
Various minor improvements have been made to the presentation standards of the tables, with the aim of making them more consistent and intuitive.
Success, Retention and Achievement Rates in Further Education Providers in England
The National Success Rates Tables for Education and Training (formerly ‘Learner Responsive’) provision set out levels of success, retention and achievement in further education (FE) providers in England for the period 2008/09 to 2010/11. The Data Service publishes National Success Rates Tables annually. This release of the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables updates the 2007/08 to 2009/10 Learner Responsive tables published in April 2011. It is consistent with the Learner Responsive Qualification Success Rates reports for 2010/11 published to individual providers in December 2011 and expands upon the information made available in the January 2012 Statistical First Release.
The purpose of the National Success Rates Tables
The publication of Education and Training National Success Rates Tables supports providers in raising the standard of their delivery. The Tables allow providers to assess their performance, and assists the planning of action programmes to improve the success, retention and achievement rates of their learners.
The term National Success Rates Tables, rather than 'Benchmarking Data', is used throughout this guidance. National Success Rates Tables is used to denote a context and reference point for comparison, not a standard of best practice.
What the tables show
The Data Service approach to publishing the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables is to publish a manageable amount of information, drawing on existing statistical measures.
The Education and Training National Success Rates Tables data have been derived from providers' Individualised Learner Record (ILR) returns and furnish a range of national and provider statistics for success, retention and achievement. Information on the qualification success rates methodology is available at the Success Rates pages of the Data Service website.
This year four categories of Education and Training National Success Rates Tables Data are presented:
- Overall data tables showing national averages of success, retention and achievement rates, plus spread of variability, by institution type, level, age, gender, disability, ethnicity, length of aim and geography.
- National data for success rates, retention and achievement by sector subject area.
- Individual learning aim data showing success, retention and achievement by level and qualification type.
- Institution tables showing success, retention and achievement by provider, qualification type, age, gender, disability, ethnicity and subject area. Information contained in the Tables
There is one success rate, one retention rate and one achievement rate shown in this publication. The definitions of the success, retention and achievement rates can be found in the ‘How the Tables are calculated’ section below.
Although it may appear in reports produced by other agencies that consume or receive master data files from the Data Service, a success rate based on the ‘High Grades’ measure is not part of the National Success Rates Tables. The old ‘High Grades’ measure, which no longer had an agreed definition, was removed in the 2009/10 Tables. The ‘High Grades’ definition that was agreed by Data Harmonisation Group in February 2011 was not subsequently included in the 2010/11 Learner Responsive QSRs for individual providers, and therefore does not appear in the 2010/11 Education & Training National Success Rates Tables.
Short learning aims, where the learner expects to complete in fewer than 24 weeks, are distinguished from longer learning aims. The tables also show national success rates for short learning aims of less than five weeks expected duration and short learning aims of between 5 and 24 weeks expected duration.
Exclusions
Key Skills learning aims have not been included in the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables owing to inconsistencies in the way that they were recorded on the ILR. Functional Skills learning aims and aims delivered by the Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) are also not included. This is consistent with the approach taken in Learner Responsive Qualification Success Rates reporting to individual providers.
How to use the Tables
- They allow providers to assess their performance and assist their planning of action to improve the success, retention and achievement rates of their learners.
- They support providers in the process of setting targets as part of their development plans.
- They inform the process of performance review by the Skills Funding Agency and by Local Authorities.
Who uses the Tables
Providers can contextualise their performance by comparing their results with the published Education and Training National Success Rates Tables. This information will support the process of setting targets for 2012/13 and beyond. Individual provider results will also be used by the Skills Funding Agency and by Local Authorities to compare and evaluate the performance of providers.
Where a provider’s performance differs from the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables data, the provider may wish to explore the reasons for this by calculating success, retention and achievement rates for particular parts of its provision and comparing these with statistics for similar provision at national level. To facilitate this comparison, a more detailed breakdown of the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables data by type of qualification and individual learning aim is also available.
In some cases there may be a difference between provider’s own statistics and the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables data because the mix of learning aims at the provider differs significantly from the national mix. This means that for some comparison purposes the National Success Rates Tables data may have to be adjusted. An example of how to adjust the data is shown in the definitions section. Viewing the Tables The data for 2010/11 can be accessed at the Success Rates pages of the Data Service website. The tables are presented as a set of spreadsheets that can be downloaded by users for further analysis.
HOW THE TABLES ARE CALCULATED Summary of calculation method The method takes data for each institution from the following ILR returns to create the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables:
- F05 ILR (2007; 2006/07)
- F05 ILR (2008; 2007/08)
- F05 ILR (2009; 2008/09)
- F05 ILR (2010; 2009/10)
- L05 ILR (2011; 2010/11)
F05 2006/07 is used to provide information on learners starting learning aims that were expected to end in 2008/09 or later, i.e. courses of three years or more duration. For example, learners on a three-year GNVQ programme starting in 2006/07 and expecting to end in 2008/09.
Learners and their learning aims are matched across the five years of ILR returns using the learner reference, course code, start date and expected end date to calculate the number of starters at the beginning of each programme, retention across the whole programme, and success and achievement levels. Only aims that learners expected to complete between 2008/09 and 2010/11 are included in the publication.
The Education and Training National Success Rates Tables data are built from cohort level, a cohort being learners studying a particular learning aim over the same duration and expecting to end in the same academic year.
Presentation standards
- Where the overall number of starters for an aim is less than 30 or the aim is delivered at only one institution, results and percentiles are not shown on the qualification level reports. A list of the aims excluded by these rules is published separately in the ‘Excluded Aims’ report.
- The percentage breakdown of numbers started may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
- On all reports numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Values less than 5 have been replaced with a ‘-‘, and values in the range 5 – 9 are rounded up to ‘10’.
- Since the data is calculated at qualification level, learners studying more than one qualification will appear once for each qualification.
GCSE grades The variable quality of data in the ‘grade’ field of the ILR means it is not yet possible to accurately differentiate the ranges of GCSE grades. In the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables the number of GCSEs achieved is calculated as the number of GCSEs achieved at grades A\* to G for all providers.
The Effect of Widely Differing Mixes of Qualification Type The example below shows how the National Success Rates Tables can be adjusted to match the mix of learning aims at an individual college, where the mix of aims at the college is significantly different from the national mix. The example relates to adult learners studying at Level 3 in a general further education college. The starting point is the average retention and achievement rates for different level 3 qualifications for all general further education colleges and for our example college.
Table 1. Level 3 qualifications, learners aged 19 and over
| | Average for GFEC / TC | Example College | |----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------| | | Retention Rate % | Achievement Rate % | Breakdown of enrolments % | Breakdown of enrolments % | | All Qualifications | 78 | 72 | - | - | | GCE A2 | 67 | 64 | 18 | 10 | | BTEC | 68 | 77 | 9 | 5 | | NVQ | 82 | 73 | 17 | 50 | | Other long | 83 | 64 | 56 | 35 |
In our example college, the level 3 provision for adults includes a higher proportion of NVQs, and a lower proportion of GCE A2 levels, BTEC/OCRs and Other learning aims than the national mix. In order to check whether the published National Success Rates Tables data for all level 3 aims is an appropriate comparator, the following calculation may be used:
Average GFEC/TC retention rate = 78% GFEC/TC retention rate for mix of aims in example college comprising: 10% GCE A2 retention rate of 67% = 6.7 5% BTEC retention rate of 68% = 3.4 50% NVQ retention rate of 82% = 41 35% Other long retention rate of 83% = 29.05 80.15 rounds to 80%
The same approach can be used for achievement rates:
Average GFEC/TC achievement rate = 72% GFEC/TC achievement rate for mix of aims in example college comprising: 10% GCE A2 achievement rate of 64% = 6.4 5% BTEC achievement rate of 77% = 3.85 50% NVQ achievement rate of 67% = 33.5 35% Other long achievement rate of 75% = 26.25 70.00 rounds to 70%
As can be seen, the adjusted National Success Rates Tables data are similar to the original National Success Rates Tables data, despite the very different mix of aims in the example college. In practice, mix of qualification types is unlikely to be a significant factor for most colleges. This method can be used on success rates and on achievement and retention rates.
Age group A learner’s age group is calculated from their age as at 31 August in the year they started their learning aim. Learners of unknown age are included in the age group 19 and over. Learners under 16 years are included in the 16-18 age group. All tables show the National Success Rates Tables data divided into three age groups: ‘16-18’, ‘19 and over’, and ‘All Ages’.
Short learning aims A learning aim is ‘short’ if it has an expected length of less than 24 weeks. In practice the majority of short aims are of 12 weeks duration or less. Short aims (excluding short Key Skills learning aims) are shown separately, since the success, retention and achievement rates for these aims are significantly different from those of longer aims. In addition, the tables show National Success Rates Tables data for short aims split into two subsets: less than five weeks expected duration and between 5 and 24 weeks duration.
**Learning aim levels**
Learning Aims are grouped according to their qualification level according to the categorisation of each aim on the Data Service’s learning aims database. The levels are:
- **level 1** includes qualifications at level 1 and level ‘E’ (entry level), such as NVQs and other foundation or pre-foundation qualifications
- **level 2** includes level 2 NVQs, intermediate NVQs and precursors (BTEC first certificate or first diploma, City and Guilds Diploma of Vocational Education at intermediate level), GCSEs and other intermediate level qualifications
- **level 3** includes level 3 NVQs, advanced NVQs and precursors (BTEC national certificate or national diploma, City and Guilds Diploma of Vocational Education at national level), advanced VCEs, GCE A, A2 and AS levels and other advanced level qualifications
- **level H** all level 4 and 5 qualifications including HNCs, HNDs, access to HE qualifications, NVQs at levels 4 and 5, and other higher level professional qualifications.
- **Level X** Qualifications with unknown or unspecified level
**Qualification codes**
The qualification codes shown in the qualification level data tables can be mapped to the qualification codes used in ILR L05 (from the Learning Aims Database (LAD)) using the hierarchy table that can be found at: [http://providers.lsc.gov.uk/LAD/downloads/MiscDownloads.asp](http://providers.lsc.gov.uk/LAD/downloads/MiscDownloads.asp) (see table labelled Mapcodes).
In this hierarchy table the Mapcode column corresponds with the qualification code shown in the qualification data tables of the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables.
**Number of starters**
The ‘number of starters’ is the number of enrolments on learning aims where the learner was expecting to complete the aims in that academic year. Details to note on the definition include:
(a) the number started excludes any learner who transferred onto another learning aim at the same institution. The learning aim the learner transfers into will be included as a start on the new aims. (b) learners who start on a learning aim expected to last at least 168 days and withdraw within 42 days of starting, qualify for an SLN payment yet have received no payment, are considered as not funded and are excluded from the count of starters. (c) each learning aim a learner is enrolled on is shown as a separate ‘start’. (d) the ‘number of starters’ for 2008/09 may include some provision not funded by the then Learning & Skills Council (LSC). (e) A cohort of learners on a two year programme who began their studies in October 2008 would appear in the results for 2009/10 as this is the academic year in which they expected to complete their learning aim, even if they withdrew before August 2009.
**Success rates**
Success rates are calculated as the number of learning aims achieved divided by the number of starters who do not transfer out (i.e. to another institution). It can also be derived by multiplying achievement rate by retention rate. Retention rate The retention rate is the number of learning aims completed, divided by the number of learners who started the aim, excluding transfers out. For programmes of study of two years or more, retention is calculated across the whole programme, i.e. from the start to the end of the aim.
Achievement rate The achievement rate is the number of learning aims fully achieved divided by the number of completed aims. This denominator includes those completers recorded with unknown outcomes in the ILR, for example outcome code 4 ‘exam taken but result not known’ or outcome code 5 ‘learning activities are complete but exam has not yet been taken’. Partial achievements are not included as achievements.
Measures of provider variability Measures of provider variability (percentiles) for success, retention and achievement rates enable institutions to compare their results against the range for the sector or particular groups of institutions.
The results in this publication show the rates where:
- providers with a success rate equal to or greater than the 90th percentile are in the top 10% of providers
- providers with a success rate equal to or greater than the 75th percentile are in the top 25% of providers
- providers with a success rate equal to or greater than the 50th percentile are in the top 50% of providers
- providers with a success rate less than or equal to the 25th percentile are in the bottom 25% of providers
- providers with a success rate less than or equal to the 10th percentile are in the bottom 10% of providers
This is illustrated by the following table. A provider with a success rate of 45% would be in the bottom 10% of providers, whereas a provider with a success rate of 82 would be in the top 10% of providers.
| Percentile Position | Overall Success Rate % | |---------------------|------------------------| | 10 | 46.5 | | 25 | 59.4 | | 50 | 68.6 | | 75 | 74.5 | | 90 | 81.3 |
An alternative way of looking at this for provider types is that:
- the top 10% of providers in a provider type category have a success rate equal to or greater than the 90th percentile
- the top 25% of providers in a provider type category have a success rate equal to or greater than the 75th percentile
- the top 50% of providers in a provider type category have a success rate equal to or greater than the 50th percentile • the bottom 25% of providers in a provider type category have a success rate less than or equal to the 25th percentile • the bottom 10% of providers in a provider type category have a success rate less than or equal to the 10th percentile
Measures of variability are calculated at provider level in order to provide information on variation between providers. This is different from the success, retention and achievement rates, which are calculated as the average rate for all the relevant enrolments, weighting each enrolment equally.
The measures of variability weight each provider equally. This means that learners in smaller providers have a greater bearing on results than those from larger providers. The results for small groupings, such as learning aims being studied by adults in sixth forms, will be affected by this weighting more than others.
It should be noted that in some cases the percentile tables may present data based upon a very small number of providers. In these cases the equal weighting of each provider may have a significant bearing on the variability of the measures presented.
The differences between the two methods can be seen by comparing the average or 'mean' rate, with 50th percentile or 'median'. In many cases the difference is slight, whereas in others such as Level 1 learning aims in sixth forms, the difference is greater. In this case the median is higher than the mean due to a number of providers with relatively few learners having high levels of retention and achievement. These providers are given the same weight in the calculation of the median as other sixth forms with a larger number of learners thereby increasing the median provider result. Care should therefore be exercised in the use of this percentile data to support business decisions.
Both the mean success, retention and achievement rate and the measures of variability are valid and useful measures, depending on whether the overall performance of the sector is of interest (mean success, retention and achievement rates) or the variability between providers is the focus (measures of variability).
How do I find out more? If you would like any more information about the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables please contact our Service Desk on 0870 267 0001 or email [email protected].
Please be aware that the Data Service is responsible for producing NSRT reports in accordance with the Learner Responsive Qualifications Success Rates methodology approved by the then Young People's Learning Agency (now the Education Funding Agency) & the Skills Funding Agency. The methodology was produced by the Strategy and Implementation Group of the then Young People's Learning Agency (now EFA) following the principles set out by the Data Harmonisation Group. See: http://www.theia.org.uk/harmonisingsuccessrates/dataharmonisationgroup/ The methodology is available at the Success Rate pages of the Data Service website.
Providers will find answers to most of their queries regarding the Education and Training National Success Rates Tables in the guidance document provided or in the frequently asked questions at the National Success Rates Tables page on the Data Service website. It is strongly recommended that providers refer to these sources before contacting the Data Service. If providers need further help, the Data Service will be pleased to receive queries regarding the Education and Training National Success Rates tables. However, when logging a query with the Data Service please provide a detailed explanation of the query being raised. Please also note that it may take longer to resolve queries in this way as they may need to be reviewed by different members of the Data Harmonisation Group.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4143-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 19340,
"total-output-tokens": 5798,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3205,
1
],
[
3205,
6122,
2
],
[
6122,
9496,
3
],
[
9496,
12270,
4
],
[
12270,
15435,
5
],
[
15435,
18805,
6
],
[
18805,
21338,
7
],
[
21338,
24672,
8
],
[
24672,
25098,
9
]
]
} |
941c3a9a1a90125d9f8310bdbfadb0470283ef3c | Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives? Introduction
Lesson at a Glance
Suitable For: KS3
Time Period: Early Modern 1485-1750
Curriculum Link: The development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745
➢ The first colony in America
Learning Objective: To investigate early interactions between settlers and natives in North America.
Resources needed: Printed sources and questions
The ‘New World’
In 1492, Christopher Columbus landed in the Caribbean, unlocking what Europeans quickly came to call the ‘New World’. Columbus ‘found’ a land with around two million inhabitants. He thought he had found a new route to the East, so he mistakenly called these people ‘Indians’. Within a hundred years, Europeans were trying to settle in the Americas. With Spanish and Portuguese explorers in the south, English explorers focused on North America.
This lesson examines what happened between early English settlers and Native Americans in North America. Using primary source evidence you will investigate what the early contact was like. Were the Native Americans savage and vicious hosts? Were the Europeans unreasonable and unfair? Or did they all just get along fine? You need to find out what happened.
The evidence comes from 1607. This was the year that the first permanent English settlement was established in North America, known as Jamestown. These first settlers – and those who sent them – were keen to find out about the area, keen to see how they could benefit. These settlers began to explore and they soon encountered the Native people. Using the information they recorded, you are going to examine their initial thoughts and feelings.
Contents: Teacher’s notes: .................................................. 3 Source One: .......................................................... 4 Source Two: .......................................................... 6 Source Three: ....................................................... 7 Source Four: .......................................................... 8 Source Five: .......................................................... 9 Source Six: ............................................................ 11
Useful links: Virtual Jamestown A site giving a lot of information about the original settlement at Jamestown, including a 3D reconstruction of the settlement and information about the people who lived there. Teacher’s notes
This lesson asks pupils to investigate the early contact between Europeans and Native Americans. Using primary source diary extracts, pupils are able to understand and appreciate the first encounters between European settlers and the indigenous people of North America. Pupils are asked to explore both positive and negative aspects of these encounters, which can then be developed further in a number of ways. Some may prefer to extend this to a comparison between later feelings and actions taken against the Native Americans, examining when the European ‘stereotype’ of the Native Americans emerged.
The lesson could form a background to the teaching of the first colony in America, part of ‘The development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745’ within the KS3 National Curriculum. The final written task offers a clear literacy opportunity, and further links with citizenship and PSHE issues could be made with teacher development.
Background
The first English explorers to North America arrived five years after Columbus in 1497, led by the Italian Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot). However the English did not try and establish permanent settlements in the ‘New World’ until much later.
In 1585, English colonists attempted to settle at a place called Roanoke. The settlement lasted only for a short time. After initial friendly relations, fighting broke out with the Native Americans when they refused demands for food from English soldiers. The colonists fled.
On May 14, 1607, the first lasting English settlement in North America was established. The settlement was named ‘Jamestown’ after the current King of England, James I. Captain Newport led the expedition, staying until June 22nd, when he sailed back to England for supplies. The source material in this Snapshot comes from the time between May and June, when Newport was in America. The report was probably written by Captain Gabriell Archer (CO 1/1).
104 settlers were left, with Captain John Smith placed in charge. These settlers were unprepared, and did not even plant the right crops or eat the right foods. They soon encountered starvation and famine, despite stealing food from the Native Americans. In the first three years, despite new arrivals, more than 80% of the settlers died – mostly from illness such as malaria. Thousands of Native Americans were also killed, either in fighting or by outbreaks of European diseases to which their bodies had no immunity.
Those settlers that survived, together with new arrivals, began to cultivate the land, growing tobacco. As more settlers arrived, more Native American hunting grounds were taken, and the Native Americans began to fight back. Any chance of peaceful relations were at an end.
Sources
Source 1 : MPG1/284 : This is a contemporary map engraved by William Hole based on descriptions by the discoverer of Virginia, Captain John Smith. The map uses a mix of English and Native place names.
Source 2-7 : CO1/1 : These are extracts from the diaries of one of the Virginia settlers, possibly Captain Gabriell Archer, and show the life of the settlers as well as their interaction with the native Americans. Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Source One: Extract from a journal of one of the settlers
This is an extract from one of the settlers diaries. What did the ‘Discoverers’ (explorers) take with them?
How many people went on the exploration? Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Transcript – Source One
Thursday the xxith of May, Capt[ain] Newport (having fitted our shallup with provision and all neccessaryes belonging to a discovery) tooke 5 . gentleme[n]. 4 Maryners . and 14 Sal[ours], with whome he [proc]eded with a [per]fect resoluyton not to returne, but either to find ye head of this Ryver, the Laake mentyoned by others heretofore, the Sea againe, the Mountaynes Apalatsi, or some issue
The names of the Dyscoverers are thes : Capt[ain] Christopher Newport
George Percye esq. Francys Nellson Capt[ain] Gabriell Archer John Collson. Capt[ain] Ihon Smyth Robert Tyndall Mariners M[aster] Ihon Brookes Marrhew Fytch M[aster] Thomas Wotton
Jonas Poole. Robert Markham. John Crookdeck. Olyver Browne. Beniamyn White. Rych[ard] Genoway Tho[mas] Turnbrydg Tho[mas] Godword Robert Jackson Charles Clarke Stephen Thomas Slymer Jeremy Deale Danyell
Transcript – Source Two
Satterday we passed a few short reaches; and . 5. mile of Poore Cottage we went a shore. Heer we found our kinde
Comrades againe, who had gyven notice all along as they came of us: by which we were entertayned with much Courtesye in every place. We found here a Wiroans (for so they call their kynges) who satt vpon a matt of Reedes, with his people about him: He casue one to be layd for Captain Newport, gave vs a Deare roasted; which accor ding to their Custome they seethed againe: His people gaue Vs mullberyes, sodd wheate and beanes, and he caused his weomen to make Cakes for Vs. He gaue our Captaine his Crowne whic which was of Deares hayre dyed redl. Certifying him of our intentyon vp the Ryver, he was willing to send guydes with vs. Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Source Two: Extract from a journal of one of the settlers
This is another extract from the diary seen in Source 1.
- How welcome were the men made? [Think about how they were ‘entertained’]
- What was done to show respect for Captain Newport?
- What did the native people give them? [3 things]
- What did the Captain get?
- How do you think these explorers felt about their treatment? Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Source Three: Extract from a journal of one of the settlers
Transcript – Source Three
But in presence of them both it fell out that we missing two bullet-bagges which had shott and Dyvers trucking toyes in them: we Complayned to theis kynges, who instantly caused them all to be restored, not wanting any thing. Howbeit they had Devyded the shott and toyes to (at least) a dozen seuerall persons; and those also in the llet over the water: One also having stollen a knyfe, brought it againe upon this Comaunde before we supposed it lost, or had made made any signe for it: so Captaine Newport gaue thanckes to the Kinges and rewarded the theeves with the same toyes they had stollen, but kept the bulletes: yet he made knowne vnto them the Custome of England to be Death for such offences.
This extract describes how the explorers were missing two bullet-bags and the contents.
- When the loss was reported, how quick and effective was the Native Americans response?
- Why do you think the materials were taken by the Native Americans?
- How is the situation resolved?
- From the evidence so far, how would you describe the relationship between the Europeans and the Natives? Make sure you explain your ideas – use the questions below to help:
- Have both groups shown themselves to be friendly? How?
- Has respect been shown to each other? How?
- How well have problems been resolved?
- Are there any sign of nerves or worries? Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Source Four: Extract from a journal of one of the settlers
Transcript – Source Four
some of his people led vs to their houses, showed vs the growing of their Corne & the maner of setting it, gave us Tobacco, Wallnutes, mullberyes, strawberryes, and Respises. One shewed vs the herbe called in their tongue wisacan, which they say heales poysoned woundes, it is like lyverwort of bloudwort. One gaue me a Roote wherewith they poisen their Arrowes. they would shew vs any thing we Demaunded, and laboured very much by signes to make vs understand their Languadg.
This extract explains the natives showing the settlers how they lived.
- What are the explorers shown how to do? [Think about what 'manner of setting' actually means]
- If the Natives are willing to do this, what does this suggest about them?
- Which of the following sentences best describes this early contact? Write a paragraph to explain your choice.
- the Natives were warning them off – showing they didn’t welcome 'strangers' bringing disease
- the Natives were enormously friendly to the Europeans – helpful in every possible way
- the Europeans were extremely scared but had nothing to worry about – they all got along fine! Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Source Five: Extract from a journal of one of the settlers
[Image of handwritten text]
[Image of handwritten text] Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Transcript – Source Five
They goe all naked save their privytes, yet in coole weather they weare deare skinns, with the hayre on loose: some have leather stockinges vp to their twistes, & sandalls on their feet, their hayre is black generally, which they weare long on the left side, tyed vp on a knott, about which knott the kinges and best among them have a kind of Coronett of deares hayre coloured redd, some have chaines of long linckt copper about their neckesm and some chaines of pearle, the common sort stick long fethers in this knott, I found not a grey eye among them all. their skynn is tawny not so borne, but with dying and paynting them selues, in which they – delight greatly. The wemen are like the men, onely this difference; their hayre – groweth long al over their heads save clipt – somewhat short afore, these do all the labour and the men hunt and goe at their plesure.
This extract describes how the natives appeared to the settlers.
- Write as much as you can about the following things:
- clothing
- footwear
- hair / hairstyle
- skin
- differences between men and women
- Using this information, why do you think some settlers felt uncomfortable with Native Americans? Source Six: Extract from a journal of one of the settlers
The women are very cleanly in making your bread and preparing meat. I found your account after dinner to get into your world pouring softward to G. Elment, and when they saw us at prayer, they offered us with great pleasure and respect, especially to welcome and impart your meaning of your presence. To conclude they are a very wise and ingenious people, apt both to understand and speak your language, as I expect in God and Christ unceasingly to provide for Christ from all things to body and soul and land and your fury. I do will make the utmost of God's will in understanding your true Christian faith by God's own sufficient grace and knowledge of God's will. Native North Americans
What was early contact like between Europeans and Natives?
Transcript - Source Six
The wemen are very cleanly in making their bread and preparing meat. I found they account after death to goe into an other world pointing eastward to the Element, and when they saw vs at prayer they observed vs with great silence and respect, especially those to whome I had imparted the meaning of our reverence. To conclude they are a very witty and ingenious people, apt both to understand and speake our language, so that I hope in god as he hath miraculously preserved vs hither from all dangers both of sea and land & their fury so he will make vs authors of his holy will in converting them to our true Christian faith by his owne inspireing grace and knowledge of his deity.
Imagine you were amongst these first settlers.
- Write your own journal entry describing your first contact with the Natives. Look at the source to get an idea of a journal entry. Make sure you cover:
- your fears before you arrived
- how you felt about the native people after first contact
- how accurate your fears were
- what you feel you can gain from these people
- what you feel you and others must be careful of doing
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4144-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 20192,
"total-output-tokens": 3726,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
83,
1
],
[
83,
2439,
2
],
[
2439,
5613,
3
],
[
5613,
5906,
4
],
[
5906,
7640,
5
],
[
7640,
8115,
6
],
[
8115,
9643,
7
],
[
9643,
10934,
8
],
[
10934,
11135,
9
],
[
11135,
12430,
10
],
[
12430,
13156,
11
],
[
13156,
14385,
12
]
]
} |
cb4ada3f8f81b8ab909fc2ca007a8b15f93fbf75 | Customer Member
Navigating your Room
1. Navigate to the Room **Home page**.
2. To close the **map/search/tasks pane** select the **X** button (A).
3. The Control bar shows the **Navigation path/breadcrumb trail** (B) which tracks a member’s location within the Room and allows them to navigate back to a specific screen.
4. The **tool bar** (C) has the following buttons:
- **logout** logs a member out of the Shared Workspace service.
- **Unread** icon only appears when a member has unread items in the Room. Selecting this icon opens the next unread item.
- **Intercom** icon allows a member to have a live chat with other members of the Room who are logged into the Room, or alert them of their presence.
- **Alert** icon sends an email alert message to other members. Also known as the paper aeroplane.
- **Help** icon at the top of the page opens the online help for Shared Workspace.
- **Member** icon lets a member know who is currently in the Room. Pointing the mouse cursor over this icon displays a list of members currently logged into the Room. 5 The **room button bar** has the following buttons
- **create** (D) allows members to **add new items** such as Folders, Databases and Calendars
- **search** (E) allows members to make a **full text search** of all files and items in the Room
- **events** (F) allows members to view any **events** entered in a Calendar
- **members** (G) allows members to see the list of **Room members** and their details.
**Note**
The create button will not be shown on the front page of a Room because it is Shared Workspace policy to lock the front page of all Rooms.
6 The **Item box** displays the items within a Room. It can contain a variety of items, for example
- **Folder** (H) – you can **view** or **edit** the contents by selecting the icon
- **Database** (I) – you can **view** or **edit** the contents by selecting the icon
- **Recycle Bin** (J) – stores all files deleted from the Room. Only the Room's BAOs can access files stored in the Recycle Bin. 7 The **command bar** has the following buttons
- **create** (K) allows members to **create items** the same as the Room button bar item (not shown when front page is locked)
- **add file** (L) allows members to **add a file** to the Room (not shown when front page is locked)
- **mark read** (M) allows members to **select specific**, or **all items** as read
- **commands** (N) allows members to **display items** in a detailed list with check boxes.
- **large icons** button (O) allows members to view items as large icons.
- **list icons** button (P) allows members to view items as a list.
- **detailed list** icon (Q) allows members to view items in a detailed list with a check box.
8 You can also access Commands for each item in the Room by right-clicking the item to display a **pop-up menu** (R). 9 The **add an announcement** button (S) allows members to add a comment to the Room’s front page.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4145-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7134,
"total-output-tokens": 887,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1081,
1
],
[
1081,
2040,
2
],
[
2040,
2851,
3
],
[
2851,
2949,
4
]
]
} |
0870483a31268311eb2a0a0c4bafc5577f5ddbf7 | The Scrutiny Panel is currently undertaking a review:
- To examine the extent to which individuals and families are experiencing food poverty, the range of contributing factors and the changes that have been made to the way the Council and partners support residents during hardship.
- To review the impact and concentration of food poverty across the Borough of Northampton
The required outcomes are:
- To make informed recommendations to all relevant parties on the most appropriate approaches to take to mitigate the impact of food poverty in Northampton.
- To make recommendations on how the specific issues in relation to food poverty are dealt with from now until the new Unitary Authority. CORE QUESTIONS:
A series of key questions have been put together to inform the evidence base of the Scrutiny Panel:
1. In your opinion, what are the main impacts of food poverty?
It’s important to define what we mean by “food poverty” so that we can properly understand what the impacts of this might be and to accurately measure how widespread this problem is.
**Food poverty** according to the Department of Health is “the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet”(^1). It is closely related to **household food insecurity** which is the inability to be able to secure social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life(^2).
**Hunger** as a term to describe the physical feeling of insufficient food is used by a number of organisations working with people unable to afford food as a means of communicating messages to the wider public, including the Trussell Trust, FareShare, Magic Breakfast, and Church Action on Poverty. Hunger is one consequence of food insecurity but not an inevitability.
A clear direct impact of not having access to a healthy diet is malnutrition. As illustrated in **Figure 1** below, the malnutrition that arises as a result of food insecurity can manifest as undernutrition, **hunger and underweight** but may also come in the form of **nutrient deficiencies with healthy weights** or **overweight/obesity**.
The poor health and wellbeing and risk of chronic ill-health related to food poverty are not only due to the direct dietary risks but also due to associated social and psychological impacts e.g. chronic stress related to food poverty and poverty more generally, poor school performance due to acute hunger, It is also important to consider the differences between acute hunger and chronic food insecurity.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Department of Health, Choosing a Better Diet: a food and health action plan, 2005
(^2) [http://www.fao.org/3/y4671e/y4671e06.htm](http://www.fao.org/3/y4671e/y4671e06.htm) Poverty has been further defined in terms of the way that it effectively excludes individuals from participation in what might be regarded as the customary life of society (Levitas, 2006).³
**Figure 1. Pathways to multiple forms of malnutrition from food insecurity**
2. **How widespread do you understand food poverty in the borough to be?**
Food poverty or food insecurity are challenging conditions to measure and there is a lack of robust or systematic measures in the UK. Other measures, however, can be useful in estimating the size of the problem.
Food poverty is clearly linked to poverty more generally and poverty can be measured in a number of ways. One useful metric is “income deprivation” which measures the number of people who are in receipt of various means tested benefits. In 2015 the total number of people affected by income deprivation in Northampton was 27,279⁵ of whom 7,806⁶ were children and 6,193⁷ older people.
______________________________________________________________________
³ Levitas, L. (2006) The concept of measurement and social exclusion, in C. Pantazis, D. Gordon and R. Levitas (eds.) *Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. The Millenium survey.* Bristol: Policy Press.
⁴ The State of Food Security [http://www.fao.org/3/i9553EN/i9553en.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/i9553EN/i9553en.pdf)
⁵ Income Deprivation domain of [Indices of Deprivation 2019](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/indices-of-deprivation-2019)
⁶ [IDACI 2019](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/indices-of-deprivation-2019)
⁷ [IDOPI 2019](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/indices-of-deprivation-2019) Use of emergency food aid (i.e. food banks) can give an indication of the levels of need around acute food poverty. It should be noted that while the existence of emergency food aid provision reflects the growth of both episodic and chronic severe food poverty it measures just one aspect of this and so doesn’t capture those who manage food insecurity in different ways.
Re;Store coordinate food parcels across 6 churches in Northampton Borough and in 2018 distributed 4500 parcels (website reference). There are other emergency food aid providers (including those who provide meals to the homeless and rough sleepers) that are not included in this figure. Nationally, the Trussell Trust saw a 20% increase between 2017-2018 in the number of food parcels given out in the summer holidays.
3. In your opinion does food poverty differ across the borough of Northampton and what are the reasons for this?
Food poverty is closely related to income deprivation and so patterns of food poverty across the borough are likely to mirror pattern of deprivation across the borough. Map 1 below illustrates the proportion of children across the county affected by income deprivation.
The 2019 update to Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) identifies the top 20 most deprived small areas (lower super output areas – LSOAs) in the proposed West Northamptonshire [see Appendix 1]. It shows that 19 of the 20 areas are in Northampton Borough and that one small area in the borough is within the 1% most deprived LSOAs in England (Bellinge Ward: Fieldmill Road area, Billing Aquadrome).
Another important factor to consider is accessibility of food, and in particular fresh fruit and vegetables. ‘Food Deserts’ describe areas where there are no shops selling affordable healthy food. This is particularly an issue for those with mobility issues or lack of access to transport.
Map 1. Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) Northamptonshire 2019
______________________________________________________________________
8 [http://www.healthscotland.scot/media/2222/food-poverty.pdf](http://www.healthscotland.scot/media/2222/food-poverty.pdf)
9 [https://www.restorenorthampton.org.uk/](https://www.restorenorthampton.org.uk/)
10 [https://www.trusselltrust.org/2019/07/16/uk-food-banks-fear-busiest-summer-ever-ahead/](https://www.trusselltrust.org/2019/07/16/uk-food-banks-fear-busiest-summer-ever-ahead/) The University of Southampton has developed a methodology\\textsuperscript{11} to estimate risk of food poverty across local communities and it was last updated in September 2019. The map below shows the food poverty estimates at MSOA level across the borough of Northampton. Other presentations of the data are available here.
\\textsuperscript{11} Identifying populations and areas at greatest risk of household food insecurity in England, D. Smith et al. University of Southampton, 2018. Further details on methodology available from Public Health Intelligence, NCC. 4. What strategic approaches are you aware of to tackle food poverty?
In order to understand approaches to tackle food poverty it’s important to understand the root causes of food poverty. An analysis by the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK” identified three themes relating to the causes of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition:
1. Low incomes and rising living costs:
2. Universal Credit and the benefits system; and
3. Cuts to funding for local social care services. Further to this, Sustain, in their guide to developing Food Poverty Action Plans suggest three broad approaches to tackle food poverty that complement the three key themes identified by the Environmental Audit Committee, namely;
4. Taking a preventative approach a. Improving access to financial and debt advice as well as maximising access to welfare and discretionary funds inc. fuel poverty funds. b. Improving access to healthy start vouchers, breastfeeding support and free school meal provision and access to affordable locally grown produce. c. Promoting fair incomes and the Living Wage
5. Shaping crisis provision (or more immediate provision) a. Improving access to food aid by developing signposting tools for frontline staff and ensure this is delivered in a non-stigmatising way. b. Improving nutritional value of food aid. c. Promoting greater coordination and networking of assistance providers.
6. Taking a wider approach a. Measuring and monitoring food poverty at a local level b. Using planning and business rate relief systems to shape local areas and support social supermarkets and community food growing c. Provide stable and affordable housing as well as access to energy efficiency measures d. Make reducing food inequalities a priority across a range of strategies and plans and/or integrate food poverty actions within a wider food plan
It is also worth noting that innovative digital approaches can be employed as part of actions to address food poverty across these themes. In partnership with CAST (Centre for the Acceleration of Social Technology), Oxfam is exploring how digital technology can challenge and address the causes of food poverty in the UK.
5. What approaches are in existence to reduce people’s dependency on food aid, such as Food Banks?
A review by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), Church of England, Oxfam GB and The Trussell Trust “Emergency Use Only: Understanding and reducing the use of food banks in the UK”(^\\text{12}) gives the following recommendations for preventing need for food banks:
- Improve access to short-term benefit advances: increase awareness, simplify the claim process and improve data collection to identify support needs.
(^{12}) [https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank%20Report_web.pdf](https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank%20Report_web.pdf) • Reform sanctions policy and practice: increase access to hardship payments, clarify communications about sanctions, mitigate the impact whilst a sanction is being reconsidered and address issues for Housing Benefit. • Improve the ESA regime: ensure claimants are not left without income whilst challenging a decision made because of missing medical certificates or missed appointments. • Sustain and improve access to emergency financial support through Local Welfare Assistance Schemes. • Ensure Jobcentres provide an efficient and supportive service for all clients. • Improve Jobcentre Plus Advisers’ awareness of, and ability to respond to, mental health problems. • Improve access to appropriate advice and support.
Crisp et al 2016\\textsuperscript{13} explores the value of community led approaches to reducing poverty in neighbourhoods, including:
- Approaches impacting on the ‘material’ forms of poverty, reducing housing or fuel costs or creating employment opportunities
- Approaches impacting on the ‘non-material’ aspects by enhancing health and wellbeing, improving quality of housing, the condition of the physical environment and increasing levels of social participation.
Approaches are neighbourhood based; need adequate funding and are reliant on skills and leadership and a strong voluntary and community sector.
Approaches include:
- Voluntary action
- Food banks
- Community organising and social action
- Neighbourhood enterprise
- Community-based credit unions
- Developing physical assets
- Community-led housing
This conceptual distinction between material and non-material forms of poverty provides a useful framework for understanding the broad range of poverty-related outcomes that community-led approaches may have. This is summarised in Table 1 below. The framework enables distinctions to be drawn between interventions that might not prevent 'material' poverty but could mitigate some of the 'non-material' impacts of poverty that are part of the experience of poverty.
\\textsuperscript{13} CRESR, 2016 Community-led approaches to reducing poverty in neighbourhoods: A review of evidence and practice Table 1: Potential impacts on poverty of community-led activities
| Activities may impact on 'material' poverty where they generate outcomes around: | Activities may impact on 'non-material' poverty where they generate outcomes around: | |---|---| | □ Jobs | □ Education | | □ Employment | □ Health | | □ Worklessness | □ Housing (availability, quality or security) | | □ Enterprise | □ Community safety | | □ Local economic growth | □ Physical environment | | □ Living costs (e.g. food, fuel or housing) | □ Social interaction | | | □ Community cohesion | | | □ Community empowerment |
6. How do you understand food poverty is being addressed?
Nationally, the Government has recognised the need to understand better and measure the impact of food poverty. A national index of food insecurity is to be incorporated into an established UK-wide annual survey run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that monitors household incomes and living standards.
More widely, parliament, via the Environmental Audit Committee published a report in 2019 recommending greater action to reduce food poverty across the UK.
There are also a number of voluntary sector organisations who campaign around Food Poverty. Schemes such as ‘The Sustainable Food Cities Award’ incorporates a strand on tackling food poverty, diet related ill-health and access to affordable healthy food as part of the criteria for award.
Locally, alongside emergency food aid provision to address acute poverty there have been partnership efforts in recent years to address the root causes of food poverty. Northamptonshire Community Foundation currently host the Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network who are active in promoting issues of food poverty across the
Some of the NCC Public Health Team’s activities to address food poverty are listed below:
As part of the support for the Borough and Districts Health and Wellbeing Fora, a Public Health Healthy Town grant was made available in 2018-19 for them to apply for projects that support the health and wellbeing of local residents. Out of the 17 projects supported 5 projects are food related.
Breastfeeding – Health Visitors commissioned by the public health team provide infant feeding support including breastfeeding drop-ins as one of the key areas to reduce impacts of food poverty.
The Healthy Start Scheme is a statutory UK-wide government scheme that provides a ‘nutritional safety net’ for pregnant women and families on qualifying benefits and tax credits. Women who are at least 10 weeks pregnant and families with children under 4 qualify if the families received the relevant benefits. Pregnant women under 18 are also eligible, regardless of whether they receive benefits. The scheme includes food vouchers and vitamin supplements. The uptake of Healthy Start vouchers in Northampton borough in August 2019 was 56%. Nationally the uptake in this period was 52%.
A recent recruitment to a public health role has the function to develop a coordinated plan of existing work to tackle obesity across the County and identify key gaps that can be collectively worked on through a whole systems approach.
There are also projects around fuel poverty and healthy schools that seek to improve people’s uptake of means tested support e.g. support to reduce fuel poverty and to provide free school meals.
7. How can the Borough Council, together with its partners, can collectively respond to food poverty?
Food poverty is an issue affecting the whole county and while there will be geographical and demographic variation the core issues, principles, actions and goals will be similar across all the boroughs and districts.
With the move to the two unitary authorities a way forward could be to use this issue to come together across the County and consider the following actions for local authorities recommended by Sustain:
- Developing a **food action plan** to tackle food poverty
- Improving the uptake of Healthy Start vouchers
- Promoting breastfeeding via the Baby Friendly Initiative
- Harnessing the value of children’s centres
- Ensuring low-income families have adequate access to childcare
- Ensuring children’s access to food 365 days a year
- Becoming a Living Wage employer and promoting the Living Wage • Ensuring all residents have physical access to good food • Supporting and enhancing meals on wheels provision • Supporting financial advice services and providing crisis support
8. In your opinion what are the specific issues relating to food poverty?
Food poverty is a complex issue and so has multiple and overlapping causal factors and impacts on health and wellbeing.
As noted by the Trussell Trust there are a widening group of people affected by food poverty, destitution and hunger\\textsuperscript{14}. Those vulnerable to food poverty are likely to be disadvantaged in other ways that have a negative impact on health and wellbeing.
Some specific associations with higher risk of food banks use include those who have a disability or health condition, lone parents and families with 3 or more children, those who have experienced adverse life events such as bereavement or loss of a job plays a role in food bank usage.
9. Are you aware of the existence of “holiday hunger” and what is its impact?
A national survey conducted by the NEU indicates teachers concerned over pupils missing meals during the school holidays\\textsuperscript{15} and describe how the impacts of lack of school meals during the holidays and how these are compounded by:
• Increased pressure on family food budget • Increased costs in Child care • Increased Fuel bills (even cooking food has a cost) • Social contact is diminished • School readiness and learning decline • Family Stress elevated
There is national evidence of adults skipping meals to save money so that their children can eat. For example in London in 2018 33% skipped meals\\textsuperscript{16}
\\textsuperscript{14} Trussell Trust, 2019 The State of Hunger
\\textsuperscript{15} https://neu.org.uk/press-releases/neu-survey-increase-amount-teenagers-going-hungry-during-summer-holidays
\\textsuperscript{16} GLA, 2018 Final London Food Strategy One project funded by the NCC Public Health Grant – Food with Dignity – was set up to address the issue of holiday hunger. As part of its application it recorded:
**KCU (Kettering Community Unit) food bank statistics and local feedback:**
Between October 2017 and September 2018, 1,495 adults and 1,032 children were fed through the food bank. Since the start of rollout of Universal Credit (October 2018), there has already been over a 30% increase on the figures in food parcel requirements. In areas where full rollout has been going for 1 year, the average increase in food bank usage is 52%.
Researchers at Thomas Coram speaking with children on the impacts on their lives.(^{17})
- Children in low income families are going hungry and missing out on healthy food and social activities that their peers take for granted. Lack of money and food cause children physical pain, feelings of guilt and shame and a sense of social exclusion; Children in lone parents families are at greater risk of food poverty than others, reflecting broad poverty trends. Since most lone parents are mothers, the health implications of parental sacrifice are gendered;
- Free school meals are sometimes delivered in a discriminatory and stigmatising way and often don’t buy enough to fill someone up.
They recommended:
- Healthy free school meals should be available to all children at school. Solutions to food poverty must address the root causes of low and irregular wages, inadequate benefits and the high cost of essentials that leave parents struggling to make ends meet.
**10. Please supply details of the support that your organisation or group offers?**
Northamptonshire County Council supports disadvantaged groups who are vulnerable to food insecurity through a number of its statutory services as well as non-statutory offers.
The Adult Learning Service provides a “healthy cooking on a budget” course to provide communities with skills to prepare healthy meals with fruits and vegetables while
As noted above the Public Health within NCC provides support around reducing the burden of food poverty in the following ways:
(^{17}) CPAG 2019 Living Hand to Mouth The public health team have a responsibility to produce Joint Strategic Needs Assessments that identify local health and wellbeing priorities.
- **Commissioning** –
- Through our commissioned services (primarily the Public Health Nursing Service) we:
- Work with health visitors to improve uptake of Healthy Start scheme
- Maintain level 3 accreditation for the Baby Friendly Initiative as part of the public health nursing contract.
- Work with health visitors to promote breastfeeding as part of infant feeding offer
- **Partnership and project working** –
- Our work also includes areas that have an impact on the determinants of food poverty including:
- Projects working with schools to improve uptake of free school meals.
- Projects to reduce fuel poverty and address other wider determinants including access to training and employment will contribute to reducing food poverty.
- Obesity prevention activities including promoting cooking on a budget skills and shaping food environments to reduce accessibility of fast food.
11. Please supply details of your thoughts on suggested solutions regarding food poverty.
12. **Bringing together local leaders** Identify a strategic group to come together and map the need, current provision and develop a way forward across:
13. **Tackling the underlying causes of food poverty** This includes working on local economic development, access to training and good quality jobs as well as a living wage and improving access to benefits.
14. **Improving access to existing support for those at risk of food poverty** This includes improving uptake of free school meals, healthy start vouchers and other related support for prevention of acute food poverty.
15. **Working at local community level to address food poverty** This includes improving access to affordable healthy foods through working on local community growing schemes and working with local businesses.
16. Are you aware of the number of people who are registered for pupil premium? Please supply details.
Pupil premium for deprivation is provided to schools on the basis of the number of pupils on the school roll that have ever eligible for FSM, (including those not currently eligible for FSM). Pupil Premium is also awarded on the basis of other elements of need e.g. children who have previously been “looked after children” and children of those previously in service in the armed forces.
Nationally, data on pupil premium values is reported according to the upper tier authority or parliamentary constituency that the school is located in and not lower tier authorities.
FSM eligibility, conversely, is available at borough level and is presented below:
Table 2. - Free School Meals Eligibility - January School Census 2019
| District | % Eligible | Eligible | Total on Roll | |-------------------|------------|----------|---------------| | Northamptonshire | 10.4% | 12300 | 118504 | | Corby | 12.5% | 1598 | 12831 | | Daventry | 9.3% | 1009 | 10897 | | East Northants | 8.6% | 1022 | 11920 | | Kettering | 10.2% | 1688 | 16517 | | Northampton | 11.7% | 3934 | 33642 | | South Northants | 4.5% | 812 | 18097 | | Wellingborough | 12.3% | 1543 | 12513 | | PRU | 47.5% | 96 | 202 | | Special | 31.7% | 598 | 1885 |
13. Do you have further information or comments regarding food poverty which you would like to inform the Scrutiny Panel? We would like to promote the development of a food poverty strategy and note that the process of developing a food poverty strategy can of itself have wider impacts such as:
- Raising the profile of food poverty, especially with local decision-makers
- Developing a shared positive vision
- Creating a sense of empowerment for experts by experience
- Empowering diverse groups to raise their voices to call for food justice
- Ensuring the local council and other partners take ownership of agreed actions
- Sharing of good practice across local authority boundaries to support specific projects(^\\text{18})
(^{18}) Developing food poverty action plans 2019, Sustain
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4146-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 15,
"total-input-tokens": 26343,
"total-output-tokens": 6125,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
701,
1
],
[
701,
2773,
2
],
[
2773,
4347,
3
],
[
4347,
6689,
4
],
[
6689,
7258,
5
],
[
7258,
7852,
6
],
[
7852,
10238,
7
],
[
10238,
12381,
8
],
[
12381,
14374,
9
],
[
14374,
16643,
10
],
[
16643,
18548,
11
],
[
18548,
20720,
12
],
[
20720,
22677,
13
],
[
22677,
24377,
14
],
[
24377,
25048,
15
]
]
} |
e6964a26c05de1d67fef3a849af858d6ed0545ef | 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) has been maintaining and paying the electricity for a number of Northampton Borough Council (NBC) and Northamptonshire Partnership Homes (NPH) owned street lights for a number of years. NCC propose to hand the 607 street lights back to NBC/NPH to manage and maintain. Any that are not accepted will be removed by NCC at the end of September 2017.
1.2 Following the Overview and Scrutiny report in July 2015 and the Cabinet response in January 2017, an Officer/Member working group was established which is chaired by the Deputy Leader, Cllr Phil Larratt. The working group has met on five occasions with the next planned for 18 September 2017.
1.3 The lighting in question sits on a number of parks and housing estate areas. The ownership of the 607 lighting columns breakdown is as follows:
| Ownership | Number | Percentage | |-----------------|--------|------------| | NBC Assets | 179 | 29.5% | | NPH | 428 | 70.5% |
The responsibility for the management and maintenance of the lights will fall as per the percentages above.
1.4 This paper provides an update on progress made and the next steps.
2. UPDATE
2.1 The key responsibility of the working group is to identify, monitor and evaluate current usage of all NBC owned Street Lighting. The working group will also oversee the transfer of those street lights which are owned by NBC but currently managed and maintained by NCC. A number of these street lights are on NPH land and discussions are underway regarding the management and maintenance of these.
2.2 NBC/NPH are keen to ensure that the street lighting asset list is accurate and comprehensive. Some assessment work therefore is necessary. To help to identify any street lighting that NBC may not be aware of, a communication has been composed which has been sent to the NBC and NCC Ward Councillors, the two Business Improvement Districts (town centre and Brackmills), Parish Councils and local groups. This states that NBC are in the process of updating their street lighting asset list and that their assistance may be required in terms of identification of street lights which may need repairing/replacing. Some responses have already been received from these emails and relevant work is being carried out.
2.3 NCC attended the last working group to outline their current position as follows:
- NCC have undertaken an audit of their street lighting and will no longer be managing, maintaining or paying the electricity for any street lighting that is not on their land or owned by them.
- NCC have a deadline of the end of September 2017 to hand back all of these street lights to the relevant authorities.
- Any which are not on NCC land and are not accepted by the local authorities will remain in their management and will be removed.
- NBC and NPH will need to decide whether or not to accept the transfer which is scheduled for 2 October 2017.
- NBC and NPH will have to manage, maintain and pay the electricity for the street lighting that is accepted from NCC.
2.4 The lighting is situated in a number of housing estate areas and parks. If they were to be removed, this would have a detrimental effect for the tenants of those areas and the visitors to the parks in the darkened hours.
3. NEXT STEPS
3.1 Considering the information in 2.3 and 2.4, a paper is going to Cabinet on Wednesday 13 September with the recommendation that NBC and NPH accept the transfer from NCC and the responsibility for the maintenance and electricity costs for the 607 NBC/NPH owned lighting columns.
3.2 The NBC Owned Street Lighting Group are working on completing a comprehensive asset list which will include all of the NBC/NPH owned lighting. This will also include the lighting to be accepted from NCC and ensure NBC and NPH are maintaining the lighting to the highest standard possible. Following the Cabinet decision, a report will be commissioned to survey all of the NBC owned street lighting, undertake an options appraisal and make any recommendations of energy saving opportunities. as well as any which may need replacing/removing. It is likely that this will bring forward opportunities for an invest to save programme
3.3 A map containing all the NBC and NPH street lights is in the process of being completed which will inform the survey.
4. THE WAY FORWARD
4.1 The information within the survey report and options appraisal will allow NBC and NPH to make an informed decision on the future of each street light. This will include upgrading, removal and replacement. Recommendations from this report will be consulted on with the relevant wards and taken to Cabinet for approval.
4.2 NCC will begin to remove any unwanted street lighting starting at the end of September 2017.
4.3 NBC and NPH to negotiate with a management company to manage and maintain the lighting assets on behalf of NBC and NPH.
4.4 The cost implications arising from the management and maintenance of street lights are yet to be established, however an indicative figure will be reported to Cabinet of £72,500 for the electricity and maintenance costs. Once finalised the cost apportionment will be discussed and finalised with NPH.
4.5 A method to enable the public to report any defects to NBC or its nominated contractor, as may be appropriate, will need to be identified.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 That Overview & Scrutiny;
1. Note the progress that has been made to date and invites the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to submit a further update in due course
2. Endorse the way forward outlined in this briefing.
John Dale Head of Economic Development and Regeneration September 2017
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4147-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5432,
"total-output-tokens": 1385,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1436,
1
],
[
1436,
4113,
2
],
[
4113,
5723,
3
]
]
} |
c794d0f40221ebb730e92b97888fd41ca8686f96 | Public Health Funding Allocations
From April 2013, public health responsibilities will transfer from the NHS to local government. A ring-fenced public health grant will support local authorities in carrying out these new public health functions. This briefing summarises the recent Department of Health announcements on public health funding allocations and key implications for London boroughs.
Background
In November 2010 the government set out its vision to help people live longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives, and to focus on reducing health inequalities. Since then, a programme has been put in place to improve public health through strengthening local action, supporting self-esteem and behavioural changes, promoting healthy choices and changing the environment to support healthier lives. As part of this, from April 2013 there will be major changes to the public health system in England:
- Local authorities will take the lead for improving health and coordinating local efforts to protect the public’s health and wellbeing, ensuring health services effectively promote population health and take on responsibilities for commissioning a range of public health services.
- A new executive agency, Public Health England (PHE) will deliver services, act as a lead for public health and support the development of the specialist and wider public health workforce.
- The NHS will continue to play a role in commissioning services, providing care, tackling inequalities and providing clinical contact.
- The Department of Health (DH) will set the legal and policy framework, secure resources and advocate public health to the government.
Key issues
The announcement of local government public health allocations has been very late which has had a direct impact on boroughs’ ability to effectively plan their local public health services in advance of April 2013.
- More positively, local authorities have received protected two-year above inflation increases in their public health funding allocations that are significantly higher than expected. Aver- age increases for London authorities are 4.7 per cent (2013/14) and 4.3 per cent (2014/15).
- The allocations do however raise a number of potential issues for London local authorities, these include:
- Wide variation in terms of the allocated spend per-head between boroughs. Excluding the City, spend per head in 2013/14 ranges from £29 (Bexley) to £132 (Westminster); and in 2014/15, from £32 (Bexley) to £133 (Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea)
- London seems to be losing out through the formula in the longer term which is hidden by significant uplifts in the baseline for 2013/14 and 2014/15
- It remains unclear how funding relates to the cost of actually delivering the public health function (the original baseline was solely based on previous PCT priorities)
- The ring fenced budget is accompanied by relatively onerous reporting requirements given the amounts of funding involved.
- Overall, most boroughs are getting on with the transition and are focussing on taking ownership of PH functions and integrating with other work. There is currently no sense of significant issues arising at this stage.
- London Councils future work will focus on gaining a good understanding of funding implications as local authorities ‘bed in’ their new public health responsibilities and influencing the future public health formula and allocations.
**Approach to determining allocations**
In February 2012 the DH published ‘baseline estimates’ for public health funding. These were based on Primary Care Trust’s (PCT’s) actual spend in 2010/11, mapped to local authority areas to produce a first indication of how public health resources might be distributed in the future.
Based on this information, it was estimated that, in 2012/13, public health expenditure for England would total £5.2 billion, of which £2.2 billion would be on services falling within future local authority responsibility. Of this amount, £471 million (21 per cent) was attributed to London.
London Councils expressed concern at the time that the way expenditure has been worked out for the baseline year takes no account of the need for a minimum spend per head. For some localities where there has historically been a lower spend, this raised questions about how easy it would be for boroughs to deliver on their new public health responsibilities.
In June 2012 DH published an update on their thinking on local authority public health finance. They commissioned the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) to develop a formula for the allocation of the public health budget to local authorities. This included a range of interim recommendations including using the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) for those aged under 75 years as the main population health measure.
Using ACRA’s interim recommendations, London Councils analysis showed that at a London regional level, ACRA’s recommendations resulted in a lower relative share of the total resources available – a reduction of 3.6 per cent, from 21.2 per cent to 17.6 per cent. This was however a mixed picture with some boroughs appearing to benefit from this suggested approach.
London Councils submitted a response to ACRAs interim recommendations in August 2012. Key elements of the response proposed that:
- The sole use of the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) under 75 as a means of
______________________________________________________________________
2 SMR is a quantity, expressed either as a ration or percentage, quantifying the increase or decrease in mortality of a cohort with respect to the general population. determining the allocation of resources did not adequately reflect public health need.
- Part of the allocation should be based on realistic costs of prescribed services (e.g. NHS Health Check).
- The remainder should be based on a formula, however in addition to SMR\<75 other factors need to be reflected in the formula including levels of deprivation (that link to levels of long term illness) and population age, churn, diversity and ethnic mix, all of which impact on local needs and the costs of delivering public health services.
- Overall levels of funding needed to be sufficient to meet needs and the use of PCTs historic spend as a baseline was not an appropriate basis for this.
- For boroughs in which public health had historically been underfunded an immediate uplift was requested.
Government’s final public health allocations formula for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are based on the final recommendations made by ACRA to the Secretary of State following the consultation on the interim recommendations referred to above.
Analysis
2013/14 and 2014/15 allocations
The final baseline spend estimates used for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are the baseline estimates previously published in February 2012 and adjusted for a range of factors, including: updates received from PCTs; updated estimates relating to the costs of termination of pregnancy, sterilisation and vasectomy services (now removed as will not be a local authority responsibility); additional spend on support for surveillance and control of infectious diseases (originally apportioned to Public Health England); additional amendments made by DH to original 2010-11 spending estimates using additional information collected during 2012. Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) funding is now included.
The government has clearly taken on board a number of the concerns raised by local authorities in response to the consultation on ACRA’s interim recommendations in respect of both the formula calculation and quantum of funding for public health
Key funding announcements and impacts for London local authorities
- London’s allocation is £553 million in 2013/14 (20.8 per cent of national share) and £578 million in 2014/15 (20.7 per cent)
- Average increases for London authorities are 4.7 per cent and 4.3 per cent each year, compared to England averages of 5.5 per cent and 5.0 per cent.
- In 2013/14, average increases are 3.6 per cent for inner London authorities and 6.1 per cent for outer London
- DH has set a minimum of 2.8 per cent and maximum of 10 per cent growth in budgets for each year – 17 London authorities are at the minimum in 2013/14 and 19 in 2014/15, 9 and 8 respectively are at the maximum.
- Without the minimum floor London would have faced a – 5 per cent cut in funding in 2013/14 and a further -4.8 per cent in 2014/15
Ring-fenced conditions
Public health funding allocations are accompanied by a number of ring-fenced conditions. These include: a requirement for this funding to be used only for purposes related to local authorities’ public health function; a requirement to report against 18 categories of spend. Funding can be used for revenue or capital spend, although the capital spend cannot be on items that entail borrowing or a finance lease; it can be used for pooling, subject to certain conditions.
3 These are: 1. sexual health services - STI testing and treatment 2. sexual health services - contraception 3. NHS Healthcheck programme 4. local authority role in health protection 5. public health advice 6. National Child Measurement Programme 7. sexual health services, advice, prevention, promotion 8. obesity, adults 9. obesity, children 10. physical activity, adults 11. physical activity, children 12. drug misuse, adults 13. alcohol misuse, adults 14. substance misuse, youth services 15. stop smoking services and interventions 16. wider tobacco control 17. children (5-19) health programmes 18. Miscellaneous Pace of Change The baseline funding allocations have been based upon historic expenditure while the actual allocations are based upon an assessment of an authority’s spending requirement. One of the crucial elements relating to discussions on public health funding is a concept known as ‘pace of change’ – i.e. the speed at which funding allocations move from one based upon historic spend to one based on an assessment of local need.
Commentary London local government has achieved an immense amount in preparation for the public health transfer and is poised to take the reins of its new responsibilities. However, as recently as summer 2012 a London Councils survey of London local authorities identified that three-quarters of London boroughs did not feel assured that they will receive sufficient funding to enable them to meet their new public health responsibilities.
Confirmation of their actual funding allocations has given local authorities increased confidence that they will have sufficient resources to deliver effectively on their new responsibilities. In addition, the announcement of two year period and protection in real terms funding will be helpful in enabling boroughs to plan their services more effectively, at least in the short to medium term.
Concerns remain however regarding the weakness of the funding formula in terms of the use of SMR\<75 as the main measure of deprivation/public health, particularly in relation to London. For example, relative to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010, SMR\<75 shows London as having less deprivation.
While ACRA has adjusted its approach to calculating for deprived areas they have also changed the distribution of groupings of population areas, the net effect of which sees London lose slightly from this approach.
Initial modelling work by London Councils has shown that tweaking the assumptions in the formula will not increase London’s share substantially. More major changes such as a different measure of public health would be needed for London to substantially increase its share of need to a level equivalent to its share of baseline spending.
Although there is a relatively positive outcome from the settlement allocations in terms of an increased quantum and two-year protection, in the medium to long term it will be crucial that the pace-of-change needs to be long as is needed by those most affected i.e. those furthest away from their target allocations. London Councils will continue to explore the potential in working in the longer term with ACRA to develop a more evidenced based formula and a measure which more suitably takes into account London’s complex demography and public health needs.
Author: Addicus Cort, Policy and Projects Officer (T: 020 7934 9837) Click here to send a comment or query to the author
Links: Department of Health: public health funding allocations London Councils policy pages: Public Health
This member briefing has been circulated to: Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Health and Adult Services; Local Government Finance
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4878-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8854,
"total-output-tokens": 2873,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2077,
1
],
[
2077,
5603,
2
],
[
5603,
9533,
3
],
[
9533,
12649,
4
]
]
} |
5af9ded63e5472bb7e44ee53ef91f64f8cd06405 | | Figure | Description | Headcount as at 31 Mar 2019 | |--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | A | The number of employees whose employment in England by the body began in the reporting period in question | 662 | | B | The number of apprentices who began to work for the body in that period and whose apprenticeship agreements also began in that period. • This includes employees who were already working for the body before beginning their apprenticeship, as well as new apprentice hires. | 44 | | C | the number of employees employed in England that the body has at the end of that period. | 4,055 | | D | the number of apprentices who work for the body at the end of that period. | 60 | | E | Figure B expressed as a percentage of figure A. | 6.65% | | F | Figure D expressed as a percentage of figure C. | 1.48% | | G | The number of apprentices who worked for the body immediately before that period | | | H | Headcount on the day before the first day of each reporting period in the target period; | 4,215 | | I | Figure B expressed as a percentage of figure H | 1.04% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4879-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1718,
"total-output-tokens": 354,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2799,
1
]
]
} |
1eac98557db1025e079b7fea6a863f7c5f1303bf | Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3
The role of The National Archives ........................................................................................................ 3
What is publishing? ................................................................................................................................. 3
Publishing industry processes and practices ......................................................................................... 4
What to do if you are considering publishing options ........................................................................... 4
Publishing processes and practices ....................................................................................................... 5
Standards for web and print publishing ................................................................................................. 5
International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) .................................................................................... 6
Bibliographic data .................................................................................................................................. 6
Statutory legal deposit ............................................................................................................................. 7
Customer ordering services .................................................................................................................... 8
Copyright .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Commissioning arrangements .................................................................................................................. 9
Copyright statements in published material .......................................................................................... 10
Copyright in typographical arrangement ............................................................................................... 10
Accessible publications ........................................................................................................................... 11 Introduction
The National Archives has produced this guidance to help those working on official government publications. In particular, we hope this information will benefit those who are new to publishing.
The aim is to promote a better understanding of standard publishing industry processes and practices that affect a document's availability, accessibility, status and provenance at publication and afterwards.
The role of The National Archives
The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, an official operating within The National Archives, is responsible under a Letters Patent from Her Majesty The Queen for managing copyright on behalf of the Crown. The Letters Patent also confer upon the Controller the title of Queen’s Printer. The Queen’s Printer is responsible for setting the standards and overseeing the publication of certain government documents. These publications are:
- legislation
- statutory notices
- parliamentary papers, including Command and House of Commons Papers
The National Archives has produced specific guidance on the production of parliamentary papers (for example annual reports and accounts, ‘green’ and ‘white papers’ or independent reviews).
What is publishing?
Publishing means making information available to the public. In the past this was mainly done through the dissemination of printed copies of documents. Now there are many more options: web, print, DVD and e-publications, to name a few.
Apart from ensuring value for money, the challenge is to choose publication channels that support a publication’s status and provenance, as well as ensuring that the publication reaches the right audience. Publishing industry processes and practices
Many government publications are important from a policy and historic perspective, whether or not they reflect current policy or practice. Because of this certain publications, including those published through contracts managed by The National Archives, are published according to the standard processes and practices used by the book publishing industry:
- standards for web and print publishing
- International Standard Book Numbers
- bibliographic data
- statutory legal deposit
- customer ordering services
- copyright
These processes support the classification and recording of the publications’ underlying status and provenance, ensuring availability to citizens and businesses, including identification by the book trade and library community, at publication and for the long term public record.
What to do if you are considering publishing options
If you are an official involved in publishing a government document that is not being published through The National Archives’ or other government publishing contracts, you are probably already considering publication options.
Publication options impact on a document’s availability to different types of users, including those in the future. Consider whether users will place a long term value on the document, for example for use in legal proceedings, even though the document itself may be superseded as government polices and guidelines change. If so, ensure that there is a process through which interested parties can efficiently obtain a copy of the publication. In many cases a web version will be sufficient; in others, users may require a print copy, for example to use in court or because the publication is very large and the web version impractical. How would such requests be fulfilled? Would compliance with statutory legal deposit be sufficient? You should contact your organisation’s publishing, communications, legal and/or procurement teams at an early stage for advice. In addition, you can contact The National Archives for publishing and copyright advice. We can be contacted by email [email protected] or by phone 020 8392 5218.
An example of a government publishing contract is The National Archives’ contract for legislation. This contract can be found and viewed on the Contracts Finder website.
If your document is a ‘green’ or ‘white’ paper, it probably meets the criteria for being published as a Command Paper¹.
If you need additional advice, please contact The National Archives at the earliest opportunity for further guidance and support.
Publishing processes and practices
Standards for web and print publishing
You should check before the budgeting stage what these standards are, because they involve costs.
Web publication: government requirements, including those for accessible PDFs, are available on the Digital Standards pages of the Cabinet Office website. In addition, a publishing contractor may have additional requirements, such as file naming conventions, to ensure that a document can be clearly recognised within its systems.
Print publication: these specifications are provided to the printer, or other supplier, to ensure that print copies are produced as required. They include print file specifications, quantity, schedule, format (A4 portrait, for example), colour, paper weight and quality, binding style and delivery instructions.
¹see nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/producing-official-publications/parliamentary-papers-guidance/command-paper-requirements/ International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs)
It is good practice to allocate an ISBN to each publication produced by a government organisation, regardless of format.
ISBNs are unique thirteen digit codes that are allocated to published works (but not to ephemeral items such as leaflets, posters, newsletters, press notices and so on). ISBNs are not limited to books that are published in print form. The ISBN is unique to an individual edition of a work and will be used by those in the library or the book trade to identify the document. Where a work is published in different formats (print, online, e-book and so on) a different ISBN is required for each format. Any translations will also be given a separate number.
It is the publisher’s responsibility to allocate ISBNs. Therefore government publications produced through the contracts managed by The National Archives will all be allocated ISBNs by the publishing contractor. However, if your organisation is the publisher (for corporate documents, for example) it is responsible for allocating its own ISBNs to these publications.
Most countries have their own ISBN agency; in the UK this is Nielsen. Further information can be found at www.isbn.nielsenbook.co.uk. If your organisation needs ISBNs, you can buy a batch from Nielsen. However, you then need to supply bibliographic data to Nielsen in return.
Bibliographic data
The bibliographic record for a published document may include: the title, author, date of publication, publisher, page extent, format, ISBN, cover price and subject. It is important for the integrity of the public record that there is a comprehensive source of bibliographic data for all United Kingdom official government publications, including web-only publications, and that this information is disseminated through recognised publishing industry channels.
ISBNs and other bibliographic information uniquely identify a publication in a particular format. Publishers supply this data to Nielsen at, or before publication, and Nielsen disseminates it so that subscribers, commonly the book trade, libraries and re-users, can obtain copies of publications for their customers as soon as possible.
An ISBN enables users to find a publication without knowing who the publisher is. In addition, this unique identifier is particularly useful: • when more than one organisation has been involved in the publication • when responsibilities have moved from the originating government organisation to another body • for publications in a series, for example, Command and House of Commons Papers • to identify publications that only exist in a digital format, having gone out of print • to identify the authoritative version of web-only publications
The library of the UK Parliament has a particular requirement to be able to trace all government publications.
In addition, bibliographic information can be added as metadata in the digital copies of publications which helps to support the re-use of the data included within the publication. An established metadata standard such as Dublin Core should be used where possible. Metadata can increase a publication’s accessibility and enables it to be located on the web. Government web teams can provide guidance on this.
The responsibility for generating bibliographic information lies with the publisher (which can be the originating government organisation). Specifications for bibliographic services are therefore included in The National Archives’ publishing contracts.
The United Kingdom Official Publications Database (UKOP) offers a central catalogue of official government publications in the United Kingdom. The database is provided by a private sector company independently of government. Further information can be found at www.ukop.co.uk/.
**Statutory legal deposit**
It is the publisher’s responsibility to comply with legal deposit. This applies to all publishers, including government organisations that publish their own material.
The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 requires that a copy of all works published in print in the United Kingdom is given to the British Library within a month of publication and copies are made available on demand to the other legal deposit libraries specified in the Act. The legal deposit libraries are:
• The British Library The National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh The National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth The Bodleian Library, Oxford The University Library, Cambridge The Library of Trinity College, Dublin
The Library of Queen's University, Belfast, is not a Legal Deposit Library under the terms of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act. However, it is treated as an official deposit library for Northern Ireland official publications.
Copies of the publications produced through The National Archives publishing contracts are submitted to legal deposit libraries by the contractor.
At present there is no requirement for publishers to deposit non-print publications (for example web-only PDFs) with legal deposit libraries, although the Legal Deposit Libraries Act allows for such regulations to be introduced. Regulations applying to non-print publications are expected to commence in 2013.
Before the introduction of the new regulations, publishers, including government organisations, are strongly encouraged to deposit digital copies of their work voluntarily with the British Library for long term preservation.
Failure to deposit digital copies of publications with the British Library may result in publications being lost as websites close and technologies and formats change.
For further information regarding print and non-print legal deposit and the libraries see:
- British Library [www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/legaldep](http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/legaldep)
- Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries [www.legaldeposit.org.uk](http://www.legaldeposit.org.uk)
**Customer ordering services**
Publishing companies provide ordering services so customers can obtain their own copies of publications in the available formats. The National Archives’ publishing contracts allow customers to order print copies. It is possible to place standing orders and subscriptions based on the content of the publication, the originating government organisation and by publication type. Standing order customers receive their copies within a day or two of publication. Our contracts also allow customers to order print on demand copies by email, post, phone and internet after publication.
Some companies also ‘push’ digital copies of pre-ordered government publications to their customers on a subscription basis. Government libraries often use such services.
**Copyright**
You need to establish the copyright ownership for each publication from a very early stage. You also need to provide this information where the reader can easily find it.
Copyright applies to works of an original literary, artistic or dramatic nature. The first owner of copyright will usually be the author of the work or the author’s employer. In the case of works created by civil servants and government ministers in the course of their duties, the first owner of copyright in the work will be the Crown.
*Crown copyright* is administered on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen by the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, an official within The National Archives. Central government departments do not own copyright in their own right.
**Commissioning arrangements**
If a publication's authors are not civil servants, you need to check whether copyright has been acquired for the Crown from the legal owner by means of a contract.
Government organisations often commission independent experts or authors to produce reports or research. As ownership of the copyright would rest with the person who wrote the report, or their employer, organisations must consider whether to claim the copyright on behalf of the Crown by means of one or more suitable clauses within the commissioning contract.
Please note that, if copyright is not assigned to the Crown, this could result in other organisations, including the commissioning organisation itself, not being able to use and re-use the material without seeking the permission of the original author, which can be difficult and time-consuming.
If an organisation does decide to allow the copyright in the commissioned work to rest with the author, it should at least acquire a licence to publish and use the material or ensure that the material is published through an open licence.
**Copyright statements in published material**
Government organisations must include a statement to indicate copyright ownership of documents they produce. These statements must also include details of the year in which the material was first published. This applies to all documents, regardless of how they are published.
Copyright statements can also indicate the terms under which the content of a publication can be re-used by others. Most Crown and Crown-owned copyright material can be re-used freely under the [Open Government Licence](#) (OGL). The OGL does not permit the re-use of any third party material, so it is important for government organisations to acknowledge the copyright owner of any non-Crown material, for example photos or data. Ideally, third party copyright material should be also be published through an open licence.
The National Archives has produced a number of copyright and re-use statements for use by government organisations in their publications. These statements are mandatory for use in Command, House of Commons and un-numbered Act Papers. There are also best practice copyright statements for non-Crown organisations which own their own copyright.
**Copyright in typographical arrangement**
Please note that the layout of a document (the typographical arrangement) also qualifies for copyright protection. The first owner of copyright in the typographical arrangement is the publisher, so for a non-Crown publisher, typically a contractor, the contracting government organisation should ensure that this copyright is assigned to the Crown, otherwise users wishing to photocopy a document would need to obtain a separate permission for use of the layout. Accessible publications
Government organisations may need to produce certain publications in languages other than English. In the case of a publication that affects people in Wales, you may need to produce a Welsh-language version.
Government organisations are bound by the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010 to ensure that their services and products, including publications, are accessible to disabled people. Accessibility is even more important if a document contains policy proposals that may affect the services delivered to disabled people.
All PDFs published on government websites need to meet accessibility requirements. This includes PDFs of Command and House of Commons Papers. Details of the standards required of government PDFs can be found on the Cabinet Office website.
It is best practice also to publish online versions of these papers in Rich Text Format (RTF), which can be read by all types of screen reading software. Some older versions of screen reading software have difficulties in reading PDFs clearly, including accessible PDFs.
Government organisations should also consider alternative methods for disseminating information to people with disabilities, such as:
- Easy Read versions of publications [odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/iod/easy-read-guidance.pdf](odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/iod/easy-read-guidance.pdf)
- large print
- Braille (The National Archives publishing contracts provide for Braille versions of documents to be produced as required, contact the publishing contractor for further information)
- videos using British Sign Language (see [digitalstandards.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/online-video-guidelines/](digitalstandards.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/online-video-guidelines/) for guidance on producing online videos)
- audio versions of documents, for example cassette/CD/MP3
The Office for Disability Issues ([www.odi.dwp.gov.uk](www.odi.dwp.gov.uk)) has produced guidance for public sector organisations about producing accessible publications.
Further sources of information: Royal National Institute for Blind People www.rnib.org.uk
Welsh Language Commissioner http://www.welshlanguagecommissioner.org/english/Pages/Home.aspx
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4880-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 24929,
"total-output-tokens": 3926,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
2330,
2
],
[
2330,
3988,
3
],
[
3988,
5857,
4
],
[
5857,
7563,
5
],
[
7563,
9895,
6
],
[
9895,
11879,
7
],
[
11879,
13611,
8
],
[
13611,
15742,
9
],
[
15742,
17796,
10
],
[
17796,
19806,
11
],
[
19806,
19957,
12
]
]
} |
e94e8dbbd7ddf12e95dc2811ee2a9087c284e098 | THE PUBLIC SPHERE
The notion of the public sphere is at the center of participatory approaches to democracy. The public sphere is the arena where citizens come together, exchange opinions regarding public affairs, discuss, deliberate, and eventually form public opinion. This arena can be a specific place where citizens gather (for example, a town hall meeting), but it can also be a communication infrastructure through which citizens send and receive information and opinions. The public sphere is a central aspect of good governance. Without a functioning and democratic public sphere, government officials cannot be held accountable for their actions, and citizens will not be able to assert any influence over political decisions.
The idea of the public sphere is normative. It is an ideal of good and accountable governance. Its requisites are free flows of information, free expression, and free debate. The ideal public sphere is truly participatory and the best protection against abuse of power. In reality, we only find approximations to this ideal. However, promoting good governance means striving toward the ideal of a truly inclusive public sphere.
Historical Roots of the Public Sphere
To understand the meaning and the nature of the public sphere today, it is helpful to look at the historical development of the meaning of the term. Its meaning has always been closely tied to historical circumstances and to technical developments.
The historical trajectory also highlights the relevance of the public sphere for promoting democracy and political accountability.
Originally, the public sphere was a specific meeting place. With the development of media and communication technology, the character of the public sphere changed from a location to a communication network.1
- **Ancient Greece**—The most general understanding of the public sphere comes from the Ancient Greek city-states, where citizens directly participated in political decisions.2 Public life was tied to a specific locale, the agora, where citizens exchanged and discussed opinions.
- **European Monarchies**—In the non-democratic state-forms of later centuries, the Royal court was the public sphere, and only the king determined what was public.
- **Salons**—Over the course of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, coffeehouses (England), salons (France), and table societies (Germany) became places where aristocrats and members of the middle class met to discuss art and politics. In these gatherings, “authority of argument supplanted the authority of title,”3 social status became disregarded entirely.4 With the development of the first mass medium, the newspaper, the groups that met in salons and coffee houses became truly public: “newspapers made public affairs and discussions about such affairs accessible to individuals scattered across space.”5 Technically, this denotes the advent of what is today understood as public sphere.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Splichal, S. (1999). *Public opinion. Developments and controversies in the twentieth century*. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2 Habermas, J. (1962/1995). *The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society*. Cambridge: MIT Press. 3 Price, V. (1992). *Public opinion*. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (p. 9). 4 Habermas (1962/1995). 5 Splichal (1999, p. 23). • **Tribal gatherings**—In stateless communities in Africa or in regions with strong tribal traditions, tribe gatherings have similar functions as Western citizen assemblies, or indeed the ancient agoras. Such meetings represent the public life of the tribal community.
• **Church congregations**—In periods of political struggle, the Church often provided a space for members of oppressed or marginalized groups to gather and articulate their objectives.
• **Today**—Today, the public sphere is even more strongly tied to the media. It is "defined in relation to the mass media, because the mass media permit the circulation of opinion and offer the conditions in which the forum can function." The term gained new prominence with the spread of new communication technologies in the 1990s. The Internet in particular is considered to provide unprecedented opportunities for exchanging information and for deliberation among a large number of people of different backgrounds. Access for minority voices and political outsiders is considered to be essential to a well-functioning public sphere.
### Defining the Public Sphere
The concept of the public sphere has a long tradition in philosophy and the social sciences. The contemporary understanding of the term is mainly based on the work of German sociologist Jürgen Habermas, who provided a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the public sphere and its historic transformations. He defines the public sphere as "network for communicating information and points of view . . . the streams of communication are, in the process, filtered and synthesized in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions." The public sphere is situated between private households on the one hand, and the state on the other. It is a space "where free and equal citizens come together to share information, to debate, to discuss, or to deliberate on common concerns."
Until the invention of the printing press, citizens came together in a particular space, for instance a coffee-house, where they discussed with other people. The development of mass communication has changed the nature of the public sphere from a physical space to a communication structure. Today, people can get in touch through telephone or the Internet, and they can find out about what other people think by reading a newspaper editorial or by watching local television news. Therefore, today's public sphere goes beyond space and includes all channels of communications through which citizens can send and receive information. This two-way-flow of communication is essential: A public sphere does not exist if, for instance, a government publishes information but does not listen to the people.
The public sphere is for the state what the market is for the economy. In the public sphere, the goods that are exchanged and the currency that is traded are not of economic, but of political nature. The main
______________________________________________________________________
6 Bentivegna, S. (2002). Politics and new media. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), *Handbook of new media: Social shapings and consequences of ICTs* (pp. 50–60). London: Sage. (p. 52).
7 Marx Ferree, M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. *Theory and society, 31*(3), 289–324. (p. 299).
8 Habermas, J. (1962/1995).
9 Habermas, J. (1992/1997). *Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy*. Cambridge: Polity. (p. 360).
10 Odugbemi, A. (2008). Public opinion, the public sphere, and quality of governance: An exploration. In S. Odugbemi & T. Jacobson (Eds.), *Governance reform under real-world conditions. Citizens, stakeholders, and voice* (pp. 15–37). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. (p. 17).
11 Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), *Habermas and the public sphere* (pp. 421–461). Cambridge: MIT Press; Dahlgren, P. (1991). Introduction. In P. Dahlgren & C. Sparks (Eds.), *Communication and citizenship: Journalism and the public sphere* (pp. 1–24). London: Routledge; Splichal, S. (1999). Public opinion. Developments and controversies in the twentieth century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; Habermas (1992/1997).
12 Splichal (1999). product of the public sphere is public opinion, and ideas are the “goods” that are exchanged. This view equates the public sphere with a “free marketplace of ideas,” a libertarian ideal where everyone is able to propose ideas, and where the best idea will win.13
**Constitutive Elements**
A functioning democratic public sphere rests on five pillars:14
- **Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties**—Freedom of expression, opinion, and assembly. Most countries today accept basic civil liberties as agreed upon in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
- **Free, plural, and independent media system not under state control**—The media system is often seen as the main institution of the public sphere.15 As such, it can only guarantee equal access and voice to citizens if it is independent of political and corporate interests.
- **Access to public information**—This includes freedom of information legislation and a culture of transparency and openness. A large number of countries have adopted freedom of information laws. However, such laws need to be complemented by a culture that is conducive to openness and inquiry.
- **Civil society**—A vibrant civil society supports citizens’ demand for accountability and participation in the public sphere. Civil society organizations organize and promote the citizen agenda.
- **Sites of everyday talk about public affairs**—Everyday talk is an important factor in the formation of public opinion. Sites of everyday talk are all places where people come together to discuss politics (such as work place, coffee shops, schools).
The constitutive elements of the public sphere work together based on the underlying principle of openness and publicity.16 The philosopher Immanuel Kant articulated the principle of publicity as a legal maxim and as a fundamental principle of democracy. He stated that all actions that affect other people are wrong if they do not hold up to public scrutiny.17 Kant also designated the public sphere to be the space for “public use of reason.” The public use of reason is based on ethic principles of communication,18 such as respect for opposing speakers and viewpoints, the ability to compromise, and other principles of fair public debate.
**The Public Sphere and Civil Society**
The democratic public sphere is a “structural force in politics . . . a critical part of the architecture of good governance,”19 which again is crucial for the elimination of poverty. The public sphere is a participatory space where citizens’ voices are amplified.
The concept of the public sphere is closely tied to civil society, although they are not synonymous. Civil society organizations act and can gain voice and influence in the public sphere, thereby exerting influence
______________________________________________________________________
13 This concept was invoked by U.S. Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Abrams vs. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). Holmes did not actually use this term but invoked the general ideal. See also Mill, J. S. (1859/1985). On liberty. London: Penguin; Milton, J. (1644/1927). Areopagitica. New York: Payson & Clarke.
14 Odugbemi (2008).
15 McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16 Splichal, S. (2006). In search of a strong European public sphere: Some critical observations on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public sphere. Media, culture & society, 28(5), 695–7147. See also Habermas (1962/1995); Odugbemi (2008).
17 Kant, I. (1795/1983). To perpetual peace. In Immanuel Kant: Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history, and morals (pp. 107–144). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
18 Habermas, J. (1981/1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
19 Odugbemi (2008, p. 15). over official authorities through public opinion.20 “It is in the free and open public sphere that social movements acquire a public voice, fight for recognition, assert themselves, seek to shape public opinion, influence leaders and policy makers, and bring about change.”21 Good and accountable governance builds upon a free flow of information, free expression, and free discussion of matters of political concern.
**Actors in the Public Sphere**
- **The public**—The traditional understanding of the public refers to an imaginary group of people that are connected through their mutual interest in one or several issues of public concern. The members of the public need not be located in the same place. In contemporary social science, the term is often equated with politically relevant groups of citizens, for instance the electorate, civil society, local communities, or mass media audiences.22
- **Civil society**—Civil society and the public are closely related, but conceptually not synonymous. Civil society is constituted by organizations and activities that have no primary political or commercial character, and are not motivated by profit or power.23 Under certain circumstances they can become part of the public sphere.24
______________________________________________________________________
20 Habermas (1992/1997). 21 Odugbemi (2008, p. 28). 22 Price, V. (2008). The public and public opinion in political theories. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), *The Sage handbook of public opinion research* (pp. 11–24). London: Sage. 23 Splichal (1999). 24 Habermas (1962/1995). • **Public officials**—The state is not a part of the public sphere, but it has the capacity, and even the obligation, to be an actor in the public sphere. In the democratic public sphere, public authorities listen to the public and determine the public will, communicate their own issues and positions, and provide information about decisions and actions.
• **The media**—The mass media "have central significance in the creation of an institutional (infra) structure enabling the organization of the general interest both nationally and internationally." In addition to providing communication channels, the mass media also introduce and shape topics of public discussion.
• **Private actors**—When private citizens or corporations enter the public sphere, they usually do so to promote private or public interests. In the latter case, they become part of the public.
### Public Opinion
Public opinion is a product of the public sphere, and a crucial concept in governance and political decision making. Public opinion refers to:
- Affairs related to the state, the government, or social institutions;
- Issues that are open and accessible to everyone;
- Events, policies, or decisions that concern people that do not participate in them;
- Issues of common concern;
- The public good (as opposed to private interests).
Public opinion is often understood to have the following characteristics:
- It represents one prevailing opinion among many possible ones.
- It tends to be transitory.
- It refers to the dominant opinion, the opinion of the majority.
Public opinion is formed through processes of collective decision making:
1. Issues of concern are articulated.
2. Possible solutions to a problem are developed.
3. Decision makers assess the consequences of choosing one option over the other.
4. Decision makers evaluate alternative solutions.
5. Decision making.
Public opinion is crucial for politics. As Scottish philosopher David Hume stated: "It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded." Public opinion is the basis of political power and legitimacy, and any government "is secure only to the extent that the relevant population willingly consents to the rule."
______________________________________________________________________
25 Odugbemi (2008). 26 Splichal (2006, p. 703). 27 Mill (1859/1985). 28 Price, V. & Neijens, P. (1997). Opinion quality in public opinion research. *International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9*(4), 336–360. 29 Hume, D. (1994). *Political essays*. Ed. K. Haakonssen. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. (p. 16). 30 Odugbemi (2008, p. 17). The Public Sphere as Threat
Not only democratic governments need to be aware of the functions of the public sphere. Hostile public opinion can be a threat to democracies as well as autocratic regimes. In authoritarian contexts, hostile opinion can build underground and may eventually erupt to disturb the political order. Through mobilizing public opinion, opposition groups may be able to gather substantial support and frame reform proposals that a government may be forced to heed. In the worst case, divisive groups may fracture the public sphere, causing political chaos or even violence.
Politicians and technical experts sometimes argue that it may not be advisable to follow public opinion in every instance. It is assumed that people often do not know or do not care about particular governance issues. If this is the case, following public opinion may even be detrimental to citizens’ well being. A healthy and open public sphere is a remedy against uninformed and unconsidered opinion. The idea of democracy rests upon the assumption that if people are educated, have access to all relevant information, and if they are able to deliberate on issues, they have a right to have their say on how they are governed. Public opinion is not the “tyranny of the majority,” but the considered product of deliberation in the public sphere.
The Public Sphere as Opportunity
A properly functioning public sphere that allows for free information flows and for equal participation in deliberation will provide real opportunities for successful and good governance. Governments’ legitimacy rests on the support of the people. National unity or at least an operative consensus enables the effective implication of policies. Citizens’ genuine support for government programs and reforms is a prerequisite for their success. Active and informed citizens provide valuable input into the process of governance, helping to improve the quality and effectiveness of public service delivery. In short, governance is only good and democratic if citizens are able to form considered opinions within an open public sphere.
Policy Implications
An open and democratic public sphere rests on legally guaranteed civil rights, most importantly freedom of expression, opinion, and assembly, as well as access to information laws. Such laws will only be effective in a culture of openness. That means that public officials should feel committed to the public’s right to know, not the government’s right to secrecy. Media regulation should guarantee that the media can fulfill its democratic roles without political or economic pressures. Literacy and education promote a citizenry that is interested in public affairs and that is willing as well as able to participate in governance. Policies should target these main factors to promote a public sphere that enables good, democratic, and accountable government. CommGAP
The Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (CommGAP), a global program at the World Bank, seeks to confront the challenges inherent in the political economy of development. By applying innovative communication approaches that improve the quality of the public sphere – by amplifying citizen voice; promoting free, independent, and plural media systems; and helping government institutions communicate better with their citizens – the program aims to demonstrate the power of communication principles, processes and structures in promoting good and accountable governance, and hence better development results.
CommGAP is funded through a multi-donor trust fund. The founding donor of this trust fund is the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4881-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 15968,
"total-output-tokens": 4543,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3354,
1
],
[
3354,
7624,
2
],
[
7624,
11375,
3
],
[
11375,
12908,
4
],
[
12908,
15470,
5
],
[
15470,
18366,
6
],
[
18366,
19153,
7
]
]
} |
d44b7d2c14960d4e7ce4600ad3e295edeabcf25a | Purchasing archives and manuscripts: a checklist for archivists
September 2011
© Crown copyright 2011
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or email [email protected].
Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available for download at nationalarchives.gov.uk. The following points need to be considered before making a purchase. Please also keep the sales monitoring team at The National Archives informed, in confidence, of any significant prospective purchases. Further contact details are given at the end.
• Does the material fall within your collecting policy or collection development policy? If so, is another repository also likely to be interested, in which case you need to check that you will not be in competition.
• What priority would you give to its acquisition, as fund-raising can be a time-consuming process?
• What arrangements will be made to catalogue and conserve the material? Both cataloguing and conservation need to be fitted into your planning and financial resources from the outset unless you are purchasing a collection already deposited with you that is already fully listed and conserved.
• Can you establish the provenance of the material? Funding bodies will normally expect that you have established that proper title is being transferred and that due diligence procedures have been followed.
• Is the purchase of the material subject to restrictions or legal controls such as records falling within the scope of the Public Records Act 1958, the Manorial Documents and Tithe Documents Rules, the Parochial Records and Registers Measure, on which The National Archives’ sales monitoring service can advise, or other records of a public or official nature, subject to Scottish public records legislation which is also extra commercium, where the National Records of Scotland can advise.
• Is the material affected by export regulations? All archival and manuscript material over 50 years old, except for the personal papers of living individuals, is subject to export licensing regulations.
If material is being imported from elsewhere in the EU there are also further EU licensing requirements. Where material falling within the Waverley criteria is export-stopped or is effectively prevented from export by the Manorial Documents Rules this has implications for both price and saleability of records as it restricts the market.
• Is it worth the **asking price**? Grant-awarding bodies and public institutions need to be sure that money is being wisely spent and that meeting the asking price does not unnecessarily inflate the market.
Major purchases need to be backed by independent valuations.
For smaller purchases, The National Archives’ sales monitoring team can help by checking for comparable material on our sales database.
Archivists also need to act ethically towards vendors and should on no account seek to open negotiations by offering a price to a vendor, which may prejudice the chances of grant aid later.
• Can you reduce the **asking price set by the vendor**? At auction, prices are set by competitive bidding, but in private treaty sales there is often room for flexibility and negotiation, particularly if the material appears, on professional advice, to be overvalued or is offered without a full valuation. Some dealers will also offer a discount to public institutions (often known as a museum discount, but also available to archives).
Private treaty sales may also offer financial advantages to both sides if the vendor will incur tax liabilities in the course of selling. Further information is available from Arts Council England.
If a record office has been caring for a collection for a number of years before being invited to purchase it, some reduction in price is regularly sought to reflect the expenditure on storage and packaging, cataloguing, provision of access, conservation, or any other tangible benefits which the owner may have derived from deposit.
• **Sources of grant-aid**: guidance on funding bodies is available from our advice and guidance page ([http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/advice](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/advice)).
If the collection is a pre-eminent one and subject to Inheritance Tax then it may be possible for the material to be accepted in lieu of tax. Advice on AIL requirements is available from Arts Council England. • How will the acquisition support your organisation’s wider goals and strategies? This may be a question asked by your parent authority or governing body and by some funding bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, with its emphasis on access, learning and social inclusion.
You will need to consider the impact of any significant acquisition on education, learning and publicity programmes, or may need to undertake further such initiatives. You should also consider the impact on your collecting in the future.
For further advice contact Archives Sector Development at:
[email protected]
or on
+44 (0)20 8392 5330 x 2605
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4882-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7023,
"total-output-tokens": 1196,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
575,
1
],
[
575,
2451,
2
],
[
2451,
4679,
3
],
[
4679,
5320,
4
]
]
} |
63df8e9f403d178434565e80cc879e575bee0448 | Provisional Woodland Statistics
2019 Edition
Release date: 13 June 2019 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical breakdown: Country
Issued by: Forest Research, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 [email protected] Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics National Statistics status
National Statistics status means that our statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value, and it is our responsibility to maintain compliance with these standards.
The continued designation of these statistics as National Statistics was confirmed in March 2012 following an assessment by the UK Statistics Authority (now the Office for Statistics Regulation) against the Code of Practice for Statistics.
Since the latest assessment of these statistics in 2012, we have made improvements including:
- Adding charts, to illustrate how the statistics have changed over time.
- Expanding the release to include Woodland Carbon Code Statistics and renaming the release to better reflect its content.
- Expanding the Annex to provide more detailed information on the data used in the release. Introduction
This release contains provisional statistics for the year to March 2019 on:
- UK woodland area;
- certified woodland area;
- areas of new planting and publicly funded restocking; and
- projects registered under the Woodland Carbon Code(^1).
These statistics were previously released in 2 separate releases:
- Woodland Area, Planting and Publicly Funded Restocking; and
- Woodland Carbon Code Statistics (previously released on a quarterly basis).
These provisional statistics will be superseded on 26 September 2019 with the publication of final and more detailed results in *Forestry Statistics 2019*.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in addition to UK totals. Figures at March 2019 and for the period 2018-19 are published for the first time in this release. Some figures for earlier years have been revised from those previously released. For further details, see the Revisions section of the Annex.
Please refer to the Annex for a glossary of terms used in this release.
In Scotland, forestry was fully devolved to Scottish Ministers on 1 April 2019. Two new agencies of the Scottish Government were created: Scottish Forestry to support the delivery of the Scottish Government’s priorities for Scotland’s forests through guidance, advice, incentives and regulations, and by advising ministers on forest policy; and Forestry and Land Scotland to manage national forests and land on behalf of Scottish Ministers.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) The Woodland Carbon Code is a voluntary standard, initiated in July 2011, for woodland creation projects that make claims about the carbon they sequester (take out of the atmosphere). Key findings
- The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2019 is estimated to be 3.19 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 8% in Northern Ireland.
- Of the total UK woodland area, 0.86 million hectares is owned or managed by the Forestry Commission (in England), Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service (in Northern Ireland).
- The total certified woodland area in the UK at 31 March 2019 is 1.40 million hectares, including all Forestry Commission/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland. Overall, 44% of the UK woodland area is certified.
- Thirteen thousand hectares of newly created woodland were reported in the UK in 2018-19.
- Fifteen thousand hectares of publicly-funded woodland restocking were reported in the UK in 2018-19.
- Woodland Carbon Code projects in the UK that were validated (including those that were also verified) were predicted to sequester a total of 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime of up to 100 years. This represents 2.5 million tonnes in Scotland, 838 thousand tonnes in England, 118 thousand tonnes in Wales and 11 thousand tonnes in Northern Ireland.
______________________________________________________________________
2 From 1 April 2019, the Forestry Commission’s responsibilities for management of forests transferred to Forestry England and to Forestry and Land Scotland.
3 Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses. Area of woodland
Woodland is defined in UK forestry statistics as land under stands of trees with a minimum area of 0.5 hectares and a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this. The definition relates to land use, rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are awaiting restocking are included as woodland. Further information, including how this UK definition compares with the international definition of woodland, is provided in the Annex.
Statistics on woodland area are used to inform government policy and resource allocation, to provide context to UK forestry and land management issues and are reported to international organisations. They are also used in the compilation of natural capital accounts.
Increases in woodland area result from the creation of new woodland. This can be achieved through new planting or by natural colonisation of trees. Further information is available in the section on New planting.
Decreases in woodland area result from the conversion of woodland to other land uses. Regulatory approval is usually required before trees can be felled. Felling approval will normally require the area to be restocked, but there are some cases in which trees may be permanently removed, generally for environmental reasons. The permanent removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development.
Most public sector woodland is owned and managed by the Forestry Commission (FC) in England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in Wales and the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Other public sector woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) is included with privately owned woodland as “private sector” in this release.
The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas shown in this release relate to areas previously owned or managed by Forestry Commission Wales. They exclude any areas previously owned or managed by other parts of Natural Resources Wales, such as the former Environment Agency in Wales and the former Countryside Council for Wales.
______________________________________________________________________
4 From 1 April 2019, the Forestry Commission’s responsibilities for management of forests transferred to Forestry England and to Forestry and Land Scotland. The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2019 is estimated to be 3.19 million hectares (Table 1). This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 8% in Northern Ireland.
0.86 million hectares of woodland in the UK (27%) is owned or managed by the Forestry Commission (in England), Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service (in Northern Ireland).
Conifers account for around one half (51%) of the UK woodland area, although this proportion varies from 26% in England to 74% in Scotland.
Table 1: Area of woodland, 2019
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|--------| | **FC/FLS/NRW/FS¹** | | | | | | | Conifers | 151 | 98 | 428 | 56 | 732 | | Broadleaves | 64 | 19 | 41 | 7 | 131 | | **Total** | 215 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863 | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | | Conifers | 189 | 54 | 645 | 11 | 899 | | Broadleaves | 904 | 138 | 343 | 40 | 1,426 | | **Total** | 1,093 | 192 | 988 | 51 | 2,325 | | **Total Woodland** | | | | | | | Conifers | 340 | 152 | 1,072 | 67 | 1,631 | | Broadleaves | 968 | 158 | 385 | 46 | 1,557 | | **Total** | 1,308 | 309 | 1,457 | 113 | 3,187 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Note:
1. FC: Forestry Commission (England), FLS (Forestry and Land Scotland), NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Areas as at 31 March 2019. Figures are provisional.
4. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Annex.
5. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register.
6. Broadleaves include coppice and coppice with standards. Figure 1 shows woodland area by country since 1998. Woodland area has risen by around 270 thousand hectares since 1998, an increase of 9% over the period.
**Figure 1: Area of woodland, 1998 to 2019**
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Note:
1. Woodland areas for England, Wales and Scotland shown in this figure are based on data from the National Forest Inventory. The trends shown take account of areas of new planting and identifiable permanent woodland loss. Areas of woodland loss that are not yet identifiable (e.g. conversion of woodland for the restoration of open habitats) are not accounted for. Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at [www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](http://www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/). Area of certified woodland
Certified woodland in the UK has been independently audited against the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. Forestry certification schemes are owned by international non-governmental organisations and exist to promote good forest practice. They offer product labels to demonstrate that wood or wood products come from well-managed forests.
Figures for certified woodland areas are often used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. However, it should be noted that woodland that is not certified may also be managed sustainably.
Most changes to the certified woodland area figures over time are a result of new areas being certified or certificates not being renewed upon expiry. Temporary changes can also occur if there is a time lag between expiry and renewal.
Table 2 shows the area of certified woodland. The total area of certified woodland in the UK at 31 March 2019 is 1.40 million hectares. This represents 44% of the total UK woodland area, 25% of the woodland area in England, 47% in Wales, 59% in Scotland and 58% in Northern Ireland.
Table 2: Area of certified woodland, 2019
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | FC/FLS/NRW/FS¹ | 215 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863 | | Private sector² | 110 | 29 | 395 | 3 | 538 | | **Total** | **325** | **146** | **864** | **66** | **1,400** | | % of woodland area | 25% | 47% | 59% | 58% | 44% |
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry Commission, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Note:
1. FC: Forestry Commission (England), FLS (Forestry and Land Scotland), NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Areas as at 31 March 2019.
4. All certified woodland in 2019 is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some of these woodlands are also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme.
5. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified.
6. All Forestry Commission/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales (formerly owned/managed by FC Wales)/Forest Service woodland is certified. The Forestry Commission/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service areas are the latest areas, as shown in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on certificates. Figure 2 presents certified woodland area by country since December 2001, with figures for earlier years revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. This shows an increase in certified woodland area of around 340 thousand hectares (32%) since December 2001.
The 1.40 million hectares of certified woodland at March 2019 represents a 2% increase on the previous year. Most of this increase occurred in Scotland.
Figure 2: Area of certified woodland, 2001 to 2019
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry Commission, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Note:
1. All certified woodland is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some of these woodlands are also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme.
2. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified. New Planting
New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland by planting trees on land that was not previously woodland. The statistics presented here also include new woodland that is created by natural colonisation of trees (where known). Statistics on new planting are used to inform government policy and resource allocation and are used in producing annual estimates of woodland area.
Table 3 shows the area of new woodland that was created in the year to 31 March 2019. The total area of new planting in the UK in 2018-19 was 13.4 thousand hectares. Conifers accounted for 60% of the total area of new planting. Most new planting (92%) took place on private sector land. 84% of the total new planting area took place in Scotland, 11% in England, 4% in Wales and the remaining 2% in Northern Ireland.
Table 3: Area of new planting, 2018-19
| New planting by forest type | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-----| | Conifers | 0.42 | 0.25 | 7.27 | 0.10 | 8.05| | Broadleaves | 1.00 | 0.27 | 3.94 | 0.14 | 5.35| | All new planting | 1.42 | 0.52 | 11.21 | 0.24 | 13.40|
| New planting by ownership | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-----| | FC/FLS/NRW/FS¹ | 0.03 | 0.00 | 1.03 | 0.00 | 1.06| | Private sector² | 1.39 | 0.52 | 10.19 | 0.24 | 12.34| | All new planting | 1.42 | 0.52 | 11.21 | 0.24 | 13.40|
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. FC: Forestry Commission (England), FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
4. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included.
5. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
6. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
7. Figures are provisional.
Figure 3 shows areas of new planting by country since the year ending March 1976. Trends in new planting rates have been influenced by changes to the incentives available to land owners (in the form of grants and regulations). In recent years, areas of new planting in the UK have dropped to lows of under 6 thousand hectares in 2009-10 and in 2015-16 and have risen to highs of around 13 thousand hectares in 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2018-19. These fluctuations are likely to have been influenced by changes in grant schemes across the UK.
At 13.4 thousand hectares in 2018-19, the current level of new planting represents a 47% increase from the 9.1 thousand hectares achieved in the previous year and continues the increase from 2015-16. This increase was largely in Scotland and was likely to have been influenced by the availability of grant funding and increased confidence in forestry arising from strong timber values.
Figure 3: Area of new planting, 1976 to 2019
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. Private sector figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 and 2018-19.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
6. Figures are provisional. Publicly funded restocking
Restocking is the replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration. The statistics presented here include felled areas that have been restocked by both natural regeneration and replanting.
As restocking takes place on woodland that has been previously harvested and it is a condition of most felling licences that the area is restocked, restocking rates are mainly driven by harvesting levels (with a time lag, often of around 2 years, between harvesting and restocking).
Economic factors, including grant rates, may have some effect on the species choice at restocking. In addition, the precise timing of restocking may be affected by weather conditions.
This release only covers publicly funded restocking, that is:
- restocking of Forestry Commission/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service Woodland and
- grant aided restocking of private sector woodland.
Grant support for restocking in Scotland has been limited since 2008. The Forestry Grant Scheme was launched in Scotland in March 2015 and does include support for restocking in in most but not all circumstances. As a result, granted aided restocking does not represent all private sector restocking in Scotland. It is therefore likely that conifer restocking in Scotland in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics.
Grant support in England is now provided by the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which opened for applications in early 2016. Funding for restocking under Countryside Stewardship is only available under limited circumstances (through the tree health grant). The restoration (and restocking with native species) of PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites) is also supported by the HS2 Woodland Fund. No estimate has been made for restocking in England that is no longer supported by grants and therefore restocking in England in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics. Table 4 shows the reported area of publicly funded restocking that took place in the year to 31 March 2019. As private sector figures are based on areas receiving grants for restocking, and restocking is not supported (or only supported in limited circumstances) by some grant schemes, these figures under-estimate the true level of restocking in the UK.
In 2018-19, a total 15.1 thousand hectares of restocking was publicly funded. Conifers accounted for around four fifths (79%) of the total area of restocking. Most reported restocking (71%) took place on FC/NRW/FS land.
Around three quarters of all publicly funded restocking (74%) took place in Scotland, 11% in England, 10% in Wales and the remaining 5% in Northern Ireland.
Table 4: Area of publicly funded restocking, 2018-19
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-------| | **Restocking by forest type** | | | | | | | Conifers | 1.26 | 0.90 | 9.12 | 0.72 | 12.00 | | Broadleaves | 0.39 | 0.54 | 2.07 | 0.11 | 3.11 | | **All restocking** | 1.65 | 1.44 | 11.19 | 0.83 | 15.12 | | **Restocking by ownership** | | | | | | | FC/FLS/NRW/FS¹ | 1.57 | 1.22 | 7.15 | 0.79 | 10.72 | | Private sector² | 0.08 | 0.23 | 4.05 | 0.04 | 4.40 | | **All restocking** | 1.65 | 1.44 | 11.19 | 0.83 | 15.12 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. FC: Forestry Commission (England), FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year. No estimate of areas planted without grant aid was included.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration.
6. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented in the above table.
7. Figures are provisional.
Figure 4 shows reported areas of restocking by country since the year ending March 1976. It indicates an overall increase in restocking rates during the period. Over the same period, there has been a general increase in UK wood production (see www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/uk-wood-production-and-trade-provisional-figures/). The reported area of restocking fell significantly after a peak of 19 thousand hectares in 2006-07. This followed changes to grant support for restocking in Scotland, that resulted in some non-grant aided Sitka spruce restocking being excluded from the estimates. Results from the Forestry Commission's Nursery Survey (an annual survey of the main forest nurseries in Great Britain) indicate that, despite a dip in the 2009/10 planting year, sales of Sitka spruce plants to Scotland have been relatively stable in recent years.
The chart shows a dip in the area of restocking in 2015-16, following changes to grant schemes across the UK. Reported restocking has continued to fall in England, where grant aid is now only available in very limited circumstances. The reported area of publicly funded restocking in the UK in 2018-19 represents a 5% increase from the previous year, but remains below the level reported for 2016-17. For further information, see the Data Sources and Methodology section of the Annex.
Figure 4: Area of restocking, 1976 to 2019
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year.
2. Estimates of areas planted without grant aid are also included (where possible) up to 2009-10, but no estimates are available since then. As a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity.
3. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
4. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration.
5. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented.
6. Figures are provisional. Woodland Carbon Code
A total of 187 projects across the UK were validated at 31 March 2019 and are projected to sequester 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime of up to 100 years (Table 5). This represents 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in Scotland, 838 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide in England, 118 thousand tonnes in Wales and 11 thousand tonnes in Northern Ireland.
A total of 266 projects were registered under the Woodland Carbon Code by the end of March 2019, covering around 17,400 hectares of woodland and projected to sequester 6.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
Table 5: Woodland Carbon Code projects in the UK at 31 March 2019
| Number of projects¹ | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |---------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Awaiting validation | 18 | 33 | 28 | 0 | 79 | | Validated only | 51 | 9 | 55 | 2 | 117| | Verified | 27 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 70 | | Total validated | 78 | 12 | 95 | 2 | 187| | All projects | 96 | 45 | 123 | 2 | 266|
| Area of woodland (hectares) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Awaiting validation | 313 | 300 | 8,520 | 0 | 9,134| | Validated only | 1,207 | 128 | 4,498 | 22 | 5,856| | Verified | 286 | 52 | 2,066 | 0 | 2,404| | Total validated | 1,494 | 180 | 6,564 | 22 | 8,261| | All projects | 1,807 | 480 | 15,085 | 22 | 17,394|
| Projected carbon sequestration² (thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Awaiting validation | 153 | 106 | 2,501 | 0 | 2,760| | Validated only | 672 | 85 | 1,563 | 11 | 2,331| | Verified | 165 | 33 | 895 | 0 | 1,093| | Total validated | 838 | 118 | 2,458 | 11 | 3,424| | All projects | 991 | 224 | 4,959 | 11 | 6,184|
Source: Forestry Commission.
Note:
1. Projects can be validated/verified individually or as part of a group. The statistics presented here show the number of projects validated or verified whether they were administered individually or as part of a group.
2. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared “buffer” in case of unanticipated losses.
3. **Awaiting validation**: is when a project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
4. **Validated**: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a ‘Validation Opinion Statement’. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
5. **Verified**: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO₂ sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code. Figure 5 shows projected carbon sequestration for all projects in the UK since March 2012. The data presented here represent net changes in projects (i.e. additions less deletions). Projects can be removed from the register if they do not meet the Code’s standards, planned woodland creation projects do not go ahead, or the landowner no longer wishes to claim the carbon benefit of the project.
There has been a 37% increase in projected carbon sequestration for validated projects (including those verified) in the latest year, from March 2018 to March 2019.
Total projected carbon sequestration for all projects registered (including those awaiting validation) also increased by 7% in the year to March 2019 following a 3% decrease recorded between March 2017 and March 2018.
Figure 5: Projected carbon sequestration by Woodland Carbon Code projects in the UK
Source: Forestry Commission.
Note:
1. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses.
2. **Awaiting validation**: is when a project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
3. **Validated**: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
4. **Verified**: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO₂ sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
5. Additional data, including quarterly estimates to March 2018, are available in the accompanying data tables. Annex
Introduction This annex provides background information on the woodland area, planting, publicly funded restocking and woodland carbon code statistics presented in this release. It covers the data sources and methodology used to produce the statistics, information on quality measures and on any revisions to historic data and links to further information.
Glossary
Awaiting validation When a Woodland Carbon Code project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
Broadleaves Trees that do not have needles or cones, such as oak, birch and beech. A few, such as alder, have cone-like structures for their seeds which are not true cones.
Clearfell areas Sites where all trees have been felled at once. In non-clearfell areas, only some of the trees are felled at any one time.
Conifers Trees with needles and cones, such as spruce, pine and larch.
Coppice Trees that are cut near ground level (or sometimes higher, in which case they are called pollards), causing them to produce many small shoots. These shoots are harvested every few years at a relatively early age for products such as staves, fencing, fuel and charcoal. "Coppice with standards" includes scattered trees that are left to grow as normal ("standards").
Establishment The first five to ten years or formative period that ends once young trees are of sufficient size that, given adequate protection, they are likely to survive at the required stocking.
Forest In the United Kingdom, there is no formal definition of “forest”; the term is often used for large woodland areas (especially conifers) or for old Royal hunting preserves such as the New Forest or the Forest of Dean.
Forest Service (FS) The agency of the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs responsible for forestry matters in Northern Ireland.
Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) The Scottish Government agency responsible for managing the national forests and lands in Scotland. Prior to April 2019 it was managed by the Forestry Commission.
Forestry Commission (FC) The government department responsible for forestry matters in England, Scotland (until March 2019) and Wales (until March 2013). The Forestry Commission’s functions in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government and to Natural Resources Wales on 1 April 2013. The Forestry Commission’s functions in Scotland transferred to Scottish Forestry and to Forestry and Land Scotland on 1 April 2019.
**FSC** Forest Stewardship Council.
**Great Britain (GB)** England, Wales and Scotland.
**Hectare (ha)** unit of area defined as 10,000 square metres (100 m by 100 m), approximately equivalent to 2.47 acres.
**Natural colonisation** The creation of new woodland by natural means, i.e. without sowing or planting.
**Natural regeneration** The regeneration of existing woodland by natural means, i.e. without sowing or planting.
**Natural Resources Wales (NRW)** The organisation responsible for advising the Welsh Government on the environment, created on 1 April 2013.
**New planting** Establishing woodland on ground that was not woodland in the recent past.
**NFI** National Forest Inventory.
**NIWT** 1995-99 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees.
**Restocking** The replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration.
**Scottish Forestry** The Scottish Government agency responsible for forestry policy, support and regulations, created on 1 April 2019. Scottish Forestry also has responsibility for managing the UK Woodland Carbon Code on behalf of the Forestry Commission in England, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Forest Service. Prior to April 2019 it was managed by the Forestry Commission.
**Tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e)** Emissions and sequestration can be presented as tonnes carbon or tonnes carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent. To convert from tonnes CO₂ to tonnes carbon multiply by 12/44.
**United Kingdom (UK)** Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
**Validated** The initial evaluation of a Woodland Carbon Code project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years. Verified Verification is the evaluation of a Woodland Carbon Code project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO₂ sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code.
Woodland Land under stands of trees with a minimum size of 0.5 hectares and a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this, including integral open space, and including felled areas that are awaiting restocking.
Data sources and methodology
Area of woodland
The woodland areas in Great Britain at March 2018 provided in this release (see Figure 1) are based on the NFI provisional woodland area map of Great Britain at March 2018. The map is overlaid with a map of Forestry Commission land (including land formerly owned/managed by Forestry Commission Wales), to enable a breakdown by ownership type to be estimated, and the figures derived from these maps are then updated to March 2019 by adding areas of new planting in 2018-19. Initial estimates of conifer stocked area and broadleaved stocked area at March 2012, derived from NFI interim field survey results, were used to estimate the breakdown by type of woodland. More information can be found on the Methodology and Outputs web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
The provisional 2018 woodland map differs by around 14 thousand hectares (\<1%) from the figures for woodland area provided in the NFI report on Tree cover outside woodland in Great Britain, that were based on the NFI 2013 map and the National Tree Map™ (NTM™), the latter in combination with samples of visual aerial photograph interpretation and field sampling outside of areas on the NFI map. The estimates in the tree cover report are higher because they include estimates of woodland area outside the NFI map derived from the other sources. It is intended to publish revised woodland area estimates that will bring these two figures into line by reporting an updated, calibrated NFI woodland area that incorporates these additional areas and uses analysis of the main NFI fieldwork survey to exclude currently mapped areas that are not woodland. Further information on the methodology used by the National Forest Inventory and comparisons of results from the NFI and previous woodland area estimates is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
In the time series presented in Figure 1, woodland area estimates for years before 2011 have been revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory, to enable comparisons over time.
The figures shown for Natural Resources Wales in this release only relate to woodland that was previously owned/managed by Forestry Commission Wales, and do not currently include estimates for other Natural Resources Wales woodland (previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales or the Environment Agency in Wales).
Figures for Northern Ireland (Forest Service and non-Forest Service woodland) are provided by the Northern Ireland Forest Service. County breakdowns are available from the Forest Service Woodland Register at www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/forest-service-woodland-register.
Certified area Data on certified woodland areas are obtained from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and contact with individual land owners and managers. Some of the certified woodland has dual certification, i.e. it is certified under both the FSC scheme and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme.
The data collected from FSC are the areas that are certified for each certificate holder. Follow-up enquiries are then made with larger certificate holders to check the certified areas and to provide a country breakdown.
As all Forestry Commission/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales (formerly owned/managed by FC Wales)/Forest Service woodland is certified, the areas used are those provided in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on the certificates.
New planting and restocking New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland. Restocking is the replanting of existing areas of woodland that have been felled. New planting can use planting/seeding or natural colonisation. Restocking can also use planting/seeding or natural regeneration.
Information about Forestry Commission, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service new planting and restocking comes from administrative systems. For new planting and restocking by Forestry and Land Scotland (previously Forest Enterprise Scotland) and by Natural Resources Wales, the figures obtained relate to net areas (i.e. excluding integral open space). These are converted to estimates of gross areas (i.e. including integral open space) for consistency with other planting and woodland area data, by using an assumption of 15% open space.
Information about other woodland has come principally from grant schemes, including Countryside Stewardship in England, the English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS), Glastir in Wales, Better Woodlands for Wales (BWW), Forestry Grant Scheme in Scotland, Rural Development Contracts in Scotland, Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) and Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS).
Areas receiving grant are allocated to years by date of payment. For natural colonisation and regeneration, the areas are generally those for which the second instalment of grant has been paid during the year. The second instalment is approved when woodland reaches a certain stage and density of growth, so this information corresponds approximately to the amount of new and restocked woodland created.
The coverage and level of grant support differ across schemes, so that figures on grant-aided planting are not directly comparable between countries or over time. Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland.
New planting estimates for England also include areas supported by the Woodland Trust and areas funded by Natural England (Higher Level Stewardship / Countryside Stewardship). From 2016-17, the estimated area of new planting includes new woodland creation supported by the Woodland Trust under the MOREwoods and Partnerships England projects. From 2017-18, the estimated area of new planting also includes new woodland creation supported by the Environment Agency.
Areas of land acquired by the National Forest Company for new planting have been included from 2015-16. To avoid potential double counting, areas of new planting by the National Forest Company that are believed to be supported by grant aid or by the Woodland Trust (and have therefore already been included in the figures reported for these other sources) have been excluded.
Local estimates for private sector areas of planting and restocking which are not grant-aided were included for England, Wales and Scotland up to 2009-10, where possible. Estimates of non-grant-aided planting and restocking were relatively small (less than one thousand hectares annually), and it has been assumed that all of this area is broadleaves. A small estimate for broadleaved new planting without grant aid in Scotland in 2016-17 and in 2018-19 was also included. No estimates have been included for restocking with Sitka spruce in Scotland, or for restocking in England, that are no longer supported by grants. It is assumed that there is no non-FS non-grant aided new planting and restocking in Northern Ireland.
The use of natural regeneration in non-clearfell systems may be increasing - particularly for broadleaves in England. These systems are not satisfactorily represented by measuring restocking area within any given year, and so broadleaf regeneration may be under-reported in this release and other statistics.
Figures for Northern Ireland (Forest Service and private sector woodland) are provided by the Forest Service (www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry).
Further information on administrative sources can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/administrative-sources/. The methodology and outputs relevant to UK woodland area, planting and restocking were reviewed in 2014. The review report is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4425/mrwapr.pdf.
Woodland Carbon Code data
Information about Woodland Carbon Code projects comes from the UK Woodland Carbon Registry, housed on the Markit Environmental Registry (www.markit.com/product/registry). The register is a live database and summary data are extracted on a quarterly basis.
Further information on administrative sources can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/administrative-sources/
Quality
The statistics on woodland area presented here refer to woodland as a land use rather than a land cover, so felled areas and newly planted areas are included within the definition of woodland. Some statistics on woodland area as a land cover are available from other sources (e.g. Countryside Survey 2007, www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk, and associated Land Cover Map; a more recent Land Cover Map 2015 is also available).
Detailed information on the quality of the statistics presented in this publication is available in the Quality Report: Woodland Area, Planting and Restocking at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/3182/qrwapr.pdf
Further quality information on FC Official Statistics is available at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Revisions
Figures at March 2019 and for 2018-19 are provisional and published for the first time in this release.
Woodland area figures at March 2017 and at March 2018 have been revised from those provided in Forestry Statistics 2018 to take account of updates to the NFI woodland area map. This resulted in very small revisions to the woodland area estimates in England, Wales and Scotland (\<0.3%) for each of these years. Revised woodland areas at March 2017 (obtained from the NFI final revised woodland area map of Great Britain at March 2017) and at March 2018 (obtained from the NFI provisional woodland area map of Great Britain at March 2018), are provided in the Excel tables accompanying this release.
Other figures have not been revised from those previously published in Forestry Statistics 2018 and in Woodland Carbon Code Statistics: data to March 2018. The Forestry Commission’s revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/
Further information Accompanying tables to this release, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/woodland-statistics/, provide longer time series data by country for new planting and publicly funded restocking and for certified woodland.
Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
Additional woodland area statistics are available in Forestry Statistics 2018 (published September 2018) and Forestry Facts & Figures 2018 (published September 2018), and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/.
Figures in tables have been independently rounded, so may not add to the totals shown.
Figures for woodland area in the UK are provided to international organisations; the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) for the 5-yearly Global Forest Resources Assessment (www.fao.org/forestry/fra/en), and Forest Europe for the 4-yearly State of Europe’s Forests (www.foresteurope.org/reporting_SFM). The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 was released in September 2015 and State of Europe’s Forests 2015 was released in October 2015. Both publications used UK data submitted in 2014.
Figures for woodland area and new planting are also used to compile the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/8108.php). Statistics on UK greenhouse gas emissions are published by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) at www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics.
The international definition of forests differs slightly from the UK definition of woodland in terms of the minimum canopy cover threshold. For the UK, there is a requirement for canopy cover of at least 20%, whilst the international definition specifies a minimum of 10% canopy cover. Supplementary data are available in the accompanying spreadsheet at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/woodland-statistics/.
Further information on the Woodland Carbon Code is available at: www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/.
More statistics on UK forests and climate change can be found in Forestry Statistics 2018: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/.
Release schedule Final results for (the year to) March 2019 will be published on 26 September 2019 in Forestry Statistics 2019 and Forestry Facts & Figures 2019.
Provisional figures for (the year to) March 2020 will be published on 11 June 2020 in the 2020 Edition of this release.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4884-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 61140,
"total-output-tokens": 12891,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
360,
1
],
[
360,
1214,
2
],
[
1214,
2888,
3
],
[
2888,
4580,
4
],
[
4580,
6858,
5
],
[
6858,
9751,
6
],
[
9751,
10693,
7
],
[
10693,
13716,
8
],
[
13716,
14778,
9
],
[
14778,
17966,
10
],
[
17966,
19842,
11
],
[
19842,
21891,
12
],
[
21891,
24806,
13
],
[
24806,
26619,
14
],
[
26619,
30492,
15
],
[
30492,
32337,
16
],
[
32337,
34545,
17
],
[
34545,
36689,
18
],
[
36689,
39611,
19
],
[
39611,
42270,
20
],
[
42270,
45121,
21
],
[
45121,
47499,
22
],
[
47499,
49906,
23
],
[
49906,
50626,
24
]
]
} |
77256cea1cd3d071437ae81cd71706ba3ee577f5 | Provisional Woodland Statistics 2020 Edition
Release date: 11 June 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country
Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT
Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 [email protected]
Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236
Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ Contents
National Statistics status ................................................................. 3 Introduction .................................................................................. 4 Key findings .................................................................................. 5 Area of woodland .......................................................................... 6 Area of certified woodland .......................................................... 10 New Planting ................................................................................ 13 Publicly funded restocking ............................................................ 16 Woodland Carbon Code ............................................................... 20 Annex ............................................................................................ 24 Introduction ................................................................................ 24 Glossary .................................................................................... 24 Data sources and methodology .................................................. 27 Quality ....................................................................................... 31 Revisions ................................................................................... 31 Further information .................................................................... 32 Release schedule ....................................................................... 33 National Statistics status
National Statistics status means that our statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value, and it is our responsibility to maintain compliance with these standards.
The continued designation of these statistics as National Statistics was confirmed in March 2012 following an assessment by the UK Statistics Authority (now the Office for Statistics Regulation) against the Code of Practice for Statistics.
Since the latest assessment of these statistics in 2012, we have made improvements including:
- Adding charts, to illustrate how the statistics have changed over time.
- Expanding the release to include Woodland Carbon Code Statistics and renaming the release to better reflect its content.
- Expanding the Annex to provide more detailed information on the data used in the release. Introduction
This release contains provisional statistics for the year to March 2020 on:
- UK woodland area;
- certified woodland area;
- areas of new planting and publicly funded restocking; and
- projects registered under the Woodland Carbon Code(^1).
These provisional statistics will be superseded on 24 September 2020 with the publication of final and more detailed results in *Forestry Statistics 2020*.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in addition to UK totals. Figures at March 2020 and for the period 2019-20 are published for the first time in this release. Some figures for earlier years have been revised from those previously released. For further details, see the Revisions section of the Annex.
Please refer to the Annex for a glossary of terms used in this release.
In Scotland, forestry was fully devolved to Scottish Ministers on 1 April 2019. Two new agencies of the Scottish Government were created: Scottish Forestry to support the delivery of the Scottish Government’s priorities for Scotland’s forests through guidance, advice, incentives and regulations, and by advising ministers on forest policy; and Forestry and Land Scotland to manage national forests and land on behalf of Scottish Ministers.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) The Woodland Carbon Code is a voluntary standard, initiated in July 2011, for woodland creation projects that make claims about the carbon they sequester (take out of the atmosphere). Key findings
The main findings are:
- The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.21 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland.
- Of the total UK woodland area, 0.86 million hectares is owned or managed by Forestry England(^2), Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service (in Northern Ireland).
- The total certified woodland area in the UK at 31 March 2020 is 1.39 million hectares, including all Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Welsh Government Woodland Estate/Forest Service woodland. Overall, 43% of the UK woodland area is certified.
- Around thirteen thousand hectares of newly created woodland were reported in the UK in 2019-20.
- Around fifteen thousand hectares of publicly-funded woodland restocking were reported in the UK in 2019-20.
- Woodland Carbon Code projects in the UK that were validated (including those that were also verified) were predicted to sequester a total of 4.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime of up to 100 years(^3). This represents 3.8 million tonnes in Scotland, 711 thousand tonnes in England, 175 thousand tonnes in Wales and 11 thousand tonnes in Northern Ireland.
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) From 1 April 2019, the Forestry Commission’s responsibilities for management of forests transferred to Forestry England and to Forestry and Land Scotland.
(^3) Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses. Area of woodland
Woodland is defined in UK forestry statistics as land under stands of trees with a minimum area of 0.5 hectares and a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this. The definition relates to land use, rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are awaiting restocking are included as woodland. Further information, including how this UK definition compares with the international definition of woodland, is provided in the Annex.
Statistics on woodland area are used to inform government policy and resource allocation, to provide context to UK forestry and land management issues and are reported to international organisations. They are also used in the compilation of natural capital accounts.
Increases in woodland area result from the creation of new woodland. This can be achieved through new planting or by natural colonisation of trees. Further information is available in the section on new planting.
Decreases in woodland area result from the conversion of woodland to other land uses. Regulatory approval is usually required before trees can be felled. Felling approval will normally require the area to be restocked, but there are some cases in which trees may be permanently removed, generally for environmental reasons. The permanent removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development.
Most public sector woodland is owned and managed by Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Other public sector woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) is included with privately owned woodland as “private sector” in this release.
The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas shown in this release relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures.
______________________________________________________________________
4 From 1 April 2019, the Forestry Commission’s responsibilities for management of forests transferred to Forestry England and to Forestry and Land Scotland. The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares (Table 1). This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland.
0.86 million hectares of woodland in the UK (27%) is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service (in Northern Ireland).
Conifers account for around one half (51%) of the UK woodland area, although this proportion varies from 26% in England to 74% in Scotland.
### Table 1 Area of woodland, 2020
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-----| | **FE/FLS/NRW/FS¹** | | | | | | | Conifers | 151 | 98 | 426 | 55 | 730 | | Broadleaves | 64 | 19 | 41 | 7 | 131 | | **Total** | **215** | **117** | **467** | **62** | **861** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | | Conifers | 190 | 54 | 653 | 8 | 905 | | Broadleaves | 906 | 138 | 347 | 48 | 1,440 | | **Total** | **1,096** | **192** | **1,000** | **56** | **2,344** | | **Total Woodland** | | | | | | | Conifers | 341 | 152 | 1,079 | 64 | 1,635 | | Broadleaves | 970 | 158 | 388 | 55 | 1,571 | | **Total** | **1,311** | **309** | **1,467** | **118** | **3,205** |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Note:
1. FE: Forestry England (England), FLS: (Forestry and Land Scotland), NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Areas as at 31 March 2020. Figures are provisional.
4. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Annex.
5. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register.
6. Broadleaves include coppice and coppice with standards. Figure 1 shows woodland area by country since 1998. Woodland area has risen by around 290 thousand hectares since 1998, an increase of 10% over the period.
**Figure 1 Area of woodland, 1998 to 2020**
Source: Forestry England, Forestry Commission, Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Note:
1. Woodland areas for England, Wales and Scotland shown in this figure are based on data from the National Forest Inventory. The trends shown take account of areas of new planting and identifiable permanent woodland loss. Areas of woodland loss that are not yet identifiable (e.g. conversion of woodland for the restoration of open habitats) are not accounted for. Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/). Area of certified woodland
Certified woodland in the UK has been independently audited against the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. Forestry certification schemes are owned by international non-governmental organisations and exist to promote good forest practice. They offer product labels to demonstrate that wood or wood products come from well-managed forests.
Figures for certified woodland areas are often used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. However, it should be noted that woodland that is not certified may also be managed sustainably.
Most changes to the certified woodland area figures over time are a result of new areas being certified or certificates not being renewed upon expiry. Temporary changes can also occur if there is a time lag between expiry and renewal. Table 2 shows the area of certified woodland. The total area of certified woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is 1.39 million hectares. This represents 43% of the total UK woodland area, 25% of the woodland area in England, 47% in Wales, 59% in Scotland and 55% in Northern Ireland.
Table 2 Area of certified woodland, 2020
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|--------| | FE/FLS/NRW/FS¹ | 215 | 117 | 467 | 62 | 861 | | Private sector² | 109 | 29 | 392 | 3 | 533 | | **Total** | **323** | **146** | **859** | **66** | **1,394** | | % of woodland area | 25% | 47% | 59% | 55% | 43% |
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service
Note:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Areas as at 31 March 2020.
4. All certified woodland in 2020 is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes.
5. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified.
6. All Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales WGWE/Forest Service woodland is certified. The Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Welsh Government Woodland Estate /Forest Service areas are the latest areas, as shown in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on certificates. Figure 2 presents certified woodland area by country since December 2001, with figures for earlier years revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. This shows an increase in certified woodland area of around 330 thousand hectares (31%) since December 2001.
The 1.39 million hectares of certified woodland at March 2020 represents a 0.4% decrease on the previous year. Most of this decrease occurred in England and Scotland.
Figure 2 Area of certified woodland, 2001 to 2020
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service
Note:
1. All certified woodland is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes.
2. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified. New Planting
New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland by planting trees on land that was not previously woodland. The statistics presented here also include new woodland that is created by natural colonisation of trees (where known). Statistics on new planting are used to inform government policy and resource allocation and are used in producing annual estimates of woodland area.
Table 3 shows the area of new woodland that was created in the year to 31 March 2020. The total area of new planting in the UK in 2019-20 was 13.46 thousand hectares. Conifers accounted for 56% of the total area of new planting. Most new planting (97%) took place on private sector land. 81% of the total new planting area took place in Scotland, 17% in England, 1% in Wales and 2% in Northern Ireland.
### Table 3 Area of new planting, 2019-20
| New planting by forest type | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-----| | Conifers | 0.23 | 0.04 | 7.24 | 0.06 | 7.57| | Broadleaves | 2.10 | 0.04 | 3.61 | 0.14 | 5.89| | **All new planting** | 2.33 | 0.08 | 10.86 | 0.20 | 13.46|
| New planting by ownership | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-----| | FE/FLS/NRW/FS¹ | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 0.41| | Private sector² | 2.24 | 0.08 | 10.59 | 0.15 | 13.05|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
4. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included.
5. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
6. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
7. Figures are provisional.
Figure 3 shows areas of new planting by country since the year ending March 1976. Trends in new planting rates have been influenced by changes to the incentives available to land owners (in the form of grants) and the availability of land for planting.
In the last 10 years, areas of new planting in the UK have ranged from under 6 thousand hectares to around 13 thousand hectares. At 13.46 thousand hectares in 2019-20, the current level of new planting represents a 1% decrease from the 13.54 thousand hectares achieved in the previous year.
**Figure 3 Area of new planting, 1976 to 2020**
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. Private sector figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
6. Figures are provisional. Publicly funded restocking
Restocking is the replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration. The statistics presented here include felled areas that have been restocked by both natural regeneration and replanting.
As restocking takes place on woodland that has been previously harvested and it is a condition of most felling licences that the area is restocked, restocking rates are mainly driven by harvesting levels (with a time lag, often of around 2 years, between harvesting and restocking).
Economic factors, including grant rates, may have some effect on species choice at restocking. In addition, the precise timing of restocking may be affected by weather conditions.
This release only covers publicly funded restocking, that is:
- restocking of Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service Woodland and
- grant-aided restocking of private sector woodland.
Grant support for restocking in Scotland has been limited since 2008. The Forestry Grant Scheme was launched in Scotland in March 2015 and does include support for restocking in most but not all circumstances. As a result, grant-aided restocking does not represent all private sector restocking in Scotland. It is therefore likely that conifer restocking in Scotland in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics.
Grant support in England is now provided by the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which opened for applications in early 2016. Funding for restocking under Countryside Stewardship is only available under limited circumstances (through the tree health grant). The restoration (and restocking with native species) of PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites) is also supported by the HS2 Woodland Fund. No estimate has been made for restocking in England that is no longer supported by grants and therefore restocking in England in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics.
Table 4 shows the reported area of publicly funded restocking that took place in the year to 31 March 2020. As private sector figures are based on areas receiving grants for restocking, and restocking is not supported (or only supported in limited circumstances) by some grant schemes, these figures under-estimate the true level of restocking in the UK. In 2019-20, a total 14.83 thousand hectares of restocking was publicly funded. Conifers accounted for around four fifths (80%) of the total area of restocking. Most reported restocking (67%) took place on FE/FLS/NRW/FS land.
Around two thirds of all publicly funded restocking (67%) took place in Scotland, 18% in England, 10% in Wales and the remaining 5% in Northern Ireland.
Table 4 Area of publicly funded restocking, 2019-20
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-------| | **Restocking by forest type** | | | | | | | Conifers | 2.11 | 0.92 | 8.19 | 0.69 | 11.91 | | Broadleaves | 0.63 | 0.58 | 1.69 | 0.03 | 2.92 | | **All restocking** | 2.74 | 1.50 | 9.88 | 0.71 | 14.83 | | **Restocking by ownership** | | | | | | | FE/FLS/NRW/FS¹ | 2.48 | 1.48 | 5.35 | 0.62 | 9.93 | | Private sector² | 0.26 | 0.02 | 4.52 | 0.09 | 4.89 | | **All restocking** | 2.74 | 1.50 | 9.88 | 0.71 | 14.83 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year. No estimate of areas planted without grant aid was included.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration.
6. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented in the above table.
7. Figures are provisional. Figure 4 shows reported areas of restocking by country since the year ending March 1976. It indicates an overall increase in restocking rates during the period. Over the same period, there has been a general increase in UK wood production (see www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/uk-wood-production-and-trade-provisional-figures/).
The reported area of restocking fell significantly after a peak of 19 thousand hectares in 2006-07. This followed changes to grant support for restocking in Scotland, that resulted in some non-grant aided Sitka spruce restocking being excluded from the estimates.
The chart shows a dip in the area of restocking in 2015-16, following changes to grant schemes across the UK. Reported restocking has continued to fall in England, where grant aid is now only available in very limited circumstances. The reported area of publicly funded restocking in the UK in 2019-20 represents a 4% decrease from the previous year. For further information, see the Data Sources and Methodology section of the Annex. Figure 4 Area of restocking, 1976 to 2020
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Note:
1. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year.
2. Estimates of areas planted without grant aid are also included (where possible) up to 2009-10, but no estimates are available since then. As a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity.
3. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
4. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration.
5. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented.
6. Figures are provisional. Woodland Carbon Code
A total of 239 projects across the UK were validated at 31 March 2020 and are projected to sequester 4.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime of up to 100 years (Table 5). This represents 3.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in Scotland, 711 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide in England, 175 thousand tonnes in Wales and 11 thousand tonnes in Northern Ireland.
A total of 363 projects were registered under the Woodland Carbon Code by the end of March 2020, covering around 15,000 hectares of woodland and projected to sequester 5.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
### Table 5 Woodland Carbon Code projects in the UK at 31 March 2020
| | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |--------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|----| | **Number of projects**¹ | | | | | | | Awaiting validation | 47 | 50 | 27 | 0 | 124| | Validated only | 51 | 17 | 82 | 1 | 151| | Verified | 36 | 3 | 48 | 1 | 88 | | Total validated | 87 | 20 | 130 | 2 | 239| | All projects | 134 | 70 | 157 | 2 | 363| | **Area of woodland** (hectares) | | | | | | | Awaiting validation | 748 | 464 | 1,750 | 0 | 2,962| | Validated only | 884 | 250 | 8,224 | 14 | 9,372| | Verified | 376 | 52 | 2,196 | 9 | 2,633| | Total validated | 1,260 | 302 | 10,420 | 23 | 12,005| | All projects | 2,008 | 766 | 12,170 | 23 | 14,967| | **Projected carbon sequestration**² (thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) | | | | | | | Awaiting validation | 460 | 144 | 517 | 0 | 1,121| | Validated only | 503 | 143 | 2,827 | 8 | 3,480| | Verified | 208 | 33 | 963 | 3 | 1,207| | Total validated | 711 | 175 | 3,791 | 11 | 4,687| | All projects | 1,171 | 319 | 4,308 | 11 | 5,809|
Source: UK Woodland Carbon Registry (Scottish Forestry).
Note:
1. Projects can be validated/verified individually or as part of a group. The statistics presented here show the number of projects validated or verified whether they were administered individually or as part of a group.
2. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses.
3. Awaiting validation: these projects are registered with the Woodland Carbon Code but have not yet been assessed by the validator.
4. Validated: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
5. Verified: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
Figure 5 shows projected carbon sequestration for all projects in the UK since March 2012. The data presented here represent net changes in projects (i.e. additions less deletions). Projects can be removed from the register if they do not meet the Code’s standards, planned woodland creation projects do not go ahead, or the landowner no longer wishes to claim the carbon benefit of the project.
There has been a 37% increase in projected carbon sequestration for validated projects (including those verified) in the latest year, from March 2019 to March 2020.
Total projected carbon sequestration for all projects registered (including those awaiting validation) decreased by 6% in the year to March 2020 following a 7% increase recorded between March 2018 and March 2019. The overall decrease in projected carbon sequestration has occurred, despite a net increase in projects over the period, as the size of validated projects in England removed exceeded that of the projects added and the projected sequestration for some projects previously awaiting validation in Scotland have been validated at a lesser amount. Figure 5 Projected carbon sequestration by Woodland Carbon Code projects in the UK
Source: UK Woodland Carbon Registry (Scottish Forestry).
Note:
1. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses.
2. Awaiting validation: these projects are registered with the Woodland Carbon Code but have not yet been assessed by the validator.
3. Validated: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
4. Verified: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
5. Additional data, including quarterly estimates to March 2018, are available in the accompanying data tables. Annex
Introduction
This annex provides background information on the woodland area, planting, publicly funded restocking and woodland carbon code statistics presented in this release. It covers the data sources and methodology used to produce the statistics, information on quality measures and on any revisions to historic data and links to further information.
Prior to 2019, these statistics were released in 2 separate releases:
- Woodland Area, Planting and Publicly Funded Restocking; and
- Woodland Carbon Code Statistics (previously released on a quarterly basis).
Glossary
Broadleaves Trees that do not have needles or cones, such as oak, birch and beech. A few, such as alder, have cone-like structures for their seeds which are not true cones.
Clearfell areas Sites where all trees have been felled at once. In non-clearfell areas, only some of the trees are felled at any one time.
Conifers Trees with needles and cones, such as spruce, pine and larch.
Coppice Trees that are cut near ground level (or sometimes higher, in which case they are called pollards), causing them to produce many small shoots. These shoots are harvested every few years at a relatively early age for products such as staves, fencing, fuel and charcoal. “Coppice with standards” includes scattered trees that are left to grow as normal (“standards”).
Establishment The first five to ten years or formative period that ends once young trees are of sufficient size that, given adequate protection, they are likely to survive at the required stocking. Forest In the United Kingdom, there is no formal definition of “forest”; the term is often used for large woodland areas (especially conifers) or for old Royal hunting preserves such as the New Forest or the Forest of Dean.
Forest Research (FR) The Forestry Commission agency responsible for forestry and tree related research (including statistics).
Forest Service (FS) The agency of the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs responsible for forestry matters in Northern Ireland.
Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) The Scottish Government agency responsible for managing the national forests and lands in Scotland. Prior to April 2019 it was managed by the Forestry Commission.
Forestry Commission (FC) The government department responsible for forestry matters in England. The Forestry Commission’s functions in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government and to Natural Resources Wales on 1 April 2013. The Forestry Commission’s functions in Scotland transferred to Scottish Forestry and to Forestry and Land Scotland on 1 April 2019. The Forestry Commission is supported by two agencies; Forestry England and Forest Research.
Forestry England (FE) The Forestry Commission agency responsible for managing the national forests in England. Prior to April 2019, Forestry England was known as Forest Enterprise England.
FSC Forest Stewardship Council.
Great Britain (GB) England, Wales and Scotland.
Hectare (ha) unit of area defined as 10,000 square metres (100 m by 100 m), approximately equivalent to 2.47 acres.
Natural colonisation The creation of new woodland by natural means, i.e. without sowing or planting. Natural regeneration The regeneration of existing woodland by natural means, i.e. without sowing or planting.
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) The organisation responsible for advising the Welsh Government on the environment, created on 1 April 2013.
New planting Establishing woodland on ground that was not woodland in the recent past.
NFI National Forest Inventory.
NIWT 1995-99 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees.
PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification.
Restocking The replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration.
Scottish Forestry The Scottish Government agency responsible for forestry policy, support and regulations, created on 1 April 2019. Scottish Forestry also has responsibility for managing the UK Woodland Carbon Code on behalf of the Forestry Commission in England, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Forest Service.
Tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) Emissions and sequestration can be presented as tonnes carbon or tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent. To convert from tonnes CO2 to tonnes carbon multiply by 12/44.
United Kingdom (UK) Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Validated The initial evaluation of a Woodland Carbon Code project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years. Verified Verification is the evaluation of a Woodland Carbon Code project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code.
Woodland Land under stands of trees with a minimum size of 0.5 hectares and a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this, including integral open space, and including felled areas that are awaiting restocking.
Data sources and methodology
Area of woodland The woodland areas in Great Britain at March 2019 provided in this release (see Figure 1) are based on the NFI provisional woodland area map of Great Britain at March 2019. The map is overlaid with a map of Forestry England and Forestry and Land Scotland land (in addition to land formerly owned/managed by Forestry Commission Wales), to enable a breakdown by ownership type to be estimated, and the figures derived from these maps are then updated to March 2020 by adding areas of new planting in 2019-20. Initial estimates of conifer stocked area and broadleaved stocked area at March 2012, derived from NFI interim field survey results, were used to estimate the breakdown by type of woodland. More information can be found on the Methodology and Outputs web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
The provisional 2019 woodland map differs from the figures for woodland area provided in the NFI report on Tree cover outside woodland in Great Britain, that were based on the NFI 2013 map and the National Tree MapTM (NTMTM), the latter in combination with samples of visual aerial photograph interpretation and field sampling outside of areas on the NFI map. The estimates in the tree cover report include estimates of woodland area outside the NFI map derived from the other sources. Work is ongoing to calibrate the figures, and the NFI woodland map for 2019 incorporates amendments made to date as a result of the calibration (as well as additional areas of woodland creation since 2013). Further information on the methodology used by the National Forest Inventory and comparisons of results from the NFI and previous woodland area estimates is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
The annual NFI maps take account of changes since the previous map. These changes include new planting in the latest year, permanent observed woodland loss and other changes (e.g. arising from the work to calibrate the NFI map with the data from other sources that was used in the NFI report on Tree cover outside woodland in Great Britain). These revisions do not take account of woodland loss that may arise when woodland is converted to open habitats.
In the time series presented in Figure 1, woodland area estimates for years before 2011 were revised from those originally published for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory, to enable comparisons over time.
The figures shown for Natural Resources Wales in this release only relate to woodland that was previously owned/managed by Forestry Commission Wales, and do not currently include estimates for other Natural Resources Wales woodland (previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales or the Environment Agency in Wales).
Figures for Northern Ireland (Forest Service and non-Forest Service woodland) are provided by the Northern Ireland Forest Service. County breakdowns are available from the Forest Service Woodland Register at www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/forest-service-woodland-register.
Certified area Data on certified woodland areas are obtained from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Some of the certified woodland has dual certification, i.e. it is certified under both the FSC scheme and the PEFC scheme.
The data collected from FSC are the areas that are certified for each certificate holder. Follow-up enquiries are then made with larger certificate holders to check the certified areas and to provide a country breakdown.
As all Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales (Welsh Government Woodland Estate)/Forest Service woodland is certified, the areas used are those provided in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on the certificates. New planting and restocking
New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland. Restocking is the replanting of existing areas of woodland that have been felled. New planting can use planting/seeding or natural colonisation. Restocking can also use planting/seeding or natural regeneration.
Information about Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service new planting and restocking comes from administrative systems. For new planting and restocking by Forestry and Land Scotland and by Natural Resources Wales, the figures obtained relate to net areas (i.e. excluding integral open space). These are converted to estimates of gross areas (i.e. including integral open space) for consistency with other planting and woodland area data, by using an assumption of 15% open space.
Information about other woodland has come principally from grant schemes, including Countryside Stewardship in England, the English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS), Glastir in Wales, Better Woodlands for Wales (BWW), Forestry Grant Scheme in Scotland, Rural Development Contracts in Scotland, Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) and Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS).
Areas receiving grant are allocated to years by date of payment. For natural colonisation and regeneration, the areas are generally those for which the second instalment of grant has been paid during the year. The second instalment is approved when woodland reaches a certain stage and density of growth, so this information corresponds approximately to the amount of new and restocked woodland created.
The coverage and level of grant support differ across schemes, so that figures on grant-aided planting are not directly comparable between countries or over time. Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland.
New planting estimates for England also include areas supported by the Woodland Trust and areas funded by Natural England (Higher Level Stewardship / Countryside Stewardship). From 2016-17, the estimated area of new planting includes new woodland creation supported by the Woodland Trust under the MOREwoods and Partnerships England projects. From 2017-18, the estimated area of new planting also includes new woodland creation supported by the Environment Agency. Areas of land acquired by the National Forest Company for new planting have been included from 2015-16. To avoid potential double counting, areas of new planting by the National Forest Company that are believed to be supported by grant aid or by the Woodland Trust (and have therefore already been included in the figures reported for these other sources) have been excluded.
Local estimates for private sector areas of planting and restocking which are not grant-aided were included for England, Wales and Scotland up to 2009-10, where possible. Estimates of non-grant-aided planting and restocking were relatively small (less than one thousand hectares annually), and it has been assumed that all of this area is broadleaves. A small estimate for broadleaved new planting without grant aid in Scotland in 2016-17 to 2019-20 was also included. No estimates have been included for restocking with Sitka spruce in Scotland, or for restocking in England, that are no longer supported by grants. It is assumed that there is no non-FS non-grant aided new planting and restocking in Northern Ireland.
The use of natural regeneration in non-clearfell systems may be increasing - particularly for broadleaves in England. These systems are not satisfactorily represented by measuring restocking area within any given year, and so broadleaf regeneration may be under-reported in this release and other statistics.
Planting estimates for Wales in 2015-16 to 2018-19 have been revised following the addition of further grant schemes that had not been previously covered and revisions to the methodology for reporting on Rural Payments Wales data.
Figures for Northern Ireland (Forest Service and private sector woodland) are provided by the Forest Service (www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry).
Further information on administrative sources can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/administrative-sources/.
The methodology and outputs relevant to UK woodland area, planting and restocking were reviewed in 2014. The review report is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4425/mrwapr.pdf. Woodland Carbon Code data Information about Woodland Carbon Code projects comes from the UK Woodland Carbon Registry, housed on the Markit Environmental Registry (www.markit.com/product/registry). The register is a live database and summary data are extracted on a quarterly basis.
Further information on administrative sources can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/administrative-sources/.
Quality
The statistics on woodland area presented here refer to woodland as a land use rather than a land cover, so felled areas and newly planted areas are included within the definition of woodland. Some statistics on woodland area as a land cover are available from other sources (e.g. Countryside Survey 2007, www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk, and associated Land Cover Map; a more recent Land Cover Map 2015 is also available).
Detailed information on the quality of the statistics presented in this publication is available in the Quality Report: Woodland Area, Planting and Restocking at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/3182/qrwapr.pdf
Further quality information on FC Official Statistics is available at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Revisions
Figures at March 2020 and for 2019-20 are provisional and published for the first time in this release.
Woodland area figures at March 2018 and at March 2019 have been revised from those provided in Forestry Statistics 2019 to take account of updates to the NFI woodland area map. This resulted in very small revisions to the woodland area estimates in England, Wales and Scotland (\<0.1%) for each of these years. Revised woodland areas at March 2018 (obtained from the NFI final revised woodland area map of Great Britain at March 2018) and at March 2019 (obtained from the NFI provisional woodland area map of Great Britain at March 2019), are provided in the Excel tables accompanying this release. As the woodland area estimates are also used to estimate certified area for FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland, the certified woodland area figures for 2018 and 2019 have also been revised, resulting in revisions of up to 0.1%.
The revisions to planting data for Wales (see above) have resulted in changes of up to 150 hectares per year for new planting in 2015-16 to 2018-19 and up to 260 hectares per year for restocking over the same period.
Other figures have not been revised from those previously published in Forestry Statistics 2019.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Further information
Accompanying tables to this release, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/woodland-statistics/, provide longer time series data by country for new planting and publicly funded restocking and for certified woodland.
Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
Additional woodland area statistics are available in Forestry Statistics 2019 (published September 2019) and Forestry Facts & Figures 2019 (published September 2019), and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/.
Figures in tables have been independently rounded, so may not add to the totals shown.
Figures for woodland area in the UK are provided to international organisations; the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) for the 5-yearly Global Forest Resources Assessment (www.fao.org/forestry/fra/en), and Forest Europe for the 4-yearly State of Europe’s Forests (www.foresteurope.org/reporting_SFM). The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 Key Findings was released in May 2020 using UK data submitted in early 2019. Figures for woodland area and new planting are also used to compile the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/8108.php). Statistics on UK greenhouse gas emissions are published by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) at www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics.
The international definition of forests differs slightly from the UK definition of woodland in terms of the minimum canopy cover threshold. For the UK, there is a requirement for canopy cover of at least 20%, whilst the international definition specifies a minimum of 10% canopy cover.
Supplementary data are available in the accompanying spreadsheet at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/woodland-statistics/.
Further information on the Woodland Carbon Code is available at: www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/.
More statistics on UK forests and climate change can be found in Forestry Statistics 2019: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/.
Release schedule
Final results for (the year to) March 2020 will be published on 24 September 2020 in Forestry Statistics 2020 and Forestry Facts & Figures 2020.
Provisional figures for (the year to) March 2021 will be published on 17 June 2021 in the 2021 Edition of this release.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4885-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 33,
"total-input-tokens": 68065,
"total-output-tokens": 13441,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
364,
1
],
[
364,
1897,
2
],
[
1897,
2751,
3
],
[
2751,
4219,
4
],
[
4219,
5952,
5
],
[
5952,
8183,
6
],
[
8183,
8740,
7
],
[
8740,
10995,
8
],
[
10995,
11975,
9
],
[
11975,
12775,
10
],
[
12775,
14963,
11
],
[
14963,
16101,
12
],
[
16101,
16902,
13
],
[
16902,
19379,
14
],
[
19379,
20758,
15
],
[
20758,
23152,
16
],
[
23152,
25310,
17
],
[
25310,
26402,
18
],
[
26402,
27235,
19
],
[
27235,
27861,
20
],
[
27861,
30148,
21
],
[
30148,
31726,
22
],
[
31726,
32836,
23
],
[
32836,
34383,
24
],
[
34383,
36040,
25
],
[
36040,
37553,
26
],
[
37553,
39777,
27
],
[
39777,
41952,
28
],
[
41952,
44505,
29
],
[
44505,
46670,
30
],
[
46670,
48698,
31
],
[
48698,
50711,
32
],
[
50711,
52270,
33
]
]
} |
0a0ed4f9597fee365e61272309f02563df109b34 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: August 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 6 November 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 52 days in August 2008, 2 days lower than in July 2008.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 43 days in August 2008 – down 2 days from the previous month.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 209 days from arrest to sentence during August 2008, up 22 days from July 2008. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for August 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during August 2008 was 52 days, 2 days lower than in the previous month.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to August 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For August 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 94 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 43 days, down 2 days from the previous month.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during August 2008 was 209 days, up 22 days from the previous month. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and August 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to August 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (June - August 2008) was 41, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – January 2008 to August 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending August 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(^1) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(^2) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 | | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 60 | 7,275 (+5) | | April – June (r) | 56 | 7,447 (+22) | | 2008(^2) January (r) | 62 | 2,638 (+2) | | February (r) | 62 | 2,433 (+2) | | March (r) | 56 | 2,204 (+1) | | April (r) | 57 | 2,654 (+8) | | May (r) | 57 (+1) | 2,419 (+5) | | June (r) | 56 | 2,374 (+9) | | July (r) | 54 | 2,686 (+9) | | August (r) | 52 | 2,161 (+38) | | September (p) | 58 | 2,230 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000<sup>(1)</sup> | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002<sup>(2)</sup> | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003<sup>(1)</sup> | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005<sup>(1)</sup> | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 | | | | January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | October – December | 51 | 6,752 | | 2008 | | | | January – March (r) | 50 | 6,804 (+4) | | April – June (r) | 46 | 6,938 (+19) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2008<sup>(2)</sup> | | | | January (r) | 52 | 2,484 (+1) | | February (r) | 51 | 2,253 (+2) | | March (r) | 47 (+1) | 2,067 (+1) | | April (r) | 47 | 2,493 (+6) | | May (r) | 45 | 2,239 (+4) | | June (r) | 45 | 2,206 (+9) | | July (r) | 45 | 2,512 (+7) | | August (r) | 43 (+1) | 2,034 (+37) | | September (p) | 47 | 2,076 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(^{(1)}) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | 2007 April – June | 206 | 456 | | 2007 July – September | 197 | 433 | | 2007 October – December | 213 | 421 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 209 (-1) | 455 (+1) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 199 (-1) | 500 (+3) |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008(^{(2)}) January (r) | 222 (-1) | 146 (+1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) February (r) | 204 | 177 | | 2008(^{(2)}) March (r) | 202 | 132 | | 2008(^{(2)}) April (r) | 201 | 160 (+2) | | 2008(^{(2)}) May (r) | 199 (-1) | 177 (+1) | | 2008(^{(2)}) June (r) | 198 | 163 | | 2008(^{(2)}) July (r) | 187 (+1) | 174 (+2) | | 2008(^{(2)}) August | 209 | 127 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from January 2008 to August 2008
| Area | Jan 08 to Mar 08 (r) | Feb 08 to Apr 08 (r) | Mar 08 to May 08 (r) | Apr 08 to Jun 08 (r) | May 08 to Jul 08 (r) | Jun 08 to Aug 08 | |-----------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 69 | 67 | 71 | 76 | 74 | 72 | | Bedfordshire | 56 | 74 | 75 | 68 | 57 | 51 | | Cambridgeshire | 65 | 67 | 68 | 65 | 67 | 58 | | Cheshire | 37 | 41 | 45 | 46 | 44 | 38 | | Cleveland | 63 | 60 | 51 | 53 | 50 | 55 | | Cumbria | 58 | 50 | 49 | 46 | 51 | 51 | | Derbyshire | 46 | 45 | 49 | 53 | 49 | 49 | | Devon and Cornwall | 62 | 58 | 53 | 43 | 45 | 46 | | Dorset | 63 | 78 | 57 | 53 | 45 | 41 | | Durham | 48 | 47 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 50 | | Dyfed-Powys | 54 | 55 | 49 | 38 | 39 | 49 | | Essex | 59 | 52 | 44 | 41 | 49 | 55 | | Gloucestershire | 69 | 55 | 59 | 62 | 72 | 65 | | Greater Manchester | 54 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 51 | 50 | | Gwent | 54 | 58 | 61 | 72 | 64 | 53 | | Hampshire | 66 | 62 | 58 | 61 | 62 | 62 | | Hertfordshire | 69 | 61 | 58 | 66 | 60 | 57 | | Humberside | 62 | 58 | 49 | 51 | 49 | 50 | | Kent | 69 | 69 | 66 | 75 | 65 | 61 | | Lancashire | 56 | 50 | 47 | 48 | 52 | 52 | | Leicestershire | 70 | 73 | 74 | 74 | 65 | 51 | | Lincolnshire | 86 | 78 | 92 | 67 | 87 | 67 | | Merseyside | 57 | 58 | 61 | 59 | 55 | 50 | | Metropolitan | 72 | 71 | 70 | 69 | 65 | 63 | | Norfolk | 48 | 43 | 53 | 54 | 52 | 41 | | North Wales | 61 | 56 | 55 | 53 | 51 | 44 | | North Yorkshire | 60 | 55 | 48 | 46 | 44 | 46 | | Northamptonshire | 59 | 50 | 56 | 61 | 66 | 60 | | Northumbria | 56 | 53 | 53 | 46 | 42 | 37 | | Nottinghamshire | 68 | 71 | 66 | 64 | 59 | 62 | | South Wales | 65 | 56 | 55 | 50 | 52 | 52 | | South Yorkshire | 66 | 69 | 59 | 56 | 52 | 60 | | Staffordshire | 64 | 56 | 49 | 47 | 49 | 50 | | Suffolk | 49 | 47 | 47 | 43 | 47 | 42 | | Surrey | 71 | 56 | 43 | 40 | 48 | 66 | | Sussex | 61 | 53 | 46 | 44 | 52 | 54 | | Thames Valley | 63 | 62 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 64 | | Warwickshire | 62 | 45 | 43 | 31 | 38 | 42 | | West Mercia | 42 | 48 | 48 | 53 | 52 | 53 | | West Midlands | 53 | 53 | 52 | 57 | 56 | 52 | | West Yorkshire | 61 | 65 | 64 | 68 | 64 | 63 | | Wiltshire | 69 | 64 | 50 | 63 | 61 | 63 | | British Transport Police | 51 | 62 | 57 | 68 | 62 | 56 | | England and Wales | 60 | 58 | 57 | 56 | 55 | 54 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 10th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 8.02, 8th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3095 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4886-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29193,
"total-output-tokens": 8147,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
150,
1
],
[
150,
948,
2
],
[
948,
2117,
3
],
[
2117,
3245,
4
],
[
3245,
3676,
5
],
[
3676,
3841,
6
],
[
3841,
6017,
7
],
[
6017,
8396,
8
],
[
8396,
10515,
9
],
[
10515,
18895,
10
],
[
18895,
20925,
11
],
[
20925,
23042,
12
],
[
23042,
25184,
13
],
[
25184,
27402,
14
],
[
27402,
28345,
15
],
[
28345,
29574,
16
],
[
29574,
29574,
17
]
]
} |
c47d3a983edf93520407238fccd43151275b77f8 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: January - December 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 12 March 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main Points
• The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders (PYOs) in England and Wales was 57 days in 2008, down 8 days from 2007.
• The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates' courts was 47 days in 2008 – down 10 days from the previous year. Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 206 days from arrest to sentence in 2008, down 1 days from 2007.
• 41 of the 42 Criminal Justice areas had achieved the target of 71 days or less for 2008 as a whole. For the fourth quarter of 2007, 39 of the areas had an average of 71 days or less.
Conclusion of the Persistent Young Offenders pledge
On 10 December 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice announced to Parliament that the Persistent Young Offenders pledge would be discontinued with effect from the end of the 2008 calendar year. The full text of his statement can be seen on the UK Parliament website at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm081210/wmstext/81210m0002.htm#08121029000071
This monthly bulletin, whose purpose is to monitor the pledge, will therefore cease with effect after this edition covering January - December 2008. Arrest-to-Charge survey
In previous years, the figures presented in this bulletin have been updated retrospectively to take account of results from the annual 'Arrest to Charge' survey. This exercise generates estimates (at police force area level) of the average time interval between arrest and charge, for the minority of cases where this information is not recorded on the Police National Computer.
This annual survey is normally carried shortly after the completion of a calendar year. However, in the light of the announced discontinuation of the Persistent Young Offenders pledge, we will not be running an 'Arrest to Charge' survey covering 2008, and we will instead be rolling forward the most recent pre-existing survey results for the year 2007.
During 2008, some 89% of cases had full information on the arrest to charge interval recorded on the Police National Computer. The survey results are therefore only applied to the remaining 11%. For this reason, and based on recent years’ experience of applying these retrospective updates, we expect the absence of a 2008 survey to have a minimal effect on reported 'pledge' statistics. Average Interval from Arrest to Sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for January - December 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders in 2008 was 57 days, down 8 days from 2007.
The average during October-December 2007 was 57 days, 2 days higher than in the previous quarter. The monthly figure for December 2007 was 58 days, equalling the figure for November.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 7). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to December 2008 Cases sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts
For the year 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 93 per cent of all PYO cases. As table 2 (page 8) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 47 days, down 10 days from 2007.
The average for October-December 2008 was 46 days, 1 day higher than in the previous quarter. The monthly figure for December 2008 was 44 days, down 2 days from November.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court in 2008 was 206 days, down 1 day from 2007.
The average for October-December 2007 was 212 days, 11 days higher than in the previous quarter. The monthly figure for December 2007 was 236 days, up 14 days from November. Further figures can be found in table 3 (page 9).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and December 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to December 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
Figures by criminal justice area are shown in tables 4 and 5 (pages 10 to 13) - the latter for magistrates’ court cases only.
For the year 2008, 41 of the 42 criminal justice areas had an average arrest to sentence time of 71 days or less, compared to 35 areas in 2007. For the October-December quarter of 2007, 39 areas had an average of 71 days or less, equalling the figure for the previous quarter.
The number of areas achieving the 71-day target, on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in figures 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – November 2007 to December 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending December 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000(^1) | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003(^2) | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 | | 2008 | 57 | 28,834 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January – March (r) | 61 | 7,317 (+5) | | April – June (r) | 57 | 7,517 (+10) | | July – September (r) | 55 | 7,215 (+10) | | October – December | 57 | 6,785 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 62 | 2,652 (+1) | | February (r) | 63 | 2,445 (+3) | | March (r) | 57 | 2,220 (+1) | | April (r) | 57 | 2,675 (+1) | | May (r) | 57 | 2,445 (+5) | | June (r) | 56 | 2,397 (+4) | | July (r) | 54 | 2,715 (+4) | | August (r) | 53 | 2,199 (+2) | | September (r) | 59 | 2,301 (+4) | | October (r) | 57 (+1) | 2,570 (+6) | | November (r) | 58 | 2,169 (+24) | | December (r) | 58 | 2,046 (+51) |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the recalculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000(^{(1)}) | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002(^{(2)}) | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 | | 2008 | 47 | 26,900 | | 2008 January – March (r) | 50 | 6,843 (+4) | | 2008 April – June (r) | 46 | 7,001 (+10) | | 2008 July – September (r) | 45 | 6,744 (+10) | | 2008 October – December | 46 | 6,312 | | 2008 January (r) | 52 | 2,497 (+1) | | 2008 February (r) | 51 | 2,265 (+2) | | 2008 March (r) | 47 | 2,081 (+1) | | 2008 April (r) | 48 | 2,510 (+1) | | 2008 May (r) | 45 | 2,264 (+5) | | 2008 June (r) | 45 | 2,227 (+4) | | 2008 July (r) | 45 | 2,539 (+4) | | 2008 August (r) | 43 | 2,066 (+2) | | 2008 September (r) | 47 (-1) | 2,139 (+4) | | 2008 October (r) | 47 | 2,393 (+5) | | 2008 November (r) | 46 (+1) | 2,017 (+23) | | 2008 December (r) | 44 (-1) | 1,902 (+48) |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002(^{(1)}) | 178 | 1,829 | | 2003(^{(1)}) | 188 | 1,590 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005(^{(1)}) | 192 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 | | 2008 | 206 | 1,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January – March (r) | 210 (+1) | 458 (+1) | | April – June (r) | 200 | 507 | | July – September (r) | 201 | 469 | | October – December | 212 | 470 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 222 | 147 | | February (r) | 205 | 177 (+1) | | March (r) | 202 | 134 | | April (r) | 201 | 164 | | May (r) | 203 | 178 | | June (r) | 196 | 165 | | July (r) | 187 | 176 | | August (r) | 208 | 133 | | September (r) | 210 | 160 | | October (r) | 185 (+1) | 176 (+1) | | November (r) | 222 | 152 (+1) | | December | 236 | 142 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(^{(1)}) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re-calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. Table 4a: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales: by Criminal Justice Area, 2002 to 2008
| Area (1) | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |---------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Avon and Somerset | 76 | 70 | 71 | 69 | 72 | 69 | 69 | | Bedfordshire | 58 | 51 | 69 | 81 | 70 | 75 | 67 | | Cambridgeshire | 66 | 52 | 55 | 59 | 74 | 63 | 58 | | Cheshire | 58 | 58 | 63 | 72 | 69 | 50 | 43 | | Cleveland | 58 | 61 | 67 | 61 | 68 | 65 | 57 | | Cumbria | 64 | 57 | 60 | 58 | 54 | 63 | 52 | | Derbyshire | 85 | 68 | 70 | 71 | 73 | 56 | 50 | | Devon and Cornwall | 55 | 52 | 51 | 56 | 74 | 66 | 57 | | Dorset | 78 | 70 | 53 | 68 | 74 | 69 | 53 | | Durham | 52 | 57 | 67 | 76 | 69 | 58 | 48 | | Dyfed-Powys | 50 | 40 | 37 | 44 | 49 | 46 | 52 | | Essex | 67 | 72 | 58 | 56 | 60 | 52 | 55 | | Gloucestershire | 56 | 52 | 57 | 64 | 68 | 65 | 66 | | Greater Manchester | 71 | 74 | 72 | 78 | 74 | 68 | 54 | | Gwent | 62 | 64 | 67 | 70 | 85 | 74 | 53 | | Hampshire | 73 | 64 | 60 | 66 | 59 | 64 | 62 | | Hertfordshire | 63 | 59 | 71 | 67 | 84 | 66 | 62 | | Humberside | 85 | 78 | 67 | 55 | 67 | 65 | 54 | | Kent | 64 | 70 | 71 | 70 | 82 | 71 | 64 | | Lancashire | 84 | 60 | 68 | 72 | 65 | 62 | 54 | | Leicestershire | 69 | 65 | 66 | 72 | 102 | 76 | 62 | | Lincolnshire | 74 | 70 | 77 | 70 | 92 | 56 | 72 | | Merseyside | 65 | 81 | 82 | 75 | 65 | 63 | 53 | | Metropolitan | 83 | 77 | 85 | 86 | 85 | 70 | 68 | | Norfolk | 72 | 74 | 58 | 59 | 85 | 58 | 47 | | North Wales | 55 | 53 | 65 | 73 | 67 | 59 | 53 | | North Yorkshire | 57 | 58 | 66 | 58 | 54 | 59 | 54 | | Northamptonshire | 80 | 71 | 71 | 93 | 101 | 68 | 55 | | Northumbria | 63 | 72 | 70 | 66 | 79 | 72 | 47 | | Nottinghamshire | 66 | 61 | 81 | 69 | 52 | 65 | 62 | | South Wales | 66 | 54 | 55 | 55 | 67 | 75 | 54 | | South Yorkshire | 70 | 67 | 58 | 59 | 65 | 64 | 63 | | Staffordshire | 51 | 51 | 58 | 69 | 80 | 59 | 53 | | Suffolk | 74 | 40 | 35 | 39 | 54 | 50 | 45 | | Surrey | 64 | 78 | 86 | 52 | 73 | 58 | 63 | | Sussex | 65 | 56 | 67 | 69 | 64 | 63 | 53 | | Thames Valley | 67 | 66 | 73 | 66 | 92 | 72 | 63 | | Warwickshire | 57 | 61 | 66 | 57 | 55 | 55 | 46 | | West Mercia | 63 | 57 | 73 | 85 | 75 | 61 | 56 | | West Midlands | 65 | 59 | 72 | 64 | 81 | 60 | 53 | | West Yorkshire | 64 | 75 | 78 | 55 | 58 | 62 | 67 | | Wiltshire | 48 | 62 | 64 | 59 | 78 | 76 | 63 | | British Transport Police | 90 | 106 | 106 | 110 | 114 | 89 | 58 | | England and Wales | 68 | 66 | 69 | 68 | 72 | 65 | 57 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Table 4b: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from May 2008 to December 2008
| Area [1] | May 08 to Jul 08 | Jun 08 to Aug 08 | Jul 08 to Sep 08 | Aug 08 to Oct 08 | Sep 08 to Nov 08 | Oct 08 to Dec 08 | |----------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 75 | 73 | 69 | 70 | 66 | 63 | | Bedfordshire | 57 | 51 | 67 | 79 | 87 | 73 | | Cambridgeshire | 67 | 58 | 52 | 44 | 50 | 52 | | Cheshire | 44 | 38 | 42 | 42 | 49 | 47 | | Cleveland | 50 | 55 | 54 | 61 | 58 | 61 | | Cumbria | 51 | 51 | 51 | 48 | 55 | 54 | | Derbyshire | 48 | 49 | 49 | 58 | 52 | 54 | | Devon and Cornwall | 45 | 46 | 47 | 54 | 65 | 71 | | Dorset | 45 | 41 | 48 | 51 | 58 | 49 | | Durham | 42 | 50 | 49 | 54 | 59 | 54 | | Dyfed-Powys | 39 | 49 | 52 | 57 | 71 | 64 | | Essex | 53 | 55 | 59 | 55 | 55 | 55 | | Gloucestershire | 72 | 65 | 66 | 52 | 56 | 69 | | Greater Manchester | 51 | 50 | 51 | 53 | 56 | 57 | | Gwent | 64 | 53 | 52 | 39 | 45 | 36 | | Hampshire | 63 | 62 | 63 | 63 | 62 | 59 | | Hertfordshire | 60 | 57 | 60 | 50 | 54 | 54 | | Humberside | 48 | 50 | 48 | 51 | 57 | 56 | | Kent | 66 | 61 | 52 | 56 | 60 | 60 | | Lancashire | 52 | 52 | 52 | 56 | 58 | 58 | | Leicestershire | 65 | 51 | 50 | 54 | 51 | 50 | | Lincolnshire | 87 | 67 | 74 | 59 | 70 | 62 | | Merseyside | 54 | 49 | 47 | 41 | 44 | 46 | | Metropolitan | 65 | 63 | 66 | 68 | 64 | 64 | | Norfolk | 52 | 41 | 43 | 43 | 45 | 45 | | North Wales | 51 | 44 | 47 | 53 | 54 | 53 | | North Yorkshire | 44 | 47 | 56 | 60 | 56 | 56 | | Northamptonshire | 63 | 57 | 53 | 50 | 51 | 50 | | Northumbria | 42 | 37 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 42 | | Nottinghamshire | 59 | 62 | 60 | 57 | 55 | 54 | | South Wales | 51 | 51 | 48 | 53 | 49 | 54 | | South Yorkshire | 52 | 60 | 67 | 67 | 69 | 64 | | Staffordshire | 49 | 52 | 50 | 48 | 48 | 51 | | Suffolk | 47 | 43 | 44 | 44 | 45 | 45 | | Surrey | 48 | 65 | 74 | 78 | 65 | 63 | | Sussex | 51 | 54 | 59 | 51 | 52 | 44 | | Thames Valley | 61 | 64 | 71 | 67 | 58 | 64 | | Warwickshire | 38 | 42 | 37 | 39 | 44 | 53 | | West Mercia | 51 | 53 | 60 | 72 | 78 | 67 | | West Midlands | 56 | 52 | 46 | 48 | 56 | 56 | | West Yorkshire | 64 | 63 | 62 | 66 | 74 | 76 | | Wiltshire | 61 | 63 | 43 | 58 | 59 | 77 | | British Transport Police | 62 | 55 | 50 | 52 | 71 | 63 | | England and Wales | 55 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 58 | 57 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Table 5a: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced in Magistrates' courts in England and Wales: by Criminal Justice Area, 2002 to 2008
| Area (1) | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |---------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Avon and Somerset | 68 | 57 | 65 | 62 | 66 | 63 | 61 | | Bedfordshire | 54 | 47 | 59 | 67 | 58 | 64 | 53 | | Cambridgeshire | 53 | 42 | 44 | 49 | 66 | 54 | 46 | | Cheshire | 49 | 53 | 58 | 68 | 64 | 43 | 36 | | Cleveland | 51 | 53 | 61 | 55 | 61 | 59 | 47 | | Cumbria | 55 | 51 | 54 | 53 | 50 | 57 | 48 | | Derbyshire | 78 | 60 | 61 | 63 | 62 | 47 | 42 | | Devon and Cornwall | 50 | 45 | 45 | 49 | 66 | 63 | 47 | | Dorset | 70 | 64 | 52 | 67 | 69 | 64 | 41 | | Durham | 47 | 51 | 59 | 71 | 61 | 52 | 39 | | Dyfed-Powys | 49 | 38 | 35 | 42 | 44 | 45 | 41 | | Essex | 57 | 64 | 51 | 49 | 51 | 45 | 46 | | Gloucestershire | 52 | 48 | 52 | 55 | 62 | 62 | 50 | | Greater Manchester | 59 | 61 | 61 | 69 | 62 | 56 | 44 | | Gwent | 54 | 60 | 62 | 66 | 80 | 65 | 40 | | Hampshire | 68 | 60 | 54 | 61 | 52 | 57 | 53 | | Hertfordshire | 55 | 52 | 62 | 62 | 79 | 56 | 52 | | Humberside | 79 | 68 | 60 | 49 | 58 | 56 | 46 | | Kent | 58 | 64 | 63 | 64 | 74 | 63 | 59 | | Lancashire | 72 | 53 | 63 | 63 | 56 | 56 | 45 | | Leicestershire | 58 | 55 | 56 | 67 | 99 | 71 | 51 | | Lincolnshire | 69 | 66 | 71 | 67 | 86 | 54 | 58 | | Merseyside | 60 | 73 | 78 | 68 | 57 | 53 | 45 | | Metropolitan | 73 | 65 | 73 | 74 | 69 | 57 | 52 | | Norfolk | 63 | 63 | 52 | 56 | 81 | 50 | 36 | | North Wales | 53 | 51 | 62 | 72 | 61 | 55 | 46 | | North Yorkshire | 53 | 54 | 61 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 46 | | Northamptonshire | 69 | 65 | 68 | 87 | 98 | 60 | 51 | | Northumbria | 59 | 68 | 66 | 63 | 72 | 68 | 40 | | Nottinghamshire | 60 | 54 | 74 | 61 | 46 | 56 | 55 | | South Wales | 62 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 62 | 66 | 45 | | South Yorkshire | 63 | 58 | 50 | 53 | 58 | 57 | 51 | | Staffordshire | 47 | 46 | 51 | 58 | 74 | 56 | 44 | | Suffolk | 63 | 35 | 30 | 35 | 50 | 41 | 37 | | Surrey | 57 | 70 | 77 | 46 | 64 | 49 | 49 | | Sussex | 60 | 50 | 62 | 66 | 59 | 54 | 42 | | Thames Valley | 58 | 56 | 63 | 60 | 80 | 58 | 46 | | Warwickshire | 51 | 57 | 56 | 50 | 49 | 52 | 36 | | West Mercia | 57 | 50 | 67 | 79 | 67 | 52 | 49 | | West Midlands | 58 | 51 | 61 | 55 | 65 | 47 | 39 | | West Yorkshire | 57 | 67 | 70 | 48 | 53 | 55 | 53 | | Wiltshire | 43 | 60 | 60 | 54 | 75 | 67 | 56 | | British Transport Police | 73 | 86 | 85 | 98 | 88 | 74 | 46 | | England and Wales | 61 | 58 | 61 | 60 | 63 | 56 | 47 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Table 5b: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders sentenced in Magistrates’ courts in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from May 2008 to December 2008
| Area | May 08 to Jul 08 | Jun 08 to Aug 08 | Jul 08 to Sep 08 | Aug 08 to Oct 08 | Sep 08 to Nov 08 | Oct 08 to Dec 08 | |-----------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 69 | 66 | 61 | 61 | 59 | 53 | | Bedfordshire | 43 | 41 | 48 | 57 | 61 | 58 | | Cambridgeshire | 57 | 50 | 40 | 33 | 33 | 40 | | Cheshire | 38 | 33 | 36 | 35 | 38 | 34 | | Cleveland | 42 | 47 | 49 | 52 | 50 | 45 | | Cumbria | 48 | 48 | 48 | 42 | 45 | 43 | | Derbyshire | 38 | 41 | 44 | 48 | 44 | 44 | | Devon and Cornwall | 42 | 43 | 45 | 49 | 49 | 50 | | Dorset | 33 | 33 | 35 | 40 | 44 | 42 | | Durham | 33 | 39 | 45 | 44 | 49 | 42 | | Dyfed-Powys | 39 | 42 | 45 | 46 | 42 | 36 | | Essex | 44 | 49 | 51 | 48 | 46 | 45 | | Gloucestershire | 50 | 43 | 45 | 45 | 49 | 54 | | Greater Manchester | 44 | 44 | 44 | 42 | 44 | 43 | | Gwent | 51 | 43 | 43 | 33 | 36 | 27 | | Hampshire | 51 | 52 | 51 | 53 | 54 | 50 | | Hertfordshire | 54 | 51 | 57 | 49 | 52 | 46 | | Humberside | 41 | 41 | 41 | 47 | 51 | 50 | | Kent | 57 | 52 | 46 | 52 | 56 | 55 | | Lancashire | 43 | 41 | 42 | 47 | 48 | 49 | | Leicestershire | 56 | 43 | 39 | 38 | 39 | 39 | | Lincolnshire | 57 | 55 | 68 | 59 | 70 | 61 | | Merseyside | 45 | 44 | 42 | 39 | 39 | 41 | | Metropolitan | 48 | 47 | 49 | 51 | 50 | 48 | | Norfolk | 32 | 33 | 36 | 38 | 37 | 36 | | North Wales | 45 | 38 | 42 | 47 | 46 | 47 | | North Yorkshire | 40 | 39 | 43 | 44 | 43 | 42 | | Northamptonshire | 61 | 57 | 51 | 46 | 48 | 48 | | Northumbria | 35 | 34 | 37 | 38 | 37 | 37 | | Nottinghamshire | 52 | 54 | 51 | 48 | 48 | 47 | | South Wales | 42 | 40 | 39 | 43 | 42 | 45 | | South Yorkshire | 45 | 46 | 49 | 52 | 51 | 47 | | Staffordshire | 49 | 51 | 48 | 42 | 38 | 38 | | Suffolk | 35 | 32 | 34 | 40 | 38 | 34 | | Surrey | 40 | 46 | 54 | 53 | 52 | 52 | | Sussex | 41 | 41 | 43 | 38 | 40 | 33 | | Thames Valley | 44 | 40 | 43 | 43 | 44 | 44 | | Warwickshire | 34 | 37 | 32 | 37 | 42 | 44 | | West Mercia | 49 | 49 | 47 | 50 | 56 | 56 | | West Midlands | 39 | 36 | 37 | 37 | 39 | 40 | | West Yorkshire | 45 | 45 | 47 | 55 | 63 | 64 | | Wiltshire | 61 | 63 | 43 | 53 | 54 | 70 | | British Transport Police | 47 | 47 | 41 | 44 | 51 | 48 | | England and Wales | 45 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 46 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 10th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 8.02, 8th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3095 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4887-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 21,
"total-input-tokens": 43357,
"total-output-tokens": 14577,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
160,
1
],
[
160,
1712,
2
],
[
1712,
2860,
3
],
[
2860,
4135,
4
],
[
4135,
5557,
5
],
[
5557,
6265,
6
],
[
6265,
6432,
7
],
[
6432,
8640,
8
],
[
8640,
10636,
9
],
[
10636,
12685,
10
],
[
12685,
17013,
11
],
[
17013,
20053,
12
],
[
20053,
24414,
13
],
[
24414,
31633,
14
],
[
31633,
33666,
15
],
[
33666,
35783,
16
],
[
35783,
37925,
17
],
[
37925,
40143,
18
],
[
40143,
41086,
19
],
[
41086,
42315,
20
],
[
42315,
42315,
21
]
]
} |
8d46979e3e0d31133a2c5438a4cec686d8f5a4d4 | Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: February 2008
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin
Published: 9 May 2008 Executive summary
Background
This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
Main points
- The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 62 days in February 2008, equalling the figure for January 2008.
- The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates’ courts was 51 days in February 2008 – down 2 days from the previous month.
- Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 207 days from arrest to sentence during February 2008, down 15 days from January 2008. Average interval from arrest to sentence
The bulletin
This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales.
This bulletin presents figures for February 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed – please see the Notes section for further details.
The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires.
England and Wales
The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during February 2008 was 62 days, equalling the figure for the previous month.
Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Average time (days) between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders – England and Wales, January 1997 to February 2008 Cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts
For February 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates’ courts represented 93 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 51 days, down 2 days from the previous month.
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court
The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during February 2008 was 207 days, down 15 days from the previous month. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8).
Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates’ courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately.
The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts between January 1999 and February 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Average time (days) from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by sentencing court – England and Wales, January 1999 to February 2008 Criminal Justice System Areas
A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9).
On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (December 2007 - February 2008) was 37, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: Number of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – July 2007 to February 2008 Figure 4: Geographical spread of Criminal Justice System areas within target by rolling three-month arrest to sentence averages – rolling quarter ending February 2008 Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 1996 | 142 | - | | 1997 | 141 | 16,010 | | 1998 | 125 | 18,605 | | 1999 | 108 | 21,151 | | 2000 | 93 | 23,130 | | 2001 | 76 | 25,393 | | 2002 | 68 | 26,116 | | 2003 | 66 | 26,083 | | 2004 | 69 | 26,363 | | 2005 | 68 | 27,037 | | 2006 | 72 | 28,252 | | 2007 | 65 | 30,683 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 74 | 7,177 | | April – June | 72 | 7,034 | | July – September | 71 | 7,134 | | October – December | 72 | 6,907 | | 2007 January – March | 72 | 7,813 | | April – June | 67 | 7,928 | | July – September | 62 | 7,766 | | October – December | 60 | 7,176 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 72 | 2,618 | | February | 70 | 2,486 | | March | 73 | 2,709 | | April | 70 | 2,530 | | May | 67 | 2,733 | | June | 64 | 2,665 | | July | 64 | 2,690 | | August | 62 | 2,668 | | September | 60 | 2,408 | | October | 62 | 2,688 | | November | 59 | 2,625 | | December | 61 | 1,863 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |-----------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r)| 62 | 2,600 (+10) | | February (r) | 62 (+3) | 2,380 (+47) | | March (p) | 53 | 2,104 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) 1. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 96 | 18,851 | | 2000 | 82 | 21,145 | | 2001 | 68 | 23,752 | | 2002 | 61 | 24,280 | | 2003 | 58 | 24,480 | | 2004 | 61 | 24,698 | | 2005 | 60 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | 26,529 | | 2007 | 57 | 28,904 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 65 | 6,712 | | April – June | 64 | 6,639 | | July – September | 62 | 6,704 | | October – December | 62 | 6,474 | | 2007 January – March | 63 | 7,351 | | April – June | 58 | 7,469 | | July – September | 54 | 7,332 | | October – December | 51 | 6,752 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 64 | 2,484 | | February | 61 | 2,350 | | March | 63 | 2,517 | | April | 61 | 2,372 | | May | 58 | 2,585 | | June | 56 | 2,512 | | July | 56 | 2,554 | | August | 54 | 2,500 | | September | 51 | 2,278 | | October | 52 | 2,527 | | November | 50 | 2,487 | | December | 50 | 1,738 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 53 | 2,447 (+9) | | February (r) | 51 | 2,210 (+45) | | March (p) | 46 | 1,975 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) 1. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 3: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002 | 174 | 1,829 | | 2003 | 187 | 1,588 | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005 | 191 | 1,526 | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2006 January – March | 212 | 460 | | April – June | 217 | 387 | | July – September | 210 | 426 | | October – December | 220 | 431 | | 2007 January – March | 210 | 459 | | April – June | 206 | 456 | | July – September | 197 | 433 | | October – December | 213 | 421 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2007 January | 213 | 132 | | February | 214 | 136 | | March | 206 | 191 | | April | 208 | 156 | | May | 216 | 148 | | June | 193 | 150 | | July | 200 | 136 | | August | 187 | 167 | | September | 207 | 130 | | October | 220 | 160 | | November | 213 | 138 | | December | 204 | 123 |
| Period | Days | Number of cases | |----------------------|------|-----------------| | 2008 January (r) | 222 | 146 (+1) | | February | 207 | 167 |
Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data.
(1) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Table 4: Average number of days from arrest to sentence (three-month rolling averages) for persistent young offenders in England and Wales and by Criminal Justice Area from July 2007 to February 2008
| Area | Jul 07 to Sep 07 (r) | Aug 07 to Sep 07 (r) | Sep 07 to Oct 07 (r) | Oct 07 to Nov 07 (r) | Nov 07 to Dec 07 (r) | Dec 07 to Jan 08 (r) | Jan 08 to Feb 08 (r) | |-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------| | Avon and Somerset | 66 | 68 | 67 | 67 | 66 | 67 | 67 | | Bedfordshire | 74 | 64 | 69 | 69 | 66 | 66 | 58 | | Cambridgeshire | 53 | 56 | 53 | 54 | 49 | 56 | 56 | | Cheshire | 45 | 47 | 45 | 38 | 32 | 35 | 35 | | Cleveland | 60 | 55 | 58 | 60 | 63 | 63 | 63 | | Cumbria | 64 | 66 | 65 | 51 | 53 | 52 | 52 | | Derbyshire | 58 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 53 | 48 | 48 | | Devon and Cornwall | 59 | 54 | 53 | 58 | 60 | 61 | 61 | | Dorset | 59 | 62 | 71 | 65 | 54 | 62 | 62 | | Durham | 46 | 47 | 50 | 52 | 48 | 55 | 55 | | Dyfed-Powys | 41 | 40 | 50 | 53 | 52 | 45 | 45 | | Essex | 53 | 57 | 54 | 55 | 53 | 55 | 55 | | Gloucestershire | 78 | 82 | 64 | 64 | 73 | 72 | 72 | | Greater Manchester | 65 | 63 | 60 | 62 | 62 | 61 | 61 | | Gwent | 72 | 74 | 55 | 40 | 43 | 53 | 53 | | Hampshire | 57 | 59 | 62 | 64 | 64 | 68 | 68 | | Hertfordshire | 73 | 64 | 72 | 67 | 95 | 74 | 74 | | Humberside | 59 | 61 | 57 | 57 | 58 | 62 | 62 | | Kent | 69 | 71 | 67 | 59 | 60 | 66 | 66 | | Lancashire | 55 | 56 | 57 | 63 | 66 | 65 | 65 | | Leicestershire | 67 | 66 | 64 | 59 | 63 | 69 | 69 | | Lincolnshire | 59 | 50 | 52 | 41 | 43 | 55 | 55 | | Merseyside | 57 | 67 | 68 | 80 | 71 | 66 | 66 | | Metropolitan | 67 | 65 | 66 | 69 | 72 | 73 | 73 | | Norfolk | 47 | 56 | 52 | 56 | 53 | 58 | 58 | | North Wales | 51 | 56 | 46 | 49 | 45 | 58 | 58 | | North Yorkshire | 61 | 68 | 73 | 65 | 60 | 62 | 62 | | Northamptonshire | 65 | 61 | 55 | 48 | 55 | 58 | 58 | | Northumbria | 76 | 72 | 71 | 64 | 61 | 59 | 59 | | Nottinghamshire | 66 | 58 | 54 | 53 | 58 | 65 | 65 | | South Wales | 83 | 68 | 56 | 56 | 61 | 62 | 62 | | South Yorkshire | 61 | 57 | 56 | 65 | 73 | 75 | 75 | | Staffordshire | 49 | 50 | 49 | 48 | 51 | 60 | 60 | | Suffolk | 60 | 61 | 63 | 52 | 52 | 45 | 45 | | Surrey | 43 | 40 | 40 | 51 | 66 | 81 | 81 | | Sussex | 62 | 54 | 53 | 60 | 64 | 67 | 67 | | Thames Valley | 59 | 60 | 66 | 71 | 65 | 66 | 66 | | Warwickshire | 55 | 53 | 44 | 38 | 49 | 45 | 45 | | West Mercia | 68 | 74 | 63 | 60 | 50 | 44 | 44 | | West Midlands | 56 | 54 | 51 | 51 | 53 | 55 | 55 | | West Yorkshire | 57 | 60 | 60 | 63 | 59 | 61 | 61 | | Wiltshire | 68 | 75 | 78 | 75 | 61 | 65 | 65 | | British Transport Police | 71 | 60 | 66 | 67 | 69 | 61 | 61 | | England and Wales | 62 | 61 | 60 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 62 |
Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series.
(1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. Notes to the pledge
The pledge
1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment.
2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas.
4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target.
Notes to the data and methodology
Data sources
5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are:
- the Police National Computer, which is the police’s central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and
- the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage.
Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage.
Paths through the system
6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System:
- one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and • another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them.
Definitional rules
7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is:
• a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence;
• who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and
• within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence.
Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category.
Calculation rules
08. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main.
09. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source.
10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. Additional notes
National Statistics
11. This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.
The bulletin
12. The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency.
13. The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997.
14. In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer.
The definition
15. A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997:
"A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence."
16. Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages.
The calculations
17. In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. The extraction
18. All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were:
- committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
- handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police;
- proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales;
- resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and
- breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders.
However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise.
The amended methodology
19. From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer.
20. The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable.
The provisional statistics
21. From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures.
22. These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales.
23. The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. The survey
24. The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year.
25. Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion.
26. In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results.
27. The previous year’s survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available.
Symbols and conventions
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
- Not applicable 0 Nil .. Not available (r) Revised data (p) Provisional data Contact points for further information
Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm
This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board’s reducing delays internet site at:
www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: [email protected]
Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to:
Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: [email protected]
General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4888-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 29282,
"total-output-tokens": 8490,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
147,
1
],
[
147,
963,
2
],
[
963,
2142,
3
],
[
2142,
3280,
4
],
[
3280,
3721,
5
],
[
3721,
3888,
6
],
[
3888,
6357,
7
],
[
6357,
8850,
8
],
[
8850,
11286,
9
],
[
11286,
20632,
10
],
[
20632,
22665,
11
],
[
22665,
24782,
12
],
[
24782,
26924,
13
],
[
26924,
29142,
14
],
[
29142,
30085,
15
],
[
30085,
31341,
16
],
[
31341,
31341,
17
]
]
} |
cca3215005a3a732558af72df7144c1c51dc1663 | Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................. 2 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3 Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives ................................................................. 7 Progress on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks (SRIF) ........................................... 12 Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and Mayoral Strategies .......................................................... 13 Progress on Major Developments .......................................................................................... 15 Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity .................................................................................. 16 London Development Database .......................................................................................... 19 London Planning Awards 2010/11 ...................................................................................... 20 Update on inter regional issues .......................................................................................... 23 Outer London Commission .................................................................................................. 23 Olympic and Paralympic Games ......................................................................................... 23 Looking to the Future ............................................................................................................. 24 Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................. 25 Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces .......................................................... 25 Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in ........................................ 36 Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city ....................................................... 48 Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination ....... 52 Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility ................................................................. 56 Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city ............... 62 Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators ....................................................................................... 73 Appendix 3 - Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification ......... 76 Appendix 4 - National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators ............................................. 79 Appendix 5 - Mayoral activity on Development Plans ............................................................ 80 Appendix 6 - Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing ......................... 82 Appendix 7 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Recommendations ........ 83 Appendix 8 – Housing Provision in London 2007/8: Annual Monitor .................................... 86
Index of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators ........................................... 3 Figure 1 Employment in London 1982 – 2010 ..................................................................... 9 Map 1 Borough distribution of employment loss 2008 - 2009 ............................................. 9 Figure 2 Unemployment Rate – London and UK 2007-2010 ............................................. 10 Map 2 London Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL) Map 2010 ........................................ 12 Table 2 London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ..................................................... 13 Table 3 London Plan Best Practice Guidance ....................................................................... 13 Table 4 Progress of Mayoral Strategies and priorities ............................................................ 14 Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor ............................................................ 17 Table 6 Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents .................................... 19 Table 7 London Planning Awards 2010/11 ......................................................................... 21 Table 8 Percentage of residential development on previously developed land within London 2000 – 2009/10 .......................................................... 25 Table 9 Percentage of residential development on previously developed land within London by borough
Table 10 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – all schemes
Table 11 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – schemes of 15 units or more
Table 12 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – previously published data from AMR 6
Table 13 Density of residential development approved by borough 2004/05 to 2009/10
Table 14 Density of Residential development completed by borough 2006/07 to 2009/10
Table 15 Changes in open space due to new development or change of use 2009/10
Table 16 Losses of Protected Open Space in Planning Approvals 2009/10
Table 17 Loss of Protected Open Space of 0.5 hectares or more, detail of schemes
Table 18 Borough Progress on Open Space Audits (January 2011)
Table 19 Number of net housing completions by borough 2009/10
Table 20 Housing Completion trends 2003/04 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)
Table 21 Residential planning approval trends 2000/01 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)
Table 22 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes approved during 2009/10 (all development types)
Table 23 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2009/10 (New Build residential developments)
Table 24 Affordable Housing Construction (three year totals)
Figure 3 Borough Affordable Housing Completions (2007/08-2009/10 average)
Table 25 Affordable housing policy by borough
Table 26 Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-02 and 2007-09)
Table 27 Standardised Mortality Ratios (Ischaemic deaths)
Table 28 Proportion of London Residents Working in London 2004-2009
Table 29 Ratio of planning permissions to three year average starts in central London
Figure 4 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London 1985-2010
Table 30 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London - 2009
Table 31 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families
Table 32 Percentage of pupils reaching the national benchmark of 5+ A\*-C GCSE grades in 2004/05 and 2008/09
Table 33 Public and private transport indexes
Table 34 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) 2001-2008: Inner and Outer London
Table 35 Passengers on the River Thames
Table 36 Cargo trade on the River Thames within Greater London
Table 37 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone - 2009/10 Approvals
Table 38 Changes in protected habitat due to new development
Table 39: London’s municipal waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2009/10 (percentage)
Table 40: Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2009/10 (percentage)
Table 41: Total municipal waste generated in London (millions of tones)
Table 42: Waste to be managed in London apportioned by borough
Table 43: Development Plan Document and Core Strategy Consultations in 2010
Table 44: London CO2 Emissions 1990-2008
Table 45: Energy produced in London per annum from renewable sources
Table 46: Status of SFRA in each Borough (August 2010)
Table 47: Proportion of Listed Building entries at Risk in London
Figure HPM 1 Total housing provision, 2005/06 to 2009/10
Figure HPM 2 Net Conventional Housing supply 1987 – 2009/10
Table HPM 1 Total housing provision by borough and type of provision, 2009/10
Table HPM 2 Change in long term empty homes in London, HSSA and council tax data
Table HPM 3 Gross and net conventional supply by borough, 2009/10 Table HPM 4 Conventional completions by type, London boroughs 2009/10.................................93 Table HPM 5 Net conventional affordable housing supply by tenure, 2007/08 to 2009/10........94 Table HPM 6 Gross conventional housing completions by tenure and number of bedrooms, London 2009/10........................................................................................................................95 Table HPM 7 Gross conventional affordable housing supply by number of bedrooms, 2009/10 96 Table HPM 8 Conventional approvals by tenure, London boroughs 2009/10............................97 Table HPM 9 Conventional approvals by type, London boroughs 2009/10...............................98 Table HPM 10 Net conventional starts by tenure, 2009/10 ..........................................................99 Table HPM 11 Net conventional unit starts by type, 2009/10.....................................................100 Table HPM 12 Conventional homes under construction and not started, total pipeline in the London boroughs as at 31 March 2010....................................................................................101 Map HPM 1 Total housing provision 2009/10 ...........................................................................102 Map HPM 2 Housing provision as % of target 2009/10..............................................................102 Map HPM 3 Net conventional affordable housing supply as % of total net conventional supply, 2007/08 to 2009/10................................................................................................................103 Map HPM 4 Housing pipeline: Net homes not started or under construction, as at 31 March 2010 103 Figure AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London, 1991/92 to 2009/10 ..............................104 Table AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2007/08 to 2009/10..................105 Table AHM 2 Affordable housing delivery in London boroughs by tenure, 2009/10.................106 Map AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery (by area where homes located), 2009/10 ...............107 Executive Summary
The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is essentially concerned to assess achievement of the London Plan’s objectives. These look forward over a 20 year horizon – a long term perspective which looks across economic cycles but which in individual years will, of course, reflect their impact. This is particularly the case for AMR 7, covering 2009/10.
London’s economic output fell by 4.9% from its mid 2008 peak to the third quarter of 2009, but by the second quarter of 2010 had risen by 2.4%. GLA Economics expect that over 2011 as a whole growth may average 2.4%, and in 2012 2.9%. In employment terms, 190,000 jobs were lost during 2008 – 2009, mainly in the private sector, but there was some recovery in the first half of 2010 and GLA Economics projects 0.6% growth in 2011 and 1% in 2012.
Though unemployment across all groups has remained broadly stable during the recession at around 9%, it has had particular impact on the young and among black and other ethnic minorities. However, there is some improvement in the ratio between unemployment of white and BAME groups, and there was slower growth among London’s lone parents on income support than in the country as a whole.
The recession has also impacted on London’s successful housing record, reducing output by 16% from its 2008/9 peak to 24,300 conventional homes in 2009/10 and, unsurprisingly, to below the long term monitoring benchmark (27,600). However, the decline in residential approvals appears to be abating, falling only 5% to 44,100 and close to the average for the last decade. In percentage terms, affordable housing output remained at record levels (37% of the total), but in absolute terms fell to 9,000 in 2009/10. With capacity for over 170,000 homes in the planning pipeline, London is well placed to tackle future housing needs as it emerges from the recession.
In 2009/10 97% of approved housing was on previously developed land – far higher than the national 60% target. Housing densities in developments approved have risen to 148 dwellings per hectare in 2009/10. Less than 17 hectares of protected open space, land designated as Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and local open space, have been lost, and most of it will retain the open character or provide environmental improvements elsewhere.
In 2009/10 the Mayor secured Government recognition of the importance of continued investment in London’s public transport system, with Comprehensive Spending Review commitments to funding Crossrail and upgrading the tube as well as a revision to his London Plan to enable development to contribute to Crossrail. In 2011 there will be further improvements to the DLR to Stratford and to London Overground in both north and south London.
There is slow but steady progress in improving London’s ability to handle its own waste – recycling rates are increasing, more waste is being managed within the city’s boundaries and, overall, less waste is being generated. Boroughs are taking forward the Mayor’s waste management strategy by identifying land locally to deal with their own waste arisings. Good progress has been made on assessing flood risk with almost all boroughs meeting requirements to carry out Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. Where any part of sites of nature conservation importance has been lost it has usually proved possible to mitigate this by improvements elsewhere.
This is likely to be the last AMR before the Mayor publishes a replacement London Plan – currently expected in the summer/autumn of 2011. The next annual report will be based on a new suite of indicators, and will form part of a new approach to London Plan implementation, accompanying a new Implementation Plan. Scope and Purpose
This is the seventh London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR7). The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process required by law to assess the effectiveness of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy (more commonly known as the London Plan, the current iteration of which was published in 2008 consolidated with alterations since 2004). It is based on the key performance indicators (KPIs) set out in Chapter 6 of the London Plan, but it also contains additional contextual information that helps highlight some more specific challenges facing London. As with past AMRs, AMR7 reviews the overall performance of the London Plan with respect to key issues and trends reported in the year 2009/10.
The figures in the appendices generally relate to the period April 2009 to March 2010, although in some cases more up to date data is provided. Where possible a time series of data is given to help show trends. The appendices also indicate a few areas where proxy data have had to be used.
This report draws on a range of data sources, but the Greater London Authority’s London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance. The LDD is a “live” system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA and London boroughs. Data is also received from the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) and Environment Team, Transport for London, English Heritage, The Environment Agency and Port of London Authority.
The KPIs used in this report remain the same as in AMR6. A review of monitoring indicators is under way as part of the work to produce a new Replacement London Plan. It is anticipated that next year’s AMR will be based on a revised set of KPIs and that it will form a part of a new approach to London Plan implementation.
The scope of the AMR is outlined in Chapter 6B of the London Plan. It has been prepared to reflect the overall policy direction of the Plan, and does not attempt to measure and monitor each of its individual policies – this would make for a very large and complex document, and risk losing important information about overall trends amongst huge amounts of detail. The AMR continues to be important in keeping the London Plan under review (which the Mayor is legally required to do under the Greater London Authority Act 1999). It has also provided a valuable resource in preparing and scrutinising the draft replacement London Plan (further information about the new Plan is given later).
The AMR should not be confused with either:
The Mayor’s Annual Report: This is required under the GLA Act 1999. The latest report was published in June 2010 and covers the period 2009/10. It sets out the Mayor’s objectives and the action taken to implement them (looking at economic recovery, tackling crime and quality of life). It shows progress in preparing the Mayor’s strategies, the GLA’s progress against performance indicators and financial information. The report is available on the GLA’s website at http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/government/mayors-annual-report-200910.
The State of the Environment Report: This is also required to be published under the GLA Act 1999, and must be published every four years. The most recent report – the second (the first was published in May 2003) – was issued in 2007. It reports progress on many aspects of London’s environment, covering 36 specific indicators. There are some similarities with the environmental KPIs in Appendix 1 of this report. The report is available on the GLA website. The third report, which is being prepared jointly with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission is expected to be published in summer 2011.
Overview
Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators
| KPI | Progress | Comment | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 - Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land. Maintain 96% residential development on previously developed land | + | Both approvals and completions are above the 96% target | | 2 - Increasing the density of residential development. Over 95 percent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix | = | 94% of units were approved in compliance with or above the densities specified in the SRQ matrix. For schemes over 15 units the figure was 98% | | 3 - Protection of open space. No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development. | + | Nearly 17 hectares of protected open space has been subject to planning approvals, less than the 22 hectares in the previous year. In all open space there has been a net loss of 15 hectares as a result of planning approvals | | 4 - An increased supply of new homes. At least 30,500 units per year. | - | Net housing completions, including conventional and non-conventional supply and vacant properties were at 78% of target | | 5 - An increased supply of affordable homes. Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016. | = | Completions of affordable housing are down, but remain at 37% of output | | 5a - By 2026 reducing by at least 10% the gap between life expectancy at birth in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London | + | Life expectancy continues to rise in all areas, plus there has been a decrease in the gap between life expectancy in London as a whole and that in the six boroughs that contain the majority of London’s Areas of Regeneration. | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |-----|----------|---------| | 5b - By 2015, reducing by at least 10% the gap between the age standardized death rate from coronary heart disease per 100,000 population in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London | + | The Standard Mortality Ratio in Areas for Regeneration compares better to the London average that it did in 2007. | | 6 - Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London | + | New data shows that the proportion is up on last year, but still slightly down on 2004, the first year for which data is available. | | 7 - Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market by maintaining at least 3:1 ratio of permissions to 3-year starts | + | The ratio at the end of 2010 was 13:1, comfortably in excess of the requirement | | 8 - Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfil the priority to east London | + | Significant progress has been made in developing the Opportunity Areas | | 9 - Age specific unemployment rates for BAME groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 % reduction of the difference by 2011 | + | The number of unemployed Londoners from all groups has risen since the last AMR. Londoners from BAME groups remain twice as likely as their white counterparts to be unemployed in all age groups. However there is an improvement on the ratios reported in AMR6. | | 10 - Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011. | + | The difference between London and the rest of the country continues to fall, down to 6.1% in May 2010. This is the 5th year in a row that the ratio has improved. | | 11a - An increase in the provision of childcare places per 1,000 under fives, particularly in Areas for Regeneration | N/A | The information for this indicator is no longer available. | | 11b - An improvement in the percentage of pupils obtaining 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C in Areas for Regeneration relative to the LEA as a whole. | + | Analysis of ONS figures at Middle Super Output Area level shows that between 2004 and 2009, the % has risen by 19.07 in Areas for Regeneration compared to 15.72 in London as a whole | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 12 - Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head | + | Since the base year of 2000, the index of public transport use has risen to 126.1 whereas the index of private transport use has fallen to 89.4. | | 13 - From 2001–2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent. | + | Traffic decreased in all zones and traffic reduction levels remain on course to exceed those required by this indicator. | | 14 - A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011 | + & - | There was a 7.6% increase in passengers but the economic downturn has contributed to a 13% decrease in freight largely due to a decline in the amount of aggregates transported for the construction industry. | | 15 - 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 and 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2. | + | The government’s Comprehensive Spending Review confirmed that funding for major transport infrastructure projects in London was secure. | | 16 - Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas. | + | The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in May 2010. Transport assessments are being carried out in each of the OAPFs and sub-regional transport plans are also in place in all five subregions. | | 17 - Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 and at least 90% of B2 and B8 development in zones 0-2. | - & + | Only 43% of office space permitted falls within the high PTAL bands, but targets for B2 and B8 were met | | 18 - No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period. | - | Nearly 9.5 hectares of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation could be lost as a result of planning permissions in 2009/10. However nearly 7 hectares of this is in the Olympic Park and will be offset by future improvements | | 19 - Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted At least 35 per cent by 2010 At least 45 per cent by 2015 | + | The proportion of municipal waste recycled in London rose by 2% to 27%, but is below the 35% target for 2010 | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 20 - Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment | + | Updated waste arising and apportionment figures are being agreed as part of the Replacement of the London Plan process | | facilities | | | | 21 - 75% (16 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed | + | GLA estimates suggest that 79% of London’s waste is managed within London. | | of within London by 2010 | | | | 22 - Reduce emissions to 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010 | N/A | Data for 2010 will not be available until 2012. | | 20% reduction by 2016 | | | | 25% by 2020 | | | | Note: The Mayor is working towards a revised target set out in the | | | | London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI, 2008) | | | | 23 - Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 | N/A | The Mayor has commissioned a major study of renewable energy in London which is due for publication during 2011. | | including at least six large wind turbines | | | | 24 - No net loss of functional flood plain within referable | = | There has been no net loss of functional floodplain to development in London. | | planning applications. | | | | 25 - Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a | - | The proportion rose slightly to 2.65%, a rise of 0.02% but the overall trend is considered to be downwards | | percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London. | | |
Note: The indicators are those contained in the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, which was published in 2008. This is the version that is currently in force although a full review of the plan is well underway (see section on Review of the London Plan). Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives
Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces
London continues to perform well against this objective.
By a significant margin it has consistently exceeded the national 60% benchmark for accommodating growth within its boundaries on brownfield sites. In terms of both site area and number of dwellings approved, 97% of new housing in 2009/10 was on previously developed land and the figures for housing completions were slightly higher. Table 9 shows that the figure dropped below 90% in only four boroughs.
Net loss of all types of open space in planning permissions approved has reduced since 2008/9 (from 18.2 hectares to 14.6 ha in 2009/10), though completions made greater inroads into open space last year (-10.9 hectares) than in 2008/9 (-5.6 hectares). Locally, the picture is more complex than these headline statistics would suggest. Development proposals can involve both gains and losses in open space; sometimes losses are temporary, and in other cases they are made up for by reprovision. Perhaps the clearest example of this is the loss of 6 hectares of Metropolitan Open Land in Hackney, which will be made up for by future improvements to the Olympic Park (this area is also mentioned under progress against Objective 6). Most boroughs record little or no loss.
A total of 16.8 hectares of protected open space have been subject to planning approvals in 2009/10. Most of the loss which did occur in 2009/10 was limited to a few boroughs and is part of a larger redevelopment that will be compensated for by other environmental improvements.
Table 18 shows that most boroughs (18) have completed an Open Space Strategy to inform their local protection policies, 8 have one in preparation/draft and 7 have other strategies in place.
Measures of the density of new housing development show a complex picture. Density of residential approvals has risen in 2009/10. At 148 dwellings per hectare it is still below the peak of 151 dwellings per hectare in 2007/08 but up on 2008/09. The density of new completions has also increased from 117 dwellings per hectare in 2007/8 to 139 in 2009/10.
When compared to the densities suggested in the density matrix in the London Plan, 2009/10 saw 56% of units in schemes that exceed the suggested maximum density level. As in previous years, this means that less than half of approvals (rather than the 95% target) are within the appropriate density range for particular locations.
The Mayor’s recent Interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which shows how 2008 London Plan policy should be implemented to more effectively achieve this target, was introduced after the cut off date for this AMR and so does not bear on its results. For the future, its potential impact should be reinforced by refined policy and a revised KPI in the new Draft Replacement London Plan which place greater emphasis on optimising housing output in particular locations rather than simply seeking to increase density. Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in
Housing provision remains fundamental to making London a better city to live in but, as in the rest of the country, economic conditions have reduced output. AMR 6 correctly anticipated that the reduction in approvals recorded in 2008/9 might presage a reduction in completions in 2009/10. Completions of conventional homes fell by 16% to some 24,300 from the 2008/9 peak of 29,000 – and to below the 27,600 dwellings per annum long term monitoring target for this type of accommodation.
However, the substantial decline in approvals appears to be abating. In 2008/9 approvals fell by over 40% from their 2007/8 peak of 80,500 but between 2008/9 and 2009/10 the reduction was only 5%, to 44,100 – a figure only slightly down on the average recorded over the last decade. London’s planning pipeline remains substantial with capacity for over 170,000 homes – equivalent to nearly 6 years’ supply – and should not constrain development when the market recovers.
Affordability remains a major housing issue for Londoners and despite the recession affordable housing output has remained significant, albeit not at the levels of the recent past. The proportion of net new conventional housing which is affordable remains at 37%, the same as 2008/9, but output has fallen back from its 10,800 peak then to 9,000 in 2009/10.
Improving provision of ‘Lifetime’ and ‘wheelchair accessible’ homes is also important in making London a better city to live in for all its residents and the proportion of ‘Lifetime’ homes approved has risen from 54% in 2008/9 to 70% in 2009/10. The proportion of approved new ‘wheelchair accessible’ homes has remained constant at 7%.
Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city
Though London fared better than the country as a whole during 2008-09, both went through a deep and long recession. London began to emerge from this in 2009-10. GLA Economics consider that the recovery is likely to be bumpy, with households feeling squeezed due to job insecurity, relatively stagnant wages and rising prices. These pressures have borne on the indicators measuring progress against the London Plan’s social and economic objectives in 2009/10. Economic output fell by 4.9% from its mid 2008 peak to the third quarter of 2009 but by the second quarter of 2010 had risen by 2.4%. On an annual basis, a positive outturn may be expected for 2011 and 2012 when GLA Economics project output growth of 2.4 per cent in 2011 and 2.9 per cent in 2012. Employment is forecast to grow by 0.6 per cent in 2011 and by 1.0 per cent in 2012.
The impact of the recession on London employment, and more particularly, the pattern of recovery in 2009 -10 are both difficult to gauge at present. Official employment figures1 are not available for 2010 and there is some uncertainty as to how far those for 2009 reflect actual job levels. For example, public transport passenger ridership has held up quite well since mid 2008 and the Annual Population Survey (admittedly compiled on a very different basis to the BRESS2 official employment figures) even shows a slight increase in the total number of workers in London between 2008 and 2009 (see Table 28). In contrast, the official figures for broadly the same period showed a loss of 192,000 employee jobs.
These losses are cause for concern for policy makers. However, the indications to date are that London’s employment losses would appear not to have been on the same scale as those recorded during the recession of the early 1990s when it lost almost half a million jobs (see Figure 1).
______________________________________________________________________
1 Office for National Statistics (ONS). Release of Business Register Employment Survey (BRESS) 2009: London. ONS, 2010 2 ONS 2010 op cit Map 1 shows that in percentage terms the greatest jobs losses during 2008 – 2009 were concentrated in suburban boroughs, with Sutton, Richmond, Croydon, Ealing and Waltham Forest experiencing employment loss of more than 7.4% in 2008 – 2009. However, in absolute terms jobs losses more closely mirrored concentrations of employment, with the greatest numbers of workplace jobs lost in Westminster (-23,000), Islington (-13,000), Hillingdon and Croydon (-12,000 each) and the City of London (-11,000). In the country as a whole a disproportionate percentage (85%) of employment loss has been among full time jobs. This is also true in London, but to a less marked extent (81%) even though full time employment is more common here (74% of all employment) than in Great Britain (68%).
In absolute terms, the five sectors with the greatest job losses were administrative and support service activities (-49,800), finance and insurance (-34,000), information and communication (-28,800), transport and storage (-24,300) and construction (-22,700). In 2008 these sectors accounted for 35% of London’s total employment and in the period 2008 – 2009 for 83% of its net job loss. Over the same period employment in health, social work, education and real estate grew and there was no change in public administration and defence.
The unemployment claimant count in London has remained below that for the country as a whole since the onset of the recession. The internationally defined unemployment rate has remained above it but broadly stable at around 9% (Figure 2).
**Figure 2 Unemployment Rate – London and UK 2007-2010**
**Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination**
The London Plan is based upon the principles of spatial planning – that is, it deals not just with conventional land use matters, but integrates these with the spatial aspects of a range of other policy areas, including issues of social policy. The KPIs supporting these objectives are aimed at showing whether the gaps between disadvantaged communities and other Londoners are being addressed.
London’s status as a world city owes much to its global connectivity. This openness has been a great asset to London but meant that London was not immune to the recent global recession. That recession has affected progress in the Mayor’s objective of reducing Black and Minority Ethnic unemployment in absolute terms and has seen a growth in youth unemployment across all groups. However, London’s economy is resilient, as demonstrated by the fact that there was a slower growth in the number of lone parents on income support in London when compared to the national picture. There is also good news in the longer term, against a background of improving school performance across London as a whole, with a faster rate of improvement in regeneration areas.
**Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility**
The ongoing, substantial investment in public transport by TfL, Network Rail, Government and the private sector continues to improve London’s accessibility and thus help ease congestion on the road network. Central Government has recognised the importance of improving London’s accessibility in the Comprehensive Spending Review by ensuring the funding for the tube upgrades and Crossrail. In April 2010 the Mayor altered the London Plan to enable him to raise contributions towards the cost of Crossrail through the planning system. For the calendar year 2010, £235,000 was raised. In 2011 there will be further improvements to the DLR to Stratford. London Overground, which passes through 20 of the 33 boroughs, will see further sections open in north London in 2011 and south London in 2012. London Overground passes through some of the more deprived parts of London. Improving its service may help people living near to stations access a wider range of job opportunities. Progress will continue to be made on upgrading London Underground lines, improving the capacity and reliability of the network, which is essential to London’s economic success. The recent fall in river cargo is thought to be more of a reflection of short term economic difficulties than a longer term structural change in transport patterns.
In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). At the recent examination in public of the draft replacement London Plan, questions were raised about how developers and others can make sure they are working on the basis of the most recent PTALs, given that they change as public transport services are altered and improved. The Mayor’s representatives agreed that the definitive PTAL map for each year would be published in this Report, which will allow all concerned to assure themselves that they are using the correct data. It has been decided that it would be useful to start this practice this year, and the definitive map is given in Map 2. It will then be possible to confirm that extracts from that map provided by TfL relate to this definitive version. The view of AMR users about the usefulness of this approach would be welcomed. Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city
There is a slow, but steady improvement in London’s ability to handle its own waste. Recycling rates are improving, more is being managed within London, less waste is being generated. Through his municipal and business waste strategies, and in conjunction with the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWaRB), the Mayor is targeting those sectors that can help make the biggest improvements to London’s waste performance. The boroughs are bringing forward waste planning documents to ensure enough land is allocated to deal with the waste arising in their areas. Good progress has been made on assessing flood risk with almost all boroughs meeting requirements to carry out Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. Despite the recent economic downturn, the number of listed buildings at risk has remained stable and low.
While it is true that some land of nature conservation importance has been lost, it is usually only part of a site, rather than all of it, and these losses are often to enable development that can then fund improvements to the overall quality of the remaining site, which can result in an overall benefit to biodiversity. This year’s data include the loss of one large site in Hackney which is part of the Olympics site. Post-Olympics, this loss will be more than compensated for through longer-term plans for use and management of the Olympic site and Park. Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and other Mayoral Strategies
Table 2 London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance
| Supplementary Planning Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment | July 2003 | April 2004 | | Interim Housing | 2009 | April 2010 | | Sustainable Design and Construction | March 2005 | May 2006 | | Land for Transport Functions | May 2006 | March 2007 | | View Management Framework Revised | April 2005 | July 2007 | | Planning for Equality and Diversity in London | May 2009 | Spring 2010 | | East London Green Grid Framework | August 2007 | February 2008 | | Providing for Children & Young People’s Play | October 2006 | March 2008 | | Industrial Capacity | October 2007 | March 2008 |
Table 3 London Plan Best Practice Guidance
| Best Practice Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Guide to preparing Open Space Strategies | 2008 | 2009 | | Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Implementation Report | 2003 | January 2005 | | Development Plan Policies for biodiversity | October 2004 | November 2005 | | Tomorrow’s Suburbs | February 2005 | June 2006 | | Managing the night time economy | June 2006 | March 2007 | | Health issues in Planning | June 2006 | June 2007 | | Wheelchair Accessible Housing | March 2007 | September 2007 | | Improving Access to Nature Implementation Report | March 2007 | February 2008 | | London’s Foundations (Protecting Geodiversity) | July 2008 | March 2009 |
Downloadable versions of SPGs and BPGs can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/supplementary-planning-guidance](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/supplementary-planning-guidance).
Further information on all technical and research reports relating to the London Plan can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/technical-research-reports](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/technical-research-reports)
A comprehensive review of the SPGs/BPGs to support the new Replacement London Plan will commence during 2011. | Strategy | Web link | First published | Updated | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Air Quality | [http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-air-quality-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-air-quality-strategy) | September 2002 | December 2010 | | Alcohol and Drugs | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/health/focus-issues/drugs](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/health/focus-issues/drugs) | January 2002 | | | Ambient Noise (Sounder City) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clean-calm-city/noise](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clean-calm-city/noise) | March 2004 | Review to be considered following publication of national Noise Strategy | | Biodiversity (Connecting with London’s Nature) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/biodiversity](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/biodiversity) | July 2002 | | | Business Waste Management | [http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/waste-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/waste-strategy) | Draft published October 2010. Consultation closed January 2011 | | Childcare | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/young-people/early-years-family-support](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/young-people/early-years-family-support) | Report published July 2010 | | Children and Young People (Young Londoners – Successful Futures) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/young-londoners-successful-futures](http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/young-londoners-successful-futures) | Report published July 2010 | | Climate Change Adaptation | [http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/strategy) | Assembly draft August 2008, public draft February 2010, consultation closed May 2010 | | Climate Change Mitigation & Energy (Delivering London’s Energy Future) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/climate-change/climate-change-mitigation-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/climate-change/climate-change-mitigation-strategy) | Energy strategy February 2004 | Draft published October 2010, consultation closed January 2011 | | Culture (Cultural Metropolis) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/get-involved/consultations/current-consultations/cultural-strategy](http://www.london.gov.uk/get-involved/consultations/current-consultations/cultural-strategy) | April 2004 | Consultation draft June 2010. Consultation closed September 2010 | | Violence Against Women (The Way Forward) | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/crime-community-safety/tackling-priority-crimes/violence-against-women](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/crime-community-safety/tackling-priority-crimes/violence-against-women) | April 2009 | March 2010 | | Economic Development | [http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/business-and-economy/eds](http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/business-and-economy/eds) | May 2010 | | | Strategy | Web link | First published | Updated | |--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Food | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/growing-food | | | | Health Inequalities | http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/health/health-inequalities-strategy | | April 2010 | | Housing | http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/london-housing-strategy | | February 2010 | | London Tourism Action Plan | | May 2006 | August 2009 | | Municipal Waste | http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/waste-strategy | August 2003 | Draft published October 2010. Consultation closed January 2011 | | Older People | http://www.london.gov.uk/older-people | | | | Spatial Development (The London Plan) | http://www.london.gov.uk/shaping-london/london-plan/ | February 2004 | Draft replacement plan published October 2009. Expected publication summer / autumn 2011 | | Transport | http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-transport-strategy | July 2001 | May 2010 | | Water | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/water | | Draft published August 2009 |
For the latest updates visit [www.london.gov.uk](http://www.london.gov.uk). Please note that the Mayor’s website is under continuous review which may lead to web pages moving or being replaced. The links provided were functional as at the end of January 2011.
**Progress on Major Developments**
Appendix 3 contains a summary of progress on implementing development for each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification identified in the London Plan. Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity
Review of the London Plan
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Mayor is required to publish and keep up-to-date a spatial development strategy (SDS), widely known as the London Plan. This is intended to set out the Mayor’s strategy for the development of London, and to bring together the spatial aspects of all his other strategies. The first iteration of the London Plan was published in 2004; the most recent version is that published consolidated with alterations in February 2008.
In December 2008, the Mayor announced his intention to carry out a full review of the Plan, with a view to bringing forward a new (or “replacement”) version before the end of 2011. Initial proposals for a new Plan were published for consultation in April 2009, with a draft replacement Plan being issued in October of the same year. An examination in public was held over nine weeks between June and December 2010, and at time of writing the report of the Panel that conducted the examination is awaited. It is intended that the new London Plan will be published in the autumn of 2011.
The Mayor is currently considering the arrangements for implementing the London Plan. These are likely to take the form of an Implementation Framework of documents and initiatives, including a streamlined suite of supplementary guidance, an Implementation Report outlining activities to implement London Plan policies and support infrastructure planning across the capital, and this Annual Monitoring Report. Further details of this new approach will be set out in the next AMR.
Planning decisions
The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 came into force on 6 April 2008 and requires local planning authorities to refer strategic planning applications to the Mayor (the Order defines what is strategic). The Order requires the Mayor to provide a statement of whether he considers the application to conform to the London Plan and the reasons for this conclusion within six weeks of receipt of the referral. The Mayor has the power to direct a borough to refuse planning permission but he does not have the power to direct a borough to grant planning permission. On certain applications, which meet criteria set out in the Order, he can however direct a borough that he will become the local planning authority and determine the application himself.
The Order applies to applications submitted on or after the 6 April 2008. The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 still applies to those applications submitted before the 6 April 2008.
Following discussions between the Mayor and London boroughs, the Government has indicated its intention to amend the Mayor of London Order to increase the threshold for referral of applications, so that he only sees those proposing more than 400 units of new housing. It is anticipated that this change will be made during the summer of 2011.
In spite of the continuing uncertainty brought on from the economic crisis, 2010 has seen a slight increase in the number of applications referred to the Mayor. The increase from 240 in 2009, to 258 in 2010 represents a rise of 7.5%. However, there still remained a 12% decrease in referable applications in 2010 when compared to the average amount of referrals in the previous 4 years. This decline in activity is not uniform across London, with the Inner London boroughs displaying a 19% decrease in referable cases (in spite of such boroughs as Lambeth showing a 40% increase in activity to the 4 year average) whilst the Outer London boroughs show a very mild decrease in referable cases of just 0.75%. The City of London has seen a dramatic increase from 1 referable case in 2009 to 5 in 2010; however it still remains well below the high of 20 in 2007.
This year also saw the Mayor use his “call-in” powers in a further two planning applications. The Mayor granted permission for the Southall Gas Works application in Hayes following Ealing and Hillingdon’s decision to refuse the application and he also issued a notice to the London Borough of Merton stating that he would act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the SITA Recycling application on Benedict Road.
Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor
| Borough | 2000 - 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | Total 2006-2010 | |--------------------------|-------------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------| | City of London | 72 | 16 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 119 | | Barking & Dagenham | 36 | 4 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 71 | | Barnet | 19 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 56 | | Bexley | 21 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 54 | | Brent | 31 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 63 | | Bromley | 54 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 79 | | Camden | 15 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 44 | | Croydon | 49 | 6 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 92 | | Ealing | 51 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 81 | | Enfield | 32 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 52 | | Greenwich | 52 | 12 | 28 | 13 | 5 | 11 | 121 | | Hackney | 38 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 82 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 39 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 75 | | Haringey | 13 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 28 | | Harrow | 12 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 42 | | Havering | 38 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 68 | | Hillingdon | 72 | 12 | 15 | 23 | 15 | 9 | 146 | | Hounslow | 35 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 10 | 77 | | Islington | 21 | 5 | 13 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 62 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 10 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 31 | | Kingston upon Thames | 19 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 31 | | Lambeth | 44 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 13 | 94 | | Lewisham | 26 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 56 | | Merton | 32 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 60 | | Newham | 74 | 19 | 28 | 20 | 16 | 30 | 187 | | Redbridge | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 20 | | Richmond upon Thames | 24 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 39 | | Southwark | 82 | 21 | 13 | 20 | 15 | 12 | 163 | | Sutton | 11 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 37 | | Tower Hamlets | 129 | 36 | 41 | 47 | 30 | 23 | 306 | | Waltham Forest | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 23 | | Wandsworth | 34 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 82 | | Westminster | 59 | 15 | 33 | 26 | 11 | 18 | 162 | | **Totals** | **1,269** | **261** | **341** | **334** | **240** | **258** | **1,430** |
Source GLA Planning Decisions Unit Development Plan Documents
Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all local authorities are required to produce a local development framework. The local development framework is a portfolio of local development documents, comprising development plan documents and supplementary planning documents.
Borough local development schemes (LDS) are the local planning authority’s work plan for the production of local development documents (LDD) that will collectively form the Local Development Framework for each of the boroughs. Every London borough produced an original LDS by April 2005. These have been revised at different periods since.
In June 2008 a new power for the Mayor over borough LDSs was introduced. The GLA Act 2007 amended the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act so that the Mayor may direct that amendments be made to the LDS if it is necessary to ensure that key policies of the London Plan are reflected in the LDD work programme. The Mayor may also direct a local planning authority to prepare a revision to their LDS. In 2010, the Mayor approved 15 LDSs and did not direct amendments to any of them.
All London borough LDDs are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Boroughs are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage in the process of preparation of development plan documents. They are also required to request the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity at the same time as the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.
Boroughs are also required to consult the Mayor on supplementary planning documents (SPD) to the extent that the council thinks he is affected by the document. The Mayor has indicated to boroughs the types of documents he wishes to be consulted on (affordable housing, transport, planning obligations, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change, waste and planning briefs for sites which could result in referable applications). During 2010 the Mayor responded to five SPD consultations.
In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor has worked proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. Appendix 5 summarizes all the development plan related consultations that the Mayor has responded to in 2010.
In 2010 the Mayor responded to 78 consultations on development plan documents (DPDs). GLA officers have also responded to informal drafts of documents in a number of instances. The Mayor gave an opinion of general conformity on 27 DPDs at the pre-submission or submission stages. Most of these DPDs were originally found not to be in general conformity with the London Plan. However ongoing negotiations before and during examinations in public (EIPs) resulted in a number of changes to bring the documents into general conformity with the London Plan. Officers attended six EIPs: Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Wandsworth.
Table 6 shows progress by London boroughs in preparing their core strategy development plan documents.
### Table 6 Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents
| Core Strategy Stage | No. of boroughs | Borough | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------| | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 1 | Bromley | | Have published Core Strategy Issues and Options | 2 | Hounslow Newham | | Have published Core Strategy Preferred Options | 4 | Waltham Forest Croydon Hillingdon Kingston upon Thames | | Core Strategy pre submission or Submission to Secretary of State | 15 | Hammersmith & Fulham City of London Westminster Lewisham Merton Haringey Harrow Bexley Ealing Greenwich Brent Lambeth Islington Southwark Barnet | | Core strategy adopted | 11 | Kensington & Chelsea Barking and Dagenham Wandsworth Tower Hamlets Camden Enfield Havering Redbridge Richmond Sutton Hackney |
**Note:** Many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it, for example Kingston upon Thames’s Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan and Hounslow’s Employment DPD.
### London Development Database
The London Development Database is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.
Minor revisions were made to the LDD during 2010. From 1st April 2010 the following changes came into effect:
- Recording the loss or gain of pitches for gypsies and travellers became a mandatory requirement.
- Apart-hotels and serviced apartments were given their own category separate from other non self-contained accommodation.
- The new C4 use class was added following the Government’s decision to introduce a new use class for Houses in Multiple Occupation of between 3 to 6 bedrooms.
2011 will see the introduction of the following:
- A requirement to record the Code for Sustainable Homes level of proposed new residential dwellings
- Fields for all parking spaces, including bicycles
- A requirement to record whether proposed units are to be built on Greenfield or garden land on a unit by unit basis
Note: Some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered onto LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.
**London Planning Awards 2010/11**
The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2009/10 London Planning Awards Ceremony was held on 29 March 2010 in City Hall - full details of shortlisted, commended and winning schemes are given in a PDF document which can be found at http://www.londonfirst.co.uk/documents/LPA10_brochure.pdf.
The 2010/11 Awards Ceremony was held on 20 January 2011, and full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 7. | 1: Best Built Project sponsored by CB Richard Ellis | |---| | **WINNER** for its bold and successful architectural intervention, its welcoming prospect and the real sense of town centre renewal it has engendered: | | Enfield Town Library submitted by the London Borough of Enfield with Shepheard Epstein Hunter Architects. | | A dramatic yet sensitive and flexible modern addition to Enfield’s one hundred year old Carnegie Library, the building has been reoriented to face a much improved green and to attract a broader and younger readership. This library has been turned around – in both senses of the word. | | **COMMENDATION** for its high degree of community involvement, its profound local regeneration impact, and – not least – its subtle remodelling of public spaces: | | ECI Public Realm Improvements submitted by the London Borough of Islington, with EC1 New Deals for Communities, and Homes for Islington. | | Broad in scope and vision, this comprehensive approach to public realm enhancement in Islington’s city fringe displays a careful attention to detail and demonstrates the value of public engagement, buy-in and continued involvement. |
| 2: Best Built Project – Community Scale sponsored by Land Securities | |---| | **WINNER** for its iconic design, its responses to difficult planning issues, and its life-enhancing spirit: | | Clapham Manor Primary School submitted by dRMM Architects. | | This polychromatic freestanding addition cleverly marries four new stories to the school’s existing three, brings full accessibility throughout, and provides light and airy – and much-loved – extra space. The design was carefully crafted in consultation with staff, pupils and local residents, and the resultant reorientation of the school has dramatically improved security and safety in the neighbouring public realm. | | **COMMENDATION** for its community involvement, its imagination, and its Narnia-like qualities: | | The Barn & Eco Garden at the Eastern Curve, Dalston submitted by J & L Gibbons, with MUF Architecture/art, Nicholas Henniger (EXYZ), Martin Stockley Associates, Appleyards DWB, Objectif, Design for London and the LDA, Hackney Council and the Eastern Curve Steering Group. | | The pride and passion of local activists is on full display in this magical space squeezed behind clusters of town centre buildings on rescued backland. With an ambitious programme of educational, cultural and horticultural activities, and strong local support, this new open space has added an extra dimension to Dalston. |
| 3: Best Conceptual Project sponsored by Berwin Leighton Paisner | |---| | **WINNER** for its remarkable imagination and ambition: | | London River Park submitted by Gensler. | | From left field comes an ingenious proposal to link the main historic attractions along the north shore of the Thames via a fully accessible, floating river walk. Timed for completion in 2012, five linked temporary pavilions will celebrate the ‘Best of British’, and leave a lasting legacy of new mooring facilities, ferry terminals and an open air swimming pool. | 4: Best New Place to Live
**WINNER for its inspirational and well thought out responses to the challenges of elderly living:**
**Ewart House & Abigail House Extra Care Housing at Richards Close, Harrow submitted by Harrow Churches Housing Association and Octavia Housing.**
This splendid care and support scheme for frail older people mixes independent living – each flat has its own front door – with communal facilities, and provides assistance on call 24 hours a day. Including extra care and wheelchair accessible accommodation, this well-crafted development scores highly on measures of environmental sustainability.
**COMMENDATION for its real place-making achievements, and its sense of community:**
**Beaufort Park submitted by St George Central London.**
This substantial new place in outer London ticks all the boxes. Carefully put together with many partners; its homes – 42% affordable and 97% lifetime, no less; open spaces; and the shops, businesses and community facilities in its new neighbourhood centre have transformed this corner of Barnet.
5: Best New Public Space sponsored by Hogan Lovells
**WINNER for its high degree of community involvement, its attention to detail and its elegant design:**
**Bermondsey Square submitted by East architecture, landscape, urban design.**
Developed in partnership with users and neighbours, this precise design is carefully detailed. The revitalised square integrates successfully public and privately managed space and provides a flexible arena for everyday activities and special events, whilst continuing to host Bermondsey’s historic weekly antiques market.
**COMMENDATION For successfully blending of a multitude of themes, and for the joyful integration of art, craft and leisure:**
**Waterside Gardens, Crayford submitted by the London Borough of Bexley.**
Drawing freely from local history and heritage for design inspiration, this expertly conceived and implemented local park provides a delightful oasis in the centre of Crayford. The opportunity to improve the River Cray – which flows along the edge of the Gardens – has been well taken.
6: Best Built Project Five Years On sponsored by GVA
**WINNER The airport may have been its focus, but its head has not been in the clouds. For its overwhelming regenerative impact:**
**DLR London City Airport Extension submitted by Docklands Light Railway.**
A daring addition to the DLR, this extension has for the first time brought rail access to London City Airport, solving many complex planning problems on the way and opening up numerous development opportunities. It has also massively increased accessibility to the City and the West End through its link to Woolwich Arsenal south of the river, and has – year on year – seen ridership grow significantly ahead of projections.
7: Best Historic Building Management sponsored by English Heritage
**WINNER for its sensitive remodelling of the public realm fronting a national icon:**
**St Paul’s Church Yard submitted by the City of London, with Townshend Landscape Architects, ARUP and Project Centre.**
Following an extensive programme of public consultation, the public realm fronting St Paul’s has been thoughtfully reworked to manage the huge increases in visitors following the opening of the Millennium Bridge. Featuring formal and informal, and temporary and permanent elements – including an historic drinking fountain rescued from Guildhall, its waters rendered potable – this impressive treatment is a great success. Entry descriptions and award citations taken from the Mayor’s and Sir Simon Milton’s speeches at the London Planning Awards Ceremony held on 20 January 2011 in City Hall.
8: Mayor’s Award for Planning Excellence
WINNER As Mayor, I’m often expected to walk on water. This scheme brings it one step nearer for everyone! For its sheer simplicity, and dazzling audacity:
London River Park submitted by Gensler.
(see 3: Best Conceptual Project for citation and description of entry)
COMMENDATION a landmark in the making – a joyful response to tricky planning constraints:
Clapham Manor Primary School submitted by dRMM Architects.
(see 2: Best Built Project – Community Scale for citation and description of entry)
Update on inter regional issues
Established in 2000, the Advisory Forum on Regional Planning for London, the South East and East of England (the Inter Regional Forum) met regularly to consider significant cross-regional planning issues, with the Chair and Secretariat function rotating between the three regions every two years. Against the backdrop of fundamental changes to the arrangements for regional planning outside London3, regional leaders met in June 2010 to consider a way forward. The Inter Regional Forum is currently in abeyance pending decisions about the future arrangements to be made in the East and South East regions, with cross-boundary work proceeding at officer level as and when required. The position will be reviewed once governance arrangements in the neighbouring regions have been resolved.
Outer London Commission
The Outer London Commission’s final report was published in May 2010.
http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/
Olympic and Paralympic Games
The development of the Olympic Park and venues continues apace (see the Olympic Delivery Authority website for more details: http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen/). The main venues are nearing completion (the Velodrome was completed as this report went to press) and much of the infrastructure needed for the Games is now in place. The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) has launched its 25-year vision and legacy masterplan for the Olympic Park and the surrounding area, and work is underway to procure operators for the venues. Work has started on the Mayor’s Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance (see draft replacement London Plan policy 2.4), and the Mayor of London has begun consultation on his proposals to re-form the OPLC into a Mayoral Development Corporation, as defined in the Government’s Localism Bill, that would drive forward regeneration and development in the area (for more details: www.london.gov.uk/mdcconsultation)
The Mayor is also working in partnership with government and the boroughs to maximise the wider socio-economic benefits across London from the transport investment associated with the Games, and to capture the volunteering, employment, skills and business development legacies. He remains
3 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) was dissolved on 31 March 2009, its functions transferring to the South East England Partnership Board (SEEPB). SEEPB closed on 30 July 2010. The East of England regional Assembly (EERA) was dissolved on 31 March 2010. committed to the range of work being undertaken with the six east London Host Boroughs to achieve ‘convergence’ between those boroughs and the rest of London.
Looking to the Future
This year saw a new Coalition Government with ambitious policies to change the planning system to ensure it is less top-down and more “localist”. The Government’s Localism Bill takes those policies forward, abolishing regional spatial strategies, and putting in place provision for neighbourhood planning.
The Mayor has anticipated these changes in his draft replacement London Plan, with the aim of making it – and the various documents and workstreams to support its implementation – a “resource for localism”, providing a clear Londonwide perspective and direction to inform and support planning at more local levels, and providing information and practical advice. More details about this will be given in next year’s AMR.
The economic situation continues to be a challenge for all those involved in planning, both in supporting development through a difficult time for the sector, and in finding ways of ensuring delivery of the infrastructure a growing city needs at a time when public resources are short. The planning system will have a key role to play in this – an example is the Mayor’s proposals for a Community Infrastructure Levy to help fund Crossrail. Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators
The London Plan sets out 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These are intended to enable monitoring of the overall thrust of the London Plan’s suite of policies rather than to identify the impact of single policies individually. The Key Performance Indicators are reported below under the most relevant of the London Plan’s six objectives.
Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces
Key Performance Indicator 1 Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land
Target Maintain at least 96% of new residential development to be on previously developed land.
AMR 7 shows that in 2009/10 London continued to exceed the national target (60%) for building on brownfield land by a substantial margin, and with 99% of completions and 97% of approvals on brownfield land, to achieve the Mayor’s more demanding target of accommodating at least 96% of residential development on previously developed land.
Table 8 Percentage of residential development on previously developed land within London 2000 – 2009/10
| Year | % of development approved on previously developed land within London | % of development completed on previously developed land within London | |--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | | By site area | By no. of units | By site area | By no. of units | | 2000 | 89% ODPM | | | | | 2001 | 90% ODPM | | | | | 2002 | 90% ODPM | | | | | 2003 | 94% ODPM | | | | | 2004/5 | 97.3% | 98.1% | | | | 2005/6 | 96.7% | 97.5% | | | | 2006/7 | 97.7% | 98.5% | 96.5% | 97.2% | | 2007/8 | 96.6% | 97.1% | 94.8% | 96.5% | | 2008/9 | 96.6% | 97.8% | 97.5% | 98.5% | | 2009/10| 97% | 96.7% | 97.7% | 98.7% |
Sources: 2000-2003 – ODPM – all completed development using calendar years. 2004 onwards - London Development Database using financial years.
Note: The percentage is calculated using residential planning permissions granted / completed during the financial year. Completions are allocated to the year in which the final part of the scheme is finished. Only permissions for which a site area can be calculated are included. Details and Reserved Matters permissions are not included in Approvals but are included in Completions. As noted in AMR 6, London Development Database (LDD) figures from previous years have been reviewed for AMR 7 using the new calculation method which takes into account changes in the way that non-residential elements of residential schemes are excluded from the final calculations. | Borough Name | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | |------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | % total units approved | % total units completed | % total units approved | % total units completed | % total units approved | % total units completed | % total units approved | % total units completed | | Barking and Dagenham | 99.2 | 49.3 | 98.8 | 79.1 | 75.8 | 100.0 | 75.9 | 100.0 | | Barnet | 99.4 | 98.3 | 86.2 | 94.8 | 98.5 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | | Bexley | 100.0 | 90.7 | 100.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 43.5 | 94.0 | | Brent | 98.1 | 98.3 | 99.1 | 100.0 | 96.5 | 98.7 | 98.2 | 95.1 | | Bromley | 91.4 | 97.2 | 67.8 | 100.0 | 98.3 | 98.1 | 77.7 | 93.5 | | Camden | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | City of London | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Croydon | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.1 | 95.6 | 100.0 | 99.2 | 99.9 | | Ealing | 97.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.7 | 99.5 | 100.0 | | Enfield | 96.4 | 100.0 | 91.3 | 96.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.1 | 100.0 | | Greenwich | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.5 | 91.8 | 100.0 | | Hackney | 100.0 | 89.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | 97.8 | 100.0 | 97.6 | 99.9 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.7 | 99.1 | 100.0 | | Haringey | 98.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 99.9 | 100.0 | | Harrow | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 97.5 | | Havering | 99.9 | 97.7 | 75.8 | 97.9 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.0 | | Hillingdon | 87.4 | 100.0 | 92.6 | 100.0 | 94.7 | 84.1 | 98.9 | 96.2 | | Hounslow | 99.9 | 100.0 | 93.0 | 71.5 | 99.9 | 99.1 | 97.9 | 100.0 | | Islington | 99.7 | 98.0 | 95.2 | 99.2 | 90.6 | 99.5 | 96.3 | 100.0 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 99.7 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 100.0 | 88.9 | 99.5 | | Kingston upon Thames | 100.0 | 95.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Lambeth | 99.9 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 99.0 | | Lewisham | 97.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | | Merton | 100.0 | 100.0 | 92.4 | 100.0 | 92.0 | 100.0 | 91.3 | 99.6 | | Newham | 99.6 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 97.2 | | Redbridge | 90.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 73.9 | 100.0 | 84.3 | | Richmond upon Thames | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.2 | 100.0 | | Southwark | 99.8 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 100.0 | 92.0 | 99.5 | | Sutton | 92.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 72.6 | 98.4 | 100.0 | 96.7 | 100.0 | | Tower Hamlets | 97.7 | 95.3 | 99.6 | 94.5 | 99.8 | 97.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Waltham Forest | 100.0 | 96.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Wandsworth | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 98.9 | 100.0 | | Westminster | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | **London** | **98.5**| **97.2**| **97.1**| **96.5**| **97.8**| **98.5** | **96.7**| **98.7** |
Source: London Development Database Key Performance Indicator 2 Increasing the density of residential development
Target Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix
Table 10 and Table 11 compare the residential density of each scheme against the PTAL score (for example, see Map 2 for the 2009/10 map, although contemporary maps were used for the calculations) and the setting (based on the Character Areas map published on page 94 of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment) for each development to test whether the development is within, above or below the relevant density range. Preparation of the Draft Replacement London Plan provided an opportunity to present this information on a consistent basis in this AMR. Table 12 shows the previously published figures.
It should be noted that Interim Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on implementation of density policy in the 2008 London Plan was published in April 2010, i.e. after collection of the data for 2009/10 presented here. It is intended that this SPG should support achievement of the target for 95% of development to comply with the Plan’s density policy.
Table 10 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – all schemes
| Financial Year | % of units approvals | |----------------|----------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2004/05 | 31% | 62% | 8% | | 2005/06 | 28% | 65% | 7% | | 2006/07 | 36% | 60% | 4% | | 2007/08 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/09 | 41% | 53% | 7% | | 2009/10 | 39% | 56% | 6% |
Table 11 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – schemes of 15 units or more
| Financial Year | % of units approvals schemes 15+ | |----------------|----------------------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2006/07 | 30% | 69% | 1% | | 2007/08 | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2008/09 | 36% | 62% | 2% | | 2009/10 | 35% | 63% | 2% |
Source: London Development Database. Note: Annual figures may not total 100% due to rounding. Table 12 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – previously published data from AMR 6
| Financial Year | % of units approvals | |----------------------|----------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2004/05 | 31% | 62% | 8% | | 2005/06 | 28% | 65% | 7% | | 2006/7 over 15 units | 39% | 58% | 3% | | 2006/7 all units | 50% | 32% | 18% | | 2007/8 over 15 units | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2007/8 all units | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/9 over 15 units | 26% | 73% | 1% | | 2008/9 all units | 33% | 64% | 4% | Table 13 Density of residential development approved by borough 2004/05 to 2009/10
| Borough | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |--------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | Barking & Dagenham | 102 | 122 | 165 | 146 | 80 | 116 | | Barnet | 59 | 134 | 78 | 82 | 113 | 101 | | Bexley | 68 | 58 | 87 | 51 | 99 | 83 | | Brent | 257 | 168 | 199 | 149 | 133 | 174 | | Bromley | 41 | 34 | 44 | 49 | 36 | 48 | | Camden | 124 | 115 | 227 | 113 | 136 | 138 | | City of London | 577 | 368 | 525 | 1263 | 330 | 213 | | Croydon | 69 | 90 | 115 | 106 | 131 | 97 | | Ealing | 130 | 180 | 121 | 113 | 160 | 152 | | Enfield | 72 | 84 | 52 | 82 | 66 | 71 | | Greenwich | 157 | 115 | 161 | 249 | 215 | 147 | | Hackney | 233 | 236 | 277 | 239 | 200 | 279 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 128 | 219 | 160 | 227 | 187 | 300 | | Haringey | 158 | 117 | 136 | 173 | 95 | 107 | | Harrow | 84 | 71 | 111 | 90 | 62 | 82 | | Havering | 57 | 95 | 60 | 41 | 55 | 99 | | Hillingdon | 53 | 41 | 85 | 68 | 91 | 36 | | Hounslow | 86 | 117 | 156 | 95 | 159 | 61 | | Islington | 205 | 223 | 319 | 256 | 244 | 272 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 153 | 209 | 170 | 164 | 138 | 193 | | Kingston upon Thames | 95 | 102 | 45 | 60 | 77 | 64 | | Lambeth | 134 | 185 | 203 | 214 | 129 | 186 | | Lewisham | 125 | 170 | 143 | 173 | 168 | 232 | | Merton | 81 | 101 | 64 | 95 | 74 | 69 | | Newham | 237 | 261 | 269 | 347 | 368 | 312 | | Redbridge | 99 | 138 | 151 | 116 | 87 | 373 | | Richmond upon Thames | 68 | 91 | 83 | 60 | 58 | 47 | | Southwark | 256 | 277 | 285 | 277 | 338 | 230 | | Sutton | 83 | 63 | 70 | 117 | 92 | 59 | | Tower Hamlets | 275 | 416 | 345 | 447 | 311 | 384 | | Waltham Forest | 131 | 123 | 130 | 129 | 119 | 121 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 148 | 156 | 151 | 171 | 143 | | Westminster | 269 | 283 | 160 | 253 | 153 | 199 | | **London** | **130**| **134**| **129**| **151**| **138**| **148** |
Source: London Development Database Table 14 Density of Residential development completed by borough 2006/07 to 2009/10
| Borough | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |--------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | Barking & Dagenham | 95 | 125 | 139 | 233 | | Barnet | 66 | 62 | 108 | 65 | | Bexley | 44 | 48 | 75 | 75 | | Brent | 113 | 106 | 144 | 130 | | Bromley | 54 | 55 | 35 | 37 | | Camden | 106 | 141 | 232 | 196 | | City of London | 454 | 558 | 505 | 544 | | Croydon | 78 | 72 | 98 | 104 | | Ealing | 195 | 136 | 159 | 109 | | Enfield | 75 | 92 | 68 | 61 | | Greenwich | 170 | 139 | 122 | 113 | | Hackney | 266 | 183 | 234 | 254 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 116 | 143 | 197 | 208 | | Haringey | 175 | 138 | 163 | 106 | | Harrow | 93 | 79 | 71 | 100 | | Havering | 55 | 63 | 71 | 95 | | Hillingdon | 49 | 54 | 60 | 94 | | Hounslow | 120 | 102 | 120 | 184 | | Islington | 225 | 235 | 285 | 200 | | Ken & Chelsea | 135 | 165 | 173 | 128 | | Kingston upon Thames | 86 | 115 | 50 | 46 | | Lambeth | 141 | 163 | 172 | 155 | | Lewisham | 109 | 124 | 136 | 188 | | Merton | 92 | 95 | 46 | 68 | | Newham | 163 | 292 | 267 | 240 | | Redbridge | 124 | 122 | 110 | 100 | | Richmond upon Thames | 74 | 58 | 82 | 64 | | Southwark | 264 | 253 | 224 | 224 | | Sutton | 60 | 53 | 89 | 66 | | Tower Hamlets | 248 | 298 | 314 | 377 | | Waltham Forest | 139 | 126 | 132 | 117 | | Wandsworth | 169 | 135 | 172 | 182 | | Westminster | 259 | 205 | 261 | 257 | | **London** | **123**| **117**| **128**| **139** |
Source: London Development Database
**Note:** Table 10 to Table 14 are based on all residential approvals / completions for which a site area could be calculated. Density is calculated by dividing the total number of units by the total residential site area. LDD started collecting data on schemes with less than 10 dwellings in 2000. Due to the time lag between approval and completion, density figures are not calculated for years prior to 2006/07. Key Performance Indicator 3 Protection of open space
Target No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development.
Table 15 shows all losses and gains of open space recorded on the London Development Database. It is not restricted to open space designated in borough plans. As we do not currently monitor the designation of new open space, looking at changes in all open space serves as a proxy measure of this indicator.
The definition of open space used is based on the advice in PPG17. The LDD excludes all private residential gardens as well as other areas within the curtilage of previously developed sites. The exceptions are outdoor sports facilities which may be within school grounds and spaces designated for conservation or protection, which are included even though they may be within the curtilage of a developed site. A new category of “Brownfield Land” has been added to the database to allow for previously developed land within areas designated for conservation or protection to be recorded. Brownfield land will not be recorded as a loss of open space in Table 15.
Table 15 Changes in open space due to new development or change of use 2009/10
| Borough | Approvals Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | Completions Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 8.596 | 7.572 | -1.024 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.160 | | Barnet | 0.143 | 0.274 | 0.131 | 0.169 | 0.000 | -0.169 | | Bexley | 1.382 | 0.000 | -1.382 | 0.931 | 0.076 | -0.855 | | Brent | 4.142 | 1.011 | -3.131 | 0.775 | 0.103 | -0.672 | | Bromley | 1.870 | 0.067 | -1.803 | 0.779 | 0.000 | -0.779 | | Camden | 0.200 | 0.551 | 0.351 | 0.020 | 0.351 | 0.331 | | City of London | 0.000 | 0.321 | 0.321 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Croydon | 0.486 | 0.000 | -0.486 | 0.047 | 0.000 | -0.047 | | Ealing | 0.204 | 0.443 | 0.239 | 0.725 | 0.000 | -0.725 | | Enfield | 0.516 | 0.146 | -0.370 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Greenwich | 8.447 | 6.753 | -1.694 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hackney | 7.708 | 0.750 | -6.958 | 0.012 | 0.490 | 0.478 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.167 | 0.102 | -0.065 | 0.026 | 0.026 | 0.000 | | Haringey | 0.045 | 0.000 | -0.045 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Harrow | 23.255 | 22.730 | -0.525 | 2.853 | 0.000 | -2.853 | | Havering | 0.725 | 0.000 | -0.725 | 0.160 | 0.000 | -0.160 | | Hillingdon | 3.001 | 2.740 | -0.261 | 1.495 | 0.000 | -1.495 | | Hounslow | 0.125 | 0.000 | -0.125 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Islington | 3.990 | 3.620 | -0.370 | 0.452 | 0.403 | -0.049 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1.107 | 1.107 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.000 | -0.011 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Borough | Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | Existing open space (ha) | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | |-------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------| | Lambeth | 0.607 | 0.433 | -0.174 | 0.086 | 0.080 | -0.006 | | Lewisham | 0.119 | 0.345 | 0.226 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Merton | 1.990 | 0.450 | -1.540 | 0.012 | 0.000 | -0.012 | | Newham | 1.483 | 5.237 | 3.754 | 1.196 | 0.085 | -1.111 | | Redbridge | 0.423 | 0.000 | -0.423 | 3.542 | 0.000 | -3.542 | | Richmond upon Thames | 1.109 | 0.770 | -0.339 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Southwark | 0.734 | 0.334 | -0.400 | 0.160 | 0.612 | 0.452 | | Sutton | 2.411 | 0.000 | -2.411 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.013 | 5.194 | 5.181 | 0.006 | 0.000 | -0.006 | | Waltham Forest | 2.891 | 2.430 | -0.461 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Wandsworth | 0.288 | 0.180 | -0.108 | 0.000 | 0.077 | 0.077 | | Westminster | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.010 | | **London Total** | **78.177** | **63.570** | **-14.607** | **13.457** | **2.473** | **-10.984** |
Source: London Development Database. All figures are in hectares.
The net loss of open space of just under 15 hectares is down on the 18 hectares recorded in 2008/09. The largest net loss of open space is in Hackney, the majority of which is within the Olympic Park and will be compensated for by other improvements across the site as a whole. Next is Brent where the biggest single loss is of sports pitches to make way for the new Ark Academy in Wembley. Part of the site will be retained for all-weather sports facilities and a new natural habitat area. The creation of a new cancer research centre within the grounds of the Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton will see the loss of 2 hectares of land that is within a Site of Local Importance for conservation but is not protected by the designations covered in Table 16.
Two boroughs have approved large net gains of open space. Newham has approved several small new open spaces as well as 4 hectares of parkland on the former gasworks site in Beckton. The biggest net gain is in Tower Hamlets. This includes 1.6 hectares of new civic space at a former print works in Wapping and 2 hectares of open spaces in the Wood Wharf scheme on the Isle of Dogs.
Table 16 shows the losses of protected open space as an alternative proxy measure. Straight swaps of one open space type to another within a single permission are excluded where it can be assumed that the quality of the open space will be preserved or enhanced. The types of open space protection recorded on LDD are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in Table 38. | Borough | Green Belt (ha) | Metropolitan Open Land (ha) | Local Open Spaces and Other (ha) | Grand Total (ha) | |-------------------------|----------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Barnet | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Bexley | 0.000 | 0.182 | 0.000 | 0.182 | | Brent | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.374 | 0.374 | | Bromley | 0.067 | 0.784 | 0.538 | 1.389 | | Camden | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | City of London | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Croydon | 0.144 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.144 | | Ealing | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Enfield | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.250 | 0.250 | | Greenwich | 0.000 | 3.750 | 0.806 | 4.556 | | Hackney | 0.000 | 6.828 | 0.000 | 6.828 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.065 | 0.065 | | Haringey | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Harrow | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Havering | 0.000 | 0.350 | 0.000 | 0.350 | | Hillingdon | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hounslow | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.125 | 0.125 | | Islington | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Lambeth | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Lewisham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Merton | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.150 | 1.150 | | Newham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.182 | 0.182 | | Redbridge | 0.423 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.423 | | Richmond upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.293 | 0.000 | 0.293 | | Southwark | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.043 | 0.043 | | Sutton | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Waltham Forest | 0.000 | 0.461 | 0.000 | 0.461 | | Wandsworth | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Westminster | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | **London Total 2009/10** | **0.634** | **12.648** | **3.571** | **16.853** | | **London Total 2008/09** | **7.459** | **0.882** | **13.646** | **21.987** |
Source: London Development Database. All figures are in hectares.
The corresponding table in AMR6 contained all changes in protected open space recorded on LDD. For AMR7 it has been decided to remove schemes where both existing and proposed open space are equal. This helps to avoid the artificial inflation of losses where re-provision can clearly be demonstrated. The revised London Total figures for 2008/09 are shown in the final row of Table 16 to allow for an accurate comparison.
The total loss of less than 17 hectares of protected open space in permissions granted during 2009/10 is down on the 22 hectares during 2008/09. The largest single permission in the green belt is for the extension of Goodmayes Hospital in Redbridge. The new building is adjacent to existing buildings and is within the bounds of the site of the existing hospital.
The losses of MOL in Hackney are in the Olympic Park area and will be compensated for by improvements across the site as a whole. The loss of 3.75 hectares in Greenwich is part of the Ferrier Estate development. Again, this loss will be compensated for by the creation of new open spaces and habitat areas across the site as a whole.
The largest single loss of a Local Open Space is also part of the Ferrier Estate redevelopment in Greenwich which is part of the redevelopment and improvement of the wider area.
Details of all schemes resulting in a loss of over half a hectare are provided in the following table.
| Borough | Permission Reference | Area of existing open space | Description | Protected open space lost (hectares) | |---------|----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------| | Bromley | 09/02881/DET | 0.784 | Details of blocks D & E in the redevelopment of former Anerley School on MOL. Outline scheme originally approved by the Secretary of State. | 0.784 | | Greenwich | 08/2782/R | 3.750 | Phase 1 of redevelopment of Ferrier Estate. The loss of MOL for this phase will be mitigated by environmental improvements and new open spaces in later phases of the redevelopment. | 3.750 | | Greenwich | 09/2270/R | 0.810 | Phase 2a of Ferrier Estate redevelopment on Local Open Space. Loss will be compensated for in later phases of the redevelopment | 0.810 | | Hackney | 09/90059/REMODA | 6.728 | Loss of MOL in the Olympic site for the International Broadcast Centre will be compensated for on other parts of the site. | 6.728 | | Merton | 08/P1509 | 0.550 | Construction of a new special needs education centre on part of Riseley Playing Fields Local Open Space will include improvements to remaining facilities. | 0.550 | | Merton | 08/P1869 | 0.600 | Residential development on part of the privately owned Lessa Sports Ground Local Open Space will see much of the remaining site opened up for public use. | 0.600 |
Source: London development database | Progress | No. | Borough | Date | |----------------------------------------------|-----|--------------------------------|-------| | Completed an Open Space Strategy | 18 | Barking & Dagenham | 2003 | | | | Bexley | 2008 | | | | Camden (refresh 2011) | 2008 | | | | City of London | 2008 | | | | Croydon | 2005 | | | | Ealing | 2003 | | | | Hackney | 2008 | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 2010 | | | | Haringey | 2007 | | | | Havering | 2007 | | | | Islington | 2009 | | | | Lambeth | 2004 | | | | Lewisham | 2005 | | | | Merton | 2005 | | | | Southwark | 2006 | | | | Sutton | 2007 | | | | Tower Hamlets | 2006 | | | | Waltham Forest | 2010 | | | | Westminster | 2007 | | Open Space Strategy under Preparation / Draft| 8 | Brent | 2004 | | | | Harrow | 2006 | | | | Hillingdon | 2010 | | | | Hounslow | 2008 | | | | Newham | 2008 | | | | Redbridge | 1997 | | | | Richmond upon Thames | 2010 | | | | Wandsworth | 2007 | | Other strategy in place | 7 | Barnet | 2004 | | | | Bromley | 1994 | | | | Enfield | 2005 | | | | Greenwich | 2005 | | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 2006 | | | | Kingston upon Thames | 2008 |
Source: London Parks & Green Spaces Forum Jan2011 Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in
Key Performance Indicator 4 An increased supply of new homes
Target Completion of at least 30,500 new homes a year
Table 19 and Table 20 show net conventional completions and approvals of dwellings. Differences from previously published data are due to continuous updating of the LDD system.
The 16% reduction in completions from peak output in 2008/9 (and the 5% reduction in approvals) are likely to reflect the national downturn in the housing market associated with the recent recession. The London Plan housing target in Table 19 provides a long term, average provision benchmark spanning what are likely to be different stages in the housing development cycles over a decade.
Table 19 Number of net housing completions by borough 2009/10
| Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use (HSSA data) | TOTAL | Target | Delivery (% of Target) | Vacancies returned to use (CT data) | |--------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barnet | 671 | 0 | 402 | 1,073 | 2,055 | 52% | 194 | | Camden | 421 | 46 | -18 | 449 | 595 | 75% | 44 | | Enfield | 277 | -13 | 27 | 291 | 395 | 74% | -121 | | Hackney | 1,627 | 230 | 248 | 2,105 | 1,085 | 194% | 636 | | Haringey | 541 | 687 | -1,198 | 30 | 680 | 4% | 29 | | Islington | 1,479 | 479 | -50 | 1,908 | 1,160 | 164% | 319 | | Westminster | 689 | 294 | 313 | 1,296 | 680 | 191% | -44 | | NORTH SUB-TOTAL | 5,705 | 1,723 | -276 | 7,152 | 6,650 | 108% | 1,057 | | Barking and Dagenham | 210 | 0 | -380 | -170 | 1,190 | N/A | 70 | | City of London | 41 | 0 | 22 | 63 | 90 | 70% | 1 | | Havering | 427 | 0 | 25 | 452 | 535 | 84% | 146 | | Newham | 1,478 | 648 | -468 | 1,658 | 3,510 | 47% | 500 | | Redbridge | 950 | 0 | 161 | 1,111 | 905 | 123% | 172 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,465 | 171 | -2,342 | 294 | 3,150 | 9% | -252 | | Waltham Forest | 141 | -14 | 94 | 221 | 665 | 33% | 62 | | NORTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL | 5,712 | 805 | -2,888 | 3,629 | 10,045 | 36% | 699 | | Bexley | 357 | -7 | 95 | 445 | 345 | 129% | 85 | | Bromley | 553 | -7 | 285 | 831 | 485 | 171% | 80 | | Greenwich | 548 | 0 | 75 | 623 | 2,010 | 31% | 8 | | Lewisham | 780 | -7 | 0 | 703 | 975 | 72% | -141 | | Southwark | 1,341 | -28 | -282 | 1,031 | 1,630 | 63% | -361 | | SOUTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL | 3,579 | -119 | 173 | 3,633 | 5,445 | 67% | -329 | | Croydon | 1,371 | 1 | -346 | 1,026 | 1,100 | 93% | 159 | | Kingston upon Thames | 139 | -10 | 170 | 299 | 385 | 78% | 103 | | Lambeth | 1,156 | -7 | -226 | 923 | 1,100 | 84% | -342 | | Merton | 329 | 9 | 0 | 338 | 370 | 91% | 0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 217 | -15 | 170 | 372 | 270 | 138% | 117 | | Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use (HSSA data) | TOTAL | Target | Delivery (% of Target) | Vacancies returned to use (CT data) | |-------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Sutton | 204 | 0 | 75 | 279 | 345 | 81% | 168 | | Wandsworth | 1,573 | -127 | 16 | 1,462 | 745 | 196% | 47 | | SOUTH-WEST SUB-TOTAL | 4,989 | -149 | -141 | 4,699 | 4,315 | 109% | 252 | | Brent | 808 | -17 | -53 | 738 | 1,120 | 66% | 138 | | Ealing | 499 | -22 | -134 | 343 | 915 | 37% | 7 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 875 | -33 | 64 | 906 | 450 | 201% | -53 | | Harrow | 526 | -13 | -36 | 477 | 400 | 119% | 53 | | Hillingdon | 619 | 8 | 25 | 652 | 365 | 179% | -53 | | Hounslow | 648 | 0 | -82 | 566 | 445 | 127% | -23 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 330 | 9 | 507 | 846 | 350 | 242% | 226 | | WEST SUB-TOTAL | 4,305 | -68 | 291 | 4,528 | 4,045 | 112% | 295 | | TOTAL | 24,290 | 2,192 | -2,841 | 23,641| 30,500 | 78% | 1,974 |
Sources for Table 19: Conventional and Non-conventional supply from the London Development Database, Long Term Vacants from the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix, 2008/09 and 2009/10, published by CLG
Note: ‘Vacants’ are private sector dwellings vacant in excess of 6 months. They are taken from figures published by CLG. Figures for Lewisham and Merton are not supplied.
The London Development Database applies a consistent methodology to the recording of completions data across London. As a result the figures may differ from those published in boroughs’ own AMRs, where local practices on recording partial completions of schemes, completions missed from previous years and losses of existing units will affect figures for each individual year. These differences should become less significant when viewing completion trends over time.
### Table 20 Housing Completion trends 2003/04 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)
| Subregion | 2003/4 | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |-----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | North | 5,688 | 5,904 | 5,156 | 6,109 | 7,135 | 8,031 | 5,705 | | North East | 7,555 | 4,834 | 5,351 | 6,386 | 6,225 | 6,403 | 5,712 | | South East | 4,695 | 6,031 | 4,813 | 4,676 | 3,918 | 3,441 | 3,579 | | South West | 3,870 | 5,901 | 5,157 | 4,851 | 5,787 | 6,057 | 4,989 | | West | 4,842 | 3,067 | 4,582 | 5,214 | 5,156 | 5,056 | 4,305 | | **Total** | **26,650** | **25,737** | **25,059** | **27,236** | **28,221** | **28,988** | **24,290** |
Source: London Development Database
### Table 21 Residential planning approval trends 2000/01 to 2009/10 (Net dwellings, conventional supply)
| Subregion | 2000/1 | 2001/2 | 2002/3 | 2003/4 | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | |-----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | North | 6,893 | 5,738 | 10,142 | 8,167 | 11,012 | 14,569 | 14,045 | 11,196 | 8,241 | 10,683 | | North East | 5,786 | 5,593 | 8,615 | 8,032 | 16,653 | 13,949 | 8,738 | 36,097 | 15,242 | 12,226 | | South East | 5,701 | 4,805 | 7,837 | 15,721 | 9,183 | 5,704 | 13,432 | 13,988 | 8,205 | 10,108 | | South West | 6,552 | 7,287 | 7,260 | 8,005 | 8,171 | 9,365 | 13,199 | 10,482 | 9,077 | 4,909 | | West | 5,417 | 5,714 | 6,960 | 4,906 | 10,458 | 9,400 | 8,316 | 8,701 | 5,685 | 6,192 | | **Total** | **30,349** | **29,137** | **40,814** | **44,831** | **55,477** | **52,987** | **57,730** | **80,464** | **46,450** | **44,118** |
Source: London Development Database. Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Housing
The London Development Database began collecting data on whether new dwellings are designed to meet Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessibility standards on permissions granted from 01/04/2008 onwards. The data is proving difficult for some boroughs to collect, which may explain the significant variation between boroughs on their delivery of Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes.
For more information on the Lifetime Homes standard see the web site at http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. These standards have been reflected in the Mayor’s draft Housing Design Guide to help designers more easily address inclusive design standards at the outset of the design process specifically for development on LDA owned land and for homes which will receive public subsidy after April 2011. The GLA has also supported Urban Design London in the provision of Inclusive Design Training courses for planners and urban designers. For more information see http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/.
For more information on the key features of wheelchair accessible housing see the GLA Best Practice Guide at http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/bpg-wheelchair-acc-housing.pdf. For full details see Habinteg’s Wheelchair Housing Design Guide at http://www.habinteg.org.uk/main.cfm?type=WCHDG.
All figures in Table 22 and Table 23 are ‘gross’ (i.e. don’t subtract existing units) and calculated at ‘scheme level’. This means that some units may be counted twice in cases where a revision to part of a scheme, usually in the form of details or reserved matters, is approved in the same year as the original permission.
LDD records four development types, new build, extension, change of use and conversion, Table 23 only includes new build units and extensions, while Table 22 includes all development types. Although developers should seek to construct all new dwellings to meet Lifetime Homes standards, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Table 22 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes approved during 2009/10 (all development types)
| Borough | Units approved | Lifetime homes approved | % Lifetime Homes | Wheelchair accessible homes approved | % Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | |--------------------------|----------------|-------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 640 | 567 | 88.6 | 48 | 7.5 | | Barnet | 3,262 | 1,232 | 37.8 | 36 | 1.1 | | Bexley | 289 | 216 | 74.7 | 14 | 4.8 | | Brent | 2,070 | 1,365 | 65.9 | 149 | 7.2 | | Bromley | 1,071 | 462 | 43.1 | 33 | 3.1 | | Camden | 1,108 | 582 | 52.5 | 54 | 4.9 | | City of London | 75 | 43 | 57.3 | 32 | 42.7 | | Croydon | 1,561 | 902 | 57.8 | 228 | 14.6 | | Ealing | 1,757 | 1,159 | 66.0 | 134 | 7.6 | | Enfield | 676 | 408 | 60.4 | 174 | 25.7 | | Greenwich | 7,139 | 6,742 | 94.4 | 283 | 4.0 | | Hackney | 2,932 | 1,744 | 59.5 | 164 | 5.6 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,014 | 708 | 69.8 | 179 | 17.7 | | Haringey | 705 | 145 | 20.6 | 10 | 1.4 | | Harrow | 947 | 739 | 78.0 | 99 | 10.5 | | Havering | 1,743 | 1,473 | 84.5 | 168 | 9.6 | | Hillingdon | 649 | 582 | 89.7 | 249 | 38.4 | | Hounslow | 523 | 35 | 6.7 | 13 | 2.5 | | Islington | 2,352 | 1,870 | 79.5 | 115 | 4.9 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,258 | 968 | 76.9 | 103 | 8.2 | | Kingston upon Thames | 299 | 152 | 50.8 | 19 | 6.4 | | Lambeth | 1,002 | 105 | 10.5 | 35 | 3.5 | | Lewisham | 4,167 | 3,630 | 87.1 | 289 | 6.9 | | Merton | 660 | 33 | 5.0 | 33 | 5.0 | | Newham | 4,811 | 4,651 | 96.7 | 477 | 9.9 | | Redbridge | 400 | 7 | 1.8 | 7 | 1.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 339 | 28 | 8.3 | 0 | 0.0 | | Southwark | 2,067 | 1,770 | 85.6 | 165 | 8.0 | | Sutton | 511 | 150 | 29.4 | 96 | 18.8 | | Tower Hamlets | 6,884 | 236 | 3.4 | 24 | 0.3 | | Waltham Forest | 648 | 518 | 79.9 | 38 | 5.9 | | Wandsworth | 1,428 | 393 | 27.5 | 162 | 11.3 | | Westminster | 1,502 | 895 | 59.6 | 141 | 9.4 | | **London** | **56,489** | **34,510** | **61.1** | **3,771** | **6.7** |
Source: London Development Database Table 23 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2009/10 (New Build residential developments)
| Borough | New Build units approved | Lifetime homes from New Build | % Lifetime Homes from New Build | Wheelchair accessible homes from New Build | % Wheelchair Accessible from New Build | |--------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 559 | 507 | 90.7 | 40 | 7.2 | | Barnet | 2,889 | 1,192 | 41.3 | 32 | 1.1 | | Bexley | 228 | 187 | 82.0 | 13 | 5.7 | | Brent | 1,943 | 1,365 | 70.3 | 149 | 7.7 | | Bromley | 873 | 462 | 52.9 | 33 | 3.8 | | Camden | 610 | 523 | 85.7 | 45 | 7.4 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | Croydon | 1,225 | 885 | 72.2 | 222 | 18.1 | | Ealing | 1,259 | 1,040 | 82.6 | 114 | 9.1 | | Enfield | 422 | 361 | 85.5 | 127 | 30.1 | | Greenwich | 6,751 | 6,709 | 99.4 | 250 | 3.7 | | Hackney | 2,635 | 1,728 | 65.6 | 159 | 6.0 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 720 | 669 | 92.9 | 177 | 24.6 | | Haringey | 438 | 103 | 23.5 | 6 | 1.4 | | Harrow | 821 | 706 | 86.0 | 91 | 11.1 | | Havering | 1,658 | 1,473 | 88.8 | 168 | 10.1 | | Hillingdon | 554 | 549 | 99.1 | 236 | 42.6 | | Hounslow | 307 | 25 | 8.1 | 6 | 2.0 | | Islington | 1,981 | 1,869 | 94.3 | 114 | 5.8 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,041 | 965 | 92.7 | 100 | 9.6 | | Kingston upon Thames | 222 | 146 | 65.8 | 19 | 8.6 | | Lambeth | 646 | 95 | 14.7 | 25 | 3.9 | | Lewisham | 3,844 | 3,605 | 93.8 | 289 | 7.5 | | Merton | 540 | 32 | 5.9 | 32 | 5.9 | | Newham | 4,654 | 4,632 | 99.5 | 468 | 10.1 | | Redbridge | 363 | 4 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.1 | | Richmond upon Thames | 197 | 28 | 14.2 | 0 | 0.0 | | Southwark | 1,832 | 1,757 | 95.9 | 161 | 8.8 | | Sutton | 417 | 145 | 34.8 | 91 | 21.8 | | Tower Hamlets | 6,007 | 236 | 3.9 | 24 | 0.4 | | Waltham Forest | 465 | 452 | 97.2 | 34 | 7.3 | | Wandsworth | 1,088 | 345 | 31.7 | 142 | 13.1 | | Westminster | 954 | 804 | 84.3 | 107 | 11.2 | | **London** | **48,143** | **33,599** | **69.8** | **3,478** | **7.2** |
Source: London Development Database Key Performance Indicator 5 An increased supply of affordable homes
Target Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016
Table 24 shows that in 2009/10, net affordable housing output from conventional completions in absolute terms was some 9,000, which is down on the 10,800 completed in 2008/9. However in proportional terms output has held steady at 37%.
As noted in AMR 6, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target includes new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS/investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database while monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by CLG (see Appendix 8 - Housing Provision in London 2009/10: Annual Monitor)
The London Plan definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes including planning targets which show the proportion of housing supply that is affordable. As with housing provision as a whole, affordable housing returns to the LDD are updated continuously and details in AMR 7 may not match those in previous Reports.
Because local affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Figure 3 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2009/10. During this period affordable housing output averaged 36.8% of total provision. Figure 3 shows three year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this.
In the draft replacement London Plan the Mayor has signalled his intention to replace the 50% target in the 2008 Plan with a numeric target of 13,200 affordable homes per year. The Mayor intends to work with boroughs to enable them to set local targets to make their contribution towards achieving this taking into account local and strategic needs. These new targets may be expressed by borough in numeric or percentage terms as appropriate to local circumstances. However, while this new approach to target setting will be of increasing materiality as the replacement Plan proceeds to final publication, the benchmark for statutory planning monitoring purposes will remain the 50% target in the 2008 Plan. Table 25 shows how boroughs’ own planning targets currently relate to the 2008 50% strategic target and how they are achieving their local targets. | Borough | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 3-year total | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 3-Year Average | |-------------------------|---------|---------|---------|--------------|---------|---------|---------|----------------| | Barnet | 54 | 409 | 154 | 617 | 6 | 39 | 23 | 23 | | Camden | 115 | 402 | 216 | 733 | 25 | 45 | 51 | 41 | | Enfield | 444 | 73 | 30 | 547 | 46 | 20 | 11 | 34 | | Hackney | 672 | 915 | 611 | 2,198 | 44 | 44 | 38 | 42 | | Haringey | 211 | 339 | 273 | 823 | 39 | 46 | 50 | 45 | | Islington | 1,133 | 329 | 470 | 1,925 | 59 | 15 | 32 | 34 | | Westminster | 371 | 231 | 385 | 986 | 51 | 32 | 56 | 46 | | North Sub-Region | 3,000 | 2,698 | 2,139 | 7,829 | 42 | 34 | 37 | 38 | | Barking and Dagenham | 218 | 157 | 25 | 400 | 27 | 40 | 12 | 28 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 125 | 301 | 284 | 710 | 25 | 48 | 67 | 46 | | Newham | 437 | 590 | 712 | 1,739 | 43 | 49 | 48 | 47 | | Redbridge | 54 | 97 | 175 | 326 | 8 | 15 | 18 | 14 | | Tower Hamlets | 787 | 1,462 | 645 | 2,894 | 34 | 55 | 26 | 39 | | Waltham Forest | 236 | 298 | -130 | 404 | 29 | 40 | -92 | 24 | | North East Sub-Region | 1,857 | 2,905 | 1,711 | 6,473 | 30 | 45 | 30 | 35 | | Bexley | 134 | 51 | 239 | 424 | 50 | 22 | 67 | 50 | | Bromley | 267 | 177 | 224 | 668 | 37 | 36 | 41 | 38 | | Greenwich | 261 | 239 | 141 | 641 | 33 | 31 | 26 | 31 | | Lewisham | 233 | 205 | 168 | 606 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 24 | | Southwark | 537 | 314 | 700 | 1,551 | 43 | 29 | 52 | 42 | | South East Sub-region | 1,432 | 986 | 1,472 | 3,890 | 37 | 29 | 41 | 36 | | Croydon | 625 | 416 | 696 | 1,737 | 43 | 27 | 51 | 40 | | Kingston upon Thames | 109 | 0 | 30 | 139 | 30 | 0 | 22 | 19 | | Lambeth | 347 | 585 | 417 | 1,349 | 28 | 51 | 36 | 38 | | Merton | 244 | 265 | 49 | 558 | 37 | 34 | 15 | 32 | | Richmond upon Thames | 113 | 135 | 76 | 324 | 27 | 38 | 35 | 33 | | Sutton | 193 | 243 | -15 | 421 | 31 | 52 | -7 | 32 | | Wandsworth | 309 | 482 | 479 | 1,270 | 30 | 31 | 30 | 30 | | South West Sub-Region | 1,940 | 2,126 | 1,732 | 5,798 | 34 | 35 | 35 | 34 | | Brent | 423 | 589 | 414 | 1,426 | 55 | 52 | 51 | 53 | | Ealing | 412 | 309 | 283 | 1,004 | 29 | 37 | 57 | 37 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 237 | 315 | 441 | 993 | 46 | 69 | 50 | 54 | | Harrow | 116 | 228 | 209 | 553 | 31 | 30 | 40 | 33 | | Hillingdon | 156 | 179 | 189 | 524 | 32 | 22 | 31 | 27 | | Hounslow | 645 | 332 | 381 | 1,358 | 44 | 42 | 59 | 47 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 13 | 96 | 22 | 131 | 10 | 38 | 7 | 18 | | West Sub-Region | 2,002 | 2,048 | 1,939 | 5,989 | 39 | 41 | 45 | 41 | | London | 10,231 | 10,763 | 8,993 | 29,979 | 36 | 37 | 37 | 37 | Notes: When calculating net figures for phased schemes, LDD allocates unit losses to the year in which the final proposed unit in a scheme is completed. This can lead to negative net figures when large phased redevelopments reach their completion. The negative figure in Waltham Forest is due to the completion of the Beaumont Road Estate redevelopment in which 296 units are being lost and only 49 of 199 proposed affordable units were completed in 2009/10. The loss in Sutton is due to 114 units being lost in the Roundshaw development in which the final 41 of the 112 proposed affordable units were completed during 2009/10.
**Figure 3** Borough Affordable Housing Completions (2007/08-2009/10 average)
*Note* - the blue line represents the average across all boroughs. | Borough | Borough Policy Target (or practice) as at 2002 | Adopted borough policy target as at December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) | Emerging borough policy target December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) – N/a if recently adopted | Out-turn 2007/8 to 2009/10 | |-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 25% | 50% (August 2010) | n/a | | | Barnet | 30% | 50% | 30% (50% in AAP areas) | | | Bexley | 25% | 35% | 50% | | | Brent | 30-50% | 50% | n/a | | | Bromley | 20% | 35% | n/a | | | Camden | 50% proposed | 50% for >50 dwellings, 10-50% for \<50 dwellings | n/a | | | City of London | None | 50% | 30% | | | Croydon | 40% | 40%-50% | 35% borough wide target. Seeking 20% on-sites in year 1 of the plan with a yearly review of this target using a 'Dynamic Viability Model'. | | | Ealing | 50% | 50% | 50% | | | Enfield | 25% | 40% | n/a | | | Greenwich | 35% | 35% minimum (50% on greenfield/readily developable former employment land) | 35% | | | Hackney | 25% | 50% | 35% borough wide target. Seeking 20% on-sites in year 1 of the plan with a yearly review of this target using a 'Dynamic Viability Model'. | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65% proposed | 50% | 40% | | | Haringey | 30% | 50% | 50% | | | Harrow | 30% | London Plan | Target still to be defined - will be informed by finalised West London SHMA, and local viability report. | | | Havering | None | 50% (2008) | n/a | | | Hillingdon | 25% | 365 u/pa (50%) | 356 u/pa (50%) | | | Hounslow | 50% | 445 u/pa (50%) | 445u/pa (50%) | | | Islington | 25% | 50% | 50% | | | Borough | Borough Policy Target (or practice) as at 2002 | Adopted borough policy target as at December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) | Emerging borough policy target December 2010 (numerical / Percentage) – N/a if recently adopted | Out-turn 2007/8 to 2009/10 | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 33% | Minimum of 200 units per annum from 2011/12 (borough wide target) with a site specific policy of 50% affordable by floor area | n/a | | | Kingston upon Thames | 50% | 50% | 50% | | | Lambeth | 35-50% | 40% (50% with grant) | N/A | | | Lewisham | 30% | 35% | 50% | | | Merton | 30% | London Plan | 40% | | | Newham | 25% | London Plan | 50% overall (35-50% on individual sites) | | | Redbridge | 25% | 50% (2008) | n/a | | | Richmond upon Thames | 40% | 50% | n/a | | | Southwark | 25% | 50% overall (40% in CAZ; 35% in E&C and suburban zones) | 8,558 (equates to 35% borough-wide but varies locally) | | | Sutton | 25% | 50% | n/a | | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33% | 50% overall, 35%-50% on individual sites subject to viability | n/a | | | Waltham Forest | 40% | | 50% (5,700 homes) | | | Wandsworth | None | Minimum 373 units annum (3,725 borough wide target over 10 years) to be reviewed on adoption of the LP. Site specific policy of the max reasonable amount with a minimum target of 33% on each site | n/a | | | Westminster | 50% | 50% overall, 35%-50% on individual sites subject to viability | n/a | | Key Performance Indicator 5a Reducing Health Inequalities
Target By 2026, reducing by at least 10% the gap between life expectancy at birth in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London
This indicator was introduced in the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations) 2008. It has since been found that data to support this indicator are not directly available. Indicators 5a and 5b are being reviewed as part of the process of producing the Replacement London Plan, and it is intended that an alternative indicator, which can be more easily monitored, will be used in future.
The data in Table 26 are calculated using Office for National Statistics figures for annual life expectancy for males and females which are only available at borough level. As the life expectancy at ward level is not known, each regeneration area has been assumed to have the same level as the borough in which it is located. An average life expectancy for all Regeneration Areas has then been calculated based on the population in each Regeneration Area and their assumed life expectancy. This means that the resulting figures are strongly influenced by the life expectancies in the six boroughs with the highest populations in regeneration wards namely, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Islington, Southwark and Haringey. These six boroughs account for 68% of the population within regeneration wards. It is recognized that this approach may well under estimate the gap, as the regeneration wards are generally expected to have a lower life expectancy than the average for the borough in which they are located.
Table 26 Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-02 and 2007-09)
| | 2000-02 | | 2007-09 | | |----------------|---------|----------|---------|----------| | | Males | Females | Males | Females | | Regeneration Areas | 73.68 | 79.32 | 76.59 | 81.99 | | London Average | 75.77 | 80.50 | 78.60 | 83.10 | | Gap | 2.09 | 1.18 | 2.01 | 1.11 |
Source: ONS and GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections
There has been a consistent improvement in the life expectancy at birth in both the the areas for regeneration and in London as a whole. The gap has reduced for both men and women between 2000-02 and 2007-09.
It is important to note that a death is a ‘semi-random’ event and therefore this indicator will not necessarily show a monotonic improvement due to the relatively small numbers of events involved. Trends will become more easily discernable over a longer period. Key Performance Indicator 5b Reducing Health Inequalities
Target By 2015, reducing by at least 10% the gap between the age standardized death rate from coronary heart disease per 100,000 people in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London
This indicator was introduced in the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations) 2008. It is now apparent that the data to support this indicator are not directly available and, as with KPI 5a above, this indicator is being reviewed for the Replacement London Plan.
For the purposes of AMRs 5 onwards, the indicator has been altered to show the Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) - using Ischaemic deaths in London by age and gender as the basis of the calculation. The SMR compares actual total deaths to deaths expected if the death rates in the standard population (in this case London) apply to the population of the regeneration areas (disaggregated by 5-year age groups and gender). SMR is expressed as a percentage of the expected deaths.
Input data for this indicator are particularly volatile due to the relatively small numbers of Ischaemic deaths annually in London. In 2009 there were 4,045 male and 2,975 female Ischaemic deaths. In the regeneration boroughs the totals were 637 and 398 respectively.
Table 27 Standardised Mortality Ratios (Ischaemic deaths)
| Standardised Mortality Ratio | 2007 | 2009 | |-----------------------------|------|------| | Regeneration Areas: Males | 126 | 112 | | Regeneration Areas: Females | 107 | 103 | | Regeneration Areas: Persons | 118 | 108 | | London: Males and Females | 100 | 100 |
Source: ONS Vital Statistics and GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections. Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city
Key Performance Indicator 6 Increasing sustainability and social inclusion by increasing the proportion of London residents working in jobs in London over the plan period (to 2026)
Target Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London
AMR6 included data from the 1991 and 2001 censuses as well as data on out-commuting from the Labour Force Survey as a proxy measure for this indicator. However for this AMR the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) have compiled figures from the Annual Population Surveys back to 2004 which give a good picture of in and out-commuting in London over this period.
This Office for National Statistics data shows that the proportion of London residents working in London showed a small increase in 2009 for the second year in a row, but at 91.3% it is still slightly below the level in 2004, the first year for which data is available. The data also shows that the number of Londoners working in London has increased each year, although at a slightly slower rate than the total number of workers in London. Currently 75.2% of London’s jobs are taken by London residents compared to 76% in 2004.
Table 28 Proportion of London Residents Working in London 2004-2009
| Year | Londoners Working in London | Londoners Working outside London | Total Londoners in work | Commuters into London | Total workers in London | % of Londoners in work who work in London | |------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 2004 | 3,172,000 | 294,000 | 3,466,000 | 709,000 | 4,175,000 | 91.5 | | 2005 | 3,189,000 | 312,000 | 3,501,000 | 666,000 | 4,167,000 | 91.1 | | 2006 | 3,221,000 | 336,000 | 3,557,000 | 736,000 | 4,293,000 | 90.6 | | 2007 | 3,262,000 | 348,000 | 3,610,000 | 768,000 | 4,378,000 | 90.4 | | 2008 | 3,347,000 | 321,000 | 3,668,000 | 779,000 | 4,447,000 | 91.2 | | 2009 | 3,374,000 | 322,000 | 3,696,000 | 786,000 | 4,482,000 | 91.3 |
Source: Annual Population Survey, Office for National Statistics
Key Performance Indicator 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market.
Target The stock of permissions (measured as net lettable) should be at least three times the average rate of starts over the preceding three years.
This edition of the Annual Monitoring Report continues to utilise data from EGi London Offices, but has also included a comparable measure using data from the London Development Database (LDD). Final permissions and starts data from the LDD for 2010 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio figure for 2010. The variation between the two ratios is accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets.
According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end 2010 was 13:1. In the most recent set of comparable figures for 2009, the ratio of permissions to starts was 10:1 according to EGi and 7:1 according to LDD, both comfortably in excess of the target of 3:1.
Table 29 Ratio of planning permissions to three year average starts in central London
| Year | EGi | LDD | |------|------|------| | 2004 | 12:1 | 6.4:1| | 2005 | 8:1 | 7.4:1| | 2006 | 8.4:1| 8.7:1| | 2007 | 6.3:1| 4.7:1| | 2008 | 7:1 | 4.1:1| | 2009 | 10:1 | 7:1 | | 2010 | 13:1 | N/A |
Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database
Figure 4 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London 1985-2010
Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices
______________________________________________________________________
4 EGi data for permissions is based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of s.106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas EGI’s threshold is c.100 sq m gross. LDD data excludes refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use which are included by EGI. In addition EGI data for starts is based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2010 the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGI. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGI figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition).
5 Central London defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth In 2010 the volume of construction starts was 308,000 sq metres net, an increase of 52% on the 2009 figure of 203,000 sq metres net. Construction starts continued to be constrained by the lack of conventional debt funding for office development, remaining well below the average rate of starts over the period 1985-2010 of 585,000 sq metres net.
Of the 308,000 sq metres net commenced in 2010, 141,000 sq metres net (46%) was located in the City market area, 87,000 sq metres net (28%) in the West End and 43,000 sq metres net (14%) in the South Bank. Starts in the City market were dominated by The Pinnacle scheme at Bishopsgate, EC2, which at 116,810 sq metres net accounted for 39% of all Central London starts. Press comment, however, suggests that the development was not fully funded at the end of 2010. Six other schemes which started in the City market included five schemes in the City Fringe where offices formed part of mixed-use residential developments. Fourteen schemes commenced in the West End, including five schemes over 10,000 sq metres net: Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, SW1 (30,000 sq metres net), Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, SW1 (22,000 sq metres net), Park House, Park Street, W1 (18,000 sq metres net), 8 Baker Street, W1 (12,000 sq metres net) and Marcol House, Regent Street, W1 (11,000 sq metres net). On the South Bank there was one significant start at London Bridge Quarter with the commencement of 41,000 sq metres net at London Bridge Place, a companion building to The Shard.
The planning pipeline of permissions in central London decreased by 9% in 2010 to 3.8 million sq metres net. The overall level of consented development continued to be influenced by very large schemes. Five schemes were each over 100,000 sq metres net and together accounted for 35% of all permitted development, being Wood Wharf, E14 (368,691 sq metres net), King’s Cross, NW1 (364,408 sq metres net), North Quay (Canary Wharf), E14 (298,128 sq metres net), Heron Quays (Canary Wharf), E14 (154,540 sq metres net) and Battersea Power Station (126,223 sq metres net). By borough, LB Tower Hamlets continued to have the highest level of outstanding permissions with 1.26 million sq metres net followed by the City of London with 880,000 sq metres net; together these two boroughs accounted for 56% of permissions. There was a further 490,000 sq metres net in LB Camden and 370,000 sq metres net in the City of Westminster which are together broadly analogous to the West End market area. Taken together, these four boroughs accounted for 79% of permitted office development.
The occupational market strengthened in 2010 with a reduction in availability and growth in take-up. According to Knight Frank, for example, central London office supply decreased by 20% during 2010, while take-up increased by 22%. Most agent commentators are projecting growth in rents in 2011, driven in particular by the lack of new, refurbished and Grade A space. Lack of choice for occupiers in ready-to-occupy space could encourage some pre-letting activity leading to construction starts in de-risked schemes. Emerging shortages of the best quality space are expected to stimulate some speculative construction starts in 2011, including major office towers in the City such as the “Walkie-Talkie” at Fenchurch Street and the “Cheesegrater” at Leadenhall Street. It remains the case, however, that bank funding for speculative office development is scarce and as a result construction activity is likely to be led by Real Estate Investment Trusts, funding institutions and sovereign wealth funds with cash to allocate.
AMR8 will examine planning and construction data at the end of 2011 and analyse whether the development industry was constrained by the planning system in meeting the needs of occupational market. **Key Performance Indicator 8** Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfil the priority to east London
**Target** Development in Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification for each sub-region measured against the Chapter 5 indicative figures in the London Plan
Significant progress – described in detail in Appendix 3 - has been made in progressing development in many of the London Plan Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination
Key Performance Indicator 9 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market
Target Age specific unemployment rates for black and minority ethnic groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011
In 2009 Londoners from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups were twice as likely as those from White groups to be unemployed. However, the overall ratio of BAME unemployment to unemployment in White groups has fallen from 2½ to 2 since 2008.
The gap in rates is consistent across different age groups, with unemployment most pronounced in the 16-24 age group.
The absolute number of people of working-age who are unemployed rose 90,000 from 273,000 in 2008 to 363,000 in 2009 accounting for a rise of two percentage points in the unemployment rate. Unemployment in white groups aged 16-24 has increased by 4.2 percentage points between 2008 and 2009, compared with an increase of 3.4 percentage points in BAME groups of the same age. Rates for both ethnic groups aged 25-44 have risen by around two percentage points, causing the gap ratio of BAME to White unemployment to fall slightly from 2.3 in 2008 to 1.9 in 2009. The BAME/White unemployed ratio for those aged 45-64 also fell slightly from 2.2 in 2008 to 2.0 in 2009.
While data presented here relate to aggregations of minority ethnic groups, it is fully recognised that within the BAME population there is huge variation in unemployment rates. Census 2001 data show that rates ranged from 5.9 per cent for Indian Londoners up to 20.5 per cent among Bangladeshi Londoners. Rates were also high for Black Londoners (12.3-17.6 per cent).
Table 30 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London - 2009
| All persons | White groups | BAME groups | Ratio | |-------------|--------------|-------------|-------| | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | BAME/White | | All working age | 363,000 | 9.1 | 188,000 | 6.9 | 176,000 | 13.8 | 2.0 | | Age 16-24 | 113,000 | 22.2 | 56,000 | 16.8 | 57,000 | 32.6 | 1.9 | | Age 25-44 | 173,000 | 7.5 | 88,000 | 5.8 | 85,000 | 11.1 | 1.9 | | Age 45-59/64 | 77,000 | 6.5 | 43,000 | 5.0 | 34,000 | 10.1 | 2.0 |
Source: Annual Population Survey 2009
Notes: The APS is a sample survey, so all estimates are subject to a degree of sampling variability. The definition of unemployment used here is the ILO measure (International Labour Organisation) which relates to people not in work, who had actively looked for work in the last four weeks and who were available to start work in the next two weeks. Rates express the number unemployed as a proportion of the labour force (i.e. the economically active population). BAME groups refers to all ethnic groups other than White groups. Key Performance Indicator 10 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market
Target Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011
In May 2010 lone parent families in London continued to be more likely to claim Income Support relative to the national average. The number of lone parent families on income support in London has risen by 5,000 between May 2009 and May 2010, equivalent to an increase of one percentage point. Numbers in Great Britain grew at an even faster rate of 2.5 percentage points between 2009 and 2010. This has caused a narrowing of the gap between London and GB rates of 1.5 percentage points over the same period.
Table 31 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families
| Quarter | Greater London | Great Britain | |---------|----------------|---------------| | | Lone parents families on IS | As % of lone parent families | Lone parents Families on IS | As % of lone parent families | Difference in percentage points (London-GB) | | May 2001 | 168,400 | 59.2 | 900,320 | 50.8 | 8.5 | | May 2002 | 166,840 | 57.4 | 870,850 | 47.7 | 9.7 | | May 2003 | 166,630 | 56.1 | 855,710 | 45.7 | 10.3 | | May 2004 | 165,120 | 54.4 | 823,180 | 43.4 | 11.0 | | May 2005 | 163,620 | 52.4 | 789,270 | 40.8 | 11.6 | | May 2006 | 162,770 | 50.8 | 774,780 | 39.3 | 11.4 | | May 2007 | 160,450 | 49.0 | 765,530 | 38.4 | 10.6 | | May 2008 | 152,520 | 45.7 | 738,580 | 36.6 | 9.1 | | May 2009 | 141,720 | 42.4 | 720,420 | 34.7 | 7.6 | | May 2010 | 146,710 | 43.3 | 777,550 | 37.2 | 6.1 |
Sources: GLA calculations based on data from Department of Work and Pensions & Office for National Statistics
Key Performance Indicator 11a Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services
Target An increase in the provision of childcare places per 1,000 under fives, particularly in Areas of Regeneration
This target was added to the London Plan in 2008 along with current indicator 11b and replaced the previous Key Performance indicator 11. However the data supporting the indicator have since ceased to be produced in a comparable format. Each borough is now required to do an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare, but a full review is only required every three years and there is no uniform format in which the data is returned, thus making it inappropriate to be used as an indicator. The Mayor has therefore decided to draw up a new indicator for the replacement London Plan based on available data.
**Key Performance Indicator 11b** Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services
**Target** An improvement in the percentage of pupils obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A\*-C in Areas of Regeneration relative to the LEA as a whole
This target was added to the London Plan in 2008 and replaced the previous Key Performance indicator 11 along with indicator 11a.
These data can no longer be sourced from the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group and are now obtained from the Office for National Statistics. To ensure that the information used is the most authoritative available, it is now grouped by pupil home Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) rather than by home ward as shown in the Plan itself. The figures record the number in the examination cohort and the percentage gaining 5 higher grade GCSE passes. That percentage figure has been used to calculate the number gaining 5 higher grade passes in each MSOA.
This information is not directly comparable with that used in AMR 6, so to enable comparison to be made with previous years performance, data for the whole period 2004/5 – 2008/9 has been recalculated on a consistent basis. 2004/05 was chosen as the year for comparison as it is the first year for which comparable data can be calculated. However reporting practice has changed between 2005 and 2009. In 2004/05 results were reported for pupils at the end of compulsory schooling. In 2008/09 results were reported for pupils at the end of key stage 4. There is a large degree of overlap between the two groups, but they are not exactly the same.
Between 2004/05 and 2008/09 there has been a considerable improvement in the percentage of pupils gaining 5 or more A\*-C grade qualifications across London. However the rate of improvement in the MSOAs containing Regeneration Areas has been even better. This pattern has generally been reflected throughout the relevant London boroughs with 20 of the 24 showing a better improvement in their Regeneration MSOAs than across the borough as a whole. Only Camden has shown a rate of improvement that is significantly slower in the Regeneration Areas.
In 2004/05 the gap in achievement between all pupils and those in the selected MSOAs was just under 10%. This gap has now fallen to just over 6%. Table 32 Percentage of pupils reaching the national benchmark of 5+ A\*-C GCSE grades in 2004/05 and 2008/09
| Borough | All pupils by home borough 2004/05 and 2008/09 | All pupils living in regeneration areas by home borough 2004/05 and 2008/09 | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Percentage of all locally resident pupils aged 15 gaining 5+ A\*-C grades 04/05 | Percentage change 04/05 to 08/09 Estimated percentage of pupils aged 15 living in regeneration areas gaining 5+ A\*-C grades 08/09 Percentage change 04/05 to 08/09 | | Barking and Dagenham | 51.2 | 15.3 | 41.00 | 60.95 | 19.94 | | Barnet | 63.7 | 13.3 | 45.70 | 68.00 | 22.30 | | Bexley | 57.7 | 14.9 | | | | | Brent | 57.3 | 14.1 | 42.69 | 60.62 | 17.93 | | Bromley | 66.5 | 12.9 | 35.40 | 55.20 | 19.80 | | Camden | 49.1 | 13.7 | 45.46 | 55.24 | 9.78 | | City of London | 62.5 | 10.8 | | | | | Croydon | 54.7 | 18.9 | 33.60 | 59.70 | 26.10 | | Ealing | 59.4 | 13.2 | 47.15 | 61.88 | 14.74 | | Enfield | 52.3 | 15.3 | 38.31 | 62.35 | 24.04 | | Greenwich | 48.1 | 16.9 | 41.93 | 60.63 | 18.70 | | Hackney | 47.9 | 19.2 | 46.77 | 66.38 | 19.62 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 50.4 | 24.1 | 43.54 | 71.93 | 28.39 | | Haringey | 51.5 | 17.7 | 46.03 | 67.58 | 21.55 | | Haringey | 65.8 | 12.3 | | | | | Havering | 60 | 10.1 | | | | | Hillingdon | 53.3 | 17.8 | | | | | Hounslow | 54.8 | 17.5 | 42.10 | 58.90 | 16.80 | | Islington | 46.5 | 19.1 | 43.19 | 64.89 | 21.70 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 53.1 | 27.7 | 48.23 | 81.86 | 33.63 | | Kingston upon Thames | 66.1 | 10.7 | | | | | Lambeth | 49.4 | 23.9 | 46.27 | 72.20 | 25.93 | | Lewisham | 51.1 | 13.3 | 42.33 | 60.23 | 17.89 | | Merton | 53.2 | 20.3 | | | | | Newham | 51.7 | 13.1 | 51.79 | 64.18 | 12.39 | | Redbridge | 68.4 | 8.0 | 43.80 | 52.10 | 8.30 | | Richmond upon Thames | 64.7 | 13.1 | | | | | Southwark | 48.2 | 21.2 | 46.26 | 67.76 | 21.50 | | Sutton | 58.8 | 20.9 | | | | | Tower Hamlets | 51.4 | 14.8 | 51.21 | 66.00 | 14.79 | | Waltham Forest | 51.8 | 13.8 | 41.66 | 62.27 | 20.61 | | Wandsworth | 55 | 14.4 | 43.35 | 70.34 | 26.99 | | Westminster | 44.3 | 31.1 | 37.46 | 76.51 | 39.05 | | Actual ONS GOR percentage statistic for London | 55.6 | 15.7 | | | | | **London totals based on summing borough numbers** | **55.6** | **15.72** | **45.96** | **65.03** | **19.07** |
Source: ONS Neighbourhood Statistics web site at [http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/](http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/) Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility
Key Performance Indicator 12 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
Target Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head
There has been a 26% increase in public transport journey stages per head between 2001 and 2009, compared with 11% decrease in car journeys per head.
Public transport journeys per head in 2009 were almost the same as the previous year, with a decrease of less than half a per cent. Public transport use increased steadily between 2001 and 2008 apart from a dip in 2005 that can be attributed to the impact of the London bombings that July. Private transport in London has generally shown a declining trend over this period. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a further decrease in the use of the car, with the index for private transport falling by 3 per cent after a similar decrease in the previous year. This decline and the slowing of growth in the public transport index are attributable at least partly to the effects on travel demand of the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009. The net result was a further widening of the gap between the public and private indices, representing a net mode shift to public transport.
Table 33 Public and private transport indexes
| Year | Public Transport Index | Private Transport Index | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 103.2 | 99.3 | | 2003 | 108.7 | 98.3 | | 2004 | 114.3 | 95.2 | | 2005 | 113.0 | 92.4 | | 2006 | 116.1 | 93.4 | | 2007 | 122.6 | 95.1 | | 2008 | 126.5 | 92.1 | | 2009 | 126.1 | 89.4 |
Source: Transport for London
Note: figures have been revised from previous AMRs.
The indices are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 3, published by TfL in December 2010). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey, respectively). Key Performance Indicator 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
Target From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent
Monitoring by Transport for London of traffic entering the central London Congestion Charging Zone showed that levels of traffic (for vehicles of four or more wheels) in the centre of London fell by 18 per cent between 2002 and 2003 when charging was introduced. Traffic entering the zone remained relatively stable between 2003 and 2007. Significant incremental falls were observed in 2008 for some vehicle types leading to a 6 per cent decline for vehicles of four or more wheels, and this trend continued in 2009 with a further 4 per cent decline.
In Inner London outside central London, annual traffic declined by 3 percent between 2008 and 2009 following a similar decrease in the previous year. Traffic in 2009 in inner London was 11 percent below that recorded in 2001. In Outer London, traffic has remained almost constant between 2001 and 2008, with marginal changes of less than 1 per cent (in either direction) in most years. Outer London traffic fell by 3 percent in 2009 to a level that was 4 per cent lower than in 2001.
Table 34 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) 2001-2008: Inner and Outer London
| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | All roads: | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 32.5 | 32.6 | 32.5 | 32.5 | 32.0 | 31.4 | 31.8 | 32.0 | 31.4 | 30.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 9.0 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 8.6 | 8.4 | 8.1 | | Outer London | 22.2 | 22.1 | 22.3 | 22.5 | 22.3 | 21.8 | 21.9 | 22.3 | 21.9 | 21.3 | | Index (2001=100):| | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0| 99.7 | 99.7 | 98.2 | 96.5 | 97.6 | 98.3 | 96.3 | 93.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 100.0| 97.8 | 97.1 | 93.5 | 93.1 | 95.6 | 94.3 | 91.6 | 88.6 | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.6| 101.4| 100.8| 98.5 | 99.1 | 100.8| 99.1 | 96.2 | | Major roads only:| | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.6 | 19.9 | 20.2 | 20.5 | 20.2 | 19.7 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.0 | | Outer London | 14.3 | 14.4 | 14.5 | 6 | 14.6 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 14.2 | 13.9 | | | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |----------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Greater London | 100.0| 99.5 | 99.6 | 98.7 | 95.3 | 96.7 | 98.4 | 96.7 | 94.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 100.0| 96.5 | 96.3 | 92.4 | 89.9 | 93.5 | 94.4 | 92.3 | 89.5 | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.9| 101.5| 101.8| 97.9 | 98.5 | 100.7| 99.2 | 97.1 |
Source: Transport for London Planning. Estimates derived from data provided by DfT from surveys undertaken for the GB national road traffic series. Updated (December 2010) with revised series as published in Travel in London report 3, section 2.11
Note: Transport for London estimates annual road traffic (vehicle kilometres) in Greater London using data from its own traffic counts and those undertaken for the Department of Transport’s National Road Traffic Estimates. TfL’s analysis showed that DfT’s methodology did not reflect traffic trends in London since 1999 with sufficient accuracy, particularly for minor roads. TfL has produced a series of estimates that are closer to the trends indicated by its own data. Estimates for this London Plan Annual Monitoring Report are based on the TfL traffic series, first published in Travel in London, report 1 (April 2009) for years to 2007 and updated to 2009 in Travel in London, report 3 (December 2010).
**Key Performance Indicator 14** Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
**Target** A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011.
Table 35 shows that the number of passengers on the Thames is steadily increasing over the baseline situation in 2001. River passengers have more than doubled since 2001 (a 166% increase). Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on leisure services fell significantly, but subsequently recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown significant growth since July 2005. In November 2007, Thames Clippers’ riverbus service was expanded to run between Waterloo (BA London Eye) and the O2 at a 20 minute frequency throughout the day and every 30 minutes in the late evening. Strong growth in riverbus and leisure services continued in 2008/9 due to the low value of the pound attracting visitors to London and a successful programme of events at the O2 boosting Thames Clippers’ patronage. It is anticipated that the number of passengers carried on the Thames will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate as demonstrated by the latest figure.
Table 36 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry. The demand/opportunities of this industry have over time significantly influenced changes in trade. This industry has been especially hard hit by the economic conditions. However, the significant construction projects already committed to or in planning mean that the PLA remains optimistic for the medium term prospects of freight on the River Thames in London.
Sufficient wharf capacity is essential to allow freight trade on the Thames to grow. A review of the 2005 Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Plan has commenced and is expected to be published by the end of 2011. Table 35 Passengers on the River Thames
| Year | Number of Passengers | % increase on previous year | |--------------------|----------------------|----------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 2,011,736 | 28% | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,385 | 1% | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,123,820 | 5% | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,280 | 10% | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,373,350 | 1% | | April 2006 – March 2007 | 2,746,700 | 16% | | April 2007 – March 2008 | 3,078,300 | 12% | | April 2008 – March 2009 | 3,892,700 | 26% | | April 2009 – March 2010 | 4,188,500 | 8% |
Source: TfL London River Services
Note: Figures are for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper Savoy (London Eye from November 2007) to Woolwich Arsenal service. This excludes a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.
Table 36 Cargo trade on the River Thames within Greater London
| Year | Tonnes of Cargo | % increase on previous year | |------|-----------------|----------------------------| | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | 9% decrease | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | 6% decrease | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | 5% decrease | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | 6% increase | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | 0.5% increase | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | 7% decrease | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | 8% increase | | 2009 | 8,146,000 | 13% decrease |
Source: Port of London Authority.
Key Performance Indicator 15 Increase in public transport capacity
Target 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2
In the previous Annual Monitoring Report it was stated that the target 5% increase in capacity between 2001 and 2006 had been met, with a 6% increase in capacity. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in May 2010, which set out an indicative programme of transport schemes. It was noted in the Transport Strategy that the funded package of investment in London’s transport system is expected to increase public transport capacity in the three-hour AM peak period by over 30% in the period from 2006. The funded package of investment is planned to be delivered over the period to 2020. The outcome of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010 and confirmed funding for key elements of London’s transport programme, including Crossrail and the London Underground upgrades.
Work is underway on the Tube upgrades, although these works have resulted in a temporary reduction in overall service capacity. Following TfL’s acquisition of Tube Lines, the PPP contractor, it is now expected that the Jubilee line upgrade will be delivered in spring 2011. When completed, the Jubilee line upgrade will provide a 33 per cent capacity increase. The Victoria line upgrade, which will provide a 21 per cent capacity increase, is planned to be completed in 2012. The full programme of upgrades will deliver a 30 per cent increase in capacity on the Tube.
The Comprehensive Spending Review announcement confirmed funding for Crossrail, with services planned to commence in 2018. This is one year later than previously planned and reflects a more efficient, and cost effective construction timetable. Major construction work for Crossrail is already underway.
In 2010, and following the opening of the extension to Woolwich Arsenal in 2009, the capacity of the Docklands Light Railway was upgraded from two-car to three-car trains between Bank and Lewisham, and between Stratford and Lewisham.
In May 2010 the former East London Line was replaced with London Overground services including extensions north and south, new trains and four new stations. By May 2011, services will be extended to Highbury & Islington, linking London Overground with the Victoria line and the Richmond to Stratford branches of London Overground. The London Overground extension to Clapham Junction is planned to be delivered by the end of 2012. Work is also underway to allow an increase in capacity on London Overground services between Richmond and Stratford.
**Key Performance Indicator 16**
**Increase in public transport capacity**
**Target**
Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in Opportunity and Intensification areas
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in May 2010 and includes a transport programme which was informed by recognition of the overall transport capacity requirements of forecast London Plan growth. In Opportunity and Intensification areas, further analysis is required to understand the impact of more intensive growth.
Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPF) are in progress for a number of different areas including Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea, London Riverside, White City, Upper Lea Valley, London Bridge and Bankside, Earls Court and Croydon. Supplementary Planning Guidance is also being produced for the Olympics Legacy area. A strategic transport study is undertaken for each of these as an input to the OAPF, SPG and/or borough SPD, which includes an assessment to identify transport interventions required to support proposed levels of development. These studies use the sub regional transport models that TfL has recently developed and provide a framework for more detailed work including transport assessments.
TfL has also produced sub regional transport plans in collaboration with boroughs and other stakeholders, which set out transport challenges, including the impact of development, and recommend solutions for each of the five sub-regions in London. These plans will remain ‘live’ documents to be regularly updated as appropriate. Key Performance Indicator 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas with high PTAL values
Target Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 and at least 90% of B2 and B8 development in Zones 0-2
This target aims to show that high density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport, while major developments in low density uses such as Industry and Storage and Distribution are in suitable out of town centre locations. It was revised for the London Plan 2008 and now formally represents the proxy data that was used in previous AMRs.
The London Development Database has been used in combination with a GIS system to generate a matrix of types of employment development permitted within three groupings of public transport accessibility. This is measured using the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score generated by Transport for London.
The data shows that 43% of permitted B1 development floorspace is in areas with a high PTAL score (5-6), below the 50% target. If permitted B1 development floorspace in PTAL score range 4-6 is taken into account, the percentage rises to 63%. Three significant B1 schemes were permitted in the medium/low PTAL range including Wood Wharf in Tower Hamlets (460,000 sq metres gross), Riverside South, Westferry Circus in Tower Hamlets (371,000 sq metres gross) and the Olympic Press Centre in Hackney (95,000 sq metres gross). All three of these schemes are in locations where public transport accessibility is improving or investments are proposed. The majority of permitted general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) floorspace is in the low PTAL range, (96% and 91% respectively) both above the 90% target.
Table 37 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone - 2009/10 Approvals
| Accessibility (PTAL Group) | Employment floorspace by land use class 2007/8 | | |---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---| | | B1 m² | B1 % | B2 m² | B2 % | B8 m² | B8 % | | Low (0 to 2) | 708,848| 33.49%| 193,181| 95.81%| 264,319| 93.10%| | Medium (3 to 4) | 493,095| 23.30%| 7,299 | 3.62% | 9,722 | 3.42% | | High (5 to 6) | 914,459| 43.21%| 1,140 | 0.57% | 9,862 | 3.47% | | Totals | 2,116,402| 201,620| 283,903|
Source: London Development Database - B1, B2 and B8 approvals. Only permissions with 1,000m² or more in a particular use class are recorded on LDD. They are “gross” figures that do not take account of the existing use. PTAL is measured from the location of the site marker, which is generally located in the centre of the site. This means that for large sites, such as the Stratford City development, a low PTAL rating will be given despite the large variance across different parts of the site.
PTAL – Public Transport Accessibility Level B1 – Offices, light industry, research and development uses. B2 – General Industrial uses B8 – Storage and distribution uses including warehouses. Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city
Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat
Target No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period.
The London Development Database records the following conservation designations; Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest, Site of Metropolitan Importance, Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance, Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance and Site of Local Importance. Table 38 records all permissions granted in 2009/10 that include areas with any of these conservation designations.
There have been several approvals of planning permissions on protected sites of importance for nature conservation during 2009/10. The majority of them do not represent any actual loss of open space, for example the incorporation of agricultural land into the Stanmore Country Park in Harrow. There are two schemes that account for nearly 8.8 hectares, the majority of the recorded loss. The largest loss is the permission for the media broadcast centre within the Olympic Park which will be compensated for by new parks and improvements to the public realm across the site as a whole. The other is for a new research building within the grounds of the Institute of Cancer Research’s campus in Sutton.
Table 38 Changes in protected habitat due to new development
| Borough | Protected area affected by dev (ha) | Comment | Net loss of conservation sites (ha) | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0.156 | Incorporation of countryside area of Borough Grade 1 importance into adjacent golf course | No loss | | Bexley | 0.182 | Access shaft to new electric cable tunnel and hardstanding on edge of public park designated Borough Grade 1 importance | -0.182 | | Brent | 0.374 | Loss of part of churchyard of Borough Grade 2 importance in redevelopment of church hall site. Most will become residential gardens. | -0.374 | | Ealing | 0.058 | Loss of part of old orchard of Local Importance to be compensated for by extensive environmental improvements and new public spaces | -0.026 | | Hackney | 6.728 | Loss of open space of Local Importance within Olympic Park to be compensated for by environmental improvements elsewhere | -6.728 | | Hackney | 0.023 | Incorporation of small area adjacent to the New River designated as being of Metropolitan Importance into the curtilage of a residential development | -0.023 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.065 | Small encroachment onto adjacent park of Local Importance as part of the mixed use regeneration of a former leisure centre | -0.065 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.102 | Creation of a new children’s play area within an area of Local Importance | No loss | | Harrow | 22.140 | Incorporation of agricultural areas of part Borough Grade 2 and part Metropolitan importance into Stanmore Country Park, thus improving public access | No loss | | Borough | Protected area affected by dev (ha) | Comment | Net loss of conservation sites (ha) | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Harrow | 0.160 | Provision of new sports facilities and environmental improvements on part of existing park designated as a Site of Local Importance | No loss | | Hillingdon | 2.740 | Creation of new public park on green belt land of Metropolitan Importance | No loss | | Richmond upon Thames | 1.063 | Redevelopment of former goods yard within Barnes Common Site of Metropolitan Importance will include environmental improvements to an area still covered by old hardstanding and currently of little conservation value | No loss | | Sutton | 2.040 | New research buildings within curtilage of existing Cancer Research Campus which is a Site of Local Importance | -2.040 | | **Total Area (Gross hectares):** | **35.874** | | **-9.438** |
Source: London Development Database
**Key Performance Indicator 19** Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted
**Target** At least 35 per cent by 2010 At least 45 per cent by 2015
Table 39 shows that London’s municipal recycling rate has increased steadily over the previous nine years, increasing annually by two to four percentage points since 2002. The municipal recycling rate in 2009/10 was 27 per cent. Table 40 indicates that London’s household recycling rate also increased from 29% in 2008/09 to 32% in 2009/10, although London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England.
On a positive note, the total amount of municipal waste has continued to decrease. Although the most significant decrease was achieved in 2008/09, the total municipal waste generated in London realised a decrease of a further 2 per cent in 2009/10 from 4.0 million tonnes to 3.8 million tonnes.
**Table 39: London’s municipal waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2009/10 (percentage)**
| Year | Household Recycling Rate | |----------|--------------------------| | 2000/1 | 8 | | 2001/2 | 8 | | 2002/3 | 9 | | 2003/4 | 11 | | 2004/5 | 15 | | 2005/6 | 18 | | 2006/7 | 20 | | 2007/8 | 22 | | 2008/9 | 25 | | 2009/10 | 27 |
Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, see [www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats](http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats) Table 40: Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2009/10 (percentage)
| Region | 2000/01 | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | |-----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | North East | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 15 | 21 | 26 | 28 | 31 | 35 | | North West | 8 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 29 | 33 | 37 | 39 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 7 | 9 | 11 | 15 | 19 | 22 | 27 | 31 | 34 | 37 | | East Midlands | 13 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 26 | 32 | 36 | 42 | 45 | 46 | | West Midlands | 9 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 20 | 25 | 29 | 33 | 37 | 40 | | East | 15 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 30 | 34 | 38 | 41 | 45 | 46 | | London | 9 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 18 | 21 | 23 | 26 | 29 | 32 | | South East | 16 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 29 | 33 | 36 | 38 | 40 | | South West | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 27 | 31 | 37 | 40 | 42 | 44 | | England | 11 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 23 | 27 | 31 | 35 | 38 | 40 |
Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, see www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats
Table 41: Total municipal waste generated in London (millions of tones)
| Waste from: | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | |------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Regular household collection | 2,262 | 2,216 | 2,201 | 2,081 | 2,112 | 2,111 | 2,013 | 1,784 | 1,653 | | Other household sources | 310 | 298 | 274 | 306 | 277 | 256 | 247 | 236 | 252 | | Civic amenity sites | 519 | 497 | 411 | 328 | 250 | 246 | 230 | 190 | 140 | | Household recycling | 317 | 367 | 445 | 581 | 687 | 776 | 851 | 911 | 965 | | Total household\* | 3,408 | 3,379 | 3,331 | 3,297 | 3,326 | 3,390 | 3,342 | 3,122 | 3,035 | | Non household sources (excl. recycling) | 996 | 1,024 | 962 | 1,011 | 810 | 761 | 734 | 750 | 692 | | Non household recycling | 33 | 43 | 49 | 62 | 76 | 67 | 74 | 83 | 95 | | Total municipal waste | 4,438 | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,213 | 4,218 | 4,149 | 3,955 | 3,847 |
Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats
\*includes rejects from recycling, not listed
Key Performance Indicator 20 Increase in household waste recycled or composted
Target Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment facilities
The London Plan was reviewed after publication of ‘Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management’. As part of this, each London borough was apportioned an amount of waste for which an appropriate amount of land must be identified to manage that waste. The sum total of waste to be managed across all the boroughs equates to 85% waste self-sufficiency for London as a whole. Individual borough apportionment targets are listed in Table 42. The Mayor is proposing updated waste arising and apportionment figures in the draft Replacement of the London Plan. To ensure that apportionment targets are met, Waste Development Plan Documents (DPD) are reviewed and commented on by the Mayor’s Planning Unit. Where boroughs are not a part of a strategic waste authority, apportionment is usually considered in their Core Strategies or supplementary Local Development Plan (LDF) documents. The status of London borough’s Waste DPDs and LDF documents is shown in Table 43.
Table 42: Waste to be managed in London apportioned by borough
| London borough | 2010 MSW C/I | 2015 MSW C/I | 2020 MSW C/I | |----------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | | total | total | total | | Barking/Dag | 145 | 357 | 502 | | Barnet | 61 | 150 | 210 | | Bexley | 131 | 323 | 454 | | Brent | 62 | 202 | 284 | | Bromley | 71 | 174 | 245 | | Camden | 58 | 143 | 201 | | City | 29 | 71 | 100 | | Croydon | 73 | 179 | 252 | | Ealing | 104 | 257 | 361 | | Enfield | 87 | 215 | 302 | | Greenwich | 96 | 237 | 334 | | Hackney | 59 | 146 | 205 | | Ham & Fulham | 71 | 176 | 247 | | Haringey | 54 | 132 | 186 | | Harrow | 52 | 128 | 180 | | Havering | 96 | 235 | 331 | | Hillingdon | 87 | 215 | 303 | | Hounslow | 85 | 208 | 293 | | Islington | 58 | 143 | 201 | | Kents & Chel | 58 | 143 | 201 | | Kingston | 47 | 117 | 164 | | Lambeth | 64 | 158 | 222 | | Lewisham | 60 | 148 | 208 | | Merton | 69 | 171 | 240 | | Newham | 118 | 290 | 407 | | Redbridge | 45 | 110 | 154 | | Richmond | 58 | 142 | 200 | | Southwark | 70 | 173 | 244 | | Sutton | 57 | 141 | 199 | | Tower Hamlets | 90 | 221 | 311 | | Waltham Forest | 57 | 141 | 199 | | Wandsworth | 91 | 224 | 314 | | Westminster | 36 | 89 | 125 |
Note: Boroughs preparing joint waste DPDs may wish to collaborate by pooling their apportionment requirements. Provided the aggregated total apportionment is met, it is not necessary for boroughs to meet both MSW and C/I apportionment figures individually.
Source: Jacobs UK Ltd (July 2007) for GLA | Planning document | Stage of development | Constituent Boroughs | Strategic Waste Authority | |-------------------|----------------------|----------------------|--------------------------| | Waste Development Plan Document | Submission to Secretary of State | Barking and Dagenham Havering Newham Redbridge | East London Waste Authority | | | Proposed submission | Barnet Camden Enfield Hackney Haringey Islington Waltham Forest | North London Waste Authority | | | Proposed submission | Croydon Kingston Merton Sutton | South London Waste Partnership | | | Proposed sites and policies | Brent Ealing Harrow Hillingdon Hounslow Richmond | West London Waste Authority | | Core Strategy | Proposed submission | Bexley | n/a | | | None scheduled | Bromley | | | | Submitted to Secretary of State | City of London | | | | Draft under consultation | Greenwich | | | | Proposed submission | Hammersmith and Fulham | | | | Adopted | Kensington & Chelsea | | | | Submission complete, to be adopted. Site Specific Allocations document in second draft | Lambeth | | | | Submitted to Secretary of State Site Specific Allocations document further options report submitted | Lewisham | | | | Submitted to Secretary of State | Southwark | | | | Adopted Development Plan document being developed | Tower Hamlets | |
### Key Performance Indicator 21:
Increased regional self-sufficiency for waste
**Target** 75 per cent (15 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed of within London by 2010
The GLA estimates that this target was met in 2008/09, with 78 per cent of London’s waste treated or disposed of within the capital. This position was maintained in 2009/10, at an estimated 79 per cent.
This achievement is heavily skewed to the construction, demolition and excavation (CDE) sector, which recycles approximately 82 per cent of its waste, with a further 11 per cent being landfilled within London. The other two primary waste sectors, commercial and industrial (C&I) and municipal waste generated less tonnage in 2009/10 than anticipated, however the amount of waste managed in London remained relatively the same as in the previous year.
To help achieve self-sufficiency, increased recycling and waste reduction targets, the Greater London Authority Act 2007 enabled the establishment of the London Waste and Recycling Board. The board’s objectives are to promote and encourage:
- the production of less waste;
- an increase in the proportion of waste reused and recycled; and
- the use of methods of collection, treatment and disposal that are more beneficial to the environment
The Board has an investment fund of up to £84 million over four years. This has been supplemented by a further £18 million in match funding from the European Regional Development fund, through the JESSICA scheme. This money will stimulate further increases in waste management capacity within London. Key Performance Indicator 22 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions
Target Reduce emissions to: 15% below 1990 levels by 2010 20% below 1990 levels by 2015 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 30% below 1990 levels by 2025
No new data are available since the last AMR was published, with the most recent measurement of London’s CO₂ emissions being the 2008 London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI). It is anticipated that data on carbon dioxide emissions will in the future be published annually, but two years in arrears given the analysis required. Information for assessing the 2010 benchmark will therefore only be available in 2012.
The LEGGI attributes CO₂ emissions to three sectors in London, based on either where the use of fuel occurred or, in the case of electricity, where it was consumed. These sectors are homes, workplaces and transport.
Table 44 London CO₂ Emissions 1990-2008
| CO₂ emissions [Million tonnes per year] | 1990 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2008 | % change | |----------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|----------| | Homes | 15.84| 17.54| 17.79| 17.95| 18.11| 17.87| 17.51| 17.07| 15.93| 1% | | Workplaces | 19.74| 25.04| 22.60| 21.98| 21.37| 22.17| 22.30| 21.51| 20.12| 2% | | Transport | 9.52 | 7.73 | 8.47 | 9.00 | 9.53 | 8.80 | 8.88 | 8.88 | 8.66 | -9% | | Total | 45.10| 50.31| 48.86| 48.93| 49.01| 48.84| 48.68| 47.45| 44.72| -1% |
Source: 2008 London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI).
Between 1990 and 2000 London’s CO₂ emissions increased by 12 per cent, from 45.1 MtCO₂ to 50.3 MtCO₂. Most of this growth was in the workplace sector as a result of a decade of steady growth in economic activity. Emissions from the homes sector also increased due to the growing population of London. From 2000 to 2006 the population of London increased by a further ten per cent. However the city’s emissions dropped by six per cent to 47.45 MtCO₂ per year in 2006. This is due to a number of factors, primarily the lower carbon content of the national electricity supply resulting from lower coal use in the generation mix, and the growing proportion of London’s economy accounted for by the service industry, which is less CO₂-intensive than manufacturing. In 2008 emissions were 44.72 MtCO₂ in total, which is a 1% reduction relative to 1990 levels.
The Mayor has proposed to strengthen the carbon emission reduction targets outlined above to reflect his greater ambition to reduce emissions. The 2025 target has doubled from 30% to a 60% reduction, meaning in 2025 London will aim to emit no more than 18.04 MtCO₂. The draft London Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy includes policies indicating how London will achieve these emissions reductions targets. Public consultation on the draft document ended on 5th January 2011. For more information see the Mayor’s website. This strategy is also supported by the draft Replacement London Plan which provides strategic planning policies to contribute to the more ambitious targets. Key Performance Indicator 23 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources
Target Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 including at least six large wind turbines
No new data have been collected in the last two years so Table 45 has been retained from AMR 5. The GLA has commissioned a new study that will investigate the potential for renewable energy and also provide updated figures on the amount of current generation in London (the ‘London Renewable and Decentralised Energy Potential Study’). The study will be published in the spring of 2011 and will include the latest data and projections on renewable energy to feed into the development of the London Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy and implementation of the new London Plan.
The baseline position at 2001 was that London had capacity for 460GWh of renewable energy generation. This comprised; 414 GWh electricity generation and 46 GWh heat generation. The most recent figures from 2007 are shown in Table 45 below. These indicate 500 GWh of electricity and 50 GWh of heat generation.
Since this indicator was devised, new technologies and opportunities have become available. In this respect it has become clear that energy from renewable sources that were originally intended (such as wind turbines) will not contribute greatly to the target, but preliminary results from the London Renewable and Decentralised Energy Potential Study show that energy harnessed from London’s waste, particularly landfill gas, will make a larger than anticipated contribution to London’s energy needs. Table 45 Energy produced in London per annum from renewable sources
| Technology | 2001 Output Electricity (MWh) | 2007 Output Electricity (MWh) | 2001 Output Heat (MWh) | 2007 Output Heat (MWh) | 2001 Capacity Installed (MW) | 2007 Capacity Installed (MW) | |-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | PV \<50kWe | 380 (combined) | 3,085 | 4.101 | | | | | PV >50kWe | 90 | | 0.114 | | | | | Solar heating | | 3,042 | 4,305-14,985 | | 10.683-37.464\* | | | Biomass | | 3.975 | | | 0.2 | | | Biodegradable fraction of MSW incineration | 258,000 | 302,610 | | | 64 | | | Sewage Sludge incineration | 44 | 47,071 | | | 17.3 | | | Small/Micro Hydro | | 44 | | | | | | Landfill Gas | 64,000 | 119,358 | | | 18.182 | | | Sewage Gas | 49,000 | 21,102 | 42,500 | 30,600 | 6.78 | 14.571 | | Wind \<50kWe | 0.2 | 255 | | | 0.083 | | | Wind >50kWe | | 9,466 | | | 3.6 | 0.079 | | Commercial and Domestic Heat Pumps | 150,300 | 200,416 | 46,300 | 39,063-49,744 | 50.397 | 25.533-52.314 | | Total excluding MSW incineration | 414,300 | 503,207 | 46,300 | 39,063-49,744 | 114.397 | 25.533-52.314 |
- London estimate (from national figures) for solar heating installed as an output of government funding schemes \*\* Municipal solid waste Sources: London Renewable Energy Capacity Study (April draft). SEA/RENUE, 2007 (unpublished). London Wind & Biomass Study, Summary Report: Feasibility of the Potential for Stand Alone Wind and Biomass Plants in London (and supporting reports). SEA/RENUE, 2007
Key Performance Indicator 24 Ensure a sustainable approach to flood management.
Target No net loss of functional flood plain within referable applications.
Government policy on development and flood risk is laid out in Planning Policy Statement 25. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it is not aware of any development that has resulted in a net loss of functional flood plain (as defined by PPS25) over the past year (April 2009 to March 2010).
Functional flood plain is defined in PPS25 as Zone 3b. This is land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood and would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year, or is designed to flood in an extreme (0.1%) flood, or at another probability to be agreed between the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and the Environment Agency. However, as the majority of London is defended, only a very small area of functional flood plain exists within London. This is mainly associated with fluvial flood risk on the tributaries of the River Thames. In addition, PPS25 limits development in this zone to water-compatible uses and some essential infrastructure so loss of functional flood plain is unlikely. In the light of these facts, it is proposed to remove this target in the draft replacement London Plan. The Greater London Authority completed its Regional Flood Risk Appraisal in October 2009. Annex 7 provides an overview of progress regarding its recommendations. In addition Table 46 provides an overview of progress regarding Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs). All boroughs are required to produce a Level 1 SFRA. Most Level 1 SFRAs are complete or near completion.
Broadly, Level 1 and 2 SFRAs can be defined as follows:
A Level 1 SFRA provides information on flood risk, taking climate change into account, that allows the LPA to understand the risk across its area, provides the information needed to apply the sequential approach, informs sustainability appraisals, land allocations, development control policies and emergency planning and identifies the level of detail required for site specific FRAs.
A Level 2 SFRA considers the detailed nature of the flood hazard that facilitates application of the Sequential and Exception tests, allows a sequential approach to site allocation to be adopted within a flood zone and allows the policies and practices required to ensure that development in such areas satisfies the requirements of the Exception Test, to be identified for insertion into the Local Development Document.
| Borough | SFRA level 1 Required | SFRA level 1 Progress | SFRA level 2 Required | SFRA level 2 Progress | |--------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Barnet | Yes | Complete | Yes | No | | Bexley | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Brent | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Bromley | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Camden | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | City of London | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Croydon | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Ealing | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Enfield | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Greenwich | Yes | Advanced Draft | Yes | Ongoing | | Hackney | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Hammersmith and Fulham | Yes | Advanced Draft | Yes | Advanced draft | | Haringey | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Harrow | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Havering | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Hillingdon | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Hounslow | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Islington | Yes | Complete | No | N/A | | Kensington and Chelsea | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Kingston upon Thames | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Lambeth | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Lewisham | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Merton | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Newham | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Borough | SFRA level 1 Required | SFRA level 1 Progress | SFRA level 2 Required | SFRA level 2 Progress | |----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Redbridge | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Richmond upon Thames | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Southwark | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Sutton | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Tower Hamlets | Yes | Complete | Yes | EA-advised revision about to commence | | Waltham Forest | Yes | Complete | Yes | Ongoing | | Wandsworth | Yes | Complete | Yes | Complete | | Westminster | Yes | Advanced draft | Yes | Ongoing |
Source: Environment Agency
**Key Performance Indicator 25** Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm
**Target** Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London
Although there has been a small increase in the number of buildings at risk in London during 09/10, it is not significant and is not expected to affect the overall downward trend which has been established over the past few years.
The 2010 Heritage at Risk Register, and a summary document covering all categories (not just listed buildings) can be found at [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/](http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/). A recently released review looking back over 20 years of Heritage at Risk in London can be found at [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/saving-london/](http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/saving-london/).
At April 2010, London had 1,002 Conservation Areas. 32 of London’s 33 boroughs have taken part in English Heritage’s national survey of conservation areas at risk, resulting in 72 being considered as being “at risk” - approximately 7%.
**Table 47 Proportion of Listed Building entries at Risk in London**
| | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |--------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Total Number of Listed Buildings | 18,274 | 18,316 | 18,3482 | 18,390 | 18,461 | 18,479 | 18,618 | | Number of Listed Buildings At Risk | 563 | 556 | 532 | 516 | 487 | 486 | 494 | | Proportion at Risk | 3.08% | 3.03% | 2.89% | 2.80% | 2.63% | 2.63% | 2.65% |
Source: English Heritage
The Number of Listed Building and the number At Risk exclude Scheduled Ancient Monuments and cemeteries and churchyards. Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators
Chapter 6 of the London Plan indicated a number of contextual indicators relating to London’s development, economy, environment, social and health status. The main part of the Annual Monitoring Report sets the overall context for London. There is also a huge amount of data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.
Briefings from the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group
| Reference | Briefing Name | Month of publication | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 2010 01 | Claimant Count Model: 2010 Technical Note | February | | 2010 02 | CIN 2010-11 | | | 2010 03 | London Parliamentary Constituency Profiles 2010 | March | | 2010 04 | Pilot pan-London School Rolls Projections by cluster | | | 2010 05 | London Borough Fertility Rates 2005-07 | August | | 2010-06 | Towards Defining a Healthy Living Income Standard for London | | | 2010-07 | London Crime: A National Picture | October | | 2010-08 | Disabled people and the labour market in London, 2009 | December |
Updates
| Reference | Title | Month of publication | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 01-2010 | The London Plan: Borough Demographic Projections | January | | 02-2010 | PayCheck 2009 | January | | 03-2010 | Unemployment in London – January 2010 | February | | 04-2010 | The London Plan Ethnic Group Population Projections | March | | 05-2010 | Personal Incomes of UK Tax-Payers in 2007/2008: Survey of Personal Incomes | | | 06-2010 | Migration Indicators: February 2010 | April | | 07-2010 | The Working-Age Client Group in London – August 2010 | February | | 08-2010 | 2009 Round Demographic Projections for the London Plan | April | | 09-2010 | Infant Mortality 2002 to 2008 | May | | 10-2010 | Poverty figures for London: 2008/09 | May | | 11-2010 | ONS 2009 Provisional Births | June | | 12-2010 | ONS 2002-2008 Revised Mid Year Population Estimates | June | | 13-2010 | ONS 2008-based Subnational Population Projections | June | | 14-2010 | Mid-2009 population estimates | June | | 15-2010 | Unemployment in London: July 2010 | August | | 16-2010 | 2009 Round Demographic Projections for the London Plan (revised) | August | | 17-2010 | 2009 Round Demographic Projections using the SHLAA | August | | 18-2010 | Births by birthplace of mother 2009 | September | | 19-2010 | Migration Indicators: August 2010 | September | | 20-2010 | Worklessness in London | September | | Reference | Title | Month of publication | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 21-2010 | Population by country of birth and nationality: 2009 | October | | 22-2010 | Children in Poverty | October | | 23-2010 | Life Expectancy at Birth 2007-09 | October | | 24-2010 | Revised 2009 Ethnic Group Population Projections | November | | 25-2010 | Income Poverty at Small Area Level | November | | 26-2010 | London’s Migration Flows with the rest of the UK: 2007 to 2009 | November | | 27-2010 | CLC 2008-based Household Projections | November | | 28-2010 | Life Opportunities Survey - Interim Results | December | | 29-2010 | Migration Indicators November 2010 | December | | 30-2010 | PayCheck 2010 | December |
A full list of DMAG publications from previous years is available via the GLA’s website at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/society/facts-and-figures](http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/society/facts-and-figures)
**London Development Database** For more information on the London Development database either [Email the LDD Team](mailto:) or phone 0207 983 4650. The LDD public page can be found at [http://ldd.london.gov.uk/LDD/LDD/welcome.do](http://ldd.london.gov.uk/LDD/LDD/welcome.do)
**Planning Decisions Unit** More information on the activities of the Mayor’s Planning Decisions Unit can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications/mayoral-planning-decision/mayors-planning-decisions](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications/mayoral-planning-decision/mayors-planning-decisions)
**GLA Economics reports** These are still available at [http://www.london.gov.uk/gla-economics-publications](http://www.london.gov.uk/gla-economics-publications) For the latest news the Mayor’s Business and Economy section can be found at [http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/business-economy](http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/business-economy)
**London Sustainable Development Commission** [http://www.londonsdc.org/](http://www.londonsdc.org/)
**London Energy Partnership** Full details can be found on the website [http://www.lep.org.uk/](http://www.lep.org.uk/)
**Other data sources**
**Waste** The Mayor’s Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at [http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/index.jsp](http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/index.jsp) DEFRA produces Municipal Waste Management statistics covering the previous financial year [http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bulletin09.htm](http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bulletin09.htm) More up to date London specific data is available on the Capital Waste Facts website [http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/](http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/) Waterways The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php
Transport data The latest information on The Mayor’s work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx and Annual Report | Transport for London The Department for Transport (Transport statistics) provides some useful data on transport
Department for Education Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.education.gov.uk/, which contains a section on Research and Statistics Details of the indicators for “Attainment and Outcomes” can still be found at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/trends/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showCategory&cid=5.
Ofsted Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Various data and studies on the environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/index.htm
Department for Communities and Local Government CLG publishes a number of statistics relating to planning at http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/245410 Specific information about London can be found on The Places Database. http://www.places.communities.gov.uk/latestnews.aspx
## Appendix 3 - Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification
| Name of Location | Progress\* | |------------------|-----------| | **North London** | | | King’s Cross | Northern ticket hall open at King’s Cross St. Pancras Underground. Work on the Boulevard and Goods Way has commenced and anticipated for completion in 2011 connecting the University of the Arts Central Saint Martins campus directly to the King’s Cross transport hub. | | Paddington | Span 4 of Paddington Station refurbishment ongoing. Works to implement Crossrail have begun. 33,000 sqm B1 business space completed. | | Euston | Euston Area Planning Framework adopted by borough April 2009. Initial discussions with LB Camden regarding potential work on OAPF relating in particular to HS2. | | Tottenham Court Road | Urban Design Framework has been produced. Opportunity Area Planning Framework not being pursued. | | Victoria | 103 net residential completions. | | Upper Lee Valley including Tottenham Hale | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced in house by the GLA working closely with the Boroughs of Enfield, Hackney, Haringey and Waltham Forest and the Lea Valley Park Authority. Stakeholder consultation January 2011 with public consultation later in the year. Target adoption date, 2011. 581 net residential units completed. | | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | Outline Planning Consent was issued by the Local Planning Authority on 28 October 2010. | | Colindale | Borough Area Action Plan (AAP) for Colindale was adopted in March 2010. Outline consent granted for hospital site. Beaufort Park later phases under construction. | | Arsenal/Holloway | Largely completed. Planning permission for Queensland Road approved. | | Mill Hill East | Borough Area Action Plan (AAP) adopted. Outline application being considered. | | Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green | Planning application for development across the remainder of the site to be determined. Expected 2011. | | West Hampstead interchange | No planning Framework in place. Substantial technical issues development over rail lands and with rail franchise holders. | | Holborn | See Tottenham Court Road | | Farringdon/Smithfield | Crossrail station construction work in progress with connection to Thameslink. Islington Council consulting on Bunhill/Farringdon Area Action Plan. | | **North East London** | | | Isle of Dogs | 1,488 net residential completions and 1,800 sqm retail floorspace. | | Name of Location | Progress\* | |----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | City Fringe | Opportunity Area Planning Framework to be produced in 2011 subject to pooling resources with boroughs. 841 net residential, 7,800 sqm retail (A1-A5) and 36,600 sqm office floorspace completed. | | Lower Lea Valley, inc Stratford | Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance being produced in house by the GLA working closely with the four host boroughs. Target adoption date, 2011. 705 net residential and 14,700 sqm B1 office completed. | | Royal Docks | Newham Council consulting on Core Strategy which includes proposals for the Royals. New pre-application discussions underway on Minoco Wharf. 989 net residential units completed and 71,000 sqm industrial and warehousing floorspace completed. | | London Riverside | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced jointly by the GLA and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in partnership with the LDA, TfL and the Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Havering. Target adoption date, 2011. 291 net residential units completed. | | Ilford | Action Area Plan produced in 2006. 218 net residential units completed. | | **South East London** | | | London Bridge | Net increase of 58,850 B1 office space completed - majority at More London, 111 net housing units were completed over 16 schemes. Shard of Glass development under construction. Southwark Council consulted on a draft Borough, Bankside and London Bridge Supplementary Planning Document from January to March 2010 and again from September to October. | | Elephant and Castle | A new teaching, health and social care centre on the campus of London South Bank University was completed in 2009/2010. In July 2010 Southwark Council signed a development agreement to pave the way for the transformation of the Elephant and Castle over the next 15 years. Southwark Council preparing supplementary planning document for the Elephant and Castle for consultation. | | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | Design for London produced a design framework. 109 net residential units completed. | | Lewisham- Catford – New Cross | LB Lewisham using the North Lewisham Framework as the basis for the AAP. 411 net residential units completed. | | Greenwich Peninsula & Charlton Riverside West | Planning permission granted 2003. Implementation now underway. 248 net residential units and 40,800 sqm B1 office floorspace completed. | | Woolwich, Thamesmead & Charlton Riverside East | Docklands Light Railway extension opened at Woolwich Arsenal in 2009. Up to 1,000 new homes have been developed at the Royal Arsenal. A further 2,000 homes have been built in Gallions Reach Urban Village in Thamesmead. | | Name of Location | Progress\* | |----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Bexley Riverside | A Framework Plan and Regeneration Strategy has been developed for Erith Town Centre and Belvedere and a development brief has been prepared for the Erith Western Gateway sites. | | Canada Water/Surrey Quays | Area Action Plan prepared. Overall increase of B1 and A1 floor space and 63 residential units in a mix of conversions and new builds. | | Kidbrooke | Greenwich Council approved detailed proposals for Phase 1 of the regeneration on the site east of Sutcliffe Park including 449 houses and apartments. Building started in September 2009. Legal agreement signed for mixed use redevelopment proposals. | | **South West London** | | | Waterloo | In March 2010, Lambeth Council prepared interim planning guidance for the former Waterloo International Terminal in advance of full guidance for the entire station site in the Waterloo Interchange Development Brief – consultation in 2011. Waterloo City Square project (one of the Mayor’s ‘Great Spaces’) has been subject to a design competition with target delivery date 2012-2015. | | Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea | Development Infrastructure Study completed, which will inform the final version of the OAPF. 258 net residential units completed and 436 hotel bedrooms. Battersea Power Station redevelopment approved by Mayor of London and Wandsworth Council – permission granted for 3400 homes, a hotel, cinema and office and retail floorspace. | | Croydon | Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) to be produced in partnership with the borough – target publication date 2011. | | South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood | Merton Council submitted Core Strategy to the Secretary of State. Hearing element of Examination in February 2011. | | **West London** | | | Heathrow (including Hayes, West Drayton, Southall, Feltham, Bedfont Lakes and Hounslow) | Opportunity Area Planning Framework being considered with potential initiation in 2011, working with local authorities and other stakeholders including BAA. 214 net residential units completed and 223 hotel bedrooms. | | Park Royal/Willesden Junction | Final version published in 2011. 19,000 B1 office floorspace completed. | | Wembley | Revised masterplans complete (2009). New Brent Civic Centre application approved. 236 net residential units completed. | | White City | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced in house in collaboration with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Target adoption date, 2011. |
- Note that information on completions relates to Financial Year 2009/10, sourced from the London Development Database) Appendix 4 - National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators
The DCLG published a set of Core Output Indicators for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. The GLA is not required to report on these indicators, but the list below sets out the indicators and how the information can be gathered for the London Plan area.
| No. | National Indicator | London Plan Approach | |-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | **Business Development** | | | BD1 | Total amount of additional employment floorspace by type | See borough AMRs KPI 7 for office provision in Central London | | BD2 | Total amount of employment floorspace on previously developed land – by type | See borough AMRs | | BD3 | Employment land available – by type | See borough AMRs | | BD4 | Total amount of floorspace for town centre uses. | See borough AMRs | | | **Housing** | | | H1 | Plan period and housing targets | See borough AMRs | | H2(a)| Net additional dwellings – in previous years | KPI 4 | | H2(b)| Net additional dwellings – for the reporting year | KPI 4 | | H2(c)| Net additional dwellings – for future years | See borough AMRs | | H3 | New and converted dwellings – on previously developed land | KPI 1 | | H4 | Net additional pitches –(Gypsy and traveller) | Appendix 8 | | H5 | Cross affordable housing completions | KPI 5 | | H6 | Housing quality – Building for Life Assessments | See borough AMRs | | | **Environmental Quality** | | | E1 | Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality grounds | KPI 24 (Does not include details of development adversely affecting water quality) | | E2 | Change in areas of biodiversity importance | KPI 18 | | E3 | Renewable energy generation | KPI 23 | | | **Minerals** | | | M1 | Production of primary land won aggregates by mineral planning authority | See borough AMRs | | M2 | Production of secondary and recycled aggregates by mineral planning authority | See borough AMRs | | | **Waste** | | | W1 | Capacity of new waste management facilities by waste planning authority | See borough AMRs | | W2 | Amount of municipal waste arising, and managed by management type by waste planning authority | See borough AMRs |
## Appendix 5 - Mayoral activity on Development Plans
Summary of activity on Borough Development Plans during 2010.
| Area | DPDs | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | Site Specific Allocations, proposed changes to submission | | | Barking Town Centre AAP Proposed changes to submission | | Barnet | Site Specific Allocations DPD Statement of general conformity | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Development Management Policies DPD | | Bexley | Core Strategy Preferred Approach | | | Core Strategy Pre-submission | | Brent | Local Development Scheme | | Bromley | Draft Planning Obligations SPD | | Camden | Site Allocations DPD Preferred approach | | | Core Strategy Submission Statement of general conformity | | | Development Policies DPD Statement of general conformity | | City of London | Core Strategy Pre-submission | | Croydon | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | | Core Strategy Preferred Options II | | Ealing | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Pre-Submission | | | Development Management DPD Initial Proposals | | | Development Sites DPD Initial Proposals | | Enfield | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy | | | Ponders End Central Planning Brief SPD | | Greenwich | Local Development Scheme | | Hackney | Local Development Scheme | | | Hackney Wick draft AAP | | | Core Strategy pre submission and proposals map DPD | | | Core Strategy Statement of Common Ground | | | Local Development Scheme | | Hammersmith & Fulham | General Development Management Policy Options | | | Core Strategy Submission | | Haringey | Local Development Scheme | | | Development Management Policies and Site Allocations DPD | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Additional Reg 27 consultation | | Harrow | Core Strategy Pre-submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | Havering | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Pre-Submission | | Hillingdon | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | | Planning Obligations SPD | | Area | DPDs | |----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Islington | Core Strategy Changes to submission | | | Core Strategy Statement of General Conformity | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Core Strategy post- submission changes | | | Local Development Scheme | | Kensington & Chelsea | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Revised Statement of General conformity | | Kingston upon Thames | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | Lambeth | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Update (Crossrail) | | Lewisham | Core Strategy submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | | Site Allocations DPD further Options | | Merton | Core Strategy pre- submission | | Newham | Core Strategy DPD Issues and Options | | Redbridge | Crossrail AAP Pre –submission | | Richmond | Development Management Plan Pre submission | | | Development Management Plan proposed submission | | Southwark | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Submission | | | Canada Water AAP Submission | | | Core Strategy Further Representations on general conformity | | | Core Strategy Further Representations | | Sutton | Site Development Policies submission | | Tower Hamlets | Local Development Scheme | | Waltham Forest | Core Strategy Preferred Options | | Wandsworth | Development Management Policies DPD Preferred Options | | | Site Specific Allocations DPD Preferred Options | | | Changes to tall buildings policy | | | Development Management Policies | | | Site Specific Allocations DPD | | Westminster | Core Strategy Supplementary Statement on Waste, Statement of Common Ground | | | Draft Planning Brief for Victoria Area SPD | | East London | Waste DPD | | South London | South East London Boroughs Joint Waste Technical Paper | | | South London Waste DPD Additional Sites consultation | Appendix 6 - Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing
This Appendix relates to Policy 3A.8 of the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations Since 2004 (Paragraph 3.37) and updates the affordability thresholds as at February 2011.
Intermediate Housing
Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £64,000(^6). This figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2008) figure of £52,500 on the basis of the latest data (as of February 2011) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £57,600 in AMR 6.
In his statutory London Housing Strategy and his draft replacement London Plan, the Mayor sets out his intention to raise the intermediate housing income threshold to £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London.
Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.
For the criterion that provision is affordable to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £224,000), or (for products where a rent is paid) the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income (this is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing). In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.
Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes measured by number of bedrooms.
Affordable rent
Government has recently published for consultation a draft planning definition of its new affordable rent product. It is proposed that affordable rent homes will be let at rents of up to 80% of market rent, and on tenancies of a minimum of two years.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) The income threshold for intermediate housing is currently set at a different level for planning and housing investment purposes. Under the Homes and Communities Agency investment criteria, the upper income level for intermediate housing is £60,000. Appendix 7 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Recommendations
The RFRA was published in October 2009 and contained 19 recommendations that will be followed up over the next 5 years.
| No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2011 | |-----|----------------|----------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their SFRAs and put in place DPD policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/embankments, in line with Policy 5.12, CFMPs and TE2100 | Limited progress through DPDs. Increasingly Thames-side developments are incorporating set back, for example Enderby Wharf, Greenwich. The Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth have specific planning policies to address this. | | 2 | The London Boroughs of Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth should put in place policies to avoid development that would prejudice the implementation of increased channel capacity between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings | The Environment Agency (EA) published Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan in Dec 2009 and is awaiting Government approval/funding for the TE2100 project. - The EA was also due to publish the Lower Thames Strategy in 2010 – their Board has signed off the project and it is awaiting Defra sign off in 2011. The Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth have specific planning policies to address this. | | 3 | The London Boroughs of Havering and Bexley should put in place policies to prevent development that would prejudice the use of Rainham/Wennington Marshes, Erith Marshes and Dartford/Crayford Marshes for emergency flood storage in line with TE2100 findings. Although outside London, Thurrock and Dartford should also consider this aspect of flood risk management | EA is awaiting Government approval/funding for TE2100 project. | | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the River Thames should pay particular attention to the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These are Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston | Need to explore further if combined events are addressed the relevant Boroughs. | | 5 | Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the draft replacement London Plan | Progressing well for large scale developments but limited for smaller scale development. | | 6 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP. | Generally being implemented through application of PPS25. Enfield for example have incorporated flood risk into the layout and design of major redevelopment proposals along the River Lee. | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2011 | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 7 | Once funding is confirmed Drain London will investigate and plan for long term management of London’s surface water infrastructure in order to reduce surface water flood risk. | Drain London project is underway. Surface Water Management Plans will be produced for each Borough by April 2011 and initial measures such as Community Flood Plans and Green Roofs will be pursued throughout 2011. | | 8 | Organisations responsible for development with large roof areas should investigate providing additional surface water run-off storage | No specific actions yet, but progress underway in relation to surface water at Victoria Station. And the GLA will contact TfL and Network Rail regarding other stations. | | 9 | Thames Water to continue the programme of addressing foul sewer flooding | Future funding reduced through OfWat settlement, but initial work underway in relation to Counters Creek sewer in west London. | | 10 | That groundwater flood risk is kept under review | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 11 | Network Rail should examine the London Rail infrastructure for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms; this may involve the need for off site storage | Network Rail contacted through Drain London, GLA will follow up in 2011. | | 12 | London Underground and DLR should keep potential flood risks to their infrastructure and flood risk reduction measures under review and up to date | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 13 | TfL, Highways Agency and London boroughs should continue to monitor the flood risk and flood risk reduction measures at these locations (subterranean river crossings and road underpasses – RFRA para 148) and any others with a potential flood risk | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 14 | Bus operators should examine bus garages for potential flood risks and put in place remedial or mitigation measures where there is a significant risk | No specific actions yet. | | 15 | Edgware Hospital should carry out a flood risk assessment of its current premises and determine any mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream | No specific actions yet. GLA will contact NHS following Drain London outcomes. | | 16 | Other hospitals in the RFRA table (para 153) should examine how they may cope in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact NHS following Drain London outcomes. | | 17 | The National Offender Management Service should ensure that there is an emergency plan for Belmarsh Prison in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact NOMS following Drain London outcomes. | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2011 | |-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 18 | Operators of London’s emergency services should ensure that emergency plans for flooding incidents are kept up to date and suitable cover arrangements are in place in the event of a flood effecting operational locations | Drain London outputs will inform new London Resilience Government Liaison Team being established at City Hall to replace the GoL chaired London Resilience Team. | | 19 | Operators of electricity, gas, water and sewerage utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and considering the likely impacts of failure, programme any necessary protection measures, this may include secondary flood defences | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact utility companies following Drain London outcomes. | Appendix 8 - Housing Provision in London 2009/10: Annual Monitor
Introduction This report provides further detail on housing provision in London in addition to the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based largely on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD) maintained by the GLA. The LDD was established with government support and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.
The majority of this report deals with housing provision defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions or changes of use. The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The final section of this report covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition.
Maps and tables can be found at the end of the report.
Key points
- There were 24,290 net conventional housing completions in London in 2009/10, but total housing provision was lower at 23,641 due to an increase in the estimated number of long-term empty homes.
- The net conventional supply of 24,290 in 2009/10 is the lowest since 2003 but still above the long-term annual average.
- New build accounted for 81% of net conventional supply in 2009/10, conversions 8% and changes of use 11%.
- Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 29,889 homes, split almost evenly between social rented and intermediate housing.
- Across all tenures, gross conventional housing was dominated by one or two bedroom homes, with only 18% having three bedrooms or more.
- Just over one third of social housing supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 14% of market homes and only 8% of intermediate homes.
- 27% of net approvals and 32% of net starts in 2009/10 were for affordable housing.
- As of 31 March 2010, there were a net 111,990 homes not started and 60,056 under construction, for a total pipeline of 172,046 homes.
Total housing provision Total housing provision in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non self-contained bedspaces, and long-term vacant homes returning to use. Table 19 in the main body of the report shows housing provision at borough and sub-regional level. Table HPM 1 in this appendix replicates these figures but in alphabetical order (see also Map HPM 1 and Map HPM 2).
Conventional housing supply typically comprises the majority of total housing provision, but in 2009/10 net conventional completions (24,290) were actually higher than total housing provision (23,641), due to a substantial increase (of 2,841) in the estimated number of long-term vacant homes. The chart below shows the separate elements of total housing provision for the last five years. In 2005/06 and 2006/07 vacants returning to use were strongly positive, in the following two years slightly negative, and in 2009/10 strongly negative. The estimates of long-term vacant homes returning to use are derived from the change in the number of private sector homes vacant for six months or more, as reported to government by London boroughs through the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix form. These data are typically quite volatile – for example, Haringey reported 1,008 long-term vacant private sector homes in 2007/8, 88 in 2008/9 and 1,286 in 2009/10. It can also be patchy, with some boroughs not reporting figures in every year.
The government also collects estimates of homes in all tenures that have been empty for six months or more through council tax dwellings lists reported by local authorities, and CLG have recently published a table drawing on this data. Table HPM2 shows estimates of long-term vacant homes and the change between 2009 and 2010 according to HSSA and council tax data. The two sources are not strictly comparable, as HSSA data covers private sector homes only while the council tax data covers all sectors, and because the HSSA data is reported as of April each year while council tax data is reported as of October. But it is still notable that the council tax data is less volatile than the HSSA data, and shows a different overall trend (a decrease in the number of long-term vacant homes between 2009 and 2010 rather than an increase). The GLA are considering adopting the council tax data for future monitoring purposes.
Gypsy and traveller sites Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2009/10 two permissions were granted for additional pitches. Three additional pitches were proposed in the reconfiguration of the existing site at Swallow Park, Kingston and two pitches were given permission for a further three years at a site off Church Road in Havering. The latter, being the renewal of a previous temporary permission, is recorded as a completion on LDD, although Havering record no additional pitches in their AMR. A survey of the 27 borough AMR’s available online at the end of January 2011 show that there were no additional gypsy and traveller pitches completed during 2009/10 in London.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Data here: http://is.gd/hssabpsa 8 Three boroughs did not report figures in 2010. One of these (Kensington and Chelsea) subsequently provided an estimate to GLA, while the remaining two (Lewisham and Merton) did not; GLA therefore assumed no change in long-term vacants for these two boroughs. 9 Live table 615 here: http://is.gd/clgstocktables Conventional supply As stated above, conventional housing supply comprises the bulk of total housing provision in London. Estimates of net conventional housing supply in London since 1987 are shown in the chart below(^\\text{10}). Data from 1987 to 2003 are from the GLA’s Housing Provision Survey, which was based on aggregate estimates provided by boroughs, while 2003/04 onwards is based on site-specific records from the LDD. The net conventional supply of 24,290 in 2009/10 is the lowest since 2003 but still above the long-term annual average.
Figure HPM 2 Net Conventional Housing supply 1987 – 2009/10
Source: GLA
Net conventional supply takes account of dwellings lost or replaced. In 2009/10 there was a gross conventional supply of 28,733 homes, with 4,443 lost or replaced (see Table HPM 3). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply: for example, Waltham Forest had a gross supply of 498 homes in 2009/10 but 357 of these were simply replacing other homes, for a net supply of 141.
The table also compares net conventional supply in each borough with the conventional component of its current London Plan housing provision target. Performance against the target varies from 18% in Barking and Dagenham to 227% in Wandsworth.
There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD: new build, conversions and changes of use (for example, from industrial or commercial uses). Table HPM 4 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 81% of net conventional supply in 2009/10, conversions 8% and changes of use 11%. The mix varied widely between boroughs, however. Notably, 65% of Greenwich’s net conventional supply of 548 came from change of use, while 31% of supply in Enfield was from conversions. Kensington and Chelsea was the only borough with negative supply from conversions, implying that in this extremely high-cost area conversions of houses into flats were outnumbered by ‘de-conversions’ of flats into houses.
Affordable housing supply Table 24 and Figure 3 in the main body of the report show net conventional completions of affordable housing by borough and sub-region. Table HPM 5 breaks affordable housing supply
(^{10}) The time series switches from calendar years to financial years in 2003/04, reflecting the change in sources. between 2007/08 and 2009/10 into social rented and intermediate housing\\textsuperscript{11}, while Map HPM 3 shows affordable housing supply in 2007/08 and 2009/10 as a proportion of total net conventional supply.
Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 29,979 homes, split almost evenly between social rented and intermediate housing. This split varied widely between boroughs, with social housing accounting for only 11% of affordable supply in Wandsworth but 81% in Westminster.
**Size mix of new supply**
Table HPM 6 shows the split of total gross conventional supply across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms (the figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms is not always readily available for homes lost or replaced). The profile of new social housing supply is quite different from that of intermediate or market supply: just over one third of social housing supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 14% of market homes and only 8% of intermediate homes. Across all tenures, new supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes, with only 18% having three bedrooms or more.
Table HPM 7 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing (i.e. comprising both social rented and intermediate housing) by borough and number of bedrooms. The highest proportion of homes with three or more bedrooms was found in Kingston upon Thames and Kensington and Chelsea, but in both cases was based on very low overall totals. The three boroughs with the largest absolute supply of affordable homes with three bedrooms or more were Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.
**The pipeline of new homes**
The ‘pipeline’ of anticipated future housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes under construction and those for which construction has not yet started. It should be noted here that in the LDD a ‘start’ may not be the start of physical construction work on site but simply a legal start (such as demolition of existing homes).
The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline. Table 21 in the main report shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2000/01, while Table HPM 8 breaks down 2009/10 net approvals by tenure and Table HPM 9 by type. At London level 27% of net approvals in 2009/10 were for affordable housing, again split very evenly between intermediate and social housing. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion (for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities), and some approvals may ultimately not be built out.
Table HPM 10 shows net conventional housing starts by tenure and Table HPM 11 by type. In 2009/10, 32% of net starts were affordable housing, compared to 27% of approvals and 37% of completions (Table 24 in the main report). New build comprises the majority of both approvals and starts.
Finally, Table HPM 12 and Map 3 show the planning pipeline as of 31\\textsuperscript{st} March 2010, comprising units approved but not started and those under construction. There were a net 111,990 homes not started and 60,056 under construction, for a total pipeline of 172,046. Just three boroughs (Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham) accounted for just over one third of the London total. At the other end of the scale, three boroughs (the City of London, Kingston Upon Thames and Richmond Upon Thames) accounted for a total pipeline of less than 3,000 homes between them.
\\textsuperscript{11} These categories are defined in the London Plan. | Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use | Total | Target | Delivery (% of Target) | |-------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 210 | 0 | -380 | -170 | 1,190 | N/A | | Barnet | 671 | 0 | 402 | 1,073 | 2,055 | 52% | | Bexley | 357 | -7 | 95 | 445 | 345 | 129% | | Brent | 808 | -17 | -53 | 738 | 1,120 | 66% | | Bromley | 553 | -7 | 285 | 831 | 485 | 171% | | Camden | 421 | 46 | -18 | 449 | 595 | 75% | | City of London | 41 | 0 | 22 | 63 | 90 | 70% | | Croydon | 1,371 | 1 | -346 | 1,026 | 1,100 | 93% | | Ealing | 499 | -22 | -134 | 343 | 915 | 37% | | Enfield | 277 | -13 | 27 | 291 | 395 | 74% | | Greenwich | 548 | 0 | 75 | 623 | 2,010 | 31% | | Hackney | 1,627 | 230 | 248 | 2,105 | 1,085 | 194% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 875 | -33 | 64 | 906 | 450 | 202% | | Haringey | 541 | 687 | -1,198 | 30 | 680 | 4% | | Harrow | 526 | -13 | -36 | 477 | 400 | 119% | | Havering | 427 | 0 | 25 | 452 | 535 | 84% | | Hillingdon | 619 | 8 | 25 | 652 | 365 | 179% | | Hounslow | 648 | 0 | -82 | 566 | 445 | 127% | | Islington | 1,479 | 479 | -50 | 1,908 | 1,160 | 164% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 330 | 9 | 507 | 846 | 350 | 242% | | Kingston upon Thames | 139 | -10 | 170 | 299 | 385 | 78% | | Lambeth | 1,156 | -7 | -226 | 923 | 1,100 | 84% | | Lewisham | 780 | -77 | 0 | 703 | 975 | 72% | | Merton | 329 | 9 | 0 | 338 | 370 | 91% | | Newham | 1,478 | 648 | -468 | 1,658 | 3,510 | 47% | | Redbridge | 950 | 0 | 161 | 1,111 | 905 | 123% | | Richmond upon Thames | 217 | -15 | 170 | 372 | 270 | 138% | | Southwark | 1,341 | -28 | -282 | 1,031 | 1,630 | 63% | | Sutton | 204 | 0 | 75 | 279 | 345 | 81% | | Tower Hamlets | 2,465 | 171 | -2,342 | 294 | 3,150 | 9% | | Waltham Forest | 141 | -14 | 94 | 221 | 665 | 33% | | Wandsworth | 1,573 | -127 | 16 | 1,462 | 745 | 196% | | Westminster | 689 | 294 | 313 | 1,296 | 680 | 209% | | **London** | **24,290** | **2,192** | **-2,841** | **23,641** | **30,500** | **78%** |
Source: London Development Database | | HSSA Data | | Change (fall is positive) | Council Tax Data | | Change (fall is positive) | |------------------------|-----------|-------|---------------------------|------------------|-------|---------------------------| | | 2009 | 2010 | | 2009 | 2010 | | | Barking and Dagenham | 442 | 822 | -380 | 627 | 557 | 70 | | Barnet | 2,020 | 1,618 | 402 | 1,719 | 1,525 | 194 | | Brent | 780 | 685 | 95 | 755 | 670 | 85 | | Bromley | 1,142 | 1,195 | -53 | 733 | 595 | 138 | | Camden | 544 | 562 | -18 | 1,207 | 1,163 | 44 | | City of London | 43 | 21 | 22 | 24 | 23 | 1 | | Croydon | 1,639 | 1,985 | -346 | 1,635 | 1,476 | 159 | | Ealing | 1,121 | 1,346 | -134 | 1,194 | 1,187 | 7 | | Enfield | 1,166 | 1,139 | 27 | 894 | 1,015 | -121 | | Greenwich | 1,278 | 1,203 | 75 | 1,349 | 1,341 | 8 | | Hackney | 912 | 664 | 248 | 2,747 | 2,111 | 636 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 659 | 595 | 64 | 818 | 871 | -53 | | Haringey | 88 | 1,286 | -1,198 | 771 | 742 | 29 | | Harrow | 462 | 498 | -36 | 304 | 251 | 53 | | Havering | 721 | 696 | 25 | 1,269 | 1,123 | 146 | | Hillingdon | 600 | 575 | 25 | 756 | 809 | -53 | | Hounslow | 386 | 468 | -82 | 485 | 508 | -23 | | Islington | 263 | 313 | -50 | 1,396 | 1,077 | 319 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,689 | 1,182 | 507 | 1,330 | 1,104 | 226 | | Kingston upon Thames | 321 | 151 | 170 | 1,228 | 1,125 | 103 | | Lambeth | 1,577 | 1,803 | -226 | 1,884 | 2,226 | -342 | | Lewisham | 369 | 369 | 0 | 801 | 942 | -141 | | Merton | 692 | 692 | 0 | 527 | 527 | 0 | | Newham | 270 | 738 | -468 | 1,945 | 1,445 | 500 | | Redbridge | 1,112 | 951 | 161 | 985 | 813 | 172 | | Richmond upon Thames | 571 | 401 | 170 | 452 | 335 | 117 | | Southwark | 609 | 891 | -282 | 1,267 | 1,628 | -361 | | Sutton | 613 | 538 | 75 | 1,174 | 1,006 | 168 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,358 | 3,700 | -2,342 | 1,371 | 1,623 | -252 | | Waltham Forest | 1,415 | 1,321 | 94 | 837 | 775 | 62 | | Wandsworth | 740 | 724 | 16 | 704 | 657 | 47 | | Westminster | 2,467 | 2,154 | 313 | 2,455 | 2,499 | -44 | | **London** | **28,804**| **31,645**| **-2,841** | **36,645** | **34,671**| **1,974** |
Sources: CLG, Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix data CLG, Housing live table 615 | Borough | Gross conventional supply | Existing homes replaced | Net conventional supply | Conventional component of housing target | Net supply as % of conventional target | |------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 268 | 58 | 210 | 1,191 | 18% | | Barnet | 754 | 83 | 671 | 1,886 | 36% | | Bexley | 374 | 17 | 357 | 338 | 106% | | Brent | 1,002 | 194 | 808 | 915 | 88% | | Bromley | 642 | 89 | 553 | 480 | 115% | | Camden | 671 | 250 | 421 | 437 | 96% | | City of London | 43 | 2 | 41 | 85 | 48% | | Croydon | 1,496 | 125 | 1,371 | 903 | 152% | | Ealing | 588 | 89 | 499 | 833 | 60% | | Enfield | 391 | 114 | 277 | 367 | 75% | | Greenwich | 874 | 326 | 548 | 1,920 | 29% | | Hackney | 1,847 | 220 | 1,627 | 926 | 176% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 995 | 120 | 875 | 393 | 223% | | Haringey | 635 | 94 | 541 | 595 | 91% | | Harrow | 617 | 91 | 526 | 360 | 146% | | Havering | 484 | 57 | 427 | 510 | 84% | | Hillingdon | 666 | 47 | 619 | 317 | 195% | | Hounslow | 676 | 28 | 648 | 434 | 149% | | Islington | 1,633 | 154 | 1,479 | 992 | 149% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 482 | 152 | 330 | 237 | 139% | | Kingston upon Thames | 182 | 43 | 139 | 349 | 40% | | Lambeth | 1,514 | 358 | 1,156 | 1,039 | 111% | | Lewisham | 865 | 85 | 780 | 859 | 91% | | Merton | 404 | 75 | 329 | 352 | 93% | | Newham | 1,581 | 103 | 1,478 | 3,467 | 43% | | Redbridge | 1,055 | 105 | 950 | 901 | 105% | | Richmond upon Thames | 278 | 61 | 217 | 266 | 82% | | Southwark | 1,404 | 63 | 1,341 | 1,103 | 122% | | Sutton | 406 | 202 | 204 | 346 | 59% | | Tower Hamlets | 2,690 | 225 | 2,465 | 2,999 | 82% | | Waltham Forest | 498 | 357 | 141 | 544 | 26% | | Wandsworth | 1,775 | 202 | 1,573 | 692 | 227% | | Westminster | 943 | 254 | 689 | 560 | 123% | | **London** | **28,733** | **4,443** | **24,290** | **27,596** | **88%** |
Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Gross | New build Existing | Gross | Conversions Existing | Gross | Change of use Existing | Gross | Total Existing | Net | New 88% | Con 9% | COU 4% | |------------------------------|-------|--------------------|-------|----------------------|-------|------------------------|-------|---------------|-----|---------|--------|--------| | Barking and Dagenham | 232 | 48 | 184 | 28 | 10 | 18 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 268 | 58 | 210 | | Barnet | 525 | 28 | 497 | 153 | 54 | 99 | 76 | 1 | 75 | 754 | 83 | 671 | | Bexley | 331 | 13 | 318 | 15 | 4 | 11 | 28 | 0 | 28 | 374 | 17 | 357 | | Brent | 737 | 43 | 694 | 173 | 138 | 35 | 92 | 13 | 79 | 1,002 | 194 | 808 | | Bromley | 520 | 49 | 471 | 97 | 38 | 59 | 25 | 2 | 23 | 642 | 89 | 553 | | Camden | 456 | 122 | 334 | 136 | 122 | 14 | 79 | 6 | 73 | 671 | 250 | 421 | | City of London | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 2 | 35 | 43 | 2 | 41 | | Croydon | 1,207 | 61 | 1,146 | 171 | 60 | 111 | 118 | 4 | 114 | 1,496 | 125 | 1,371 | | Ealing | 361 | 13 | 348 | 174 | 71 | 103 | 53 | 5 | 48 | 588 | 89 | 499 | | Enfield | 169 | 42 | 127 | 150 | 64 | 86 | 72 | 8 | 64 | 391 | 114 | 277 | | Greenwich | 405 | 217 | 188 | 112 | 108 | 4 | 357 | 1 | 356 | 874 | 326 | 548 | | Hackney | 1,461 | 56 | 1,405 | 291 | 138 | 153 | 95 | 26 | 69 | 1,847 | 220 | 1,627 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 659 | 3 | 656 | 257 | 116 | 141 | 79 | 1 | 78 | 995 | 120 | 875 | | Haringey | 488 | 39 | 449 | 117 | 53 | 64 | 30 | 2 | 28 | 635 | 94 | 541 | | Harrow | 486 | 41 | 445 | 109 | 47 | 62 | 22 | 3 | 19 | 617 | 91 | 526 | | Havering | 404 | 14 | 390 | 60 | 43 | 17 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 484 | 57 | 427 | | Hillingdon | 460 | 27 | 433 | 40 | 17 | 23 | 166 | 3 | 163 | 666 | 47 | 619 | | Hounslow | 620 | 12 | 608 | 28 | 15 | 13 | 28 | 1 | 27 | 676 | 28 | 648 | | Islington | 1,127 | 49 | 1,078 | 260 | 94 | 166 | 246 | 11 | 235 | 1,633 | 154 | 1,479 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 211 | 11 | 200 | 116 | 139 | -23 | 155 | 2 | 153 | 482 | 152 | 330 | | Kingston upon Thames | 85 | 10 | 75 | 66 | 32 | 34 | 31 | 1 | 30 | 182 | 43 | 139 | | Lambeth | 951 | 150 | 801 | 437 | 189 | 248 | 126 | 19 | 107 | 1,514 | 358 | 1,156 | | Lewisham | 615 | 3 | 612 | 186 | 77 | 109 | 64 | 5 | 59 | 865 | 85 | 780 | | Merton | 276 | 18 | 258 | 105 | 51 | 54 | 23 | 6 | 17 | 404 | 75 | 329 | | Newham | 1,418 | 50 | 1,368 | 97 | 49 | 48 | 66 | 4 | 62 | 1,581 | 103 | 1,478 | | Redbridge | 824 | 31 | 793 | 156 | 72 | 84 | 75 | 2 | 73 | 1,055 | 105 | 950 | | Richmond upon Thames | 177 | 17 | 160 | 57 | 38 | 19 | 44 | 6 | 38 | 278 | 61 | 217 | | Southwark | 1,208 | 11 | 1,197 | 87 | 46 | 41 | 109 | 6 | 103 | 1,404 | 63 | 1,341 | | Sutton | 358 | 175 | 183 | 35 | 21 | 14 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 406 | 202 | 204 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,580 | 174 | 2,406 | 58 | 49 | 9 | 52 | 2 | 50 | 2,690 | 225 | 2,465 | | Waltham Forest | 277 | 301 | -24 | 103 | 52 | 51 | 118 | 4 | 114 | 498 | 357 | 141 | | Wandsworth | 1,457 | 24 | 1,433 | 241 | 173 | 68 | 77 | 5 | 72 | 1,775 | 202 | 1,573 | | Westminster | 473 | 59 | 414 | 194 | 154 | 40 | 276 | 41 | 235 | 943 | 254 | 689 | | **London** | **21,564** | **1,911** | **19,653** | **4,309** | **2,334** | **1,975** | **2,860** | **198** | **2,662** | **28,733** | **4,443** | **24,290** | **81%** | **8%** | **11%** |
London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 7 – February 2011 Table HPM 5 Borough Name Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden City of London Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster London
Net conventional affordable housing supply by tenure, 2007/08 to 2009/10 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2007/08 to 2009/10 Social Intermed Total Social Intermed Total Social Intermed Total Social Intermed Total Social % Rented iate Rented iate Rented iate Rented iate 99 119 218 56 101 157 -1 26 25 154 246 400 39% 14 40 54 237 77 314 126 28 154 377 145 522 72% 90 44 134 51 51 160 79 239 301 123 424 71% 384 39 423 292 297 589 241 173 414 917 509 1,426 64% 115 152 267 125 52 177 121 103 224 361 307 668 54% 42 73 115 148 254 402 133 83 216 323 410 733 44% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 355 270 625 278 138 416 394 302 696 1,027 710 1,737 59% 288 124 412 91 218 309 133 150 283 512 492 1,004 51% 305 139 444 63 10 73 24 6 30 392 155 547 72% 92 169 261 52 187 239 -15 156 141 129 512 641 20% 230 442 672 423 492 915 334 277 611 987 1,211 2,198 45% 40 197 237 197 115 312 148 293 441 385 605 990 39% 106 105 211 143 196 339 147 126 273 396 427 823 48% 41 75 116 76 152 228 129 80 209 246 307 553 44% 100 25 125 109 192 301 30 254 284 239 471 710 34% 72 84 156 135 44 179 127 62 189 334 190 524 64% 162 483 645 171 161 332 215 166 381 548 810 1,358 40% 548 585 1,133 275 54 329 408 62 470 1,231 701 1,932 64% 12 1 13 68 28 96 18 4 22 98 33 131 75% 80 29 109 0 0 0 30 0 30 110 29 139 79% 164 183 347 341 244 585 265 152 417 770 579 1,349 57% 105 128 233 66 139 205 87 81 168 258 348 606 43% 109 135 244 200 65 265 30 19 49 339 219 558 61% 145 292 437 188 402 590 227 485 712 560 1,179 1,739 32% 16 38 54 79 18 97 91 84 175 186 140 326 57% 75 38 113 87 48 135 65 11 76 227 97 324 70% 63 474 537 169 145 314 416 284 700 648 903 1,551 42% 183 10 193 146 97 243 -35 20 -15 294 127 421 70% 622 165 787 529 933 1,462 379 266 645 1,530 1,364 2,894 53% 138 98 236 266 32 298 -139 9 -130 265 139 404 66% 22 287 309 88 394 482 25 454 479 135 1,135 1,270 11% 353 18 371 139 92 231 312 73 385 804 183 987 81% 5,170 5,061 10,231 5,288 5,377 10,665 4,625 4,368 8,993 15,083 14,806 29,889 50%
London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 7 – February 2011
94
### Table HPM 6
**Gross conventional housing completions by tenure and number of bedrooms, London 2009/10**
| Tenure | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | |-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 1,744 | 2,127 | 1,436 | 564 | 5,871 | | Intermediate | 2,078 | 2,013 | 242 | 137 | 4,470 | | Market | 7,981 | 7,751 | 1,845 | 815 | 18,392| | **Total** | **11,803** | **11,891** | **3,523** | **1,516** | **28,733** |
| As % of total | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | |---------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 30% | 36% | 24% | 10% | 100% | | Intermediate | 46% | 45% | 5% | 3% | 100% | | Market | 43% | 42% | 10% | 4% | 100% | | **Total** | **41%** | **41%** | **12%** | **5%** | **100%** |
Source for Table HPM 4, Table HPM 5 and Table HPM 6: London Development Database | | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | % 3+ bed | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------|----------| | Barking and Dagenham | 10 | 51 | 6 | 2 | 69 | 12% | | Barnet | 25 | 87 | 36 | 6 | 154 | 27% | | Bexley | 71 | 115 | 50 | 3 | 239 | 22% | | Brent | 149 | 179 | 80 | 52 | 460 | 29% | | Bromley | 56 | 120 | 34 | 14 | 224 | 21% | | Camden | 84 | 70 | 45 | 20 | 219 | 30% | | City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | Croydon | 169 | 406 | 92 | 51 | 718 | 20% | | Ealing | 99 | 107 | 59 | 20 | 285 | 28% | | Enfield | 35 | 13 | 9 | 2 | 59 | 19% | | Greenwich | 204 | 177 | 43 | 7 | 431 | 12% | | Hackney | 159 | 243 | 141 | 100 | 643 | 37% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 209 | 143 | 82 | 8 | 442 | 20% | | Haringey | 67 | 121 | 55 | 30 | 273 | 31% | | Harrow | 108 | 77 | 34 | 8 | 227 | 19% | | Havering | 125 | 76 | 44 | 70 | 315 | 36% | | Hillingdon | 91 | 94 | 4 | 0 | 189 | 2% | | Hounslow | 108 | 193 | 76 | 4 | 381 | 21% | | Islington | 210 | 169 | 99 | 27 | 505 | 25% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 4 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 22 | 55% | | Kingston upon Thames | 9 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 50% | | Lambeth | 145 | 260 | 62 | 24 | 491 | 18% | | Lewisham | 90 | 65 | 6 | 8 | 169 | 8% | | Merton | 23 | 23 | 3 | 0 | 49 | 6% | | Newham | 344 | 323 | 57 | 23 | 747 | 11% | | Redbridge | 63 | 56 | 31 | 25 | 175 | 32% | | Richmond upon Thames | 12 | 51 | 12 | 1 | 76 | 17% | | Southwark | 225 | 305 | 137 | 41 | 708 | 25% | | Sutton | 55 | 32 | 50 | 0 | 137 | 36% | | Tower Hamlets | 322 | 270 | 167 | 57 | 816 | 27% | | Waltham Forest | 108 | 28 | 11 | 22 | 169 | 20% | | Wandsworth | 315 | 129 | 26 | 47 | 517 | 14% | | Westminster | 128 | 145 | 113 | 16 | 402 | 32% | | **London** | **3,822** | **4,140** | **1,678** | **701** | **10,341** | **23%** |
Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Existing | Proposed | Net | Affordable | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|------------| | | Social Rented | Intermediates | Market | Social Rented | Intermediates | Market | Total | % | | Barking and Dagenham | 234 | 0 | 31 | 119 | 174 | 341 | -115 | 174 | 310 | 369 | 16% | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 206 | 635 | 431 | 2,196 | 635 | 431 | 1,990 | 3,056 | 35% | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 23 | 52 | 12 | 225 | 52 | 12 | 202 | 266 | 24% | | Brent | 351 | 0 | 122 | 791 | 323 | 956 | 440 | 323 | 834 | 1,597 | 48% | | Bromley | 243 | 0 | 137 | 166 | 25 | 880 | -77 | 25 | 743 | 691 | -8% | | Camden | 183 | 0 | 269 | 288 | 69 | 751 | 105 | 69 | 482 | 656 | 27% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 4 | 23 | 0 | 52 | 23 | 0 | 48 | 71 | 32% | | Croydon | 20 | 0 | 139 | 299 | 52 | 1,210 | 279 | 52 | 1,071 | 1,402 | 24% | | Ealing | 90 | 1 | 197 | 316 | 206 | 1,235 | 226 | 205 | 1,038 | 1,469 | 29% | | Enfield | 0 | 143 | 108 | 124 | 159 | 393 | 124 | 16 | 285 | 425 | 33% | | Greenwich | 1,908 | 0 | 35 | 1,271 | 942 | 3,767 | -637 | 942 | 3,732 | 4,037 | 8% | | Hackney | 136 | 0 | 96 | 788 | 388 | 1,756 | 652 | 388 | 1,660 | 2,700 | 39% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0 | 0 | 96 | 0 | 207 | 806 | 0 | 207 | 710 | 917 | 23% | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 124 | 125 | 150 | 430 | 125 | 150 | 306 | 581 | 47% | | Harrow | 152 | 0 | 79 | 205 | 73 | 669 | 53 | 73 | 590 | 716 | 18% | | Havering | 466 | 1 | 82 | 549 | 35 | 838 | 83 | 34 | 756 | 873 | 13% | | Hillingdon | 0 | 0 | 45 | 120 | 42 | 487 | 120 | 42 | 442 | 604 | 27% | | Hounslow | 88 | 0 | 84 | 99 | 45 | 379 | 11 | 45 | 295 | 351 | 16% | | Islington | 172 | 6 | 116 | 443 | 288 | 1,621 | 271 | 282 | 1,505 | 2,058 | 27% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 538 | 1 | 181 | 546 | 39 | 673 | 8 | 38 | 492 | 538 | 9% | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 1 | 71 | 53 | 17 | 229 | 53 | 16 | 158 | 227 | 30% | | Lambeth | 16 | 0 | 162 | 163 | 149 | 690 | 147 | 149 | 528 | 824 | 36% | | Lewisham | 613 | 0 | 252 | 793 | 435 | 2,938 | 180 | 435 | 2,686 | 3,301 | 19% | | Merton | 0 | 0 | 98 | 53 | 62 | 545 | 53 | 62 | 447 | 562 | 20% | | Newham | 13 | 0 | 53 | 1,036 | 593 | 3,031 | 1,023 | 593 | 2,978 | 4,594 | 35% | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 22 | 7 | 27 | 366 | 7 | 27 | 344 | 378 | 9% | | Richmond upon Thames | 4 | 0 | 84 | 46 | 1 | 292 | 42 | 1 | 208 | 251 | 17% | | Southwark | 170 | 2 | 82 | 613 | 245 | 1,209 | 443 | 243 | 1,127 | 1,813 | 38% | | Sutton | 38 | 0 | 73 | 175 | 38 | 298 | 137 | 38 | 225 | 400 | 44% | | Tower Hamlets | 334 | 1 | 205 | 1,322 | 666 | 4,000 | 988 | 665 | 3,795 | 5,448 | 30% | | Waltham Forest | 118 | 0 | 37 | 248 | 105 | 295 | 130 | 105 | 258 | 493 | 48% | | Wandsworth | 3 | 0 | 182 | 194 | 179 | 1,055 | 191 | 179 | 873 | 1,243 | 30% | | Westminster | 4 | 0 | 291 | 135 | 30 | 1,337 | 131 | 30 | 1,046 | 1,207 | 13% | | **London** | **5,894**| **156** | **3,786** | **11,797** | **6,207** | **35,950** | **5,903** | **6,051** | **32,164** | **44,118** | **27%** |
Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Gross | New Build | Existing | Net | Gross | Conversions | Existing | Net | Gross | Change of use | Existing | Net | Gross | All | Existing | Net | |------------------------------|-------|-----------|----------|-----|-------|------------|----------|-----|-------|--------------|----------|-----|-------|-----|----------|-----| | Barking and Dagenham | 553 | 259 | 294 | | 6 | 3 | 3 | | 75 | 3 | 72 | | 634 | 265 | 369 | | Barnet | 2,944 | 82 | 2,862 | | 257 | 117 | 140 | | 61 | 7 | 54 | | 3,262 | 206 | 3,056 | | Bexley | 238 | 6 | 232 | | 26 | 12 | 14 | | 25 | 5 | 20 | | 289 | 23 | 266 | | Brent | 1,958 | 400 | 1,558 | | 89 | 65 | 24 | | 23 | 8 | 15 | | 2,070 | 473 | 1,597 | | Bromley | 885 | 286 | 599 | | 124 | 79 | 45 | | 62 | 15 | 47 | | 1,071 | 380 | 691 | | Camden | 615 | 134 | 481 | | 275 | 288 | -13 | | 218 | 30 | 188 | | 1,108 | 452 | 656 | | City of London | 4 | 0 | 4 | | 11 | 1 | 10 | | 60 | 3 | 57 | | 75 | 4 | 71 | | Croydon | 1,235 | 68 | 1,167 | | 227 | 78 | 149 | | 99 | 13 | 86 | | 1,561 | 159 | 1,402 | | Ealing | 1,262 | 121 | 1,141 | | 254 | 146 | 108 | | 241 | 21 | 220 | | 1,757 | 288 | 1,469 | | Enfield | 464 | 163 | 301 | | 161 | 71 | 90 | | 51 | 17 | 34 | | 676 | 251 | 425 | | Greenwich | 5,649 | 1,920 | 3,729 | | 39 | 14 | 25 | | 292 | 9 | 283 | | 5,980 | 1,943 | 4,037 | | Hackney | 2,644 | 143 | 2,501 | | 205 | 81 | 124 | | 83 | 8 | 75 | | 2,932 | 232 | 2,700 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 723 | 16 | 707 | | 166 | 78 | 88 | | 124 | 2 | 122 | | 1,013 | 96 | 917 | | Haringey | 448 | 45 | 403 | | 162 | 78 | 84 | | 95 | 1 | 94 | | 705 | 124 | 581 | | Harrow | 822 | 186 | 636 | | 98 | 40 | 58 | | 27 | 5 | 22 | | 947 | 231 | 716 | | Havering | 1,337 | 524 | 813 | | 49 | 20 | 29 | | 36 | 5 | 31 | | 1,422 | 549 | 873 | | Hillingdon | 576 | 29 | 547 | | 38 | 12 | 26 | | 35 | 4 | 31 | | 649 | 45 | 604 | | Hounslow | 461 | 94 | 367 | | 39 | 31 | 8 | | 23 | 47 | -24 | | 523 | 172 | 351 | | Islington | 1,988 | 181 | 1,807 | | 229 | 104 | 125 | | 135 | 9 | 126 | | 2,352 | 294 | 2,058 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,045 | 581 | 464 | | 118 | 118 | 0 | | 95 | 21 | 74 | | 1,258 | 720 | 538 | | Kingston upon Thames | 223 | 24 | 199 | | 59 | 43 | 16 | | 16 | 4 | 12 | | 298 | 71 | 227 | | Lambeth | 654 | 5 | 649 | | 282 | 157 | 125 | | 66 | 16 | 50 | | 1,002 | 178 | 824 | | Lewisham | 3,846 | 759 | 3,087 | | 216 | 97 | 119 | | 104 | 9 | 95 | | 4,166 | 865 | 3,301 | | Merton | 549 | 39 | 510 | | 68 | 54 | 14 | | 43 | 5 | 38 | | 660 | 98 | 562 | | Newham | 4,504 | 0 | 4,504 | | 106 | 61 | 45 | | 50 | 5 | 45 | | 4,660 | 66 | 4,594 | | Redbridge | 363 | 3 | 360 | | 21 | 14 | 7 | | 16 | 5 | 11 | | 400 | 22 | 378 | | Richmond upon Thames | 206 | 28 | 178 | | 94 | 54 | 40 | | 39 | 6 | 33 | | 339 | 88 | 251 | | Southwark | 1,839 | 152 | 1,687 | | 144 | 92 | 52 | | 84 | 10 | 74 | | 2,067 | 254 | 1,813 | | Sutton | 417 | 49 | 368 | | 67 | 46 | 21 | | 27 | 16 | 11 | | 511 | 111 | 400 | | Tower Hamlets | 5,926 | 475 | 5,451 | | 40 | 16 | 24 | | 22 | 49 | -27 | | 5,988 | 540 | 5,448 | | Waltham Forest | 500 | 124 | 376 | | 67 | 27 | 40 | | 81 | 4 | 77 | | 648 | 155 | 493 | | Wandsworth | 1,095 | 28 | 1,067 | | 203 | 148 | 55 | | 130 | 9 | 121 | | 1,428 | 185 | 1,243 | | Westminster | 958 | 121 | 837 | | 193 | 132 | 61 | | 351 | 42 | 309 | | 1,502 | 295 | 1,207 | | **London** | **46,931** | **7,045** | **39,886** | **4,133** | **2,377** | **1,756** | **2,889** | **413** | **2,476** | **53,953** | **9,835** | **44,118** |
Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Social Rented | Intermediate | Market | Grand Total | % Affordable | |----------------------|---------------|--------------|--------|-------------|--------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 354 | 324 | 896 | 1,574 | 43% | | Barnet | 65 | 351 | 632 | 1,048 | 40% | | Bexley | 144 | 12 | 242 | 398 | 39% | | Brent | 46 | 198 | 581 | 825 | 30% | | Bromley | 186 | 39 | 281 | 506 | 44% | | Camden | 38 | 30 | 275 | 343 | 20% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 290 | 290 | 0% | | Croydon | 237 | 82 | 503 | 822 | 39% | | Ealing | 43 | 67 | 246 | 356 | 31% | | Enfield | 13 | 32 | 224 | 269 | 17% | | Greenwich | 753 | 358 | 1,920 | 3,031 | 37% | | Hackney | 509 | 275 | 1,212 | 1,996 | 39% | | Hammersmith and Fulham| 39 | 148 | 279 | 466 | 40% | | Haringey | 12 | 4 | 183 | 199 | 8% | | Harrow | -38 | 48 | 162 | 172 | 6% | | Havering | 75 | 28 | 171 | 274 | 38% | | Hillingdon | 190 | 84 | 571 | 845 | 32% | | Hounslow | 62 | 41 | 164 | 267 | 39% | | Islington | 141 | 221 | 1,012 | 1,374 | 26% | | Kensington and Chelsea| 129 | 61 | 427 | 617 | 31% | | Kingston upon Thames | 54 | 0 | 70 | 124 | 44% | | Lambeth | 43 | 133 | 686 | 862 | 20% | | Lewisham | 23 | 95 | 279 | 397 | 30% | | Merton | 79 | 61 | 330 | 470 | 30% | | Newham | 818 | 486 | 2,258 | 3,562 | 37% | | Redbridge | 47 | 27 | 319 | 393 | 19% | | Richmond upon Thames | 54 | 9 | 199 | 262 | 24% | | Southwark | 180 | 122 | 633 | 935 | 32% | | Sutton | 77 | 58 | 525 | 660 | 20% | | Tower Hamlets | 386 | 223 | 1,521 | 2,130 | 29% | | Waltham Forest | 24 | 14 | 194 | 232 | 16% | | Wandsworth | 42 | 159 | 514 | 715 | 28% | | Westminster | 62 | 22 | 232 | 316 | 27% | | **London** | **4,887** | **3,812** | **18,031** | **26,730** | **33%** |
Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Gross | Existing | Net | Gross | Conversions | Existing | Net | Gross | Change of use | Existing | Net | Gross | All | Existing | Net | |------------------------------|-------|----------|-------|-------|------------|----------|-------|-------|--------------|----------|-------|-------|-----|----------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 1,709 | 260 | 1,449 | 16 | 6 | 10 | 115 | 0 | 115 | 1,840 | 266 | 1,574 | | Barnet | 1,616 | 609 | 1,007 | 38 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 1 | 21 | 1,676 | 628 | 1,048 | | Bexley | 404 | 18 | 386 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 422 | 24 | 398 | | Brent | 1,181 | 445 | 736 | 145 | 104 | 41 | 62 | 14 | 48 | 1,388 | 563 | 825 | | Bromley | 454 | 37 | 417 | 125 | 79 | 46 | 49 | 6 | 43 | 628 | 122 | 506 | | Camden | 271 | 12 | 259 | 117 | 129 | -12 | 114 | 18 | 96 | 502 | 159 | 343 | | City of London | 284 | 14 | 270 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 20 | 307 | 17 | 290 | | Croydon | 529 | 27 | 502 | 238 | 79 | 159 | 165 | 4 | 161 | 932 | 110 | 822 | | Ealing | 296 | 111 | 185 | 146 | 64 | 82 | 91 | 2 | 89 | 533 | 177 | 356 | | Enfield | 173 | 44 | 129 | 148 | 65 | 83 | 63 | 6 | 57 | 384 | 115 | 269 | | Greenwich | 2,742 | 9 | 2,733 | 40 | 18 | 22 | 281 | 5 | 276 | 3,063 | 32 | 3,031 | | Hackney | 1,862 | 95 | 1,767 | 301 | 135 | 166 | 98 | 35 | 63 | 2,261 | 265 | 1,996 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 280 | 2 | 278 | 201 | 91 | 110 | 79 | 1 | 78 | 560 | 94 | 466 | | Haringey | 114 | 13 | 101 | 118 | 56 | 62 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 270 | 71 | 199 | | Harrow | 321 | 225 | 96 | 95 | 40 | 55 | 27 | 6 | 21 | 443 | 271 | 172 | | Havering | 345 | 100 | 245 | 27 | 12 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 14 | 387 | 113 | 274 | | Hillingdon | 620 | 12 | 608 | 38 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 2 | 16 | 876 | 31 | 845 | | Hounslow | 178 | 9 | 169 | 24 | 9 | 15 | 92 | 9 | 83 | 294 | 27 | 267 | | Islington | 1,258 | 198 | 1,060 | 187 | 70 | 117 | 209 | 12 | 197 | 1,654 | 280 | 1,374 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 531 | 13 | 518 | 81 | 61 | 20 | 79 | 0 | 79 | 691 | 74 | 617 | | Kingston upon Thames | 121 | 17 | 104 | 42 | 26 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 167 | 43 | 124 | | Lambeth | 892 | 188 | 704 | 217 | 96 | 121 | 49 | 12 | 37 | 1,158 | 296 | 862 | | Lewisham | 383 | 99 | 284 | 145 | 70 | 75 | 44 | 6 | 38 | 572 | 175 | 397 | | Merton | 448 | 27 | 421 | 72 | 33 | 39 | 14 | 4 | 10 | 534 | 64 | 470 | | Newham | 3,508 | 23 | 3,485 | 80 | 41 | 39 | 45 | 7 | 38 | 3,633 | 71 | 3,562 | | Redbridge | 384 | 2 | 382 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 403 | 10 | 393 | | Richmond upon Thames | 222 | 29 | 193 | 80 | 53 | 27 | 48 | 6 | 42 | 350 | 88 | 262 | | Southwark | 835 | 18 | 817 | 86 | 45 | 41 | 84 | 7 | 77 | 1,005 | 70 | 935 | | Sutton | 958 | 320 | 638 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 998 | 338 | 660 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,304 | 221 | 2,083 | 30 | 16 | 14 | 34 | 1 | 33 | 2,368 | 238 | 2,130 | | Waltham Forest | 103 | 2 | 101 | 77 | 32 | 45 | 89 | 3 | 86 | 269 | 37 | 232 | | Wandsworth | 547 | 24 | 523 | 247 | 193 | 54 | 143 | 5 | 138 | 937 | 222 | 715 | | Westminster | 193 | 50 | 143 | 134 | 80 | 54 | 138 | 19 | 119 | 465 | 149 | 316 | | **London** | **26,266** | **3,273** | **22,993** | **3,341** | **1,759** | **1,582** | **2,363** | **208** | **2,155** | **31,970** | **5,240** | **26,730** |
Source: London Development Database | London Borough | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | |---------------|----------|----------|-----|----------|----------|-----|----------|----------|-----| | Barking and Dagenham | 11,584 | 29 | 11,555 | 1,911 | 268 | 1,643 | 13,495 | 297 | 13,198 | | Barnet | 7,272 | 1,345 | 5,927 | 2,456 | 826 | 1,630 | 9,728 | 2,171 | 7,557 | | Bexley | 1,176 | 41 | 1,135 | 488 | 45 | 443 | 1,664 | 86 | 1,578 | | Brent | 6,107 | 337 | 5,770 | 1,671 | 516 | 1,155 | 7,778 | 853 | 6,925 | | Bromley | 2,716 | 487 | 2,229 | 995 | 205 | 790 | 3,711 | 692 | 3,019 | | Camden | 1,570 | 531 | 1,039 | 2,909 | 364 | 2,545 | 4,479 | 895 | 3,584 | | City of London | 187 | 9 | 178 | 392 | 17 | 375 | 579 | 26 | 553 | | Croydon | 4,135 | 335 | 3,800 | 2,137 | 133 | 2,004 | 6,272 | 468 | 5,804 | | Ealing | 2,290 | 248 | 2,042 | 1,280 | 543 | 737 | 3,570 | 791 | 2,779 | | Enfield | 1,405 | 341 | 1,064 | 1,166 | 108 | 1,058 | 2,571 | 449 | 2,122 | | Greenwich | 20,173 | 2,023 | 18,150 | 6,377 | 110 | 6,267 | 26,550 | 2,133 | 24,417 | | Hackney | 3,366 | 833 | 2,533 | 2,574 | 229 | 2,345 | 5,940 | 1,062 | 4,878 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,790 | 193 | 1,597 | 356 | 25 | 331 | 2,146 | 218 | 1,928 | | Haringey | 1,375 | 215 | 1,160 | 1,602 | 155 | 1,447 | 2,977 | 370 | 2,607 | | Harrow | 1,398 | 305 | 1,093 | 1,629 | 428 | 1,201 | 3,027 | 733 | 2,294 | | Havering | 1,749 | 508 | 1,241 | 1,073 | 126 | 947 | 2,822 | 634 | 2,188 | | Hillingdon | 1,067 | 113 | 954 | 2,629 | 89 | 2,540 | 3,696 | 202 | 3,494 | | Hounslow | 1,395 | 202 | 1,193 | 1,857 | 237 | 1,620 | 3,252 | 439 | 2,813 | | Islington | 4,452 | 534 | 3,918 | 2,059 | 458 | 1,601 | 6,511 | 992 | 5,519 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,906 | 886 | 1,020 | 834 | 95 | 739 | 2,740 | 981 | 1,759 | | Kingston upon Thames | 1,012 | 140 | 872 | 386 | 60 | 326 | 1,398 | 200 | 1,198 | | Lambeth | 4,966 | 1,402 | 3,564 | 2,488 | 256 | 2,232 | 7,454 | 1,658 | 5,796 | | Lewisham | 5,489 | 902 | 4,587 | 1,429 | 205 | 1,224 | 6,918 | 1,107 | 5,811 | | Merton | 1,059 | 159 | 900 | 1,075 | 69 | 1,006 | 2,134 | 228 | 1,906 | | Newham | 12,806 | 308 | 12,498 | 5,316 | 48 | 5,268 | 18,122 | 356 | 17,766 | | Redbridge | 758 | 125 | 633 | 1,203 | 45 | 1,158 | 1,961 | 170 | 1,791 | | Richmond upon Thames | 696 | 140 | 556 | 736 | 148 | 588 | 1,432 | 288 | 1,144 | | Southwark | 5,087 | 305 | 4,782 | 2,841 | 161 | 2,680 | 7,928 | 466 | 7,462 | | Sutton | 930 | 120 | 810 | 971 | 326 | 645 | 1,901 | 446 | 1,455 | | Tower Hamlets | 10,375 | 683 | 9,692 | 10,693 | 664 | 10,029 | 21,068 | 1,347 | 19,721 | | Waltham Forest | 1,214 | 254 | 960 | 506 | 41 | 465 | 1,720 | 295 | 1,425 | | Wandsworth | 2,981 | 293 | 2,688 | 1,754 | 167 | 1,587 | 4,735 | 460 | 4,275 | | Westminster | 2,383 | 533 | 1,850 | 1,711 | 281 | 1,430 | 4,094 | 814 | 3,280 | | **London** | **126,869** | **14,879** | **111,990** | **67,504** | **7,448** | **60,056** | **194,373** | **22,327** | **172,046** |
Source: London Development Database Map HPM 3 Net conventional affordable housing supply as % of total net conventional supply, 2007/08 to 2009/10
Map HPM 4 Housing pipeline: Net homes not started or under construction, as at 31 March 2010 Affordable housing delivery monitor
As explained in the introduction to this Housing Provision Monitor, the measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. It is therefore typically considerably higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.
This section monitors affordable housing delivery in London against the targets set out in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy: Policy 1.1B: The current investment programme will deliver 50,000 affordable homes in London over the four years 2008/09 to 2011/2012. Policy 1.2A: Of the 50,000 affordable homes to be delivered, 20,000 will be intermediate homes. Policy 1.3A: Of the 50,000 affordable homes to be delivered, 30,000 will be social rented homes.
The data source for monitoring these targets is the set of statistics on ‘affordable housing supply’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. These statistics are compiled from a range of sources, but the vast majority of delivery in recent years has been funded the Homes and Communities Agency. DCLG report data on the basis of where the affordable homes were located and separately according to the ‘area providing funding’. In practice this distinction primarily arises when a household from one local authority (the area providing funding) purchases an intermediate affordable home in another.
Table AHM 1 below shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the three years 2007/08 to 2009/10. Over this period a total of 41,750 homes were delivered, of which 21,300 were social housing and 20,460 were intermediate housing. As DCLG publish their statistics approximately six months after the end of each financial year, performance against the four-year targets in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy will be assessed in late 2012.
Figure AHM 1 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at just over 17,000 in 1995/96, fell to 8,290 in 1999/2000 and rose again to a recent peak of 15,110 in 2007/08.
Figure AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London, 1991/92 to 2009/10
Source: CLG
______________________________________________________________________
12 See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable 13 Data from Housing Live Table 1000 Table AHM 2 shows delivery of social and intermediate housing by London borough in 2009/10, broken down first by area providing funding and then by area where homes are located. On both measures the borough with the highest affordable housing delivery was Tower Hamlets, followed by Hackney and Croydon. There was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social and intermediate housing.
Table AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2007/08 to 2009/10
| | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | Total | |--------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|--------| | **Social Rent, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 7,910 | 6,310 | 7,080 | 21,300 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 5,140 | 4,140 | 5,300 | 14,580 | | Other Homes and Communities Agency Schemes | 1,950 | 1,760 | 1,400 | 5,110 | | Local authorities (new build) | 250 | 170 | 60 | 480 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 30 | 10 | 10 | 50 | | of which: IMS only | 90 | 20 | 30 | 140 | | Private Finance Initiative | - | 40 | 20 | 60 | | **Intermediate Affordable Housing** | 7,200 | 6,770 | 6,490 | 20,460 | | **Intermediate Rent, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 720 | 470 | 810 | 2,000 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 680 | 460 | 740 | 1,880 | | **Low Cost Home Ownership, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 6,480 | 6,300 | 5,680 | 18,460 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 3,970 | 3,420 | 3,020 | 10,410 | | Other Homes and Communities Agency Schemes | 770 | 1,280 | 1,460 | 3,510 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 40 | - | - | 40 | | of which: IMS only | 230 | 170 | 240 | 640 | | Assisted Purchase Schemes | 980 | 1,200 | 730 | 2,910 | | **All affordable** | 15,110 | 13,070 | 13,570 | 41,750 |
See DCLG Live Table 1000 for sources and notes http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/affordablehousingsupply/livetables/ | Borough | By area providing funding | By area where homes located | |-------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------| | | Social | Intermediate | Total | Social | Intermediate | Total | | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 90 | 150 | 60 | 120 | 180 | | Barnet | 80 | 130 | 210 | 80 | 130 | 210 | | Bexley | 150 | 100 | 250 | 150 | 120 | 270 | | Brent | 430 | 210 | 640 | 390 | 180 | 570 | | Bromley | 150 | 170 | 320 | 140 | 180 | 320 | | Camden | 120 | 130 | 250 | 120 | 100 | 220 | | Croydon | 470 | 510 | 980 | 480 | 530 | 1,010 | | City of London | 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 10 | | Ealing | 210 | 160 | 370 | 250 | 150 | 400 | | Enfield | 120 | 100 | 220 | 120 | 100 | 220 | | Greenwich | 240 | 150 | 390 | 240 | 150 | 390 | | Hackney | 610 | 670 | 1,280 | 610 | 650 | 1,260 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 160 | 420 | 580 | 160 | 400 | 560 | | Haringey | 160 | 150 | 310 | 160 | 140 | 300 | | Harrow | 150 | 140 | 290 | 150 | 140 | 290 | | Havering | 0 | 70 | 70 | 0 | 100 | 100 | | Hillingdon | 250 | 150 | 400 | 250 | 160 | 410 | | Hounslow | 190 | 260 | 450 | 190 | 250 | 440 | | Islington | 210 | 140 | 350 | 210 | 110 | 320 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 10 | 40 | 50 | 10 | 20 | 30 | | Kingston upon Thames | 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 50 | 80 | | Lambeth | 420 | 290 | 710 | 420 | 270 | 690 | | Lewisham | 170 | 160 | 330 | 170 | 160 | 330 | | Merton | 40 | 50 | 90 | 40 | 50 | 90 | | Newham | 260 | 470 | 730 | 260 | 440 | 700 | | Redbridge | 170 | 160 | 330 | 170 | 170 | 340 | | Richmond upon Thames | 30 | 20 | 50 | 30 | 30 | 60 | | Southwark | 400 | 270 | 670 | 400 | 250 | 650 | | Sutton | 60 | 50 | 110 | 60 | 80 | 140 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,260 | 760 | 2,020 | 1,260 | 730 | 1,990 | | Waltham Forest | 150 | 90 | 240 | 150 | 100 | 250 | | Wandsworth | 20 | 260 | 280 | 20 | 250 | 270 | | Westminster | 290 | 220 | 510 | 290 | 180 | 470 | | **London** | **7,070** | **6,670** | **13,740** | **7,070** | **6,500** | **13,570** | Map AHM 1 Affordable housing delivery (by area where homes located), 2009/10
Source: The London Development Database © Crown copyright; all rights reserved. Crown London Authority 100032979 (2011)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1028-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 112,
"total-input-tokens": 287595,
"total-output-tokens": 100401,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
4802,
3
],
[
4802,
8304,
4
],
[
8304,
10431,
5
],
[
10431,
14138,
6
],
[
14138,
17767,
7
],
[
17767,
20260,
8
],
[
20260,
22569,
9
],
[
22569,
25377,
10
],
[
25377,
29399,
11
],
[
29399,
32471,
12
],
[
32471,
36229,
13
],
[
36229,
36730,
14
],
[
36730,
38655,
15
],
[
38655,
41473,
16
],
[
41473,
42922,
17
],
[
42922,
46296,
18
],
[
46296,
49985,
19
],
[
49985,
52444,
20
],
[
52444,
56087,
21
],
[
56087,
60258,
22
],
[
60258,
63499,
23
],
[
63499,
65482,
24
],
[
65482,
67763,
25
],
[
67763,
70851,
26
],
[
70851,
74364,
27
],
[
74364,
77576,
28
],
[
77576,
78929,
29
],
[
78929,
82014,
30
],
[
82014,
86554,
31
],
[
86554,
88900,
32
],
[
88900,
89711,
33
],
[
89711,
92823,
34
],
[
92823,
95738,
35
],
[
95738,
101835,
36
],
[
101835,
106294,
37
],
[
106294,
111670,
38
],
[
111670,
114108,
39
],
[
114108,
117520,
40
],
[
117520,
123729,
41
],
[
123729,
129076,
42
],
[
129076,
131169,
43
],
[
131169,
137433,
44
],
[
137433,
144972,
45
],
[
144972,
147877,
46
],
[
147877,
152759,
47
],
[
152759,
153534,
48
],
[
153534,
159396,
49
],
[
159396,
164059,
50
],
[
164059,
166618,
51
],
[
166618,
168292,
52
],
[
168292,
171723,
53
],
[
171723,
174033,
54
],
[
174033,
177860,
55
],
[
177860,
178365,
56
],
[
178365,
181306,
57
],
[
181306,
183789,
58
],
[
183789,
186205,
59
],
[
186205,
197232,
60
],
[
197232,
199730,
61
],
[
199730,
202485,
62
],
[
202485,
205881,
63
],
[
205881,
208828,
64
],
[
208828,
212282,
65
],
[
212282,
215351,
66
],
[
215351,
219142,
67
],
[
219142,
222293,
68
],
[
222293,
226106,
69
],
[
226106,
229183,
70
],
[
229183,
230486,
71
],
[
230486,
232075,
72
],
[
232075,
235285,
73
],
[
235285,
236879,
74
],
[
236879,
241809,
75
],
[
241809,
246665,
76
],
[
246665,
249734,
77
],
[
249734,
253891,
78
],
[
253891,
257323,
79
],
[
257323,
258782,
80
],
[
258782,
261317,
81
],
[
261317,
265185,
82
],
[
265185,
269379,
83
],
[
269379,
274462,
84
],
[
274462,
278729,
85
],
[
278729,
282427,
86
],
[
282427,
285282,
87
],
[
285282,
288375,
88
],
[
288375,
292488,
89
],
[
292488,
294318,
90
],
[
294318,
297488,
91
],
[
297488,
300006,
92
],
[
300006,
302412,
93
],
[
302412,
306089,
94
],
[
306089,
310981,
95
],
[
310981,
315752,
96
],
[
315752,
322847,
97
],
[
322847,
329552,
98
],
[
329552,
331978,
99
],
[
331978,
332890,
100
],
[
332890,
335550,
101
],
[
335550,
340406,
102
],
[
340406,
346694,
103
],
[
346694,
350119,
104
],
[
350119,
355604,
105
],
[
355604,
358607,
106
],
[
358607,
358607,
107
],
[
358607,
358814,
108
],
[
358814,
361387,
109
],
[
361387,
363850,
110
],
[
363850,
367289,
111
],
[
367289,
367486,
112
]
]
} |
1c418623938d35981d88c082e4112b72e3c8290f | London Councils Annual Review 2015/16
Contents
01. Foreword, Mayor Jules Pipe
02. About London Councils
03. Adding value for London boroughs
04. Advancing London local government
05. Devolution and Public Service Reform
06. Finance and Resources
07. Housing and Planning
08. Transport, Environment and Infrastructure
09. Economic Growth and Regeneration
10. Education and Children
11. Health and Social Care
12. Policing and Crime
13. Transport and Mobility Services
14. Young People's Education and Skills
15. Capital Ambition
16. Community Services and Grants
17. London Self Improvement Board
18. London Procurement Strategy Board
19. Events and Awards
20. Keeping you informed
21. Income and Expenditure
22. Executive Members
Please note that the 2015/16 London Councils Annual Review will be an online only edition available at www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/review-15-16 Foreword
At the same time as London’s newly elected Mayor takes office, it is worth reflecting back on the journey that London local government – the Mayor and the 32 London boroughs and the City of London – has been making in recent years, and particularly the significant milestones achieved in the period covered by this annual review.
The starting point of this review - 1st April 2015 - marked exactly 50 years since boroughs assumed their powers and responsibilities. As Professor Tony Travers observed in his excellent lecture to mark that anniversary: “In a country which frequently reorganises its governmental machinery, 50 years is a long time.”
And, just as the London in which we live is both the same and very different to the London of 1965, so too in many ways are the London boroughs that serve Londoners today.
The longevity of the boroughs reflects their relevance for the task at hand. Over those 50 years the London County Council, the Greater London Council and the Government Office for London have come and gone. Today, of course, we have a directly elected Mayor working with the boroughs and the City of London to provide leadership and secure critical public services for our capital city. We look forward to working with the new Mayor to ensure that London has the right powers and resources so together we can focus on the pressing needs of London right across the capital.
We in the boroughs won’t simply be able to carry on delivering services in the same way, especially not when London boroughs have seen a cut of 44 per cent to their grants from central government – a direction of travel that is likely to be maintained for the next four years.
Boroughs have long been at the forefront of innovation in public service delivery, but it is now widely recognised that meeting the needs of London’s rapidly growing population (expected to reach 11 million by 2050), most particularly at a time of public finance restraint, cannot be achieved by simply continuing to try and make existing systems work better or faster.
That is why London’s leaders have collectively tasked London Councils with making the case to government, with the Mayor and with partners across the capital and beyond, that future needs can only be met by a new settlement – one that sees the UK’s traditional centralism give way to devolved government capable of delivering joined-up solutions that can target limited resources to their maximum effect. This year London Councils and the Mayor of London submitted a set of joint proposals and inter-related reforms that London government wishes to see in order to provide sustainable solutions to the capital's challenges.
These have been recognised by government in the areas of employment support, skills, health and fiscal devolution that are explored in this review. These are significant steps in the journey we are undertaking collectively.
In addition, the urgency of working together with the Mayor and government to boost housing supply in London cannot be overestimated.
As ever, we know that we now need to go further and faster to match our members’ ambitions for their communities and businesses.
This review, however, is a useful way station in the journey and marks what can be achieved when London local government works together in the collective interests of Londoners. I look forward to continuing to work on our shared ambitions for London in the year ahead.
Mayor Jules Pipe Chair, London Councils About London Councils
London Councils represents London’s 32 borough councils and the City of London.
It is a cross-party organisation that works on behalf of all of its member authorities regardless of political persuasion.
London Councils makes the case to government, the Mayor and others to get the best deal for Londoners and to ensure that our member authorities have the resources, freedoms and powers to do the best possible job for their residents and local businesses.
London Councils runs a number of direct services for member authorities including the Freedom Pass, Taxicard and Health Emergency Badge. It also runs an independent parking appeals service and a pan-London grants programme for voluntary organisations.
London Councils acts as a catalyst for effective sharing among boroughs – be that ideas, good practice, people, resources, or policies and new approaches.
The strategic direction of London Councils is set by the Leaders’ Committee, which comprises the Leaders and directly elected Mayors of all of London’s local authorities. There is also a cross-party Executive, which guides the organisation’s day-to-day work. Adding Value for London Boroughs
London Councils acts as host for a number of bodies which add value to the work of our member authorities by helping them co-ordinate their work with pan-London organisations. These include:
**London Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB)**, representing London’s councils in a broader partnership with police, health and other partners to promote child safeguarding across London.
**London Young People’s Education and Skills (YPES) Board** – the lead strategic body for 14-19 education and training in the capital.
London Councils is the **Regional Employers’ body for London local authorities**. Boroughs are members of the Greater London Employment Forum and are represented on the Greater London Provincial Council for the purposes of negotiations with trades unions.
**Capital Ambition**, established in 2008 as the regional improvement and efficiency partnership for London. Capital Ambition has led and supported London local authorities in realising greater efficiency, performance improvement, innovation and new ways of working together to delivery local public services in the boroughs. Since 2013, Capital Ambition has driven innovation in local government through the **London Ventures** programme.
**London European Partnership for Transport (LEPT)**, which provides the London boroughs with support and access to European funding for transport projects.
London Councils was also instrumental in 2015 in the creation of a new collective investment vehicle for Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) funds, the **London CIV**. The London CIV, established by London Councils and initially chaired by Mayor Jules Pipe, was created to help reduce costs and improve investment returns for LGPS funds across the capital.
In September 2015 Lord Kerslake was appointed non-executive chair of the interim board of directors and in November 2015 the London CIV became the first such scheme to be fully authorised in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority.
London Councils also provides a key interface between boroughs, the London Fire Brigade, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the other emergency services on issues around city management and resilience. Advancing London Local Government
Member authorities have their own relationships with pan-London organisations and in particular with the Mayor and the GLA. There are, however, a range of issues where the Mayor, the GLA and other pan-London organisations seek to establish negotiation or dialogue with London’s boroughs. On these issues, London Councils acts as the focal point for representing borough interests – informed by the political and professional networks that we run. We then enable that information to be shared and disseminated quickly with member boroughs.
To ensure that our member authorities have influence in the decisions made at pan-London level that impact on them and the communities they serve, London Councils has developed a series of shared arrangements with the Mayor, Transport for London (TfL), Metropolitan Police, health and other partners, including London business organisations. London Councils nominates – on a cross party basis – members to serve in such shared governance arrangements, including the:
- London Crime Reduction Board
- London Enterprise Partnership
- London Health Board
- Homes for London Board
- London Waste and Recycling Board
Some of these have statutory underpinning. The overall progress of these is monitored jointly by the Mayor and borough leaders.
In addition, London Councils ensures that the London local government perspective is part of policy development at national level by, for example, organising a full set of ministerial meetings and senior official discussions, and also by promoting ideas and policies at each of the party conferences.
London Councils was also instrumental in establishing the London All Party Political Group (APPG) in May 2015, set up to promote London in the interests of all its people, places and businesses as a global city and powerhouse of the economy. Since then the London APPG has met regularly to explore a London approach to key areas of the devolution agenda, housing, transport, welfare and infrastructure. Most recently the APPG secured a debate on education funding in London.
London Councils provides the secretariat to the group on behalf of London government, including the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Devolution and Public Service Reform
Both in their scale and in their complexity, the challenges facing London are unique. At a time of growing demand and ongoing public finance constraint, devolution and public service reform are not merely desirable but essential. That is why London Councils, in partnership with the Mayor, has been making the case for an ambitious new settlement across all tiers of government that can provide a sustainable solution.
Over the past four years the Mayor and the boroughs have worked together, and with partners across London and beyond, to promote the benefits of reform. We have argued that democratically accountable, locally integrated services offer the best solutions to meeting the challenges faced by a global city in the 21st century.
London Councils has long been in the vanguard of the devolution debate; supporting the Mayor of London’s London Finance Commission, jointly commissioning the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce (RSA) City Growth Commission with the Core Cities, Local Government Association and Greater London Authority and working closely with the Greater London Authority on the London Growth Deal.
In July 2015, the Mayor and the borough leaders agreed a ‘London Proposition on Devolution and Reform’ that encapsulated the broad territory for negotiation with government officials on a package of measures designed to deliver clear benefits for Londoners, the economy in London and in the country as a whole.
In September 2015, London Councils and the Mayor of London submitted joint proposals to government setting out a series of inter-related reforms that London government wishes to deliver to provide a sustainable solution to tackling the capital’s deep seated challenges.
In its response to these proposals, the government has agreed significant next steps in the areas of employment support, skills, health and fiscal devolution.
- The government has made a specific commitment that the Mayor of London and London boroughs will jointly commission employment support to assist the very long term unemployed and those with health conditions and disabilities to (re)-enter work-(from 2017 through the new Health and Work Programme).
- The government has indicated that the Adult Education Budget will be devolved to London government from 2018/19 onwards.
- A London Health and Care Collaboration Agreement and a London Health Devolution Agreement between the Chancellor, Mayor of London, and Health partners. The London Health and Care Collaboration Agreement describes the role of five pilots in delivering transformation across London.
In October 2015 the government proposed that local government should retain 100 per cent of the business rates it collects by 2020. London Councils has long advocated the devolution of business rates, along with other taxes, and has worked consistently to develop practical proposals to support that aim. In December, our Leaders’ Committee agreed to work jointly with the Mayor of London to develop a ‘London Proposition’ for business rates, and endorsed four overarching ambitions for the proposed reforms, stating that rates retention and the transfer of responsibilities should:
- Be contingent on improvements to the business rates system.
- Support London’s ambitions for devolution and public service reform.
- Support the devolved governance of London.
- Be the start, not the end, of fiscal devolution.
London Councils has been leading the work with London local government as a whole, and with the Mayor of London, to translate these ambitions into a set of principles that can underpin discussions with government on a devolved regional approach to setting, collecting and managing business rates in the capital.
In March, the government confirmed that it would explore early implementation of the reforms in London (along with Greater Manchester and Liverpool). Finance and Resources
An essential core of London Councils’ work is to ensure that our member boroughs have the resources to deliver and improve services for Londoners and the places our communities live and work. We make the case to government and others on behalf of member boroughs in terms of both specific funding streams and overall resources base to ensure the capital’s councils are able to continue to deliver the services and environment a global city requires. In 2015/16, we:
- Made the case for and secured four year funding allocations in the 2016/17 Local Government Finance Settlement in February, providing greater certainty over medium term funding allocations.
- Produced a range of analysis and tools for boroughs to use as part of their financial planning.
- Lobbied for a more equitable method for distributing Revenue Support Grant to be more reflective of need and wider resources available to local authorities. The government listened, changing the method of RSG distribution in the 2016/17 Local Government Finance Settlement to the benefit of London boroughs as a whole by around £500 million over four years.
- Lobbied consistently for the retention of business rates for London – including in our in SR15 submission. The government announced in October 2015 that the sector as a whole will retain 100 per cent of business rates by 2020. London has been announced as a pilot area to explore devolution of business rates prior to 2020 (confirmed in Budget 2016). London Councils has been leading the work with London local government as a whole and with the Mayor of London, to develop the principles that would underpin a London Proposition to government on Business Rate Retention.
- Lobbied for adult social care funding pressures to be fully funded at the 2015 Spending Review. The government found an additional £3.5 billion nationally for adult social care over the next four years. While this is unlikely to be enough to fully fund adult social care pressures in London, it does show the lobbying arguments proposed by London Councils, the LGA, ADASS and others about the adult social care funding pressures were recognised by government. Successful engagement with Department for Work and Pensions over discretionary housing payment allocations led to amendment to distribution methodology that directed an extra £1 million to London boroughs. Housing and Planning
Housing is a critical issue for London. The capital’s housing market has become increasingly out of kilter with the rest of the country, resulting in real pressures on affordability for a growing number of Londoners. We need to build tens of thousands of new homes every year to keep pace with a growing population and address a long standing housing need backlog that has a range of implications for the capital and its economy. In December the number of homeless London households in temporary accommodation exceeded 50,000, representing three quarters of all households in temporary accommodation in England.
In a survey commissioned by London Councils and carried out by Ipsos MORI in October 2015, more than 88 per cent of Londoners cited housing as their number one concern, compared to Ipsos’ national monthly issues index where housing is only the fifth most important issue for those outside the capital.
London Councils has been at the forefront of highlighting London’s housing crisis and its implications. We continue to work closely with boroughs to support their efforts to manage the effects of the crisis and make the case for stronger housing delivery powers to help powers address its cause.
In 2015/16 this work has included:
- Working closely with MPs, peers and government officials through the passage of the Housing and Planning Bill to promote amendments and influence the shape of the legislation.
- Commissioning research to scope the potential for collaborative housing delivery mechanisms across London boroughs and agreeing a set of asks of government to support a new approach.
- Negotiating a joint London government proposal for a case to government for reforms in housing and planning to increase supply.
- Supported the early activity of the London Land Commission and implementation of the Mayor’s Housing Zones policy.
- Lobbied to raise concerns about the impact of the 1 per cent rents cut on housing in London, presenting evidence on the impact on housing supply, and calling for an exemption for supported housing. This cut has now been suspended for a year pending further government consideration.
- Responded to government’s proposals to ‘Pay to Stay’ for social housing tenants, promoting the need for more local discretion and a taper system. Following our lobbying, government has confirmed intention to introduce a taper system to help ensure rent increases are proportionate.
- Lobbied government for flexibilities around the use of council Right to Buy receipts, including full receipt retention locally and the ability to combine with other funding streams. • Influenced the housing debate through submissions to the Lyons Commission, IPPR London Housing Commission, and others. • Supported borough housing development activity by publishing case studies of local housing investment approaches and facilitating a workshop for officers to discuss local housing companies, share good practice and hear legal advice. • Commissioning and promoting polling data from Ipsos Mori that secured coverage in Evening Standard and other key media. • Conducting research into the impact of office to residential permitted development rights in London, backed with a media campaign, successfully securing continued exemptions until 2019. • Responded to government consultation on proposed changes to National Planning Policy Framework, highlighting London’s concerns about changing definitions of affordability, and securing Starter Homes amendments in the House of Lords. • Pressed the government to localise planning fees: following pressure from London Councils and partners, government has recently announced a commitment to allow ‘well-performing’ councils to increase their fees in line with inflation. • Publishing independent research to assess how councils are contributing to temporary accommodation (TA) costs through their own local resources and to understand how homelessness pressures have changed over recent years. • Submitted evidence to Treasury and DCLG on the costs of TA to local authorities and calling for the protection of the homelessness prevention grant funding, which has now been maintained; our lobbying also helped secure an increased and devolved settlement for the TA management fee, as well as an additional £5 million funding for London boroughs to help relieve TA pressures. • Published homelessness information resource for journalists and borough communications teams, to clarify local authority responsibilities and the context in which decisions are taken. • Working with boroughs to improve data sharing and notification in relation to temporary accommodation placements outside London, to ensure a better understanding of the issue and more accurate media coverage. • Promoting collaboration between boroughs to secure a consistent approach to nightly paid TA, securing costs savings for boroughs on new nightly bookings. • Facilitating events and case studies for borough officers to share best practice on homelessness relief and prevention. Transport, Environment and Infrastructure
London Councils works with and for its member boroughs on a range of transport, environment and infrastructure challenges faced by the capital. London Councils’ work in this area is governed by its Transport and Environment Committee (TEC), a statutory committee of councillors from the 32 London boroughs and the City of London. In 2015/16, we:
- Agreed Joint Working Arrangements between TEC and Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (TRFCC) and approved levy increase.
- Set Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) levels for anti-social spitting and urinating etc in public, noise in public, feeding birds in public spaces; and Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) levels for illegal builders’ skips. For clarity, we published a comprehensive FPN/PCN table on our public website.
- Worked with TfL to develop a Car Club Strategy for London.
- Made the case for increased resource and capacity for flood management.
- Provided legal advice to boroughs on EU infraction through the London Air Quality Steering Group.
- Opposed TfL’s proposal to replace the 10 year age limit for taxis with a voluntary decommissioning scheme for taxis between 10 and 15 years-old.
- Developed closer working with LEDNET through a new officer post established within London Councils and through a joint response to London Assembly investigation on environmental pressures of growth.
- Commissioned polling of Londoners’ attitudes to infrastructure on London and how it should be funded – and hosting a successful member and officer event on Opportunity Areas and their infrastructure needs. London Councils first infographic ‘London Needs’ (November 2015).
- Established a working group with TfL and borough reps to influence TfL’s decision regarding the process for LIP funding in 2017/18 and 2018/19.
- Jointly, with London Travel Watch and Trust for London, commissioning and publicising research into the travel costs of outer London commuters. The final report ‘Living on the Edge’ achieved wide media coverage.
- Made successful representations to the London Assembly Transport Committee on boroughs’ concerns about rail devolution (impact on Freedom Pass costs and the need to involve boroughs in franchising decisions).
- Submitted a successful OLEV bid with TfL and GLA and receiving £13 million in OLEV funding as a result.
- Made the case for increased borough input into rail franchises that has been reflected in the DfT / TfL rail prospectus launched in January 2016. We have represented borough views on a wide range of consultations and reviews in the past year, including:
- The London Assembly investigation on solar power in London
- TfL night bus consultation response
- Crossrail 2 Growth Commission consultation (and gave oral evidence)
- TfL Crossrail 2 Consultation (January 2016)
- TfL Private Hire Regulations Review
- The National Infrastructure Commission call for evidence
- The Mayor’s London Local Air Quality Management proposals (borough concerns discussed with the GLA prior to the consultation led to changes with outstanding borough concerns reflected in London Councils consultation response.
- TfL consultation on ULEZ; this resulted in positive outcomes with TfL announcing that a further 400 Euro V buses outside central London would be retrofitted to meet the Euro VI standard, which responded to one of our key ULEZ lobbying points. TfL has also started work to consider the expansion of the ULEZ, following our lobbying and boroughs have been invited to be part of an engagement group. TfL has kept boroughs engaged in the process of considering options for expanding the ULEZ, which included an update to TEC (December 2015)
- We also submitted a response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s call for priorities for scrutiny, suggesting the scrapping of zero carbon homes and Green Deal without replacement, the Climate Change Levy, changes to FiT, changes to VED and the roll out of smart meters (August 2015) Economic Growth and Regeneration
The London economy is the biggest net contributor to both government finance and the UK economy. London has led the recovery and over the past decade it has created more than three quarters of a million jobs. But despite its size, London has a varied economy, and Londoners face a distinct set of challenges in accessing the labour market. Too many Londoners are workless and we need to do more to ensure our residents have the skills to compete effectively in a competitive global economy. Over recent years, London Councils has been making to case, in partnership with the Mayor of London and other partners both within the capital and nationally, that devolution and reform of public services will be essential to deliver clear benefits for Londoners, the economy in London and in the country as a whole. In pursuit of these goals in 2015/16, we:
- Secured a commitment in the 2015 Spending Review that the government will co-design and co-commission the new Work and Health Programme with London government. Only London and Manchester received this level of commitment.
- Secured a commitment in the 2015 Spending Review that JCP will increase its co-location with local authorities and are working with DWP to inform the development of Universal Support.
- Ensured that London boroughs played a leadership role in the Area Review process around adult skills, with borough Leaders chairing the sub-regional area review steering groups and London Councils determining sub-regional geographies for the area reviews that reflect boroughs’ joint working.
- Developed proposals for a two-tier system of devolution of adult skills in London, where some funding will pass to sub-regional groups of boroughs, and agreed this with the Mayor of London.
- Developed a skills vision for London, working with the GLA, to guide the commissioning of the Adult Education Budget (AEB) should this be devolved to London government.
- Developed specifications for European Social Fund (ESF) programmes around adult skills and troubled families that reflect London borough priorities. These will be commissioned by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on a sub-regional basis, determined by London boroughs.
- Published a summary report to demonstrate the wide range of support that London boroughs provide for arts and culture, with proposals for sustaining some of this report under financial pressure, and secured extensive media coverage for this.
- Published a report outlining the tools and powers London boroughs need to continue to support economic growth in their high streets and town centres. • Held our annual London Borough Apprenticeship Awards in September 2015 to celebrate the work of London boroughs in generating and supporting apprenticeships and continued to support boroughs to create over 1,500 apprenticeships in 2014/15.
• With the Federation of Small Businesses, held a Small Business Friendly Borough Awards in November 2015 to celebrate the work of boroughs to support small businesses in their area. Education and Children
Our Children and Young People team co-ordinates policy work and represents the interests of boroughs on a pan-London basis in relation to all aspects of children’s services in the capital. They work closely with groups such as the Association of London Directors of Children’s Services (ALDCS) on a wide range of issues relating to children, young people and their families.
School places
London schools have been transformed over the past 15 years. In 1989, the year before boroughs took over responsibility from the Inner London Education Authority, fewer than 9 per cent of pupils in inner London secondary schools achieved five or more GCSE at grade A\* - C, compared to 17 per cent nationally. Today, the equivalent figures are 71.2 per cent for London compared to 66.5 per cent nationally.
Demand for London schools continues to grow and London has seen its school age population grow at twice the rate of any other region in recent years. In April 2015, London boroughs received 103,387 applications for primary school places – a record number for the capital and 900 more than in the previous year. And in March 2016 the number of applications for London secondary schools was 86,954, a 3 per cent increase over the previous year and reflecting the emerging pressure London is facing as London’s primary growth works its way through to secondary schools.
Keeping pace with such a rapid increase in pupils is a significant challenge for London’s boroughs. In recent years boroughs, with the hard work of school leaders, have managed to increase school capacity by nearly 213,000 places across the capital (May 2010 – May 2014), but a further 10 per cent capacity will need to be added between 2015 and 2020, almost twice as much capacity compared to the rest of England.
London Councils’ research has been key to making the case to government that London cannot realistically continue to meet the growing shortfall in school capacity without sufficient funds. In September 2015, London Councils published the latest in its series of Do the Maths publications, which track the pressure on the capital’s schools. This analysis demonstrated that London will need to create an additional 146,000 (78,275 primary and 34,845 secondary) school places over the next five years. London needs at least £1.5 billion of Basic Needs Funding by 2020 to create the new places required. And the picture of school demand in the capital is further complicated by the fact that more London pupils cross boundaries to attend school than anywhere else in England, with more than 136,000 London pupils being taught in a school outside of the local authority they live in. This represents 13 per cent of the total and is twice the rate in Greater Manchester (6 per cent). Getting the right schools in the right places is vital to the continuing success of the capital’s schools and, in October 2015, a YouGov poll commissioned by London Councils found that 80 per cent of the capital’s parents agreed that their local council should have the final say on the location of new schools within their boundaries.
London Councils’ analysis has supported a widespread campaign to raise awareness of the pressures on London schools that has achieved considerable media coverage, including a front page story in the *Evening Standard*.
In November 2015 the government announced plans to introduce a new National Funding Formula for schools and in the 2016 Spring Budget the Chancellor announced plans to require all schools to become Academy schools by 2022.
London Councils recently submitted its response to the first part of the consultation on the introduction of the NFF for schools in April 2017. This response made clear London local authority concerns that any change to the way schools are funded should be fair and transparent and that no local authority area should experience a loss in schools funding as a result of the introduction of the NFF. We have led calls on behalf of London boroughs for a levelling up of funding across the country to ensure every school is given the tools to be able to match the country’s best performing schools in London.
The consultation response also makes clear boroughs’ concerns that rolling out an NFF at the same time that maintained schools will be converting to academy status could create considerable turbulence in the system that could financially destabilise our schools and put continued improvement at risk.
Other key outcomes in 2015/16 included:
- Securing £200 million of new SEND school places funding
- Securing government agreement to conduct an independent analysis of the costs of childcare
- Coordinating the successful transfer of commissioning responsibility for health visiting and Family Nurse Partnership commissioning and secured additional funding that ensures the London starting position is £5.4 million per year better than it would have been
- Promoting ideas and best practice to improve child protection in the capital, including through the London Safeguarding Children Awards and, in March 2016, a conference on safeguarding children from extremism. Health and Adult Care
London boroughs have longstanding responsibilities for adult social care and have more recent widened responsibilities for new public health functions. London faces the significant challenge of taking on these new responsibilities and caring for a rapidly growing population, particularly among vulnerable groups more likely to need care, at a time of ongoing tightening public finances and significant reform of health services generally.
London Councils has been engaging with government and the NHS to ensure London local government’s commitment to and responsibilities for the health of Londoners are recognised and reflected in reforms. London Councils was the first to develop a credible model of the financial costs of the Care Act used to highlight new burdens pressures of £85 million in 2015/16 and further new burdens of at least £738 million between 2016/17 and 2019/20.
This work was critical in getting the Department of Health to redistribute funds available for the introduction of the Care Act in 2015/16 and London Councils’ lobbying for additional funding for adult social care was also exemplified in the new power to levy an adult social care precept, announced in the 2015 Spending Review.
London Councils fully supports moves to greater integration between health and care and supports the government’s ambitions for the Better Care Fund (BCF) to drive forward transformation and integration.
London Councils made the case for a reduction of the overly bureaucratic and complex systems that local areas had to go through in reporting for the 2015/16 BCF plans, and it is therefore particularly welcome that in 2016/17 there will be a reduction in the reporting that local areas will have to go through in the assurance process.
All local areas also now have a target of 2017 to ensure that they have a plan for how they will achieve full integration by 2020. London Councils will be lobbying government to ensure that local areas are not overly burdened by complex systems and that they are given flexibility in drawing up their local plans for full integration.
London Councils has also played a key role in bringing together boroughs and partners across the health landscape to secure a collective agreement to transform health and wellbeing outcomes for Londoners.
In December 2015 negotiations with government concluded and two public agreements were announced:
1. A Health and Care Collaboration Agreement between London partners, CCGs, London boroughs, the Mayor of London, NHS England in London and Public health England in London. The Agreement describes the role of five pilots in delivering transformation across London:
- Sub-regional care transformation – Barking & Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge
- Sub-regional estates – Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey and Islington
- Local care integration (two pilots) – one in Hackney and one in Lewisham
- Local prevention – Haringey
2. A London Health Devolution Agreement between the Chancellor, Mayor of London, the Chief Executive of the NHS, the Chair of London Councils, the Secretary of State for Health, the Chair of the London Clinical Commissioning Council and the Chief Executive of Public Health England.
Taken together both agreements present significant opportunities to improve the health and care of Londoners through devolution and a significant programme of work for London boroughs engaged in the devolution pilots that will require governance at a borough, sub-regional and pan-London level. Policing and Crime
Crime is naturally a key concern for residents, businesses and visitors to the capital and London Councils works to ensure that the interests of Londoners and their local democratic representatives are fully recognised in policing the capital, in the development of community safety policies and in the allocation of funding.
Our team works on a wide range of policy issues relating to crime, criminal justice and community safety, including the threat of terrorism, violence against women and girls, anti-social behaviour, anti-violence and reducing re-offending.
Work in 2015/16 included:
- Setting up and supporting the delivery of the new London CONTEST board, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Police Service, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and government. Launched in July 2015, the London CONTEST board has been created to deliver a strategic approach to tackling threat, risks and vulnerabilities in London, looking across the four strands of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy: Prevent, Protect, Pursue and Prepare.
- Working to influence the future of local policing and community safety during a critical time in the public spending and planning cycle. This included responding to the MPS/ Royal Society of Arts consultation on the future of the MPS, to emphasise the importance of local and neighbourhood policing. We have also facilitated informal conversations with MPS Management Board and worked with MOPA to help shape future Crime Prevention Funding.
- Fully engaging with pan-London partnership working, including through the London Crime Reduction Board and on a bilateral basis, for example with the Community Rehabilitation Company to make the case for a continued local approach to integrated Offender management.
- Work with MOPAC and the CRC to ensure that boroughs are able to maximise their use of the Pan-London Gangs Exit and Resettlement. Our focus is on ensuring that the referral routes are well publicised and all boroughs have fair access to the 300 places that will be avail on the scheme per year.
- Supported boroughs in delivering locally led youth justice provision, engaging with national and regional partners on options for reform and arguing for the maintenance of local resources. • Supported local government in leading on tackling Anti-Social Behaviour. This included collating and publishing a comprehensive set of borough good practice case studies showcasing borough approaches to managing risk and vulnerability in relation to anti-social behaviour and examples of ways in which boroughs have successfully implemented new tools and powers available under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014.
• Supporting and promoting local responses to tackling crime and its causes through the POP (Problem Oriented Partnership) Awards. The awards are a collaboration between London Councils, the Metropolitan Police Service, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and Transport for London. Now in their 10th year, 2015 Award winners included schemes in Ealing, Lambeth, Newham and Waltham Forest.
• Supported boroughs in tackling violence against women and girls, working with MOPAC and the VAWG Panel, to take forward the 5 objectives agreed as part of the London Strategy; This included organising and hosting a well attended member event on tackling sexual and domestic violence and publishing a number of borough case studies highlighting good practice and sharing learning in tackling violence against women and girls. Transport and Mobility Services
Alongside our policy work, London Councils runs a number of direct services for and on behalf of Londoners and our member boroughs, where leaders have identified a clear benefit in these being administered by London Councils. In 2015/16, work in these areas included:
Freedom Pass:
- Successfully completing the renewal of 805,000 Freedom Passes which expired in March 2015, achieving an 87 per cent renewal rate and far exceeding expectations and with 74 per cent renewing via the newly developed online portal.
- Planned and began the renewal process of a further 175,000 Freedom Passes due to expire at the end of March 2016.
Taxicard:
- Carried out research into the declining use of the Taxicard scheme. This found that there was a high degree of satisfaction among users of the Taxicard, with 83 per cent stating that Taxicard met their expectations and 75 per cent were either extremely satisfied, or very satisfied. However the research indicated a complex set of factors relating to users' mobility needs were affecting overall usage. Many of these issues will be taken up by London Councils as part of the work with TfL on the Social Needs Transport Review.
LEPT:
- Successfully delivered the final stages of the STARS and PTP-Cycle LEPT projects as lead partner. (see case studies below)
London Tribunals:
- Managed the move of all appeals staff and infrastructure from Angel Square to new premises at Chancery Exchange.
- Managed the contract transition from CAPITA to Northgate Public Services in July 2015 for the provision back office and IT services, including the introduction of entirely new IT systems.
- Introduced the facility to make on-line appeals for the first time and on-line case management for boroughs.
- Rebranded from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service to London Tribunals, supporting the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators and the Road User Charging Adjudicators. Freight and Lorry control:
- Working with all boroughs, assisted TfL to launch the new London Safer Lorry Scheme in September, which requires the fitting of side-guards and extended view mirrors to all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.
- Worked closely with TfL on developing a more strategic approach to managing freight in London, including the establishment of a new Freight Borough Officer Liaison Group.
Traffic and Parking:
- Published a Code of Practice for the erection of signs and lighting on buildings so boroughs can adopt new legislative powers that will help reduce street clutter and costs.
- Through persistent lobbying at each stage of the Deregulation Bill achieved significant concessions that helped ensure the Government’s parking reforms had minimal impact on London authorities ability to manage parking effectively, especially in relation to retaining the use of CCTV enforcement outside schools and on red routes.
- Facilitated seminars, workshops and the sharing of good practice for the better coordination of Car Clubs across London.
- Consulted and agreed penalty charge levels for the enforcement of builders skips unlawfully sited on the public highway.
TRACE:
- Successfully implemented a new web-based portal to allow people to search for their towed away vehicle on-line and via smart phones. Young People’s Education and Skills
The Young People’s Education and Skills Board is the lead strategic body for 14 to 19 education and training in London. It provides pan-London leadership for 14 to 19 education and training provision in relation to the current and future needs of learners and employers, supports local authorities in undertaking their statutory functions, and assists other stakeholders in planning, policy and provision.
Young People’s Education and Skills works for London’s boroughs and exists to guide and support them in developing their local strategic plans in tune with regional priorities. The Board brings together key stakeholders from across London to help set the region’s priorities to influence and shape the education provision on offer to young people. A small staff resource is based in London Councils to support the work generated by the Board. In 2015/16 the team worked to further four key priorities:
- Business and Education – London’s education and learning institutions and the business community should work better together to enable more young people to succeed.
- Careers Guidance – Young people should expect to exercise informed choices about their options, progress and reach their potential.
- Better Support to Young People at 17 and 19 - Young people need to be better prepared, especially at 17 and 19, for progression to further and higher education and employment.
- Working Together – Stakeholders should work collaboratively in the interests of young people.
Achievements in 2015/16 included:
- Launching and leading the design and delivery of a coherent framework for a careers offer for all London’s young people - London Ambitions - in partnership with the London Enterprise Panel and the Greater London Authority
- Successfully delivering phase one of a labour market tool for London - Skills Match – with no cost burden to London’s local authorities (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Cabinet Office funding)
- Supporting local authority colleagues with implementing significant special educational needs and disability reforms initiated by the Children and Families Act 2014 • Commissioning research into the progression of young Londoner’s into Higher Education, with a particular focus on graduate job entry, to support boroughs to widen participation and improve social mobility • Sponsoring Skills London, the single largest jobs and careers fair in London. Capital Ambition
London Councils is home to the Capital Ambition programme that evolved from the regional improvement and efficiency partnership. Between 2008 and 2013 the Capital Ambition grants programme invested £34 million in funding projects in all London local authorities to achieve £87 million of cashable savings. By 2016 the programme is forecast to have delivered total savings of £356 million. This would take the programme return on investment to an impressive 13:1.
The Capital Ambition Board continues to oversee and support a wide range of innovative projects, programmes and activities in London. Over the past year some of the key highlights included:
- The London Ventures programme. Working in partnership with EY, this programme seeks to provide London’s local authorities with access to innovative products that will raise the effectiveness and efficiency of how services are delivered (see case study below).
- Supporting health and social care integration through a collaborative project with GLA, local authorities and NHS.
- Working with the Behavioural Insights Team to support local authorities in improving how citizens can access and use services, with the ultimate aim of improving effectiveness and efficiency while reducing costs.
Despite the financial challenges facing London and its citizens and the significant pressures on public services Capital Ambition remains committed to providing a space for innovation and support for London’s local authorities. Case Study: London Ventures
**Issue:** The need to maintain and improve service delivery to a growing number of Londoners while reducing costs.
**Activities:** Set up using Capital Ambition funds in 2013, London Ventures brings innovative private sector products and ideas to London’s local authorities in order to deliver significant benefits for London residents through reducing costs and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of services. London Ventures is a joint partnership between EY and London Councils and is overseen by the Capital Ambition Board. London Ventures’ main priorities in choosing venture partners are for them to:
- Work cross organisation and cross sector
- Reduce cost
- Achieve better outcomes for Londoners
- Achieve increased investment in public services.
**Process:** EY brokers conversations with potential London Venture partners – those with viable sounding propositions are asked to submit their ‘big idea’ for evaluation by the Capital Ambition Board. Using a rapid, *dragon’s den* style approach EY present the ideas to the Board. The Board members have the opportunity to ask questions and decide if the potential Venture is of strategic importance and if it sounds commercially viable. If successful in the ‘dragon’s den’ potential Venture Partners are asked to develop an outline business case. The outline business case is presented to the Board by the potential Venture partner – and again allows Board members the opportunity to ask more questions. If the outline business case is approved by the Board, EY broker a commercial deal with the new London Ventures Partner. This outlines the commercial arrangement with the partner. The London Councils programme team plays a key role in awareness raising of the programme with local authorities.
**Outcomes:** London Ventures currently operates a portfolio approach with delivery focused on ventures representing greatest strategic importance and commercial viability. The London Ventures portfolio consists of 11 venture partners across three generations. Approximately two thirds of London Local Authorities have implemented at least one venture and all London Local Authorities have engaged with the programme. To date, the programme has identified more than £6 million in potential financial benefits for London’s boroughs.
Examples of some of the products and services being developed or offered through London Ventures includes: • **Oxygen Finance’s Early Payment Programme** allows participating Local Authorities to generate a new source of revenue while improving their relationship with suppliers. This initiative allows Local Authorities and their suppliers to negotiate a revenue stream through early payment of invoices. As a result, local authorities generate income.
• **Xantura’s Child Safeguarding Profiling model** has achieved better outcomes for Londoners by identifying children most at risk of neglect or abuse but not previously known to Local Authorities.
• **FISCAL Technologies** software solution supports councils in three key areas of financial accountabilities; strong governance, improved risk mitigation and strengthening compliance. The software works alongside all Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems on a continuous monitoring basis to prevent payment errors and identify potential fraud, reducing the need for time-consuming manual checks and recovery audit fees to ultimately save time and money. Grants and Community Services
London Councils runs a longstanding, pan-London grants scheme on behalf of all 33 London councils. Through our grants programme, we fund projects to address four pan-London priorities:
- Homelessness
- Sexual and Domestic Violence
- Tackling poverty through employment
- Supporting voluntary and community organisations to improve services.
The third priority – tackling poverty through employment – is half-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) - every pound the boroughs contribute is matched by a pound of European Social Fund.
In the first three quarters of 2015/16\*, our grants programme delivered:
- Nearly 7,000 interventions to prevent homelessness and tackle it early
- Nearly 7,000 interventions with young people
- More than 500 interventions to support voluntary and community organisations in tackling homelessness
- More than 8,000 interventions to prevent sexual and domestic violence
- Nearly 36,000 advice sessions
- Help with finding refuge in 1,000 cases
- Emergency refuge to people in 194 cases
- 460 interventions to support voluntary and community organisations in tackling sexual and domestic violence
- Nearly 2,000 interventions to tackle harmful practices such as female genital mutilation
- More than 700 interventions to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services
- More than 600 interventions to improve effectiveness by improving engagement in services
- Some 500 interventions to tackle inequalities in services.
\*Full year figures will be available in July 2016 and will be presented to the Grants Committee then In the cycle ending in this year, the ESF-funded element helped:
- Nearly 1,500 people into work
- More than 700 people into work that lasted more than 26 weeks
- More than 950 people into education and training.
In March 2016, borough leaders agreed that there should be a London Councils Grants programme beyond the end of the current four-year funding cycle in March 2017, addressing the first three of the four priorities in the cycle. This will ensure vital support for vulnerable Londoners for a further four years. London Care Services
London Care Services works on behalf of 40 local authorities (32 London boroughs, the City of London and seven partner authorities). It supports them in their local commissioning of outstanding services for looked-after children and young people.
To do this, London Care Services has developed a single model contract for services for looked-after children. It negotiates and signs the contract and fees with providers across all 40 participating authorities. The authorities can then draw down the services from the providers without having to renegotiate contract terms and fees.
This service eliminates wasteful bureaucracy by centralising the contracting work, while giving councils the freedom they need to choose between contracted providers.
It removes the need for boroughs to undertake the same checks on the same contracts and organisations.
In representing 40 members, London Care Services has a significantly stronger bargaining position when negotiating fees with providers. This produces value for money for boroughs in a large, complex and costly market.
In 2015/16 we completed the following work on behalf of member boroughs:
- Signed up 163 providers of 332 resources.
- Drew up a new contract, agreed with boroughs, which is being used in 2016/17. London Self Improvement Board
London Councils co-ordinates and helps to encourage collaborative work between boroughs on self-improvement and mutual challenge through supporting the London Self Improvement Board (SIB). Comprising a number of borough chief executives, senior chief officer representatives and the chief executive of London Councils, SIB liaises at a political level with the Chair of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee on key issues and with relevant political portfolio holders across London.
The board seeks to offer both challenge and support to London local government performance.
Since 2013, SIB has identified key risk areas where it wishes to concentrate its efforts; Adult Social Care, Children’s Social Services and the overall financial and corporate health of individual authorities.
Under the Board’s direction, London Councils has helped to develop, review and challenge some of the hard and soft tools available for gathering and analysing performance information. The London Authority Performance Solution (LAPS) and Chief Executive to Chief Executive (CE2CE) and Treasurer to Treasurer (T2T) peer challenge processes are part of these developments.
SIB believes it is valuable for the sector to demonstrate a consistent approach to self-improvement and that councils are inviting a level of challenge from their peers to show that they are open to identifying performance challenges and acting upon them. 2015 saw the highest number of boroughs represented since each programme began.
Work in 2015/16 included:
- Continued provision of the LAPS performance measurement tool used consistently by the vast majority of boroughs in 2015/16
- Continued provision of the HR metrics service – which received overall ratings of 92 per cent from member boroughs in the recent light touch review
- Continued provision of the school performance toolkit – delivering key performance benchmarking indicators for London boroughs’ schools performance managers
- Increased participation of the peer support programmes for Chief Executives and Treasurers. London Procurement Strategy Board
London boroughs spend around £8 billion on purchasing goods and services from third parties and the London Procurement Strategy Board (LPSB) was formed by Leaders in 2010 to assess what opportunities exist to achieve greater savings by exploiting the significant purchasing power of London local government.
The LPSB acts as the governance board (when required) for London-wide procurement projects; reviews existing, and proposals for new, framework structures across London in order to support the development of a consistent and coherent approach; and provides a forum for sharing expertise, learning and good practice between London local authorities.
The board draws on the expertise of its membership which includes representatives from London Councils, the Society of London Treasurers, the London Procurement Network and sub-regional shared services groupings.
In 2015/16 work included:
- The continued sharing of contract and spend data through the London contracts register and spend analytics tools
- Delivering a regular London Procurement Newsletter to member boroughs
- Providing support and advice for a number of pan-London procurement projects including:
- Postal Services Collaboration – a framework contract agreed with 24 boroughs enabling significant purchasing influence to be exerted in contract and performance talks with Royal Mail. Generated savings of £1.2 million in 2015/16 and achieved finalist status at this year's National GO Awards
- MSTAR 1 project – standardised pay rates for children’s social care agency staff across 17 boroughs. Has generated £14.5 million of savings from temporary agency spend since 2011.
- Supplier Chain Resilience Review Project - developing a toolkit and consolidated framework for supply chain resilience management. Involved 9 boroughs and partners Zurich Municipal – work is ongoing in 2016/17 (nominated for an Alarm Risk Award 2016 for partnership work). Events and Awards
The London Summit – Our annual flagship event is free to all London members and senior borough officers. Our 2015 Summit - held on Saturday 21 November at the City of London’s Guildhall - saw hundreds of delegates - councillors of all political parties from the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, as well as representatives from the business, public and voluntary sectors - gather to engage in debate and share experiences from across the capital. You can watch a short video of the day here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hemboIDJLyU
Awards – London Councils supports and organises a number of awards on behalf of boroughs that highlight and share their successes:
The London Borough Apprenticeship Awards: Established in 2011 to showcase the value of apprenticeships to London boroughs, how borough staff have contributed to apprentices' success and how boroughs are helping to maximise apprenticeship opportunities with contractors and suppliers. The 2015 Awards attracted a record number of entrants. The Apprentice of the Year was Sidonie Smith, a Domestic Violence Support Officer at the London borough of Bexley. Apprentices from Camden, the City of London, Greenwich and Southwark were also among the winners of individual awards.
The London Homelessness Awards – in memory of Andy Ludlow: The awards are sponsored by the London Housing Foundation, the London boroughs and Shelter and run by London Councils. Inside Housing magazine is our media partner. The awards are the country’s leading homelessness awards, with prize money awarded to the organisations that demonstrate innovative and creative solutions for tackling homelessness in the capital. The Asylum Support Appeals Project’s Defending Asylum Seekers Rights to Food and Shelter was the overall winner of the 2015 Award,
The Small Business Friendly Awards - organised by London Councils and the London Region of The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) the awards are an opportunity to celebrate projects or initiatives delivered by the London boroughs that have a positive impact on London’s small business community. Harrow was named best all round small business friendly borough in the 2015 Awards, while the work of Bexley, Enfield, Greenwich, Merton and Westminster was also recognised in individual categories. Keeping You Informed
**Website** – London Councils’ website was visited by just under 1 million unique visitors and had 4.5 million page views in 2015/16. The website, which was completely updated and relaunched in April 2015, serves a variety of purposes and functions for a wide range of stakeholders, including members, officers and policy makers, as well as Londoners and London businesses who rely on services such as the Freedom Pass, the Health Emergency Badge or the London Lorry Control Scheme.
Among the features of the new website are:
- a fully updated and responsive (easier to view and navigate on tablets and mobile phones as well as PCs)
- the members’ dashboard, which enables our members to edit and personalise their own content
- a new platform for our rich policy and services content including comments, blogging and more
**Key Issues** – our weekly e-newsletter, sent to more than 12,000 subscribers across the capital each Wednesday morning, provides a quick summary of the issues affecting London local government and the evolving policy landscape in the capital.
**Member Briefings** – our member briefing service provides members with timely policy analysis and information across all our main policy themes directly to their inbox. The newly designed website enables members to edit and amend their preferences more easily than ever before. In 2015/16 we sent 77 policy briefings to subscribing members.
**Parliamentary Briefings** – we regularly brief MPs and Peers on government bills that affect London Boroughs. In 2015/16 these included briefings in support of our lobbying work on several bills including the Housing and Planning Bill, on issues such as starter homes, right to buy and pay to stay, the Welfare and Reform Bill and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. In addition, we have briefed on the Local Government Finance Settlement. Our briefings and policy positions were cited on a large number of occasions in both Houses.
**Twitter** – London Councils’ Twitter account @londoncouncils has more than 16,300 followers who receive up-to-date news on all the latest developments in London local government as they happen.
**London Government Directory** – a free copy of our annual London Government Directory, sponsored by the London Communication Agency, is sent to every member and senior officers in all 33 London local authorities. The Directory is also available to view online at www.directory.londoncouncils.gov.uk
**Policy reports** – London Councils publishes a comprehensive range of policy reports providing data, analysis and recommendations on key policy challenges in the capital. In 2015/16 these included reports on: Developing Employment Support; Local Government Support for Arts and Culture; School Places Pressure; Young Londoners’ Higher Education Journey; Work Programme Equalities Impact Assessment; The Impact of Permitted Development Rights for Office to Residential Conversions; London’s Future Infrastructure Needs; the Impact of Freezing LHA Rates; Building on the Success of London’s Town Centres; Transport Affordability; and Joint Working to Deliver Better Care.
## Income and Expenditure 2015/16
### Expenditure
| Description | Amount | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Employee costs | 5,327,000 | | Running costs | 2,555,000 | | Direct services - Parking and traffic | 9,430,000 | | Direct services - Other | 148,000 | | Payments in respect of Freedom Pass and Taxicard | 365,827,000| | Commissioned grant payments | 9,885,000 | | Improvement and efficiency | 305,000 | | Young People Education and Skills (YPES) regional/provider activity | 64,000 | | Commissioning and Research | 640,000 | | One-off borough payment | 825,000 | | Other operating expenditure | 60,000 | | **Total Expenditure** | **395,066,000** |
### Income
| Description | Amount | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Contribution in respect of Freedom Pass and Taxicard | 366,381,000| | Borough contribution towards commissioned grant payments | 8,505,000 | | Borough contribution towards YPES activity | 180,000 | | Direct services - Parking and traffic | 10,313,000 | | Direct services - Other | 82,000 | | Core member subscriptions | 5,888,000 | | Borough contribution to LCP payments | 222,000 | | Government grants | 1,381,000 | | Other income | 460,000 | | Use of Reserves | 1,654,000 | | **Total Income** | **395,066,000** | London Councils Executive members 2015/16
Our Leaders’ Committee, which consists of the Leaders and directly elected Mayors of London’s 33 local authorities, meets regularly throughout the year to discuss and agree policy issues of importance to Londoners. A list of all Leaders’ Committee dates, along with agenda and minutes of past meetings is available at www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees.
At its summer AGM, the Leaders’ Committee elects a chair, deputy chair and vice chairs for the organisation. A cross-party Executive acts as a forum for more detailed policy development and reports to the Leaders’ Committee.
The Executive is made up of 11 councillors from across the political parties. Our leading members and their portfolios in 2015/16 were:
**Mayor Jules Pipe (Lab)** - Chair of London Councils
**Cllr Claire Kober (Lab)** - Deputy Chair and executive member for infrastructure and regeneration
**Cllr Teresa O’Neill (Con)** - Vice Chair and executive member for health
**Cllr Ruth Dombey (Lib Dem)** - Vice Chair
**Mark Boleat (Ind)** - Vice Chair
**Cllr Julian Bell (Lab)** - Chair of London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee
**Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (Lab)** - Executive member for housing
**Cllr Peter John (Lab)** - Executive member for children, skills and employment
**Cllr Lib Peck (Lab)** - Executive member for crime and public protection
**Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE (Con)** - Executive member for adult social care
**Cllr Philippa Roe (Con)** - Executive member and Conservative Group Lead on devolution and public service reform
*In addition, the following members also played key leadership roles:*
**Cllr Paul McGlone (Lab)** – Chair of Grants Committee
**Cllr Roger Ramsey (Con)** – Chair of Audit Committee Cllr Muhammed Butt (Lab) - Lead member for equalities
Edward Lord OBE JP (Ind) – Chair of Capital Ambition Board
Group whips
Labour Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest)
Conservative Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth)
London Councils Co-Presidents for 2105/16 were:
The Rt Hon the Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Baroness Hamwee (Lib Dem)
The Baroness Hanham (Con)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1029-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 41,
"total-input-tokens": 68510,
"total-output-tokens": 15478,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
866,
1
],
[
866,
866,
2
],
[
866,
3328,
3
],
[
3328,
4348,
4
],
[
4348,
5499,
5
],
[
5499,
7707,
6
],
[
7707,
9944,
7
],
[
9944,
12458,
8
],
[
12458,
13875,
9
],
[
13875,
16055,
10
],
[
16055,
16261,
11
],
[
16261,
18895,
12
],
[
18895,
21310,
13
],
[
21310,
23804,
14
],
[
23804,
25287,
15
],
[
25287,
27952,
16
],
[
27952,
28378,
17
],
[
28378,
30784,
18
],
[
30784,
33519,
19
],
[
33519,
35938,
20
],
[
35938,
37042,
21
],
[
37042,
39319,
22
],
[
39319,
40559,
23
],
[
40559,
42504,
24
],
[
42504,
43828,
25
],
[
43828,
45991,
26
],
[
45991,
46278,
27
],
[
46278,
47774,
28
],
[
47774,
50211,
29
],
[
50211,
51219,
30
],
[
51219,
52814,
31
],
[
52814,
53338,
32
],
[
53338,
54633,
33
],
[
54633,
56716,
34
],
[
56716,
58684,
35
],
[
58684,
61004,
36
],
[
61004,
63340,
37
],
[
63340,
64162,
38
],
[
64162,
66725,
39
],
[
66725,
68492,
40
],
[
68492,
68848,
41
]
]
} |
35715d14e61999e2cd84d77ed20252a5b7d76c5b | ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2016 - MARCH 2017 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2016 - MARCH 2017
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2017
HC 232 CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7 Key messages .............................................................................................................. 7 Summary of performance ............................................................................................ 8
2. Highways England’s performance ............................................................................. 11 Performance remains good across a range of measures ........................................... 11 Targets on road user satisfaction and network condition have been missed .......... 17 Planning of major improvements has improved ....................................................... 22 Further work to do to improve asset management .................................................. 25 Priorities for 2017-18 ................................................................................................. 27
Annex A: Background and context ................................................................................. 30
Annex B: Performance against outcomes ..................................................................... 33 Outcome: Making the network safer ......................................................................... 33 Outcome: Improving user satisfaction ...................................................................... 35 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic ....................................................... 37 Outcome: Encouraging economic growth .................................................................. 39 Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes ............................................. 40 Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users ............................... 43 Outcome: Achieving real efficiency .......................................................................... 44 Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition .................................................... 45
Annex C: Financial and efficiency performance ............................................................. 47
Annex D: Network investment delivery ......................................................................... 55
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.1 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s management of the strategic road network – the motorways and main A-roads in England.
1.2 In the Road Investment Strategy (RIS), government has set out the outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (Road Period 1). We hold Highways England to account for its performance and efficiency targets that are specified in the RIS. Our focus is on securing better performance and value for money from the strategic road network, to benefit road users and the wider public.
1.3 This is our annual assessment of Highways England’s performance in 2016-17. We have found that, despite facing challenges from record levels of traffic on the network, Highways England has performed well, and largely met its requirements.
Four key messages for 2016-17
1. Highways England’s performance remains good across a range of measures.
Compared to other road networks casualty rates are low, and it is keeping traffic flowing while delivering major improvements. It is starting to be more efficient in the way it delivers.
2. Highways England has missed its targets on road user satisfaction and network condition.
It is putting in place plans to address shortfalls. These and other areas of performance need continued focus to deliver future targets.
3. Highways England continues to focus on safety as a priority. It has a comprehensive five-year health and safety plan, which it is delivering. Figures for the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the network in 2016 have not yet been published. However, changes to how road casualty data are recorded are likely to cause an increase in the number of reported serious injuries when the figures are published in September 2017. This will impact Highways England’s ability to meet its target of achieving a 40% reduction in the number of KSIs on the strategic road network by 2020. Despite this, the strategic road network has lower casualty rates than other roads in England. It is also one of the safest road networks internationally.
4. In 2016-17, Highways England performed well in keeping traffic flowing. It has kept 98.4% of its network open to traffic against a target of 97%, similar to last year’s performance. It has cleared 85.9% of incidents within an hour, which is slightly lower than in recent years, but still above the target of 85%.
5. Highways England spent £3.1bn in 2016-17, including £2bn of capital investment. The company has reported £135m of capital efficiencies during the year, bringing the total to £169m for Road Period 1, which is more than it had targeted. The company has developed its plans for how it will deliver the £1.2bn RIS1 target and the evidence supporting reported efficiencies, though developing the evidence base remains work in progress.
6. In 2016-17, Highways England started construction on eight major road improvement schemes, against a plan to start on four. It has opened seven major schemes for traffic, against a plan to open eight.
7. Road user satisfaction with the strategic road network was 89.1% in 2016-17. This is below the target of 90%, but in line with performance in the previous year. Highways England has demonstrated commitment to improve user satisfaction through actions taken in 2016-17 and must now set out clearer plans to maximise its chances of delivering the target.
8. At the end of 2016-17, the proportion of network in good condition was at 94.3%, against a target of 95%. We investigated this issue and found that Highways England is managing any safety
9. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-investment-strategy-for-the-2015-to-2020-road-period impact, and is now taking appropriate action to improve network condition.
1.10 At the end of 2016-17, Highways England had mitigated 121 noise important areas towards its target of 1,150 by 2020. Over the next year, it will produce updated plans for how it will meet this target. It also has more work to do to set out clearly how many crossings for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users it will deliver, and when.
3. Highways England has improved its planning of major improvements.
It is in the process of proposing a revised baseline to government.
1.11 During 2016-17, Highways England has reviewed how it will deliver capital investment during the remainder of the road period. It is developing better plans, which are aimed at reducing disruption for road users and delivering better value for money. As a result, some major improvement schemes may now be considered for delivery in the next road period, while other schemes may be brought forward.
1.12 Highways England is now proposing its revised plans to government through the formal change control process. Its engagement with this process has improved during the year, but the rigour of its evidence on the need for, and impact of, change needs continued focus. Once its revised baseline plan is agreed, we expect it to be made publicly available.
1.13 Highways England needs to ensure it can deliver this portfolio of enhancements whilst limiting any adverse impact on the performance targets. It is developing an improved approach to understanding and mitigating risks to delivery of the portfolio. Highways England will provide further evidence to us on its work to assess delivery risk during summer 2017 and we will report on its progress.
1.14 We have carried out a review of how Highways England and its supply chain are positioned to deliver the RIS. This has identified areas of good progress but also opportunities, such as reviewing whether the company can contract with the supply chain further in advance of scheme delivery to allow better resource planning.
4. Highways England has further work to do to improve its asset management.
It must demonstrate that it is efficiently planning and delivering the right maintenance and renewals work to keep its network in good condition.
1.15 Highways England is developing improved maintenance and renewals planning processes, which it will need to embed. It has reviewed its renewals reporting and identified the need to improve the assurance of its data. We completed an in-depth review into Highways England’s asset management delivery for pavement and structures in March 2017. Highways England is now developing a plan to respond to issues and recommendations made in this review.
1.16 Highways England continues to have challenges in delivering a stable programme of renewals. In 2016-17, there was again a large increase in renewals activity in the final quarter of the year, when the company sought to catch up on under-delivery earlier in the year, and make use of funding available from paused work on the M20 lorry park. The company recognises that there is scope for further efficiency improvements through smoothing its monthly profile of work and has taken account of this in its 2017-18 business planning.
Summary of performance
1.17 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcome in the RIS. This sets out eight outcome areas, each with one or more key performance indicator as well as a number of performance indicators. Delivery against each key performance indicator in 2015-16 and 2016-17, and our assessment for the remainder of the road period, is summarised in the table below using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
2. See annex A for more detail on how we measure Highways England’s performance
3. A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual | Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2016-17 | RAG 2015-16 | RAG 2016-17 | RAG RP1 | |---------|----------------|------------------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Making the network safer | Killed or seriously injured | 2016 figures delayed to September 2017. Change to data collection likely to increase recorded KSIs. | Amber | Awaiting data | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction | 89.1% satisfaction. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability | 98.4% availability. | Green | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance | 85.9% cleared within one hour. | Green | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (secs per vehicle mile) | 9.0s delay, which is slightly higher than in 2015-16. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated | 73 mitigated in 2016-17 (bringing RP1 total to 121). Uncertainties around future delivery. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity | Management plans produced for 15 SSSIs. New biodiversity metric proposed. | Green | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings | 20 new and 7 upgraded crossings delivered in 2016-17. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings | £135m of efficiencies in 2016-17. £169m in RIS1 to date, which is 14% of the target. | Green | Green | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to delivery plan | Work started on 8 schemes (target of 4). 7 schemes open to traffic (target of 8). | Green | Green | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition | 94.3% requires no further investigation. | Green\* | Amber | Amber |
Key: ● = Delivery on track/clear plans in place for RP1 ● = Some risk to delivery of target/plans not fully established for RP1 ● = High risk to delivery of target/plans not in place for RP1
\*In our 2015-16 assessment, we reported pavement condition as green. However, this was based on incorrect data received from Highways England and was subsequently revised to amber. 2. HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
Highways England’s performance remains good across a range of measures
Compared to other road networks casualty rates are low, and it is keeping traffic flowing while delivering major improvements. It is starting to be more efficient in the way it delivers
Safety
2.1 A key priority for Highways England is to improve safety for road users and workers on the strategic road network. It has shown strong commitment to improved safety throughout the organisation and it consistently identifies safety as one of its three imperatives. In 2016-17, the company demonstrated its continued focus on safety.
- It has a comprehensive five-year health and safety plan, which includes 122 actions. It is delivering well against the plan. For example, it has rolled out health and safety leadership and behavioural training across the company.
- Our engagement with road safety stakeholders has shown a broad consensus that Highways England is applying an appropriate focus to road safety.
2.2 Highways England has a key performance indicator target to achieve a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on its network by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. The Department for Transport, which is responsible for producing road casualty statistics, has delayed publication of its 2016 road casualty statistics, which are now expected to be available in September 2017.
Figure 2.1: Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network, 2005-2015 (data for 2016 not yet available)
- It has delivered 20 safety schemes through its cycling, safety and integration ring-fenced fund in 2016-17, and plans to increase the pace of delivery in 2017-18.
- Road casualty rates for 2015 (the most recent year available) show that Highways England’s roads are the safest nationally, and amongst the safest internationally.
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-health-and-safety
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics#publications-2017 2.3 In the last year, many police forces have moved to a new system for reporting road casualty data. The new system automatically defines the severity of injury (slight or serious) suffered by a casualty, based on the type of injury recorded by police officers. These changes have improved the quality of information, but are likely to result in more injuries being classified as serious, and therefore an increase in the reported number of people killed or seriously injured on the network.
2.4 Provisional figures published by the Department for Transport in February 2017 show this increase in the reported number of killed or seriously injured, but more work is required to understand the underlying trend. The department estimates that police forces which have moved to the new system have had an increase in the number of serious injuries that is 10 to 15 per cent higher than those that have not. It will publish more detailed analysis on this change later in 2017. We will work closely with the department and Highways England to understand the conclusions from this work and how it impacts Highways England’s ability to meet its safety target for RIS1.
2.5 The target of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40% remains challenging. Highways England needs to continue to build its understanding of how its actions contribute to improved safety on the network, and use this knowledge to prioritise future interventions.
2.6 In 2016-17, Highways England has made progress against other safety performance indicators. It has completed work to assess the safety of its network, based on a star rating system, and is on track to achieve 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
2.7 Accident frequency rates for both Highways England and supply chain staff have improved in 2016-17, although they remain above the company’s internal targets. Highways England’s five-year health and safety plan includes a number of actions relating to road worker safety. For example, the company is undertaking work to understand how better signage and protection can reduce the risk to workers from vehicle incursions to roadworks.
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-estimates-july-to-september-2016 Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
2.8 A smooth flowing strategic road network is vital to the economic health of the country and supports the timely movement of people and goods. The volume of traffic using the network means that we cannot expect free flowing conditions all of the time. However, Highways England must minimise the impact of roadworks and incidents on users.
2.9 The company’s performance in supporting the smooth flow of traffic is measured by two key performance indicators: network availability and incident clearance. In 2016-17, the company has performed well against both of these indicators, which are both rated as ‘green’.
2.10 Highways England has a target to ensure that lane availability does not fall below 97% in any rolling year. At the end of 2016-17, lane availability on the network was 98.4%, similar to performance last year (figure 2.2). Highways England forecasts that performance will remain above target for the remainder of the first road period.
2.11 Highways England must also clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorway within one hour. Year-end performance for this key performance indicator was 85.9% (figure 2.3), which is slightly lower than last year, but still above the target. In 2016-17, approximately 49,000 incidents were recorded on the network, 5% more than in 2015-16. Despite this increase, Highways England cleared 2,100 more incidents in under one hour than it did in the previous year. The challenges associated with ongoing traffic growth on the network mean that the company should continue to build its understanding of how incident management can minimise delays for road users.
2.12 Highways England’s impact on economic growth is monitored by a key performance indicator which measures average delay per vehicle mile. Performance has been stable throughout 2016-17, at 9 seconds per vehicle mile, despite increased traffic on the network. There is no target for average delay, but because it has shown a small increase since 2015-16 (8.9 seconds per vehicle mile), this key performance indicator is rated as ‘amber’.
Figure 2.2: Network availability, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Figure 2.3: Incident clearance, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Figure 2.4: Average delay on the strategic road network, 2012-13 to 2016-17
- adjusted historical data (comparison with latest data is illustrative) Achieving real efficiency
2.13 Highways England spent £3.1bn in 2016-17, including £2.0bn of capital investment mainly on improvements to the network (£1.3bn) and renewals of infrastructure (£0.6bn). This was 2.4% higher than expenditure in 2015-16 and was £42m (1%) lower than funding agreed with the Department for Transport. The company has reported £135m of efficiencies in 2016-17, bringing the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first two years of this road period to £169m. This exceeded the company’s internal target by £30m.
2.14 Highways England must deliver at least £1.2bn of efficiency improvements by 2020. Reported efficiencies in the first two years represent 14% of this target so considerable work remains to achieve the key performance indicator requirement. The key performance indicator is rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1 because of the challenging level of efficiencies that remain to be delivered and risks associated with schemes that start construction at the end of Road Period. This has an impact on the certainty of the company’s plans to deliver the more stretching efficiency improvements required in later years of the Road Period.
2.15 We have worked with Highways England to develop the evidence to support its efficiency reporting over the past year. We discuss this in more detail in Annex C.
Major investment delivery
2.16 Highways England must progress 112 major improvement schemes during the first road period. In 2016-17, it planned to start construction on four schemes and open eight to traffic.
2.17 The company has started works on the four schemes as planned, one of which started ahead of schedule. In addition, it started construction on four schemes which were previously scheduled to start in 2019-20. This includes combining two adjacent schemes which were originally planned with different timetables but which will now be delivered as one to reduce the impact and delays caused by roadworks.
2.18 Highways England opened six of the planned eight schemes to traffic during the year. Two were delayed. It also opened an additional scheme, which was originally planned for completion in 2017-18. Table 2.1 presents a summary of major schemes delivery in 2016-17.
Figure 2.5: Efficiency reported to date
![Efficiency reported to date chart]
- Target
- Efficiency reported Table 2.1: Summary of major schemes delivery in 2016-17
| Construction phase | 2016-17 Delivery Plan Commitment | Delivery in 2016-17 | Details | RAG | |--------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------|---------|-----| | Start of works | 4 schemes to start works during 2016-17 | 8 schemes started | 3 schemes on schedule | Green | | | | | 1 scheme ahead of its delivery plan commitment for 2016-17 | Green | | | | | 4 schemes brought forward from 2019-20 commitments | Green | | Open for traffic | 8 schemes to open for traffic during 2016-17 | 7 schemes opened for traffic (including one delivered early) | 6 schemes on schedule | Green | | | | | 1 scheme brought forward from 2017-18 commitment | Green | | | | | 2 schemes delayed | Red |
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed
2.19 In March 2017, we completed an in-depth review of a sample of Highways England’s major schemes. The sample consisted of ten major schemes and two “corridors” of multiple schemes. The work focused on identifying how the company is managing risks to delivery of its major schemes and identifying programme-wide risks and opportunities.
2.20 The review identified areas of good practice, but also opportunities for Highways England to improve. For example:
- Highways England has robust processes for managing delivery of individual schemes, but it does not yet have robust processes for managing programmes or portfolios of schemes;
- Highways England is focused on delivering schemes on schedule, but this emphasis may be leading to behaviours which increase risks during delivery – for example, for some schemes in the sample it had procured construction works while design work was still in progress (with mitigating actions in place); and
- Highways England has robust cost estimating processes but a number of the projects in the sample had significant variances in cost, value for money and schedule for a variety of reasons.
2.21 Highways England engaged positively in our review and helped to make sure that it resulted in useful recommendations that it could put into action. It has now developed a draft plan to address the recommendations.
2.22 In January 2017, we visited one of the schemes in the sample – the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury – to see first-hand some of the issues raised. Major scheme case study – A21 Tonbridge to Pembury
- The A21 Tonbridge to Pembury scheme is widening the route between the M25 and Hastings. This section of the A21 carries 35,000 vehicles per day – significantly higher than its original designed capacity. It also has a high accident frequency rate.
- The solution being delivered by Highways England completes the missing dual carriageway link and provides better flowing (grade-separated) junctions. It also provides improved cycle routes.
- The improvements aim to increase safety, reduce congestion and improve reliability of journey times.
- During our visit to the scheme, Highways England highlighted to us the importance of pre-construction surveying and investigation to help reduce the risk of delays when on site. For example, the sensitive wooded site meant that it was difficult to undertake comprehensive ground investigations before construction. As a result, Highways England had to carry out significant extra work to address environmental concerns with contaminated land and to respond to on-site ground conditions.
- This has had an impact on the scheme’s costs and completion date. Despite this, the scheme will be completed this summer and will deliver real benefits to road users. Highways England has missed its targets on road user satisfaction and network condition
It is putting in place plans to address shortfalls. These and other areas of performance need continued focus to deliver future targets
User satisfaction
2.23 It is important that Highways England delivers a service that meets road users’ needs, and maintains high levels of satisfaction. Satisfaction is measured through regular surveys and is a key indicator of how the company is performing for the users of the network.
2.24 Road user satisfaction with using the strategic road network was 89.1% in 2016-17. This is below the target of 90%, and also below last year’s score of 89.3%.
Figure 2.6: Road user satisfaction, 2012-13 to 2016-17
2.25 The overall satisfaction score is calculated by combining five separate elements of satisfaction. Satisfaction with signage and safety were above 90%, while satisfaction with the upkeep of the network, journey times and roadworks management were all below 90%.
Figure 2.7: Road user satisfaction with different journey elements, 2016-17
2.26 The question about satisfaction with roadworks management is only asked of respondents who experienced roadworks on their most recent trip, and it consistently scored the lowest of the five elements in the satisfaction score. This poses a challenge for Highways England as more investment, and therefore more roadworks, is planned later in the road period.
2.27 We have worked closely with Highways England on a review of how it manages roadworks. This project considered the end-to-end process of how roadworks are planned, communicated and delivered. It looked for areas of internal (to Highways England) and external (from other road authorities or infrastructure providers) best practice that could be applied to further strengthen Highways England’s approach. Highways England is considering the recommendations from the report, which we plan to publish alongside our annual benchmarking report later in the year.
2.28 Highways England also focused on this area in 2016-17 and its actions to improve roadworks satisfaction included:
- improving the accuracy of roadworks information on the Traffic England website;
- introducing customer-focused checklists of roadworks for traffic officers;
- performing customer audits of all major project roadworks between January and March 2017; and
- trialling higher speed limits through some roadworks.
2.29 Despite these actions, satisfaction with roadworks fell slightly in 2016-17 from the previous year. This could be caused by a lag between Highways England’s actions and their impact on user satisfaction. 2.30 There are other instances where Highways England has used insight from its user surveys to try to improve user satisfaction, like the improvements it has made to variable message signs (see the case study below for more details).
2.31 The company is committed to becoming more customer-focused. For example, it has embedded Customer Service Directors across the business to help deliver its customer service strategy and has taken steps to improve its public correspondence. These are important for improving the overall customer experience, but are less likely to affect the key performance indicator directly.
2.32 Highways England has worked with Transport Focus to understand what its customers want, but it does not currently have a clear understanding of what drives the user satisfaction score, or the expected impact of its actions. Therefore, this key performance indicator is rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1. Highways England plans to develop its capability in this area during 2017-18. This should help it target its actions to improve user satisfaction, as part of its wider strategy to improve overall customer service across the organisation. It needs to produce a recovery plan setting out what actions it is taking by when to improve performance compared to the target level of 90%, and maintain this improved level of satisfaction.
Case study: Improving variable message signs
- Highways England has used comments received from the National Road User Satisfaction Survey to identify improvements to its variable message signs (VMS) to provide clearer information to its customers.
- For example on its larger VMS, the company has replaced messages which state that there are ‘minor’ or ‘long’ delays with automated estimates of the length of delays. It also now automatically includes place names on VMS so that users can more easily understand where there is disruption on the network.
- The survey shows that VMS has a positive impact on user satisfaction. This is a good example of how Highways England can use insight from user surveys to identify and develop further improvements that benefit its users. It plans to build on this work by:
- rolling out estimated length of delay to smaller VMS;
- further improving travel time information – showing journey times to multiple destinations or by multiple routes on one sign;
- trialling different signage for unconfirmed incidents (for example, where there has been an accident reported, but this has not been confirmed by a traffic officer); and
- reviewing the amount of time that queue protection speed restrictions remain in place after a queue has cleared. Network condition
2.33 Highways England must keep its existing assets in a safe and serviceable condition to deliver the service that road users and wider stakeholders require. Network condition is a key performance indicator for the first road period, and measures the percentage of road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance.
2.34 In March 2017, the network condition key performance indicator was at 94.3% against a target of 95%. Although this measure has increased from 92.3% at the start of the year, this means that company has missed its target in both 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Figure 2.8: Network condition, 2012-13 to 2016-17
2.35 During 2016-17, Highways England provided updated information which showed that network condition at the end of 2015-16 was 92.3% - not 95.4% as it had previously reported. The figure was below the target of 95% primarily due to low skid resistance measurements. We reported this in our “Update on Highways England’s capital planning and asset management” report in February 2017.
2.36 We worked with Highways England to investigate why network condition was below target and why the delay in reporting had occurred. We communicated the findings from our investigation to Highways England.
2.37 Our investigation found that the company was managing any safety impact of lower skid resistance. For example, it provided evidence that it was applying its standards which require mitigations such as putting up warning signs on sites where skid resistance is low and may result in an increased risk of collision.
2.38 As a result of the investigation, Highways England has put in place a range of actions to improve its management of network condition and to improve the quality of its reporting. Its improvement plans include carrying out additional volumes of road renewal works to improve network condition. Our investigation found that Highways England had provided evidence of suitable plans to address the shortfall in network condition and the concerns over timely reporting.
2.39 Our investigation also found that Highways England has recognised the need to report high quality and timely information and has put in place additional assurance processes to achieve this. For example, Highways England’s Board now signs off the performance data it publishes each year.
2.40 Our investigation has led to Highways England and ORR achieving an improved understanding of the network condition metric, and Highways England has improved its processes for planning and managing road condition.
2.41 Whilst Highways England has taken forward many of its actions, it did not fully deliver its planned volumes of additional renewals in 2016-17. It has now updated its plan for 2017-18, setting out its trajectory for reaching the target and the additional renewals that it is targeting at the worst performing part of its network. We are carrying out additional monitoring of its network condition improvement plans to make sure they are delivered. Network condition is rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1.
7. http://www.orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/update-on-highways-englands-capital-planning-and-asset-management Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.42 Highways England has the opportunity to minimise the impact of the strategic road network on the environment, delivering better outcomes for those that live near the network and the population more widely.
2.43 In 2016-17, Highways England has made progress in delivering the commitments set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan, which it published in June 2015. During 2016-17, it has worked closely with environmental stakeholders to develop a biodiversity metric. This was completed ahead of schedule. It has also produced management plans for 15 sites of special scientific interest on its estate and approved around 300 biodiversity schemes through the biodiversity technical working group. This progress means that this key performance indicator is rated as ‘green’.
2.44 Highways England has a key performance indicator target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. At the end of 2016-17, the company had mitigated 121 noise important areas on its network, leaving a further 1,029 to be addressed in the next three years.
2.45 In addition to resurfacing and noise barriers, Highways England plans to use noise insulation (fitting double glazing to noise affected properties) to mitigate around 850 noise important areas in the remainder of this road period. However, there are uncertainties around the timing and cost of this approach.
2.46 At the end of March 2017, the company began a pilot scheme to fit noise insulation to properties in 100 noise important areas. We consider this key performance indicator target to be at risk until Highways England is able to use the results from this pilot to produce a more robust plan for how it will meet the target.
2.47 The company has also informed us that resurfacing works carried out as part of the smart motorways programme will mitigate fewer noise important areas than originally expected. We have asked the company to provide us with more details of how it will address this shortfall. As a result of these uncertainties, and the large proportion of noise important areas that still have to be mitigated by 2020, we assess this key performance indicator as ‘amber’ – delivery is at risk for Road Period 1.
Figure 2.9: Noise important areas mitigated by end 2016-17
2.48 In 2015-16, we identified a number of actions Highways England should take to improve its performance in relation to litter on the network. It has responded to these actions in 2016-17. For example, the company published its updated litter strategy in June 2016. It has also provided us with evidence that it is working with stakeholders, such as Keep Britain Tidy, and has increased its focus on clearing litter ‘hot-spots’ on the network. Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
2.49 The strategic road network impacts both those that use the network directly, and its neighbouring communities. The design and operation of the network can influence the extent to which vulnerable users, such as cyclists, walkers, equestrians and motorcyclists can cross the network safely.
2.50 Highways England has a key performance indicator to report the number of new and upgraded crossings it delivers. There is no target for this measure. In 2016-17, Highways England delivered 20 new and 7 upgraded crossings on the network. This takes the total number of crossings delivered in the first two years of this road period to 231, of which 59 are new and 172 upgraded. The company also reports that it is on track to meet its commitment to deliver 150 cycling facilities and crossing points on the network in this road period.
2.51 However, Highways England has yet to set out a clear plan for delivering crossings for the rest of this road period. The company also recognises that it has further work to do to improve the consistency and accuracy of the information it reports for this measure. This key performance indicator is therefore rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1.
Case study: Delivering cycling improvements
- The A64 Askham Bryan cycle scheme in Yorkshire has been delivered using the ring-fenced fund for cycling, safety and integration. It provides an improved environment for cycling by upgrading the verge path between Tadcaster and Copmanthorpe and is part of the national cycle route linking Leeds and York.
- The scheme was completed in advance of the Tour de Yorkshire in April 2017, which was expected to increase the use of cycling facilities in the area. It forms part of the cycling network near Askham Bryan College and its 1,100 students. The scheme includes tactile paving to assist visually impaired pedestrians, and eight new crossings which benefit walkers and other vulnerable users.
Figure 2.10: Number of new and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 and 2016-17
8. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-agency-litter-strategy Highways England has improved its planning of major improvements
It is in the process of proposing a revised baseline plan to government
2.52 Highways England’s original delivery plan (2015-2020) committed to starting 112 schemes by end of the first road period. In our annual assessment for 2015-16 we raised concerns that the company needed to do more to demonstrate that its plans for these schemes were robust and deliverable.
2.53 During 2016-17, the company has been reviewing its baseline plan for its major schemes with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (Highways England has called this the “corridor” approach).
2.54 In February 2017, we published our report “Update on Highways England’s capital planning and asset management” which set out the progress it had made in developing a more robust capital baseline plan.
2.55 Highways England has progressed its review and is likely to propose changes to its baseline plan, possibly including:
- deferral of schemes where they do not currently demonstrate value for money. These would be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period; and
- changes to the schedule of schemes specified in the RIS and / or Delivery Plan based on the corridor approach. A number of schemes may start earlier than originally planned, and others may start later, the majority of which would then begin construction in the next road period.
2.56 Highways England is now reviewing its revised plans with government and is taking them through the formal change control process. Once its revised plans are agreed, we expect them to be made publicly available.
2.57 The company needs to ensure it can deliver this portfolio of enhancements whilst limiting the impact on the performance targets. It has established a capital portfolio management office which is working to establish greater transparency and assurance around delivery of the portfolio. The office has implemented a programme of improvements to produce a draft revised baseline. We have also seen evidence that its work is improving understanding of risks to delivery and driving mitigating actions.
2.58 In our Update Report, we reported that the company’s forecast costs for its capital portfolio delivery were approximately £0.8bn higher than its funding for the road period. This difference included over-programming and contingency reserves, as part of the company’s approach to managing risks. Following Highways England’s review of its plans, the gap between forecast costs and funding is likely to reduce significantly.
2.59 Highways England will provide further evidence to us on its work to assess delivery risk during summer 2017 and we will report on its progress.
Agreed changes to the RIS
2.60 Highways England must agree all changes to the RIS through the Department for Transport’s change control process. Our role is to review the proposed changes and provide advice to the department on their acceptability. We have been keen to promote the importance of a rigorous change control process. The company’s engagement with this process has improved during the year, but the rigour of its evidence on the need for, and impact of, change needs continued focus. Figure 2.11 shows those agreed changes which have increased the company’s baseline funding to date.
9. http://www.orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/update-on-highways-englands-capital-planning-and-asset-management Future delivery in the first road period
2.61 Of the 80 schemes that are planned to start construction between April 2017 and the end of the road period, Highways England reports that 77 are on, or ahead of, schedule and three are delayed. Of the 19 schemes that are planned to open for traffic, 16 are on schedule, two are delayed and one has changed. Table 2.2: Major scheme delivery – remainder of first road period, construction phase
| Phase | 2016-17 delivery plan commitment (remainder of RP1) | Progress | RAG | |---------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | Start of works | 80\* | 77 schemes forecast to start works on schedule or ahead of schedule | | | | | (subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | 3 schemes forecast to start works behind schedule or at risk | | | Open for traffic | 19\* | 16 schemes forecast to open for traffic on schedule or ahead of schedule | | | | | (subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | 2 schemes forecast to open for traffic behind schedule | | | | | 1 scheme changed (and 1 further scheme to open) | |
\*Detailed explanation given in Annex D, table D3
Highways England’s supply chain
2.62 Building on the work that we carried out last year, we have recently concluded our review of how Highways England is engaging its supply chain to minimise risks to delivery of the RIS.
2.63 The review found that Highways England has made good progress against previous recommendations, for example it has:
- taken measures to improve its understanding of supply chain demand and capacity: improving its modelling of demand, carrying out a survey of supply chain skills and introducing contractual requirements on the number of apprenticeships;
- updated its procurement plan, providing the supply chain with added visibility of its future work; and
- taken action to align its procurement more closely with suppliers’ ability to bid, including through its asset delivery contracts and its emerging approach to future major scheme procurement (“routes to market”).
2.64 The review also recommended areas for further improvement, including:
- reviewing whether the company can contract with the supply chain further in advance of scheme delivery to allow better resource planning;
- considering ways to smooth the profile of work, both across operational and capital works, and with adjacent industries; and
- doing more to attract skilled people to the sector, for example by showcasing high profile projects.
2.65 We valued the strong engagement of both Highways England and members of its supply chain in carrying out this review. Highways England has accepted the recommendations and is now developing its plans to address them. Highways England has further work to do to improve its asset management
It must demonstrate that it is efficiently planning and delivering the right maintenance and renewals work to keep its network in good condition
2.66 Highways England is developing improved maintenance and renewals planning processes, which it will need to embed. It has reviewed its renewals reporting and identified the need to improve the assurance of its data.
2.67 We completed an in-depth review into Highways England’s asset management delivery for pavement and structures in March 2017. The review focused on understanding whether Highways England was managing these assets to deliver its performance outcomes safely, sustainably and efficiently.
2.68 The review identified some areas of good practice. For example, it found that Highways England’s contractors have a well developed knowledge of the network and a good understanding of the need to maintain the safety of road users and road workers. It also identified a number of opportunities for improvement. For example, it found that the company:
- needs to demonstrate a clear line of sight between its maintenance and renewals plans and its performance outcomes (such as network condition);
- should consider developing a more robust approach to planning, delivering and reporting renewals volumes;
- should consider developing improved strategic oversight of regional plans to balance risk across its network and minimise changes to budget allocations; and
- should consider the potential benefits of an independent assurance process to satisfy itself that performance, risk and costs are being reported accurately.
2.69 Highways England engaged with the review constructively and is now developing a plan to respond to its recommendations.
2.70 In 2016-17, Highways England continued to face challenges in delivering its renewals work in the most efficient way. During the year, it again spent significantly more on renewals in the final quarter (40% of annual expenditure), with a particular spike in March 2017. This is likely to lead to inefficiency in the delivery of renewals because poor weather means that supply chain costs in winter are higher than in summer. Also, road surfaces that are laid in cold winter months are unlikely to last as long, therefore increasing whole life costs.
2.71 Highways England has delivered significantly greater volumes of renewals of key asset types than it planned at the start of the year. This may reflect a lack of robustness in the original volume plans - which would explain how this was achieved while only spending 4% above budget. 2.72 The profile of volumes delivered compared to plan also shows a large increase in the final quarter of the year. Figure 2.14 shows the volume of pavement renewals in each quarter of 2016-17 as an example of this. The profiles for many other asset categories show a similar trend.
2.73 The uneven monthly renewals profile demonstrates that Highways England has more to do to move away from an annual planning and delivery approach and realise the full benefits of its five-year funding settlement. It also indicates that the company needs to improve its capability in planning, contract management and forecasting for the remainder of the road period. The company has estimated that delivering a smoother monthly renewals profile could deliver efficiency savings of around £30m in Road Period 1 from reducing lost time due to adverse weather and from lower contractor costs.
2.74 Highways England recognises that it can make greater use of the funding flexibility provided by roads reform to improve efficiency through the smoothing of its monthly profile of work. For 2017-18, Highways England has again set a flatter budget profile and believes its gradual rollout of the Asset Delivery model, which sees it taking greater direct control of renewals, will help it deliver in line with the plan. In future, we would like the company to examine, with the Department for Transport, what cultural and financial control barriers may still exist to the company delivering renewals efficiently across the year.
10. Figure 2.13 reports a subset of renewals volumes Priorities for 2017-18
2.75 During 2016-17, Highways England has delivered its performance requirements in a number of areas and has taken steps to improve its capital baseline plan. But performance and plans in a number of areas can improve and there will need to be particular focus on making sure that plans for RIS2 are robust. In 2017-18, Highways England should focus on the following.
Performance improvements
2.76 Highways England should make sure that it delivers its pavement condition improvement plan and brings network condition back to the target level. It should ensure that it is implementing plans which are targeted at improving user satisfaction. It will also need to deliver its pilot study to inform its plans for noise important areas.
Capital baseline delivery
2.77 Highways England must now finalise its revised capital plan and agree it with government. It must take forward its review of deliverability and affordability and continue to take action to manage costs of the plan both in the first road period and beyond.
2.78 The company should also make sure it delivers on its plans to respond to the recommendations of our in-depth review of its major scheme delivery.
Improving asset management
2.79 Highways England is implementing plans to improve its asset management capability and is taking forwards workstreams to address the issues identified in our in-depth review of its asset maintenance and renewals. It must deliver these plans and make progress in improving the profile of its renewals volumes and expenditure. Data quality and assurance
2.80 To make informed assessments about Highways England’s performance we need to have confidence that the information contained within the company’s annual monitoring reporting statements is accurate and reliable. As explained within this report, we had concerns about the quality of some of the information within the 2015-16 statements, in particular, the network condition key performance indicator. Last year’s statements also did not include sign-off by Highways England’s Board, as had previously been agreed with the company.
2.81 Highways England has developed improvement plans for its reporting and management of network condition. It has also made improvements to the assurance of the 2016-17 monitoring reporting statements, including Board sign-off. We remain concerned about aspects of Highways England’s performance reporting, in particular that the published statements do not include some statements that we have required, including renewals unit costs. We will look to Highways England’s Board to continue to focus on ensuring the quality of reporting of the company’s performance as specified in our monitoring reporting guidelines.
Planning for RIS2
2.82 Our focus will increasingly turn towards the development of the second Road Investment Strategy. A key area for us is ensuring that the strategy is supported by a robust evidence base. The key priority for Highways England in 2017-18 will be the production of the SRN Initial Report and the stakeholder engagement, research and analysis required to complete it.
Our monitoring
2.83 We will continue to apply a risk-based approach to our monitoring and will focus our activity in priority areas including those identified above. Our other priorities for 2017-18 are:
- reviewing Highways England’s “asset delivery” approach to managing its assets. Under this approach, it takes greater ownership of its asset management plans. The asset delivery model is being rolled out as current asset service contracts reach their end;
- reviewing Highways England’s use of its ring-fenced investment funds through an in-depth review; and
- embedding a robust put proportionate approach to monitoring licence compliance. The strategic road network
The strategic road network, managed by Highways England, is an important part of the road network. Comprising approximately 4,400 miles of motorways and main A roads, it accounts for just 2.4% of road length in England but carries a third of traffic, including two thirds of lorry traffic. 95% of English residents and 99% of vehicles use the network at least once a year. In 2016, 91.9 billion vehicle miles were driven on the network, of which 74% were cars and 25% vans and lorries.
Roads are a key part of the country’s infrastructure. They keep people connected and are vital for supporting economic growth. 90% of passenger journeys and 76% of domestic freight movements are made by road.
Traffic on the strategic road network grew by 10% between 2010 and 2016 with the biggest growth coming from light goods vehicles, which increased by 30% in the same period. The Department for Transport’s national transport model predicts that, between 2010 and 2040, traffic on the network will increase by 29% to 60%. Highways England is the government-owned company which manages the motorways and main A roads in England (the strategic road network). In 2014, government published its Road Investment Strategy (RIS). This specified a set of outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (Road Period 1).
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s performance against these requirements.
Our annual assessment of Highways England provides transparency to stakeholders on the company’s performance and delivery against:
- the RIS performance specification;
- the RIS investment plan; and
- its licence conditions.
Our assessment recognises that Highways England is in the process of implementing a significant change programme as it adjusts to its new role as a government-owned company.
How we measure Highways England’s performance
We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS Performance Specification. This sets out eight outcomes areas(^\\text{11}), each with one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) as well as a number of performance indicators (PIs).
Traffic growth
Traffic is at record levels, and continuing to grow. Following a pause during the recession, traffic on the strategic road network has grown by over 10% between 2010 and 2016 – double the growth rate on local roads.
Despite the challenge presented by traffic growth, Highways England is continuing to manage, operate and deliver major improvements to its network.
The Department for Transport forecasts that traffic on the strategic road network will continue to grow, by between 29% and 60%, between 2010 and 2040. This presents a challenge to Highways England in delivering its commitments in the first road period and the company must manage the impacts on its outcome.
Figure A1: Vehicle miles travelled on the strategic road network(^\\text{12})
______________________________________________________________________
11. A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual
12. The projected traffic presented in this chart is based on the high and low scenarios from the Department for Transport’s road traffic forecasts, 2015: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411471/road-traffic-forecasts-2015.pdf ANNEX B: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Outcome: Making the network safer
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve an ongoing reduction in network KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by the end of 2020 against the 2005-09 average baseline
2016-17 status: Awaiting data
RIS1 status: Amber
The Department for Transport has delayed publication of its road casualty statistics until September 2017. Therefore, we are unable to show performance against this key performance indicator in 2016. The chart below shows road casualty data up to 2015, when there were 1,784 KSIs on the strategic road network, including 226 deaths.
We are aware that there has been a change in the way that police forces record road casualty data (discussed in chapter 2 of this report). The department will publish more detailed analysis on this change later in 2017. We will work closely with the department and Highways England to understand the implications of this work and how it impacts on Highways England’s ability to meet its safety key performance indicator for RIS1.
Figure B1: Killed or serious injured on the SRN, 2005-2015 Performance indicators
Casualty numbers for all-purpose trunk roads: The Department for Transport’s road casualty statistics are used to monitor this performance indicator. Therefore, figures for 2016 are not yet available. In 2015, there were 7,988 casualties (of all severities) recorded on Highways England’s A-roads.
Incident numbers on motorways: In 2016, there were 49,130 incidents recorded on Highways England’s motorway network. This is 5.5% higher than the total recorded in the previous year. The growth of traffic on the network is likely to have contributed, at least in part, to this increase.
Figure B2: Motorway incidents, 2014-15 to 2016-17
Road safety investigations: In 2016-17, Highways England completed work to assess the safety of its network, based on a star rating system. It expects to meet its target of achieving 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
Accident frequency rates: Highways England reports accident frequency rates through the established ‘Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations’ (RIDDOR) process.
Accident frequency rates for both Highways England and supply chain staff have improved in 2016-17. However, they remain above Highways England’s internal targets.
For construction and maintenance workers in Highways England’s supply chain, the accident frequency rate fell from 0.15 in 2015-16 to 0.11 in 2016-17.
Figure B3: Accident frequency rate for construction and maintenance workers, 2012-13 to 2016-17
In Highways England’s customer operations directorate – which covers the Traffic Office Service – the accident frequency rate fell from 0.77 in 2015-16 to 0.51 in 2016-17.
Figure B4: Accident frequency rate for customer operations directorate, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Accident frequency rates for Highways England’s customer operations directorate include a relatively small number of workers and figures are therefore subject to considerable fluctuation between years. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it
2016-17 status: Amber
RIS1 status: Amber
Overall user satisfaction was 89.1% in 2016-17, below the target of 90% and lower than the 89.3% recorded in 2015-16.
Figure B5: User satisfaction, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Figure B6 shows the satisfaction scores for these journey elements since 2012-13. Satisfaction with roadworks management is consistently lower than the other journey elements. Of the other four elements, journey time satisfaction has consistently been below 90%, while satisfaction with general upkeep, signage and safety has been above, or close to, 90%.
This pattern was repeated in 2016-17. Satisfaction with signage and safety was above 90% but satisfaction with journey times, roadworks management and general upkeep was below 90%.
Figure B6: Satisfaction with journey elements from 2012-13 to 2016-17
Performance indicators
Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS: The satisfaction scores come from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). Respondents are asked about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the SRN:
- journey times;
- roadworks management;
- general upkeep;
- signage; and
- safety. Table B1 shows changes in satisfaction with the five journey elements from 2015-16 to 2016-17 and estimates of how they affected the overall score. The biggest individual change was in roadworks management but this has a smaller effect on the overall score because only respondents that experienced roadworks on their most recent trip answer that question.
Table B1: Changes in user satisfaction, 2015-16 to 2016-17
| Journey elements | Change 2015-16 to 2016-17 | Estimated impact on overall satisfaction | |------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Journey time | -0.7% | -0.2% | | Roadworks | -2.2% | -0.1% | | General upkeep | +0.3% | +0.1% | | Signage | +0.6% | +0.1% | | Safety | -0.8% | -0.2% |
NRUSS scores by location: The map in figure B7 shows a regional breakdown of NRUSS satisfaction scores. Satisfaction was above 90% in the East and the South West, but was below 90% in all of the other regions. The North West had the lowest satisfaction for the fourth consecutive year.
NRUSS scores for motorways and all purpose trunk roads: Satisfaction with all purpose trunk roads increased 0.8 percentage points to 90.3% in 2016-17. But satisfaction on motorways fell 1 percentage point to 88.1%.
Figure B7: User satisfaction by region, 2016-17
Figure B8: User satisfaction with motorways and all purpose trunk roads, 2012-13 to 2016-17 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year
2016-17 status: Green RIS1 status: Green
Network availability measures the percentage of road lanes that are available to traffic as a percentage of the total road lanes on the network, over a rolling year.
At March 2017, lane availability on the strategic road network was 98.4%, above the target of 97%, and similar to performance in 2015-16.
Highways England forecasts that availability will remain above 97% for the remainder of the road period.
Key performance indicator: Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
2016-17 status: Green RIS1 status: Green
In the rolling year to March 2016, Highways England cleared 85.9% of motorway incident within an hour. This is similar to last year’s performance, and above the target of 85%.
This target will become increasingly challenging if traffic growth causes the number of incidents on the network to increase over time. Highways England has undertaken further work during 2016-17 to better understand the reasons for incidents missing the one hour target so it can best target its interventions to ensure that performance remains above target. Performance indicators
Traffic on the strategic road network: The volume of traffic on the strategic road network is at record levels, and increasing. In 2016, 91.9bn vehicle miles were travelled on the network, 2.5% more than in 2015. Since a pause in traffic growth during the economic downturn, volumes on the strategic road network have increased in each of the past seven years.
Figure B11: Traffic on the strategic road network, 2000 to 2016
Planning time index: The planning time index measures the additional time that road users would have to allow for their journey to arrive on time in 19 out of 20 journeys. It is measured by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free-flow journey time. In 2016-17, the planning time index was 1.68, which is higher than was recorded in 2015-16 (1.66). This indicates that the most delayed journeys on the network were worse in 2016-17 than in 2015-16.
Acceptable journeys: This performance indicator measures the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flowing speed. In 2016-17, 83.5% of journeys on the strategic road network were above 75% of the free-flow speed. This is slightly less than in the previous year, when 83.6% of journeys were above 75% of free-flow speed.
Average speed: In 2016-17, the average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 59.5 miles per hour. This is faster than in 2015-16, when the average speed was 59.3 miles per hour. Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
| 2016-17 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber |
Average delay on the network is used to measure Highways England’s impact on economic growth. There is no target associated with this indicator.
In the rolling year to March 2017, average delay was 9 seconds per vehicle mile. This is equivalent to a trip of 100 miles taking 15 minutes longer than if the network has no congestion.
Delay on the network in the latest year is slightly higher than in 2015-16, when a figure of 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile was recorded. The monthly pattern of delay between the two years was very similar, as shown in figure B12.
Figure B12: Monthly delay in seconds per vehicle mile, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Performance indicators
Average delay on gateway routes: Delay is also measured on gateway routes – a subset of the strategic road network which includes connections linking major population centres, or business and manufacturing sites, with the most important ports and airports, and rail freight services. Delay on gateway routes has also remained fairly constant since last year, although slightly lower than overall delay, at 8.2 seconds per vehicle mile.
Responding to formal planning applications: Highways England’s role as a major statutory consultee is monitored by the percentage of planning applications that it responds to within 21 days. In 2016-17, the company’s performance was 99.8%; above the company’s internal target of 99%.
Spend on small and medium sized enterprises: In 2016-17, Highways England estimates that its expenditure on goods and services from small and medium sized businesses was 25.5%; above the government target of 25%.
Increasing traffic on the network, and delivery of the capital investment programme, present a challenge to managing delay throughout the remainder of this road period. During 2016-17, Highways England has continued to build a better understanding of the causes of delay on the network, and how its interventions can minimise the impact on road users. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
| 2016-17 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2016-17, Highways England mitigated traffic noise from the strategic road network in 73 noise important areas(^{13}), bringing the total for the first road period to 121. Highways England must mitigate a further 1,029 in the final three years of the road period to meet the target of 1,150.
Table B2 summarises the interventions (delivered and planned) that Highways England will use to meet this target during the first road period. This shows that insulation (fitting double glazing to noise affected properties) is expected to account for the majority of noise important areas.
Highways England awarded a contract to deliver this work in March 2017. As part of this, an initial pilot study is expected to mitigate approximately 100 noise important areas during 2017-18. We consider this target to be at risk until Highways England is able to use the results from this pilot to produce a more robust plan for how it will meet the target.
The company has recently informed us that resurfacing works carried out as part of the smart motorways programme will mitigate fewer noise important areas than originally expected. We will work with the company to understand how this affects its plans to deliver the target.
Table B2: Noise important areas mitigated, and forecast for RP1
| | Complete | Forecast | Total | |----------------|----------|----------|-------| | Resurfacing | 113 | 84 | 197 | | Major projects | 7 | 52 | 59 | | Barriers\* | 1 | 74 | 75 | | Insulation\* | - | 850 | 850 | | Total | 121 | 1,060 | 1,181 |
\*Delivered through environment ring-fenced funds
(^{13}) Areas containing residents exposed to the highest noise levels, as designated by Defra as part of the noise action planning process In 2016-17, Highways England has made progress in delivering the commitments set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan, which it published in June 2015. Key areas of progress during the year have included:
**Developing a biodiversity metric:** The company has developed a biodiversity metric ahead of schedule. It has worked closely with environmental stakeholders to ensure that the metric is appropriate and draws on best practice. We will now monitor progress as the metric is introduced in 2017-18.
**Management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs):** Highways England has committed to producing management plans for the 40 largest sites of SSSIs on its estate. At the end of 2016-17, the company had successfully put the first 15 of these in place.
**Planning of biodiversity projects:** Around 300 schemes to deliver biodiversity improvements on and around the network have been approved by the biodiversity technical working group, which Natural England also sits on. These schemes spent £850,000 in 2016-17 and delivery is expected to accelerate in 2017-18.
**Performance indicators**
**Air quality pilot studies:** In 2016-17, Highways England began work on four air quality pilot studies, bringing the total in this road period to ten. The conclusions from these pilots will help inform how the ring-fenced funds for air quality will be used.
**Carbon dioxide (Highways England’s activities):** In 2016-17, Highways England reported that its activities resulted in the emission of 89,346 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 6% lower than the total recorded in 2015-16.
**Carbon dioxide (supply chain):** In 2016-17, emissions from Highways England’s supply chain were estimated at 361,987 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, which is 11% lower than recorded in 2015-16. However, the latest figures are still subject to validation and may be subject to change as they are finalised.
**Figure B14: Carbon dioxide emissions for Highways England and supply chain, 2012-13 to 2016-17**
**Number of flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated:** In 2016-17, Highways England mitigated 61 flooding hotspots and one culvert. The company has worked to improve the quality of data used to report progress against this performance indicator during the year. This has resulted in the total number of flooding hotspots and culverts that were reported as mitigated during 2015-16 being revised down from 124 to 75. Despite this reduction in reported mitigations, it is positive that Highways England is reviewing data quality and putting in more robust systems for monitoring its assets. Number of outfalls and soakaways mitigated: Outfalls and soakaways are parts of the drainage system on the strategic road network which discharge to a watercourse, or enable water to soak into the ground. In 2016-17, Highways England mitigated five very high or high risk outfalls and no soakaways. Four of the outfalls were delivered through major projects that completed during the year. This represents an improvement from 2015-16, when no outfalls were mitigated.
Table B3: summary of environmental performance indicators, 2015-16 and 2016-17
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | Air quality pilot studies commissioned | 6 | 4 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – Highways England’s activities (tonnes) | 95,373 | 89,346 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – supply chain activities (tonnes) | 406,523 | 361,987 | | Flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated | 75 | 62 | | Outfalls and soakaways mitigated | 0 | 5 | Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
2016-17 status: Amber RIS1 status: Amber
In 2016-17, Highways England delivered 20 new and seven upgraded crossings for cyclists, walkers and vulnerable users. The company has now delivered 59 new and 172 upgraded crossings in the first road period (figure B15).
There is no target for this indicator. However, Highways England has yet to set out a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings for the rest of this road period. Highways England also recognises that it has further work to do to improve the consistency and accuracy of the information it reports for this measure.
Figure B15: New and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Performance indicators
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme: As part of its cycling programme, Highways England is committed to delivering 150 cycling schemes in the first road period. In 2016-17 it has delivered 32, bringing the total in the past two years to 57. Highways England reports that it is on track to meet its commitment. However, we would like to see greater clarity around its plans for delivery of schemes in future years.
Vulnerable user casualties: Highways England must also report on the number of vulnerable road user casualties, of all severities, on the network as a performance indicator. As highlighted previously, road casualty data for 2016 is not yet available. Figures from 2014 and 2015 are shown below for reference.
Table B4: Vulnerable user casualties (all severities), 2014 and 2015
| Category | 2014 | 2015 | |----------------|------|------| | Motorcyclists | 917 | 849 | | Pedal cyclists | 179 | 153 | | Pedestrians | 182 | 158 | Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.212bn over the first road period.
2016-17 status: Green RIS1 status: Amber
In the first two years of Road Period 1, Highways England’s cumulative capital expenditure was £6.1bn. The company has reported £169m of cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme over this period. This exceeds its internal target by £30m and represents 14% of the RIS target.
Figure B16: Efficiency by type of capital scheme
Highways England has reported renewals efficiencies from a range of initiatives. These include reducing traffic management and other operational costs by aligning renewals schemes with major projects, contractual changes including more efficient approaches to applying road markings, and more collaborative working with the supply chain.
Efficiencies on the company’s Smart Motorway Programme include reducing overheads through reducing the time taken to deliver schemes, design standardisation (for example, of overhead gantries) and other process improvements.
Highways England published its Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan during the year. This document summarises the company’s processes to deliver efficiency improvements and the related controls designed to ensure that it meets the key performance indicator.
Highways England has developed its evidence supporting reported efficiencies. However, the company needs to do more to strengthen its reporting of renewals unit costs and the top-down evidence of delivering work to plan.
Performance indicators
Highways England measures its performance against its Cost Performance Indicator and Schedule Performance Indicator, which measure whether the capital programme is being delivered in a timely and efficient manner. These indicators are close to 1, which shows that its capital programme is broadly on track in terms of cost and schedule compared to the delivery plan.
Table B5: Cost performance indicator (CPI) & Schedule performance indicator (SPI)
| | 2016-17 | |----------------------|---------| | Cost performance indicator | 0.99 | | Schedule performance indicator | 0.97 |
Our analysis of financial performance and efficiency is set out in Annex C.
14. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600019/N160284_HE_Capital_Efficiency_Delivery_Plan.pdf. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
| 2016-17 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In March 2017, the percentage of pavement (road) that did not require further investigation for possible maintenance was 94.3%. This measure has improved from 92.3% in 2015-16 but it remains below the target of 95%.
Figure B17: Pavement condition, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Highways England has provided evidence that it is taking appropriate action to manage any safety implications of lower road condition.
It has developed, and is implementing, a range of actions aimed at improving its management of network condition. This includes a plan to deliver additional road renewal volumes to improve the condition of the network and achieve its target.
Whilst Highways England has taken forwards many of its actions, it did not deliver its planned volumes of additional renewals in 2016-17. It has now updated its plan for 2017-18, setting out its trajectory for reaching the target and the additional renewals that it is targeting at the worst performing part of its network. We are carrying out increased monitoring to ensure these plans are delivered.
Performance indicators
As well as pavement, Highways England also manages other physical assets on the network, including structures (such as bridges), geotechnical works (for example embankments), drainage assets (such as gullies and drains) and technology assets (such as overhead message signs).
Structure assets: Highways England is improving its structures inventory information, which is now 98.1% complete. This is an improvement of 0.3 percentage points on the position in 2015-16 (97.8%). The company continues to report that the overall condition of its structures assets is good, with a high average structural condition score.
Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 96.8% of its geotechnical assets do not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2016-17. This is 0.2 percentage points higher than the position in 2015-16 (96.6%).
Drainage assets: The percentage of Highways England’s drainage asset for which it has inventory data coverage increased to 88% in 2016-17, from 87% in the previous year. The percentage of the network with drainage condition data also increased, to 31% in 2016-17, up from 27% in 2015-16.
Technology asset availability: At the end of 2016-17, Highways England’s technology metrics were all reported to be above target with its roadside technology at 98.8% availability, up from 98.7% in 2015-16. The RIS Performance Specification requires that Highways England develops new condition metrics for pavements and structures for agreement by 31 March 2017. Highways England has shown some progress in the development of the new metrics but more work is required. These will be validated over the next two years and may be considered for use in the next road period.
### Table B6: Summary of asset performance indicators, 2015-16 and 2016-17
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | Structures inventory information | 97.8% | 98.1% | | Geotechnical - intervention not required | 96.6% | 96.8% | | Drainage inventory coverage | 87% | 88% | | Drainage condition data coverage | 27% | 31% | | Technology asset availability | 98.7% | 98.8% | ANNEX C: FINANCIAL AND EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE
This annex sets out our analysis of Highways England’s financial performance and efficiency in 2016-17, and our review of its plans for the first road period.
Financial performance Expenditure compared to budget
As shown in figure C1, Highways England spent £3.1bn in 2016-17, split two thirds on capital investment (renewals and improvements to the network) and a third on resource expenditure (operating and maintenance of the network). This was 2.4% higher than expenditure in 2015-16 and was £42m (1%) lower than funding agreed with the Department for Transport.
Highways England published an updated Delivery Plan in June 2016(^\\text{15}) which included a budget of £1,977m for capital expenditure in 2016-17. The company originally intended to make use of its ability to flex its capital funding with an increase of £150m compared to its original delivery plan to increase funding for improvement schemes.
Figure C1: Highways England’s expenditure in 2016-17
15. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/538130/S160049_Highways_England_Delivery_Plan_2016_Final\_-\_Digital_version.pdf The department subsequently agreed to provide £230m of additional funding for development of the M20 Lorry Park. As only £80m was expected to be required for this scheme in 2017-18, the department agreed for Highways England to use the remaining £150m to fund the planned increase in expenditure on improvement schemes rather than using the capital flex. As such, the final capital budget for 2016-17 (£2,068m) included an additional £80m for spending on the Lorry Park along with an £11m budget transfer from resource for a revision to accounting treatment of research and development expenditure. The change in capital funding for 2016-17 is shown in figure C2. Capital expenditure (£2,031m) was £37m (1.8%) below budget and resource expenditure (£1,042m) was £5m (0.5%) below budget. Significant variances compared to the budget are shown in Figure C3 and are summarised below:
- Renewals expenditure was £23m higher than budget(^{16}). Highways England decided to bring forward some renewals activity from 2017-18 in order to reduce the overall capital underspend.
- Expenditure on improvement schemes was £41m lower than budget. The M20 lorry park scheme underspent by £69m due to delays in developing the scheme. There were also underspends on other schemes which are paused awaiting value for money assessments. These underspends were partially offset by overspends on some major projects.
- Ring-fenced investment funds (air quality, environment and innovation funds) underspent by £10m (17%) due to delays in developing these work programmes.
- Other Capital was underspent by £9m due to delays in IT projects and projects to improve programme management capability.
- Resource expenditure was £5m below budget due to slower recruitment than anticipated and favourable settlement of contractual claims.
**Figure C3: Highways England’s expenditure compared to budget in 2016-17**
| Capital | Budget | Actual | |--------------------------|--------|--------| | Renewals | 603 | 626 | | Improvements | 1,301 | 1,260 | | Ring-fenced investment | 58 | 48 | | Other | 106 | 97 | | Maintenance and renewal | 255 | 270 |
**Expenditure variances within the capital portfolio**
Our analysis shows that actual expenditure varied significantly from the baseline for a high proportion of improvement schemes in 2016-17. Figure C4 shows the proportion of the 112 major schemes with large variances.
______________________________________________________________________
16. Specifically capital renewals expenditure. Some renewals activities such as inspections are accounted for separately as resource expenditure. In 2016-17, 78% of major schemes had underspends or overspends 20% greater than baseline. For schemes that were in construction, 60% underspent or overspent by 20% more than the baseline.
Whilst overall the major scheme portfolio was progressing broadly on budget, a high proportion of individual schemes have large in-year variances. In some cases, this reflects the reprogramming of schemes for reasons of efficiency (e.g. delivering a 2017-18 scheme early when another scheme is delayed). However, it will be important for the company to have a good understanding of the reasons for these variances and apply any lessons learned from this analysis in delivering future schemes.
**Monthly renewals expenditure variances**
Figure C5 shows that Highways England’s expenditure on renewals increased significantly in the final three months of both 2015-16 and 2016-17. Winter working is typically less efficient due to lost time from severe weather and higher contractor rates. We have discussed this with Highways England who recognise that this is not the most efficient profile given the funding certainty provided by the RIS. As shown in figure C5, the 2016-17 budget had a smoother profile and the company has examined the main factors that resulted in higher expenditure in the final quarter.
For 2017-18, Highways England has again set a flatter budget profile and believes its gradual rollout of the asset delivery model, which sees it taking greater direct control of renewals, will help it deliver in line with the plan. In future we would like the company to examine, with the Department for Transport, what cultural and financial control barriers may still exist to the company delivering renewals efficiently across the year. Efficiency improvements
The company has reported £135m of efficiencies in 2016-17, bringing the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first two years of Road Period 1 to £169m. This exceeded the company’s internal target by £30m.
Highways England reports efficiency improvements as set out in the Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM)(^\\text{17}). There are three components of our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements:
1. analysis of Highways England’s bottom-up description of efficiency improvements;
2. unit cost movements; and
3. expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the Road Investment Strategy;
Our review has shown that Highways England has improved the evidence supporting its efficiency reporting over the past year, but has further work to do in some areas.
Efficiency improvements in 2016-17
Highways England has reported renewals efficiencies from a range of initiatives. These include reducing traffic management and other operational costs by aligning renewals schemes with major projects, contractual changes including more efficient approaches to applying road markings, and more collaborative working with the supply chain.
Efficiencies on the company’s Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) include reducing overheads through reducing the time taken to deliver schemes, design standardisation (for example, of overhead gantries) and other process improvements.
(^{17}) The monitoring approach set out in the EIMM was jointly developed by Highways England and us. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464887/Efficiency_Manual_v5_spreads.pdf Delivering the £1.2bn RIS1 efficiency requirement
Highways England must deliver at least £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in Road Period 1. Efficiencies delivered in the first two years represents 14%, in line with their delivery plan. Considerable work remains to achieve the KPI requirement.
Highways England published a Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan during the year. This document summarises the company's processes to deliver efficiency improvements and the related controls designed to ensure that it meets the KPI requirement. We consider that this delivery plan provides increased confidence about the company's ability to deliver the £1.2bn requirement. However, there is still some risk associated with schemes that start construction at the end of Road Period 1. This has an impact on the certainty of the company's plans to deliver the more stretching efficiency improvements required in later years of the road period.
Efficiencies from the smart motorway programme
In our 2015-16 annual assessment, we raised concerns about the robustness of the company's analysis of efficiency improvements from its smart motorway programme.
During 2016-17, Highways England developed a more robust approach to assessing these efficiency improvements. The approach is based on a detailed unit cost analysis and addresses the concerns that we previously raised.
Highways England is currently developing its approach for assessing efficiency for other parts of its improvement programme, in particular, its Regional Improvement Programme. We expect the company to progress this work over the next few months in consultation with us.
Renewals unit cost analysis
Highways England does not consider that its renewals unit cost information is as robust as it would anticipate. As a result, its Board was unable to assure the costs published in the company's Monitoring Reporting Statements. We recognise the complexity of calculating and reporting renewals unit costs for Highways England, particularly where contractors may undertake a number of different activities within one scheme of works. However, we consider that Highways England needs to strengthen its reporting of renewals unit costs. We will work with the company to address this over the next year.
Cost Performance Index
The Cost Performance Index is a measure of earned value which is often used in the construction industry. It is a measure of the relationship between target and actual cost for work completed. Highways England has reported a CPI of 0.99, which indicates that overall, projects are slightly above target cost. The financial performance section of this annex provides details of individual scheme variances.
Schedule Performance Index
The Schedule Performance Index is a similar measure of progress against the agreed schedule. It is a measure of the relationship between budgeted cost of work delivered and scheduled to be delivered. The company has reported a SPI of 0.97, which indicates that overall projects are slightly behind schedule.
Input price effects
Highways England's funding for capital projects in 2016-17 included an additional 4% for forecast increases to the costs of the company's inputs, i.e. materials and labour costs. Whilst there is no single index that adequately tracks Highways England's specific expenditure, the company's analysis of a range of measures suggests that the input prices may have increased by 4.8%, compared to 0.5% in 2015-16.
Lower overall input prices may have saved the company around £20-30m on its capital programme over the past two years. Because of Highways England's differing approaches to the sharing of inflation risk in their supplier contracts, it is likely that the actual impact could be significantly lower than this because the potential savings may only realise as contracts expire and are renewed.
18. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600019/N160284_HE_Capital_Efficiency_Delivery_Plan.pdf ANNEX D: NETWORK INVESTMENT DELIVERY
This annex describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2016-17, including ring-fenced funds. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
The RIS sets the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England must deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlines a five-year capital funding package of £11.4 billion for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This includes:
- a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7 billion;
- a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.7 billion;
- a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and
- investment associated with strategic studies.
We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the Investment Plan.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2016-17
Highways England’s progress in delivery of its capital programme during 2016-17 is shown in table D1. It has started construction works on all four schemes that were planned to start, one of which started ahead of schedule. In addition, four schemes scheduled to start construction in 2019-20 started early, ahead of the timescales in Highways England’s delivery plan. This includes combining two adjacent schemes (M1 junctions 24-25 and M1 junctions 23A-24), originally planned with different timetables that will now be delivered as one scheme to reduce the impact and delays to road users.
Highways England planned to open eight schemes to traffic during 2016-17, six of which were completed on schedule. The remaining two schemes are delayed.
The A30 Temple to Higher Carblake scheme is being delivered by Cornwall County Council and delays are primarily due to changes in the traffic management strategy to deal with peak summer traffic. This scheme is forecast to be delayed by seven months to quarter 2 of 2017-18.
The A21 Tonbridge to Pembury is also reported to be delayed by seven months, to quarter 3 of 2017-18. The delay is due to unforeseen ground conditions which required Highways England to deal with large volumes of hazardous waste contamination and ground water. It has reported that lessons learnt from this scheme are being applied across the network enhancement programme.
The company opened one additional scheme to traffic which was originally planned for completion in 2017-18.
### Table D1: Major schemes delivery in 2016-17
| 2016-17 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |----------------------|----------------|-------------| | **Major schemes starting construction** | | | | A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon | 2016-17, Q3 | 2016-17, Q3 | | A19 Coast Road | 2016-17, Q2 | 2016-17, Q1 Ahead of schedule | | M4 Junctions 3-12 | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | M1 Junctions 24-25 | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 Combined schemes | | M1 junctions 23A-24 | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | M1 Junction 45 Improvements | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | A47 Acle Straight | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | A52 Nottingham junctions | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | **Major schemes opened for traffic** | | | | A1 Coal House to Metro Centre | 2016-17, Q1 | 2016-17, Q1 | | M1 Junction 19 improvement | 2016-17, Q3 | 2016-17, Q3 | | A45-A46 Tollbar End | 2016-17, Q3 | 2016-17, Q3 | | A30 Temple to Higher Carblake | 2016-17, Q3 | Forecast 2017-18, Q2 | | A556 Knutsford to Bowdon | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | M1 Junctions 32-35A | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | A160/A180 Immingham | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | 2016-17, Q4 | Forecast 2017-18, Q3 | | M25 Junction 30 | 2017-18, Q1 | 2016-17, Q3 Ahead of schedule |
**Key**
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed
Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2016-17 is shown in table D2. The company has spent 10% more than it budgeted on those schemes in construction and 6% more than budgeted on those schemes which have opened for traffic.
19. Highways England is adopting a phased approach to deliver this programme of junction improvements along the length of the A52 in Nottingham. The first two junctions started in 2016-17. During 2016-17, Highways England has made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed 11 schemes from pre-options into options stages and 14 schemes have started development. By the end of March 2017, 20 schemes were under construction exceeding Highways England’s delivery plan. A breakdown of the major schemes’ progress in 2015-16 and 2016-17 is shown in figure D1.
Figure D1: Progress of schemes through development and construction in 2016-17
Highways England has provided us with its assumptions for the dates when its major schemes will progress through the stages of development and construction that are outlined in the chart above. We will continue to monitor progress against these in the remainder of the road period.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the remainder of the road period
Highways England’s original delivery plan (2015-2020) included starting all 112 major improvement schemes by the end of the first road period. During 2016-17, it has taken forwards a review of its major schemes with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience.
For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (Highways England has called this the “corridor” approach).
As a result, Highways England is proposing a range of changes that are being taken through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. The proposals may include:
- deferral of schemes where they do not currently demonstrate value for money. These would be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period; and
- changes to the schedule of schemes specified in the RIS and/or Delivery Plan based on the corridor approach. A number of schemes may start earlier than originally planned, and others may start later, the majority of which would begin construction in the next road period.
For the remainder schemes, Highways England reports that three schemes’ planned starts during the road period are at risk.
For those schemes which are planned to open for traffic, two are delayed.
The M1 junctions 24-25 scheme is being combined with the M1 junctions 23a-24 and both will now be opened for traffic in the road period. By combining these two schemes Highways England expects to reduce the impact caused by roadworks and the benefits of the M1 junctions 23a-24 scheme are planned to be delivered 36 months ahead of schedule.
The major scheme delivery status for the remainder of the first road period is summarised in table D3.
### Table D3: Major scheme delivery – remainder of first road period, construction phase
| Phase | 2016-17 delivery plan commitment (remainder of RP1) | Progress | No. | Details | Status | |----------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Start of works | | On schedule | 77 | As planned (Subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | Delayed | 3 | M621 Junctions 1-7 improvements – start of works commitment of 2019-20 delayed to April 2020 | | | | | | | A27 Chichester Bypass – stopped, to be change controlled | | | | | | | M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road – start of works commitment of 2018-19 at risk | | | Open for traffic| | On schedule | 16 | As planned (subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | Delayed | 2 | A1 Leeming to Barton – open for traffic commitment of 2017-18 quarter 1 delayed to quarter 3 | | | | | | | M60 Junction 8 to M62 Junction 20: Smart Motorway – open for traffic commitment of 2017-18 quarter 2 delayed by to quarter 4 | | | | | Changed | 1 | M1 Junctions 24-25 will now open in 2018-19 (scheme combined with M1 Junctions 23A-24). (The M1 Junctions 23A-24 is now also to open in 2018-19 – a new commitment for the road period.) | |
**Key**
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone at risk, subject to change or one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestones changed
*Highways England’s delivery plan update 2016-17 committed to have started works on all 112 major schemes by the end of the first road period. Of these, 16 started works before the road period, eight started in 2015-16, eight started in 2016-17 and we report on the remaining 80 here. Highways England’s delivery plan update 2016-17 committed to open 33 major schemes for traffic in the first road period. Of these, five opened for traffic in 2015-16, seven opened in 2016-17, two were scheduled for 2016-17 but were delayed and we report on the remaining 19 here.* In-depth review of major projects
To support our work in monitoring Highways England’s delivery of its major improvement programme, we have carried out an in-depth review of a sample of its major schemes. The company has given strong support to this work. The sample consisted of ten major schemes and two routes, and was selected to be broadly representative of the major schemes portfolio in terms of project complexity, development, type and size.
The purpose of the review was to understand the robustness of the processes which Highways England is using to manage its schemes, and to identify any systemic or common themes in development, management and delivery of its major improvement programme.
The review made recommendations including:
- Highways England should undertake a comprehensive review of its capital baseline considering cost, schedule and risk;
- guidance should be developed for projects to improve coordination between project teams and central functions – for example in the way lessons are learned and communicated;
- use of procurement frameworks and template arrangements should be considered alongside other options so that scheme specific factors drive commercial and procurement strategies;
- portfolio management should be strengthened to improve data and reporting, and coordinate major project and renewals work better;
- speed of adopting programme management processes should increase; and
- future resource and capability requirements should be assessed to reduce risk to investment delivery.
Highways England has accepted these recommendations. It has developed an action plan to address them, which includes identifying the change programmes that are already underway and which will contribute to the plan.
Maintenance and renewals delivery
In 2016-17, Highways England reviewed its initial maintenance and renewals programme. It re-profiled expenditure compared to its budget, resulting in significantly higher expenditure in the final quarter of the year. Figure D2 shows the profile of renewals by quarter.
Highways England has identified three main reasons for the profile of renewals expenditure in 2016-17:
- contractual changes in three regions/areas leading to delays in delivery in the early part of the year;
- £30m of additional works in quarter 4 to counter-balance an underspend on the M20 Lorry Park; and
- conditioning related to many years of working within annual funding envelopes.
Our analysis has shown that the company has more work to do to improve its forecasting of renewals expenditure. In its monthly reporting Highways England has in every month except March spent less (5-24%) than it was forecasting to in the previous month’s report.
The company has delivered significantly greater volumes on the majority of the main assets types than it had planned (with the exception of geotechnical) and the profile of volumes delivered compared to plan also show a large increase in the final quarter of the year.
### Table D4: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2016-17
| Renewals | 2016-17 commitments | Planned Volume | Actual volume | |----------|----------------------|----------------|---------------| | **Renewal of roads** | | | | | Pavement (lane kilometres) | 1,200 | 2,234 | | Road Markings (linear metres) | 1,952,868 | 4,381,958 | | Kerbs (linear metres) | 8,088 | 21,151 | | Vehicle restraint system (VRS) - Concrete (linear metres) | 10,000 | 12,354 | | Vehicle restraint system (VRS) - Non Concrete (linear metres) | 85,910 | 116,209 | | Drainage (linear metres) | 177,295 | 323,832 | | Geotechnical (linear metres) | 11,884 | 10,212 | | Traffic Signs (number) | 1,140 | 1,500 | | Guardrail (linear metres) | 147 | 926 | | Boundary Fencing (linear metres) | 28,544 | 40,271 | | Footways (linear metres) | 2,014 | 25,233 | | Lighting (number) | 2,332 | 6,474 | | Soft Estate (number) | 6 | 16 | | **Renewal of structures** | | | | | Bridge Joint (number) | 231 | 783 | | Bridge Bearing (number) | 159 | 191 | | Parapet (linear metres) | 2,202 | 4,221 | | Waterproofing (square metres) | 27,067 | 34,588 | | **Renewal of technology** | | | | | Motorway Coms Equipment (number) | 96 | 407 | | Renewals and improvements (number) | 256 | 810 | | Winter Resilience (number) | 55 | 62 | | Network Resilience (number) | 24 | 19 | As set out in chapter 2, we have carried out an in-depth review of Highways England’s management of pavement and structures assets. It is now developing a plan to make improvements to its planning, delivery and reporting of maintenance and renewals work.
**Ring-fenced investment funds**
The Investment Plan for the first road period includes a series of ring-fenced funds (also known as designated funds), worth £675 million. These funds, which are used to address a range of issues that are over and above the traditional focus of road investment, are split into five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; growth and housing.
Table D5, below, sets out the value of each fund, the total spent at the end of 2016-17, and examples of outputs from each fund.
### Table D5: Ring-fenced funds delivery in 2016-17
| Fund name | Funding (first road period) | Cumulative spend at end 2016-17 | % of funds spent at end 2016-17 | Schemes delivered in 2016-17 | |----------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Air quality | £75m | £2m | 3% | National air quality monitoring network: 24 stations operations by end 2016-17 | | | | | | Mineral polymer barrier pilot underway | | Cycling, safety and integration | £175m | £34.6m | 20% | 32 cycling schemes | | | | | | 20 safety schemes | | | | | | 2 integration schemes | | Environment | £225m | £16.6m | 7% | 6 flood mitigation schemes | | | | | | 2 noise schemes | | | | | | 2 LED lighting schemes | | | | | | 6 landscape schemes | | | | | | 4 biodiversity schemes | | Innovation | £120m | £11.5m | 10% | Construction started on motorway to motorway traffic management system | | Growth and housing | £80m | £5.3m | 7% | 12 schemes approved in 2016-17, of which work has begun on three. |
To date, progress in delivering projects through ring-fenced funds has been slow, with a small proportion of the available funding being spent. This is partly due to the need for the company to focus on developing plans for each fund, before it can deliver outputs.
Highways England has engaged well with stakeholders as it develops its plans for each ring-fenced fund. For example, during 2016-17, the company held two stakeholder events, which have helped improve transparency. Despite this, there is still a lack of robust plans in some areas, particularly air quality and innovation, and this represents a risk to these funds successfully meeting their objectives.
During 2017-18 we will be undertaking an in-depth review of the management of the ring-fenced funds, and will report our findings.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1030-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 64,
"total-input-tokens": 137113,
"total-output-tokens": 28040,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
77,
1
],
[
77,
77,
2
],
[
77,
304,
3
],
[
304,
304,
4
],
[
304,
2798,
5
],
[
2798,
2798,
6
],
[
2798,
6608,
7
],
[
6608,
10588,
8
],
[
10588,
12747,
9
],
[
12747,
12747,
10
],
[
12747,
14811,
11
],
[
14811,
17102,
12
],
[
17102,
19458,
13
],
[
19458,
21820,
14
],
[
21820,
24560,
15
],
[
24560,
25819,
16
],
[
25819,
28467,
17
],
[
28467,
31118,
18
],
[
31118,
34321,
19
],
[
34321,
37065,
20
],
[
37065,
39196,
21
],
[
39196,
42828,
22
],
[
42828,
43182,
23
],
[
43182,
46309,
24
],
[
46309,
48937,
25
],
[
48937,
50502,
26
],
[
50502,
52062,
27
],
[
52062,
54280,
28
],
[
54280,
54280,
29
],
[
54280,
55324,
30
],
[
55324,
57763,
31
],
[
57763,
57763,
32
],
[
57763,
58917,
33
],
[
58917,
60874,
34
],
[
60874,
62253,
35
],
[
62253,
63948,
36
],
[
63948,
65276,
37
],
[
65276,
66731,
38
],
[
66731,
68872,
39
],
[
68872,
70966,
40
],
[
70966,
73584,
41
],
[
73584,
74606,
42
],
[
74606,
76430,
43
],
[
76430,
78879,
44
],
[
78879,
81633,
45
],
[
81633,
82477,
46
],
[
82477,
83653,
47
],
[
83653,
84317,
48
],
[
84317,
86301,
49
],
[
86301,
86301,
50
],
[
86301,
88042,
51
],
[
88042,
89743,
52
],
[
89743,
93735,
53
],
[
93735,
93735,
54
],
[
93735,
96229,
55
],
[
96229,
98180,
56
],
[
98180,
100811,
57
],
[
100811,
103638,
58
],
[
103638,
106621,
59
],
[
106621,
107961,
60
],
[
107961,
108761,
61
],
[
108761,
112834,
62
],
[
112834,
112834,
63
],
[
112834,
112834,
64
]
]
} |
1c56f637b213aa3682aba65f02852eeeb0e0e573 | ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2016 - MARCH 2017
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2017
# CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 7\
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7\
Key messages .................................................................................................................... 7\
Summary of performance ............................................................................................... 8
2. Highways England’s performance .................................................................................... 11\
Performance remains good across a range of measures .............................................. 11\
Targets on road user satisfaction and network condition have been missed ............... 17\
Planning of major improvements has improved .......................................................... 22\
Further work to do to improve asset management ....................................................... 25\
Priorities for 2017-18 ..................................................................................................... 27
Annex A: Background and context ..................................................................................... 30
Annex B: Performance against outcomes ......................................................................... 33\
Outcome: Making the network safer ............................................................................. 33\
Outcome: Improving user satisfaction ......................................................................... 35\
Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic ......................................................... 37\
Outcome: Encouraging economic growth ..................................................................... 39\
Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes ............................................... 40\
Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users .................................. 43\
Outcome: Achieving real efficiency .............................................................................. 44\
Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition ...................................................... 45
Annex C: Financial and efficiency performance .................................................................. 47
Annex D: Network investment delivery ............................................................................. 55
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.1 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s management of the strategic road network – the motorways and main A-roads in England.
1.2 In the Road Investment Strategy1 (RIS), government has set out the outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (Road Period 1). We hold Highways England to account for its performance and efficiency targets that are specified in the RIS. Our focus is on securing better performance and value for money from the strategic road network, to benefit road users and the wider public.
1.3 This is our annual assessment of Highways England’s performance in 2016-17. We have found that, despite facing challenges from record levels of traffic on the network, Highways England has performed well, and largely met its requirements.
Four key messages for 2016-17
1. Highways England’s performance remains good across a range of measures.
Compared to other road networks casualty rates are low, and it is keeping traffic flowing while delivering major improvements. It is starting to be more efficient in the way it delivers.
1.4 Highways England continues to focus on safety as a priority. It has a comprehensive five-year health and safety plan, which it is delivering. Figures for the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the network in 2016 have not yet been published. However, changes to how road casualty data are recorded are likely to cause an increase in the number of reported serious injuries when the figures are published in September 2017. This will impact Highways England’s ability to meet its target of achieving a 40% reduction in the number of KSIs on the strategic road network by 2020. Despite this, the strategic road network has lower casualty rates than other roads in England. It is also one of the safest road networks internationally.
1.5 In 2016-17, Highways England performed well in keeping traffic flowing. It has kept 98.4% of its network open to traffic against a target of 97%, similar to last year’s performance. It has cleared 85.9% of incidents within an hour, which is slightly lower than in recent years, but still above the target of 85%.
1.6 Highways England spent £3.1bn in 2016-17, including £2bn of capital investment. The company has reported £135m of capital efficiencies during the year, bringing the total to £169m for Road Period 1, which is more than it had targeted. The company has developed its plans for how it will deliver the £1.2bn RIS1 target and the evidence supporting reported efficiencies, though developing the evidence base remains work in progress.
1.7 In 2016-17, Highways England started construction on eight major road improvement schemes, against a plan to start on four. It has opened seven major schemes for traffic, against a plan to open eight.
2. Highways England has missed its targets on road user satisfaction and network condition.
It is putting in place plans to address shortfalls. These and other areas of performance need continued focus to deliver future targets.
1.8 Road user satisfaction with the strategic road network was 89.1% in 2016-17. This is below the target of 90%, but in line with performance in the previous year. Highways England has demonstrated commitment to improve user satisfaction through actions taken in 2016-17 and must now set out clearer plans to maximise its chances of delivering the target.
1.9 At the end of 2016-17, the proportion of network in good condition was at 94.3%, against a target of 95%. We investigated this issue and found that Highways England is managing any safety
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-investment-strategy-for-the-2015-to-2020-road-period impact, and is now taking appropriate action to improve network condition.
1.10 At the end of 2016-17, Highways England had mitigated 121 noise important areas towards its target of 1,150 by 2020. Over the next year, it will produce updated plans for how it will meet this target. It also has more work to do to set out clearly how many crossings for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users it will deliver, and when.
3. Highways England has improved its planning of major improvements.
It is in the process of proposing a revised baseline to government.
1.11 During 2016-17, Highways England has reviewed how it will deliver capital investment during the remainder of the road period. It is developing better plans, which are aimed at reducing disruption for road users and delivering better value for money. As a result, some major improvement schemes may now be considered for delivery in the next road period, while other schemes may be brought forward.
1.12 Highways England is now proposing its revised plans to government through the formal change control process. Its engagement with this process has improved during the year, but the rigour of its evidence on the need for, and impact of, change needs continued focus. Once its revised baseline plan is agreed, we expect it to be made publicly available.
1.13 Highways England needs to ensure it can deliver this portfolio of enhancements whilst limiting any adverse impact on the performance targets. It is developing an improved approach to understanding and mitigating risks to delivery of the portfolio. Highways England will provide further evidence to us on its work to assess delivery risk during summer 2017 and we will report on its progress.
1.14 We have carried out a review of how Highways England and its supply chain are positioned to deliver the RIS. This has identified areas of good progress but also opportunities, such as reviewing whether the company can contract with the supply chain further in advance of scheme delivery to allow better resource planning.
4. Highways England has further work to do to improve its asset management.
It must demonstrate that it is efficiently planning and delivering the right maintenance and renewals work to keep its network in good condition.
1.15 Highways England is developing improved maintenance and renewals planning processes, which it will need to embed. It has reviewed its renewals reporting and identified the need to improve the assurance of its data. We completed an in-depth review into Highways England’s asset management delivery for pavement and structures in March 2017. Highways England is now developing a plan to respond to issues and recommendations made in this review.
1.16 Highways England continues to have challenges in delivering a stable programme of renewals. In 2016-17, there was again a large increase in renewals activity in the final quarter of the year, when the company sought to catch up on under-delivery earlier in the year, and make use of funding available from paused work on the M20 lorry park. The company recognises that there is scope for further efficiency improvements through smoothing its monthly profile of work and has taken account of this in its 2017-18 business planning.
Summary of performance
1.17 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcome in the RIS. This sets out eight outcome areas, each with one or more key performance indicator as well as a number of performance indicators. Delivery against each key performance indicator in 2015-16 and 2016-17, and our assessment for the remainder of the road period, is summarised in the table below using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
______________________________________________________________________
2. See annex A for more detail on how we measure Highways England’s performance
3. A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual | Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2016-17 | RAG 2015-16 | RAG 2016-17 | RAG RP1 | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Making the network safer | Killed or seriously injured | 2016 figures delayed to September 2017. Change to data collection likely to increase recorded KSIs. | Amber | Awaiting data | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction | 89.1% satisfaction. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability | 98.4% availability. | Green | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance | 85.9% cleared within one hour. | Green | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (secs per vehicle mile) | 9.0s delay, which is slightly higher than in 2015-16. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated | 73 mitigated in 2016-17 (bringing RP1 total to 121). Uncertainties around future delivery. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity | Management plans produced for 15 SSSIs. New biodiversity metric proposed. | Green | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings | 20 new and 7 upgraded crossings delivered in 2016-17. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings | £135m of efficiencies in 2016-17. £169m in RIS1 to date, which is 14% of the target. | Green | Green | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to delivery plan | Work started on 8 schemes (target of 4). 7 schemes open to traffic (target of 8). | Green | Green | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition | 94.3% requires no further investigation. | Green\* | Amber | Amber |
Key: ● = Delivery on track/clear plans in place for RP1 ● = Some risk to delivery of target/plans not fully established for RP1 ● = High risk to delivery of target/plans not in place for RP1
\*In our 2015-16 assessment, we reported pavement condition as green. However, this was based on incorrect data received from Highways England and was subsequently revised to amber. 2. HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
Highways England’s performance remains good across a range of measures
Compared to other road networks casualty rates are low, and it is keeping traffic flowing while delivering major improvements. It is starting to be more efficient in the way it delivers
Safety
2.1 A key priority for Highways England is to improve safety for road users and workers on the strategic road network. It has shown strong commitment to improved safety throughout the organisation and it consistently identifies safety as one of its three imperatives. In 2016-17, the company demonstrated its continued focus on safety.
- It has a comprehensive five-year health and safety plan, which includes 122 actions. It is delivering well against the plan. For example, it has rolled out health and safety leadership and behavioural training across the company.
- Our engagement with road safety stakeholders has shown a broad consensus that Highways England is applying an appropriate focus to road safety.
2.2 Highways England has a key performance indicator target to achieve a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on its network by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. The Department for Transport, which is responsible for producing road casualty statistics, has delayed publication of its 2016 road casualty statistics, which are now expected to be available in September 2017.
- It has delivered 20 safety schemes through its cycling, safety and integration ring-fenced fund in 2016-17, and plans to increase the pace of delivery in 2017-18.
- Road casualty rates for 2015 (the most recent year available) show that Highways England’s roads are the safest nationally, and amongst the safest internationally.
Figure 2.1: Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network, 2005-2015 (data for 2016 not yet available)
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-health-and-safety
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics#publications-2017 2.3 In the last year, many police forces have moved to a new system for reporting road casualty data. The new system automatically defines the severity of injury (slight or serious) suffered by a casualty, based on the type of injury recorded by police officers. These changes have improved the quality of information, but are likely to result in more injuries being classified as serious, and therefore an increase in the reported number of people killed or seriously injured on the network.
2.4 Provisional figures published by the Department for Transport in February 2017 show this increase in the reported number of killed or seriously injured, but more work is required to understand the underlying trend. The department estimates that police forces which have moved to the new system have had an increase in the number of serious injuries that is 10 to 15 per cent higher than those that have not. It will publish more detailed analysis on this change later in 2017. We will work closely with the department and Highways England to understand the conclusions from this work and how it impacts Highways England’s ability to meet its safety target for RIS1.
2.5 The target of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40% remains challenging. Highways England needs to continue to build its understanding of how its actions contribute to improved safety on the network, and use this knowledge to prioritise future interventions.
2.6 In 2016-17, Highways England has made progress against other safety performance indicators. It has completed work to assess the safety of its network, based on a star rating system, and is on track to achieve 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
2.7 Accident frequency rates for both Highways England and supply chain staff have improved in 2016-17, although they remain above the company’s internal targets. Highways England’s five-year health and safety plan includes a number of actions relating to road worker safety. For example, the company is undertaking work to understand how better signage and protection can reduce the risk to workers from vehicle incursions to roadworks.
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-estimates-july-to-september-2016 Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
2.8 A smooth flowing strategic road network is vital to the economic health of the country and supports the timely movement of people and goods. The volume of traffic using the network means that we cannot expect free flowing conditions all of the time. However, Highways England must minimise the impact of roadworks and incidents on users.
2.9 The company’s performance in supporting the smooth flow of traffic is measured by two key performance indicators: network availability and incident clearance. In 2016-17, the company has performed well against both of these indicators, which are both rated as ‘green’.
2.10 Highways England has a target to ensure that lane availability does not fall below 97% in any rolling year. At the end of 2016-17, lane availability on the network was 98.4%, similar to performance last year (figure 2.2). Highways England forecasts that performance will remain above target for the remainder of the first road period.
2.11 Highways England must also clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorway within one hour. Year-end performance for this key performance indicator was 85.9% (figure 2.3), which is slightly lower than last year, but still above the target. In 2016-17, approximately 49,000 incidents were recorded on the network, 5% more than in 2015-16. Despite this increase, Highways England cleared 2,100 more incidents in under one hour than it did in the previous year. The challenges associated with ongoing traffic growth on the network mean that the company should continue to build its understanding of how incident management can minimise delays for road users.
2.12 Highways England’s impact on economic growth is monitored by a key performance indicator which measures average delay per vehicle mile. Performance has been stable throughout 2016-17, at 9 seconds per vehicle mile, despite increased traffic on the network. There is no target for average delay, but because it has shown a small increase since 2015-16 (8.9 seconds per vehicle mile), this key performance indicator is rated as ‘amber’.
Figure 2.2: Network availability, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Figure 2.3: Incident clearance, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Figure 2.4: Average delay on the strategic road network, 2012-13 to 2016-17
- adjusted historical data (comparison with latest data is illustrative) Achieving real efficiency
2.13 Highways England spent £3.1bn in 2016-17, including £2.0bn of capital investment mainly on improvements to the network (£1.3bn) and renewals of infrastructure (£0.6bn). This was 2.4% higher than expenditure in 2015-16 and was £42m (1%) lower than funding agreed with the Department for Transport. The company has reported £135m of efficiencies in 2016-17, bringing the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first two years of this road period to £169m. This exceeded the company’s internal target by £30m.
2.14 Highways England must deliver at least £1.2bn of efficiency improvements by 2020. Reported efficiencies in the first two years represent 14% of this target so considerable work remains to achieve the key performance indicator requirement. The key performance indicator is rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1 because of the challenging level of efficiencies that remain to be delivered and risks associated with schemes that start construction at the end of Road Period. This has an impact on the certainty of the company’s plans to deliver the more stretching efficiency improvements required in later years of the Road Period.
2.15 We have worked with Highways England to develop the evidence to support its efficiency reporting over the past year. We discuss this in more detail in Annex C.
Major investment delivery
2.16 Highways England must progress 112 major improvement schemes during the first road period. In 2016-17, it planned to start construction on four schemes and open eight to traffic.
2.17 The company has started works on the four schemes as planned, one of which started ahead of schedule. In addition, it started construction on four schemes which were previously scheduled to start in 2019-20. This includes combining two adjacent schemes which were originally planned with different timetables but which will now be delivered as one to reduce the impact and delays caused by roadworks.
2.18 Highways England opened six of the planned eight schemes to traffic during the year. Two were delayed. It also opened an additional scheme, which was originally planned for completion in 2017-18. Table 2.1 presents a summary of major schemes delivery in 2016-17.
Figure 2.5: Efficiency reported to date Table 2.1: Summary of major schemes delivery in 2016-17
| Construction phase | 2016-17 Delivery Plan Commitment | Delivery in 2016-17 | Details | RAG | |--------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------|---------|-----| | Start of works | 4 schemes to start works during 2016-17 | 8 schemes started | 3 schemes on schedule | Green | | | | | 1 scheme ahead of its delivery plan commitment for 2016-17 | Green | | | | | 4 schemes brought forward from 2019-20 commitments | Green | | Open for traffic | 8 schemes to open for traffic during 2016-17 | 7 schemes opened for traffic (including one delivered early) | 6 schemes on schedule | Green | | | | | 1 scheme brought forward from 2017-18 commitment | Green | | | | | 2 schemes delayed | Red |
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed
2.19 In March 2017, we completed an in-depth review of a sample of Highways England’s major schemes. The sample consisted of ten major schemes and two “corridors” of multiple schemes. The work focused on identifying how the company is managing risks to delivery of its major schemes and identifying programme-wide risks and opportunities.
2.20 The review identified areas of good practice, but also opportunities for Highways England to improve. For example:
- Highways England has robust processes for managing delivery of individual schemes, but it does not yet have robust processes for managing programmes or portfolios of schemes;
- Highways England is focused on delivering schemes on schedule, but this emphasis may be leading to behaviours which increase risks during delivery – for example, for some schemes in the sample it had procured construction works while design work was still in progress (with mitigating actions in place); and
- Highways England has robust cost estimating processes but a number of the projects in the sample had significant variances in cost, value for money and schedule for a variety of reasons.
2.21 Highways England engaged positively in our review and helped to make sure that it resulted in useful recommendations that it could put into action. It has now developed a draft plan to address the recommendations.
2.22 In January 2017, we visited one of the schemes in the sample – the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury – to see first-hand some of the issues raised. Major scheme case study – A21 Tonbridge to Pembury
- The A21 Tonbridge to Pembury scheme is widening the route between the M25 and Hastings. This section of the A21 carries 35,000 vehicles per day – significantly higher than its original designed capacity. It also has a high accident frequency rate.
- The solution being delivered by Highways England completes the missing dual carriageway link and provides better flowing (grade-separated) junctions. It also provides improved cycle routes.
- The improvements aim to increase safety, reduce congestion and improve reliability of journey times.
- During our visit to the scheme, Highways England highlighted to us the importance of pre-construction surveying and investigation to help reduce the risk of delays when on site. For example, the sensitive wooded site meant that it was difficult to undertake comprehensive ground investigations before construction. As a result, Highways England had to carry out significant extra work to address environmental concerns with contaminated land and to respond to on-site ground conditions.
- This has had an impact on the scheme’s costs and completion date. Despite this, the scheme will be completed this summer and will deliver real benefits to road users. Highways England has missed its targets on road user satisfaction and network condition
It is putting in place plans to address shortfalls. These and other areas of performance need continued focus to deliver future targets
User satisfaction
2.23 It is important that Highways England delivers a service that meets road users’ needs, and maintains high levels of satisfaction. Satisfaction is measured through regular surveys and is a key indicator of how the company is performing for the users of the network.
2.24 Road user satisfaction with using the strategic road network was 89.1% in 2016-17. This is below the target of 90%, and also below last year’s score of 89.3%.
Figure 2.6: Road user satisfaction, 2012-13 to 2016-17
2.25 The overall satisfaction score is calculated by combining five separate elements of satisfaction. Satisfaction with signage and safety were above 90%, while satisfaction with the upkeep of the network, journey times and roadworks management were all below 90%.
Figure 2.7: Road user satisfaction with different journey elements, 2016-17
2.26 The question about satisfaction with roadworks management is only asked of respondents who experienced roadworks on their most recent trip, and it consistently scored the lowest of the five elements in the satisfaction score. This poses a challenge for Highways England as more investment, and therefore more roadworks, is planned later in the road period.
2.27 We have worked closely with Highways England on a review of how it manages roadworks. This project considered the end-to-end process of how roadworks are planned, communicated and delivered. It looked for areas of internal (to Highways England) and external (from other road authorities or infrastructure providers) best practice that could be applied to further strengthen Highways England’s approach. Highways England is considering the recommendations from the report, which we plan to publish alongside our annual benchmarking report later in the year.
2.28 Highways England also focused on this area in 2016-17 and its actions to improve roadworks satisfaction included:
- improving the accuracy of roadworks information on the Traffic England website;
- introducing customer-focused checklists of roadworks for traffic officers;
- performing customer audits of all major project roadworks between January and March 2017; and
- trialling higher speed limits through some roadworks.
2.29 Despite these actions, satisfaction with roadworks fell slightly in 2016-17 from the previous year. This could be caused by a lag between Highways England’s actions and their impact on user satisfaction. 2.30 There are other instances where Highways England has used insight from its user surveys to try to improve user satisfaction, like the improvements it has made to variable message signs (see the case study below for more details).
2.31 The company is committed to becoming more customer-focused. For example, it has embedded Customer Service Directors across the business to help deliver its customer service strategy and has taken steps to improve its public correspondence. These are important for improving the overall customer experience, but are less likely to affect the key performance indicator directly.
2.32 Highways England has worked with Transport Focus to understand what its customers want, but it does not currently have a clear understanding of what drives the user satisfaction score, or the expected impact of its actions. Therefore, this key performance indicator is rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1. Highways England plans to develop its capability in this area during 2017-18. This should help it target its actions to improve user satisfaction, as part of its wider strategy to improve overall customer service across the organisation. It needs to produce a recovery plan setting out what actions it is taking by when to improve performance compared to the target level of 90%, and maintain this improved level of satisfaction.
Case study: Improving variable message signs
- Highways England has used comments received from the National Road User Satisfaction Survey to identify improvements to its variable message signs (VMS) to provide clearer information to its customers.
- For example on its larger VMS, the company has replaced messages which state that there are ‘minor’ or ‘long’ delays with automated estimates of the length of delays. It also now automatically includes place names on VMS so that users can more easily understand where there is disruption on the network.
- The survey shows that VMS has a positive impact on user satisfaction. This is a good example of how Highways England can use insight from user surveys to identify and develop further improvements that benefit its users. It plans to build on this work by:
- rolling out estimated length of delay to smaller VMS;
- further improving travel time information – showing journey times to multiple destinations or by multiple routes on one sign;
- trialling different signage for unconfirmed incidents (for example, where there has been an accident reported, but this has not been confirmed by a traffic officer); and
- reviewing the amount of time that queue protection speed restrictions remain in place after a queue has cleared. Network condition
2.33 Highways England must keep its existing assets in a safe and serviceable condition to deliver the service that road users and wider stakeholders require. Network condition is a key performance indicator for the first road period, and measures the percentage of road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance.
2.34 In March 2017, the network condition key performance indicator was at 94.3% against a target of 95%. Although this measure has increased from 92.3% at the start of the year, this means that company has missed its target in both 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Figure 2.8: Network condition, 2012-13 to 2016-17
2.35 During 2016-17, Highways England provided updated information which showed that network condition at the end of 2015-16 was 92.3% - not 95.4% as it had previously reported. The figure was below the target of 95% primarily due to low skid resistance measurements. We reported this in our “Update on Highways England’s capital planning and asset management” report in February 2017.
2.36 We worked with Highways England to investigate why network condition was below target and why the delay in reporting had occurred. We communicated the findings from our investigation to Highways England.
2.37 Our investigation found that the company was managing any safety impact of lower skid resistance. For example, it provided evidence that it was applying its standards which require mitigations such as putting up warning signs on sites where skid resistance is low and may result in an increased risk of collision.
2.38 As a result of the investigation, Highways England has put in place a range of actions to improve its management of network condition and to improve the quality of its reporting. Its improvement plans include carrying out additional volumes of road renewal works to improve network condition. Our investigation found that Highways England had provided evidence of suitable plans to address the shortfall in network condition and the concerns over timely reporting.
2.39 Our investigation also found that Highways England has recognised the need to report high quality and timely information and has put in place additional assurance processes to achieve this. For example, Highways England’s Board now signs off the performance data it publishes each year.
2.40 Our investigation has led to Highways England and ORR achieving an improved understanding of the network condition metric, and Highways England has improved its processes for planning and managing road condition.
2.41 Whilst Highways England has taken forward many of its actions, it did not fully deliver its planned volumes of additional renewals in 2016-17. It has now updated its plan for 2017-18, setting out its trajectory for reaching the target and the additional renewals that it is targeting at the worst performing part of its network. We are carrying out additional monitoring of its network condition improvement plans to make sure they are delivered. Network condition is rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1.
7. http://www.orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/update-on-highways-englands-capital-planning-and-asset-management Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.42 Highways England has the opportunity to minimise the impact of the strategic road network on the environment, delivering better outcomes for those that live near the network and the population more widely.
2.43 In 2016-17, Highways England has made progress in delivering the commitments set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan, which it published in June 2015. During 2016-17, it has worked closely with environmental stakeholders to develop a biodiversity metric. This was completed ahead of schedule. It has also produced management plans for 15 sites of special scientific interest on its estate and approved around 300 biodiversity schemes through the biodiversity technical working group. This progress means that this key performance indicator is rated as ‘green’.
2.44 Highways England has a key performance indicator target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. At the end of 2016-17, the company had mitigated 121 noise important areas on its network, leaving a further 1,029 to be addressed in the next three years.
2.45 In addition to resurfacing and noise barriers, Highways England plans to use noise insulation (fitting double glazing to noise affected properties) to mitigate around 850 noise important areas in the remainder of this road period. However, there are uncertainties around the timing and cost of this approach.
2.46 At the end of March 2017, the company began a pilot scheme to fit noise insulation to properties in 100 noise important areas. We consider this key performance indicator target to be at risk until Highways England is able to use the results from this pilot to produce a more robust plan for how it will meet the target.
2.47 The company has also informed us that resurfacing works carried out as part of the smart motorways programme will mitigate fewer noise important areas than originally expected. We have asked the company to provide us with more details of how it will address this shortfall. As a result of these uncertainties, and the large proportion of noise important areas that still have to be mitigated by 2020, we assess this key performance indicator as ‘amber’ – delivery is at risk for Road Period 1.
Figure 2.9: Noise important areas mitigated by end 2016-17
2.48 In 2015-16, we identified a number of actions Highways England should take to improve its performance in relation to litter on the network. It has responded to these actions in 2016-17. For example, the company published its updated litter strategy in June 2016. It has also provided us with evidence that it is working with stakeholders, such as Keep Britain Tidy, and has increased its focus on clearing litter ‘hot-spots’ on the network. Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
2.49 The strategic road network impacts both those that use the network directly, and its neighbouring communities. The design and operation of the network can influence the extent to which vulnerable users, such as cyclists, walkers, equestrians and motorcyclists can cross the network safely.
2.50 Highways England has a key performance indicator to report the number of new and upgraded crossings it delivers. There is no target for this measure. In 2016-17, Highways England delivered 20 new and 7 upgraded crossings on the network. This takes the total number of crossings delivered in the first two years of this road period to 231, of which 59 are new and 172 upgraded. The company also reports that it is on track to meet its commitment to deliver 150 cycling facilities and crossing points on the network in this road period.
2.51 However, Highways England has yet to set out a clear plan for delivering crossings for the rest of this road period. The company also recognises that it has further work to do to improve the consistency and accuracy of the information it reports for this measure. This key performance indicator is therefore rated ‘amber’ for Road Period 1.
Case study: Delivering cycling improvements
- The A64 Askham Bryan cycle scheme in Yorkshire has been delivered using the ring-fenced fund for cycling, safety and integration. It provides an improved environment for cycling by upgrading the verge path between Tadcaster and Copmanthorpe and is part of the national cycle route linking Leeds and York.
- The scheme was completed in advance of the Tour de Yorkshire in April 2017, which was expected to increase the use of cycling facilities in the area. It forms part of the cycling network near Askham Bryan College and its 1,100 students. The scheme includes tactile paving to assist visually impaired pedestrians, and eight new crossings which benefit walkers and other vulnerable users.
Figure 2.10: Number of new and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 and 2016-17
8. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-agency-litter-strategy Highways England has improved its planning of major improvements
It is in the process of proposing a revised baseline plan to government
2.52 Highways England’s original delivery plan (2015-2020) committed to starting 112 schemes by end of the first road period. In our annual assessment for 2015-16 we raised concerns that the company needed to do more to demonstrate that its plans for these schemes were robust and deliverable.
2.53 During 2016-17, the company has been reviewing its baseline plan for its major schemes with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (Highways England has called this the “corridor” approach).
2.54 In February 2017, we published our report “Update on Highways England’s capital planning and asset management” which set out the progress it had made in developing a more robust capital baseline plan.
2.55 Highways England has progressed its review and is likely to propose changes to its baseline plan, possibly including:
- deferral of schemes where they do not currently demonstrate value for money. These would be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period; and
- changes to the schedule of schemes specified in the RIS and / or Delivery Plan based on the corridor approach. A number of schemes may start earlier than originally planned, and others may start later, the majority of which would then begin construction in the next road period.
2.56 Highways England is now reviewing its revised plans with government and is taking them through the formal change control process. Once its revised plans are agreed, we expect them to be made publicly available.
2.57 The company needs to ensure it can deliver this portfolio of enhancements whilst limiting the impact on the performance targets. It has established a capital portfolio management office which is working to establish greater transparency and assurance around delivery of the portfolio. The office has implemented a programme of improvements to produce a draft revised baseline. We have also seen evidence that its work is improving understanding of risks to delivery and driving mitigating actions.
2.58 In our Update Report, we reported that the company’s forecast costs for its capital portfolio delivery were approximately £0.8bn higher than its funding for the road period. This difference included over-programming and contingency reserves, as part of the company’s approach to managing risks. Following Highways England’s review of its plans, the gap between forecast costs and funding is likely to reduce significantly.
2.59 Highways England will provide further evidence to us on its work to assess delivery risk during summer 2017 and we will report on its progress.
Agreed changes to the RIS
2.60 Highways England must agree all changes to the RIS through the Department for Transport’s change control process. Our role is to review the proposed changes and provide advice to the department on their acceptability. We have been keen to promote the importance of a rigorous change control process. The company’s engagement with this process has improved during the year, but the rigour of its evidence on the need for, and impact of, change needs continued focus. Figure 2.11 shows those agreed changes which have increased the company’s baseline funding to date.
9. http://www.orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/update-on-highways-englands-capital-planning-and-asset-management Future delivery in the first road period
2.61 Of the 80 schemes that are planned to start construction between April 2017 and the end of the road period, Highways England reports that 77 are on, or ahead of, schedule and three are delayed. Of the 19 schemes that are planned to open for traffic, 16 are on schedule, two are delayed and one has changed. Table 2.2: Major scheme delivery – remainder of first road period, construction phase
| Phase | 2016-17 delivery plan commitment (remainder of RP1) | Progress | RAG | |------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | Start of works | 80\* | 77 schemes forecast to start works on schedule or ahead of schedule | | | | | (subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | 3 schemes forecast to start works behind schedule or at risk | | | Open for traffic | 19\* | 16 schemes forecast to open for traffic on schedule or ahead of schedule| | | | | (subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | 2 schemes forecast to open for traffic behind schedule | | | | | 1 scheme changed (and 1 further scheme to open) | |
\*Detailed explanation given in Annex D, table D3
Highways England’s supply chain
2.62 Building on the work that we carried out last year, we have recently concluded our review of how Highways England is engaging its supply chain to minimise risks to delivery of the RIS.
2.63 The review found that Highways England has made good progress against previous recommendations, for example it has:
- taken measures to improve its understanding of supply chain demand and capacity: improving its modelling of demand, carrying out a survey of supply chain skills and introducing contractual requirements on the number of apprenticeships;
- updated its procurement plan, providing the supply chain with added visibility of its future work; and
- taken action to align its procurement more closely with suppliers’ ability to bid, including through its asset delivery contracts and its emerging approach to future major scheme procurement (“routes to market”).
2.64 The review also recommended areas for further improvement, including:
- reviewing whether the company can contract with the supply chain further in advance of scheme delivery to allow better resource planning;
- considering ways to smooth the profile of work, both across operational and capital works, and with adjacent industries; and
- doing more to attract skilled people to the sector, for example by showcasing high profile projects.
2.65 We valued the strong engagement of both Highways England and members of its supply chain in carrying out this review. Highways England has accepted the recommendations and is now developing its plans to address them. Highways England has further work to do to improve its asset management
It must demonstrate that it is efficiently planning and delivering the right maintenance and renewals work to keep its network in good condition
2.66 Highways England is developing improved maintenance and renewals planning processes, which it will need to embed. It has reviewed its renewals reporting and identified the need to improve the assurance of its data.
2.67 We completed an in-depth review into Highways England’s asset management delivery for pavement and structures in March 2017. The review focused on understanding whether Highways England was managing these assets to deliver its performance outcomes safely, sustainably and efficiently.
2.68 The review identified some areas of good practice. For example, it found that Highways England’s contractors have a well developed knowledge of the network and a good understanding of the need to maintain the safety of road users and road workers. It also identified a number of opportunities for improvement. For example, it found that the company:
- needs to demonstrate a clear line of sight between its maintenance and renewals plans and its performance outcomes (such as network condition);
- should consider developing a more robust approach to planning, delivering and reporting renewals volumes;
- should consider developing improved strategic oversight of regional plans to balance risk across its network and minimise changes to budget allocations; and
- should consider the potential benefits of an independent assurance process to satisfy itself that performance, risk and costs are being reported accurately.
2.69 Highways England engaged with the review constructively and is now developing a plan to respond to its recommendations.
2.70 In 2016-17, Highways England continued to face challenges in delivering its renewals work in the most efficient way. During the year, it again spent significantly more on renewals in the final quarter (40% of annual expenditure), with a particular spike in March 2017. This is likely to lead to inefficiency in the delivery of renewals because poor weather means that supply chain costs in winter are higher than in summer. Also, road surfaces that are laid in cold winter months are unlikely to last as long, therefore increasing whole life costs.
2.71 Highways England has delivered significantly greater volumes of renewals of key asset types than it planned at the start of the year. This may reflect a lack of robustness in the original volume plans - which would explain how this was achieved while only spending 4% above budget.
Figure 2.12: Monthly spend on renewals, 2015-16 and 2016-17 2.72 The profile of volumes delivered compared to plan also shows a large increase in the final quarter of the year. Figure 2.14 shows the volume of pavement renewals in each quarter of 2016-17 as an example of this. The profiles for many other asset categories show a similar trend.
Figure 2.14: Volume of pavement renewals delivered per quarter, 2015-16 and 2016-17
2.73 The uneven monthly renewals profile demonstrates that Highways England has more to do to move away from an annual planning and delivery approach and realise the full benefits of its five-year funding settlement. It also indicates that the company needs to improve its capability in planning, contract management and forecasting for the remainder of the road period. The company has estimated that delivering a smoother monthly renewals profile could deliver efficiency savings of around £30m in Road Period 1 from reducing lost time due to adverse weather and from lower contractor costs.
2.74 Highways England recognises that it can make greater use of the funding flexibility provided by roads reform to improve efficiency through the smoothing of its monthly profile of work. For 2017-18, Highways England has again set a flatter budget profile and believes its gradual rollout of the Asset Delivery model, which sees it taking greater direct control of renewals, will help it deliver in line with the plan. In future, we would like the company to examine, with the Department for Transport, what cultural and financial control barriers may still exist to the company delivering renewals efficiently across the year.
10. Figure 2.13 reports a subset of renewals volumes Priorities for 2017-18
2.75 During 2016-17, Highways England has delivered its performance requirements in a number of areas and has taken steps to improve its capital baseline plan. But performance and plans in a number of areas can improve and there will need to be particular focus on making sure that plans for RIS2 are robust. In 2017-18, Highways England should focus on the following.
Performance improvements
2.76 Highways England should make sure that it delivers its pavement condition improvement plan and brings network condition back to the target level. It should ensure that it is implementing plans which are targeted at improving user satisfaction. It will also need to deliver its pilot study to inform its plans for noise important areas.
Capital baseline delivery
2.77 Highways England must now finalise its revised capital plan and agree it with government. It must take forward its review of deliverability and affordability and continue to take action to manage costs of the plan both in the first road period and beyond.
2.78 The company should also make sure it delivers on its plans to respond to the recommendations of our in-depth review of its major scheme delivery.
Improving asset management
2.79 Highways England is implementing plans to improve its asset management capability and is taking forwards workstreams to address the issues identified in our in-depth review of its asset maintenance and renewals. It must deliver these plans and make progress in improving the profile of its renewals volumes and expenditure. Data quality and assurance
2.80 To make informed assessments about Highways England’s performance we need to have confidence that the information contained within the company’s annual monitoring reporting statements is accurate and reliable. As explained within this report, we had concerns about the quality of some of the information within the 2015-16 statements, in particular, the network condition key performance indicator. Last year’s statements also did not include sign-off by Highways England’s Board, as had previously been agreed with the company.
2.81 Highways England has developed improvement plans for its reporting and management of network condition. It has also made improvements to the assurance of the 2016-17 monitoring reporting statements, including Board sign-off. We remain concerned about aspects of Highways England’s performance reporting, in particular that the published statements do not include some statements that we have required, including renewals unit costs. We will look to Highways England’s Board to continue to focus on ensuring the quality of reporting of the company’s performance as specified in our monitoring reporting guidelines.
Planning for RIS2
2.82 Our focus will increasingly turn towards the development of the second Road Investment Strategy. A key area for us is ensuring that the strategy is supported by a robust evidence base. The key priority for Highways England in 2017-18 will be the production of the SRN Initial Report and the stakeholder engagement, research and analysis required to complete it.
Our monitoring
2.83 We will continue to apply a risk-based approach to our monitoring and will focus our activity in priority areas including those identified above. Our other priorities for 2017-18 are:
- reviewing Highways England’s “asset delivery” approach to managing its assets. Under this approach, it takes greater ownership of its asset management plans. The asset delivery model is being rolled out as current asset service contracts reach their end;
- reviewing Highways England’s use of its ring-fenced investment funds through an in-depth review; and
- embedding a robust put proportionate approach to monitoring licence compliance. The strategic road network
Roads are a key part of the country’s infrastructure. They keep people connected and are vital for supporting economic growth. 90% of passenger journeys and 76% of domestic freight movements are made by road.
Traffic on the strategic road network grew by 10% between 2010 and 2016 with the biggest growth coming from light goods vehicles, which increased by 30% in the same period. The Department for Transport’s national transport model predicts that, between 2010 and 2040, traffic on the network will increase by 29% to 60%.
The strategic road network, managed by Highways England, is an important part of the road network. Comprising approximately 4,400 miles of motorways and main A roads, it accounts for just 2.4% of road length in England but carries a third of traffic, including two thirds of lorry traffic. 95% of English residents and 99% of vehicles use the network at least once a year. In 2016, 91.9 billion vehicle miles were driven on the network, of which 74% were cars and 25% vans and lorries. Highways England is the government-owned company which manages the motorways and main A roads in England (the strategic road network). In 2014, government published its Road Investment Strategy (RIS). This specified a set of outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (Road Period 1).
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s performance against these requirements.
Our annual assessment of Highways England provides transparency to stakeholders on the company’s performance and delivery against:
- the RIS performance specification;
- the RIS investment plan; and
- its licence conditions.
Our assessment recognises that Highways England is in the process of implementing a significant change programme as it adjusts to its new role as a government-owned company.
How we measure Highways England’s performance
We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS Performance Specification. This sets out eight outcomes areas(^\\text{11}), each with one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) as well as a number of performance indicators (PIs).
Traffic growth
Traffic is at record levels, and continuing to grow. Following a pause during the recession, traffic on the strategic road network has grown by over 10% between 2010 and 2016 – double the growth rate on local roads.
Despite the challenge presented by traffic growth, Highways England is continuing to manage, operate and deliver major improvements to its network.
The Department for Transport forecasts that traffic on the strategic road network will continue to grow, by between 29% and 60%, between 2010 and 2040. This presents a challenge to Highways England in delivering its commitments in the first road period and the company must manage the impacts on its outcome.
Figure A1: Vehicle miles travelled on the strategic road network(^\\text{12})
______________________________________________________________________
11. A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual
12. The projected traffic presented in this chart is based on the high and low scenarios from the Department for Transport’s road traffic forecasts, 2015: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411471/road-traffic-forecasts-2015.pdf ANNEX B: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Outcome: Making the network safer
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve an ongoing reduction in network KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by the end of 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
2016-17 status: Awaiting data
RIS1 status: Amber
The Department for Transport has delayed publication of its road casualty statistics until September 2017. Therefore, we are unable to show performance against this key performance indicator in 2016. The chart below shows road casualty data up to 2015, when there were 1,784 KSIs on the strategic road network, including 226 deaths.
We are aware that there has been a change in the way that police forces record road casualty data (discussed in chapter 2 of this report). The department will publish more detailed analysis on this change later in 2017. We will work closely with the department and Highways England to understand the implications of this work and how it impacts on Highways England’s ability to meet its safety key performance indicator for RIS1.
Figure B1: Killed or serious injured on the SRN, 2005-2015 Performance indicators
Casualty numbers for all-purpose trunk roads: The Department for Transport's road casualty statistics are used to monitor this performance indicator. Therefore, figures for 2016 are not yet available. In 2015, there were 7,988 casualties (of all severities) recorded on Highways England's A-roads.
Incident numbers on motorways: In 2016, there were 49,130 incidents recorded on Highways England's motorway network. This is 5.5% higher than the total recorded in the previous year. The growth of traffic on the network is likely to have contributed, at least in part, to this increase.
Figure B2: Motorway incidents, 2014-15 to 2016-17
Road safety investigations: In 2016-17, Highways England completed work to assess the safety of its network, based on a star rating system. It expects to meet its target of achieving 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
Accident frequency rates: Highways England reports accident frequency rates through the established ‘Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations’ (RIDDOR) process.
Accident frequency rates for both Highways England and supply chain staff have improved in 2016-17. However, they remain above Highways England's internal targets.
For construction and maintenance workers in Highways England's supply chain, the accident frequency rate fell from 0.15 in 2015-16 to 0.11 in 2016-17.
In Highways England's customer operations directorate – which covers the Traffic Office Service – the accident frequency rate fell from 0.77 in 2015-16 to 0.51 in 2016-17.
Figure B3: Accident frequency rate for construction and maintenance workers, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Figure B4: Accident frequency rate for customer operations directorate, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Accident frequency rates for Highways England's customer operations directorate include a relatively small number of workers and figures are therefore subject to considerable fluctuation between years. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it
2016-17 status: Amber RIS1 status: Amber
Overall user satisfaction was 89.1% in 2016-17, below the target of 90% and lower than the 89.3% recorded in 2015-16.
Figure B5: User satisfaction, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Performance indicators
Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS: The satisfaction scores come from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). Respondents are asked about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the SRN:
- journey times;
- roadworks management;
- general upkeep;
- signage; and
- safety.
Figure B6 shows the satisfaction scores for these journey elements since 2012-13. Satisfaction with roadworks management is consistently lower than the other journey elements. Of the other four elements, journey time satisfaction has consistently been below 90%, while satisfaction with general upkeep, signage and safety has been above, or close to, 90%.
This pattern was repeated in 2016-17. Satisfaction with signage and safety was above 90% but satisfaction with journey times, roadworks management and general upkeep was below 90%.
Figure B6: Satisfaction with journey elements from 2012-13 to 2016-17 Table B1 shows changes in satisfaction with the five journey elements from 2015-16 to 2016-17 and estimates of how they affected the overall score. The biggest individual change was in roadworks management but this has a smaller effect on the overall score because only respondents that experienced roadworks on their most recent trip answer that question.
Table B1: Changes in user satisfaction, 2015-16 to 2016-17
| Journey elements | Change 2015-16 to 2016-17 | Estimated impact on overall satisfaction | |------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Journey time | -0.7% | -0.2% | | Roadworks | -2.2% | -0.1% | | General upkeep | +0.3% | +0.1% | | Signage | +0.6% | +0.1% | | Safety | -0.8% | -0.2% |
NRUSS scores by location: The map in figure B7 shows a regional breakdown of NRUSS satisfaction scores. Satisfaction was above 90% in the East and the South West, but was below 90% in all of the other regions. The North West had the lowest satisfaction for the fourth consecutive year.
NRUSS scores for motorways and all purpose trunk roads: Satisfaction with all purpose trunk roads increased 0.8 percentage points to 90.3% in 2016-17. But satisfaction on motorways fell 1 percentage point to 88.1%.
Figure B7: User satisfaction by region, 2016-17
Figure B8: User satisfaction with motorways and all purpose trunk roads, 2012-13 to 2016-17 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year
2016-17 status: Green\
RIS1 status: Green
Network availability measures the percentage of road lanes that are available to traffic as a percentage of the total road lanes on the network, over a rolling year.
At March 2017, lane availability on the strategic road network was 98.4%, above the target of 97%, and similar to performance in 2015-16.
Highways England forecasts that availability will remain above 97% for the remainder of the road period.
Figure B9: Network availability by rolling year, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Key performance indicator: Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
2016-17 status: Green\
RIS1 status: Green
In the rolling year to March 2016, Highways England cleared 85.9% of motorway incident within an hour. This is similar to last year’s performance, and above the target of 85%.
This target will become increasingly challenging if traffic growth causes the number of incidents on the network to increase over time. Highways England has undertaken further work during 2016-17 to better understand the reasons for incidents missing the one hour target so it can best target its interventions to ensure that performance remains above target.
Figure B10: Incident management, 2012-13 to 2016-17 Performance indicators
Traffic on the strategic road network: The volume of traffic on the strategic road network is at record levels, and increasing. In 2016, 91.9bn vehicle miles were travelled on the network, 2.5% more than in 2015. Since a pause in traffic growth during the economic downturn, volumes on the strategic road network have increased in each of the past seven years.
Planning time index: The planning time index measures the additional time that road users would have to allow for their journey to arrive on time in 19 out of 20 journeys. It is measured by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free-flow journey time. In 2016-17, the planning time index was 1.68, which is higher than was recorded in 2015-16 (1.66). This indicates that the most delayed journeys on the network were worse in 2016-17 than in 2015-16.
Acceptable journeys: This performance indicator measures the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flowing speed. In 2016-17, 83.5% of journeys on the strategic road network were above 75% of the free-flow speed. This is slightly less than in the previous year, when 83.6% of journeys were above 75% of free-flow speed.
Average speed: In 2016-17, the average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 59.5 miles per hour. This is faster than in 2015-16, when the average speed was 59.3 miles per hour. Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
2016-17 status: Amber RIS1 status: Amber
Average delay on the network is used to measure Highways England’s impact on economic growth. There is no target associated with this indicator.
In the rolling year to March 2017, average delay was 9 seconds per vehicle mile. This is equivalent to a trip of 100 miles taking 15 minutes longer than if the network has no congestion.
Delay on the network in the latest year is slightly higher than in 2015-16, when a figure of 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile was recorded. The monthly pattern of delay between the two years was very similar, as shown in figure B12.
Figure B12: Monthly delay in seconds per vehicle mile, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Performance indicators
Average delay on gateway routes: Delay is also measured on gateway routes – a subset of the strategic road network which includes connections linking major population centres, or business and manufacturing sites, with the most important ports and airports, and rail freight services. Delay on gateway routes has also remained fairly constant since last year, although slightly lower than overall delay, at 8.2 seconds per vehicle mile.
Responding to formal planning applications: Highways England’s role as a major statutory consultee is monitored by the percentage of planning applications that it responds to within 21 days. In 2016-17, the company’s performance was 99.8%; above the company’s internal target of 99%.
Spend on small and medium sized enterprises: In 2016-17, Highways England estimates that its expenditure on goods and services from small and medium sized businesses was 25.5%; above the government target of 25%.
Increasing traffic on the network, and delivery of the capital investment programme, present a challenge to managing delay throughout the remainder of this road period. During 2016-17, Highways England has continued to build a better understanding of the causes of delay on the network, and how its interventions can minimise the impact on road users. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
| 2016-17 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2016-17, Highways England mitigated traffic noise from the strategic road network in 73 noise important areas(^{13}), bringing the total for the first road period to 121. Highways England must mitigate a further 1,029 in the final three years of the road period to meet the target of 1,150.
Figure B13: Cumulative number of noise important areas mitigated
Table B2 summarises the interventions (delivered and planned) that Highways England will use to meet this target during the first road period. This shows that insulation (fitting double glazing to noise affected properties) is expected to account for the majority of noise important areas.
Highways England awarded a contract to deliver this work in March 2017. As part of this, an initial pilot study is expected to mitigate approximately 100 noise important areas during 2017-18. We consider this target to be at risk until Highways England is able to use the results from this pilot to produce a more robust plan for how it will meet the target.
The company has recently informed us that resurfacing works carried out as part of the smart motorways programme will mitigate fewer noise important areas than originally expected. We will work with the company to understand how this affects its plans to deliver the target.
Table B2: Noise important areas mitigated, and forecast for RP1
| | Complete | Forecast | Total | |------------------|----------|----------|-------| | Resurfacing | 113 | 84 | 197 | | Major projects | 7 | 52 | 59 | | Barriers\* | 1 | 74 | 75 | | Insulation\* | - | 850 | 850 | | Total | 121 | 1,060 | 1,181 |
\*Delivered through environment ring-fenced funds
(^{13}) Areas containing residents exposed to the highest noise levels, as designated by Defra as part of the noise action planning process In 2016-17, Highways England has made progress in delivering the commitments set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan, which it published in June 2015. Key areas of progress during the year have included:
**Developing a biodiversity metric:** The company has developed a biodiversity metric ahead of schedule. It has worked closely with environmental stakeholders to ensure that the metric is appropriate and draws on best practice. We will now monitor progress as the metric is introduced in 2017-18.
**Management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs):** Highways England has committed to producing management plans for the 40 largest sites of SSSIs on its estate. At the end of 2016-17, the company had successfully put the first 15 of these in place.
**Planning of biodiversity projects:** Around 300 schemes to deliver biodiversity improvements on and around the network have been approved by the biodiversity technical working group, which Natural England also sits on. These schemes spent £850,000 in 2016-17 and delivery is expected to accelerate in 2017-18.
**Performance indicators**
**Air quality pilot studies:** In 2016-17, Highways England began work on four air quality pilot studies, bringing the total in this road period to ten. The conclusions from these pilots will help inform how the ring-fenced funds for air quality will be used.
**Carbon dioxide (Highways England’s activities):** In 2016-17, Highways England reported that its activities resulted in the emission of 89,346 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 6% lower than the total recorded in 2015-16.
**Carbon dioxide (supply chain):** In 2016-17, emissions from Highways England’s supply chain were estimated at 361,987 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, which is 11% lower than recorded in 2015-16. However, the latest figures are still subject to validation and may be subject to change as they are finalised.
**Figure B14: Carbon dioxide emissions for Highways England and supply chain, 2012-13 to 2016-17**
**Number of flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated:** In 2016-17, Highways England mitigated 61 flooding hotspots and one culvert. The company has worked to improve the quality of data used to report progress against this performance indicator during the year. This has resulted in the total number of flooding hotspots and culverts that were reported as mitigated during 2015-16 being revised down from 124 to 75. Despite this reduction in reported mitigations, it is positive that Highways England is reviewing data quality and putting in more robust systems for monitoring its assets. Number of outfalls and soakaways mitigated: Outfalls and soakaways are parts of the drainage system on the strategic road network which discharge to a watercourse, or enable water to soak into the ground. In 2016-17, Highways England mitigated five very high or high risk outfalls and no soakaways. Four of the outfalls were delivered through major projects that completed during the year. This represents an improvement from 2015-16, when no outfalls were mitigated.
Table B3: summary of environmental performance indicators, 2015-16 and 2016-17
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | Air quality pilot studies commissioned | 6 | 4 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – Highways England’s activities (tonnes) | 95,373 | 89,346 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – supply chain activities (tonnes) | 406,523 | 361,987 | | Flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated | 75 | 62 | | Outfalls and soakaways mitigated | 0 | 5 | Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
2016-17 status: Amber
RIS1 status: Amber
In 2016-17, Highways England delivered 20 new and seven upgraded crossings for cyclists, walkers and vulnerable users. The company has now delivered 59 new and 172 upgraded crossings in the first road period (figure B15).
There is no target for this indicator. However, Highways England has yet to set out a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings for the rest of this road period. Highways England also recognises that it has further work to do to improve the consistency and accuracy of the information it reports for this measure.
Figure B15: New and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Performance indicators
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme: As part of its cycling programme, Highways England is committed to delivering 150 cycling schemes in the first road period. In 2016-17 it has delivered 32, bringing the total in the past two years to 57. Highways England reports that it is on track to meet its commitment. However, we would like to see greater clarity around its plans for delivery of schemes in future years.
Vulnerable user casualties: Highways England must also report on the number of vulnerable road user casualties, of all severities, on the network as a performance indicator. As highlighted previously, road casualty data for 2016 is not yet available. Figures from 2014 and 2015 are shown below for reference.
Table B4: Vulnerable user casualties (all severities), 2014 and 2015
| Category | 2014 | 2015 | |----------------|------|------| | Motorcyclists | 917 | 849 | | Pedal cyclists | 179 | 153 | | Pedestrians | 182 | 158 | Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.212bn over the first road period.
2016-17 status: Green
RIS1 status: Amber
In the first two years of Road Period 1, Highways England's cumulative capital expenditure was £6.1bn. The company has reported £169m of cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme over this period. This exceeds its internal target by £30m and represents 14% of the RIS target.
Highways England published its Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan during the year. This document summarises the company's processes to deliver efficiency improvements and the related controls designed to ensure that it meets the key performance indicator.
Highways England has developed its evidence supporting reported efficiencies. However, the company needs to do more to strengthen its reporting of renewals unit costs and the top-down evidence of delivering work to plan.
Performance indicators
Highways England measures its performance against its Cost Performance Indicator and Schedule Performance Indicator, which measure whether the capital programme is being delivered in a timely and efficient manner. These indicators are close to 1, which shows that its capital programme is broadly on track in terms of cost and schedule compared to the delivery plan.
Table B5: Cost performance indicator (CPI) & Schedule performance indicator (SPI)
| Indicator | 2016-17 | |----------------------------------|---------| | Cost performance indicator | 0.99 | | Schedule performance indicator | 0.97 |
Our analysis of financial performance and efficiency is set out in Annex C.
14. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600019/N160284_HE_Capital_Efficiency_Delivery_Plan.pdf. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
| 2016-17 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber |
In March 2017, the percentage of pavement (road) that did not require further investigation for possible maintenance was 94.3%. This measure has improved from 92.3% in 2015-16 but it remains below the target of 95%.
Figure B17: Pavement condition, 2012-13 to 2016-17
Highways England has provided evidence that it is taking appropriate action to manage any safety implications of lower road condition.
It has developed, and is implementing, a range of actions aimed at improving its management of network condition. This includes a plan to deliver additional road renewal volumes to improve the condition of the network and achieve its target.
Whilst Highways England has taken forwards many of its actions, it did not deliver its planned volumes of additional renewals in 2016-17. It has now updated its plan for 2017-18, setting out its trajectory for reaching the target and the additional renewals that it is targeting at the worst performing part of its network. We are carrying out increased monitoring to ensure these plans are delivered.
Performance indicators
As well as pavement, Highways England also manages other physical assets on the network, including structures (such as bridges), geotechnical works (for example embankments), drainage assets (such as gullies and drains) and technology assets (such as overhead message signs).
Structure assets: Highways England is improving its structures inventory information, which is now 98.1% complete. This is an improvement of 0.3 percentage points on the position in 2015-16 (97.8%). The company continues to report that the overall condition of its structures assets is good, with a high average structural condition score.
Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 96.8% of its geotechnical assets do not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2016-17. This is 0.2 percentage points higher than the position in 2015-16 (96.6%).
Drainage assets: The percentage of Highways England's drainage asset for which it has inventory data coverage increased to 88% in 2016-17, from 87% in the previous year. The percentage of the network with drainage condition data also increased, to 31% in 2016-17, up from 27% in 2015-16.
Technology asset availability: At the end of 2016-17, Highways England's technology metrics were all reported to be above target with its roadside technology at 98.8% availability, up from 98.7% in 2015-16. The RIS Performance Specification requires that Highways England develops new condition metrics for pavements and structures for agreement by 31 March 2017. Highways England has shown some progress in the development of the new metrics but more work is required. These will be validated over the next two years and may be considered for use in the next road period.
Table B6: Summary of asset performance indicators, 2015-16 and 2016-17
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | Structures inventory information | 97.8% | 98.1% | | Geotechnical - intervention not required | 96.6% | 96.8% | | Drainage inventory coverage | 87% | 88% | | Drainage condition data coverage | 27% | 31% | | Technology asset availability | 98.7% | 98.8% | This annex sets out our analysis of Highways England’s financial performance and efficiency in 2016-17, and our review of its plans for the first road period.
Financial performance
Expenditure compared to budget
As shown in figure C1, Highways England spent £3.1bn in 2016-17, split two thirds on capital investment (renewals and improvements to the network) and a third on resource expenditure (operating and maintenance of the network). This was 2.4% higher than expenditure in 2015-16 and was £42m (1%) lower than funding agreed with the Department for Transport.
Highways England published an updated Delivery Plan in June 2016(^\\text{15}) which included a budget of £1,977m for capital expenditure in 2016-17. The company originally intended to make use of its ability to flex its capital funding with an increase of £150m compared to its original delivery plan to increase funding for improvement schemes.
Figure C1: Highways England’s expenditure in 2016-17
15. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/538130/S160049_Highways_England_Delivery_Plan_2016_Final\_-\_Digital_version.pdf The department subsequently agreed to provide £230m of additional funding for development of the M20 Lorry Park. As only £80m was expected to be required for this scheme in 2017-18, the department agreed for Highways England to use the remaining £150m to fund the planned increase in expenditure on improvement schemes rather than using the capital flex. As such, the final capital budget for 2016-17 (£2,068m) included an additional £80m for spending on the Lorry Park along with an £11m budget transfer from resource for a revision to accounting treatment of research and development expenditure. The change in capital funding for 2016-17 is shown in figure C2. Capital expenditure (£2,031m) was £37m (1.8%) below budget and resource expenditure (£1,042m) was £5m (0.5%) below budget. Significant variances compared to the budget are shown in Figure C3 and are summarised below:
- Renewals expenditure was £23m higher than budget(^{16}). Highways England decided to bring forward some renewals activity from 2017-18 in order to reduce the overall capital underspend.
- Expenditure on improvement schemes was £41m lower than budget. The M20 lorry park scheme underspent by £69m due to delays in developing the scheme. There were also underspends on other schemes which are paused awaiting value for money assessments. These underspends were partially offset by overspends on some major projects.
- Ring-fenced investment funds (air quality, environment and innovation funds) underspent by £10m (17%) due to delays in developing these work programmes.
- Other Capital was underspent by £9m due to delays in IT projects and projects to improve programme management capability.
- Resource expenditure was £5m below budget due to slower recruitment than anticipated and favourable settlement of contractual claims.
**Figure C3: Highways England’s expenditure compared to budget in 2016-17**
| Category | Budget | Actual | |---------------------------|--------|--------| | Renewals | 603 | 626 | | Improvements | 1,301 | 1,260 | | Ring-fenced investment funds | 58 | 48 | | Other | 106 | 97 | | Maintenance and renewal | 255 | 270 | | Operations | 192 | 177 | | General support | 184 | 183 | | PFI payments | 416 | 413 |
**Expenditure variances within the capital portfolio**
Our analysis shows that actual expenditure varied significantly from the baseline for a high proportion of improvement schemes in 2016-17. Figure C4 shows the proportion of the 112 major schemes with large variances.
______________________________________________________________________
16. Specifically capital renewals expenditure. Some renewals activities such as inspections are accounted for separately as resource expenditure. In 2016-17, 78% of major schemes had underspends or overspends 20% greater than baseline. For schemes that were in construction, 60% underspent or overspent by 20% more than the baseline.
Whilst overall the major scheme portfolio was progressing broadly on budget, a high proportion of individual schemes have large in-year variances. In some cases, this reflects the reprogramming of schemes for reasons of efficiency (e.g. delivering a 2017-18 scheme early when another scheme is delayed). However, it will be important for the company to have a good understanding of the reasons for these variances and apply any lessons learned from this analysis in delivering future schemes.
**Monthly renewals expenditure variances**
Figure C5 shows that Highways England's expenditure on renewals increased significantly in the final three months of both 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Winter working is typically less efficient due to lost time from severe weather and higher contractor rates. We have discussed this with Highways England who recognise that this is not the most efficient profile given the funding certainty provided by the RIS. As shown in figure C5, the 2016-17 budget had a smoother profile and the company has examined the main factors that resulted in higher expenditure in the final quarter.
For 2017-18, Highways England has again set a flatter budget profile and believes its gradual rollout of the asset delivery model, which sees it taking greater direct control of renewals, will help it deliver in line with the plan. In future we would like the company to examine, with the Department for Transport, what cultural and financial control barriers may still exist to the company delivering renewals efficiently across the year. Efficiency improvements
The company has reported £135m of efficiencies in 2016-17, bringing the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first two years of Road Period 1 to £169m. This exceeded the company’s internal target by £30m.
Highways England reports efficiency improvements as set out in the Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM)(^\\text{17}). There are three components of our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements:
1. analysis of Highways England’s bottom-up description of efficiency improvements;
2. unit cost movements; and
3. expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the Road Investment Strategy;
Our review has shown that Highways England has improved the evidence supporting its efficiency reporting over the past year, but has further work to do in some areas.
Efficiency improvements in 2016-17
Highways England has reported renewals efficiencies from a range of initiatives. These include reducing traffic management and other operational costs by aligning renewals schemes with major projects, contractual changes including more efficient approaches to applying road markings, and more collaborative working with the supply chain.
Efficiencies on the company’s Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) include reducing overheads through reducing the time taken to deliver schemes, design standardisation (for example, of overhead gantries) and other process improvements.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{17}) The monitoring approach set out in the EIMM was jointly developed by Highways England and us. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464887/Efficiency_Manual_v5_spreads.pdf Delivering the £1.2bn RIS1 efficiency requirement
Highways England must deliver at least £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in Road Period 1. Efficiencies delivered in the first two years represents 14%, in line with their delivery plan. Considerable work remains to achieve the KPI requirement.
Highways England published a Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan18 during the year. This document summarises the company’s processes to deliver efficiency improvements and the related controls designed to ensure that it meets the KPI requirement. We consider that this delivery plan provides increased confidence about the company’s ability to deliver the £1.2bn requirement. However, there is still some risk associated with schemes that start construction at the end of Road Period 1. This has an impact on the certainty of the company’s plans to deliver the more stretching efficiency improvements required in later years of the road period.
Efficiencies from the smart motorway programme
In our 2015-16 annual assessment, we raised concerns about the robustness of the company’s analysis of efficiency improvements from its smart motorway programme.
During 2016-17, Highways England developed a more robust approach to assessing these efficiency improvements. The approach is based on a detailed unit cost analysis and addresses the concerns that we previously raised.
Highways England is currently developing its approach for assessing efficiency for other parts of its improvement programme, in particular, its Regional Improvement Programme. We expect the company to progress this work over the next few months in consultation with us.
Renewals unit cost analysis
Highways England does not consider that its renewals unit cost information is as robust as it would anticipate. As a result, its Board was unable to assure the costs published in the company’s Monitoring Reporting Statements. We recognise the complexity of calculating and reporting renewals unit costs for Highways England, particularly where contractors may undertake a number of different activities within one scheme of works. However, we consider that Highways England needs to strengthen its reporting of renewals unit costs. We will work with the company to address this over the next year.
Cost Performance Index
The Cost Performance Index is a measure of earned value which is often used in the construction industry. It is a measure of the relationship between target and actual cost for work completed. Highways England has reported a CPI of 0.99, which indicates that overall, projects are slightly above target cost. The financial performance section of this annex provides details of individual scheme variances.
Schedule Performance Index
The Schedule Performance Index is a similar measure of progress against the agreed schedule. It is a measure of the relationship between budgeted cost of work delivered and scheduled to be delivered. The company has reported a SPI of 0.97, which indicates that overall projects are slightly behind schedule.
Input price effects
Highways England’s funding for capital projects in 2016-17 included an additional 4% for forecast increases to the costs of the company’s inputs, i.e. materials and labour costs. Whilst there is no single index that adequately tracks Highways England’s specific expenditure, the company’s analysis of a range of measures suggests that the input prices may have increased by 4.8%, compared to 0.5% in 2015-16.
Lower overall input prices may have saved the company around £20-30m on its capital programme over the past two years. Because of Highways England’s differing approaches to the sharing of inflation risk in their supplier contracts, it is likely that the actual impact could be significantly lower than this because the potential savings may only realise as contracts expire and are renewed.
18. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600019/N160284_HE_Capital_Efficiency_Delivery_Plan.pdf ANNEX D: NETWORK INVESTMENT DELIVERY
This annex describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2016-17, including ring-fenced funds. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
The RIS sets the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England must deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlines a five-year capital funding package of £11.4 billion for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This includes:
- a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7 billion;
- a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.7 billion;
- a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and
- investment associated with strategic studies.
We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the Investment Plan.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2016-17
Highways England’s progress in delivery of its capital programme during 2016-17 is shown in table D1. It has started construction works on all four schemes that were planned to start, one of which started ahead of schedule. In addition, four schemes scheduled to start construction in 2019-20 started early, ahead of the timescales in Highways England’s delivery plan. This includes combining two adjacent schemes (M1 junctions 24-25 and M1 junctions 23A-24), originally planned with different timetables that will now be delivered as one scheme to reduce the impact and delays to road users.
Highways England planned to open eight schemes to traffic during 2016-17, six of which were completed on schedule. The remaining two schemes are delayed.
The A30 Temple to Higher Carblake scheme is being delivered by Cornwall County Council and delays are primarily due to changes in the traffic management strategy to deal with peak summer traffic. This scheme is forecast to be delayed by seven months to quarter 2 of 2017-18.
The A21 Tonbridge to Pembury is also reported to be delayed by seven months, to quarter 3 of 2017-18. The delay is due to unforeseen ground conditions which required Highways England to deal with large volumes of hazardous waste contamination and ground water. It has reported that lessons learnt from this scheme are being applied across the network enhancement programme.
The company opened one additional scheme to traffic which was originally planned for completion in 2017-18.
### Table D1: Major schemes delivery in 2016-17
| 2016-17 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |----------------------|----------------|-------------| | **Major schemes starting construction** | | | | A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon | 2016-17, Q3 | 2016-17, Q3 | | A19 Coast Road | 2016-17, Q2 | 2016-17, Q1 Ahead of schedule | | M4 Junctions 3-12 | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | M1 Junctions 24-25 | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 Combined schemes | | M1 junctions 23A-24 | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | M1 Junction 45 Improvements | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | A47 Acle Straight | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | A52 Nottingham junctions(^{19}) | 2019-20 | 2016-17, Q4 Ahead of schedule | | **Major schemes opened for traffic** | | | | A1 Coal House to Metro Centre | 2016-17, Q1 | 2016-17, Q1 | | M1 Junction 19 improvement | 2016-17, Q3 | 2016-17, Q3 | | A45-A46 Tollbar End | 2016-17, Q3 | 2016-17, Q3 | | A30 Temple to Higher Carblake | 2016-17, Q3 | Forecast 2017-18, Q2 | | A556 Knutsford to Bowdon | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | M1 Junctions 32-35A | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | A160/A180 Immingham | 2016-17, Q4 | 2016-17, Q4 | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | 2016-17, Q4 | Forecast 2017-18, Q3 | | M25 Junction 30 | 2017-18, Q1 | 2016-17, Q3 Ahead of schedule |
**Key**
- ● Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- ● Milestone one quarter behind schedule
- ● Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed
Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2016-17 is shown in table D2. The company has spent 10% more than it budgeted on those schemes in construction and 6% more than budgeted on those schemes which have opened for traffic.
(^{19}) Highways England is adopting a phased approach to deliver this programme of junction improvements along the length of the A52 in Nottingham. The first two junctions started in 2016-17. Table D2: Major schemes costs against budget in 2016-17
| Scheme stage (end of 2016-17) | Budget (2016-17) | Outturn costs (2016-17) | Variance | % over / (under) | |-------------------------------|------------------|------------------------|----------|-----------------| | Under construction | £734.2m | £804.4m | £70.2m | 10% | | Open for traffic | £245.6m | £259.2m | £13.6m | 6% |
During 2016-17, Highways England has made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed 11 schemes from pre-options into options stages and 14 schemes have started development. By the end of March 2017, 20 schemes were under construction exceeding Highways England's delivery plan. A breakdown of the major schemes' progress in 2015-16 and 2016-17 is shown in figure D1.
Figure D1: Progress of schemes through development and construction in 2016-17
Highways England has provided us with its assumptions for the dates when its major schemes will progress through the stages of development and construction that are outlined in the chart above. We will continue to monitor progress against these in the remainder of the road period.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the remainder of the road period
Highways England's original delivery plan (2015-2020) included starting all 112 major improvement schemes by the end of the first road period. During 2016-17, it has taken forwards a review of its major schemes with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience.
For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (Highways England has called this the “corridor” approach).
As a result, Highways England is proposing a range of changes that are being taken through the Department for Transport's formal change control process. The proposals may include:
- deferral of schemes where they do not currently demonstrate value for money. These would be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period; and
- changes to the schedule of schemes specified in the RIS and / or Delivery Plan based on the corridor approach. A number of schemes may start earlier than originally planned, and others may start later, the majority of which would begin construction in the next road period.
For the remainder schemes, Highways England reports that three schemes' planned starts during the road period are at risk.
For those schemes which are planned to open for traffic, two are delayed.
The M1 junctions 24-25 scheme is being combined with the M1 junctions 23a-24 and both will now be opened for traffic in the road period. By combining these two schemes Highways England expects to reduce the impact caused by roadworks and the benefits of the M1 junctions 23a-24 scheme are planned to be delivered 36 months ahead of schedule.
The major scheme delivery status for the remainder of the first road period is summarised in table D3.
### Table D3: Major scheme delivery – remainder of first road period, construction phase
| Phase | 2016-17 delivery plan commitment (remainder of RP1) | Progress | No. | Details | Status | |------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Start of works | | On schedule | 77 | As planned (Subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | Delayed | 3 | M621 Junctions 1-7 improvements – start of works commitment of 2019-20 delayed to April 2020 | | | | | | | A27 Chichester Bypass – stopped, to be change controlled | | | | | | | M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road – start of works commitment of 2018-19 at risk | | | Open for traffic | | On schedule | 16 | As planned (subject to changes following revisions to the capital baseline plan) | | | | | Delayed | 2 | A1 Leeming to Barton – open for traffic commitment of 2017-18 quarter 1 delayed to quarter 3 | | | | | | | M60 Junction 8 to M62 Junction 20: Smart Motorway – open for traffic commitment of 2017-18 quarter 2 delayed by to quarter 4 | | | | | Changed | 1 | M1 Junctions 24-25 will now open in 2018-19 (scheme combined with M1 Junctions 23A-24). (The M1 Junctions 23A-24 is now also to open in 2018-19 – a new commitment for the road period.) | |
**Key**
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone at risk, subject to change or one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestones changed
*Highways England’s delivery plan update 2016-17 committed to have started works on all 112 major schemes by the end of the first road period. Of these, 16 started works before the road period, eight started in 2015-16, eight started in 2016-17 and we report on the remaining 80 here. Highways England’s delivery plan update 2016-17 committed to open 33 major schemes for traffic in the first road period. Of these, five opened for traffic in 2015-16, seven opened in 2016-17, two were scheduled for 2016-17 but were delayed and we report on the remaining 19 here.* In-depth review of major projects
To support our work in monitoring Highways England’s delivery of its major improvement programme, we have carried out an in-depth review of a sample of its major schemes. The company has given strong support to this work. The sample consisted of ten major schemes and two routes, and was selected to be broadly representative of the major schemes portfolio in terms of project complexity, development, type and size.
The purpose of the review was to understand the robustness of the processes which Highways England is using to manage its schemes, and to identify any systemic or common themes in development, management and delivery of its major improvement programme.
The review made recommendations including:
- Highways England should undertake a comprehensive review of its capital baseline considering cost, schedule and risk;
- guidance should be developed for projects to improve coordination between project teams and central functions – for example in the way lessons are learned and communicated;
- use of procurement frameworks and template arrangements should be considered alongside other options so that scheme specific factors drive commercial and procurement strategies;
- portfolio management should be strengthened to improve data and reporting, and coordinate major project and renewals work better;
- speed of adopting programme management processes should increase; and
- future resource and capability requirements should be assessed to reduce risk to investment delivery.
Highways England has accepted these recommendations. It has developed an action plan to address them, which includes identifying the change programmes that are already underway and which will contribute to the plan.
Maintenance and renewals delivery
In 2016-17, Highways England reviewed its initial maintenance and renewals programme. It re-profiled expenditure compared to its budget, resulting in significantly higher expenditure in the final quarter of the year. Figure D2 shows the profile of renewals by quarter.
Highways England has identified three main reasons for the profile of renewals expenditure in 2016-17:
- contractual changes in three regions/areas leading to delays in delivery in the early part of the year;
- £30m of additional works in quarter 4 to counterbalance an underspend on the M20 Lorry Park; and
- conditioning related to many years of working within annual funding envelopes.
Our analysis has shown that the company has more work to do to improve its forecasting of renewals expenditure. In its monthly reporting Highways England has in every month except March spent less (5-24%) than it was forecasting to in the previous month's report.
The company has delivered significantly greater volumes on the majority of the main assets types than it had planned (with the exception of geotechnical) and the profile of volumes delivered compared to plan also show a large increase in the final quarter of the year.
### Table D4: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2016-17
| 2016-17 commitments | Planned Volume | Actual volume | |---------------------|----------------|---------------| | **Renewals** | | | | Pavement (lane kilometres) | 1,200 | 2,234 | | Road Markings (linear metres) | 1,952,868 | 4,381,958 | | Kerbs (linear metres) | 8,088 | 21,151 | | Vehicle restraint system (VRS) - Concrete (linear metres) | 10,000 | 12,354 | | Vehicle restraint system (VRS) - Non Concrete (linear metres) | 85,910 | 116,209 | | Drainage (linear metres) | 177,295 | 323,832 | | Geotechnical (linear metres) | 11,884 | 10,212 | | Traffic Signs (number) | 1,140 | 1,500 | | Guardrail (linear metres) | 147 | 926 | | Boundary Fencing (linear metres) | 28,544 | 40,271 | | Footways (linear metres) | 2,014 | 25,233 | | Lighting (number) | 2,332 | 6,474 | | Soft Estate (number) | 6 | 16 | | **Renewal of roads** | | | | Bridge Joint (number) | 231 | 783 | | Bridge Bearing (number) | 159 | 191 | | Parapet (linear metres) | 2,202 | 4,221 | | Waterproofing (square metres) | 27,067 | 34,588 | | **Renewal of structures** | | | | Motorway Coms Equipment (number) | 96 | 407 | | Renewals and improvements (number) | 256 | 810 | | Winter Resilience (number) | 55 | 62 | | Network Resilience (number) | 24 | 19 | As set out in chapter 2, we have carried out an in-depth review of Highways England’s management of pavement and structures assets. It is now developing a plan to make improvements to its planning, delivery and reporting of maintenance and renewals work.
**Ring-fenced investment funds**
The Investment Plan for the first road period includes a series of ring-fenced funds (also known as designated funds), worth £675 million. These funds, which are used to address a range of issues that are over and above the traditional focus of road investment, are split into five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; growth and housing.
Table D5, below, sets out the value of each fund, the total spent at the end of 2016-17, and examples of outputs from each fund. Table D5: Ring-fenced funds delivery in 2016-17
| Fund name | Funding (first road period) | Cumulative spend at end 2016-17 | % of funds spent at end 2016-17 | Schemes delivered in 2016-17 | |----------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Air quality | £75m | £2m | 3% | National air quality monitoring network: 24 stations operations by end 2016-17 | | | | | | Mineral polymer barrier pilot underway | | Cycling, safety and integration | £175m | £34.6m | 20% | 32 cycling schemes | | | | | | 20 safety schemes | | | | | | 2 integration schemes | | Environment | £225m | £16.6m | 7% | 6 flood mitigation schemes | | | | | | 2 noise schemes | | | | | | 2 LED lighting schemes | | | | | | 6 landscape schemes | | | | | | 4 biodiversity schemes | | Innovation | £120m | £11.5m | 10% | Construction started on motorway to motorway traffic management system | | Growth and housing | £80m | £5.3m | 7% | 12 schemes approved in 2016-17, of which work has begun on three. |
To date, progress in delivering projects through ring-fenced funds has been slow, with a small proportion of the available funding being spent. This is partly due to the need for the company to focus on developing plans for each fund, before it can deliver outputs.
Highways England has engaged well with stakeholders as it develops its plans for each ring-fenced fund. For example, during 2016-17, the company held two stakeholder events, which have helped improve transparency. Despite this, there is still a lack of robust plans in some areas, particularly air quality and innovation, and this represents a risk to these funds successfully meeting their objectives.
During 2017-18 we will be undertaking an in-depth review of the management of the ring-fenced funds, and will report our findings.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1031-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 62,
"total-input-tokens": 127173,
"total-output-tokens": 28301,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
219,
2
],
[
219,
219,
3
],
[
219,
2841,
4
],
[
2841,
2841,
5
],
[
2841,
6652,
6
],
[
6652,
10637,
7
],
[
10637,
14022,
8
],
[
14022,
14022,
9
],
[
14022,
16086,
10
],
[
16086,
18377,
11
],
[
18377,
20733,
12
],
[
20733,
23025,
13
],
[
23025,
25754,
14
],
[
25754,
27013,
15
],
[
27013,
29661,
16
],
[
29661,
32312,
17
],
[
32312,
35515,
18
],
[
35515,
38259,
19
],
[
38259,
40390,
20
],
[
40390,
44022,
21
],
[
44022,
44376,
22
],
[
44376,
47537,
23
],
[
47537,
50226,
24
],
[
50226,
51876,
25
],
[
51876,
53436,
26
],
[
53436,
55654,
27
],
[
55654,
55654,
28
],
[
55654,
56698,
29
],
[
56698,
59137,
30
],
[
59137,
59137,
31
],
[
59137,
60291,
32
],
[
60291,
62248,
33
],
[
62248,
63626,
34
],
[
63626,
65321,
35
],
[
65321,
66775,
36
],
[
66775,
68165,
37
],
[
68165,
70300,
38
],
[
70300,
72474,
39
],
[
72474,
75092,
40
],
[
75092,
76114,
41
],
[
76114,
77939,
42
],
[
77939,
79806,
43
],
[
79806,
82513,
44
],
[
82513,
83353,
45
],
[
83353,
84483,
46
],
[
84483,
85147,
47
],
[
85147,
87284,
48
],
[
87284,
87284,
49
],
[
87284,
89026,
50
],
[
89026,
90734,
51
],
[
90734,
94728,
52
],
[
94728,
94728,
53
],
[
94728,
97222,
54
],
[
97222,
99194,
55
],
[
99194,
102316,
56
],
[
102316,
105221,
57
],
[
105221,
108203,
58
],
[
108203,
109967,
59
],
[
109967,
110767,
60
],
[
110767,
114080,
61
],
[
114080,
114080,
62
]
]
} |
1bcffaa509e7bae8da611f981be4d29460c81afa | ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2017 - MARCH 2018
HC 1270 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2017 - MARCH 2018
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16 July 2018
HC 1270 CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7 Key messages for 2017-18 .......................................................................................... 7 Summary of performance ............................................................................................ 9
2. Highways England’s performance ............................................................................. 11 Performance in operating the network has remained steady ................................. 11 It is delivering more improvements, but must manage costs ................................. 20 Condition of the strategic road network has improved ........................................... 25 It is delivering efficiencies, but more evidence is required ....................................... 29 Priorities for 2018-19 ............................................................................................... 30
Annex A: Performance against outcome areas ............................................................. 32 Outcome: Making the network safer ......................................................................... 32 Outcome: Improving user satisfaction ...................................................................... 34 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic ....................................................... 36 Outcome: Encouraging economic growth .................................................................. 39 Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes .............................................. 40 Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users ............................... 42 Outcome: Achieving real efficiency .......................................................................... 43 Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition .................................................... 45
Annex B: Financial and efficiency performance ............................................................ 47
Annex C: Network investment delivery ......................................................................... 55
Annex D: Note on revisions to previously reported data ............................................. 66
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.1 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s management of the strategic road network – the motorways and main A-roads in England.
1.2 In the road investment strategy (RIS), government has set the outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (road period 1). In monitoring the performance and efficiency of the company, our objective is to secure better performance and value for money from the strategic road network to benefit road users and the wider public.
1.3 This is our assessment of Highways England’s performance in 2017-18. Overall, we have found that the company continues to operate a road network which is safe and serviceable, and has largely met its performance targets. Highways England is improving its management of its major schemes. Its forecast costs for the road period remain above funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional scope and planned over programming. It must continue to take action to manage this position and reconcile it with claimed efficiencies.
Key messages for 2017-18
1. Highways England’s performance in operating the network has remained steady in 2017-18.
In the context of increased traffic it has kept the network flowing. Road user safety remains good compared to other road networks, although the challenging target for 2020 is at risk. Highways England is becoming more customer-focused, and has plans for further improvement. Road user satisfaction remains high, but is below target.
1.4 Highways England has demonstrated a strong focus on safety, and in this area the strategic road network in England compares well to other road networks. The company is not yet delivering the reduction in the number of killed or seriously injured required to meet its challenging target of 40% improvement by 2020. One reason for the reported increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured is a change to how police forces record road casualty data.
1.5 Traffic on the network has grown over the last year. In spite of this, average congestion is broadly stable in this road period and Highways England remains above its targets for smooth flow of traffic – keeping 98.3% of the network open to traffic and clearing 87.9% of incidents within an hour.
1.6 During 2017-18, Highways England has demonstrated its improved customer focus through reviewing road users’ experience of unplanned disruption caused by major incidents. It has identified lessons learnt and developed action plans to improve future performance. However, Highways England’s user satisfaction is 88.7%, slightly below its target of 90%. It is developing an improvement plan for 2018-19 which must reflect road users’ priorities. It is also setting out its customer service strategy, recognising the longer-term ambition of improving customer focus and satisfaction.
1.7 The company has made progress in delivering its environmental targets on biodiversity and noise. It has helped vulnerable users by completing 100 new and upgraded crossings, which is higher than the number completed last year.
2. Highways England is delivering more improvements on its roads but it must manage costs.
The company has improved its planning and management of major schemes, and is delivering the majority of these on time. It has demonstrated improved management of its capital portfolio. Its forecast costs for the road period have reduced, but remain above its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional scope and planned over programming. It must continue to take action to manage this position. Investment through its ring-fenced funds has increased, but is slower than originally planned. 1.8 Highways England continues to deliver most of its major schemes to schedule and has improved its scheduling of major schemes for the remainder of the road period. It started work on all seven schemes in its 2017-18 delivery plan, and an additional scheme brought forward from 2019-20. It also opened to traffic eight of the nine schemes which were planned in 2017-18.
1.9 The company has strengthened its capital portfolio management capability and, as a result, now has better information about scheme timings, costs and risks. This should support improved planning and delivery in the long-term.
1.10 The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than the original funding assumptions. Highways England now expects to start 85 schemes in the first road period, down from 112 originally planned. The company’s forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes is now £2.9bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than originally assumed. This partly reflects increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set.
1.11 Highways England forecasts capital costs that are £438m higher than its funding in the road period. It is taking action to manage costs, but there is risk that some work will need to be deferred to the next road period and/or additional funding used in road period 1 (for example through its ability to bring funds forward from the next road period).
1.12 Highways England has made good progress to date on its flagship schemes. The A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme is currently on schedule to meet its planned completion date, and the company has made progress with planning for the A303 Stonehenge tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing.
1.13 Highways England’s delivery through its ring-fenced funds is slower than planned, although the pace of delivery has picked up in 2017-18. There is particular risk to delivering the intended investment through the air quality fund. We propose that it should now review options for addressing this with government.
3. Highways England is improving the condition of the strategic road network.
Network condition has improved during the year, and is now on target. The company has set out long-term plans for improving the identification, planning and delivery of asset maintenance and renewal works.
1.14 Highways England is moving towards a more structured approach to managing its assets - including assuring that it is identifying and delivering the right work. It has recognised the concerns we raised previously and has set out plans for improvement which will support better maintenance and renewal of the network in this road period, and beyond.
1.15 Highways England has improved the condition of its road network during the year and it is meeting its target to have at least 95% of the network in good condition. The timing of the surveys used to collect road condition data mean that these figures do not reflect the impact of the recent winter; this will be reflected in 2018-19 data. We are working with the company to understand what effect this has had on road surfaces, and how it is addressing any resultant impact on network condition.
1.16 The company has spent 24% more on renewals in 2017-18 than in 2016-17 and delivered more road surface renewals. However, user satisfaction with upkeep has reduced by one percentage point this year, to 89%.
1.17 In 2017-18, Highways England spread its expenditure on maintenance and renewals slightly more evenly throughout the year than it has done in previous years – but there remain opportunities to deliver more efficiently. 4. Highways England is delivering efficiencies but more evidence is required that its road period target is on track.
It has reported £486m of cost savings in the road period to date (40% of its target), £226m of which are in 2017-18. This is supported by clear evidence of specific improvements made. The company needs to continue to develop its evidence that reported savings are supported by its capital portfolio delivery and its unit costs.
1.18 Highways England has presented strong evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver more efficiently and the savings these have realised. It has started to develop improved unit cost information to provide context for its reported efficiency – this needs further work.
1.19 Highways England’s current capital portfolio expenditure forecast is £438m higher than its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional work and planned over programming. This is after agreed changes to the RIS, including from the optimisation process, which have removed scope from road period 1. The company has identified plans to reduce the difference between its expenditure forecast and funding to £274m by the end of the road period. Any remaining difference will need to be managed through use of additional funds in road period 1 or deferral of work into road period 2.
Summary of performance
1.20 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS. This sets out eight outcomes areas, each with one or more key performance indicator as well as a number of performance indicators. Delivery against each key performance indicator, and our assessment for the remainder of the road period, is summarised in the table below using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
______________________________________________________________________
1 A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual | Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2017-18 | RAG 2016-17 | RAG 2017-18 | RAG road period 1 | |---------|----------------|------------------------|-------------|-------------|------------------| | Making the network safer | Killed or seriously injured | 2017 figures delayed until September 2018. Killed or seriously injured increased by 12% in 2016. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction | 88.7% satisfaction. Remains below 90% target. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability | 98.3% availability. Remains above target, although slightly down from 98.4% in 2016-17 | Green | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance | 87.9% cleared within one hour. Remains above target, and improved from 85.9% last year. | Green | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (secs per vehicle mile) | 9.2 seconds delay per vehicle mile, an increase of 0.2 seconds from 2016-17. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated | 448 mitigated during the year, bringing total for the road period to 651. Improved delivery during 2017-18. | Amber | Green | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity | Management plans produced for 15 SSSIs, bringing the total for the road period to 30. | Green | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings | 28 new and 72 upgraded crossings delivered in 2017-18. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings | £226m of efficiencies reported in 2017-18. £486m in RIS1 to date, which is 40% of the target. | Green | Amber | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to delivery plan | Work started on 8 schemes (target of 7). 8 schemes open to traffic (target of 9). | Green | Green | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition | 95.2% requires no further investigation. Performance improved after target missed in 2016-17. | Amber | Green | Amber |
**KEY:** Green = Delivery on track/clear plans in place for RP1 Amber = Some risk to delivery of target/plans not fully established for RP1 Red = High risk to delivery of target/plans not in place for RP1 2. HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
Highways England’s performance in operating the network has remained steady in 2017-18.
In the context of increased traffic it has kept the network flowing. Road user safety remains good compared to other road networks, although the challenging target for 2020 is at risk. Highways England is becoming more customer-focused and has plans for further improvement. Road user satisfaction remains high, but is below target.
Safety
2.1 One of Highways England’s key objectives is to improve safety on the strategic road network for road users and workers. In 2017-18, the company has demonstrated a strong focus in this area. However, it is at risk of missing its key performance indicator target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40% by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline.
2.2 The latest available statistics show that 2,005 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 2016 – a 12% increase on the previous year. This included 231 fatalities, which is 3% higher than in 2015.
2.3 One reason for the reported increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured is a change to how police forces record road casualty data. Approximately half of English police forces adopted a new system (CRASH - collision recording and sharing) between the end of 2015 and early 2016. Forces that adopted the new system reported a 20% increase in killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 2016, compared to a 5% increase for those forces that did not.
2.4 More generally, the trend in the number of killed or seriously injured on all roads, prior to the introduction of the new system, had been broadly flat since 2010. This highlights the challenge of achieving the target by 2020.
Figure 2.1: Killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the strategic road network, 2005-2016
Note: number of KSIs are affected by changes to data collection from 2012, with the biggest impact in 2016.
______________________________________________________________________
2 The Department for Transport, which is responsible for producing road casualty statistics, has postponed publication of 2017 data until September 2018.
3 The Department for Transport has published further information on the changes to road casualty statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics 2.5 In 2017-18, Highways England delivered a broad range of activities aimed at improving safety on the network. These included:
- **Safety schemes.** The company has delivered 45 safety schemes through its ring-fenced funds, and completed detailed design on a further 61. These schemes focus on the sections of the network where accident rates are highest, which are typically single carriageway A-roads.
- **Driver education.** Highways England has worked with organisations including the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA), Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), road safety partnerships and the police to deliver better driver training and education to higher risk groups such new drivers and motorcyclists.
- **Smart motorways.** The company has worked with road users, recovery organisations and freight operators to develop improved signage, communications and training for smart motorways.
- **Suicide prevention.** Highways England launched its suicide prevention strategy in November 2017, which sets out how it will contribute to delivering government’s national strategy for suicide prevention.
- **Vehicle roadworthiness.** Highways England has worked with partners to run information campaigns to encourage drivers to check that their vehicles are roadworthy before starting a journey.
- **Road worker safety.** The company has strengthened checks to ensure its contractors are appropriately trained for working on the strategic road network, and is developing better systems for reporting workforce incidents.
### Case study – new driver programme
- Highways England’s new driver programme aims to improve safety on the network by increasing the knowledge of new drivers, and driving instructors when driving on motorways or high-speed roads.
- This is a joint initiative with partners, including Department for Transport, DVLA, DVSA and driving instructor groups.
- It includes online resources (www.drivinghub.co.uk) for learner drivers, approved driving instructors and parents and guardians covering various elements such as vehicle checks, driving to the conditions, and what to do if you break down on a high-speed road.
- This supports a change in legislation which allows learner drivers to take lessons on motorways from June 2018. 2.6 Highways England published an update to its 5 year health and safety plan in 2017-18, and has now delivered 108 of the 130 actions in the plan. It also developed regional incident and casualty reduction plans, which set out the actions and planned interventions that will contribute to improved safety in each region, and the company’s longer-term ambition that no one should be harmed whilst travelling or working on the network by 2040.
2.7 The company has developed its work to assess the safety of the network, based on a star rating system. In 2017-18, it completed work to model the star rating of the network to reflect the improvements made in the first road period. It expects to publish further detail of this work later in 2018. It is on track to achieve 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
2.8 Accident frequency rates for the supply chain have increased slightly over the past year, while rates for Highways England’s own staff have improved. However, accident rates for both remain worse than the company’s internal targets.
2.9 In 2017-18, the company delivered 14 actions in its 5 year health and safety action plan that are specifically aimed at improving road worker and traffic officer safety. This included ensuring all tier one contractors have plans to address health, safety and wellbeing for second and third tier contractors. The company also worked with the supply chain to ensure all those working on the network are provided with appropriate training, and reviewed contractors’ management of occupational health risks.
2.10 Highways England has provided training for managers in its customer service directorate to understand and identify stress in the workforce. It has also developed an improved system for reporting accidents and incidents, which covers contractors and Highways England employees.
Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
2.11 The strategic road network fulfils a vital role in supporting our local and national economies by facilitating the movement of people and goods. As network operator, Highways England must minimise the impact of roadworks and incidents on customers. The company’s performance in this area is measured by two key performance indicators, covering network availability and incident clearance. In 2017-18, Highways England met its targets for these indicators. 2.12 Lane availability on the strategic road network was 98.3% in 2017-18, which is above the target of 97%. Highways England expects availability to reduce during the road period, but remain above target. This reflects the increased work on the network as the RIS1 investment plan gathers pace.
2.13 During 2017-18, Highways England took a number of actions aimed at reducing the impact of roadworks on road users. These included undertaking more work at night, working more efficiently during lane closures, and closing shorter sections of roads during works. We will continue to work with the company to understand how it is maximising lane availability as the volume of major roadworks on the network increases.
2.14 The company also met its incident clearance target in 2017-18 – clearing 87.9% of motorway incidents within one hour, against a target of 85%. This is an improvement on performance in 2016-17, when it cleared 85.9% of incidents within one hour.
2.15 During 2017-18, Highways England has rolled out a number of interventions, aimed at increasing the capability of the traffic officer service to respond to incidents on the network. This has included training traffic officers to tow vehicles of up to 12 tonnes from the carriageway, better coverage of the network through more single-crewed vehicles, and better targeting of known ‘hot-spots’. The company has also undertaken more detailed analysis of incidents that are not cleared within one hour, and shared this intelligence across the business to improve performance. Case study – increasing the capability of the traffic officer service
- In the past year, Highways England has trialled initiatives to support the smooth flow of traffic by increasing the coverage and capability of the traffic officer service.
- During the 2018 Easter holiday period, traffic officer patrols were extended to the A30 in Cornwall for the first time.
- Patrolling the A30 supports Devon and Cornwall Police and helps address increased traffic volumes and related incidents on the road. As part of this, the traffic officers are also at hand to provide assistance on the A38.
- The extra patrols will also take place over the summer months, when this part of the strategic road network is particularly busy.
- In the East Midlands, the traffic officer service has also been allocated some inspection duties. This aims to: allow asset inspectors to spend more time on condition inspections; speed up repairs; and improve decision making on asset intervention. Supporting economic growth
2.16 Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth is monitored by a key performance indicator that measures average delay per vehicle mile. In 2017-18, average delay was 9.2 seconds per vehicle mile. This is the highest level of average delay recorded in the road period so far – up from 9 seconds per vehicle mile in 2016-17.
2.17 Traffic is at record levels, and is continuing to grow. In 2017, 94.1bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network, which is 2.1% higher than in 2016. This is a key cause of increased delay.
2.18 Analysis of performance data from 2017-18 shows a particularly large increase in delay in March 2018, compared to March 2017. This coincides with two periods of heavy snow that affected the network in March 2018.
2.19 Many of the actions taken by Highways England to improve lane availability and incident clearance also help to reduce delays on the network. Examples of other actions it has taken to support the smooth flow of traffic in 2017-18 include:
- Responding to advance warning of severe winter weather by positioning recovery vehicles at strategic locations on the network based on previous snow events.
- Working with emergency services and other road responders at a regional level to improve coordination in responding to incidents.
- Running a national driver education campaign on using smart motorways.
2.20 The winter of 2017-18 presented challenging conditions across the strategic road network, including heavy snow in February and March 2018. As a result, Highways England used more than double the amount of salt compared to the previous year. A key challenge in 2017-18 was traction of larger vehicles at vulnerable locations and the impact of drifting snow, particularly on A-roads. The company used location-specific plans, based on prior experience, to support road users during these periods of severe weather. Highways England’s regional teams have used the lessons learnt from last winter to strengthen its plans for future years.
2.21 Increasing traffic, and delivery of the capital investment programme, continue to present a challenge to managing delay on the network. The Department for Transport forecasts that traffic on the strategic road network will continue to grow, by between 29% and 60%, between 2010 and 2040. Continuing to build its understanding of the impact of traffic growth will help Highways England deliver interventions that have the greatest impact on minimising delays on its network. Satisfaction
2.22 It is important that Highways England delivers a service that meets road users’ needs, and maintains high levels of satisfaction. Satisfaction is measured through a regular survey of drivers and other road users by Transport Focus – the National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS).
2.23 Road user satisfaction with using the strategic road network was 88.7% in 2017-18. This is below the target of 90%, and also below last year’s score of 89.1%.
Figure 2.5: Road user satisfaction, 2013-14 to 2017-18
2.24 The overall satisfaction score is calculated by combining five separate elements of satisfaction. Satisfaction with signage and safety were above 90%, while satisfaction with the upkeep of the network, journey times and roadworks management were all below 90%.
Figure 2.6: Road user satisfaction with different journey elements, 2017-18
2.25 Analysis of regional data shows that satisfaction in the North West fell from 83.0% to 77.8% in the last year, and is considerably lower than other regions. Highways England attributes this to the high concentration of (and delays to) major schemes; above average levels of commuters (who tend to have lower satisfaction); and fewer variable message signs in the region.
2.26 Highways England has produced plans to improve customer satisfaction in 2018-19. These are informed by insight from a range of sources, including the NRUSS. Many of the actions it has developed to improve satisfaction are targeted at aspects of performance which attract the lowest NRUSS scores. For example, it has taken action to address users’ experience of roadworks, including length of roadworks, quality of information, and visible activity. It has also worked with Transport Focus to improve its understanding of issues affecting road user satisfaction in the North West of England, where scores are consistently below other areas of the country.
2.27 In 2017-18, Highways England’s customer service plan focussed on:
- Roadworks – providing information to help people make the best choices and reinforcing customer service through the company and its supply chain;
- Maintenance and upkeep on the network and reducing litter;
- Signage – improving variable message sign availability and the user-friendliness of information; and
- Improving diversionary route signage.
2.28 There are also a number of factors affecting customer satisfaction that are less within Highways England’s control, such as the behaviour of other motorists, and volumes of traffic. This was reinforced in 2017-18 by suspected terrorist-related incidents on the M3 and M1 motorways. These caused significant disruption for users and presented new challenges to the company in relation to its control over when roads are re-opened for traffic. Following a lessons-learnt exercise, Highways England has put a series of actions in place to mitigate the impact on road users of similar incidents in the future. 2.29 During 2017-18, Highways England has worked with Transport Focus, and us, to develop the new Strategic Road User Survey which will provide more robust information on customer satisfaction in the future. Transport Focus began a period of dual running of the new survey from April 2018. The 90% target for road user satisfaction will continue to be measured by the existing NRUSS in 2018-19.
Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.30 The road investment strategy requires Highways England to deliver better environmental outcomes through its management of the strategic road network. The company’s progress in this area is monitored by two key performance indicators, covering noise and biodiversity.
2.31 For its key performance indicator on noise, Highways England has a target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2017-18, it mitigated 448 noise important areas, bringing the total to 6514 for this road period.
2.32 The number of noise important areas mitigated in 2017-18 is significantly greater than in previous years, which is largely due to the company rolling out a programme to fit noise insulation (double-glazing) to affected properties close to the network.
2.33 In 2017-18, 386 noise important areas were mitigated through insulation. This includes installations at 274 individual properties. Some noise important areas have been counted as mitigated where double glazing was offered to households, and the homeowner either refused, or did not respond to at least three letters sent by Highways England.
2.34 Of the remaining noise important areas mitigated in 2017-18, 47 were delivered through low-noise resurfacing, eight by major scheme bypasses, two were delivered through noise barriers and five through a combination of insulation and resurfacing. Highways England expects to meet its target of 1,150 by the end of this road period, with the majority of these delivered through the insulation scheme. We will continue to monitor progress against the target closely.
2.35 Highways England has also made progress in delivering the commitments in its biodiversity action plan. The company has approved 61 biodiversity schemes to be taken forward in 2018-19. It has undertaken testing of a newly developed biodiversity metric, and expects to trial it in 2018-19. It has also produced a further 15 management plans for sites of special scientific interest on its estate – bringing the total number of plans to 30, against a commitment to develop 40 in this road period.
2.36 In May 2018, Highways England published a report setting out its progress against the biodiversity action plan during 2016-17. It expects to publish another report later this year, covering performance in 2017-18. This is a positive step in increasing transparency around Highways England’s environmental performance.
______________________________________________________________________
4 The number of noise important areas reported as mitigated in 2015-16 and 2016-17 has been revised since our last annual assessment. See annex D for further details.
5 ORR and the Department for Transport have agreed that Highways England can count noise important areas as mitigated where every reasonable attempt has been made to offer double glazing to the home owner. The offer of double-glazing also remains open to those who have initially refused. Highways England has noted an increasing number of households asking to be included in the scheme after initially declining. 2.37 During 2017-18, Highways England continued to take steps to tackle litter on the strategic road network. As part of this, the company has committed to focus on 25 priority hotspots where litter is particularly evident, and appointed ‘litter champions’ in each of its 13 operational areas to monitor litter management. It collected more than 10,000 bags of litter from the network in 2017, and has trialled new bins at service areas, which allow drivers to deposit waste without leaving their vehicle. In January 2018, Highways England held a workshop with stakeholders to generate innovative ideas for further actions that it could take.
Vulnerable users
2.38 In addition to those who use it directly, the strategic road network has an impact on its neighbouring communities. For instance, the network can act as a barrier to vulnerable users, such as cyclists, walkers and equestrians. Highways England has a key performance indicator to report the number of new and upgraded crossings it delivers for vulnerable users.
2.39 In 2017-18, the company delivered 28 new and 72 upgraded crossings on the network. This is an increase on the previous year, when it delivered 20 new and seven upgraded crossings. Highways England has identified an error in the number of crossings that it previously reported as delivered in 2015-16. It is currently validating a revised figure, which we will report in our next annual assessment.
Figure 2.8: Number of new and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2017-18
2.40 Highways England completed construction on 22 cycling schemes in 2017-18, bringing the total delivered in this road period to 79. The company reports that it is on track to meet its commitment of delivering 150 cycling facilities and crossing points on the network in this road period.
\*See annex D for further details. Highways England is delivering more improvements on its roads but it must manage costs.
The company has improved its planning and management of major schemes, and is delivering the majority of these on time. It has demonstrated improved management of its capital portfolio. Its forecast costs for the road period have reduced, but remain above its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional scope and planned over programming. It must continue to take action to manage this position. Investment through its ring-fenced funds has increased, but is slower than originally planned.
Major investment delivery
2.41 Highways England is delivering the majority of its major improvement schemes on time. In 2017-18, the company started work on all seven schemes in its delivery plan, and an additional scheme brought forward from 2019-20. It also completed eight schemes this year against a plan to complete nine.
2.42 Of the eight schemes which were opened for traffic in 2017-18, six were delivered on time, one was completed one quarter ahead of schedule, and one opened three quarters behind schedule. One scheme has missed its delivery date for 2017-18 and will open in 2018-19. In addition, the company also opened to traffic the two schemes that were delayed from 2016-17.
Table 2.1: Summary of major scheme delivery in 2017-18
| Construction phase | 2017-18 commitment | Delivery in 2017-18 | Details | |--------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------| | Start of works | 7 schemes to start work in 2017-18 | 8 schemes started | All 7 planned schemes started | | | | | 1 scheme brought forward from 2019-20 | | Open for traffic | 9 schemes to open for traffic in 2017-18 | 10 schemes open for traffic | 8 planned schemes opened in 2017-18 | | | To open the 2 schemes delayed from 2016-17 | | 1 scheme delayed and will open in 2018-19 | | | | | 2 schemes delayed from 2016-17 opened in 2017-18 | 2.43 Highways England has now started work on 24 schemes, and opened 22 schemes for traffic, in this road period.
2.44 The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than agreed funding assumptions. The 22 schemes that Highways England has opened for traffic by the end of March 2018 are forecasting increased costs of £209m (9%) higher than baseline. This mainly reflects a change in the accounting treatment of land costs, and other scheme specific factors including discovery of hazardous waste, archaeological finds and immaturity of scheme design.
2.45 Highways England has made good progress to date on its flagship schemes. The A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme (discussed in the case study below) is currently in line with the company’s plans to meet its completion date and is scheduled to open for traffic in December 2020.
2.46 The company has also made progress with planning for the A303 Stonehenge Tunnel. In 2017-18, following an extensive public consultation, it announced its preferred route for the tunnel, and construction is currently expected to begin in 2021. On the Lower Thames Crossing, it is currently evaluating options ahead of consulting on a preferred route in late summer 2018.
Case study – A14 Cambridge to Huntington major scheme
- The A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme is Highways England’s biggest single project in construction.
- Costing £1.5bn, it is scheduled to open for traffic in December 2020 and will address congestion on the 21 mile stretch of dual carriageway between Cambridge and Huntingdon.
- The scheme will upgrade this part of the A14 to three lanes in each direction. It includes a new 17 mile bypass south of Huntingdon, 34 new bridges and structures, and a 750 metre viaduct crossing of the River Great Ouse.
- Highways England’s project team has addressed a number of challenges associated with managing this large and complex project. This has included bringing forward work on a new bridge to accelerate other works, and speeding up delivery by setting up a concrete batching facility to build key components of the bridges on-site.
- It has also demonstrated innovative approaches to improving safety, and sharing best practice, which has led to higher standards being adopted across the site. These, and other examples, provide important learning for delivery of future schemes. Highways England’s capital plan
2.47 In 2017-18 we undertook an in-depth review of Highways England’s capital delivery plan. This demonstrated that Highways England has now strengthened its capital portfolio management capability, and as a result has better information about scheme timings, costs and risks.
2.48 It has reviewed how it will deliver its capital investment during the remainder of the road period. This has enabled the company to improve its scheduling of major schemes, with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (‘road corridors’).
2.49 As a result, some major improvement schemes are being considered for delivery in the next road period, while other schemes have been brought forward within the reporting period. The revised plans have reduced the number of schemes which are due to start construction in the last year of this road period, from 69 to 39.
2.50 Highways England has agreed the changes to its commitments in the RIS and delivery plan with government and has taken them through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. This includes:
- deferral of six schemes, and a part of one further scheme, where they do not currently demonstrate value for money. These will be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period;
- 14 schemes are scheduled to start earlier than originally planned, of which 10 schemes were advanced as a result of Highways England’s review of schemes within the same ‘road corridors’;
- 20 schemes deferred to the next road period, including 15 ‘road corridors’ schemes and five further changes due to other factors – for example as an outcome of public consultations and schemes’ options appraisals; and
- cancellation of one scheme, the A27 Chichester bypass. Following a public consultation, the scheme was cancelled as there was no clear consensus on the preferred option.
Figure 2.9: Start of works – original delivery plan compared to revised plans
______________________________________________________________________
1Highways England’s delivery plan update for 2018-19 2 Revised plans refers to changes introduced to Highways England’s capital delivery plan during 2017-18 2.51 The revised plans mean that, of the 112 major schemes originally planned to start works in the first road period, 85 are now planned to start by March 2020. Funds released by this process have been retained to offset cost pressures elsewhere in the portfolio. The company’s forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes are currently £2.9bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than originally assumed. This partly reflects increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set.
2.52 Highways England forecasts capital costs that are £438m higher than its funding for the road period. Its forecast costs have reduced, but remain above funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional work and planned over programming. It is working to manage costs and has instigating a management action plan to address the difference, which has so far identified £164m of potential savings, which will reduce the difference to £274m. However, there is still a risk that some expenditure will need to be deferred to the next road period and/or additional funding used in road period 1 (for example through its ability to bring funds forward from the next road period). It must continue to take action to manage this position.
Figure 2.10: Difference between forecast costs and funding for road period 1
| Funds available | Forecast | Difference | |-----------------|----------|------------| | £ million | | | | As at Apr 2015 | 11,351 | 12,003 | | As at Mar 2016 | 11,351 | 13,138 | | As at Mar 2017 | 11,491 | 12,877 | | As at Mar 2018 | 12,188 | 12,626 |
Ring-fenced funds
2.53 Highways England’s investment plan includes a set of ring-fenced funds, which are aimed at addressing a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of roads investment. These funds are worth £675m in the first road period and are split into five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; and growth and housing.
2.54 At the end of 2017-18, Highways England had spent £176m of its ring-fenced funds, which is 26% of the total available in this road period. The pace of delivery has picked up in 2017-18 compared to last year, but remains behind plan. There is variability in progress between the different funds, with air quality, in particular, having spent proportionately less. We propose that the company should now review options for the air quality fund with government. Highways England has used its ring-fenced fund for environment to develop a new ‘green bridge’ on the A38 at Haldon Hill in Devon.
Green bridges are structures designed to provide wildlife and non-motorised users with easy and safe crossings of main roads and railways.
The environment fund will provide £10.7m for design and construction of the bridge. In addition to benefits for wildlife, it will also provide improved facilities to walkers and cyclists, and will improve safety at a location which is prone to motorists hitting deer.
The project is currently in the detailed design phase, but construction has experienced delays associated with securing an agreement with the landowner.
This demonstrates the benefits which can be delivered to wider communities through ring-fenced funds, but also highlights areas where Highways England can improve its planning and management of these funds.
In 2017-18, we undertook an in-depth review into Highways England’s management of its ring-fenced funds. The final report is published on ORR’s website. The review identified that:
- Whilst progress in delivering projects through the funds has been slow, Highways England now has a more substantial programme of projects planned for the second half of the road period. Although a slow start was always expected, the company is underspent against its original plans.
- The programme is now heavily back-end loaded, which increases the challenge of successful delivery. Increased resources will be required to manage this.
- The programme initially lacked oversight required to control the funds effectively. Data and performance management information is poor and requires focus.
- Highways England has identified issues relating to management and governance through its own internal audits. It has responded by strengthening management of the funds, and as a result, the programme has gained momentum.
In total, the review makes 21 recommendations for Highways England to consider. The company responded positively to the findings of the review and recognises many of the issues raised. It has implemented changes to support improved delivery through ring-fenced funds.
http://orr.gov.uk/\_data/assets/pdf_file/0014/28112/highways-england-approach-to-delivering-schemes-through-its-ring-fenced-funds-2018-02-02.pdf Highways England is improving the condition of the strategic road network
Network condition
2.57 The condition of the strategic road network is monitored by a key performance indicator which measures the percentage of road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance. At the end of 2017-18, 95.2% did not require further investigation. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the 94.3% recorded in 2016-17.
2.58 The timing of the surveys used to collect road condition data mean that these figures do not reflect the impact of last winter. Highways England has reported an increased number of potholes in some regions during the winter. It is identifying and managing these as part of its standard maintenance procedures. Beyond localised damage such as this, the company reports that it does not expect a significant impact on other characteristics that inform network condition. We will review data from the 2018-19 carriageway surveys to understand if last winter has had any lasting impact on its road surfaces.
Figure 2.12: Network condition, 2013-14 to 2017-18
2.59 After missing its road condition target in 2016-17, Highways England established an improvement plan for this metric. In 2017-18, the company delivered against its plan to improve network condition, which included undertaking additional resurfacing work. The increased focus on this area has contributed to an improved understanding of the network condition metric and the issues that affect it. Highways England has also demonstrated improved internal monitoring and assurance of road condition data.
2.60 Highways England is now improving its ability to forecast network condition. We will continue to work closely with the company to understand the actions it is taking to maintain current performance.
Maintenance and renewals
2.61 Highways England has maintained the condition of its network in 2017-18. In addition to improvements in road condition, the condition of other asset types is broadly stable.
2.62 The company has recognised that it should take a more structured approach to managing its assets. In preparation for RIS2, the company is developing a wider business transformation programme approach known as 'operational excellence' by building capability, optimising works, and focusing on planning and performance to deliver improved service to its customers. The company has also put in place a long-term action plan aligned to the recommendations in our in-depth review of asset management delivery for pavement and structures. This will support better identification, planning and delivery of asset maintenance and renewal works.
2.63 There remain opportunities for Highways England to improve its management of renewals work. In 2017-18, the company spent 24% more on renewals than in 2016-17, although the volume of outputs did not increase as much. It delivered significantly greater volumes on the majority of asset types than it planned, and in-year forecasts show considerable variability. Its renewals delivery was highest in the last three months of 2017-18. Delivering more during the winter months may impact on the quality and efficiency of work. Figure 2.13: Output of renewals delivered per quarter\\textsuperscript{10} for selected asset categories, 2017-18
2.64 The profile of renewals expenditure has improved marginally during 2017-18, with less back-end loading than seen in the previous year. However, Highways England could do more to ensure expenditure follows its flatter budget profile and improve its efficiency in future years.
Figure 2.14: Renewals monthly expenditure
\\textsuperscript{10}Quarters refer to the financial year. Q1 covers spring (April to June) and Q4 covers winter (January to March). 2.65 In 2017-18, we carried out a review of Highways England’s new asset delivery contract model which has been adopted in five areas. This covers the operation, maintenance and renewal of the company’s assets. The review focused on whether the model is delivering the expected benefits in road period 1, which include improved financial performance, asset management, efficiency and road user outcomes. It also considered what benefits the model is expected to deliver in the next road period.
2.66 We found areas where the new model is bringing positive changes, for example it has helped Highways England balance delivering long-term solutions and short-term fixes for its assets. The review also highlighted areas where Highways England can strengthen how it collects and monitors information for measuring the benefits of the new model, including cost savings, and embedding lessons learnt.
Highways England is delivering efficiencies but more evidence is required that its road period target is on track.
It has reported £486m of cost savings in the road period to date (40% of its target), £226m of which are in 2017-18. This is supported by clear evidence of specific improvements made. The company needs to continue to develop its evidence that reported savings are supported by its capital portfolio delivery and its unit costs.
Financial performance in 2017-18 and reported efficiency
2.67 Highways England spent £3.4bn in 2017-18, which is largely in line with its agreed baseline funding. Of this, £2.3bn was capital spend, which included improvements to the network (£1.4bn), renewing infrastructure (£776m) and ring-fenced funds (£110m).
2.68 The company has a target to deliver £1.2bn of capital efficiency savings by the end of this road period. It has reported £226m of efficiencies in 2017-18. This would bring the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first three years of the road period to £486m, against an internal milestone of £377m. The efficiency reported to date is 29% ahead of its internal target and represents 40% of the target for the first road period.
Figure 2.15: Efficiency evidenced and reviewed to date Evidencing efficiency
2.69 We judge Highways England’s efficiency using three approaches:
- **Bottom up evidence.** Highways England has presented case-study evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver efficiency. We found the case-study evidence presented to be of a good standard, and to highlight significant effort by the company and its supply chain to deliver efficiency. An example of this type of evidence is presented in the case study below.
- **Unit costs.** The renewals programme has made the largest contribution to its reported efficiency to date. The company has adopted an improved approach to providing unit cost evidence, although this needs further work. For major schemes we are content that Highways England’s model for demonstrating a reduction in unit costs on the smart motorway programme provides reasonable evidence for efficiency. However, this model has not yet been extended to provide unit cost evidence for £70m efficiency claimed under the Regional Investment Programme and Complex Infrastructure Programme.
- **Delivery of the road investment strategy.** Highways England’s current expenditure forecast for the road period is £438m higher than its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional work and planned over programming. This is after agreed changes to the RIS, which have removed scope from road period 1(^1). The company has identified plans to reduce the difference between its expenditure forecast and funding to £274m by the end of the road period. Any remaining difference will need to be managed through use of additional funds in road period 1 or deferral of work into road period 2.
The overall costs of the programme in road period 1 and road period 2 are forecast to be £2.9bn more than the baseline funding. This is partly driven by immature plans when the road investment strategy was set up.
2.70 Taking the three approaches together we need to see more evidence over the next year to support the claimed levels of efficiency. Providing this evidence will increase our confidence that Highways England is able to achieve its efficiency target by 2020. Our review of efficiency evidence is discussed in more detail in annex B.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) As described earlier in this report, a number of schemes have been cancelled where they did not demonstrate value for money, or rescheduled to improve delivery of the capital portfolio. Case study – delivering efficiencies
- The Oldbury viaduct carries 1.8 miles of the elevated sections of the M5 to the west of Birmingham. Constructed in 1970, it now requires major structural repairs.
- Highways England has employed innovative traffic management to reduce the duration of the roadworks, which will shorten the impact on road users, and deliver cost savings.
- The traffic management layout normally employed on this type of scheme would be to maintain three narrow running lanes in each direction, providing two narrow working areas. This would require at least seven phases to complete the works and restrict each concrete repair to a small patch.
- However, running the north and southbound traffic on one carriageway, with two lanes in each direction, enabled the other carriageway to be left free of traffic. This allowed much larger areas of repair works to be carried out, reducing the number of work phases required.
- This is expected to reduce the duration of the work by 153 weeks, and deliver cost savings of £60m. It has also delivered safety benefits to road workers by reducing their proximity to live traffic. Priorities for 2018-19
2.71 In 2017-18, Highways England has demonstrated that it is continuing to build its capability in managing the strategic road network. However, the performance requirements are more challenging in the final two years of the road period and there are risks to delivery at the end of the road period. We consider that the following areas require focus from the company in 2018-19:
- **Customer satisfaction.** Implementation and monitoring progress against its customer satisfaction improvement plan for 2018-19.
- **Efficiency evidence.** Further development of top down efficiency evidence to support progress against its key performance indicator.
- **Ring-fenced funds.** Increasing the pace of delivery through ring-fenced funds in 2018-19, continuing to strengthen its management of the funds, and addressing the recommendations that are set out in our in-depth review.
- **Managing costs.** Taking action to address the difference between forecasts capital costs and its funding for the road period.
- **Planning for RIS2.** Continuing work to develop plans for the second road period. In particular, developing a robust strategic business plan, and presenting efficiency evidence. Also continuing to engage closely with stakeholders as it develops more detailed plans.
Our monitoring
2.72 We will continue to monitor Highways England’s delivery of the road investment strategy, and compliance with its licence. Priority areas for ORR in 2018-19 include:
- a continued focus on monitoring RIS1 as Highways England moves into the later stages of delivery;
- focussed engagement with the company in areas of performance that need improvement – for example road user satisfaction;
- further developing our work to benchmark Highways England’s performance and efficiency; and
- providing evidence and advice to inform RIS2 development. ANNEX A: PERFORMANCE AGAINST OUTCOME AREAS
Outcome: Making the network safer
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve an ongoing reduction in network KSI (killed or seriously injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by the end of 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
2017-18 status: Amber
RIS1 status: Amber
The Department for Transport has postponed publication of its reported road casualty statistics until September 2018. Therefore, we are unable to report Highways England’s performance against its safety key performance indicator in 2017.
The chart below presents road casualty data up to 2016, when there were 2,005 KSIs on the strategic road network, which is 12% higher than the previous year. This included 231 deaths on the network, a 3% increase on 2015.
Figure A1: Killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the strategic road network, 2005-2016
Note: number of KSIs are affected by changes to data collection from 2012, with the biggest impact in 2016.
One reason for the increase in reported KSIs is a change to how some police forces record road casualty data. However, police forces which did not adopt the new reporting system also saw an increase in KSIs in 2016. This highlights the challenge of achieving the target by 2020 and is discussed in more detail in chapter 2. Performance indicators
Casualty numbers for all-purpose trunk roads: The Department for Transport’s road casualty figures are used to monitor this performance indicator. 2017 figures are not yet available. In 2016, there were 8,441 casualties of all severities recorded on Highways England’s A-roads. This is a 0.6% increase on the previous year.
Incident numbers on motorways: Highways England recorded 56,136 incidents on its motorway network in 2017-18. This is a 14% increase on the figure recorded in 2016-17.
Figure A2: Motorway incidents, 2015-16 to 2017-18
Road safety investigations: In 2017-18, Highways England completed work to model the star rating of the network to reflect the improvements made in the first road period. It expects to publish further details of this work later in 2018. It is on track to achieve 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
Accident frequency rates: Highways England reports accident frequency rates through the established ‘Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR)’ process.
For construction and maintenance workers in Highways England’s supply chain, the accident frequency rate was 0.12 in 2017-18, an increase from 0.11 in the previous year. This remains above the company’s internal target.
Figure A3: Accident frequency rate for construction and maintenance workers, 2015-16 to 2017-18
For Highways England’s operations directorate – which covers the traffic officer service – the accident frequency rate was 0.43, which is an improvement from 0.51 in the previous year. This also remains above the company’s internal target.
Figure A4: Accident frequency rate for customer operations directorate, 2015-16 to 2017-18
In 2017-18, Highways England delivered 14 actions in its 5 year Health and Safety Plan which are aimed at improving the safety of road workers and traffic officers. These actions included a focus on ensuring workers have the appropriate training for working on the strategic road network, and developing better systems for reporting incidents. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it
| 2017-18 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Highways England’s satisfaction scores are calculated from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). The overall satisfaction measure was 88.7% in 2017-18, below the target of 90% and lower than the 89.1% recorded in 2016-17.
Performance indicators
Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS:
The NRUSS asks respondents about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the strategic road network:
- journey times;
- roadworks management;
- general upkeep;
- signage; and
- safety.
Figure A6 shows the satisfaction scores for these journey elements since 2013-14. Satisfaction with roadworks management is consistently lower than the other journey elements, and has shown the greatest decline in the past five years.
In 2017-18, satisfaction with signage and safety was above 90% but satisfaction with journey times, roadworks management and general upkeep was below 90%.
Figure A6: Satisfaction with journey elements from 2013-14 to 2017-18 Table A1 shows changes in satisfaction with the five journey elements from 2016-17 to 2017-18.
Table A1: Changes in user satisfaction, 2016-17 to 2017-18
| Journey elements | Change 2016-17 to 2017-18 | Estimated impact on overall satisfaction | |------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Journey time | +0.7% | +0.1% | | Roadworks | 0 | 0 | | General upkeep | -1.1% | -0.3% | | Signage | -0.6% | -0.1% | | Safety | -1.1% | -0.3% |
NRUSS scores by location: The map in figure A7 shows a regional breakdown of NRUSS satisfaction scores. Satisfaction was above 90% in the East and the South East, but was below 90% in all of the other regions. The North West had the lowest satisfaction for the fourth consecutive year.
NRUSS scores for motorways and all purpose trunk roads: Satisfaction with all purpose trunk roads fell 0.2 percentage points to 90.1% in 2017-18. Satisfaction on motorways fell 0.6 percentage points to 87.5%.
Figure A7: Regional variation in user satisfaction, 2017-18
Figure A8: User satisfaction with motorways and all purpose trunk roads, 2013-14 to 2017-18 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year
2017-18 status: Green
RIS1 status: Green
Network availability is a measure of the length of road lanes that are open to traffic as a percentage of the total length of road lanes on the network. Performance is calculated over a rolling year.
At the end of 2017-18, network availability on the strategic road network was 98.3%, which is above the target of 97%.
Network availability has been relatively stable during this road period, and is 0.1 percentage point lower than the figure recorded in the previous year. Highways England expects availability to reduce further during the road period, but remain above target. This reflects the increased work on the network as the RIS1 investment plan gathers pace. Key performance indicator: Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
2017-18 status: Green
RIS1 status: Green
The incident management key performance indicator measures the proportion of incidents on Highways England’s motorway network that it clears within one hour.
At the end of 2017-18, the company cleared 87.9% of motorways incidents within an hour. This is above the target of 85%, and represents an improvement on last year’s score of 85.9%.
Highways England has rolled out a number of interventions in 2017-18 aimed at increasing the capacity of the traffic officer service to respond to incidents on the network. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 2, and have contributed to improved performance against this target. Performance indicators
Traffic on the strategic road network: In 2017, 94.1bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network. This is 2.1% higher than in 2016, and the highest total ever recorded. Since a pause in traffic growth during the economic downturn, volumes on the strategic road network have increased in each of the past eight years.
Planning time index: The planning time index measures the additional time that road users should allow for their journey to arrive on time in 19 out of 20 journeys. It is calculated by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free-flow journey time.
In 2017-18, the planning time index was 1.67, which is slightly lower than the figure recorded in 2016-17. This indicates that the most delayed journeys on the network were slightly better in 2017-18 than in 2016-17.
Acceptable journeys: This measures the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flow speed. In 2017-18, 82.5% of journeys were above this threshold. This is less than the previous year, when 83.5% of journeys were above 75% of free-flow speed.
Average speed: In 2017-18, average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 59.2 miles per hour. This is slower than in 2016-17, when the average speed was 59.5 miles per hour. Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
| 2017-18 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber |
Average delay on the strategic road network is used to measure Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth.
In the year to March 2018, average delay was 9.2 seconds per vehicle mile. This is equivalent to a trip of 100 miles taking almost 17 minutes longer than on a free-flowing network. This is a higher level of delay than in 2016-17, when the average delay figure was 9 seconds per vehicle mile, and the equivalent 100 mile trip would have taken 15 minutes longer compared to free-flow conditions.
Figure A12: Average delay by month during first road period
This chart shows that monthly delay on the strategic road network has been relatively constant during the first three years of this road period. However, delays in March 2018 – the last month of 2017-18 – are higher than in the previous year. This may reflect two periods of heavy snow during that month.
Increasing traffic, and delivery of the capital investment programme, continue to present a challenge to managing delay on the network. Actions that Highways England has taken to address this in 2017-18 are discussed in more detail in chapter 2.
Performance indicators
Average delay on gateway routes: Gateway routes are a subset of the strategic road network, comprising key connections linking major population centres, or business and manufacturing sites, with the most important ports and airports, and rail freight services. Delay on these routes in 2017-18 was 8.7 seconds per vehicle mile – an increase from the figure of 8.2 seconds in 2016-17.
Responding to formal planning applications: In 2017-18, Highways England responded to 100% of planning applications within 21 days. This is above the company’s internal target of 99%.
Spend on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs): Highways England estimates that its expenditure on goods and services from small and medium sized businesses was 30.8% in 2017-18. The government target for spend on SMEs is 25%.
______________________________________________________________________
12 Highways England has changed some of the assumptions used to calculate SME spend since our last annual assessment, and the reported figure is provisional. See annex D for further details. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
2017-18 status: Green
RIS1 status: Amber
Highways England has a target to mitigate 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2017-18, the company mitigated 448 noise important areas, bringing the total to 651 for this road period.
Figure A13: Number of noise important areas mitigated, by intervention type
Highways England has increased the rate at which it is able to mitigate noise important areas in 2017-18 through its scheme to fit insulation (double-glazing) to noise affected households. The company must now mitigate a further 500 noise important areas in the last two years of the road period. It expects the majority of these will be delivered through the insulation scheme.
Highways England expects to meet its target of 1,150 by the end of this road period and we will continue to monitor progress closely.
______________________________________________________________________
13 The number of noise important areas mitigated in 2015-16 and 2016-17 has been revised since our last annual assessment. See annex D for further details. In 2017-18, Highways England has continued to make progress in delivering the actions in its biodiversity action plan. Key areas of progress during the year have included:
- Further testing of the new biodiversity metric.
- Producing a further 15 management plans for sites of special scientific interest, bringing the total for this road period to 30.
- 61 schemes approved through Highways England’s biodiversity technical working group.
- Publishing a biodiversity annual report, covering performance in 2016-17.
**Performance indicators**
**Air quality pilot studies:** Highways England has now completed the 10 air quality pilot studies it had committed to deliver in this road period. The findings from these are being used to consider potential future mitigations.
**Carbon dioxide (Highways England’s activities):** In 2017-18, Highways England reported that its activities resulted in the emission of 83,659 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 7% lower than in 2016-17, and is a 12% reduction from the start of this road period.
**Carbon dioxide (supply chain):** In 2017-18, emissions from Highways England’s supply chain were estimated at 255,115 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 22% lower than reported in 2016-17, and a 37% reduction since the start of the road period. However, we are aware that these figures may be based on incomplete returns, and therefore, any comparison between years should be treated with caution.
**Number of flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated:** Highways England mitigated 40 flooding hotspots, and one culvert in 2017-18. This brings the total number of flooding hotspots mitigated in the first road period to 173, and culverts to nine.
**Number of outfalls and soakaways mitigated:** Highways England has contributed to improved water quality in watercourses close to the strategic road network by mitigating five outfalls in 2017-18, bringing the total number in this road period to ten. It has not mitigated any soakaways in this road period to date. Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
| 2017-18 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2017-18, Highways England delivered 28 new and 72 upgraded crossings for cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users. This is an increase on the previous year, when it delivered 20 new and seven upgraded crossings. Highways England has identified an error in the number of crossings that it previously reported as delivered in 2015-16. It is currently validating a revised figure, which we will report in our next annual assessment.
Figure A15: New and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2017-18
Performance indicators
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme: Highways England delivered 22 cycling schemes during 2017-18. This brings the total number of schemes delivered in this road period to 79. It expects to meet its commitment of delivering 150 cycle schemes in the first road period.
Vulnerable user casualties: Highways England also reports vulnerable road user casualties, of all severities, as a performance indicator. Road casualty data for 2017 are not yet available. Figures for 2015 and 2016 are shown below for reference.
Table A2: Vulnerable user casualties (all severities), 2015 and 2016
| | 2015 | 2016 | |------------------|------|------| | Motorcyclists | 849 | 864 | | Pedal cyclists | 153 | 152 | | Pedestrians | 158 | 154 |
See annex D for further details. Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.2bn over the first road period
| 2017-18 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Highways England has a target to deliver £1.2bn of capital efficiencies by the end of the road period. The company has reported £226m of efficiencies in 2017-18. This would bring the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first three years of the road period to £486m, against an internal milestone of £377m. The efficiency reported to date is 29% ahead of its internal target and represents 40% of the target for the first road period.
Performance indicators
We also monitor Highways England’s performance in the construction phase of major scheme delivery using two earned value measures:
Cost performance index. This is the ratio of budgeted cost of work to date to actual cost to date and a value less than 1 indicates costs are currently above the target price. Performance on the cost performance indicator has dropped in the past year from 0.99 to 0.96. Through our monitoring of network investment delivery we are working to understand the reasons for this change and measures the company is taking to improve performance.
Scheduled performance index. This is the ratio of budgeted cost of work to date to value scheduled to be delivered to date. A value less than 1 indicates progress on projects is behind schedule. This indicator is close to 1 in 2017-18, indicating that the capital programme is on track in terms of schedule compared to the delivery plan.
Table A3: Cost Performance Indicator and Schedule Performance Indicator
| | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | Cost performance indicator (CPI) | 0.99 | 0.96 | | Schedule performance indicator (SPI) | 0.97 | 1.01 |
We consider that more evidence is required that reported savings are supported by its capital portfolio delivery and its unit costs. Our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency is set out in more detail in chapter 2, and annex B, of this report. In 2017-18, Highways England started works on eight major improvement schemes against a target of seven.
The company opened eight schemes for traffic in 2017-18, against its plan of nine. One scheme has missed its delivery plan commitment and will open in 2018-19. In addition, the company opened to traffic the two schemes that were delayed from 2016-17.
In the first three years of the road period, Highways England has started work on 24 schemes, against a target of 17. It has also opened 22 schemes to traffic, against a target of 23.
Our full assessment of Highways England’s progress relative to its delivery plan are set out in chapter 2, and annex C of this report. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
2017-18 status: Green RIS1 status: Amber
At the end of 2017-18, the percentage of pavement (road) that did not require further investment for maintenance was 95.2%. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the 94.3% recorded in 2016-17 year, when the target was missed.
Performance indicators
As well as pavement, Highways England also manages other physical assets on the network, including structures (such as bridges), geotechnical works (for example embankments), drainage assets (such as gullies and drains) and technology assets (such as overhead message signs).
Structure assets: Highways England has continued to improve its structures inventory information, which is now 98.2% complete. This is an improvement of 0.1 percentage point from 2016-17. The company reports that the two measures of stock condition for structures have dropped this year from their reported positions in 2016-17. The drop is considered statistically insignificant and may reflect the lag in uploading inspection and maintenance data as well as a delay in undertaking inspections. Highways England has shared with us the reasons for this and we will monitor performance in this area in the year ahead. However, stock conditions remain higher than their positions in 2015-16 and the percentage of structures with a rating of ‘good’ is reported as 79.8% which represents a 0.6% improvement from 2016-17.
Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 97.2% of its geotechnical assets do not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2017-18. This is higher than the position in 2016-17 (96.8%).
Drainage assets: Highways England has reported no change from 2016-17 in the percentage of network that it has drainage inventory data for (88%). The percentage of the network with drainage condition data has increased, to 34% in 2017-18, up from 31% in 2016-17. Technology asset availability: Highways England reports the availability of operational technology assets using the percentage of time lost by service affecting faults. During 2017-18 performance has been reported as above target for all three technology systems: control centre technology, national roads telecommunications services technology and roadside technology. Whilst performance has been reported as above target for roadside technology, its availability has reduced to 98.4% (from 98.8%) in the last year.
The RIS Performance Specification requires that Highways England develops new condition metrics to be considered for use in the next road period. Highways England has developed a pavement indicator that is currently being validated and is expected to be completed in 2018-19. It has developed a new enhanced structures asset condition indicator and will carry out further calibration during 2018-19. It has also developed an enhanced geotechnical asset condition indicator and has shown some progress in the development of condition indicators for technology and drainage assets. These will be validated in 2018-19 and are expected to be completed by March 2020.
Table A4: Summary of asset performance indicators in 2017-18 and trend for road period 1
| Asset | PI | 2017-18 | RP1 Trend | |----------------|---------------------|---------|-----------| | Geotech | Condition | 97.2% | ▲ | | | Inventory | 12994 km| ▲ | | Technology | Control Centre | 99.97% | ▲ | | Availability | National Roads | 99.99% | ▲ | | | Telecommunications | | | | | Services | | | | | Roadside | 98.40% | ▼ | | Drainage | Inventory Coverage | 88% | ▲ | | | Condition Coverage | 34% | ▲ | | Structures | Inventory | 98.2% | ▲ | | | Condition (Average) | 84.56 | ▼ | | | Condition (Critical)| 62.76 | ▼ | | | SCI Rating of ‘Good’| 79.8% | ▲ |
Key: Relative to position in 2016-17
- increase ▲
- no change ▶
- decrease ▼ ANNEX B: FINANCIAL AND EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE
This annex sets out a summary of our assessment of Highways England’s financial performance during 2017-18.
We monitor Highways England against its licence requirement to achieve efficiency and value for money in operating and managing the strategic road network. Our work to assess the company’s financial performance and efficiency also informs our:
- view of delivery of the investment plan in this road period;
- work to support development of RIS2; and
- view of the efficiency evidence presented.
Financial performance
Expenditure compared to baseline and budget
In 2017-18 Highways England spent £3.4bn, which is 2% below its agreed baseline funding of £3.5bn.
However, the company set a budget of £3.2bn (£200m lower than baseline(^{15})), reflecting its latest delivery plans and the expected return of £220m in unspent funds for the cancelled M20 lorry park development. The Department for Transport subsequently agreed to Highways England repaying the balance in a future year meaning there was no change to the baseline in 2017-18.
Overall expenditure was £162m (5%) above budget. This was mainly due to capital spend of £2.3bn being £141m (6%) above budget. Significant variances compared to budget are shown in figure B2 and are summarised below:
- Resource expenditure was £21m above budget, mainly due to an overspend on the Dart Charge arising from lower protocol funding than required. The Department for Transport provided additional funding for this during the year.
- Renewals expenditure was £18m (2%) lower than budget which is partly due to slower than expected mobilisation of new contractors. Adverse weather in February and March 2018 also contributed to the reduced spend.
- Expenditure against the improvement schemes budget was £148m (13%) higher than planned. This is due to additional project delivery costs and some acceleration.
- Ring-fenced investment funds underspent by £80m (43%) because of delays on these work programmes, particularly for the air quality fund.
- ‘Other’ capital overspent by £90m due to known pressures within the capital programme which the company had expected to manage out during the year or use its ability to bring forward capital funding from 2018-19.
(^{15}) For financial monitoring purposes, the company also sets a budget reflecting expected agreed changes in its funding and latest delivery plans. Therefore the baseline and budget can differ. Expenditure variances in the capital programme
When setting its capital budget for 2017-18, Highways England identified that its spending plans exceeded in-year funding by £277m.
Figure B3: Highways England’s capital budget variance in 2017-18 Higher project costs led to the enhancement programme costing £138m more than planned in 2017-18. There was also accelerated spend on schemes, totalling £64m. The funding pressure was reduced due to the expected slippage in some schemes and delays in projects delivered through ring-fenced funds (totalling £264m), and smaller savings (£29m).
As highlighted in annex C, RIS1 project cost forecasts have increased and the portfolio is now expected to cost £17.6bn across road periods 1 and 2 (£2.9bn more than originally estimated). This partly reflects increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set.
Variability in scheme financial performance in 2017-18
Highways England’s overall capital overspend of £141m consists of individual overspends totalling £500m that are partially offset by underspends of £359m.
In 2017-18 the company reported greater variances above and below budget than in previous years. After taking over-programming into account, this is mainly due to the higher underspend on ring-fenced funds.
As shown in figure B4 the overspend primarily reflects cost pressures, rather than higher outputs. Similarly, underspends mainly reflect planned deferral of work or slippage, rather than budget savings. This is supported by Highways England’s cost performance index of 0.96, which indicates that schemes in construction are slightly above budget. This is discussed later in the annex.
Our analysis of 2017-18 budget variances for major schemes in figure B5 below has shown that 60% of schemes have budget variances greater than 20%. This is an improvement on 2016-17 where 82% had variances greater than 20%.16
______________________________________________________________________
16 Based on 112 major schemes, including those affected by changes to the RIS in 2017-18 described in annex C. The variability and reasons for the variances are important when considering Highways England’s future cost forecasts, risks to delivery of the RIS and efficiency.
**Improved short-term capital forecasting**
At portfolio/programme level our analysis has shown there has been some improvement in the quality of Highways England’s short-term forecast of capital expenditure. The company has been more consistent in its forecast of the year-end position through the year. Also, in its monthly reporting, the company has been accurate to within 4% on average in forecasting the following month’s expenditure, compared to 10% in 2016-17.
**Renewals profile**
We have highlighted in the past the apparent inefficiency of Highways England’s renewals expenditure profile. This has seen the greatest level of activity in the final months of the year where costs tend to be higher due to adverse weather. Despite some marginal improvements, the profile of expenditure still shows greater activity in winter months. This may have been partly a result of the company facing a challenging year with more work, changes in suppliers and new contractual approaches. Efficiency
Highways England has reported £226m of efficiencies in 2017-18, bringing the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first three years of road period 1 to £486m. This is 40% of the target to deliver £1.2bn of efficiencies by 2020, and £109m ahead of the company’s capital efficiency delivery plan milestone for 2017-18.
Figure B7: Efficiency evidence and reviewed to date
Highways England reports efficiency improvements as set out in the Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM). There are three components to our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements. These are analysis of:
1. Highways England’s bottom-up description of efficiency improvements;
2. Capital unit cost movements; and
3. Expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the road investment strategy.
The following sections provide a more detailed commentary on our view of the evidence submitted:
Bottom-up description of efficiency achieved
Highways England has presented case study evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver efficiency. Figure B8 provides an analysis of the contribution of different themes to the cumulative reported figure. Scheduling of schemes makes the largest contribution and includes £29m in 2017-18 from innovative traffic management on the M5 junctions 1-2 Oldbury Viaduct scheme (discussed as a case study in chapter 2) and £63m from acceleration of the smart motorway programme.
We found the case study evidence presented to be of a good standard and to highlight significant effort by the company and its supply chain to deliver efficiency.
______________________________________________________________________
17 The monitoring approach set out in the EIMM was jointly developed by Highways England and ORR. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464887/Efficiency_Manual_v5_spreads.pdf. Unit costs
Highways England has developed a new approach for evidencing improvement in renewals unit costs, in response to our concerns about the previous methodology. The new approach is an improvement on previous reporting. However, Highways England reports limitations to this approach, including only 33% of relevant data has been available for use in the model. It expects that, over time, changes in contractual arrangements will mean that this will increase. On balance we believe the new approach provides better evidence. However its limitations (recognised by the company) affect the weight it is given in our review.
High-level analysis indicates that the increase in Highways England’s renewals expenditure in 2017-18 (24%) was not matched by increased volume of renewals delivery. Volumes increased by a greater percentage than expenditure in only three out of 18 asset types18.
For major schemes we are content that Highways England’s model for demonstrating a reduction in unit costs on the smart motorway programme provides reasonable evidence of efficiency. This model has not yet been extended to provide unit cost evidence for the £60m efficiency claimed under the Regional Investment Programme and Complex Infrastructure Programme.
Expenditure and delivery compared to the RIS
While Highways England has largely made good progress in delivering its investment plan to schedule so far in the road period, the company’s current expenditure forecast for road period 1 is £438m higher than its funding. This is after agreed changes to the RIS, which have removed scope from road period 1. It has identified plans to reduce this to £274m by the end of the road period.
The overall costs of the programme in road period 1 and road period 2 are forecast to be £2.9bn more than originally planned. The increased costs partly reflect immature plans when the road investment strategy was set up, delivery of additional work and planned over-programming. It will need to manage any remaining difference, potentially through the use of additional funds in road period 1 or deferral of work into road period 2.
When the RIS was announced DfT and Highways England estimated that capital costs would exceed available funding by £652m as a result of over-programming19. Early in the road period Highways England identified further business costs of £409m which were not funded in the RIS. This £1.1bn pressure is reported in the NAO’s 2017 study ‘Progress with the Road Investment Strategy’. As discussed above, during 2017-18 DfT agreed changes to the RIS reducing scope in the remainder of road period 1 by £616m, leaving a remaining pressure due to over-programming and unfunded costs of £445m.
______________________________________________________________________
18 Geotech, guardrail and boundary fencing 19 This approach of ‘over-programming’ (planning more work than there is funding to pay for) is used by Highways England to mitigate the risk that project delays or cancellations would mean the company underspending its funding allocation. Our review of the deliverability of the investment plan has also helped inform our view of efficiency. It found no evidence of the forecast variance being due to a systemic problem with Highways England’s delivery plan or its project performance. Emerging scope/cost uncertainty and change have been the most influential factors as the portfolio has developed.
On balance across the three areas of efficiency evidence we consider that Highways England has more work to do to support the additional reported efficiency against the KPI. Over the next year we will work with the company to: (a) understand how it can improve assurance of its renewals unit cost evidence; and (b) provide further evidence of how scope change of major schemes has impacted the forecast outturn.
**Cost and schedule performance indicators**
**Cost performance index**
The cost performance index (CPI) is commonly used as a measure of earned value in the construction industry. It is a measure of the relationship between target and actual cost for work completed. Highways England has reported a CPI of 0.96 (0.99 in 2016-17), which indicates that overall, projects in construction are progressing slightly above target cost.
**Schedule performance index**
The schedule performance index (SPI) is a similar measure of progress against the agreed schedule. It is a measure of the relationship between budgeted cost of work delivered and scheduled to be delivered. The company has reported a SPI of 1.01 (0.97 in 2016-17), which indicates that overall projects in construction are ahead of schedule.
**Input price effects**
Highways England’s funding for capital projects in 2017-18 included an additional 4% for forecast increases to the costs of the company’s inputs, i.e. materials and labour costs. It has since commissioned work to provide a long-term inflation profile specific to the work contained in the RIS. The company used this to produce its own cost indices for actual year on year inflation in 2017-18 of 2.7% for enhancements and 3.2% for renewals. The degree to which Highways England has benefited from lower inflation than assumed in its funding will also depend on both the timing of contract renewal and approach to sharing inflation risk in its supplier contracts. ANNEX C: NETWORK INVESTMENT DELIVERY
This annex describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2017-18, including ring-fenced funds. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
The RIS sets the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England must deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlines a five-year capital funding package of £12.2bn for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This includes:
- a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7.8bn;
- a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.7bn;
- a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and
- investment associated with strategic studies.
We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the investment plan.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2017-18
Highways England’s progress in delivery of its capital programme during 2017-18 is shown in table C1. The company has started construction on all seven schemes that were planned to start during the year. It also started construction of one further scheme brought forward from 2019-20 commitments (M49 Avonmouth junction).
Highways England opened eight schemes to traffic against a target of nine during 2017-18. Of these, seven were on schedule, and one, the A1 Leeming to Barton scheme, opened three quarters behind schedule in March 2018. This was mainly due to extensive archaeological finds that resulted in an extension to the construction programme.
The M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway, which was expected to open in 2017-18, is delayed by 10 months due to additional work required on the existing assets. Part of this scheme (junctions 18 to 20) opened for traffic in December 2017, and it is forecast to be fully open in July 2018.
The two schemes that were delayed from 2016-17 – the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake and the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury – opened for traffic in quarter 2 of 2017-18.
### Table C1: Major schemes delivery in 2017-18
| 2017-18 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |----------------------|----------------|-------------| | **Major schemes starting construction** | | | | M20 junction 10a | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M6 junctions 2-4 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M6 junctions 13-15 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M20 junctions 3-5 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M23 junctions 8-10 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M62 junctions 10-12 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M4 Heathrow slip road | 2017-18, Q2 | 2017-18, Q2 | | M49 Avonmouth junction | 2019-20 | 2017-18, Q3 Ahead of schedule | | **Major schemes opened for traffic** | | | | A1 Leeming to Barton | 2017-18, Q1 | 2017-18, Q4 | | A5-M1 link road | 2017-18, Q1 | 2017-18, Q1 | | M3 junctions 2-4A | 2017-18, Q1 | 2017-18, Q1 | | A43 Abthorpe junction | 2017-18, Q1 | 2017-18, Q1 | | M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20: smart motorway | 2017-18, Q2 | Forecast 2018-19, Q2 | | M5 junctions 4A-6 | 2017-18, Q2 | 2017-18, Q1 Ahead of schedule | | M1 junction 45 improvements | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | A47 Acle Straight | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M4 Heathrow slip road | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | A30 Temple to Carblake | 2016-17, Q3 | opened 2017-18, Q2 | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | 2016-17, Q4 | opened 2017-18, Q2 |
**Key**
- ● Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- ● Milestone one quarter behind schedule
- ● Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed
Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2017-18 is shown in table C2. This shows a overspend of £89.9m for schemes under construction which partly reflects acceleration of major project schemes. During 2017-18, Highways England has made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed 37 schemes from options into development. By the end of March 2018, there were 18 schemes under construction, and 22 open for traffic. In the first three years of this road period Highways England has started construction of 24 schemes, compared to its plans to start 17. Figure C1 shows progress of major schemes in the first three years of this road period.
**Figure C1: Progress of schemes through development and construction in 2017-18**
| Scheme stage (end of 2017-18) | Budget 2017-18 | Outturn costs 2017-18 | Variance | % over / (under) | |-------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|----------|------------------| | Under construction | £775.4m | £865.3m | £89.9m | 12% | | Open for traffic | £133.6m | £139.8m | £6.3m | 5% |
**Table C2: Major schemes costs against budget in 2017-18**
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the rest of the road period
The company has reviewed how it will deliver its capital investment during the remainder of the road period. It has improved its scheduling of major schemes, with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. Highways England refers to this work as optimisation of the portfolio. For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (‘road corridors’).
As a result, some major improvement schemes are being considered for delivery in the next road period, while other schemes have been brought forward within this road period. Further changes were introduced for other reasons – for example as an outcome of public consultations and schemes’ options appraisals. One scheme – the A27 Chichester bypass – was cancelled as there was no clear consensus on the preferred option.
Highways England has agreed the changes to its commitments to the RIS and delivery plan through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. Table C3 summarises the changes to the major improvements programme agreed during 2017-18.
______________________________________________________________________
2017-18 excludes the deferred and cancelled schemes shown in table C3.
21 Highways England’s delivery plan update for 2018-19.
### Table C3: Changes to the major improvements programme in 2017-18
| Schedule impact | Number of schemes | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Schemes to be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period | 6 schemes that do not currently demonstrate value for money | | Scheduled to start earlier than originally planned (within road period 1) | 10 road corridor schemes | | | M1 junctions 24-25 | | | M62 junctions 10-12 | | | M62 junctions 20-25 | | | M11 junctions 7a | | Start of works deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 | 15 road corridor schemes | | | M54 to M6 / M6 Toll, | | | A38 Derby junctions | | | A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down | | | A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet | | | M5 Bridgwater junctions | | Scheme to start works in a later year in road period 1 | A63 Castle Street | | Cancelled | A27 Chichester |
For the remainder of the schemes, Highways England reports that two which were planned to start during the road period are delayed. The A5036 Princess Way - access to port of Liverpool is delayed following legal challenge on the options presented during consultation. The A358 Taunton to Southfields is delayed due to further analysis of the public consultation responses.
For those schemes planned to open for traffic in the remainder of the road period, all are reported to be on schedule. Table C4: Major scheme delivery – first road period, construction phase
| Phase | Original delivery plan commitments (2015-20) | Progress | No. | Details | Status | |----------------|---------------------------------------------|----------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Start of works | 112 | Started | 40 | 16 started construction prior to road period 1 | | | | | | | 24 started in the first three years of road period 1 | | | | | Changed | 27 | 6 schemes deferred that do not currently demonstrate value for money | | | | | | | 1 scheme cancelled | | | | | | | 20 deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 | | | | | On schedule | 43 | As planned | | | | | Delayed | 2 | A5036 Princess Way - access to Port of Liverpool | | | | | | | A358 Taunton to Southfields | | | Open for traffic| 33 | Opened | 22 | 22 opened for traffic in the first three years of the road period | | | | | On schedule | 10 | As planned | | | | | Delayed | 1 | M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway (delayed from 2017-18) | |
Key
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone at risk, subject to change or one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestones changed
In December 2017, the company provided us the details of its revised baseline plans which reflect the changes made to schemes through its optimised programme for major improvement schemes. RIS1 funding released by the optimisation process has been retained to offset funding pressures elsewhere in the portfolio.
We have assessed the company’s evidence on the deliverability and affordability of its capital delivery plan in road period 1 and the impact on the next road period. The delivery of the RIS1 major improvements programme represents a significant component of Highways England’s capital plan. Our review highlighted that:
- The company has strengthened its capital portfolio management capability and, as a result, now has better information about scheme timings, costs and risks. This should support improved planning and delivery in the long-term;
- The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than the original funding assumptions;
- The RIS1 major improvements programme was immature (in life cycle development terms) at its starting point, with consequential delivery and cost risk emerging since, so plans have inevitably changed. Highways England now expects to start 85 schemes in the first road period, down from 112 originally planned; The company's forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes is now £2.9bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than originally assumed. This partly reflects immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set; and
Highways England forecasts capital costs that are £438m higher than its funding in the road period. It is taking action to manage costs, but there is risk that some work will need to be deferred to the next road period and / or additional funding used in road period 1 (for example through its ability to bring funds forward from the next road period).
Maintenance and renewals
Highways England has maintained the condition of the strategic road network in 2017-18. The condition of its carriageway asset has improved and is above target for the first time during road period 1, whilst the condition of other asset types is broadly stable. Data inventory, for those asset types reported, has generally improved during the year.
Asset management
Highways England has recognised that it can adopt a more structured approach to asset management to improve its maintenance and renewals planning and delivery. The company has set out plans for improvement which will support better maintenance and renewal of the network in this road period, and beyond.
Highways England has put in place an action plan to address the recommendations made in our in-depth review of asset management delivery for pavement (road) and structures. We met with the company during 2017-18 to review its plans and will monitor implementation of them.
We completed an in-depth review into Highways England's management of geotechnical and drainage assets in June 2018. The review focused on understanding whether Highways England was managing these assets safely and efficiently in the long term.
The review found that Highways England is improving how it manages its assets. It identified that the company has robust, standards-led systems and processes, which drive asset interventions that are safe, add value, and are in keeping with the conditions of its licence. The review identified good practice in its management of geotechnical assets, where the availability of data supports effective long-term and risk-based decision making.
However, the condition of drainage assets can change more rapidly, for example as a result of blockages. This, coupled with limited availability of subsurface asset condition data, limits the extent to which Highways England can carry out works before the asset fails. This is common for similar infrastructure asset organisations. Highways England's approach to bringing more asset capability in-house will help simplify and strengthen the control Highways England has on the decision making process, and will continue to support the positive trend in asset management capability.
We will work with the company in 2018-19 to understand how it is responding to the recommendations made in the in-depth review.
Whilst Highways England's plans to improve its maintenance and renewals planning and delivery are comprehensive, it is likely that many of them will not be implemented until late RIS1 or early RIS2. Until those plans are realised we will work with the company to identify short-term improvements to a number of areas affecting maintenance and renewals.
Delivery of maintenance and renewals against plan
In 2017-18, Highways England delivered greater renewal volumes than it planned at the start of the year for the majority of asset types. This is shown in table C5.
### Table C5: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2017-18
| 2017-18 Commitments | Planned volume | Actual volume | Output variance | |----------------------|----------------|---------------|-----------------| | **Renewal of roads - pavement** | | | | | Pavement (lane kilometres) | 1,600 | 2,520 | 58% | | Kerbs (kilometres) | 1.3 | 21.2 | 1527% | | Geotechnical (kilometres) | 5.7 | 20.3 | 256% | | Boundary fencing (kilometres) | 33.9 | 77.1 | 128% | | Drainage (kilometres) | 141 | 320.6 | 127% | | Guardrail (kilometres) | 0.8 | 1.3 | 63% | | Vehicle restraint system (kilometres) | 92.9 | 139.6 | 50% | | Road markings (kilometres) | 2,966 | 4289 | 45% | | Lighting (number) | 1,500 | 1,327 | -12% | | Traffic Signs (number) | 2,000 | 1,700 | -15% | | **Renewal of structures** | | | | | Bridge joint (number) | 153 | 499 | 226% | | Bridge bearing (number) | 110 | 186 | 69% | | Parapet (kilometres) | 1.9 | 2.9 | 53% | | Waterproofing (square metres) | 29,400 | 38,397 | 31% | | **Renewal of technology** | | | | | Motorway communication equipment (number) | 190 | 717 | 277% | | Renewals and improvements (number) | 160 | 370 | 131% | | Winter resilience (number) | 37 | 71 | 92% | | Network resilience (number) | 32 | 24 | -25% |
Figure C2 shows the volume of renewals delivered compared to plan in the first three years of the road period for selected asset types. The size of the variances suggests that the company can improve its asset plans, and therefore how it prioritises interventions across the network. In-year forecasting of renewals outputs also shows considerable variability across all asset types. Highways England has delivered more than 25% of renewals during quarter four for nearly all assets (16 out of 18), with half of all asset types having more than 50% delivered in quarter four. The proportion of renewals delivered in the last three months of the year, particularly during the disruptive weather in February and March 2018, is likely to impact the quality and efficiency of work. The quarterly output of renewals for selected asset categories is shown in figure C3.
Figure C3: Output of renewals delivered per quarter\\textsuperscript{23} for selected asset categories, 2017-18
\\textsuperscript{22} Figure C2 reports a subset of renewals volumes
\\textsuperscript{23} Quarters refer to the financial year. Q1 covers spring (April to June) and Q4 covers winter (January to March). In 2017-18, Highways England delivered a higher proportion (39%) of pavement renewals in quarter four than in any other quarter. This is lower than the proportion it delivered in the fourth quarter of 2016-17 (55%). It is not clear whether this is a result of improved planning or due to the disruptive weather in the final quarter of 2017-18.
**Figure C4: Percentage of pavement renewals per quarter, 2015-16 to 2017-18**
Maintenance and renewals expenditure
In 2017-18, Highways England spread its expenditure on maintenance and renewals more evenly throughout the year than in previous years (as shown in figure B6). The profile of renewals expenditure has improved marginally, with a lower proportion of expenditure in the winter than seen in previous years. Highways England could do more to ensure expenditure follows a flatter profile (as budgeted), which should contribute to improved efficiency in future years.
As set out in annex B, renewals expenditure was lower than budgeted in 2017-18.
We have established a review group with the company which will meet quarterly to discuss progress against its plans to improve the planning and reporting of renewals delivery. Ring-fenced funds
Delivery of projects through ring-fenced funds is covered in chapter 2, and also in our in-depth review of ring fenced funds, which was published in July 2018. Figure C5, below, provides an update on each fund at the end of 2017-18.
Table C5: Ring-fenced funds delivery in 2017-18
| Fund | Value in RIS1: £m | 2017-18 performance | |---------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | All | £675m | • £176m spent to date, of which £106m spent in 2017-18. | | | | • Pace of delivery has increased in 2017-18, but still slower than planned. | | | | • Overall programme is heavily back-end loaded. | | | | • The air quality fund, in particular, shows a high level of under-spend. | | Air quality | £75m | • Eight air quality pilot studies completed. | | | | • Continuing to roll out a network of air quality monitoring stations. | | | | • Initial work has begun to pilot a barrier scheme aimed at improving air quality. | | | | Data from the national air quality monitoring network is being used to determine | | | | locations which could benefit most. | | Environment | £225m | • Water: 13 schemes completed. | | | | • Noise: 381 noise important areas mitigated by insulation scheme. | | | | • Carbon: 2,000 lighting units and 100 traffic signals converted to LED. | | | | • Landscape: 25 schemes completed. | | | | • Biodiversity: 13 projects have created species rich grassland. | | | | • Cultural heritage: Enhancements made at four sites. | | | | • Legacy: A5/M1 link project for pedestrians and cyclists. | | Cycling, safety and | £175m | • Cycling: Detailed design on 19 schemes, and construction completed on 22. | | integration | | • Safety: Detailed design completed on 61 schemes and construction completed on 45.| | | | • Integration: Detailed design completed on 34 schemes and construction completed on 17| | Innovation | £120m | • Number of projects increased from 15 to 93, across a variety of themes. | | | | • 13 safety projects introduced this year, | | | | • 22 infrastructure projects identified. | | | | • 14 new data and information projects. | | | | • 19 projects covering new and emerging technologies. | | | | • 14 projects identified to support sustainable operation. | | Growth and housing | £80m | • 24 schemes have completed appraisal and been approved. | | | | • Two schemes completed and open to traffic: the M5 J29/A30 link road, and A1 | | | | Darlington. | | | | • Four further schemes in construction. | | | | • Majority of funds now committed, with further projects in the pipeline. |
24 http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0014/28112/highways-england-approach-to-delivering-schemes-through-its-ring-fenced-funds-2018-02-02.pdf ANNEX D: NOTE ON REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY REPORTED DATA
During 2017-18, Highways England has worked with ORR and DfT to agree changes to how it reports data against some of its performance indicators and key performance indicators. This has resulted in revisions to some performance data which were previously reported in 2015-16 and 2016-17. This affects two key performance indicators, covering noise and vulnerable user crossings, and one performance indicator, covering spend on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). All performance data presented in this report uses the revised data, where available. Further details are set out below.
Noise important areas. In 2015-16 and 2016-17 Highways England reported a noise important area as mitigated only if all practical methods to mitigate noise had been completed. For example, where it was practical to provide a barrier and undertake resurfacing, both measures were required to be installed before the noise important area was counted as mitigated. Highways England has subsequently agreed with ORR, DfT and other stakeholders, that it is appropriate to claim a noise important area as mitigated if it has delivered one appropriate intervention measure (i.e. insulation or barrier or resurfacing). This has caused the number of noise important areas reported as mitigated in 2015-16 and 2016-17 to increase. The difference between the figures reported previously, and those in this report as set out below.
Table D1: Comparison of number of noise important areas mitigated
| Year | Noise important areas mitigated (previously reported) | Noise important areas mitigated (revised figures) | |---------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | 2015-16 | 48 | 62 | | 2016-17 | 73 | 140 | **Vulnerable user crossings.** In 2015-16, Highways England reported the number of crossings it had delivered on the network in such a way that a single crossing was counted multiple times (to represent different user types). For example, one crossing would have been counted as two if it was suitable for pedestrians and equestrians. In 2016-17, the company changed its methodology so that a crossing is only counted once, irrespective of the number of user types that can use it. ORR and DfT have agreed with Highways England that the latter method is the most appropriate for reporting performance. This will result in a reduction in the number of crossings reported as completed in 2015-16. Highways England is currently validating the revised figure for 2015-16, which we will report in our next annual assessment.
**Table D2: Comparison of number of vulnerable user crossings**
| Year | Number of vulnerable user crossings (previously reported) | Number of vulnerable user crossings (revised figures) | |--------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | 2015-16| 39 new, 165 upgraded | \*figure awaiting validation | | 2016-17| 20 new, 7 upgraded | 20 new, 7 upgraded (unchanged) |
**Spend on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).** When calculating the proportion of its expenditure on SMEs, Highways England has historically used an assumption of 10% to apply to its private finance initiative (PFI) contracts. However, following an internal review by the company, it has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support this assumption. Therefore, it has agreed with DfT and ORR to remove PFI contracts from its calculation of the proportion of spend on SMEs. This has increased the historically reported figure for SME spend in 2015-16 and 2016-17. The table below sets out the previously reported, and revised data. These figures should be treated as provisional, as work is ongoing to agree the revised methodology.
**Table D3: Comparison of SME spend**
| Year | % of spend on SMEs (previously reported) | % of spend on SMEs (provisional figures) | |--------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | 2015-16| 26.5% | 30.9% | | 2016-17| 25.5% | 27.0% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1032-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 70,
"total-input-tokens": 152718,
"total-output-tokens": 30790,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
86,
1
],
[
86,
86,
2
],
[
86,
314,
3
],
[
314,
314,
4
],
[
314,
2785,
5
],
[
2785,
2785,
6
],
[
2785,
6564,
7
],
[
6564,
10177,
8
],
[
10177,
12105,
9
],
[
12105,
14370,
10
],
[
14370,
16731,
11
],
[
16731,
19011,
12
],
[
19011,
21352,
13
],
[
21352,
22898,
14
],
[
22898,
23872,
15
],
[
23872,
26406,
16
],
[
26406,
29350,
17
],
[
29350,
32787,
18
],
[
32787,
34616,
19
],
[
34616,
36714,
20
],
[
36714,
39077,
21
],
[
39077,
41396,
22
],
[
41396,
43882,
23
],
[
43882,
46202,
24
],
[
46202,
49411,
25
],
[
49411,
49982,
26
],
[
49982,
52160,
27
],
[
52160,
54557,
28
],
[
54557,
55705,
29
],
[
55705,
57579,
30
],
[
57579,
57579,
31
],
[
57579,
58890,
32
],
[
58890,
60948,
33
],
[
60948,
62239,
34
],
[
62239,
63690,
35
],
[
63690,
64583,
36
],
[
64583,
65371,
37
],
[
65371,
66665,
38
],
[
66665,
69012,
39
],
[
69012,
70171,
40
],
[
70171,
72202,
41
],
[
72202,
73802,
42
],
[
73802,
76013,
43
],
[
76013,
76691,
44
],
[
76691,
78807,
45
],
[
78807,
81103,
46
],
[
81103,
83577,
47
],
[
83577,
83823,
48
],
[
83823,
85617,
49
],
[
85617,
86771,
50
],
[
86771,
88636,
51
],
[
88636,
91634,
52
],
[
91634,
93904,
53
],
[
93904,
93904,
54
],
[
93904,
95996,
55
],
[
95996,
97757,
56
],
[
97757,
100184,
57
],
[
100184,
103447,
58
],
[
103447,
107144,
59
],
[
107144,
110664,
60
],
[
110664,
112302,
61
],
[
112302,
113097,
62
],
[
113097,
114279,
63
],
[
114279,
119078,
64
],
[
119078,
119078,
65
],
[
119078,
121088,
66
],
[
121088,
123649,
67
],
[
123649,
123649,
68
],
[
123649,
123649,
69
],
[
123649,
123649,
70
]
]
} |
ce0e2e0459814870d5768650eae2bfe96c953e5f | ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2017 - MARCH 2018 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2017 - MARCH 2018
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16 July 2018 CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7 Key messages for 2017-18 ............................................................................................... 7 Summary of performance ................................................................................................. 9
2. Highways England’s performance .................................................................................... 11 Performance in operating the network has remained steady ........................................... 11 It is delivering more improvements, but must manage costs ........................................... 20 Condition of the strategic road network has improved .................................................... 25 It is delivering efficiencies, but more evidence is required .............................................. 29 Priorities for 2018-19 ..................................................................................................... 30
Annex A: Performance against outcome areas ..................................................................... 32 Outcome: Making the network safer .............................................................................. 32 Outcome: Improving user satisfaction .......................................................................... 34 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic ............................................................. 36 Outcome: Encouraging economic growth ...................................................................... 39 Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes .................................................... 40 Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users ..................................... 42 Outcome: Achieving real efficiency .............................................................................. 43 Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition .......................................................... 45
Annex B: Financial and efficiency performance .................................................................... 47
Annex C: Network investment delivery ................................................................................. 55
Annex D: Note on revisions to previously reported data ..................................................... 66
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.1 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s management of the strategic road network – the motorways and main A-roads in England.
1.2 In the road investment strategy (RIS), government has set the outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (road period 1). In monitoring the performance and efficiency of the company, our objective is to secure better performance and value for money from the strategic road network to benefit road users and the wider public.
1.3 This is our assessment of Highways England’s performance in 2017-18. Overall, we have found that the company continues to operate a road network which is safe and serviceable, and has largely met its performance targets. Highways England is improving its management of its major schemes. Its forecast costs for the road period remain above funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional scope and planned over programming. It must continue to take action to manage this position and reconcile it with claimed efficiencies.
Key messages for 2017-18
1. Highways England’s performance in operating the network has remained steady in 2017-18.
In the context of increased traffic it has kept the network flowing. Road user safety remains good compared to other road networks, although the challenging target for 2020 is at risk. Highways England is becoming more customer-focused, and has plans for further improvement. Road user satisfaction remains high, but is below target.
1.4 Highways England has demonstrated a strong focus on safety, and in this area the strategic road network in England compares well to other road networks. The company is not yet delivering the reduction in the number of killed or seriously injured required to meet its challenging target of 40% improvement by 2020. One reason for the reported increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured is a change to how police forces record road casualty data.
1.5 Traffic on the network has grown over the last year. In spite of this, average congestion is broadly stable in this road period and Highways England remains above its targets for smooth flow of traffic – keeping 98.3% of the network open to traffic and clearing 87.9% of incidents within an hour.
1.6 During 2017-18, Highways England has demonstrated its improved customer focus through reviewing road users’ experience of unplanned disruption caused by major incidents. It has identified lessons learnt and developed action plans to improve future performance. However, Highways England’s user satisfaction is 88.7%, slightly below its target of 90%. It is developing an improvement plan for 2018-19 which must reflect road users’ priorities. It is also setting out its customer service strategy, recognising the longer-term ambition of improving customer focus and satisfaction.
1.7 The company has made progress in delivering its environmental targets on biodiversity and noise. It has helped vulnerable users by completing 100 new and upgraded crossings, which is higher than the number completed last year.
2. Highways England is delivering more improvements on its roads but it must manage costs.
The company has improved its planning and management of major schemes, and is delivering the majority of these on time. It has demonstrated improved management of its capital portfolio. Its forecast costs for the road period have reduced, but remain above its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional scope and planned over programming. It must continue to take action to manage this position. Investment through its ring-fenced funds has increased, but is slower than originally planned. 1.8 Highways England continues to deliver most of its major schemes to schedule and has improved its scheduling of major schemes for the remainder of the road period. It started work on all seven schemes in its 2017-18 delivery plan, and an additional scheme brought forward from 2019-20. It also opened to traffic eight of the nine schemes which were planned in 2017-18.
1.9 The company has strengthened its capital portfolio management capability and, as a result, now has better information about scheme timings, costs and risks. This should support improved planning and delivery in the long-term.
1.10 The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than the original funding assumptions. Highways England now expects to start 85 schemes in the first road period, down from 112 originally planned. The company’s forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes is now £2.9bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than originally assumed. This partly reflects increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set.
1.11 Highways England forecasts capital costs that are £438m higher than its funding in the road period. It is taking action to manage costs, but there is risk that some work will need to be deferred to the next road period and / or additional funding used in road period 1 (for example through its ability to bring funds forward from the next road period).
1.12 Highways England has made good progress to date on its flagship schemes. The A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme is currently on schedule to meet its planned completion date, and the company has made progress with planning for the A303 Stonehenge tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing.
1.13 Highways England’s delivery through its ring-fenced funds is slower than planned, although the pace of delivery has picked up in 2017-18. There is particular risk to delivering the intended investment through the air quality fund. We propose that it should now review options for addressing this with government.
3. Highways England is improving the condition of the strategic road network.
Network condition has improved during the year, and is now on target. The company has set out long-term plans for improving the identification, planning and delivery of asset maintenance and renewal works.
1.14 Highways England is moving towards a more structured approach to managing its assets - including assuring that it is identifying and delivering the right work. It has recognised the concerns we raised previously and has set out plans for improvement which will support better maintenance and renewal of the network in this road period, and beyond.
1.15 Highways England has improved the condition of its road network during the year and it is meeting its target to have at least 95% of the network in good condition. The timing of the surveys used to collect road condition data mean that these figures do not reflect the impact of the recent winter; this will be reflected in 2018-19 data. We are working with the company to understand what effect this has had on road surfaces, and how it is addressing any resultant impact on network condition.
1.16 The company has spent 24% more on renewals in 2017-18 than in 2016-17 and delivered more road surface renewals. However, user satisfaction with upkeep has reduced by one percentage point this year, to 89%.
1.17 In 2017-18, Highways England spread its expenditure on maintenance and renewals slightly more evenly throughout the year than it has done in previous years – but there remain opportunities to deliver more efficiently. 4. Highways England is delivering efficiencies but more evidence is required that its road period target is on track.
It has reported £486m of cost savings in the road period to date (40% of its target), £226m of which are in 2017-18. This is supported by clear evidence of specific improvements made. The company needs to continue to develop its evidence that reported savings are supported by its capital portfolio delivery and its unit costs.
1.18 Highways England has presented strong evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver more efficiently and the savings these have realised. It has started to develop improved unit cost information to provide context for its reported efficiency – this needs further work.
1.19 Highways England's current capital portfolio expenditure forecast is £438m higher than its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional work and planned over programming. This is after agreed changes to the RIS, including from the optimisation process, which have removed scope from road period 1. The company has identified plans to reduce the difference between its expenditure forecast and funding to £274m by the end of the road period. Any remaining difference will need to be managed through use of additional funds in road period 1 or deferral of work into road period 2.
Summary of performance
1.20 We measure Highways England's performance against the outcomes in the RIS. This sets out eight outcomes areas, each with one or more key performance indicator as well as a number of performance indicators. Delivery against each key performance indicator, and our assessment for the remainder of the road period, is summarised in the table below using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
______________________________________________________________________
1 A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England's Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual | Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2017-18 | RAG 2016-17 | RAG 2017-18 | RAG road period 1 | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------------| | Making the network safer | Killed or seriously injured\
● Target: 40% reduction by end of 2020 | 2017 figures delayed until September 2018. Killed or seriously injured increased by 12% in 2016. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction\
● Target: 90% by March 2017 | 88.7% satisfaction. Remains below 90% target. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability\
● Target: 97% lane availability | 98.3% availability. Remains above target, although slightly down from 98.4% in 2016-17 | Green | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance\
● Target: 85% of motorway incidents cleared within one hour | 87.9% cleared within one hour. Remains above target, and improved from 85.9% last year. | Green | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (secs per vehicle mile)\
Target: No target set | 9.2 seconds delay per vehicle mile, an increase of 0.2 seconds from 2016-17. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated\
● Target: Mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020 | 448 mitigated during the year, bringing total for the road period to 651. Improved delivery during 2017-18. | Amber | Green | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity\
● Target: Publish biodiversity action plan | Management plans produced for 15 SSSIs, bringing the total for the road period to 30. | Green | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings\
Target: No target set | 28 new and 72 upgraded crossings delivered in 2017-18. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings\
● Target: Savings of at least £1.212 billion on capital expenditure by 2019-20 | £226m of efficiencies reported in 2017-18. £486m in RIS1 to date, which is 40% of the target. | Green | Amber | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to delivery plan\
Target: No target set | Work started on 8 schemes (target of 7). 8 schemes open to traffic (target of 9). | Green | Green | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition\
● Target: 95% of pavement requiring no further investigation for possible maintenance | 95.2% requires no further investigation. Performance improved after target missed in 2016-17. | Amber | Green | Amber |
**KEY:** Green = Delivery on track/clear plans in place for RP1\
Amber = Some risk to delivery of target/plans not fully established for RP1\
Red = High risk to delivery of target/plans not in place for RP1 2. HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
Highways England’s performance in operating the network has remained steady in 2017-18.
In the context of increased traffic it has kept the network flowing. Road user safety remains good compared to other road networks, although the challenging target for 2020 is at risk. Highways England is becoming more customer-focused and has plans for further improvement. Road user satisfaction remains high, but is below target.
Safety
2.1 One of Highways England’s key objectives is to improve safety on the strategic road network for road users and workers. In 2017-18, the company has demonstrated a strong focus in this area. However, it is at risk of missing its key performance indicator target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40% by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline.
2.2 The latest available statistics show that 2,005 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 2016 – a 12% increase on the previous year. This included 231 fatalities, which is 3% higher than in 2015.
2.3 One reason for the reported increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured is a change to how police forces record road casualty data. Approximately half of English police forces adopted a new system (CRASH - collision recording and sharing) between the end of 2015 and early 2016. Forces that adopted the new system reported a 20% increase in killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 2016, compared to a 5% increase for those forces that did not.
2.4 More generally, the trend in the number of killed or seriously injured on all roads, prior to the introduction of the new system, had been broadly flat since 2010. This highlights the challenge of achieving the target by 2020.
Figure 2.1: Killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the strategic road network, 2005-2016
Note: number of KSIs are affected by changes to data collection from 2012, with the biggest impact in 2016.
______________________________________________________________________
2 The Department for Transport, which is responsible for producing road casualty statistics, has postponed publication of 2017 data until September 2018.
3 The Department for Transport has published further information on the changes to road casualty statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics 2.5 In 2017-18, Highways England delivered a broad range of activities aimed at improving safety on the network. These included:
- **Safety schemes.** The company has delivered 45 safety schemes through its ring-fenced funds, and completed detailed design on a further 61. These schemes focus on the sections of the network where accident rates are highest, which are typically single carriageway A-roads.
- **Driver education.** Highways England has worked with organisations including the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA), Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), road safety partnerships and the police to deliver better driver training and education to higher risk groups such as new drivers and motorcyclists.
- **Smart motorways.** The company has worked with road users, recovery organisations and freight operators to develop improved signage, communications and training for smart motorways.
- **Suicide prevention.** Highways England launched its suicide prevention strategy in November 2017, which sets out how it will contribute to delivering government’s national strategy for suicide prevention.
- **Vehicle roadworthiness.** Highways England has worked with partners to run information campaigns to encourage drivers to check that their vehicles are roadworthy before starting a journey.
- **Road worker safety.** The company has strengthened checks to ensure its contractors are appropriately trained for working on the strategic road network, and is developing better systems for reporting workforce incidents.
______________________________________________________________________
**Case study – new driver programme**
- Highways England’s new driver programme aims to improve safety on the network by increasing the knowledge of new drivers, and driving instructors when driving on motorways or high-speed roads.
- This is a joint initiative with partners, including Department for Transport, DVLA, DVSA and driving instructor groups.
- It includes online resources (www.drivinghub.co.uk) for learner drivers, approved driving instructors and parents and guardians covering various elements such as vehicle checks, driving to the conditions, and what to do if you break down on a high-speed road.
- This supports a change in legislation which allows learner drivers to take lessons on motorways from June 2018. 2.6 Highways England published an update to its 5 year health and safety plan in 2017-18, and has now delivered 108 of the 130 actions in the plan. It also developed regional incident and casualty reduction plans, which set out the actions and planned interventions that will contribute to improved safety in each region, and the company's longer-term ambition that no one should be harmed whilst travelling or working on the network by 2040.
2.7 The company has developed its work to assess the safety of the network, based on a star rating system. In 2017-18, it completed work to model the star rating of the network to reflect the improvements made in the first road period. It expects to publish further detail of this work later in 2018. It is on track to achieve 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
2.8 Accident frequency rates for the supply chain have increased slightly over the past year, while rates for Highways England's own staff have improved. However, accident rates for both remain worse than the company's internal targets.
2.9 In 2017-18, the company delivered 14 actions in its 5 year health and safety action plan that are specifically aimed at improving road worker and traffic officer safety. This included ensuring all tier one contractors have plans to address health, safety and wellbeing for second and third tier contractors. The company also worked with the supply chain to ensure all those working on the network are provided with appropriate training, and reviewed contractors' management of occupational health risks.
2.10 Highways England has provided training for managers in its customer service directorate to understand and identify stress in the workforce. It has also developed an improved system for reporting accidents and incidents, which covers contractors and Highways England employees.
Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
2.11 The strategic road network fulfils a vital role in supporting our local and national economies by facilitating the movement of people and goods. As network operator, Highways England must minimise the impact of roadworks and incidents on customers. The company's performance in this area is measured by two key performance indicators, covering network availability and incident clearance. In 2017-18, Highways England met its targets for these indicators. 2.12 Lane availability on the strategic road network was 98.3% in 2017-18, which is above the target of 97%. Highways England expects availability to reduce during the road period, but remain above target. This reflects the increased work on the network as the RIS1 investment plan gathers pace.
2.13 During 2017-18, Highways England took a number of actions aimed at reducing the impact of roadworks on road users. These included undertaking more work at night, working more efficiently during lane closures, and closing shorter sections of roads during works. We will continue to work with the company to understand how it is maximising lane availability as the volume of major roadworks on the network increases.
2.14 The company also met its incident clearance target in 2017-18 – clearing 87.9% of motorway incidents within one hour, against a target of 85%. This is an improvement on performance in 2016-17, when it cleared 85.9% of incidents within one hour.
2.15 During 2017-18, Highways England has rolled out a number of interventions, aimed at increasing the capability of the traffic officer service to respond to incidents on the network. This has included training traffic officers to tow vehicles of up to 12 tonnes from the carriageway, better coverage of the network through more single-crewed vehicles, and better targeting of known ‘hot-spots’. The company has also undertaken more detailed analysis of incidents that are not cleared within one hour, and shared this intelligence across the business to improve performance. Case study – increasing the capability of the traffic officer service
- In the past year, Highways England has trialled initiatives to support the smooth flow of traffic by increasing the coverage and capability of the traffic officer service.
- During the 2018 Easter holiday period, traffic officer patrols were extended to the A30 in Cornwall for the first time.
- Patrolling the A30 supports Devon and Cornwall Police and helps address increased traffic volumes and related incidents on the road. As part of this, the traffic officers are also at hand to provide assistance on the A38.
- The extra patrols will also take place over the summer months, when this part of the strategic road network is particularly busy.
- In the East Midlands, the traffic officer service has also been allocated some inspection duties. This aims to: allow asset inspectors to spend more time on condition inspections; speed up repairs; and improve decision making on asset intervention. Supporting economic growth
2.16 Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth is monitored by a key performance indicator that measures average delay per vehicle mile. In 2017-18, average delay was 9.2 seconds per vehicle mile. This is the highest level of average delay recorded in the road period so far – up from 9 seconds per vehicle mile in 2016-17.
2.17 Traffic is at record levels, and is continuing to grow. In 2017, 94.1bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network, which is 2.1% higher than in 2016. This is a key cause of increased delay.
2.18 Analysis of performance data from 2017-18 shows a particularly large increase in delay in March 2018, compared to March 2017. This coincides with two periods of heavy snow that affected the network in March 2018.
Figure 2.4: Average delay on the strategic road network, 2013-14 to 2017-18
2.19 Many of the actions taken by Highways England to improve lane availability and incident clearance also help to reduce delays on the network. Examples of other actions it has taken to support the smooth flow of traffic in 2017-18 include:
- Responding to advance warning of severe winter weather by positioning recovery vehicles at strategic locations on the network based on previous snow events.
- Working with emergency services and other road responders at a regional level to improve coordination in responding to incidents.
- Running a national driver education campaign on using smart motorways.
2.20 The winter of 2017-18 presented challenging conditions across the strategic road network, including heavy snow in February and March 2018. As a result, Highways England used more than double the amount of salt compared to the previous year. A key challenge in 2017-18 was traction of larger vehicles at vulnerable locations and the impact of drifting snow, particularly on A-roads. The company used location-specific plans, based on prior experience, to support road users during these periods of severe weather. Highways England’s regional teams have used the lessons learnt from last winter to strengthen its plans for future years.
2.21 Increasing traffic, and delivery of the capital investment programme, continue to present a challenge to managing delay on the network. The Department for Transport forecasts that traffic on the strategic road network will continue to grow, by between 29% and 60%, between 2010 and 2040. Continuing to build its understanding of the impact of traffic growth will help Highways England deliver interventions that have the greatest impact on minimising delays on its network. Satisfaction
2.22 It is important that Highways England delivers a service that meets road users’ needs, and maintains high levels of satisfaction. Satisfaction is measured through a regular survey of drivers and other road users by Transport Focus – the National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS).
2.23 Road user satisfaction with using the strategic road network was 88.7% in 2017-18. This is below the target of 90%, and also below last year’s score of 89.1%.
Figure 2.5: Road user satisfaction, 2013-14 to 2017-18
2.24 The overall satisfaction score is calculated by combining five separate elements of satisfaction. Satisfaction with signage and safety were above 90%, while satisfaction with the upkeep of the network, journey times and roadworks management were all below 90%.
Figure 2.6: Road user satisfaction with different journey elements, 2017-18
2.25 Analysis of regional data shows that satisfaction in the North West fell from 83.0% to 77.8% in the last year, and is considerably lower than other regions. Highways England attributes this to the high concentration of (and delays to) major schemes; above average levels of commuters (who tend to have lower satisfaction); and fewer variable message signs in the region.
2.26 Highways England has produced plans to improve customer satisfaction in 2018-19. These are informed by insight from a range of sources, including the NRUSS. Many of the actions it has developed to improve satisfaction are targeted at aspects of performance which attract the lowest NRUSS scores. For example, it has taken action to address users’ experience of roadworks, including length of roadworks, quality of information, and visible activity. It has also worked with Transport Focus to improve its understanding of issues affecting road user satisfaction in the North West of England, where scores are consistently below other areas of the country.
2.27 In 2017-18, Highways England’s customer service plan focussed on:
- Roadworks – providing information to help people make the best choices and reinforcing customer service through the company and its supply chain;
- Maintenance and upkeep on the network and reducing litter;
- Signage – improving variable message sign availability and the user-friendliness of information; and
- Improving diversionary route signage.
2.28 There are also a number of factors affecting customer satisfaction that are less within Highways England’s control, such as the behaviour of other motorists, and volumes of traffic. This was reinforced in 2017-18 by suspected terrorist-related incidents on the M3 and M1 motorways. These caused significant disruption for users and presented new challenges to the company in relation to its control over when roads are re-opened for traffic. Following a lessons-learnt exercise, Highways England has put a series of actions in place to mitigate the impact on road users of similar incidents in the future. 2.29 During 2017-18, Highways England has worked with Transport Focus, and us, to develop the new Strategic Road User Survey which will provide more robust information on customer satisfaction in the future. Transport Focus began a period of dual running of the new survey from April 2018. The 90% target for road user satisfaction will continue to be measured by the existing NRUSS in 2018-19.
Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.30 The road investment strategy requires Highways England to deliver better environmental outcomes through its management of the strategic road network. The company’s progress in this area is monitored by two key performance indicators, covering noise and biodiversity.
2.31 For its key performance indicator on noise, Highways England has a target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2017-18, it mitigated 448 noise important areas, bringing the total to 651(^4) for this road period.
2.32 The number of noise important areas mitigated in 2017-18 is significantly greater than in previous years, which is largely due to the company rolling out a programme to fit noise insulation (double-glazing) to affected properties close to the network.
2.33 In 2017-18, 386 noise important areas were mitigated through insulation. This includes installations at 274 individual properties. Some noise important areas have been counted as mitigated where double glazing was offered to households, and the homeowner either refused, or did not respond to at least three letters sent by Highways England(^5).
2.34 Of the remaining noise important areas mitigated in 2017-18, 47 were delivered through low-noise resurfacing, eight by major scheme bypasses, two were delivered through noise barriers and five through a combination of insulation and resurfacing. Highways England expects to meet its target of 1,150 by the end of this road period, with the majority of these delivered through the insulation scheme. We will continue to monitor progress against the target closely.
2.35 Highways England has also made progress in delivering the commitments in its biodiversity action plan. The company has approved 61 biodiversity schemes to be taken forward in 2018-19. It has undertaken testing of a newly developed biodiversity metric, and expects to trial it in 2018-19. It has also produced a further 15 management plans for sites of special scientific interest on its estate – bringing the total number of plans to 30, against a commitment to develop 40 in this road period.
2.36 In May 2018, Highways England published a report setting out its progress against the biodiversity action plan during 2016-17. It expects to publish another report later this year, covering performance in 2017-18. This is a positive step in increasing transparency around Highways England’s environmental performance.
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) The number of noise important areas reported as mitigated in 2015-16 and 2016-17 has been revised since our last annual assessment. See annex D for further details.
(^5) ORR and the Department for Transport have agreed that Highways England can count noise important areas as mitigated where every reasonable attempt has been made to offer double glazing to the home owner. The offer of double-glazing also remains open to those who have initially refused. Highways England has noted an increasing number of households asking to be included in the scheme after initially declining. 2.37 During 2017-18, Highways England continued to take steps to tackle litter on the strategic road network. As part of this, the company has committed to focus on 25 priority hotspots where litter is particularly evident, and appointed ‘litter champions’ in each of its 13 operational areas to monitor litter management. It collected more than 10,000 bags of litter from the network in 2017, and has trialled new bins at service areas, which allow drivers to deposit waste without leaving their vehicle. In January 2018, Highways England held a workshop with stakeholders to generate innovative ideas for further actions that it could take.
Vulnerable users
2.38 In addition to those who use it directly, the strategic road network has an impact on its neighbouring communities. For instance, the network can act as a barrier to vulnerable users, such as cyclists, walkers and equestrians. Highways England has a key performance indicator to report the number of new and upgraded crossings it delivers for vulnerable users.
2.39 In 2017-18, the company delivered 28 new and 72 upgraded crossings on the network. This is an increase on the previous year, when it delivered 20 new and seven upgraded crossings. Highways England has identified an error in the number of crossings that it previously reported as delivered in 2015-16. It is currently validating a revised figure, which we will report in our next annual assessment.
Figure 2.8: Number of new and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2017-18
2.40 Highways England completed construction on 22 cycling schemes in 2017-18, bringing the total delivered in this road period to 79. The company reports that it is on track to meet its commitment of delivering 150 cycling facilities and crossing points on the network in this road period.
*See annex D for further details.* Highways England is delivering more improvements on its roads but it must manage costs.
The company has improved its planning and management of major schemes, and is delivering the majority of these on time. It has demonstrated improved management of its capital portfolio. Its forecast costs for the road period have reduced, but remain above its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional scope and planned over programming. It must continue to take action to manage this position. Investment through its ring-fenced funds has increased, but is slower than originally planned.
Major investment delivery
2.41 Highways England is delivering the majority of its major improvement schemes on time. In 2017-18, the company started work on all seven schemes in its delivery plan, and an additional scheme brought forward from 2019-20. It also completed eight schemes this year against a plan to complete nine.
2.42 Of the eight schemes which were opened for traffic in 2017-18, six were delivered on time, one was completed one quarter ahead of schedule, and one opened three quarters behind schedule. One scheme has missed its delivery date for 2017-18 and will open in 2018-19. In addition, the company also opened to traffic the two schemes that were delayed from 2016-17.
Table 2.1: Summary of major scheme delivery in 2017-18
| Construction phase | 2017-18 commitment | Delivery in 2017-18 | Details | |--------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------| | Start of works | 7 schemes to start work in 2017-18 | 8 schemes started | All 7 planned schemes started | | | | | 1 scheme brought forward from 2019-20 | | Open for traffic | 9 schemes to open for traffic in 2017-18 | 10 schemes open for traffic | 8 planned schemes opened in 2017-18 | | | To open the 2 schemes delayed from 2016-17 | | 1 scheme delayed and will open in 2018-19 | | | | | 2 schemes delayed from 2016-17 opened in 2017-18 | 2.43 Highways England has now started work on 24 schemes, and opened 22 schemes for traffic, in this road period.
2.44 The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than agreed funding assumptions. The 22 schemes that Highways England has opened for traffic by the end of March 2018 are forecasting increased costs of £209m (9%) higher than baseline. This mainly reflects a change in the accounting treatment of land costs, and other scheme specific factors including discovery of hazardous waste, archaeological finds and immaturity of scheme design.
2.45 Highways England has made good progress to date on its flagship schemes. The A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme (discussed in the case study below) is currently in line with the company's plans to meet its completion date and is scheduled to open for traffic in December 2020.
2.46 The company has also made progress with planning for the A303 Stonehenge Tunnel. In 2017-18, following an extensive public consultation, it announced its preferred route for the tunnel, and construction is currently expected to begin in 2021. On the Lower Thames Crossing, it is currently evaluating options ahead of consulting on a preferred route in late summer 2018.
Case study – A14 Cambridge to Huntington major scheme
- The A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme is Highways England's biggest single project in construction.
- Costing £1.5bn, it is scheduled to open for traffic in December 2020 and will address congestion on the 21 mile stretch of dual carriageway between Cambridge and Huntingdon.
- The scheme will upgrade this part of the A14 to three lanes in each direction. It includes a new 17 mile bypass south of Huntingdon, 34 new bridges and structures, and a 750 metre viaduct crossing of the River Great Ouse.
- Highways England's project team has addressed a number of challenges associated with managing this large and complex project. This has included bringing forward work on a new bridge to accelerate other works, and speeding up delivery by setting up a concrete batching facility to build key components of the bridges on-site.
- It has also demonstrated innovative approaches to improving safety, and sharing best practice, which has led to higher standards being adopted across the site. These, and other examples, provide important learning for delivery of future schemes. Highways England’s capital plan
2.47 In 2017-18 we undertook an in-depth review of Highways England’s capital delivery plan. This demonstrated that Highways England has now strengthened its capital portfolio management capability, and as a result has better information about scheme timings, costs and risks.
2.48 It has reviewed how it will deliver its capital investment during the remainder of the road period. This has enabled the company to improve its scheduling of major schemes, with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (‘road corridors’).
2.49 As a result, some major improvement schemes are being considered for delivery in the next road period, while other schemes have been brought forward within the reporting period. The revised plans have reduced the number of schemes which are due to start construction in the last year of this road period, from 69 to 39.
2.50 Highways England has agreed the changes to its commitments in the RIS and delivery plan with government and has taken them through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. This includes:
- deferral of six schemes, and a part of one further scheme, where they do not currently demonstrate value for money. These will be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period;
- 14 schemes are scheduled to start earlier than originally planned, of which 10 schemes were advanced as a result of Highways England’s review of schemes within the same ‘road corridors’;
- 20 schemes deferred to the next road period, including 15 ‘road corridors’ schemes and five further changes due to other factors – for example as an outcome of public consultations and schemes’ options appraisals; and
- cancellation of one scheme, the A27 Chichester bypass. Following a public consultation, the scheme was cancelled as there was no clear consensus on the preferred option.
Figure 2.9: Start of works – original delivery plan compared to revised plans
______________________________________________________________________
7 Highways England’s delivery plan update for 2018-19 8 Revised plans refers to changes introduced to Highways England’s capital delivery plan during 2017-18 2.51 The revised plans mean that, of the 112 major schemes originally planned to start works in the first road period, 85 are now planned to start by March 2020. Funds released by this process have been retained to offset cost pressures elsewhere in the portfolio. The company’s forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes are currently £2.9bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than originally assumed. This partly reflects increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set.
2.52 Highways England forecasts capital costs that are £438m higher than its funding for the road period. Its forecast costs have reduced, but remain above funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional work and planned over programming. It is working to manage costs and has instigating a management action plan to address the difference, which has so far identified £164m of potential savings, which will reduce the difference to £274m. However, there is still a risk that some expenditure will need to be deferred to the next road period and / or additional funding used in road period 1 (for example through its ability to bring funds forward from the next road period). It must continue to take action to manage this position.
Figure 2.10: Difference between forecast costs and funding for road period 1
| £ million | Funds available | Forecast | Difference | |----------|----------------|----------|------------| | 11,351 | 11,351 | 11,351 | 1,787 | | 12,003 | 12,003 | 12,003 | 1,318 | | 13,138 | 13,138 | 13,138 | 1,386 | | 12,877 | 12,877 | 12,877 | 1,386 | | 12,188 | 12,188 | 12,188 | 438 | | 12,626 | 12,626 | 12,626 | 438 |
Ring-fenced funds
2.53 Highways England’s investment plan includes a set of ring-fenced funds, which are aimed at addressing a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of roads investment. These funds are worth £675m in the first road period and are split into five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; and growth and housing.
2.54 At the end of 2017-18, Highways England had spent £176m of its ring-fenced funds, which is 26% of the total available in this road period. The pace of delivery has picked up in 2017-18 compared to last year, but remains behind plan. There is variability in progress between the different funds, with air quality, in particular, having spent proportionately less. We propose that the company should now review options for the air quality fund with government. 2.55 In 2017-18, we undertook an in-depth review into Highways England's management of its ring-fenced funds. The final report is published on ORR's website. The review identified that:
- Whilst progress in delivering projects through the funds has been slow, Highways England now has a more substantial programme of projects planned for the second half of the road period. Although a slow start was always expected, the company is underspent against its original plans.
- The programme is now heavily back-end loaded, which increases the challenge of successful delivery. Increased resources will be required to manage this.
- The programme initially lacked oversight required to control the funds effectively. Data and performance management information is poor and requires focus.
- Highways England has identified issues relating to management and governance through its own internal audits. It has responded by strengthening management of the funds, and as a result, the programme has gained momentum.
2.56 In total, the review makes 21 recommendations for Highways England to consider. The company responded positively to the findings of the review and recognises many of the issues raised. It has implemented changes to support improved delivery through ring-fenced funds.
______________________________________________________________________
Case study – Ring-fenced funds
- Highways England has used its ring-fenced fund for environment to develop a new ‘green bridge’ on the A38 at Haldon Hill in Devon.
- Green bridges are structures designed to provide wildlife and non-motorised users with easy and safe crossings of main roads and railways.
- The environment fund will provide £10.7m for design and construction of the bridge. In addition to benefits for wildlife, it will also provide improved facilities to walkers and cyclists, and will improve safety at a location which is prone to motorists hitting deer.
- The project is currently in the detailed design phase, but construction has experienced delays associated with securing an agreement with the landowner.
- This demonstrates the benefits which can be delivered to wider communities through ring-fenced funds, but also highlights areas where Highways England can improve its planning and management of these funds. Highways England is improving the condition of the strategic road network
Network condition
2.57 The condition of the strategic road network is monitored by a key performance indicator which measures the percentage of road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance. At the end of 2017-18, 95.2% did not require further investigation. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the 94.3% recorded in 2016-17.
2.58 The timing of the surveys used to collect road condition data mean that these figures do not reflect the impact of last winter. Highways England has reported an increased number of potholes in some regions during the winter. It is identifying and managing these as part of its standard maintenance procedures. Beyond localised damage such as this, the company reports that it does not expect a significant impact on other characteristics that inform network condition. We will review data from the 2018-19 carriageway surveys to understand if last winter has had any lasting impact on its road surfaces.
2.59 After missing its road condition target in 2016-17, Highways England established an improvement plan for this metric. In 2017-18, the company delivered against its plan to improve network condition, which included undertaking additional resurfacing work. The increased focus on this area has contributed to an improved understanding of the network condition metric and the issues that affect it. Highways England has also demonstrated improved internal monitoring and assurance of road condition data.
2.60 Highways England is now improving its ability to forecast network condition. We will continue to work closely with the company to understand the actions it is taking to maintain current performance.
Maintenance and renewals
2.61 Highways England has maintained the condition of its network in 2017-18. In addition to improvements in road condition, the condition of other asset types is broadly stable.
2.62 The company has recognised that it should take a more structured approach to managing its assets. In preparation for RIS2, the company is developing a wider business transformation programme approach known as ‘operational excellence’ by building capability, optimising works, and focusing on planning and performance to deliver improved service to its customers. The company has also put in place a long-term action plan aligned to the recommendations in our in-depth review of asset management delivery for pavement and structures. This will support better identification, planning and delivery of asset maintenance and renewal works.
2.63 There remain opportunities for Highways England to improve its management of renewals work. In 2017-18, the company spent 24% more on renewals than in 2016-17, although the volume of outputs did not increase as much. It delivered significantly greater volumes on the majority of asset types than it planned, and in-year forecasts show considerable variability. Its renewals delivery was highest in the last three months of 2017-18. Delivering more during the winter months may impact on the quality and efficiency of work. Figure 2.13: Output of renewals delivered per quarter\\textsuperscript{10} for selected asset categories, 2017-18
2.64 The profile of renewals expenditure has improved marginally during 2017-18, with less back-end loading than seen in the previous year. However, Highways England could do more to ensure expenditure follows its flatter budget profile and improve its efficiency in future years.
Figure 2.14: Renewals monthly expenditure
\\textsuperscript{10}Quarters refer to the financial year. Q1 covers spring (April to June) and Q4 covers winter (January to March). 2.65 In 2017-18, we carried out a review of Highways England’s new asset delivery contract model which has been adopted in five areas. This covers the operation, maintenance and renewal of the company’s assets. The review focused on whether the model is delivering the expected benefits in road period 1, which include improved financial performance, asset management, efficiency and road user outcomes. It also considered what benefits the model is expected to deliver in the next road period.
2.66 We found areas where the new model is bringing positive changes, for example it has helped Highways England balance delivering long-term solutions and short-term fixes for its assets. The review also highlighted areas where Highways England can strengthen how it collects and monitors information for measuring the benefits of the new model, including cost savings, and embedding lessons learnt.
Highways England is delivering efficiencies but more evidence is required that its road period target is on track.
It has reported £486m of cost savings in the road period to date (40% of its target), £226m of which are in 2017-18. This is supported by clear evidence of specific improvements made. The company needs to continue to develop its evidence that reported savings are supported by its capital portfolio delivery and its unit costs.
Financial performance in 2017-18 and reported efficiency
2.67 Highways England spent £3.4bn in 2017-18, which is largely in line with its agreed baseline funding. Of this, £2.3bn was capital spend, which included improvements to the network (£1.4bn), renewing infrastructure (£776m) and ring-fenced funds (£110m).
2.68 The company has a target to deliver £1.2bn of capital efficiency savings by the end of this road period. It has reported £226m of efficiencies in 2017-18. This would bring the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first three years of the road period to £486m, against an internal milestone of £377m. The efficiency reported to date is 29% ahead of its internal target and represents 40% of the target for the first road period.
Figure 2.15: Efficiency evidenced and reviewed to date Evidencing efficiency
2.69 We judge Highways England’s efficiency using three approaches:
- **Bottom up evidence.** Highways England has presented case-study evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver efficiency. We found the case-study evidence presented to be of a good standard, and to highlight significant effort by the company and its supply chain to deliver efficiency. An example of this type of evidence is presented in the case study below.
- **Unit costs.** The renewals programme has made the largest contribution to its reported efficiency to date. The company has adopted an improved approach to providing unit cost evidence, although this needs further work. For major schemes we are content that Highways England’s model for demonstrating a reduction in unit costs on the smart motorway programme provides reasonable evidence for efficiency. However, this model has not yet been extended to provide unit cost evidence for £70m efficiency claimed under the Regional Investment Programme and Complex Infrastructure Programme.
- **Delivery of the road investment strategy.** Highways England’s current expenditure forecast for the road period is £438m higher than its funding, partly reflecting delivery of additional work and planned over programming. This is after agreed changes to the RIS, which have removed scope from road period 111. The company has identified plans to reduce the difference between its expenditure forecast and funding to £274m by the end of the road period. Any remaining difference will need to be managed through use of additional funds in road period 1 or deferral of work into road period 2.
The overall costs of the programme in road period 1 and road period 2 are forecast to be £2.9bn more than the baseline funding. This is partly driven by immature plans when the road investment strategy was set up.
2.70 Taking the three approaches together we need to see more evidence over the next year to support the claimed levels of efficiency. Providing this evidence will increase our confidence that Highways England is able to achieve its efficiency target by 2020. Our review of efficiency evidence is discussed in more detail in annex B.
______________________________________________________________________
11 As described earlier in this report, a number of schemes have been cancelled where they did not demonstrate value for money, or rescheduled to improve delivery of the capital portfolio. Case study – delivering efficiencies
- The Oldbury viaduct carries 1.8 miles of the elevated sections of the M5 to the west of Birmingham. Constructed in 1970, it now requires major structural repairs.
- Highways England has employed innovative traffic management to reduce the duration of the roadworks, which will shorten the impact on road users, and deliver cost savings.
- The traffic management layout normally employed on this type of scheme would be to maintain three narrow running lanes in each direction, providing two narrow working areas. This would require at least seven phases to complete the works and restrict each concrete repair to a small patch.
- However, running the north and southbound traffic on one carriageway, with two lanes in each direction, enabled the other carriageway to be left free of traffic. This allowed much larger areas of repair works to be carried out, reducing the number of work phases required.
- This is expected to reduce the duration of the work by 153 weeks, and deliver cost savings of £60m. It has also delivered safety benefits to road workers by reducing their proximity to live traffic. Priorities for 2018-19
2.71 In 2017-18, Highways England has demonstrated that it is continuing to build its capability in managing the strategic road network. However, the performance requirements are more challenging in the final two years of the road period and there are risks to delivery at the end of the road period. We consider that the following areas require focus from the company in 2018-19:
- **Customer satisfaction.** Implementation and monitoring progress against its customer satisfaction improvement plan for 2018-19.
- **Efficiency evidence.** Further development of top down efficiency evidence to support progress against its key performance indicator.
- **Ring-fenced funds.** Increasing the pace of delivery through ring-fenced funds in 2018-19, continuing to strengthen its management of the funds, and addressing the recommendations that are set out in our in-depth review.
- **Managing costs.** Taking action to address the difference between forecasts capital costs and its funding for the road period.
- **Planning for RIS2.** Continuing work to develop plans for the second road period. In particular, developing a robust strategic business plan, and presenting efficiency evidence. Also continuing to engage closely with stakeholders as it develops more detailed plans.
Our monitoring
2.72 We will continue to monitor Highways England’s delivery of the road investment strategy, and compliance with its licence. Priority areas for ORR in 2018-19 include:
- a continued focus on monitoring RIS1 as Highways England moves into the later stages of delivery;
- focussed engagement with the company in areas of performance that need improvement – for example road user satisfaction;
- further developing our work to benchmark Highways England’s performance and efficiency; and
- providing evidence and advice to inform RIS2 development. ANNEX A: PERFORMANCE AGAINST OUTCOME AREAS
Outcome: Making the network safer
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve an ongoing reduction in network KSI (killed or seriously injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by the end of 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
| 2017-18 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
The Department for Transport has postponed publication of its reported road casualty statistics until September 2018. Therefore, we are unable to report Highways England’s performance against its safety key performance indicator in 2017.
The chart below presents road casualty data up to 2016, when there were 2,005 KSIs on the strategic road network, which is 12% higher than the previous year. This included 231 deaths on the network, a 3% increase on 2015.
Figure A1: Killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the strategic road network, 2005-2016
Note: number of KSIs are affected by changes to data collection from 2012, with the biggest impact in 2016.
One reason for the increase in reported KSIs is a change to how some police forces record road casualty data. However, police forces which did not adopt the new reporting system also saw an increase in KSIs in 2016. This highlights the challenge of achieving the target by 2020 and is discussed in more detail in chapter 2. Performance indicators
Casualty numbers for all-purpose trunk roads: The Department for Transport's road casualty figures are used to monitor this performance indicator. 2017 figures are not yet available. In 2016, there were 8,441 casualties of all severities recorded on Highways England's A-roads. This is a 0.6% increase on the previous year.
Incident numbers on motorways: Highways England recorded 56,136 incidents on its motorway network in 2017-18. This is a 14% increase on the figure recorded in 2016-17.
Figure A2: Motorway incidents, 2015-16 to 2017-18
Road safety investigations: In 2017-18, Highways England completed work to model the star rating of the network to reflect the improvements made in the first road period. It expects to publish further details of this work later in 2018. It is on track to achieve 90% of travel on 3-star roads by 2020.
Accident frequency rates: Highways England reports accident frequency rates through the established ‘Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR)’ process.
For construction and maintenance workers in Highways England’s supply chain, the accident frequency rate was 0.12 in 2017-18, an increase from 0.11 in the previous year. This remains above the company’s internal target.
Figure A3: Accident frequency rate for construction and maintenance workers, 2015-16 to 2017-18
For Highways England’s operations directorate – which covers the traffic officer service – the accident frequency rate was 0.43, which is an improvement from 0.51 in the previous year. This also remains above the company’s internal target.
Figure A4: Accident frequency rate for customer operations directorate, 2015-16 to 2017-18
In 2017-18, Highways England delivered 14 actions in its 5 year Health and Safety Plan which are aimed at improving the safety of road workers and traffic officers. These actions included a focus on ensuring workers have the appropriate training for working on the strategic road network, and developing better systems for reporting incidents. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it
2017-18 status: Amber
RIS1 status: Amber
Highways England’s satisfaction scores are calculated from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). The overall satisfaction measure was 88.7% in 2017-18, below the target of 90% and lower than the 89.1% recorded in 2016-17.
Performance indicators
Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS:
The NRUSS asks respondents about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the strategic road network:
- journey times;
- roadworks management;
- general upkeep;
- signage; and
- safety.
Figure A6 shows the satisfaction scores for these journey elements since 2013-14. Satisfaction with roadworks management is consistently lower than the other journey elements, and has shown the greatest decline in the past five years.
In 2017-18, satisfaction with signage and safety was above 90% but satisfaction with journey times, roadworks management and general upkeep was below 90%.
Figure A6: Satisfaction with journey elements from 2013-14 to 2017-18 Table A1 shows changes in satisfaction with the five journey elements from 2016-17 to 2017-18.
Table A1: Changes in user satisfaction, 2016-17 to 2017-18
| Journey elements | Change 2016-17 to 2017-18 | Estimated impact on overall satisfaction | |------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Journey time | +0.7% | +0.1% | | Roadworks | 0 | 0 | | General upkeep | -1.1% | -0.3% | | Signage | -0.6% | -0.1% | | Safety | -1.1% | -0.3% |
NRUSS scores by location: The map in figure A7 shows a regional breakdown of NRUSS satisfaction scores. Satisfaction was above 90% in the East and the South East, but was below 90% in all of the other regions. The North West had the lowest satisfaction for the fourth consecutive year.
NRUSS scores for motorways and all purpose trunk roads: Satisfaction with all purpose trunk roads fell 0.2 percentage points to 90.1% in 2017-18. Satisfaction on motorways fell 0.6 percentage points to 87.5%. Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year
2017-18 status: Green
RIS1 status: Green
Network availability is a measure of the length of road lanes that are open to traffic as a percentage of the total length of road lanes on the network. Performance is calculated over a rolling year.
At the end of 2017-18, network availability on the strategic road network was 98.3%, which is above the target of 97%.
Network availability has been relatively stable during this road period, and is 0.1 percentage point lower than the figure recorded in the previous year. Highways England expects availability to reduce further during the road period, but remain above target. This reflects the increased work on the network as the RIS1 investment plan gathers pace. Key performance indicator: Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
2017-18 status: Green RIS1 status: Green
The incident management key performance indicator measures the proportion of incidents on Highways England’s motorway network that it clears within one hour.
At the end of 2017-18, the company cleared 87.9% of motorways incidents within an hour. This is above the target of 85%, and represents an improvement on last year’s score of 85.9%.
Highways England has rolled out a number of interventions in 2017-18 aimed at increasing the capacity of the traffic officer service to respond to incidents on the network. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 2, and have contributed to improved performance against this target. Performance indicators
Traffic on the strategic road network: In 2017, 94.1bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network. This is 2.1% higher than in 2016, and the highest total ever recorded. Since a pause in traffic growth during the economic downturn, volumes on the strategic road network have increased in each of the past eight years.
Figure A11: Traffic on the strategic road network, 2000 to 2017
Planning time index: The planning time index measures the additional time that road users should allow for their journey to arrive on time in 19 out of 20 journeys. It is calculated by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free-flow journey time.
In 2017-18, the planning time index was 1.67, which is slightly lower than the figure recorded in 2016-17. This indicates that the most delayed journeys on the network were slightly better in 2017-18 than in 2016-17.
Acceptable journeys: This measures the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flow speed. In 2017-18, 82.5% of journeys were above this threshold. This is less than the previous year, when 83.5% of journeys were above 75% of free-flow speed.
Average speed: In 2017-18, average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 59.2 miles per hour. This is slower than in 2016-17, when the average speed was 59.5 miles per hour. Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
2017-18 status: Amber RIS1 status: Amber
Average delay on the strategic road network is used to measure Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth.
In the year to March 2018, average delay was 9.2 seconds per vehicle mile. This is equivalent to a trip of 100 miles taking almost 17 minutes longer than on a free-flowing network. This is a higher level of delay than in 2016-17, when the average delay figure was 9 seconds per vehicle mile, and the equivalent 100 mile trip would have taken 15 minutes longer compared to free-flow conditions.
Figure A12: Average delay by month during first road period
This chart shows that monthly delay on the strategic road network has been relatively constant during the first three years of this road period. However, delays in March 2018 – the last month of 2017-18 – are higher than in the previous year. This may reflect two periods of heavy snow during that month.
Increasing traffic, and delivery of the capital investment programme, continue to present a challenge to managing delay on the network. Actions that Highways England has taken to address this in 2017-18 are discussed in more detail in chapter 2.
Performance indicators
Average delay on gateway routes: Gateway routes are a subset of the strategic road network, comprising key connections linking major population centres, or business and manufacturing sites, with the most important ports and airports, and rail freight services. Delay on these routes in 2017-18 was 8.7 seconds per vehicle mile – an increase from the figure of 8.2 seconds in 2016-17.
Responding to formal planning applications: In 2017-18, Highways England responded to 100% of planning applications within 21 days. This is above the company’s internal target of 99%.
Spend on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs): Highways England estimates that its expenditure on goods and services from small and medium sized businesses was 30.8% in 2017-18. The government target for spend on SMEs is 25%.
______________________________________________________________________
12 Highways England has changed some of the assumptions used to calculate SME spend since our last annual assessment, and the reported figure is provisional. See annex D for further details. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
2017-18 status: Green
RIS1 status: Amber
Highways England has a target to mitigate 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2017-18, the company mitigated 448 noise important areas, bringing the total to 651 for this road period.
Figure A13: Number of noise important areas mitigated, by intervention type
Highways England has increased the rate at which it is able to mitigate noise important areas in 2017-18 through its scheme to fit insulation (double-glazing) to noise affected households. The company must now mitigate a further 500 noise important areas in the last two years of the road period. It expects the majority of these will be delivered through the insulation scheme.
Highways England expects to meet its target of 1,150 by the end of this road period and we will continue to monitor progress closely.
13 The number of noise important areas mitigated in 2015-16 and 2016-17 has been revised since our last annual assessment. See annex D for further details. In 2017-18, Highways England has continued to make progress in delivering the actions in its biodiversity action plan. Key areas of progress during the year have included:
- Further testing of the new biodiversity metric.
- Producing a further 15 management plans for sites of special scientific interest, bringing the total for this road period to 30.
- 61 schemes approved through Highways England’s biodiversity technical working group.
- Publishing a biodiversity annual report, covering performance in 2016-17.
Performance indicators
Air quality pilot studies: Highways England has now completed the 10 air quality pilot studies it had committed to deliver in this road period. The findings from these are being used to consider potential future mitigations.
Carbon dioxide (Highways England’s activities): In 2017-18, Highways England reported that its activities resulted in the emission of 83,659 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 7% lower than in 2016-17, and is a 12% reduction from the start of this road period.
Carbon dioxide (supply chain): In 2017-18, emissions from Highways England’s supply chain were estimated at 255,115 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 22% lower than reported in 2016-17, and a 37% reduction since the start of the road period. However, we are aware that these figures may be based on incomplete returns, and therefore, any comparison between years should be treated with caution.
Number of flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated: Highways England mitigated 40 flooding hotspots, and one culvert in 2017-18. This brings the total number of flooding hotspots mitigated in the first road period to 173, and culverts to nine.
Number of outfalls and soakaways mitigated: Highways England has contributed to improved water quality in watercourses close to the strategic road network by mitigating five outfalls in 2017-18, bringing the total number in this road period to ten. It has not mitigated any soakaways in this road period to date. Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
2017-18 status: Amber RIS1 status: Amber
In 2017-18, Highways England delivered 28 new and 72 upgraded crossings for cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users. This is an increase on the previous year, when it delivered 20 new and seven upgraded crossings. Highways England has identified an error in the number of crossings that it previously reported as delivered in 2015-16. It is currently validating a revised figure, which we will report in our next annual assessment.
Figure A15: New and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2017-18
Performance indicators
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme: Highways England delivered 22 cycling schemes during 2017-18. This brings the total number of schemes delivered in this road period to 79. It expects to meet its commitment of delivering 150 cycle schemes in the first road period.
Vulnerable user casualties: Highways England also reports vulnerable road user casualties, of all severities, as a performance indicator. Road casualty data for 2017 are not yet available. Figures for 2015 and 2016 are shown below for reference.
Table A2: Vulnerable user casualties (all severities), 2015 and 2016
| | 2015 | 2016 | |----------------|------|------| | Motorcyclists | 849 | 864 | | Pedal cyclists | 153 | 152 | | Pedestrians | 158 | 154 |
14 See annex D for further details. Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.2bn over the first road period
| 2017-18 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|---------------------|
Highways England has a target to deliver £1.2bn of capital efficiencies by the end of the road period. The company has reported £226m of efficiencies in 2017-18. This would bring the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first three years of the road period to £486m, against an internal milestone of £377m. The efficiency reported to date is 29% ahead of its internal target and represents 40% of the target for the first road period.
Figure A16: Efficiency by type of capital scheme
We consider that more evidence is required that reported savings are supported by its capital portfolio delivery and its unit costs. Our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency is set out in more detail in chapter 2, and annex B, of this report.
Performance indicators
We also monitor Highways England’s performance in the construction phase of major scheme delivery using two earned value measures:
Cost performance index. This is the ratio of budgeted cost of work to date to actual cost to date and a value less than 1 indicates costs are currently above the target price. Performance on the cost performance indicator has dropped in the past year from 0.99 to 0.96. Through our monitoring of network investment delivery we are working to understand the reasons for this change and measures the company is taking to improve performance.
Scheduled performance index. This is the ratio of budgeted cost of work to date to value scheduled to be delivered to date. A value less than 1 indicates progress on projects is behind schedule. This indicator is close to 1 in 2017-18, indicating that the capital programme is on track in terms of schedule compared to the delivery plan.
Table A3: Cost Performance Indicator and Schedule Performance Indicator
| | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Cost performance indicator (CPI) | 0.99 | 0.96 | | Schedule performance indicator (SPI) | 0.97 | 1.01 | Key performance indicator: Progress of work, relative to delivery plan
2017-18 status: Green
RIS1 status: Amber
In 2017-18, Highways England started works on eight major improvement schemes against a target of seven.
The company opened eight schemes for traffic in 2017-18, against its plan of nine. One scheme has missed its delivery plan commitment and will open in 2018-19. In addition, the company opened to traffic the two schemes that were delayed from 2016-17.
In the first three years of the road period, Highways England has started work on 24 schemes, against a target of 17. It has also opened 22 schemes to traffic, against a target of 23.
Figure A17: Cumulative number of schemes started work and opened for traffic, 2015-16 to 2017-18
Our full assessment of Highways England’s progress relative to its delivery plan are set out in chapter 2, and annex C of this report. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
2017-18 status: Green RIS1 status: Amber
At the end of 2017-18, the percentage of pavement (road) that did not require further investment for maintenance was 95.2%. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the 94.3% recorded in 2016-17 year, when the target was missed.
Figure A18: Pavement condition, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Performance indicators
As well as pavement, Highways England also manages other physical assets on the network, including structures (such as bridges), geotechnical works (for example embankments), drainage assets (such as gullies and drains) and technology assets (such as overhead message signs).
Structure assets: Highways England has continued to improve its structures inventory information, which is now 98.2% complete. This is an improvement of 0.1 percentage point from 2016-17. The company reports that the two measures of stock condition for structures have dropped this year from their reported positions in 2016-17. The drop is considered statistically insignificant and may reflect the lag in uploading inspection and maintenance data as well as a delay in undertaking inspections. Highways England has shared with us the reasons for this and we will monitor performance in this area in the year ahead. However, stock conditions remain higher than their positions in 2015-16 and the percentage of structures with a rating of ‘good’ is reported as 79.8% which represents a 0.6% improvement from 2016-17.
Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 97.2% of its geotechnical assets do not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2017-18. This is higher than the position in 2016-17 (96.8%).
Drainage assets: Highways England has reported no change from 2016-17 in the percentage of network that it has drainage inventory data for (88%). The percentage of the network with drainage condition data has increased, to 34% in 2017-18, up from 31% in 2016-17. Technology asset availability: Highways England reports the availability of operational technology assets using the percentage of time lost by service affecting faults. During 2017-18 performance has been reported as above target for all three technology systems: control centre technology, national roads telecommunications services technology and roadside technology. Whilst performance has been reported as above target for roadside technology, its availability has reduced to 98.4% (from 98.8%) in the last year.
The RIS Performance Specification requires that Highways England develops new condition metrics to be considered for use in the next road period. Highways England has developed a pavement indicator that is currently being validated and is expected to be completed in 2018-19. It has developed a new enhanced structures asset condition indicator and will carry out further calibration during 2018-19. It has also developed an enhanced geotechnical asset condition indicator and has shown some progress in the development of condition indicators for technology and drainage assets. These will be validated in 2018-19 and are expected to be completed by March 2020.
Table A4: Summary of asset performance indicators in 2017-18 and trend for road period 1
| Asset | PI | 2017-18 | RP1 Trend | |----------------|----------------------------|---------|-----------| | Geotech | Condition | 97.2% | ▲ | | | Inventory | 12994 km| ▲ | | Technology | Control Centre | 99.97% | ▲ | | Availability | National Roads | 99.99% | ▲ | | | Telecommunications Services| | | | | Roadside | 98.40% | ▼ | | Drainage | Inventory Coverage | 88% | ▲ | | | Condition Coverage | 34% | ▲ | | Structures | Inventory | 98.2% | ▲ | | | Condition (Average) | 84.56% | ▼ | | | Condition (Critical) | 62.76% | ▼ | | | SCI Rating of ‘Good’ | 79.8% | ▲ |
Key: Relative to position in 2016-17 increase ▲ no change ▶ decrease ▼ ANNEX B: FINANCIAL AND EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE
This annex sets out a summary of our assessment of Highways England’s financial performance during 2017-18.
We monitor Highways England against its licence requirement to achieve efficiency and value for money in operating and managing the strategic road network. Our work to assess the company’s financial performance and efficiency also informs our:
- view of delivery of the investment plan in this road period;
- work to support development of RIS2; and
- view of the efficiency evidence presented.
Financial performance
Expenditure compared to baseline and budget
In 2017-18 Highways England spent £3.4bn, which is 2% below its agreed baseline funding of £3.5bn.
However, the company set a budget of £3.2bn (£200m lower than baseline(^\\text{15})), reflecting its latest delivery plans and the expected return of £220m in unspent funds for the cancelled M20 lorry park development. The Department for Transport subsequently agreed to Highways England repaying the balance in a future year meaning there was no change to the baseline in 2017-18.
Overall expenditure was £162m (5%) above budget. This was mainly due to capital spend of £2.3bn being £141m (6%) above budget. Significant variances compared to budget are shown in figure B2 and are summarised below:
- Resource expenditure was £21m above budget, mainly due to an overspend on the Dart Charge arising from lower protocol funding than required. The Department for Transport provided additional funding for this during the year.
- Renewals expenditure was £18m (2%) lower than budget which is partly due to slower than expected mobilisation of new contractors. Adverse weather in February and March 2018 also contributed to the reduced spend.
- Expenditure against the improvement schemes budget was £148m (13%) higher than planned. This is due to additional project delivery costs and some acceleration.
- Ring-fenced investment funds underspent by £80m (43%) because of delays on these work programmes, particularly for the air quality fund.
- ‘Other’ capital overspent by £90m due to known pressures within the capital programme which the company had expected to manage out during the year or use its ability to bring forward capital funding from 2018-19.
Figure B1: Change in baseline and budget
(^{15}) For financial monitoring purposes, the company also sets a budget reflecting expected agreed changes in its funding and latest delivery plans. Therefore the baseline and budget can differ. Expenditure variances in the capital programme
When setting its capital budget for 2017-18, Highways England identified that its spending plans exceeded in-year funding by £277m.
Figure B3: Highways England’s capital budget variance in 2017-18 Higher project costs led to the enhancement programme costing £138m more than planned in 2017-18. There was also accelerated spend on schemes, totalling £64m. The funding pressure was reduced due to the expected slippage in some schemes and delays in projects delivered through ring-fenced funds (totalling £264m), and smaller savings (£29m).
As highlighted in annex C, RIS1 project cost forecasts have increased and the portfolio is now expected to cost £17.6bn across road periods 1 and 2 (£2.9bn more than originally estimated). This partly reflects increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set.
Variability in scheme financial performance in 2017-18
Highways England’s overall capital overspend of £141m consists of individual overspends totalling £500m that are partially offset by underspends of £359m.
In 2017-18 the company reported greater variances above and below budget than in previous years. After taking over-programming into account, this is mainly due to the higher underspend on ring-fenced funds.
As shown in figure B4 the overspend primarily reflects cost pressures, rather than higher outputs. Similarly, underspends mainly reflect planned deferral of work or slippage, rather than budget savings. This is supported by Highways England’s cost performance index of 0.96, which indicates that schemes in construction are slightly above budget. This is discussed later in the annex.
Our analysis of 2017-18 budget variances for major schemes in figure B5 below has shown that 60% of schemes have budget variances greater than 20%. This is an improvement on 2016-17 where 82% had variances greater than 20%.16
______________________________________________________________________
16 Based on 112 major schemes, including those affected by changes to the RIS in 2017-18 described in annex C. The variability and reasons for the variances are important when considering Highways England’s future cost forecasts, risks to delivery of the RIS and efficiency.
**Improved short-term capital forecasting**
At portfolio/programme level our analysis has shown there has been some improvement in the quality of Highways England’s short-term forecast of capital expenditure. The company has been more consistent in its forecast of the year-end position through the year. Also, in its monthly reporting, the company has been accurate to within 4% on average in forecasting the following month’s expenditure, compared to 10% in 2016-17.
**Renewals profile**
We have highlighted in the past the apparent inefficiency of Highways England’s renewals expenditure profile. This has seen the greatest level of activity in the final months of the year where costs tend to be higher due to adverse weather. Despite some marginal improvements, the profile of expenditure still shows greater activity in winter months. This may have been partly a result of the company facing a challenging year with more work, changes in suppliers and new contractual approaches. Efficiency
Highways England has reported £226m of efficiencies in 2017-18, bringing the cumulative efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first three years of road period 1 to £486m. This is 40% of the target to deliver £1.2bn of efficiencies by 2020, and £109m ahead of the company’s capital efficiency delivery plan milestone for 2017-18.
Figure B7: Efficiency evidence and reviewed to date
Highways England reports efficiency improvements as set out in the Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM)(^\\text{17}). There are three components to our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements. These are analysis of:
1. Highways England’s bottom-up description of efficiency improvements;
2. Capital unit cost movements; and
3. Expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the road investment strategy.
The following sections provide a more detailed commentary on our view of the evidence submitted:
**Bottom-up description of efficiency achieved**
Highways England has presented case study evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver efficiency. Figure B8 provides an analysis of the contribution of different themes to the cumulative reported figure. Scheduling of schemes makes the largest contribution and includes £29m in 2017-18 from innovative traffic management on the M5 junctions 1-2 Oldbury Viaduct scheme (discussed as a case study in chapter 2) and £63m from acceleration of the smart motorway programme.
We found the case study evidence presented to be of a good standard and to highlight significant effort by the company and its supply chain to deliver efficiency.
(^{17}) The monitoring approach set out in the EIMM was jointly developed by Highways England and ORR. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464887/Efficiency_Manual_v5_spreads.pdf. Unit costs
Highways England has developed a new approach for evidencing improvement in renewals unit costs, in response to our concerns about the previous methodology. The new approach is an improvement on previous reporting. However, Highways England reports limitations to this approach, including only 33% of relevant data has been available for use in the model. It expects that, over time, changes in contractual arrangements will mean that this will increase. On balance we believe the new approach provides better evidence. However its limitations (recognised by the company) affect the weight it is given in our review.
High-level analysis indicates that the increase in Highways England’s renewals expenditure in 2017-18 (24%) was not matched by increased volume of renewals delivery. Volumes increased by a greater percentage than expenditure in only three out of 18 asset types18.
For major schemes we are content that Highways England’s model for demonstrating a reduction in unit costs on the smart motorway programme provides reasonable evidence of efficiency. This model has not yet been extended to provide unit cost evidence for the £60m efficiency claimed under the Regional Investment Programme and Complex Infrastructure Programme.
Expenditure and delivery compared to the RIS
While Highways England has largely made good progress in delivering its investment plan to schedule so far in the road period, the company’s current expenditure forecast for road period 1 is £438m higher than its funding. This is after agreed changes to the RIS, which have removed scope from road period 1. It has identified plans to reduce this to £274m by the end of the road period.
The overall costs of the programme in road period 1 and road period 2 are forecast to be £2.9bn more than originally planned. The increased costs partly reflect immature plans when the road investment strategy was set up, delivery of additional work and planned over-programming. It will need to manage any remaining difference, potentially through the use of additional funds in road period 1 or deferral of work into road period 2.
When the RIS was announced DfT and Highways England estimated that capital costs would exceed available funding by £652m as a result of over-programming19. Early in the road period Highways England identified further business costs of £409m which were not funded in the RIS. This £1.1bn pressure is reported in the NAO’s 2017 study ‘Progress with the Road Investment Strategy’. As discussed above, during 2017-18 DfT agreed changes to the RIS reducing scope in the remainder of road period 1 by £616m, leaving a remaining pressure due to over-programming and unfunded costs of £445m.
______________________________________________________________________
18 Geotech, guardrail and boundary fencing 19 This approach of ‘over-programming’ (planning more work than there is funding to pay for) is used by Highways England to mitigate the risk that project delays or cancellations would mean the company underspending its funding allocation. Our review of the deliverability of the investment plan has also helped inform our view of efficiency. It found no evidence of the forecast variance being due to a systemic problem with Highways England’s delivery plan or its project performance. Emerging scope/cost uncertainty and change have been the most influential factors as the portfolio has developed.
On balance across the three areas of efficiency evidence we consider that Highways England has more work to do to support the additional reported efficiency against the KPI. Over the next year we will work with the company to: (a) understand how it can improve assurance of its renewals unit cost evidence; and (b) provide further evidence of how scope change of major schemes has impacted the forecast outturn.
Cost and schedule performance indicators
Cost performance index
The cost performance index (CPI) is commonly used as a measure of earned value in the construction industry. It is a measure of the relationship between target and actual cost for work completed. Highways England has reported a CPI of 0.96 (0.99 in 2016-17), which indicates that overall, projects in construction are progressing slightly above target cost.
Schedule performance index
The schedule performance index (SPI) is a similar measure of progress against the agreed schedule. It is a measure of the relationship between budgeted cost of work delivered and scheduled to be delivered. The company has reported a SPI of 1.01 (0.97 in 2016-17), which indicates that overall projects in construction are ahead of schedule.
Input price effects
Highways England’s funding for capital projects in 2017-18 included an additional 4% for forecast increases to the costs of the company’s inputs, i.e. materials and labour costs. It has since commissioned work to provide a long-term inflation profile specific to the work contained in the RIS. The company used this to produce its own cost indices for actual year on year inflation in 2017-18 of 2.7% for enhancements and 3.2% for renewals. The degree to which Highways England has benefited from lower inflation than assumed in its funding will also depend on both the timing of contract renewal and approach to sharing inflation risk in its supplier contracts. ANNEX C: NETWORK INVESTMENT DELIVERY
This annex describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2017-18, including ring-fenced funds. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
The RIS sets the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England must deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlines a five-year capital funding package of £12.2bn for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This includes:
- a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7.8bn;
- a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.7bn;
- a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and
- investment associated with strategic studies.
We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the investment plan.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2017-18
Highways England’s progress in delivery of its capital programme during 2017-18 is shown in table C1. The company has started construction on all seven schemes that were planned to start during the year. It also started construction of one further scheme brought forward from 2019-20 commitments (M49 Avonmouth junction).
Highways England opened eight schemes to traffic against a target of nine during 2017-18. Of these, seven were on schedule, and one, the A1 Leeming to Barton scheme, opened three quarters behind schedule in March 2018. This was mainly due to extensive archaeological finds that resulted in an extension to the construction programme.
The M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway, which was expected to open in 2017-18, is delayed by 10 months due to additional work required on the existing assets. Part of this scheme (junctions 18 to 20) opened for traffic in December 2017, and it is forecast to be fully open in July 2018.
The two schemes that were delayed from 2016-17 – the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake and the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury – opened for traffic in quarter 2 of 2017-18.
### Table C1: Major schemes delivery in 2017-18
| Major schemes starting construction | Committed date | Actual date | |------------------------------------|----------------|-------------| | M20 junction 10a | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M6 junctions 2-4 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M6 junctions 13-15 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M20 junctions 3-5 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M23 junctions 8-10 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M62 junctions 10-12 | 2017-18, Q4 | 2017-18, Q4 | | M4 Heathrow slip road | 2017-18, Q2 | 2017-18, Q2 | | M49 Avonmouth junction | 2019-20 | 2017-18, Q3 |
**Key**
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed
Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2017-18 is shown in table C2. This shows a overspend of £89.9m for schemes under construction which partly reflects acceleration of major project schemes. Table C2: Major schemes costs against budget in 2017-18
| Scheme stage (end of 2017-18) | Budget 2017-18 | Outturn costs 2017-18 | Variance | % over / (under) | |-------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|----------|------------------| | Under construction | £775.4m | £865.3m | £89.9m | 12% | | Open for traffic | £133.6m | £139.8m | £6.3m | 5% |
During 2017-18, Highways England has made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed 37 schemes from options into development. By the end of March 2018, there were 18 schemes under construction, and 22 open for traffic. In the first three years of this road period Highways England has started construction of 24 schemes, compared to its plans to start 17. Figure C1 shows progress of major schemes in the first three years of this road period.
**Figure C1: Progress of schemes through development and construction in 2017-18**
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the rest of the road period
The company has reviewed how it will deliver its capital investment during the remainder of the road period. It has improved its scheduling of major schemes, with a particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. Highways England refers to this work as optimisation of the portfolio. For example, it has considered the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations to reduce customer disruption (‘road corridors’).
As a result, some major improvement schemes are being considered for delivery in the next road period, while other schemes have been brought forward within this road period. Further changes were introduced for other reasons – for example as an outcome of public consultations and schemes’ options appraisals. One scheme – the A27 Chichester bypass – was cancelled as there was no clear consensus on the preferred option.
Highways England has agreed the changes to its commitments to the RIS and delivery plan through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. Table C3 summarises the changes to the major improvements programme agreed during 2017-18.
______________________________________________________________________
20 2017-18 excludes the deferred and cancelled schemes shown in table C3.
21 Highways England’s delivery plan update for 2018-19.
### Table C3: Changes to the major improvements programme in 2017-18
| Schedule impact | Number of schemes | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Schemes to be reconsidered as options for delivery in the next road period | 6 schemes that do not currently demonstrate value for money | | Scheduled to start earlier than originally planned (within road period 1) | 10 road corridor schemes | | | M1 junctions 24-25 | | | M62 junctions 10-12 | | | M62 junctions 20-25 | | | M11 junctions 7a | | Start of works deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 | 15 road corridor schemes | | | M54 to M6 / M6 Toll, | | | A38 Derby junctions | | | A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down | | | A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet | | | M5 Bridgwater junctions | | Scheme to start works in a later year in road period 1 | A63 Castle Street | | Cancelled | A27 Chichester |
For the remainder of the schemes, Highways England reports that two which were planned to start during the road period are delayed. The A5036 Princess Way - access to port of Liverpool is delayed following legal challenge on the options presented during consultation. The A358 Taunton to Southfields is delayed due to further analysis of the public consultation responses.
For those schemes planned to open for traffic in the remainder of the road period, all are reported to be on schedule.
### Table C4: Major scheme delivery – first road period, construction phase
| Phase | Original delivery plan commitments (2015-20) | Progress | No. | Details | Status | |----------------|---------------------------------------------|----------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Start of works | 112 | Started | 40 | 16 started construction prior to road period 1 | | | | | | | 24 started in the first three years of road period 1 | | | | | Changed | 27 | 6 schemes deferred that do not currently demonstrate value for money | | | | | | | 1 scheme cancelled | | | | | | | 20 deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 | | | | | On schedule | 43 | As planned | | | | | Delayed | 2 | A5036 Princess Way - access to Port of Liverpool | | | | | | | A358 Taunton to Southfields | | | Open for traffic | 33 | Opened | 22 | 22 opened for traffic in the first three years of the road period | | | | | On schedule | 10 | As planned | | | | | Delayed | 1 | M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway (delayed from 2017-18) | |
**Key**
- Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone at risk, subject to change or one quarter behind schedule
- Milestones changed
In December 2017, the company provided us the details of its revised baseline plans which reflect the changes made to schemes through its optimised programme for major improvement schemes. RIS1 funding released by the optimisation process has been retained to offset funding pressures elsewhere in the portfolio.
We have assessed the company’s evidence on the deliverability and affordability of its capital delivery plan in road period 1 and the impact on the next road period. The delivery of the RIS1 major improvements programme represents a significant component of Highways England’s capital plan. Our review highlighted that:
- The company has strengthened its capital portfolio management capability and, as a result, now has better information about scheme timings, costs and risks. This should support improved planning and delivery in the long-term;
- The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than the original funding assumptions;
- The RIS1 major improvements programme was immature (in life cycle development terms) at its starting point, with consequential delivery and cost risk emerging since, so plans have inevitably changed. Highways England now expects to start 85 schemes in the first road period, down from 112 originally planned; The company's forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes is now £2.9bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than originally assumed. This partly reflects immature scheme estimates when RIS1 funding was set; and
Highways England forecasts capital costs that are £438m higher than its funding in the road period. It is taking action to manage costs, but there is risk that some work will need to be deferred to the next road period and / or additional funding used in road period 1 (for example through its ability to bring funds forward from the next road period).
Maintenance and renewals
Highways England has maintained the condition of the strategic road network in 2017-18. The condition of its carriageway asset has improved and is above target for the first time during road period 1, whilst the condition of other asset types is broadly stable. Data inventory, for those asset types reported, has generally improved during the year.
Asset management
Highways England has recognised that it can adopt a more structured approach to asset management to improve its maintenance and renewals planning and delivery. The company has set out plans for improvement which will support better maintenance and renewal of the network in this road period, and beyond.
Highways England has put in place an action plan to address the recommendations made in our in-depth review of asset management delivery for pavement (road) and structures. We met with the company during 2017-18 to review its plans and will monitor implementation of them.
We completed an in-depth review into Highways England's management of geotechnical and drainage assets in June 2018. The review focused on understanding whether Highways England was managing these assets safely and efficiently in the long term.
The review found that Highways England is improving how it manages its assets. It identified that the company has robust, standards-led systems and processes, which drive asset interventions that are safe, add value, and are in keeping with the conditions of its licence. The review identified good practice in its management of geotechnical assets, where the availability of data supports effective long-term and risk-based decision making.
However, the condition of drainage assets can change more rapidly, for example as a result of blockages. This, coupled with limited availability of subsurface asset condition data, limits the extent to which Highways England can carry out works before the asset fails. This is common for similar infrastructure asset organisations. Highways England's approach to bringing more asset capability in-house will help simplify and strengthen the control Highways England has on the decision making process, and will continue to support the positive trend in asset management capability.
We will work with the company in 2018-19 to understand how it is responding to the recommendations made in the in-depth review.
Whilst Highways England's plans to improve its maintenance and renewals planning and delivery are comprehensive, it is likely that many of them will not be implemented until late RIS1 or early RIS2. Until those plans are realised we will work with the company to identify short-term improvements to a number of areas affecting maintenance and renewals.
Delivery of maintenance and renewals against plan
In 2017-18, Highways England delivered greater renewal volumes than it planned at the start of the year for the majority of asset types. This is shown in table C5.
### Table C5: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2017-18
| 2017-18 Commitments | Planned volume | Actual volume | Output variance | |----------------------|----------------|---------------|-----------------| | **Renewal of roads** | | | | | - pavement | | | | | Pavement (lane kilometres) | 1,600 | 2,520 | 58% | | Kerbs (kilometres) | 1.3 | 21.2 | 1527% | | Geotechnical (kilometres) | 5.7 | 20.3 | 256% | | Boundary fencing (kilometres) | 33.9 | 77.1 | 128% | | Drainage (kilometres) | 141 | 320.6 | 127% | | Guardrail (kilometres) | 0.8 | 1.3 | 63% | | Vehicle restraint system (kilometres) | 92.9 | 139.6 | 50% | | Road markings (kilometres) | 2,966 | 4289 | 45% | | Lighting (number) | 1,500 | 1,327 | -12% | | Traffic Signs (number) | 2,000 | 1,700 | -15% | | **Renewal of structures** | | | | | Bridge joint (number) | 153 | 499 | 226% | | Bridge bearing (number) | 110 | 186 | 69% | | Parapet (kilometres) | 1.9 | 2.9 | 53% | | Waterproofing (square metres) | 29,400 | 38,397 | 31% | | **Renewal of technology** | | | | | Motorway communication equipment (number) | 190 | 717 | 277% | | Renewals and improvements (number) | 160 | 370 | 131% | | Winter resilience (number) | 37 | 71 | 92% | | Network resilience (number) | 32 | 24 | -25% |
Figure C2 shows the volume of renewals delivered compared to plan in the first three years of the road period for selected asset types. The size of the variances suggests that the company can improve its asset plans, and therefore how it prioritises interventions across the network. In-year forecasting of renewals outputs also shows considerable variability across all asset types. Highways England has delivered more than 25% of renewals during quarter four for nearly all assets (16 out of 18), with half of all asset types having more than 50% delivered in quarter four. The proportion of renewals delivered in the last three months of the year, particularly during the disruptive weather in February and March 2018, is likely to impact the quality and efficiency of work. The quarterly output of renewals for selected asset categories is shown in figure C3.
Figure C2: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan, 2015-16 to 2017-18
Figure C3: Output of renewals delivered per quarter for selected asset categories, 2017-18
______________________________________________________________________
22 Figure C2 reports a subset of renewals volumes 23 Quarters refer to the financial year. Q1 covers spring (April to June) and Q4 covers winter (January to March). In 2017-18, Highways England delivered a higher proportion (39%) of pavement renewals in quarter four than in any other quarter. This is lower than the proportion it delivered in the fourth quarter of 2016-17 (55%). It is not clear whether this is a result of improved planning or due to the disruptive weather in the final quarter of 2017-18.
**Figure C4: Percentage of pavement renewals per quarter, 2015-16 to 2017-18**
Maintenance and renewals expenditure
In 2017-18, Highways England spread its expenditure on maintenance and renewals more evenly throughout the year than in than previous years (as shown in figure B6). The profile of renewals expenditure has improved marginally, with a lower proportion of expenditure in the winter than seen in previous years. Highways England could do more to ensure expenditure follows a flatter profile (as budgeted), which should contribute to improved efficiency in future years.
As set out in annex B, renewals expenditure was lower than budgeted in 2017-18.
We have established a review group with the company which will meet quarterly to discuss progress against its plans to improve the planning and reporting of renewals delivery. Ring-fenced funds
Delivery of projects through ring-fenced funds is covered in chapter 2, and also in our in-depth review of ring fenced funds, which was published in July 2018. Figure C5, below, provides an update on each fund at the end of 2017-18.
Table C5: Ring-fenced funds delivery in 2017-18
| Fund | Value in RIS1: £m | 2017-18 performance | |-----------------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **All** | £675m | • £176m spent to date, of which £106m spent in 2017-18. | | | | • Pace of delivery has increased in 2017-18, but still slower than planned. | | | | • Overall programme is heavily back-end loaded. | | | | • The air quality fund, in particular, shows a high level of under-spend. | | **Air quality** | £75m | • Eight air quality pilot studies completed. | | | | • Continuing to roll out a network of air quality monitoring stations. | | | | • Initial work has begun to pilot a barrier scheme aimed at improving air quality. | | | | • Data from the national air quality monitoring network is being used to determine | | | | locations which could benefit most. | | **Environment** | £225m | • Water: 13 schemes completed. | | | | • Noise: 381 noise important areas mitigated by insualtion scheme. | | | | • Carbon: 2,000 lighting units and 100 traffic signals converted to LED. | | | | • Landscape: 25 schemes completed. | | | | • Biodiversity: 13 projects have created species rich grassland. | | | | • Cultural heritage: Enhancements made at four sites. | | | | • Legacy: A5/M1 link project for pedestrians and cyclists. | | **Cycling, safety and integration** | £175m | • Cycling: Detailed design on 19 schemes, and construction completed on 22. | | | | • Safety: Detailed design completed on 61 schemes and construction completed on 45. | | | | • Integration: Detailed design completed on 34 schemes and construction completed on 17 | | **Innovation** | £120m | • Number of projects increased from 15 to 93, across a variety of themes. | | | | • 13 safety projects introduced this year. | | | | • 22 infrastructure projects identified. | | | | • 14 new data and information projects. | | | | • 19 projects covering new and emerging technologies. | | | | • 14 projects identified to support sustainable operation. | | **Growth and housing**| £80m | • 24 schemes have completed appraisal and been approved. | | | | • Two schemes completed and open to traffic: the M5 J29/A30 link road, and A1 Darlington. | | | | • Four further schemes in construction. | | | | • Majority of funds now committed, with further projects in the pipeline. |
24http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0014/28112/highways-england-approach-to-delivering-schemes-through-its-ring-fenced-funds-2018-02-02.pdf ANNEX D: NOTE ON REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY REPORTED DATA
During 2017-18, Highways England has worked with ORR and DfT to agree changes to how it reports data against some of its performance indicators and key performance indicators. This has resulted in revisions to some performance data which were previously reported in 2015-16 and 2016-17. This affects two key performance indicators, covering noise and vulnerable user crossings, and one performance indicator, covering spend on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). All performance data presented in this report uses the revised data, where available. Further details are set out below.
**Noise important areas.** In 2015-16 and 2016-17 Highways England reported a noise important area as mitigated only if all practical methods to mitigate noise had been completed. For example, where it was practical to provide a barrier and undertake resurfacing, both measures were required to be installed before the noise important area was counted as mitigated. Highways England has subsequently agreed with ORR, DfT and other stakeholders, that it is appropriate to claim a noise important area as mitigated if it has delivered one appropriate intervention measure (i.e. insulation or barrier or resurfacing). This has caused the number of noise important areas reported as mitigated in 2015-16 and 2016-17 to increase. The difference between the figures reported previously, and those in this report as set out below.
| Year | Noise important areas mitigated (previously reported) | Noise important areas mitigated (revised figures) | |--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | 2015-16| 48 | 62 | | 2016-17| 73 | 140 | **Vulnerable user crossings.** In 2015-16, Highways England reported the number of crossings it had delivered on the network in such a way that a single crossing was counted multiple times (to represent different user types). For example, one crossing would have been counted as two if it was suitable for pedestrians and equestrians. In 2016-17, the company changed its methodology so that a crossing is only counted once, irrespective of the number of user types that can use it. ORR and DfT have agreed with Highways England that the latter method is the most appropriate for reporting performance. This will result in a reduction in the number of crossings reported as completed in 2015-16. Highways England is currently validating the revised figure for 2015-16, which we will report in our next annual assessment.
**Table D2: Comparison of number of vulnerable user crossings**
| Year | Number of vulnerable user crossings (previously reported) | Number of vulnerable user crossings (revised figures) | |--------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | 2015-16| 39 new, 165 upgraded | \*figure awaiting validation | | 2016-17| 20 new, 7 upgraded | 20 new, 7 upgraded (unchanged) |
**Spend on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).** When calculating the proportion of its expenditure on SMEs, Highways England has historically used an assumption of 10% to apply to its private finance initiative (PFI) contracts. However, following an internal review by the company, it has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support this assumption. Therefore, it has agreed with DfT and ORR to remove PFI contracts from its calculation of the proportion of spend on SMEs. This has increased the historically reported figure for SME spend in 2015-16 and 2016-17. The table below sets out the previously reported, and revised data. These figures should be treated as provisional, as work is ongoing to agree the revised methodology. Government has a target of 25% direct and indirect spend on SMEs.
**Table D3: Comparison of SME spend**
| Year | % of spend on SMEs (previously reported) | % of spend on SMEs (provisional figures) | |--------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| | 2015-16| 26.5% | 30.9% | | 2016-17| 25.5% | 27.0% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1033-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 70,
"total-input-tokens": 143558,
"total-output-tokens": 30831,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
77,
1
],
[
77,
77,
2
],
[
77,
296,
3
],
[
296,
296,
4
],
[
296,
2907,
5
],
[
2907,
2907,
6
],
[
2907,
6686,
7
],
[
6686,
10301,
8
],
[
10301,
12229,
9
],
[
12229,
15893,
10
],
[
15893,
18254,
11
],
[
18254,
20542,
12
],
[
20542,
22883,
13
],
[
22883,
24429,
14
],
[
24429,
25403,
15
],
[
25403,
28014,
16
],
[
28014,
30958,
17
],
[
30958,
34416,
18
],
[
34416,
36246,
19
],
[
36246,
38344,
20
],
[
38344,
40707,
21
],
[
40707,
43027,
22
],
[
43027,
45641,
23
],
[
45641,
47876,
24
],
[
47876,
51033,
25
],
[
51033,
51604,
26
],
[
51604,
53782,
27
],
[
53782,
56171,
28
],
[
56171,
57319,
29
],
[
57319,
59193,
30
],
[
59193,
59193,
31
],
[
59193,
60556,
32
],
[
60556,
62614,
33
],
[
62614,
63853,
34
],
[
63853,
65150,
35
],
[
65150,
66043,
36
],
[
66043,
66830,
37
],
[
66830,
68189,
38
],
[
68189,
70530,
39
],
[
70530,
71684,
40
],
[
71684,
73691,
41
],
[
73691,
75231,
42
],
[
75231,
77489,
43
],
[
77489,
78380,
44
],
[
78380,
80548,
45
],
[
80548,
82860,
46
],
[
82860,
85381,
47
],
[
85381,
85627,
48
],
[
85627,
87421,
49
],
[
87421,
88575,
50
],
[
88575,
90460,
51
],
[
90460,
93458,
52
],
[
93458,
95712,
53
],
[
95712,
95712,
54
],
[
95712,
97804,
55
],
[
97804,
98985,
56
],
[
98985,
101411,
57
],
[
101411,
104668,
58
],
[
104668,
108373,
59
],
[
108373,
111893,
60
],
[
111893,
114025,
61
],
[
114025,
114847,
62
],
[
114847,
116034,
63
],
[
116034,
120600,
64
],
[
120600,
120600,
65
],
[
120600,
122543,
66
],
[
122543,
125176,
67
],
[
125176,
125176,
68
],
[
125176,
125176,
69
],
[
125176,
125176,
70
]
]
} |
08fb4a250e1b50a0219ac04b534138de7360d4f6 | ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE
APRIL 2018 – MARCH 2019
HC2298 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE APRIL 2018 – MARCH 2019
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 July 2019 CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 Key messages for 2018-19 .............................................................................. 7 Summary of performance .............................................................................. 8
2. Operational performance .............................................................................. 10
3. Investment delivery ....................................................................................... 21
4. Efficiency ....................................................................................................... 29
5. Priorities for 2019-20 .................................................................................... 32
Annex A: Performance against outcome areas .............................................. 33 Outcome: Making the network safer .............................................................. 33 Outcome: Improving user satisfaction .......................................................... 35 Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic ......................................... 37 Outcome: Encouraging economic growth .................................................... 39 Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes ............................... 40 Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users ................. 42 Outcome: Achieving real efficiency .............................................................. 43 Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition ...................................... 49
Annex B: Financial performance ....................................................................... 51
Annex C: Network investment delivery ............................................................ 56
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.1 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s management of the strategic road network – the motorways and main A-roads in England.
1.2 In the road investment strategy (RIS), government has set the outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (road period 1). In monitoring the performance and efficiency of the company, our objective is to secure better performance and value for money from the strategic road network to benefit road users and the wider public.
Key messages for 2018-19
1. Highways England is taking the right actions on its network to meet the needs of road users. Despite this, delays are increasing and road user satisfaction is below target.
1.3 Highways England continues to demonstrate a strong focus on safety. Fewer people were killed or seriously injured on the network in 2017 than in any previous year, but further reductions are required if the company is to deliver its challenging target of a 40% reduction by 2020.
1.4 Highways England is delivering its targets for smooth flow of traffic – keeping 98.3% of the network open to traffic, against a target of 97%, and clearing 88% of incidents within an hour, against a target of 85%. However, congestion has increased in the last year, reflecting traffic growth and increasing levels of roadworks as Highways England delivers more network improvements.
1.5 In 2018-19, Highways England set out a customer service improvement plan, aimed at raising levels of user satisfaction. It has delivered the actions set out in the plan, but overall satisfaction remains below the 90% target, at 88.4%.
1.6 The company is making good progress against its environmental targets. In 2018-19 it mitigated 300 noise important areas, and it is delivering the commitments set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan. Against its commitment to support vulnerable users Highways England has delivered 83 new and upgraded crossings in 2018-19, although the company should improve its processes for gathering this information.
2. Highways England is meeting its target to keep the network in good condition, and delivering major improvement schemes to a revised plan that it has agreed with the Department for Transport.
1.7 Highways England is taking a more structured approach to managing its assets and remains above target for maintaining the road surface – its key performance indicator shows that 95.5% of the network is in good condition, above its target of 95%.
1.8 The company has improved how it manages maintenance and renewals, and is delivering volumes that more closely align to its plans. It has also acted on an improvement plan we required that addressed a significant number of overdue inspections of its structures (and other assets), and improved the accuracy of its information relating to inspection records.
1.9 Highways England started work on four major schemes in 2018-19. It originally had a commitment to start work on six, but this was revised to five through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. One scheme did not start as planned and is under review. The company completed six of the seven schemes that were planned to open in 2018-19; the delayed scheme is now expected to open in 2019-20.
1.10 Of 112 major schemes originally planned to start works by the end of the first road period, 103 remain in the programme1. Highways England now expects to have started at least 70 by the end of March 20202, with 29 expected to
______________________________________________________________________
1 Two schemes - the A34 Oxford junctions and A34 technology enhancements - have been re-scoped and combined into a single scheme.
2 Two are dependent on delivery by third parties. start in the second road period(^3). Four further schemes are under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form. It has agreed changes to its programme with the Department for Transport. The agreed changes seek to reduce road user disruption. They make sure that only those schemes that deliver value for money and have stakeholder support are taken forwards. The reduced programme partly reflects that the funding provided in road period 1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes.
1.11 There are further risks to delivery of major schemes in the remainder of the road period. 26 schemes are scheduled to start in 2019-20 and these need careful management to avoid further deferrals(^4).
1.12 Highways England is forecasting total costs in this road period that are £205m higher than its RIS1 funding. This has reduced significantly over the road period, and from last year, when the difference was £438m.
1.13 Highways England delivered more through ring-fenced funds in 2018-19 than it has in previous years. To date, 54% of the total funds available in road period 1 have been spent. It has credible plans in place for four of the funds, but there is particular risk that it will not fully use the air quality fund.
3. Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels.
1.14 Highways England is reporting £848m of efficiency in the road period towards its RIS1 target of £1.2bn by March 2020. The company has provided good evidence of the actions it is taking to deliver more efficiently. But broader measures capturing costs of outcomes do not fully support this level.
1.15 Highways England has been working to develop efficiency models based on unit cost information. So far, it has only used these to evidence efficiencies for its smart motorway projects and renewals work – but not for other major improvement projects. More work is needed to assure the renewals model’s outputs. It is vital that Highways England progresses work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements to support efficiency reporting in the future. This will also be required to establish a clear baseline for the second road period.
1.16 Highways England can support its efficiency claims by demonstrating that it has delivered its outputs and schemes within its funding. However, providing evidence of this is not straight-forward. The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes, and was set at a time when there was not a full understanding of scheme scope. While fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, the costs associated with this deferred work are comparable to the under-funding. The company has also benefited from lower than expected inflation. Our analysis of this area of evidence suggests that net levels of efficiency may be lower than those reported.
1.17 Weighing up all of the above, we consider that Highways England has more to do to support its reported £848m of efficiency. We expect it to produce better supporting evidence for the end of road period 1.
1.18 Learning from this, it is essential that a better, fully-funded baseline plan is developed for road period 2, built on a clear understanding of scheme costs, timings and scope.
Summary of performance
1.19 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS. This sets out eight outcomes areas, each with one or more key performance indicator as well as a number of performance indicators(^5). Delivery against each key performance indicator, and our assessment for the remainder of road period 1, is summarised in the table below using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Of these, 25 have been formally agreed and four are expected to miss current commitments to start in RP1.
(^4) This may increase depending on the outcome of the four schemes under review.
(^5) A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual) | Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2018-19 | RAG 2017-18 | RAG 2018-19 | RAG road period 1 | |---------|----------------|------------------------|-------------|-------------|------------------| | Making the network safer | Killed or seriously injured\
○ Target: 40% reduction by end of 2020 | 2,012 killed or seriously injured in 2017, a reduction of 10% from 2016. Figures for 2018 are due to be published in July 2019. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction\
○ Target: 90% by March 2017 | 88.4% satisfaction. Remains below 90% target. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability\
○ Target: 97% lane availability | 98.3% availability. Remains above target, and unchanged from 2017-18. | Green | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance\
○ Target: 85% of motorway incidents cleared within one hour | 88% cleared within one hour. Remains above target, and improved from 87.9% last year. | Green | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (secs per vehicle mile)\
Target: No target set | 9.4 seconds delay per vehicle mile, an increase of 0.2 seconds from 2017-18. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated\
○ Target: Mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020 | 300 mitigated during the year, bringing total for the road period to 951. 199 further mitigations required in 2019-20 to meet the target. | Green | Green | Green | | | Improved biodiversity\
○ Target: Publish biodiversity action plan | Management plans produced for 10 SSSIs, bringing the total for the road period to 40. | Green | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings\
Target: No target set | 29 new and 54 upgraded crossings delivered in 2018-19. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings\
○ Target: Savings of at least £1.212 billion on capital expenditure by 2019-20 | £362m of efficiencies reported in 2018-19. £848m in road period 1 to date, which is 70% of the target. Further evidence required. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to delivery plan\
Target: No target set | Work started on 4 schemes. 6 schemes opened to traffic. Delivery plans significantly changed. | Green | Amber | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition\
○ Target: 95% of pavement requiring no further investigation for possible maintenance | 95.5% requires no further investigation for maintenance. Remains above target, and improved from 95.2% in 2017-18. | Green | Green | Green |
Key: **Green** = Delivery on track/clear plans in place for RP1\
**Amber** = Some risk to delivery of target/plans not fully established for RP1\
**Red** = High risk to delivery of target/plans not in place for RP1 2. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Highways England is taking the right actions on its network to meet the needs of road users. Despite this, delays are increasing and road user satisfaction is below target.
Highways England has helped reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads over the last four years. It is clearing incidents quickly and minimising disruption from roadworks. But road user delays are increasing due to traffic levels, and the amount of improvement work being undertaken. Road user satisfaction remains high, but is below target; Highways England is delivering an improvement plan.
Safety
2.1 One of Highways England’s key objectives for the first road period is to improve safety on the strategic road network. The company shows a strong commitment to achieving this, identifying safety as its top priority. During 2018-19 it delivered a number of interventions aimed at improving safety for road users and workers on its network.
2.2 Highways England has a key performance indicator to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network by 40% by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. However, changes in how police forces record road casualty data mean that it has not been possible to monitor progress against the target on a consistent basis during this road period. Since late 2015, around half of English police forces have adopted a new system for reporting road casualties (CRASH – Collision Recording and Sharing). This has caused an increase in recorded KSIs because some casualties which would have been recorded as ‘slight’ in the old system are recorded as ‘serious’ in the new system.
2.3 To address this discontinuity, the Department for Transport commissioned the Office for National Statistics to produce a robust methodology for adjusting historic road casualty data. This work enabled the Department to publish an interim report in 2018, which included revised road casualty statistics that consistently account for the impact of the move to new reporting systems over time. The Department expects to publish the confirmed adjustments, alongside its 2018 road casualty data, in July 2019.
Figure 2.1: Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network (adjusted data), 2005-2017
______________________________________________________________________
6 The Metropolitan Police Service switched to a new reporting system called COPA – Case Overview Preparation Application. 2.4 The adjusted data show that 2,012 people were killed or seriously injured on the network in 2017. This is a 32% reduction on the baseline, and puts Highways England on the straight-line trajectory required to meet its target of a 40% reduction by 2020.
2.5 The number of fatalities reported each year is unaffected by the data changes. In 2017, there were 236 deaths on the strategic road network, which is five (2%) higher than in 2016.
2.6 The Department for Transport advises that these data may be subject to further revision in future years as more police forces move to new systems for reporting road casualty data.
2.7 In 2018-19 Highways England delivered a range of interventions to improve safety on its network, covering its three areas of focus: safer roads, safer people and safer vehicles. These included:
- **Safety schemes.** Highways England has used its ring-fenced funds to deliver 21 small-scale safety schemes in 2018-19. These schemes focus on higher risk sections of the network, which are often single-carriageway A-roads.
- **Smart motorways – ‘red X’ enforcement.** Highways England has worked with the Home Office and Department for Transport to introduce a change in legislation to allow cameras to automatically detect drivers who disobey ‘red X’ signals on smart motorways, and enable the police to prosecute these offences. This legislation was passed in May 2019, and enforcement is expected to begin later in the year. This has been supported by multi-media campaigns to increase road user awareness of how to drive on smart motorways.
- **Suicide prevention.** Highways England has made progress in delivering its suicide prevention strategy. In the past year, the company has improved how it captures data on suicides and suicide attempts on the network. This helps inform the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions taken by the company, which include restricting pedestrian access, and closing lay-bys to prevent parking close to known suicide hotspots. In partnership with The Samaritans, it has installed crisis signage at over 100 priority locations.
- **Business drivers.** In partnership with other safety organisations, Highways England has delivered its Driving for Better Business campaign, which aims to improve awareness of work-related road safety. Businesses representing approximately 200,000 drivers, and 150,000 vehicles have signed up to the programme.
- **Vehicle roadworthiness.** Highways England has partnered with organisations such as the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the
______________________________________________________________________
7 A comparison with previously reported (unadjusted) figures is set out in annex A. Health and Safety Executive, and police forces to target unsafe vehicles on the network. This has included projects to: identify, and remove from the road, dangerously loaded commercial vehicles; inform private motorists about the dangers of poorly loaded vehicles; and install technology to identify HGVs with dangerous tyres.
**Driver behaviour.** Highways England funds three unmarked HGV tractor units to capture evidence of driving offences (see case study below). The company has also run national information campaigns. In 2018-19, this included the ‘Space Invader’ campaign, focussing on tailgating, which is a contributory factor in one in eight casualties on the network.
______________________________________________________________________
**Case study – targeting dangerous driver behaviour**
- Highways England has worked with police forces to fund and coordinate the use of unmarked HGV tractor units to patrol the strategic road network.
- This collaboration with police helps target dangerous driving behaviour, such as mobile phone use and other unsafe activities whilst driving. By using HGV tractor units, police can observe the cabs of commercial vehicles, where driving offences might otherwise be difficult to detect.
- In the first four years of the road period, 28 police forces have stopped almost 9,000 vehicles and detected 10,164 driving offences.
- The most common offences are mobile phone use, non-use of seat belts and the driver not being in proper control of the vehicle.
- Due to the success of the project, it has been extended until November 2020. 2.8 In June 2019 Highways England launched its new safety strategy: Home Safe and Well. This aims to build on the previous 5-year Health and Safety Plan by setting out the company’s approach to achieving its longer-term vision that by 2040 nobody is harmed when travelling or working on the strategic road network. We will continue to work with the company to understand the detailed plans it is developing to deliver this vision.
2.9 By April 2019, the company had completed 120 of the 130 actions that were set out in the previous 5-year plan. The majority of the remaining 10 actions have a targeted end-date of March 2020, and the company will continue to monitor and report on the remaining actions until they are complete.
2.10 In July 2019, Highways England published an update on its work to produce a safety star rating for the strategic road network. This showed that 95% of travel on the network is on roads rated as three stars or higher – ahead of its target of achieving 90% by 2020. It is now taking forward work to update the star rating of the network, moving from the current 4-star model to a new 5-star model.
2.11 Highways England is unlikely to meet its commitment of improving the majority of its 1-star and 2-star roads to 3-star or more by 2020. However, the company has demonstrated that it is applying an evidence-based approach to prioritising safety interventions, which takes into account both the star rating, and statistical risk of death or serious injury, of a road. We recognise that this approach helps the company target its resources on delivering a greater reduction in casualties than if it focused on improving star-ratings alone. Over the next year we will work with Highways England to carry out a review of how it is prioritising investment to improve safety on the network.
2.12 Accident frequency rates for Highways England’s supply chain, as well as the company’s own staff have improved in the last year, and both are at the lowest level recorded in the road period so far.
Satisfaction
2.13 Highways England needs to deliver a service that meets road users’ needs and maintains a high level of satisfaction. Satisfaction is currently measured by Transport Focus through a regular survey of drivers and other road users – the National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS).
2.14 In 2018-19, satisfaction with using the strategic road network was 88.4%. This is below the target of 90% and below last year’s score of 88.7%. This is the lowest end-year figure since our data begins in 2011-12.
Figure 2.2: end-year user satisfaction scores, 2014-15 to 2018-19
2.15 Although the end-year score is below target, the monthly figures have improved throughout the year, starting in April 2018 at 85.8%. Highways England believes this poor start to the year was the result of severe weather.
Figure 2.3: year-to-date user satisfaction scores, 2018-19
2.16 The overall satisfaction score is calculated by combining five separate elements of satisfaction. Satisfaction with safety and signage was above 90%, while satisfaction with journey time, roadworks and upkeep were below 90%. The chart below shows this year’s performance compared with last year. Notable changes are an improvement in roadworks management and a deterioration in general upkeep.
______________________________________________________________________
8 http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/about-us/Home+Safe+and+Well+Strategy+2019.pdf 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-road-network-star-rating-report 2.17 Analysis of regional satisfaction performance shows that three regions improved and four deteriorated relative to last year. The Eastern, North East and North West regions all improved. The North West improved the most, from 77.8% to 84%, with all five components improving year-on-year. Midlands and the South West performed marginally worse than last year, while M25 and South East showed more significant reductions in performance. In the case of the South East, performance was 86.4%, down from 90.8% the previous year, with all components falling. General upkeep in the South East fell the most, from 91.8% to 82.9%.
2.18 Because Highways England is not currently meeting its key performance indicator target, we are applying an enhanced monitoring approach. A key part of this is more closely monitoring the company’s performance against its annual customer service action plan. We meet Highways England’s customer service directors each quarter to review progress and challenge. 2.19 In 2018-19, Highways England has taken a range of actions across the five components of NRUSS, including:
- **Safety** - actions to improve customers’ awareness of smart motorways, including a programme of improved colouring and signing of emergency refuges;
- **Information** – increased Twitter capability to give better real time information to customers, and revised website covering roadworks information;
- **Journey time** – coached over 60% of its Traffic Officers to work single crewed to improve efficiency and coverage, and recruited five National Network Manager positions to coordinate incident management across the network;
- **Roadworks** – worked on improving the accuracy of day-ahead and week-ahead roadworks information, completed two trials of 60mph speed limits in roadworks and issued two customer service standards. The standards are used to set expectations within Highways England on how to improve information to customers in roadworks and improve accuracy of closures; and
- **General upkeep** – revised inspection and maintenance requirements have been issued to Highways England’s contractors so that they focus on both customer satisfaction-related and safety-critical defects, and issued a customer service standard to reduce litter.
2.20 The company also reports that, in addition to its planned actions, it took further steps as follows:
- Increased its incident recovery capability by dispatching recovery operators directly from the Regional Control Centres;
- Trained Traffic Officers to undertake aspects of safety inspections; and
- Mapped its most important stakeholder locations on the network to ensure dedicated consideration is given to activities that might affect them more than others, such as overnight closures.
2.21 In 2019-20, Highways England’s customer service action plan builds on the above and includes some important proposals to deliver better customer experience, such as:
- Improving the coordination, scheduling and publishing of all road closures;
- Rolling out further trials of 60mph speed limits through major motorway roadworks; and
- Improving maintenance planning, which includes embedding and monitoring its new ‘Intelligence Led Maintenance’ approach in asset delivery areas.
2.22 During 2018-19, Transport Focus has been gathering data through a new Strategic Road User Survey. From April 2020, this new survey is expected to replace NRUSS as the measure on which Highways England’s user satisfaction key performance indicator is based. It provides more information on road users’ experience of the network, including giving detailed information on specific roads. Transport Focus is collecting and publishing this information now. Highways England has been closely involved in developing the survey, and it has already conducted analysis on the data to see what insight it can bring on areas for improvement. We expect the company to use this better information in developing its plans to improve user experience in the future.
**Supporting the smooth flow of traffic**
2.23 In its role as network operator, Highways England must minimise the impact on road users caused by planned or unplanned disruption. The company has two key performance indicators in this area: network availability monitors the proportion of the network that is open to traffic, and incident clearance monitors how quickly Highways England reopens the road to traffic following unplanned events. Highways England has performed well against both of these key performance indicators throughout the road period.
2.24 The key performance indicator for network availability on the strategic road network was 98.3% at year-end, which is unchanged from the previous year, and above the target of 97%. By taking actions such as using narrow lanes during roadworks, the company expects to maintain performance above target despite an increased number of major schemes on the network in the final year of road period 1. 2.25 Highways England also met its key performance indicator target for incident clearance in 2018-19. It cleared 88% of motorway incidents within one hour, which was slightly higher than performance in the previous year (87.9%), and above the target of 85%.
2.26 To support better decision making in response to incidents on the network, Highways England recruited National Network Managers in 2018-19. Their role is to coordinate intelligence on events affecting the network, and mitigate the impact they have on road users. Other actions taken by the company to support the smooth flow of traffic include using historic incident data to locate Traffic Officers closer to problematic parts of the network, so they are able to clear incidents more quickly.
2.27 Despite taking these actions, and delivering improvement schemes, average delay on the network is increasing – as set out below.
______________________________________________________________________
**Case study – road user information**
- In 2018-19, Highways England collaborated with ORR and Transport Focus to review its provision of traffic data and information to road users. The output of this work is summarised in two reports.
- The first report is based on in-depth research into road users’ views about information provision, including what sources are currently used, how they are accessed, and what information needs might be in the future.
- The second report looked more closely at Highways England’s provision of data and information to road users, including how the company performs in collecting and disseminating traffic information, and how it compares to other road and transport operators.
- Both reports set out a number of recommendations for Highways England. These include:
- Highways England should seek to increase satisfaction with information on A-roads, which currently lags behind that on motorways.
- Highways England should better define who its most important customers for traffic information are, and the relative value of its existing data and information.
- The company should consider how it can more effectively collaborate with third party data providers, and local highways authorities.
- The reports are published on ORR’s website[^10].
Supporting economic growth
2.28 The strategic road network is vital to our economy. It carries 34% of all traffic in England, despite accounting for 2.4% of the road network by length.
2.29 Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by a key performance indicator, which measures average delay on the strategic road network. In 2018-19, average delay was 9.4 seconds per vehicle mile. This is an increase of 0.2 seconds per vehicle mile on 2017-18, and the highest annual figure reported in the road period so far.
2.30 Increased traffic is one underlying reason for increased delays on the network – in 2018, traffic on the strategic road network grew by 0.7%. This is a lower rate of growth than in previous years of road period 1, but still represents record volumes of traffic using the network. There were also more major road improvements in construction during 2018-19 compared to the previous year. Significantly more major schemes are planned to start construction on the network during 2019-20, which increases the likelihood that further increases in delay will be recorded next year.
Figure 2.8: Average delay on the strategic road network, 2014-15 to 2018-19
2.31 Many of the actions Highways England takes to minimise delays on the strategic road network are the same as those it takes to maximise lane availability, clear incidents and improve user satisfaction. One key intervention aimed at minimising delay during 2018-19 has been to trial 60mph speed limits through roadworks where Highways England has assessed it is safe to do so.
2.32 Highways England can also reduce delays on the network by providing better information to road users so they can avoid planned or unplanned disruption. In the past year, Highways England has collaborated with ORR and Transport Focus to review its provision of traffic data and information to road users. The output of this work is summarised in two reports, which are discussed in more detail in the case study above. Highways England has supported the findings in these reports, and we will work with the company in 2019-20 to understand how it plans to implement the recommendations. More broadly, we will continue to challenge the company to seek new ways to mitigate delays.
Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.33 Highways England has demonstrated good progress against its commitment to deliver better environmental outcomes in 2018-19. The company has two key performance indicators in this area, covering noise and biodiversity.
2.34 Highways England has a target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2018-19, it mitigated 300, bringing the total to 951 for this road period.
Figure 2.9: Cumulative noise important areas mitigated at 2018-19
2.35 Of the 300 noise important areas mitigated in 2018-19, 232 were mitigated through Highways England’s noise insulation programme, 55 as a result of low-noise resurfacing, eight through installing noise barriers, and five through a combination of these measures.
2.36 About half of the properties counted as mitigated through the noise insulation programme had double-glazing installed. The other half were included as mitigated due to the homeowner either refusing the offer of double-glazing, or not responding to at least three attempts to contact them. In this situation, the offer from Highways England remains open – around 150 properties have now had double-glazing fitted where the homeowner had initially declined or not responded.
2.37 The number of noise important areas mitigated in 2018-19 is less than in 2017-18, when 448 were mitigated. This is partly due to the company mitigating larger noise important areas, which include more properties, and a change in the double glazing contractor. Despite this, Highways England reports that it is on course to mitigate at least 199 noise important areas in 2019-20 and meet its RIS1 target.
2.38 Highway England also continues to make progress in delivering the commitments set out in its biodiversity action plan. In 2018-19 the company produced 10 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate and has now met its commitment to develop 40 plans in this road period. It also completed 25 grassland schemes, delivering almost 100 hectares of species rich grassland. The company trialled its new biodiversity metric in 2018-19, which it will roll out more widely across the business in 2019-20, in preparation for formal reporting in the next road period.
2.39 In 2018-19, Highways England worked closely with the Joint Air Quality Unit to support the Government’s air quality policies. In particular, it developed a four-phase plan to address the 101 links on the strategic road network that have been identified as exceeding legal limits for nitrogen dioxide.
2.40 The company has completed the first two phases, by undertaking traffic and air quality modelling for each link, and investigating potential mitigation measures. It is now working on the third phase to identify the most appropriate mitigation measures.
2.41 During 2019-20, ORR will monitor Highways England’s delivery of the fourth phase as it implements the agreed mitigation measures. The company is considering a range of potential mitigations, which includes using ring-fenced funds to build air quality barriers. As discussed in chapter 3, the complexity of delivering these barriers, and the short time left to do so in road period 1, represents a significant risk to making full use of the air quality ring-fenced fund.
11 The Joint Air Quality Unit was established by Defra and the Department for Transport to coordinate delivery the Government’s plans for achieving nitrogen dioxide compliance. 2.42 Highways England has continued to take action to tackle litter on the strategic road network during 2018-19. It refreshed its litter strategy in March 2019. The company collected 20,000 bags of litter on the network during the year, and made greater use of social media campaigns to educate the public about the impact of littering. Other activities in 2018-19 included: trialling an automatic litter-picking machine; extending a trial to install window height bins at service areas; and working with local authorities to undertake litter picking on A-roads to coincide with lane closures for other maintenance work.
Vulnerable users
2.43 Reflecting the wider impact the strategic road network has on neighbouring communities, Highways England has a key performance indicator to report the number of new and upgraded crossings it delivers to help cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable road users.
2.44 In 2018-19, the company delivered 29 new and 54 upgraded crossings on the network, bringing the total delivered in the road period to 90 new and 182 upgraded crossings. These figures include revised totals for 2015-16 to correct an error identified by Highways England in its figures. The company can further improve the accuracy and timeliness of the information it captures relating to crossings on the network.
Figure 2.10: Number of new and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2018-19
2.45 Highways England completed construction on 22 cycling schemes in 2018-19, bringing the total delivered in this road period to 101. The company has a commitment to deliver 150 cycling schemes by the end of road period 1, and it has developed plans for 2019-20 to achieve this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-litter-strategy 3. INVESTMENT DELIVERY
Highways England is meeting its target to keep the network in good condition, and delivering major improvement schemes to a revised plan that it has agreed with the Department for Transport.
The condition of Highways England’s roads, as measured by its key performance indicator, is good. It is broadly delivering its major improvement schemes to latest plans. However, there are risks to delivery for the remainder of the road period. It has agreed changes to the programme of major improvements with the Department for Transport which mean that it now expects to have started at least 70 by the end of the road period, compared to 112 set out in the RIS. It delivered more through its ring-fenced funds than in previous years – but delivery risks remain.
Major investment delivery
3.1 In 2018-19, Highways England started work on four major schemes. It originally had a commitment to start work on six, of which: three schemes started construction in year; two had their start of works commitment revised through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process to reduce road user disruption around Manchester; and one did not start as planned and is under review due to changes on adjacent local roads. In addition, Highways England started construction of one scheme that had been re-scoped and had its start of works revised to 2018-19, following formal change control approval.
3.2 Of the seven schemes which were planned to open for traffic in 2018-19, six were delivered on time (one of which was completed one quarter ahead of schedule). One scheme has missed its delivery date for 2018-19 and will open in 2019-20. In addition, the company also opened to traffic a scheme that was delayed from 2017-18.
Figure 3.1: Summary of major scheme delivery in 2018-19
| Construction phase | Schemes committed for 2018-19 | Schemes delivered in 2018-19 | Details | |--------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------| | Start of works | 6 | 4 | 3 started | | | | | 2 formally agreed for deferral | | | | | 1 not started and under review | | | | | 1 additional scheme started. Re-scoped and start of works commitment revised to 2018-19 | | Open for traffic | 7 | 7 | 6 opened | | | 1 delayed from 2017-18 | | 1 delayed and will open in 2019-20 | | | | | 1, delayed from 2017-18, opened |
Key:
- Milestone due or achieved on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone due or achieved one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone due or achieved more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone changed 3.3 Highways England has now started work on 28 schemes in road period 1, in addition to the 16 schemes that started prior to the road period. It has opened 29 schemes for traffic in this road period, and there are currently 15 schemes in construction.
3.4 The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than agreed funding assumptions. The 29 schemes that Highways England has opened for traffic by the end of March 2019 are forecasting costs that are £443.9m higher than baseline. This mainly reflects overspends on two schemes – M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20, and M6 junctions 16 to 19 – due to increased costs associated with making additional improvements to the existing asset, and extended work time to maintain commitment dates.
Case study – M60 Junction 8 to M62 Junction 20
- The M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway scheme was completed in 2018-19. The final cost of this scheme was higher than originally anticipated, and we have worked with Highways England to understand the factors that contributed to this.
- The M60 and M62 around Manchester is one of the busiest sections of road in the UK, carrying over 180,000 vehicles per day. This route forms an important part of the main east-west transport corridor, linking Merseyside and greater Manchester with Yorkshire and the Humber. It is heavily congested with unpredictable journey times, especially during peak periods. Congestion on this stretch of motorway also impacts on local roads.
- The scheme was designed to address congestion and improve journey time reliability. This involved work to increase capacity by upgrading the existing M60 to a smart motorway from junctions 8 to 18, plus smart motorway with all lane running on the M62 from junctions 18 to 20.
- The scheme introduced variable speed limits, hard shoulder running and new emergency refuge areas to increase capacity and improve traffic flow.
- The scheme opened for traffic in July 2018, 10 months behind schedule. The final cost was £298m, which is £99m above the original estimate. The delays and cost escalation were attributed to delivering additional work, including improvement to asset condition to avoid subsequent maintenance work and construction delays. 3.5 Highways England continues to make good progress on its flagship schemes. The company plans to open the A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme in March 2020, ahead of its scheduled completion date in 2020-21. The A303 Stonehenge Tunnel is in the middle of the planning application process and construction is expected to begin in 2021-22. On the Lower Thames Crossing, the company completed an extensive public consultation in December 2018 and it is now analysing the comments received before selecting a preferred option to take forward.
Highways England’s capital plan
3.6 In 2017-18, Highways England reviewed its plans for delivering capital investment in road period 1. The company improved its scheduling of major schemes, with a focus on their scope, value for money and road user experience. This optimisation of the capital programme resulted in some major improvement schemes being considered for delivery in future road periods, while other schemes were brought forward within the current road period. It also removed schemes from the programme where they were no longer providing value for money.
3.7 During 2018-19 Highways England has continued to identify the need for changes to its capital delivery plan.
3.8 It has agreed all the above changes to its commitments in the RIS and delivery plan with government and has taken them through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. These include:
- six schemes formally paused that do not currently demonstrate value for money;
- two schemes formally stopped due to lack of stakeholder support;
- four schemes under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form (but not formally changed);
- 25 schemes formally deferred to the next road period, of which 16 were deferred to minimise road user disruption. The remaining nine schemes were deferred mainly as a consequence of external challenges – for example as an outcome of public consultations and schemes’ options appraisals;
- 14 schemes advanced within road period 1 to start earlier than originally planned; and
- four schemes likely to miss the RIS commitments to start construction during the road period, predominately as a result of delays with the statutory planning process, and have been deferred to the next road period.
3.9 The revised plans mean that, of the 112 major schemes originally planned to start works in the first road period, 103 remain in the programme. Of these, Highways England now plans to have started at least 70 schemes by end of March 2020. It plans to start 26 during 2019-20. A high proportion of these is forecast to start in the last quarter of road period 1 which increases the risk that some will slip to road period 2.
______________________________________________________________________
13 Two schemes - the A34 Oxford junctions and A34 technology enhancements - have been re-scoped and combined into a single scheme. 14 Two are dependent on delivery by third parties. 15 This may increase depending on the outcome of the four schemes under review. Figure 3.2: Projected start of works in road period 1 3.10 The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. So, while fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, the costs associated with deferred work and stopped schemes are comparable to the under-funding.
3.11 The company’s forecast total cost for its RIS1 major schemes is currently £1.5bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than was originally planned. This is £1.4bn less than what was reported last year mainly due to increasing the baseline for the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet and A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening to reflect the significantly increased scope of these schemes. Overall forecast costs for RIS1 major schemes are reduced by £1.2bn compared to last year because Highways England is no longer reflecting within its baseline and forecast costs the part of the A303 from Amesbury to Berwick Down that was expected to be funded through private finance. Despite planning to deliver a lower number of major schemes, Highways England is still forecasting total costs that are £205m higher in this road period than its RIS1 funding. This has reduced from last year, when the difference was £438m. Highways England’s current assessment of risks and opportunities reduces the funding pressure to £100m by the end of road period 1.
Figure 3.3: Difference between forecast costs and funding for road period 1 Network condition
3.12 The condition of the strategic road network is monitored by a key performance indicator, which measures the percentage of road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance. At the end of 2018-19, 95.5% of the network did not require further investigation. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the 95.2% recorded in 2017-18. Data reported to us by Highways England shows that the condition of other assets on the network is broadly stable.
Figure 3.4: Network condition, 2014-15 to 2018-19
3.13 Highways England’s performance monitoring statements for 2018-19 have, for the first time, included data showing the company’s performance in maintaining the strategic road network. These statements help inform whether the company is doing enough maintenance and renewal on the network to counter degradation of its assets over time and managing its assets sustainably. It is a positive step that additional reporting on maintenance activity has been published. However, we asked for the published statement to include defects, such as potholes, and it does not yet do this. Reporting of defects would give transparency to the sort of issues that might affect the safety and satisfaction of road users and improve the line of sight between maintenance delivery and network condition. We will continue to work with the company during 2019-20 to resolve the challenge of defect reporting.
3.14 Highways England has a duty to inspect the condition of its structures to identify and plan maintenance and renewals work. During 2018-19 we raised our concern at the significant number of overdue detailed structures inspections. The company put in place a plan to address the backlog, and managed the number of overdue inspections down to 21 by the end of March. It has provided assurance that the outstanding overdue assets have received visual inspections and do not present a risk to users. It has also made improvements to its processes and procedures for managing and monitoring inspection performance going forward. Highways England has also shared progress against inspections for other assets, which we will monitor during 2019-20.
Maintenance and renewals
3.15 In the first three years of the road period, Highways England delivered renewals volumes that were generally higher than planned. In 2018-19, the company improved its management of maintenance and renewals, and delivered volumes that more closely reflected its plans (demonstrated in figure 3.5). Where changes to plans have affected delivery forecasts the company has taken positive steps in reporting the reasons for changes and what it is doing to manage the impact to its operations, maintenance and renewals.
Figure 3.5: volume of renewals delivered compared to annual delivery plan, 2015-16 to 2018-19 3.16 In 2018-19, the company delivered its renewals commitments in all assets types, except waterproofing and bridge bearings, where it delivered less than planned. Figure 3.6 demonstrates that Highways England has also shown improved in-year forecasting, and has reduced the high proportion of delivery in the 4th quarter of the year (January to March) that was observed in the three previous years.
3.17 There remain further opportunities for Highways England to improve its management of renewals work. These include assessing the impact of secondary outputs (where renewal outputs like kerbs and road markings are delivered against a pavement scheme) and the contribution that renewals delivered against enhancement projects have on annual delivery plans.
Ring-fenced funds
3.18 The RIS1 investment plan includes ring-fenced funds worth £675m to address a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of roads investment. These funds are split across five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; and growth and housing.
3.19 In 2018-19, Highways England spent £181m of its ring-fenced funds. This is the same amount it spent in the previous three years combined and brings the total spend in this road period to £362m. The programme remains heavily back-end loaded, with £313m (46%) of the funds to be invested in the final year of the road period. Highways England’s delivery programme for ring-fenced funds in 2019-20 sets out plans for how it will deliver this. It has plans in place for four of the funds, but there is particular risk that the company will not fully use the air quality fund.
3.20 At the end of 2018-19, Highways England had only spent £9m (13%) of the air quality fund, out of a total fund value of £75m. A large proportion of the proposed investment in the final year of road period 1 depends on delivering a number of air quality barriers to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels on sections of the network. The complexity of delivering these barriers, and the short time available to do so, is a substantial risk. 3.21 Highways England has responded positively to ORR’s in-depth review of ring-fenced funds, which we published in July 2018. It has strengthened leadership and resources for the programme, and improved transparency by redesigning the relevant section on its website to make it easier for external parties to contact the company. Better engagement with the Major Projects Directorate in 2018-19 has also been an important factor in increasing the pace of delivery. Highways England is now taking forward work to assess the benefits delivered through ring-fenced funds, and we will work with the company to understand the outcomes from this work, and what lessons can be learnt for RIS2.
Case study – Air Quality Barriers
- Highways England has identified air quality barriers as a potential solution to high nitrogen dioxide levels at some locations on the network.
- Research from the Netherlands shows measurable reductions in nitrogen dioxide concentrations behind the barrier.
- Highways England has commissioned feasibility tests at 12 locations on the network.
- If the feasibility testing is positive, ring-fenced funds will be used to deliver the barriers.
- However, the complexity of delivering the barriers, and the short time left in road period 1 to do so represents a risk to spending the air quality ring-fenced fund.
4. **EFFICIENCY**
Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels.
Highways England is reporting £848m of efficiency in the road period towards its target of £1.2bn by 2020. This is based on good evidence of actions taken. But broader measures capturing costs of outcomes do not fully support this level. It is vital that Highways England progresses work on capturing productivity improvements to support future efficiency reporting.
**Financial performance in 2018-19**
4.1 Highways England spent £3.8bn in 2018-19 which is above the agreed baseline funding for the year (reflecting the RIS funding gap), but £102m below its budget and in line with the Department for Transport’s agreed outturn position. Of this, £2.6bn was capital spend which included improvements to the network (£1.6bn), renewing infrastructure (£674m) and ring-fenced funds (£181m).
**Reported efficiency**
4.2 Highways England has a target to deliver £1.2bn of capital efficiency savings by the end of this road period. It reports efficiency based on capturing the actions it has taken and quantifying their impact – and it provides evidence of this in case studies. We have reviewed this case study evidence, and generally found it to be of good quality. The company, with its supply chain, has established good processes for reporting and internal challenge of this type of evidence.
4.3 Using this approach, Highways England has reported £362m additional efficiency during 2018-19 including some additional efficiency relating to prior years. The cumulative reported efficiency in the first four years of the road period is £848m, against an internal milestone of £722m. The efficiency reported to date is 17% ahead of its internal target and represents 70% of the target for the first road period.
4.4 The renewals programme makes the largest contribution (57%) to the company’s reported efficiency to date, followed by its smart motorways programme (26%) and its regional investment and complex infrastructure programmes (16%).
4.5 While Highways England has reported £848m of efficiency through case studies, we also test efficiency using other methods, as set out below, and these do not fully support the levels reported.
**Figure 4.1: Efficiency reported to date against target**
**Supporting evidence of efficiency**
4.6 In addition to reviewing bottom-up evidence of efficiency, we also judge Highways England’s efficiency using:
- Measures of productivity improvements based on unit costs; and
- An assessment of whether it has delivered the Road Investment Strategy within the funding provided.
**Unit costs**
4.7 Highways England has been working to develop efficiency models based on unit cost information. Its modelling of smart motorway efficiency is the most mature. We are content that this supports the reported £219m of efficiency.
4.8 The company has also developed a model for renewals efficiency. The model uses an improved unit cost approach which was first introduced in 2017-18 and has now been extended to cover 66% of its renewals spend. Highways England states that the outputs of this model support its reported renewals efficiency. For the first time in this road period, the outputs have been approved by Highways England’s Board16. However, there is not yet enough information to give a clear long-term trend in renewals unit costs. In addition, the company’s internal assurance review of the model identified risks related to data uncertainty. We will work with Highways England to carry out further analysis to validate the renewals model’s outputs before the end of this road period.
4.9 The company has yet to fully develop similar models for providing unit cost based evidence of efficiency for the regional investment and complex infrastructure programmes (16% of reported efficiencies).
4.10 It is vital that Highways England continues to progress work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements to support its efficiency reporting. This will also be required to establish better reporting in the second road period.
Delivery of the Road Investment Strategy
4.11 Highways England receives funding after the removal of expected efficiency. It can therefore support its efficiency claims by demonstrating that it has delivered its outputs, outcomes and schemes within its funding. However, providing evidence of this is not straight-forward for the following reasons:
- The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes, and the value of this over-programming was estimated at £652m. In addition, the RIS was set at a time when there was not a full understanding of scheme scope. Fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, and outturn costs for schemes have increased. The costs associated with deferred work and cancelled schemes are comparable to the under-funding, with approximately £30m of over-programming remaining.
- At the end of 2018-19, Highways England’s forecast costs for this road period exceeded its funding by £205m. It is working to reduce the gap in 2019-20 and there are a number of uncertainties to resolve which may require adjustments to this figure for the purposes of assessing efficiency at the end of road period 1.
- Highways England considers that it was underfunded by £600m for some of its business costs. This includes approximately £100m for delivering outputs not in RIS1. It also includes approximately £500m costs of developing the company’s capability and capacity. It has provided reasonable evidence of additional unfunded outputs, but evidence for underfunding of other business costs is more limited.
- Highways England also believes that it has delivered additional scope on some major schemes. Based on the evidence provided by the company to date, our assessment is that £157m of additional scope is being delivered in road period 1.
- Highways England recognises that it has benefited from lower inflation than was forecast and built into funding levels when RIS1 was established. We consider that it may have benefited by up to £685m; Highways England has yet to quantify this benefit, but believes it may be less.
4.12 We are working with Highways England to develop its efficiency evidence relating to delivery of the RIS. Our analysis of the evidence received to date suggests that the company may deliver approximately £600m of efficiency in road period 1, but this figure may change significantly, for example if the company provides improved evidence of the additional £500m of business costs. It is subject to provision of further information by Highways England and more analysis. We will review this further with Highways England in 2019-20 to understand the end of road period position.
16 In approving the outputs, Highways England’s Board recognised certain limitations in data quality. The model’s outputs are presented in Highways England’s performance monitoring statements as compliant with its Licence Framework and Document obligations. Our conclusions on efficiency
4.13 When weighing up all three areas of evidence, we consider that Highways England has more to do to support its reported £848m of efficiency. We expect it to produce better supporting evidence for the end of this road period.
4.14 Learning from the uncertainties set out above, it is essential that a better, fully-funded baseline plan is developed for RIS2, built on a clear understanding of scheme costs, timings and scope.
4.15 Our review of efficiency evidence is discussed in more detail in annex A. 5. PRIORITIES FOR 2019-20
5.1 The upcoming year is a particularly important one for Highways England, as it develops its plans for RIS2 whilst delivering its requirements for the final year of road period 1. Priority areas for Highways England to focus on in 2019-20 include:
- Building on its draft Strategic Business Plan for RIS2 to put plans in place, and develop its baseline position, for RIS2;
- Delivering its customer service improvement plan and taking action to minimise delay;
- Providing better evidence to support its claimed efficiencies;
- Managing a large number of major schemes starting in the final quarter of the year; and
- Delivering more through its ring-fenced funds programme than it has done previously.
Our monitoring
5.2 The transition from RIS1 to RIS2 is also informs our monitoring priorities in the year ahead. In 2019-20 we will:
- Continue to work with Highways England to monitor its performance, and hold it to account, for delivering its commitments in the final year of road period 1. This will inform our next annual assessment, which will focus on the company’s performance across the first road period as a whole.
- Review Highways England’s plans, and assess the company’s readiness, for delivering RIS2. ANNEX A: PERFORMANCE AGAINST OUTCOME AREAS
Outcome: Making the network safer
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve an ongoing reduction in network KSI (killed or seriously injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by the end of 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2018, the Department for Transport published adjusted road casualty statistics(^\\text{17}). This was in response to changes in how police forces record road casualty data.
Figure A1 compares adjusted and unadjusted KSIs on the strategic road network. The adjusted figures show 2,012 KSIs on the SRN in 2017, which is 159 higher than the 1,853 KSIs in the unadjusted data.
Reported KSIs for each year between 2005 and 2017 have increased as a result of the adjustment. The baseline period for the target (2005 to 2009) is subject to larger increases than in more recent years. This is because as more police forces move to new systems for recording road casualty data, less adjustment to the data series is required. Therefore, the improvement against the baseline is now greater.
Figure A1: Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network, adjusted and unadjusted figures, 2005-2017
(^{17}) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2017 than previously reported – the adjusted figures show that Highways England has achieved a 32% reduction in in KSIs in 2017, compared to a 20% reduction under the unadjusted figures.
The number of fatalities reported each year is unaffected by the data changes. In 2017, there were 236 deaths on the strategic road network, which is five (2%) higher than in 2016.
The Department for Transport expects to publish its latest reported road casualty statistics, for 2018, in July 2019.
Performance indicators
Safety star rating: Highways England has a target to achieve 90% of travel on roads given a 3-star rating, or above, for safety. It estimates that 95% of travel was on roads rated at least 3-star in 2018-19 – putting it on track to meet this target for the end of road period 1. It is now taking forward work to update the star rating of the network, moving from the current 4-star model to a new 5-star model.
Casualty numbers for all-purpose trunk roads: The Department for Transport’s road casualty statistics are used to monitor this performance indicator. Figures for all casualties are unaffected by the revisions to KSIs.
In 2017, there were 7,295 casualties of all severities on Highways England’s A-roads. This is a 14% reduction on the previous year, and the lowest total recorded in road period 1 so far.
Incident numbers on motorways: In 2018-19 there were 58,680 incidents on the motorway network. This is a 5% increase on the previous year. The three most common contributory factors to casualties on motorways in 2017 were ‘loss of control’, a ‘failure to look properly’ and a ‘failure to judge other person’s path or speed’.
Accident frequency rates: Highways England reports accident frequency rates as the ratio of Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation (RIDDOR) accidents per 100,000 hours worked.
For construction and maintenance workers in Highways England’s supply chain, the accident frequency rate was 0.05 in 2018-19. This is down from 0.12 in the previous year, and below the company’s internal target.
Figure A3: Accident frequency rate for constructions and maintenance workers, 2015-16 to 2018-19
For Highways England’s operations directorate – which includes the traffic officer service – the accident frequency rate was 0.07. This is also a reduction from last year’s figure (0.43), and below the company’s internal target.
Figure A4: Accident frequency rate for customer operations directorate, 2015-16 to 2018-19 Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A5: User satisfaction with the strategic road network, 2018-19
Highways England’s satisfaction scores are calculated from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). The overall satisfaction measure was 88.4% in 2018-19, below the target of 90% and lower than the 88.7% recorded in 2017-18.
Performance indicators
NRUSS scores for motorways and all purpose trunk roads: Satisfaction with all purpose trunk roads fell 1 percentage point to 89.1% in 2018-19. Satisfaction on motorways increased by 0.3 percentage points to 87.8%
Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS: The NRUSS asks respondents about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the strategic road network: journey times; roadworks management; general upkeep; signage; and safety. Satisfaction with roadworks, which consistently scores lower than the other elements, saw the largest increase in 2018-19 (+2.4 percentage points). Satisfaction with general upkeep recorded the largest decrease (-1.7 percentage points). Figure A6: Satisfaction with different elements of the journey
Figure A7: NRUSS scores by location: The map shows a regional breakdown of NRUSS satisfaction.
In 2018-19, satisfaction was above 90% in the East and North East regions but was below 90% in all the other regions. Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A8: Lane availability on the strategic road network, 2018-19
Network availability is a measure of the length of road lanes that are open to traffic as a percentage of the total length of road lanes on the network. Performance is calculated over a rolling year.
At the end of 2018-19, network availability on the strategic road network was 98.3%, which is the same as the previous year, and above the target of 97%. Key performance indicator: Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green |
Figure A9: Incident clearance, 2018-19
The incident management key performance indicator measures the proportion of incidents on Highways England’s motorway network that it clears within one hour. At the end of 2018-19, the company cleared 88% of incidents within an hour – above the target of 85%.
Performance indicators
Traffic on the strategic road network: In 2018, 94.7bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network. This is 0.7% higher than in 2017, and the highest volume recorded to date. However, the rate of growth is lower than in previous years.
Figure A10: Traffic on the strategic road network, 2000 to 2018
Planning time index: The planning time index measures the additional time that road users should allow for their journey to arrive on time 19 times out of 20. It is calculated by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free flow journey time.
In 2018-19, the planning time index was 1.67, which is slightly lower than the figure recorded in 2017-18 (1.69). This indicates that the most delayed journeys on the network were slightly better in 2018-19 than in 2017-18.
Acceptable journeys: This measures the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flow speed. In 2018-19, 82.7% of journeys were above this threshold. This is slightly lower than the previous year, when 83.2% of journeys were above 75% of the free-flow speed.
Average speed: In 2018-19, average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 59 miles per hour. This is lower than in 2017-18 when the average speed was 59.2 miles per hour. Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A11: Average delay on the strategic road network
Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by average delay on the strategic road network.
In the year to March 2019, average delay was 9.4 seconds per vehicle mile. This is equivalent to a trip of 100 miles taking almost 16 minutes longer than on a free-flowing network. Average delay has increased each year during road period 1, which is likely to be related to increased traffic, and Highways England undertaking more improvement work as part of its investment programme.
Performance indicators
Average delay on gateway routes: Gateway routes are a subset of the strategic road network, comprising key connections linking cities and industry with the busiest ports, airports, and rail freight services. Delay on these routes in 2018-19 was 9 seconds per vehicle mile – an increase from 8.7 seconds in 2017-18.
Responding to formal planning applications: In 2018-19, Highways England responded to 99.9% of planning applications within 21 days. This is above the company’s internal target of 99%.
Spend on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs): Highways England estimates that its expenditure on goods and services from SMEs was 26%. The government target for spend on SMEs is 25%. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A12: Mitigating noise important areas
Highways England mitigated 300 noise important areas in 2018-19
Highways England has a target to mitigate 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2018-19, the company mitigated 300 noise important areas, bringing the total to 951 in this road period. It must now mitigate at least 199 further areas in 2019-20 to meet its target for the road period.
The majority of noise important areas have been mitigated through Highways England’s noise insulation programme, which offers to install double glazing to affected properties.
Figure A13: number of noise important areas mitigated, by intervention type
\*Includes households that have declined/not responded to offer of insulation Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period 2018-19 status: Green RIS1 status: Green
Figure A14: Delivering the biodiversity action plan
In 2018-19: • 25 grassland schemes, delivering 100 hectares of grassland. • 10 management plans for sites of special scientific interest.
Highways England continues to make progress in delivering the commitments set out in its biodiversity action plan. Key areas of progress during the year have included: • Producing 10 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate. It has now met its commitment to develop 40 in this road period. • Completing 25 grassland schemes, delivering almost 100 hectares of grassland. • Trialling its new biodiversity metric.
Performance indicators
Air quality pilot studies: In 2018-19 Highways England has progressed a scheme with Leeds City Council to encourage uptake of electric vans. The company completed 10 air quality studies in 2017-18, and expects to publish conclusions later in 2019.
Carbon dioxide (Highways England’s activities): In 2018-19, Highways England reported that its activities resulted in the emission of 72,302 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 14% lower than in 2017-18, and a 24% reduction from the start of this road period.
Carbon dioxide (supply chain): In 2018-19, emissions from Highways England’s supply chain were estimated at 293,684 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 15% higher than reported in 2017-18. However, variability in the completeness of returns means that comparisons between years should be treated with caution.
Figure A15: Carbon dioxide emissions for Highways England and supply chain, 2014-15 to 2018-19
Number of flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated: Highways England mitigated 35 flooding hotspots in 2018-19; no culverts were mitigated. The company has now mitigated 208 flooding hotspots and nine culverts in the first road period.
Number of outfalls and soakaways mitigated: Highways England contributed to improving water quality in watercourses close to the strategic road network by mitigating six outfalls in 2018-19. The company has now mitigated 16 outfalls in this road period. No soakaways have been mitigated in the road period to date. Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2018-19, Highways England delivered 29 new and 54 upgraded crossings for cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users. The company has now delivered 90 new and 182 upgraded crossings in the road period.
Figure A16: New and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2018-19.
29 new and 54 upgraded crossings for vulnerable users delivered in 2018-19.
Performance indicators
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme: Highways England delivered 22 cycling schemes during 2018-19. It has now delivered 101 in the road period and expects to meet its commitment of delivering 150 cycle schemes in the first road period.
Vulnerable user casualties: Road casualty data for 2018 are not yet available. Figures for 2015 to 2017 are shown below for reference.
Figure A17: Vulnerable user casualties (all severities), 2015 to 2017
| | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |----------|------|------|------| | Motorcyclists | 849 | 864 | 760 | | Pedal cyclists | 153 | 152 | 137 | | Pedestrians | 158 | 154 | 153 | Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.2bn over the first road period.
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels.
In 2018-19 Highways England reported that it had identified £362m new efficiencies in the road period to date, bringing the cumulative reported efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first four years of road period 1 to £848m. This is 70% of the KPI target to deliver £1.2bn of efficiencies by 2020, and is £126m (17%) ahead of the company’s internal capital efficiency delivery plan milestone for 2018-19.
Figure A18: Efficiency reported to date against target
Highways England reports efficiency improvements as set out in the Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM). There are three components to our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements. These are analysis of:
1. Highways England’s bottom-up description of efficiency improvements;
2. Capital unit cost movements; and
3. Expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the road investment strategy.
Bottom-up description of efficiency achieved
Highways England has presented case study evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver efficiency. Analysis of the contribution to the efficiency target split by theme and programme type is shown in figures A19 and A20. As in previous years, the scheduling of schemes and adoption of lean techniques account for over half of efficiencies reported, with a combined total of 53% to the end of 2018-19.
We found the case study evidence presented to be of a generally good standard and represents significant effort by the company and its supply chain to deliver efficiency.
Figure A19: Proportion of efficiency reported by theme, at end 2018-19 Figure A20: Proportion of efficiency reported by programme type, at end 2018-19
Figure A20 shows 57% of efficiencies reported to date are related to the renewals programme. Figure A21 shows that the proportion of renewals efficiencies contributing to the target is reducing over time. In the first three years of road period 1, renewals efficiencies accounted for at least 56% of the value attributed to each year. In 2018-19 the proportion of efficiencies related to other programmes, such as the Smart Motorway Programme and Complex Infrastructure Programme, increased and the renewals proportion declined to 37%. It is likely that this in part reflects that major schemes makes up an increasingly large part of the company’s capital programme (60% in 2018-19 compared to 50% in 2015-16).
Unit costs
Highways England has been working to develop efficiency models based on unit cost information. Its modelling of smart motorway efficiency is the most mature. We are content that this supports the reported £218.8m of efficiency.
The company has also developed a model for renewals efficiency. The model uses an improved unit cost approach which was first introduced in 2017-18, and has now been extended to cover 66% of its renewals spend. Highways England states that the outputs of this model provide evidence for £358m efficiency being generated from renewals thereby supporting the reported £319m renewals efficiency reported bottom-up using case-studies(^\\text{19}). The company has also carried out an internal assurance review of the model and for the first time in the road period the model’s outputs are presented in its performance monitoring statements as compliant with its Licence Framework and Document obligations. However, there is not yet enough information to give a clear long-term trend in renewals unit costs. We will work with Highways England to review the model in more depth to carry out further analysis and validation before the end of the road period.
Figure A21: Contribution to efficiency by programme type (excludes small value claims(^\\text{19}))
______________________________________________________________________
(^{18}) From analysis of case-study evidence provided. Excludes £75.5m of ‘small claims’ below £750,000 for which case-studies are not provided.
(^{19}) Highways England has adjusted the bottom-up value to remove efficiency that does not impact on unit costs and for other factors to enable a like for like comparison with the unit cost generated value. During 2018-19, Highways England developed similar models for providing unit cost based evidence of efficiency for the regional investment and complex infrastructure programmes (16% of reported efficiencies). The company continues to develop these models, which are not yet sufficiently robust to be used to provide evidence of efficiency.
It is vital that in 2019-20 Highways England continues to progress work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements to support its efficiency reporting. This will also be required to establish better reporting in the second road period.
**Delivery of the Road Investment Strategy**
Highways England receives funding after the removal of expected efficiency. It can therefore support its efficiency claims by demonstrating that it has delivered its outputs, outcomes and schemes within the funding provided. However, providing evidence of this is not straightforward for the following reasons:
- The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. In common with practice adopted by the Highways Agency, more schemes were programmed than could be delivered for the funding in the expectation of some scheme deferral, or stopping low value for money schemes. The value of overprogramming at the start of road period 1 has been estimated to be £652m. Our monitoring of the actual/forecast costs of schemes that have been deferred or stopped through formal change control suggests there is currently £32m of overprogramming remaining within the RIS1 programme.
- When the RIS was set, several schemes were at very early stage of development (pre-options), and their scope was not well defined. So, while fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, and outturn costs for schemes have increased, the costs associated with deferred work and stopped schemes are comparable to the under-funding.
- At the end of 2018-19, Highways England’s forecast costs for road period 1 exceeded its funding by £205m. It is working to reduce the gap in 2019-20 and the company has identified future risks and opportunities which could reduce the gap to £100m.
- Highways England believes that it has delivered additional scope on some major schemes beyond the level expected for its funding.
This takes the form of additional outputs or improved outcomes (e.g. increased specification of a major scheme or measures to improve road user safety). Based on the evidence provided by Highways England to date our assessment is that additional major scheme scope of £157m is being delivered within this road period.
- Highways England considers that it was underfunded by £600m for some of its business costs. This includes approximately £100m for delivering outputs not in RIS1, consisting of: introduction of a revised safe system of access on Smart Motorway schemes; incorporation of emergency refuge areas to Smart Motorways; changes to M6 junctions 16-19 traffic management strategy; HS2 futureproofing work; and support to develop changes to the private finance funding programme. It also includes approximately £500m costs of developing Highways England’s capacity and capability to deliver a substantial increase in the capital portfolio). The company has provided reasonable evidence of additional unfunded outputs however the evidence for underfunding of other business costs is more limited. Further work is required with both Highways England and the Department for Transport in 2019-20 to resolve this issue.
- Highways England recognises that it has benefited from lower inflation than was forecast and built into funding levels when RIS1 was established, but has not yet quantified it. Based on information shared by the company to date we consider that it may have benefited by up to £685m. Highways England believes it is less and is preparing further evidence. The degree to which the company has benefited will depend on both the timing of contract renewal and approach to sharing inflation risk in its supplier contracts.
We are working with Highways England to develop its evidence for efficiency from delivery of the RIS. Our analysis of the evidence received to date in this area suggests that the company may deliver approximately £600m of efficiency in the road period but this figure may change significantly, for example if the company provides improved evidence of the additional £500m of business costs.
Both we and Highways England recognise that this analysis needs further refinement to support a more robust view of efficiency for the end of this road period. Figure A22: ORR provisional assessment of delivery of RIS1 efficiency evidence received to date Our conclusions on efficiency
When weighing up all of the evidence, we consider that Highways England has more to do to support its reported £848m of efficiency. In particular, it is important that for the end of road period 1 it:
1. continues to progress work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements; and
2. provides further efficiency evidence of delivering the RIS within funding and, where required, to support its case demonstrating with evidence areas of claimed underfunding and the impact of inflation on its costs.
Learning from the uncertainties set out above, it is essential that a better, fully-funded baseline plan is developed for RIS2, built on a clear understanding of scheme costs, timings and scope.
Input price effects
Highways England’s funding for capital projects in 2018-19 included an additional 5% for forecast increases in the costs of the company’s inputs (i.e. materials and labour costs). It has since commissioned work to provide a long-term inflation profile specific to the work contained in the RIS. The company used this to produce its own cost indices for actual year on year inflation in 2018-19 of 3.0% for enhancements and 3.5% for renewals. The degree to which Highways England has benefited from lower inflation than assumed in its funding will depend on both the timing of contract renewal and approach to sharing inflation risk in its supplier contracts.
As discussed above, for the purposes of assessing efficiency evidence related to delivery of the RIS we have estimated that Highways England has benefited by up to £685m. We will work with Highways England to review the inflation benefit and impact on efficiency before the end of the road period 1.
Performance Indicators
We also monitor Highways England’s performance in the construction phase of major scheme delivery using two earned value measures:
Cost performance index
The cost performance index (CPI) is commonly used in the construction industry as a measure of earned value. It is the ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to date to actual cost to date. In 2018-19 Highways England reported a CPI of 0.98 (0.96 in 2017-18) which is an indication that overall, projects in construction are progressing slightly above target cost.
Schedule performance index
The schedule performance index (SPI) is a similar measure of progress against the agreed schedule. It measures the relationship between the budgeted cost of work to date and the value scheduled to be delivered to date. In 2018-19 Highways England reported a SPI of 1.01 consistent with the level supported in 2017-18 which indicates that overall projects in construction are ahead of schedule.
In 2018-19, Highways England reviewed how it collects CPI and SPI data. Following this, the company has put improved processes in place, and expects to report more robust data in 2019-20. In 2018-19, Highways England started works on four major improvement schemes. It originally had a commitment to start work on six, but this was revised to four through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process.
The company completed six of the seven schemes that were planned to open in 2018-19; the delayed scheme is now expected to open in 2019.
In the first four years of this road period, Highways England has started work on 28 schemes, and opened 29 schemes to traffic.
Our full assessment of Highways England’s progress relative to its delivery plan is set out in chapter 3, and annex C of this report. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green |
Figure A25: Pavement condition
At the end of 2018-19, Highways England reports that 95.5% of its pavement (road) asset did not require further investigation for maintenance. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the score of 95.2% recorded in 2017-18.
Performance indicators
Structures assets: Highways England has continued to improve its structures inventory information, which is now 98.3% complete. This is an improvement of 0.1 percentage point from 2017-18.
The condition of Highways England’s structures is measured by three performance indicators. The first two – the average condition of the stock (SCav), and the condition of the assets’ most critical elements (SCcrit) – show a slight improvement in 2018-19, compared to 2017-18. The third indicator – the percentage of structures which have been inspected and rated as ‘good’ (SCI) – is similar to last year’s score.
Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 97.2% of its geotechnical assets do not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2018-19. This is similar to the position reported at the end of 2017-18.
Drainage assets: Highways England reports that it has drainage inventory data for 91% of its network, which is an improvement of 3 percentage points from its 2017-18 position. The percentage of the network with drainage condition data is 33% in 2018-19, down from 34% in 2017-18.
Technology asset availability: The availability of operational technology assets is measured by the percentage of time lost by service affecting faults. During 2018-19 performance has been reported as above Highways England’s targets for all three technology systems: control centre technology, national roads telecommunications services technology and roadside technology. Figure A26: Summary of asset performance indicators in 2018-19 and trend for road period 1
| Asset | PI | 2018-19 | RP1 Trend | |---------------------|---------------------------|---------|-----------| | **Geotech** | | | | | Condition | 97.2% | ▲ | | | Inventory | 12,987 km | ▼ | | | Control Centre | 99.97% | ▲ | | | **Technology** | | | | | **Availability** | | | | | National Roads | 99.99% | ▲ | | | Telecommunications | | | | | Services | | | | | Roadside | 98.60% | ▲ | | | **Drainage** | | | | | Inventory Coverage | 91% | ▲ | | | Condition Coverage | 33% | ▼ | | | **Structures** | | | | | Inventory | 98.3% | ▲ | | | Condition average (SCav) | 85.35 | ▲ | | | Condition critical (SCcrit) | 63.38 | ▲ | | | Rating of ‘good’ (SCI) | 79.8% | ▲ | |
Key: Relative to position in 2017-18 - ▲ increase ▼ no change ▼ decrease ANNEX B: FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
This annex sets out a summary of our assessment of Highways England’s financial performance during 2018-19.
Financial performance
In 2018-19 Highways England’s agreed baseline funding was £3,794m, with £1,086m allocated to operational expenditure and £2,708m capital expenditure. Funding for major schemes increased by 38% reflecting several large smart motorway schemes moving in to construction in March 2018.
Figure B1: Highways England funding: Delivery plan update 2018-19 Capital
Highways England ended 2017-18 with a gap of £438m between its forecast expenditure for RIS1 and the available funding. The company developed plans to reduce this gap to £274m, of which £266m related to expenditure pressure in 2018-19.
In 2018-19 the Department for Transport adjusted Highways England capital baseline funding from £2,708m to £2,588m. This reflected a repayment of unused funding for the cancelled M20 Lorry Park and additional funding for Operation Brock(^2). However, the company set its capital budget at £2,854m, reflecting its latest plans. Therefore it was necessary for the company to spend below this level to help close the RIS funding gap.
In early 2018-19 Highways England set a cost challenge to its Operations and Major Projects directorates and successfully reduced capital expenditure by £109m by quarter 2 allowing it to set a revised capital budget of £2,745m in November 2018. Through further management of expenditure in-year the outturn capital expenditure for the year was £2,650m, £96m below the revised budget, but £62m above the funding allocated for the year. The company had agreed this outturn position with the Department for Transport in setting its revised budget and was consistently forecasting this position since November 2018.
Significant variances compared to revised budget are shown in figure B3 and are summarised below:
- Renewals overspend of £7m (1%) driven in part by cost pressures in Highways England’s East and North West regions, and higher than anticipated renewals work on M3 junctions 2-4a project. During the year, Highways England has offset cost pressures from the M5 Oldbury Viaduct, Manchester Smart Motorway Programme and the network recovery programme in the East region through planned reductions in programmes in other regions.
- Improvements underspend of £43m were largely due the effect of differences in timing of scheme delivery compared to budget assumptions.
Figure B2: Capital expenditure compared to baseline and budget in 2018-19
(^2) Operation Brock is a set of measures to keep the M20 open in both directions between junction 8 and 9 in the event of disruption to services across the English Channel. (rescheduling of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon and delays on M20 junctions 3-5, M27 junctions 4-11, M62 junctions 10-12). These have been partially offset by acceleration of M4 junctions 3-12, and additional costs to meet the open for traffic commitment date on the A19 Coast Road and M6 junctions 16-19. As in previous years, a high proportion of schemes (58%) reported an overspend or underspend variance greater than 20%.
- Ring-fenced funds underspent by £20m, driven by an underspend on the growth and housing fund due to planned deferral of work to 2019-20.
- Other capital underspend of £39m in part due to: deferral and delay of 23 (out of 326) safety programme and congestion relief schemes; savings on the roll out of the asset delivery approach; and delays on purchasing of depots and works on operational buildings.
Figure B3: Capital expenditure compared to revised budget, 2018-19
Highways England’s underspend to its revised budget of £96m (3%) and original budget of £204m (7%) has helped reduce the RIS1 funding gap. However it is important to note that the underspend has been delivered in part because of delay or planned deferral of £179m work to 2019-20. Whilst £61m of work was accelerated by bringing it forward from 2019-20, the net impact of these effects is £118m of the 2018-19 funding gap pressure moving in to 2019-20. The programmes making the largest contribution to the timing effects are planned deferral of safety and congestion relief schemes, the growth and housing fund projects and 14 major schemes. There have also been unplanned delays on 11 smart motorways, junction widening and bypass schemes. This has been offset by acceleration of M4 junctions 3-12 and Lower Thames Crossing.
Highways England has reduced the RIS1 funding gap from £438m in 2017-18 to £205m in 2018-19. After reflecting forecast risks and opportunities the expected gap reduces further, to £100m. We estimate that £86m of the reduction from 2017-18 is a result of net savings in 2018-19. The remainder is due to the impact of changes to the major schemes programme, agreed with the Department for Transport. Resource
In 2018-19, Highways England identified a resource spending need of £1,106m. However, the Department for Transport set a budget challenge of £20m and provided baseline funding of £1,086m. After identifying internal savings in-year, the department reduced the budget challenge by £9m and provided £1,096m resource funding. Highways England set its budget at £1,107m and worked to underspend the budget to align with its funding.
Highways England spent £1,101m during 2018-19, underspending its budget by £6m (0.6%). The Department for Transport was content with the outturn position at £5m (0.4%) above its funding. The outturn reflected overspends of £31m on maintenance due to lower income and higher electricity costs, and £21m on support costs including unrecoverable VAT. This was offset by underspends on PFI of £29m due to lower traffic volumes and refinancing, and savings on general support of £16m including the Severn Crossing tolling contract. ANNEX C: NETWORK INVESTMENT DELIVERY
This annex describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2018-19, including ring-fenced funds. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
The road investment strategy sets the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England must deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlines a five-year capital funding package of £12.2 billion for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This includes:
- a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7.8 billion;
- a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.7 billion;
- a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and
- investment associated with strategic studies.
We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the investment plan.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2018-19
Highways England’s progress in delivery of its capital programme during 2018-19 is shown in figure C1.
The company started construction on four schemes in 2018-19. It originally had a commitment to start work on six but this was revised to five through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. Of the six schemes originally planned to start in 2018-19, two started construction on schedule, and one, the M27 junctions 4-11 scheme, started two quarters ahead of schedule. Of the remaining three:
- two schemes were formally deferred to minimise road user disruption around the Manchester area – the M56 junctions 6-8 and M6 junctions 21A-26. Highways England is now planning to start construction of the M56 junctions 6-8 in 2019-20 and the M6 junctions 21A-26 scheme will start in the next road period.
- One scheme (A47 and A12 junction enhancements) did not start as planned and is under review due to the impact of the construction of the third river crossing in Great Yarmouth by Norfolk County Council (but no change has been formally agreed).
During 2018-19, Highways England also started construction of one further scheme that had been re-scoped and had its start of works revised to 2018-19 – the A1 North of Ellingham.
Of the seven schemes that were planned to open for traffic in 2018-19, five were delivered on schedule and one (A50 Uttoxeter) was completed one quarter ahead of schedule. The M20 junction 10a, which was expected to open in 2018-19, is delayed due to an extended construction programme to carry out significant gas mains diversion works. This scheme is forecast to open in 2019-20 quarter 3.
One scheme that was delayed from 2017-18 (M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway) was opened for traffic in July 2018, 10 months later than planned due to scope extensions, including improvement to asset condition to avoid subsequent maintenance. Figure C1: Major scheme delivery in 2018-19
| 2018-19 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |----------------------|----------------|-------------| | Major schemes start of works | | | | M27 junctions 4-11 | 2018-19 Q3 | 2018-19 Q1 (ahead of schedule) | | A1 (North of Ellingham) | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q3 (ahead of revised schedule) | | A500 Etruria widening | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | A19 Testos | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M56 junctions 6-8 | 2018-19 Q4 | formally deferred within RP1 through change control | | M6 junctions 21A-26 | 2018-19 Q4 | formally deferred within RP2 through change control | | A47 and A12 junction enhancements | 2018-19 Q4 | under review and therefore missed its committed date | | Major schemes open for traffic | | | | A50 Uttoxeter | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q3 (ahead of schedule) | | M1 junctions 24-25 | 2018-19 Q3 | 2018-19 Q3 | | M1 junctions 23A-24 | 2018-19 Q3 | 2018-19 Q3 | | A19 Coast Road | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M6 junctions 16-19 | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M5 junctions 5, 6 & 7 junction upgrades | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20: Smart Motorway | 2017-18 Q2 | 2018-19 Q2 | | M20 junction 10a | 2018-19 Q4 | delayed, forecast 2019-20 Q3 |
Key:
- Milestone due or achieved on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone due or achieved one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone due or achieved more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone changed
Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2018-19 is shown in figure C2. This shows an underspend of £48.7m for schemes under construction, mostly due to planned deferral and delay on several schemes, and also cost savings on the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme. This was a result of works being rescheduled in year, which removed weather-related delays and the need for winter earth works.
Figure C2 also shows an overspend of £38.3m against schemes which opened for traffic during the year. This is largely due to additional costs associated with achieving the planned opening date for a number of schemes.
Figure C2: Major schemes costs against budget in 2018-19, £m
| Scheme stage (end of 2018-19) | Budget 2018-19 | In-year costs 2018-19 | Variance | % over / (under) | |-------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|----------|-----------------| | Under construction | 1,003.3 | 954.6 | (48.7) | -5% | | Open for traffic | 207.3 | 245.5 | 38.3 | 18% | During 2018-19, Highways England has made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed eight schemes from options into development. In the first four years of road period 1, Highways England has started construction of 28 schemes and opened 29 for traffic. At the end of March 2019, there were 15 schemes under construction on the network. Figure C3 shows progress of major schemes in the first four years of RP1.
**Figure C3: Progress of schemes through development and construction in RP1**
**Delivery of major improvement schemes in the rest of road period 1**
Since the start of road period 1 Highways England has improved its scheduling of major schemes, with particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road used experience. In 2017-18 Highways England made changes to optimise its enhancement plan, by considering the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations (road corridors) to reduce customer disruption. During 2018-19 Highways England continued to review its capital plan.
As a result, some major improvement schemes are now programmed for delivery in future road periods, while other schemes have been brought forward within road period 1. Further changes were introduced for other reasons. The following two schemes have been stopped:
- A27 Chichester – due to no clear consensus on the preferred options.
- A628 Climbing Lanes – due to the detrimental environmental impacts of the proposed scheme within the Peak District National Park.
Highways England has also identified four schemes that, due to delays with the statutory planning process, will miss the RIS1 commitments to start construction during this road period.
The company has agreed the changes to its commitments in the RIS and delivery plan with government and has taken these through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. Figures C4 and C5 summarise the changes to the major improvements programme agreed to the end of 2018-19. Figure C4: Projected start of works in road period 1
### Figure C5: Changes to the major improvements programme
| Schedule Impact | Number of schemes | Remarks | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Schemes paused that do not currently demonstrate value for money (formally agreed) | 6 | A1 & A19 Technology enhancements<br>M62/M606 Chain Bar<br>M53 Junctions 5-11: smart motorway<br>M11 Junctions 8 to 14 - technology upgrade<br>A12 whole-route technology upgrade<br>A14 Junction 10a | | Stopped (formally agreed) due to lack of stakeholder support | 2 | A27 Chichester<br>A628 Climbing Lanes | | Under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form (but not yet formally changed) | 4 | A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement<br>A47 and A12 junction enhancements<br>M56 new junction 11a<br>M6 junction 22 upgrade | | Start of works deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 to minimise road user disruption | 16 | 15 road corridor schemes<br>M6 junctions 21A-26 | | Start of works deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 due to other factors, for example an outcome of public consultations and schemes' options appraisals | 9 | M54 to M6 / M6 Toll,<br>A38 Derby junctions<br>A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down<br>A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet<br>M5 Bridgwater junctions<br>A5036 Princess Way - access to Port of Liverpool<br>A19 Down Hill Lane junction improvement<br>A358 Taunton to Southfields<br>M27 Southampton junctions | | Missed commitments – schemes that will miss the RIS1 commitments to start construction during RP1 and have been deferred to the next road period | 4 | A1 Morpeth to Ellingham<br>Mottram Moor link road<br>A57(T) to A57 link road<br>A27 Arundel bypass | | Schemes re-scoped and combined | 1 | A34 Oxford improvements (previously A34 Oxford junctions and A34 technology enhancements) |
The six schemes that the Department for Transport has agreed to pause, the two it has agreed to cancel, and two that have been combined into a single scheme, result in the RIS1 major schemes programme being reduced from 112 to 103 projects. Four further schemes are under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form. Highways England is now planning to have started at least 70 schemes by the end of March 2020.
The company is expecting to start construction of 26 schemes during the last year of road period 1 which includes two schemes - the M11 junction 7a upgrade and A5 Towcester improvement schemes - which are dependent on third parties. In 2019-20, Highways England is also planning to open for traffic eight schemes, including the scheme delayed from 2018-19 (M20 junction 10a).
The likely major scheme delivery status for the remainder of the first road period is summarised in figure C6.
### Figure C6: Major scheme delivery – first road period, construction phase
| Phase | Original delivery plan commitments (2015-20) | Progress | No. | Details | Status | |----------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Start of works | | Started | 44 | 16 started construction prior to road period 1 | | | | | | | 28 started in the first four years of road period 1 | | | | | On schedule | 26 | 24 as planned | | | | | | | 2 schemes subject to third party schedule of works | | | | | Under review | 4 | 4 schemes under review (not yet formally changed) and we consider unlikely to go ahead in their current form | | | | | Missed commitments | 4 | 4 schemes forecast to miss RP1 commitments | | | | | Approved changes | 34 | 1 scheme progressing on the A34 as a result of combining and re-scoping 2 existing schemes on the road | | | | | | | 6 low VfM schemes - paused | | | | | | | 2 schemes stopped | | | | | | | 25 deferred from RP1 to RP2 | | | Open for traffic | | Opened | 29 | 29 opened for traffic in the first four years of the road period | | | | | On schedule | 7 | as planned | | | | | Delayed | 1 | M20 Junction 10a (delayed from 2018-19) | |
**Key:**
- Milestone due or achieved on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone due or achieved one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone changed
- Milestone due or achieved more than one quarter behind schedule
The company has taken steps during road period 1 to smooth the profile of RIS1 projects. However, it plans to start construction on 26 schemes during 2019-20, of which a high proportion will be in the final quarter of the road period. This is a considerable increase compared with typical delivery during the road period. There are risks around Highways England starting work on all of these projects to the planned timescales. For example, for many of these projects, the planned length of the development phase required to start construction is shorter than the typical development period duration. Any delays to the start of work for these projects could have knock-on effects during road period 2, in terms of the planned expenditure profile and enhancement project completion dates.
**Maintenance and renewals**
Highways England is taking a more structured approach to managing its assets and has improved how it manages and reports maintenance and renewals. The company has maintained the condition of its network in 2018-19, as measured by the RIS metrics. The score for its key performance indicator on road condition has improved, and the condition of other asset types, where measured, is broadly stable.
______________________________________________________________________
21 This may increase depending on the outcome of the four schemes under review. Maintenance and inspections
Highways England’s performance monitoring statements for 2018-19 have, for the first time, included data showing the company’s performance in maintaining the strategic road network. These statements help inform whether the company is doing enough maintenance and renewal on the network to counter degradation of its assets over time and managing its assets sustainably. It is a positive step that additional reporting on maintenance activity has been published. However, we asked for the published statement to include defects, such as potholes, and it does not yet do this. Reporting of defects would give transparency to the sort of issues that might affect the safety and satisfaction of road users and improve the line of sight between maintenance delivery and network condition. We will continue to work with the company during 2019-20 to resolve the challenge of defect reporting.
In a typical year, Highways England completes around 11,000 inspections of its structures assets. During 2018-19 we raised our concern at the significant number of overdue detailed structures inspections – approximately 3,500 in August 2018. The company put in place a plan to address the backlog, and managed the number of overdue inspections down to 21 by the end of March. It has provided assurance that the outstanding overdue assets have received visual inspections and do not present a risk to users, as well as improvements to its processes and procedures for managing and monitoring inspection performance going forward. Highways England has also shared progress against inspections for other assets, which we will monitor during 2019-20.
Asset management
We completed an in-depth review into Highways England’s management of roadside technology assets in June 2019. The objective of the review was to determine whether the company manages its roadside technology assets safely, robustly, sustainably and efficiently.
The review looked at how Highways England operates over 100,000 roadside technology assets, worth £4bn, across the strategic road network through national and regional control centres, its telecommunications network and its regional maintenance operations. It found that the company recognises the increasing importance of roadside technology as an asset to support its network operator role, its Digital Roads agenda and three imperatives: safety, customer service and delivery. The review identified that it should continue to develop its whole life cycle processes to manage roadside technology assets and makes a number of recommendations to support its objectives.
The completion of our review of Highways England’s asset management approach to technology assets completes our review of its main asset types over the last three years. We will work with the company in 2019-20 to understand how it is responding to the recommendations made across all the reviews and to map out its approach to continued asset management maturity. Renewals
In 2018-19, Highways England delivered renewal volumes that more closely reflected its plans at the start of the year. The company met its planned volumes against all but two asset types, bridge waterproofing and bridge bearings. This is shown in figure C7 below.
Figure C7: volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2018-19
| 2018-19 Commitments | Planned Output | Actual Output | Output Variance | |--------------------------------------|----------------|---------------|-----------------| | Renewal of roads - pavement | | | | | Pavement (lane kilometres) | 1,800 | 1,940 | +8% | | Traffic Signs (number) | 1,000 | 1,829 | +83% | | Guardrail (kilometres) | 0.625 | 1.0 | +58% | | Kerbs (kilometres) | 26.8 | 39.8 | +48% | | Boundary Fencing (kilometres) | 35.8 | 48.2 | +35% | | Road Markings (kilometres) | 2,850 | 3,694.5 | +30% | | Lighting (number) | 1,720 | 2,147 | +25% | | Vehicle Restraint System (VRS) | 188 | 204.5 | +9% | | Geotechnical (kilometres) | 3 | 3.2 | +7% | | Drainage (kilometres) | 165 | 174.5 | +6% | | Renewal of structures | | | | | Bridge Joint (number) | 355 | 634 | +79% | | Parapet (kilometres) | 1.3 | 1.7 | +29% | | Waterproofing (square metres) | 118,100 | 112,763 | -5% | | Bridge Bearing (number) | 192 | 98 | -49% | | Renewal of technology | | | | | Winter Resilience (number of completed schemes) | 40 | 58 | +45% | | Network Resilience (number of completed schemes) | 33 | 43 | +30% | | Renewals and Improvements (number of technology assets renewed or improved) | 343 | 429 | +25% | | Motorway communications equipment (number of new or replaced items) | 157 | 177 | +13% | Figure C8 (below) shows the volume of renewals delivered compared to plan in the first four years of this road period for selected asset types. The size of the variances shows an improvement in delivering renewals that more closely reflect its asset plans in 2018-19. Highways England has improved reporting of its Operations, Maintenance and Renewals (OMR) plans and explanation of changes to plans and delivery during the year. In-year forecasting of renewals outputs have shown reduced variability across all asset types. The company has committed to continue developing and improving its OMR reporting during 2019-20.
In 2018-19, Highways England delivered renewals volumes more evenly throughout the year. In previous years, delivery was disproportionately high in quarter 4, which led us to raise concerns with the company about the inefficiency of this profile. Winter weather conditions may lead to higher costs due to difficulty completing work, and also reduce the lifespan of the work, increasing whole life costs. In quarter 4 of 2018-19 it spent approximately half the amount of the same period in 2017-18. This improved planning and delivery, and efforts to close the funding gap, are likely to have influenced the flatter spend profile for renewals, as shown in figure C9.
Figure C8: volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan 2015-16 to 2018-19 Figure C9: volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan 2015-16 to 2018-19 Figure C10 shows the proportion of pavement renewals delivered each quarter, which also demonstrates how the company has improved planning and delivery.
**Figure C10: percentage of pavement renewals per quarter, 2015-16 to 2018-19** Ring-fenced funds
Highways England’s investment plan includes a set of ring-fenced funds, worth £675m in road period 1, aimed at addressing a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of roads investment. Delivery of projects through these funds is covered in chapter 2, and also figure C11, below, which provides an update on each fund at the end of 2018-19.
Figure C11: Ring-fenced funds delivery in 2018-19
- **Value in RISI: £675m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- £363m spent to date, of which £181m spent in 2018-19.
- Pace of delivery has significantly increased in 2018-19.
- However, overall programme remains heavily back-end loaded.
- The level of underspend in the air quality fund, in particular, is a risk to the success of the funds.
- **Value in RISI: £175m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- Cycling: Detailed design on 19 schemes, and construction completed on 22.
- Safety: Detailed design completed on 38 schemes and construction completed on 21.
- Integration: Detailed design completed on 26 schemes and construction completed on 28.
- **Value in RISI: £120m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- 109 projects active during 2018-19.
- Safety: 3 projects developed and 3 delivered.
- Infrastructure: 3 projects developed.
- Data and information: 2 projects developed and 1 delivered.
- New technologies: 1 project developed.
- Sustainable operation: 3 projects developed and 1 delivered.
- **Value in RISI: £80m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- Programme now closed to new schemes.
- 28 schemes now approved, of which: 7 completed, 1 in progress, and 20 due to commence.
- Once completed, the package is expected to help enable up to 45,000 homes and 45,000 jobs.
- **Value in RISI: £75m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- 17 air quality projects active in 2018-19.
- Continuing to roll out a network of air quality monitoring stations; 48 stations now operational.
- Further feasibility work is underway on a programme of national air quality barriers.
- The volume of work required in the final year of the RIS is a risk to the air quality fund successfully delivering its objectives.
[^10]: %5Bhttps://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/41386/highways-englands-provision-of-traffic-data-and-information-march-2019.pdf%5D(https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/41386/highways-englands-provision-of-traffic-data-and-information-march-2019.pdf)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1034-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 72,
"total-input-tokens": 157242,
"total-output-tokens": 31565,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
85,
1
],
[
85,
85,
2
],
[
85,
303,
3
],
[
303,
303,
4
],
[
303,
2297,
5
],
[
2297,
2297,
6
],
[
2297,
6086,
7
],
[
6086,
10332,
8
],
[
10332,
13237,
9
],
[
13237,
15661,
10
],
[
15661,
18312,
11
],
[
18312,
19836,
12
],
[
19836,
23318,
13
],
[
23318,
24310,
14
],
[
24310,
28280,
15
],
[
28280,
30736,
16
],
[
30736,
32517,
17
],
[
32517,
36488,
18
],
[
36488,
38243,
19
],
[
38243,
38243,
20
],
[
38243,
41300,
21
],
[
41300,
43544,
22
],
[
43544,
46539,
23
],
[
46539,
46593,
24
],
[
46593,
47990,
25
],
[
47990,
50835,
26
],
[
50835,
52914,
27
],
[
52914,
54250,
28
],
[
54250,
57237,
29
],
[
57237,
61328,
30
],
[
61328,
61869,
31
],
[
61869,
63122,
32
],
[
63122,
64514,
33
],
[
64514,
67006,
34
],
[
67006,
68344,
35
],
[
68344,
68622,
36
],
[
68622,
69321,
37
],
[
69321,
71072,
38
],
[
71072,
72589,
39
],
[
72589,
73587,
40
],
[
73587,
75907,
41
],
[
75907,
77189,
42
],
[
77189,
79189,
43
],
[
79189,
81643,
44
],
[
81643,
86235,
45
],
[
86235,
86331,
46
],
[
86331,
89208,
47
],
[
89208,
89840,
48
],
[
89840,
91903,
49
],
[
91903,
93569,
50
],
[
93569,
94082,
51
],
[
94082,
96291,
52
],
[
96291,
97644,
53
],
[
97644,
98417,
54
],
[
98417,
99383,
55
],
[
99383,
102296,
56
],
[
102296,
104885,
57
],
[
104885,
107021,
58
],
[
107021,
107074,
59
],
[
107074,
110300,
60
],
[
110300,
114539,
61
],
[
114539,
117521,
62
],
[
117521,
119943,
63
],
[
119943,
121310,
64
],
[
121310,
121387,
65
],
[
121387,
121621,
66
],
[
121621,
123804,
67
],
[
123804,
123804,
68
],
[
123804,
123804,
69
],
[
123804,
123804,
70
],
[
123804,
123804,
71
],
[
123804,
123804,
72
]
]
} |
926dcbae98da4c7f69b97381de48759888206690 | ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S PERFORMANCE APRIL 2018 – MARCH 2019
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 July 2019
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.1 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s management of the strategic road network – the motorways and main A-roads in England.
1.2 In the road investment strategy (RIS), government has set the outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (road period 1). In monitoring the performance and efficiency of the company, our objective is to secure better performance and value for money from the strategic road network to benefit road users and the wider public.
Key messages for 2018-19
1. Highways England is taking the right actions on its network to meet the needs of road users. Despite this, delays are increasing and road user satisfaction is below target.
1.3 Highways England continues to demonstrate a strong focus on safety. Fewer people were killed or seriously injured on the network in 2017 than in any previous year, but further reductions are required if the company is to deliver its challenging target of a 40% reduction by 2020.
1.4 Highways England is delivering its targets for smooth flow of traffic – keeping 98.3% of the network open to traffic, against a target of 97%, and clearing 88% of incidents within an hour, against a target of 85%. However, congestion has increased in the last year, reflecting traffic growth and increasing levels of roadworks as Highways England delivers more network improvements.
1.5 In 2018-19, Highways England set out a customer service improvement plan, aimed at raising levels of user satisfaction. It has delivered the actions set out in the plan, but overall satisfaction remains below the 90% target, at 88.4%.
1.6 The company is making good progress against its environmental targets. In 2018-19 it mitigated 300 noise important areas, and it is delivering the commitments set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan. Against its commitment to support vulnerable users Highways England has delivered 83 new and upgraded crossings in 2018-19, although the company should improve its processes for gathering this information.
2. Highways England is meeting its target to keep the network in good condition, and delivering major improvement schemes to a revised plan that it has agreed with the Department for Transport.
1.7 Highways England is taking a more structured approach to managing its assets and remains above target for maintaining the road surface – its key performance indicator shows that 95.5% of the network is in good condition, above its target of 95%.
1.8 The company has improved how it manages maintenance and renewals, and is delivering volumes that more closely align to its plans. It has also acted on an improvement plan we required that addressed a significant number of overdue inspections of its structures (and other assets), and improved the accuracy of its information relating to inspection records.
1.9 Highways England started work on four major schemes in 2018-19. It originally had a commitment to start work on six, but this was revised to five through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. One scheme did not start as planned and is under review. The company completed six of the seven schemes that were planned to open in 2018-19; the delayed scheme is now expected to open in 2019-20.
1.10 Of 112 major schemes originally planned to start works by the end of the first road period, 103 remain in the programme. Highways England now expects to have started at least 70 by the end of March 2020, with 29 expected to
______________________________________________________________________
1 Two schemes - the A34 Oxford junctions and A34 technology enhancements - have been re-scoped and combined into a single scheme.
2 Two are dependent on delivery by third parties. start in the second road period(^3). Four further schemes are under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form. It has agreed changes to its programme with the Department for Transport. The agreed changes seek to reduce road user disruption. They make sure that only those schemes that deliver value for money and have stakeholder support are taken forwards. The reduced programme partly reflects that the funding provided in road period 1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes.
1.11 There are further risks to delivery of major schemes in the remainder of the road period. 26 schemes are scheduled to start in 2019-20 and these need careful management to avoid further deferrals(^4).
1.12 Highways England is forecasting total costs in this road period that are £205m higher than its RIS1 funding. This has reduced significantly over the road period, and from last year, when the difference was £438m.
1.13 Highways England delivered more through ring-fenced funds in 2018-19 than it has in previous years. To date, 54% of the total funds available in road period 1 have been spent. It has credible plans in place for four of the funds, but there is particular risk that it will not fully use the air quality fund.
3. Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels.
1.14 Highways England is reporting £848m of efficiency in the road period towards its RIS1 target of £1.2bn by March 2020. The company has provided good evidence of the actions it is taking to deliver more efficiently. But broader measures capturing costs of outcomes do not fully support this level.
1.15 Highways England has been working to develop efficiency models based on unit cost information. So far, it has only used these to evidence efficiencies for its smart motorway projects and renewals work – but not for other major improvement projects. More work is needed to assure the renewals model’s outputs. It is vital that Highways England progresses work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements to support efficiency reporting in the future. This will also be required to establish a clear baseline for the second road period.
1.16 Highways England can support its efficiency claims by demonstrating that it has delivered its outputs and schemes within its funding. However, providing evidence of this is not straight-forward. The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes, and was set at a time when there was not a full understanding of scheme scope. While fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, the costs associated with this deferred work are comparable to the under-funding. The company has also benefited from lower than expected inflation. Our analysis of this area of evidence suggests that net levels of efficiency may be lower than those reported.
1.17 Weighing up all of the above, we consider that Highways England has more to do to support its reported £848m of efficiency. We expect it to produce better supporting evidence for the end of road period 1.
1.18 Learning from this, it is essential that a better, fully-funded baseline plan is developed for road period 2, built on a clear understanding of scheme costs, timings and scope.
Summary of performance
1.19 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS. This sets out eight outcomes areas, each with one or more key performance indicator as well as a number of performance indicators(^5). Delivery against each key performance indicator, and our assessment for the remainder of road period 1, is summarised in the table below using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Of these, 25 have been formally agreed and four are expected to miss current commitments to start in RP1.
(^4) This may increase depending on the outcome of the four schemes under review.
(^5) A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual) | Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2018-19 | RAG 2017-18 | RAG 2018-19 | RAG road period 1 | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------------| | Making the network safer | Killed or seriously injured | 2,012 killed or seriously injured in 2017, a reduction of 10% from 2016. Figures for 2018 are due to be published in July 2019. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction | 88.4% satisfaction. Remains below 90% target. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability | 98.3% availability. Remains above target, and unchanged from 2017-18. | Green | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance | 88% cleared within one hour. Remains above target, and improved from 87.9% last year. | Green | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (secs per vehicle mile) | 9.4 seconds delay per vehicle mile, an increase of 0.2 seconds from 2017-18. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated | 300 mitigated during the year, bringing total for the road period to 951. 199 further mitigations required in 2019-20 to meet the target. | Green | Green | Green | | | Improved biodiversity | Management plans produced for 10 SSSIs, bringing the total for the road period to 40. | Green | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings | 29 new and 54 upgraded crossings delivered in 2018-19. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings | £362m of efficiencies reported in 2018-19. £848m in road period 1 to date, which is 70% of the target. Further evidence required. | Amber | Amber | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to delivery plan | Work started on 4 schemes. 6 schemes opened to traffic. Delivery plans significantly changed. | Green | Amber | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition | 95.5% requires no further investigation for maintenance. Remains above target, and improved from 95.2% in 2017-18. | Green | Green | Green |
Key: **Green** = Delivery on track/clear plans in place for RP1\
**Amber** = Some risk to delivery of target/plans not fully established for RP1\
**Red** = High risk to delivery of target/plans not in place for RP1 2. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Highways England is taking the right actions on its network to meet the needs of road users. Despite this, delays are increasing and road user satisfaction is below target.
Highways England has helped reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads over the last four years. It is clearing incidents quickly and minimising disruption from roadworks. But road user delays are increasing due to traffic levels, and the amount of improvement work being undertaken. Road user satisfaction remains high, but is below target; Highways England is delivering an improvement plan.
Safety
2.1 One of Highways England’s key objectives for the first road period is to improve safety on the strategic road network. The company shows a strong commitment to achieving this, identifying safety as its top priority. During 2018-19 it delivered a number of interventions aimed at improving safety for road users and workers on its network.
2.2 Highways England has a key performance indicator to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network by 40% by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. However, changes in how police forces record road casualty data mean that it has not been possible to monitor progress against the target on a consistent basis during this road period. Since late 2015, around half of English police forces have adopted a new system for reporting road casualties (CRASH – Collision Recording and Sharing)(^6). This has caused an increase in recorded KSIs because some casualties which would have been recorded as ‘slight’ in the old system are recorded as ‘serious’ in the new system.
2.3 To address this discontinuity, the Department for Transport commissioned the Office for National Statistics to produce a robust methodology for adjusting historic road casualty data. This work enabled the Department to publish an interim report in 2018, which included revised road casualty statistics that consistently account for the impact of the move to new reporting systems over time. The Department expects to publish the confirmed adjustments, alongside its 2018 road casualty data, in July 2019.
Figure 2.1: Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network (adjusted data), 2005-2017
(^6) The Metropolitan Police Service switched to a new reporting system called COPA – Case Overview Preparation Application. 2.4 The adjusted data show that 2,012 people were killed or seriously injured on the network in 2017. This is a 32% reduction on the baseline, and puts Highways England on the straight-line trajectory required to meet its target of a 40% reduction by 2020.
2.5 The number of fatalities reported each year is unaffected by the data changes. In 2017, there were 236 deaths on the strategic road network, which is five (2%) higher than in 2016.
2.6 The Department for Transport advises that these data may be subject to further revision in future years as more police forces move to new systems for reporting road casualty data.
2.7 In 2018-19 Highways England delivered a range of interventions to improve safety on its network, covering its three areas of focus: safer roads, safer people and safer vehicles. These included:
- **Safety schemes.** Highways England has used its ring-fenced funds to deliver 21 small-scale safety schemes in 2018-19. These schemes focus on higher risk sections of the network, which are often single-carriageway A-roads.
- **Smart motorways – ‘red X’ enforcement.** Highways England has worked with the Home Office and Department for Transport to introduce a change in legislation to allow cameras to automatically detect drivers who disobey ‘red X’ signals on smart motorways, and enable the police to prosecute these offences. This legislation was passed in May 2019, and enforcement is expected to begin later in the year. This has been supported by multi-media campaigns to increase road user awareness of how to drive on smart motorways.
- **Suicide prevention.** Highways England has made progress in delivering its suicide prevention strategy. In the past year, the company has improved how it captures data on suicides and suicide attempts on the network. This helps inform the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions taken by the company, which include restricting pedestrian access, and closing lay-bys to prevent parking close to known suicide hotspots. In partnership with The Samaritans, it has installed crisis signage at over 100 priority locations.
- **Business drivers.** In partnership with other safety organisations, Highways England has delivered its Driving for Better Business campaign, which aims to improve awareness of work-related road safety. Businesses representing approximately 200,000 drivers, and 150,000 vehicles have signed up to the programme.
- **Vehicle roadworthiness.** Highways England has partnered with organisations such as the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the
______________________________________________________________________
7 A comparison with previously reported (unadjusted) figures is set out in annex A. Health and Safety Executive, and police forces to target unsafe vehicles on the network. This has included projects to: identify, and remove from the road, dangerously loaded commercial vehicles; inform private motorists about the dangers of poorly loaded vehicles; and install technology to identify HGVs with dangerous tyres.
**Driver behaviour.** Highways England funds three unmarked HGV tractor units to capture evidence of driving offences (see case study below). The company has also run national information campaigns. In 2018-19, this included the ‘Space Invader’ campaign, focusing on tailgating, which is a contributory factor in one in eight casualties on the network.
______________________________________________________________________
**Case study – targeting dangerous driver behaviour**
- Highways England has worked with police forces to fund and coordinate the use of unmarked HGV tractor units to patrol the strategic road network.
- This collaboration with police helps target dangerous driving behaviour, such as mobile phone use and other unsafe activities whilst driving. By using HGV tractor units, police can observe the cabs of commercial vehicles, where driving offences might otherwise be difficult to detect.
- In the first four years of the road period, 28 police forces have stopped almost 9,000 vehicles and detected 10,164 driving offences.
- The most common offences are mobile phone use, non-use of seat belts and the driver not being in proper control of the vehicle.
- Due to the success of the project, it has been extended until November 2020. 2.8 In June 2019 Highways England launched its new safety strategy: Home Safe and Well®. This aims to build on the previous 5-year Health and Safety Plan by setting out the company’s approach to achieving its longer-term vision that by 2040 nobody is harmed when travelling or working on the strategic road network. We will continue to work with the company to understand the detailed plans it is developing to deliver this vision.
2.9 By April 2019, the company had completed 120 of the 130 actions that were set out in the previous 5-year plan. The majority of the remaining 10 actions have a targeted end-date of March 2020, and the company will continue to monitor and report on the remaining actions until they are complete.
2.10 In July 2019, Highways England published an update on its work to produce a safety star rating for the strategic road network®. This showed that 95% of travel on the network is on roads rated as three stars or higher – ahead of its target of achieving 90% by 2020. It is now taking forward work to update the star rating of the network, moving from the current 4-star model to a new 5-star model.
2.11 Highways England is unlikely to meet its commitment of improving the majority of its 1-star and 2-star roads to 3-star or more by 2020. However, the company has demonstrated that it is applying an evidence-based approach to prioritising safety interventions, which takes into account both the star rating, and statistical risk of death or serious injury, of a road. We recognise that this approach helps the company target its resources on delivering a greater reduction in casualties than if it focused on improving star-ratings alone. Over the next year we will work with Highways England to carry out a review of how it is prioritising investment to improve safety on the network.
2.12 Accident frequency rates for Highways England’s supply chain, as well as the company’s own staff have improved in the last year, and both are at the lowest level recorded in the road period so far.
Satisfaction
2.13 Highways England needs to deliver a service that meets road users’ needs and maintains a high level of satisfaction. Satisfaction is currently measured by Transport Focus through a regular survey of drivers and other road users – the National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS).
2.14 In 2018-19, satisfaction with using the strategic road network was 88.4%. This is below the target of 90% and below last year’s score of 88.7%. This is the lowest end-year figure since our data begins in 2011-12.
Figure 2.2: end-year user satisfaction scores, 2014-15 to 2018-19
2.15 Although the end-year score is below target, the monthly figures have improved throughout the year, starting in April 2018 at 85.8%. Highways England believes this poor start to the year was the result of severe weather.
Figure 2.3: year-to-date user satisfaction scores, 2018-19
2.16 The overall satisfaction score is calculated by combining five separate elements of satisfaction. Satisfaction with safety and signage was above 90%, while satisfaction with journey time, roadworks and upkeep were below 90%. The chart below shows this year’s performance compared with last year. Notable changes are an improvement in roadworks management and a deterioration in general upkeep.
______________________________________________________________________
8 http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/about-us/Home+Safe+and+Well+Strategy+2019.pdf 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-road-network-star-rating-report 2.17 Analysis of regional satisfaction performance shows that three regions improved and four deteriorated relative to last year. The Eastern, North East and North West regions all improved. The North West improved the most, from 77.8% to 84%, with all five components improving year-on-year. Midlands and the South West performed marginally worse than last year, while M25 and South East showed more significant reductions in performance. In the case of the South East, performance was 86.4%, down from 90.8% the previous year, with all components falling. General upkeep in the South East fell the most, from 91.8% to 82.9%.
2.18 Because Highways England is not currently meeting its key performance indicator target, we are applying an enhanced monitoring approach. A key part of this is more closely monitoring the company’s performance against its annual customer service action plan. We meet Highways England’s customer service directors each quarter to review progress and challenge. 2.19 In 2018-19, Highways England has taken a range of actions across the five components of NRUSS, including:
- **Safety** – actions to improve customers’ awareness of smart motorways, including a programme of improved colouring and signing of emergency refuges;
- **Information** – increased Twitter capability to give better real time information to customers, and revised website covering roadworks information;
- **Journey time** – coached over 60% of its Traffic Officers to work single crewed to improve efficiency and coverage, and recruited five National Network Manager positions to coordinate incident management across the network;
- **Roadworks** – worked on improving the accuracy of day-ahead and week-ahead roadworks information, completed two trials of 60mph speed limits in roadworks and issued two customer service standards. The standards are used to set expectations within Highways England on how to improve information to customers in roadworks and improve accuracy of closures; and
- **General upkeep** – revised inspection and maintenance requirements have been issued to Highways England’s contractors so that they focus on both customer satisfaction-related and safety-critical defects, and issued a customer service standard to reduce litter.
2.20 The company also reports that, in addition to its planned actions, it took further steps as follows:
- Increased its incident recovery capability by dispatching recovery operators directly from the Regional Control Centres;
- Trained Traffic Officers to undertake aspects of safety inspections; and
- Mapped its most important stakeholder locations on the network to ensure dedicated consideration is given to activities that might affect them more than others, such as overnight closures.
2.21 In 2019-20, Highways England’s customer service action plan builds on the above and includes some important proposals to deliver better customer experience, such as:
- Improving the coordination, scheduling and publishing of all road closures;
- Rolling out further trials of 60mph speed limits through major motorway roadworks; and
- Improving maintenance planning, which includes embedding and monitoring its new ‘Intelligence Led Maintenance’ approach in asset delivery areas.
2.22 During 2018-19, Transport Focus has been gathering data through a new Strategic Road User Survey. From April 2020, this new survey is expected to replace NRUSS as the measure on which Highways England’s user satisfaction key performance indicator is based. It provides more information on road users’ experience of the network, including giving detailed information on specific roads. Transport Focus is collecting and publishing this information now. Highways England has been closely involved in developing the survey, and it has already conducted analysis on the data to see what insight it can bring on areas for improvement. We expect the company to use this better information in developing its plans to improve user experience in the future.
**Supporting the smooth flow of traffic**
2.23 In its role as network operator, Highways England must minimise the impact on road users caused by planned or unplanned disruption. The company has two key performance indicators in this area: network availability monitors the proportion of the network that is open to traffic, and incident clearance monitors how quickly Highways England reopens the road to traffic following unplanned events. Highways England has performed well against both of these key performance indicators throughout the road period.
2.24 The key performance indicator for network availability on the strategic road network was 98.3% at year-end, which is unchanged from the previous year, and above the target of 97%. By taking actions such as using narrow lanes during roadworks, the company expects to maintain performance above target despite an increased number of major schemes on the network in the final year of road period 1. 2.25 Highways England also met its key performance indicator target for incident clearance in 2018-19. It cleared 88% of motorway incidents within one hour, which was slightly higher than performance in the previous year (87.9%), and above the target of 85%.
2.26 To support better decision making in response to incidents on the network, Highways England recruited National Network Managers in 2018-19. Their role is to coordinate intelligence on events affecting the network, and mitigate the impact they have on road users. Other actions taken by the company to support the smooth flow of traffic include using historic incident data to locate Traffic Officers closer to problematic parts of the network, so they are able to clear incidents more quickly.
2.27 Despite taking these actions, and delivering improvement schemes, average delay on the network is increasing – as set out below.
______________________________________________________________________
**Case study – road user information**
- In 2018-19, Highways England collaborated with ORR and Transport Focus to review its provision of traffic data and information to road users. The output of this work is summarised in two reports.
- The first report is based on in-depth research into road users’ views about information provision, including what sources are currently used, how they are accessed, and what information needs might be in the future.
- The second report looked more closely at Highways England’s provision of data and information to road users, including how the company performs in collecting and disseminating traffic information, and how it compares to other road and transport operators.
- Both reports set out a number of recommendations for Highways England. These include:
- Highways England should seek to increase satisfaction with information on A-roads, which currently lags behind that on motorways.
- Highways England should better define who its most important customers for traffic information are, and the relative value of its existing data and information.
- The company should consider how it can more effectively collaborate with third party data providers, and local highways authorities.
- The reports are published on ORR’s website[^10].
Supporting economic growth
2.28 The strategic road network is vital to our economy. It carries 34% of all traffic in England, despite accounting for 2.4% of the road network by length.
2.29 Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by a key performance indicator, which measures average delay on the strategic road network. In 2018-19, average delay was 9.4 seconds per vehicle mile. This is an increase of 0.2 seconds per vehicle mile on 2017-18, and the highest annual figure reported in the road period so far.
2.30 Increased traffic is one underlying reason for increased delays on the network – in 2018, traffic on the strategic road network grew by 0.7%. This is a lower rate of growth than in previous years of road period 1, but still represents record volumes of traffic using the network. There were also more major road improvements in construction during 2018-19 compared to the previous year. Significantly more major schemes are planned to start construction on the network during 2019-20, which increases the likelihood that further increases in delay will be recorded next year.
Figure 2.8: Average delay on the strategic road network, 2014-15 to 2018-19
2.31 Many of the actions Highways England takes to minimise delays on the strategic road network are the same as those it takes to maximise lane availability, clear incidents and improve user satisfaction. One key intervention aimed at minimising delay during 2018-19 has been to trial 60mph speed limits through roadworks where Highways England has assessed it is safe to do so.
2.32 Highways England can also reduce delays on the network by providing better information to road users so they can avoid planned or unplanned disruption. In the past year, Highways England has collaborated with ORR and Transport Focus to review its provision of traffic data and information to road users. The output of this work is summarised in two reports, which are discussed in more detail in the case study above. Highways England has supported the findings in these reports, and we will work with the company in 2019-20 to understand how it plans to implement the recommendations. More broadly, we will continue to challenge the company to seek new ways to mitigate delays.
Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.33 Highways England has demonstrated good progress against its commitment to deliver better environmental outcomes in 2018-19. The company has two key performance indicators in this area, covering noise and biodiversity.
2.34 Highways England has a target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2018-19, it mitigated 300, bringing the total to 951 for this road period.
Figure 2.9: Cumulative noise important areas mitigated at 2018-19
2.35 Of the 300 noise important areas mitigated in 2018-19, 232 were mitigated through Highways England’s noise insulation programme, 55 as a result of low-noise resurfacing, eight through installing noise barriers, and five through a combination of these measures.
2.36 About half of the properties counted as mitigated through the noise insulation programme had double-glazing installed. The other half were included as mitigated due to the homeowner either refusing the offer of double-glazing, or not responding to at least three attempts to contact them. In this situation, the offer from Highways England remains open – around 150 properties have now had double-glazing fitted where the homeowner had initially declined or not responded.
2.37 The number of noise important areas mitigated in 2018-19 is less than in 2017-18, when 448 were mitigated. This is partly due to the company mitigating larger noise important areas, which include more properties, and a change in the double glazing contractor. Despite this, Highways England reports that it is on course to mitigate at least 199 noise important areas in 2019-20 and meet its RIS1 target.
2.38 Highways England also continues to make progress in delivering the commitments set out in its biodiversity action plan. In 2018-19 the company produced 10 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate and has now met its commitment to develop 40 plans in this road period. It also completed 25 grassland schemes, delivering almost 100 hectares of species rich grassland. The company trialled its new biodiversity metric in 2018-19, which it will roll out more widely across the business in 2019-20, in preparation for formal reporting in the next road period.
2.39 In 2018-19, Highways England worked closely with the Joint Air Quality Unit(^\\text{11}) to support the Government’s air quality policies. In particular, it developed a four-phase plan to address the 101 links on the strategic road network that have been identified as exceeding legal limits for nitrogen dioxide.
2.40 The company has completed the first two phases, by undertaking traffic and air quality modelling for each link, and investigating potential mitigation measures. It is now working on the third phase to identify the most appropriate mitigation measures.
2.41 During 2019-20, ORR will monitor Highways England’s delivery of the fourth phase as it implements the agreed mitigation measures. The company is considering a range of potential mitigations, which includes using ring-fenced funds to build air quality barriers. As discussed in chapter 3, the complexity of delivering these barriers, and the short time left to do so in road period 1, represents a significant risk to making full use of the air quality ring-fenced fund.
(^{11}) The Joint Air Quality Unit was established by Defra and the Department for Transport to coordinate delivery the Government’s plans for achieving nitrogen dioxide compliance. 2.42 Highways England has continued to take action to tackle litter on the strategic road network during 2018-19. It refreshed its litter strategy in March 2019. The company collected 20,000 bags of litter on the network during the year, and made greater use of social media campaigns to educate the public about the impact of littering. Other activities in 2018-19 included: trialling an automatic litter-picking machine; extending a trial to install window height bins at service areas; and working with local authorities to undertake litter picking on A-roads to coincide with lane closures for other maintenance work.
Vulnerable users
2.43 Reflecting the wider impact the strategic road network has on neighbouring communities, Highways England has a key performance indicator to report the number of new and upgraded crossings it delivers to help cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable road users.
2.44 In 2018-19, the company delivered 29 new and 54 upgraded crossings on the network, bringing the total delivered in the road period to 90 new and 182 upgraded crossings. These figures include revised totals for 2015-16 to correct an error identified by Highways England in its figures. The company can further improve the accuracy and timeliness of the information it captures relating to crossings on the network.
Figure 2.10: Number of new and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2018-19
2.45 Highways England completed construction on 22 cycling schemes in 2018-19, bringing the total delivered in this road period to 101. The company has a commitment to deliver 150 cycling schemes by the end of road period 1, and it has developed plans for 2019-20 to achieve this. 3. INVESTMENT DELIVERY
Highways England is meeting its target to keep the network in good condition, and delivering major improvement schemes to a revised plan that it has agreed with the Department for Transport.
The condition of Highways England’s roads, as measured by its key performance indicator, is good. It is broadly delivering its major improvement schemes to latest plans. However, there are risks to delivery for the remainder of the road period. It has agreed changes to the programme of major improvements with the Department for Transport which mean that it now expects to have started at least 70 by the end of the road period, compared to 112 set out in the RIS. It delivered more through its ring-fenced funds than in previous years – but delivery risks remain.
Major investment delivery
3.1 In 2018-19, Highways England started work on four major schemes. It originally had a commitment to start work on six, of which: three schemes started construction in year; two had their start of works commitment revised through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process to reduce road user disruption around Manchester; and one did not start as planned and is under review due to changes on adjacent local roads. In addition, Highways England started construction of one scheme that had been re-scoped and had its start of works revised to 2018-19, following formal change control approval.
3.2 Of the seven schemes which were planned to open for traffic in 2018-19, six were delivered on time (one of which was completed one quarter ahead of schedule). One scheme has missed its delivery date for 2018-19 and will open in 2019-20. In addition, the company also opened to traffic a scheme that was delayed from 2017-18.
Figure 3.1: Summary of major scheme delivery in 2018-19
| Construction phase | Schemes committed for 2018-19 | Schemes delivered in 2018-19 | Details | |--------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------| | Start of works | 6 | 4 | 3 started | | | | | 2 formally agreed for deferral | | | | | 1 not started and under review | | | | | 1 additional scheme started. Re-scoped and start of works commitment revised to 2018-19 | | Open for traffic | 7 | 7 | 6 opened | | | 1 delayed from 2017-18 | | 1 delayed and will open in 2019-20 | | | | | 1, delayed from 2017-18, opened |
Key:
- Milestone due or achieved on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone due or achieved one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone due or achieved more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone changed 3.3 Highways England has now started work on 28 schemes in road period 1, in addition to the 16 schemes that started prior to the road period. It has opened 29 schemes for traffic in this road period, and there are currently 15 schemes in construction.
3.4 The majority of major schemes completed to date have cost more than agreed funding assumptions. The 29 schemes that Highways England has opened for traffic by the end of March 2019 are forecasting costs that are £443.9m higher than baseline. This mainly reflects overspends on two schemes – M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20, and M6 junctions 16 to 19 – due to increased costs associated with making additional improvements to the existing asset, and extended work time to maintain commitment dates.
Case study – M60 Junction 8 to M62 Junction 20
- The M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway scheme was completed in 2018-19. The final cost of this scheme was higher than originally anticipated, and we have worked with Highways England to understand the factors that contributed to this.
- The M60 and M62 around Manchester is one of the busiest sections of road in the UK, carrying over 180,000 vehicles per day. This route forms an important part of the main east-west transport corridor, linking Merseyside and greater Manchester with Yorkshire and the Humber. It is heavily congested with unpredictable journey times, especially during peak periods. Congestion on this stretch of motorway also impacts on local roads.
- The scheme was designed to address congestion and improve journey time reliability. This involved work to increase capacity by upgrading the existing M60 to a smart motorway from junctions 8 to 18, plus smart motorway with all lane running on the M62 from junctions 18 to 20.
- The scheme introduced variable speed limits, hard shoulder running and new emergency refuge areas to increase capacity and improve traffic flow.
- The scheme opened for traffic in July 2018, 10 months behind schedule. The final cost was £298m, which is £99m above the original estimate. The delays and cost escalation were attributed to delivering additional work, including improvement to asset condition to avoid subsequent maintenance work and construction delays. 3.5 Highways England continues to make good progress on its flagship schemes. The company plans to open the A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme in March 2020, ahead of its scheduled completion date in 2020-21. The A303 Stonehenge Tunnel is in the middle of the planning application process and construction is expected to begin in 2021-22. On the Lower Thames Crossing, the company completed an extensive public consultation in December 2018 and it is now analysing the comments received before selecting a preferred option to take forward.
Highways England’s capital plan
3.6 In 2017-18, Highways England reviewed its plans for delivering capital investment in road period 1. The company improved its scheduling of major schemes, with a focus on their scope, value for money and road user experience. This optimisation of the capital programme resulted in some major improvement schemes being considered for delivery in future road periods, while other schemes were brought forward within the current road period. It also removed schemes from the programme where they were no longer providing value for money.
3.7 During 2018-19 Highways England has continued to identify the need for changes to its capital delivery plan.
3.8 It has agreed all the above changes to its commitments in the RIS and delivery plan with government and has taken them through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. These include:
- six schemes formally paused that do not currently demonstrate value for money;
- two schemes formally stopped due to lack of stakeholder support;
- four schemes under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form (but not formally changed);
- 25 schemes formally deferred to the next road period, of which 16 were deferred to minimise road user disruption. The remaining nine schemes were deferred mainly as a consequence of external challenges – for example as an outcome of public consultations and schemes’ options appraisals;
- 14 schemes advanced within road period 1 to start earlier than originally planned; and
- four schemes likely to miss the RIS commitments to start construction during the road period, predominately as a result of delays with the statutory planning process, and have been deferred to the next road period.
3.9 The revised plans mean that, of the 112 major schemes originally planned to start works in the first road period, 103 remain in the programme. Of these, Highways England now plans to have started at least 70 schemes by end of March 2020. It plans to start 26 during 2019-2020. A high proportion of these is forecast to start in the last quarter of road period 1 which increases the risk that some will slip to road period 2.
______________________________________________________________________
13 Two schemes - the A34 Oxford junctions and A34 technology enhancements - have been re-scoped and combined into a single scheme. 14 Two are dependent on delivery by third parties. 15 This may increase depending on the outcome of the four schemes under review. Figure 3.2: Projected start of works in road period 1
| Category | Number of schemes | |---------------------------------|-------------------| | Original RIS1 portfolio | 112 | | Paused/stopped (value for money)| -6 | | Stopped (other factors) | -2 | | Combined/rescoped | -1 | | RIS1 portfolio remaining | 103 | | Deferred (minimise disruption) | -16 | | Deferred (external factors) | -9 | | Missed commitments | -4 | | Under review | -4 | | Planned to start by end of RP1 (minimum) | 70 | 3.10 The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. So, while fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, the costs associated with deferred work and stopped schemes are comparable to the under-funding.
3.11 The company’s forecast total cost for its RIS1 major schemes is currently £1.5bn higher in road period 1 and road period 2 than was originally planned. This is £1.4bn less than what was reported last year mainly due to increasing the baseline for the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet and A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening to reflect the significantly increased scope of these schemes. Overall forecast costs for RIS1 major schemes are reduced by £1.2bn compared to last year because Highways England is no longer reflecting within its baseline and forecast costs the part of the A303 from Amesbury to Berwick Down that was expected to be funded through private finance. Despite planning to deliver a lower number of major schemes, Highways England is still forecasting total costs that are £205m higher in this road period than its RIS1 funding. This has reduced from last year, when the difference was £438m. Highways England’s current assessment of risks and opportunities reduces the funding pressure to £100m by the end of road period 1.
Figure 3.3: Difference between forecast costs and funding for road period 1 Network condition
3.12 The condition of the strategic road network is monitored by a key performance indicator, which measures the percentage of road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance. At the end of 2018-19, 95.5% of the network did not require further investigation. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the 95.2% recorded in 2017-18. Data reported to us by Highways England shows that the condition of other assets on the network is broadly stable.
Figure 3.4: Network condition, 2014-15 to 2018-19
3.13 Highways England’s performance monitoring statements for 2018-19 have, for the first time, included data showing the company’s performance in maintaining the strategic road network. These statements help inform whether the company is doing enough maintenance and renewal on the network to counter degradation of its assets over time and managing its assets sustainably. It is a positive step that additional reporting on maintenance activity has been published. However, we asked for the published statement to include defects, such as potholes, and it does not yet do this. Reporting of defects would give transparency to the sort of issues that might affect the safety and satisfaction of road users and improve the line of sight between maintenance delivery and network condition. We will continue to work with the company during 2019-20 to resolve the challenge of defect reporting.
3.14 Highways England has a duty to inspect the condition of its structures to identify and plan maintenance and renewals work. During 2018-19 we raised our concern at the significant number of overdue detailed structures inspections. The company put in place a plan to address the backlog, and managed the number of overdue inspections down to 21 by the end of March. It has provided assurance that the outstanding overdue assets have received visual inspections and do not present a risk to users. It has also made improvements to its processes and procedures for managing and monitoring inspection performance going forward.
Highways England has also shared progress against inspections for other assets, which we will monitor during 2019-20.
Maintenance and renewals
3.15 In the first three years of the road period, Highways England delivered renewals volumes that were generally higher than planned. In 2018-19, the company improved its management of maintenance and renewals, and delivered volumes that more closely reflected its plans (demonstrated in figure 3.5). Where changes to plans have affected delivery forecasts the company has taken positive steps in reporting the reasons for changes and what it is doing to manage the impact to its operations, maintenance and renewals.
Figure 3.5: volume of renewals delivered compared to annual delivery plan, 2015-16 to 2018-19 3.16 In 2018-19, the company delivered its renewals commitments in all assets types, except waterproofing and bridge bearings, where it delivered less than planned. Figure 3.6 demonstrates that Highways England has also shown improved in-year forecasting, and has reduced the high proportion of delivery in the 4th quarter of the year (January to March) that was observed in the three previous years.
3.17 There remain further opportunities for Highways England to improve its management of renewals work. These include assessing the impact of secondary outputs (where renewal outputs like kerbs and road markings are delivered against a pavement scheme) and the contribution that renewals delivered against enhancement projects have on annual delivery plans.
Ring-fenced funds
3.18 The RIS1 investment plan includes ring-fenced funds worth £675m to address a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of roads investment. These funds are split across five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; and growth and housing.
3.19 In 2018-19, Highways England spent £181m of its ring-fenced funds. This is the same amount it spent in the previous three years combined and brings the total spend in this road period to £362m. The programme remains heavily back-end loaded, with £313m (46%) of the funds to be invested in the final year of the road period. Highways England’s delivery programme for ring-fenced funds in 2019-20 sets out plans for how it will deliver this. It has plans in place for four of the funds, but there is particular risk that the company will not fully use the air quality fund.
3.20 At the end of 2018-19, Highways England had only spent £9m (13%) of the air quality fund, out of a total fund value of £75m. A large proportion of the proposed investment in the final year of road period 1 depends on delivering a number of air quality barriers to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels on sections of the network. The complexity of delivering these barriers, and the short time available to do so, is a substantial risk. 3.21 Highways England has responded positively to ORR’s in-depth review of ring-fenced funds, which we published in July 2018. It has strengthened leadership and resources for the programme, and improved transparency by redesigning the relevant section on its website to make it easier for external parties to contact the company. Better engagement with the Major Projects Directorate in 2018-19 has also been an important factor in increasing the pace of delivery. Highways England is now taking forward work to assess the benefits delivered through ring-fenced funds, and we will work with the company to understand the outcomes from this work, and what lessons can be learnt for RIS2.
Case study – Air Quality Barriers
- Highways England has identified air quality barriers as a potential solution to high nitrogen dioxide levels at some locations on the network.
- Research from the Netherlands shows measurable reductions in nitrogen dioxide concentrations behind the barrier.
- Highways England has commissioned feasibility tests at 12 locations on the network.
- If the feasibility testing is positive, ring-fenced funds will be used to deliver the barriers.
- However, the complexity of delivering the barriers, and the short time left in road period 1 to do so represents a risk to spending the air quality ring-fenced fund.
4. EFFICIENCY
Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels.
Highways England is reporting £848m of efficiency in the road period towards its target of £1.2bn by 2020. This is based on good evidence of actions taken. But broader measures capturing costs of outcomes do not fully support this level. It is vital that Highways England progresses work on capturing productivity improvements to support future efficiency reporting.
Financial performance in 2018-19
4.1 Highways England spent £3.8bn in 2018-19 which is above the agreed baseline funding for the year (reflecting the RIS funding gap), but £102m below its budget and in line with the Department for Transport’s agreed outturn position. Of this, £2.6bn was capital spend which included improvements to the network (£1.6bn), renewing infrastructure (£674m) and ring-fenced funds (£181m).
Reported efficiency
4.2 Highways England has a target to deliver £1.2bn of capital efficiency savings by the end of this road period. It reports efficiency based on capturing the actions it has taken and quantifying their impact – and it provides evidence of this in case studies. We have reviewed this case study evidence, and generally found it to be of good quality. The company, with its supply chain, has established good processes for reporting and internal challenge of this type of evidence.
4.3 Using this approach, Highways England has reported £362m additional efficiency during 2018-19 including some additional efficiency relating to prior years. The cumulative reported efficiency in the first four years of the road period is £848m, against an internal milestone of £722m. The efficiency reported to date is 17% ahead of its internal target and represents 70% of the target for the first road period.
4.4 The renewals programme makes the largest contribution (57%) to the company’s reported efficiency to date, followed by its smart motorways programme (26%) and its regional investment and complex infrastructure programmes (16%).
4.5 While Highways England has reported £848m of efficiency through case studies, we also test efficiency using other methods, as set out below, and these do not fully support the levels reported.
Figure 4.1: Efficiency reported to date against target
Supporting evidence of efficiency
4.6 In addition to reviewing bottom-up evidence of efficiency, we also judge Highways England’s efficiency using:
- Measures of productivity improvements based on unit costs; and
- An assessment of whether it has delivered the Road Investment Strategy within the funding provided.
Unit costs
4.7 Highways England has been working to develop efficiency models based on unit cost information. Its modelling of smart motorway efficiency is the most mature. We are content that this supports the reported £219m of efficiency.
4.8 The company has also developed a model for renewals efficiency. The model uses an improved unit cost approach which was first introduced in 2017-18 and has now been extended to cover 66% of its renewals spend. Highways England states that the outputs of this model support its reported renewals efficiency. For the first time in this road period, the outputs have been approved by Highways England’s Board\\textsuperscript{16}. However, there is not yet enough information to give a clear long-term trend in renewals unit costs. In addition, the company’s internal assurance review of the model identified risks related to data uncertainty. We will work with Highways England to carry out further analysis to validate the renewals model’s outputs before the end of this road period.
4.9 The company has yet to fully develop similar models for providing unit cost based evidence of efficiency for the regional investment and complex infrastructure programmes (16% of reported efficiencies).
4.10 It is vital that Highways England continues to progress work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements to support its efficiency reporting. This will also be required to establish better reporting in the second road period.
Delivery of the Road Investment Strategy
4.11 Highways England receives funding after the removal of expected efficiency. It can therefore support its efficiency claims by demonstrating that it has delivered its outputs, outcomes and schemes within its funding. However, providing evidence of this is not straight-forward for the following reasons:
- The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes, and the value of this over-programming was estimated at £652m. In addition, the RIS was set at a time when there was not a full understanding of scheme scope. Fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, and outturn costs for schemes have increased. The costs associated with deferred work and cancelled schemes are comparable to the under-funding, with approximately £30m of over-programming remaining.
- At the end of 2018-19, Highways England’s forecast costs for this road period exceeded its funding by £205m. It is working to reduce the gap in 2019-20 and there are a number of uncertainties to resolve which may require adjustments to this figure for the purposes of assessing efficiency at the end of road period 1.
- Highways England considers that it was underfunded by £600m for some of its business costs. This includes approximately £100m for delivering outputs not in RIS1. It also includes approximately £500m costs of developing the company’s capability and capacity. It has provided reasonable evidence of additional unfunded outputs, but evidence for underfunding of other business costs is more limited.
- Highways England also believes that it has delivered additional scope on some major schemes. Based on the evidence provided by the company to date, our assessment is that £157m of additional scope is being delivered in road period 1.
- Highways England recognises that it has benefited from lower inflation than was forecast and built into funding levels when RIS1 was established. We consider that it may have benefited by up to £685m; Highways England has yet to quantify this benefit, but believes it may be less.
4.12 We are working with Highways England to develop its efficiency evidence relating to delivery of the RIS. Our analysis of the evidence received to date suggests that the company may deliver approximately £600m of efficiency in road period 1, but this figure may change significantly, for example if the company provides improved evidence of the additional £500m of business costs. It is subject to provision of further information by Highways England and more analysis. We will review this further with Highways England in 2019-20 to understand the end of road period position.
\\textsuperscript{16} In approving the outputs, Highways England’s Board recognised certain limitations in data quality. The model’s outputs are presented in Highways England’s performance monitoring statements as compliant with its Licence Framework and Document obligations. Our conclusions on efficiency
4.13 When weighing up all three areas of evidence, we consider that Highways England has more to do to support its reported £848m of efficiency. We expect it to produce better supporting evidence for the end of this road period.
4.14 Learning from the uncertainties set out above, it is essential that a better, fully-funded baseline plan is developed for RIS2, built on a clear understanding of scheme costs, timings and scope.
4.15 Our review of efficiency evidence is discussed in more detail in annex A. 5. PRIORITIES FOR 2019-20
5.1 The upcoming year is a particularly important one for Highways England, as it develops its plans for RIS2 whilst delivering its requirements for the final year of road period 1. Priority areas for Highways England to focus on in 2019-20 include:
- Building on its draft Strategic Business Plan for RIS2 to put plans in place, and develop its baseline position, for RIS2;
- Delivering its customer service improvement plan and taking action to minimise delay;
- Providing better evidence to support its claimed efficiencies;
- Managing a large number of major schemes starting in the final quarter of the year; and
- Delivering more through its ring-fenced funds programme than it has done previously.
Our monitoring
5.2 The transition from RIS1 to RIS2 is also informs our monitoring priorities in the year ahead. In 2019-20 we will:
- Continue to work with Highways England to monitor its performance, and hold it to account, for delivering its commitments in the final year of road period 1. This will inform our next annual assessment, which will focus on the company’s performance across the first road period as a whole.
- Review Highways England’s plans, and assess the company’s readiness, for delivering RIS2. ANNEX A: PERFORMANCE AGAINST OUTCOME AREAS
Outcome: Making the network safer
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve an ongoing reduction in network KSI (killed or seriously injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by the end of 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2018, the Department for Transport published adjusted road casualty statistics. This was in response to changes in how police forces record road casualty data.
Figure A1 compares adjusted and unadjusted KSIs on the strategic road network. The adjusted figures show 2,012 KSIs on the SRN in 2017, which is 159 higher than the 1,853 KSIs in the unadjusted data.
Reported KSIs for each year between 2005 and 2017 have increased as a result of the adjustment. The baseline period for the target (2005 to 2009) is subject to larger increases than in more recent years. This is because as more police forces move to new systems for recording road casualty data, less adjustment to the data series is required. Therefore, the improvement against the baseline is now greater.
Figure A1: Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network, adjusted and unadjusted figures, 2005-2017
17 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2017 than previously reported – the adjusted figures show that Highways England has achieved a 32% reduction in in KSIs in 2017, compared to a 20% reduction under the unadjusted figures.
The number of fatalities reported each year is unaffected by the data changes. In 2017, there were 236 deaths on the strategic road network, which is five (2%) higher than in 2016.
The Department for Transport expects to publish its latest reported road casualty statistics, for 2018, in July 2019.
Performance indicators
Safety star rating: Highways England has a target to achieve 90% of travel on roads given a 3-star rating, or above, for safety. It estimates that 95% of travel was on roads rated at least 3-star in 2018-19 – putting it on track to meet this target for the end of road period 1. It is now taking forward work to update the star rating of the network, moving from the current 4-star model to a new 5-star model.
Casualty numbers for all-purpose trunk roads: The Department for Transport’s road casualty statistics are used to monitor this performance indicator. Figures for all casualties are unaffected by the revisions to KSIs.
In 2017, there were 7,295 casualties of all severities on Highways England’s A-roads. This is a 14% reduction on the previous year, and the lowest total recorded in road period 1 so far.
Incident numbers on motorways: In 2018-19 there were 58,680 incidents on the motorway network. This is a 5% increase on the previous year. The three most common contributory factors to casualties on motorways in 2017 were ‘loss of control’, a ‘failure to look properly’ and a ‘failure to judge other person’s path or speed’.
Accident frequency rates: Highways England reports accident frequency rates as the ratio of Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation (RIDDOR) accidents per 100,000 hours worked.
For construction and maintenance workers in Highways England’s supply chain, the accident frequency rate was 0.05 in 2018-19. This is down from 0.12 in the previous year, and below the company’s internal target.
For Highways England’s operations directorate – which includes the traffic officer service – the accident frequency rate was 0.07. This is also a reduction from last year’s figure (0.43), and below the company’s internal target. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A5: User satisfaction with the strategic road network, 2018-19
Highways England’s satisfaction scores are calculated from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). The overall satisfaction measure was 88.4% in 2018-19, below the target of 90% and lower than the 88.7% recorded in 2017-18.
Performance indicators
NRUSS scores for motorways and all purpose trunk roads: Satisfaction with all purpose trunk roads fell 1 percentage point to 89.1% in 2018-19. Satisfaction on motorways increased by 0.3 percentage points to 87.8%
Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS: The NRUSS asks respondents about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the strategic road network: journey times; roadworks management; general upkeep; signage; and safety. Satisfaction with roadworks, which consistently scores lower than the other elements, saw the largest increase in 2018-19 (+2.4 percentage points). Satisfaction with general upkeep recorded the largest decrease (-1.7 percentage points). Figure A6: Satisfaction with different elements of the journey
Figure A7: NRUSS scores by location: The map shows a regional breakdown of NRUSS satisfaction.
In 2018-19, satisfaction was above 90% in the East and North East regions but was below 90% in all the other regions. Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A8: Lane availability on the strategic road network, 2018-19
Network availability is a measure of the length of road lanes that are open to traffic as a percentage of the total length of road lanes on the network. Performance is calculated over a rolling year.
At the end of 2018-19, network availability on the strategic road network was 98.3%, which is the same as the previous year, and above the target of 97%. Key performance indicator: Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green |
Figure A9: Incident clearance, 2018-19
The incident management key performance indicator measures the proportion of incidents on Highways England’s motorway network that it clears within one hour. At the end of 2018-19, the company cleared 88% of incidents within an hour – above the target of 85%.
Performance indicators
Traffic on the strategic road network: In 2018, 94.7bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network. This is 0.7% higher than in 2017, and the highest volume recorded to date. However, the rate of growth is lower than in previous years.
Figure A10: Traffic on the strategic road network, 2000 to 2018
Planning time index: The planning time index measures the additional time that road users should allow for their journey to arrive on time 19 times out of 20. It is calculated by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free flow journey time.
In 2018-19, the planning time index was 1.67, which is slightly lower than the figure recorded in 2017-18 (1.69). This indicates that the most delayed journeys on the network were slightly better in 2018-19 than in 2017-18.
Acceptable journeys: This measures the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flow speed. In 2018-19, 82.7% of journeys were above this threshold. This is slightly lower than the previous year, when 83.2% of journeys were above 75% of the free-flow speed.
Average speed: In 2018-19, average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 59 miles per hour. This is lower than in 2017-18 when the average speed was 59.2 miles per hour. Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A11: Average delay on the strategic road network
Highways England’s contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by average delay on the strategic road network.
In the year to March 2019, average delay was 9.4 seconds per vehicle mile. This is equivalent to a trip of 100 miles taking almost 16 minutes longer than on a free-flowing network. Average delay has increased each year during road period 1, which is likely to be related to increased traffic, and Highways England undertaking more improvement work as part of its investment programme.
Performance indicators
Average delay on gateway routes: Gateway routes are a subset of the strategic road network, comprising key connections linking cities and industry with the busiest ports, airports, and rail freight services. Delay on these routes in 2018-19 was 9 seconds per vehicle mile – an increase from 8.7 seconds in 2017-18.
Responding to formal planning applications: In 2018-19, Highways England responded to 99.9% of planning applications within 21 days. This is above the company’s internal target of 99%.
Spend on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs): Highways England estimates that its expenditure on goods and services from SMEs was 26%. The government target for spend on SMEs is 25%. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Figure A12: Mitigating noise important areas
Highways England mitigated 300 noise important areas in 2018-19
Highways England has a target to mitigate 1,150 noise important areas by 2020. In 2018-19, the company mitigated 300 noise important areas, bringing the total to 951 in this road period. It must now mitigate at least 199 further areas in 2019-20 to meet its target for the road period.
The majority of noise important areas have been mitigated through Highways England’s noise insulation programme, which offers to install double glazing to affected properties.
Figure A13: number of noise important areas mitigated, by intervention type
\*Includes households that have declined/not responded to offer of insulation Key performance indicator: Highways England must publish a Biodiversity Action Plan by 30 June 2015 and report annually on how it has delivered against the Plan
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green |
Figure A14: Delivering the biodiversity action plan
In 2018-19:
- 25 grassland schemes, delivering 100 hectares of grassland.
- 10 management plans for sites of special scientific interest.
Highways England continues to make progress in delivering the commitments set out in its biodiversity action plan. Key areas of progress during the year have included:
- Producing 10 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate. It has now met its commitment to develop 40 in this road period.
- Completing 25 grassland schemes, delivering almost 100 hectares of grassland.
- Trialling its new biodiversity metric.
Performance indicators
Air quality pilot studies: In 2018-19 Highways England has progressed a scheme with Leeds City Council to encourage uptake of electric vans. The company completed 10 air quality studies in 2017-18, and expects to publish conclusions later in 2019.
Carbon dioxide (Highways England’s activities): In 2018-19, Highways England reported that its activities resulted in the emission of 72,302 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 14% lower than in 2017-18, and a 24% reduction from the start of this road period.
Carbon dioxide (supply chain): In 2018-19, emissions from Highways England’s supply chain were estimated at 293,684 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is 15% higher than reported in 2017-18. However, variability in the completeness of returns means that comparisons between years should be treated with caution.
Figure A15: Carbon dioxide emissions for Highways England and supply chain, 2014-15 to 2018-19
Number of flooding hotspots and culverts mitigated: Highways England mitigated 35 flooding hotspots in 2018-19; no culverts were mitigated. The company has now mitigated 208 flooding hotspots and nine culverts in the first road period.
Number of outfalls and soakaways mitigated: Highways England contributed to improving water quality in watercourses close to the strategic road network by mitigating six outfalls in 2018-19. The company has now mitigated 16 outfalls in this road period. No soakaways have been mitigated in the road period to date. Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
In 2018-19, Highways England delivered 29 new and 54 upgraded crossings for cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users. The company has now delivered 90 new and 182 upgraded crossings in the road period.
Figure A16: New and upgraded crossings, 2015-16 to 2018-19.
29 new and 54 upgraded crossings for vulnerable users delivered in 2018-19.
Performance indicators
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme: Highways England delivered 22 cycling schemes during 2018-19. It has now delivered 101 in the road period and expects to meet its commitment of delivering 150 cycle schemes in the first road period.
Vulnerable user casualties: Road casualty data for 2018 are not yet available. Figures for 2015 to 2017 are shown below for reference.
Figure A17: Vulnerable user casualties (all severities), 2015 to 2017
| | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |------------------|------|------|------| | Motorcyclists | 849 | 864 | 760 | | Pedal cyclists | 153 | 152 | 137 | | Pedestrians | 158 | 154 | 153 | Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.2bn over the first road period.
| 2018-19 status: Amber | RIS1 status: Amber | |-----------------------|--------------------|
Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels.
In 2018-19 Highways England reported that it had identified £362m new efficiencies in the road period to date, bringing the cumulative reported efficiency improvements to its capital programme in the first four years of road period 1 to £848m. This is 70% of the KPI target to deliver £1.2bn of efficiencies by 2020, and is £126m (17%) ahead of the company’s internal capital efficiency delivery plan milestone for 2018-19.
Figure A18: Efficiency reported to date against target
Highways England reports efficiency improvements as set out in the Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM). There are three components to our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements. These are analysis of:
1. Highways England’s bottom-up description of efficiency improvements;
2. Capital unit cost movements; and
3. Expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the road investment strategy.
Bottom-up description of efficiency achieved
Highways England has presented case study evidence of the actions it has taken to deliver efficiency. Analysis of the contribution to the efficiency target split by theme and programme type is shown in figures A19 and A20. As in previous years, the scheduling of schemes and adoption of lean techniques account for over half of efficiencies reported, with a combined total of 53% to the end of 2018-19.
We found the case study evidence presented to be of a generally good standard and represents significant effort by the company and its supply chain to deliver efficiency.
Figure A19: Proportion of efficiency reported by theme, at end 2018-19 Figure A20: Proportion of efficiency reported by programme type, at end 2018-19
Figure A20 shows 57% of efficiencies reported to date are related to the renewals programme. Figure A21 shows that the proportion of renewals efficiencies contributing to the target is reducing over time. In the first three years of road period 1, renewals efficiencies accounted for at least 56% of the value attributed to each year. In 2018-19 the proportion of efficiencies related to other programmes, such as the Smart Motorway Programme and Complex Infrastructure Programme, increased and the renewals proportion declined to 37%. It is likely that this in part reflects that major schemes makes up an increasingly large part of the company’s capital programme (60% in 2018-19 compared to 50% in 2015-16).
Unit costs
Highways England has been working to develop efficiency models based on unit cost information. Its modelling of smart motorway efficiency is the most mature. We are content that this supports the reported £218.8m of efficiency.
The company has also developed a model for renewals efficiency. The model uses an improved unit cost approach which was first introduced in 2017-18, and has now been extended to cover 66% of its renewals spend. Highways England states that the outputs of this model provide evidence for £358m efficiency being generated from renewals thereby supporting the reported £319m renewals efficiency reported bottom-up using case-studies(^\\text{19}). The company has also carried out an internal assurance review of the model and for the first time in the road period the model’s outputs are presented in its performance monitoring statements as compliant with its Licence Framework and Document obligations. However, there is not yet enough information to give a clear long-term trend in renewals unit costs. We will work with Highways England to review the model in more depth to carry out further analysis and validation before the end of the road period.
Figure A21: Contribution to efficiency by programme type (excludes small value claims(^\\text{18}))
(^{18}) From analysis of case-study evidence provided. Excludes £75.5m of ‘small claims’ below £750,000 for which case-studies are not provided.
(^{19}) Highways England has adjusted the bottom-up value to remove efficiency that does not impact on unit costs and for other factors to enable a like for like comparison with the unit cost generated value. During 2018-19, Highways England developed similar models for providing unit cost based evidence of efficiency for the regional investment and complex infrastructure programmes (16% of reported efficiencies). The company continues to develop these models, which are not yet sufficiently robust to be used to provide evidence of efficiency.
It is vital that in 2019-20 Highways England continues to progress work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements to support its efficiency reporting. This will also be required to establish better reporting in the second road period.
**Delivery of the Road Investment Strategy**
Highways England receives funding after the removal of expected efficiency. It can therefore support its efficiency claims by demonstrating that it has delivered its outputs, outcomes and schemes within the funding provided. However, providing evidence of this is not straightforward for the following reasons:
- The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. In common with practice adopted by the Highways Agency, more schemes were programmed than could be delivered for the funding in the expectation of some scheme deferral, or stopping low value for money schemes. The value of overprogramming at the start of road period 1 has been estimated to be £652m. Our monitoring of the actual/forecast costs of schemes that have been deferred or stopped through formal change control suggests there is currently £32m of overprogramming remaining within the RIS1 programme.
- When the RIS was set, several schemes were at very early stage of development (pre-options), and their scope was not well defined. So, while fewer schemes are being delivered than originally expected in road period 1, and outturn costs for schemes have increased, the costs associated with deferred work and stopped schemes are comparable to the under-funding.
- At the end of 2018-19, Highways England’s forecast costs for road period 1 exceeded its funding by £205m. It is working to reduce the gap in 2019-20 and the company has identified future risks and opportunities which could reduce the gap to £100m.
- Highways England believes that it has delivered additional scope on some major schemes beyond the level expected for its funding.
This takes the form of additional outputs or improved outcomes (e.g. increased specification of a major scheme or measures to improve road user safety). Based on the evidence provided by Highways England to date our assessment is that additional major scheme scope of £157m is being delivered within this road period.
- Highways England considers that it was underfunded by £600m for some of its business costs. This includes approximately £100m for delivering outputs not in RIS1, consisting of: introduction of a revised safe system of access on Smart Motorway schemes; incorporation of emergency refuge areas to Smart Motorways; changes to M6 junctions 16-19 traffic management strategy; HS2 futureproofing work; and support to develop changes to the private finance funding programme. It also includes approximately £500m costs of developing Highways England’s capacity and capability to deliver a substantial increase in the capital portfolio. The company has provided reasonable evidence of additional unfunded outputs however the evidence for underfunding of other business costs is more limited. Further work is required with both Highways England and the Department for Transport in 2019-20 to resolve this issue.
- Highways England recognises that it has benefited from lower inflation than was forecast and built into funding levels when RIS1 was established, but has not yet quantified it. Based on information shared by the company to date we consider that it may have benefited by up to £685m. Highways England believes it is less and is preparing further evidence. The degree to which the company has benefited will depend on both the timing of contract renewal and approach to sharing inflation risk in its supplier contracts.
We are working with Highways England to develop its evidence for efficiency from delivery of the RIS. Our analysis of the evidence received to date in this area suggests that the company may deliver approximately £600m of efficiency in the road period but this figure may change significantly, for example if the company provides improved evidence of the additional £500m of business costs.
Both we and Highways England recognise that this analysis needs further refinement to support a more robust view of efficiency for the end of this road period. Figure A22: ORR provisional assessment of delivery of RIS1 efficiency evidence received to date Our conclusions on efficiency
When weighing up all of the evidence, we consider that Highways England has more to do to support its reported £848m of efficiency. In particular, it is important that for the end of road period 1 it:
1. continues to progress work on capturing and reporting productivity improvements; and
2. provides further efficiency evidence of delivering the RIS within funding and, where required, to support its case demonstrating with evidence areas of claimed underfunding and the impact of inflation on its costs.
Learning from the uncertainties set out above, it is essential that a better, fully-funded baseline plan is developed for RIS2, built on a clear understanding of scheme costs, timings and scope.
Input price effects
Highways England’s funding for capital projects in 2018-19 included an additional 5% for forecast increases in the costs of the company’s inputs (i.e. materials and labour costs). It has since commissioned work to provide a long-term inflation profile specific to the work contained in the RIS. The company used this to produce its own cost indices for actual year on year inflation in 2018-19 of 3.0% for enhancements and 3.5% for renewals. The degree to which Highways England has benefited from lower inflation than assumed in its funding will depend on both the timing of contract renewal and approach to sharing inflation risk in its supplier contracts.
As discussed above, for the purposes of assessing efficiency evidence related to delivery of the RIS we have estimated that Highways England has benefited by up to £685m. We will work with Highways England to review the inflation benefit and impact on efficiency before the end of the road period 1.
Performance Indicators
We also monitor Highways England’s performance in the construction phase of major scheme delivery using two earned value measures:
Cost performance index
The cost performance index (CPI) is commonly used in the construction industry as a measure of earned value. It is the ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to date to actual cost to date. In 2018-19 Highways England reported a CPI of 0.98 (0.96 in 2017-18) which is an indication that overall, projects in construction are progressing slightly above target cost.
Schedule performance index
The schedule performance index (SPI) is a similar measure of progress against the agreed schedule. It measures the relationship between the budgeted cost of work to date and the value scheduled to be delivered to date. In 2018-19 Highways England reported a SPI of 1.01 consistent with the level supported in 2017-18 which indicates that overall projects in construction are ahead of schedule.
In 2018-19, Highways England reviewed how it collects CPI and SPI data. Following this, the company has put improved processes in place, and expects to report more robust data in 2019-20. In 2018-19, Highways England started works on four major improvement schemes. It originally had a commitment to start work on six, but this was revised to four through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process.
The company completed six of the seven schemes that were planned to open in 2018-19; the delayed scheme is now expected to open in 2019.
In the first four years of this road period, Highways England has started work on 28 schemes, and opened 29 schemes to traffic.
Our full assessment of Highways England’s progress relative to its delivery plan is set out in chapter 3, and annex C of this report. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
| 2018-19 status: Green | RIS1 status: Green |
Figure A25: Pavement condition
At the end of 2018-19, Highways England reports that 95.5% of its pavement (road) asset did not require further investigation for maintenance. This is above the target of 95%, and an improvement on the score of 95.2% recorded in 2017-18.
Performance indicators
Structures assets: Highways England has continued to improve its structures inventory information, which is now 98.3% complete. This is an improvement of 0.1 percentage point from 2017-18.
The condition of Highways England’s structures is measured by three performance indicators. The first two – the average condition of the stock (SCav), and the condition of the assets’ most critical elements (SCcrit) – show a slight improvement in 2018-19, compared to 2017-18. The third indicator – the percentage of structures which have been inspected and rated as ‘good’ (SCI) – is similar to last year’s score.
Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 97.2% of its geotechnical assets do not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2018-19. This is similar to the position reported at the end of 2017-18.
Drainage assets: Highways England reports that it has drainage inventory data for 91% of its network, which is an improvement of 3 percentage points from its 2017-18 position. The percentage of the network with drainage condition data is 33% in 2018-19, down from 34% in 2017-18.
Technology asset availability: The availability of operational technology assets is measured by the percentage of time lost by service affecting faults. During 2018-19 performance has been reported as above Highways England’s targets for all three technology systems: control centre technology, national roads telecommunications services technology and roadside technology. Figure A26: Summary of asset performance indicators in 2018-19 and trend for road period 1
| Asset | PI | 2018-19 | RP1 Trend | |------------------------|---------------------------|---------|-----------| | **Geotech** | | | | | Condition | 97.2% | ▶ | | | Inventory | 12,987 km | ▼ | | | **Technology Availability** | | | | | Control Centre | 99.97% | ▶ | | | National Roads | | | | | Telecommunications | 99.99% | ▶ | | | Services | | | | | Roadside | 98.60% | ▲ | | | **Drainage** | | | | | Inventory Coverage | 91% | ▲ | | | Condition Coverage | 33% | ▼ | | | **Structures** | | | | | Inventory | 98.3% | ▲ | | | Condition average (SCav) | 85.35 | ▲ | | | Condition critical (SCcrit) | 63.38 | ▲ | | | Rating of ‘good’ (SCI) | 79.8% | ▶ | |
Key: Relative to position in 2017-18 - ▲ increase ▶ no change ▼ decrease ANNEX B: FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
This annex sets out a summary of our assessment of Highways England’s financial performance during 2018-19.
Financial performance
In 2018-19 Highways England’s agreed baseline funding was £3,794m, with £1,086m allocated to operational expenditure and £2,708m capital expenditure. Funding for major schemes increased by 38% reflecting several large smart motorway schemes moving in to construction in March 2018.
Figure B1: Highways England funding: Delivery plan update 2018-19 Capital
Highways England ended 2017-18 with a gap of £438m between its forecast expenditure for RIS1 and the available funding. The company developed plans to reduce this gap to £274m, of which £266m related to expenditure pressure in 2018-19.
In 2018-19 the Department for Transport adjusted Highways England capital baseline funding from £2,708m to £2,588m. This reflected a repayment of unused funding for the cancelled M20 Lorry Park and additional funding for Operation Brock(^20). However, the company set its capital budget at £2,854m, reflecting its latest plans. Therefore it was necessary for the company to spend below this level to help close the RIS funding gap.
In early 2018-19 Highways England set a cost challenge to its Operations and Major Projects directorates and successfully reduced capital expenditure by £109m by quarter 2 allowing it to set a revised capital budget of £2,745m in November 2018. Through further management of expenditure in-year the outturn capital expenditure for the year was £2,650m, £96m below the revised budget, but £62m above the funding allocated for the year. The company had agreed this outturn position with the Department for Transport in setting its revised budget and was consistently forecasting this position since November 2018.
Significant variances compared to revised budget are shown in figure B3 and are summarised below:
- Renewals overspend of £7m (1%) driven in part by cost pressures in Highways England’s East and North West regions, and higher than anticipated renewals work on M3 junctions 2-4a project. During the year, Highways England has offset cost pressures from the M5 Oldbury Viaduct, Manchester Smart Motorway Programme and the network recovery programme in the East region through planned reductions in programmes in other regions.
- Improvements underspend of £43m were largely due the effect of differences in timing of scheme delivery compared to budget assumptions.
Figure B2: Capital expenditure compared to baseline and budget in 2018-19
(^{20}) Operation Brock is a set of measures to keep the M20 open in both directions between junction 8 and 9 in the event of disruption to services across the English Channel. (rescheduling of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon and delays on M20 junctions 3-5, M27 junctions 4-11, M62 junctions 10-12). These have been partially offset by acceleration of M4 junctions 3-12, and additional costs to meet the open for traffic commitment date on the A19 Coast Road and M6 junctions 16-19. As in previous years, a high proportion of schemes (58%) reported an overspend or underspend variance greater than 20%.
- Ring-fenced funds underspent by £20m, driven by an underspend on the growth and housing fund due to planned deferral of work to 2019-20.
- Other capital underspend of £39m in part due to: deferral and delay of 23 (out of 326) safety programme and congestion relief schemes; savings on the roll out of the asset delivery approach; and delays on purchasing of depots and works on operational buildings.
Highways England’s underspend to its revised budget of £96m (3%) and original budget of £204m (7%) has helped reduce the RIS1 funding gap. However it is important to note that the underspend has been delivered in part because of delay or planned deferral of £179m work to 2019-20. Whilst £61m of work was accelerated by bringing it forward from 2019-20, the net impact of these effects is £118m of the 2018-19 funding gap pressure moving in to 2019-20. The programmes making the largest contribution to the timing effects are planned deferral of safety and congestion relief schemes, the growth and housing fund projects and 14 major schemes. There have also been unplanned delays on 11 smart motorways, junction widening and bypass schemes. This has been offset by acceleration of M4 junctions 3-12 and Lower Thames Crossing.
Highways England has reduced the RIS1 funding gap from £438m in 2017-18 to £205m in 2018-19. After reflecting forecast risks and opportunities the expected gap reduces further, to £100m. We estimate that £86m of the reduction from 2017-18 is a result of net savings in 2018-19. The remainder is due to the impact of changes to the major schemes programme, agreed with the Department for Transport. Resource
In 2018-19, Highways England identified a resource spending need of £1,106m. However, the Department for Transport set a budget challenge of £20m and provided baseline funding of £1,086m. After identifying internal savings in-year, the department reduced the budget challenge by £9m and provided £1,096m resource funding. Highways England set its budget at £1,107m and worked to underspend the budget to align with its funding.
Highways England spent £1,101m during 2018-19, underspending its budget by £6m (0.6%). The Department for Transport was content with the outturn position at £5m (0.4%) above its funding. The outturn reflected overspends of £31m on maintenance due to lower income and higher electricity costs, and £21m on support costs including unrecoverable VAT. This was offset by underspends on PFI of £29m due to lower traffic volumes and refinancing, and savings on general support of £16m including the Severn Crossing tolling contract. ANNEX C: NETWORK INVESTMENT DELIVERY
This annex describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2018-19, including ring-fenced funds. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
The road investment strategy sets the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England must deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlines a five-year capital funding package of £12.2 billion for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This includes:
- a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7.8 billion;
- a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.7 billion;
- a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and
- investment associated with strategic studies.
We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the investment plan.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2018-19
Highways England’s progress in delivery of its capital programme during 2018-19 is shown in figure C1.
The company started construction on four schemes in 2018-19. It originally had a commitment to start work on six but this was revised to five through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. Of the six schemes originally planned to start in 2018-19, two started construction on schedule, and one, the M27 junctions 4-11 scheme, started two quarters ahead of schedule. Of the remaining three:
- two schemes were formally deferred to minimise road user disruption around the Manchester area – the M56 junctions 6-8 and M6 junctions 21A-26. Highways England is now planning to start construction of the M56 junctions 6-8 in 2019-20 and the M6 junctions 21A-26 scheme will start in the next road period.
- One scheme (A47 and A12 junction enhancements) did not start as planned and is under review due to the impact of the construction of the third river crossing in Great Yarmouth by Norfolk County Council (but no change has been formally agreed).
During 2018-19, Highways England also started construction of one further scheme that had been re-scoped and had its start of works revised to 2018-19 – the A1 North of Ellingham.
Of the seven schemes that were planned to open for traffic in 2018-19, five were delivered on schedule and one (A50 Uttoxeter) was completed one quarter ahead of schedule. The M20 junction 10a, which was expected to open in 2018-19, is delayed due to an extended construction programme to carry out significant gas mains diversion works. This scheme is forecast to open in 2019-20 quarter 3.
One scheme that was delayed from 2017-18 (M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20 smart motorway) was opened for traffic in July 2018, 10 months later than planned due to scope extensions, including improvement to asset condition to avoid subsequent maintenance. Figure C1: Major scheme delivery in 2018-19
| 2018-19 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |----------------------|----------------|-------------| | **Major schemes start of works** | | | | M27 junctions 4-11 | 2018-19 Q3 | 2018-19 Q1 (ahead of schedule) | | A1 (North of Ellingham) | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q3 (ahead of revised schedule) | | A500 Etruria widening | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | A19 Testos | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M56 junctions 6-8 | 2018-19 Q4 | formally deferred within RP1 through change control | | M6 junctions 21A-26 | 2018-19 Q4 | formally deferred within RP2 through change control | | A47 and A12 junction enhancements | 2018-19 Q4 | under review and therefore missed its committed date | | **Major schemes open for traffic** | | | | A50 Uttoxeter | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q3 (ahead of schedule) | | M1 junctions 24-25 | 2018-19 Q3 | 2018-19 Q3 | | M1 junctions 23A-24 | 2018-19 Q3 | 2018-19 Q3 | | A19 Coast Road | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M6 junctions 16-19 | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M5 junctions 5, 6 & 7 junction upgrades | 2018-19 Q4 | 2018-19 Q4 | | M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20: Smart Motorway | 2017-18 Q2 | 2018-19 Q2 | | M20 junction 10a | 2018-19 Q4 | delayed, forecast 2019-20 Q3 |
Key:
- Milestone due or achieved on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone due or achieved one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone due or achieved more than one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone changed
Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2018-19 is shown in figure C2. This shows an underspend of £48.7m for schemes under construction, mostly due to planned deferral and delay on several schemes, and also cost savings on the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme. This was a result of works being rescheduled in year, which removed weather-related delays and the need for winter earth works.
Figure C2 also shows an overspend of £38.3m against schemes which opened for traffic during the year. This is largely due to additional costs associated with achieving the planned opening date for a number of schemes.
Figure C2: Major schemes costs against budget in 2018-19, £m
| Scheme stage (end of 2018-19) | Budget 2018-19 | In-year costs 2018-19 | Variance | % over / (under) | |------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|----------|-----------------| | Under construction | 1,003.3 | 954.6 | (48.7) | -5% | | Open for traffic | 207.3 | 245.5 | 38.3 | 18% | During 2018-19, Highways England has made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed eight schemes from options into development. In the first four years of road period 1, Highways England has started construction of 28 schemes and opened 29 for traffic. At the end of March 2019, there were 15 schemes under construction on the network. Figure C3 shows progress of major schemes in the first four years of RP1.
**Figure C3: Progress of schemes through development and construction in RP1**
**Delivery of major improvement schemes in the rest of road period 1**
Since the start of road period 1 Highways England has improved its scheduling of major schemes, with particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road used experience. In 2017-18 Highways England made changes to optimise its enhancement plan, by considering the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations (road corridors) to reduce customer disruption. During 2018-19 Highways England continued to review its capital plan.
As a result, some major improvement schemes are now programmed for delivery in future road periods, while other schemes have been brought forward within road period 1. Further changes were introduced for other reasons. The following two schemes have been stopped:
- A27 Chichester – due to no clear consensus on the preferred options.
- A628 Climbing Lanes – due to the detrimental environmental impacts of the proposed scheme within the Peak District National Park.
Highways England has also identified four schemes that, due to delays with the statutory planning process, will miss the RIS1 commitments to start construction during this road period.
The company has agreed the changes to its commitments in the RIS and delivery plan with government and has taken these through the Department for Transport’s formal change control process. Figures C4 and C5 summarise the changes to the major improvements programme agreed to the end of 2018-19. Figure C4: Projected start of works in road period 1
- Original RIS1 portfolio: 112
- Paused/stopped (value for money): -6
- Scopped (other factors): -2
- Combined/re-scoped: -1
- RIS1 portfolio remaining: 103
- Deferred (minimum disruption): -16
- Deferred (external factors): -9
- Missed commitments: -4
- Under review: -4
- Planned to start by end of RP1 (minimum): 70
Number of schemes
### Figure C5: Changes to the major improvements programme
| Schedule impact | Number of schemes | Remarks | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Schemes paused that do not currently demonstrate value for money (formally agreed) | 6 | A1 & A19 Technology enhancements M62/M606 Chain Bar M53 Junctions 5-11: smart motorway M11 Junctions 8 to 14 - technology upgrade A12 whole-route technology upgrade A14 Junction 10a | | Stopped (formally agreed) due to lack of stakeholder support | 2 | A27 Chichester A628 Climbing Lanes | | Under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form (but not yet formally changed) | 4 | A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement A47 and A12 junction enhancements M56 new junction 11a M6 junction 22 upgrade | | Start of works deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 to minimise road user disruption | 16 | 15 road corridor schemes M6 junctions 21A-26 | | Start of works deferred from road period 1 to road period 2 due to other factors, for example an outcome of public consultations and schemes' options appraisals | 9 | M54 to M6 / M6 Toll, A38 Derby junctions A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet M5 Bridgwater junctions A5036 Princess Way - access to Port of Liverpool A19 Down Hill Lane junction improvement A358 Taunton to Southfields M27 Southampton junctions | | Missed commitments – schemes that will miss the RIS1 commitments to start construction during RP1 and have been deferred to the next road period | 4 | A1 Morpeth to Ellingham Mottram Moor link road A57(T) to A57 link road A27 Arundel bypass | | Schemes re-scoped and combined | 1 | A34 Oxford improvements (previously A34 Oxford junctions and A34 technology enhancements) |
The six schemes that the Department for Transport has agreed to pause, the two it has agreed to cancel, and two that have been combined into a single scheme, result in the RIS1 major schemes programme being reduced from 112 to 103 projects. Four further schemes are under review and we consider them unlikely to go ahead in their current form. Highways England is now planning to have started at least 70 schemes by the end of March 2020.
The company is expecting to start construction of 26 schemes during the last year of road period 1 which includes two schemes - the M11 junction 7a upgrade and A5 Towcester improvement schemes - which are dependent on third parties. In 2019-20, Highways England is also planning to open for traffic eight schemes, including the scheme delayed from 2018-19 (M20 junction 10a).
The likely major scheme delivery status for the remainder of the first road period is summarised in figure C6.
### Figure C6: Major scheme delivery – first road period, construction phase
| Phase | Original delivery plan commitments (2015-20) | Progress | No. | Details | Status | |------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Start of works | | Started | 44 | 16 started construction prior to road period 1 | | | | | | | 28 started in the first four years of road period 1 | | | | | On schedule | 26 | 24 as planned | | | | | | | 2 schemes subject to third party schedule of works | | | | | Under review | 4 | 4 schemes under review (not yet formally changed) and we consider unlikely to go ahead in their current form | | | | | Missed commitments | 4 | 4 schemes forecast to miss RP1 commitments | | | | | Approved changes | 34 | 1 scheme progressing on the A34 as a result of combining and re-scoping 2 existing schemes on the road | | | | | | | 6 low VfM schemes - paused | | | | | | | 2 schemes stopped | | | | | | | 25 deferred from RP1 to RP2 | | | Open for traffic | | Opened | 29 | 29 opened for traffic in the first four years of the road period | | | | | On schedule | 7 | as planned | | | | | Delayed | 1 | M20 Junction 10a (delayed from 2018-19) | |
**Key:**
- Milestone due or achieved on schedule or ahead of schedule
- Milestone due or achieved one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone changed
- Milestone due or achieved more than one quarter behind schedule
- Knock-on effects during road period 2, in terms of the planned expenditure profile and enhancement project completion dates.
The company has taken steps during road period 1 to smooth the profile of RIS1 projects. However, it plans to start construction on 26 schemes during 2019-20, of which a high proportion will be in the final quarter of the road period. This is a considerable increase compared with typical delivery during the road period. There are risks around Highways England starting work on all of these projects to the planned timescales. For example, for many of these projects, the planned length of the development phase required to start construction is shorter than the typical development period duration. Any delays to the start of work for these projects could have knock-on effects during road period 2, in terms of the planned expenditure profile and enhancement project completion dates.
**Maintenance and renewals**
Highways England is taking a more structured approach to managing its assets and has improved how it manages and reports maintenance and renewals. The company has maintained the condition of its network in 2018-19, as measured by the RIS metrics. The score for its key performance indicator on road condition has improved, and the condition of other asset types, where measured, is broadly stable.
______________________________________________________________________
21 This may increase depending on the outcome of the four schemes under review. Maintenance and inspections
Highways England’s performance monitoring statements for 2018-19 have, for the first time, included data showing the company’s performance in maintaining the strategic road network. These statements help inform whether the company is doing enough maintenance and renewal on the network to counter degradation of its assets over time and managing its assets sustainably. It is a positive step that additional reporting on maintenance activity has been published. However, we asked for the published statement to include defects, such as potholes, and it does not yet do this. Reporting of defects would give transparency to the sort of issues that might affect the safety and satisfaction of road users and improve the line of sight between maintenance delivery and network condition. We will continue to work with the company during 2019-20 to resolve the challenge of defect reporting.
In a typical year, Highways England completes around 11,000 inspections of its structures assets. During 2018-19 we raised our concern at the significant number of overdue detailed structures inspections – approximately 3,500 in August 2018. The company put in place a plan to address the backlog, and managed the number of overdue inspections down to 21 by the end of March. It has provided assurance that the outstanding overdue assets have received visual inspections and do not present a risk to users, as well as improvements to its processes and procedures for managing and monitoring inspection performance going forward. Highways England has also shared progress against inspections for other assets, which we will monitor during 2019-20.
Asset management
We completed an in-depth review into Highways England’s management of roadside technology assets in June 2019. The objective of the review was to determine whether the company manages its roadside technology assets safely, robustly, sustainably and efficiently.
The review looked at how Highways England operates over 100,000 roadside technology assets, worth £4bn, across the strategic road network through national and regional control centres, its telecommunications network and its regional maintenance operations. It found that the company recognises the increasing importance of roadside technology as an asset to support its network operator role, its Digital Roads agenda and three imperatives: safety, customer service and delivery. The review identified that it should continue to develop its whole life cycle processes to manage roadside technology assets and makes a number of recommendations to support its objectives.
The completion of our review of Highways England’s asset management approach to technology assets completes our review of its main asset types over the last three years. We will work with the company in 2019-20 to understand how it is responding to the recommendations made across all the reviews and to map out its approach to continued asset management maturity. Renewals
In 2018-19, Highways England delivered renewal volumes that more closely reflected its plans at the start of the year. The company met its planned volumes against all but two asset types, bridge waterproofing and bridge bearings. This is shown in figure C7 below.
Figure C7: volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2018-19
| 2018-19 Commitments | Planned Output | Actual Output | Output Variance | |--------------------------------------|----------------|---------------|-----------------| | Renewal of roads - pavement | | | | | Pavement (lane kilometres) | 1,800 | 1,940 | +8% | | Traffic Signs (number) | 1,000 | 1,829 | +83% | | Guardrail (kilometres) | 0.625 | 1.0 | +58% | | Kerbs (kilometres) | 26.8 | 39.8 | +48% | | Boundary Fencing (kilometres) | 35.8 | 48.2 | +35% | | Road Markings (kilometres) | 2,850 | 3,694.5 | +30% | | Lighting (number) | 1,720 | 2,147 | +25% | | Vehicle Restraint System (VRS) | 188 | 204.5 | +9% | | Geotechnical (kilometres) | 3 | 3.2 | +7% | | Drainage (kilometres) | 165 | 174.5 | +6% | | Renewal of structures | | | | | Bridge Joint (number) | 355 | 634 | +79% | | Parapet (kilometres) | 1.3 | 1.7 | +29% | | Waterproofing (square metres) | 118,100 | 112,763 | -5% | | Bridge Bearing (number) | 192 | 98 | -49% | | Renewal of technology | | | | | Winter Resilience (number of completed schemes) | 40 | 58 | +45% | | Network Resilience (number of completed schemes) | 33 | 43 | +30% | | Renewals and Improvements (number of technology assets renewed or improved) | 343 | 429 | +25% | | Motorway communications equipment (number of new or replaced items) | 157 | 177 | +13% | Figure C8 (below) shows the volume of renewals delivered compared to plan in the first four years of this road period for selected asset types. The size of the variances shows an improvement in delivering renewals that more closely reflect its asset plans in 2018-19. Highways England has improved reporting of its Operations, Maintenance and Renewals (OMR) plans and explanation of changes to plans and delivery during the year. In-year forecasting of renewals outputs have shown reduced variability across all asset types. The company has committed to continue developing and improving its OMR reporting during 2019-20.
In 2018-19, Highways England delivered renewals volumes more evenly throughout the year. In previous years, delivery was disproportionately high in quarter 4, which led us to raise concerns with the company about the inefficiency of this profile. Winter weather conditions may lead to higher costs due to difficulty completing work, and also reduce the lifespan of the work, increasing whole life costs. In quarter 4 of 2018-19 it spent approximately half the amount of the same period in 2017-18. This improved planning and delivery, and efforts to close the funding gap, are likely to have influenced the flatter spend profile for renewals, as shown in figure C9.
Figure C8: volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan 2015-16 to 2018-19 Figure C9: volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan 2015-16 to 2018-19 Figure C10 shows the proportion of pavement renewals delivered each quarter, which also demonstrates how the company has improved planning and delivery.
**Figure C10: percentage of pavement renewals per quarter, 2015-16 to 2018-19** Ring-fenced funds
Highways England’s investment plan includes a set of ring-fenced funds, worth £675m in road period 1, aimed at addressing a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of roads investment. Delivery of projects through these funds is covered in chapter 2, and also figure C11, below, which provides an update on each fund at the end of 2018-19.
Figure C11: Ring-fenced funds delivery in 2018-19
- **Value in RISI: £675m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- £363m spent to date, of which £181m spent in 2018-19.
- Pace of delivery has significantly increased in 2018-19.
- However, overall programme remains heavily back-end loaded.
- The level of underspend in the air quality fund, in particular, is a risk to the success of the funds.
- **Value in RISI: £175m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- Cycling: Detailed design on 19 schemes, and construction completed on 22.
- Safety: Detailed design completed on 38 schemes and construction completed on 21.
- Integration: Detailed design completed on 26 schemes and construction completed on 28.
- **Value in RISI: £120m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- 109 projects active during 2018-19.
- Safety: 3 projects developed and 3 delivered.
- Infrastructure: 3 projects developed.
- Data and information: 2 projects developed and 1 delivered.
- New technologies: 1 project developed.
- Sustainable operation: 3 projects developed and 1 delivered.
- **Value in RISI: £80m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- Programme now closed to new schemes.
- 28 schemes now approved, of which: 7 completed, 1 in progress, and 20 due to commence.
- Once completed, the package is expected to help enable up to 45,000 homes and 45,000 jobs.
- **Value in RISI: £75m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- 17 air quality projects active in 2018-19.
- Continuing to roll out a network of air quality monitoring stations; 48 stations now operational.
- Further feasibility work is underway on a programme of national air quality barriers.
- The volume of work required in the final year of the RIS is a risk to the air quality fund successfully delivering its objectives.
- **Value in RISI: £225m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- Water: 12 schemes completed
- Noise: 232 noise important areas mitigated by insulation scheme.
- Carbon: 816 lighting units and 90 traffic signals converted to LED.
- Landscape: 45 schemes completed.
- Biodiversity: 25 projects, creating additional 99 hectares of grassland.
- Cultural heritage: Enhancements made at seven sites.
- Legacy: No schemes reported in 2018-19.
- **Value in RISI: £75m**
- **2018-19 performance**
- 17 air quality projects active in 2018-19.
- Continuing to roll out a network of air quality monitoring stations; 48 stations now operational.
- Further feasibility work is underway on a programme of national air quality barriers.
- The volume of work required in the final year of the RIS is a risk to the air quality fund successfully delivering its objectives.
[^10]: https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/41386/highways-englands-provision-of-traffic-data-and-information-march-2019.pdf
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1035-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 72,
"total-input-tokens": 143612,
"total-output-tokens": 31537,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
218,
3
],
[
218,
218,
4
],
[
218,
218,
5
],
[
218,
218,
6
],
[
218,
4005,
7
],
[
4005,
8251,
8
],
[
8251,
11765,
9
],
[
11765,
14195,
10
],
[
14195,
16846,
11
],
[
16846,
18369,
12
],
[
18369,
21853,
13
],
[
21853,
22845,
14
],
[
22845,
26815,
15
],
[
26815,
29140,
16
],
[
29140,
30921,
17
],
[
30921,
34914,
18
],
[
34914,
36592,
19
],
[
36592,
36592,
20
],
[
36592,
39649,
21
],
[
39649,
41893,
22
],
[
41893,
44890,
23
],
[
44890,
45625,
24
],
[
45625,
47022,
25
],
[
47022,
49868,
26
],
[
49868,
51947,
27
],
[
51947,
53283,
28
],
[
53283,
56246,
29
],
[
56246,
60373,
30
],
[
60373,
60914,
31
],
[
60914,
62167,
32
],
[
62167,
63538,
33
],
[
63538,
65840,
34
],
[
65840,
67178,
35
],
[
67178,
67456,
36
],
[
67456,
68155,
37
],
[
68155,
69906,
38
],
[
69906,
71423,
39
],
[
71423,
72421,
40
],
[
72421,
74788,
41
],
[
74788,
76094,
42
],
[
76094,
78094,
43
],
[
78094,
80543,
44
],
[
80543,
85134,
45
],
[
85134,
85230,
46
],
[
85230,
88107,
47
],
[
88107,
88739,
48
],
[
88739,
90802,
49
],
[
90802,
92437,
50
],
[
92437,
92950,
51
],
[
92950,
95163,
52
],
[
95163,
96448,
53
],
[
96448,
97221,
54
],
[
97221,
98187,
55
],
[
98187,
101100,
56
],
[
101100,
103594,
57
],
[
103594,
105730,
58
],
[
105730,
106122,
59
],
[
106122,
109288,
60
],
[
109288,
113704,
61
],
[
113704,
116686,
62
],
[
116686,
119108,
63
],
[
119108,
120475,
64
],
[
120475,
120552,
65
],
[
120552,
120786,
66
],
[
120786,
123864,
67
],
[
123864,
123864,
68
],
[
123864,
123864,
69
],
[
123864,
123864,
70
],
[
123864,
123864,
71
],
[
123864,
123864,
72
]
]
} |
92f03f864a65fb164f4ab5a0382883fff447b954 | Annual Assessment of Highways England’s Performance April 2015 – March 2016 Annual assessment of Highways England’s performance April 2015 – March 2016
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 13 July 2016
## Contents
**Executive Summary**\
Background and context 3\
Purpose of this report 3\
Highways England’s operational performance 4\
Highways England’s capital investment delivery 4\
Highways England’s financial performance 7\
Priorities for 2016-17 7
1. **Context for the annual assessment**\
The strategic road network 9\
Significant change for Highways England 10\
The first Road Investment Strategy 10\
Traffic growth 11
2. **Highways England’s performance**\
How we measure Highways England’s performance 13\
Making the network safer 15\
Improving user satisfaction 19\
Supporting the smooth flow of traffic 23\
Encouraging economic growth 26\
Delivering better environmental outcomes 28\
Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users 32\
Achieving real efficiency 34\
Keeping the network in good condition 35
3. **Financial performance and efficiency**\
Financial performance 39\
Efficiency improvements 42
4. **Network investment delivery**\
Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2015-16 49\
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the remainder of the road period 53\
Ring-fenced investment funds 56\
Strategic studies 58\
Maintenance and renewals delivery 59
5. **Priorities for 2016-17**\
Establishing clear performance plans 63\
Establishing clear capital investment plans 63\
Improving data quality and transparency 63\
Developing and implementing plans for RIS2 64
Annex A – List of performance indicators 67\
Annex B – Glossary of terms 71 Executive Summary
Background and context
1. Highways England is the government-owned company which manages the motorways and main A roads in England (the strategic road network).
2. In late 2014, the government specified a set of outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (Road Period 1). These requirements were specified in the Road Investment Strategy (RIS).
3. Highways England was formed in April 2015 at the same time as wide-reaching reforms were made to the way the sector works. The company is implementing a significant change programme to adapt to its new operating environment. It is managing, operating and delivering improvements to its network at a time when traffic is at record levels and growing. This presents challenges for the company in almost all of its outcome areas – including keeping traffic flowing and maintaining user satisfaction whilst delivering network investment.
4. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s performance in the delivery of the outcomes and investments (such as road improvements) in the RIS. Highways England has set out how it will deliver these objectives in its Delivery Plan, which it updates each year.
5. As this is the first road period there are some aspects of the framework which continue to be developed and further work must be completed over the coming year, in particular to refine the company’s capital investment plan.
Purpose of this report
06. This is ORR’s first annual assessment of Highways England’s performance since taking on the role of Highways Monitor in April 2015. It focuses on Highways England’s performance and delivery against:
- the RIS Performance Specification, including eight key outcome areas;
- the RIS Investment Plan, including ongoing management of the network and delivery of improvements; and
- Highways England’s licence conditions.
07. The report aims to provide all stakeholders with a clear understanding of how Highways England is performing and how the company is placed to deliver its commitments over the remainder of the road period. Three key messages
08. Highways England has made a good start to delivery in the first road period. It has met its performance targets and delivered its investment commitments in 2015-16.
09. Highways England now needs to implement robust plans to make sure that it delivers targets in the rest of the road period, including improving safety performance, customer service and environmental mitigations.
10. There is an opportunity for Highways England to improve its management of risks to network investment delivery over the road period. In particular, there is more to do in planning and delivering investment efficiently and in demonstrating that network condition is being managed sustainably.
Highways England’s operational performance
08. The RIS Performance Specification sets the outcomes that Highways England must deliver during the road period in eight areas. It sets 11 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for measuring performance, eight of which have targets.
09. Highways England has met its Performance Specification targets for 2015-16. It has supported the smooth flow of traffic by maintaining network availability and motorway incident clearance metrics above its targeted levels. The company has exceeded its target for pavement (carriageway) condition. It has also progressed its environmental strategies and plans, including publishing its biodiversity action plan.
10. For other outcome areas Highways England has been set targets for later in the road period. For example, the company must make the network safer, including reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% by the end of 2020. Data for 2015 show a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on the network compared to the previous year but continued focus is needed to deliver the target.
11. Highways England must achieve 90% user satisfaction by March 2017. User satisfaction for 2015-16 was 89.3%, an improvement from the previous year. The company will need to develop and implement a clear plan to deliver the required improvement in user satisfaction over the next year.
12. In several other outcome areas we consider that Highways England needs to provide more assurance that it has robust plans in place to meet its targets. This is discussed further in the body of this document. Highways England’s capital investment delivery
13. The RIS Investment Plan sets out the £11.4bn capital investment portfolio which Highways England must deliver during the road period.
14. Highways England has delivered its major scheme commitments for 2015-16, including opening five schemes to traffic as planned. These are now delivering benefits to road users. It has started construction of eight further schemes, exceeding its plans to start seven.
15. For those schemes that have opened for traffic, expenditure for the year was £4m (4%) higher than baseline estimates. This is primarily due to the inclusion of additional renewals work in the schemes.
16. Whilst delivery of the major scheme programme so far has met committed milestones we are concerned that Highways England has not yet fully demonstrated how it is managing risks to delivery of the Investment Plan in the remainder of the road period. The company acknowledges this, is engaging us openly, and is working on improvements to its plans, and to the management of its portfolio of capital investment more broadly. The company’s improvement plans should:
- set clear, agreed baseline assumptions for the scope, cost and timing of major schemes, and demonstrate how the company has assured that the baseline is deliverable;
- set out current delivery forecasts and explain how the portfolio will be delivered within the funding available; and
- demonstrate a portfolio approach to managing investment – for example integrating its asset management and network improvement programmes.
17. Highways England will need to manage some specific strategic risks to the delivery of the capital investment portfolio during the first road period. For example, there are potential risks associated with the availability of a skilled workforce and with the impact of air quality thresholds.
18. We expect the company to demonstrate that its portfolio management capability improves in 2016-17 and will report on its progress.
19. In April 2016 we published a report reviewing the capability and capacity of Highways England’s supply chain to deliver the RIS. This highlighted the need for the company to identify and monitor the strategic risks to its major projects portfolio, and engage better with the supply chain on the forward programme of investment. Highways England accepted these recommendations and developed its response.
20. Highways England’s Delivery Plan set out the volumes of renewals work it planned to carry out in 2015-16. The company’s reported volumes for the year show significant variances from its plans. Highways England has provided only high level explanations for these variances. There was also a significant re-profiling of renewals work during the year, resulting in a 35% increase in renewals expenditure in the final quarter compared to the previous three months. Taken together, these suggest that Highways England has more to do to plan and deliver its renewals work efficiently and effectively.
21. For the first road period, Highways England has designated funding to carry out environmental, cycling, safety, integration, innovation, air quality and growth and housing improvement works – beyond its business-as-usual activities. In 2015-16, the company has carried out preparatory work on the governance and processes for identifying and delivering improvements using these funds.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Highways England’s supply chain capability: http://orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/highways-englands-supply-chain-capability 2 Highways England’s response to ORR’s report on supply chain capability: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/highways-england-response-to-the-office-of-rail-and-road-orr-report-on-their-supply-chain-capability Highways England’s financial performance
22. Overall Highways England spent £3.0bn including £1.9bn on its capital programme which was in line with its funding in 2015-16. The funding was £144m higher than the original RIS funding due to the Department for Transport providing an additional £140m to meet the cost of capital projects carried over from previous years and an additional £4m for development work for a major lorry park in Kent.
23. Highways England has identified £55m of efficiency improvements across its capital programme during 2015-16. Our assessment is that the company has achieved its internal efficiency target of £33m, though further evidence is required about an additional £21m, in relation to savings on the company’s smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and we will continue to work with Highways England in 2016-17 as it develops the evidence base. The efficiency reported by the company for 2015-16 may be adjusted at a future date.
24. Highways England needs to deliver more than £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in the first road period and the company’s work over the past year on developing its processes for substantiating efficiencies has established good practice for future years. It will be important that the quality of evidence provided is commensurate with the size of the efficiency being reported.
Priorities for 2016-17
25. Whilst Highways England has largely delivered in 2015-16, it must now build on that success to ensure that it delivers in the remainder of the first road period. In 2016-17 it will be important for the company to:
- establish clear plans for the delivery of future performance targets;
- establish improved plans for capital investment delivery and for developing portfolio, programme and project management capability;
- improve data quality (for example asset data and efficiency reporting) by delivering on its coordinated data improvement plan; and
- improve transparency about its plans and performance, including the transparency of its plans and strategies in the areas of safety and the environment.
26. Over the next year it will be vital that work is progressed to lay solid foundations for RIS2. Highways England will need to make sure that it develops an evidence-based understanding of the needs of the network through its route strategies. It will also need to progress its plans to deliver efficiently. Context for the annual assessment
What is our role? 1.1 Our role in monitoring Highways England is defined in the Infrastructure Act 2015. We must carry out activities to monitor how Highways England exercises its functions. As part of fulfilling this role, we produce an annual report on the company’s performance setting out whether, how and at what cost the company has achieved its objectives under a RIS.
The Strategic Road Network 1.2 Roads are a key part of the country’s infrastructure. They keep people connected and are vital for supporting economic growth. 90% of passenger journeys and almost 70% of freight movements are made by road.
1.3 The strategic road network (SRN), managed by Highways England, is a vital part of the road network.
Figure 1.1: The strategic road network: key facts and figures
95% of English residents and 99% of vehicles use the strategic road network at least once a year. In 2015, 89.7 billion vehicle miles were driven on the network, of which 74% were cars and 25% vans and lorries.
Traffic on the strategic road network grew by 19% between 2000 and 2015 with the biggest growth coming from light goods vehicles, which increased by 61% in the same period. The Department for Transport’s national transport model predicts that, between 2010 and 2040, traffic on the network will increase by between 29% and 60%.
The strategic road network comprises approximately 4,400 miles of motorways and main A roads. It accounts for just 2% of road length in England but carries a third of traffic, including two thirds of lorry traffic. Significant change for Highways England
1.4 Highways England is a new company with new challenges. It was formed when the Highways Agency became a government-owned company in April 2015. At the same time, wide-reaching reforms to the sector were implemented, meaning that Highways England is operating in a new environment. Some of the key changes are that Highways England:
- has agreed performance targets over a five year period (whereas the previous performance specification covered a two year period);
- has committed to deliver a large increase in capital expenditure over the five year period – including more than £7bn of funding to deliver a programme of 112 major schemes – while realising significant efficiencies; and
- has been given greater autonomy, and now takes more ownership of developing, analysing and making investment decisions.
1.5 As a result the company has an opportunity to deliver more efficiently by taking a longer-term approach to planning and through different approaches to contracting and delivering through its supply chain. But it is also implementing significant change to adapt to its new environment.
The first Road Investment Strategy
1.6 As this is the first road period there are some aspects of the framework which continue to be developed. In some cases there is more to do to specify what Highways England is expected to deliver. The company needs to agree a firm scope of works for its capital investment with the Department for Transport, which will lead to improved certainty of costs in the road period.
1.7 There is also a need to clarify what level of delivery constitutes success (for example what proportion of scheme milestone delivery is acceptable to the Department for Transport). Highways England and the Department may need to consider options to repackage and reschedule works to deliver more efficiently in the longer-term. Some flexibility in delivery is being managed through a change control process managed by the Department. This has been implemented and will be further developed in 2016-17. Traffic growth
1.8 Highways England is managing, operating and delivering improvements to its network at a time when traffic is at record levels and continuing to grow.
1.9 The Department for Transport forecasts that traffic on the strategic road network will continue to grow, by between 29% and 60%, between 2010 and 2040.
1.10 Traffic growth presents specific challenges for the company in almost all of its outcome areas. For example, it must keep traffic flowing to support economic growth whilst delivering an increased programme of capital investment. It must also manage the impact of traffic growth on safety, network condition and air quality.
Figure 1.2: Vehicle miles travelled on the strategic road network
______________________________________________________________________
3 The projected traffic presented in this chart is based on the high and low scenarios from DfT’s road traffic forecasts, 2015: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411471/road-traffic-forecasts-2015.pdf Highways England’s performance
This chapter summarises Highways England’s performance against key outcomes in 2015-16. It also considers the quality of plans to deliver outcomes in the remainder of the road period.
How we measure Highways England’s performance
2.1 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS Performance Specification, as shown in table 2.1. This includes assessing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Performance Indicators (PIs) and requirements in each of the outcome areas.
2.2 Table 2.1 provides a summary of the KPIs and associated targets for each outcome area. It shows Highways England’s performance against each of the KPIs and a summary of our assessment of the company’s performance using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
2.3 Each outcome area is reviewed in greater detail later in the chapter. Within these sections we provide the explanations for the RAG statuses.
*A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual*
### Table 2.1: Performance Specification KPI delivery
| Outcome | KPI and target | RAG<sup>6</sup> 2015-16 | RAG RP1 | |----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------| | Making the network safer | Killed and seriously injured<br>Target: 40% reduction by end of 2020 | Amber | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction<br>Target: 90% by March 2017 | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability<br>Target: 97% lane availability in any one rolling year | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance<br>Target: 85% of motorway incidents cleared within one hour | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (seconds per vehicle mile)<br>Target: No target set | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated<br>Target: Mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by March 2020 | Amber | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity<br>Target: Publish biodiversity action plan | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings<br>Target: No target set | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings<br>Target: Total savings of at least £1.212bn on capital expenditure by March 2020 | Green | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to Delivery Plan<br>Target: No target set | Green | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition<br>Target: 95% of pavement requiring no further investigation for possible maintenance | Green | Green |
<sup>6</sup> Explanations for RAG statuses are given for each KPI later in this chapter Outcome: Making the network safer
2.4 Safety of road users and workers is a primary concern for Highways England and us, and needs continued focus. The company is demonstrating commitment to making the network safer, and has started to implement its health and safety plans.
Key performance indicator: The number of killed and seriously injured on the strategic road network
- Highways England must achieve an on-going reduction in network KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by end 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | The number of people killed and seriously injured in 2015 was 3.6% lower than in 2014. However, this is above the trajectory required to deliver the target by the end of 2020. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England has developed plans for improvement in the first road period but these are not yet published. The company has not yet quantified how its plans will deliver the end-of-road period target. |
2.5 England’s roads are amongst the safest in the world, but Highways England is tasked with making the network even safer, including reducing the number of KSIs by 40% by the end of 2020. The long-term trend of falling KSIs on the strategic road network was interrupted by increases in 2013 and 2014. In 2015 the number of KSIs was 1,787, a 3.6% reduction on the previous year. However, the total remains higher than in 2012 and above the straight line trajectory required to meet the target at the end of 2020.
6 The 40% reduction required is against the average for 2005 to 2009 Figure 2.1: Killed and seriously injured on the network, 2005-2015
Table 2.2: Number of killed and seriously injured on the network, 2014 and 2015
| | 2014 | 2015 | Change | |---------------|------|------|--------| | Killed | 211 | 226 | 7.1% | | Seriously injured | 1,642 | 1,561 | 4.9% | | KSI | 1,853| 1,787| 3.6% | 2.6 Table 2.2 shows that the number of people killed on the network increased by 7.1% in 2015. The Department for Transport’s analysis suggests that this may reflect natural variation in the figures rather than an underlying trend.
2.7 Highways England is demonstrating commitment to making the network safer for both users and road workers, and has produced safety plans including:
- a published strategy, “Health and safety: our approach”;
- a health and safety five year plan, which has been shared with the supply chain; and
- a national incident and casualty reduction plan, which sets out details of how the company will achieve its safety outcomes, including analysis of regional safety performance, enabling it to focus on improvements in each region to support the overall target.
2.8 Highways England has begun to implement these plans and will need to continue to monitor their delivery and impact closely to achieve the required safety improvements. We will work with the company to understand and review how it is managing the delivery of its plans. We are also currently discussing with Highways England what further action it can take to make sure that its plans are sufficiently visible to, and understood by, its stakeholders.
2.9 Highways England has explained to us some of the more detailed work that it is taking forwards. It has provided us with details of an in-depth study it has commissioned which aims to identify the causation and contributory factors of all fatal, and the most serious non-fatal collisions, on the network in 2014. We will work with the company to understand its conclusions and how the company is taking its findings forwards. Highways England has also given us a demonstration of its forecasting tool which it is using to quantify the impact of its planned interventions on reducing the number of KSIs.
2.10 We regard these as important steps in Highways England developing an improved understanding of the link between its actions and safety performance to ensure that its actions are prioritised and targeted. The work being taken forward has given us assurance that Highways England is applying focus and management attention to improving safety performance.
2.11 Highways England plans to spend over £70m of “ring-fenced funds” on additional safety improvements over-and-above its business-as-usual interventions.
2.12 During 2015-16 Highways England spent approximately £1m of the fund on safety improvements, and its activity has largely involved scoping work, with the main body of delivery expected between 2017-18 and 2019-20. A key focus for expenditure will be on improving safety of those parts of the network with the worst safety record – primarily single carriageway A roads. It will also be delivering safety improvements by focusing on improving driver compliance with the law (for example, compliance with variable speed limits and obeying smart motorway signs, such as “red X” warnings) and on improving road worker safety. We will monitor Highways England’s delivery closely over the coming year to understand more about these interventions and how they will support the achievement of the target.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Highways England’s publication, “Health and Safety: our approach”: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-health-and-safety Case study – Sharing safety lessons between road and rail
- Improving and maintaining safety performance on the road and rail networks has very different challenges. In 2014, there were 211 deaths on the strategic road network, compared to four passenger deaths on Britain’s railways during 2014-15.
- There are many reasons for the differences between the two modes of transport. One obvious distinction is that the rail network is a more controlled environment.
- However, there are opportunities for the sectors to share learning. For instance, in rail there is a well-established, systematic approach to the analysis of accidents to identify and share lessons learned.
- ORR and Highways England have collaborated to share experience and expertise in this area. As well as working with Highways England to review its 5 Year Health and Safety Plan, ORR also engaged with the company to demonstrate the safety models used in rail.
- We have seen evidence of Highways England applying a more systematic approach to its work on safety. It has commissioned a study which aims to identify the causation and contributory factors of all fatal, and the most serious non-fatal, collisions on the network in 2014. The company has produced a national incident and casualty reduction plan which includes focus on regional performance to support delivery of the overall target and we have also seen its KSI forecasting tool which quantifies the impact of its planned interventions.
Safety performance indicators
2.13 In common with the decrease in KSIs, total casualty numbers on both main A roads and motorways decreased in 2015 from the previous year.
2.14 Highways England is progressing a programme to assess the safety of its network, based on a star rating system used internationally. The company is working with the Road Safety Foundation to use and develop the International Road Assessment Programme model. The company reports that it is currently on track to set the 2015 baseline safety star rating for the network in September 2016.
2.15 The accident frequency rate for both Highways England and supply chain staff has remained worse than Highways England’s own targets throughout the year. Highways England is engaging its supply chain and is commissioning an independent incident investigation project to understand how and why incidents have occurred and to learn lessons. The company is also carrying out an internal audit of Traffic Officer health and safety. Highways England reports that one cause of the increase is likely to be improved reporting of incidents. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: National road users’ satisfaction survey
2.16 It is important that Highways England delivers a service that meets road users’ requirements, and maintains high levels of customer satisfaction. Road user satisfaction is measured through regular surveys and is a key indicator of how the company is performing.
- Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it.
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | Road user satisfaction is 89.3%, which is lower than the target for March 2017 but an improvement over 2014-15. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England has developed plans to improve user satisfaction, but has not yet set out quantified plans for how it will deliver 90% satisfaction by March 2017, and beyond. |
2.17 The percentage of respondents to the National Road Users’ Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS) that were very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it was 89.3%, up from 88.5% in the previous year. This represents the end of a decline in overall road user satisfaction in the preceding four years. However, overall satisfaction is still below the target level of 90% (which is to be achieved from the end of March 2017 onwards). The overall satisfaction score is calculated from users’ satisfaction with five journey elements: journey time, roadworks management, general upkeep, signage and safety. Comparing the results for the individual elements shows a similar trend to overall satisfaction; satisfaction with journey time, signage and safety has increased for the first time in several years. However, satisfaction with roadworks management and general upkeep has fallen.
Users have historically been less satisfied with roadworks management than the other elements. This affects overall satisfaction through both the proportion of respondents who experienced roadworks on their most recent journey on the network, and their level of satisfaction with roadworks management.
Table 2.3 shows that although satisfaction with roadworks management fell by almost 2% in 2015-16 compared with 2014-15, this had only approximately a -0.1% impact on the overall satisfaction score. This is because not all journeys on the network encounter roadworks and the methodology used takes this into account. Table 2.3: Changes in individual satisfaction scores and their impacts on the overall satisfaction score, 2014-15 to 2015-16
| Change in individual satisfaction score | Journey time | Roadworks management | General upkeep | Signage | Safety | |----------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------|----------------|---------|--------| | Overall satisfaction score | 0.9% | -1.9% | -0.9% | 3.0% | 0.5% | | Estimated impact on overall satisfaction score | 0.2% | -0.1% | -0.2% | 0.7% | 0.1% |
2.21 Highways England has trialled, and is evaluating, a number of initiatives to improve its users’ experience, for example by reducing the duration of roadworks and improving signage. However, increased investment over the first road period is likely to increase the number of users experiencing roadworks and the weight placed on roadworks management in the overall satisfaction score. Therefore, even if satisfaction with roadworks management improves, the increasing presence of roadworks represents a risk to user satisfaction in the later years of the period.
2.22 Figure 2.4 shows how overall road user satisfaction varied by region in 2015-16. Whilst overall satisfaction is close to, or exceeds, the 90% target in five out of the seven regions, it is substantially lower in the North East (86%) and the North West (84%). Regional analysis of the individual elements shows that, whilst satisfaction in the North East is lower across the board, in the North West the lower overall score is driven by lower satisfaction with factors such as upkeep and signage.
2.23 In 2016-17 we will be carrying out an in-depth review of Highways England’s plans to improve user satisfaction. As part of this we will be reviewing the actions that the company is taking in response to these results.
2.24 Transport Focus is working with stakeholders to develop a new road user satisfaction survey, and we are engaged in that process. We are working with stakeholders to understand what impact any change of methodology could have on the KPI target. This will only become fully apparent during a period of dual running. In the event this reveals a significant difference in what constitutes satisfaction, the need to change the user satisfaction KPI target will be considered. A road-user perspective from Transport Focus
- Transport Focus is the statutory, independent consumer watchdog for transport users. Our remit was extended in March 2015 to include users of England’s motorways and major A roads.
- Highways England has made a good start on the journey from infrastructure provider to service provider. We have found the company keen to engage, and hungry to understand road users’ needs.
- During the first year we have worked closely with Highways England and engaged the company on a wide range of issues. For example, we have raised the concerns of freight operators with respect to inaccuracies in information about roadworks, and have raised the need for earlier involvement of users when designing new infrastructure.
- Guided by our research into road users’ priorities for improvement to the Strategic Road Network, we are pressing for change in a number of areas. For example, Highways England needs to address road users’ top priority for improvement – road surface quality. It needs to embrace road users’ views in the way it plans roadworks. And the company must make sure that it is dealing with incidents in the best way possible – working with others to get traffic moving again more quickly.
- A key priority for Transport Focus over the next year is developing a road user survey to replace the existing National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). The new survey will be called the Strategic Roads User Survey (SRUS) and it is due to launch in early 2017, after its pilot during the summer and autumn of 2016. Input from Highways England, as well as the Department for Transport and ORR, has been particularly valuable with regards to the development of the questionnaire and to understand how they wish to use the survey data. Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
2.25 There are two key performance indicators for this outcome: network availability and incident management.
Key performance indicator: Network availability
2.26 A smooth flowing strategic road network is vital to the economic health of the country and supports the safe and timely movement of people and goods. If Highways England is to deliver investment in the network then roadworks are inevitable – but the company must minimise their impact on road users by keeping the network available to traffic where possible.
Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year.
2.27 In simple terms, network availability measures the percentage of road lanes that are available to traffic as a percentage of the total road lanes on the network, over a rolling year.
2.28 Network availability in the rolling year to March 2016 was 98.4%. Availability has been broadly stable over 2015-16. Highways England forecasts availability of 97.7% at the end of the first road period – above the target of 97%.
2.29 During the year we have engaged with Highways England to understand more fully the work of the analytical team that is responsible for monitoring availability on the network and projecting future performance. This has provided us with further assurance about the processes that are used to monitor this KPI.
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Network availability of 98.4% is above the target of 97%. | | Road Period 1 | Green | Network availability is forecast to be at 97.7% at the end of the first road period, above the target of 97%. |
Figure 2.5: Network availability by rolling year, 2011-12 to 2015-16
______________________________________________________________________
8 A full definition is provided in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual Key performance indicator: Incident management
2.30 Highways England can also contribute to the smooth flow of traffic by proactively responding to, and managing, incidents on the strategic road network.
- Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Highways England cleared 86% of motorway incidents within an hour. This is above its target of 85%. | | Road Period 1 | Green | Highways England undertakes ongoing analysis of past incidents to inform its future plans. |
2.31 In the rolling year to March 2016, Highways England cleared 86% of motorway incidents within an hour. This is above its target of 85%. Despite remaining above target, there has been a downturn in the trend in recent months – this was due to lower than average performance in December and January 2016, where figures for the individual months were below 85%. Following this drop in performance, Highways England has undertaken analysis to review the types of incident that have not met the metric which will be used to identify areas where improvements can be made. We will review the outcomes of this with the company.
2.32 During the year, we have engaged Highways England directly on its incident management, including carrying out an in-depth review of the company’s incident management data and associated processes. This highlighted the analytical work ongoing within the organisation to build understanding of how incident management can minimise delays for road users. It provided assurance about the processes that are in place to report the KPI.
Traffic flow performance indicators
2.33 Several performance indicators are used to provide context for, or additional information about, traffic flow (or congestion) on the network. As table 2.4 shows, the total vehicle miles travelled has increased over the last four years and this is likely to be a factor in a general worsening of traffic flow performance measures.
2.34 Since 2012-13, average speeds have decreased. The “planning time index”, which measures the additional time that road users would have to allow for their journey to arrive on time in 19 out of every 20 journeys, has been increasing (getting worse). And “acceptable journeys”, measuring the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flowing speeds, has been reducing (getting worse).
______________________________________________________________________
9 During 2015-16 Highways England began using a new data source to report against traffic flow performance indicators, making direct year-on-year comparisons difficult. 2.35 These performance measures show the importance of Highways England delivering the capital investment improvements which are required to address congestion on the network, whilst minimising the impact on road users.
Table 2.4: Traffic performance indicators, 2012-13 to 2015-16
| | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | |--------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Vehicle miles (bn) | 84.7 | 85.5 | 87.3 | 89.7 | | Average speed (mph) | 61.3\* | 60.7\* | 59.4\* | 59.3 | | Planning time index | 1.54\* | 1.57\* | 1.64\* | 1.66 | | Acceptable journeys | 87.1%\* | 85.8%\* | 83.4%\* | 83.6% |
\*adjusted Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
2.36 The strategic road network is a vital piece of national infrastructure which helps to support our economy. The network carries a third of all road traffic and two thirds of all road freight traffic. Delays to journeys are likely to have a negative impact on economic growth.
Key performance indicator: Average delay
- Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | Average delay was 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile. A change in data supplier means comparisons to previous years are illustrative. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Future performance depends on traffic growth and the delivery of the investment plan in the remainder of the road period (see chapter 3). |
2.37 Highways England’s impact on economic growth is measured using average delay per vehicle mile as a proxy. No target has been set, but the KPI is being monitored to understand the trend. Average delay in 2015-16 was 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile. This means that, on average, a trip of 100 miles takes approximately 15 minutes longer than when the network has no congestion.
2.38 Delay on the network is likely to be influenced by traffic growth. Highways England can manage levels of delay in the way that it operates the network (for example managing speeds) and, in the longer-term, through delivery of its capital investment programme. Minimising roadworks and lane closures, and delivery of schemes to reduce congestion, tend to minimise or reduce delays.
2.39 A new data supplier was used to calculate the measure of delay in 2015-16 and Highways England has implemented an interim methodology to define ‘free-flow’ speeds used in the calculation. Data for previous years have been adjusted to make them more comparable, but we cannot draw firm conclusions about performance in 2015-16 relative to prior years. We will continue to monitor congestion data as they become available during the road period to gain a better understanding of the trend.
2.40 We are working with Highways England to understand the causes of recent delay performance and the measures that it is taking to minimise future levels of delay. We will be carrying out an in-depth review of average delay in summer 2016. Encouraging economic growth performance indicators
2.41 Gateway routes are the connections linking major population centres, or business and manufacturing sites, with the most important ports and airports, and potentially strategic rail freight services. Average delay on gateway routes generally mirrors the trend for delay on the network. However, gateway delay was 8.1 seconds per vehicle mile in 2015-16, compared with 8.7 seconds per vehicle mile in 2014-15 (adjusted data).
2.42 Highways England can help support economic growth by playing its role as a major statutory consultee in the planning process effectively. The percentage of planning applications responded to within 21 days in 2015-16 was 99.8%, above the company’s internal target of 99%.
2.43 Highways England has agreed to help the government support small and medium sized businesses. It estimates that its expenditure with small and medium sized businesses during 2015-16 was 27%, above the government target of 25%. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.44 Highways England has the opportunity to minimise the impact of the strategic road network on the environment, delivering better outcomes for those that live near the network and the population more widely.
Key performance indicator: Number of noise important areas mitigated
2.45 Noise from the strategic road network can be a nuisance to neighbouring communities, but Highways England can take steps to mitigate its impact.
- Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | 48 noise important areas have been mitigated during 2015-16, which represents 4% of the target to be delivered in the first road period. No clear plan has been set out. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England is yet to set out a clear plan for delivering the end-of-road period target of mitigating 1150 noise important areas. |
2.46 Highways England has mitigated 48 noise important areas during 2015-16. This is 4% of the 1,150 target which must be mitigated in the first road period. The company expects to deliver its target through a combination of its resurfacing programme, its major schemes, and noise insulation schemes delivered through the environment ring-fenced fund.
Figure 2.8: Noise important areas mitigated during 2015-16 (cumulative)
2.47 Highways England has put in place processes to report more robustly on its performance in mitigating noise important areas, and started reporting in the final quarter of 2015-16. Whilst this represents progress, the company now needs to deliver improved planning to assure that the target will be met at the end of the road period. The company expects to provide us with detail of its plan in the first half of 2016-17.
Key performance indicator: Delivery of improved biodiversity
2.48 The way in which the strategic road network is managed and improved can have a significant impact on biodiversity.
- Highways England must publish a Biodiversity Action Plan by 30 June 2015 and report annually on how it has delivered against the Plan
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in June 2015. | | Road Period 1 | Green | The delivery of the Biodiversity Action Plan is largely on track. | 2.49 Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in June 2015, in line with its target. The plan makes a clear commitment to ensure no net loss to biodiversity by 2020 and sets out actions to baseline biodiversity on the network, to develop a new biodiversity metric and to report annually on net biodiversity loss.
2.50 We have reviewed Highways England’s performance against its Biodiversity Action Plan, including reviewing its year-end report. Overall, the company has made good progress in delivering the actions that it committed to in the plan. However, more work is still required in some areas, for instance in establishing a baseline for the biodiversity of the network. We will undertake a more detailed review of progress against the biodiversity plan in the coming year.
2.51 We have also engaged stakeholders to understand their views on Highways England’s performance in this area. The Biodiversity Action Plan has been well received, but the company can do more to make sure that its engagement with environmental stakeholders is as consistent and effective as possible, both at a local and a national level.
Performance indicator: Number of air quality pilot studies completed
2.52 The latest version of Highways England’s environment strategy is expected to be published in summer 2016. The strategy commits to producing action plans for specific areas, including air quality. Highways England will publish its air quality plan this year, setting out the actions it will be taking to reduce air pollution. We will engage the company closely to ensure that its plans meet stakeholders’, and our, expectations.
2.53 During the year, Highways England started work on six air quality pilot studies. The commissioned studies cover Sheffield, Manchester, the A38 Derby junctions and the West Midlands, plus intervention studies for an HGV incentivising programme and dynamic junction management. The conclusions from the pilots are due in 2016-17 and will be used to inform how the ring-fenced fund for air quality will be spent. Highways England has split the work to be delivered into two phases. The first phase delivers the pilot studies, the second delivers interventions based on lessons learned from the pilots. We will work with Highways England to understand and monitor progress of this work.
2.54 The company has also contributed to Defra’s ‘Air Quality in the UK’ report which plans to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions. This report was published in December 2015 and sets out how the UK will comply with the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive in the shortest possible time. However, air quality issues still represent a risk to delivery of the investment programme. Environmental performance indicators
2.55 The table below provides a summary of Highways England’s performance against its environmental KPIs and PIs. Highways England has improved the robustness of these data sources during 2015-16, particularly through reporting mechanisms in the asset management systems which are used to report progress on flooding mitigation.
Table 2.5: Environmental performance indicators
| | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | |--------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Number of Noise Important Areas mitigated | N/A | 48 | | Number of air quality pilot studies commissioned | N/A | 6 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – Highways England’s activities (tonnes) | 104,978 | 95,373 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – supply chain activities (tonnes) | 383,487 | 294,448 | | Number of flooding hotspots and culverts (high risk and very high risk) mitigated | 90 | 124 | | Number of water outfalls and soakaways (high risk and very high risk) mitigated | 0 | 0 |
2.56 Carbon dioxide emissions associated with Highways England’s activities were lower in 2015-16 than the previous year.
2.57 Highways England has mitigated more high risk and very high risk flooding hotspots and culverts this year compared to last, but has not mitigated any outfalls and soakaways. We will discuss performance in this area further with the company in the coming year. Case study – Design panel
- In line with its licence requirements, Highways England has established a design panel, whose role is to independently advise the company on design issues.
- Terms of reference have been agreed for the panel, which is chaired by the Highways England Chief Highways Engineer, and it met four times during 2015-16. Membership of the panel includes a wide range of organisations covering the natural and built environment with an interest in design on the strategic road network. Members include the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Institution of Civil Engineers.
- To date, the panel has considered examples of good infrastructure design and guidance for highway schemes. It has engaged with an ongoing review of technical standards and has commented on a number of plans, including for the development of Expressways and of an A1 Northumberland improvement scheme.
- In the coming year, we expect to see further evidence of how the design panel’s advice has helped shape the development of projects on and around the strategic road network. ORR will also continue to engage with many of the stakeholders that sit on the panel to understand how the company is addressing any issues raised through this forum.
Case study – Management of litter
- In addition to monitoring the company against the measures set out in the Performance Specification and the RIS more widely, we will, where appropriate, review compliance with its licence. An example of this is the issue of litter at the roadside, where stakeholders have raised concerns to us.
- Highways England has a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that the land (the strategic road network) is, so far as is practicable, kept clear of litter and refuse. It also has a licence requirement to develop and implement strategic plans that demonstrate how it aims to meet its legal duties and other obligations with regard to the environment. During the last year we undertook inquiries into how the company approaches its duties with respect to litter management. From our engagement with Highways England, we found that it is working to manage this issue through a range of measures. For example, the company picks a large volume of litter from its network – over 150,000 sacks each year – and runs campaigns to discourage road users from dropping litter. The company has set up a hotline for members of the public to report litter.
- Through our review, we identified a number of actions that Highways England should take to improve performance in this area and have since written to the company to set these out. They include requirements for the company to publish an updated litter strategy and to publish further details of the litter picking it undertakes on the network, to provide greater assurance to its users and stakeholders that it is effectively managing the issue. Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
2.58 The strategic road network impacts both those that use the network directly, and its neighbouring communities. The design and operation of the network can influence the extent to which vulnerable users, such as cyclists, walkers, equestrians and motorcyclists can use and cross the network safely.
Key performance indicator: Number of new and upgraded crossings
- Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |--------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | 204 new and upgraded crossings were delivered during 2015-16. Highways England has not developed a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England has not developed a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings. |
2.59 Highways England’s delivery of new and upgraded (improved) crossings can have a big impact on its neighbouring communities, helping them to stay connected, and providing facilities for cyclists, walkers, equestrians, and other vulnerable users to cross the network safely.
Table 2.6: New and upgraded crossings delivered in 2015-16
| | New | Upgraded | Total | |----------------------|-----|----------|-------| | Ring-fenced investment funds | 6 | 53 | 59 | | Major schemes | 27 | 50 | 77 | | Local schemes | 6 | 62 | 68 | | Total | 39 | 165 | 204 |
2.60 Highways England has been developing processes to report more robustly on the number of new and upgraded crossings being delivered. The company reports that 204 new and upgraded crossings were delivered during 2015-16, as shown in table 2.6. The schemes listed under ‘ring-fenced investment funds’ have been delivered through the Cycling, Safety and Integration fund. These are crossings which would not have otherwise been constructed through major schemes or business as usual. 2.61 Highways England should now set out a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings over the remainder of the road period to provide transparency about what will be delivered for vulnerable users and when these schemes will be delivered.
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme
2.62 The company’s programme of cycling improvement schemes is an important contributor to the delivery of new and improved crossings.
2.63 Highways England set out its annual cycling programme in its Delivery Plan which included 40 schemes to be completed during 2015-16. Of these, a total of 21 were finished by the year end. Highways England also took forward an additional programme of nine reserve schemes, of which four have been completed in 2015-16.
2.64 Whilst Highways England has not completed a number of the planned cycling schemes during the year, the majority of these are under construction and will be completed shortly. We will review Highways England’s plans and delivery in 2016-17, making sure it has learned the lessons from performance to date, and report on progress at the end of the year.
2.65 Highways England published its Cycling Strategy in early January 2016 and followed this up with a programme of stakeholder engagement to communicate the plan. The published Cycling Strategy is a high-level document, but it is supported by a more detailed cycling delivery plan which contains clear actions and associated completion dates. We will now monitor Highways England’s delivery of its plan.
Number of vulnerable user casualties
2.66 Highways England reports a performance indicator on the number of vulnerable user casualties injured on its network. Data for 2015, as shown in table 2.7, show a reduction in the number of casualties for each group of vulnerable users when compared with the previous year.
2.67 During the year, Highways England developed a package of measures aimed at vulnerable users in its “Health and Safety 5 Year Plan”. Performance in 2015 was positive, but we will continue to monitor delivery of this plan closely.
Table 2.7: Casualties for vulnerable users, 2015
| | 2014 | 2015 | Change from 2014 | |------------------|------|------|------------------| | Motorcyclists | 917 | 849 | 7% | | Pedal cyclists | 179 | 153 | 15% | | Pedestrians | 182 | 158 | 13% | Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: capital savings
2.68 Highways England’s five year funding certainty gives it the opportunity to plan its work over the longer-term and deliver more efficiently. The company has started to deliver efficiencies in 2015-16.
- Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.212bn over the first road period
2.70 Highways England needs to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in Road Period 1 and the company’s work over the past year on developing its processes for substantiating efficiencies has established good practice for future years. It will be important that the quality of evidence provided is commensurate with the size of the efficiency being reported.
2.71 Further details about our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements are provided in chapter 3 (Financial Performance and Efficiency).
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Highways England has met its internal target of £33m. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | The company needs to develop a clear plan to deliver capital savings to meet its target of £1.212bn by the end of the road period. |
2.69 Highways England has identified £55m of efficiency improvements across its capital programme during 2015-16. Our assessment is that Highways England has achieved its internal efficiency target of £33m, though there is uncertainty about an additional £21m, in relation to savings on the company’s smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and we will continue to work with Highways England in 2016-17 as it develops its evidence base. The efficiency reported by the company for 2015-16 may be adjusted at a future date. Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
2.72 Highways England must keep its existing assets in a safe and serviceable condition to deliver the service that road users and wider stakeholders require. It must maintain and renew the assets which make up the network to make sure they remain safe and fit for purpose.
2.73 How Highways England manages its assets affects the service that road users experience and the value for money that taxpayers receive. Making the right asset management decisions – for example, which assets to replace, when to replace them, and how to replace them – is vital to maintaining the network’s performance whilst minimising costs.
2.74 Highways England needs to develop and maintain the right information about its assets to manage them effectively. It needs to understand what assets it has, where they are, their condition, their utilisation, their criticality and impact on the wider network, how they degrade, and the costs of carrying out work on them (or the costs of not doing so). The company needs to use this information to develop maintenance and renewal plans which will deliver the required level of network performance whilst seeking to minimise costs over the long-term (whole life cost) and living within funding allowances. It then needs to implement those plans and review their effectiveness.
Key performance indicator: percentage of pavement asset that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
- Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | In March 2016, pavement condition was 95.4%, above the target of 95%. | | Road Period 1 | Green | Pavement condition is currently on an upward trend. |
2.75 Pavement (carriageway) condition is a key performance indicator for the first road period as the road surface condition is critical for delivering a safe and comfortable journey.
2.76 In March 2016, the pavement condition indicator was 95.4%(^{10}), and it has shown continuous improvement over the year. It is above the target of 95%. Figure 2.9 shows annual performance since 2013-14 and monthly figures for 2015-16.
Figure 2.9: Percentage of pavement that does not require further investigation
(^{10}) Further data on the pavement condition indicator became available after the year end and is currently being reviewed Wider network condition
2.77 As well as pavement, Highways England also manages other physical assets on the network, including structures (such as bridges), geotechnical works (for example embankments), drainage assets (such as gullies and drains) and technology assets (such as overhead message signs).
2.78 Highways England has developed its geotechnical asset inventory and condition data measures and updated them in line with its latest standards. The company reports that 96.6% of its geotechnical assets were low risk in March 2016. It does not currently have complete information on the volume of its geotechnical asset and now needs to develop a robust plan to improve its inventory.
2.79 Highways England is reporting high availability for its technology assets – largely consistent with historical trends. During 2015-16, the annual average of availability of control centre technology was 99.94% whilst availability of National Road Telecommunications Service was 99.99%. The availability of roadside technology was 98.67%.
2.80 The percentage of Highways England’s drainage asset for which it has inventory and condition data is increasing. At the end of March 2016, drainage inventory data was held for 87% of the network, but condition data was only held for 27% of the asset. These measures are increasing but the company needs to continue to focus on improving drainage asset management information. 2.81 Highways England has developed new structures asset inventory and condition measures which it reported for the first time in December 2015. We worked closely with Highways England and the Department for Transport to guide development of these and to advise on their suitability. The new indicators show that structures inventory information is 97.8% complete. Highways England reports that the overall condition of its structures asset is good (it has a high average structural condition score). The company states that risks associated with poor condition are being managed, for example through increased frequency of inspections and implementation of weight restrictions, to make sure that safety is maintained whilst repairs are pending.
2.82 Highways England has produced an asset information improvement plan as part of its coordinated data improvement plan. This sets out the improvements that the company will make to its asset management information and systems to be implemented during the first road period and beyond. During 2016-17 the company has committed to improving its structures inspection process, extending the type and range of its pavement survey data capture and developing improved pavement and structures condition indicators. We will progressively review delivery of the asset information improvement plan. Financial performance and efficiency
This chapter sets out our analysis of Highways England’s financial performance and delivery of efficiency in 2015-16, and our review of its plans for the first road period.
Financial performance
3.1 Highways England is funded by central government, receiving separate capital and resource funding from the Department for Transport. Capital includes funding for renewals (for example, pavement resurfacing and structural repairs), improvements to the network (for example, upgrading to smart motorways) and other capital works such as supporting local authority road schemes. Resource funding covers maintenance and renewals, operations (traffic management), support activities (for example, finance and human resources) and payments to Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contractors who operate and maintain some sections of the network under long-term contracts.
Highways England’s funding under the RIS
3.2 The RIS gave Highways England the long term certainty of £11.4bn funding for capital during the first road period, of which £1.8bn related to 2015-16. The RIS also gave Highways England the flexibility to bring forward or defer up to 10% of its capital funding each year, to provide greater flexibility to deliver capital projects efficiently. Any other changes to total or in-year capital funding are to be agreed through formal change control with the Department for Transport. Figure 3.1 shows capital expenditure prior to the start of the road period and in 2015-16, and the profile of capital funding in the remainder of the road period.
Figure 3.1: Capital expenditure and funding to 2019-20 3.3 In 2015-16 Highways England received resource funding of £1bn. Resource funding for future years is announced through government spending reviews.
Highways England’s expenditure in 2015-16
3.4 As shown in figure 3.2, Highways England spent £3.0bn in 2015-16, with almost two thirds of this on capital investment. This was 4.6% higher than expenditure in 2014-15 and, as examined in more detail below, was broadly consistent with the company’s funding for the year.
3.5 Following publication of its Delivery Plan, Highways England reallocated budgets to better reflect how it intended to deliver its required outputs. Its revised capital baseline (£1,951m), agreed by the Department for Transport in October 2015, included an additional £169m to cover the estimated cost of works carried over from before the start of the road period. This was expected to be funded from additional Department for Transport funding and capital funding brought forward from 2016-17, making use of some of the 10% capital flexibility described above.
Figure 3.2: Highways England’s expenditure in 2015-16 3.6 The Department for Transport provided £144m of additional funding in March 2016 comprising £140m for completion of work carried over from 2014-15 and a further £4m for the development of works for a major lorry park in Kent to improve Operation Stack (the procedure used to hold lorries on the M20 during disruption to cross-channel services). The company subsequently did not require use of the capital flexibility arrangement.
3.7 Highways England spent £1,931m on capital projects which was £20m lower than the revised capital baseline and £4.6m higher than its funding. On resource, the company spent £1,069m, which was £4m lower than its baseline. Expenditure variances compared to the revised baseline are shown in figure 3.3 and are summarised below.
- There was an underspend of £46m on (capital) renewals mainly due to the diversion of funding to other capital projects including the minor improvement schemes which overran from 2014-15. Despite this reduced renewals expenditure, as examined in chapter 4, Highways England significantly exceeded planned volumes in several categories.
- The company underspent by £46m on improvements to the network (including investment funds), due to delays to a number of schemes. £15m relates to Temple to Carblake which is being delivered by Cornwall County Council, £9m relates to the M1 J32-35A project and £10m relates to the A50 Growth Corridor.
- Other capital was overspent by £72m due to £29m of additional expenditure on smaller projects that were not identified in the RIS, £26m of capitalised staff costs which have not been allocated across capital projects and £17m of overspend on minor improvement schemes that overran from 2014-15.
- Resource expenditure was £4m lower than the baseline. Maintenance expenditure(^\\text{11}) was £30m higher than the baseline which Highways England has largely attributed to additional work undertaken to improve safety and KPI performance. Payments to PFI contractors were £19m lower than the baseline due to lower outturn traffic volumes and inflation than assumed.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) Includes non-capitalised renewals
______________________________________________________________________
**Figure 3.3: Financial performance summary**
| Capital | Baseline | Actual | |------------------|----------|--------| | Renewals | 709 | 663 | | Improvements | 1017 | 976 | | Ring-fenced investment funds | 27 | 22 | | Other | 198 | 270 | | Maintenance | 261 | 291 | | Operations | 230 | 253 | | General support | 132 | 169 | | PFI payments | 413 | 394 |
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) Includes non-capitalised renewals 3.8 Highways England’s RIS funding settlement for 2015-16 included an assumption of 4.0% input price inflation (that is, increases in materials and labour costs). Highways England’s analysis indicates that this is likely to outturn in the range -0.6% to +1.6% with a midpoint estimate of +0.5%(^\\text{12}). Our analysis suggests that this could result in substantial savings due to benign economic conditions, particularly for fuel and steel. We consider that there is likely to have been limited scope for realising these savings this year as many contracts were already in place and input price effects can be expected to only fully materialise as contracts expire and are renewed. Over time this might be expected to have a benefit in the region of £70m.
Efficiency improvements
Measuring efficiency improvements
3.9 We worked with Highways England to develop its Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual which was published in September 2015(^\\text{13}). Since then we have continued to work with the company to establish an appropriate level of evidence for demonstrating efficiency improvements on the company’s capital programme.
Highways England’s reported efficiencies
3.10 Highways England is required to deliver over £1.2bn of efficiency improvements on its capital programme, by March 2020. Consistent with this, our assessment of the company’s efficiency improvements focuses on its capital programme.
3.11 Highways England has reported £55m of efficiency improvements in 2015-16 which is 67% ahead of the company’s internal £33m target for the year. A breakdown of reported efficiencies by major programme is shown in figure 3.4.
3.12 Highways England’s reported efficiency improvement in 2015-16 represents 4% of the company’s requirement to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency improvements across the first road period as a whole. This means that the company will have to find significantly greater savings later in the five year funding period. Highways England has shared analysis with us about how the company aims to achieve this. Although the analysis is at an early stage, Highways England has identified and is pursuing a number of initiatives which have the potential to realise significant efficiencies. These include smoothing the monthly profile of renewals activity to reduce more expensive winter repairs, better integration of enhancements and renewals, optimising the working window for pavement resurfacing and improvements in the programme of upgrading to smart motorways. Highways England now needs to do work to further develop and deliver these plans.
Highways England’s efficiency improvements
Introduction
3.13 It is important to note that improving efficiency is not just about short-term cost reductions. Although reducing short-term costs can be a form of efficiency, efficiencies can also be
______________________________________________________________________
(^{12}) A final value will not be available until the relevant construction and other underpinning inflation indices have been finalised in the autumn.
(^{13}) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-efficiency-and-inflation-monitoring-manual achieved through improving asset quality and intervention decisions (including a better understanding of whole life costs) and by improving customer outcomes for the same cost. Likewise, short-term cost reductions could be achieved through simply avoiding necessary work to maintain the network in a safe and sustainable condition – these cost reductions would not be an efficiency improvement. These factors are important for assessing efficiency improvements for Highways England’s large and complex capital programme.
3.14 Because of this, there are three components to our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements:
1. expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the RIS (as amended through change control over the period);
2. unit cost variances compared to 2014-15, the year preceding the start of Road Period 1; and
3. review of Highways England’s bottom-up analysis of efficiency improvements.
3.15 Our assessment of Highways England’s performance under the first component is covered in the financial performance section above and our assessments of the other two elements are covered below.
Our assessment of unit cost changes from the previous year
3.16 Highways England has provided unit cost analysis in support of the major areas of claimed efficiencies on renewals and upgrading to smart motorways.
3.17 Our analysis of renewals unit cost variances between 2014-15 and 2015-16 suggests renewals unit cost savings of around £31m. The most substantial unit cost saving was in pavement resurfacing where the cost of a lane kilometre reduced by 9.0% to £0.127m per lane km. Whilst recognising Highways England’s own concerns about the robustness of its reported renewals unit costs, our analysis supports the £25m of renewals efficiencies that Highways England has reported based on its bottom up efficiency analysis (see next section).
3.18 Highways England recognises the importance of robust unit cost analysis for substantiating efficiency improvements. We do not underestimate the difficulty of accurately recording unit costs when several renewals activities may be undertaken as part of a scheme, for example resurfacing and drainage. We are working with the company to ensure that the quality of its unit cost reporting improves. This forms an important part of a coordinated data improvement plan which Highways England is taking forwards.
3.19 During 2016-17 we will review delivery of the coordinated data improvement plan which is an important step to improving the company’s efficiency analysis and asset management capability more widely.
Our assessment of Highways England’s bottom-up register of efficiency improvements
3.20 Highways England has undertaken a significant amount of work over the past year to develop its approach for capturing and recording efficiencies. It has begun to embed efficiency reporting across the business through the use of regional efficiency registers. We consider that Highways England has done a good job of implementing this regionally distributed process. However, the process has only been operating for a few months and we are aware that it is taking time to embed consistently throughout the business.
3.21 We distinguish efficiency improvements between economy, productivity and effectiveness. Improving economy means reducing the cost of resources used whilst having regard to quality. Improving productivity means improving the relationship between
______________________________________________________________________
14 This may have resulted in achieved efficiencies not being fully captured within Highways England’s internal reporting. If Highways England can subsequently demonstrate efficiencies having been achieved in 2015-16 that have not yet been reported we will take this into account in our assessment of the company’s cumulative efficiency improvements across the first road period. resources used and outputs delivered. Improving effectiveness means improving the extent to which intended objectives have been achieved.
3.22 These terms are perhaps best explained with an example such as pavement resurfacing. Highways England could improve economy by obtaining asphalt at lower cost through improved procurement. Productivity could be improved by improving the utilisation of machinery. Lastly, effectiveness could be improved by making sure that pavement is being renewed using the most appropriate materials, and only when the pavement needs renewing.
3.23 Figure 3.5 provides an analysis of Highways England’s reported efficiencies between economy, productivity and effectiveness.
3.24 Highways England has reported economy efficiencies of £34m, of which £21m is in relation to the company’s smart motorways programme. At this time we believe that the company has not provided sufficiently robust analysis of the efficiency improvement on the smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and support Highways England’s plan to do further work.
3.25 Highways England has identified a further £13m of economy efficiencies across a number of projects including £4m from combining pavement resurfacing with smart motorways upgrades on the M1. By reducing disruption, this approach should also result in improved customer service both now and in the longer-term.
3.26 Highways England has reported £17m of productivity efficiency gains mostly from two initiatives to optimise the working window for pavement renewal and to allow running on temporary surface.
- Optimising the working window aims to maximise the period in which pavement is able to be laid during an overnight road closure. Highways England has undertaken a number of pilots of a new approach which significantly increased the amount of material that was laid.
- For running on planed surface, the road planer is used for longer shifts following which traffic is allowed to temporarily run on the planed surface. The resurfacing plant is then used to deliver longer stretches of road surface the following night rather than having to work alongside the planer. This allows an increase in the amount of pavement that can be laid in a shift and reduces the number of surface joints, increasing the durability of the road surface.
3.27 Highways England has reported £4m of effectiveness efficiency gains by improving the output of some schemes. For example, the company reduced costs by £0.9m on the M1 J19 improvement scheme by making better use of excavated materials in landscaping the area rather than disposing of this waste at a landfill site. 3.28 In addition to the efficiency KPI, Highways England is required to report a Cost Performance Indicator (CPI) and Schedule Performance Indicator (SPI). These are measures of earned value which are often used in the construction industry. CPI is the relationship between target and actual cost for work completed and SPI is the relationship between work planned and actually completed. Highways England has reported CPI of 1.02 and SPI of 1.05 across its portfolio of major improvements to the network. As these numbers are both greater than 1 this indicates that overall, projects are ahead of schedule in terms of cost and completion compared to the company’s Delivery Plan commitments. Refer to chapter 4 for our detailed assessment of capital delivery.
3.29 Highways England has identified £55m of efficiency improvements across its capital programme during 2015-16. Our assessment is that the company has achieved its internal efficiency target of £33m, though there is uncertainty about an additional £21m, in relation to savings on the smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and we will continue to work with Highways England in 2016-17 as it develops the evidence base. The efficiency reported by the company for 2015-16 may be adjusted at a future date.
3.30 Highways England needs to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in the first road period and the company’s work over the past year on developing its processes for substantiating efficiencies has established good practice for future years. It will be important that the quality of evidence provided is commensurate with the size of efficiency being reported.
Case study – Delivering efficiencies through an integrated site-based design team during construction
- Highways England delivered £4m of productivity efficiency improvements by introducing an integrated, site-based design team during the construction phase of the upgrade of junctions 28 to 31 of the M1.
- The design of this scheme was subject to significant change to incorporate additional maintenance works. This resulted in more technical queries during the construction phase. By having a site-based team these queries were able to be dealt with more quickly both reducing the cost of resolving these matters and reducing disruption to the construction work. Network investment delivery
This chapter describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2015-16. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
4.1 As part of the RIS, government published its Investment Plan, setting out the £11.4bn capital investment which Highways England must deliver during the road period. This includes:
- more than £7.0bn on the delivery of 112 major improvement schemes;
- £0.7bn on programmes of additional targeted improvements funded through five ring fenced investment funds; and
- £3.7bn on works to maintain and renew the network.
4.2 We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the Investment Plan.
4.3 Table 4.1 provides a summary of delivery in the first year of the road period, including those major schemes which have started construction works or opened for traffic. It provides a summary of ring-fenced funds, and maintenance and renewals delivery. In each case the table summarises our assessment of the company’s delivery using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
### Table 4.1: Investment Plan delivery
| Construction phase | 2015-16 Delivery Plan commitments | Delivery in 2015-16 | Scheme | RAG | |--------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------|--------|-----| | Open for traffic | 5 schemes to open for traffic during 2015-16 | 5 schemes opened for traffic | A14 Kettering bypass widening | Green | | | | | A453 widening | Green | | | | | M1 J39 – J42 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M1 J28 – J31 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M6 J10a – J13 (Smart Motorway, behind schedule) | Amber | | Start of works | 7 schemes to start works during 2015-16 | 8 schemes started | A160/A180 Immingham | Green | | | | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | Green | | | | | M1 J13 – J19 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M5 J4a – J6 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M6 J16 – J19 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M5 Junctions 5 to 7 (ahead of schedule) | Green | | | | | A50 Uttoxeter (delivered by Staffordshire County Council) | Green | | | | | A43 Abthorpe junction (ahead of schedule) | Green |
### 2015-16 commitments
| Planned volume | Actual volume | Comment | |----------------|---------------|---------| | 1,200 | 1,468 | Amber | | 178,000 | 144,530 | | | 222 | 533 | | | 20,000 | 55,637 | | | 231,000 | 290,919 | | | 46,000 | 40,293 | |
### Ring-fenced investment funds
| Environment, Air quality, Innovation, Growth & Housing, Cycling, safety & integration | Amber | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Governance and processes established, limited expenditure to date. Some deferral of cycling schemes |
______________________________________________________________________
15 Table reports a subset of renewals volumes Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2015-16
4.4 Highways England is required to progress delivery of 112 major improvement schemes during the road period. These major schemes are aimed at improving capacity and connectivity across the network – for example, by improving junctions, opening the hard shoulder to traffic, adding new lanes, or bypassing congested parts of the network.
4.5 Highways England has progressed delivery of its capital programme during 2015-16. It has commenced construction works on all seven schemes that were planned to start, one of which was started ahead of schedule. In addition one scheme (A43 Abthorpe junction) scheduled to start construction in late 2016 started early, ahead of its commitment.
4.6 Highways England opened five schemes to traffic during 2015-16, in line with its plans, adding an additional 91 lane miles to the capacity of the network. Of these, the M6 J10a-J13 scheme was delayed by two months and opened for traffic in February 2016. The delay was due to the need to resolve technology communication problems. We have discussed the detail of the delay with Highways England and have received assurance that lessons learned will be reflected in future schemes.
4.7 The M1 J39-J42 scheme commenced phased opening in December 2015 in line with its Delivery Plan commitment, subject to carrying out some additional maintenance work, such as bridge waterproofing and resurfacing of the carriageway. It was fully opened for traffic in January 2016. Table 4.2 sets out Highways England’s progress in delivering major improvement schemes in 2015-16. Table 4.2: Major scheme delivery in 2015-16
| Major schemes starting construction | 2015-16 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------|------------| | A160/A180 Immingham | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | | M1 J13 – J19 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M5 J4a – J6 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M6 J16 – J19 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | A50 Uttoxeter | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M5 Junctions 5 to 7 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q2 | Ahead of schedule | | A43 Abthorpe junction | Late 2016 | 2015-16, Q4 | Ahead of schedule |
| Major schemes opened for traffic | 2015-16 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------|------------| | A14 Kettering bypass widening | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | | A453 widening | 2015-16, Q2 | 2015-16, Q2 | | | M1 J39 – J42 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M1 J28 – J31 | 2015-16, Q4 | 2015-16, Q4 | | | M6 J10a – J13 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q4 | |
Key
- Milestone delivered on or ahead of schedule
- Milestone delivered one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone delivered more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed 4.8 Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2015-16 is shown in table 4.3. The company has spent broadly in line with its plans. For those schemes which opened for traffic it has spent 4% more than its budget, but it has spent 8% less than budget on those in construction. However, the company continues to develop a more robust cost baseline against which expenditure can be assessed. This is discussed later in this chapter.
Table 4.3: Major scheme costs against budget in 2015-16
| Scheme stage (end of 2015-16) | Budget (2015-16) | Outturn costs (2015-16) | Variance | % over / (under) | |-------------------------------|------------------|------------------------|----------|------------------| | Under construction | £726m | £671m | £55m | (8%) | | Open for traffic | £112m | £116m | £4m | 4% | The A453 provides an important link between Nottingham and the M1. In July 2015 Highways England completed a £165m major improvement scheme, widening 9km of a rural section of the route from single carriageway to dual carriageway and widening a 2.5km urban section to four lanes.
We visited the completed scheme, and were given a tour of some of the major engineering works delivered. The project includes two new, split-level (grade-separated) junctions, and the construction of 10 major structures. It has delivered a more accessible pedestrian cycle route away from the road and improved bridleway crossings.
The improvements are aimed at increased safety, reduced congestion and improved reliability of journey times. Initial indications suggest that these improvements are being delivered, but this will be formally evaluated during the next year.
During 2015-16, Highways England has also made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed 32 schemes into options stages and eight schemes have started development. By end of March 2016, 19 schemes were under construction exceeding Highways England’s planned commitments. A breakdown of the major schemes’ progress during 2015-16 is shown in figure 4.1. The numbers above the arrows show how many schemes moved between the stages during the year.
Highways England has provided us with its assumptions for the dates when its major schemes will progress through the stages outlined above. We will monitor progress against these in the remainder of the road period.
Figure 4.1: Progress of schemes through development and construction in 2015-16\*
\*Numbers in brackets are the number of schemes in each stage at the end of March 2016 Case study – M1 junction 19 major improvement scheme
- In August 2015 we visited a major improvement scheme at junction 19 of the M1. The £191m scheme is being delivered to improve connections between three important strategic roads – the M1, the A14 and the M6. The scheme started in January 2014 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of December 2016. It includes six new bridges.
- The scheme will also provide significant improvements to the local road network and recreational links.
- The visit highlighted the challenges and constraints of carrying out improvement on a complex interchange site while maintaining traffic flows of 150,000 vehicles per day. The team was also shown the benefits of using advanced technology such as BIM (Building Information Modelling) to enhance the design and build of the scheme.
- The project is making good progress with the delivery of significant milestones during 2015-16, for example opening the southbound link from the M6 to the M1 to traffic. The company reports that it is on target for completing the scheme on time.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the remainder of the road period
4.11 As well as assessing major scheme delivery over the last year, we have also carried out work looking ahead to delivery in the rest of the road period.
Future major scheme key milestones
4.12 The Delivery Plan commitments for the remainder of the road period are summarised in table 4.4. Highways England plans to have started all 112 major schemes by the end of the first road period, of which one scheme is forecast to miss its start of works Delivery Plan commitment – the A63 Castle Street improvement scheme is delayed while the environmental impact of the scheme is being assessed. The M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road scheme is at risk having had its Preferred Route Announcement delayed following the Department for Transport’s request for further assessment and development of options.
4.13 For those schemes which are planned to open for traffic, the opening of the A30 Temple to Carblake scheme is forecast to be delayed by one month to January 2017. This scheme is being delivered by Cornwall County Council. Highways England forecasts that all 23 schemes which are planned to open for traffic during the remainder of the road period will do so. Table 4.4: Major scheme delivery – remainder of first road period, construction phase
| Phase | Planned for remainder of RP1\* | Progress | No | Details | RAG | |------------------------|-------------------------------|----------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | Start of works | 88\* | On schedule | 86 | As planned | | | | | At risk | 1 | M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road – start of works commitment of 2018-19 at risk | | | | | Delayed | 1 | A63 Castle street – Start of Work commitment of 2016-17 delayed until Dec 2018 | | | Open for traffic | 23\* | On schedule | 22 | As planned | | | | | Delayed | 1 | A30 Temple to Higher Carblake is forecast to be delayed by one month | |
- as set out in Highways England’s Delivery Plan. At the end of the period 84 schemes will be in construction and 28 will be open for traffic.
Establishing clear plans for delivery
4.14 In our monitoring of Highways England we aim both to monitor past performance and to understand risks to future performance so that we can work with the company to ensure that these are mitigated wherever possible. Over the last year we have engaged Highways England to press the need for a clearer plan to deliver the capital investment requirements over the remainder of the road period.
4.15 At the end of March 2016, the company provided us with its assumptions for the costs of its capital programmes and its assumptions for key milestone delivery dates for its major schemes. This demonstrates some progress in setting out clearer planning assumptions which we will use as a baseline against which to monitor delivery. However, Highways England has further work to do to improve the robustness of the baseline, and the company acknowledges this. It is planning a programme of work over the next six months to provide greater assurance about delivery of network investment in the rest of the road period.
4.16 There are key areas that this must address. For example, the company needs to:
- set out a clear baseline for the scope of what it plans to deliver for each major scheme;
- provide assurance that the baseline schedule information is deliverable, affordable and aligned with performance specification requirements;
- provide assurance that the baseline schedule information represents an efficient approach to delivering the portfolio of works;
- provide assurance that the baseline considers alignment in delivery of renewals and improvement works;
- confirm that the baseline meets the expectations of key stakeholders, including the Department for Transport; and
- provide further assurance about how baseline costs have been developed. 4.17 We have particular concerns that:
- the company’s assumptions for major schemes include a very significant increase in schemes starting construction in 2019-20, which may present a risk to delivery. The company has more work to do to set out how it is monitoring deliverability and managing associated risks.
- Highways England’s baseline assumes a small proportion of total scheme expenditure during the first roads period on those schemes announced in the RIS and Autumn Statement 2014. The company needs to confirm that this is aligned with stakeholders’, including the Department for Transport’s, expectations.
4.18 At the same time that the company provided the baseline it also provided some current forecasts for project costs. These forecasts represent the position prior to realising efficiencies, mitigating risks and taking other actions to manage the portfolio and its costs. It is normal for these early forecasts to be higher than expected outturn costs and we welcome Highways England’s open engagement on this. However, we have the following concerns:
- Highways England has more to do to evidence how its forecast has been developed; and
- the company needs to develop a clear plan for how its current forecast costs will be managed down to deliver within the funding available.
4.19 Highways England must resolve these issues during the next year and we will report on its progress.
Capability to deliver the RIS
4.20 To support our work in this area we have carried out a study to assess Highways England’s supply chain’s capability and capacity to deliver the requirements of the RIS and to understand the risks of cost escalation(^\\text{16}). The study focused on resource and skills in the supply chain, availability of labour, plant and materials and whether the supply chain can deliver the increased investment. It also looked at Highways England’s management of the supply chain.
4.21 The study included two key workstreams:
- structured interviews with a broad cross-section of Highways England’s suppliers to understand capacity and constraints to delivery of the RIS (qualitative evidence); and
- development of a strategic model of demand and capacity constraints to delivery of the RIS (quantitative evidence).
4.22 The review was carried out collaboratively with Highways England to make sure that findings were shared, constructively challenged, jointly understood and useful. The study identified opportunities in three areas:
The supply chain’s capacity:
4.23 Analysis and modelling of the supply chain’s capacity has identified that:
- availability of appropriately skilled people represents the strongest capacity constraint;
- the industry needs to do more to address availability of skilled resource and attractiveness of a career in highways to new entrants; and
- there is an opportunity for Highways England to optimise the profile of its work.
(^{16}) Review of Highways England Supply Chain Capability: http://orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/highways-englands-supply-chain-capability Highways England’s engagement with its supply chain:
4.24 In engaging with its supply chain, there is an opportunity for Highways England to:
- provide more detailed forward visibility of demand at an appropriate level which facilitates improved planning by its suppliers;
- align procurement more closely with suppliers’ ability to bid; and
- use industry engagement to ensure successful roll-out of its operating models.
Highways England’s and ORR’s monitoring of progress:
4.25 There is an opportunity for Highways England to bring together a clear and concise set of measures on supply chain issues to monitor progress of delivery of the RIS and to highlight future risks to delivery. These measures might cover:
- individual project progress;
- impact of adjacent infrastructure markets;
- indicators of future trends (e.g. construction prices); and
- combining the above to give an overall view on RIS portfolio health.
4.26 Working with Highways England highlighted that the company is progressing work in many of the identified areas, and the study has helped to further inform the work’s future direction. The company has published a high-level plan for taking this work forward. In particular, Highways England is working on improvements to the management of its portfolio of capital investment and we will work with the company to make sure that these improvements are delivered. This is a key priority for 2016-17.
Case study – Encouraging a more strategic approach to risk management
- Through our monitoring of Highways England we seek to encourage and work with the company to develop a more strategic view of risks.
- An example of this is our review of Highways England’s supply chain’s capability. This work has helped to inform us and the company about some of the potential constraints to delivery of the RIS – such as the availability of skilled labour. This has resulted in Highways England publishing its response, which sets out its plans to mitigate some of these risks.
- We are now working with the company to develop appropriate metrics to give early indication of deliverability risks and will report on this and Highways England’s delivery of its plans next year.
Ring-fenced investment funds
4.27 Highways England is responsible for administering £900m of ring-fenced funds which allow for investment that is additional to, or beyond the traditional focus of, its road schemes. These funds are split into five areas, as set out in the table below. Much of the work in the first year has involved the development of programmes for delivery during the remainder of this road period. However, there have also been some more tangible outputs, which are summarised below.
______________________________________________________________________
17 Highways England’s response to ORR’s report on supply chain capability: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/highways-england-response-to-the-office-of-rail-and-road-orr-report-on-their-supply-chain-capability
### Table 4.5: Ring-fenced investment funds delivery in 2015-16
| Fund Name | Value (to 2020-21) | Expenditure in 2015-16 | Highlights | |----------------------------------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Air quality | £100m | £0m | ■ Programme to be established once the results of ongoing study work have been reported | | Cycling, safety and integration | £250m | £16.6m | ■ 21 cycling schemes delivered | | Environment | £300m | £2.6m | ■ 11 noise barrier schemes in development | | | | | ■ Guidelines developed for future biodiversity projects | | Innovation | £150m | £2.7m | ■ Three fuel price signs deployed on the network | | | | | ■ Development of the first motorway to motorway traffic management system | | | | | ■ Innovation research strategy completed | | Growth and housing | £100m | £0.1m | ■ First pilot scheme open to traffic | | | | | ■ Around 50 expressions of interest received from Local Enterprise Partnerships |
4.28 Highways England has provided evidence of its plans and governance for each of the ring-fenced funds. Some stakeholders have made us aware of concerns about Highways England’s transparency and communication of its plans for the funds. The company has recently started to deliver workshops to discuss with stakeholders how it will use these funds and we expect engagement to continue to improve during the next year. We will continue to work with the company to review progress made against the plans it now has in place. Strategic studies
4.29 The Investment Plan announced a set of six strategic studies to address some of the biggest challenges on the road network and to inform the development of RIS2. The strategic study programme has been commissioned by the Department for Transport, with Highways England funding and undertaking the project management for each study. During 2015-16 consultants were appointed to all six studies. The studies are currently on track to complete in 2016-17. Each study will contain a Strategic Outline Business Case which will have a number of options. Better performing options will continue into development, with resultant schemes ready to start in RIS2. More details on the status of each study are given below.
Table 4.6: Strategic studies progress
| Strategic study | Status | Next steps | |----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Northern Trans-Pennine | Interim report published in March 2016. This outlines the high level case for making improvements to the A66 and A69 to improve Trans-Pennine connectivity. | Further work is being carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and a shortlist of better performing options has been identified. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | Trans-Pennine Tunnel | Interim report published in November 2015. This outlines the high level case for the Trans-Pennine tunnel road scheme between Manchester and Sheffield and feasibility of constructing the new link. | Further work is being carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and the long list of tunnel routes will be narrowed down. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | Manchester North-West Quadrant | Interim report published in March 2016. This outlines the high level case for making improvements to the north-west quadrant of the M60, improving strategic and regional connectivity in the Manchester area. | Further work is being carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and a shortlist of better performing options has been identified. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | A1 East of England | Interim report outlining the high level case for making improvements to the A1 between the M25 and Peterborough has yet to be published. | Further work to be carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and identify a shortlist of better performing options. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | M25 South-West Quadrant | Study let in March 2016 to consider improvements to the performance of the transport network (including local roads and public transport) between junctions 10 and 16 of the M25. | An interim report is expected in Autumn 2016, and a final report in March 2017. | | Oxford to Cambridge Expressway | Interim report outlining the high level case for making improvements to the Oxford to Cambridge corridor has yet to be published. | Further work to be carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and identify a shortlist of better performing options. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | Maintenance and renewals delivery
4.30 Highways England must maintain and renew the network to make sure that it is kept in a safe and serviceable condition.
4.31 During 2015-16, the company reviewed its initial maintenance and renewals programme. It re-profiled expenditure compared to its budget, resulting in a significant movement of expenditure from the summer to the winter months. Figure 4.2 shows the profile of renewals expenditure by quarter. There was a 35% increase in expenditure in quarter 4 compared to quarter 3. Carrying out more renewals work in winter months is potentially less efficient because, for example, there is more likely to be adverse weather. It may also lead to a lower quality product, which may increase whole life cost. The profile also suggests variances in workload across the year, which may be inefficient, and which it was hoped longer-term certainty of funding would address. We are reviewing the efficiency of this profile with the company.
4.32 Highways England’s Delivery Plan set out the volumes of renewals work it planned to carry out in 2015-16. The company has reported the actual volumes carried out and provided high level explanations for variances from the plan but it will need to improve the robustness of its asset management planning going forwards.
4.33 Volumes delivered compared to plan are shown in table 4.7. The company has delivered significantly greater volumes of structures renewals (with the exception of bridge bearings). It has also delivered different volumes of renewals of roads assets, including greater volumes of pavement renewals, road markings, kerbs, drainage, traffic sign and lighting, and lower volumes of vehicle restraint systems, geotechnical assets, boundary fencing and footways. For technology assets, the company has delivered increased volumes of motorway communications equipment and technology projects, but appears to have delivered lower volumes of technology renewals and improvements. Table 4.7: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2015-16
| 2015-16 commitments | Planned Volume | Actual Volume | Comment | |----------------------|----------------|---------------|---------| | Renewals | | | | | Pavement (lane miles)| 1,200 | 1,468 | | | Vehicle restraint systems (linear metres) | 178,000 | 144,530 | | | Structures – bridge joints (number) | 222 | 533 | | | Structures – bridge bearing (number) | 214 | 77 | | | Structures – waterproofing (square metres) | 20,000 | 55,637 | Improved planning and assurance over delivery required | | Structures – parapet (linear metres) | 1,000 | 1,471 | | | Drainage (linear metres) | 231,000 | 290,919 | | | Geotechnical (linear metres) | 46,000 | 40,293 | | | Motorway communications equipment (number) | 100 | 124 | |
Figure 4.3: Asset renewal, delivered volume variance from baseline plan 4.34 When taking the profile of renewals expenditure and renewals volume variances together, we consider that Highways England has more to do to plan and deliver its renewals work efficiently and effectively.
4.35 Highways England needs to improve its processes for identifying and prioritising its maintenance and renewals work and must now set out a plan for improvement in the first road period. The current reporting of renewals points to the need for Highways England to improve its asset management capability, with particular focus on improving:
- asset information;
- strategic planning;
- asset management workbank development;
- reporting, including reasons for variances from plan; and
- efficient delivery.
4.36 Highways England is developing plans to improve its asset management capability. Its coordinated data improvement plan specifically targets improved asset information, and it has developed plans to ensure that it has an asset management system that is consistent with industry standards (ISO 55000) by the end of the road period. In 2015-16 the company has produced its asset management principles document and has started to develop its asset management strategy.
4.37 It is important that Highways England continues to develop its asset management strategy and asset management plans to deliver the required improvements. This is a priority for 2016-17.
Schemes carried over from 2014-15
4.38 Some capital works were carried over from 2014-15 and have impacted on the first road period delivery and financial performance. For example, a number of pinch point schemes that were originally scheduled to complete by the end of March 2015 were actually completed in 2015-16.
4.39 We have engaged Highways England to ensure that it has learned the lessons from the delivery of this programme and have received assurance that it has.
4.40 The request for additional funding of £140m, required to complete these schemes, has been through the change control process and has been agreed by the Department for Transport. Priorities for 2016–17
5.1 This report has highlighted that Highways England has largely delivered its performance requirements and investment plans in the first year of the road period, but it must now build on that success to make sure that it delivers in the remainder of the period. It is important for Highways England to ensure that there is sufficient focus in the following areas in 2016-17.
Establishing clear performance plans
5.2 As set out in chapter 2, Highways England has more work to do to establish robust plans for the road period to make sure that it delivers the Performance Specification targets and requirements of the RIS Investment Plan. In 2016-17 we expect the company to set out:
- improved clarity of its plans to deliver its user satisfaction target of 90% by March 2017;
- its plans to deliver its efficiency target over the period;
- its plans to mitigate noise important areas;
- its plans to deliver against environmental performance indicators (for example, those relating to management of water); and
- its plans to deliver new and upgraded crossings.
Establishing clear capital investment plans
5.3 As set out in chapter 4, Highways England has more to do to assure itself, us, government and other stakeholders of the robustness of its capital investment plans. Improved management of the capital portfolio is a key priority for 2016-17.
5.4 As part of this, we expect Highways England to improve clarity of its baseline information relating to major schemes, and of its management of affordability and deliverability risk. We expect the company to improve its processes for ensuring that its asset maintenance and renewal plans are based on a robust assessment of network need and performance delivery.
Improving data quality and transparency
5.5 We have concerns about the breadth and quality of information that Highways England reports to us in a number of areas, notably asset information and unit costs. These form key parts of a coordinated data improvement plan which Highways England is developing. During 2016-17 we will review delivery of the improvement plan which is an important step to improving the company’s asset management capability more widely, for example improving its renewals planning and reporting. 5.6 Whilst Highways England has progressed development of its plans and strategies, as set out earlier in the document, we have expressed concerns that some of these are too high level to provide sufficient detail to stakeholders on the company’s strategic direction and specific work plans for the road period. In our view, Highways England particularly needs to increase the transparency of its plans and strategies in the areas of safety and the environment and we expect this to be progressed during 2016-17.
Developing and implementing plans for RIS2
5.7 The planning for RIS2 is now underway, and Highways England’s route strategies are an important aspect. The process for the development of the route strategies should be as collaborative and transparent as possible. Throughout the route strategies process, the licence envisages high quality engagement from Highways England with its stakeholders.
5.8 Highways England has a key role to play in understanding the challenges on the network through its leading work on RIS2. Through the Strategic Studies, route strategies and associated work, Highways England is in a unique position to consider some of the wider challenges in the highways sector. Drawing on both our rail and road remits, we would encourage Highways England to work with us to ensure greater consideration of infrastructure and operational issues across transport modes. Annex A – List of performance indicators
This table shows a list of performance indicators by outcome area. These are used to support and inform the associated KPIs. A fuller list and description of performance indicators can be found in the Operational Metrics Manual18.
| Outcome | Performance Indicator | |----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Making the network safer | Incident numbers and contributory factors for motorways | | | Casualty numbers and contributory factors for all-purpose trunk roads | | | International Road Assessment Programme based road safety investigations, developed in conjunction with the Department to feed into subsequent route strategies | | | Accident frequency rate for construction and maintenance workers, and for Customer Operations | | Improving user satisfaction | The percentage of National Road User Satisfaction Survey respondents who are very or fairly satisfied with: journey time; information and signs; management of roadworks; feeling safe; and upkeep. | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Planning time index (a measure of how much additional time road users need to allow to ensure they arrive on time) | | | Traffic (vehicle miles travelled) on the strategic road network | | | Acceptable journeys (the proportion of journeys faster than 4/3 of the ‘free flow’ journey time, calculated as a percentage) | | | Average speed of car journeys on the strategic road network | | Encouraging economic growth | Percentage of formal planning applications responded to within 21 days of receipt by Highways England | | | Average delay (time lost per vehicle mile on gateway routes) | | | Meet the government target of 25% small and medium sized enterprise direct and indirect spend | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Number of air quality pilot studies completed |
18 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual | **Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users of the network** | Number of vulnerable user casualties (broken down by cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and equestrians) | | **Achieving real efficiency** | Cost performance indicator and schedule performance indicator for schemes at Project Control Framework stage 5 and beyond (demonstrates that the portfolio is being developed and the investment plan delivered in a timely and efficient manner) | | **Keeping the network in good condition** | Geotechnical asset inventory and asset condition | | | Drainage asset inventory and condition data coverage | | | Technology asset availability (the percentage of Highways England’s technology, used for management and operation, which is functioning correctly) | | | Structure asset – inventory and condition (the percentage of structures that have basic inventory information) | Annex B – Glossary of terms
Delivery Plan – Highways England’s plan which sets out in detail how it will deliver its strategic outcomes and measure success.
Highways England – The government owned company with responsibility for operating, maintaining and enhancing the strategic road network. It launched on 1 April 2015, replacing the Highways Agency.
Highways Monitor – The directorate within the Office of Rail and Road with responsibility for monitoring the performance of Highways England.
Investment Plan – The part of the Road Investment Strategy which sets out the planned investments and the funds available for the first road period.
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) – The performance specification sets out 11 key performance indicators which are used to measure Highways England’s performance. Full details of each indicator can be found in the Operational Metrics Manual (referenced in chapter 2).
Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) – A person killed or seriously injured in an accident.
Office of Rail and Road (ORR) – The independent safety and economic regulator for Britain’s railways and monitor of Highways England. Formerly the Office of Rail Regulation.
Performance Indicators (PI) – Indicators which sit below, and give context to, the key performance indicators. Full details of each indicator can be found in the Operational Metrics Manual (referenced in chapter 2).
Performance Specification – The part of the Road Investment Strategy which sets out the level of performance that Highways England must deliver in the first road period.
Road Investment Strategy (RIS) – This document sets out a long-term vision for England’s motorways and major roads, including a multi-year investment plan for improving the network and high-level objectives for the first roads period.
Road Period – The period that the Road Investment Strategy covers. The first road period covers the years 2015-16 to 2019-2020.
Road reform – The package of reforms implemented by government in the Infrastructure Act 2015 which included the creation of Highways England.
Strategic Road Network – The road network which Highways England is responsible for managing, comprising the motorways and main ‘A’ roads in England (also ‘the network’).
Transport Focus – The independent transport user watchdog which represents users of the strategic road network and is responsible for developing the new road user satisfaction survey. Formerly Passenger Focus.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1036-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 79,
"total-input-tokens": 149198,
"total-output-tokens": 30130,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
76,
1
],
[
76,
76,
2
],
[
76,
294,
3
],
[
294,
294,
4
],
[
294,
1809,
5
],
[
1809,
1809,
6
],
[
1809,
3986,
7
],
[
3986,
6306,
8
],
[
6306,
10051,
9
],
[
10051,
10051,
10
],
[
10051,
12501,
11
],
[
12501,
12501,
12
],
[
12501,
14076,
13
],
[
14076,
16143,
14
],
[
16143,
17114,
15
],
[
17114,
17114,
16
],
[
17114,
18240,
17
],
[
18240,
20614,
18
],
[
20614,
22297,
19
],
[
22297,
22657,
20
],
[
22657,
25982,
21
],
[
25982,
28564,
22
],
[
28564,
29991,
23
],
[
29991,
31060,
24
],
[
31060,
33434,
25
],
[
33434,
35220,
26
],
[
35220,
37214,
27
],
[
37214,
39872,
28
],
[
39872,
40581,
29
],
[
40581,
42953,
30
],
[
42953,
43945,
31
],
[
43945,
46468,
32
],
[
46468,
49175,
33
],
[
49175,
50630,
34
],
[
50630,
53546,
35
],
[
53546,
55593,
36
],
[
55593,
58001,
37
],
[
58001,
59845,
38
],
[
59845,
62392,
39
],
[
62392,
63814,
40
],
[
63814,
65154,
41
],
[
65154,
65154,
42
],
[
65154,
66802,
43
],
[
66802,
67895,
44
],
[
67895,
70544,
45
],
[
70544,
73717,
46
],
[
73717,
77575,
47
],
[
77575,
80260,
48
],
[
80260,
82617,
49
],
[
82617,
82617,
50
],
[
82617,
83732,
51
],
[
83732,
86369,
52
],
[
86369,
87975,
53
],
[
87975,
89775,
54
],
[
89775,
90747,
55
],
[
90747,
92474,
56
],
[
92474,
94789,
57
],
[
94789,
97923,
58
],
[
97923,
100987,
59
],
[
100987,
103912,
60
],
[
103912,
106291,
61
],
[
106291,
109689,
62
],
[
109689,
111674,
63
],
[
111674,
112666,
64
],
[
112666,
114711,
65
],
[
114711,
114711,
66
],
[
114711,
116982,
67
],
[
116982,
118384,
68
],
[
118384,
118384,
69
],
[
118384,
118384,
70
],
[
118384,
121837,
71
],
[
121837,
122726,
72
],
[
122726,
122726,
73
],
[
122726,
122726,
74
],
[
122726,
125188,
75
],
[
125188,
125188,
76
],
[
125188,
125188,
77
],
[
125188,
125188,
78
],
[
125188,
125188,
79
]
]
} |
095f9842f8db5a5168f9c0d48134c19ea6495540 | Annual assessment of Highways England’s performance: Summary April 2015 – March 2016 Background Highways England manages the strategic road network – England’s motorways and main A roads.
The government has set the outcomes and improvements that Highways England must deliver from April 2015 to March 2020 – the first road period. Over these five years, the company is responsible for delivering over £11bn of public investment into the network.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s performance against these targets. Our report on Highways England’s first year of operation covers:
- How Highways England has performed against its eight key outcomes
- How it is managing the network and delivering improvements
- How Highways England is delivering its licence requirements
The strategic road network
95% of English residents and 99% of vehicles use the strategic road network at least once a year. In 2015, 69.7 billion vehicle miles were driven on the network, of which 74% were cars and 25% vans and lorries.
Traffic on the strategic road network grew by 19% between 2000 and 2015 with the biggest growth coming from light goods vehicles, which increased by 61% in the same period. The Department for Transport’s national transport model predicts that, between 2010 and 2040, traffic on the network will increase by between 29% and 60%.
Key messages
1. Highways England has made a good start to delivery in the first road period. It has met its performance targets and delivered its investment commitments in 2015-16.
2. Highways England now needs to implement robust plans to make sure that it delivers targets in the rest of the road period, including improving safety performance, customer service and environmental mitigations.
3. There is an opportunity for Highways England to improve its management of risks to network investment delivery over the road period. In particular, there is more to do in planning and delivering investment efficiently and in demonstrating that network condition is being managed sustainably. Operational performance Highways England has met its performance requirements for 2015-16. It has exceeded its targets for maintaining network availability, clearing motorway incidents, and maintaining the quality of the road surface. It has also progressed its environmental strategies and plans, including publishing its biodiversity action plan.
On some other measures, the company does not have annual targets. For example, the company must make the network safer, including reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on the network by 40% by the end of 2020. Data for 2015 show a reduction in the number of killed and seriously injured compared to the previous year, but the company needs to focus on this area if it is going to meet its 2020 target.
Highways England must achieve 90% user satisfaction by March 2017. This year, it achieved 89.3% and although this is an improvement on the previous year, it needs to carefully plan how it will hit its 90% target.
Capital investment Highways England must deliver £11.4bn of capital investment by 2020. It delivered its major scheme commitments for 2015-16, including opening five schemes to traffic, and starting construction of eight further schemes, one more than planned. However, on schemes that have opened for traffic, expenditure for the year was £4m (4%) higher than estimated. This was primarily down to undertaking additional renewal work as part of the schemes.
Looking forward, ORR is concerned that Highways England has not fully set out how it is managing risks to delivery of capital investment in future years, although the company is working to improve its plans. Highways England needs to set clear baselines for scope, cost and timings of schemes, and explain how the portfolio will be delivered within available funding.
Financial performance Highways England spent £3.0bn in 2015-16, including £1.9bn on its capital programme. This was in line with its funding.
The company has a target to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency savings by March 2020. It has made progress in its first year, achieving its internal efficiency target of £33m. Efficiencies are expected to rise as delivery of the capital programme increases during the road period.
Priorities for 2016-17 In 2016-17, Highways England needs to:
- Set out clear plans for delivery of future performance targets
- Improve its plans for capital investment delivery, and its capability for portfolio, programme and project management
- Improve data quality, including data about its assets and its efficiency
- Improve transparency of its plans and performance
- Take forward its planning for the next road period and develop evidence-based route strategies
Highways England’s expenditure in 2015-16
## Performance Specification: delivery of key performance indicators
| Outcome | KPI and target | Performance in 2015-16 | RAG 2015-16 | RAG Road Period 1 | |---------|----------------|------------------------|-------------|------------------| | **Making the network safer** | Killed and seriously injured Target: 40% reduction by end of 2020 | Improvement in 2015, but more needed to deliver 2020 target | Amber | Amber | | **Improving user satisfaction** | Road user satisfaction Target: 90% by March 2017 | 89.3% satisfaction | Amber | Amber | | **Supporting the smooth flow of traffic** | Network availability Target: 97% lane availability in any one rolling year | 98.4% availability | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance Target: 85% of motorway incidents cleared within one hour | 86% cleared within one hour | Green | Green | | **Encouraging economic growth** | Average delay (seconds per vehicle mile) Target: No target set | 8.9 seconds delay per vehicle mile | Amber | Amber | | **Delivering better environmental outcomes** | Noise important areas mitigated Target: Mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by March 2020 | 48 delivered | Amber | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity Target: Publish biodiversity action plan | Action plan published in June 2015 | Green | Green | | **Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users** | Number of new and upgraded crossings Target: No target set | 204 delivered | Amber | Amber | | **Achieving real efficiency** | Capital expenditure savings Target: Total savings of at least £1.212bn on capital expenditure by March 2020 | Met internal target of £33m | Green | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to Delivery Plan Target: No target set | Delivery in 2015-16 largely to plan, risks to delivery later in the road period | Green | Amber | | **Keeping the network in good condition** | Pavement condition Target: 95% of pavement requiring no further investigation for possible maintenance | 95.4% requires no further investigation | Green | Green | Major scheme delivery in 2015-16
| Major scheme | Committed date | Actual date | |--------------|----------------|-------------| | A160/A180 Immingham | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | M1 J13 – J19 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | M5 J4a – J6 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | M6 J16 – J19 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | A50 Uttoxeter | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | M5 Junctions 5 to 7 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q2 | | A43 Abthorpe junction | Late 2016 | 2015-16, Q4 |
Major schemes opened for traffic
| Major scheme | Committed date | Actual date | |--------------|----------------|-------------| | A14 Kettering bypass widening | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | A453 widening | 2015-16, Q2 | 2015-16, Q2 | | M1 J28 – J31 | 2015-16, Q4 | 2015-16, Q4 | | M6 J10a – J13 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q4 | | M1 J39 – J42 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 |
Highways England’s main asset types – asset health
- **Road**
- e.g. road surface and markings
- 95.4% requires no further investigation – above 95% target
- **Structures**
- e.g. bridges and tunnels
- Average condition of 84.3% (good)
- **Geotechnical assets**
- e.g. earthworks and embankments
- 96.6% are at low risk
- **Technology**
- e.g. variable message signs
- Roadside technology 98.7% available
- **Drainage**
- e.g. pipes and gullies
- Condition information only held for 27% of assets
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1037-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 11491,
"total-output-tokens": 2470,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
85,
1
],
[
85,
2079,
2
],
[
2079,
4830,
3
],
[
4830,
6848,
4
],
[
6848,
8268,
5
]
]
} |
f79bda48ed75c9ad391dbda24416687a1ae5d260 | Annual Assessment of Highways England’s Performance April 2015 – March 2016 Annual assessment of Highways England’s performance April 2015 – March 2016
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 13 July 2016
# Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Executive Summary | 3 | | Background and context | 3 | | Purpose of this report | 3 | | Highways England’s operational performance | 4 | | Highways England’s capital investment delivery | 4 | | Highways England’s financial performance | 7 | | Priorities for 2016-17 | 7 | | 1. Context for the annual assessment | 9 | | The strategic road network | 9 | | Significant change for Highways England | 10 | | The first Road Investment Strategy | 10 | | Traffic growth | 11 | | 2. Highways England’s performance | 13 | | How we measure Highways England’s performance | 13 | | Making the network safer | 15 | | Improving user satisfaction | 19 | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | 23 | | Encouraging economic growth | 26 | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | 28 | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | 32 | | Achieving real efficiency | 34 | | Keeping the network in good condition | 35 | | 3. Financial performance and efficiency | 39 | | Financial performance | 39 | | Efficiency improvements | 42 | | 4. Network investment delivery | 47 | | Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2015-16 | 49 | | Delivery of major improvement schemes in the remainder of the road period | 53 | | Ring-fenced investment funds | 56 | | Strategic studies | 58 | | Maintenance and renewals delivery | 59 | | 5. Priorities for 2016-17 | 63 | | Establishing clear performance plans | 63 | | Establishing clear capital investment plans | 63 | | Improving data quality and transparency | 63 | | Developing and implementing plans for RIS2 | 64 | | Annex A – List of performance indicators | 67 | | Annex B – Glossary of terms | 71 | Executive Summary
Background and context
1. Highways England is the government-owned company which manages the motorways and main A roads in England (the strategic road network).
2. In late 2014, the government specified a set of outcomes and investments that Highways England is required to deliver over the first road period, from April 2015 to March 2020 (Road Period 1). These requirements were specified in the Road Investment Strategy (RIS).
3. Highways England was formed in April 2015 at the same time as wide-reaching reforms were made to the way the sector works. The company is implementing a significant change programme to adapt to its new operating environment. It is managing, operating and delivering improvements to its network at a time when traffic is at record levels and growing. This presents challenges for the company in almost all of its outcome areas – including keeping traffic flowing and maintaining user satisfaction whilst delivering network investment.
4. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England’s performance in the delivery of the outcomes and investments (such as road improvements) in the RIS. Highways England has set out how it will deliver these objectives in its Delivery Plan, which it updates each year.
5. As this is the first road period there are some aspects of the framework which continue to be developed and further work must be completed over the coming year, in particular to refine the company’s capital investment plan.
Purpose of this report 6. This is ORR’s first annual assessment of Highways England’s performance since taking on the role of Highways Monitor in April 2015. It focuses on Highways England’s performance and delivery against:
- the RIS Performance Specification, including eight key outcome areas;
- the RIS Investment Plan, including ongoing management of the network and delivery of improvements; and
- Highways England’s licence conditions.
07. The report aims to provide all stakeholders with a clear understanding of how Highways England is performing and how the company is placed to deliver its commitments over the remainder of the road period. Three key messages
08. Highways England has made a good start to delivery in the first road period. It has met its performance targets and delivered its investment commitments in 2015-16.
09. Highways England now needs to implement robust plans to make sure that it delivers targets in the rest of the road period, including improving safety performance, customer service and environmental mitigations.
10. There is an opportunity for Highways England to improve its management of risks to network investment delivery over the road period. In particular, there is more to do in planning and delivering investment efficiently and in demonstrating that network condition is being managed sustainably.
Highways England’s operational performance
08. The RIS Performance Specification sets the outcomes that Highways England must deliver during the road period in eight areas. It sets 11 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for measuring performance, eight of which have targets.
09. Highways England has met its Performance Specification targets for 2015-16. It has supported the smooth flow of traffic by maintaining network availability and motorway incident clearance metrics above its targeted levels. The company has exceeded its target for pavement (carriageway) condition. It has also progressed its environmental strategies and plans, including publishing its biodiversity action plan.
10. For other outcome areas Highways England has been set targets for later in the road period. For example, the company must make the network safer, including reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% by the end of 2020. Data for 2015 show a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on the network compared to the previous year but continued focus is needed to deliver the target.
11. Highways England must achieve 90% user satisfaction by March 2017. User satisfaction for 2015-16 was 89.3%, an improvement from the previous year. The company will need to develop and implement a clear plan to deliver the required improvement in user satisfaction over the next year.
12. In several other outcome areas we consider that Highways England needs to provide more assurance that it has robust plans in place to meet its targets. This is discussed further in the body of this document. Highways England’s capital investment delivery
13. The RIS Investment Plan sets out the £11.4bn capital investment portfolio which Highways England must deliver during the road period.
14. Highways England has delivered its major scheme commitments for 2015-16, including opening five schemes to traffic as planned. These are now delivering benefits to road users. It has started construction of eight further schemes, exceeding its plans to start seven.
15. For those schemes that have opened for traffic, expenditure for the year was £4m (4%) higher than baseline estimates. This is primarily due to the inclusion of additional renewals work in the schemes.
16. Whilst delivery of the major scheme programme so far has met committed milestones we are concerned that Highways England has not yet fully demonstrated how it is managing risks to delivery of the Investment Plan in the remainder of the road period. The company acknowledges this, is engaging us openly, and is working on improvements to its plans, and to the management of its portfolio of capital investment more broadly. The company’s improvement plans should:
- set clear, agreed baseline assumptions for the scope, cost and timing of major schemes, and demonstrate how the company has assured that the baseline is deliverable;
- set out current delivery forecasts and explain how the portfolio will be delivered within the funding available; and
- demonstrate a portfolio approach to managing investment – for example integrating its asset management and network improvement programmes.
17. Highways England will need to manage some specific strategic risks to the delivery of the capital investment portfolio during the first road period. For example, there are potential risks associated with the availability of a skilled workforce and with the impact of air quality thresholds.
18. We expect the company to demonstrate that its portfolio management capability improves in 2016-17 and will report on its progress.
19. In April 2016 we published a report reviewing the capability and capacity of Highways England’s supply chain to deliver the RIS1. This highlighted the need for the company to identify and monitor the strategic risks to its major projects portfolio, and engage better with the supply chain on the forward programme of investment. Highways England accepted these recommendations and developed its response2.
20. Highways England’s Delivery Plan set out the volumes of renewals work it planned to carry out in 2015-16. The company’s reported volumes for the year show significant variances from its plans. Highways England has provided only high level explanations for these variances. There was also a significant re-profiling of renewals work during the year, resulting in a 35% increase in renewals expenditure in the final quarter compared to the previous three months. Taken together, these suggest that Highways England has more to do to plan and deliver its renewals work efficiently and effectively.
21. For the first road period, Highways England has designated funding to carry out environmental, cycling, safety, integration, innovation, air quality and growth and housing improvement works – beyond its business-as-usual activities. In 2015-16, the company has carried out preparatory work on the governance and processes for identifying and delivering improvements using these funds.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Highways England’s supply chain capability: http://orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/highways-englands-supply-chain-capability 2 Highways England’s response to ORR’s report on supply chain capability: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/highways-england-response-to-the-office-of-rail-and-road-orr-report-on-their-supply-chain-capability Highways England’s financial performance
22. Overall Highways England spent £3.0bn including £1.9bn on its capital programme which was in line with its funding in 2015-16. The funding was £144m higher than the original RIS funding due to the Department for Transport providing an additional £140m to meet the cost of capital projects carried over from previous years and an additional £4m for development work for a major lorry park in Kent.
23. Highways England has identified £55m of efficiency improvements across its capital programme during 2015-16. Our assessment is that the company has achieved its internal efficiency target of £33m, though further evidence is required about an additional £21m, in relation to savings on the company’s smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and we will continue to work with Highways England in 2016-17 as it develops the evidence base. The efficiency reported by the company for 2015-16 may be adjusted at a future date.
24. Highways England needs to deliver more than £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in the first road period and the company’s work over the past year on developing its processes for substantiating efficiencies has established good practice for future years. It will be important that the quality of evidence provided is commensurate with the size of the efficiency being reported.
Priorities for 2016-17
25. Whilst Highways England has largely delivered in 2015-16, it must now build on that success to ensure that it delivers in the remainder of the first road period. In 2016-17 it will be important for the company to:
- establish clear plans for the delivery of future performance targets;
- establish improved plans for capital investment delivery and for developing portfolio, programme and project management capability;
- improve data quality (for example asset data and efficiency reporting) by delivering on its coordinated data improvement plan; and
- improve transparency about its plans and performance, including the transparency of its plans and strategies in the areas of safety and the environment.
26. Over the next year it will be vital that work is progressed to lay solid foundations for RIS2. Highways England will need to make sure that it develops an evidence-based understanding of the needs of the network through its route strategies. It will also need to progress its plans to deliver efficiently. 1
Context for the annual assessment
What is our role?
1.1 Our role in monitoring Highways England is defined in the Infrastructure Act 2015. We must carry out activities to monitor how Highways England exercises its functions. As part of fulfilling this role, we produce an annual report on the company’s performance setting out whether, how and at what cost the company has achieved its objectives under a RIS.
The Strategic Road Network
1.2 Roads are a key part of the country’s infrastructure. They keep people connected and are vital for supporting economic growth. 90% of passenger journeys and almost 70% of freight movements are made by road.
1.3 The strategic road network (SRN), managed by Highways England, is a vital part of the road network.
Figure 1.1: The strategic road network: key facts and figures
- 95% of English residents and 99% of vehicles use the strategic road network at least once a year. In 2015, 89.7 billion vehicle miles were driven on the network, of which 74% were cars and 25% vans and lorries.
- Traffic on the strategic road network grew by 19% between 2000 and 2015 with the biggest growth coming from light goods vehicles, which increased by 61% in the same period. The Department for Transport’s national transport model predicts that, between 2010 and 2040, traffic on the network will increase by between 29% and 60%.
- The strategic road network comprises approximately 4,400 miles of motorways and main A roads. It accounts for just 2% of road length in England but carries a third of traffic, including two thirds of lorry traffic. Significant change for Highways England
1.4 Highways England is a new company with new challenges. It was formed when the Highways Agency became a government-owned company in April 2015. At the same time, wide-reaching reforms to the sector were implemented, meaning that Highways England is operating in a new environment. Some of the key changes are that Highways England:
- has agreed performance targets over a five year period (whereas the previous performance specification covered a two year period);
- has committed to deliver a large increase in capital expenditure over the five year period – including more than £7bn of funding to deliver a programme of 112 major schemes – while realising significant efficiencies; and
- has been given greater autonomy, and now takes more ownership of developing, analysing and making investment decisions.
1.5 As a result the company has an opportunity to deliver more efficiently by taking a longer-term approach to planning and through different approaches to contracting and delivering through its supply chain. But it is also implementing significant change to adapt to its new environment.
The first Road Investment Strategy
1.6 As this is the first road period there are some aspects of the framework which continue to be developed. In some cases there is more to do to specify what Highways England is expected to deliver. The company needs to agree a firm scope of works for its capital investment with the Department for Transport, which will lead to improved certainty of costs in the road period.
1.7 There is also a need to clarify what level of delivery constitutes success (for example what proportion of scheme milestone delivery is acceptable to the Department for Transport). Highways England and the Department may need to consider options to repackage and reschedule works to deliver more efficiently in the longer-term. Some flexibility in delivery is being managed through a change control process managed by the Department. This has been implemented and will be further developed in 2016-17. Traffic growth
1.8 Highways England is managing, operating and delivering improvements to its network at a time when traffic is at record levels and continuing to grow.
1.9 The Department for Transport forecasts that traffic on the strategic road network will continue to grow, by between 29% and 60%, between 2010 and 2040.
1.10 Traffic growth presents specific challenges for the company in almost all of its outcome areas. For example, it must keep traffic flowing to support economic growth whilst delivering an increased programme of capital investment. It must also manage the impact of traffic growth on safety, network condition and air quality.
Figure 1.2: Vehicle miles travelled on the strategic road network
______________________________________________________________________
3 The projected traffic presented in this chart is based on the high and low scenarios from DfT’s road traffic forecasts, 2015: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411471/road-traffic-forecasts-2015.pdf Highways England’s performance
This chapter summarises Highways England’s performance against key outcomes in 2015-16. It also considers the quality of plans to deliver outcomes in the remainder of the road period.
How we measure Highways England’s performance
2.1 We measure Highways England’s performance against the outcomes in the RIS Performance Specification, as shown in table 2.1. This includes assessing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Performance Indicators (PIs) and requirements in each of the outcome areas.
2.2 Table 2.1 provides a summary of the KPIs and associated targets for each outcome area. It shows Highways England’s performance against each of the KPIs and a summary of our assessment of the company’s performance using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
2.3 Each outcome area is reviewed in greater detail later in the chapter. Within these sections we provide the explanations for the RAG statuses.
*A detailed description of each indicator can be found in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual*
### Table 2.1: Performance Specification KPI delivery
| Outcome | KPI and target | RAG<sup>6</sup> 2015-16 | RAG RP1 | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------| | Making the network safer | Killed and seriously injured<br>Target: 40% reduction by end of 2020 | Amber | Amber | | Improving user satisfaction | Road user satisfaction<br>Target: 90% by March 2017 | Amber | Amber | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Network availability<br>Target: 97% lane availability in any one rolling year | Green | Green | | | Incident clearance<br>Target: 85% of motorway incidents cleared within one hour | Green | Green | | Encouraging economic growth | Average delay (seconds per vehicle mile)<br>Target: No target set | Amber | Amber | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Noise important areas mitigated<br>Target: Mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas by March 2020 | Amber | Amber | | | Improved biodiversity<br>Target: Publish biodiversity action plan | Green | Green | | Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | Number of new and upgraded crossings<br>Target: No target set | Amber | Amber | | Achieving real efficiency | Capital expenditure savings<br>Target: Total savings of at least £1.212bn on capital expenditure by March 2020 | Green | Amber | | | Progress of work, relative to Delivery Plan<br>Target: No target set | Green | Amber | | Keeping the network in good condition | Pavement condition<br>Target: 95% of pavement requiring no further investigation for possible maintenance | Green | Green |
<sup>6</sup> Explanations for RAG statuses are given for each KPI later in this chapter Outcome: Making the network safer
2.4 Safety of road users and workers is a primary concern for Highways England and us, and needs continued focus. The company is demonstrating commitment to making the network safer, and has started to implement its health and safety plans.
Key performance indicator: The number of killed and seriously injured on the strategic road network
- Highways England must achieve an on-going reduction in network KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) to support a 40%+ decrease by end 2020 against the 2005–09 average baseline
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | The number of people killed and seriously injured in 2015 was 3.6% lower than in 2014. However, this is above the trajectory required to deliver the target by the end of 2020. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England has developed plans for improvement in the first road period but these are not yet published. The company has not yet quantified how its plans will deliver the end-of-road period target. |
2.5 England’s roads are amongst the safest in the world, but Highways England is tasked with making the network even safer, including reducing the number of KSI by 40% by the end of 2020. The long-term trend of falling KSI on the strategic road network was interrupted by increases in 2013 and 2014. In 2015 the number of KSI was 1,787, a 3.6% reduction on the previous year. However, the total remains higher than in 2012 and above the straight line trajectory required to meet the target at the end of 2020.
6 The 40% reduction required is against the average for 2005 to 2009 Figure 2.1: Killed and seriously injured on the network, 2005-2015
Table 2.2: Number of killed and seriously injured on the network, 2014 and 2015
| | 2014 | 2015 | Change | |---------------|------|------|--------| | Killed | 211 | 226 | 7.1% | | Seriously injured | 1,642 | 1,561 | 4.9% | | KSI | 1,853| 1,787| 3.6% | 2.6 Table 2.2 shows that the number of people killed on the network increased by 7.1% in 2015. The Department for Transport’s analysis suggests that this may reflect natural variation in the figures rather than an underlying trend.
2.7 Highways England is demonstrating commitment to making the network safer for both users and road workers, and has produced safety plans including:
- a published strategy, “Health and safety: our approach”;
- a health and safety five year plan, which has been shared with the supply chain; and
- a national incident and casualty reduction plan, which sets out details of how the company will achieve its safety outcomes, including analysis of regional safety performance, enabling it to focus on improvements in each region to support the overall target.
2.8 Highways England has begun to implement these plans and will need to continue to monitor their delivery and impact closely to achieve the required safety improvements. We will work with the company to understand and review how it is managing the delivery of its plans. We are also currently discussing with Highways England what further action it can take to make sure that its plans are sufficiently visible to, and understood by, its stakeholders.
2.9 Highways England has explained to us some of the more detailed work that it is taking forwards. It has provided us with details of an in-depth study it has commissioned which aims to identify the causation and contributory factors of all fatal, and the most serious non-fatal collisions, on the network in 2014. We will work with the company to understand its conclusions and how the company is taking its findings forwards. Highways England has also given us a demonstration of its forecasting tool which it is using to quantify the impact of its planned interventions on reducing the number of KSIs.
2.10 We regard these as important steps in Highways England developing an improved understanding of the link between its actions and safety performance to ensure that its actions are prioritised and targeted. The work being taken forward has given us assurance that Highways England is applying focus and management attention to improving safety performance.
2.11 Highways England plans to spend over £70m of “ring-fenced funds” on additional safety improvements over-and-above its business-as-usual interventions.
2.12 During 2015-16 Highways England spent approximately £1m of the fund on safety improvements, and its activity has largely involved scoping work, with the main body of delivery expected between 2017-18 and 2019-20. A key focus for expenditure will be on improving safety of those parts of the network with the worst safety record – primarily single carriageway A roads. It will also be delivering safety improvements by focusing on improving driver compliance with the law (for example, compliance with variable speed limits and obeying smart motorway signs, such as “red X” warnings) and on improving road worker safety. We will monitor Highways England’s delivery closely over the coming year to understand more about these interventions and how they will support the achievement of the target.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Highways England’s publication, “Health and Safety: our approach”: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-health-and-safety Case study – Sharing safety lessons between road and rail
- Improving and maintaining safety performance on the road and rail networks has very different challenges. In 2014, there were 211 deaths on the strategic road network, compared to four passenger deaths on Britain’s railways during 2014-15.
- There are many reasons for the differences between the two modes of transport. One obvious distinction is that the rail network is a more controlled environment.
- However, there are opportunities for the sectors to share learning. For instance, in rail there is a well-established, systematic approach to the analysis of accidents to identify and share lessons learned.
- ORR and Highways England have collaborated to share experience and expertise in this area. As well as working with Highways England to review its 5 Year Health and Safety Plan, ORR also engaged with the company to demonstrate the safety models used in rail.
- We have seen evidence of Highways England applying a more systematic approach to its work on safety. It has commissioned a study which aims to identify the causation and contributory factors of all fatal, and the most serious non-fatal, collisions on the network in 2014. The company has produced a national incident and casualty reduction plan which includes focus on regional performance to support delivery of the overall target and we have also seen its KSI forecasting tool which quantifies the impact of its planned interventions.
Safety performance indicators
2.13 In common with the decrease in KSIs, total casualty numbers on both main A roads and motorways decreased in 2015 from the previous year.
2.14 Highways England is progressing a programme to assess the safety of its network, based on a star rating system used internationally. The company is working with the Road Safety Foundation to use and develop the International Road Assessment Programme model. The company reports that it is currently on track to set the 2015 baseline safety star rating for the network in September 2016.
2.15 The accident frequency rate for both Highways England and supply chain staff has remained worse than Highways England’s own targets throughout the year. Highways England is engaging its supply chain and is commissioning an independent incident investigation project to understand how and why incidents have occurred and to learn lessons. The company is also carrying out an internal audit of Traffic Officer health and safety. Highways England reports that one cause of the increase is likely to be improved reporting of incidents. Outcome: Improving user satisfaction
Key performance indicator: National road users’ satisfaction survey
2.16 It is important that Highways England delivers a service that meets road users’ requirements, and maintains high levels of customer satisfaction. Road user satisfaction is measured through regular surveys and is a key indicator of how the company is performing.
- Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it.
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | Road user satisfaction is 89.3%, which is lower than the target for March 2017 but an improvement over 2014-15. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England has developed plans to improve user satisfaction, but has not yet set out quantified plans for how it will deliver 90% satisfaction by March 2017, and beyond. |
2.17 The percentage of respondents to the National Road Users’ Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS) that were very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it.
Figure 2.2: Overall road user satisfaction, 2011-12 to 2015-16
The percentage of respondents to the National Road Users’ Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS) that were very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it.
- Highways England has developed plans to improve user satisfaction, but has not yet set out quantified plans for how it will deliver 90% satisfaction by March 2017, and beyond. The overall satisfaction score is calculated from users’ satisfaction with five journey elements: journey time, roadworks management, general upkeep, signage and safety. Comparing the results for the individual elements shows a similar trend to overall satisfaction; satisfaction with journey time, signage and safety has increased for the first time in several years. However, satisfaction with roadworks management and general upkeep has fallen.
Users have historically been less satisfied with roadworks management than the other elements. This affects overall satisfaction through both the proportion of respondents who experienced roadworks on their most recent journey on the network, and their level of satisfaction with roadworks management.
Table 2.3 shows that although satisfaction with roadworks management fell by almost 2% in 2015-16 compared with 2014-15, this had only approximately a -0.1% impact on the overall satisfaction score. This is because not all journeys on the network encounter roadworks and the methodology used takes this into account. Table 2.3: Changes in individual satisfaction scores and their impacts on the overall satisfaction score, 2014-15 to 2015-16
| Change in individual satisfaction score | Journey time | Roadworks management | General upkeep | Signage | Safety | |----------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------|----------------|---------|--------| | Estimated impact on overall satisfaction score | 0.2% | -0.1% | -0.2% | 0.7% | 0.1% |
2.21 Highways England has trialled, and is evaluating, a number of initiatives to improve its users’ experience, for example by reducing the duration of roadworks and improving signage. However, increased investment over the first road period is likely to increase the number of users experiencing roadworks and the weight placed on roadworks management in the overall satisfaction score. Therefore, even if satisfaction with roadworks management improves, the increasing presence of roadworks represents a risk to user satisfaction in the later years of the period.
2.22 Figure 2.4 shows how overall road user satisfaction varied by region in 2015-16. Whilst overall satisfaction is close to, or exceeds, the 90% target in five out of the seven regions, it is substantially lower in the North East (86%) and the North West (84%). Regional analysis of the individual elements shows that, whilst satisfaction in the North East is lower across the board, in the North West the lower overall score is driven by lower satisfaction with factors such as upkeep and signage.
2.23 In 2016-17 we will be carrying out an in-depth review of Highways England’s plans to improve user satisfaction. As part of this we will be reviewing the actions that the company is taking in response to these results.
2.24 Transport Focus is working with stakeholders to develop a new road user satisfaction survey, and we are engaged in that process. We are working with stakeholders to understand what impact any change of methodology could have on the KPI target. This will only become fully apparent during a period of dual running. In the event this reveals a significant difference in what constitutes satisfaction, the need to change the user satisfaction KPI target will be considered. A road-user perspective from Transport Focus
- Transport Focus is the statutory, independent consumer watchdog for transport users. Our remit was extended in March 2015 to include users of England’s motorways and major A roads.
- Highways England has made a good start on the journey from infrastructure provider to service provider. We have found the company keen to engage, and hungry to understand road users’ needs.
- During the first year we have worked closely with Highways England and engaged the company on a wide range of issues. For example, we have raised the concerns of freight operators with respect to inaccuracies in information about roadworks, and have raised the need for earlier involvement of users when designing new infrastructure.
- Guided by our research into road users’ priorities for improvement to the Strategic Road Network, we are pressing for change in a number of areas. For example, Highways England needs to address road users’ top priority for improvement – road surface quality. It needs to embrace road users’ views in the way it plans roadworks. And the company must make sure that it is dealing with incidents in the best way possible – working with others to get traffic moving again more quickly.
- A key priority for Transport Focus over the next year is developing a road user survey to replace the existing National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS). The new survey will be called the Strategic Roads User Survey (SRUS) and it is due to launch in early 2017, after its pilot during the summer and autumn of 2016. Input from Highways England, as well as the Department for Transport and ORR, has been particularly valuable with regards to the development of the questionnaire and to understand how they wish to use the survey data. Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic
2.25 There are two key performance indicators for this outcome: network availability and incident management.
Key performance indicator: Network availability
2.26 A smooth flowing strategic road network is vital to the economic health of the country and supports the safe and timely movement of people and goods. If Highways England is to deliver investment in the network then roadworks are inevitable – but the company must minimise their impact on road users by keeping the network available to traffic where possible.
Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year.
2.27 In simple terms, network availability measures the percentage of road lanes that are available to traffic as a percentage of the total road lanes on the network, over a rolling year.
2.28 Network availability in the rolling year to March 2016 was 98.4%. Availability has been broadly stable over 2015-16. Highways England forecasts availability of 97.7% at the end of the first road period – above the target of 97%.
2.29 During the year we have engaged with Highways England to understand more fully the work of the analytical team that is responsible for monitoring availability on the network and projecting future performance. This has provided us with further assurance about the processes that are used to monitor this KPI.
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Network availability of 98.4% is above the target of 97%. | | Road Period 1 | Green | Network availability is forecast to be at 97.7% at the end of the first road period, above the target of 97%. |
Figure 2.5: Network availability by rolling year, 2011-12 to 2015-16
______________________________________________________________________
8 A full definition is provided in Highways England’s Operational Metrics Manual: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual Key performance indicator: Incident management
2.30 Highways England can also contribute to the smooth flow of traffic by proactively responding to, and managing, incidents on the strategic road network.
- Highways England must clear at least 85% of incidents on the motorways within one hour
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |--------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Highways England cleared 86% of motorway incidents within an hour. This is above its target of 85%. | | Road Period 1 | Green | Highways England undertakes ongoing analysis of past incidents to inform its future plans. |
2.31 In the rolling year to March 2016, Highways England cleared 86% of motorway incidents within an hour. This is above its target of 85%. Despite remaining above target, there has been a downturn in the trend in recent months – this was due to lower than average performance in December and January 2016, where figures for the individual months were below 85%. Following this drop in performance, Highways England has undertaken analysis to review the types of incident that have not met the metric which will be used to identify areas where improvements can be made. We will review the outcomes of this with the company.
2.32 During the year, we have engaged Highways England directly on its incident management, including carrying out an in-depth review of the company’s incident management data and associated processes. This highlighted the analytical work ongoing within the organisation to build understanding of how incident management can minimise delays for road users. It provided assurance about the processes that are in place to report the KPI.
Traffic flow performance indicators
2.33 Several performance indicators are used to provide context for, or additional information about, traffic flow (or congestion) on the network. As table 2.4 shows, the total vehicle miles travelled has increased over the last four years and this is likely to be a factor in a general worsening of traffic flow performance measures.
2.34 Since 2012-13, average speeds have decreased. The “planning time index”, which measures the additional time that road users would have to allow for their journey to arrive on time in 19 out of every 20 journeys, has been increasing (getting worse). And “acceptable journeys”, measuring the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of free-flowing speeds, has been reducing (getting worse).
______________________________________________________________________
9 During 2015-16 Highways England began using a new data source to report against traffic flow performance indicators, making direct year-on-year comparisons difficult. 2.35 These performance measures show the importance of Highways England delivering the capital investment improvements which are required to address congestion on the network, whilst minimising the impact on road users.
Table 2.4: Traffic performance indicators, 2012-13 to 2015-16
| | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | |--------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Vehicle miles (bn) | 84.7 | 85.5 | 87.3 | 89.7 | | Average speed (mph) | 61.3\* | 60.7\* | 59.4\* | 59.3 | | Planning time index | 1.54\* | 1.57\* | 1.64\* | 1.66 | | Acceptable journeys | 87.1%\* | 85.8%\* | 83.4%\* | 83.6% |
\*adjusted Outcome: Encouraging economic growth
2.36 The strategic road network is a vital piece of national infrastructure which helps to support our economy. The network carries a third of all road traffic and two thirds of all road freight traffic. Delays to journeys are likely to have a negative impact on economic growth.
Key performance indicator: Average delay
- Highways England must report on average delay – time lost per vehicle mile
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | Average delay was 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile. A change in data supplier means comparisons to previous years are illustrative. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Future performance depends on traffic growth and the delivery of the investment plan in the remainder of the road period (see chapter 3). |
2.37 Highways England’s impact on economic growth is measured using average delay per vehicle mile as a proxy. No target has been set, but the KPI is being monitored to understand the trend. Average delay in 2015-16 was 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile. This means that, on average, a trip of 100 miles takes approximately 15 minutes longer than when the network has no congestion.
2.38 Delay on the network is likely to be influenced by traffic growth. Highways England can manage levels of delay in the way that it operates the network (for example managing speeds) and, in the longer-term, through delivery of its capital investment programme. Minimising roadworks and lane closures, and delivery of schemes to reduce congestion, tend to minimise or reduce delays.
2.39 A new data supplier was used to calculate the measure of delay in 2015-16 and Highways England has implemented an interim methodology to define ‘free-flow’ speeds used in the calculation. Data for previous years have been adjusted to make them more comparable, but we cannot draw firm conclusions about performance in 2015-16 relative to prior years. We will continue to monitor congestion data as they become available during the road period to gain a better understanding of the trend.
2.40 We are working with Highways England to understand the causes of recent delay performance and the measures that it is taking to minimise future levels of delay. We will be carrying out an in-depth review of average delay in summer 2016. Encouraging economic growth performance indicators
2.41 Gateway routes are the connections linking major population centres, or business and manufacturing sites, with the most important ports and airports, and potentially strategic rail freight services. Average delay on gateway routes generally mirrors the trend for delay on the network. However, gateway delay was 8.1 seconds per vehicle mile in 2015-16, compared with 8.7 seconds per vehicle mile in 2014-15 (adjusted data).
2.42 Highways England can help support economic growth by playing its role as a major statutory consultee in the planning process effectively. The percentage of planning applications responded to within 21 days in 2015-16 was 99.8%, above the company’s internal target of 99%.
2.43 Highways England has agreed to help the government support small and medium sized businesses. It estimates that its expenditure with small and medium sized businesses during 2015-16 was 27%, above the government target of 25%. Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes
2.44 Highways England has the opportunity to minimise the impact of the strategic road network on the environment, delivering better outcomes for those that live near the network and the population more widely.
Key performance indicator: Number of noise important areas mitigated
2.45 Noise from the strategic road network can be a nuisance to neighbouring communities, but Highways England can take steps to mitigate its impact.
- Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas over the first road period
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | 48 noise important areas have been mitigated during 2015-16, which represents 4% of the target to be delivered in the first road period. No clear plan has been set out. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England is yet to set out a clear plan for delivering the end-of-road period target of mitigating 1150 noise important areas. |
2.46 Highways England has mitigated 48 noise important areas during 2015-16. This is 4% of the 1,150 target which must be mitigated in the first road period. The company expects to deliver its target through a combination of its resurfacing programme, its major schemes, and noise insulation schemes delivered through the environment ring-fenced fund.
Figure 2.8: Noise important areas mitigated during 2015-16 (cumulative)
2.47 Highways England has put in place processes to report more robustly on its performance in mitigating noise important areas, and started reporting in the final quarter of 2015-16. Whilst this represents progress, the company now needs to deliver improved planning to assure that the target will be met at the end of the road period. The company expects to provide us with detail of its plan in the first half of 2016-17.
Key performance indicator: Delivery of improved biodiversity
2.48 The way in which the strategic road network is managed and improved can have a significant impact on biodiversity.
- Highways England must publish a Biodiversity Action Plan by 30 June 2015 and report annually on how it has delivered against the Plan
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in June 2015. | | Road Period 1 | Green | The delivery of the Biodiversity Action Plan is largely on track. | 2.49 Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in June 2015, in line with its target. The plan makes a clear commitment to ensure no net loss to biodiversity by 2020 and sets out actions to baseline biodiversity on the network, to develop a new biodiversity metric and to report annually on net biodiversity loss.
2.50 We have reviewed Highways England’s performance against its Biodiversity Action Plan, including reviewing its year-end report. Overall, the company has made good progress in delivering the actions that it committed to in the plan. However, more work is still required in some areas, for instance in establishing a baseline for the biodiversity of the network. We will undertake a more detailed review of progress against the biodiversity plan in the coming year.
2.51 We have also engaged stakeholders to understand their views on Highways England’s performance in this area. The Biodiversity Action Plan has been well received, but the company can do more to make sure that its engagement with environmental stakeholders is as consistent and effective as possible, both at a local and a national level.
Performance indicator: Number of air quality pilot studies completed
2.52 The latest version of Highways England’s environment strategy is expected to be published in summer 2016. The strategy commits to producing action plans for specific areas, including air quality. Highways England will publish its air quality plan this year, setting out the actions it will be taking to reduce air pollution. We will engage the company closely to ensure that its plans meet stakeholders’, and our, expectations.
2.53 During the year, Highways England started work on six air quality pilot studies. The commissioned studies cover Sheffield, Manchester, the A38 Derby junctions and the West Midlands, plus intervention studies for an HGV incentivising programme and dynamic junction management. The conclusions from the pilots are due in 2016-17 and will be used to inform how the ring-fenced fund for air quality will be spent. Highways England has split the work to be delivered into two phases. The first phase delivers the pilot studies, the second delivers interventions based on lessons learned from the pilots. We will work with Highways England to understand and monitor progress of this work.
2.54 The company has also contributed to Defra’s ‘Air Quality in the UK’ report which plans to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions. This report was published in December 2015 and sets out how the UK will comply with the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive in the shortest possible time. However, air quality issues still represent a risk to delivery of the investment programme. Environmental performance indicators
2.55 The table below provides a summary of Highways England’s performance against its environmental KPIs and PIs. Highways England has improved the robustness of these data sources during 2015-16, particularly through reporting mechanisms in the asset management systems which are used to report progress on flooding mitigation.
Table 2.5: Environmental performance indicators
| | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | |--------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Number of Noise Important Areas mitigated | N/A | 48 | | Number of air quality pilot studies commissioned | N/A | 6 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – Highways England’s activities (tonnes) | 104,978 | 95,373 | | Carbon dioxide equivalents – supply chain activities (tonnes) | 383,487 | 294,448 | | Number of flooding hotspots and culverts (high risk and very high risk) mitigated | 90 | 124 | | Number of water outfalls and soakaways (high risk and very high risk) mitigated | 0 | 0 |
2.56 Carbon dioxide emissions associated with Highways England’s activities were lower in 2015-16 than the previous year.
2.57 Highways England has mitigated more high risk and very high risk flooding hotspots and culverts this year compared to last, but has not mitigated any outfalls and soakaways. We will discuss performance in this area further with the company in the coming year. Case study – Design panel
- In line with its licence requirements, Highways England has established a design panel, whose role is to independently advise the company on design issues.
- Terms of reference have been agreed for the panel, which is chaired by the Highways England Chief Highways Engineer, and it met four times during 2015-16. Membership of the panel includes a wide range of organisations covering the natural and built environment with an interest in design on the strategic road network. Members include the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Institution of Civil Engineers.
- To date, the panel has considered examples of good infrastructure design and guidance for highway schemes. It has engaged with an ongoing review of technical standards and has commented on a number of plans, including for the development of Expressways and of an A1 Northumberland improvement scheme.
- In the coming year, we expect to see further evidence of how the design panel’s advice has helped shape the development of projects on and around the strategic road network. ORR will also continue to engage with many of the stakeholders that sit on the panel to understand how the company is addressing any issues raised through this forum.
Case study – Management of litter
- In addition to monitoring the company against the measures set out in the Performance Specification and the RIS more widely, we will, where appropriate, review compliance with its licence. An example of this is the issue of litter at the roadside, where stakeholders have raised concerns to us.
- Highways England has a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that the land (the strategic road network) is, so far as is practicable, kept clear of litter and refuse. It also has a licence requirement to develop and implement strategic plans that demonstrate how it aims to meet its legal duties and other obligations with regard to the environment. During the last year we undertook inquiries into how the company approaches its duties with respect to litter management. From our engagement with Highways England, we found that it is working to manage this issue through a range of measures. For example, the company picks a large volume of litter from its network – over 150,000 sacks each year – and runs campaigns to discourage road users from dropping litter. The company has set up a hotline for members of the public to report litter.
- Through our review, we identified a number of actions that Highways England should take to improve performance in this area and have since written to the company to set these out. They include requirements for the company to publish an updated litter strategy and to publish further details of the litter picking it undertakes on the network, to provide greater assurance to its users and stakeholders that it is effectively managing the issue. Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
2.58 The strategic road network impacts both those that use the network directly, and its neighbouring communities. The design and operation of the network can influence the extent to which vulnerable users, such as cyclists, walkers, equestrians and motorcyclists can use and cross the network safely.
Key performance indicator: Number of new and upgraded crossings
- Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |--------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Amber | 204 new and upgraded crossings were delivered during 2015-16. Highways England has not developed a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | Highways England has not developed a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings. |
2.59 Highways England’s delivery of new and upgraded (improved) crossings can have a big impact on its neighbouring communities, helping them to stay connected, and providing facilities for cyclists, walkers, equestrians, and other vulnerable users to cross the network safely.
Table 2.6: New and upgraded crossings delivered in 2015-16
| | New | Upgraded | Total | |----------------------|-----|----------|-------| | Ring-fenced investment funds | 6 | 53 | 59 | | Major schemes | 27 | 50 | 77 | | Local schemes | 6 | 62 | 68 | | Total | 39 | 165 | 204 |
2.60 Highways England has been developing processes to report more robustly on the number of new and upgraded crossings being delivered. The company reports that 204 new and upgraded crossings were delivered during 2015-16, as shown in table 2.6. The schemes listed under ‘ring-fenced investment funds’ have been delivered through the Cycling, Safety and Integration fund. These are crossings which would not have otherwise been constructed through major schemes or business as usual. 2.61 Highways England should now set out a clear plan for delivering new and upgraded crossings over the remainder of the road period to provide transparency about what will be delivered for vulnerable users and when these schemes will be delivered.
Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme
2.62 The company’s programme of cycling improvement schemes is an important contributor to the delivery of new and improved crossings.
2.63 Highways England set out its annual cycling programme in its Delivery Plan which included 40 schemes to be completed during 2015-16. Of these, a total of 21 were finished by the year end. Highways England also took forward an additional programme of nine reserve schemes, of which four have been completed in 2015-16.
2.64 Whilst Highways England has not completed a number of the planned cycling schemes during the year, the majority of these are under construction and will be completed shortly. We will review Highways England’s plans and delivery in 2016-17, making sure it has learned the lessons from performance to date, and report on progress at the end of the year.
2.65 Highways England published its Cycling Strategy in early January 2016 and followed this up with a programme of stakeholder engagement to communicate the plan. The published Cycling Strategy is a high-level document, but it is supported by a more detailed cycling delivery plan which contains clear actions and associated completion dates. We will now monitor Highways England’s delivery of its plan.
Number of vulnerable user casualties
2.66 Highways England reports a performance indicator on the number of vulnerable user casualties injured on its network. Data for 2015, as shown in table 2.7, show a reduction in the number of casualties for each group of vulnerable users when compared with the previous year.
2.67 During the year, Highways England developed a package of measures aimed at vulnerable users in its “Health and Safety 5 Year Plan”. Performance in 2015 was positive, but we will continue to monitor delivery of this plan closely.
Table 2.7: Casualties for vulnerable users, 2015
| | 2014 | 2015 | Change from 2014 | |------------------|------|------|------------------| | Motorcyclists | 917 | 849 | 7% | | Pedal cyclists | 179 | 153 | 15% | | Pedestrians | 182 | 158 | 13% | Outcome: Achieving real efficiency
Key performance indicator: capital savings
2.68 Highways England’s five year funding certainty gives it the opportunity to plan its work over the longer-term and deliver more efficiently. The company has started to deliver efficiencies in 2015-16.
- Highways England must deliver total capital expenditure savings of at least £1.212bn over the first road period
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | Highways England has met its internal target of £33m. | | Road Period 1 | Amber | The company needs to develop a clear plan to deliver capital savings to meet its target of £1.212bn by the end of the road period. |
2.69 Highways England has identified £55m of efficiency improvements across its capital programme during 2015-16. Our assessment is that Highways England has achieved its internal efficiency target of £33m, though there is uncertainty about an additional £21m, in relation to savings on the company’s smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and we will continue to work with Highways England in 2016-17 as it develops its evidence base. The efficiency reported by the company for 2015-16 may be adjusted at a future date.
2.70 Highways England needs to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in Road Period 1 and the company’s work over the past year on developing its processes for substantiating efficiencies has established good practice for future years. It will be important that the quality of evidence provided is commensurate with the size of the efficiency being reported.
2.71 Further details about our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements are provided in chapter 3 (Financial Performance and Efficiency). Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition
2.72 Highways England must keep its existing assets in a safe and serviceable condition to deliver the service that road users and wider stakeholders require. It must maintain and renew the assets which make up the network to make sure they remain safe and fit for purpose.
2.73 How Highways England manages its assets affects the service that road users experience and the value for money that taxpayers receive. Making the right asset management decisions – for example, which assets to replace, when to replace them, and how to replace them – is vital to maintaining the network’s performance whilst minimising costs.
2.74 Highways England needs to develop and maintain the right information about its assets to manage them effectively. It needs to understand what assets it has, where they are, their condition, their utilisation, their criticality and impact on the wider network, how they degrade, and the costs of carrying out work on them (or the costs of not doing so). The company needs to use this information to develop maintenance and renewal plans which will deliver the required level of network performance whilst seeking to minimise costs over the long-term (whole life cost) and living within funding allowances. It then needs to implement those plans and review their effectiveness.
Key performance indicator: percentage of pavement asset that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
- Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance
| KPI Performance in: | Status | Explanation | |---------------------|--------|-------------| | 2015-16 | Green | In March 2016, pavement condition was 95.4%, above the target of 95%. | | Road Period 1 | Green | Pavement condition is currently on an upward trend. |
2.75 Pavement (carriageway) condition is a key performance indicator for the first road period as the road surface condition is critical for delivering a safe and comfortable journey.
2.76 In March 2016, the pavement condition indicator was 95.4%(^{10}), and it has shown continuous improvement over the year. It is above the target of 95%. Figure 2.9 shows annual performance since 2013-14 and monthly figures for 2015-16.
Figure 2.9: Percentage of pavement that does not require further investigation
(^{10}) Further data on the pavement condition indicator became available after the year end and is currently being reviewed Wider network condition
2.77 As well as pavement, Highways England also manages other physical assets on the network, including structures (such as bridges), geotechnical works (for example embankments), drainage assets (such as gullies and drains) and technology assets (such as overhead message signs).
2.78 Highways England has developed its geotechnical asset inventory and condition data measures and updated them in line with its latest standards. The company reports that 96.6% of its geotechnical assets were low risk in March 2016. It does not currently have complete information on the volume of its geotechnical asset and now needs to develop a robust plan to improve its inventory.
2.79 Highways England is reporting high availability for its technology assets – largely consistent with historical trends. During 2015-16, the annual average of availability of control centre technology was 99.94% whilst availability of National Road Telecommunications Service was 99.99%. The availability of roadside technology was 98.67%.
2.80 The percentage of Highways England’s drainage asset for which it has inventory and condition data is increasing. At the end of March 2016, drainage inventory data was held for 87% of the network, but condition data was only held for 27% of the asset. These measures are increasing but the company needs to continue to focus on improving drainage asset management information. 2.81 Highways England has developed new structures asset inventory and condition measures which it reported for the first time in December 2015. We worked closely with Highways England and the Department for Transport to guide development of these and to advise on their suitability. The new indicators show that structures inventory information is 97.8% complete. Highways England reports that the overall condition of its structures asset is good (it has a high average structural condition score). The company states that risks associated with poor condition are being managed, for example through increased frequency of inspections and implementation of weight restrictions, to make sure that safety is maintained whilst repairs are pending.
2.82 Highways England has produced an asset information improvement plan as part of its coordinated data improvement plan. This sets out the improvements that the company will make to its asset management information and systems to be implemented during the first road period and beyond. During 2016-17 the company has committed to improving its structures inspection process, extending the type and range of its pavement survey data capture and developing improved pavement and structures condition indicators. We will progressively review delivery of the asset information improvement plan. Financial performance and efficiency
This chapter sets out our analysis of Highways England’s financial performance and delivery of efficiency in 2015-16, and our review of its plans for the first road period.
Financial performance
3.1 Highways England is funded by central government, receiving separate capital and resource funding from the Department for Transport. Capital includes funding for renewals (for example, pavement resurfacing and structural repairs), improvements to the network (for example, upgrading to smart motorways) and other capital works such as supporting local authority road schemes. Resource funding covers maintenance and renewals, operations (traffic management), support activities (for example, finance and human resources) and payments to Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contractors who operate and maintain some sections of the network under long-term contracts.
Highways England’s funding under the RIS
3.2 The RIS gave Highways England the long term certainty of £11.4bn funding for capital during the first road period, of which £1.8bn related to 2015-16. The RIS also gave Highways England the flexibility to bring forward or defer up to 10% of its capital funding each year, to provide greater flexibility to deliver capital projects efficiently. Any other changes to total or in-year capital funding are to be agreed through formal change control with the Department for Transport. Figure 3.1 shows capital expenditure prior to the start of the road period and in 2015-16, and the profile of capital funding in the remainder of the road period.
Figure 3.1: Capital expenditure and funding to 2019-20 3.3 In 2015-16 Highways England received resource funding of £1bn. Resource funding for future years is announced through government spending reviews.
Highways England’s expenditure in 2015-16
3.4 As shown in figure 3.2, Highways England spent £3.0bn in 2015-16, with almost two thirds of this on capital investment. This was 4.6% higher than expenditure in 2014-15 and, as examined in more detail below, was broadly consistent with the company’s funding for the year.
3.5 Following publication of its Delivery Plan, Highways England reallocated budgets to better reflect how it intended to deliver its required outputs. Its revised capital baseline (£1,951m), agreed by the Department for Transport in October 2015, included an additional £169m to cover the estimated cost of works carried over from before the start of the road period. This was expected to be funded from additional Department for Transport funding and capital funding brought forward from 2016-17, making use of some of the 10% capital flexibility described above.
Figure 3.2: Highways England’s expenditure in 2015-16 3.6 The Department for Transport provided £144m of additional funding in March 2016 comprising £140m for completion of work carried over from 2014-15 and a further £4m for the development of works for a major lorry park in Kent to improve Operation Stack (the procedure used to hold lorries on the M20 during disruption to cross-channel services). The company subsequently did not require use of the capital flexibility arrangement.
3.7 Highways England spent £1,931m on capital projects which was £20m lower than the revised capital baseline and £4.6m higher than its funding. On resource, the company spent £1,069m, which was £4m lower than its baseline. Expenditure variances compared to the revised baseline are shown in figure 3.3 and are summarised below.
- There was an underspend of £46m on (capital) renewals mainly due to the diversion of funding to other capital projects including the minor improvement schemes which overran from 2014-15. Despite this reduced renewals expenditure, as examined in chapter 4, Highways England significantly exceeded planned volumes in several categories.
- The company underspent by £46m on improvements to the network (including investment funds), due to delays to a number of schemes. £15m relates to Temple to Carblake which is being delivered by Cornwall County Council, £9m relates to the M1 J32-35A project and £10m relates to the A50 Growth Corridor.
- Other capital was overspent by £72m due to £29m of additional expenditure on smaller projects that were not identified in the RIS, £26m of capitalised staff costs which have not been allocated across capital projects and £17m of overspend on minor improvement schemes that overran from 2014-15.
- Resource expenditure was £4m lower than the baseline. Maintenance expenditure(^\\text{11}) was £30m higher than the baseline which Highways England has largely attributed to additional work undertaken to improve safety and KPI performance. Payments to PFI contractors were £19m lower than the baseline due to lower outturn traffic volumes and inflation than assumed.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) Includes non-capitalised renewals
______________________________________________________________________
**Figure 3.3: Financial performance summary**
| Capital | Resource | |---------|----------| | Renewals | PFI payments | | Improvements | General support | | Ring-fenced investment funds | Operations | | Other | Maintenance |
| | Baseline | Actual | |---|---|---| | Renewals | 709 | 663 | | Improvements | 1017 | 976 | | Ring-fenced investment funds | 27 | 22 | | Other | 198 | 270 | | Maintenance | 261 | 291 | | Operations | 230 | 253 | | General support | 132 | 169 | | PFI payments | 413 | 394 | 3.8 Highways England’s RIS funding settlement for 2015-16 included an assumption of 4.0% input price inflation (that is, increases in materials and labour costs). Highways England’s analysis indicates that this is likely to outturn in the range -0.6% to +1.6% with a midpoint estimate of +0.5%(^\\text{12}). Our analysis suggests that this could result in substantial savings due to benign economic conditions, particularly for fuel and steel. We consider that there is likely to have been limited scope for realising these savings this year as many contracts were already in place and input price effects can be expected to only fully materialise as contracts expire and are renewed. Over time this might be expected to have a benefit in the region of £70m.
Efficiency improvements
Measuring efficiency improvements
3.9 We worked with Highways England to develop its Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual which was published in September 2015(^\\text{13}). Since then we have continued to work with the company to establish an appropriate level of evidence for demonstrating efficiency improvements on the company’s capital programme.
Highways England’s reported efficiencies
3.10 Highways England is required to deliver over £1.2bn of efficiency improvements on its capital programme, by March 2020. Consistent with this, our assessment of the company’s efficiency improvements focuses on its capital programme.
3.11 Highways England has reported £55m of efficiency improvements in 2015-16 which is 67% ahead of the company’s internal £33m target for the year. A breakdown of reported efficiencies by major programme is shown in figure 3.4.
3.12 Highways England’s reported efficiency improvement in 2015-16 represents 4% of the company’s requirement to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency improvements across the first road period as a whole. This means that the company will have to find significantly greater savings later in the five year funding period. Highways England has shared analysis with us about how the company aims to achieve this. Although the analysis is at an early stage, Highways England has identified and is pursuing a number of initiatives which have the potential to realise significant efficiencies. These include smoothing the monthly profile of renewals activity to reduce more expensive winter repairs, better integration of enhancements and renewals, optimising the working window for pavement resurfacing and improvements in the programme of upgrading to smart motorways. Highways England now needs to do work to further develop and deliver these plans.
Highways England’s efficiency improvements
Introduction
3.13 It is important to note that improving efficiency is not just about short-term cost reductions. Although reducing short-term costs can be a form of efficiency, efficiencies can also be
______________________________________________________________________
(^{12}) A final value will not be available until the relevant construction and other underpinning inflation indices have been finalised in the autumn.
(^{13}) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-efficiency-and-inflation-monitoring-manual achieved through improving asset quality and intervention decisions (including a better understanding of whole life costs) and by improving customer outcomes for the same cost. Likewise, short-term cost reductions could be achieved through simply avoiding necessary work to maintain the network in a safe and sustainable condition – these cost reductions would not be an efficiency improvement. These factors are important for assessing efficiency improvements for Highways England’s large and complex capital programme.
3.14 Because of this, there are three components to our assessment of Highways England’s efficiency improvements:
1. expenditure and delivery compared to the funding assumptions set out in the RIS (as amended through change control over the period);
2. unit cost variances compared to 2014-15, the year preceding the start of Road Period 1; and
3. review of Highways England’s bottom-up analysis of efficiency improvements.
3.15 Our assessment of Highways England’s performance under the first component is covered in the financial performance section above and our assessments of the other two elements are covered below.
Our assessment of unit cost changes from the previous year
3.16 Highways England has provided unit cost analysis in support of the major areas of claimed efficiencies on renewals and upgrading to smart motorways.
3.17 Our analysis of renewals unit cost variances between 2014-15 and 2015-16 suggests renewals unit cost savings of around £31m. The most substantial unit cost saving was in pavement resurfacing where the cost of a lane kilometre reduced by 9.0% to £0.127m per lane km. Whilst recognising Highways England’s own concerns about the robustness of its reported renewals unit costs, our analysis supports the £25m of renewals efficiencies that Highways England has reported based on its bottom up efficiency analysis (see next section).
3.18 Highways England recognises the importance of robust unit cost analysis for substantiating efficiency improvements. We do not underestimate the difficulty of accurately recording unit costs when several renewals activities may be undertaken as part of a scheme, for example resurfacing and drainage. We are working with the company to ensure that the quality of its unit cost reporting improves. This forms an important part of a coordinated data improvement plan which Highways England is taking forwards.
3.19 During 2016-17 we will review delivery of the coordinated data improvement plan which is an important step to improving the company’s efficiency analysis and asset management capability more widely.
Our assessment of Highways England’s bottom-up register of efficiency improvements
3.20 Highways England has undertaken a significant amount of work over the past year to develop its approach for capturing and recording efficiencies. It has begun to embed efficiency reporting across the business through the use of regional efficiency registers. We consider that Highways England has done a good job of implementing this regionally distributed process. However, the process has only been operating for a few months and we are aware that it is taking time to embed consistently throughout the business.
3.21 We distinguish efficiency improvements between economy, productivity and effectiveness. Improving economy means reducing the cost of resources used whilst having regard to quality. Improving productivity means improving the relationship between
______________________________________________________________________
14 This may have resulted in achieved efficiencies not being fully captured within Highways England’s internal reporting. If Highways England can subsequently demonstrate efficiencies having been achieved in 2015-16 that have not yet been reported we will take this into account in our assessment of the company’s cumulative efficiency improvements across the first road period. resources used and outputs delivered. Improving effectiveness means improving the extent to which intended objectives have been achieved.
3.22 These terms are perhaps best explained with an example such as pavement resurfacing. Highways England could improve economy by obtaining asphalt at lower cost through improved procurement. Productivity could be improved by improving the utilisation of machinery. Lastly, effectiveness could be improved by making sure that pavement is being renewed using the most appropriate materials, and only when the pavement needs renewing.
3.23 Figure 3.5 provides an analysis of Highways England’s reported efficiencies between economy, productivity and effectiveness.
3.24 Highways England has reported economy efficiencies of £34m, of which £21m is in relation to the company’s smart motorways programme. At this time we believe that the company has not provided sufficiently robust analysis of the efficiency improvement on the smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and support Highways England’s plan to do further work.
3.25 Highways England has identified a further £13m of economy efficiencies across a number of projects including £4m from combining pavement resurfacing with smart motorways upgrades on the M1. By reducing disruption, this approach should also result in improved customer service both now and in the longer-term.
3.26 Highways England has reported £17m of productivity efficiency gains mostly from two initiatives to optimise the working window for pavement renewal and to allow running on temporary surface.
- Optimising the working window aims to maximise the period in which pavement is able to be laid during an overnight road closure. Highways England has undertaken a number of pilots of a new approach which significantly increased the amount of material that was laid.
- For running on planed surface, the road planer is used for longer shifts following which traffic is allowed to temporarily run on the planed surface. The resurfacing plant is then used to deliver longer stretches of road surface the following night rather than having to work alongside the planer. This allows an increase in the amount of pavement that can be laid in a shift and reduces the number of surface joints, increasing the durability of the road surface.
3.27 Highways England has reported £4m of effectiveness efficiency gains by improving the output of some schemes. For example, the company reduced costs by £0.9m on the M1 J19 improvement scheme by making better use of excavated materials in landscaping the area rather than disposing of this waste at a landfill site. 3.28 In addition to the efficiency KPI, Highways England is required to report a Cost Performance Indicator (CPI) and Schedule Performance Indicator (SPI). These are measures of earned value which are often used in the construction industry. CPI is the relationship between target and actual cost for work completed and SPI is the relationship between work planned and actually completed. Highways England has reported CPI of 1.02 and SPI of 1.05 across its portfolio of major improvements to the network. As these numbers are both greater than 1 this indicates that overall, projects are ahead of schedule in terms of cost and completion compared to the company’s Delivery Plan commitments. Refer to chapter 4 for our detailed assessment of capital delivery.
3.29 Highways England has identified £55m of efficiency improvements across its capital programme during 2015-16. Our assessment is that the company has achieved its internal efficiency target of £33m, though there is uncertainty about an additional £21m, in relation to savings on the smart motorway programme. We recognise the challenges in evidencing efficiency in this area and we will continue to work with Highways England in 2016-17 as it develops the evidence base. The efficiency reported by the company for 2015-16 may be adjusted at a future date.
3.30 Highways England needs to deliver £1.2bn of efficiency improvements in the first road period and the company’s work over the past year on developing its processes for substantiating efficiencies has established good practice for future years. It will be important that the quality of evidence provided is commensurate with the size of efficiency being reported.
Case study – Delivering efficiencies through an integrated site-based design team during construction
- Highways England delivered £4m of productivity efficiency improvements by introducing an integrated, site-based design team during the construction phase of the upgrade of junctions 28 to 31 of the M1.
- The design of this scheme was subject to significant change to incorporate additional maintenance works. This resulted in more technical queries during the construction phase. By having a site-based team these queries were able to be dealt with more quickly both reducing the cost of resolving these matters and reducing disruption to the construction work. Network investment delivery
This chapter describes Highways England’s performance against its investment plan in 2015-16. It also considers risks to delivery in the remainder of the road period.
4.1 As part of the RIS, government published its Investment Plan, setting out the £11.4bn capital investment which Highways England must deliver during the road period. This includes:
- more than £7.0bn on the delivery of 112 major improvement schemes;
- £0.7bn on programmes of additional targeted improvements funded through five ring fenced investment funds; and
- £3.7bn on works to maintain and renew the network.
4.2 We measure and report on Highways England’s performance against the network investment required by the Investment Plan.
4.3 Table 4.1 provides a summary of delivery in the first year of the road period, including those major schemes which have started construction works or opened for traffic. It provides a summary of ring-fenced funds, and maintenance and renewals delivery. In each case the table summarises our assessment of the company’s delivery using a red, amber, green (RAG) status.
### Table 4.1: Investment Plan delivery
| Construction phase | 2015-16 Delivery Plan commitments | Delivery in 2015-16 | Scheme | RAG | |--------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------|--------|-----| | Open for traffic | 5 schemes to open for traffic during 2015-16 | 5 schemes opened for traffic | A14 Kettering bypass widening | Green | | | | | A453 widening | Green | | | | | M1 J39 – J42 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M1 J28 – J31 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M6 J10a – J13 (Smart Motorway, behind schedule) | Amber | | Start of works | 7 schemes to start works during 2015-16 | 8 schemes started | A160/A180 Immingham | Green | | | | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | Green | | | | | M1 J13 – J19 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M5 J4a – J6 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M6 J16 – J19 (Smart Motorway) | Green | | | | | M5 Junctions 5 to 7 (ahead of schedule) | Green | | | | | A50 Uttoxeter (delivered by Staffordshire County Council) | Green | | | | | A43 Abthorpe junction (ahead of schedule) | Green |
| 2015-16 commitments | Planned volume | Actual volume | Comment | |---------------------|----------------|---------------|---------| | Renewals15 | | | | | Pavement (lane miles) | 1,200 | 1,468 | Amber | | Vehicle restraint systems (linear metres) | 178,000 | 144,530 | Improved planning and assurance over delivery required | | Structures – bridge joints (number) | 222 | 533 | | | Structures – waterproofing (square metres) | 20,000 | 55,637 | | | Drainage (linear metres) | 231,000 | 290,919 | | | Geotechnical (linear metres) | 46,000 | 40,293 | |
| 2015-16 commitments | Comment | |---------------------|---------| | Ring-fenced investment funds | Amber | | Environment, Air quality, Innovation, Growth & Housing, Cycling, safety & integration | Governance and processes established, limited expenditure to date. Some deferral of cycling schemes |
______________________________________________________________________
15 Table reports a subset of renewals volumes Delivery of major improvement schemes in 2015-16
4.4 Highways England is required to progress delivery of 112 major improvement schemes during the road period. These major schemes are aimed at improving capacity and connectivity across the network – for example, by improving junctions, opening the hard shoulder to traffic, adding new lanes, or bypassing congested parts of the network.
4.5 Highways England has progressed delivery of its capital programme during 2015-16. It has commenced construction works on all seven schemes that were planned to start, one of which was started ahead of schedule. In addition one scheme (A43 Abthorpe junction) scheduled to start construction in late 2016 started early, ahead of its commitment.
4.6 Highways England opened five schemes to traffic during 2015-16, in line with its plans, adding an additional 91 lane miles to the capacity of the network. Of these, the M6 J10a-J13 scheme was delayed by two months and opened for traffic in February 2016. The delay was due to the need to resolve technology communication problems. We have discussed the detail of the delay with Highways England and have received assurance that lessons learned will be reflected in future schemes.
4.7 The M1 J39-J42 scheme commenced phased opening in December 2015 in line with its Delivery Plan commitment, subject to carrying out some additional maintenance work, such as bridge waterproofing and resurfacing of the carriageway. It was fully opened for traffic in January 2016. Table 4.2 sets out Highways England’s progress in delivering major improvement schemes in 2015-16. Table 4.2: Major scheme delivery in 2015-16
| Major schemes starting construction | 2015-16 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------|------------| | A160/A180 Immingham | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | | M1 J13 – J19 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M5 J4a – J6 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M6 J16 – J19 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | A50 Uttoxeter | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M5 Junctions 5 to 7 | 2015-16, Q3 | | Ahead of schedule | | A43 Abthorpe junction | Late 2016 | 2015-16, Q4 | Ahead of schedule |
| Major schemes opened for traffic | 2015-16 commitments | Committed date | Actual date | |------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------|------------| | A14 Kettering bypass widening | 2015-16, Q1 | 2015-16, Q1 | | | A453 widening | 2015-16, Q2 | 2015-16, Q2 | | | M1 J39 – J42 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q3 | | | M1 J28 – J31 | 2015-16, Q4 | 2015-16, Q4 | | | M6 J10a – J13 | 2015-16, Q3 | 2015-16, Q4 | |
Key
- Milestone delivered on or ahead of schedule
- Milestone delivered one quarter behind schedule
- Milestone delivered more than one quarter behind schedule, or year’s commitment missed 4.8 Highways England’s expenditure against its budget for major schemes in construction stages in 2015-16 is shown in table 4.3. The company has spent broadly in line with its plans. For those schemes which opened for traffic it has spent 4% more than its budget, but it has spent 8% less than budget on those in construction. However, the company continues to develop a more robust cost baseline against which expenditure can be assessed. This is discussed later in this chapter.
Table 4.3: Major scheme costs against budget in 2015-16
| Scheme stage (end of 2015-16) | Budget (2015-16) | Outturn costs (2015-16) | Variance | % over / (under) | |------------------------------|------------------|------------------------|----------|-----------------| | Under construction | £726m | £671m | £55m | (8%) | | Open for traffic | £112m | £116m | £4m | 4% | Major scheme case study – widening the A453
- The A453 provides an important link between Nottingham and the M1. In July 2015 Highways England completed a £165m major improvement scheme, widening 9km of a rural section of the route from single carriageway to dual carriageway and widening a 2.5km urban section to four lanes.
- We visited the completed scheme, and were given a tour of some of the major engineering works delivered. The project includes two new, split-level (grade-separated) junctions, and the construction of 10 major structures. It has delivered a more accessible pedestrian cycle route away from the road and improved bridleway crossings.
- The improvements are aimed at increased safety, reduced congestion and improved reliability of journey times. Initial indications suggest that these improvements are being delivered, but this will be formally evaluated during the next year.
4.9 During 2015-16, Highways England has also made progress in developing schemes prior to construction. The company has progressed 32 schemes into options stages and eight schemes have started development. By end of March 2016, 19 schemes were under construction exceeding Highways England’s planned commitments. A breakdown of the major schemes’ progress during 2015-16 is shown in figure 4.1. The numbers above the arrows show how many schemes moved between the stages during the year.
4.10 Highways England has provided us with its assumptions for the dates when its major schemes will progress through the stages outlined above. We will monitor progress against these in the remainder of the road period.
Figure 4.1: Progress of schemes through development and construction in 2015-16\*
\*Numbers in brackets are the number of schemes in each stage at the end of March 2016 Case study – M1 junction 19 major improvement scheme
- In August 2015 we visited a major improvement scheme at junction 19 of the M1. The £191m scheme is being delivered to improve connections between three important strategic roads – the M1, the A14 and the M6. The scheme started in January 2014 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of December 2016. It includes six new bridges.
- The scheme will also provide significant improvements to the local road network and recreational links.
- The visit highlighted the challenges and constraints of carrying out improvement on a complex interchange site while maintaining traffic flows of 150,000 vehicles per day. The team was also shown the benefits of using advanced technology such as BIM (Building Information Modelling) to enhance the design and build of the scheme.
- The project is making good progress with the delivery of significant milestones during 2015-16, for example opening the southbound link from the M6 to the M1 to traffic. The company reports that it is on target for completing the scheme on time.
Delivery of major improvement schemes in the remainder of the road period
4.11 As well as assessing major scheme delivery over the last year, we have also carried out work looking ahead to delivery in the rest of the road period.
Future major scheme key milestones
4.12 The Delivery Plan commitments for the remainder of the road period are summarised in table 4.4. Highways England plans to have started all 112 major schemes by the end of the first road period, of which one scheme is forecast to miss its start of works Delivery Plan commitment – the A63 Castle Street improvement scheme is delayed while the environmental impact of the scheme is being assessed. The M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road scheme is at risk having had its Preferred Route Announcement delayed following the Department for Transport’s request for further assessment and development of options.
4.13 For those schemes which are planned to open for traffic, the opening of the A30 Temple to Carblake scheme is forecast to be delayed by one month to January 2017. This scheme is being delivered by Cornwall County Council. Highways England forecasts that all 23 schemes which are planned to open for traffic during the remainder of the road period will do so. Table 4.4: Major scheme delivery – remainder of first road period, construction phase
| Phase | Planned for remainder of RP1\* | Progress | No | Details | RAG | |------------------------|-------------------------------|----------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | Start of works | 88\* | On schedule | 86 | As planned | | | | | At risk | 1 | M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road – start of works commitment of 2018-19 at risk | | | | | Delayed | 1 | A63 Castle street – Start of Work commitment of 2016-17 delayed until Dec 2018 | | | Open for traffic | 23\* | On schedule | 22 | As planned | | | | | Delayed | 1 | A30 Temple to Higher Carblake is forecast to be delayed by one month | |
- as set out in Highways England’s Delivery Plan. At the end of the period 84 schemes will be in construction and 28 will be open for traffic.
Establishing clear plans for delivery
4.14 In our monitoring of Highways England we aim both to monitor past performance and to understand risks to future performance so that we can work with the company to ensure that these are mitigated wherever possible. Over the last year we have engaged Highways England to press the need for a clearer plan to deliver the capital investment requirements over the remainder of the road period.
4.15 At the end of March 2016, the company provided us with its assumptions for the costs of its capital programmes and its assumptions for key milestone delivery dates for its major schemes. This demonstrates some progress in setting out clearer planning assumptions which we will use as a baseline against which to monitor delivery. However, Highways England has further work to do to improve the robustness of the baseline, and the company acknowledges this. It is planning a programme of work over the next six months to provide greater assurance about delivery of network investment in the rest of the road period.
4.16 There are key areas that this must address. For example, the company needs to:
- set out a clear baseline for the scope of what it plans to deliver for each major scheme;
- provide assurance that the baseline schedule information is deliverable, affordable and aligned with performance specification requirements;
- provide assurance that the baseline schedule information represents an efficient approach to delivering the portfolio of works;
- provide assurance that the baseline considers alignment in delivery of renewals and improvement works;
- confirm that the baseline meets the expectations of key stakeholders, including the Department for Transport; and
- provide further assurance about how baseline costs have been developed. 4.17 We have particular concerns that:
- the company’s assumptions for major schemes include a very significant increase in schemes starting construction in 2019-20, which may present a risk to delivery. The company has more work to do to set out how it is monitoring deliverability and managing associated risks.
- Highways England’s baseline assumes a small proportion of total scheme expenditure during the first roads period on those schemes announced in the RIS and Autumn Statement 2014. The company needs to confirm that this is aligned with stakeholders’, including the Department for Transport’s, expectations.
4.18 At the same time that the company provided the baseline it also provided some current forecasts for project costs. These forecasts represent the position prior to realising efficiencies, mitigating risks and taking other actions to manage the portfolio and its costs. It is normal for these early forecasts to be higher than expected outturn costs and we welcome Highways England’s open engagement on this. However, we have the following concerns:
- Highways England has more to do to evidence how its forecast has been developed; and
- the company needs to develop a clear plan for how its current forecast costs will be managed down to deliver within the funding available.
4.19 Highways England must resolve these issues during the next year and we will report on its progress.
Capability to deliver the RIS
4.20 To support our work in this area we have carried out a study to assess Highways England’s supply chain’s capability and capacity to deliver the requirements of the RIS and to understand the risks of cost escalation(^\\text{16}). The study focused on resource and skills in the supply chain, availability of labour, plant and materials and whether the supply chain can deliver the increased investment. It also looked at Highways England’s management of the supply chain.
4.21 The study included two key workstreams:
- structured interviews with a broad cross-section of Highways England’s suppliers to understand capacity and constraints to delivery of the RIS (qualitative evidence); and
- development of a strategic model of demand and capacity constraints to delivery of the RIS (quantitative evidence).
4.22 The review was carried out collaboratively with Highways England to make sure that findings were shared, constructively challenged, jointly understood and useful. The study identified opportunities in three areas:
The supply chain’s capacity:
4.23 Analysis and modelling of the supply chain’s capacity has identified that:
- availability of appropriately skilled people represents the strongest capacity constraint;
- the industry needs to do more to address availability of skilled resource and attractiveness of a career in highways to new entrants; and
- there is an opportunity for Highways England to optimise the profile of its work.
(^{16}) Review of Highways England Supply Chain Capability: http://orr.gov.uk/highways-monitor/publications/highways-englands-supply-chain-capability Highways England’s engagement with its supply chain:
4.24 In engaging with its supply chain, there is an opportunity for Highways England to:
- provide more detailed forward visibility of demand at an appropriate level which facilitates improved planning by its suppliers;
- align procurement more closely with suppliers’ ability to bid; and
- use industry engagement to ensure successful roll-out of its operating models.
Highways England’s and ORR’s monitoring of progress:
4.25 There is an opportunity for Highways England to bring together a clear and concise set of measures on supply chain issues to monitor progress of delivery of the RIS and to highlight future risks to delivery. These measures might cover:
- individual project progress;
- impact of adjacent infrastructure markets;
- indicators of future trends (e.g. construction prices); and
- combining the above to give an overall view on RIS portfolio health.
4.26 Working with Highways England highlighted that the company is progressing work in many of the identified areas, and the study has helped to further inform the work’s future direction. The company has published a high-level plan for taking this work forward. In particular, Highways England is working on improvements to the management of its portfolio of capital investment and we will work with the company to make sure that these improvements are delivered. This is a key priority for 2016-17.
Case study – Encouraging a more strategic approach to risk management
- Through our monitoring of Highways England we seek to encourage and work with the company to develop a more strategic view of risks.
- An example of this is our review of Highways England’s supply chain’s capability. This work has helped to inform us and the company about some of the potential constraints to delivery of the RIS – such as the availability of skilled labour. This has resulted in Highways England publishing its response, which sets out its plans to mitigate some of these risks.
- We are now working with the company to develop appropriate metrics to give early indication of deliverability risks and will report on this and Highways England’s delivery of its plans next year.
Ring-fenced investment funds
4.27 Highways England is responsible for administering £900m of ring-fenced funds which allow for investment that is additional to, or beyond the traditional focus of, its road schemes. These funds are split into five areas, as set out in the table below. Much of the work in the first year has involved the development of programmes for delivery during the remainder of this road period. However, there have also been some more tangible outputs, which are summarised below.
______________________________________________________________________
17 Highways England’s response to ORR’s report on supply chain capability: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/highways-england-response-to-the-office-of-rail-and-road-orr-report-on-their-supply-chain-capability
### Table 4.5: Ring-fenced investment funds delivery in 2015-16
| Fund Name | Value (to 2020-21) | Expenditure in 2015-16 | Highlights | |----------------------------------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Air quality | £100m | £0m | ■ Programme to be established once the results of ongoing study work have been reported | | Cycling, safety and integration | £250m | £16.6m | ■ 21 cycling schemes delivered | | Environment | £300m | £2.6m | ■ 11 noise barrier schemes in development | | | | | ■ Guidelines developed for future biodiversity projects | | Innovation | £150m | £2.7m | ■ Three fuel price signs deployed on the network | | | | | ■ Development of the first motorway to motorway traffic management system | | | | | ■ Innovation research strategy completed | | Growth and housing | £100m | £0.1m | ■ First pilot scheme open to traffic | | | | | ■ Around 50 expressions of interest received from Local Enterprise Partnerships |
4.28 Highways England has provided evidence of its plans and governance for each of the ring-fenced funds. Some stakeholders have made us aware of concerns about Highways England’s transparency and communication of its plans for the funds. The company has recently started to deliver workshops to discuss with stakeholders how it will use these funds and we expect engagement to continue to improve during the next year. We will continue to work with the company to review progress made against the plans it now has in place. Strategic studies
4.29 The Investment Plan announced a set of six strategic studies to address some of the biggest challenges on the road network and to inform the development of RIS2. The strategic study programme has been commissioned by the Department for Transport, with Highways England funding and undertaking the project management for each study. During 2015-16 consultants were appointed to all six studies. The studies are currently on track to complete in 2016-17. Each study will contain a Strategic Outline Business Case which will have a number of options. Better performing options will continue into development, with resultant schemes ready to start in RIS2. More details on the status of each study are given below.
Table 4.6: Strategic studies progress
| Strategic study | Status | Next steps | |----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Northern Trans-Pennine | Interim report published in March 2016. This outlines the high level case for making improvements to the A66 and A69 to improve Trans-Pennine connectivity. | Further work is being carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and a shortlist of better performing options has been identified. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | Trans-Pennine Tunnel | Interim report published in November 2015. This outlines the high level case for the Trans-Pennine tunnel road scheme between Manchester and Sheffield and feasibility of constructing the new link. | Further work is being carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and the long list of tunnel routes will be narrowed down. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | Manchester North-West Quadrant | Interim report published in March 2016. This outlines the high level case for making improvements to the north-west quadrant of the M60, improving strategic and regional connectivity in the Manchester area. | Further work is being carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and a shortlist of better performing options has been identified. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | A1 East of England | Interim report outlining the high level case for making improvements to the A1 between the M25 and Peterborough has yet to be published. | Further work to be carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and identify a shortlist of better performing options. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | | M25 South-West Quadrant | Study let in March 2016 to consider improvements to the performance of the transport network (including local roads and public transport) between junctions 10 and 16 of the M25. | An interim report is expected in Autumn 2016, and a final report in March 2017. | | Oxford to Cambridge Expressway | Interim report outlining the high level case for making improvements to the Oxford to Cambridge corridor has yet to be published. | Further work to be carried out to develop the economic case for intervention, and identify a shortlist of better performing options. Study to complete by Autumn Statement 2016. | Maintenance and renewals delivery
4.30 Highways England must maintain and renew the network to make sure that it is kept in a safe and serviceable condition.
4.31 During 2015-16, the company reviewed its initial maintenance and renewals programme. It re-profiled expenditure compared to its budget, resulting in a significant movement of expenditure from the summer to the winter months. Figure 4.2 shows the profile of renewals expenditure by quarter. There was a 35% increase in expenditure in quarter 4 compared to quarter 3. Carrying out more renewals work in winter months is potentially less efficient because, for example, there is more likely to be adverse weather. It may also lead to a lower quality product, which may increase whole life cost. The profile also suggests variances in workload across the year, which may be inefficient, and which it was hoped longer-term certainty of funding would address. We are reviewing the efficiency of this profile with the company.
4.32 Highways England’s Delivery Plan set out the volumes of renewals work it planned to carry out in 2015-16. The company has reported the actual volumes carried out and provided high level explanations for variances from the plan but it will need to improve the robustness of its asset management planning going forwards.
4.33 Volumes delivered compared to plan are shown in table 4.7. The company has delivered significantly greater volumes of structures renewals (with the exception of bridge bearings). It has also delivered different volumes of renewals of roads assets, including greater volumes of pavement renewals, road markings, kerbs, drainage, traffic sign and lighting, and lower volumes of vehicle restraint systems, geotechnical assets, boundary fencing and footways. For technology assets, the company has delivered increased volumes of motorway communications equipment and technology projects, but appears to have delivered lower volumes of technology renewals and improvements. Table 4.7: Volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan in 2015-16
| 2015-16 commitments | Planned Volume | Actual Volume | Comment | |---------------------|----------------|---------------|---------| | Pavement (lane miles) | 1,200 | 1,468 | | | Vehicle restraint systems (linear metres) | 178,000 | 144,530 | | | Structures – bridge joints (number) | 222 | 533 | | | Structures – bridge bearing (number) | 214 | 77 | | | Structures – waterproofing (square metres) | 20,000 | 55,637 | Improved planning and assurance over delivery required | | Structures – parapet (linear metres) | 1,000 | 1,471 | | | Drainage (linear metres) | 231,000 | 290,919 | | | Geotechnical (linear metres) | 46,000 | 40,293 | | | Motorway communications equipment (number) | 100 | 124 | |
Figure 4.3: Asset renewal, delivered volume variance from baseline plan 4.34 When taking the profile of renewals expenditure and renewals volume variances together, we consider that Highways England has more to do to plan and deliver its renewals work efficiently and effectively.
4.35 Highways England needs to improve its processes for identifying and prioritising its maintenance and renewals work and must now set out a plan for improvement in the first road period. The current reporting of renewals points to the need for Highways England to improve its asset management capability, with particular focus on improving:
- asset information;
- strategic planning;
- asset management workbank development;
- reporting, including reasons for variances from plan; and
- efficient delivery.
4.36 Highways England is developing plans to improve its asset management capability. Its coordinated data improvement plan specifically targets improved asset information, and it has developed plans to ensure that it has an asset management system that is consistent with industry standards (ISO 55000) by the end of the road period. In 2015-16 the company has produced its asset management principles document and has started to develop its asset management strategy.
4.37 It is important that Highways England continues to develop its asset management strategy and asset management plans to deliver the required improvements. This is a priority for 2016-17.
Schemes carried over from 2014-15
4.38 Some capital works were carried over from 2014-15 and have impacted on the first road period delivery and financial performance. For example, a number of pinch point schemes that were originally scheduled to complete by the end of March 2015 were actually completed in 2015-16.
4.39 We have engaged Highways England to ensure that it has learned the lessons from the delivery of this programme and have received assurance that it has.
4.40 The request for additional funding of £140m, required to complete these schemes, has been through the change control process and has been agreed by the Department for Transport. Priorities for 2016–17
5.1 This report has highlighted that Highways England has largely delivered its performance requirements and investment plans in the first year of the road period, but it must now build on that success to make sure that it delivers in the remainder of the period. It is important for Highways England to ensure that there is sufficient focus in the following areas in 2016-17.
Establishing clear performance plans
5.2 As set out in chapter 2, Highways England has more work to do to establish robust plans for the road period to make sure that it delivers the Performance Specification targets and requirements of the RIS Investment Plan. In 2016-17 we expect the company to set out:
- improved clarity of its plans to deliver its user satisfaction target of 90% by March 2017;
- its plans to deliver its efficiency target over the period;
- its plans to mitigate noise important areas;
- its plans to deliver against environmental performance indicators (for example, those relating to management of water); and
- its plans to deliver new and upgraded crossings.
Establishing clear capital investment plans
5.3 As set out in chapter 4, Highways England has more to do to assure itself, us, government and other stakeholders of the robustness of its capital investment plans. Improved management of the capital portfolio is a key priority for 2016-17.
5.4 As part of this, we expect Highways England to improve clarity of its baseline information relating to major schemes, and of its management of affordability and deliverability risk. We expect the company to improve its processes for ensuring that its asset maintenance and renewal plans are based on a robust assessment of network need and performance delivery.
Improving data quality and transparency
5.5 We have concerns about the breadth and quality of information that Highways England reports to us in a number of areas, notably asset information and unit costs. These form key parts of a coordinated data improvement plan which Highways England is developing. During 2016-17 we will review delivery of the improvement plan which is an important step to improving the company’s asset management capability more widely, for example improving its renewals planning and reporting. 5.6 Whilst Highways England has progressed development of its plans and strategies, as set out earlier in the document, we have expressed concerns that some of these are too high level to provide sufficient detail to stakeholders on the company’s strategic direction and specific work plans for the road period. In our view, Highways England particularly needs to increase the transparency of its plans and strategies in the areas of safety and the environment and we expect this to be progressed during 2016-17.
Developing and implementing plans for RIS2
5.7 The planning for RIS2 is now underway, and Highways England’s route strategies are an important aspect. The process for the development of the route strategies should be as collaborative and transparent as possible. Throughout the route strategies process, the licence envisages high quality engagement from Highways England with its stakeholders.
5.8 Highways England has a key role to play in understanding the challenges on the network through its leading work on RIS2. Through the Strategic Studies, route strategies and associated work, Highways England is in a unique position to consider some of the wider challenges in the highways sector. Drawing on both our rail and road remits, we would encourage Highways England to work with us to ensure greater consideration of infrastructure and operational issues across transport modes. Annex A – List of performance indicators
This table shows a list of performance indicators by outcome area. These are used to support and inform the associated KPIs. A fuller list and description of performance indicators can be found in the Operational Metrics Manual18.
| Outcome | Performance Indicator | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Making the network safer | Incident numbers and contributory factors for motorways | | | Casualty numbers and contributory factors for all-purpose trunk roads | | | International Road Assessment Programme based road safety investigations, developed in conjunction with the Department to feed into subsequent route strategies | | | Accident frequency rate for construction and maintenance workers, and for Customer Operations | | Improving user satisfaction | The percentage of National Road User Satisfaction Survey respondents who are very or fairly satisfied with: journey time; information and signs; management of roadworks; feeling safe; and upkeep. | | Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | Planning time index (a measure of how much additional time road users need to allow to ensure they arrive on time) | | | Traffic (vehicle miles travelled) on the strategic road network | | | Acceptable journeys (the proportion of journeys faster than 4/3 of the ‘free flow’ journey time, calculated as a percentage) | | | Average speed of car journeys on the strategic road network | | Encouraging economic growth | Percentage of formal planning applications responded to within 21 days of receipt by Highways England | | | Average delay (time lost per vehicle mile on gateway routes) | | | Meet the government target of 25% small and medium sized enterprise direct and indirect spend | | Delivering better environmental outcomes | Number of air quality pilot studies completed |
18 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-operational-metrics-manual | **Carbon dioxide equivalents in tonnes associated with Highways England’s activities** | | **Supply chain carbon dioxide (measure of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions for Highways England and its supply chain as it operates, maintains and improves the network)** | | **The number of flooding hotspots and culverts (high risk and very high risk) mitigated** | | **The number of outfalls and soakaways (high risk and very high risk) mitigated** | | **Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users of the network** | | **Number of vulnerable user casualties (broken down by cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and equestrians)** | | **Identification and delivery of the annual cycling programme** | | **Achieving real efficiency** | | **Cost performance indicator and schedule performance indicator for schemes at Project Control Framework stage 5 and beyond (demonstrates that the portfolio is being developed and the investment plan delivered in a timely and efficient manner)** | | **Keeping the network in good condition** | | **Geotechnical asset inventory and asset condition** | | **Drainage asset inventory and condition data coverage** | | **Technology asset availability (the percentage of Highways England’s technology, used for management and operation, which is functioning correctly)** | | **Structure asset – inventory and condition (the percentage of structures that have basic inventory information)** | Annex B – Glossary of terms
**Delivery Plan** – Highways England’s plan which sets out in detail how it will deliver its strategic outcomes and measure success.
**Highways England** – The government owned company with responsibility for operating, maintaining and enhancing the strategic road network. It launched on 1 April 2015, replacing the Highways Agency.
**Highways Monitor** – The directorate within the Office of Rail and Road with responsibility for monitoring the performance of Highways England.
**Investment Plan** – The part of the Road Investment Strategy which sets out the planned investments and the funds available for the first road period.
**Key Performance Indicators (KPI)** – The performance specification sets out 11 key performance indicators which are used to measure Highways England’s performance. Full details of each indicator can be found in the Operational Metrics Manual (referenced in chapter 2).
**Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI)** – A person killed or seriously injured in an accident.
**Office of Rail and Road (ORR)** – The independent safety and economic regulator for Britain’s railways and monitor of Highways England. Formerly the Office of Rail Regulation.
**Performance Indicators (PI)** – Indicators which sit below, and give context to, the key performance indicators. Full details of each indicator can be found in the Operational Metrics Manual (referenced in chapter 2).
**Performance Specification** – The part of the Road Investment Strategy which sets out the level of performance that Highways England must deliver in the first road period.
**Road Investment Strategy (RIS)** – This document sets out a long-term vision for England’s motorways and major roads, including a multi-year investment plan for improving the network and high-level objectives for the first roads period.
**Road Period** – The period that the Road Investment Strategy covers. The first road period covers the years 2015-16 to 2019-2020.
**Road reform** – The package of reforms implemented by government in the Infrastructure Act 2015 which included the creation of Highways England.
**Strategic Road Network** – The road network which Highways England is responsible for managing, comprising the motorways and main ‘A’ roads in England (also ‘the network’).
**Transport Focus** – The independent transport user watchdog which represents users of the strategic road network and is responsible for developing the new road user satisfaction survey. Formerly Passenger Focus.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1038-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 73,
"total-input-tokens": 143298,
"total-output-tokens": 30260,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
76,
1
],
[
76,
294,
2
],
[
294,
294,
3
],
[
294,
3598,
4
],
[
3598,
3598,
5
],
[
3598,
5773,
6
],
[
5773,
8093,
7
],
[
8093,
11840,
8
],
[
11840,
11840,
9
],
[
11840,
14290,
10
],
[
14290,
14290,
11
],
[
14290,
15876,
12
],
[
15876,
17943,
13
],
[
17943,
18914,
14
],
[
18914,
18914,
15
],
[
18914,
20040,
16
],
[
20040,
22447,
17
],
[
22447,
24127,
18
],
[
24127,
24487,
19
],
[
24487,
27812,
20
],
[
27812,
30394,
21
],
[
30394,
31959,
22
],
[
31959,
33028,
23
],
[
33028,
35248,
24
],
[
35248,
37034,
25
],
[
37034,
39028,
26
],
[
39028,
41683,
27
],
[
41683,
42392,
28
],
[
42392,
44764,
29
],
[
44764,
45756,
30
],
[
45756,
48279,
31
],
[
48279,
50986,
32
],
[
50986,
52441,
33
],
[
52441,
55357,
34
],
[
55357,
57404,
35
],
[
57404,
59812,
36
],
[
59812,
61656,
37
],
[
61656,
64203,
38
],
[
64203,
65625,
39
],
[
65625,
66965,
40
],
[
66965,
66965,
41
],
[
66965,
68613,
42
],
[
68613,
69706,
43
],
[
69706,
72337,
44
],
[
72337,
75454,
45
],
[
75454,
79312,
46
],
[
79312,
81997,
47
],
[
81997,
84354,
48
],
[
84354,
84354,
49
],
[
84354,
85469,
50
],
[
85469,
88308,
51
],
[
88308,
89914,
52
],
[
89914,
91714,
53
],
[
91714,
92680,
54
],
[
92680,
94467,
55
],
[
94467,
96782,
56
],
[
96782,
99919,
57
],
[
99919,
102983,
58
],
[
102983,
105908,
59
],
[
105908,
108288,
60
],
[
108288,
111686,
61
],
[
111686,
113671,
62
],
[
113671,
114595,
63
],
[
114595,
116640,
64
],
[
116640,
116640,
65
],
[
116640,
118911,
66
],
[
118911,
120313,
67
],
[
120313,
120313,
68
],
[
120313,
124635,
69
],
[
124635,
126079,
70
],
[
126079,
126079,
71
],
[
126079,
128597,
72
],
[
128597,
128597,
73
]
]
} |
4c8d524a7cac1b096c5461ce00f8e81aafbfea53 | Impact of Covid-19
1 The railway industry felt the effects of Covid-19 from the latter part of March 2020 onwards. Whilst the focus of this report is April 2019 to March 2020, it is important to note the impact that Covid-19 has had on the industry and how we have responded to the pandemic in the consumer areas for which we are responsible.
2 Covid-19 has brought unparalleled challenges for train companies and has affected their ability to continue to meet regulatory requirements. Many have had to move staff from call centres to home working (or significantly reduce resource in call centres due to social distancing), all while facing an unprecedented and rapid increase in the number of claims for ticket refunds.
3 This has led to unforeseen challenges in working arrangements and significant reprioritisation of resources. New issues have arisen such as the requirements for key workers, changes to train timetables, how crowding and social distancing will work on trains and at stations, and requirements for face coverings.
4 While we are being reasonable and pragmatic during this time, we have also made it clear that companies must ensure that meeting passengers’ needs remains at the forefront of their thinking. Our discussions on key consumer areas: accessibility, complaints handling, ticket retailing, and passenger information have been guided by this.
5 The May timetable change was a key focus, with a potential increase in the number of passengers travelling with social distancing measures in place. It remains vitally important for passengers to know how and when they can travel and that advice about their services is clear and up to date. During this period, we carried out daily reviews of train companies’ websites, including the overriding message, prominence of information, frequency of updates and advice for passengers on, for example, assisted travel. We shared and discussed our assessment with companies, who were responsive and engaged in making improvements.
6 We have also published travel advice to passengers regarding their journey as well as what they can do to get money back on their unused train tickets. We have kept this advice updated to ensure it remains current with government advice on using public transport and to show the extended time-period to 56 days (from 17 March or the latest travel date) for claiming season ticket refunds. And we have worked with third party retailers to ensure that their messaging to passengers on ticket refunds is equally clear and consistent.
7 We will continue to deliver our forward work programme being mindful of stakeholder capacity to engage, particularly working closely with companies to progress important improvements in passenger information as well as finalising our Accessible Travel Policy guidance regarding rail replacement services. We will continue to review how companies adapt to the challenges that have arisen because of Covid-19 and will work closely and collaboratively with government, the rail industry, consumer organisations and other stakeholders.
8 More detail on our approach during the pandemic is in our recent letter to train companies.
1 https://orr.gov.uk/coronavirus-advice 2 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/42927/holding-train-companies-to-account-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-05-20.pdf
1. Executive summary
About this report
This report illustrates the breadth and depth of our consumer work. Throughout the year, we have continued to seek the views of our Consumer Expert Panel as we develop our policy work. We summarise our key activities designed to secure improvements to the service provided by train companies to their passengers, highlight where progress has been made and where action has been necessary, and compare performance across companies. We also provide summary tables of specific interventions with companies to protect the interests of passengers and, for each of our consumer areas, our forward work for 2020/21.
Key interventions to protect passengers
Ticket retailing
Our focus here is on ensuring information is clear to enable passengers to make informed purchasing decisions. This year, we have worked with Third Party Retailers and train companies to improve the ticketing information for passengers on websites. This includes improving the messaging available to passengers online in relation to ticket sales for where the timetable has yet to be confirmed, as well as where there may be rail replacement services.
This year we put in place changes to licence arrangements and other industry arrangements to reflect the Rail Minister’s decision not to renew the exemption for domestic services from the requirements of the Rail Passengers’ Rights Obligation Regulations (PRO). The PRO enhances and strengthens the existing rights of rail passengers particularly in the areas of information and ticket provision, compensation and assistance, and provides rights for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.
______________________________________________________________________
3 https://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/how-we-work/expert-advisors/consumer-expert-panel 4 https://orr.gov.uk/rail/consumers/consumer-law (expand ‘publications and updates’) 5 https://orr.gov.uk/rail/publications/access-and-licensing-publications/consultation-on-changes-to-operator-licences Passenger information
12 We want passengers to have the information they need to help them to plan their journey, including when there is disruption. This year we asked the industry to come together to set out how it will make tangible and enduring network-wide improvements to the provision of passenger information, including during disruption, through the delivery of a Passenger Information Improvement Plan. We also asked it to work with ORR to develop a Customer Information Measure (CIM), an assessment tool to help the industry drive continuous improvement in the delivery of customer information. The industry has responded positively, with the Rail Delivery Group committing to develop a plan alongside the CIM, both of which will work to enable passengers and staff alike to have better access to timely, accurate and complete information.
Assisted travel
13 Our focus in this area is on the services for passengers who require assistance to make their journey. This year we published our new Accessible Travel Policy (ATP) Guidance to replace the existing Disabled People's Protection Policy (DPPP). This guidance sets out how train companies should write their ATPs to set out their arrangements for providing assisted travel to passengers. The new guidance is the culmination of detailed research and extensive consultation and engagement undertaken over a number of years, and we are already approving train companies policies against these new requirements. The new ATP Guidance will improve how passengers receive assistance to travel through:
- increasing the reliability of assistance for disabled passengers;
- strengthening train and station companies' staff training in disability awareness;
- improving accessible journey planning;
- reducing the notice period for booking assistance;
- improving the ability for passengers to receive redress if things do go wrong;
- standardising and improving information for passengers on the assistance available; and
- involving disabled people in a meaningful way in the development and review of company policies and training.
______________________________________________________________________
6 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0017/42434/passenger-information-during-disruption-letter-to-industry-2019-11-15.pdf 7 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0016/42433/passenger-information-during-disruption-industry-response-2020-01-08.pdf Industry trial to improve the reliability of assisted travel
14 This year we commenced a trial involving Network Rail and a number of train companies to test our proposed safeguard measures designed to improve the reliability of Assisted Travel. The initial findings have been positive, both in terms of improving the reliability of information transfer between staff and the experience of staff in providing better assistance to passengers.
15 The initial trial intends to test that the improvements we have set out in the ATP Guidance are one method through which the industry can improve the reliability of assistance provision for those passengers that book in advance of travel, and deliver subsequent benefits for those passengers that choose to travel spontaneously.
Complaints and redress
16 We want to ensure that train companies provide an effective service for handling complaints and redress. This year, we revised our methodology for our survey of passenger satisfaction with train companies’ complaints handling. We have had a substantial response with passengers completing almost 55,000 surveys. This has enabled us to publish comparative information between train companies. This insight will enable us to look at the differences in complaints handling between the best and weakest performing train companies and challenge those companies who are not performing well, to improve the service that they are providing to passengers in this area. The Rail Ombudsman
17 This year we undertook an independent review of the Rail Ombudsman scheme after 12 months of its commencement. The purpose of this research is to ensure that the Rail Ombudsman continues to provide a timely and effective means of redress for consumers with unresolved complaints. The review has identified a number of areas where the ombudsman arrangements can be enhanced around governance and accountability, operations, and impact and influence. Through this independent review we will set out a plan to address these challenges, strengthen the scheme, and enable its success.
Delay compensation
18 This year we submitted advice to the Williams Rail Review setting out a number of potential reforms targeted at improving passenger awareness of their entitlement to delay compensation, improve the process for claiming compensation and increase incentives on companies to promote delay compensation. These reforms will better protect the interests of passengers as well as promoting positive behaviours amongst train companies.
19 Over the last year, train companies closed 6.3m claims for delay compensation. We collect data on the percentage of claims that are processed in line with the industry requirement to do so within one month, together with the percentage of claims that are approved and rejected.
20 This insight has informed the development of our work to consult on the introduction of a new licence condition on delay compensation, something we said we would do in our response to the Williams Review. The licence condition will require adherence to a delay compensation code of practice, which will set a common baseline for all train companies designed to improve the experience of passengers in this key service area.
Specific interventions involving train and station companies and ticket retailers
21 Much of our work is intended to benefit all consumers, such as our current emphasis on improving passenger information across the industry as a whole. Other interventions target specific concerns that arise from the data and insight that we collect - and have set out throughout this report - ad hoc monitoring or surveillance and specific issues brought to our attention by passengers themselves or key stakeholders such as Transport Focus.
22 This year we have identified and responded to almost 40 cases where the conduct of the company concerned was potentially harming passenger interests. In Table one we set out some examples of these specific interventions with companies to protect the interest of rail passengers.
23 This area of work provides tangible improvement and protection for passengers at a local level. It can address weaknesses in processes, operational practices, staff training or understanding and implementation of regulatory and legal requirements. Delivering behavioural change through engaging with companies in this way is a key priority for us in ensuring that we use our resources effectively and deliver the greatest benefit for passengers.
______________________________________________________________________
8 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/41396/orr-advice-to-the-williams-rail-review-july-2019.pdf 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-williams-rail-review Forward work programme for 2020/21
24 Monitoring already forms a key part of our work to protect the interests of consumers. This report sets out the outcome of this monitoring and the significant progress that we have made across all of the key consumer areas over which we have responsibility.
25 In the coming year we intend to continue and, where necessary, enhance this monitoring to enable us to understand how companies are meeting the needs of rail passengers. In Table two we set out the key activities that we will undertake in the coming year to build on successful work to date with the industry, including completing our plans to improve the travel assistance it provides to passengers who need it. We will also continue our new cross industry initiative to improve the information provided to all passengers and engage in new activities – for example in relation to the new Health Protection (Coronavirus, Public Health Information for Passengers Travelling to England) Regulations 2020 – where required.
Table one: Examples of specific interventions with companies to protect the interest of rail passengers
| Area – Ticketing Retailing | Company/ Retailer | Action/outcome & impacts | |---------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------| | Lack of prominent information about sleeper ticket refund policy on the website. | Great Western Railway (GWR) | We raised this omission with GWR. In response, it improved the information for passengers on its website so that these terms and conditions are more prominent. | | Insufficient information on the website about when railcard discounts can be used on ticket purchases. | Stansted Express | We contacted Stansted Express. It reviewed and improved the information available to passengers about discounts on its website. | | Insufficient material information during retailing process for consumers about known disruption. | Trainline - retailer | We wrote to Trainline to ask it to improve its information provision. As a result, it made improvements to its website and arranged to notify those passengers who have already bought tickets of relevant changes to train services. | | Insufficient information about peak/off-peak car park ticket restrictions. | Chiltern Railways | We contacted Chiltern Railways to ask that it make improvements. It worked with its parking provider to change the website to provide clear information to passengers about when the peak/off-peak restrictions apply. | | Issue | Company | Action/outcome & impacts | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Information where Transport for London (TfL) is taking over GWR services e.g. at Langley. The GWR website link was not to the appropriate part of the TfL website. TfL timetables did not show the full service operating at the stations that still have a GWR service. | GWR, TFL | We contacted both companies to raise our concerns about the information available to passengers. GWR revised its website to include a link to the correct TfL Rail page. TfL changed its online timetable to include GWR services. Passengers now have information to all services calling at these stations. | | “Stand clear - through train approaching” message displayed in the wrong format on some screens at Greenwich. This meant that the full safety message was not displayed when a train that did not stop at the station was approaching. | Southeastern | We contacted Southeastern to ask that they resolve this matter urgently. It identified that this was also an issue at other stations with similar screens. Southeastern made changes so that the full safety message is displayed correctly on all screens for passengers. | | Delays to opening Worcestershire Parkway station not communicated clearly which resulted in tickets being sold for a period before the station opened to passengers and an inconsistent message about refunds. | GWR | We contacted GWR to ask that the information about the station closure needed to be clearer, ticket sales suspended when opening was delayed, and text about refunds amended. GWR resolved the issue. We also shared our information with Transport Focus to avoid duplication as it had raised similar concerns. | | Issues with platform information screens at Warrington West new station – trains disappearing from the screens before arrival. | Northern | We shared our monitoring with Northern who immediately escalated to their supplier. This was resolved and passengers now have the information they need on the screen. | | Issue | Company | Action/outcome & impacts | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Potential gaps in the process for both the provision of assistance and the ease of transition for passengers connecting between GTR’s Gatwick Express service and continuing their journey at Gatwick Airport. | Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) | ORR contacted GTR to seek assurances about the provision of assistance. GTR and Gatwick airport staff have agreed a communication protocol to ensure this is delivered, even where there are staff shortages. This will ensure that passengers receive seamless assistance from station to airport. | | A key worker was allegedly refused assistance by the train company due to physical distancing rules during Covid-19. | Southeastern | ORR asked for details and sought assurances that assistance was still being delivered by Southeastern to passengers. Southeastern confirmed there was an isolated incident, provided details of their internal staff briefings and updated their external communications. | | A passenger was unable to alight at their destination station even though staff had been informed assistance was required. | South Western Railway (SWR) | ORR requested details of the incident reported via social media. SWR provided information and updated its internal communications procedures to ensure requests for assistance via social media are handled correctly for the benefit of passengers. | | Ticket office closures resulting in reduction of station staff, and the impact on passengers who rely on this resource for boarding and alighting the train. | c2c | ORR sought assurances that passengers are still able to receive boarding and alighting assistance at every accessible station following planned reductions in ticket office opening hours. c2c set out its planned mitigations using mobile customer service staff, details of which are communicated to passengers at stations and will be in its forthcoming ATP. | | Area – Complaints handling | |---------------------------| | **Issue** | **Company** | **Action/outcome & impacts** | | Responding to 95% of complaints within 20 working days. | c2c | ORR contacted c2c following a period of non-compliance. c2c explained that IT system implementation issues had resulted in an increased number of complaints. ORR initiated enhanced monitoring and sought a detailed recovery plan against which progress was monitored. Where progress was demonstrated to be slow, ORR sought a revised recovery plan with a challenging date to meet compliance. c2c returned to compliance. | | Responding to 95% of complaints within 20 working days. | West Midlands Railway (WMR) | WMR proactively informed ORR about an increase in its complaint volumes largely resulting from its timetable change. ORR initiated enhanced monitoring and sought a detailed recovery plan against which progress was monitored. There was steady progress toward compliance prior to the impact of Covid-19. | | Responding to 95% of complaints within 20 working days. | Hull Trains | Hull Trains proactively informed ORR about an increase, albeit low, in complaint volumes due to fleet reliability, extreme weather conditions, and power blackout in the summer. ORR initiated enhanced monitoring and sought a detailed recovery plan against which progress was monitored. Hull Trains returned to compliance. | | Responding to 95% of complaints within 20 working days. | London North Eastern Railway (LNER) | LNER proactively informed ORR about an increase in complaint volumes due to a number of incidents on their network. LNER asked to meet with ORR to discuss its plans for compliance. Following this meeting, ORR placed LNER on enhanced monitoring and monitored progress against its recovery plan. LNER returned to compliance. |
### Table two: Forward work programme for 2020/21
| Consumer area | ORR next steps | Timing | |------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| | Ticket retailing | Continue our **awareness campaign** by releasing topic-based information through social media, and continue to feed the research findings into any future updates to the National Rail Conditions of Travel. | Ongoing | | Ticket retailing | Monitor, and follow up where necessary, the **provision of information** by train company and third party rail retailers for passengers on their rights, particularly where these have changed because of Covid-19. | Ongoing | | Ticket retailing | Monitor adherence to the requirements of the **Passenger Rights Obligation Regulations** and ensure that train companies publish the required service quality reports. | Autumn | | Ticket retailing | Embed our **new consumer powers** from the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulations into our enforcement policy and processes, and explain their meaning to train companies. | Autumn | | Passenger information | Review the industry **Passenger Information Improvement Plan** developed in response to our research, and continue to work with Network Rail, train companies and stakeholders to ensure that the industry delivers its commitments in this area. | Autumn | | Passenger information | Work with the industry to finalise the **Customer Information Measure** to assess train company processes and practices in delivering passenger information, and use it as an assessment tool to improve performance. | Autumn | | Passenger information | Update the **regulatory statement** to recognise the creation of a separate licence condition for compensation and changes to regulatory processes following adoption of the **Passenger Information Improvement Plan**. | Spring | | Passenger information | Work with Transport Focus, Rail Delivery Group and third party retailers to ensure that **tickets are not sold in advance of 12 weeks** where the period will be affected by planned engineering works. | Autumn | | Passenger information | Monitor and where possible test the information provided by train companies to ensure that appropriate **accessibility information** for vehicles with time-limited dispensations is given to passengers. | Ongoing | | Category | Task | Timeframe | |------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | Passenger information | Monitor relevant companies’ compliance with requirements to provide information to passengers travelling to England by rail about Covid-19. | Ongoing | | Assisted travel | Complete the ATP approval process for all rail companies, including the approval of individual guides for each station managed by Network Rail. | Ongoing | | Assisted travel | Publish revised ATP Guidance with revised requirements for the accessibility of rail replacement services. | Summer | | Assisted travel | Complete additional trials of passenger assistance safeguarding measures and publish a handover protocol for use by rail company staff. | Autumn | | Assisted travel | Publish a consultation on ATP Guidance for bespoke companies. | Autumn | | Assisted Travel | Analyse cases under the design code to identify areas of weakness to ensure that accessibility is considered in accordance with the Code. | Autumn | | Complaint handling | Conduct a review of the ORR Complaints Handling Guidance to ensure it remains fit for purpose. | Spring | | Complaint handling | Look at the differences in passenger satisfaction with complaint handling between the best and weakest performing train companies to identify and improve performance where necessary. | Autumn | | Redress | Publish our Rail Ombudsman Review research report together with a plan for taking forward its recommendations. | Summer | | Redress | Publish the results of our consultation on a delay compensation licence condition, and take the steps necessary to ensure its introduction. | Autumn |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1039-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 25194,
"total-output-tokens": 5264,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
3347,
2
],
[
3347,
5302,
3
],
[
5302,
7660,
4
],
[
7660,
9124,
5
],
[
9124,
12334,
6
],
[
12334,
14821,
7
],
[
14821,
17235,
8
],
[
17235,
19633,
9
],
[
19633,
21452,
10
],
[
21452,
24348,
11
],
[
24348,
26266,
12
],
[
26266,
26266,
13
]
]
} |
1d515d1807792716cfe6154c66b3ab321fab5646 | ## Contents
| Service | Page | |-------------------------------|------| | Guidance | 1 | | Avanti West Coast | 4 | | c2c | 7 | | Caledonian Sleeper | 10 | | Chiltern Railways | 13 | | CrossCountry | 16 | | East Midlands Railway | 19 | | Govia Thameslink Railway | 22 | | Grand Central | 25 | | Great Western Railway | 28 | | Greater Anglia | 31 | | Heathrow Express | 34 | | Hull Trains | 37 | | London North Eastern Railway | 40 | | London Overground | 43 | | Merseyrail | 46 | | Northern Trains | 49 | | ScotRail | 52 | | South Western Railway | 55 | | Southeastern | 58 | | TFL Rail | 61 | | TFW Rail | 64 | | Transpennine Express | 67 | | West Midlands Trains | 70 | Key Facts
Owner group: This is the parent company which owns the train operating company. Operator: Train operating company. Franchise: Name of the franchise the train operating company operates. Franchise period: Period of time for which the train operating company has been contracted to run the franchise. Sector: Long distance, Regional, London and South East and Scotland. Operated stations 2019-20: Number of stations the train company operates. Employees 2019-20: Number of employees the train operating company has. Passenger journeys 2019-20: Number of annual passenger journeys on the train operating company.
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays, available at both train operating company and a national level.
The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020.
The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019.
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information provided to passengers when delays occur, available at both train operating company and a national level.
The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020.
The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019.
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
Passenger satisfaction with the information provided to passengers during the journey, available at both train operating company and a national level.
The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020.
The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019.
Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes The number of assists booked by passengers through the National Passenger Assistance Booking System, known as Passenger Assist, managed by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). Please note, the data does not include unbooked assistance, often called ‘Turn Up and Go’.
The number of booked assistance requests are shown for each company that manages a station, and therefore not necessarily against the train company which the passenger travels with. For example, if a passenger books assistance at Darlington station to board a CrossCountry train, the assist will be recorded against the station operator, which in this case would be LNER. This is why we do not have any data for those train companies who do not manage any stations.
Source: Rail Delivery Group (RDG) Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Alternative accessible transport The number of instances where the train company provided Alternative Accessible Transport (AAT) in 2019-20. All operators must provide Free alternative transport to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances, including:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
The volume of AAT a train company provides can be influenced by a number of factors which means volumes can often vary significantly from year to year.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20 Passenger experience of booked assistance throughout 2019-20. Based on research by Breaking Blue (commissioned by ORR) consisting of interviews with 4,079 Passenger Assist users in 2019-20. This research is a repeat of the 2018-19 study which means the results are directly comparable.
The graphs are based on the following survey questions:
1. Passenger outcome for assistance that was booked: Question D5 - did you actually receive the following assistance?
2. Satisfaction with assistance at the station: Question D7 – how satisfied were you with the overall assistance at the station?
3. Satisfaction with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station: Question D17a – how satisfied were you with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station?
4. Overall satisfaction with the whole process from booking assistance to assistance received: Question D21 - how satisfied are you with the whole process from booking the assistance to the assistance received.
The sample size is shown due to varying sample sizes between operators. Operators with a sample size below 70 are not shown due to issues with the robustness of the data. Data not available for those operators who do not operate any stations, a note will indicate where this is the case.
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 This box shows the volume of claims received for redress due to booked assistance failure in 2019-20, and the percentage of claims approved by the train operator.
The graph shows this by ‘rail period’ where a rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 The data in this box shows the top five causes of accessibility complaints for the train operator in 2019-20. The table also shows the proportion (as a percentage) of accessibility complaints each of these issues accounted for.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter The volume of complaint correspondence closed per 100,000 journeys. Complaints are normalised by passenger journeys to allow effective comparison of data between time periods and train operating companies.
Results are provided for the four quarters in 2019-20 which refer to 3-monthly time periods.
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter The percentage of complaints which are answered by the train operator within 20 working days. Our regulatory requirement is to close 95% of complaints within 20 working days.
Results are provided for the four quarters in 2019-20 which refer to 3-monthly time periods.
PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 The data in this box shows the top five causes of complaints for the train operator in 2019-20. The table also shows what proportion of complaints each of the top five complaints issues accounted for and the percentage point change for each complaint category versus 2018-19.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaint handling 2019-20
Satisfaction with complaints handling process The proportion of passengers who were satisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the complaints handling process.
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint The proportion of passengers who were satisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint.
This data is generated from our complaint handling satisfaction survey administered by Critical Research on behalf of ORR. The 2019-20 survey wave generated just over 54,000 passenger responses. The number of responses per train company is also provided.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20 The left-hand side of this box displays the volume of delay compensation claims closed by the train operator in 2019-20. The graph shows this by 'rail period' where a rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
The top-right hand side of this box displays the proportion of delay compensation claims closed which were approved by the train operator.
The bottom-right hand side of this box displays the proportion of delay compensation claims closed which have been answered by the train operator within 20 working days.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Avanti West Coast
Owner group: First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited Operator: Avanti West Coast Franchise: InterCity West Coast Franchise period: December 2019 - 2031 Sector: Long distance
Operated stations 2019-20: 16 Employees 2019-20: 3,383 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 37.5 million % change compared to last year: +5.1
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
| Year | Avanti West Coast | National | Change on last year | |------|------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 61% | 48% | -4.4 PP | | 2016 | 61% | 48% | 6.3 PP | | 2017 | 61% | 48% | | | 2018 | 61% | 48% | | | 2019 | 61% | 48% | |
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
| Year | Avanti West Coast | National | Change on last year | |------|------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 56% | 41% | -4.2 PP | | 2016 | 56% | 41% | 3.7 PP | | 2017 | 56% | 41% | | | 2018 | 56% | 41% | | | 2019 | 56% | 41% | |
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
| Year | Avanti West Coast | National | Change on last year | |------|------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 84% | 76% | -1.9 PP | | 2016 | 84% | 76% | 1.8 PP | | 2017 | 84% | 76% | | | 2018 | 84% | 76% | | | 2019 | 84% | 76% | |
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Avanti West Coast received 98,913 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 8.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator – Table 16.03
Passenger outcome for assistance that was booked (all passengers)
- All assistance received
- Some assistance received
- No assistance received
Satisfaction with assistance at the station (for those passengers met by staff) Note: Passenger outcome for assistance chart may not add up to 100% as ‘unsure/don’t know’ are not shown.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue
Overall satisfaction with the whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) Avanti results based on a sample of 610 respondents. Please see the full report for detail on the margin of error for each train operator. The report is available here: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Avanti West Coast received 386 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 40.4% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=855) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Booked assistance not provided at station | 39% | | TOC accessibility policy | 10% | | Assistance booking process | 9% | | The ease of being able to get on and off | 6% | | Booked assistance not provided on train | 6% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC – Table 14.5
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Complaints handling and delay compensation
Avanti West Coast
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 143.0 | | Q2 | 170.3 | | Q3 | 212.6 | | Q4 | 252.5 |
Change from last year: 17.4%
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 99.2% | | Q2 | 97.6% | | Q3 | 97.5% | | Q4 | 98.3% |
Change from last year: 0.0 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Facilities on board | -1.5 PP | | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 1.6 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | -1.5 PP | | Ticket buying Facilities - other | 0.6 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 1.0 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Avanti sample size: 5,548
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| Train Operating Company | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |-------------------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | Avanti West Coast | 28% | 17% | 56% | | National | 30% | 19% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Train Operating Company | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |-------------------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | Avanti West Coast | 32% | 10% | 58% | | National | 31% | 13% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Avanti West Coast closed 584,426 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 35% higher than the previous year.
Avanti West Coast approved 84.8% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Avanti West Coast responded to 94.9% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Avanti West Coast switched from DR30 scheme to DR15 from 2019-20 P10.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Owner group: Trenitalia Operator: c2c Franchise: Essex Thameside Franchise period: 9 November 2014 – 10 November 2029 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 25 Employees 2019-20: 643 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 47.3 million % change compared to last year: -3.7
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes
c2c received 822 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport
All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20
c2c received 28 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 21.4% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20
Overall 0.7% (n=110) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Other accessibility | 31% | | Booked assistance not provided at station | 17% | | Unable to hear announcements at station/on train | 11% | | Booked assistance not provided on train | 8% | | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 5% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 32.0 | | Q2 | 30.8 | | Q3 | 33.3 | | Q4 | 44.7 |
Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20:
- Change from last year: 42.0%
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded | |---------|----------------------| | Q1 | 91.3% | | Q2 | 60.7% | | Q3 | 45.0% | | Q4 | 46.1% |
Change from last year: -40.0 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------|---------------------| | Smartcards | 6.7 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 20.1 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | 1.7 PP | | Ticket buying facilities | 1.8 PP | | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -11.5 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | c2c | National | |----------------------------------------------|-----|----------| | Satisfied | 11% | 30% | | Neither | 12% | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 77% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | c2c | National | |---------------------------------------|-----|----------| | Satisfied | 23% | 31% | | Neither | 12% | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 65% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
- c2c closed 20,097 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 55% lower than the previous year.
- c2c approved 82.9% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
- c2c responded to 99.6% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
c2c operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Caledonian Sleeper
Owner group: Serco Operator: Caledonian Sleeper Franchise: Caledonian Sleeper Franchise period: 31 March 2015 – 31 March 2030 Sector: Scotland
Operated stations 2019-20: 0 Employees 2019-20: 195 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 0.3 million % change compared to last year: +3.2
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page.
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page.
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page.
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Caledonian Sleeper passenger satisfaction Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Booked assistance volumes Data on the volume of booked assistance requests received in each rail period is available for each train operator that manages a station. This data is therefore not available for Caledonian Sleeper because they do not manage any stations.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator – Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Caledonian Sleeper as they do not manage any stations.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Caledonian Sleeper received 2 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=18) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Other accessibility | 94% | | Disabled parking | 6% | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Caledonian Sleeper
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 205.7 | | Q2 | 394.1 | | Q3 | 381.8 | | Q4 | 335.4 |
Change from last year: 114.1%
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 96.3% | | Q2 | 42.6% | | Q3 | 91.9% | | Q4 | 98.6% |
Change from last year: -12.0 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Upkeep and repair of the train | 24.2% | 11.8 PP | | The toilet facilities | 13.0% | 8.8 PP | | Facilities on board | 11.4% | -0.8 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | 8.0% | 4.3 PP | | The provision of information during the journey | 6.2% | 3.6 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | |-----------------------------------------------| | Caledonian Sleeper | | Satisfied | 49% | | Neither | 15% | | Dissatisfied | 36% | | National | | Satisfied | 30% | | Neither | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Caledonian Sleeper | | Satisfied | 55% | | Neither | 14% | | Dissatisfied | 31% | | National | | Satisfied | 31% | | Neither | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Caledonian Sleeper closed 10,166 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 81% higher than the previous year.
Caledonian Sleeper approved 93.2% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Caledonian Sleeper responded to 91.2% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
Caledonian Sleeper operate the Delay Repay 30 compensation scheme
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Chiltern Railways
Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Chiltern Railways Franchise: Chiltern Railways Franchise period: 21 July 1996 – 11 December 2021 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 35 Employees 2019-20: 850 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 28.4 million % change compared to last year: -3.2
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Chiltern Railways received 16,926 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 1.4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
No data is available on this company’s performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Chiltern Railways received 39 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 84.6% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=98) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Booked assistance not provided at station | 26% | | Other accessibility | 17% | | Assistance booking process | 16% | | Assistance staff | 10% | | Booked assistance not provided on train | 8% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Chiltern Railways
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 19.8 | | Q2 | 23.3 | | Q3 | 20.6 | | Q4 | 24.8 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 99.9% | | Q2 | 99.7% | | Q3 | 99.9% | | Q4 | 99.9% |
Change from last year:
| Quarter | Change from last year | |---------|-----------------------| | Q1 | -4.0% PP | | Q2 | -0.1 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 7.6 PP | | Ticket buying facilities | 0.8 PP | | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -11 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | -6.6 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 1.2 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | |-----------------------------------------------| | Chiltern Railways | | Satisfied | | Neither | | Dissatisfied | | 32% | | 20% | | 48% | | National | | 30% | | 19% | | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | |----------------------------------------| | Chiltern Railways | | Satisfied | | Neither | | Dissatisfied | | 24% | | 15% | | 62% | | National | | 31% | | 13% | | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Chiltern Railways closed 24,561 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 17% higher than the previous year.
Chiltern Railways approved 72.5% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Chiltern Railways responded to 94.1% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Chiltern Railways operate a traditional delay compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
CrossCountry
Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: CrossCountry Franchise: New CrossCountry Franchise period: September 2016 - October 2020 Sector: Long distance
Operated stations 2019-20: 0 Employees 2019-20: 1,978 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 39.8 million % change compared to last year: -2.1
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
![Chart showing passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur for CrossCountry and National. CrossCountry has a satisfaction rate of 55% compared to 48% for National. Change on last year: -0.8 PP for CrossCountry and 6.3 PP for National.]
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
![Chart showing passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays for CrossCountry and National. CrossCountry has a satisfaction rate of 48% compared to 41% for National. Change on last year: 0.4 PP for CrossCountry and 3.7 PP for National.]
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
![Chart showing passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey for CrossCountry and National. CrossCountry has a satisfaction rate of 76% compared to 75% for National. Change on last year: 1.8 PP for CrossCountry and -2.7 PP for National.]
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Booked assistance volumes Data on the volume of booked assistance requests received in each rail period is available for each train operator that manages a station. This data is therefore not available for CrossCountry because they do not manage any stations.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator – Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for CrossCountry as they do not manage any stations.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 CrossCountry received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.8% (n=215) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Booked assistance not provided at station | 23% | | Assistance booking process | 17% | | Disabled toilets at station/on train | 11% | | Assistance staff | 9% | | Unbooked assistance not provided at station | 9% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
CrossCountry
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 52.9 | | Q2 | 65.1 | | Q3 | 68.5 | | Q4 | 86.1 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 100.0% | | Q2 | 100.0% | | Q3 | 100.0% | | Q4 | 100.0% |
Change from last year: 0.0 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 42.3% | 5.8 PP | | Facilities on board | 20.8% | -4.7 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 15.0% | -0.2 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | 5.5% | -0.5 PP | | Other policy | 3.7% | 0.2 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
CrossCountry sample size: 3,447
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| Train Operating Company | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |-------------------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | CrossCountry | 45% | 20% | 35% | | National | 30% | 19% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Train Operating Company | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |-------------------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | CrossCountry | 45% | 13% | 42% | | National | 31% | 13% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
CrossCountry closed 166,553 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 20% higher than the previous year.
CrossCountry approved 97% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
CrossCountry responded to 96.9% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
CrossCountry operate the Delay Repay 30 compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
**East Midlands Railway**
**Owner group:** Stagecoach\
**Operator:** East Midlands Trains\
**Franchise:** East Midlands\
**Franchise period:** August 2019 - August 2027\
**Sector:** Long distance / Regional
**Operated stations 2019-20:** 90\
**Employees 2019-20:** 2,441\
**Passenger journeys 2019-20:** 25.4 million\
**% change compared to last year:** -5.0
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)\
Data tables: TOC Key stats
Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.\
Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
______________________________________________________________________
**Provision of information to passengers**
**Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur**
| Year | East Midlands Railway | National | Change on last year | |------|-----------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 49% | 48% | -6.4 PP | | 2016 | 44% | 41% | 6.3 PP | | 2017 | 44% | 41% | | | 2018 | 44% | 41% | | | 2019 | 44% | 41% | |
**Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays**
| Year | East Midlands Railway | National | Change on last year | |------|-----------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 44% | 41% | -2.8 PP | | 2016 | 44% | 41% | 3.7 PP | | 2017 | 44% | 41% | | | 2018 | 44% | 41% | | | 2019 | 44% | 41% | |
**Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey**
| Year | East Midlands Railway | National | Change on last year | |------|-----------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 76% | 69% | 1.8 PP | | 2016 | 76% | 69% | | | 2017 | 76% | 69% | | | 2018 | 76% | 69% | | | 2019 | 76% | 69% | -2.9 PP |
PP = percentage point change\
The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A)
Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes East Midlands Railway received 62,945 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 5.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
East Midlands Railway
Satisfaction with assistance at the station (for those passengers met by staff)
East Midlands Railway
National
88% 88%
Satisfaction with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station (for those passengers met by staff)
East Midlands Railway
National
89% 92%
Overall satisfaction with the whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers)
East Midlands Railway results based on a sample of 103 respondents. Please see the full report for detail on the margin of error for each train operator. The report is available here: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists.
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 East Midlands Railway received 114 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 46.5% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 2.7% (n=427) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Booked assistance not provided at station | 46% | | Other accessibility | 27% | | Assistance booking process | 7% | | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 5% | | Booked assistance not provided on train | 4% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
East Midlands Railway
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 48.7 | | Q2 | 78.0 | | Q3 | 63.2 | | Q4 | 54.7 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 99.8% | | Q2 | 97.8% | | Q3 | 98.9% | | Q4 | 99.7% |
Change from last year: 7.1%
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 4.9 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | -7.1 PP | | Facilities on board | 0.5 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | -1.1 PP | | Ticket buying facilities | 0.1 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
East Midlands Railway sample size: 1,394
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| East Midlands Railway | National | |-----------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 39% | | Neither | 18% | | Dissatisfied | 42% | | Total | 100% |
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| East Midlands Railway | National | |-----------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 41% | | Neither | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 47% | | Total | 100% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
East Midlands Railway closed 175,939 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 156% higher than the previous year.
East Midlands Railway approved 85.3% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
East Midlands Railway responded to 95.8% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. Key Facts
Owner group: Govia Operator: Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Franchise: Southern / Thameslink / Great Northern / Gatwick Express Franchise period: 14 September 2014 – 01 September 2021 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 235 Employees 2019-20: 7,427 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 348.9 million % change compared to last year: +2.2
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
| Year | Gatwick Express | Great Northern | Southern | Thameslink | National | |------|----------------|----------------|----------|------------|----------| | 2015 | 51% | 49% | 48% | 45% | 39% | | 2016 | 51% | 49% | 48% | 45% | 39% | | 2017 | 51% | 49% | 48% | 45% | 39% | | 2018 | 51% | 49% | 48% | 45% | 39% | | 2019 | 51% | 49% | 48% | 45% | 39% |
Change on last year:
- Gatwick Express: 15.8 PP
- Great Northern: 7.0 PP
- Southern: 6.3 PP
- Thameslink: 8.3 PP
- National: 6.7 PP
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
| Year | Gatwick Express | Great Northern | Southern | Thameslink | National | |------|----------------|----------------|----------|------------|----------| | 2015 | 57% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 37% | | 2016 | 57% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 37% | | 2017 | 57% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 37% | | 2018 | 57% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 37% | | 2019 | 57% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 37% |
Change on last year:
- Gatwick Express: 18.3 PP
- Great Northern: 3.7 PP
- Southern: 6.1 PP
- Thameslink: 10.1 PP
- National: 7.3 PP
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
| Year | Gatwick Express | Great Northern | Southern | Thameslink | National | |------|----------------|----------------|----------|------------|----------| | 2015 | 83% | 77% | 77% | 76% | 76% | | 2016 | 83% | 77% | 77% | 76% | 76% | | 2017 | 83% | 77% | 77% | 76% | 76% | | 2018 | 83% | 77% | 77% | 76% | 76% | | 2019 | 83% | 77% | 77% | 76% | 76% |
Change on last year:
- Gatwick Express: 0.7 PP
- Great Northern: 21.7 PP
- Southern: 4.5 PP
- Thameslink: 1.8 PP
- National: -1.1 PP
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Govia Thameslink Railway received 52,307 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Govia Thameslink Railway received 230 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 57.4% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.3% (n=651) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Govia Thameslink Railway
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Govia Thameslink Railway
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 11.6 | | Q2 | 17.8 | | Q3 | 15.8 | | Q4 | 14.3 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 100.0% | | Q2 | 100.0% | | Q3 | 99.9% | | Q4 | 100.0% |
Change from last year:
-7.2 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 23.9% | 3.8 PP | | Smartcards | 15.3% | 6.9 PP | | Ticket buying Facilities - other | 11.2% | 6.5 PP | | Ticket buying Facilities | 7.0% | 0.8 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 6.0% | 1.4 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | |-----------------------------------------------| | Govia Thameslink Railway | | National | | Satisfied | | Neither | | Disatisfied | | 28% | | 20% | | 52% | | 30% | | 19% | | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | |----------------------------------------| | Govia Thameslink Railway | | National | | Satisfied | | Neither | | Disatisfied | | 24% | | 15% | | 61% | | 31% | | 13% | | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Govia Thameslink Railway closed 1,139,323 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 27% lower than the previous year.
Govia Thameslink Railway approved 84.7% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Govia Thameslink Railway responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Govia Thameslink Railway operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. Key Facts
**Grand Central**
**Owner group:** Arriva UK Trains\
**Operator:** Grand Central\
**Track access agreement:** 18 December 2007 – 01 December 2026\
**Sector:** Long distance
**Operated stations 2019-20:** 0\
**Employees 2019-20:** 222\
**Passenger journeys 2019-20:** 1.4 million\
**% change compared to last year:** -6.5
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)\
Data tables: TOC Key stats
Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.\
Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
______________________________________________________________________
**Provision of information to passengers**
**Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur**
| Year | Grand Central | National | Change on last year | |------|---------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 77% | 41% | n/a | | 2016 | 76% | 41% | 6.3 PP | | 2017 | 77% | 41% | 3.7 PP | | 2018 | 77% | 41% | 0.4 PP | | 2019 | 77% | 41% | 1.8 PP |
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
**Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays**
| Year | Grand Central | National | Change on last year | |------|---------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 87% | 76% | 4.4 PP | | 2016 | 87% | 76% | 1.8 PP | | 2017 | 87% | 76% | 0.4 PP | | 2018 | 87% | 76% | 3.7 PP | | 2019 | 87% | 76% | 6.3 PP |
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
**Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey**
| Year | Grand Central | National | Change on last year | |------|---------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 87% | 76% | 4.4 PP | | 2016 | 87% | 76% | 1.8 PP | | 2017 | 87% | 76% | 0.4 PP | | 2018 | 87% | 76% | 3.7 PP | | 2019 | 87% | 76% | 6.3 PP |
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
PP = percentage point change\
The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A)
Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Booked assistance volumes Data on the volume of booked assistance requests received in each rail period is available for each train operator that manages a station. This data is therefore not available for Grand Central because they do not manage any stations.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator – Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Grand Central as they do not manage any stations.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.8% (n=21) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Assistance booking process | 43% | | Assistance staff | 14% | | Booked assistance not provided at station | 14% | | Booked assistance not provided on train | 14% | | The ease of being able to get on and off | 10% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Grand Central received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 84.9 | | Q2 | 130.1 | | Q3 | 140.6 | | Q4 | 154.8 |
Change from last year: -48.2 PP
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 99.7% | | Q2 | 98.4% | | Q3 | 98.9% | | Q4 | 99.7% |
Change from last year: 2.4 PP
PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------|---------------------| | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 9.7 PP | | Upkeep and repair of the train | -9.3 PP | | Facilities on board | 2.6 PP | | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -8.4 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | 3.8 PP |
PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | Grand Central | National | |---------------------------------------------|---------------|----------| | Satisfied | 32% | 30% | | Neither | 21% | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 47% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | Grand Central | National | |---------------------------------------|---------------|----------| | Satisfied | 26% | 31% | | Neither | 10% | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 64% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Grand Central closed 11,732 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 10% higher than the previous year.
Grand Central approved 61.4% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Grand Central responded to 99% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Grand Central operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: Great Western Railway Franchise: Greater Western Franchise period: March 2015 - March 2023 Sector: Long distance / London and South East / Regional
Operated stations 2019-20: 197 Employees 2019-20: 6,452 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 97 million % change compared to last year: -3.0
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Great Western Railway received 154,195 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 12.6% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Great Western Railway received 382 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 24.6% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=919) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Great Western Railway
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 52.3 | | Q2 | 56.3 | | Q3 | 56.1 | | Q4 | 80.0 |
Change from last year: -5.8%
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded | |---------|----------------------| | Q1 | 98.8% | | Q2 | 98.7% | | Q3 | 99.1% | | Q4 | 94.3% |
Change from last year: 0.6 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Ticket buying facilities - other | 3.6 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | -1.3 PP | | Facilities on board | -1.5 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | -0.7 PP | | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -1.2 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | |-----------------------------------------------| | Great Western Railway | | Satisfied | 27% | | Neither | 18% | | Dissatisfied | 54% | | National | | Satisfied | 30% | | Neither | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Great Western Railway | | Satisfied | 32% | | Neither | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 55% | | National | | Satisfied | 31% | | Neither | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Great Western Railway closed 381,130 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 135% higher than the previous year.
Great Western Railway approved 74.1% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Great Western Railway responded to 99.8% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Great Western Railway switched from a traditional delay compensation scheme to DR 15 from 2019-20 P1
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Greater Anglia
Owner group: Abellio / Mitsui Operator: Abellio Franchise: East Anglia Franchise period: 16 October 2016 – 11 October 2025 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 133 Employees 2019-20: 2,913 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 84.9 million % change compared to last year: 0.0
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur for Greater Anglia and National.]
Change on last year
-0.1 PP 6.3 PP
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays for Greater Anglia and National.]
Change on last year
8.5 PP 3.7 PP
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey for Greater Anglia and National.]
Change on last year
1.8 PP -0.8 PP
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Greater Anglia received 36,766 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Greater Anglia received 96 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 85.4% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=366) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Greater Anglia
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 28.2 | | Q2 | 40.7 | | Q3 | 36.9 | | Q4 | 53.8 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 99.5% | | Q2 | 99.5% | | Q3 | 99.7% | | Q4 | 99.7% |
Change from last year: 5.3 PP
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Reason | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |---------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 39.0% | 6.9 PP | | Facilities on board | 8.8% | 2.1 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | 5.4% | 3.6 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 5.1% | -0.3 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 4.7% | -4.6 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Greater Anglia sample size: 4,989
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| Greater Anglia | National | |----------------|----------| | Satisfied | 36% | | Neither | 20% | | Dissatisfied | 44% | | Satisfied | 30% | | Neither | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Greater Anglia | National | |----------------|----------| | Satisfied | 35% | | Neither | 14% | | Dissatisfied | 51% | | Satisfied | 31% | | Neither | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Greater Anglia closed 593,721 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 39% higher than the previous year.
Greater Anglia approved 87.6% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Greater Anglia responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Greater Anglia operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Heathrow Express
Owner group: Heathrow Airport Holdings Operator: Heathrow Express Operation start date: 28 June 1998 Sector: Provides an airport rail link between London Heathrow Airport and Paddington
Operated stations 2019-20: 3 Employees 2019-20: 188 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 5.8 million % change compared to last year: -6.4
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Heathrow Express
Booked assistance volumes Heathrow Express received 430 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for less than 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Heathrow Express received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.0% of all complaints were related to accessibility issues. Heathrow Express did not report any accessibility complaints in 2019-20.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | [No accessibility complaints reported] | - | | [No accessibility complaints reported] | - | | [No accessibility complaints reported] | - | | [No accessibility complaints reported] | - | | [No accessibility complaints reported] | - |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 13.3 | | Q2 | 14.2 | | Q3 | 23.0 | | Q4 | 40.6 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 100.0% | | Q2 | 100.0% | | Q3 | 100.0% | | Q4 | 100.0% |
Change from last year:
| Quarter | Change from last year | |---------|-----------------------| | Q1 | -20.5% | | Q2 | 0.0 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Reason | Percentage of complaints | Complaint type | Change on last year | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 26.8% | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -5.0 PP | | Ticket buying Facilities | 24.7% | Ticket buying Facilities | -3.9 PP | | Provision of information on website or mobile apps | 20.2% | Provision of information on website or mobile apps | 11.2 PP | | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 10.4% | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 3.0 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 7.1% | Ticketing and refunds policy | 1.9 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | Heathrow Express | National | |----------------------------------------------|------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 15% | 30% | | Neither | 15% | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 70% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | Heathrow Express | National | |---------------------------------------|------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 18% | 31% | | Neither | 9% | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 73% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Heathrow Express closed 10,365 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 12% higher than the previous year.
Heathrow Express approved 28.8% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Heathrow Express responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Heathrow Express operate a delay compensation scheme of Delays of 15+ mins.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: Hull Trains Track access agreement end date: December 2029 Sector: Long distance
Operated stations 2019-20: 0 Employees 2019-20: 129 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 1 million % change compared to last year: +3.5
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur for Hull Trains and National.]
Change on last year
- Hull Trains: 64%
- National: 48%
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays for Hull Trains and National.]
Change on last year
- Hull Trains: 66%
- National: 41%
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey for Hull Trains and National.]
Change on last year
- Hull Trains: 91%
- National: 76%
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Booked assistance volumes Data on the volume of booked assistance requests received in each rail period is available for each train operator that manages a station. This data is therefore not available for Hull Trains because they do not manage any stations.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator – Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Hull Trains as they do not manage any stations.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Hull Trains received 1 claim for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, which was approved.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.7% (n=9) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Other accessibility | 33% | | Assistance staff | 22% | | Assistance booking process | 11% | | Booked assistance not provided at station | 11% | | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 11% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 64.6 | | Q2 | 83.2 | | Q3 | 100.9 | | Q4 | 187.1 |
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 97.6% | | Q2 | 78.2% | | Q3 | 80.4% | | Q4 | 95.0% |
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Reason | Change on last year | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 10.6 PP | | Facilities on board | 9.1 PP | | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -21.0 PP | | Upkeep and repair of the train | -9.1 PP | | Other – miscellaneous | 4.9 PP |
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Hull Trains | National | |-------------|----------| | Satisfaction with complaints handling process | Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | | Hull Trains | National | | 40% | 36% | | 18% | 13% | | 42% | 52% |
Hull Trains approved 92.2% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Hull Trains responded to 97.7% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Hull Trains operate a traditional delay compensation scheme
Note: A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. Key Facts
Owner group: DfT OLR Holdings Limited Operator: London North Eastern Railway Franchise: InterCity East Coast Franchise period: 24 June 2018 - * Sector: Long distance
\*Under the OLR there is currently no set end date to the franchise period
Operated stations 2019-20: 11 Employees 2019-20: 3,055 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 21.2 million % change compared to last year: -4.7
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes London North Eastern Railway received 104,010 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 8.5% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress Following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 London North Eastern Railway received 439 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 30.3% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.9% (n=633) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 126.5 | | Q2 | 150.2 | | Q3 | 192.5 | | Q4 | 150.2 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded | |---------|----------------------| | Q1 | 155.0 | | Q2 | 94.2% | | Q3 | 81.4% | | Q4 | 98.3% |
Change from last year:
| Quarter | Change from last year | |---------|-----------------------| | Q1 | 37.1% | | Q2 | 15.5% | | Q3 | 15.7% | | Q4 | 15.3% |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Facilities on board | 8.3 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | -0.5 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | -5.7 PP | | Other – miscellaneous | 4.1 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | -0.7 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | |-----------------------------------------------| | London North Eastern Railway | | National | | Satisfied | | Neither | | Dissatisfied | | 40% | | 17% | | 44% | | 30% | | 19% | | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | |----------------------------------------| | London North Eastern Railway | | National | | Satisfied | | Neither | | Dissatisfied | | 42% | | 13% | | 46% | | 31% | | 13% | | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
London North Eastern Railway closed 453,020 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 9% higher than the previous year.
London North Eastern Railway approved 90% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
London North Eastern Railway responded to 97.2% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. Key Facts
London Overground
Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Arriva Rail London (ARL) TFL concession: London Overground Concession period: 13 November 2016 – 01 May 2024 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 81 Employees 2019-20: 1,502 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 186 million % change compared to last year: -1.1
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
| Year | London Overground | National | Change on last year | |------|-------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 52% | 48% | 11.8 PP | | 2016 | 52% | 48% | 6.3 PP | | 2017 | 52% | 48% | | | 2018 | 52% | 48% | | | 2019 | 52% | 48% | |
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
| Year | London Overground | National | Change on last year | |------|-------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 41% | 40% | 3.7 PP | | 2016 | 41% | 40% | 6.1 PP | | 2017 | 41% | 40% | | | 2018 | 41% | 40% | | | 2019 | 41% | 40% | |
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
| Year | London Overground | National | Change on last year | |------|-------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 79% | 76% | -1.5 PP | | 2016 | 79% | 76% | 1.8 PP | | 2017 | 79% | 76% | | | 2018 | 79% | 76% | | | 2019 | 79% | 76% | |
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
**Booked assistance volumes**
London Overground received 1,209 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
**Alternative accessible transport**
All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
**Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20**
No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue
Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
**Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20**
London Overground received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20
Source: Train Operating Companies
**Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20**
Overall 0.4% (n=10) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 100% | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
London Overground
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 0.5 | | Q2 | 1.6 | | Q3 | 1.3 | | Q4 | 2.1 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 96.5% | | Q2 | 89.9% | | Q3 | 89.2% | | Q4 | 92.2% |
Change from last year: 103.8%
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Percentage of complaints | Complaint type | Change on last year | |--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | 51.6% | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 6.0 PP | | 17.8% | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 2.4 PP | | 4.4% | Environmental | 0.6 PP | | 4.2% | Timetabling | -0.6 PP | | 3.6% | Provision of information about train times/platforms | 2.9 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
Note: London Overground were unable to supply this information in time for publication due to exceptional operational constraints caused by the impact of Covid-19.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
London Overground closed 19,704 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 98% higher than the previous year.
London Overground approved 76.9% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
London Overground responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
London Overground operate a traditional delay compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Merseyrail
Owner group: Serco / Abellio Operator: Merseyrail Franchise: Merseyrail Franchise period: 20 July 2003 – 22 July 2028 Sector: Regional
Operated stations 2019-20: 66 Employees 2019-20: 1,168 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 42.6 million % change compared to last year: +1.1
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
| Year | Merseyrail | National | Change on last year | |------|------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 59% | 48% | 6.7 PP | | 2016 | 6.3 PP | | | | 2017 | 6.7 PP | | | | 2018 | 3.7 PP | | | | 2019 | 1.8 PP | | |
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
| Year | Merseyrail | National | Change on last year | |------|------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 45% | 41% | 1.0 PP | | 2016 | 3.7 PP | | | | 2017 | 1.0 PP | | | | 2018 | 0.6 PP | | | | 2019 | 1.8 PP | | |
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
| Year | Merseyrail | National | Change on last year | |------|------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 85% | 76% | 0.6 PP | | 2016 | 1.8 PP | | | | 2017 | 0.6 PP | | | | 2018 | 1.8 PP | | | | 2019 | 0.6 PP | | |
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Merseyrail received 5,043 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20 No data is available on this company’s performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes.
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Merseyrail received 8 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 37.5% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 4.0% (n=114) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | Other accessibility | 32% | | Unbooked assistance not provided at station | 19% | | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 11% | | Assistance staff | 11% | | Booked assistance not provided at station | 10% |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Merseyrail
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 7.2 | | Q2 | 8.7 | | Q3 | 6.5 | | Q4 | 4.0 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded | |---------|----------------------| | Q1 | 100.0% | | Q2 | 99.8% | | Q3 | 100.0% | | Q4 | 100.0% |
Change from last year:
| Quarter | Change from last year | |---------|-----------------------| | Q1 | -26.0% | | Q2 | 0.1 PP |
PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 30.2% | -7.4 PP | | Ticket buying facilities | 11.8% | 6.2 PP | | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 7.5% | 1.2 PP | | On board policy | 4.8% | 2.2 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 4.1% | 2.7 PP |
PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20 | Merseyrail sample size: 57
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
Note: Due to a low sample size, the results for Merseyrail have not been shown within this report.
Source: Train Operating Companies | Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Merseyrail closed 988 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 27% lower than the previous year.
Merseyrail approved 98% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Merseyrail responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
**Northern Trains**
**Owner group:** Arriva UK Trains\
**Operator:** Northern\
**Franchise:** Northern\
**Franchise period:** 01 April 2016 – 31 March 2025\
**Sector:** Regional
Operated stations 2019-20: 477\
Employees 2019-20: 6,351\
Passenger journeys 2019-20: 108 million\
% change compared to last year: +6.6
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)\
Data tables: TOC Key stats\
Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.\
Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
______________________________________________________________________
Provision of information to passengers
**Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur**
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur for Northern Trains and National.]
Change on last year: 6.3 PP (48%) and 4.7 PP (39%)
**Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays**
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays for Northern Trains and National.]
Change on last year: 3.7 PP (41%) and 2.9 PP (34%)
**Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey**
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey for Northern Trains and National.]
Change on last year: 1.8 PP (76%) and 3.9 PP (64%)
PP = percentage point change\
The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A)\
Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Northern Trains received 46,692 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 3.8% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Northern Trains received 128 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.3% (n=532) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Northern Trains
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 24.5 | | Q2 | 24.9 | | Q3 | 31.6 | | Q4 | 47.6 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 97.6% | | Q2 | 96.0% | | Q3 | 94.2% | | Q4 | 95.4% |
Change from last year:
| Quarter | Change from last year | |---------|-----------------------| | Q1 | -27.4% | | Q2 | 95.6% | | Q3 | 26.7 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Reason | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 39.0% | 0.7 PP | | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 7.0% | 2.0 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 6.9% | 1.4 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | 6.0% | 0.5 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | 4.9% | 3.6 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Northern Trains sample size: 5,397
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| Train | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |----------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | Northern Trains| 20% | 18% | 63% | | National | 30% | 19% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Train | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |----------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | Northern Trains| 21% | 12% | 67% | | National | 31% | 13% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Northern Trains closed 364,689 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 48% higher than the previous year.
Northern Trains approved 75.9% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Northern Trains responded to 96.7% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Northern Trains switched from DR 30 to DR 15 from 2018-19 P10
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
ScotRail
Owner group: Abellio Operator: Abellio ScotRail Franchise: ScotRail Franchise period: 1 April 2015 – 21 March 2025 Sector: Scotland
Operated stations 2019-20: 354 Employees 2019-20: 5,162 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 96.4 million % change compared to last year: -1.4
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes ScotRail received 64,011 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 5.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 ScotRail received 290 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 17.2% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 11.1% (n=281) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
ScotRail
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 30.6 | | Q2 | 27.1 | | Q3 | 21.4 | | Q4 | 24.1 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded | |---------|----------------------| | Q1 | 99.9% | | Q2 | 99.8% | | Q3 | 99.6% | | Q4 | 99.8% |
Change from last year:
-16.3%
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Reason | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |---------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 28.0% | 0.0 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 12.1% | 0.7 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 9.4% | -0.5 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | 6.6% | 1.9 PP | | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 6.1% | -0.7 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Scotrail sample size: 3,598
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| ScotRail | National | |----------|----------| | Satisfied | 30% | 30% | | Neither | 21% | 19% | | Dissatisfied | 48% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| ScotRail | National | |----------|----------| | Satisfied | 24% | 31% | | Neither | 15% | 13% | | Dissatisfied | 61% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
ScotRail closed 117,004 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 18% lower than the previous year.
ScotRail approved 82.9% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
ScotRail responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Scotrail operate the Delay Repay 30 compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
South Western Railway
Owner group: FirstGroup & MTR Operator: South Western Railway Franchise: South Western Franchise period: August 2017 - August 2024 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 184 Employees 2019-20: 5,308 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 203.7 million % change compared to last year: -5.7
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes South Western Railway received 56,956 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.7% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 South Western Railway received 246 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 45.5% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 11.1% (n=604) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
South Western Railway
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 20.3 | | Q2 | 21.7 | | Q3 | 25.0 | | Q4 | 30.8 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 97.8% | | Q2 | 97.8% | | Q3 | 97.4% | | Q4 | 82.2% |
Change from last year: 1.3%
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 29.3% | 21 PP | | Claim rejected | 10.8% | 4.1 PP | | Ticket buying facilities - other | 5.1% | 2.3 PP | | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 5.0% | 0.5 PP | | Compensation claims process | 4.8% | -1.3 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
South Western Railway sample size: 2,865
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| South Western Railway | National | |-----------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 24% | | Neither | 18% | | Dissatisfied | 58% | | Total | 100% |
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| South Western Railway | National | |-----------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 29% | | Neither | 12% | | Dissatisfied | 59% | | Total | 100% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
South Western Railway closed 755,515 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 1% lower than the previous year.
South Western Railway approved 83.4% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
South Western Railway responded to 98.6% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
South Western Railway operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
Owner group: Govia Operator: Southeastern Franchise: South Eastern Franchise period: 01 April 2006 – 10 November 2019 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 164 Employees 2019-20: 4,511 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 179.5 million % change compared to last year: -2.0
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
| Year | Southeastern | National | Change on last year | |------|--------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 48% | 48% | 2.0 PP | | 2016 | 41% | 44% | 6.3 PP | | 2017 | 39% | 41% | | | 2018 | 37% | 37% | | | 2019 | 36% | 37% | |
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
| Year | Southeastern | National | Change on last year | |------|--------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 73% | 76% | 3.6 PP | | 2016 | 76% | 77% | 3.7 PP | | 2017 | 75% | 76% | | | 2018 | 74% | 75% | | | 2019 | 73% | 74% | |
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
| Year | Southeastern | National | Change on last year | |------|--------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 76% | 73% | 1.8 PP | | 2016 | 75% | 73% | 3.1 PP | | 2017 | 74% | 73% | | | 2018 | 73% | 73% | | | 2019 | 73% | 73% | |
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes Southeastern received 28,528 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 2.3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Southeastern
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Southeastern received 94 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.5% (n=511) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 16.9 | | Q2 | 15.0 | | Q3 | 16.0 | | Q4 | 17.8 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 100.0% | | Q2 | 100.0% | | Q3 | 100.0% | | Q4 | 100.0% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Percentage of complaints | Complaint type | Change on last year | |--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | 15.1% | Facilities on board | 4.4 PP | | 14.2% | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | -4.5 PP | | 7.3% | Smartcards | 0.2 PP | | 5.7% | Other complaints handling | 5.1 PP | | 5.3% | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 1.3 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
Southeastern
- Satisfied: 35%
- Neither: 22%
- Dissatisfied: 43%
National
- Satisfied: 30%
- Neither: 19%
- Dissatisfied: 51%
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
Southeastern
- Satisfied: 28%
- Neither: 16%
- Dissatisfied: 56%
National
- Satisfied: 31%
- Neither: 13%
- Dissatisfied: 56%
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Southeastern closed 559,883 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 24% higher than the previous year.
Southeastern approved 87.9% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
- Approved
- Not Approved
Southeastern responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
- Responded within 20 working days
- No response within 20 working days
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Southeastern switched from DR30 scheme to DR15 from 2019-20 P6
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
TfL Rail
Owner group: MTR Corporation Operator: MTR Crossrail TfL concession: TfL Rail Concession period: 31 May 2015 - 30 May 2023 Sector: London and South East
Operated stations 2019-20: 24 Employees 2019-20: 1,515 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 55.5 million % change compared to last year: +8.2
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur for TfL Rail and National.]
Change on last year: 6.3 PP
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays for TfL Rail and National.]
Change on last year: 6.3 PP
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey for TfL Rail and National.]
Change on last year: 3.9 PP
Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes TfL Rail received 2,023 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
No data is available on this company’s performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes.
Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TfL Rail received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20.
Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.0% of all complaints were related to accessibility issues. TfL Rail did not report any accessibility complaints in 2019-20.
| Complaint type | % of accessibility complaints | |---------------------------------------|------------------------------| | [No accessibility complaints reported]| - | | [No accessibility complaints reported]| - | | [No accessibility complaints reported]| - | | [No accessibility complaints reported]| - | | [No accessibility complaints reported]| - |
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 1.9 | | Q2 | 2.3 | | Q3 | 2.1 | | Q4 | 2.7 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 97.8% | | Q2 | 98.8% | | Q3 | 100.0% | | Q4 | 98.0% |
Change from last year: -9.0% PP
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Reason | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 41.3% | 6.2 PP | | Overall environment | 12.5% | 7.3 PP | | The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff at station | 9.0% | -0.2 PP | | How request to station staff was handled | 6.0% | -0.7 PP | | Facilities on board | 5.7% | -0.5 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
Note: TFL Rail were unable to supply this information in time for publication due to exceptional operational constraints caused by the impact of Covid-19.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
TFL Rail closed 9,713 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 50% higher than the previous year.
TFL Rail approved 86.6% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
TFL Rail responded to 100% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
TfL Rail operate a traditional delay compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
**TfW Rail**
**Owner group:** Keolis Amey Ltd\
**Operator:** Transport for Wales Rail (TfWR)\
**Franchise:** Wales & Borders\
**Franchise period:** 13 October 2018 – 13 October 2033\
**Sector:** Regional
**Operated stations 2019-20:** 247\
**Employees 2019-20:** 2,495\
**Passenger journeys 2019-20:** 31.8 million\
**% change compared to last year:** -4.8
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)\
Data tables: TOC Key stats
Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.\
Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
______________________________________________________________________
**Provision of information to passengers**
**Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur**
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur for TfW Rail and National.]
- **TfW Rail:** 48%
- **National:** 45%
**Change on last year:** 6.3 PP\
**3.9 PP**
**Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays**
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays for TfW Rail and National.]
- **TfW Rail:** 45%
- **National:** 41%
**Change on last year:** 1.2 PP\
**3.7 PP**
**Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey**
![Graph showing passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey for TfW Rail and National.]
- **TfW Rail:** 76%
- **National:** 60%
**Change on last year:** 1.8 PP\
**-0.6 PP**
PP = percentage point change\
The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A)
Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes TFW Rail received 55,492 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.5% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator – Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TFW Rail received 181 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 74% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=507) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate per 100,000 journeys in 2019-20 | |---------|--------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 43.0 | | Q2 | 63.2 | | Q3 | 79.7 | | Q4 | 79.1 |
Change from last year: 12.4%
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 | |---------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 98.5% | | Q2 | 94.5% | | Q3 | 92.1% | | Q4 | 95.8% |
Change from last year: -1.6 PP
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 35.7% | -0.3 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 11.5% | -0.6 PP | | The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train | 3.2% | 0.0 PP | | Provision of information about train times/platforms | 3.2% | 0.0 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 3.1% | -0.8 PP |
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Satisfaction with complaints handling process | TFW sample size: 1,231 | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------| | TFW Rail | 39% | 20% | 41% | | National | 30% | 19% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Satisfaction with outcome of complaint | TFW sample size: 1,231 | |---------------------------------------|------------------------| | TFW Rail | 43% | 17% | 39% | | National | 31% | 13% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
TFW Rail closed 73,421 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 221% higher than the previous year.
TFW Rail approved 90.2% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
TFW Rail responded to 99% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. Key Facts
Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: TransPennine Express Franchise: TransPennine Express Franchise period: 01 April 2016 – 21 March 2023 Sector: Regional
Operated stations 2019-20: 19 Employees 2018-19 (2019-20 not available): 1,258 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 28.6 million % change compared to last year: -2.3
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
| Year | TransPennine Express | National | Change on last year | |------|----------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 53% | 48% | 10.0 PP | | 2016 | 53% | 48% | 6.3 PP | | 2017 | 53% | 48% | | | 2018 | 53% | 48% | | | 2019 | 53% | 48% | |
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
| Year | TransPennine Express | National | Change on last year | |------|----------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 47% | 41% | 10.9 PP | | 2016 | 47% | 41% | 3.7 PP | | 2017 | 47% | 41% | | | 2018 | 47% | 41% | | | 2019 | 47% | 41% | |
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
| Year | TransPennine Express | National | Change on last year | |------|----------------------|----------|---------------------| | 2015 | 78% | 76% | 1.0 PP | | 2016 | 78% | 76% | 1.8 PP | | 2017 | 78% | 76% | | | 2018 | 78% | 76% | | | 2019 | 78% | 76% | |
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes TransPennine Express received 23,242 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 1.9% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TransPennine Express received 73 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 23.3% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=224) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
Transpennine Express
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 48.9 | | Q2 | 61.8 | | Q3 | 64.0 | | Q4 | 117.4 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 100.0% | | Q2 | 100.0% | | Q3 | 100.0% | | Q4 | 89.2% |
Change from last year: 17.4%
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
| Complaint type | Percentage of complaints | Change on last year | |----------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 17.8% | 6.6PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | 11.7% | -8.4 PP | | Facilities on board | 10.9% | 1.9 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | 7.6% | -1.6 PP | | Unhappy at type/level of compensation | 5.7% | 0.3 PP |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
| Transpennine Express | National | |----------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 16% | | Neither | 16% | | Dissatisfied | 68% | | Total | 100% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Transpennine Express | National | |----------------------|----------| | Satisfied | 16% | | Neither | 10% | | Dissatisfied | 74% | | Total | 100% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
Transpennine Express closed 247,507 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 57% higher than the previous year.
Transpennine Express approved 74.1% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
Transpennine Express responded to 99.7% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Transpennine Express switched from DR30 to DR15 from 2019-20 P12
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Key Facts
West Midlands Trains
Owner group: Abellio / Mitsui / East Japan Railway Company Operator: West Midlands Trains Franchise: West Midlands Franchise period: 10 December 2017 - 01 April 2026 Sector: London and South East / Regional
Operated stations 2019-20: 149 Employees 2019-20: 2,915 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 79.5 million % change compared to last year: +1.1
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release
Provision of information to passengers
Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur
Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays
Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey
PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Accessibility and inclusion
Booked assistance volumes West Midlands Trains received 48,809 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20.
Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances:
- When a station is inaccessible to the passenger;
- When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or
- When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A ‘rail period’ is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year.
Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03
Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20
Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 West Midlands Trains received 9 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved.
Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.3% (n=100) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues.
Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Complaints handling and delay compensation
West Midlands Trains
Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints rate | |---------|-----------------| | Q1 | 21.5 | | Q2 | 34.7 | | Q3 | 35.8 | | Q4 | 62.7 |
Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database)
Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9
Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter
| Quarter | Complaints responded to within 20 working days | |---------|-----------------------------------------------| | Q1 | 99.6% | | Q2 | 97.5% | | Q3 | 89.7% | | Q4 | 70.6% |
Change from last year: 93.4%
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2
Percentage of complaints
| Complaint type | Change on last year | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) | 16.7 PP | | Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand | -2.7 PP | | Compensation claims process | -1.6 PP | | Ticketing and refunds policy | -0.3 PP | | Ticket buying Facilities | -3.6 PP |
Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20
PP = percentage point change
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5
Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling 2019-20
West Midlands Trains sample size: 1,021
Satisfaction with complaints handling process
| Train Operating Company | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |-------------------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | West Midlands Trains | 30% | 20% | 50% | | National | 30% | 19% | 51% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Satisfaction with outcome of complaint
| Train Operating Company | Satisfied | Neither | Dissatisfied | |-------------------------|-----------|---------|--------------| | West Midlands Trains | 38% | 15% | 48% | | National | 31% | 13% | 56% |
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18
Delay compensation claims in 2019-20
West Midlands Trains closed 535,162 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 140% higher than the previous year.
West Midlands Trains approved 85.2% of delay compensation claims in 2019-2020.
West Midlands Trains responded to 99.5% of delay compensation claims within 20 working days in 2019-2020.
Note: A rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
West Midlands Trains operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme.
Source: Train Operating Companies
Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1040-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 75,
"total-input-tokens": 206798,
"total-output-tokens": 48729,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
1080,
2
],
[
1080,
3324,
3
],
[
3324,
7301,
4
],
[
7301,
10336,
5
],
[
10336,
12712,
6
],
[
12712,
15581,
7
],
[
15581,
19379,
8
],
[
19379,
20420,
9
],
[
20420,
22909,
10
],
[
22909,
26175,
11
],
[
26175,
28204,
12
],
[
28204,
30670,
13
],
[
30670,
35382,
14
],
[
35382,
36461,
15
],
[
36461,
38788,
16
],
[
38788,
43289,
17
],
[
43289,
45150,
18
],
[
45150,
47650,
19
],
[
47650,
51002,
20
],
[
51002,
53545,
21
],
[
53545,
56352,
22
],
[
56352,
59520,
23
],
[
59520,
62676,
24
],
[
62676,
64293,
25
],
[
64293,
68623,
26
],
[
68623,
71154,
27
],
[
71154,
73600,
28
],
[
73600,
77229,
29
],
[
77229,
78305,
30
],
[
78305,
79831,
31
],
[
79831,
83836,
32
],
[
83836,
85384,
33
],
[
85384,
86891,
34
],
[
86891,
90414,
35
],
[
90414,
91639,
36
],
[
91639,
94138,
37
],
[
94138,
99038,
38
],
[
99038,
100773,
39
],
[
100773,
103284,
40
],
[
103284,
105807,
41
],
[
105807,
106943,
42
],
[
106943,
108482,
43
],
[
108482,
112474,
44
],
[
112474,
114871,
45
],
[
114871,
117562,
46
],
[
117562,
120856,
47
],
[
120856,
123059,
48
],
[
123059,
125092,
49
],
[
125092,
128125,
50
],
[
128125,
129765,
51
],
[
129765,
131277,
52
],
[
131277,
135138,
53
],
[
135138,
136176,
54
],
[
136176,
137465,
55
],
[
137465,
140719,
56
],
[
140719,
141800,
57
],
[
141800,
143325,
58
],
[
143325,
146611,
59
],
[
146611,
148856,
60
],
[
148856,
150104,
61
],
[
150104,
153470,
62
],
[
153470,
155166,
63
],
[
155166,
157571,
64
],
[
157571,
160850,
65
],
[
160850,
162626,
66
],
[
162626,
164122,
67
],
[
164122,
167444,
68
],
[
167444,
169883,
69
],
[
169883,
171404,
70
],
[
171404,
174600,
71
],
[
174600,
175725,
72
],
[
175725,
177242,
73
],
[
177242,
180891,
74
],
[
180891,
180891,
75
]
]
} |
d4ad05b641227eb7e21b4fcb8ec3a61c65d08789 | Development Networks Evaluation Findings
Sharing Event 11 September 2017 The National Archives Networks Agenda
• Headline findings • Methodology • Development networks • Lessons learned • Recommendations Headline findings
• 10 networks funded throughout England (all unique and at different stages) • Over £240K invested (includes TNA and match funding) • Only 1 network no longer in operation • One network has become a new organisation (Archives West Midlands) • Enabled archive services to look beyond their own day to day operations • Helped to raise the profile of services among senior council leaders • Allowed individual archive services to tackle big challenges • Administration is a key area of concern among network members • Services have more power and authority when working collectively Methodology
The research was undertaken over a four stage process.
1. Initiation
2. Consultation
3. Compilation
4. Dissemination Development Networks
| Network | Geographic remit | |--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------| | Archives First | East | | East Midlands Regional Archives Council | East | | East of England Regional Archive Council | East | | The South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership (SEMLEP)| East | | London Archives Partnership | London | | Archives for Yorkshire | North | | Greater Manchester Archives and Local Studies Partnership (GMALSP) | North | | South Yorkshire Archives Partnership | North | | Archives West Midlands | West | | South West Fed | West | Membership
Domains represented across networks
- Archive Services: 35
- Museums: 8
- Libraries: 10
- Local studies: 22
- User groups: 9
- Universities: 13
- Local Authority services: 27
- Independent archives: 11
- Other (please specify): 3 Investment
Total investment
- TNA: 58%
- Network: 42%
- Match: In-kind total: 23%
- Match: cash total: 19% Survey and interview findings
To what extent has the network achieved the following:
- Generated a positive vision of archives (among the network members)
- Shared a positive vision with heads of service
- Shared a positive vision with elected members
- Shared a positive vision with archive staff
- Shared a positive vision with other key stakeholders
The chart shows the extent to which these goals have been achieved, with categories ranging from 'a lot' to 'not at all'. Development Opportunities
To what extent do you believe the network has identified the following development opportunities?
- Ways to improve efficiency
- Ways to maximise existing assets, including collections, staff expertise, digital preservation, conservation facilities
- Maintenance of local identities alongside economies of scale
- Developing service standards to meet the Archive Service Accreditation standard
- Income generation, fundraising or inward investment
- Digital infrastructure and service delivery
Legend:
- Don't know
- A lot
- A little
- Not at all Priority areas of activity Effective Networks
What in your opinion are the most important factors in ensuring a network is working effectively? Weighted Average
- Having a clear mission and purpose
- Having a clear plan for activity
- Knowing the members in the network
- Having senior level representation/support
- Achieving targets (on projects)
- Trusting other members in the network
- Having a robust governance structure
- Securing funds
- Managing time effectively
- Having external facilitation support
- Public awareness and support Recommendations for TNA
• Continue supporting networks • A healthy risk appetite • Adopt a self-selection approach • Continue match funding • Enable the sharing of ideas • Acknowledge Archives Accreditation • Support leadership, governance and management and working with consultants Stages of a Network
Stage 1: Talking shop
Stage 2: Get serious
Stage 3: Get on with it
Stage 4: Review, communicate and repeat Top tips for an effective network
1. Agree on a clear purpose
2. Establish priorities
3. Communicate and advocate
4. Get active – do stuff
5. Develop a governance and management framework
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2185-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 15,
"total-input-tokens": 15022,
"total-output-tokens": 1422,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
96,
1
],
[
96,
105,
2
],
[
105,
206,
3
],
[
206,
805,
4
],
[
805,
936,
5
],
[
936,
1965,
6
],
[
1965,
2208,
7
],
[
2208,
2317,
8
],
[
2317,
2795,
9
],
[
2795,
3371,
10
],
[
3371,
3398,
11
],
[
3398,
3916,
12
],
[
3916,
4201,
13
],
[
4201,
4332,
14
],
[
4332,
4520,
15
]
]
} |
e90ad74900fed98466df9e84030e18981eb4537e | Development of a single Official House Price Index
Office for National Statistics, Land Registry, Registers of Scotland and Land & Property Services Northern Ireland
1. Summary This article builds on the October 2014 consultation on the development of a definitive house price index and subsequent published response to provide final details of the methodology being used in the development of the new, single official house price index (HPI). This article will focus on explaining the sources of data being used in the production of the new HPI; define the final methodology which is being used to calculate the new HPI; consider further the findings and recommendations from both the user consultation and United Kingdom Statistics Authority special phase 1 assessment of the new UK HPI before finally discussing the initial plans for transition to the new HPI in 2016.
2. Introduction The importance of the housing market to the UK economy and society as a whole means that there is a need for clarity, completeness and coherence in the official statistics published on this topic. Previous reviews of official statistics in this area, such as the 2010 National Statistician’s Review of House Price Indices, have highlighted this and formally recommended the production of a single official HPI.
The current official measures of house prices are published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), Land Registry, Registers of Scotland (RoS) and Land & Property Services Northern Ireland (LPSNI). However, differences in coverage, the source data and methodology used have led to a divergence in the published results, which can cause users difficulty in understanding and interpreting the data. As an example of this, Figure 1 compares the average house price for London published by Land Registry and ONS. In order to address these issues, work has been taking place over the past two years to develop a single, official HPI. Progress towards this has been reported on periodically during this time and the work is now moving towards the publication of such an index.
Taking on board previous user feedback and requirements, it is clear the target for the proposed new HPI (and indeed that of the current official published HPIs) is a price index that reflects the final transaction price for sales of residential property in the UK. The price index should cover purchases at market value for owner-occupation and buy-to-let, excluding those purchases not at market value (such as remortgages), where the ‘price’ represents a valuation. As such, the new index should be weighted using the most appropriate set of transaction weights, which is explained further in section 3.3 of this article.
This article brings together the work which has been carried out to date and provides some detail regarding the next phase of the development and the plans for publication. Progress over the duration of 2015 has been hindered by the legal and Parliamentary processes required to secure the necessary access to input data. This process was completed in December 2015, and work is now underway to finalise the processes required to produce and quality assure of the new HPI.
2.1 Timeline and reviews of the housing market
Over a number of years, there have been various reviews and consultations associated with the publication of house price statistics, reflecting both the importance and interest in the housing market. A number of these have a direct connection with the development of a new single official HPI. This section summarises the reviews and consultations that have impacted on the development of the new HPI, providing a timeline of the development work which has taken place and assessing how the requirements/recommendations from each review have been taken forward.
The main review of house prices was carried out by the National Statistician in 2010 leading to the publication of the National Statistician’s review of official house price indices in December 2010. The review report concluded that there was a clear need for official house price statistics but neither of the official measures available then (the current ONS or Land Registry HPIs) fully met user requirements. The main recommendation from the review was ‘a single definitive house price index and accompanying statistics should be produced by the official statistics producer community’. Additional recommendations were also made in relation to improving the publication and understanding of house prices. The focus of development work to date has been in taking forward the recommendation to produce a single house price index. However, improvements have been made in response to the other recommendations, such as improving commentary and coherence in published statistics and the publication of ‘Official House Price Statistics Explained’ detailing differences in the current official HPIs.
Following publication of the 2010 review, although not directly linked to the recommendations, the HPI previously published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was transferred to the ONS. The transfer of the HPI was completed in April 2012.
A follow up National Statistician’s review was carried out in 2012, extending the scope to wider housing market statistics. This second review was published in September 2012 and built on the content of the first review, recommending more accessible housing market statistics and the development of official statistics covering the private rental sector. This second review added support to the ongoing work to develop a new single official HPI and as a result of the recommendations, a new private rental price index was developed and published for the first time; along with an article covering trends in the UK housing market.
Following the transfer of the HPI from DCLG to ONS, a Working Group was formed comprising those organisations responsible for producing official house price statistics and an independent member from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. From late 2012, the Working Group investigated options for developing a house price index to meet the requirements from the National Statistician’s review. This included reviewing the methodology used in the production of current house price statistics, investigating the available data sources and carrying out feasibility work for the development of a new, single HPI. The culmination of this work was a proposal to produce a new, single official house price index that would ultimately replace the HPIs currently published by ONS, Land Registry and LPSNI. This proposal was formally consulted on with users in late 2014, and followed up with an official response in March 2015. The consultation response noted that the development of a new, single official HPI was met with support from users but detailed a number of areas for further analysis, which this article describes.
At the same time as the user consultation, 3 specific issues were taken to the Government Statistical Service Methodological Advisory Committee (GSS MAC) for their views. These related to the number of years’ transactions that should be used when constructing the weights; the most appropriate method for averaging prices; and the presentation of average prices. GSS MAC were supportive of the development but formally recommended the publication of analysis to justify the use of 1 year’s worth of transactions in the calculation of index weights and to assess the quality of the new index based on the sources of data being used. Again, these requirements are addressed below.
Finally, in light of the above work, the UK Statistics Authority announced in February 2015 that they would assess the development of a new UK HPI against compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics initially, and follow this up with a second phase assessment after the new UK HPI is published to assess designation of the new index as a National Statistic. The first phase of the assessment was published in July 2015 and put forward a number of recommendations to ensure the new UK HPI fully complies with the Code of Practice. These are detailed in Table 1, along with an action plan for complying with the requirements.
Table 1: Action plan to meet UK Statistics Authority assessment requirements, December 2015:
| Finding | Requirement | Action plan | |---------|-------------|-------------| | ONS and partners have consulted users about proposed methods, and commissioned some early peer appraisal, but continuing analysis means that some questions remain unanswered. ONS and partners should: | 1: Publish a methods document that: Details the methods that will be used to produce the new UK HPI and related indices for the four countries of the UK Explains the rationale for the choices of methods within the context of how the statistics will be used and the decision that they will inform. Explains how the methods comply with international standards Addresses the key methods questions raised by users and expert peer appraisal (paragraph 3.8) As part of meeting this requirement, ONS and partners should commission a second phase of expert peer appraisal. | Progress: Partially met by publication of this article. Further detail behind methods will be published alongside new index and a second phase of peer review will be carried out in 2016. | | ONS and partners are employing a range of new methods and administrative data sources. It is important that they make informed judgements about the strengths and limitations of the statistics, including the assurance of the quality of the data sources, and communicated these judgements to users. ONS and partners should: | 2: Publish information about the quality of the new UK HPI that explains the strengths and limitations of the statistics in relation to uses and describes potential sources of error and bias and how it will mitigate for them, including explaining the different sources of volatility in the estimates. Ensure that all service level and data sharing agreements between ONS and data suppliers clearly set out arrangements for the assurance of the data sources used to produce the new UK HPI. Publish information about the quality assurance arrangements for the administrative data sources that will be used to produce the new UK HPI and related indices, taking into consideration the Authority’s Administrative Data Quality Assurance Toolkit. | Progress with 2a and 2c - The departments involved in the development of a new HPI have held a workshop to review the quality and assurance of the datasets feeding into the new HPI, further work is being undertaken following this workshop. Details will be published alongside the new HPI although some information is included within this article. Progress with 2b - Service/Data Sharing Agreements are in the final stages of being agreed between departments (where these have not already been implemented) and should be in place by January 2016. These will be reviewed to ensure the necessary assurance statements are included. | | Registers of Scotland will continue to publish Quarterly House Prices Statistics in addition to the new HPI. It is important that ONS and partners explain the coherence of these accompanying statistics. ONS and partners should: | 3: Publish prominently alongside the statistics information about the coherence of the new UK HPI, and associated indices, with other published official house price statistics. | Progress: This requirement will be fulfilled alongside publication of the new HPI. Coherence with all house price data will be fully explained. | The development of a coherent set of official house price statistics is positive. However, it will remain important to describe for users the relationship with non-official indices. ONS and partners should:
4: Publish information about how they have sense-checked the new official house price statistics against other non-official sources, and how they will continue to inform users about the relationships between these different measures, and clarify the distinctive purpose that these statistics serve.
Progress: This requirement will be fulfilled as the production of the new HPI (including back series) takes place and will be fully documented alongside the first publication of the new HPI in 2016.
3. A new house price index
Based on the feasibility work carried out by the Working Group and presented in the October 2014 User Consultation, it was proposed that a new, single official HPI could be produced jointly by the current producers of official house price statistics.
This section will describe the data sources and the final methodology for the proposed new index, along with justification of the approach chosen. At this stage, this article will not fully consider the quality aspect of all data sources but will lay the foundation for this clarification as the development progresses. An assessment of the quality and limitations for each source will be published alongside the new HPI in mid-2016.
It should be noted at this point that due to data confidentiality restrictions, individual record level Northern Ireland data cannot be shared beyond LPSNI. Therefore, LPSNI will produce aggregated price data and indices, which will then be shared and combined with the GB prices/indices to produce UK estimates.
3.1 Data sources
The development of the new official HPI brings together a number of comprehensive administrative data sources. This section briefly summarises each data source and details how the source of data will be used in the new HPI. There is an increasing reliance on the use of administrative data in the production of official statistics. This has been recognised by the UK Statistics Authority, who published a Regulatory Standard(^1) for the quality assurance of administrative data. At this stage of development, this article does not attempt to fulfil this requirement. Each administrative source used in the new HPI will be assessed against the Regulatory Standard, using the Administrative Data Quality Assurance Toolkit. Full details of this assurance will be published alongside the new HPI in 2016.
The data sources used to produce the new HPI fall into two distinct categories; price data or property attributes data. The price data provides details of the final transaction price at which a residential property has been sold (this source of data does include limited property attributes data).
(^1) [http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/monitoring/administrative-data-and-official-statistics/index.html](http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/monitoring/administrative-data-and-official-statistics/index.html) whilst the property attributes data provides details regarding the actual property, such as the type of property (detached, semi-detached etc.), the size of the property (number or rooms or floor space) and the location of the property. Combining the detailed property attributes data with the price data provides a comprehensive and robust dataset required for use in a hedonic regression model, which is defined further in section 3.2.
3.1.1 Price data The main sources of price paid data used in the new HPI are the Land Registry for England and Wales, Registers of Scotland and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Stamp Duty Land Tax data for the NI RPPI (this NI data is to be provided directly by LPSNI from their Residential property prices index. Full details of the LPSNI residential property prices index can be found via the attached methodology report).
Land Registry for England & Wales: Information on residential property transactions for England and Wales, collected as part of the official registration process, will be provided by Land Registry for properties that are sold for full market value. The dataset will contain the sale price of the property, the date when the sale was completed, full address details, the type of property (i.e. detached, semi-detached, terraced or flat), if it is a newly built property or an established residential building and a variable to indicate if the property has been purchased as a financed transaction (i.e. using a mortgage) or as a non-financed transaction (cash purchase). All this information is currently published by Land Registry in its Price Paid Dataset (PPD)², with the exception of the cash/mortgage indicator which is not publically available as this data is considered personal information and would breach data protection rules.
Given the need to measure residential property transaction prices, there are a number of registrations excluded from the version of the PPD used in the new HPI. These include sales of residential property that were not at full market value such as the sale of part of a property, a transfer between parties on divorce, ‘Right to buy’ sales at a discount, remortgages etc. In addition, all commercial transactions of residential properties are excluded from the dataset (where transactions of residential properties involve a transfer to a corporate body, company or business).
Whilst the PPD offers a comprehensive and robust source of residential property transaction data, there are some notable limitations with the dataset. The first limitation relates to the amount of time between the sale of a property and the registration of this information with Land Registry. It typically takes between 2 weeks and 2 months to complete the registration process, with purchases of new properties taking longer than pre-existing properties. As a result HPI data for the two most recent months will be subject to revision. Secondly, the registration of property transactions with the Land Registry do not require details regarding property attributes to be included. For this reason, the PPD needs to be supplemented with a suitable source of property transactions data (such as the number of rooms or total floor space). This supplementary data is described in section 3.1.2. The PPD is the primary source of data used in the production of the current Land Registry HPI.
² https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/price-paid-data Registers of Scotland house price data
Similar to the Land Registry’s PPD, residential property sales for Scotland will be provided by Registers of Scotland (RoS) for use in the calculation of the new HPI. The Scotland data follows a similar process to the PPD where the data provided for the HPI is a by-product of the Scottish property registration process, whereby property sales are submitted to RoS on completion of a sale. Data are gathered from these applications and entered into the RoS Land Registration System (LRS). A weekly extract of all sales data is then taken from LRS and undergoes a quality assurance process to check the price paid, date of entry, property type (land, commercial, residential, forestry, agricultural and other) and to identify market value residential sales (as opposed to non-market sales similar to those detailed for PPD). This data is then combined with further details, such as full address and house type (detached, semi-detached, terrace or flat), using the RoS Geographical Information System database to provide a comprehensive source of data that can be provided each month for use in the new HPI.
In addition, a cash/mortgage indicator and a new build indicator are also added to the final dataset for use in the HPI. The cash/mortgage indicator is derived by identifying whether the applications for registration of a market value residential sale also contain an application for registration of a standard security mortgage deed. All applications with a mortgage deed are mortgage sales, while all those without an accompanying mortgage deed are marked as being a cash sale. The new build indicator is given to every sale of an individual property from a builder’s development title. The coverage of the RoS data differs to the PPD slightly in that transactions relating to residential properties where the buyer or seller is a corporate body, company or business are included within this dataset. Its coverage is similar to that of the LPSNI as these transactions cannot be separately identified on the dataset.
The RoS price data has similar limitations to the PPD for its use in a price index. There are similar lags in the registration process, so the data used to calculate the new HPI for the two most recent months will be subject to revision. Additionally, there are limited property attributes data collected during the registration process so, like the PPD, the RoS price data will be supplemented with property attributes data - from the Scottish Energy Performance Certificates. This data is described further in section 3.1.2.
Council of Mortgage Lenders – Regulated Mortgage Survey
The Regulated Mortgage Survey (RMS) is the Council of Mortgage Lender’s version of the Mortgage Product Sales Data (PSD) that all regulated lenders report to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This is detailed transaction level data on mortgage completions. Starting in April 2005, the RMS now contains over 12 million individual mortgage sale records.
It is collected electronically, with all reporting firms submitting according to FCA-defined data definitions, and in a standard xml format, ensuring consistent data structure. Data coverage is estimated to be around 95% of all regulated mortgages currently advanced. However, some lenders do not permit their data to be transferred to third parties, like ONS, so the share of the market covered by data received by ONS is about 70%.
Reporting fields include purchase price, completion date of property sale, type of borrower (first time buyer (FTB) or home mover) new or second hand property, type and size of dwelling. The RMS is the only comprehensive source of data available for the type of borrower and provides the necessary data to allow the new HPI to be produced according to whether the buyer is a first time buyer or an existing owner. The RMS is also a key source of data used in the production of house prices for inclusion in the Retail Price Index and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
3.1.2 Property attributes data
As detailed above, there is comprehensive data available on the price of transacted property across the UK; however, this price data is limited in terms of details regarding the physical characteristics of the property. The use of price data alone is insufficient for the calculation of an inflationary index for house prices due to the fact the composition and type of property sold can differ vastly between periods. Therefore, in line with recognised international best practice hedonic regression and mix-adjustment is used to account for the change in composition (section 3.4.1 of ‘Official House Prices Explained’ provides a useful worked example of the need for mix-adjustment). For a robust hedonic regression model to be fitted, sufficient details regarding the attributes of properties sold are required to supplement the price paid data. For the production of the new HPI, these attributes are available from a number of official sources described below.
Valuation Office Agency Council Tax Valuation list
The main source of property attributes data that will be used to supplement PPD for England and Wales is administrative data taken from the Council Tax Valuation list maintained by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). The VOA has been responsible for banding properties for Council Tax since the tax was first introduced in 1993; before then, the VOA was responsible for the earlier system of domestic rates. The Council Tax Valuation list is a robust source of property attributes (such as the size of the property) data that covers, in principle, all residential properties in England and Wales. The data is collected as efficiently as possible using the following sources:
- Verification through the taxpayer for data VOA already holds.
- Third party sources, of which there are a number.
- Local Authority planning records where the information is available to the public.
- Local Authority building control where this information is available through VOA’s Finance Department.
- Subscription to third party data sources who are able to satisfy VOA data accuracy standards.
- External inspection of the property where attributes visible from the road can be confirmed.
- Internal inspections of the property where attributes internal to the property need to be confirmed or a re-measurement is required.
Following collection, the data is input into the VOA central operational database. This input is subject to quality checking and undergoes a number of validations to ensure the properties’ attributes are compatible.
3 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/hpi/official-house-price-statistics-explained.pdf The VOA are an executive agency of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and is therefore subject to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) which means disclosure of the relevant Council Tax information is precluded except in certain limited circumstances, such as a legislative gateway. A permissive legal gateway for the sharing of the relevant Council Tax information with the UK Statistics Authority (for use in the calculation of a new HPI) has been created through the Statistics and Registrations Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Revenue Information) Regulations 2015.
In securing access to the data, the request for attributes had to be assessed as proportional to the need, so only those attributes held on the Council Tax list that were deemed as necessary for inclusion in the production of a new HPI could be provided. For each residential property appearing on the Council Tax valuation list, ONS are provided with total floor area (meters squared), number of rooms, number of bedrooms, property type and full address details (including postcode). Ongoing updates to the Council Tax list (or amendments where necessary) will be provided on a monthly basis to ensure the list remains up-to-date and representative.
As with the PPD data, there are frequently lags in updating the information held on the VOA database, following the completion of a property sale or registration of a new property. This is another reason for permitting revisions to the new HPI for the two most recently published months.
**Land and Property Services Northern Ireland Valuation List**
Land and Property Services maintains the list of Northern Ireland properties which are valued for rating purposes. The data are maintained and validated similarly to the VOA data described above. The Valuation List database contains all the property attributes required for the hedonic regression used in the production of the NI RPPI.
**Energy Performance Certificates Scotland**
Scottish Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) will be used to provide the floor area of the property and the number of habitable rooms required for calculation of the new HPI. This will be matched against the price paid data provided by RoS (using the address details of the property). EPCs were introduced to comply with European legislation which requires that an EPC be provided on construction, sale or rental of a building to a new tenant. EPCs are produced by members of ‘Approved Organisations’ (AO) who have been appointed by Scottish Ministers to deliver certification services. As part of their appointment each AO must operate within the terms of the operating framework, which sets out how the organisation must work in terms of Code of Conduct, quality assurance etc.
EPC fall into two categories, dwellings and non domestic buildings. EPCs for newly constructed dwellings are produced using the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) and submitted to the verifier (Local Authority) as part of the completion certificate process. For existing dwellings a reduced version of SAP is used. EPCs for non-domestic buildings are produced using the Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM). The format of the domestic and non-domestic EPC differs; example certificates can be viewed on the [Scottish Government website](http://www.scottishgovernment.gov.uk).
______________________________________________________________________
4 [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/statistical-legislation/draft-regulations-to-authorise-the-disclosure-of-information-on-residential-properties-in-england-and-wales/index.html](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/statistical-legislation/draft-regulations-to-authorise-the-disclosure-of-information-on-residential-properties-in-england-and-wales/index.html)
5 [http://www.nisra.gov.uk/housepriceindex/LPSHousePriceIndexMethodologyFinal.pdf](http://www.nisra.gov.uk/housepriceindex/LPSHousePriceIndexMethodologyFinal.pdf) The legislation establishing the EPCs, The Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008, came into force towards the end of 2008, meaning that EPCs exist for all residential property transactions that have taken place since January 2009. As with the VOA data, this legislation restricts the purposes for which the data can be used, and does not include their use in the calculation of the HPI. However, the Regulations were amended by the Scottish Government in November 2015, meaning that ONS could receive the required data with effect from 19 December 2015.
Property details recorded for EPCs have to be obtained prior to the completion date of the property sale. It is therefore anticipated that there will not be any delays associated with the use of these data. Further details regarding the Scottish EPC data can be found via the Scottish Government website.
**Energy Performance Certificate England and Wales**
A further source of property attributes data for England and Wales is available through Energy Performance Certificate (EWEP) data. This EWEP data will be used to supplement the VOA Council Tax Valuation List (CTVL) to provide better coverage of new properties being built (and sold) as there is a lag in getting this information onto the CTVL. Access to the EWEP data has yet to be agreed but the data is not critical to the production of the new HPI. Further work is taking place alongside the development to secure the access before the publication of the new HPI in mid-2016.
**ACORN classification**
A key determinant of house prices is the demographic characteristics of the area in which the property is located, such as the affluence of those people living in the area. A well established geodemographic segmentation of the UK is available through the ACORN dataset, produced and licensed by CACI Ltd. ACORN segments postcodes into categories and groups by analysing significant social factors and behaviours.
ACORN is a key price characteristic used in the production of LPSNI HPI and the current ONS HPI. The ACORN dataset will continue to form part of the regression model being used in the new HPI, where the appropriate ACORN classification will be matched to each property using the Postcode variable.
**3.2 Methodology**
The methodology for the new UK HPI has been developed to best utilise the sources of data currently available. In addition, recommended international best practice, as defined in the Eurostat Residential Property Price Indices handbook has been used to guide the development, along with the current methodology used in the NI RPPI. The biggest improvement to methodology (as compared with the current ONS and Land Registry HPIs) is the use of additional property attributes data, in particular floor space of a property, in the modelling of house price data. Not only will the attributes data increase the amount of records which can be used in the calculation of the UK HPI.
______________________________________________________________________
6 [http://acorn.caci.co.uk/what-is-acorn](http://acorn.caci.co.uk/what-is-acorn)
7 [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp/methodology/housing-price-statistics/residential-property-handbook](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp/methodology/housing-price-statistics/residential-property-handbook) each period, but it will also provide greater comparability with HPIs produced internationally, where the use of floor space is more prevalent than in the UK.
The new house price index is calculated by valuing a fixed ‘basket’ of property transactions at two different points in time. The ratio of the two valuations shows by how much property prices have changed in percentage terms. A time series for the HPI is built up by valuing the same fixed basket in successive time periods (usually months).
The ‘basket’ is fixed in that it comprises all properties that are sold in a particular time period; in the case of the new HPI, this covers a 12 month period.
The mix of properties sold is not constant from one period to the next, so the basket is kept up-to-date by changing it each year. The value of successive baskets cannot be directly compared because they comprise a different set of properties. Instead, each basket is priced for a 13 month period running from January to the following January. An ‘in-year’ price index for each basket is then constructed, with the first January in each case set equal to 100. These in-year indices can then be chained together to give a continuous time series because they overlap, with the month 13 January index for one basket being the month 1 index of the following basket.
The properties in the basket are valued by considering a number of price-determining characteristics, and then each month determining the effect of each of these characteristics on the price. In the case of the new HPI, the price-determining characteristics are as follows:
- Local authority district in GB and housing market area in Northern Ireland
- ACORN area classification variable
- Property type (i.e. detached, semi-detached, terraced, flat)
- Floor area (metres squared)
- Number of rooms
- New or old property
The valuation of the price-determining characteristics is done using a statistical technique, called hedonic regression. Mathematically, a semi-log model is used, of the form:
$$\\log(p_i) = k + \\sum_j \\beta_j x\_{ij} + e_i$$
Where: $p_i$ is the price of property $i$
$k$ is a constant ( x_i^j ) indicates whether property ( i ) has the characteristic ( j ) (e.g., detached property). If so, it takes the value 1, otherwise it takes the value 0 (except for floor area where it takes the floor area in m(^2)).
( \\beta_j ) is the coefficient associated with characteristic ( j ).
( e_i ) is the statistical error.
In this equation, the logarithm of the price paid is used because house prices tend to be log-normally distributed – i.e., the frequency distribution of the log of the price is bell-shaped.
When the regression analysis is run, one local authority is chosen as the reference district and given a coefficient of zero; every other district is then valued relative to this reference district. So, a property in a district with a coefficient greater than zero is, on average, more expensive than one with a coefficient less than zero. The hedonic regression calculates a coefficient for each separate value that the variables can take. This is done for each of the price determining variables. In the case of floor area, the coefficient is calculated as a rate per metre squared.
The price determining characteristics can then be combined together to give a predicted price for each property in the fixed basket. These predicted prices are then averaged using a geometric mean, which involves multiplying the ‘n’ predicted prices together, and then taking the ( n^{th} ) root. (In practice, the geometric mean is calculated by summing the logs of the predicted prices, dividing by ( n ), and taking the exponential of the result.) The ratio of the geometric mean average prices in successive time periods then gives the price index.
The ACORN area classification code is available at different levels of detail. The group level, comprising 18 groups, is used in the regression analysis for GB, whereas the six category level is used in NI due to the smaller population. The room’s variable is treated as a categorical variable, where a coefficient is calculated for each number of rooms in the property, up to a maximum of eight, rather than a rate per room. The quality of the rooms data in NI is insufficient to allow it to be included in the NI model.
The current ONS regression model uses the buyer status (first-time or former owner-occupier) as one of the price-determining characteristics. It has been decided not to use this in the new HPI model, primarily because it accounts for very little of the variation in price. It has also been argued by some users that it is a characteristic of the buyer, rather than the property. Nonetheless, it is recognised that there is considerable interest in the price pressures faced by first time buyers, and results by buyer status will be published each month. It will be possible to produce this analysis for GB because the base set of transactions that form the weights will, for each transaction, indicate the buyer status. Alongside this will be the predicted price of each property (determined from the characteristics used in the hedonic regression) from which an average price by buyer status can be produced. This can then be used to produce an index in the same way as for, say, a breakdown by property type.
The financing status of the buyer (cash or mortgage) was also considered for inclusion in the model. However, like buyer status, it accounted for very little of the variation in price and is a characteristic of the buyer, rather than the property, so was not included in the model. However, results by financing status will be published each month. In a similar way to the analysis by buyer status, it will be possible to do this for GB because the base set of transactions that form the weights will, for each transaction, also include the financing status of the buyer.
The amount of variation in price (the “R-squared”) captured by the hedonic regression model is about 80 per cent.
When running the hedonic regression model, some properties may be missing one or more of their price determining characteristics – for instance, floor area may not be available. These properties are still used in the regressions, but are given less weight in the calculations depending on the importance of the missing variable as a price determinant. For instance, floor area is found to have more of a bearing on price than whether the property is new or old, so a property with missing floor area will have a lower weight than one missing the new/old indicator.
It is not possible to produce a predicted price for a property that has a missing value for any of its price determining characteristics. So, the properties that are included in the fixed basket must all have a complete set of characteristics. This is achieved by imputing for missing values using a ‘nearest neighbour’ method, whereby the missing value is replaced by a non-missing value ‘donated’ from a randomly chosen property with the same values for the non-missing variables. It should be noted that imputation also takes place for buyer status (i.e. first time/ former owner-occupier) and cash/mortgage which means that average predicted prices, and hence price indices, can be calculated for these variables. Buyer status is obtained in the first instance by matching data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders with data from the Land Registry and Registers of Scotland. This will, by definition, not cover cash purchases; for these, it is assumed that they are all purchases by former owner-occupiers.
The hedonic regressions will be run each month for the latest month and the two previous months. They will be run for the two earlier months because of delays in some properties being registered with the land registries, and being entered or updated on the VOA Council Tax List.
Full details regarding the methods used to produce the new HPI will be given in an article accompanying the first publication of the new index.
3.3 Weighting the price index
As noted in the previous section, the new price index will be mix-adjusted to allow for the fact that different houses are sold in different periods; by annually updating the fixed basket of properties (section 3.4.1 of ‘Official House Prices Explained’ provides a useful worked example of the need for mix-adjustment). The resulting mix-adjustment weights will be calculated annually and will be derived using the latest complete year’s worth of transactions. This proposal is a change to the methodology used in the current ONS HPI, where a rolling 3 years worth of transactions are used, but is in line with the LPSNI HPI which uses 1 year.
The question about how many years’ worth of transactions to use for weighting was raised in both the User Consultation (section 2.45) and the Peer review by the Government Statistical Service Methodological Advisory Committee (GSS MAC). This question has been considered further by the
______________________________________________________________________
8 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/hpi/official-house-price-statistics-explained.pdf 9 http://www.nisra.gov.uk/housepriceindex/LPSHousePriceIndexMethodologyFinal.pdf Working Group in terms of justifying the robustness and potential variability in using 1, 2 or 3 years worth of transactions for the weighting. A summary of the analysis is presented here.
Analysis was carried out using published data from the Land Registry Price Paid data set (PPD) to investigate the impact of using 1, 2 or 3 years worth of transactions for the weights on the variability in average prices. Initially, a dummy house price index was set up using the PPD. A weighting structure was calculated for property type within Local Authority level (where property type is one of detached, semi detached, terrace or flat) based on the number of transactions that occurred during a period. Three iterations of weights were calculated for:
- The latest complete years worth of transactions (so for 2014, this would be 2013 transactions)
- The latest complete 2 years worth of transactions (so for 2014, this would be 2012 and 2013 transactions)
- The latest complete 3 years worth of transactions (so for 2014, this would be 2011, 2012 and 2013 transactions)
Monthly average prices were calculated by property type for each Local Authority district and combined with their appropriate weights to calculate weighted average prices for each Local Authority. This process was repeated for each iteration of the weights detailed above, and worked backwards to January 2009 (so 2009 prices would be calculated using either the number of transactions from 2008, 2007 and 2008 or 2006 to 2008). Starting the analysis in 2009 ensured the calculation of weights encompassed the economic downturn of 2008/09.
For each year, a set of average prices were calculated for each Local Authority using weights based on either 1, 2 or 3 years transactions and the average growth in these prices over the 12 months derived. Table 2 shows the average percentage change in price for each Local Authority (over the period January to January) for each iteration of weights. The table also includes the maximum recorded percentage change in price within a Local Authority during the period: Table 2: Change analysis at Local Authority level based on 1 year, 2 year or 3 year transaction weights:
| Index Period | Weights period | 1 year | 2 year | 3 year | |-----------------------|----------------|--------|--------|--------| | January 13 to January 14 | Average % change | 7.75 | 7.83 | 7.84 | | | Maximum % change | 35.32 | 36.55 | 36.69 | | January 12 to January 13 | Average % change | 6.97 | 6.99 | 6.98 | | | Maximum % change | 51.07 | 51.64 | 52.04 | | January 11 to January 12 | Average % change | 6.72 | 6.70 | 6.60 | | | Maximum % change | 33.68 | 33.55 | 32.91 | | January 10 to January 11 | Average % change | 7.07 | 6.40 | 7.01 | | | Maximum % change | 44.78 | 40.19 | 41.82 | | January 09 to January 10 | Average % change | 12.63 | 12.53 | 12.66 | | | Maximum % change | 66.43 | 65.54 | 66.51 |
Table 2 shows that the impact of each different weighting approach on the average 12 month percentage price growth (of each Local Authority in England and Wales) is minimal.
Further analysis was carried out by comparing the difference in average price calculated using each set of weights. As expected, there was marginally more variability in price levels calculated using 1 year’s worth of weights compared to 2 or 3 years, as the impact of using more than 1 year leads to a smoothing effect in the calculations. However, this variability was not deemed to be significant.
Finally, the robustness in terms of the number of transactions available within each Local Authority was considered. The analysis showed that the majority of Local Authorities would have at least 1,000 transactions available based on 1 year’s worth of transactions. The number of transactions in only one Local Authority gave rise to any concern and this Local Authority is a clear outlier in that the number of transactions are limited when using either 1, 2 or 3 years. Further consideration will be given regarding the treatment of this Local Authority going forward.
In conclusion, the analysis carried out has indicated that the choice of 1 year’s worth of transactions to calculate weights for the new HPI is robust and importantly, is in line with the methodology currently used in the production of weights for the LPSNI residential property price index.
3.4 Seasonal adjustment
The 2010 National Statistician’s review of house price statistics defined the availability of a seasonally adjusted HPI as one of the criteria for a definitive official house price index. The 2014 user consultation exercise highlighted that the publication of seasonally adjusted house price data can cause confusion for users, and in particular that seasonality is present in property sales as opposed to property prices. However, there was also feedback from users to request that a seasonally adjusted HPI continues to be published.
In light of the feedback, it was agreed that a seasonally adjusted HPI will continue to be produced and published as part of the move to the new HPI. The level of geography at which the seasonally adjusted series will be calculated and published has yet to be decided, and will be assessed once a sufficient period of new data is available from the new HPI to carry out a formal seasonal adjustment review. Based on previous analysis, it is expected that the most suitable level of geography to produce and publish a seasonally adjusted HPI will be at the regional and national level. Further information on the seasonal adjustment will be presented in early 2016.
Publication of a seasonally adjusted HPI will sit alongside the publication of non-seasonally adjusted data. The new HPI will include full guidance for users to ensure they understand the differences between the two sets of house price data.
3.5 Incorporating the Northern Ireland data The LSPNI house price index will continue to be calculated and published quarterly. Northern Ireland data will be provided to ONS quarterly, and will be combined with the Great Britain data to give overall figures for the UK. This will be done by assuming that house prices in Northern Ireland are constant for each month in a quarter. In the two months following the end of a quarter, when Northern Ireland results for the most recent quarter are not yet available, indices and house prices for Northern Ireland will be carried forward from the previous quarter. They will subsequently be revised when the quarter is complete.
It is recognised that the assumption about Northern Ireland house prices being constant during the quarter is a simplification. However, sensitivity testing of alternatives – e.g. imputing a monthly path – shows that this has minimal impact on the overall UK HPI.
4. Publication Feedback from the user consultation made it clear that the new single official HPI should be published in a central location to make data access easier for users, and to remove any potential confusion for users in having the same data published across a number of different departmental websites. There was also a strong user requirement for the publication of a full back series to accompany the new HPI and publication of consistent house price levels, allowing comparisons of price levels over time. This section will look at the planned process for publication, the proposed method for producing average house price levels, plans for publishing a consistent back series for the new HPI and what additional house price data will continue to be published by departments alongside the new HPI.
4.1 Data to be published It is proposed that the new HPI will be published monthly using GOV.UK. This central point of publication will be managed by the Land Registry for England and Wales and provide users with headline prices for UK, country and regional data, along with sub-regional data (to a Local Authority level) for England, Scotland and Wales. Each quarter, a lower geographical breakdown for Northern Ireland will also be available through the LPSNI release, although users will be linked to this data directly from GOV.UK. The input data and new methodology will allow for the publication of the following breakdowns at all levels of geography detailed above:
- Type of dwelling (detached house, semi-detached house, terrace or flat)
- Type of property (new build or old)
- Volume of sales
- Cash or mortgage purchases (not available for Northern Ireland)
- Type of buyer (first-time buyer or existing owner; not available for Northern Ireland)
The monthly publication of data will be accompanied by an accessible (i.e. PDF download) monthly report/bulletin providing commentary and background information for the latest published data. This will also be accompanied by full tables of data for breakdowns detailed above (Northern Ireland detail will be available on a quarterly basis) along with interactive analysis tools, although the exact specification of these additional tools will be defined over the next few months and explained to users during the transition to the new HPI in 2016.
Where possible, a full back series for the new HPI will be published. However, this will be constrained by the availability of data, and is explained further in section 4.3. For example, the production of house price data broken down by whether the sale is completed using cash or mortgage is new analysis that will be available for the first time. The source data for this series is only available from 2011, so this breakdown can only be calculated from this year.
Publication will take place around 6 weeks after the period to which the most recent period relates. This is a similar timescale to the current ONS schedule but is later than the Land Registry currently publish.
4.2.1 Method of calculating average prices
There are different ways of calculating average prices. These include the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean and the median. The current ONS HPI uses the arithmetic mean, whereas the Land Registry uses the geometric mean and Registers of Scotland publish results for both arithmetic mean and median.
International experts and the GSS Methodological Advisory Committee were consulted as to which was the most appropriate method for the HPI. It was also a question in the User Consultation. The general view was that the geometric mean was the preferred measure, as it is less distorted by high values, it is in line with international best practice, and is consistent with the method used in the Consumer Prices Index.
4.2 Publication of average price levels
A limitation with the current ONS HPI is the method in which average price levels are published each period. The ONS approach is to publish in-year mix-adjusted average prices. The process of mix-adjustment requires that, in each January, a fixed basket of properties is updated to reflect changes in the composition of properties being sold. This basket is then used to produce modelled prices for the year, before the basket is then updated again in the subsequent January. This means that the average prices produced from a fixed basket in 2014 are not directly comparable with the average price produced using the 2013 basket as they will reflect a different mix of properties (this process is explained fully in section 3.4 of the article ‘Official House Price Indices Explained’).
This lack of comparison between years has been identified as an issue for users, with feedback from the User Consultation exercise supporting the publication of a comparable set of price levels over time. As a result, the new HPI will publish a comparable set of price data by up-rating a base set of transactions with the price index11, a similar approach to that used in the current Land Registry HPI. To ensure the base set of transactions remains representative, the base period for the price series will be updated every five years, and the whole of the average price series rescaled to align with the new base period. For example, assume the initial price series calculated for the new index will use January 2010 as the base for average prices. This base will be updated every 5 years (so the next update will move the base to January 2015). This is illustrated in table 2 (in reality, the publication of the new HPI will use January 2015 as the base, but the same approach will hold):
Table 3 - Example of re-referencing for the new price level series
| Price Index (2010=100) | 2010 base year price series | actual average price | 2015 base year price series | |------------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------| | 2005 | 96 | 192,000 | 195,840 | | 2006 | 93 | 186,000 | 189,720 | | 2007 | 90 | 180,000 | 183,600 | | 2008 | 85 | 170,000 | 173,400 | | 2009 | 95 | 190,000 | 193,800 | | 2010 | 100 | 200,000 | 200,000 | | 2011 | 105 | 210,000 | 214,200 | | 2012 | 110 | 220,000 | 224,400 | | 2013 | 115 | 230,000 | 234,600 | | 2014 | 120 | 240,000 | 244,800 | | 2015 | 125 | 250,000 | 255,000 | | 2016 | 130 | 260,000 | 265,200 |
In the example (which is based on annual data, as opposed to monthly for ease of presentation), the index remains unchanged by the re-referencing of the price base period from 2010 to 2015 but the average prices are all scaled up by 2 per cent, which is the percentage difference between the actual price for 2015 and the 2010-based average price for that year. This approach will ensure
______________________________________________________________________
10 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/hi/official-house-price-statistics-explained.pdf 11 The option detailed in section 2.40 of the user consultation: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/get-involved/consultations-and-user-surveys/consultations/consultation-on-the-development-of-a-definitive-house-price-index/consultation-on-the-development-of-a-definitive-hpi.pdf that a set of comparable average prices are published, and that these prices remain representative of the current market.
There was also interest from users in the continued publication of the mix-adjusted prices (i.e. the modelled prices used in the production of the price indices). The Working Group acknowledge the interest in this set of data and will consider options for making available the modelled mix-adjusted price data on a less frequent basis.
4.3 Presentation of a consistent back series
A key requirement for users is the publication of a consistent back series to accompany the new HPI. Particularly to cover the time-series already available from the house price indices which the new HPI will ultimately replace (i.e. the Land Registry and ONS house price indices). The current Land Registry HPI publishes at a country, regional and county/unitary authority level back to January 1995. The ONS house price index publishes data at a national and regional level back to 1968, although there are some regions where data is not available back to this date. The ONS data are published quarterly prior to 2002 and there are methodological changes during the time series. A commitment has been made to produce back series for the new HPI to reflect the availability of data that is currently published. This will need to be calculated in two stages:
Firstly, historic data will be produced using the data and new methodology detailed in section 3 (i.e. recalculated based on the new approach). However, this approach can only be used to produce a time-series based on the availability of data (for example, the Land Registry data for England and Wales is only available from 1995).
Secondly, where there is insufficient data available to produce historic data using the new methodology, a suitable method will be applied to derive a back-series, for example, prior to 1995 the path of the current ONS HPI could be used to construct the period from 1968 to 1995.
It should also be advised that a full back series will not be available for each of the various breakdowns available in the new HPI – for example, the distinction between cash and mortgage sales is only available from 2011.
The following table summarises the likely approach and availability of historic data:
| Published geography | Recalculated back series | Derived back series | |--------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | United Kingdom | 1995 to present | 1968 to 1995 | | England | 1995 to present | 1968 to 1995 | | Wales | 1995 to present | 1968 to 1995 | | Scotland | 2003 to present | 1968 to 2003 | | Northern Ireland | 2005 to present | 1968 to 2005 | | English regions | 1995 to present | 1968 to 2005 | | England sub-regional (Local Authority)| 1995 to present | Not available | | Wales sub-regional | 1995 to present | Not available | | Scotland sub-regional | 2001 to present | Not available | | Northern Ireland sub-regional | 2005 to present | Not available | 4.4 Ongoing publication of existing house price data
The development of the new HPI brings together the producers of official house price statistics (where official is defined as those statistics produced by Government bodies). This development does not cover the production of house price statistics by private sector companies such as Nationwide and Halifax. These well respected house price indices will continue to play an important role in the assessment of the housing market.
In addition to the private sector data, there will continue to be other sources of official house price data published alongside the new HPI. User feedback gathered during the 2014 consultation exercise reflected a strong demand for the continued publication of such data. The new HPI will include better explanation of the data available (both by Government and private producers) and full explanations of the differences. A summary of the additional house price data that will continue to be published by the departments involved in this development are:
**Registers of Scotland**
Registers of Scotland (RoS) will continue to publish their Quarterly House Price Statistics (QHPS), which provides simple average and median house prices, volumes of sales and market value for all sales of residential properties with RoS in a quarter where the selling price of the property lies between £20,000 and £1,000,000. The raw data feeding into the production of QHPS will be derived from the same source as the data used in the production of the new HPI although different methodology will be applied to produce a monthly house price index, and the HPI will cover the full range of property prices. A full explanation of the differences between QHPS and the new HPI will be published in each release once the new HPI is published. RoS is reviewing whether to request assessment of QHPS as a National Statistic alongside the new HPI.
**Land Registry House Price Data**
The Land Registry for England and Wales will continue to publish monthly Price Paid Data, which includes information on all residential sales in England and Wales logged for registration. The Price Paid Data will also form the basis of price data feeding into the new HPI (for England and Wales) although there are some notable differences with the HPI dataset, such as the inclusion of a cash or mortgage variable and the timing at which the dataset is produced. For the purpose of the new HPI, the Price Paid Data will be matched with property extract data from the Valuation Office Agency (not publically available) for use in a regression model to produce modelled price data each month. This process means the ongoing publication of Price Paid Data will not allow users to replicate the production of the new HPI.
**Land and Property Services, Northern Ireland**
Land and Property Services, Northern Ireland (LPSNI) will continue to publish their quarterly residential property prices index for Northern Ireland (RPPI) statistics which include information on volume of sales. The same published data will be used in the construction of the new UK HPI, with LPSNI providing the aggregated price and index data for inclusion. The RPPI will be assessed as a National Statistic alongside the new HPI.
**House Price Statistics for Small Areas**
ONS will continue to publish House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSAs). These statistics report the median price paid for residential property at a middle layer super output area. This set of house price data provides a representation of the price paid for property in small geographical areas that are not available in headline indices. They are useful for assessing the affordability of housing at this level of geography as well as broad patterns in prices and the number of sales over time.
**Quarterly and annual housing analysis – ONS**
ONS publish a number of quarterly and annual analyses of the housing market alongside their current HPI. This includes distributional analysis of mortgages using the Regulated Mortgage Survey source. It is intended to continue publishing this analysis, which is based on mortgage only transactions.
ONS will also consider publishing additional annual analyses based on the new HPI. This may include average prices per metre squared and average prices based on the number of rooms in a property.
**5. Transition**
The Working Group understands there will be an impact for users in the publication of a new HPI. In particular, the new HPI will replace the house price indices currently published by ONS, Land Registry and LPSNI and therefore users will need to fully understand the transition from these current outputs to the new HPI.
Further details on the transition to the new HPI will be made available in early 2016, including a series of user events to provide users with full details of the new HPI and the impact of changing to the new series. It is planned to first publish the new index in June 2016 (the ONS HPI and Land Registry HPI will cease to be published from this point). There is still a large amount of work to take forward to reach this date summarised by the following high-level plan:
- Finalising methods, systems and test production of new HPI (including production of back series) - January and February 2016
- Seasonal adjustment review of new HPI – February/March 2016
- Parallel run of new index alongside current official HPIs – March, April and May 2016
- User transition – article and events – March and April 2016
- Full documentation of methods – March, April and May 2016
- Launch of new HPI – June 2016
- 2nd phase assessment of new HPI as a National Statistic (including quality assurance of administrative data sources) – June 2016 onwards
A finalised set of publication dates for the new HPI will be published in early 2016 as part of the initial user transition work. The Working Group would welcome input from users regarding the transition to the new HPI; in particular what assistance would be required to ensure the switch to the new HPI is as smooth as possible for all users. Please get in touch using the following email address in the first instance:
Email: [email protected]
The UK Statistics Authority will continue to monitor progress with the development of a new HPI ahead of publication and ultimately assessment of the new HPI as a National Statistic.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2186-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 56379,
"total-output-tokens": 14748,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1817,
1
],
[
1817,
3602,
2
],
[
3602,
7393,
3
],
[
7393,
9375,
4
],
[
9375,
11630,
5
],
[
11630,
14728,
6
],
[
14728,
18158,
7
],
[
18158,
21793,
8
],
[
21793,
24874,
9
],
[
24874,
28801,
10
],
[
28801,
32058,
11
],
[
32058,
34195,
12
],
[
34195,
37799,
13
],
[
37799,
41260,
14
],
[
41260,
43338,
15
],
[
43338,
46182,
16
],
[
46182,
49518,
17
],
[
49518,
52366,
18
],
[
52366,
56156,
19
],
[
56156,
59529,
20
],
[
59529,
63023,
21
],
[
63023,
65554,
22
],
[
65554,
65893,
23
]
]
} |
2373bd0cfd6c9c35882b839ac97c2ff05866e087 | Non-metropolitan areas account for roughly half of England’s economy and population, meaning their economic contribution and growth potential is as significant for the nation as that of big cities.
I am therefore pleased to present this report, which explores the unique characteristics and drivers of these non-metropolitan economies, as well as discussing what more could be done to promote growth and improve public services, delivering a better economic and social future for their residents.
This is the right time to do that: the current English devolution debate is top of mind, and a range of moves towards a more localised and devolved approach to promoting growth and delivering services has been undertaken since the last election.
As the next General Election approaches, now is the time to review the role non-metropolitan areas will play in future growth, and set out proposals for policy change where it is needed.
The recommendations in the report derive from what we have heard during our meetings and learnt from the submissions we received. We hope that the many people who responded to our call for evidence – and we are hugely grateful to all of them – accept that we have made an effort to reflect their comments and input.
It is already clear that it is time to think about the reform that will make a real difference to England’s non-metropolitan communities, and improve the quality of life and public services for everyone in the country.
The Commission has made seven specific recommendations for reform to shape the way economic growth and public service transformation are supported in the future. These recommendations are as applicable to city regions as they are to non-metropolitan areas and a new government can take and implement them early in its term in order to give the country a further boost along the road to economic recovery.
Finally, speaking personally, I am very grateful to my fellow commissioners for their invaluable and committed work, and the hard working team of officials and support staff at the LGA.
Sir John Peace Chair, Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England Contents
02 Foreword 04 Executive summary 07 Recommendations 12 The Commission 13 What does “non-metropolitan” mean? 15 Introduction 21 Where we should be in the long term 27 Prosperity 27 Skills 33 Trade 41 Infrastructure 41 Housing 47 Planning and transport 52 Digital connectivity 58 Investment in infrastructure 61 Governance 69 Commissioners 71 Evidence submitted The imminent general election gives the next British government a unique opportunity to transform the landscape of local government and its economy by saying yes to devolution to the non-metropolitan areas (NMAs), which cover the district, county and unitary council areas outside the major metropolitan cities. Outside of London, the evidence is clear: the NMAs are the most economically productive regions of the national economy, driving growth, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), competitiveness and employment.
Freeing the NMAs will be the catalyst to deliver investment, tax revenue and jobs at a time when central government is seeking to boost economic recovery and further cut spending. The NMAs can be part of the economic solution, capitalising on existing growth as well as helping fund the regeneration of struggling urban economies outside of London.
In a Britain, where the downward pressure on public spending will continue for years ahead, there is an urgent political and economic imperative for devolution, as our NMAs face a funding crisis and growing demand for services, infrastructure and housing.
The Scottish referendum last year awakened a desire across England for power to be devolved to local level in both NMAs and city regions. Our report depicts an emerging consensus that the status quo is no longer an option and that NMAs should be given the same opportunity for growth as their urban neighbours. With many of our recommendations having equal significance for our major cities, we see a transformation of local authorities from dependants on a finite pot of central funding into entrepreneurial economic zones.
Today, UK Plc is a global economy and, outside of the capital, the NMAs are the real engine-room of growth and competitiveness. As well as being the bedrock of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), England’s NMAs have attracted investment from FTSE 100 companies and multinationals like BMW, Airbus, Honda and Tata. They are home to heavy manufacturing, the car industry and engineering together with new industries such as life sciences and tech start-ups.
Further growth requires serious capital investment in housing, infrastructure and communications. To clarify what decisions are best taken at a central or local level, we propose a review of the decision making process and funding for capital projects to help achieve a better central/local balance. This review could give consideration to the establishment of a new Infrastructure Investment Bank to fund such projects in both NMAs and city regions at a cheaper rate.
We are proposing a better balance of decision making and resources between Whitehall and local government. We recognise the need for centres of excellence. We advocate that high level skills need national strategies. Yet these national strengths become weaknesses without strong local choice for businesses and residents. The principle of subsidiarity must be applied more fairly in England.
While acknowledging the good work done by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and United Kingdom Trade and Investment (UKTI), and the continuing need for a strategic approach to inward investment, we also propose new Foreign Direct Investment units to be set up within local authorities to attract more multinationals and new jobs into their areas. Both initiatives will capitalise on the NMAs’ strengths and boost national competitiveness.
Housing, transport, skills, broadband and public services are the building blocks of a local economy. Local authorities are best placed to judge the needs of their local economies, so it makes sense to devolve responsibility for these policies to grassroots level.
The Commission proposes a move towards combined authorities driven at grassroots level that will oversee a devolved policy-making landscape for planning, housing, skills and transport. The proposed combined authorities would encompass partners including Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), health and wellbeing boards and the police, with co-terminous boundaries. This is something that must be dealt with urgently to avoid a one size fits all structural solution being imposed from above.
More powers demand more accountability. Local authorities will need to transform themselves from organisations that spend central money and provide services directly, to ones that manage and grow their budgets through new revenue streams as well as delivering services in the most cost effective way whether through private, not for profit, or public sector. Lastly, as our local economies become ever more interlinked and spread over wider geographic areas, local authorities will need to cooperate to provide seamless services based on a sense of place or functional economic area.
Since 2010, local government has seen its budget reduced by 40 per cent under the austerity drive; more than any other part of the public sector. It has responded with valiant efforts to cut costs and increase efficiencies thus far. With billions of pounds more in cuts still to come, the time has arrived for bold solutions.
Our Commission proposes a strategy for national growth based on seven key recommendations that will clear the path for capital investment in housing, infrastructure, skills and digital connectivity. It will support jobs and labour movement.
These are the lifeblood of our economy and global trade. Devolution represents the best way to deliver future investment in our NMAs. Failure to invest in NMA economies will be a failure to invest in the future of UK Plc. The Commissioners are convinced that the way we take decisions in England is holding us back. Non-metropolitan areas are the spearhead of England’s competitiveness. We need to build on the strengths of these areas and enhance their powers and governance and there are lessons here for all of local government.
Central government needs to be energised by stronger local governance.
The Commissioners share a long-term vision that England’s non-metropolitan areas should be able to invest in their residents and business through locally raised budgets with the ability to drive public service reform beyond Whitehall departmental silos.
While this is our long-term vision, we are proposing some very practical steps that can easily be achieved by the end of the next Parliament. RECOMMENDATIONS...
Prosperity
Skills Give local partners the responsibility for managing and commissioning local skill services in the interests of local learners and businesses, including:
• devolving the skills funding still managed nationally to local level (including 16-19 provision) • managing college mergers or closures, and facilitating market entry by new providers such as University Technical Colleges • developing much better local evidence on the value of courses to help learners decide on the option that gives them the best chance of a job.
Foreign direct investment Encourage further investment in non-metropolitan areas by encouraging locally-led promotion of Foreign Direct Investment in local areas that complement and add value to the existing UK-wide approach. RECOMMENDATIONS...
Infrastructure
Planning and transport Take decisions on spatial and transport planning at the level of the economic area through the groupings of boroughs. This requires further devolution of transport powers to localities from Whitehall, including:
- bringing all capital and revenue funding for transport into a single pot
- transferring bus subsidies and bus service operators’ grant to groupings of councils and giving councils the option of franchising services
- greater local influence over rail franchising
- co-producing plans for strategic roads with the successor to the Highways Agency.
Digital connectivity Adopt a strategy for future digital infrastructure which radically overhauls the current model of funding and commercial viability. Make the investment case to a multiple of private sector providers and developers for the economic benefits of extending broadband infrastructure even further into rural England.
Investment in infrastructure Conduct an urgent review of the decision making process and funding for capital projects with the aim of revitalising investment in local infrastructure. The review should identify the infrastructure investment that is best delivered centrally and that which should be delivered locally to achieve a better central/local balance.
Housing Establish council-led local development corporations to own land, fund and provide infrastructure, plan and commission the construction of significant housing developments. RECOMMENDATIONS...
Governance
Public sector governance Strengthen future governance arrangements in non-metropolitan areas to reduce duplication, strip out any bureaucratic waste and length in decision making which can hold back growth and public service reform.
Governance arrangements must be relevant and appropriate to each area; one size will not fit all. It should be recognised that all three main political parties support combined authorities and stronger collaboration between groupings of councils. We would agree that greater devolution requires stronger collaboration and stronger governance. If two tier local government is not able to come forward with the proposals that will meet these requirements then it is possible that government will intervene with structural solutions.
In order to be effective this requires not just local government reform, but central government to examine the geography and structure of sub-regional delivery. Boundaries of LEPs, Police and Crime Commissioners as well as health and wellbeing boards must work in unison within a new local government geography.
Strengthened governance and geography should be used to forge greater links between health and wellbeing boards and the wider health economy in order that the commissioning and delivery of health and care services are truly integrated and reflect local community needs. The Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England has been tasked by the Local Government Association to seek ways to stimulate economic growth regionally, create new jobs and help people live their lives better.
The Commission has undertaken to:
- review the economic, social and demographic trends facing non-metropolitan areas
- assess their strengths and challenges, and identify in particular where their most powerful potential for future economic prosperity lies
- review steps taken so far by businesses and the public sector to meet those challenges and promote growth
- and make recommendations about the most effective further steps which business and the public sector could take to promote growth, jobs, and improvements in people’s lives. WHAT DOES “NON-METROPOLITAN” MEAN?
“Non-metropolitan” is a deliberately imprecise term, embracing deeply rural areas as well as the suburban areas around great cities; whole historic shires and emerging alliances between places with economic links. It includes some cities with a non-metropolitan setting – Cambridge and Oxford fall within our scope, as well as the city of Ely with its population of 20,000 people, but so does Cornwall’s or Shropshire’s mix of market towns, villages and rural hinterland.
We have labelled these areas “non-metropolitan areas”: areas that are not conurbations, and where local government is expressed as county, unitary and district councils working together. While major metropolitan cities have important common features, what distinguishes this other half of the country is its extraordinary variety.
The Commission starts from an insight that diversity is itself a competitive advantage. But there are also particular challenges presented by the non-metropolitan mix of businesses, by areas of less dense population, of more diffuse transport networks, of market towns, green belts and small cities, and of often-complex governance. The provision of housing and infrastructure – from fixed and wireless broadband to public transport – to facilitate growth can be expensive and difficult. Non-metropolitan areas driving England’s economic output
Source: ONS, Experian Analysis INTRODUCTION
Devolved power to the English non-metropolitan areas (NMAs) is an idea whose time has come and with a General Election due in May, there is an imperative for change to happen now – both politically and economically.
In post-Scottish referendum Britain, with greater powers to be devolved north of the border, and in Wales, voters across England are demanding a greater say in their own communities. A recent BBC poll showed 80 per cent of people support more powers being devolved to local areas.¹ The clamour to move power closer to the people is growing in the NMAs too and we ignore this at our peril.
Since 2010, local government funding has suffered the deepest cuts in generations, with more than 40 per cent axed from local authority budgets under the Government’s austerity drive to cut the national deficit. Local authorities have already made £10 billion in savings through efficiency gains, according to the Local Government Association (LGA) research.
But the funding gap is growing at a rate of £2.1 billion a year and is expected to be £12.4 billion by the end of the decade; £6 billion in non-metropolitan areas alone.
This is set against a backdrop of rising demand at a local level for housing, infrastructure and transport as well as basic services such as health and social care. With neither the government nor local authorities able to bridge the funding chasm under the current system, the time has come for fresh solutions and a new approach to governance.
Devolution will free non-metropolitan areas to tailor services to the needs of their communities in the core areas of: skills and employment, transport, housing, broadband and social services. It will allow them to anticipate changing needs of the community and plan ahead, thereby saving money and delivering the best outcomes for local people.
¹ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29880995 The evidence our Commission has received makes it clear the status quo is not an option. Current policies are failing to generate the tailored solutions needed at the local level to boost growth and jobs. Evidence submitted to the Commission demonstrated that the current system is failing to provide cheap and sustainable investment at the local level for the major capital projects needed to take NMA economies to the next level.
Just as economic devolution is seen to be the answer for the cities, so it must be the answer for our NMAs. Freeing the NMAs will be the catalyst to deliver investment, tax revenue and jobs at a time when central government is seeking to boost the recovery. The NMAs can be part of the solution, not the problem, capitalising on existing growth to help fund the regeneration of weaker urban economies outside of London. Let us examine the case for a new economic paradigm for our NMAs.
Strong, competitive and lasting economies are built on stability. That means stable funding, stable governance and enduring relationships between all stakeholders. Today, UK Plc is a global economy attracting investment and multinationals from around the world. Yet the strength of the UK lies in strong sub-regions. We are not talking just about London, now a truly world class metropolis, nor even the major cities of Great Britain, but the vibrant and diverse economies of the non-metropolitan areas in England. The NMAs represent half of England’s economic output and population. This is the real engine-room of UK Plc, driving communities as well as Britain’s competitiveness in the global marketplace.
During the worst recession since the 1930s, the NMAs helped pull people out of unemployment by creating 543,600 jobs between 2009 and 2013, at a time when the public sector was contracting sharply. Non-metropolitan areas creating jobs
From 2009-2013, non-metropolitan areas created a net increase of over half a million jobs in the private sector. This is a stronger performance than London, and three times the private sector job creation of metropolitan areas.
Growth in total employees, 2009-2013 (000s)
Source: ONS, LGA analysis The NMAs account for 56 per cent of England’s economic output, compared to London’s 17 per cent and the metropolitan areas’ 27 per cent contribution (ONS/Experian Analysis). The top five performing sectors’ Gross Value Added (GVA) are manufacturing, accounting for £83 billion; wholesale and retail trade at £82 billion; real estate at £67 billion; professional services at £41 billion and financial services at £36 billion. (ONS/Experian).
As the national economy starts to recover, now is the time to unlock the full potential of the NMA-based economy by empowering communities to create more jobs, cut costs, plan infrastructure more effectively and roll out economic growth strategies further. Non-metropolitan devolution can deliver a rapid growth dividend and raise tax revenues at a time when public finances are in desperate need of reform and new streams of funding. The NMAs can help rebuild the public revenue base.
To take our sub-regional economies to the next level of the growth cycle and maintain our position in the global economy, we need a skills base tailored to employer needs, improved transport, communications connectivity, social services and affordable housing. Together, these form the bedrock of a strong local and national economy.
If Britain’s economy is to maintain its global edge and attract investment not just to London but all parts of the country, empowered local economies are the answer.
We live in a world where companies are free to invest in any economic zone that provides the most growth-friendly environment for their money to thrive. Our rivals abroad recognise this by freeing up not just their cities but also their non-urban areas to attract foreign investment. NMAs can become trading partners in their own right, provided they are unshackled from centralised constraints. Of all the OECD nations, the UK has the most centrally controlled public finances. Professor Tony Travers of the London School of Economics said according to OECD data, UK local government taxation accounted for only 1.7 per cent of GDP, compared to 3.7 per cent in the US, 6 per cent in France and 16 per cent in Sweden.
Other countries have shown that devolved economic powers can transform the sub-regions, delivering lower costs to government, more jobs and higher taxes. But local growth requires stable funding and powerful sub-regional governance.
The imminent election provides a unique opportunity for the next government to transform the landscape of local government and its economy by saying yes to devolution to the NMAs. This is where we stand now. Our report will explore where we should be in the future.
### Centralisation of UK tax and spending
| Tax set at each level of government as a % of GDP | LOCAL GOVT | STATE/REGIONAL GOVT | LOCAL + STATE/REGIONAL GOVT | GENERAL GOVT | SOCIAL SECURITY | TOTAL | |-------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|--------------|----------------|-------| | Canada | 2.9 | 12.3 | 15.2 | 12.9 | 2.9 | 30.7 | | France | 6.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 14.9 | 24.3 | 45.3 | | Germany | 3.1 | 8.1 | 11.2 | 11.8 | 14.4 | 37.6 | | Italy | 7.4 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 23.4 | 13.5 | 44.4 | | Spain | 3.2 | 10.6 | 13.8 | 7.4 | 11.6 | 32.9 | | Sweden | 16.2 | 0.0 | 16.2 | 22.3 | 5.7 | 44.3 | | United Kingdom | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.6 | 6.8 | 35.2 | | United States | 3.7 | 4.9 | 8.6 | 10.3 | 5.4 | 24.3 | | OECD (2011) | 3.9 | 5.2 | 9.1 | 20.3 | 8.4 | 34.1 |
All figures related to 2012, except the OECD totals which are for 2011. Source: Travers, Prof. T. for the LGA (2012), data from the OECD. WHERE WE SHOULD BE IN THE LONG TERM
The Commissioners are convinced that the way we take decisions in England is holding us back. Non-metropolitan areas are the spearhead of England’s competitiveness. We need to build on the strengths of these areas and enhance their powers and governance so they can deliver better outcomes for their residents and promote thriving local economies.
The Commissioners share a long-term vision that England’s non-metropolitan areas should be given the freedom to invest in their residents and economy. That means giving the NMAs the powers and funding to make capital investment in major infrastructure, more power through locally raised budgets and the ability to drive public service reform that is tailored to local needs, rather than driven by the Whitehall silos.
The County Councils’ Network (CCN) of 37 County and Unitary Councils that serve county areas said:
“To secure a sustainable recovery, policymakers need to look at supporting those areas which provide the greatest potential for the creation of new enterprises and future growth. The facts demonstrate that county economies and other non-metropolitan areas outperform other parts of the UK on most scales. Assigning a greater role for counties in driving growth and rebalancing our economy is not only desirable, but a necessity.”
In the wake of the Scottish referendum, the Smith Commission was established to look at what further powers should be devolved north of the border. The LGA said in a statement in November 2014 that the NMAs should receive the same powers:
“All the evidence shows that the economic benefits of devolving powers to local areas in England are simply too big to ignore. Across a wide range of issues, there is compelling evidence that taking decisions closer to the people affected achieves better results and saves money.
“Giving local areas greater control over skills funding could reduce youth unemployment by half. Freeing councils to invest in housing, create land trusts and work with developers could create an extra 500,000 homes. Fully integrating funding for health and social care would help people live independently at home longer into their older years and save almost £4 billion.”
Analysis of the projected savings from a locally led, more joined-up way of working across the public sector in non-metropolitan areas could save the taxpayer £12 billion over five years.2
______________________________________________________________________
2 Analysis of ‘Whole Place Community Budgets: a review of the potential for aggregation’, Ernst & Young, January 2013 In addition, in Our Plan for Government, the CCN argued for a range of devolved powers, budgets and fiscal freedom’s through a ‘Core Settlement’. They said:
“We need central government to grant us the power to know together skills, training, and employment schemes and investment strategies so that all activities are aligned to local economic priorities. Investment in new homes must be matched with new strategic planning powers, infrastructure and transport links, tied to the needs of local enterprises. Alongside this we need a new settlement on fiscal devolution, to ensure economic growth and vital services are sustainable.”
In ‘Investing in our Nation’s Future; the First 100 Days of the Next Government’ the LGA pointed out that if the next government has the courage and is bold enough to put in place a radical and devolved model of public services, local government could amongst other things commit over the course of the next parliament to:
- Build half a million more homes
- Halve the number of unemployed young people and reduce long term unemployment by a third
- Inject £1 billion a year into a programme to address the pothole backlog and improve the transport infrastructure by investing 2p a litre from fuel duty
- Work to reduce the burden on the NHS budget by:
- supporting people to live independently at home
- helping three and half million overweight or obese children by reinvesting a fifth of VAT on soft drinks, fast food and confectionary
- tackling the harm caused by smoking and excessive drinking.
Reinvesting a fifth of the VAT on soft drinks, fast food and confectionary and a fifth of the existing tobacco and alcohol duty would conservatively deliver a saving to the public purse of £1 billion
Overall by implementing the range of policies in this document the LGA considers £11 billion could be saved on the cost of the public sector.
The Non-Metropolitan Commission recognises these arguments and our long-term vision, firstly, is to build on the economic strengths of the NMAs by giving them the tools to invest in their future. England’s non-metropolitan areas should be able to invest in their residents and businesses through locally raised budgets with the ability to drive public service reform beyond Whitehall departmental silos. Whilst this is our long-term vision, we are proposing some very practical steps that can easily be achieved by the end of the next Parliament.
In the short term we wish to see the Smith Commission deal for Scotland available to the NMAs. We would also like to see some tools made available to local authorities immediately, including a financial settlement for the parliamentary term, with less ring-fencing. Lastly, they should be able to retain a greater share of taxes derived from local growth.
We know that, although non-metropolitan areas have a relatively highly-skilled population, they also face skills gaps that are holding back economic growth and restricting people’s life chances.
Research by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI) shows a gross “skills gap” (the mismatch between skilled workers and vacancies requiring those skills), in non-metropolitan areas, of 2.1 million.
The Commission estimates that, allowing for underlying hiring rates, temporary work, and an economically stable rate of unemployment, 900,000 permanent skilled positions in non-metropolitan areas remain vacant due to inefficient decision-making over skills and training.
The Commission’s analysis shows that the average Gross Value Added(^3) per person in non-metropolitan areas is £39,000, and CESI has estimated that up to 25 per cent of output could be lost if we do not bring skills up to the levels expected by employers. In addition, the 900,000 skills gap (the mismatch between skilled workers and vacancies requiring those skills) in non-metropolitan areas represents a loss of £8.7 billion to the UK economy.
The Commission recommends devolving responsibility for skills funding to a sub-regional level, particularly for post-16 funding within schools, which are a vital part of the skills and training landscape for employers. With devolved powers, local areas can determine the provision of careers advice and guidance in schools, helping to equip children for the workplace.
______________________________________________________________________
3 Workplace based They will also work with local businesses to ensure training and skills meet local employment requirements.
Second, to champion the NMAs as investment zones in their own right, we propose new Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) bodies being set up within those councils who want them to push for jobs and overseas investment to come to their area. While we recognise the good work of both BIS and UKTI to promote inward investment at a national level and the need for this to continue, current trade policy does not enable enough locally-led partnerships to be brokered, which fails to capitalise on local growth opportunities. For example for over two decades, Essex County Council has forged links with the Chinese province of Jiangsu. This patiently fostered relationship is now reaping economic rewards, and much more could be done if this approach was extended across non-metropolitan areas.
Just as emerging economic super-powers are pushing their own regions as entrepreneurial zones, Britain should showcase its own NMAs to foreign investors.
Our report shows the NMAs are already home to some of the biggest multinationals in the world: Airbus, Tata, Honda, to name a few. A NMA-based network of FDI promotion offices makes sense at a time when Britain’s foreign embassies are under pressure to cut costs abroad. Local foreign investment arms could complement efforts at national level and we challenge Government to grasp the opportunity to energise local FDI by, for example, co-commissioning work at a local level.
Local areas should be able to command decisions on local spatial and transport planning for their functional economic area. They must take the lead on housing development to meet the current shortage of homes in England.
To revitalise investment in local capital projects – whether in housing, tourism, transport or communications – the Commission proposes an urgent review of decision making and funding for capital projects looking at national and local needs and an analysis of funding sources for those projects. The review might find, for example, that the establishment of a new local Infrastructure Investment Bank could reinvigorate capital investment. Such a bank could offer cheaper borrowing costs to councils, shift responsibility for capital projects to the local level, tackle head-on the lending failures of the private banking sector in a post-crash economy and offer local companies a source of world-class financial expertise and advice. The review would need to consider what impact if any such a bank might have on the national balance sheet.
An infrastructure bank could be a pragmatic way forward to address the NMAs’ investment needs if there is no prospect of the next government moving towards fiscal devolution in the next Parliament. The Bank could evolve from the existing Municipal Bonds Agency.
A fruitful review of the processes behind and sources of capital funding and the FDI initiatives discussed above could transform the NMAs from dependants on a finite pot of central money into entrepreneurial economic zones.
Delivering a devolved set of powers and funding requires a new efficient system of governance and public services being based on local need rather than the centralised Whitehall silo approach.
The Commission believes a cross-party political consensus is emerging in favour of combined authorities working together. Growth and reform will require councils to join together to get the best possible result for their community.
We favour proactive bottom-up reform through groupings of councils. All the political parties are advocating devolution to councils that work seamlessly together. This involves a shift towards a framework of “one place, one budget”. The issue of local government structures is one that must be dealt with urgently at grassroots level in order to avoid a structural solution being imposed from above.
In order to be effective, this requires not just local government reform but central government to examine the geography and structure of sub-regional delivery. Boundaries of LEPs, Police and Crime Commissioners as well as health and wellbeing boards must work in unison. Local areas have led the way in reshaping themselves to meet current challenges; central government must help them to go further by reforming its sub-regional geography.
We are already seeing some non-metropolitan areas re-shaping their governance structures to ready themselves for the challenges of the future. This means cutting waste and duplication and speeding up decision-making.
The Commission believes the solution must be customised to each non-metropolitan area instead of a “one size fits all” policy. Ultimately, this could perhaps lead to all partners participating in the new local authority structure becoming legal members of the authority. This group could be legally accountable for the nationally-funded budgets for NHS commissioning as well as LEP activity in the area. Half of the wealth of the UK economy comes from England’s NMAs. Outside of London, it is the NMAs that are the engine driving forward UK growth, competitiveness, trade and jobs. For this reason, it is essential that the next government free the NMAs to invest in their future prosperity and build on existing strengths.
Economic growth depends on a number of interlocking policy areas. This section of the Commission’s report examines how new powers and initiatives can unlock the NMAs’ growth potential.
Skills The non-metropolitan areas have a highly skilled employment base that is key to growth prospects. The 2011 Census figures(^4) showed that 30 per cent of non-metropolitan workers were highly skilled and 39 per cent had intermediate skills. But almost one third or 31 per cent were low skilled.
A highly skilled workforce is one of the distinctive comparative advantages of non-metropolitan areas. Nevertheless, their businesses continue to suffer from a national skills shortage. Businesses highlight both the need for “work ready” young jobseekers and a supply of globally competitive, high-end skills. At the same time, young people have been hit worst by the economic downturn and are losing faith in the centralised political system. While recognising the need for national strategies and for high level skills, there needs to be a way of marrying the needs of local employers with their future workforce: schoolchildren aged 16 and above. The principle of subsidiarity needs to be applied more fairly in England.
(^4) Residence based Non-metropolitan areas are rich in skilled workers
% with intermediate or high skills
- 56% - 61%
- 62% - 67%
- 68% - 70%
- 71% - 74%
- 75% - 80%
Skills level (England, 2011)
Source: 2011 Census This requires local authorities and businesses to work closely with employees to address the skills gap. In January 2015, the LGA reported in a statement that councils warned one million unemployed people were “falling through cracks in national work schemes that are failing to reach some of the most vulnerable jobseekers”.
The LGA said councils are being left to pick up the pieces to prevent more vulnerable people slipping further into long-term unemployment and disengagement.
Councils are warning that they cannot afford to continue resolving the failings of these national schemes in their communities without the appropriate funding. The LGA is calling for the next government to commit to devolving all nationally-run, education, skills and employment schemes to local areas so councils can join up services to support their most vulnerable residents.
Specifically the CCN said:
“The country still faces substantial challenges and opportunities for sustainable economic growth. National issues such as productivity, youth and long term unemployment, salary growth and the mismatch in skills provision and market needs exist both in city and county areas. These need to be addressed in all areas of the country through devolution.”
CCN
A report published in January by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), commissioned by the LGA, explores in detail how a sample of councils across the country have provided a safety net for their most vulnerable and hardest to reach residents.
Working with employers, charities and voluntary groups, schools, colleges and housing associations, local schemes have provided one-to-one mentoring, training, work placements and apprenticeships.
In 2008 regions with a higher proportion of level four skills tended to have higher productivity levels (Office of National Statistics Economic and Market Review Feb 2011).
At a time when employment is recovering the UK is ranked sixth for productivity amongst G7 nations. In the third quarter of 2014 productivity in the UK as a whole was 1.8 per cent below the level of six years before (quarter one 2008). Notwithstanding that productivity in the non-metropolitan areas is above the average of metropolitan areas, the need to boost skill levels in England as a whole is clear.
Skills, training and education are core local issues that are interlinked and vital to expanding growth opportunities and attracting the right investors into the NMAs. It is also vital to keep existing investors and encourage them to invest in further local expansion.
The Commission’s feedback shows a clear consensus on the need to build the skills base in non-metropolitan areas and address the problems of skills shortages in certain sectors of the economy.
This is a job best tasked to local leaders, business and educational institutions that are well placed to assess the skills deficit and how to bridge the gap against the background of a national strategy. How great a challenge is the skills deficit to future growth?
Here is a sample of the responses to the Commission:
“Some 40 per cent of the employers interviewed in the Marches Business Survey reported that they were facing skills shortages. Employers need greater support to access apprenticeships and to reduce onerous paperwork which discourages take up.”
The Marches LEP
“Skills shortages are particularly prevalent... These skills demands are already putting pressure on key employers and sectors in the area and we anticipate that these pressures will become more pronounced due to demographic shifts over the lifetime of the plan.”
Durham County Council
“The lack of a suitably skilled workforce is a key issue for many employers in the Borough, and skills gaps are linked to poor economic performance and lack of growth opportunities.”
Allerdale Borough Council Buckingham Business First said the current system was failing business – both large and small and was “not fit for purpose”. What is needed for sustainable growth is flexible skills and local targeted solutions to employers’ needs.
Despite repeated reforms emphasising demand – for example by putting buying power in the hands of learners and employers – evidence shows the supply side has not responded adequately.
The District Councils Network (DCN), a member-based network of 200 district councils, agreed this was a major challenge to economic growth. The rising ageing population meant attracting young families to the NMAs was crucial. That means offering strong local economies and jobs. It also means offering affordable housing for young families starting out – an issue raised later in our report.
The skills gap and low educational attainment in some local areas was creating a “vicious circle for the wider local economy and preventing more highly paid businesses locating to the area,” said DCN.
In turn, this leads to highly skilled local workers commuting elsewhere for work that further diminishes the local talent pool.
This underscores the need for employers, local authorities and educational institutions to work together as they are interdependent for future prosperity.
The DCN said:
“Universities and higher/further education institutions need to be linked with local businesses, to enable them to commercialize the research and drive innovation. Schools and colleges need to be willing to engage with businesses and adjust their courses to deliver the skills businesses need.”
Burberry outlined its own company’s initiative to bridge its skills shortage:
“We are also committed to developing our workforce through the provision of training and development programmes. In addition to a formal apprenticeship scheme, we have established a training school at Castleford with capacity for 30 full-time trainees. Its aim is to nurture future talent in the local area, ensuring we create the next generation of skills required for specialised apparel production – answering both our own needs and those of the industry more broadly. More than 50 young people have graduated from the school since 2011.” “While the establishment of the school reflects our broader commitment to developing and retaining traditional manufacturing skills in the UK, it was also a response to the challenges that we have faced in recruiting suitably-qualified local workers in recent years.”
The CEDOS/ADEPT (Chief Economic Development Officers’ Society/Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport) joint submission noted that the non-metropolitan areas provide approaching 70 per cent of England’s university institutes outside London, including some of the most prestigious seats of learning and research in the country and indeed the world. These are natural partners for raising the bar on skills in the NMAs.
It also suggested better alignment of agencies such as the Homes & Communities Agency, JobCentre Plus and the Department for Work and Pensions to meet the needs and opportunities of local areas and sub-regions.
Recommendation: Give local partners the responsibility for managing and commissioning local skill services in the interests of local learners and businesses, including:
- devolving the skills funding still managed nationally to local level (including 16-19 provision)
- managing college mergers or closures, and facilitating market entry by new providers such as University Technical Colleges
- developing much better local evidence on the value of courses to help learners decide on the option that gives them the best chance of a job. “As a global company, we are proud to connect consumers around the world to the unique British heritage that defines our label. Our activities and relationships outside the major cities of England have long played an important part in this and will continue to do so.”
Burberry
Trade
The NMAs today spearhead England’s global competitiveness and economic devolution could drive home that advantage. In his recent report, “No Stone Unturned”, Lord Heseltine called for all parts of the UK to be allowed to pursue their economic destiny in order to make sure Britain retains that global cutting edge.
UK Plc is a global brand and our strong NMAs are home to some of the biggest consumer names with markets from the Americas to Asia. Burberry’s submission to the Commission:
“As a global company, we are proud to connect consumers around the world to the unique British heritage that defines our label. Our activities and relationships outside the major cities of England have long played an important part in this and will continue to do so.”
Burberry has a major manufacturing presence in Yorkshire, with its success driven by export as well as domestic demand. But as its business grows, it will need help in order to expand.
But the NMAs are also attracting major inward investment from foreign multinationals in industries as diverse as aerospace, the motor industry to pharmaceuticals and tech industries.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) into the NMAs should be further built upon to drive forward their economies.
The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), which encourage and support overseas companies to see the UK as the best place to set up or expand their business, are effective at promoting the UK on national basis. This needs to continue, but the Commission considers we now need to add a local dimension to this work to champion the NMAs as investment zones in their own right. We therefore propose councils being able to set up new Foreign Direct Investment bodies when they want to push for jobs and investment to come to their region.
Essex County Council has forged links with the Chinese province of Jiangsu. This patiently fostered relationship is now reaping economic rewards. The council recently secured agreement from China’s largest publisher to set up its UK headquarters in Essex.
Essex is following the example of other major economies that treat their regions as entrepreneurial economic zones with the aim of boosting FDI into different parts of the country. Greater FDI into the NMAs would translate into direct economic benefits for UK Plc.
Just as emerging economic super-powers are pushing their own regions as entrepreneurial zones, Britain should showcase its own NMAs to foreign investors. Our report shows the NMAs are already home to some of the biggest multinationals in the world: Airbus, Tata, Honda, Toyota to name a few. Why not more?
A NMA-based network of FDI promotion offices makes sense at a time when Britain’s foreign embassies are under pressure to cut costs abroad. Local foreign investment arms could complement efforts at national level and work alongside LEPs.
An Oxford Economics report commissioned by the LGA, Past and Future Trends in Trade and Investment, said that “stronger inward investment patterns would be desirable both directly and through their beneficial impact on exports and R&D and innovation, more generally.”
While there is no official data available on the level of FDI specifically into the NMAs, it is clear that these non-urban areas are a popular investment choice for foreign companies because of the attractions of lower costs, larger premises, a skilled workforce and a diverse economic base.
The Oxford Economics report supports the idea that FDI is a “powerful source of economic growth, as well as exports” for the UK economy. Major foreign investors coming in are likely to boost the local economy by using local suppliers or service industry providers. Therefore, a major FDI investment acts as a fillip for local companies and start-ups, said the report.
In 2013, inward investment into the UK rose 15 per cent, the highest among European countries, mostly focused in London and the South East of England.
Outside of these two regions, inward investment fell by 20 per cent. This shows there is scope for improvement into attracting FDI into other parts of the NMAs in England. Non-metropolitan labour productivity is above the average for metropolitan areas in England.
GVA per FTE employee (£)
- 29,000 - 38,000
- 38,001 - 46,000
- 46,001 - 54,000
- 54,001 - 63,000
- 63,001 - 78,000
Source: Experian
...and the forecast to maintain that lead into the future. Here is the economic case for the NMAs as an investment destination:
**Output:** NMAs accounted for 56 per cent of economic output in England. (ONS/Experian)
**Jobs:** NMAs created 543,600 jobs between 2009-13 versus 185,800 jobs in metropolitan areas and 525,500 jobs in London. Research for the County Council’s Network has underlined this, showing that areas covered by county councils contain over 46 per cent of England’s population and 43 per cent of jobs, have the same proportion of workers in knowledge intensive jobs as the country as a whole, and generate over 50 per cent of this country’s Gross Value Added (GVA) outside London.
**Productivity:** Non-metropolitan productivity is above the average for metropolitan areas in England and is forecast to maintain that edge into the future, according to Experian analysis.
**Multinationals:** Global companies overwhelmingly choose non-metropolitan areas if they decide not to be based in London. FTSE 100 companies also choose to locate their headquarters in NMAs, including: BAE Systems in Rushmoor, BG Group in Reading and Whitbread in Central Bedfordshire. The same is true for large family owned companies such as JCB and Dyson. These are world-class companies choosing world-class destinations to do business. There is no reason why others will not follow if the right business climate is nurtured. Freedom to make decisions on transport, digital communications investment, housing and training will all lure new investors into the NMAs.
**Skills:** generally, the workforce in the NMAs is more highly skilled than the England average, according to the 2011 Census.
**Diverse economic base:** NMA economies are diverse and often include industries that are vital for Britain’s global position in the export market. Research from the County Councils Networks (CCN) shows over half of employment comes from manufacturing, construction, the motor industry and agriculture, with key growth coming from sectors like pharmaceuticals, science R&D, biotech, aerospace and machinery. “Within some non-metropolitan areas there are towns or groupings of towns that demonstrate the characteristics of cities and compete not just with cities in the UK, but on an international level.”
Surrey County Council
The non-metropolitan workforce is higher-skilled than the England average
Source: 2011 Census Nottinghamshire County Council’s evidence to the Commission cited agri-production as a key growth sector, with employment in agriculture rising by 50 per cent in the four years to 2012. Low carbon energy production, manufacturing and tourism are other key economic sectors.
These wide economic bases and their rapid growth potential are evidence of sophisticated and evolving economies:
Surrey County Council said:
“Within some non-metropolitan areas there are towns or groupings of towns that demonstrate the characteristics of cities and compete not just with cities in the UK, but on an international level. For example, Woking and Guilford form part of the 14th largest labour market in the UK and are home to high tech companies such as Electronic Arts, Allianz, McLaren and SAB Millar.”
In the areas of aerospace, automotive industry and life sciences, the UK has a leading position in global markets. Here are some examples of why the NMAs are the growth engine driving UK Plc:
**Cambridgeshire** - life science and healthcare, IT, electronics and communications, advanced engineering, agri-tech, food and drink.
**Cheshire West and Chester** - advanced manufacturing, automotive, aerospace energy as well as chemicals and processing;
**Cornwall** - digital businesses in the areas of search engine optimisation, software, animation, enterprise and cloud management. It is estimated that the digital economy will make up 10 per cent of the county’s GDP within a decade;
**Dorset** - defence related advanced engineering and manufacturing, with an emphasis on aerospace and marine engineering;
**Wiltshire** - defence industry with a national defence science and technology laboratory at Porton Down and private companies in cyber security, defence logistics and rocketry, as well as having world-leading advanced manufacturing companies;
**Worcestershire** - agri-tech, advanced manufacturing and engineering and a key role in the cyber security sector linked to Government’s national cyber security strategy and training programme.
Other key sectors in which the non-metropolitan areas have a vital role include:
- the energy industry including offshore renewables, nuclear, wave energy, biomass,
______________________________________________________________________
5 Examples sourced for Joint CEDOS/ADEPT evidence submission solar farms, biomass or energy from waste in for example Cumbria, the Humber estuary, Cornwall and Suffolk.
- tourism and the visitor economy, which was estimated as being worth around £127 billion in 2013 for the UK as a whole, equivalent to 9 per cent of UK GDP. For England alone tourism and the visitor economy is worth around £106 billion and 2.58 million jobs.
Until now, too much focus has been placed on the super-metropolis of London and the other major city centres. CEDOS/ADEPT warns in its response to the Commission that such myopia has consequences for the whole country:
“In our judgement, the economic importance of England’s non-metropolitan areas must be given equal recognition. Throughout the country, both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas must be treated fairly and with proper recognition of their important economic contributions. Failure to do so will result in increased inequality between local areas and increased regional imbalance, which will hold back economic growth both locally and nationally.”
Finally, what are the advantages for business to locate in NMAs? Growth sectors as listed above, lower cost premises, diverse skills and employment base, higher quality of life, high productivity and well positioned for exports.
Taking one example alone, the pharmaceuticals sector, we know that one eighth of the world’s most popular prescription medicines are developed in the UK according to the Association of British Pharmaceuticals Industry report in 2014. This shows how the NMAs, when well run and freed, can be a springboard to global markets.
Recommendation: Encourage further investment in non-metropolitan areas by encouraging locally-led promotion of Foreign Direct Investment in local areas that complement and add value to the existing UK-wide approach. These would work alongside LEPs, as important partners in the local economy, to drive investment and exports.
______________________________________________________________________
6 Tourism: jobs and Growth, Deloitte and Oxford Economics, November 2013 Infrastructure is central to economic growth and development. In this section the Commission addresses how we build on existing efforts and make cross-boundary spatial and transport planning the norm. Devolution from Whitehall is necessary to enhance a bottom-up approach to addressing future infrastructure needs, whether it is housing, transport or digital connectivity.
**Housing**
Britain faces a national housing shortage, which, in turn, has led to dramatic house price inflation and rent rises over recent decades. While house building has been stepped up, not nearly enough homes are being built. This is a major challenge to non-metropolitan areas – after all, quality and affordable housing stock is needed for a socially adhesive society and a strong economy.
Non-metropolitan areas are in control of large supplies of land that can be used to meet this pent-up demand. But the responsibility does not end there. Affordable and quality housing that can attract workers to the NMAs must also be supported by adequate infrastructure. Transport, communications links, social services provision are all part of the picture that makes up a thriving local community and economy.
Put simply, the NMAs must offer a quality of life that attracts skills and businesses and customers into their area. It appears, quality affordable housing creates a virtuous circle, in turn, promoting employment and growth. At a neighbourhood level, good quality affordable housing contributes to sustainable and cohesive communities enabling people to get a foot on the employment ladder. Yet, the Commission finds the current planning system makes it difficult to take strategic decisions across local council boundaries and that hinders investment and is exacerbating the housing shortage in England.
If economic devolution to the NMAs is to be workable, local planning must be improved not just to deliver on the housing shortage in the NMAs but also provide joined up thinking on the supporting infrastructure. If these foundations are in place, they will provide the right base for building the local economy.
In the LGA’s report “Investing in Our Nation’s Future: the first 100 days of the next government”, it said the next incoming national government should:
- Announce an immediate removal of the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap, which it estimated would lead to another 80,000 homes being built over five years.
- It also called for the creation of council-led local land trusts to pool surplus publicly owned land for housing or dispersal. Such trusts could be in charge of delivering affordable housing quickly and release capacity for another 140,000 homes over the next parliamentary term.
- Last, the LGA report suggested incentivising councils to use their unallocated reserves for housing investment, creating an additional 4,700 new homes.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Housing Corporation (2007): Shared Places – A Community Cohesion Strategy: London, Housing Corporation Many respondents to the Commission linked the issue of local housing with economic growth:
A survey conducted for the National Housing Federation found that nearly four in five employers say the lack of affordable housing is stalling economic growth in local communities, with 70 per cent warning it would affect their ability to attract and keep workers. Four in five (79 per cent) of managers say building more homes will stimulate the local economy, three in four (73 per cent) say it will bring business to the area and 72 per cent say that it will bring more customers to the area. It appears clear that there is a link between house prices and the demographic make-up in rural areas.
National Housing Federation
‘The lack of access to affordable housing to meet local need will have a significant economic impact in low paid service sectors like social care where it will become difficult to secure labour outside larger towns and cities to support people living at home.’
Hampshire County Council
There is indeed a direct correlation between the housing market and the macro economy, says Dr Tim Brown, Director of De Montfort University’s Centre for Comparative Housing Research (CCHR) which conducts research projects on housing for government, councils and housing associations.
He suggested in his response to the Commission that weak housing supply causes wider economic instability by hindering labour market flexibility.
“If housing supply had been more responsive to market demand between 1994 and 2002, GDP would have increased by between £140 and £620 per household [Source: Baker K (2003): Review of Housing Supply – Interim Report: London, HMSO.],” said Dr Brown.
Further, the impact of changes in the housing market contributed to approximately a third of the fall in GDP between 2007 and 2009, according to Regeneris Consulting & Oxford Economics (2010): The Role of Housing in the Economy: London, Homes & Communities Agency. Growing economies require flexible labour and that is backed by research from both analysts and business:
A quarter of CBI members and businesses that responded to a survey in 2003-2005 in the South West commented that the lack of affordable housing was detrimentally impacting on recruitment and retention of workers. Over 50 per cent commented that it would have an impact between 2005 and 2010.
South West Housing Initiative and CBI (undated): Survey of Business Needs and Affordable Housing: Bristol, SWHI & CBI
In our discussions, the Commission has developed the view that something is missing from the way decisions are taken about housing. Under the current system, it is difficult for councils to take a joined-up view about how housing in one area might fit with developments in another, or to join up decisions about housing with plans for the roads, railways, or reservoirs that will be needed.
Businesses are frustrated that they cannot influence those decisions more, even with LEP arrangements in place.
The District Councils Network also suggested action to tackle land banking and technical starts, which is part of the problem of under-supply. The CCHR makes the point that while the UK, along with the rest of Europe and North America, is focused on economic regeneration in cities and the NMAs, the housing dimension to this debate has been relegated in England. It has to be put at the heart of local government policy for economic renewal. Its submission states:
- Only eight out of 39 local enterprise partnerships include housing as a priority.
- There is a consensus that there is a long-term problem over the undersupply of housing (especially affordable homes). But there has been a reluctance to consider alternative approaches from other countries to boost supply.
There is also an argument that a focus at regional level on housebuilding would jump-start local economies, creating a win-win.
“Ensuring new homes are built requires action from the government to tackle land banking and technical starts. Contrary to the government’s view, planning authorities are not the barrier to development. Planning authorities are granting planning permission, but have no method to guarantee that this will lead to building activity. Planning authorities need to have more power to pursue a minimum level of completions or level of activity per year above and beyond basic maintenance. This would avoid developers undertaking a technical start but then stopping work and land banking. The DCN would also like to see a revised Local Plan process with more certainty for district councils throughout the process.”
DCN It seems clear that tackling the housing shortage is a central part of the economic growth story in the NMAs and efforts need to be made to put this at the heart of any development strategy to ensure fluidity of labour. This must be supplemented by interlinked planning for support infrastructure for new developments.
Lastly, on the issue of more effective use of publicly-owned buildings and land, the Commission believes the public estate has so far lagged behind public services in collaborating more closely to reduce duplication and wastage.
The challenge, therefore, is to make better use of public assets to serve the communities and release assets where necessary to free up funds for frontline service provision and investment in core areas that boost the economy.
This process is already underway under the national One Public Estate (OPE) programme. The report, One Public Estate: Transforming property and services, said:
“The total value of local government land and property was estimated by the Audit Commission to be almost £170 billion in 2012/13. In the same year, Councils spent £5.6 billion – about four per cent of all revenue spending – on premises-related expenditure.”
In recent years, particularly under the OPE initiative, LGA has worked with central government to rationalise the asset portfolio, save costs and reinvest the gains in frontline services and infrastructure.
“Building 100,000 new homes would result in 228,000 new jobs in construction and an equivalent number in other sectors.”
Savills and Oxford Economics (2010): The Case for Housing: London, Savills
For every £1 spent on housebuilding, £1.40 is generated across the economy as a whole in gross output terms.
Oxford Economics (2010): Economic Impact of Social Housing Cuts: Oxford, Oxford Economics The OPE programme has run 12 pilot projects since 2013 and it has seen £88 million in capital receipts, £21 million in costs savings, £40 million in long term cost benefits to local economies, 5,500 new jobs and 7,500 new homes.
At a time when local funding is set to shrink further in the coming years leaving a funding gap and with greater demand for land and premises for businesses to expand to facilitate growth, it makes sense to roll this out further to finance economic regeneration and new homes.
Recommendation:
Establish council-led local development corporations to own land, fund and provide infrastructure, plan and commission the construction of significant housing developments. The corporations should ensure funding and planning of infrastructure supports new housing development.
Planning and transport
Good planning and good transport links go hand in hand. The Commission believes it is vital that we better align local decision making on planning, transport development and housing at spatial level. Devolution of planning for transport and local housing is unlikely to be workable unless there is greater cohesion in governance and more account taken of the business perspective. This requires local authorities and other involved stakeholders to work together, across boundary lines, to serve the community with a joined up policy framework for rail, roads, housing and future planning decisions. There needs to be coherence at the level of Functional Economic Area. Equally potential investors in infrastructure need a route into the discussions.
Why is this issue so important?
Transport and local planning is the lifeblood of communities and economies. It is key to the future economic prosperity of the NMAs. Almost all evidence received by the Commission raised transport planning as a core issue that needed to be decided upon at the local level. Non-metropolitan areas face the particular challenges of dispersed housing settlements that are harder and costlier to link up, ageing or overloaded infrastructure networks and the need to maintain close links not just with urban neighbours but also global trade routes.
Good transport links – whether by road, rail, sea or air – are needed by growing businesses, from SMEs to multinationals. It is necessary for swift, efficient and cost effective travel of goods and labour.
Fast links can help an investor decide whether to expand an existing base in the NMAs and add jobs or start up a new investment in an area. With so much of Britain’s wealth coming from England’s NMAs it would be a mistake for the government to focus solely on major infrastructure links between the major cities. At present the big city transport debate is at risk of dominating the political debate and funding pot.
In our discussions, the feedback has been clear: transport infrastructure funding and planning is vital not just to the wellbeing of the local communities and small business but to global competitiveness too. We needed a joined-up strategy that connects road, rail, regional airport and port infrastructure with both business and labour. Free flowing movement of goods and labour is essential for export growth, productivity levels and building on the NMA economy.
Ports are one major consideration for expanding global trade. Given Britain’s maritime history, it has one of the largest port industries in Europe. It is vital for our international trade. In the 12 months ending March 2014 492 million tonnes of freight went through our ports (Department for Transport) and over 95 per cent of imports/exports passed through our national ports, many of which are in England (British Ports Association).
PWC’s 2014 report, The Local State We’re In, said:
“When we asked local authorities about barriers to economic growth, lack of investment in infrastructure overwhelmingly topped the table with 80 per cent agreeing that it is a significant barrier to growth.”
DCN asked its district council membership what the main barriers to growth were and they cited: limited and overloaded transport infrastructure, traffic congestions on major roads and in town centres and poor connections for commuters. Lastly, they wanted more capacity on A roads. DCN also emphasised the vital importance of rural transport for skills development, access to employment and for our ageing population. Sometimes, poor links or expensive fares can prevent local labour from taking work opportunities in nearby areas. This can entrench unemployment for a section of the community.
South East England Councils offered another specific example in its response:
“The South East is a national economic gateway – A major factor in the South East’s economic success is our role as the UK’s main gateway to the rest of the world. UK businesses rely heavily on routes through the South East to help them access overseas markets and supply chains.”
SEEC has this stark warning on the strains in the system as it stands: “...growing demand has put much of this ageing infrastructure under significant pressure. Many parts of the network are operating at or beyond capacity. The lack of local resources, national funding and devolved financial powers to tackle these challenges risks businesses moving overseas to get the globally-competitive transport links they need.”
In the LGA 2013 report, The Road to Growth, it said transport and growth are inextricably linked in building a post-recession recovery. In the past, this has meant private money investing in canals and railways:
“Overall, there is no doubt that maintaining and improving both transport and digital infrastructure is critical to enabling the non-metropolitan areas to capitalise on their economic advantage and realise their full potential for economic growth.”
CEDOS/ADEPT
“While employment growth is reasonably strong within Warwickshire, we do struggle with public transport accessibility. This is a particular problem for young people and those on low incomes, where transport costs can take a disproportionately high. We have numerous examples of areas of high unemployment just 10 mile away from business parks with large numbers of vacancies, but which are effectively inaccessible because of transport issues. Initiatives we run either directly (supporting apprenticeships) or through partners (graduate placement programmes) to help young people into local businesses are struggling because of the accessibility problems.”
Warwickshire County Council “This facilitated Britain’s leadership during the Industrial Revolution, and the great Victorian appetite for engineering and enterprise created essential infrastructure such as the London Underground.”
However, the report noted that in 1870 over 90 per cent of local authority income (both capital and revenue) was raised locally. Very different from today, as OECD figures showed earlier in the report.
HM Treasury figures show that the total amount of public expenditure on transport for England in 2010-11 was £12 billion. However, much of this is held centrally, with the Highways Agency alone receiving £2.5 billion. Local authorities currently spent well over twice their £1.2 billion transport grant allocation on transport provision as a necessary part of maintaining the network.
Then there is the lack of a streamlined decision making structure for local transport decisions. Funding and responsibility for transport is split, primarily, between the Department for Transport (DfT), central agencies and bodies such as the Highways Agency and Network Rail, and local authorities. London has separate arrangements, managed by Transport for London on behalf of the Mayoralty, while in some areas Integrated Transport Authorities or combined authorities carry out the duties, which elsewhere are retained by upper tier local authorities. The LGA’s analysis of this shows just how fragmented funding for transport and infrastructure is.
Solutions floated by Road to Growth included a ‘single pot’ approach to infrastructure spending. Also, to join up the various local transport funding schemes at local level; creating a National Infrastructure Bank to finance transport projects and amending tax rules to encourage use of bonds by councils. It also suggested moving regional rail from central control and look at a local-based future for the strategic road network with greater input from local authorities.
The Commission’s view is the government needs to devolve more transport funding decisions to sub-regions and groupings of boroughs. But this needs to be accompanied by:
- investment appraisal rules that properly consider the impact on global connectivity and developments at the urban periphery
- a better understanding and valuing of the role of regional airports, ports and roads in global trade and tourism that can underpin greater local influence Better inter-linking of transport infrastructure and housing development planning.
**Recommendation**
Take decisions on spatial and transport planning at the level of the economic area through the groupings of boroughs. This requires further devolution of transport powers to localities from Whitehall, including:
- bringing all capital and revenue funding for transport into a single pot
- transferring bus subsidies and bus service operators’ grant to groupings of councils and giving councils the option of franchising services
- greater local influence over rail franchising
- co-producing plans for strategic roads with the successor to the Highways Agency.
**Digital connectivity**
Digital infrastructure is now a basic utility for all and provision should be universal in the same way as the postal service.
“Broadband sits alongside electricity in its importance to rural areas,” as one council chief executive said in the 2014 LGA report, *Transforming Local Public Services*.
Its value to all non-metropolitan areas is impossible to exaggerate: allowing people in rural areas to access information on care services or claim their benefits online; from enabling tourism businesses to communicate with customers worldwide, to attracting investment from the growing tech sector to maintaining regions’ competitive edge in traditional industries like manufacturing.
It is also becoming an increasingly vital tool for delivering public services and healthcare at a time when central funding cuts deepen and there is pressure to rationalise the public estate and utilise savings elsewhere. The Government is moving towards digital by default services and the launch of a new online-only Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) application process provides a timely example of the Government’s digital-by-default strategy.
In its report, ‘Rural broadband and digital-only services’, MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee warn that a minority of UK citizens have little or no ability to use key government services, which are primarily delivered via the internet.
Anne McIntosh MP, Chair of the Committee, said people living in the hard-to-reach five per cent:
“need the same access as the rest to online and digital services”.
“There is a risk in the current approach that improving service for those who already have it will leave even further behind the rural farms, businesses and homes who have little or none,” she stated.
Large and small businesses alike rely on online connectivity to communicate with customers and suppliers, win sales online and reach out to a new customer base. The NMAs’ connection to the web is its shop window to the world. More reliable broadband communications will help build existing businesses, encourage start-ups and boost jobs as well as growth. Here is one county council’s perspective:
“Digital connectivity has become essential to growth in modern economies, with businesses across the economy depending on broadband to communicate with customers, suppliers and partners. Key growth sectors such as ICT and the creative industries are particularly dependent on high speed connections. Yet poor broadband connectivity has become a major obstacle to economic growth in Suffolk, identified by Suffolk’s businesses as their most important infrastructure issue, and a key factor deterring expansion.”
Suffolk County Council The issue of connectivity will only become more of a priority in the coming years. Yet our national digital communications strategic plan has still not delivered full penetration, particularly in rural areas. This places those people at a social and economic disadvantage.
It also hinders delivery of public services and information online which is part of the future reform of the public sector. Therefore, the Commission sees a real need for a shift from planning-led development of digital communications to innovation and enterprise led development where business leads the way.
Where once private money was willing to take risks in pursuit of the economic potential of networks – from Victorian railways to 3G mobile – the broadband story has required the taxpayer to step in because business has not envisaged an adequate market return from investing in rural areas which are spread out and costly to link up. But at the same time, the model adopted is reinventing a new form of telecoms monopoly that took a generation to dismantle.
BT remains dominant. A previous LGA submission to the EFRA Committee said:
“BT Openreach is run separately to the rest of the BT Group, and manages the local network or “last mile” between the local BT exchange and the phone socket, or fibre termination point in a home or business. This matters because it means BT Openreach controls access and pricing of the fixed infrastructure required to extend access to superfast broadband...”
BT’s wholesale competitors have to use its physical infrastructure and the pricing for access it too high making it hard for rivals to make a decent profit.
“BT’s dominant position is further strengthened by the fact that broadband customers need to have an active BT landline and pay line rental, thus tying in new customers to a combined phone and broadband package. There is no technical reason for this requirement and it is a significant barrier to local efforts to close the digital divide.” Clearly addressing BT’s dominance will aid competition and assist in rolling out more comprehensive coverage at cheaper prices. More competition should also facilitate innovation in this sector, keeping Britain in line with its global competitors.
**So where do we stand now?**
Despite the UK having a high take-up and coverage of superfast broadband among leading European economies, lack of adequate coverage continues to hinder, especially in rural parts of the country. Digital exclusion makes it harder for those people to access government services through digital channels, as well as penalizing them economically.
> “The challenge in non-metropolitan areas is the access to fast, reliable and affordable broadband connectivity, an absolute essential for entrepreneurs and small businesses.” **Buckinghamshire Thames Valley**
A House of Commons Library briefing note in December 2014 outlined the current position:
> “The Government’s ambition is to provide everyone in the UK with access to broadband with a download speed of at least 2 megabits per second (Mbps) and to provide 95 per cent of the UK with broadband speeds of at least 24 Mb/s (‘next-generation access’) by 2017.
The Government allocated £530 million to do this with a strategy, Britain’s superfast broadband future (December 2010) which seeks to incentivise the deployment of broadband through a variety of technologies. It also set up Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) to manage the delivery of this strategy and the roll-out of broadband in rural areas.”
On 7 August 2014, DCMS published figures showing that the programme had extended superfast broadband to more than 1 million homes and businesses across the UK and was on course to extend superfast broadband to 95 per cent of UK homes and businesses by 2017. But it is not fast enough.”
______________________________________________________________________
8 Library of the House of Commons – Fixed Broadband: Policy and Speeds (2015) The LGA outlined the need to aim for 100 per cent penetration for broadband in its evidence to the EFRA Committee on Rural Broadband and digital services in November 2014.
It concluded that access to fast and reliable broadband is as important a strategic consideration as electricity, planning, housing and transport for living and doing business in the world today.
But some local authorities are unhappy with the lack of speedy progress, saying that action is needed now to meet the 100 per cent target if the regions are to retain their competitive position. South East England Councils said to the Commission that the region’s high tech and knowledge/creative based industries was depending on this being achieved. Not only did it wish to see the meeting of existing targets expedited but a clear timetable for rolling out the next generation of high speed broadband to keep pace with international competitors.
DCN noted:
“A lack of, and slow, broadband, especially in rural areas, was highlighted strongly. District councils highlighted that it meant rural and home-based businesses struggled to take advantage of social media to promote their business and communicate with customers.”
In December 2014, DEFRA laid out its policy briefing document “How increased connectivity is boosting economic prospects of rural areas”.
It sees that importance growing as home working becomes more common and Britain seeks to build its knowledge based industry in the NMAs.
What is at stake is future productivity through better, cheaper and faster communications; job creation and increased output for NMA economies. Then there is the issue of the strong migration flow from urban to NMA regions– an issue that is in stark contrast to many other OECD nations.
It can be expected to drive increased spend and economic activity in rural areas, not least as those relocating to rural areas tend to be relatively wealthier. OECD figures show that 16.7 per cent of workers in England’s rural areas work from home compared to 7.5 per cent in urban areas.
Connectivity also leads to an increase in transfer of innovation of knowledge between rural and urban businesses – this in turn, fuels growth.
A study commissioned by DCMS suggested that the government’s initial investment to achieve 90 per cent coverage could result in annual gains of £6.3 billion by 2024, with £3.3 billion of these accruing to rural areas. With the extension to 95 per cent superfast coverage and potentially beyond, the benefits will be greater and a larger share of benefits could be expected to accrue to rural areas.
Last, the Commission recognises the importance of digital connectivity for members of the local community: for tackling rural isolation, allowing remote access to social and public services information, for social engagement within the community.
Today, digital connectivity is part of our social wellbeing and engagement. Our local community is also our online community and local authorities should ensure both the old, young, infirm, those on low incomes are plugged into it. No part of the local community should be left behind.
“Like poverty and deprivation, loneliness and social isolation in rural areas can be hidden. However, both exist and older people are particularly vulnerable because of their low incomes, lack of local services and higher costs of living. Ensuring communities are connected through an effective telecommunications infrastructure is a key issue for areas like Suffolk. The transformation of the way in which our customers access public and other services places these communities at a strict disadvantage and through the Suffolk Better Broadband scheme, we have great hopes that the information age can eventually bring new opportunities to our most isolated communities.”
Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils So it is clear, now is the time to act. The Commission’s view is government, local authorities and business need to work together on the next generation of digital connectivity as an urgent priority. We should not only aim to urgently meet the 100 per cent penetration target but prepare and anticipate new developments.
Also, given BT’s dominance, we need to improve competition in local areas to encourage new players to enter the market and invest. The current structure prices competition out of the market.
Recommendation: Adopt a strategy for future digital infrastructure that radically overhauls the current model of funding and commercial viability. Make the investment case to a multiple of private sector providers and developers for the economic benefits of extending broadband infrastructure even further into rural England.
Move towards an industry and innovation-led approach to digital connectivity, instead of a planning approach fixed within rigid timeframes.
Investment in infrastructure Our global competitors have shown that devolved economic powers can transform the regions, delivering lower costs to government, more jobs and higher taxes. But local growth requires stable affordable funding and a powerful regional partner that can bring in all stakeholders in a local economy for the common good.
Britain’s tax system is one of the most centralised in the world and our local regions have among the lowest level of tax and spending powers among all the OECD nations. Yet fiscal powers are the key levers of regional growth and having them kept out of reach is hindering the NMAs’ potential. The status quo fails to provide clarity to either taxpayers or investors.
“This makes it very hard to justify tax levels to taxpayers who do not know what their money is to be used for. So local decision-makers – in business and in the public sector – are poorly incentivised to invest in economically productive infrastructure and grow the tax base.”
Oxfordshire County Council The only solution is to liberate NMAs to find new ways of raising revenue and become more self-sustaining.
In his 2012 report “No Stone Unturned” Lord Heseltine outlined his own vision for growth in cities and shires across the UK. He bluntly stated: “Big Government does not work” and added “growth is everyone’s business” not just the cities. Heseltine’s report concluded that fiscal devolution was vital for the future growth of UK Plc itself. The only solution is to liberate regions to find new ways of raising capital and become more self-sustaining.
Right now, housing and infrastructure rely on funding from a disparate variety of sources that councils need to apply to the government for. This means LEPs, councils and others are wasting too much time submitting bids to Whitehall and being embroiled in red tape instead of focusing on the urgent and particular needs of their community which may need rapid interlinked strategic action on issues such as transport, housing, social care and telecoms.
This time and effort slows down the process of delivering capital projects that are necessary for growth. The existing system is bureaucratic and lacks certainty that is required for investment.
“The funding environment for new development remains challenging and unless sufficient funding is secured to support growth ambitions there is a risk that this could impact on the pace and scale of growth. The reduced funding from Government and the fragmented approach to funding for new infrastructure means that the challenges are becoming more acute particularly for strategic infrastructure such as for example transport and new secondary schools.”
Cambridgeshire County Council
To revitalise investment in local capital projects – whether in housing, transport or communications – the Commission proposes a review of decision making, funding and operational planning for capital projects.
There needs to be a better local/national balance with greater responsibility for capital projects shifted to the local level, and a new look at the sources and provision of capital.
The Commission considers that the lending failures of the private banking sector in a post-crash economy should be tackled head-on. Local companies need a source of world-class financial expertise and advice. A review could lead to the establishment of a new regional Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Such a bank could form a single central source of funds for local capital projects. We propose the various funding streams available to local authorities be centralised on deposit at the bank. Like the Municipal Bonds Agency, the bank would also be able to source additional loan funding from the global capital markets at cheaper rates than are currently possible as well as from other third party sources such as banks pension funds and insurance companies.
It is for consideration that the bank could be available to service not just local authorities but any company involved in local infrastructure capital projects. The review would need to consider the impact such a bank might have on the public balance sheet and how any impact could be mitigated.
In Germany the KfW development bank dates back to 1948 and is jointly owned by the national government and states. It provides 90 per cent of borrowing needs for local capital projects, via the capital markets. Backed by the German government, borrowing costs are cheaper than commercial banks.
KfW has been instrumental in regenerating Germany’s regions and turning them into economic powerhouses in their own right, spreading wealth and jobs across the country.
The Commission believes such a local infrastructure bank could be a pragmatic way forward to address both the NMAs’ and city regions’ pressing investment needs if there is no prospect of the next government moving towards fiscal devolution in the next Parliament. A Bank could evolve from the existing framework of the Municipal Bonds Agency, which is in the process of being finalised and which the LGA envisages as an alternative and cheaper source of capital funding for councils to the Public Works Loans Board.
Recommendation: Conduct an urgent review of the decision making process and funding for capital projects with the aim of revitalising investment in local infrastructure. The review should identify the infrastructure investment that is best delivered centrally and that which should be delivered locally to achieve a better central/local balance. The origin of local government lies in medieval times, yet it developed into a recognisable form in response to the new urban poor of the Industrial Revolution. Today, Britain is poised on the threshold of another major period of change in how our communities are governed and how our economy evolves.
In a post-Scottish devolution Britain, the national political debate has shifted not just toward awarding greater powers north of the border but moving power closer to the people in England.
An indomitable groundswell of opinion is building in favour of more representative government at local level for the NMAs. The NMAs have long been neglected in this national political and economic debate, despite their economy being the engine driving national growth and global competitiveness. In order to sustain and build on sub-regional growth, the feedback to the Commission is that people want more localised, clearer and streamlined decision-making procedures.
That in turn could lead to greater accountability and value for money - issues that are core to both business and taxpayers’ confidence in these straitened times.
The quality of life in the NMAs is largely down to public services. It governs much of the day-to-day details of the way we live in non-urban communities – from health to schools to community facilities.
But in recent years, every family in Britain has faced up to the reality we have lived beyond our means for too long.
Public sector budgets have been slashed. Local authority spending has been cut by 40 per cent and the cuts are set to continue for the rest of the decade to the tune of an estimated £12.4 billion according to LGA projections.
Put starkly, the way public services and their partners work is beginning to change, but has to change further. Service providers have to work together across structural boundaries and combine resources to deliver seamless, more efficient and more cost effective services. Also, the pressure to find new ways of providing services and raising local funding comes at a time of unprecedented demand due to a rapidly ageing population, as people are living longer. Medical advances have placed an additional strain on the public purse.
Councils need to communicate frankly with the public on the tough choices we all face as well as finding fresh and bold ways to meet the challenges.
Economic devolution to the regions is an issue whose time has come. Devolution of greater powers on vital matters such as investment and economic development should be extended to all areas that can demonstrate they are fit for the purpose and able to take on these onerous responsibilities.
It will also act as a driving force for change in the structure of local governance, requiring different public bodies to work more closely and integrate to deliver efficiencies in service.
Indeed, a consensus is emerging across political parties that a future government would seek a move towards combined authorities working more closely with their local partners. Growth and reform cannot be achieved within a fragmented governance system. It needs councils and their local partners to come together.
At present, the local governance landscape is highly complicated with a mix of two-tier and unitary authorities in place across England, as well as some administrative authorities overlapping, as economic regions become more inter-dependant and spread-out. This is well illustrated in the area covered by the Greater Peterborough and Greater Cambridge LEP.
“As councils make an honest appraisal of what the future holds, many are redefining their purpose and role and finding new ways of working. A strong theme that emerges in our survey is a shift in the role of the council away from delivering services and towards facilitating outcomes in collaboration with private and public partners, and citizens themselves, across a place.”
PwC In some cases LEP boundaries overlap and in addition they rarely coincide with the boundaries of functional economic areas. The map below demonstrates, for example, how the South East LEP, which runs from Braintree to Eastbourne and Epping Forest to Dover, covers a number of functional economic areas.
- Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)
- Functional Economic Areas (FEAs)
- Authorities in more than one LEP
Then there is the issue of the remit of local Police and Crime Commissioners and Clinical Commissioning Groups and the boundaries of their areas of responsibility. Local governance will need to shift from defined borders to a sense of place. It will also require local authorities and their partners – whether business, public sector bodies like the NHS and police or residents – to work in a more seamless way. A community’s economic future is not just dependant on one particular player or issue. It hinges on policy inter-linking of transport, housing, social care, digital connectivity, quality of life and employment.
Sub-regional devolution would free local authorities to make decisions on those issues based on the specific needs of the community, rather than a one-size fits all policy that is also dependant on a shrinking pot of funding from central government.
‘Our strategic role is to help create the right climate for growth and to put in place the right conditions to generate economic wealth. We can use our assets and resources, leadership, influence and intelligence to do this, supporting the private sector to do what they do best, creating wealth and jobs. Central to this strategic role is being able to work effectively at the right level, this can only happen by Government allowing the flexibility for us to be able to design and provide solutions to meet local needs.’
Cheshire West and Chester Council
“[L]ocal authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their economies, whose challenges and opportunities often cut across traditional administrative boundaries. Having control over the whole budget would enable local authorities to prioritise spending according to their needs; for example, an authority with a large rural population may choose to invest in transport links, whereas others may focus on skills and training.”
Asda Stores Ltd There are three elements to this. First, it makes no sense that decisions about similar things are made over very different geographical areas. The map needs tidying up: if elected councils, businesses and Local Enterprise Partnerships, the NHS and central government agencies are going to work together better, they should relate to similar areas and be rationalised.
Those areas should be anchored in how people live and how the economy works: the evidence we have seen tells us that there is enough understanding of so-called “functional economic areas” to allow such a debate to happen.
Secondly, lines of democratic accountability need to be clear, so that local electors know just what they are rewarding or punishing candidates for at the ballot box. Thirdly, governance needs to be cost-effective: taxpayers cannot afford and will not tolerate needless bureaucracy. Money wasted on red tape is money taken away from core services.
Local Enterprise Partnerships between local authorities and businesses could be even more of a driving force for economic resurgence under a devolved regional blueprint.
So far 39 LEPs have been created. LEPs were given the chance to apply to have an enterprise zone and 24 were awarded. These zones can take advantage of tax incentives and simplified local planning regulations.
CEDOS/ADEPT said in its submission that LEPs’ contribution will be “critical” and that they must receive the freedoms to pursue their growth and investment objectives:
“Action by local authorities and local enterprise partnerships will continue to be critical to enabling the non-metropolitan areas to maximise their contribution to this country’s economic recovery and growth for which it is essential that Government ensures that local authorities and their partners in the non-metropolitan areas have a level playing field on which to operate.”
Funding and policies must be targeted on core weak spots in each particular area, they said. That required freeing up of powers and funding capabilities. DCN cited skills and housing as two particular policy areas where LEPs could benefit from greater input. It believed funding should be devolved to local government who would then work with business and LEPs.
Marches LEP, which is a well-established business area with 28,000 businesses, contributing £10 billion to the UK, said it welcomed the opportunity for greater involvement but cautioned that slow moving bureaucracy could risk losing partners. They said:
“We think that responsibility for economic growth should be devolved from central government to partnerships between local government and the private sector. We are aware that there had been frustration amongst some members of the private sector at the slow progress before the arrival of the Heseltine Pot and Growth Fund. We remain concerned at the limited devolution of funding to LEPs.”
This response underscores the need for streamlining of local governance as well as improving funding for local development, which is addressed in the previous section.
In conclusion, the Commission proposes a bottom-up move towards groupings of councils and a serious consideration of the two-tier system where it continues to operate.
All major political parties have indicated in the run-up to the election that they favour advocating devolution only to groupings of councils.
English local governance structures need to take into account LEPs, health and wellbeing boards and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and police. Finally, non-metropolitan authorities must understand the urgency of this issue and act accordingly to avoid a structural solution being imposed from above. They must move forward at pace to devise functional, relevant, and accountable arrangements. The Commission believes this should happen within the next two years.
A number of our submissions put the financial case for unitary authorities and savings to be made. But the Commission believes that reform should come from the bottom-up and there should be no “one size fits all” policy.
If any of this is to work, it will also require Government reform as well as efforts at localised levels. Recommendation:
Strengthen future governance arrangements in non-metropolitan areas to reduce duplication, strip out any bureaucratic waste and length in decision making which can hold back growth and public service reform.
Governance arrangements must be relevant and appropriate to each area, one size will not fit all. It should be recognised that all three main political parties support combined authorities and stronger collaboration between groupings of councils. We would agree that greater devolution requires stronger collaboration and stronger governance. If two tier local government is not able to come forward with the proposals that will meet these requirements then it is possible that government will intervene with structural solutions.
In order to be effective this requires not just local government reform, but central government to examine the geography and structure of sub-regional delivery. Boundaries of LEPs, Police and Crime Commissioners as well as health and wellbeing boards must work in unison within a new local government geography.
Strengthened governance and geography should be used to forge greater links between health and wellbeing boards and the wider health economy in order that the commissioning and delivery of health and care services are truly integrated and reflect local community needs. COMMISSIONERS
Sir John Peace Sir John Peace chairs the Non-Metropolitan Commission. He is Chairman of Standard Chartered plc and Burberry Group plc and Lord Lieutenant of Nottinghamshire.
Penelope, Viscountess Cobham CBE Lady Cobham became Chairman of VisitEngland in April 2009 and was reappointed by the Government to continue her role until 2017.
Stephen Gifford Stephen assists the Commission as an independent economic adviser. He is Head of Economic Regulation at the Civil Aviation Authority, dealing with the regulation of airports, airlines and new runway capacity.
Sir Tony Hawkhead Sir Tony is Chief Executive of Action for Children, a national charity that supports and speaks out on behalf of the most vulnerable and neglected children and young people throughout the UK. Grainia Long Grainia Long, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing. The independent voice for housing and the home of professional standards – actively contributed to the work of the commission until her appointment as Chief Executive of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children at the end of 2014 precluded further participation.
Professor Henry Overman Henry Overman is Professor of Economic Geography in the department of Geography and Environment at the London School of Economics and director of the new What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth.
Jane Ramsey Jane has been Chair of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust since November 2012.
Lord Teverson Robin Teverson is Liberal Democrat Spokesman for energy and climate change and chair of the Rural Coalition. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
The Commission is grateful to the following organisations and individuals for their contributions to their inquiry.
Allerdale Borough Council ADEPT Asda Stores Ltd Ashford Borough Council Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Bedford Borough Council Buckinghamshire Business First Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP Burberry plc Cambridgeshire County Council Cancer UK CEDOS/ADEPT (joint submission) Cheshire West and Chester Council Core Cities County Councils’ Network District Councils’ Network De Montfort University Defra Rural Communities Policy Unit Derbyshire Dales District Council Diageo plc Diocese of Middlesbrough District Councils’ Network Dorset LEP Durham County Council East Sussex County Council Essex County Council Exeter City Council Gloucestershire County Council Hampshire County Council James Derounian, University of Gloucestershire Kent County Council Lancashire County Council National Parks England National Housing Federation Nottinghamshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council PwC Rushcliffe District Council Sarah Stannage South Cambridgeshire District Council South East England Councils with South East Strategic Leaders South Norfolk District Council St Albans City and District Council Suffolk County Council Surrey County Council Test Valley Borough Council Tesco plc The Marches LEP Trowbridge Parish Council TUC Warwick District Council Warwickshire County Council West Sussex County Council Wm Morrisons Supermarkets plc Worcester City Council Wyre Forest District Council The Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England
Local Government House Smith Square London SW1P 3HZ
T: 020 7664 3000 E: [email protected] W: www.local.gov.uk/non-met-commission
For a copy in Braille, larger print or audio, please contact us on 020 7664 3000. We consider requests on an individual basis.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2187-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 72,
"total-input-tokens": 128471,
"total-output-tokens": 24041,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
2190,
2
],
[
2190,
2590,
3
],
[
2590,
4794,
4
],
[
4794,
7138,
5
],
[
7138,
8155,
6
],
[
8155,
8935,
7
],
[
8935,
9723,
8
],
[
9723,
11219,
9
],
[
11219,
12600,
10
],
[
12600,
12600,
11
],
[
12600,
13413,
12
],
[
13413,
14742,
13
],
[
14742,
14831,
14
],
[
14831,
16725,
15
],
[
16725,
18552,
16
],
[
18552,
18890,
17
],
[
18890,
20717,
18
],
[
20717,
21540,
19
],
[
21540,
23462,
20
],
[
23462,
26007,
21
],
[
26007,
28299,
22
],
[
28299,
30323,
23
],
[
30323,
32368,
24
],
[
32368,
34503,
25
],
[
34503,
35296,
26
],
[
35296,
36854,
27
],
[
36854,
37052,
28
],
[
37052,
39182,
29
],
[
39182,
40900,
30
],
[
40900,
43130,
31
],
[
43130,
44601,
32
],
[
44601,
47101,
33
],
[
47101,
49037,
34
],
[
49037,
49324,
35
],
[
49324,
51370,
36
],
[
51370,
51686,
37
],
[
51686,
53970,
38
],
[
53970,
55969,
39
],
[
55969,
55969,
40
],
[
55969,
57382,
41
],
[
57382,
58938,
42
],
[
58938,
60894,
43
],
[
60894,
62061,
44
],
[
62061,
63539,
45
],
[
63539,
65344,
46
],
[
65344,
67409,
47
],
[
67409,
69709,
48
],
[
69709,
71832,
49
],
[
71832,
71832,
50
],
[
71832,
74206,
51
],
[
74206,
75808,
52
],
[
75808,
77596,
53
],
[
77596,
79575,
54
],
[
79575,
81481,
55
],
[
81481,
83404,
56
],
[
83404,
85328,
57
],
[
85328,
87331,
58
],
[
87331,
89658,
59
],
[
89658,
91811,
60
],
[
91811,
93764,
61
],
[
93764,
95714,
62
],
[
95714,
95714,
63
],
[
95714,
96290,
64
],
[
96290,
98013,
65
],
[
98013,
100041,
66
],
[
100041,
102177,
67
],
[
102177,
103518,
68
],
[
103518,
104307,
69
],
[
104307,
105128,
70
],
[
105128,
106708,
71
],
[
106708,
107087,
72
]
]
} |
9a1aad7cb27d27669749e56dfb99147459e011f0 | Devolution of Responsibilities and Funding: Grants to Local Government
1. We have agreed that we will seek to develop advice to the Steering Group on a menu of options that should be consulted upon in the Summer around the devolution of funding and responsibilities that will accompany 100% business rates retention reforms.
2. This paper outlines the grants that lie outside the local government finance settlement that have been put forward as candidates for funding via business rates under the 100% rates retention scheme. The grants considered in this paper are those appearing on the list of ideas circulated at the first working group meeting on 3 May 2016. No further grants have been added to the list since that meeting. This does not preclude further grants, if identified, from being considered at a future date.
3. For each grant, this paper provides some background information on the activity, the expected funding in 2020, and any information on costs and demand pressures where known. Where relevant it also raises general issues for consideration alongside the criteria.
4. This paper does not include consideration of those grants that Government has already determined will in future be funded from business rates. Revenue Support Grant is unringfenced funding that can be used to finance revenue expenditure on any service. Government announcements on 100% rates retention have stated that at the point of implementation, that existing grant will be phased out. The working assumption therefore is that Revenue Support Grant Rural Services Delivery Grant will cease to exist at implementation and will instead be funded from business rates income. The Government has also announced that Transport for London Investment Grant will cease from 2017 and will in future be funded from business rates income. It is assumed that these items will form part of any package for devolution of responsibilities.
5. This paper does not include any central government considerations. It is recognised that Government will want to consider the sector’s proposal carefully.
6. The working group is invited to consider the issues raised and come ready to share views about the extent to which the items suggested should form part of the sector’s proposal to Government for devolution. In particular the group is invited to consider the item against our fourth criteria around future financial impact.
7. In considering each item we may also wish to consider about how items might be grouped together to form sensible packages within our ‘menu’ of options approach.
**Highways Maintenance**
08. Highways maintenance funding currently comes from a Department for Transport grant paid directly to local authorities. Local authorities have a duty to maintain their road networks. Funding is not currently ringfenced, is paid by capital grant and is for planned maintenance programmes. By 2020, the expected funding level is around £0.725bn in total.
09. It is also open to every English local highways authority to apply to the Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund to help maintain existing highways infrastructure. All bids need to demonstrate additionality (i.e. that the funding is not being used to replace other sources of funding with would otherwise have been provided) and promoters need to contribute at least 10% of total scheme costs. Expected funding in 2020 is £0.1bn.
10. Funding roads maintenance in future from retained business rates would mean that the current capital funding would cease to exist. It would be for highways authorities to determine the level funding needed from the business rates revenue stream.
11. The majority of funding goes to a defined set of authorities that does not change from year to year. We should consider any competitive funding elements - where different authorities may benefit from funding between rounds - against the criteria around future financial impact and the operation of the scheme more generally.
**Integrated Transport Block**
12. This is non ringfenced capital funding paid as grant to local transport authorities by formula. It is for local authorities to decide on the specific projects that it funds, and is used for many purposes such as road safety, road improvements, highways maintenance. Expected 2020 funding levels are £0.25bn.
13. The funding flows to a defined set of authorities that does not change from year to year. The considerations around moving from funding via capital grant to funding from a revenue stream raised above are also relevant here and we should consider the fit with future financial impact criteria. Housing Benefit Admin Subsidy and Local Council Tax Support Admin Subsidy
14. Unitary councils and district councils in two tier areas have responsibility for administration of Housing Benefit and Local Council Tax support, for which funding is provided through the above grants. Current levels of funding total around £0.3bn (£270m and £77m respectively). This is non-ringfenced funding to support administration costs. It goes to the same defined set of authorities each year and is allocated by formula. Funding has reduced in previous years and 2020 figures are expected to be in the region of £0.1bn.
Public Health Grant
15. This is a ringfenced grant providing funding for the discharge of public health functions defined in Section 73(B)(2) of the National Health Service Act 2006. Local authorities with public health functions funded by the grant are unitary councils, county councils in two tier areas, London Boroughs, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). Current public health allocations to individual authorities are based on historic NHS spend. The Spending Review confirmed that the ringfence would be maintained in 2016-17 and 2017-18. Further to Spending Review 2015 decisions, expected funding in 2019/20 is £3.1bn.
16. The current grant goes to a defined set of local authorities that does not change year on year. Many activities funded from the current grant are not statutory duties of local authorities. Removal of the ringfence, and ‘rolling in’ the existing grant (i.e. removing the specific grant at implementation of the reforms) may offer greater flexibility to integrate health and social care at the local level. A small number of statutory duties exist amongst the wide range of activities that can be funded from the existing grant, which may mean sufficient flexibility to manage pressures on those statutory duties.
Improved Better Care Fund
17. Spending Review 2015 announced additional social care funding for councils. This will be included in an improved Better Care Fund for working in partnership with the health sector. The Better Care Fund is a local, single pooled budget that supports the NHS and local government to work together in the planning and implementation of joined up health and social care services in England. Expected funding levels in 2020 will be £1.5bn and will flow through councils with responsibility for adult social care. Funding flows through a defined set of authorities which will not change year on year, and there is no flexibility about the minimum amount that must be transferred to the Fund by local authorities. Independent Living Fund
18. From 1 July 2015, responsibilities for supporting Independent Living Fund users in England passed to local authorities. A grant is now paid based on the estimated number of former Independent Living Fund clients to councils. The current amount of grant is £0.2bn and is unringfenced.
Dedicated Schools Grant: Early Years Block
19. The Dedicated Schools Grant early years block comprises funding for the 15-hour entitlement for 3 and 4 year-olds; participation funding for 2 year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds; and the early years pupil premium. It is a ringfenced grant paid to unitary councils and county councils in two tier areas. Current funding is £2.7bn and is expected to increase with the Spending Review announcement to double the free entitlement from 15 hours to 30 hours a week for working families with three and four year olds from September 2017.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2188-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8575,
"total-output-tokens": 1800,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2411,
1
],
[
2411,
4618,
2
],
[
4618,
7220,
3
],
[
7220,
8127,
4
]
]
} |
b9a317ff9388bcd66b79c7bf434ea35fef95a740 | Devolution of Responsibilities and Funding:
New Responsibilities
1. We have agreed that we will seek to develop advice to the Steering Group on a menu of options that should be consulted upon in the summer around the devolution of funding and responsibilities that will accompany 100% business rates retention reforms. The Steering Group has given a steer that service options should be based around outcomes.
2. This paper outlines the new responsibilities that have been put forward as candidates for devolution to local government to be funded from business rates under the 100% rates retention scheme.
3. The new responsibilities considered in this paper are those appearing on the list of ideas circulated at the first working group meeting on 3 May 2016. The working group asked for background information on each area.
4. A number of further new responsibilities have been suggested since that discussion. This paper records these but does not discuss them in any detail here. A further paper will be prepared for the next working group meeting on these potential candidates. This does not preclude further new responsibilities from being considered at a future date.
5. For each of the new responsibilities, this paper provides some background information on the activity, the area of Government in which it currently sits, expected funding in 2020, and any information on costs and demand pressures where known.
6. This paper does not include any central government considerations. It is recognised that Government will want to consider the sector’s proposal carefully.
7. The working group is invited to consider the issues raised and come ready to share views about the extent to which the items suggested should form part of the sector’s proposal to Government for devolution. In particular the group is invited to consider the item against the criteria and what the role of local government should be were the item to be devolved.
8. In considering each item we may also wish to consider about how items might be grouped together to form sensible packages within our ‘menu’ of options approach. POLICY DEVELOPMENT: NOT A STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Adult Education Budget (AEB)
09. This is a new combined budget of £1.5bn in 2019/20 administered by the Skills Funding Agency. The AEB combines all Skills Funding Agency participation and support funding that is not European Social Fund, Advanced Learner Loans and apprenticeships. It aims to engage adults and provide the skills and learning they need to equip them for work, or other learning. It enables more flexible tailored programmes of learning to be made available, which may not require a qualification and is intended to help those furthest from learning or the workplace. It includes statutory entitlements to some qualifications.
10. To support local area needs and delivery of agreed local outcomes, colleges and other training organisations will decide on the most appropriate form of training provision. This may or may not include qualifications, as the requirement for all funded training to be in the form of a qualification has been removed. The SFA require a qualification to be delivered where a learner is exercising their legal entitlement to a first full Level 2 or Level 3 and/or English and maths. Funding goes to colleges and training organisations.
Adult Education Support
11. Funding to support adult education includes the National Careers Service, quality improvement, data collection and management, financial support for learners and funding for community learning mental health pilots. The total funding for these items is expected to be £177m in 2019/20. National Careers Service is discussed in more detail at under the Careers Guidance section below.
Advanced learner loans
12. The Skills Funding Agency has responsibility for advanced learner loans, including funding of £0.5bn in 2019/20. Loans are available for individuals aged 24 or over to undertake approved Level 3 and 4 qualifications with an eligible training organisation in England. From August 2016 the eligibility criteria is being expanded so loans will be available for individuals aged 19 or over for qualifications at Levels 3 to 6. The availability of loans at Level 3 for 19 to 23 year olds does not replace an individual’s legal entitlement for full funding for a first full Level 3 qualification.
13. Loans give individuals access to financial support for tuition costs similar to that available in higher education and are administered by Student Finance England. Advanced learner loans are paid directly to the college or training organisation on behalf of an individual. POLICY DEVELOPMENT: NOT A STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
14. To become an approved provider, colleges and training organisations must be approved and have a facility agreement with the Skills Funding Agency (following a formal selection process). The Skills Funding Agency advertises new opportunities for providers to express an interest in having a loan facility.
Careers Guidance
15. Careers guidance is currently available from a variety of sources including: a. Councils b. Education providers c. National Careers Service d. Careers Enterprise Company e. Job Centre Plus.
16. The National Careers Service is a service of the Skills Funding Agency on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It provides information, advice and guidance on learning, training and work opportunities supported by qualified careers advisers. Expenditure on 2014/15 on the National Careers Service totalled £85m.
17. The Careers & Enterprise Company was announced in 2014 to play a coordinating role in careers and enterprise supporting schools and colleges across England (covering ages 12-18). Its role is to inspire and prepare young people for the world of work. In January of this year the Prime Minister announced the company will also coordinate a nationwide campaign to increase mentoring of unengaged 13/14 year olds. The total expected funding is in the region of £70m over this Parliament.
18. In the Summer Budget 2015, the Government announced the creation of a new Jobcentre Plus employment advisor role, working with schools and sixth-form colleges to help improve young people’s ability to find work. The programme is beginning in Birmingham before expanding more widely, with full rollout across England by March 2017.
Bus Services Operators Grant
19. Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG) is revenue funding paid by the Department for Transport to operators of eligible bus services and community transport organisations to help them recover some fuel costs. The amount each bus operator receives is based on their annual fuel consumption. The aim is to help operators run services that might not otherwise be profitable and might otherwise be cancelled. In 2014/15 BSOG payments amounted to a total of £295m, comprising £244m to operators, £42m to local authorities, £5m to Better Bus Areas, and £4m to community transport operators. POLICY DEVELOPMENT: NOT A STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Work and Health Programme
20. Employment support for claimants of Jobseekers Allowance and Employment and Support allowance is currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions through Job Centre plus and contracted provision through the Work Programme and Work Choice.
21. The Spending Review announced that a new Work and Health Programme will replace the Work Programme and Work Choice and will provide specialist support for the long term unemployed and claimants with health conditions and disabilities. Work Programme provides support, working experience and training for up to 2 years. Work Choice is a voluntary Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) employment programme which helps disabled people with more complex issues find work and stay in a job. Initial indications suggest the funding may be in around £130m in 2017.
Devolution deals
22. Devolution deals are individual agreements made between a councils (or group of councils) and Government and which are designed to give councils the powers and tools they need to drive local economic growth, enabling them to unlock projects and initiatives that will boost their economies and deliver change in governance arrangements. These agreements may include devolution of activities and funding from other budgets across Government – for example Adult Education Budget elements – and/or specific funding for a set period.
‘Universal Support’ element of Universal Credit
23. Universal Support is a service in policy development by the Department for Work and Pensions which will help claimants who may need more support in transitioning to Universal Credit get the local support they need. Trials are currently being undertaken in some areas.
Sport England Funding
24. Sport England is the Government Agency responsible for increasing participation in grassroots sport. It is responsible for managing and distributing public investment and also acts as a statutory distributor of funds raised by the National Lottery. Sport England runs a number of different funding programmes which are open to a wide range of organisations, including local authorities, schools, colleges and universities, alongside sports clubs and voluntary and community organisations.
25. In 2014-15, Sport England received £83m funding and £243m National Lottery Funding. The Spending Review announced a flat cash settlement for grassroots sports funding over this Parliament.
Youth Justice
26. The Youth Justice Board is a non-executive departmental body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and is responsible for:
- overseeing youth justice services
- the placing of children and young people remanded or sentenced to custody
- advising on the operation of, and standards for, the youth justice system
- providing a ‘secure estate’ for children and young people, with young offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes
- making grants to local authorities or other bodies; and
- commissioning and publishing research on preventing youth offending.
27. The Board is responsible for the Youth Justice Grant paid to local Youth Offending Teams. This currently stands at £229m. The MoJ is currently undertaking a review of youth justice, which at the interim stage stated it was ‘keen to devolve further responsibility and funding for the delivery of youth justice to local areas’.
Transition support for disengaged young people
28. Councils currently have responsibilities for Raising the Participation Age and for disadvantaged young people, for example those not in education employment or training (NEET) 16-18 year olds, looked after children and young people with disabilities.
29. A new Youth Obligation for 18-21 year olds claiming Universal Credit will be introduced from April 2017 and delivered by Jobcentre Plus. It will be subject to national policy and requirements with some interventions funded through the Adult Education Budget. Currently the level of support to re-engage young people up to the age of 21 into education, employment or training is unknown.
Troubled Families
30. The Troubled Families initiative, launched in 2012 is aimed at helping the hardest to reach families by getting parents into work, ending truancy and cutting anti-social behaviour. It brings together funding from numerous different Departments to support a caseworker approach. The government has pledged to work with a further 400,000 families over the course of the Parliament. POLICY DEVELOPMENT: NOT A STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Affordable Housing Programme
31. The Affordable Homes Programme allocated £1.7 billion of capital funding from central government for affordable housing from 2015 to 2018 outside London. A separate fund is administered for London by the GLA. The fund is open to bids from local authorities and housing associations and they must register as investment partners of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in order to receive the funding. There is an expectation that bidders will meet part of the building project costs themselves, to reduce the demand for Government funding.
32. In order to secure funding, bidders must build the type of housing specified in the prospectus, mainly affordable rent and affordable home ownership products. Houses must be built within the timeframes imposed by the programme and comply with HCA management and monitoring systems.
Armed Forces Community Covenant
33. The Armed Forces Covenant is described as ‘a promise from the nation that those who serve or have served, and their families, are treated fairly’. The delivery of this ‘promise’ includes many locally-delivered services.
34. The covenant for communities supports the armed forces covenant and every council in England has now signed the community covenant. It is a voluntary, non-binding commitment by local councils to support members of the armed forces community in their area. The types of interventions that take place at a local level to achieve the objectives of the covenant include – prioritisation of members of the armed forces, their families and veterans in local social housing allocation, prioritisation of veterans in access to mental health services, ensuring access to local public health services by members of the armed forces, prioritisation of adaptations to homes for injured veterans, ensuring children of members of the armed forces who are moved have access to a new school, etc. All of these incur additional costs at the local level.
35. Since 2011, £30m has been allocated through the Community Covenant Grant Scheme.
36. Most recently, the Government introduced in the Budget that councils were to now disregard the War Disablement Pension in the calculation of care costs; this will be funded by a specific grant.
Employment and Support Allowance
37. Employment and Support Allowance offers support for people who are unable to work because of illness or disability. It is the responsibility of the Department for POLICY DEVELOPMENT: NOT A STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Work and Pensions and offers financial support for those unable to work and personalised help for those who can work to do so again in the future. The current total of support provided through ESA is estimated to be in the region of £300m.
Attendance Allowance
38. Attendance Allowance is a non means-tested benefit for severely disabled people aged 65 or over who need help with personal care. There are two rates of Attendance Allowance, depending on the amount of help needed. Attendance Allowance is awarded as either as an ongoing benefit or for a fixed period, determined by the Department for Work and Pensions.
New Items added and to be discussed at next meeting
39. Three new suggestions have been made: Valuation Services, Better Care Fund; Jobcentre plus. It has also been suggested that the group should consider ability to join up commissioning activities.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2189-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 15281,
"total-output-tokens": 3307,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2117,
1
],
[
2117,
4665,
2
],
[
4665,
7044,
3
],
[
7044,
9339,
4
],
[
9339,
11588,
5
],
[
11588,
14096,
6
],
[
14096,
15027,
7
]
]
} |
af0783eab4e7c7eac308929a4426b9cda8c8d1e2 | # TECHNICAL ENQUIRY
**LATRINES IN HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLES AND FLOOD-PRONE AREAS**
| Client | Jürgen Matheis (MEDAIR) | |-----------------|-------------------------| | Enquiry No. | A00181 | | Start Date | 19 September 2008 | | End Date | 26 September 2008 | | Contact and correspondence | DEW Point, The Old Mill • Blisworth Hill Barns • Stoke Road • Blisworth • Northampton, • NN7 3DB • UK | | | TEL: +44 (0)1604 858257 | | | FAX: +44 (0)1604 858305 | | | e-mail: [email protected] | | | www.dewpoint.org.uk | | Authors | Practical Action Consulting | | Amendment record| Version: Final | | Reference | | | Task Manager | Ingrid Carlier | | Signed by | |
**Disclaimer**
This paper is commissioned under DEW Point, the DFID Resource Centre for Environment, Water and Sanitation, which is managed by a consortium of companies led by Harewelle International Limited(^1). Although the resource centre is funded by DFID, the views expressed in the paper are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent DFID’s own views or policies, or those of DEW Point. Comments and discussion on items related to content and opinion should be addressed to the centre, via the “Contact and correspondence” address e-mail or website, as indicated in the control document above.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Consortium comprises Harewelle International Limited, NR International, Practical Action Consulting, Cranfield University and AEA Energy and Environment Enquiry A0181 – Latrines in high groundwater tables and flood-prone areas
Description
In an area in Madagascar we found the following ground conditions:
- high groundwater table
- flood-prone area
- first layer mainly consists of sand
We decided to use the following latrine design:
- composting latrine, consisting of two separate concrete rings, placed on the ground, each 1 m high, next to each other
- each compartment has a slab on top
- when one compartment is full the other will be used and the previous left to decompose for 1 year before being emptied and used as compost
- slab allows for urine diversion, ash and other high carbon waste materials are added after every use
- when one compartment is full the other will be used
- slab allows for urine diversion, ash is added after every use
One important design question is whether the latrines should have a bottom in order to prevent groundwater contamination.
If the design has a bottom
- It must be of a weight that prevents buoyancy of the rings in case of flooding; this adds significantly to the material costs
- If the flood is higher than 1 meter water will enter into the compartment and the emptying process will be very difficult, probably not manageable by the majority of households.
If the design has not bottom
- The construction can be made cheaper and there are no issues of buoyancy
- A flooding would lead to groundwater contamination from the latrine, however the groundwater will be polluted anyway by various contaminants in this case
- The latrine can be used again soon after the flood
Questions
1. Do you agree with the considerations made above?
2. Can it be assumed that a compost latrine without bottom will not lead to groundwater pollution if managed well (kept dry, add ash) and if the first underground layer (0.5 m) consists of sand mainly?
3. Do you have extra recommendations of how to protect a latrine with bottom against floating? Are concrete rings a good choice or are there better designs?
4. Do you know of similar scenarios in other countries? Response
The general approach would be not to seal the bottom of the pit and to allow water to filter through to the surrounding soil. The critical factors are explained in the WELL factsheet On-site Sanitation on Areas With a High Groundwater Table where the proximity of the water supply needs to be considered. They suggest a minimum of 10m.
However other designs with sealed bases have also been used. Ecological Sanitation published by SIDA outlines a common double vault dehydrating toilet in Vietnam (page 21). This design is entirely above ground and has a concrete base. It is a double chamber construction of rectangular shape with openings to each chamber extract the compost. These have a door to seal off the unit until emptying is required.
The floor is built at least 10 cm above ground so that heavy rains do not enter it but this would not make the toilet completely immune to flooding but contamination would be reduced. Eco-sanitation is outlined in the factsheet form WELL http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheets-htm/Ecological%20sanitation.htm
Where flooding is an issue the toilet is sometimes constructed on a mound of earth to raise the whole structure.
Access to the chamber is usually through a door at the back of the chamber and sometime the door is designed to capture heat from the sun as a black metal plate or transparent cover. This helps to reduce moisture content through evaporation and improve the decomposition process.
The cost of building the chambers will depend on the relative expense of materials within the area. I suspect that concrete rings are not the cheapest option. The vaults can be built with various types of brick that is then plastered to make them waterproof.
Practical Action has been promoting eco sanitation in Sri Lanka (A DVD was produced) and Paul Calvert has been working on eco-sanitation for a number of years in India http://www.eco-solutions.org/.
The accompanying factsheet does stress that composting toilets require local knowledge and acceptance of the concept of using human waste to be successful. In East Asia (Vietnam and Chine etc) there is a tradition of using human waste for agriculture and so the toilets are widely accepted. This depends on the local culture in terms of anal cleaning as they are dry systems. Initial consideration of existing practice is important as well as the potential for hygiene education. Some projects have introduced compost toilets with a wider hygiene campaign including the distribution of soap, pamphlets and door to door visits. All toilets require a “manager” to ensure continued proper use and regular upkeep. WELL FACTSHEET
On-site sanitation in areas with a high groundwater table
Author: Sarah Parry-Jones, 1999 Reviewed and Updated: Rebecca Scott, September 2005 Quality assurance: Sandy Cairncross
Abstract
In areas that experience a seasonally high groundwater table or that are prone to flooding, constructing affordable on-site sanitation facilities can be very problematic. It is a challenge that affects many countries worldwide. This technical brief provides practical guidance on some sanitation options in such conditions. More details on each option outlined can be found in the references in the further reading section.
A preventative approach includes land-use planning, to avoid building homes in areas with a high ground-water table and examining the causes of the high groundwater table and flooding, which may be due to poor drainage provision. As this is not always possible, other options may need to be considered.
Raised latrines
Where there is a seasonally high water table, a raised latrine may be the most appropriate option for on-site sanitation. The pit should be dug at the end of the dry season, to maximise the available depth of unsaturated soil that can be excavated. In areas with a recurring high groundwater table, this may be as little as 1 to 3 metres. It is worth trying to dig the pit below the water table if possible: firstly this increases the available volume and secondly there is evidence that wet pits take longer to fill, since the digestion processes in wet pits described by Mara and Sinnatamby (1986) are more efficient.
The pit should be lined with appropriate, locally available materials such as fired clay bricks, blockwork, porous concrete, large stones or pieces of rock, pre-cast concrete rings or ferrocement. It is also possible to use a 200 litre oil drum as a lining if these are readily available; this however makes a pit with a very low volume and therefore a short life. The lining is extended above ground level to provide the required pit volume, as shown in Figure 1. Excavated material can be used to build up a mound or embankment around the latrine.
This mound can be used for liquid infiltration from the pit if it is:
a. formed with permeable soil b. well compacted with a stable side slope of 1:1.5, and c. thick enough to ensure that filtrate does not seep out of the sides of the mound
The slab should be constructed at least half a metre above the highest water level.
Figure 1: Types of raised pit latrine
The Latrine Project in Mozambique (Brandberg, 1985) promoted the use of wide diameter elevated pit latrines in areas of high groundwater table, as shown in Figure 2. The lining was made with soil-cement blocks with the joints mortared above ground level. The pits were covered by a 1.5 metre diameter re-usable unreinforced dome slab. Social Impact of raised latrines
Raised latrines may not be socially acceptable if people feel 'exposed' and uncomfortable about being seen going in and out of the super-structure. They may also restrict access for disabled people, the elderly, pregnant women and others.
Short life or disposable pits
If space permits, a household may choose to dig a shallow, unlined pit latrine above the water table that will have a short life. When this pit becomes full, the household can simply abandon it and dig a new one. For this approach to be cost-effective, the slab and superstructure must be designed to be reusable and moveable.
The Arbour-loo
Some households in Zimbabwe use a shallow pit for about one month, after which time the slab and super-structure are moved to a freshly dug pit and a tree is planted in the used pit (see Morgan, 2004). Fruits like papaya thrive in this way. Although this sounds like a simple and easy technical solution, there are many social and health implications associated with this type of system. For example, people may be reluctant or unable to move the slab and superstructure so frequently or there may be resistance to eating fruit grown from a tree fertilized by human excreta. Such issues must be given serious consideration, as the approach will only be appropriate in certain environments and situations.
Pour-flush latrines
The simplest form of pour-flush latrine is the installation of a pan with a water-seal in the defecating hole over a pit. Pour-flush latrines are most appropriate for people who use water for anal cleansing and squat to defecate. Where the use of solid cleansing materials is common there may be a risk of blockage; however, pour-flush latrines with seats have also been used successfully in the Caribbean, where water is not normally used for anal cleansing.
In areas with a high groundwater table, an offset pour-flush latrine can be constructed where the pit is set away from the latrine. The pan and the pit are connected by a short length of small-diameter pipe. The benefit of this arrangement is that the latrine superstructure can be permanent, but the discharge pipe can be moved so that when the pit is full another one can be dug and connected by redirecting the pipe as shown in figure 4.
 Low-cost, offset pour-flush latrines have been successfully used in marshy areas of rural Myanmar. The pour-flush latrines (as shown in the photograph in Figure 5) are built a metre above ground level on bamboo stilts with plastic pour-flush pans set into wooden floors. The pits, offset from the superstructure with the pipe sloping at 45 degrees, are covered only with a simple bamboo trellis and matting. This makes the pit cheap enough to be abandoned if it fills or becomes silted up. In this case a new pit can be dug and the pipe moved to connect to a new pit.
**Composting latrines**
Composting latrines consist of a single or double vault construction, usually with a system to ensure that urine is kept separate from faeces. The urine is an effective fertiliser (when diluted with 3-6 parts water), while the faeces contains most of the disease-causing micro-organisms. Faeces collect in the vault and are regularly mixed with earth, wood ash or other organic waste material to deodorize it and control the moisture content. The accumulated waste must be left for at least a year, to ensure that all pathogenic organisms have died off, before it is applied to land or disposed of safely.
The collecting vault is often constructed above ground, as this improves access for removing the composted waste (it can, however, make the construction more costly). In theory then, the system is suitable for regions with a high groundwater water.
Composting latrines continue to raise much debate among international sanitation experts, with strong arguments both for and against using the system. The health risks associated with poorly managed composting latrines must be considered, together with the low level of user acceptance in many countries and cultures.
Composting latrines should only be constructed where there is a proven track record of operation and acceptance in the region and the existing practice of re-using human excreta for agricultural purposes. An extensive hygiene education programme should precede and accompany the introduction of composting latrines.
Figure 6: A raised composting latrine
Contamination of drinking water supplies
Where the source of drinking water is an aquifer with a high groundwater table, the risk of contamination from pit latrines needs to be considered.
As a general rule, abstraction of groundwater should be at least 10 metres from the latrine (WELL, 1998).
The risk of pollution through sub-surface movement of bacteria and viruses depends on a number of factors, such as: soil composition, hydraulic gradient, the soil’s pH and organic content, and rainfall. Therefore the risk of pollution needs to be assessed for each individual case.
It has been found that the linear travel of pollution is governed primarily by the groundwater flow velocity and the viability of the organisms (Lewis et al, 1980). A useful and widely accepted guideline based on this research is that the maximum distance faecal pathogens will move through unfissured soil (including sand) is as far as the groundwater moves in ten days. In low-lying flat areas, with a high groundwater table, the groundwater flow is almost certain to be less than one metre/day, so a distance of 10 metres from latrine to source is adequate.
If there is considered to be a real risk of pollution of groundwater from a pit latrine, the risk can be reduced by constructing an artificial sand barrier around the pit to create a filter effect. This is an expensive solution and it may often be more practical to develop alternative drinking water sources, at a safe distance from the on-site sanitation facilities.
In densely populated urban areas with very high groundwater tables, the groundwater quality is likely to be poor. The provision of off-site water (water piped in from elsewhere) is likely to be a lot cheaper than the provision of off-site sanitation facilities such as sewerage.
See Cave and Kolsky (1999), for further information.
Cess Pits
Shallow cess pits (an enclosed single tank with no outlet) could be considered, if protecting drinking water supplies from pollution is critical. If cess pits are used, a reliable means of emptying them is essential to their functioning and sustainability. At the planning stage, a supply of tankers for emptying must be both reliably available and affordable to users (especially once any external funding and support is removed).
References and further reading Brandberg, B. (1985) The Latrine Project, Mozambique. Manuscript Report, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre IDRC-MR58e(Rev.) June 1985.
Brandberg, B. (1997) Latrine building. A handbook for implementation of the SanPlat system, ITDG Publishing, London (2002)
Cave, B and Kolsky, P. (1999) Groundwater, latrines and health, WELL, Loughborough University http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/well-studies/full-reports/task0163.pdf (Oct 05)
Fourie, A. B. and van Ryneveld, M. B. (1995) The fate in the subsurface of contaminants associated with on-site sanitation: A review, Water SA Vol.21 No.2 April 1995.
Franceys, R., Pickford, J. and Reed, R. A. (1992) A guide to the development of on-site sanitation, WHO, Geneva. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/onsitesan/en/ (Oct 05). Also available in Spanish and French.
Lewis, J., Foster, S. and Drasar, B. S. (1980) The risk of groundwater pollution by on-site sanitation in developing countries, International Reference Centre for Wastes Disposal (IRCWD - now SANDEC) Report No. 01/82.
Mara, D. D. and Sinnatamby, G. S. (1986) Rational design of septic tanks in warm climates, The Public Health Engineer Vol. 14 No.4 October 1986.
Morgan, P. (2004), The Arborloo Book, Morgan & SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute), Zimbabwe http://aquamor.tripod.com/Arbook.htm (Oct 05) Pickford, J. (1995) *Low Cost Sanitation - A survey of practical experience*, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
WELL (1998) *Guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programmes*, DFID, London
[www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications/guidance-manual/guidance-manual.htm](http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications/guidance-manual/guidance-manual.htm) (Oct 05)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2190-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 44822,
"total-output-tokens": 4459,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1669,
1
],
[
1669,
3736,
2
],
[
3736,
6392,
3
],
[
6392,
8396,
4
],
[
8396,
9218,
5
],
[
9218,
10811,
6
],
[
10811,
11620,
7
],
[
11620,
13598,
8
],
[
13598,
15098,
9
],
[
15098,
17433,
10
],
[
17433,
17823,
11
]
]
} |
6ba5f8f15b1b25bd78cd1a58ba4c16cd7243ca98 | Generische Anforderungen zur langzeitlichen Erhaltung elektronischer Informationen:
1 Definition der Merkmale authentischer Dokumente (Records) INHALTSANGABE
1 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................................3 2 ÜBERBLICK ..................................................................................................................5 2.1 LANGZEITLICHE ELEKTRONISCHE DOKUMENTE ..............................................5 3 DEFINITIONEN ...........................................................................................................8 3.1 AUTHENTIZITÄT ......................................................................................................8 3.2 DEFINITION VON ZUVERLÄSSIGKEIT ..................................................................9 3.3 DEFINITION VON INTEGRITÄT .............................................................................11 3.4 DEFINITION VON BRAUCHBARKEIT ..................................................................13 4 ATTRIBUTE FÜR AUTHENTIZITÄT UND INTEGRITÄT .............................................16 1 Zusammenfassung
1.1.1 Unter dem Begriff langzeitliche Dokumente (Sustainable Records) sind solche elektronischen Objekte und ihre dazugehörigen Metadaten zu verstehen, zu deren Aufbewahrung diejenige Stelle verpflichtet ist, die diese Dokumente hervorgebracht hat oder die sie besitzt – und zwar bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem diese Dokumente entweder vernichtet werden können oder an ein dazu ermächtigtes Spezialarchiv zur permanenten Archivierung weitergegeben werden.
1.1.2 Die vorliegende Ausführung stellt das erste von insgesamt vier Richtliniendokumenten dar, die staatlichen Dienststellen die Prinzipien erläutern sollen, welche für die Attestierung der Authentizität eines Dokuments oder einer Kategorie von elektronischen Dokumenten im Sinn des BS ISO 15489 Information and documentation – Records management standard erforderlich sind. Voraussetzung für die dauerhafte Bewahrung von Dokumenten ist die Gewissheit, dass diese Dokumente folgende Eigenschaften mitbringen: Authentizität, Zuverlässigkeit, Integrität und Brauchbarkeit. Eine Zusammenstellung der Attribute, die für die Attestierung der erforderlichen Authentizität und Integrität eines elektronischen Dokuments erforderlich sind, liefert die vorliegende Ausführung.
1.1.3 Die vorliegende Ausführung versteht sich als eine Einheit mit den anderen drei begleitenden Ausführungen unter dem gemeinsamen Titel Generische Anforderungen zur langzeitlichen Erhaltung elektronischer Informationen. Die Titel der anderen drei Ausführungen lauten:
2. Langzeitliche Erhaltung authentischer und zuverlässiger Dokumente: Erfordernisse hinsichtlich der Handhabung
3. Langzeitliche Erhaltung authentischer und zuverlässiger Dokumente: technische Erfordernisse
4. Richtlinien zur Kategorisierung von Dokumenten hinsichtlich der Identifizierung langzeitlicher Erfordernisse
1.1.4 Ausführung 2 beschreibt, welche Kontrollmechanismen hinsichtlich der Handhabung solcher Dokumente erforderlich sind und Ausführung 3 beschäftigt sich mit den technischen Erfordernissen in Bezug auf das Vorhalten langzeitlicher elektronischer Dokumente. Ausführung 4 schließlich bietet hochwertige Handreichungen für staatliche Einrichtungen, die ihre Dokumente nach deren spezifischen Erfordernissen hinsichtlich der langzeitlichen Vorhaltung als authentische Dokumente kategorisieren wollen.
1.1.5 Diese allgemeinen (generischen) Anforderungen stellen keine vollständige Spezifikation dar. Sie sind vielmehr eine Ausgangsposition, die die Mindestanforderungen für die Glaubwürdigkeit elektronischer Dokumente formuliert, die über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg die Attribute Authentizität und Integrität beibehalten sollen. Außerdem sind sie als Begleitausführungen zu verstehen zu den Functional Requirements for Electronic Records Management Systems 2002 (Funktionale Erfordernisse für elektronische Dokumentenmanagementsysteme 2002, neubearbeitete Fassung). Diese überarbeitete Version ist erhältlich unter:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/reqs2002/
1.1.6 Die vorliegenden Richtlinien sind hauptsächlich für all jene bestimmt, die in staatlichen Dienststellen auf Regierungsebene tätig sind. Die Prinzipien zur langzeitlichen Erhaltung elektronischer Dokumente gelten gleichermaßen auch für kommunale Stellen und im gesamten öffentlichen Dienst. Im Rahmen dieser Ausführungen wird der Begriff „staatliche Einrichtung“ für jegliche Art öffentlicher Dienstleistungsorganisation verwendet, einschließlich aller staatlichen Stellen, Abteilungen und Organisationen. Die Vertrautheit mit der Struktur staatlicher Dokumente, wie sie auf Regierungsebene üblich ist, wird hierbei vorausgesetzt.
1.1.7 Jede staatliche Organisation, die die vorliegenden Anforderungen als Grundvoraussetzungen oder Maßstab für ihr Records Management anwenden wollen, werden trotzdem ihre jeweilige individuelle Situation und die daraus resultierenden spezifischen Erfordernisse definieren müssen. Diese eher allgemeinen (generischen) Anforderungen bedürfen demnach der Anpassung an die jeweilige Situation, indem folgende Überlegungen zum Tragen kommen sollten: Berücksichtigung zusätzlicher spezieller geschäftlicher Erfordernisse, die von der generischen Natur der hier gemachten Vorschläge nicht abgedeckt sind; Treffen einer Auswahl aus alternativen Anforderungen in Abhängigkeit der jeweiligen betrieblichen Verfahrensweise und Praxis; Festlegung von Prioritäten, welche Anforderungen im jeweiligen Kontext gesehen als wünschenswert oder unabdingbar zu betrachten sind.
1.1.8 Die in diesen Ausführungen dargelegten generischen Funktionen können durchaus auch für ein Dauerarchiv relevant sein. Allerdings ist die Bedürfnislage einer rein archivarischen Bestandshaltung im Vergleich zu Einrichtungen, die die Vorhaltung elektronischer Dokumente für ihren laufenden Geschäftsbetrieb benötigen, unterschiedlich einzuschätzen, selbst wenn im letzteren Fall der Gesamtvorhaltungszeitraum mehrere Jahrzehnte betragen kann. 2 Überblick
2.1 Langzeitliche elektronische Dokumente
2.1.1 Unter dem Begriff langzeitliche Dokumente (Sustainable Records) sind solche elektronischen Objekte und ihre dazugehörigen Metadaten zu verstehen, zu deren Aufbewahrung diejenige Stelle verpflichtet ist, die diese Dokumente hervorgebracht hat oder die sie besitzt – und zwar bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo diese Dokumente entweder vernichtet werden können oder an ein dazu ermächtigtes Spezialarchiv zur permanenten Archivierung weitergegeben werden. Die in diesen Ausführungen dargelegten generischen Funktionen können durchaus auch für ein Dauerarchiv relevant sein. Allerdings ist die Bedürfnislage einer rein archivarischen Bestandshaltung im Vergleich zu Einrichtungen, die die Vorhaltung elektronischer Dokumente für ihren laufenden Geschäftsbetrieb benötigen, unterschiedlich einzuschätzen, selbst wenn im letzteren Fall der Gesamtvorhaltungszeitraum mehrere Jahrzehnte betragen kann.
2.1.2 In den von The National Archives (TNA) in einer überarbeiteten Fassung von 2002 herausgegebenen Requirements for Electronic Records Management Systems: Functional Requirements (Anforderungen für elektronische Dokumentenmanagementsysteme: funktionelle Erfordernisse) werden viele der Kontrollmechanismen beschrieben, die ebenfalls erforderlich wären, um sicherzustellen, dass die in einem elektronischen Archivierungssystem erfassten Dokumente über einen definierten Zeitraum hinweg als authentische Dokumente gehalten werden können. Die Fähigkeit, Dokumente so zu erfassen, dass deren Modifizierung oder inhaltliche Bearbeitung auf Dauer ausgeschlossen ist, stellt eine Schlüsselkomponente der Authentizität dar, die durch glaubwürdige Metadaten, Audit Trails und Reports untermauert werden muss. Während es möglich ist, eine Dokumentkopie in seinem originären Softwareformat zu erfassen und es unverändert in einem Repository zu speichern, das mit einem unternehmenseigenen Klassifizierungsverzeichnis verknüpft ist, mag es vielleicht nicht unbedingt machbar oder wünschenswert sein, dieses Dokument mittelfristig in seinem Originalformat zu erhalten.
2.1.3 Die Anforderungen an die Dokumentauthentizität bedeutet, dass jede Softwaremigration zwischen verschiedenen Formaten mit großer Sorgfalt vonstatten gehen und dokumentiert werden muss, so dass die Gründe für die Migration nachvollziehbar und die Qualitätsvalidierungsmethode hinsichtlich des Dokuments nach erfolgter Migration klar ist. An dieser Stelle ist zu betonen, dass die Migrationsdokumentation insbesondere die Methoden aufzeigen muss, die bei der Durchführung der Migration angewendet wurden. Diese Durchführungsprozesse müssen auch mit nachvollziehbaren Aufzeichnungen belegt werden, die es erlauben, zu überprüfen, wer was wann gemacht hat.
2.1.4 Ein nachhaltiges Dokumentenmanagement erfordert von jeder Institution ein geeignetes Maß an Funktionalität gepaart mit den für nachhaltige Managementlösungen erforderlichen Instrumenten und betrieblichen Festlegungen. Die langzeitliche Haltung von elektronischen Dokumenten ist als ein Vermögensgut des Unternehmens anzusehen, deren Zuverlässigkeit und Integrität es zu bewahren gilt, solange diese Dokumente gebraucht werden. Dazu gehört auch, dass Änderungen des Dokumentinhalts oder des Kontexts verhindert werden, damit die Authentizität gewahrt bleibt. Außerdem erfordern diese Dokumente ständige Erhaltungsmaßnahmen in angemessenen Formaten, um deren Verfügbarkeit sicherzustellen.
2.1.5 Elektronisch erstellte und erhaltene Dokumente sind einem ständigen Risiko ausgesetzt, beabsichtigt oder unbeabsichtigt verändert zu werden, und solche Veränderungen sind unter Umständen nicht so ohne weiteres feststellbar. Die Authentizität von elektronischen Dokumenten ist in Gefahr, wann immer diese von einem Ort zum anderen (d.h. beim Versenden zwischen Personen, Systemen oder Anwendungen) oder mit der Zeit von einem Medium zum anderen transferiert werden (d.h. entweder bei der Speicherung offline oder beim Upgrade oder dem Ersatz von im Rahmen der Datenverarbeitung, Datenkommunikation oder Wartung verwendeten Hardware oder Software). Die Authentizität kann weiterhin bei den Zugangs- und Übertragungsvorgängen kompromittiert werden, wo Zugangsschnittstellen nicht autorisierte und undokumentierte Modifikationen der Dokumente erlauben. Es müssen daher Vorkehrungen getroffen werden, die Authentizität von elektronischen Dokumenten, die über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg aufbewahrt werden, überprüfen und bewahren zu können, damit sichergestellt ist, dass ein elektronisches Dokument auch tatsächlich ist und dauerhaft bleibt, was es vorgibt zu sein und in wesentlicher Hinsicht nicht verändert oder beschädigt wurde.
2.1.6 In BS ISO 15489 Information and documentation – Records management standard wird ausgeführt, dass ein Dokument “in korrekter Weise den Inhalt einer Mitteilung wiedergeben muss beziehungsweise welche Entscheidungen getroffen wurden oder welche Handlungen erfolgt sind. Es muss in der Lage sein, die geschäftlichen Erfordernisse, weswegen es erstellt wurde, zu erfüllen und auch als Handlungsnachweis verwendbar sein.“
2.1.7 In diesem Zusammenhang bedeutet dies, dass der Inhalt eines Dokuments „die für die Dokumentierung einer Transaktion erforderlichen Metadaten entweder enthalten oder mit diesen in ständiger Weise verknüpft oder an diese angeschlossen sein muss.“ Die wichtigsten Elemente können wie folgt zusammengefasst werden:
- Die Struktur eines Dokuments, das heißt sein Format und die Beziehungsstruktur seiner konstituierenden Elemente müssen intakt bleiben
- Aus dem Dokument muss der geschäftliche Kontext, in dem es erstellt, erhalten und benutzt wurde, hervorgehen. Dazu gehören auch der betriebliche Prozess, der die entsprechende Transaktion zuzuordnen ist, das Datum und die Uhrzeit der Transaktion sowie die daran beteiligten Personen
- Zwischen separat gehaltenen Teildokumenten muss eine Verknüpfung bestehen, damit die Kombination zu einem Gesamtdokument jederzeit möglich ist. 2.1.8 Die wesentlichen Eigenschaften eines Dokumentenmanagement (Records Management) werden in Abschnitt 7.2 des Standard Information and documentation – Records management standard BS ISO 15489 definiert:
- Authentizität
- Zuverlässigkeit
- Integrität
- Brauchbarkeit
2.1.9 Die dauerhafte Anerkennung eines Objekts als ein glaubwürdiges Dokument kann nur mit Hilfe bestimmter Leistungskriterien sichergestellt werden, die dafür Sorge tragen, dass diese vier Eigenschaften während der Lebensdauer des Dokuments erfüllt werden. Diese Elemente werden im nächsten Abschnitt dieser Ausführungen näher dargelegt. Methoden zur weiteren sachlichen Eingrenzung dieser vier Dokumentmerkmale werden auch in Ausführung 4 aufgezeigt (Richtlinien zur Kategorisierung von Dokumenten hinsichtlich der Identifizierung langzeitlicher Erfordernisse). 3 Definitionen
3.1 Authentizität
3.1.1 Abschnitt 7.2 des BS ISO 15489 Standard Information and documentation – Records management standard legt fest, dass ein authentisches Dokument ein Dokument ist, bei dem die Beweislage sicherstellt, dass a) es das Dokument ist, das es vorgibt zu sein b) es von derjenigen Person erstellt oder versendet worden ist, die vorgibt, das Dokument erstellt oder versendet zu haben c) es tatsächlich zu der angegebenen Zeit erstellt oder versendet wurde.
3.1.2 In dem Normenwerk heißt es weiter, dass „Institutionen zum Zweck der Sicherstellung der Authentizität von Dokumenten Richtlinien und Verfahrensweisen implementieren sollen, die die Erstellung, den Empfang, die Übertragung, den Erhalt und die Bereitstellung von Dokumenten überwachen sollen, damit die Ersteller von Dokumenten autorisiert und identifiziert werden können und damit die Dokumente selbst gegen nichtautorisierte Zusätze, unzulässiges Löschen, Veränderungen, unerlaubte Benutzung und gegen Verbergen geschützt sind.“
3.1.3 Allerdings definiert BS ISO 15489 die wesentlichen Merkmale eines Records Management in Abschnitt 7.2 mit den Merkmalen:
- Authentizität
- Zuverlässigkeit
- Integrität
- Brauchbarkeit
3.1.4 In der Praxis kann Authentizität aber nur dann bestehen, wenn genügend Elemente der anderen drei Merkmale vorliegen, da diese überhaupt erst die Voraussetzung sind für die Etablierung von Authentizität in einer elektronischen Umgebung für Dokumente. Authentizität als solche ist ein implizierter Wert, der aus der Präsenz der expliziten Elemente abgeleitet oder angenommen wird, die die anderen drei Merkmale ausmachen. Die Annahme der Authentizität ist eine Folgerung aus bekannten Tatsachen über die Art und Weise, wie ein Dokument erstellt wurde, wie mit ihm verfahren wurde und wie es erhalten wurde.
3.1.5 Die Annahme der Authentizität beruht auf der Anzahl der erfüllten Anforderungen und auf dem Grad, bis zu dem jede einzelne dieser Anforderungen erfüllt wird. Die Anforderungen haben demzufolge einen kumulativen Charakter: Je höher die Anzahl der erfüllten Anforderungen und je höher der Grad, bis zu dem jede einzelne Anforderung erfüllt wird, umso höher ist die Annahme der Authentizität.
3.1.6 Zur Aufrechterhaltung der Annahme der Authentizität müssen die Dokumente in Übereinstimmung mit Verfahrensweisen gehandhabt werden, die deren kontinuierliche Authentizität gewährleisten. Die Erstellung von Dokumentkopien muss in Übereinstimmung mit Verfahrensweisen erfolgen, die gewährleisten, dass die Authentizität durch den Reproduktionsprozess nicht beeinträchtigt wird. Die Anforderungen gründen auf dem Konzept des „Vertrauens“ (Trust) auf die Haltung und Erhaltung von Dokumenten vom Augenblick der Dokumenterstellung an. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass einige Dokumente bei der Migration von einem Softwareformat zu einem anderen gewissen Änderungen unterworfen sind, muss der mit dem Standardisierungsverfahren in Verbindung stehende Begriff „Vertrauen“ eher unter dem Gesichtspunkt der durch das Migrationsverfahren bedingten Wahrscheinlichkeit der Authentizität denn durch deren Gewissheit betrachtet werden.
3.1.7 Die Beurteilung der Authentizität eines Dokuments beinhaltet auch die Feststellung seiner Identität und die Demonstration seiner Integrität. Die Identität eines Dokuments bezieht sich auf seine Attribute, einschließlich seine externen Attribute wie Kontext und Herkunft, die einzigartige Merkmale dieses Dokuments konstituieren und es von anderen Dokumenten unterscheidet – zum Beispiel der Name des Autors, Datum und Ort der Dokumenterstellung, thematischer Gegenstand. Integrität hingegen bezieht sich auf die Vollständigkeit und Konsistenz des Dokuments: Ein Dokument besitzt Integrität, wenn es über den gesamten Zeitraum seiner Lebensdauer hinweg in allen seinen wesentlichen Merkmalen vollständig und unverfälscht ist. Dies bedeutet nicht, dass ein Dokument genau dasselbe sein muss wie das ursprüngliche Erstdokument, um seine Integrität zu demonstrieren. Ein Dokument kann als im Wesentlichen vollständig und unverfälscht betrachtet werden, wenn die für dessen Zweckbestimmung zu kommunizierende Botschaft unverändert ist.
3.2 Definition von Zuverlässigkeit
3.2.1 Der Standard BS ISO 15489 betrachtet ein Dokument als zuverlässig, „dessen Inhalt als vollständige und genaue Darstellung derjenigen Transaktionen, Aktivitäten oder Fakten angesehen werden kann, von denen es Zeugnis ablegt und auf die sich nachfolgende Transaktionen oder Aktivitäten berufen können.“ Als zuverlässig zu betrachtende Dokumente müssen zur selben Zeit erstellt worden sein wie die Transaktionen oder Ereignisse, auf die sie sich beziehen (oder kurz darauf). Sie müssen entweder von Personen erstellt worden sein, die direkte Kenntnis der Fakten haben oder von im Betriebsablauf routinemäßig eingesetzten Transaktionsinstrumenten.
3.2.2 Der Standard BS ISO 15489 führt im Hinblick auf das Merkmal Zuverlässigkeit weiter aus:
Jedes zum Management von Dokumenten eingesetzte System muss einen kontinuierlichen und regelmäßigen Betrieb in Übereinstimmung mit verantwortlichen Verfahrensweisen sicherstellen können.
Ein Dokumentenmanagementsystem muss
- alle Dokumente, die im Rahmen des Geschäftsbetriebs anfallen, routinemäßig erfassen
- die Dokumente auf eine Weise organisieren, die die Betriebsabläufe des Erstellers der Dokumente widerspiegeln
- die Dokumente vor nichtautorisierten Veränderungen oder vor Weitergabe bewahren
- routinemäßig als primäre Informationsquelle fungieren in Bezug auf alle Angelegenheiten, die in den Dokumenten dargelegt sind
- jederzeitigen Zugang ermöglichen zu allen relevanten Dokumenten und deren Metadaten.
3.2.3 Zuverlässigkeit ist daher gegeben, wenn es Belege dafür gibt, dass die Dokumente als Teil eines legitimen Geschäftsablaufs erstellt und erfasst wurden und in einen logischen und angemessenen Platz innerhalb des unternehmenseigenen Klassifikationsschemas oder Aktensystems eingestellt wurden, von wo aus diese Dokumente dem Unternehmensmanagement zur Verfügung stehen. Dabei muss die Identität und wo dies möglich ist auch die spezifische Rolle jeder bei der Erstellung und Erfassung der Dokumente beteiligten Person klar ersichtlich sein. Weiterhin muss der betriebliche Kontext oder geschäftliche Ablauf, im Rahmen dessen ein Dokument generiert oder bearbeitet wurde, ersichtlich sein.
3.2.4 Zuverlässigkeit muss die Identität eines Dokuments wahren, wie dies in obigem Absatz 3.1.7 dargelegt ist. Man könnte sagen, dass Zuverlässigkeit ein Aspekt oder eine Funktion der unmittelbaren betrieblichen Erfordernisse eines Unternehmens sind. Jedes Unternehmen ist bei der Umsetzung von betrieblichen Verfahrensweisen und der Durchführung von Transaktionen auf zuverlässige, in einem logischen Kontext platzierte Dokumente angewiesen. Wenn Zuverlässigkeit nicht gleich bei der Erstellung und Erfassung eines Dokuments in die betrieblichen Verfahrensabläufe durch die Einsetzung von Record Management-Funktionalitäten integriert wird, besteht wenig Aussicht, dass diese nachträglich auf verlässliche Weise gewährleistet werden kann. Die Anwendung von Records Management-Funktionalität ist zwar für den Aspekt Zuverlässigkeit erforderlich – bei dem Punkt Integrität allerdings geht es darum, zu zeigen, dass die bei der Erfassung in ein „zuverlässiges“ Dokumentenmanagementsystem angewendeten Kontrollmechanismen solange aufrecht erhalten und sichergestellt werden, solange ein Dokument benötigt wird.
3.2.5 Beständige Zuverlässigkeit ergibt sich daher aus betrieblichen Erfordernissen, die auf die kontinuierliche Existenz eines Dokuments und speziell auf jene Elemente innerhalb eines Dokuments angewiesen sind, deren kontinuierlicher Erhalt als wesentlich angesehen wird, wenn das Dokument als solches weiterhin als zuverlässig betrachtet werden soll. Die Notwendigkeit der Zuverlässigkeit wird jedoch je nach Typus oder Kategorie der von staatlichen Einrichtungen erstellten und vorgehaltenen Dokumente unterschiedlich ausfallen.
3.2.6 Das Merkmal Zuverlässigkeit lässt sich in drei Subelemente unterteilen. Sie lauten:
- Vertrauen
- Beziehungsverhältnis / Kontext
- Langlebigkeit 3.2.7 Vertrauen ist wichtig für Zuverlässigkeit, denn ohne Vertrauen kann es keinen sinnvollen Glauben in die Genauigkeit eines vorgehaltenen Dokuments geben. Beziehungsverhältnis und Kontext nehmen Bezug auf das Verständnis der Bedeutung und des Wertes von Dokumenten. Die beiden Begriffe sprechen die Fähigkeit des Lesers eines Dokuments an, dieses in seinen betrieblichen Bezug in einer Weise zu setzen, die es ihm erlaubt, die Beziehung zu anderen beteiligten Dokumenten in klarer und transparenter Weise herzustellen. Langlebigkeit bezieht sich auf den Zeitraum, während dem ein Unternehmen nach wie vor vom Vorhandensein bestimmter Dokumente abhängt, um übriggebliebene betriebliche Erfordernisse erfüllen zu können.
3.3 Definition von Integrität
3.3.1 Der Standard BS ISO 15489 legt fest, dass “die Integrität eines Dokuments durch seine Vollständigkeit und Unverändertheit bestimmt wird.” Zu diesem Zweck muss ein Dokument gegen nichtautorisierte Veränderungen geschützt werden. Dokumentenmanagementverfahren müssen konkrete Auskunft darüber geben, welche Zusätze und Anmerkungen einem Dokument hinzugefügt werden dürfen, nachdem es erstellt worden ist, welche Zusätze oder Anmerkungen erlaubt sind und wer zur Vornahme solcher Änderungen befugt ist. Jede autorisierte Anmerkung oder Löschung und jeder Zusatz zu einem Dokument müssen explizit angegeben werden und nachvollziehbar sein.
3.3.2 Der Standard BS ISO 15489 legt dies in der folgenden Aussage klar:
Es sind Kontrollmaßnahmen wie etwa Zugangs-Monitoring, Benutzer-Verifikation, autorisierte Dokumentenvernichtung und Sicherheitskontrollen zu implementieren, um nichtautorisierten Zugang, Vernichtung, Änderung oder Entfernen von Dokumenten zu verhindern. Diese Kontrollen können von innerhalb oder auch von außerhalb eines spezifischen Dokumentensystems erfolgen. Bei elektronischen Dokumenten hat die Unternehmensorganisation gegebenenfalls dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass Systemfehlfunktionen, Upgrades oder reguläre Wartungsarbeiten keinen negativen Einfluss auf die Dokumente haben.
3.3.3 Zur Aufrechterhaltung der Annahme der Authentizität ist es nötig, die prozessualen Kontrollen über die elektronischen Dokumente zu identifizieren, die eine umfängliche Wahrscheinlichkeit ihrer Integrität liefern. Die die Integrität definierenden Kontrollen beinhalten:
- die Etablierung von Zugangsprivilegien in Bezug auf die Erstellung,
- Modifikation,
- Annotation
- Verschiebung und
- Vernichtung von Dokumenten;
- das Einsetzen von Verfahrensweisen, die den Verlust oder die Beschädigung von Dokumenten verhindert, aufdeckt und korrigiert;
- die Implementierung von Maßnahmen zur Sicherstellung der kontinuierlichen Identität und Integrität von Dokumenten hinsichtlich der Degradation von Medien und in Bezug auf den technologischen Wandel. von Trägermedien; • die formelle Identifizierung des maßgeblichen Dokuments, wo mehrere Kopien bestehen; und schließlich • die klare Identifizierung und Erhaltung jeglicher dokumentbegleitenden Dokumentationen zum Verständnis des jeweiligen gesetzlichen, administrativen und technischen Kontexts.
3.3.4 Während Zuverlässigkeit sich aus dem ursprünglichen Betriebszweck ergibt, weswegen ein Dokument erstellt wurde, muss Integrität die langfristigen geschäftlichen Erfordernisse widerspiegeln, die durch die kontinuierliche Existenz eines Dokuments gewährleistet werden. BS ISO 15489 unterscheidet Zuverlässigkeit von Integrität und legt nahe, dass zwischen den unmittelbaren betrieblichen Erfordernissen einerseits und den längerfristigen geschäftlichen Notwendigkeiten andererseits unterschieden werden muss. Während bei den ersteren Wert auf die Zuverlässigkeit der Dokumente gelegt wird, damit effektive Transaktionen sichergestellt sind, muss bei letzteren die Integrität der Dokumente durch Eigenschaften der Überprüfbarkeit gewährt sein, um diese auch längerfristig als authentisch ansehen zu können. Wenn Integrität nicht gegeben ist, ist es auch schwer den Beweis der Authentizität zu erbringen oder geltend zu machen.
3.3.5 Das Merkmal Integrität lässt sich in vier Subelemente unterteilen. Sie lauten: • Nachvollziehbarkeit • Vorhaltezeiten • Anwendbare Bestimmungen, Normen (Standards) und Regelungen • Risiko
3.3.6 Um sicherzustellen, dass ein Dokument unverändert ist oder lediglich autorisierte und legitime Änderungen vorgenommen wurden, muss der Status von Dokumenten sowie erfolgte Änderungen an diesen überprüfbar beziehungsweise nachvollziehbar sein.
3.3.7 Da Integrität mit der Beweisbarkeit von Authentizität über einen längeren Zeitraum hinweg verbunden ist, ist es nötig, die für die jeweiligen spezifischen geschäftlichen Erfordernisse zur Anwendung kommenden Vorhaltezeiten zu bestimmen.
3.3.8 In bestimmten Fällen kann es erforderlich oder wünschenswert sein, Dokumente vorzuhalten, die sich auf eine ganze Dokumentkategorie beziehen und die ihrerseits in Erfüllung zu der betreffenden Zeit gültigen Ausführungsbestimmungen oder Standards generiert wurden. Um zu verifizieren, ob die Aufzeichnung einer Transaktion unter den gegebenen Umständen rechtmäßig war, kann es möglicherweise erforderlich sein, einen Bezug zu den für diese Transaktion geltenden Bestimmungen zu setzen.
3.3.9 Die Problematik der Integrität von Dokumenten ist eng mit einer effektiven Geschäftskontinuitätsplanung verbunden, und zwar insofern als zur Ermittlung der Kosten einer kontinuierlichen Dokumentenintegrität die Evaluierung des Geschäftsrisikos erforderlich ist, das ein Unternehmen eingeht, wenn Dokumente unvollständig oder mit nur eingeschränkter Audit-Funktionalität vorgehalten werden.
3.4 Definition von Brauchbarkeit
3.4.1 Der Standard BS ISO 15489 definiert ein brauchbares Dokument als „eines, dass lokalisiert, wiedererlangt, präsentiert und interpretiert werden kann.“ Es muss in der Folge des Geschäftsvorgangs oder der Transaktion, die das Dokument hervorgebracht hat, direkt vorweisbar sein. Die kontextuellen Verknüpfungen der Dokumente müssen die für ein Verständnis der Transaktionen, die diese Dokumente hervorgebracht und benutzt haben, benötigten Informationen mit sich führen. Es muss möglich sein, ein Dokument im Kontext der weiteren geschäftlichen Aktivitäten und Funktionen zu identifizieren. Die Verknüpfungen zwischen Aufzeichnungen, die eine Sequenz von Aktivitäten dokumentieren, müssen aufrecht erhalten werden.
3.4.2 Die Aspekte, die die Brauchbarkeit definieren, fallen je nach Geschäftsanforderung unterschiedlich aus. Zu Beginn werden die betrieblichen Abläufe, die ein Dokument hervorgebracht oder erfasst haben, einen Einfluss darauf haben, wie dieses eingesetzt oder gespeichert wird. In dem Maße allerdings wie sich der spezifische Betriebszweck, der das Dokument ursprünglich hervorbrachte, mit der Zeit auflöst, können andere Verwendungserfordernisse dieser Informationen evident werden. So kann sich etwa die Notwendigkeit ergeben, Zugang zu den Informationen in unterschiedlichen Formen bereitzustellen, die mit anderen nachfolgend erstellten Materialien verknüpft sind oder in Beziehung stehen. Das Entscheidende für jede Unternehmensorganisation ist, dass die benötigte Information unmittelbar für autorisierte Benutzer zugänglich sein muss. Dabei spielt es keine Rolle, welches die betrieblichen Gründe für diesen Informationsbedarf sind oder welche Form erforderlich ist. Zudem muss gegebenenfalls auch der Kontext, in dem das Dokument erstellt und vorgehalten wurde, ersichtlich sein.
3.4.3 Der Aspekt Brauchbarkeit umfasst mindestens vier Schlüsselfelemente:
- Die Form oder die verschiedenen Formen, in denen eine Unternehmensorganisation die Informationen betrachten oder publizieren möchte
- Die Fähigkeit zur Erstellung neuer Ausführungen des Dokuments in anderen Formaten für weitere Verwendungen unter gleichzeitigem Beibehalt von Verknüpfungen zum Ursprungsdocument
- Das Erteilen von Zugangsautorisierungen, die den Zugang ermöglichen zu den Dokumenten oder zu bearbeiteten Ausfertigungen eines Dokuments (z.B. in Fällen, wo die Veröffentlichung eines begrenzten Teils eines Dokuments erforderlich ist aber bestimmte Details wie Namen oder Adressen zurückgehalten werden sollen).
- Die Möglichkeit durch den Benutzer, festzustellen, woher die Information stammt und wo sie zu finden und zu erlangen ist, sollte eine Authentifizierung derselben erforderlich sein.
Zu keinem Zeitpunkt darf der Aspekt Brauchbarkeit mit dem Aspekt Integrität in Konflikt geraten. 3.4.4 Die Erfordernisse für den Aspekt Brauchbarkeit mögen auf den ersten Blick vielleicht am einfachsten einzugeben und zu erfassen erscheinen, vor allem in den Fällen, wo es sich um Bilder oder Text handelt. Vorausgesetzt dass der geeignete Viewer oder Browser zur Verfügung steht, dürfte der Enduser keinerlei Schwierigkeiten haben im Hinblick auf den Zugang zu den Dokumenten. Man könnte also versucht sein, die Problematik auf die Verfügbarkeit und Präsenz der geeigneten Viewing-Software zu beschränken. Allerdings ist die Sache etwas komplizierter als dieser erste Augenschein vermuten lässt, denn Brauchbarkeit bezieht sich auch auf die leichte Auffindbarkeit und das schnelle Wiedererlangen (Retrieval) der Information sowie auf die Präsentationsqualität. Die erste zu stellende Frage ist hierbei:
- Was macht die Brauchbarkeit eines Dokuments aus und wie könnte eine Differenzierung hinsichtlich verschiedener Arten von Dokumenten aussehen?
3.4.5 Vier Unteraspekte müssen demnach bei der Evaluierung der Erfordernisse für die langzeitliche Brauchbarkeit von Dokumenten in Betracht gezogen werden. Sie lauten:
- Auffindbarkeit
- Wiedererlangung (Retrieval)
- Präsentation
- Interpretation
3.4.6 Auffindbarkeit bezieht sich auf die Mittel zur zuverlässigen und nicht übergebührend komplizierten Identifizierung von aufgesuchten Dokumenten. Die Verortung innerhalb des unternehmenseigenen Klassifikationsschemas oder Aktensystems ist ein Aspekt, aber die genaue Bezeichnung (Titulierung), eine sinnvolle Nomenklatur und die Entwicklung von Aliasen oder alternativen Bezeichnungen fallen ebenfalls in diesen Bereich.
3.4.7 Ein effektives Retrievalsystem hängt entscheidend von der richtigen Einschätzung der Zugangsnachfrage ab und dem Einsatz und dem kontinuierlichen Management von geeigneten und dauerhaft angelegten Zugangskontrollmechanismen.
3.4.8 Eine effektive Präsentation sorgt dafür, dass der Benutzer ein Dokument wiederfindet und es mit dem geeigneten Maß an Funktionalität in sinnvoller Weise interpretieren kann. In einigen Fällen kann zu diesem Zweck das Originalprogramm erforderlich sein, um Daten verändern oder editieren zu können, indem die gleiche Funktionalität zur Erstellung eines neuen Dokuments oder einer neuen Version genutzt wird, die dann abgespeichert und zur Unternehmensdatei hinzugefügt wird, ohne das Originaldokument zu verändern oder zu löschen. In anderen Fällen mag es ausreichend sein, eine Abbildung in einer statischeren Umgebung zu betrachten, entweder unter Verwendung von Viewer-Technologie oder durch das Generieren einer Umsetzung, die das Original in getreuer Form wiedergibt.
3.4.9 Eine einfache Form der Dokumentinterpretation kann die Verwendung einfacher Betrachtungstools für Text oder Bilder sein, die ohne die Erweiterungen der Originalsoftware auskommen. So können beispielsweise Dokumente, die mit MS-Word erstellt worden sind, mit einem einfachen Textdateibetrachter wie WordPad angesehen werden, wenngleich die ursprüngliche Formatierung dabei verloren geht. Unter anderen Bedingungen kann die Betrachtung eines Dokumentinhalts ohne bestimmte Ansichten und Formattierungen des ursprünglichen Dokuments dessen Interpretation erschweren oder unmöglich machen.
3.4.10 In anderen Fällen ist es gegebenenfalls erforderlich, zur Interpretation auch mit dem Dokument verknüpfte Kontextinformationen heranzuziehen, zum Beispiel die Ansicht von Metadaten sowohl im Original- als auch im existierenden Kontext. Dies kann es erforderlich machen, dass Benutzer sowohl Einsicht in das gegenwärtige Geschäftsklassifizierungssystem nehmen, in dem die Dokumente untergebracht sind, als auch in das ursprüngliche Klassifizierungssystem, sofern sich dieses von der aktuellen Version unterscheidet. Diese Situation kann sich ergeben, wo Funktionen zwischen verschiedenen staatlichen Stellen ausgetauscht werden und Export und Import von großen Metadaten und Datenmengen zwischen EDRM-Plattformen stattfinden. 4 Attribute für Authentizität und Integrität
4.1.1 Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch wird der Begriff Authentizität definiert als „die Eigenschaft, authentisch zu sein beziehungsweise annahmeberechtigt zu sein.“ Der Ausdruck “authentisch” bedeutet weiterhin „aufgrund erfüllter Fakten akzeptanzwürdig oder glaubwürdig zu sein“ und ist synonym zu den Begriffen echt (genuine) und Bona Fide (in gutem Glauben). Echt “bedeutet Eigentlichkeit des Wesens, nicht gefälscht, imitiert oder verfälscht (und) hat die Konnotation definitiver Ursprung einer Quelle.“ Bona Fide “impliziert guter Glaube und Aufrichtigkeit der Absicht.” Aus diesen Definitionen ergibt sich, dass ein authentisches Dokument ist, was es vorgibt zu sein und frei ist von Abänderungen oder Verfälschungen.
4.1.2 Die Annahme der Authentizität ist eine Folgerung, die aus bekannten Tatsachen gezogen werden kann über die Art und Weise, wie ein Dokument erstellt wurde, wie mit ihm verfahren wird und wie es erhalten (unterhalten) wird. Die Ausführungen 2 und 3 dieses Regelwerks beschreiben die Handhabung und die technischen Erfordernisse, die für die Annahme von Authentizität erforderlich sind. Ausführung 4 dieses Regelwerks mit dem Titel Richtlinien zur Kategorisierung von Dokumenten hinsichtlich der Identifizierung langzeitlicher Erfordernisse beschreibt die Elemente, die als Schlüsselmerkmale eines Dokuments angesehen werden können und gibt eine Auflistung der wichtigsten Fragen, die staatliche Einrichtungen klären müssen, wenn sie ihre Strategien zur langzeitlichen Erhaltung von Dokumentkategorien erarbeiten.
4.1.3 Wie zuvor in Absatz 3.1.7 ausgeführt, beinhaltet die Beurteilung der Authentizität eines Dokuments auch die Feststellung seiner Identität und die Demonstration seiner Integrität. Die Identität eines Dokuments bezieht sich auf seine Attribute, einschließlich seine externen Attribute wie Kontext und Herkunft, die einzigartige Merkmale dieses Dokuments konstituieren und es von anderen Dokumenten unterscheidet – zum Beispiel der Name des Autors, Datum und Ort seiner Erstellung, sein thematischer Gegenstand. Integrität hingegen bezieht sich auf die Vollständigkeit und Konsistenz des Dokuments: Ein Dokument besitzt Integrität, wenn es über den gesamten Zeitraum seiner Lebensdauer hinweg in allen seinen wesentlichen Merkmalen vollständig und unverfälscht ist.
4.1.4 Dies bedeutet nicht, dass ein Dokument genau dasselbe sein muss wie das ursprüngliche Erstdokument, um seine Integrität zu demonstrieren. Ein Dokument kann als im Wesentlichen vollständig und unverfälscht betrachtet werden, wenn die für dessen Zweckbestimmung zu kommunizierende Botschaft unverändert ist.
4.1.5 Bei der Erfassung von Dokumenten in eine kontrollierte Domain zum Zweck der langzeitlichen Speicherung muss die durchführende Stelle ermitteln, ob und in welchem Maß die Dokumente unter Verwendung von Technologien und administrativen Verfahrensweisen vorgehalten wurden, die entweder
______________________________________________________________________
1 Oxford English Dictionary deren Authentizität sicherstellten oder zumindest das Manipulationsrisiko minimiert haben in der Zeit zwischen der ersten Erfassung der Dokumente bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo sie darauffolgend abgerufen wurden. Die unten folgenden Anforderungen behandeln den Aspekt Aufrechterhaltung der Authentizität. Nach der Festlegung der Attribute zur Unterstützung der Authentizität von elektronischen Dokumenten, muss deren Authentizität über einen langen Zeitraum und über verschiedene Hardware- und Software-Plattformen hinweg sowie in manchen Fällen auch über den Wechsel der verwahrenden Institution hinweg aufrechterhalten werden. Die Authentizität muss auch dort aufrecht erhalten werden, wo Dokumente zur permanenten Aufbewahrung ausgewählt und in die Obhut eines Spezialarchivs transferiert werden.
4.1.6 Zu diesem Zweck müssen diejenigen Stellen innerhalb einer Unternehmensorganisation, die für den Unterhalt und die Bestandserhaltung zuverlässiger und authentischer Dokumente verantwortlich sind, diese Dokumente in Übereinstimmung mit Verfahrensweisen handhaben, die deren kontinuierliche Authentizität gewährleistet. Dazu gehört auch die Erstellung von Dokumentkopien in Übereinstimmung mit Verfahren, die gewährleisten, dass die Authentizität durch den Reproduktionsprozess nicht beeinträchtigt wird. Die Anforderungen gründen auf dem Konzept des Vertrauens auf die Haltung und Erhaltung von Dokumenten vom Augenblick der Dokumenterstellung an. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass einige Dokumente bei der Migration von einem Softwareformat zu einem anderen Veränderungen unterliegen, muss der mit dem Standardisierungsverfahren in Verbindung stehende Begriff „Vertrauen“ eher unter dem Gesichtspunkt der durch das Migrationsverfahren bedingten Wahrscheinlichkeit der Authentizität denn durch deren Gewissheit betrachtet werden.
4.1.7 Die Unternehmenspolitik und deren Verfahrensweisen müssen diese Wesenszüge eines vertrauenswürdigen Dokumentenmanagementsystems untermauern. Ein vertrauenswürdiges Dokumentenmanagementsystem umfasst auch die Richtlinien, die die Erstellung, Haltung und den Gebrauch von Dokumenten regeln, die die Annahme der Dokumentauthentizität innerhalb des Systems unterstützen. Die Anforderungen dieses Regelwerks müssen die Kerninformationen über ein elektronisches Dokument identifizieren. Diese Kerninformationen müssen mit dem Dokument dauerhaft über verschiedene Hardware- und Software-Plattformen hinweg verknüpft sein, um dessen Identität festzuschreiben und aufrecht zu erhalten. Sie enthalten neben anderen Angaben den Namen des Dokumenterstellers, den Adressaten, den Verwahrer, eine Angabe zu der Angelegenheit, auf die sich das Dokument bezieht, eine Darstellung zum Kontext innerhalb des unternehmenseigenen Klassifikationsschemas (auch als „Archival Bond“ bezeichnet) und außerdem Angaben zu eventuellen Anmerkungen oder Anhängen. Diese Elemente werden in den Requirements for Electronic Records Management Systems Metadata Standard (Anforderungen an elektronische Dokumentenmanagementsysteme) des The National Archives (TNA) ausgeführt. Der Metadaten-Standard kann über den folgenden Link abgerufen werden:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/reqs2002/ 4.1.8 Der Metadaten-Standard ermöglicht erstmalig die Angabe von Metadaten auf der Komponentenebene (d.h. einer Ebene unter der eines individuellen Dokuments), bestehend aus einem einzigen physikalischen Objekt (d.h. der kleinsten Einheit einer Betriebssystemebene – der Dateiebene in MS-DOS oder UNIX). Dies ist die erste Phase der Ausweitung der PRO-Richtlinien über Metadaten in die Bereiche Nachhaltigkeit und Bestandserhaltung (Preservation) von Geschäftsdocumenten innerhalb staatlicher Einrichtungen. Der Standard kann unter Berücksichtigung dieser Entwicklungen bei Bedarf erweitert werden. Der Punkt 16 des Standard – Preservation – ist zur Zeit noch nicht vollständig ausformuliert. An diesem Thema wird innerhalb der nächsten 12 Monate noch gearbeitet. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass die Ausarbeitung von Anforderungen und begleitenden Metadaten für die langzeitliche Vorhaltung von Dokumenten in staatlichen Einrichtungen, aber auch die Erarbeitung von Orientierungsrichtlinien zur dauerhaften Bestandserhaltung bei The National Archives, im Bereich der Metadaten-Richtlinien noch weitere Präzisierungen erbringen werden.
4.1.9 Diese Metadaten mit zusätzlichen Informationen über Änderungen, die an einem elektronischen Dokument seit seiner Erstellung vorgenommen wurden, werden Bestandteil des Punktes „Preservation“ (Bestandserhaltung) innerhalb des Metadaten-Standards sein.
4.1.10 Zur Aufrechterhaltung der Annahme der Authentizität ist es nötig, die prozessualen Kontrollen über die elektronischen Dokumente zu identifizieren, die eine umfängliche Wahrscheinlichkeit ihrer Integrität liefern. Diese Kontrollen umfassen folgende Maßnahmen: die Etablierung von Zugangsprivilegien in Bezug auf die Erstellung, Modifikation, Annotation, Verlagerung und Vernichtung von Dokumenten; das Einsetzen von Verfahrensweisen, die den Verlust oder die Verfälschung von Dokumenten verhindert, aufdeckt und korrigiert; die Implementierung von Maßnahmen zur Sicherstellung der kontinuierlichen Identität und Integrität von Dokumenten gegen die Degradation von Medien und über den technologischen Wandel hinweg; die formelle Identifizierung des maßgeblichen Dokuments, wo mehrere Kopien bestehen; und schließlich die klare Identifizierung und Haltung jeglicher dokumentbegleitenden erforderlichen Dokumentationen zum Verständnis des jeweiligen gesetzlichen, administrativen und technischen Kontexts.
4.1.11 Diese Erfordernisse setzen die Existenz eines vertrauenswürdigen Verwahrers (Trusted Custodian) voraus. Die Erfordernisse bezüglich der Handhabung von Dokumenten werden in Ausführung 2 dieses Regelwerks dargelegt: Langzeitliche Erhaltung authentischer und zuverlässiger Dokumente: Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Handhabung. Sie beschreiben die erforderlichen Verfahrensweisen, die Verwahrer in die Lage versetzen, die Authentizität elektronischer Dokumente zu attestieren, nachdem diese in deren Obhut übergegangen sind. In der Regel beginnt dieses Verfahren mit der Erfassung eines Dokuments in das elektronische Dokumentenmanagementsystem ERMS (Electronic Record Management System). Dieser Vorgang erfordert das aktive Tätigwerden des Verwahrers im Rahmen des langfristigen Dokumentenunterhaltsprozesses (z.B. Software- Migration). Ein solches Tätigwerden erfordert unter Umständen die Anwendung formell bestätigter und dokumentierter Änderungen, um die weitere Brauchbarkeit der Dokumente sicherzustellen und gleichzeitig darauf zu achten, dass die Authentizität eines Dokuments nicht kompromittiert wird. Um als vertrauenswürdiger Verwahrer angesehen zu werden, muss eine Institution unter Beweis stellen, dass sie keine Gelegenheit für nichtautorisierte Änderungen von Dokumenten bietet und auch nicht zulässt, dass andere die Authentizität eines Dokuments beeinträchtigende Änderungen vornehmen. Weiterhin muss diese Institution in der Lage sein, Verfahrensweisen umzusetzen, die sicherstellen, dass jeglicher Verlust und jegliche Veränderung von Dokumenten vermieden oder wenigstens minimiert wird.
4.1.12 Die Kontrollfunktionen eines Dokumenten-Verwahrers können wie folgt zusammengefasst werden:
- Aufrechterhaltung der lückenlosen Vewahrung von Dokumenten
- Implementierung und Monitoring von Sicherheits- und Kontrollverfahren
- Sicherstellen, dass nach durchgeführten Reproduktions- und Transformationsprozessen der Inhalt von Dokumenten sowie jegliche mit diesen in Bezug stehenden Elemente in Form von Dokumentationen und Anmerkungen unverändert bleiben.
4.1.13 Die verwahrende Einrichtung muss ebenfalls nachweisen können, dass der Reproduktionsvorgang sorgfältig dokumentiert worden ist. Darüber hinaus muss die Beschreibung eines in Frage kommenden Teilbereichs von elektronischen Dokumenten Informationen enthalten über alle im Lauf der Zeit erfolgten wesentlichen Änderungen an diesen Dokumenten. Dokumentation und Beschreibung sind wesentliche Mittel des Nachweises der Integrität des Bestandserhaltungsprozesses im Allgemeinen und des Reproduktionsprozesses im Besonderen. Sie sind nötig für die ordnungsgemäße Ausübung der Funktion eines vertrauenswürdigen Verwahrers.
4.1.14 Dies bedeutet, dass sich die Autorität und Legitimität einer Authentizitätsbehauptung hinsichtlich elektronischer Dokumente vollständig auf die Integrität und interne Kohärenz der angewendeten Dokumentenmanagementverfahren gründet. Daraus folgt, dass eine Einrichtung nicht nur Verfahren entwickeln und implementieren muss, die einen hohen Grad an Vertrauenswürdigkeit der in ihrer Obhut befindlichen Dokumente vermitteln, sie muss darüber hinaus auch ehrliche und hinreichende Nachweise über die angewendeten Verfahren und getroffenen Entscheidungen erbringen, die während der treuhänderischen Tätigkeit der Dokumente verwahrenden Institution zum Tragen gekommen sind.
4.1.15 Weitere Informationen zu den erforderlichen Kontrollmechanismen stehen in den Ausführungen 2 und 3 der generischen Anforderungen zur Verfügung.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2191-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 19,
"total-input-tokens": 41559,
"total-output-tokens": 12781,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
145,
1
],
[
145,
1166,
2
],
[
1166,
4009,
3
],
[
4009,
6129,
4
],
[
6129,
9180,
5
],
[
9180,
12137,
6
],
[
12137,
12972,
7
],
[
12972,
15344,
8
],
[
15344,
18326,
9
],
[
18326,
21153,
10
],
[
21153,
23962,
11
],
[
23962,
26674,
12
],
[
26674,
29599,
13
],
[
29599,
32449,
14
],
[
32449,
33563,
15
],
[
33563,
36557,
16
],
[
36557,
39764,
17
],
[
39764,
42994,
18
],
[
42994,
45695,
19
]
]
} |
7dc10ecc54ddba0863d55ae6235a333d060b82f1 | Department for Education (DfE) Information Management Assessment Programme
Action Plan
The following table sets out the recommendations from the TNA Information Management Assessment undertaken in July 2009 and shows the Actions, Priority and Timescale in which DfE have already or plan to take the necessary actions as at July 2011.
| # | Recommendation | Actions | Priority High/Low/Medium | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | R1 | In line with the Hannigan Review guidance, DfE should ensure that they have board representation covering all aspects of information risk, and not just information security. | Recognise need to manage all aspects of information risk and ensure representation at Board Level. | High | 2009-2011 | Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) | SIRO is Director General Corporate Services and is a Board Member. Assumed responsibility 2010. | Yes | | R2 | The Board should follow the guidance set out in the Information Matters report and consider information risk alongside, and as a contributory part of, other key risks, and give it priority accordingly. | Bring Information Management Matters and Information Management Assessment and proposed response of the Information Workplace programme (IWP) before relevant Departmental Committees for scrutiny and adoption | High | 2009-2011 | Chief Information Officers Group (CIOG) | Audit and Risk Assurance scrutinised risks and considered Information Management Assessment report in February 2010; Board scrutinised and recommended acceptance by the Accounting Officer of the IWP programme as a proportionate and sensible way forward to manage information risk | Yes. IWP delivered 2010 |
Report into corporate risk registers and monitor information risk
| Priority High/Low/Medium | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |--------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | High | 2009-2011 | SIRO, CIOG | Risks monitored through updates to Departmental Risk Registers, IWP programme; Corporate | Yes | | R3 | DfE should consider the formation of an Information Management Board to oversee all aspects of knowledge and information management. | Review current governance arrangements and consider whether there should be a single overall board for KIM | Medium | 2009-2011 | CIOG | Reviewed but concluded that the most appropriate ‘home’ is overarching corporate transformation boards. Currently, Business Systems Programmes Board. | Yes | | R4 | DfE, in line with the KIM reporting structure, should develop and communicate clear responsibilities for all staff. | Review KIM function and how relates to the wider responsibilities of staff across the department | Review policies and revise to enhance departmental capability | Medium | 2009-2010 | CIOG | Clear communication of policies and staff responsibilities through IWP programme. Policies regularly reviewed and embedded at point of use in Workplaces and intranet | Yes | | | | Communicate new processes and responsibilities through the Information Workplace Programme (Content Managers/Site Administrators; Site Owner; Account Managers (KRM Team)) | | Medium | Apr 2010 and ongoing | CKO | Policies embedded at point of use; content managers supported through forum and regular newsletter; playground; engagement from Knowledge and Records Management Team (KRMT) | Yes and ongoing | | | | Review capacity and identify KIM professional roles | | Medium | 2009-2010 | CKO | Clear roles and responsibilities defined and re-organisation of KIM | Yes | | R5 | DfE to ensure that the IWP champion roles are clearly defined and fully supported. | Identify roles required and support needed for sustainability of the solution. | Medium | Apr 2010 and ongoing | CKO | Roles identified through change management stream of IWP programme. Engagement is ongoing but will take opportunity of upgrade in 2012 for re-focus and refresh of roles. Support provided through guidance, training, KRMT. | Yes and ongoing | | R6 | DfE to define, communicate and mitigate Information Management risk within its corporate and business reporting systems. | Review content of corporate communications channels for information management risk | Medium | 2010 - 2011 | CIOG | See R2. Information management risk embedded in communications for expected corporate behaviours for Workplaces | Yes and ongoing | | R7 | DfE should define what information it needs to keep, with the support of The National Archives, and ensure that all staff are aware of this. | Review policies and identify what information DfE needs to keep | Medium | 2009 - 2010 | CKO | Policies embedded in Workplaces at point of use including content type to ensure retention. Worked with policy makers to identify what needs to be kept. Further work ongoing with The National Archives. | Yes and ongoing |
Communicate policies to all staff | Medium | 2009 - 2010 | CKO | Policies communicated at | Yes | | R8 | DfE should revise the records and information management policies to ensure that they include fully the use of digital media. | Review policies to ensure that electronic records are included as well as paper. | Medium | 2010 | CKO | Revised records management policy including electronic records published in all Workplaces and intranet | Yes and ongoing | | R9 | DfE should review the current resource levels to ensure that it will continue to meet future statutory requirements. | Review operating model for KIM | Medium | 2010 | CKO | Review led to merging of library and information and records management teams to become the Knowledge and Records Management team. | Yes | | | Review ongoing demand for KIM services | Medium | 2010 | CKO | Service capacity doubled as result of extending roles of existing team and defining new Account Manager role. | Yes | | R10 | DfE should develop a migration policy to manage legacy information. | Migrate legacy records from Meridio into Legacy Records Centre | Medium | 2009 - 2010 | CKO | Information reviewed and migrated from Meridio into Legacy Records Centre | Yes | | | Review and migrate content from shared areas into IWP Records Centre | Long term | 2010 - | CKO | In progress. Users encouraged to migrate content, but no overall project instigated. The shared area lockdown tool has now been developed and will be implemented alongside the implementation of the new Desktop | No. | | R11 | DfE should review its email policy given the potential long term risks to the organisation. | Improve records declaration and email management in Workplaces | Medium | 2010 | CKO | Third party tool implemented for this purpose | Yes, September 2010 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|------|-----|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | Review and update existing guidance | Medium | Medium | | CKO | Done, Also the move to Exchange 2010 will provide the opportunity to update the guidance and embed new practice, scheduled for Q3/4 2011/12. | Yes and ongoing | | R12 | DfE should review its guidance on use of off-site storage to ensure that only information that needs to be retained is retained. | Implement Service Level Appraisal Questionnaires | Medium | Medium | DRO | Reduced need for physical review; aided bulk destruction process and reduced storage | Yes | | | Constantly review storage requirements | Medium | Medium | | DRO | Core function of RMT; greater VFM achieved in contract with external supplier FY 2010 onwards | Yes | | | Review guidance on intranet | Medium | 2010 | | DRO | Reviewed and published on the intranet. | Yes | | R13 | FOI and DP training should be included in all corporate induction programmes, in the overall context of the importance of managing DFE’s information effectively and securely. | Review FOI and DP training provision | Medium | Medium | Information Rights Team (IRT) | Considered but as recruitment much reduced induction training not seen as appropriate or effective. Will continue with intranet guidance (revised early 2011); awareness sessions and training on demand; in-depth briefings on ad hoc basis. IRT delivered 25 sessions on FOI 2010. Joint sessions (FOI and DP) are planned to support new Executive | No - consider delivery of online guidance and targeted advice across Department as best way forward. | | R14 | The department should review the material it makes available for re-use to determine if there are further information assets that could be surfaced and released proactively, in line with the Government’s ‘Making Public Data Public’ initiative (2009). From 2010 Public Data Transparency Principles. | Aiming to provide all our data (statistics) in one place on our website and integrate this into data.gov.uk. Data will be available in xml and csv formats. | Medium | Medium | Digital Communication s Unit | Launch aimed for July 2011 on DfE web site | Yes | | R15 | DfE should assess the utility of key performance measures for information management, in line with the assessment of information risk, and with the goals of DfE, to ensure that it is clear on the goals of the team in relation to the business. | KPIs for IWP and benefits tracking | Medium | 2010 - 2011 | CKO | Monthly reporting. Providing evidence of improved information management | Yes Sept 2010 and ongoing | | | | Baseline IWP benefits before upgrade to SP2010 | Medium | 2011 - 2012 | CKO | Will enable accounting for benefits realisation | No – date of upgrade in 2012 not yet known. | | | | Review and develop simple indicators for paper records management | Medium | Medium | CKI | Pending and to be carried forward | No | | R16 | DfE should develop an integrated IWP Champion and Information Manager support programme to run concurrently with the implementation project. | Investigate viability of integrating Intranet Champions and Workplace Content Managers in next phase of IWP | Medium | 2010 | CKO | Upgrade to SP2010 an opportunity to re-engage with Workplace owners and champions. Support mechanisms include fortnightly newsletter to Content Managers and Content Managers Forum | No | | R17 | DfE should introduce training on information and record keeping as part of all its induction programmes that emphasises how critical | Review provision of training in induction programmes | Medium | Medium | CKO | Recruitment very much reduced now. Basics covered in HR led induction programmes for former GO and ALB | Yes - under further review | | R18 | DfE should ensure that IRMT, HR and others develop an appropriate training programme that includes knowledge and information management for all staff. | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Review IWP training programmes to include knowledge and information management | | | Incorporate broader context into customer engagement activities of KRM Team | | | See also R17 |
| R19 | DfE to review training methods and assess ongoing support to ensure that maximum benefit is derived from the training for individual staff and the department. | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Review take up of IWP training programme | | | Review training channels including online guidance/classroom/activities of KRM Team in account manager role for IWP |
| Good information management is as a business activity that every team 'owns'. | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Review and promote other training channels including support provided by KRMT in driving up usage of Workplaces | | Basics communicated in IWP training |
| Department | IMA Team | Information Management Consultant | |------------|----------|-----------------------------------| | | | | | R20 | DfE to work with The National Archives Web Continuity Team to ensure web content is captured. | Identify existing guidance and standards and ensure that new websites are set up appropriately | Medium | Medium | Digital Communication s Unit | Web content has been and continues to be captured for ALBs closure as part of ALB Reform Programme | Yes | |-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | R21 | DfE should recognise that the Knowledge of the organisation must be managed, and that a formal and mandated set of processes, systems and principles be established and governed. | Establish Knowledge and Information Management maturity model communicated as the workplace Online Story on the intranet | Medium | Medium 2010 onwards | CKO | A KIM maturity model has been developed covers technology features against KM practice. It is deployed when considering what level of Workplaces an organisational unit requires. | Yes | | | | Deliver systems, processes based on IM principles and drive up their usage as this means improved information and knowledge management | Medium | Medium 2010 onwards | CKO | IWP policy identifies new ways of managing documents and records based on sound information management principles. Although organisational culture does not permit “mandation”. IWP usage continues to increase; 12,000 records declared by June 2011. | Yes | | R22 | DfE to consider implementing a formal repository of Knowledge and Information assets to maintain the corporate memory. | Implement wiki-like repository for sharing information and knowledge assets | Medium | Medium | CKO | The Knowledge implemented July 2010. Comprises briefings and user generated content in the form of insights and experience of policy makers. It is | Yes | | Department | IMA Team | Information Management Consultant | |------------|---------|-----------------------------------|
intended to be shared across the education sector.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2192-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 22565,
"total-output-tokens": 3359,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2895,
1
],
[
2895,
4399,
2
],
[
4399,
5795,
3
],
[
5795,
7246,
4
],
[
7246,
9580,
5
],
[
9580,
11713,
6
],
[
11713,
13983,
7
],
[
13983,
16149,
8
],
[
16149,
16323,
9
]
]
} |
333be1ed43ebbbfb9a196793e8b00d853f9d1bc6 | Information Management Assessment
Action plan progress review
Department for Education
Reviewed June 2017
Published September 2017
Working with government to raise standards in information management Contents
Background and action plan development 2 Executive summary 3 Progress to address recommendations and risk areas 4 Next steps 8
© Crown copyright 2017.
You may use and re-use the information featured in this report (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Any enquiries regarding the use and re-use of this information resource should be sent to [email protected] Background
- The Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme is the best-practice model for government bodies wishing to demonstrate commitment to the principles of good information management.
- The Department for Education (DfE) IMA took place in November 2015. The National Archives formally assessed progress to address recommendations in June 2017. This progress review summarises key developments since the IMA.
Action plan development and delivery
- DfE produced a draft action plan in June 2016. A final redacted version was published with the IMA report on The National Archives’ website in January 2017.¹
- The action plan was owned by the central knowledge and information management team and we saw limited evidence that the report’s recommendations had a department-wide impact. Progress to address recommendations was not scrutinised at a senior level and outcomes from the IMA were not reported to the departmental board as recommended by Sir Alex Allan in his 2014 Records Review.²
- Now that the IMA is closed, senior support will be essential if DfE is to address the remaining risks and gaps highlighted in this document and build on and embed the positive progress we recognise.
- Areas where continued attention is still needed are listed below under ‘Next Steps.’
¹ [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/)
² [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/records-review-by-sir-alex-allan](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/records-review-by-sir-alex-allan) Executive summary
Value of information
- The Future Workplace programme has the potential to help DfE to adopt a more strategic approach to information and records management. While recognising this and the proposed appointment of a Director General sponsor as a potentially good practice approach, we emphasise that DfE should have an endorsed strategy and guiding vision for information and records management.
- This is needed to underpin and provide direction for improvement work including the relevant components of the Future Workplace programme. DfE should also consider identifying a board level champion for information and records in the long term.
- DfE has continued to work to improve its ability to manage risks to its information assets.
Digital information and supporting technology
- DfE has yet to fully define how it will ensure the effective capture, storage and management of information and records to meet legal obligations and business requirements in the new IT environment. To prevent the accumulation of a new digital legacy, consideration should be given to proportionate technical controls and restrictions in addition to cultural improvement work.
- DfE needs to establish concrete plans to ensure that its legacy and current digital information remains usable.
Information risk, governance and oversight
- DfE has still not formally defined the risk centrally of a failure to deliver information and records management outcomes or the impact of a failure to ensure the digital continuity of its information.
- DfE still lacks a means of monitoring information and records management practice. It has no mechanism to routinely surface good practice or to challenge poor practice and encourage improvement.
Records review and transfer
- DfE has improved oversight of its paper records but still has limited understanding of its digital legacy.
- We are pleased to note that DfE is in the process of developing a forward plan for managing the selection and transfer of its paper records for its paper records, factoring in growing volumes to process. It still needs to develop processes for the review, appraisal and transfer of digital information. Progress to address recommendations and risk areas
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------|-------------| | Communicating and realising value | Satisfactory | Progressing to Good | | Managing information as an asset | Satisfactory | Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
- Staff generally recognised that information had value, but were not necessarily clear how it should be managed. A draft DfE Information Management Strategy had been produced and was being reviewed by Management Committee to ensure it was focussed effectively.
- Policy on information asset registration and ownership had been recently reviewed. A valuation exercise had been conducted to ensure information assets were properly maintained. DfE needed to build on this work to ensure more consistent oversight and control of its information assets.
- DfE has now embedded knowledge, information and records management as one of the three mutually dependent strands of the Future Workplace programme.
- The programme is intended to change and improve ways of working and the use of technology. We noted a positive emphasis on improving culture, removing barriers and engaging and empowering staff. This includes capitalising on modern IT and providing staff with the right tools and simpler, more effective processes in areas such as email management.
- While this represents a significant step forward for DfE, we note that the draft 2015 Information Strategy was not signed off and no successor document has been produced to provide overall focus and direction. Planned meetings with IT to discuss shared strategic priorities have not yet been held.
- At the time of our meeting, DfE indicated that they had strong senior support for the programme and that a formal Director General level sponsor was being sought.
- The DfE information asset register is now hosted on SharePoint. Retention is included among the mandatory fields. DfE recommends that entries are updated at least quarterly. DfE saw an increase in engagement in 2016/17.
- DfE logs a high number of information assets, using its evaluation model to allow the identification by information asset owners of a much smaller core of critical information assets. It has continued to engage with The National Archives’ train- the-trainer programme and is planning to review training provision and enhance awareness through workshops and sharing good practice.
2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |-------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------| | Supporting information through technology | Development area | Development area | | Digital continuity and IT change | Development area | Development area |
Situation at the time of the IMA
- The department’s on premise SharePoint ERMS, Workplace, was not being utilised in accordance with good practice principles for records systems set out in the Section 46 Code of Practice for Records Management. Disposal was not implemented due to inconsistent application of content types and barriers to collaboration existed. A large volume of information was held in Outlook and in archived personal storage table (.pst) files as well as in shared and personal drives.
- We emphasised the need to look at cultural improvement as well as technical controls and barriers when DfE moved to SharePoint Online.
- DfE was seeking to improve its understanding of its digital information via an e-Discovery exercise. IT and IM staff now needed to work together to ensure a detailed understanding of digital continuity risk factors and plan to address them. DfE needed to ensure IM requirements were routinely factored into the IT procurement process.
- Office 365 has been introduced with SharePoint Online rolled out for live users. The records centre had not yet been migrated at the time of the review meeting.
- Personal drives have been made read only and DfE will be pushing staff to migrate any content that needs to be retained prior to March 2018, after which it plans to dispose of any remaining material.
- While this is positive, we saw no evidence that IT and KIM staff had worked out an overall agreed model for information and records management in the new IT environment. DfE still needs to define how its business requirements will be met extending from capture and lifecycle management though to the selection and transfer of records with historical value.
- DfE has not chosen to impose limits on mailboxes or One Drive to help avoid a recurrence of the issues it encountered in the previous environment. We note that 5TB of information had been accumulated in the first two months after One Drive’s introduction. • We are pleased to note DfE’s intention to focus on the effective use of search and discovery tools in O365. DfE needs however to plan in the long term to ensure that staff both know how to search for information and adhere to good practice in information management. This will help ensure information is readily available across the department and should form a core foundational part of plans to encourage exploitation and use of the information it holds.
• IT and KIM teams are not yet planning collaboratively to enable digital continuity outcomes. DfE has considered using The National Archives’ Digital Records Object Identification (DROID) software tool, but has not yet deployed it. It has yet to set out any formal plans to address digital continuity risks to current and legacy information. It has also not yet addressed its legacy of pst files. The planned Design Authority offers an avenue to a potential avenue to ensure digital continuity as well as information and records management requirements are factored into IT projects.
3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------------|----------------------| | Recognising information risk | Satisfactory | Development area | | Establishing control | Development area | Progressing to satisfactory | | Providing guidance | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | | Measuring impact | Development area | Development area |
Situation at the time of the IMA
• We saw evidence of business ownership of information and records management related risk as required by information risk policy. DfE needed to build on the positive start it had made. This included ensuring information and records management related risks were logged centrally at KIM team and information services unit level.
• No senior information governance boards were in place to support formal collaboration between IT, IM and Information Security units on shared and overlapping priorities. Information and records management services were not fully coordinated and service standards had not been defined.
• A comprehensive suite of guidance was in place for information and records management. We recognised that information management was a component in the mandatory training for Content Managers that was also offered to all new users, but emphasised that more needed to be done to promote and mandate required behaviours.
• DfE had not defined a process for monitoring information management maturity and compliance with corporate policy. • No information and records management related risks have been defined and logged at KIM team, departmental, directorate or divisional level.
• DfE still lacks an information focussed governance board or forum to enable discussion of shared priorities and promote decision making. The formation of the Workplace Transformation board, which will have business representation, represents a step forward, but is unlikely to offer a forum for surfacing wider issues out of scope of the programme.
• A significant communications plan was delivered focussing on the move to SharePoint Online and the introduction of the new intranet. At the time of our meeting there were no plans to extend this. Although it is positive that the KIM team plans to work up a training plan, it was unclear at the time of our meeting whether information and records management would be factored into DfE’s induction programme.
• DfE has yet to implement any means of monitoring and reporting on adherence to information and records management policy.
4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------|-------------| | Oversight of records and selection | Development area | Development area | | Implementing disposal decisions | Development area | Progressing to Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
• DfE needed to improve oversight and control of paper and digital records and awareness of the Departmental Records Officer role at a senior level. We highlighted the potential impact of team changes on the department’s ability to maintain existing standards in appraisal and review, but noted the department’s commitment to engaging with support provided by The National Archives.
• DfE needed to engage with business areas as it worked to define tailored department specific retention and disposal schedules. It was working to develop guidance for sensitivity reviewers and needed to seek legal cover for information inherited from other departments relating to Children’s Homes while it determined how to review them. DfE needed to engage with The National Archives in developing a forward plan to manage the selection and transfer of growing volumes of paper records and for the transfer of digital records. • DfE still needs to promote understanding of the DRO’s role in leading on compliance with the Public Records Act at a senior level.
• The department still lacks oversight of its digital records, but it has taken a key step by engaging with The National Archives to produce a one-year retention application for its digital holdings. This was approved at the July 2017 meeting of the Advisory Council. DfE plans to use e-Discovery software to analyse the contents of its shared drives, and help ensure it can meet the requirements of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. It has not yet defined a clear plan for this work in practice.
• It also has yet to define an approach for the appraisal, sensitivity review and transfer of digital records and at the time of the review meeting had not produced work plans in line with its retention application.
• However, we are pleased to recognise that DfE does have a better understanding of its paper holdings than at the time of the IMA. It produced a statement on paper holdings in 2017 and is now in the process of drafting an 18-month end-to-end transfer plan. This reflects The National Archives’ gateways and Series Level Time Plan processes and has the potential to provide a good basis for monitoring and controlling transfers once finalised and agreed. It is now supporting efficient and effective selection process through the use of Series Level Appraisal Questionnaires. DfE is aware that the volume of its paper holdings increases significantly from 1995 onwards and is seeking to schedule review work accordingly, with review of records due for transfer in 2018 already underway.
Next Steps
The National Archives will continue to support the Department for Education in its work on information and records management so that it is supported through to the time of its next IMA. In the interim, we recommend that the following points are focussed on and built into departmental business planning:
• Support continued improvement and development of its approach for managing digital information by establishing an agreed strategic vision for information and records management. DfE will need to define how good practice in knowledge, information and records management will be achieved and maintained beyond completion of the Workplace Modernisation programme. There would be benefit in appointing a board-level champion.
• Define a practical model of how information and records management should be delivered in the new IT environment. DfE should consider the use of proportionate technical controls and restrictions as well as cultural and behaviourally focussed work to help shape information and records management practice in Office 365.
• Formally define and log the risk to the department of a failure to manage information and records appropriately and a failure to ensure their availability and usability. • Establish a rolling communications plan to encourage and promote adherence to good practice principles.
• Establish an information focussed governance board to support joined-up working once the Workplace Modernisation programme has completed.
• Set up a mechanism to monitor information management practice, drawing on good practice examples from the IMA programme including those that are in place within HM Treasury and Home Office.
• Continue to engage with The National Archives to systematically map out future arrangements for appraisal, sensitivity review and transfer of paper records, with a view to placing these on a formal agreed footing, ideally through to the end of the transition period for the 20-year rule in 2023.
• Define its approach for the appraisal, selection and transfer of digital records, ensuring that in depth analysis of digital holdings is conducted, including identification of the earliest born-digital records. DfE should seek advice and support from The National Archives in its use of e-Discovery software and deployment of DROID.
• Ensure that IM requirements including digital continuity are considered as a component of the procurement process. DfE should engage with The National Archives to develop a plan to support the ongoing continuity of digital information and management of risks related to its existing digital legacy. This would include putting in place processes to ensure that its digital legacy does not re-accumulate.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2193-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 21869,
"total-output-tokens": 4012,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
205,
1
],
[
205,
669,
2
],
[
669,
2346,
3
],
[
2346,
4538,
4
],
[
4538,
6885,
5
],
[
6885,
9376,
6
],
[
9376,
11939,
7
],
[
11939,
14209,
8
],
[
14209,
17099,
9
],
[
17099,
18579,
10
]
]
} |
dac6a42f6062db473bc816e97a35dcc246652393 | **PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS**
**R1**
The Department for Education (DfE) should continue to develop and improve its approach to the management of its current and legacy digital information.
This would be supported by:
- IT Group and Information Services reviewing the IM and IT strategies to ensure a joined-up approach to the management of data and records.
- Developing a plan for the ongoing continuity of digital information (both current and legacy). This would build on the work to identify critical systems, data and their value.
- Ensuring that IM requirements are considered when systems and platforms are implemented and upgraded.
- Making it mandatory to save official records in Workplace.
- Placing greater restrictions on the use of email inboxes and PST (Personal Storage Table) files (including size limits) to encourage staff to save information into Workplace (linking to awareness and training for Workplace and Colligo – see Recommendation 4)
- The Information Services team, collaborating with the Senior Information Risk Officer (SIRO), the Departmental Security Unit (DSU), and Policy leads, developing clear policy and guidance on what information can be published and made accessible through Workplace, and which areas need secure collaborative sites to enhance secure information-sharing and decision-making processes.
- Content Managers and Policy leads identifying other work areas with which they need to collaborate and share sensitive information (as part of decision-making or policy development); and liaising with the Information Services team on requirements for establishing shared/controlled Workplace sites.
- Information Services developing a customised template (based on the intranet classification scheme) to assist Workplace users and Content Managers in establishing a controlled file structure.
| R1 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Due for completion | Status | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------|--------| | **Action 1.1** Meet with key stakeholders within IT Group, to determine dependencies for both IM and IT strategies. | High | Feb-17 | Open | | **Action 1.2** Undertake a digital systems audit which will determine scope and enable development of a plan which will ensure ongoing continuity of digital information | Medium | May-17 | Open | | **Action 1.3** Process in place which will ensure that IM are notified if a new system is being implemented which will impact on Information Management | High | Jun-16 | Open |
### Action 1.4
Programme of KIRM culture change to be developed, focusing on ensuring Workplaces is the mandatory records repository.
| Priority | Due for completion | Status | |----------|--------------------|--------| | High | Apr-17 | Open |
### Action 1.4
Auto-retention of records within Workplaces implemented
| Priority | Due for completion | Status | |----------|--------------------|--------| | High | Apr-17 | Open |
### Action 1.5
Gain approval to reduce the size of e-mail inboxes and restrict PST folders to 'read only'. (linking into KIRM culture change programme - 1.4)
| Priority | Due for completion | Status | |----------|--------------------|--------| | High | Jun-17 | Open |
### Action 1.6
Guidance produced which provides clear vision of permissions and access rights for content held on Workplaces
| Priority | Due for completion | Status | |----------|--------------------|--------| | High | Jun-17 | Open |
### Action 1.7
Process to be agreed which will allow workplaces to be open by default (where appropriate) IM team also to review work area links across Workplaces to enable links between Content Managers
| Priority | Due for completion | Status | |----------|--------------------|--------| | High | Jun-17 | Open |
______________________________________________________________________
### R2
The Information Services team and Information Assurance staff should work together to improve oversight and control of DfE’s information assets. This would be supported by:
- Continuing the current review of the governance and reporting models, planning to ensure that the reporting of information assets by the Information Asset Owners (IAOs) is monitored on a monthly basis.
- Reviewing the current definition of information assets, and identifying what key fields need to be mandatory in the Information Asset Register, to ensure that DfE is satisfactorily meeting its statutory and reporting requirements.
- Examining the option of adopting a proportionate approach to ownership of information assets, particularly for those that have been identified as having critical or high-level importance to DfE.
### R2 Actions
| Priority: High/Low/Medium | Due for completion | Status | |---------------------------|--------------------|--------| | Action 2.1 Establish a centralised electronic Information Asset Register (IAR) (viewable to everyone in the department) which IAOs are encouraged to review and update throughout the year. | Medium | Apr-16 | Closed | | Action 2.2 Mandatory fields within IAO register to be established | Medium | Apr-16 | Closed | | Action 2.3 'Critical assets' to be identified as part of Annual IAO return, SIRO to be informed and made aware of critical assets | Medium | May-16 | Closed | DfE should ensure that the new information management strategy sets goals for the whole department and is linked to improvements in technology, governance and culture.
This would be supported by:
- Establishing a Knowledge and Information Management Governance Board to formalise current relationships and ensure clearly documented reporting mechanisms.
- Ensuring that IM requirements are considered when implementing or upgrading new systems and procedures, and when migrating data and records to new platforms.
- Ensuring that accreditation and assurance of systems is at an appropriate reporting level, as agreed by the Management Committee.
- The Information Services team collaborating with Workplace Content Managers to establish measurable assurance and reporting for the capture and management of records in Workplace, to provide ongoing benefit.
| R3 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Due for completion | Status | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------|--------| | **Action 3.1** KIM Governance Board to be established | Medium | Dec-17 | Open | | **Action 3.2** Process in place which will ensure that IM are notified if a new system is being implemented which will impact on Information Management. (Also links to Action 1.1) | High | Jun-16 | Open | | **Action 3.3** Accreditation and Assurance of systems to be reviewed with Departmental Security Unit | Medium | Jul-17 | Open | | **Action 3.4** Agreeing requirements regarding what information needs to be tracked | High | Aug-16 | Closed | | **Action 3.5** Analytical tool to be implemented, which will allow measurable assurances around capture and management of records and information | Medium | Mar-17 | Open | DfE should build on the current guidance and awareness of staff through a coordinated training and education programme
This would be supported by:
- Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) stakeholders collaborating with the Internal Communication team on a communication plan to promote the importance of proper Information Management (IM).
- Clearly defining the responsibilities of the Information Services team (and all departmental staff) in terms of IM.
- Ensuring that the IM responsibilities of the Information Services team (and all departmental staff) are promoted and supported by senior managers through agreed governance committees and through targeted and regular messages.
- Including a session on the importance of KIM as part of the mandatory induction for new staff and refresher training for current staff.
- Building on current work with Content Managers (CMs) by encouraging greater collaboration within the CM Community, placing greater emphasis on performance reporting (Workplace), and enlisting key CMs as lead champions within their directorates to monitor and report on performance.
- Developing and promoting a defined IAO community that focuses on providing a portal for joined-up collaboration, communication, and assistance. This should be linked to ongoing risk awareness (of strategic and information risk) and ongoing training and awareness-raising for IAOs.
- Ensuring that the new induction pack includes mandatory Workplace/IM training for end users, and additional training for CMs and IAOs.
- Ensuring that training and awareness includes clear guidance to staff on what information needs to be captured in Workplace (and what can be published to the intranet), and on how, why and when to ‘check in’ and ‘declare’ records.
- Refreshing and promoting guidance through newsletters and desk aids to assist understanding of key tasks when implementing Workplace and Colligo Engage, and when capturing information into Workplace.
- Investigating technical solutions that may reduce the burden of capturing the right information into Workplace.
| R4 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Due for completion | Status | |------------|---------------------------|--------------------|--------| | Action 4.1 Dedicated communications plan for KIRM to be implemented | High | Jul-16 | Closed | | Action 4.2 Roles and responsibilities for both IS team and DfE staff, (developed as part of I’m strategy) to be communicated | Medium | Apr-17 | Open | | Action 4.3 See Action 3.1 | | May-17 | Open | | Action 4.4 KIRM section to be implemented into new starters induction programme | Medium | Aug-17 | Open | | Action 4.5 Develop a network of 'Content Manager Champions' who are able to monitor performance of workplaces | Medium | Aug-16 | Open | Department for Education (DfE) IMA action plan
| Action 4.6 | Further development of an 'IAO community' driven by Content Manager Champions | Medium | Apr-17 | Open | | Action 4.7 | Implement mandatory Workplaces and IM training for new starters | Medium | Aug-17 | Open | | Action 4.8 | Training plan to be developed, outlining training and guidance material to be provided to staff | Medium | May-17 | Open | | Action 4.9 | Review of IM and RM guidance, to include further consideration to desk aid support for Workplaces | Medium | May-17 | Open |
R5
DfE should continue to develop its approach to managing information risk. This would be supported by:
- Promoting departmental and government risk management policy on an ongoing basis.
- Improving awareness of the assurance that the SIRO provides to DfE and the importance of the role.
- Ensuring that any information risk with potential departmental impact (or higher) is reported to the Permanent Secretary and the DfE Board as standard procedure.
- Reviewing the role of the SIRO and their relationship with the DfE Board; establishing the SIRO as a defined DfE Board member.
- Including updates and reporting on information risk by the SIRO as a standing agenda item for Management Committee meetings.
- Including the examination of the maintenance of critical and high-value systems as part of the annual assurance activities carried out by the Internal Audit team.
- Improving awareness of the Information Risk policy and the importance of tracking, reporting and escalating strategic and information risks to relevant governance committees. This includes the tracking of information risks in relevant lines of business risk registers.
- Coordinating the reporting and oversight of information risk through key stakeholder teams (DSU, Information Services, Knowledge Management Groups) and key users (KIM Champion, Content Managers, IAOs).
| R5 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Due for completion | Status | |------------|---------------------------|--------------------|--------| | Action 5.1 | Risk register to be finalised for both IM and RM | High | Jan-17 | Open | | Action 5.2 | Risk register to be reviewed at KIRM Governance Board meetings | Medium | Jan-17 | Open | DfE should improve its awareness and oversight of information holdings and ensure that all holdings are identified as to current use and future disposal.
This would be supported by:
- Promoting the Departmental Records Officer (DRO) role and responsibilities at a senior level to ensure understanding of their remit at DfE Board level.
- The DRO providing regular reports to the Management Committee on how DfE is meeting statutory requirements and is improving the management of its data and records.
- Reviewing retention and disposal schedules with key stakeholders to ensure that these schedules meet both business needs and statutory requirements.
- Rationalising the digital estate to ensure good information management. As part of this, obtaining guidance and liaising with key stakeholders (including Government Digital Service and The National Archives).
- The DRO liaising with DfE’s third-party storage contractor and developing a review plan to apply required context and retention to any holding that does not meet required standards.
- The DRO collaborating with Estates Management (and other key stakeholders) to identify paper holdings held in current work sites.
- Building on current work to streamline the transfer process by producing a plan for managing the selection and transfer of paper and digital records to The National Archives.
| R6 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Due for completion | Status | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------|--------| | **Action 6.1** Promotion of DRO role achieved through Governance reporting up to board level | Medium | Jan-17 | Open | | **Action 6.2** Reports to Management Committee to be generated following on from KIM Governance Board meetings | Medium | Jan-17 | Open | | **Action 6.3** Review of retention and disposal retentions to be undertaken as part of auto-retention implementation | Medium | Apr-17 | Open | | **Action 6.4** Rationalisation of digital estate to be completed | Medium | Aug-17 | Open | | **Action 6.6** Review and corrective action on paper records with missing/incorrect metadata to be completed | Medium | Aug-17 | Open | | **Action 6.7** Selection and transfer plan to be completed (with agreement from IMC) | Medium | Apr-17 | Open |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2194-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 13642,
"total-output-tokens": 3297,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2739,
1
],
[
2739,
5520,
2
],
[
5520,
7554,
3
],
[
7554,
10332,
4
],
[
10332,
12577,
5
],
[
12577,
15179,
6
]
]
} |
e4d0157df81b31be2b79d2b5f38b8f8f0d598090 | Contents
Statement of commitment 02 IMA background 03 Glossary 04 Key findings of the assessment 05 Highlights table 12 Recommendations to address risk areas 14
1 The value of information 19 2 Information and supporting technology 30 3 Information risk, governance and oversight 40 4 Records, review and transfer 54
© Crown copyright 2016.
You may use and re-use the information featured in this report (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Any enquiries regarding the use and re-use of this information resource should be sent to [email protected] Statement of commitment
The following statement was provided by the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education (DfE). It was published on 22 October (prior to the interviews) on the department’s GOV.UK pages – the first time a government department has publicly published a statement of commitment to the IMA process.
‘The Department for Education last undertook an information management assessment (IMA) in 2009. This was part of the regular programme of assessments that The National Archives conducts to review information, records and knowledge management standards within government departments. To demonstrate the strength of the Department for Education’s commitment, I have asked The National Archives to carry out an IMA reassessment in November 2015.
‘The Department for Education recognises the importance of meeting its corporate obligations to manage, protect, work with and exploit effectively the information it holds. The report that The National Archives produces will help me to support all aspects of knowledge and information management across the department. It will help ensure that our information, knowledge and records are captured, managed and preserved appropriately, and information risks and sensitivities are handled appropriately.’
Chris Wormald Permanent Secretary Department for Education
www.gov.uk/government/news/dfe-commitment-to-information-management-assessment IMA background
The Department for Education (DfE) first underwent an Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2009, when DfE was known as The Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF). The 2009 IMA report can be found on The National Archives’ website at nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/
DfE subsequently committed to an IMA reassessment, carried out in November 2015. The reassessment entailed a detailed review of supporting documentation and the current information system, followed by interviews with senior staff, specialists and practitioners in DfE’s London and Manchester offices – staff from the Coventry offices were interviewed by telephone. These were carried out between 16 and 20 November 2015. Additional interviews with key staff were conducted by telephone up to 26 November 2015 and the Lead Non-Executive Board member was interviewed on 21 December 2015.
The following report provides a summary of good practice and risks identified. IMA reports and departmental action plans are published on The National Archives’ website at: nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/ima-reports-action-plans.htm Glossary
AC – Advisory Council CTO – Chief Technology Officer DCSF – The Department for Children Schools and Families DfE – The Department for Education DRO – Departmental Records Officer DSU – Departmental Security Unit DSO – Departmental Security Officer ERMS – Electronic Records Management System FOI – Freedom of Information IAO – Information Asset Owner IAR&O – Information Asset Registration and Ownership IAR – Information Asset Register IICSA – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse IM – Information Management IMA – Information Management Assessment IMC – Information Management Consultant KIM – Knowledge and Information Management KM – Knowledge Management MC – Management Committee PIRAS – Privacy and Information Rights Advisory Service PST – Personal Storage Table PAC – Public Accounts Committee RM – Records Management SIRO – Senior Information Risk Owner STA – Standards and Testing Agency Key findings of the assessment
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | |--------------------------------------------------------| | Communicating and realising value | Satisfactory | | Managing information as an asset | Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2009:
Overall, information management and records management had a low departmental profile. The priority for the department was information assurance, which was perceived as more important.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) had a core of committed and professional staff with responsibility for Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This team reported to several boards that had oversight of distinct areas of information management.
Information was not truly valued as an asset, and the department had not clearly defined which of its information assets had business value. Information owners did not always take full responsibility for their information.
- The Department for Education (DfE) has clearly articulated the value of information through key policies and supporting documentation, as well as through clear messages from senior management, including the Permanent Secretary. DfE is proactive in publishing data and information and recognises its obligations in responding to information requests.
- DfE’s approach to identifying and reporting against its information assets is in line with guidance published by The National Archives. Departmental officials have expressed that not all information assets are being recorded. The Senior Information Risk Officer (SIRO) is currently working with other key colleagues to provide greater assurance to the Permanent Secretary that DfE’s information assets are subject to the right level of oversight and control.
- DfE has yet to clearly articulate how it will improve information management. It has also yet to outline how information management will link into future improvements to information technology. Information Services should collaborate with key stakeholders to ensure a more joined-up approach for DfE in managing its data and its records.
2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | Development area | |--------------------|------------------| | Supporting information through technology | Development area | | Digital continuity and IT change | Development area |
Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2009:
Meridio was introduced in 2004 to be the primary system for the capture and management of electronic records. In 2009, the department had recognised that there were a number of issues that inhibited the effective use of the Meridio system. The department did not ensure that the guidelines for use were disseminated or that usage of Meridio was monitored and reported corporately. Aligned to this, there was a need to ensure that all the appropriate support mechanisms were in place – such as training, updated guidance and support for the Information Managers’ networks.
DCSF was looking at alternative ways to manage its electronic records and documents. The result of this review was the introduction of Information Workplace (IWP), a SharePoint system. During IWP’s implementation, DCSF needed to address the legacy issues surrounding the storage of the information already created in Meridio. It was important that these developments were not run solely as ICT projects, but also as KIM projects. A migration policy would allow for records and documents with business value to be reviewed, migrated and stored so that they could be held for future reference. • DfE’s current information systems have the potential to provide accessible and discoverable information. The capture of corporate records meets DfE’s requirements and those of its key stakeholders. However, due to certain cultural and technical issues, the information system (known as Workplace – a SharePoint system) is not being utilised to its full potential. The majority of information (including legacy records) is being maintained and saved to shared drives, personal drives and email inboxes/archives. This represents a key risk to DfE that needs to be addressed.
• The current set-up of Workplace is quite restrictive and does not allow a key potential benefit of the system, which is the controlled sharing of information to improve collaboration and decision-making. Although this has been noted as a concern by staff, it should be re-examined to establish the right balance between securing sensitive information and providing access.
• DfE is currently focusing on maintaining and upgrading current systems and processes to support its main strategic and operational goals. There are indications that the Information Technology area (IT Group) is not considering Information Management (IM) requirements when developing new systems, or including KIM specialists in the planning or development stages. The IT Group needs to collaborate with key KIM staff to ensure that IM requirements are met.
• There has been, as yet, no forward planning of how DfE will manage its legacy data or records. An e-Discovery exercise is currently underway to establish the volume of its digital estate. As part of this, DfE needs to establish the value and context of its data and its records. This will ensure that it can satisfactorily respond to information requests and meet its statutory requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) Act and the Public Records Act, and rationalise how it manages its digital estate. 3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | | |------------------------------------|----------| | Recognising information risk | Satisfactory | | Establishing control | Development area | | Providing guidance | Satisfactory | | Measuring Impact | Development area |
Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2009:
Although information assurance was defined as one of the top three risks to the department, there were gaps in the department’s assessment and management of wider information risk.
The Information and Records Management Team was responsible for producing information and records management guidance. Although the guidance was comprehensive, it appeared not to have been recently updated. The size and the resource levels of investment in the team had affected the team’s ability to be proactive. Staff indicated that they were not always confident that they had sight of relevant policy changes or new ways of working. Understanding of what constituted a record was inconsistent.
Published metrics could have served as an effective management tool to ensure that the department could meet its objective to raise organisational competence and awareness of what constitutes good knowledge and information management. Without a commitment to developing some regular monitoring metrics for reporting at senior management level, there was a risk that poor information management practices would continue. • DfE has clear policies and documentation that outline how it should manage information risk. These polices have been noted and approved by DfE’s Management Committee. However, this senior-level awareness of information risk – and of its importance – is not matched at the operational level. The SIRO, along with other key stakeholders, plans to improve awareness of the importance of ensuring that information risks are monitored and escalated when required.
• Overall control of Knowledge and Information Management is currently devolved to a number of senior staff, such as the Deputy Director for Change Programme and the Chief Executive Officer for the Standards and Testing Agency. There is informal collaboration between these staff but no formal governance structure other than the reporting of current IM issues to the Management Committee. A more formalised governance board would ensure a more collaborative approach in the way that DfE manages its data and records, and the technology that supports it.
• The investment in the development of Workplace (and supporting guidance and training) by the Information Services team should be commended. The managers within the Information Services team aim to develop a more joined-up approach to IM, including encouraging greater networking between KIM staff and Information Asset Owners and reviewing current guidance to ensure that it meets business requirements. This should include mandatory training for new staff and a coordinated training and communication programme.
• There is no current oversight of how staff members manage their information or comply with record-keeping requirements. Workplace can provide the means to measure how information is being captured. The current governance of Workplace does not allow for oversight by a central area. DfE should re-examine how the current Workplace system can provide statistical data and reports on key record-keeping tasks. 4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | |---------------------| | Oversight of records and selection | Development area | | Implementing disposal decisions | Development area |
Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2009:
There was an established Records Management Policy that covered the retention, review and disposal of registered paper files, but no similar policy for electronic records. This would have had an impact on the efficiency of the organisation, how it managed its electronic records and exposed the department to risk.
There were robust processes in place to ensure that items sent off-site could be tracked and retrieved when required. There was evidence that some teams sent all closed files and documents for off-site storage without consideration of their business value.
The lack of definition of what should be kept had led many staff to adopt the default position of keeping everything. Although retention schedules existed, there was little evidence that these were reviewed or enforced.
According to internal DCSF analysis there were approximately 1,500 shared areas containing numerous documents and records. These contained the majority of the documents created by the department. There was a real risk that, if this situation had continued, the department would have been unable to keep track of the information that it produced. • DfE, through the Departmental Records Officer (DRO), has a good understanding and oversight of its inactive paper records. Recent organisational changes and rationalisations have highlighted legacy holdings, as well as areas that are still utilising paper files to capture knowledge and information. The majority of the DfE’s digital records are not under the control of the DRO or any other official other than the actual creator. As part of the e-Discovery exercise to determine the volume of DfE’s digital holdings, the DRO should look to establish greater control and oversight of DfE’s information. The DRO should look to provide regular and direct reports to DfE senior management to ensure that they are aware of any emerging issues as well as of good practice and improvements made.
• DfE is currently meeting its statutory requirements for the Public Records Act and the 20-year rule Implementation Plan. It is acknowledged that DfE faces key challenges in identifying records for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and in managing inherited records and recently identified legacy holdings. The DRO is currently working with The National Archives and should be supported in developing a plan for dealing with the appraisal of DfE’s paper and digital records, including assessing the sensitivity of the information.
## Highlights table
The following are among the areas of good practice identified at the time of the assessment. They include systems and approaches that other government organisations may find helpful in mitigating information and records management related risks:
| Highlights of the 2015 IMA | |---------------------------| | The Department for Education (DfE) has outlined why information and its proper management is important in its draft Records Management Policy and Information Management Strategy. The Records Management Policy notes that proper records management ensures a good basis for accountability, ensures compliance with relevant legislation, and assists in defining how long records should be retained before they are either destroyed or transferred to The National Archives. | | DfE’s Information Asset Registration and Ownership Policy defines what an information asset is and the key requirement of having and maintaining Information Asset Registers. The policy also outlines clear governance and the reporting structure for information assets from Information Asset Owners (IAOs) to the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), and upwards to the Permanent Secretary. | | DfE’s Information Asset Register (IAR) clearly notes key fields as recommended in guidance published by The National Archives (owner, team, description, source, business purpose, retention). Each Information Asset has defined owners who are aware of the importance and rationale behind maintaining an up-to-date register, to ensure that information (whose loss, theft or corruption would damage the business) is effectively tracked, monitored and reported against. | | DfE’s Information Risk Policy provides a clear yet open interpretation of information risk that is not restricted to information security but also encompasses risks to the effective management, sharing, use and benefit realisation of information. The policy has been developed in line with HMG Security Policy Framework and the DfE policy meets key requirements such as ownership and defining a risk management structure. | DfE’s IT Group has recently adapted its processes for capturing school census information, which is based on the technological capability of each school, to assist clients in providing data. This shows that DfE is responsive to user needs.
DfE has published guidance, advice and templates for researchers and third parties to obtain special permission to use data from key datasets (such as the National Pupil Database), subject to conditions (including data protection, information security, and business need). Requests for access to data had doubled and DfE was one of the first in HM Government to use an open source model when publishing data.
DfE conducts regular ‘Learning Months’ that provide a platform for sharing experience and learning, and which also improve awareness of priorities and future planning. The December 2015 Knowledge Management month was scheduled to cover all DfE sites and include presentations that would showcase current and new guidance, and highlight best practices within and outside DfE.
## Recommendations to address risk areas
### Recommendation 1
The Department for Education (DfE) should continue to develop and improve its approach to the management of its current and legacy digital information.
This would be supported by:
- IT Group and Information Services reviewing the IM and IT strategies to ensure a joined-up approach to the management of data and records.
- Developing a plan for the ongoing continuity of digital information (both current and legacy). This would build on the work to identify critical systems, data and their value.
- Ensuring that IM requirements are considered when systems and platforms are implemented and upgraded.
- Making it mandatory to save official records in Workplace.
- Placing greater restrictions on the use of email inboxes and PST (Personal Storage Table) files (including size limits) to encourage staff to save information into Workplace (linking to awareness and training for Workplace and Colligo – see Recommendation 4).
- The Information Services team, collaborating with the Senior Information Risk Officer (SIRO), the Departmental Security Unit (DSU), and Policy leads, developing clear policy and guidance on what information can be published and made accessible through Workplace, and which areas need secure collaborative sites to enhance secure information-sharing and decision-making processes.
- Content Managers and Policy leads identifying other work areas with which they need to collaborate and share sensitive information (as part of decision-making or policy development); and liaising with the Information Services team on requirements for establishing shared/controlled Workplace sites.
- Information Services developing a customised template (based on the intranet classification scheme) to assist Workplace users and Content Managers in establishing a controlled file structure.
### Recommendation 2
**The Information Services team and Information Assurance staff should work together to improve oversight and control of DfE’s information assets.**
This would be supported by:
- Continuing the current review of the governance and reporting models, planning to ensure that the reporting of information assets by the Information Asset Owners (IAOs) is monitored on a monthly basis.
- Reviewing the current definition of information assets, and identifying what key fields need to be mandatory in the Information Asset Register, to ensure that DfE is satisfactorily meeting its statutory and reporting requirements.
- Examining the option of adopting a proportionate approach to ownership of information assets, particularly for those that have been identified as having critical or high-level importance to DfE.
### Recommendation 3
**DfE should ensure that the new information management strategy sets goals for the whole department and is linked to improvements in technology, governance and culture.**
This would be supported by:
- Establishing a Knowledge and Information Management Governance Board to formalise current relationships and ensure clearly documented reporting mechanisms.
- Ensuring that IM requirements are considered when implementing or upgrading new systems and procedures, and when migrating data and records to new platforms.
- Ensuring that accreditation and assurance of systems is at an appropriate reporting level, as agreed by the Management Committee.
- The Information Services team collaborating with Workplace Content Managers to establish measurable assurance and reporting for the capture and management of records in Workplace, to provide ongoing benefit. **Recommendation 4**
**DfE should build on the current guidance and awareness of staff through a coordinated training and education programme**
This would be supported by:
- Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) stakeholders collaborating with the Internal Communication team on a communication plan to promote the importance of proper Information Management (IM).
- Clearly defining the responsibilities of the Information Services team (and all departmental staff) in terms of IM.
- Ensuring that the IM responsibilities of the Information Services team (and all departmental staff) are promoted and supported by senior managers through agreed governance committees and through targeted and regular messages.
- Including a session on the importance of KIM as part of the mandatory induction for new staff and refresher training for current staff.
- Building on current work with Content Managers (CMs) by encouraging greater collaboration within the CM Community, placing greater emphasis on performance reporting (Workplace), and enlisting key CMs as lead champions within their directorates to monitor and report on performance.
- Developing and promoting a defined IAO community that focuses on providing a portal for joined-up collaboration, communication, and assistance. This should be linked to ongoing risk awareness (of strategic and information risk) and ongoing training and awareness-raising for IAOs.
- Ensuring that the new induction pack includes mandatory Workplace/IM training for end users, and additional training for CMs and IAOs.
- Ensuring that training and awareness includes clear guidance to staff on what information needs to be captured in Workplace (and what can be published to the intranet), and on how, why and when to ‘check in’ and ‘declare’ records.
- Refreshing and promoting guidance through newsletters and desk aids to assist understanding of key tasks when implementing Workplace and Colligo Engage, and when capturing information into Workplace.
- Investigating technical solutions that may reduce the burden of capturing the right information into Workplace. **Recommendation 5**
**DfE should continue to develop its approach to managing information risk.**
This would be supported by:
- Promoting departmental and government risk management policy on an ongoing basis.
- Improving awareness of the assurance that the SIRO provides to DfE and the importance of the role.
- Ensuring that any information risk with potential departmental impact (or higher) is reported to the Permanent Secretary and the DfE Board as standard procedure.
- Reviewing the role of the SIRO and their relationship with the DfE Board; establishing the SIRO as a defined DfE Board member.
- Including updates and reporting on information risk by the SIRO as a standing agenda item for Management Committee meetings.
- Including the examination of the maintenance of critical and high-value systems as part of the annual assurance activities carried out by the Internal Audit team.
- Improving awareness of the Information Risk policy and the importance of tracking, reporting and escalating strategic and information risks to relevant governance committees. This includes the tracking of information risks in relevant lines of business risk registers.
- Coordinating the reporting and oversight of information risk through key stakeholder teams (DSU, Information Services, Knowledge Management Groups) and key users (KIM Champion, Content Managers, IAOs). **Recommendation 6**
DfE should improve its awareness and oversight of information holdings and ensure that all holdings are identified as to current use and future disposal.
This would be supported by:
- Promoting the Departmental Records Officer (DRO) role and responsibilities at a senior level to ensure understanding of their remit at DfE Board level.
- The DRO providing regular reports to the Management Committee on how DfE is meeting statutory requirements and is improving the management of its data and records.
- Reviewing retention and disposal schedules with key stakeholders to ensure that these schedules meet both business needs and statutory requirements.
- Rationalising the digital estate to ensure good information management. As part of this, obtaining guidance and liaising with key stakeholders (including Government Digital Service and The National Archives).
- The DRO liaising with DfE’s third-party storage contractor and developing a review plan to apply required context and retention to any holding that does not meet required standards.
- The DRO collaborating with Estates Management (and other key stakeholders) to identify paper holdings held in current work sites.
- Building on current work to streamline the transfer process by producing a plan for managing the selection and transfer of paper and digital records to The National Archives. 1 The value of information
1.1 Communicating and realising value
Goal: The organisation establishes information’s value in principle and supports its realisation in practice.
Establishing the importance of information
The Department for Education (DfE) has outlined the importance of information in its draft Records Management Policy and its Information Management (IM) Strategy. The Records Management Policy notes that proper records management ensures a good basis for accountability, ensures compliance with relevant legislation, and assists in defining how long records should be retained before they are either destroyed or transferred to The National Archives. The draft IM strategy also provides a clear outline of why information is important.
The Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), while relatively new to the position within DfE, is actively engaging with the Information Services team through the tracking and identification of information assets. The SIRO is also driving the importance of information security and the identification and valuation of critical information assets to the Management Committee (which is chaired by the Permanent Secretary). An example of this is the paper to the Management Committee recommending the proper valuation of information assets. The implementation of the SIRO’s recommendations has led to a greater understanding of critical and high-importance information assets and where resources and maintenance need to be prioritised.
Several interviewees noted that the Permanent Secretary was aware of the importance of information management and had stressed that DfE ‘needed to do better at their filing’ – which was interpreted by one interviewee as ‘having confidence in knowing that we have the information, knowing where it is, and can easily find it later for future business needs and statutory requirements’. At a recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Permanent Secretary remarked that: ‘We need to be able to answer the questions about outputs and outcomes, and we need to do further work on making sure we are properly measuring both… it has raised issues about our record-keeping and our ability to bring up the right information at the right time.’
We observed during the IMA that DfE had several roles that focused on Knowledge and Information Management. These included the DfE Knowledge Management (KM) Champion: the Chief Executive Officer for the Standards and Testing Agency (STA). The KM Champion is planning to drive the importance of IM through workshops and promotional material, utilising ‘engaged’ staff (for example, Content Managers). The focus at the time of the IMA was driving best practice at Director Level, but the KM Champion wants to cover operational staff as well. The scope of the role covers both DfE and its non-departmental public bodies, although it is acknowledged that the KM Champion has no additional resources or governance for this role outside of current staff within the STA.
Most operational staff seem to be aware that their information is important, but are still unsure about how it should be managed. There were several messages on the intranet stressing how important senior management regarded knowledge and information management (KIM). These messages mainly focused on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and the need to identify and safeguard information that might be needed by the Inquiry. At the time of the IMA, the Information Strategy was being reconsidered and re-evaluated by the Management Committee to ensure that it met requirements and provided sufficient direction. DfE is encouraged to continue to promote the value of information through clear, high-level messages, and should ensure that relevant staff are kept informed of the development of key strategies, policies and messages. The requirements for providing IICSA with relevant evidence could also be used as a way of promoting the value of information, and its proper management. See Recommendation 3.
______________________________________________________________________
1 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/kids-company/oral/24013.html Setting goals for information and its management
DfE has undergone significant organisational and IT changes in the last three years (including the rationalisation of operational sites) and will undergo further changes up to the end of 2017. The draft IM Strategy acknowledges that information management within the department is maturing and that work is still required. The strategy outlines where DfE wants to be in the future and provides a broad outline of how this will be achieved. This includes an outline of the key services that will be provided by Information Services (training, guidance, network support for Information Asset Owners (IAOs) and Knowledge Management experts, information storage, management of Workplace). The strategy also notes that delivery plans are to be developed to implement required actions.
The strategy could be improved by highlighting that good information management improves performance by preserving and making accessible key documents and records to help inform
- current and future policy development and decision-making
- better use of high-quality information assets
- potential efficiency savings through improved use of physical, electronic and human resources
- noting the importance of coordinating the management of information with the management of technology and information security.
DfE’s Information Technology Strategy (signed off in March 2015 by the Head of Strategy and Architecture) notes that the
‘Existing IT estate does not lend itself to (its) capabilities and the strategy we are outlining… will not only deliver the IT that the department needs to deliver its overarching vision but also enable the business to take advantage of (its) capabilities.’ ‘DfE already runs an in-house model utilising a multi-source approach for its commodity service provision through government frameworks. While the IT organisation requires further change to enable it to effectively deliver the strategic vision, a significant amount of work has already been undertaken to mature the organisation to the point where it is able to deliver against this strategy.’
DfE has also recently published a Digital Strategy that outlines its vision for change and the plan for transforming DfE into a digital-by-default organisation over the next five years. DfE intends this strategy to be linked to its IT Strategy and the Cabinet Office’s Strategy for Digital. The IT Group will lead on the implementation of the strategies and will update and review them on an annual basis so that DfE can show where and how IT has progressed, and what is still left to do.
During the course of the IMA it became clear that there is no formalised or joined up approach to IT and IM. It was noted by one interviewee that, in respect to the move to SharePoint Online, none of their team (who would be responsible for providing support for end users and Content Managers) was involved in the decision to move to the new platform. One interviewee also observed there has been (for a while) a historical disconnect between how data is managed and how records and information are managed. As part of the annual review of the IT and Digital Strategies, it is recommended that the IT Group liaises with Information Services to ensure IM is considered when systems and platforms are implemented and upgraded. The IT Group should also consider the goals and priorities of the IM Strategy when designing new systems, migrating data, and upgrading current systems. See Recommendations 1 and 3.
Enabling public access to information and supporting transparency and re-use
Requests for information from members of the public are managed by the Privacy and Information Rights Advisory Service (PIRAS), which is part of the Legal Directorate. The PIRAS team and the Data Protection team are linked up under an over-arching internal umbrella covering information rights. From interviews, it appears that these teams have a good working relationship with key stakeholders (the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Information Commissioners Office, Departmental Security Unit, Cabinet Office) and that the teams make sure their stakeholders are made aware of potential or actual security breaches, or any instances of particularly sensitive information requests. DfE’s Management Committee is provided with monthly and quarterly data on Freedom of Information (FOI) performance. This includes the number of queries and how areas are complying (timings, grants in full) so senior managers can see trends on how DfE is performing compared to previous years.
DfE’s response rate for non-routine information requests (covering FOI, Data Protection (DP) and the Environmental Information Regulations) answered ‘on time’ is consistently above 85%. During 2014, the response rate was 90%; there has been a dip for the first two quarters of 2015 (86% and 83%). Non-standard information requests are managed through a key operating system (previously Echo, which was replaced by IRIS). All non-standard information requests should be logged onto the operating system, and DfE has published internal guidance on this. As IRIS was still being embedded, the FOI team was maintaining a separate tracking system alongside IRIS to ensure that accurate statistics were provided to the Management Committee.
Responsibility for responding to FOI and DP requests is devolved to the business areas. The Deputy Director approves release if he or she is satisfied that the information can be released in full. The PIRAS team sees all requests when business areas are not releasing information in full or where exemptions are applied (for reasons of sensitivity or for cost threshold, not held, etc.). The PIRAS team has also developed and circulated ‘aide memoirs’ to all the Deputy Directors setting out their responsibilities under FOI.
We noted that not all users have been using IRIS according to guidance. For example, some users are not closing request cases when the response had been finalised. This has led to distrust in the statistics that IRIS currently provides, as the data does not tally with that provided by business areas. The PIRAS team currently utilises an access database (alongside IRIS) and manually checks every case. To assist the PIRAS team in reporting and tracking FOI requests, end users may benefit from additional training and reinforcement of the need to properly track information requests. See Recommendation 4.
Although DfE has a low overall score in publishing data(^2), the amount of anonymised data published regarding schools and pupils is considered by the assessment team as quite good (312 statistical publications) when considering the sensitivity of the data that it holds. Up to 23 November 2015, DfE had also published 2,733 documents to GOV.UK. This included 170 FOI releases, 237 transparency datasets and 658 guidance documents. The guidance documents mainly contain specific advice for schools and local authorities on the completion of School Census returns, and advice to help schools and local authorities understand how to comply with the law and policies.
As well as this, the IT Group has recently adapted its processes for schools to complete census and exchange information (based on the technological capability of each school) by allowing either online entry, Excel / csv templates, or access through specialised management information systems. DfE has also published guidance, advice and templates for researchers and third parties to obtain special permission to re-use data from key datasets (such as the National Pupil Database), subject to conditions (including data protection, information security, and business need). This shows that DfE is aware of its key client base and that it needs to not only provide targeted and relevant information to its clients, but also to assist its clients in providing relevant data in a format that can be utilised by staff and researchers. This is good practice.
One interviewee commented that DfE has received encouragement from a previous Minister for ‘opening up their data’. The interviewee noted that requests for access to data have doubled (usually from university researchers), and that their team is one of the first in HM Government to use an open source model when publishing data. DfE is aware of the sensitive nature of the information it holds, but is prepared to share and re-use the information with trusted stakeholders to improve the management and planning and schools across the UK. This is good practice.
(^2) Openness score – 0.6 out of 5 – re openly licensed, openly accessible, structured, open format, URIs for entities. data.gov.uk/data/report/openness/department-for-education 1.2 Managing information as a valued asset
Goal: The organisation protects, manages and exploits its information assets to achieve maximum value.
Defining and cataloguing information assets
DfE has an Information Asset Registration and Ownership (IAR&O) Policy (first published in 2009 and updated in February 2015) that outlines what an information asset is and the key requirement of having and maintaining Information Asset Registers (IARs). The policy also outlines clear governance and the reporting structure for information assets from IAOs to the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), and upwards to the Permanent Secretary.
As well as the IAR&O Policy, DfE also places emphasis on how it stores and accesses its information assets through the Business Continuity Management policy. This policy states that areas should ensure that
‘All staff have an understanding of where key documents are stored, that they are kept up-to-date and can be securely accessed remotely if necessary; have an identified system owner for key databases and systems, understanding the disaster recovery plan for those systems and having realistic expectations about recovery in discussions with the IT provider; and [consider] how you would complete…critical tasks if your office or IT systems were disrupted.’
DfE has a central, extensive IAR that clearly notes key fields as recommended in guidance published by The National Archives (owner, team, description, source, business purpose, retention). The central IAR is maintained by Information Services and consolidates IARs held at team level. The IAOs interviewed were generally aware of the importance and rationale behind maintaining an up-to-date IAR – being able to ensure that information (whose loss, theft or corruption would damage the business) is effectively tracked and monitored. The IAR, and DfE’s awareness that it needs to treated as a living document (to be monitored and reported against, and reviewed to ensure it meets requirements), is an example of good practice.
The Finance and Commercial Directorate recently coordinated, through the SIRO and IAOs, a valuation of DfE’s information assets. The valuation exercise and recent internal audits recommended a range of assurance activities to ensure that datasets (particularly critical ones) were properly maintained. The exercise improved senior-level awareness of what critical assets DfE held, and that there are defined operational, reputational and strategic risks to the organisation if data is lost, unavailable, or leaked. It is recommended that Internal Audit (and other relevant areas) utilise the findings of the valuation as part of annual assurance activities. See Recommendation 5.
Despite the documented definition of an information asset, many staff are unsure of what needs to be defined. The result of this uncertainty is that many records and datasets have been included on the IAR that perhaps do not need to be. There are also certain key fields in the IAR that do not appear to be mandatory, such as the date coverage field, which is often left uncompleted. This represents a gap in the description of the asset and may hinder DfE’s ability to allocate appropriate retention periods and identify what information may be due for review and transfer to The National Archives. The Information Services team is currently reviewing what IAOs should identify as information assets to make them more consistent and relevant.
The SIRO is working with the Departmental Security Officer (DSO) and the Information Services team (including the Departmental Records Officer [DRO]) on rationalising the current IAR. The DSO is also reviewing the governance and reporting models, planning to ensure that the reporting of information assets by the IAOs is monitored on a monthly basis, and that accreditation and assurance of systems is at an appropriate reporting level. These actions should be supported by senior management. See Recommendation 2.
As well as reviewing its current definition of an information asset, the Information Services team should review what key fields need to be mandatory in the IAR to ensure that it meets the statutory and reporting requirements. See Recommendation 2.
Ownership of information assets
The IAR&O policy states that all IAOs need to be at Deputy Director level (G7) or above. This is a slightly lower grade than in some other state departments (where the role is usually at Director level) to be responsible for the ownership of data and records and their associated information risks. There are some IAOs who are currently supported in their role by an Information Asset Co-ordinator (IAC). There generally appears to be a good level of understanding as to the responsibilities of both roles. The IAR&O policy mentions the role of the IAC; however, it does not appear to be a role that is noted or acknowledged, for example in annual performance statements. The policy does state that ‘practice may vary according to local business requirements.’ While IAOs may delegate tasks to supporting staff, it needs to be reinforced that the IAO has overall ownership of and responsibility for information assets. DfE should also examine adopting a proportionate approach to ownership of information assets, particularly for those that have been identified as having critical or high-level importance to DfE. See Recommendation 2.
For the governance and assurance of information assets, the IAR&O policy states that the:
‘DfE Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO)… is required to provide an annual report to the Permanent Secretary in which it must be clear that:
• all Information Assets are listed in Information Asset Registers, and are actively controlled; • every member of the Department has undergone annual Information Risk Awareness Training during the last calendar year and recorded a successful pass; and • all information losses and breaches have been managed effectively.’
The consolidated IAR is hosted on the intranet and is open to all staff. As well as maintaining the central IAR, the Information Services team is also responsible for reviewing the Annual Statements on behalf of the SIRO. These statements must be provided to the SIRO, and are intended to provide assurance to him. The statements are used as key evidence in completing the Annual Governance Statement, which is published as part of the Annual Report (the 2013-14 report has been published).
There has been general discussion between the Information Services team and the SIRO about the fact that IAOs may not be reporting on all information assets, and commenting that not all IAOs are completing required reporting documentation. It was noted that the SIRO and the Information Services Team need to have greater oversight of the IAOs (for example, double checks, challenging understanding, and improving awareness of IAOs as to documentation requirements) and of information assets. The SIRO acknowledged that DfE is currently reviewing the assurance process to ensure that it is evidence-based and that the Permanent Secretary needs to be assured that IAOs are recording all appropriate information assets.
The Information Services team is the focal point for the provision of advice, guidance and training to IAOs. The team has developed a training package (Briefing Pack) for IAOs, outlining their role and responsibilities. This covers maintaining and updating IARs; assigning protective marking; judging the importance (value) of information; identifying what is personal data; and identifying what should / should not be considered an information asset. The pack also notes that each IAO should keep a log of requests for access, but that normal requests for access (as part of general business) do not need to be recorded.
Most IAOs are appreciative of the Briefing Pack (and other guidance) and feel that it assists them in meeting the requirements of the role. Some IAOs noted that, when they were appointed to the role, no initial training was provided. The general impression from many IAOs is that training is not mandatory. The responsibilities and requirements for being an IAO are also not always included or acknowledged in the performance statements or role description for individual staff members.
There is currently no formal network or community of IAOs within DfE. Promoting a defined community would assist in the sharing of good practice and experience and provide a network for collaboration, communication and assistance. It is recommended that the Information Services team should collaborate with the SIRO and the KIM Champion to drive necessary training and awareness – particularly for those new to the IAO role – and ensure that responsibilities are included in performance objectives. See Recommendation 4. 2 Information and supporting technology
2.1 The technology environment
Goal: The technology environment supports the management, protection and exploitation of information.
Corporate storage of information
DfE staff are able to save and access information through a number of platforms. This includes a SharePoint ERMS (known as Workplace), which is the designated corporate repository for official documents and records. Although this is outlined in the RM Policy, many staff commented that they are saving some or all of their emails in email inboxes or shared drives.
Several interviewees thought that Workplace is a good system for saving information. The available guidance was also noted, which is easy to locate on the intranet using search tools, or by speaking to their Content Manager or Workplace Account Manager. The Workplace system has the potential to allow functionality for managing the lifecycle of the record. However, there are a number of limitations that are affecting record creation. Certain tasks (such as declaration of records) are not being performed by users, leading to improper allocation of retention periods and improper disposal. The Information Services team has noted this and the risk is partly mitigated by the fact that no disposal is currently being performed in Workplace. While the system has been set up with the intention of enabling good record-keeping, it is not being utilised in a way that can provide any level of assurance that the DfE is managing its records according to agreed standards, such as the FOI Section 46 Code of Practice for Records Management.
Due to the current set-up of Workplace team sites, it can be difficult for teams to collaborate within DfE, which is a core potential benefit of using SharePoint. The current set-up is problematic for those teams that need to circulate documents to other teams for comment. One interviewee noted that it is more common to send documents via email than to send a link to the relevant Workplace document. This means that many of the changes are tracked within the Word document rather than in Workplace, resulting in multiple saved versions of documents, making it hard to determine who performed the changes and when. It is, therefore, difficult for many teams to determine the final agreed version that needs to be saved as the official record. Staff also commented that sensitivity (or perceived sensitivity) often proves a barrier to sharing the information internally. This affects areas where collaboration and auditable version control is needed.
It was observed by a number of interviewees (and during a demonstration of Workplace to the IMA team) that certain required record-keeping tasks (and the use of the system and email plug-in) act as a barrier and discourage the saving of information. An example is the tool used to assist users in saving emails from Microsoft Outlook to Workplace, known as Colligo Engage. Many users commented that the tool makes saving emails much easier, but that set-up and ongoing use requires the user to manually change many of the system protocols. Although these tasks are covered in appropriate induction training and (once performed) are said to become second nature by those who use them, the Information Services team should consider the benefit of developing desk aids, especially for end users, whose induction training is not currently mandatory. See Recommendation 4.
**Emails**
DfE is currently maintaining a large volume of information in email inboxes or archived Personal Storage Table (PST) files. A number of interviewees commented that work-related emails have been archived into PST files. At the time of the IMA, a third party provider is performing an e-Discovery exercise on all digital information. The e-Discovery exercise will provide data on the total volume of emails held. The interviews indicate that there may be over 100TB of emails and PST files held by DfE – a significant risk and one which severely limits the department’s ability to respond to information requests from senior staff, ministers, public inquiries, and the general public. Although there are published guidelines on what could be saved into PST files (such as tasks and calendar entries) and on what should not be archived into PST files (such as emails that document decisions and key policies), most interviewees were not aware of the approach for using PSTs and the associated rules. We recommend that DfE impose greater restrictions on the use of shared drives and PST files in order to encourage staff to save more of their information to Workplace. See Recommendation 1.
The IT Group is planning to extract and migrate appropriate data from the PST files. At the time of the IMA, the IT Group did not appear to have formally involved other key stakeholders in forward thinking or planning. The IT Group needs to collaborate with the Information Services team, with a focus on identifying and understanding both the IT and IM objectives and the requirements for the migration of emails and PST files. See Recommendation 1.
Shared and Personal Drives
For shared areas, the guidance states that
‘Digital file types that are not compatible with Workplace may be stored in a team shared area [drive], but this must be with the agreement of the DfE Records Management team. Requests for shared areas must be made through the DfE Service desk and will be assessed by the Records Management team.’
It was noted in several interviews that teams are still utilising shared drives for certain documentation and databases. It appears that there is a significant amount of digital information held on shared drives – much more than that held on Workplace. There are certain formats, such as Excel spreadsheets, containing formulas that cannot operate within Workplace. The size of certain documents also hinders their ability to be saved and supported on Workplace.
Several interviewees noted that documentation is being saved to shared drives (even though many said the information should be on SharePoint) as it is easier to
______________________________________________________________________
3 This was confirmed after the assessment by the e-Discovery exercise conducted by the third party – as of December 2015, there were 21 terabytes of information on shared drives, compared to 3.5 terabytes on Workplace. There are also 20 terabytes of information on Personal (F:) drives. save documents to shared drives. In general, most staff that had joined DfE in the last few years use SharePoint rather than the shared drives for the majority of their documents. The use of shared drives may be more of a cultural issue than a technical issue, which Information Services should explore with IT Group. See Recommendation 1.
The Chief Technology Officer (CTO) commented that, after the migration of data and records (as part of the Data Modernisation programme), DfE hopes to lock down the use of shared drives. The new version of Workplace (based on SharePoint Online) will then be considered as the default area for saving official records, and the only place that staff can create and save information. No new shared drives are to be enabled or approved (including personal drives). While this is understood to be an aspiration, having a single trusted repository for official information would assist in decision-making and responding to requests for information: this should be encouraged and supported by senior management. See Recommendation 1.
The Records Management Policy states that: ‘Personal areas (F: drives) used by staff are also not recognised as part of the official departmental records keeping system. Any business-related documents should be saved into Workplace and if a document needs to be retained it should be declared as a record.’ There does not appear to be any defined size limit for personal drives in the submitted documentation or as indicated by interviewees.
Many staff commented that they do use F drives to save documents for a short time. There is a general awareness of the need to save important information into Workplace. It was acknowledged that the emerging findings from the e-Discovery exercise appear to indicate that there is more information on the F drives than was originally thought. It is recommended that DfE reminds staff of the proper use of personal drives to improve the capture of important information into Workplace. See Recommendations 1 and 4. Finding, accessing and protecting information
DfE has implemented certain tools and platforms that allow staff to find and access information related to their roles and tasks, but is aware that it needs to progress these and improve access. As with all information tools, use by staff (saving information in a way that is discoverable later) often determines how effective these tools are in practice.
There seems to be a genuine desire (both from documented evidence and from interviews with staff) to improve how staff are able to access data. The IT Strategy states:
‘IT Group’s vision is to facilitate the successful delivery of the DfE data strategy through a revolutionary approach to data management, coupled with the provision of innovative technology to enable staff to access and manipulate data anywhere, at any time, on devices tailored to their need, while simultaneously driving down the cost and complexity of the Department’s IT estate’.
The goal is that
‘Staff will no longer be constrained by technology in their choice of working location or pattern, with the ability to obtain secure, fully functional, performant access to all of the services and information they require from any device, in any location, at any time.’
There are also a number of areas on the intranet that are used to share and provide information and knowledge to other staff. One area, known as ‘The Knowledge’, allows the publication of information on key subjects, briefing notes and facts. Each entry contains a link to the author and their team area, so staff can contact the person or team who owns the information. Another area, known as Better Policy, has been developed as a special page devoted to improving policy decision-making.
This is good practice. DfE’s staff directory is based on SharePoint MySites. The directory is designed to provide up-to-date information on each staff member’s role and responsibilities, skills, area of organisation, and team name. The entries also include the ability to include past projects and work conducted within DfE and the wider civil service. There had been a recent drive (from the Permanent Secretary down) to ensure that staff details are up to date. While there has been resistance from some areas, the response rate to this drive and the overall accuracy of directory entries have been good; the directory assists staff in knowing the right person to talk to, or to ask for assistance on a particular subject. Having accurate information on roles, interests and responsibilities has also assisted the Internal Communications team in improving awareness and impact of campaigns and key messages. The Permanent Secretary had also contacted all Senior Executive Service level staff (who hadn’t updated their MySite profile) to highlight the importance of having and maintaining accurate information on staff. This is good practice.
During the site demonstration of DfE’s intranet, it was noted that there has been a lot of promotion of certain pages (such as ‘The Knowledge’ and ‘Better Policy’) in the past, but that this promotion has tapered off. The value and usefulness of knowledge-sharing intranet pages and tools such as MySite is dependent on people entering data, maintaining it and sharing it. Good decision-making often relies on having access to reliable, up-to-date information.
The technical set-up of Workplace only allows for the sharing of documents and information to Workplace members within their own team site. Access permissions do not allow staff from other areas to access information from other sites. The allocation of temporary access permissions (to allow interrogation of information or comment to documents) was seen by many interviewees to be very complex and, from the IMA, does not appear to be actively encouraged by senior staff.
A recent paper for the Management Committee noted that there was ‘limited scope for sharing of files beyond existing teams due to restricted access rights. This significantly contributes to sharing of large files, meeting papers etc, by email and creates duplication in documents being held in lots of Workplace. We are pleased to note that this issue has been raised at Management Committee level.’ The paper noted that the Information Services team would conduct research on the DfE’s ‘appetite for relaxing the security constraints, reinforcing the policy on storage of sensitive materials, and making shared access to folders more accepted.’
The focus still appears to be on working in an environment where access to information is not so much securely controlled, but rather blocked off from other teams entirely. While the control of information is important, controls which are too stringent can lead to a less collaborative and sharing culture on issues that require input from key staff and teams – particularly key decision-making and policy development. It is recommended that the Information Services team collaborate with the Departmental Security Unit (DSU), the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) and Policy leads on providing clear guidance as to what information should be captured in Workplace and what specific formats or documentation need to be supported or saved outside of Workplace. Coupled with this, DfE should support Information Services in re-examining the establishment of a more open environment for Workplace to encourage information sharing and enhance decision-making processes, while highlighting that certain teams need more secure control of their information. This review should be linked to the e-Discovery work and give due consideration to the impact of shared drives, PST and personal drive usage. See Recommendation 1.
It is recommended that Content Managers and Policy leads identify which areas they need to collaborate with on an ongoing basis, and liaise with the Information Services team on requirements for establishing shared/controlled Workplace sites. See Recommendation 1. 2.2 The continuity of digital information
Goal: The organisation is taking proactive steps to ensure the continuity of its information, over time and through change.
Oversight of information
DfE has a fair understanding of the systems that support its digital information. DfE has a limited understanding of the context of this digital information (data and records) and in what format it is held.
DfE’s IT Group has been recently tasked, as part of the Data Modernisation Programme, with improving understanding of DfE’s digital holdings (particularly the shared drives). This includes the e-Discovery exercise, which a third-party provider was performing at the time of the IMA. Currently, the CTO provides regular reporting (quarterly) to the Management Committee on the status of the Data Modernisation programme, and additional assurance is provided through external audit and monitoring/reporting through a Non-Executive Board member.
It is understood that the e-Discovery exercise will only provide details on the size and volume of the digital estate, and that the data and records will be migrated (including shared drives) into one single area (without deletion). As part of the migration, DfE plans to test all critical systems and ensure that the systems are operational (and backed up) prior to final release (risk mitigation). This is only part of the task and DfE needs to do more to identify the context and content of the information. Without proper knowledge of the context and content of its information, DfE cannot determine its value and whether it should be prioritised for ongoing preservation, and eventual disposal. It is recommended that the IT Group and Information Services collaborate to develop formal plans to improve their contextual understanding of their digital holdings. See Recommendation 1. Digital continuity planning/IT change
As well as maintaining current systems and services, the IT Group is currently developing a scoring model for new IT projects. The scoring is based on a number of factors, including whether the project is business-critical, has high-level support, and can be cost-justified. An independent body (the Portfolio Management Board) will oversee the review of business cases and supporting documentation. The DSU is involved in accreditation and assurance of new systems, but the final decision about take-up comes down to the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO). If needed, the SRO is encouraged to escalate the decision to the SIRO if there are any information security issues concerning the adoption of new systems.
The IT Group is hoping this process, once adopted, will assist in identifying duplication. Previous processes for review and approval of IT projects have resulted in multiple systems that perform the same role. For instance, there are currently 11 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems utilised by departmental staff, for instance. It is planned that, as part of the Data Modernisation Programme, the number of current applications will be consolidated from 135 down to 20. The CTO hopes that this new model will put a stop to unnecessary duplication of systems and resources, and eliminate single projects that do not provide long-term benefit (a defined need, not just a like-to-do). The need to invest in standardising applications and systems has been noted by the Lead Non-Executive Board member as a key priority for DfE. This approach would assist in improving how DfE manages its data. It is recommended that, as part of developing and implementing the new model, the IT Group ensures that key IM stakeholders are included to ensure that IM requirements are considered for future rationalisation of systems and platforms. See Recommendation 1.
There appears to be good awareness of the need to maintain security, including firewalls both for online systems and for those that are moving to the Cloud. As well as the challenges associated with maintaining current systems and services, the biggest challenge (according to one interviewee) will be ensuring that permanent staff within the IT Group have the required technical skills to develop and maintain systems, and ensuring that DfE understands what future skills are needed. As stated, the main focus of the IT Group has been maintaining current systems. Key operating systems have often been developed without the involvement of key IM stakeholders. The CTO commented that DfE wants to prioritise the rationalisation of platforms and applications, and adopt new technology to improve processes and get better use out of its storage. It was observed that the current systems employed by DfE are reliable, but out-of-date. There has also been no focus or discussion on the continuity of current and legacy data and records, and DfE is only just starting to plan for the future management of data and supporting technology. DfE’s key stakeholders in IT and IM are aware that there is bound to be a lot of duplicate information that will be migrated across to the new drive. The Change Director has primary responsibility for leading on this work, which will be conducted after the DfE has access to the e-Discovery data.
DfE has done some work in identifying critical systems/data and its value. DfE has yet to establish an ongoing strategy or plan to ensure that staff can use or re-use digital information for as long as the information is needed. This includes identifying any records or datasets contained within formats that are unsupported or inaccessible. As part of the annual review of the IT and Digital Strategies, it is recommended that IT Group liaise with Information Services to ensure that future plans for the continuity of digital information are developed and implemented. See Recommendation 1. 3 Information risk, governance and oversight
3.1 Recognising information risks
Goal: The organisation defines and manages information risks to minimise threats and maximise opportunities
Documenting and defining information risks
DfE’s Information Risk Policy (updated in February 2015) has been developed in line with the requirements of HMG Security Policy Framework. It meets key requirements in areas such as ownership and defining a risk management structure. The policy ‘defines how DfE manages information risk and how its effectiveness will be assessed’. DfE’s Management Committee (MC), which is chaired by the Permanent Secretary, is responsible for the policy, and the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) oversees its implementation on behalf of the MC. The policy notes that the Information Services team acts as ‘custodian of the Information Risk Policy and supports the SIRO in its implementation’ and that ‘Information risks are not a subset of security risks, but rather a much broader range of possible risks around the effective management, sharing, business use and full benefits realisation of information assets’. This supports an inclusive interpretation of information risk that is not restricted to information security considerations. This is good practice. The policy also clearly establishes how the information risk management process complements and sits alongside the provision of assurance through the information asset governance process.
There appears to be a good level of awareness of the importance of effective risk management (including information risk) amongst senior managers. As an example,
______________________________________________________________________
4 An information asset is a body of information, defined and managed as a single unit so it can be understood, shared, protected and exploited effectively. Information assets have recognisable and manageable value, risk, content and lifecycle (The National Archives: What is an Information Asset - nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/information-assets-factsheet.pdf). An information asset is information that is owned and/or used by the department that has value in meeting the department’s business need (at the highest level). For example, financial information, intellectual property or employee details or information entrusted to the department by a third party. the Lead Non-Executive Board member noted that ‘risk is an important part of the information architecture’. This level of awareness was not as clear among the operational staff that were interviewed. One interviewee noted that DfE has only really started to understand and articulate the risks, and was concerned that information risk specifically relating to IM and RM is not talked about enough.
The information risk policy states that information risks should be recorded in business risk registers, with an escalation route through unit risk registers. This includes the Information Services risk register for records management related risks. Among interviewees, we saw a good practice example of a line in a business risk register that included risks relating to ‘decisions, issues and evidence… not [being] sufficiently recorded leading to potential reputational damage if decision reviewed by external body or committee’. To ensure that contingencies are implemented, the area would:
‘Put in place strong Project and Programme Management measures, including risk management and assumptions logs. We will agree clear decision-making processes with stakeholder groups to ensure all decisions and supporting evidence are captured, mapping decisions ahead of time, [and] adhere to good records management processes.’
This is an effective example of a business area identifying the impact of failing to comply with policy as a risk cause and promoting good practice in information and records management as a means of managing the risk. However, we understand that no Information Services risk register has yet been created. DfE needs to ensure that it is monitoring information and records management related risk above a local level, to arrive at an overall view of the threats raised by cultural, governance and technology related causes. See Recommendation 5.
**Implementing an information risk management approach**
DfE’s Information Risk policy states that information risks should be noted in relevant lines of business risk registers and escalated as appropriate. This should be through the relevant manager and up to the SIRO as needed, who would then forward to the relevant governance committee:
- Audit and Risk Committee: meets at least five times per year and focuses on the Department's accounts, financial risks, accountability and propriety
- Management Committee: meets monthly and focusses on the running of the Department, implementing the review, finance, HR, building block risks and Department of State business
- Performance Committee: meets monthly and provides detailed challenge and scrutiny of the Department's performance on reform priorities.
The framework also notes that there are other risks (including information security, correspondence and FOI) that need to be monitored and reported against – ‘Information risk management briefing and reporting via the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO)/Departmental Security Unit (DSU)’. The main information risk that DfE is monitoring relates to its technology. Internal Audit conducts an annual programme of assurance covering security (including cyber security) and system performance. DfE has recognised that risks should be managed according to impact/likelihood.
The SIRO noted that the governance and reporting structure of information assurance and risk is being reviewed. To promote the importance of information risk, the SIRO noted that DfE is trying to do more at a strategic level, but that obtaining traction across the department will come down to resources and awareness of the importance of information assurance. The Lead Non-Executive Board member noted that information risk and information management are not being championed or escalated to the Board or the Audit and Risk Committee – and commented that there should be a defined reporting relationship from the responsible positions (the SIRO and DRO) to these governance bodies and that the importance and remit of those roles should be understood. See Recommendation 5.
In general, there appears to be collective ownership regarding information risk. A devolved approach to information risk is acceptable; nonetheless, the SIRO should have overall responsibility and ownership for information risk. Although this is articulated in the Information Risk Policy, DfE should promote the importance of the SIRO role. The Management Committee should ensure that senior and operational support is provided to the SIRO so that they can lead on understanding and promoting the importance of information risk, including those relating to IM and RM. See Recommendation 5.
DfE’s policy is
‘To conduct an annual security risk assessment and a Security Policy Framework compliance check in order to complete the Departmental Security Health Check (formerly known as the Security Risk Management Overview or ‘SRMO’), and defined by the Cabinet Office in the “Departmental Security Health Check Guidance Notes (Cabinet Office) (Annually revised)”’. This is to include information risks. A description of the process applied in conducting each year’s assessment will be documented within each report.’
As part of implementing policy covering information security, this will be delegated to individual areas. The DSU is planning to align DfE’s approach to HMG Security Policy Framework, and will determine the level of take-up by areas based on departmental priorities.
DfE has published guidance concerning information risk, incident reporting, and clear guidelines for roles and responsibilities. It was also reported that 96% of staff had completed the online e-Learning course on Information Security (Responsible for Information). Despite this, the impression from senior management and from the interviews is that the tracking and monitoring of risk is not treated with the same level of importance at an operational level.
DfE is planning to improve awareness of the importance of risk registers, but acknowledges that mandating the creation of registers and monitoring their use is a key challenge. Several interviewees commented that there is more recent emphasis from senior management, including the Permanent Secretary, of the need to properly manage information and their associated risks. DfE should continue to promote awareness and ensure that key messages are approved and sent out with the clear authority of the Permanent Secretary. See Recommendation 5. DfE should make this part of ongoing education and awareness about information risk and the requirements and benefits of accurately tracking risk. This needs to be coordinated through key stakeholder teams (DSU, Information Services, Knowledge and Information Management Groups) and key users (KM Champion, Content Managers, Information Asset Owners [IAOs]). It is also recommended that ongoing awareness and training for strategic risk and information risk (including the use of business risk registers) be linked to the recommended training for IAOs. See Recommendation 4.
### 3.2 Establishing control
| Goal: The organisation has effective governance structures in place that foster communication and strategic planning. |
**Governance structures**
The management of information (covering records, data, technology, awareness and risk) is discussed and reported at a high level: the Management Committee, which is chaired by the Permanent Secretary. Responsibility for the management of information, and the championing and promotion of proper information management, is partially devolved to key senior officials (such as the SIRO, the Chief Technology Officer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Standards and Testing Agency, and the Change Programme Director).
There appears to be informal collaboration between all of these officials and general awareness of their priorities and responsibilities. The overall co-ordination of IM is informal and relies very much on personal relationships rather than documented responsibilities and mechanisms for monitoring, promoting and reporting on IM performance and improvement. Reporting on current and emerging issues regarding IM should be conducted upwards to the Management Committee, as in the current arrangement, but issues need to be the responsibility of one official. In order to provide a solid base for driving IM across the department, an overarching senior governance board (covering IT, digital, data and Information Services) should be established. Similar boards within Home Office, HM Treasury, and the Department for Work and Pensions have helped enable a more joined-up approach to how these departments manage their data and records – and the technology that provides the platform for staff to do their job. See Recommendation 3.
Supporting the business
The Information Services team is currently made up of 26 staff members who report to four managers, each of whom has responsibility for one of four individual teams (IM team, RM team, Change Programme team, and the Internal Communications team). There is also a senior official (G7) who is responsible for stakeholder engagement and communication.
There are documented roles and responsibilities for the Information Services team within published guidance and policies. These include providing assistance and advice for internal projects, support for users of Workplace (covering training and awareness, sharing best practice, and organising communications), providing advice and guidance regarding the value and retention of information, and assisting in the development of internal publications and communications through the intranet. The IM Strategy (draft) also provides a high-level outline of how the Information Services team intend to support DfE in the future. The DRO and the Head of IM are currently developing a joined-up Delivery Plan to drive the role and responsibilities of the Information Services team in providing assistance to the rest of DfE.
In the past few years, the main focus of the IM team has been in providing guidance and prioritising resources and support to the Workplace Content Managers (800 at the time of the IMA). The focus of the RM team has been in meeting the requirements of the 20-year rule implementation plan (the transfer of selected records to The National Archives). This focus is broadening to include a better understanding of the scope of DfE’s paper and digital records, and the responsibilities that come from this, which is good practice. A ‘Service Catalogue’ outlining the services that the IM team provides has been developed. However, this focuses on knowledge management (such as knowledge capture for leavers, and facilitation of discussion groups). Several interviewees noted that there is no broad awareness of the services that the IM or RM teams offer. The Information Services team has direct responsibility for the development of guidance, and Content Managers provide a supporting role in providing advice to end users within their team. We noted that some Content Managers have also taken up the responsibility of promoting the importance awareness of IM to end users. The impact on their teams of those that were interviewed varies, depending on their proactiveness and dedication to the role. Content Managers may also not be best placed to lead on the championing of good IM practice. It is recommended that Information Services define its responsibilities for the championing and awareness of IM throughout DfE, and how this will be delegated to senior staff, IAOs and Content Managers. See Recommendation 4.
It was acknowledged in the interviews that IM and RM services are not being run in a coordinated way, and that current work can overlap (particularly in respect to Workplace). The DRO and the Head of IM noted during the IMA that they want to work more collaboratively and do not want to duplicate effort, or say things that are contradictory to what DfE should be doing. This awareness of the need for a collaborative relationship and approach to IM and RM should be encouraged and noted by senior staff. A defined and coordinated approach to information management, with the lead being the Information Services team, should be promoted and supported by senior managers through agreed governance committees. See Recommendation 4.
As part of driving the Delivery Plan, the DRO and the Head of IM should consider defining the specific roles and services that the team provides into one document – and ensure that key staff (including Content Managers, IAOs, and members of Knowledge and Information Management [KIM] groups) are aware of the roles and services through targeted and regular messages. See Recommendation 4. Support networks
The Content Managers are supported by six Workplace Account Managers within the Information Services team. All new Content Managers must be trained in the use of Workplace by a Workplace Account Manager, and the IM team provides additional ‘train-the-trainer’ sessions to assist Content Managers in providing training and guidance to end users. We consider this a measured and proportionate approach given the number of Content Managers within the department and the number of Workplace Account Managers within the Information Services team.
The IM Team currently encourages collaboration and communication through a combination of direct communication, targeted messages, and intranet newsletters. There is also an intranet page entitled ‘Making the most of Workplace’ (updated twice a month), which includes articles aimed at Workplace members on tips and tools aimed at improving teams’ use of their Workplace site.
The IM team keeps track of all Content Managers through a register to ensure that they all receive messages regarding new/updated guidance and upcoming training for Content Managers and end users. There is also a discussion board for Content Managers on the intranet; however the IM team has observed that there has only been intermittent interest in its use.
Due to the numbers of Content Managers within DfE, spread across six sites, the IM team is trying to encourage greater collaboration and to see themselves as a community. There has been some interest from individual Content Managers for promoting and assisting in the ‘CM Community’. For those Content Managers that are able to provide this support, networking and collaboration should be noted and encouraged by their line managers. See Recommendation 4.
Although Content Managers are able to develop reports on Workplace usage – such as how many documents are unmanaged – these reports (and actions that lead to improved performances) do not appear to be utilised by the wider CM Community. One example was noted during the IMA where a Content Manager had published the results of their ‘clean-up’ exercise through the CM Newsletter. This example of using current tools to improve performance and publish good practice should be encouraged.
Most of the Content Managers that were interviewed are aware of who the IAO is within their team; there does not appear to be a corresponding network of IAOs or any obvious link-up between the work of the Content Managers and the responsibilities of the IAOs. The IM team managers noted that they want to be more engaged with the IAOs and encourage productive collaboration and communication between IAOs and the Information Services team. It is recommended that the development of an IAO network (and building connections to the work of Content Managers) be linked to the recommendations for ongoing risk (strategic and information risk) awareness and ongoing training and awareness for IAOs. See Recommendation 4.
3.3 Providing direction
Goal: The organisation gives staff the instruction they need to manage, protect and exploit information effectively.
Knowledge and Information management policy and guidance
DfE has recently reviewed its Records Management Policy and the policy regarding the use of the corporate information management system (Workplace). The policies were signed off and approved by the Deputy Director for the Information Services team. The Management Committee noted and approved the policies, which is good practice. The Records Management Policy provides clear direction as to why records management is important to DfE (linking this to statutory requirements and the Civil Service Code), and highlights that records cover all formats (paper and digital). The purpose and rationale behind capturing information and records is also covered in the RM policy and the Workplace Policy.
The RM policy states that the default format for saving information is digital and that ‘departmental policy is that, wherever possible, records should be stored in electronic Corporate Records Centres and accessed from Workplace’. The Workplace Policy specifically defines a framework for use of Workplace, including the roles and responsibilities of the Information Service team (Workplace Account Managers), Workplace Content Managers, and Workplace end users.
The scope of available guidance is fairly comprehensive, particularly for the use of Workplace. Despite the comprehensiveness of the guidance, several interviewees were unclear as to the overall purpose or rationale of certain operational instructions. For example, several Content Managers and end users are unsure about when to save and declare a record in Workplace, why it is important to do so, and what the difference was between undeclared and declared records. One interviewee thought this meant declaring a record for transfer to The National Archives. The Information Services team should look to further promote the two overarching policies for RM and Workplace, and also make sure that Content Managers and end users clearly understand the rationale and purpose behind key Workplace instructions. As part of this, the team needs to ensure that Content Managers and end users clearly understand what records should be declared and why. See Recommendation 4.
Several staff noted that they are currently reviewing their file structure within Workplace. Most of these staff are aware of the need to collaborate with the Information Services team on this task. It was noted that some set guidelines as to what should and should be not used, such as filing structure and titling, would be of assistance. There are published instructions for staff that define proper file structures and naming conventions. However there is no defined classification scheme or taxonomy to assist Content Managers and their teams in establishing appropriate file structures and the titling of documents and records. It was observed that a defined classification scheme has been developed for the intranet by the Information Services team. The relevant managers within Information Services should look at customising this classification scheme and utilising it as a template for establishing controlled file structures in accordance with current guidelines. See Recommendation 1. What to Keep
DfE is in the process of updating its What to Keep guidance. The guidance links to intranet pages regarding the disposal of information, and also contains guidance as to what should be defined as a record and what should not. The Information Services team has published policies and guidance on where information should be stored, depending on specific criteria.
Information that is created or uploaded into Workplace is given a defined retention period, but only if the content type is defined. If not defined, then the content type is ‘unmanaged’ and given a retention period of two years. The clear message from the interviews was that only a few staff appreciate why the content type needs to be defined. There is a risk that key strategic information will either be deleted or saved in a way that will hinder future discovery. The Information Services team has noted the risk and are not deleting any information saved to Workplace. The importance of clearly defining what needs to be saved into Workplace (and defining content type) should be linked to the recommendation covering the rationale and purpose behind key Workplace instructions. The Information Services team should also investigate possible technical solutions that may reduce the burden of capturing the right information into Workplace. See Recommendations 1 and 4.
Providing training
The IM team is responsible for providing basic and advanced training for Workplace users and Content Managers. Both training sessions finish with an overview of records management. Examples of both training sessions were provided, and appear to provide a good overview of the importance of information management and the use of Workplace. These training sessions are offered on a monthly basis, and are mandatory for new Content Managers – but are not mandatory for new users.
It was noted by several interviewees that KIM is not part of the induction for new starters or when moving between teams. At the moment, there is no corporate training package for new staff or for those moving between teams. There is also no awareness of a defined process to follow for those leaving DfE, although this has been included as part of the Service Catalogue provided by the IM team. The Human Resources team is developing a new induction pack. The Information Services team is feeding into this development, and it should include mandatory Workplace/IM training for end users, and additional training for CMs and IAOs. This would help ensure that the importance of IM (and thus the use of Workplace) is promoted and mandated. See Recommendation 4
Several teams have developed their own knowledge capture procedures for staff that are about to leave the team or the department. The managers of one team maintain a ‘crib sheet’ on the current status of projects and performance, which is updated quarterly – so if someone leaves unexpectedly or is sick, the manager who is temporarily taking over that task has a good awareness of how the project/contract and the development/performance is progressing. Solid Key Performance Indicators, and a RAG system which is reviewed based on risk, would contribute to ensuring accurate measurement of performance to DfE.
At the time of the IMA, the Information Services team were planning a ‘Knowledge and Information Management Learning Month’ for December 2015. This was to cover all departmental sites and include presentations showcasing current and new guidance, and highlighting best practice within and external to DfE (including at The National Archives). One of the sessions was to focus on departmental subject terminology, looking at encouraging standardisation of the use of terms in file structure and titling.
DfE conducts regular ‘Learning Months’ that provide a platform for sharing experiences and learnings, and for improving awareness of the department’s priorities and future planning. One interviewee highlighted that certain ‘Learning Months’ have proved to be quite popular. Podcasts are also prepared to ensure that staff can assess presentations at their desks or through other online means. DfE’s Learning Months are evidence of a department-wide approach to sharing experience and knowledge and should be noted as good practice. It is hoped that DfE is using the KIM Learning Month as a springboard to implement an ongoing information management training and awareness programme across DfE. The KM Champion for DfE plans to liaise with the Information Services team as part of identifying key learnings and priorities coming out of the Learning Month. It is recommended that key KIM stakeholders collaborate with the Internal Communication team in developing a communication plan to promote the importance of proper information management. This could be linked into the recommended training programme for IAOs and Content Managers. See Recommendation 4.
### 3.4 Measuring impact
| Goal: The organisation measures performance in practice and takes informed, risk-based action as a result. |
**Measuring compliance with policy**
DfE does not currently monitor how areas are performing or improving, and is in the early stages of defining and understanding how to assess progress and performance against strategic and IM goals. There has been discussion in the past about developing an information management maturity model, and there is a KIM tool that measures how an area is managing information and knowledge. This tool is not part of ongoing measurement reporting and appears to be unsupported by the current IM team. Much of the responsibility for control or monitoring of the structure and titling of folders and records within Workplace is down to the Content Managers. The Lead Non-executive Board member noted that the DRO’s remit should be acknowledged and involved in evaluating how data and records are stored and managed, and be able to provide a measure of compliance.
Content Managers are able to obtain reports through their Workplace site that provide metrics on use. The reports can cover how many documents are being captured on a monthly basis, how many documents are not declared as records, or how many are ‘unmanaged’ (no defined content type). Not all Content Managers are aware of this functionality. The IM team have published guidance for Content Managers on the importance of monitoring the use of Workplace. It was acknowledged that compliance with the guidance is not enforced or monitored by the IM team. The IM team should look to using the CM Community and IAOs to assist in measuring and benchmarking standards for capturing and managing records in Workplace. See Recommendation 3.
At the time of the IMA, DfE’s Internal Audit team were liaising with Information Services about reviewing how the department manages its information. The audit was likely to happen in 2016. Previous reviews into the overall operation of teams have noted issues with record-keeping, but also noted that other areas are quite meticulous. While the scope of the KIM audit had yet to be determined, it is understood that any audit would include use of systems such as Workplace. The National Archives has provided emerging findings from the IMA process to assist the Internal Audit team in defining the scope of the planned audit and future reviews.
The Management Committee has been recently updated about the issues of knowledge sharing and file structures within Workplace. The current functionality and set-up of Workplace does not allow oversight by the IM team or allow the creation of reports on the capture of information. There is no assurance that Workplace users are performing key actions such as defining content type. Such functionality would greatly assist in monitoring use, and DfE should ensure that key reporting functionality is included in any planned upgrade of current systems. See Recommendations 1 and 3. 4 Records, review and transfer
4.1 Oversight of records and selection
Goal: The organisation understands the value of its records and can consistently identify those with enduring historical value.
Position of the Departmental Records Officer (DRO)
The DRO has five staff (the RM team) who provide assistance and support in meeting the requirements of the Public Records Act and the 20-year rule implementation plan. The role previously focused only on meeting the requirements of paper records. This is changing to also cover digital – particularly digital information held in Record Centres and Workplace – and gaining a better understanding of the scope of DfE’s paper and digital records. Due to recent organisational moves and site rationalisation, several staff have left the team and new staff have had to be recruited and upskilled. To improve knowledge and understanding at DfE, The National Archives delivered a bespoke training day in October 2015 for all RM and IM staff.
The DRO is involved in the e-Discovery exercise being performed by a third party provider. This exercise will give DfE a better understanding of the volume of digital holdings, particularly in the shared drives. The DRO noted that the findings of the exercise will be used by the new Digital Records Reviewer to improve understanding of the content and context of the digital holdings, and define what information does not need to maintained by DfE.
The DRO recognises the importance of noting and reviewing information risks on business risk registers, and is working with the Head of KIM to establish a unified information risk register that encompasses all aspects of information and records management. They are also looking to establish a more structured and formalised governance process for recording / monitoring information risk and for the management and recording of, and reporting on, Information Assets. The DRO also wants to include the Data Director, who is reviewing and developing policy on the collection of data by DfE. Although the DRO appears to be well positioned to influence at an operational level, strategic influence and accountability to the Management Committee depends on line reporting through senior managers. To strengthen the accountability of this role, which has also been suggested by the Lead Non-executive Board member, it is recommended that the role and responsibilities of the DRO be promoted at a senior level to ensure understanding of the remit at DfE Board level. The DRO should also provide direct reports to the Management Committee as to how DfE is complying with statutory requirements and how DfE is improving the management of its data and records. See Recommendation 6.
Oversight, control and use of records
Those areas that still have requirements for creating paper records, such as contracts and procurement, have a good sense of the need to store paper records in a secure way. An example is the area that has been tasked to identify and provide paper records to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). The area exhibits good awareness of the need to properly store and manage sensitive paper files. The records are securely stored and only accessible to authorised staff. The area is currently liaising with IICSA to ensure that records are securely controlled and that certified copies are provided where the production of original records is not required. This will include records that are currently held by The National Archives.
Interviewees recognised that, once no longer required for ongoing business purposes, the paper records need to be forwarded to DfE’s third party storage provider. A member of the RM team engages with the third party provider as a key part of their role. Their main task is to ensure appropriate metadata fields are completed prior to transfer. Most of those interviewed find that it is quite easy to request records back through the RM team.
Although we saw clarity on the need to follow required processes at a local level, there is limited assurance that the Information Services team has a complete understanding of which teams within DfE are still creating paper records. The recent closure of departmental sites included identifying legacy records and non-record file series. The Information Services team was involved during these site closures, and has been liaising with The National Archives on appraising the value of certain file series. Prior to the move, areas were encouraged to dispose of paper – but only if the information was a duplicate or copy of information that was captured elsewhere, such as in Workplace – and transfer everything else to DfE’s third party storage provider.
The fact that all paper records are forwarded to the third party storage provider gives a good indication that DfE can provide accurate figures for its Records Transfer Report (RTR) return. There is a risk (expressed by one interviewee) that during the recent site closures, certain records may have been forwarded to the storage provider without the oversight of the DRO or the RM team. Certain information may therefore have been forwarded without proper identification (metadata) or retention. It is recommended that the DRO obtains a report from the storage supplier of all records transferred in the last three years, determines which transfers may have been transferred without proper oversight, and develops a review plan (if applicable) to apply appropriate context and retention. It is also recommended that the DRO collaborates with Estates Management and other key stakeholders (such as the SIRO) to identify other paper holdings that may currently exist in current departmental sites. See Recommendation 6.
DfE has significant holdings of digital records and data held in shared drives and Legacy Records Centres, dating back to the early 1990s. Some of this information was migrated and can be accessed through Workplace and other data management platforms. Many records are still being maintained on shared drives or PSTs with no oversight by the Information Services team. Due to these issues, and inconsistent use of naming conventions for records and file folders, DfE cannot guarantee that users can access all legacy digital records needed to perform their roles. One interviewee noted that several projects have been impacted due to the inability to access legacy information. Having access would allow teams to compare past and present methodologies and decisions. This inability has not prevented the project teams from doing their work but it has made it more difficult and meant that staff have basically had to start from scratch. The current Data Modernisation programme will provide a better oversight of the size of DfE’s digital holdings. However, there still remains the challenge of proper identification, valuation and rationalisation of the digital information. The indications from the interviews are that this will, for the majority of the information, be a manual exercise and the responsibility of the information owners. It is understood that DfE is currently liaising with the Cabinet Office and Government Digital Service on developing proper protocols for managing and improving identification of digital information for IICSA. As well as improving access and searching functionality to their current digital holdings, DfE should liaise with the Government Digital Service and The National Archives to rationalise its digital estate using automated file profiling tools. This is in line with the recommendations of the 2015 Sir Alex Allan report into the management of digital records. See Recommendation 6.
Appraisal and selection
In 2014, the previous DRO conducted a review of DfE’s Operational Selection Policy (OSP 19 – originally published in 2004). The review, on which the DRO consulted and collaborated with The National Archives, focused on extending the scope of the OSP. At the time of the review, DfE noted that the OSP had proved an effective working tool for reviewers.
The RM team is generally engaged with The National Archives. There are fortnightly teleconferences between the review team and the Information Management Consultant (IMC), for example. In the past, the RM team has been consistently utilising the OSP and relevant appraisal tools to review files and provide assurance to The National Archives IMC. With the recent changes and the employment of new (and less experienced) staff, the ability of the RM team to meet its previous level of assurance is at risk. As part of the recent bespoke training day, the requirements of selection and providing clear justification for disposal were reinforced. It is hoped that this training and follow-up advice will improve the knowledge and understanding of RM staff and assist them in providing greater assurance to The National Archives. 4.2 Implementing disposal decisions
Goal: The organisation understands the process for records disposal and consistently implements decisions in line with defined plans.
Triggers for disposal
Until the moratorium on destruction of information relating to child sex abuse, DfE was disposing of information according to retention and disposal schedules. It was noted that schedules submitted as evidence are based largely on the model retention and disposal schedules developed by The National Archives. This represents a misunderstanding of the purpose behind the model schedules published by The National Archives. The model schedules are guides only and should be utilised as a template for further work and development by the responsible department. The DRO noted that the disposal schedules are currently being reviewed, which The National Archives will support by providing commentary. It is recommended that, as part of this review, the DRO liaises with key stakeholders (such as Content Managers, the Privacy and Information Rights Advisory Service team, Internal Audit, and the Private Office) to ensure that DfE’s retention and disposal schedules meet the statutory and business needs of DfE. See Recommendation 6.
The RM team is aware of the need to appraise and properly retain digital information, which would include identifying and selecting records for transfer to The National Archives. This work is currently awaiting the detailed analysis of DfE’s digital record holdings (part of the Data Modernisation programme). Due to this, the disposal moratorium, and because many documents within Workplace are either undeclared or are ‘unmanaged’ (meaning that the documents have a minimum two-year retention), no digital information is being disposed. The culture of DfE is one that is not inclined to dispose of information (staff who were interviewed preferred saving information), even if this means that it is not being saved or shared in a way that facilitates access, ongoing and future work, or decision-making at the highest level of DfE. It is recommended that, as part of ongoing training and awareness programmes, awareness of the importance of allocating appropriate content types and record declaration is reinforced. This is not only important in meeting statutory requirements and the requirements of the Records Management Code of Practice (issued under the FOI Act, s.46), such as the allocation of proper retention, it also ensures that important documentation can be discoverable for future programmes and in response to requests for information. See Recommendation 4.
Sensitivity review
Due to the recent changes, the review team is very new to sensitivity review, which is impacting on the transfer process. The DRO acknowledged that they need to improve the sensitivity review skills of the RM team. We are pleased to note that DfE is currently developing new internal guidance for staff, which is with The National Archives for comment.
DfE has inherited a legacy of information from other departments relating to Children’s Homes. There is a general understanding of the content and context of the files. However, the DRO is still in the process of determining how to review them for sensitivity. It is recommended that the DRO apply to the Advisory Council (AC) for retention of these files to allow for the implementation of a coordinated plan to review and facilitate eventual transfer of selected files to The National Archives. See Recommendation 6.
Transfer and planning
At the time of the IMA, DfE was generally compliant with the 20-year rule implementation plan. The RM team was reviewing and preparing files from the 1987-88 period, and was planning to have 1989-90 files transferred by the end of 2016. The Records Transfer Report for Spring 2015 noted the legacy material relating to Children’s Homes, and the RM team is aware that additional material will need to be retained with the approval of the AC.
The RM team is aware that the volume of DfE’s paper holdings for the 1990s rise dramatically in comparison to its pre-1990 holdings. To cope with this increase, DfE is streamlining the transfer process and is working with a Continuous Improvement Expert. At the time of the IMA, the results of this analysis were being collated for action by the DRO. The National Archives’ IMC will be involved in the analysis and review of the expert’s findings. To support the DRO in this task, it is recommended that the DRO liaise with The National Archives in developing a forward plan for managing the selection and transfer for growing volume of paper records, and for the eventual transfer of digital records. See Recommendation 6.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2195-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 61,
"total-input-tokens": 150310,
"total-output-tokens": 23479,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
645,
2
],
[
645,
2061,
3
],
[
2061,
3275,
4
],
[
3275,
4190,
5
],
[
4190,
6035,
6
],
[
6035,
7945,
7
],
[
7945,
9877,
8
],
[
9877,
11435,
9
],
[
11435,
13378,
10
],
[
13378,
14796,
11
],
[
14796,
16137,
12
],
[
16137,
18225,
13
],
[
18225,
19251,
14
],
[
19251,
21120,
15
],
[
21120,
22840,
16
],
[
22840,
24950,
17
],
[
24950,
26325,
18
],
[
26325,
27706,
19
],
[
27706,
29664,
20
],
[
29664,
31868,
21
],
[
31868,
33593,
22
],
[
33593,
35860,
23
],
[
35860,
38196,
24
],
[
38196,
40582,
25
],
[
40582,
42457,
26
],
[
42457,
44721,
27
],
[
44721,
46702,
28
],
[
46702,
49094,
29
],
[
49094,
49379,
30
],
[
49379,
51321,
31
],
[
51321,
53740,
32
],
[
53740,
55757,
33
],
[
55757,
57782,
34
],
[
57782,
59544,
35
],
[
59544,
62012,
36
],
[
62012,
63733,
37
],
[
63733,
65567,
38
],
[
65567,
67963,
39
],
[
67963,
69501,
40
],
[
69501,
71836,
41
],
[
71836,
73939,
42
],
[
73939,
76200,
43
],
[
76200,
78260,
44
],
[
78260,
80184,
45
],
[
80184,
82285,
46
],
[
82285,
84494,
47
],
[
84494,
86653,
48
],
[
86653,
88591,
49
],
[
88591,
90787,
50
],
[
90787,
92881,
51
],
[
92881,
95049,
52
],
[
95049,
97097,
53
],
[
97097,
98667,
54
],
[
98667,
100587,
55
],
[
100587,
102857,
56
],
[
102857,
105327,
57
],
[
105327,
107526,
58
],
[
107526,
109653,
59
],
[
109653,
111653,
60
],
[
111653,
112211,
61
]
]
} |
5332af6cd4f86c271ecca0e790ece8998ffb1d3e | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 Hertfordshire, Luton and Reading Batch
Current Status
Financial close reached on 19 March 2015
| Project Name | Department | Procuring Authority | |--------------|------------|---------------------| | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 Hertfordshire, Luton and Reading Batch | Department for Education (DfE) | Education Funding Agency (EFA) | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 North East Batch
Current Status
Financial close reached on 10 March 2015
| Project Name | Department | Procuring Authority | |--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 North East Batch | Department for Education (DfE) | Education Funding Agency (EFA) | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 North West Batch
Current Status
Financial close reached on 25 March 2015
| Project Name | Department | Procuring Authority | |--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 North West Batch | Department for Education (DfE) | Education Funding Agency (EFA) | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 Yorkshire Batch
Current status
Reached financial close on 26th April 2016
| Project Name | Department | Procuring Authority | |--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 Yorkshire Batch | Department for Education (DfE) | Education Funding Agency (EFA) | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 Midlands Batch
Current status
P4 Financial close reached on 12 August 2015
| Project Name | Department | Procuring Authority | |--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Priority School Building Programme – PF2 Midlands Batch | Department for Education (DfE) | Education Funding Agency (EFA) |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2197-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9386,
"total-output-tokens": 608,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
393,
1
],
[
393,
892,
2
],
[
892,
1393,
3
],
[
1393,
1895,
4
],
[
1895,
2396,
5
]
]
} |
46c6b11b258c4c938411f33d19298086509d1133 | A GUIDE TO SAFER RECRUITMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Experience has shown that it is vital for organisations that provide services to children and vulnerable adults to operate recruitment and selection procedures that help deter, reject or identify people who might abuse children and the vulnerable, or are otherwise unsuited to work with them. Many unsuitable people may not have a criminal conviction. It is therefore important that we do our utmost to stop such people gaining access to children and vulnerable people. Making safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and vulnerable adults an integral factor in staff recruitment is an essential part of creating safe environments.
1.2 These guidelines have been developed to ensure that safer recruitment practices are carried out across the borough, ensuring that as a Council we are fulfilling our responsibility of ensuring that the children and vulnerable adults that use our services are as safe as possible. These guidelines comply with the safe recruitment recommendations of the Bichard Enquiry (2004) into the Soham Murders and the DCSF guidance on Safeguarding Children 2007.
1.3 These guidelines cover the full recruitment process. Supplementary guidance is available on the following aspects of the recruitment process:
- Guidance for carrying out interviews
- Protocol for Criminal Record Bureau Checks
- Guidance for managers on accepting references.
2. SCOPE
2.1 This guidance has been produced to support supervisors and managers in recruiting the best qualified and safest staff and volunteers whilst ensuring that the recruitment and selection procedures used are consistent fair and safe for the recruiter as well as the children, families and vulnerable adults they work with.
2.2 Schools should refer primarily to the guidance issued by the DCSF, “Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education” which came into force on 1 January 2007:
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/\_doc/8592/Recruit.pdf
3. SAFER RECRUITMENT POLICY STATEMENT 3.1 In accordance with guidance issued by the DCSF, Hounslow shall incorporate a policy statement in relevant recruitment adverts expressing its commitment to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The statement to be used is as follows:
“The London Borough of Hounslow is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people, and vulnerable adults and expects all staff and volunteers to share this commitment.”
3.2 This statement should be included on:
- London Borough of Hounslow website
- Job descriptions/Employee specifications for all jobs advertised after 1 October 2009
4. WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ADULTS
4.1 The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 defines “Regulated Activity” in relation to children and vulnerable adults in Schedule 4 Parts 1 and 2.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060047_en_8#sch4-pt1
The following is a summary.
| Regulated Activities | |----------------------| | Involve contact with children or vulnerable adults and are: | | Of a specified nature | AND ARE | | e.g. teaching, training, care, supervision, advice, treatment or transport. | Frequent, Intensive and/or Overnight | | Or | | In a specified place | - Once a month | | e.g. schools, children’s homes and hospitals, juvenile detention facilities, adult care homes. | Or | | - Also covers Fostering and “Defined Office Holders” | - Three or more occasions in a period of 30 days | | e.g. Directors of Children’s Services, Trustees of children’s charities, School Governors | Or | | - No distinction between paid and voluntary work | - Overnight: Between 2 – 6am |
A full list of positions where it is eligible to undertake a CRB is available from the link below. Regulated positions are categories 1 and 2.
http://www.crb.gov.uk/guidance/rb_guidance/eligible_posts.aspx
6. LEGISLATION The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
6.1 Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act it is an offence to offer employment in posts defined as regulated positions to someone who is identified on the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s barred lists
The Act provides that:
- There will be two barred lists – one for those who are barred from engaging in regulated activity with children (the “children’s barred list”), and one for those who are barred from engaging in regulated activity with vulnerable adults (the “adults’ barred list”).
- There will be an Independent Barring Board (“IBB”). The IBB will maintain the children’s barred list and adults’ barred list and will make decisions about whether an individual should be included in one or both barred lists.
- An individual who is included in the children’s barred list must not engage in regulated activity in relation to children. An individual who is included in the adults’ barred list must not engage in regulated activity in relation to vulnerable adults.
- Broadly, regulated activity will cover a range of specified activities that provide an opportunity for close contact with children or vulnerable adults, other activities in key settings such as schools and care homes which provide an opportunity for contact and key positions of responsibility such as the Children’s Commissioner and the Director of Adult Social Services.
- There are a series of criminal offences to: a. prevent barred individuals from engaging in regulated activity in relation to children or vulnerable adults b. ensure that people permitted to engage in regulated activity in relation to children or vulnerable adults with the permission of a “regulated activity provider” are subject to monitoring c. ensure that relevant employers check an individual’s status in the scheme before permitting an individual to engage in regulated activity in relation to children or vulnerable adults
The Act also confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations about controlled activity. This covers certain activity other than regulated activity. There is no current intention to prevent a barred individual from engaging in controlled activity. However, in part the regulations will be used to require employers (and others with responsibility for managing controlled activity) to put in place appropriate safeguards to manage the risks posed by barred individuals.
Broadly, controlled activity covers support work in general health settings, further education settings and adult social care settings. It also covers work which gives a person the opportunity for access to sensitive records about children and vulnerable adults, including education and social services records.
A fuller explanation of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is available at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060047_en.pdf
7. VOLUNTEERS
7.1 Volunteers are seen by children and vulnerable adults as safe and trustworthy adults. Engagement of volunteers for work which meets the definition of regulated activity will require the same level of checks as would be required for paid employment.
7.2 This does not mean that all volunteers will be subject to a CRB check – it is important to consider whether the position involves regular, intensive or overnight working. Paragraph 4.56 of the Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education guidance may be helpful in determining the required level of checks.
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/\_doc/8592/Recruit.pdf
8. SCHOOL GOVERNORS
8.1 In line with other volunteers, governors in positions that include direct contact with children, or who care for, train, supervise or are in sole charge of children should be subject to these recruitment measures, and an Enhanced CRB Disclosure should be obtained.
8.2 If the governor attends the governing body meeting only and does not go into school at times when children are present an Enhanced CRB disclosure is not currently required. With the extension of the operating hours of schools, Headteachers must carry out regular reviews of the need for governing body members to have CRB checks.
8.3 Appropriate vetting and barring schemes should be checked on the appointment of a new governor.
9. AGENCY WORKERS
9.1 The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, requires employment agencies to vet temporary staff who work with vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly and infirm. They are required to carry out additional checks including obtaining copies of relevant qualifications, two references and taking all reasonable steps to confirm the individual’s suitability for a post. If new, adverse information later emerges, they must withdraw the temporary worker or inform the employer where they have introduced the worker for a permanent contract.
9.2 Managers recruiting supply or agency workers to work with children or vulnerable adults must obtain written notification from the agency that indicates that relevant ID checks, right to work in the UK, NI number, references and CRB Disclosures have been obtained for the individual and outlines whether it included any disclosed information.
9.3 Where there is disclosed information, the appointing manager must obtain a copy of the Disclosure from the agency. If the CRB Disclosure has not been received yet by the agency, the manager must require the agency to notify them of the content as soon as it is received.
9.4 Where there has been a gap of 3 months or more between assignments worked by the temp then a new CRB check should be requested from the Agency.
9.5 Where a CRB Disclosure indicates cause for concern, the agency worker must be immediately withdrawn pending further enquiries.
9.6 As a safeguard, Managers should arrange for temporary workers working with children or vulnerable to bring with them on their first day documentary evidence of their identity (e.g. either a current driving license or passport including a photograph, or a full birth certificate) plus a document such as a utility bill or financial statement that shows the candidates name and address, and where appropriate change of name documentation. They should also be asked to produce an original CRB disclosure.
10. CONTRACTORS
10.1 Contractors who may not have direct contact with children or vulnerable adults, but because of their job have regular presence in a setting/establishment should also be subject to the measures in this guidance.
10.2 In particular, managers and procurement departments involved in the appointment of contractors should ensure that:
- the contractual terms include the requirement for the contractor to adopt these procedures in respect of staff having contact with children and vulnerable adults
- the contract includes provisions relating to the confidentiality of any data relating to children or vulnerable adults that the contractor may come into contact with
10.3 Managers and procurement departments involved in the appointment of contractors should assess whether the role needs a CRB/ISA registration check. Where a CRB check is considered necessary for the role this must be undertaken prior to commencement of any work on site. 11. JOB DESCRIPTIONS/PERSON SPECIFICATION
11.1 For safer recruitment, it is important that candidates have the ability to assess their own suitability for a job. The development of accurate job descriptions/role profiles and person specifications is therefore vital.
11.2 Job Descriptions should clearly state the main duties and responsibilities of the post, including where appropriate the individuals responsibility for promoting and safeguarding the welfare of service users that they will be responsible for, or come into contact with.
11.3 The person specification sets out a profile of the job and of the ideal person to fill it. This should include the following
- The qualifications and experience, registration requirements and any other qualifications needed to perform the role in relation to working with service users
- The competencies and qualities that the successful candidate should be able to demonstrate or show the potential to develop
- An indication of how the requirements will be tested and assessed during the selection process
- If a CRB check is required for the post
- The statement
“The London Borough of Hounslow is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people, and vulnerable adults and expects all staff and volunteers to share this commitment.”
12. DECLARATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES
12.1 Posts involving access to children vulnerable adults and positions of trust are considered exempt under the provisions of The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and therefore all offences, convictions, cautions, bindovers or any pending court cases must be declared.
12.2 Candidates should be reminded on the application form/ person specification that they are required to declare any convictions.
12.3 Failure to declare any of the above mentioned which are later highlighted in the CRB check may result in the withdrawal of an offer or dismissal.
13. INVOLVING SERVICE USERS IN RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION 13.1 To empower and give service users a voice, consideration should be given as to whether it would be useful to have them included in the recruitment and selection process.
13.2 Involving service users in aspects of the recruitment and selection process can send a powerful signal to potential applicants about the philosophy of the organisation/school. It is likely to encourage applicants who are comfortable with and committed to listening to service users and respecting their rights and wishes. Experience has shown that service users can be more adept than professionals at drawing out a candidate’s attitudes and values.
13.3 This may take different forms depending on the nature of the job and service user group. The panel should consider the best way of involving service users.
13.4 There are several ways in which service users can be involved in the process, e.g. Visits by candidates to the facilities which service users use, such as children’s units.
13.5 Where such visits take place, they must be undertaken and managed carefully so as to take the needs of service users into account.
13.6 Other ways of involving service users could be to arrange for service users to meet candidates individually where a set of agreed questions is put to candidates; a group of service users meeting a group of candidates in order to undertake a group exercise; or including a service user as a member of a panel interview. Service users will need appropriate support and preparation for participation in any such activity.
14. PREPARING FOR SHORT-LISTING
14.1 To ensure that the best candidates are selected, and have been selected fairly, standard procedures for short-listing should be used. This ensures that you have a concise record of the decision, which can be referred to at a later date.
14.2 When applicants apply for a post they are asked to address each point on the person specification, detailing how their previous experience, knowledge, skills and abilities fit the requirements on the person specification. The fundamental principle of short-listing is that each candidate should be assessed against the person specification and not in relation to other irrelevant criteria.
14.3 Ideally, applications should be short-listed by all interview panel members, but at least by two of them. Short-listing should never be done by only one member of the panel. 14.4 If any items on the person specification require further detail to assist the panel to decide if an applicant meets the criteria or not, this detail should be agreed and documented.
15. THE INTERVIEW PANEL
15.1 It is important to decide who will be short-listing, who will be on the interview panel, and who will be chairing the panel prior to the advert being placed. The chair of the panel should manage the whole process.
15.2 To ensure consistency the panel should remain the same throughout the whole process. Panels should consist of at least two people, and if a member of the panel knows any of the applicants, they must disclose this.
15.3 All panel members must have been trained in recruitment and selection procedures and be aware of safer recruitment in relation to the relevance of previous convictions, assessing and confirming gaps in education and employment and assessing people skills.
16. SHORT LISTING AND SCRUTINISING
16.1 All applications should be scrutinised to ensure that they are fully and properly completed; that the information provided is consistent and does not contain any discrepancies, and to identify any gaps in employment. Incomplete applications should not be accepted.
16.2 Any anomalies, discrepancies or gaps in employment identified by the scrutiny process should be noted so that they can be taken up as part of the consideration of whether to short-list the applicant. As well as reasons for obvious gaps in employment, reasons for a history of repeated changes in employment without clear career or salary progression should be explored and verified.
17. INVITATION TO INTERVIEW
17.1 The invitation to interview should stress that the identity of the successful candidate will need to be checked thoroughly to ensure that the candidate is the person who he or she claims to be. Candidates who are required to register with the General Teaching Council (Teachers) or General Social Care Council (Social workers) should be asked to bring to the interview their certificate of registration which will help to confirm, identity, qualifications and any conditions attached to registration.
17.2 All candidates should be instructed to bring with them documentary evidence of their identity e.g. Either a current driving license or passport including a photograph, or a full birth certificate, plus a document such as a utility bill or financial statement that shows the candidates name and address, and where appropriate change of name documentation.
17.3 Candidates should also be asked to bring documents confirming any educational and professional qualifications that are necessary or relevant for the post, e.g. the original or a certified copy of a certificate, diploma, or a letter of confirmation from the awarding body. NB. If the successful candidate cannot produce original documents or certified copies, written confirmation of his/her relevant qualifications must be obtained from the awarding body before an offer of employment is confirmed.
17.4 A copy of any documents used to verify the successful candidates identity and qualifications should be signed by the manager who verifies it and retained for the personnel file. Such documentation should be destroyed in relation to unsuccessful candidates at the end of the recruitment and selection process.
18. SCOPE OF THE INTERVIEW
18.1 When carrying out interviews of candidates for posts that work with children or vulnerable adults the interview panel should explore: • The candidates attitude’s towards the relevant client group(s) • The candidates ability to support the authority’s agenda for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and vulnerable adults; • Gaps in the candidates employment history • Concerns or discrepancies arising from the information.
18.2 Further guidance on the conduct and scope of the interview is provided in the separate guidance:
Guidance on carrying out interviews
19. PRE-EMPLOYMENT CHECKS - REFERENCES
19.1 The purpose of seeking references is to obtain objective and factual information to support appointment decisions.
19.2 Where practical, references should be sought prior to interview for all short-listed candidates. This will enable interview panels to take up any relevant issues arising from the references at the interview. In some circumstances it might not be possible to obtain the references before the interview, e.g. because of shortness of time between shortlisting and interview dates, delay on the part of the referee, or because a candidate strongly objects to their current employer being approached at this stage of the process.
19.3 All requests for references should seek objective verifiable information and not subjective opinion. A reference request form has been designed to help achieve this. A copy of the job description and person specification for the post the person is applying or should be included with all requests and every request should ask:-
- About the referee’s relationship with the candidate, e.g., did they have a working relationship; if so what; how long has the referee known the candidate and in what capacity;
- Whether the referee is satisfied that the person has the ability and is suitable to undertake the job in question, and for specific comments about the applicant’s suitability for the post, and the candidate has demonstrated they meet the criteria on the person specification;
- Whether the referee has any concerns about the candidate’s ability to work with children and vulnerable adults.
- Confirmation of details of the applicant’s current post, salary and sick record
- Details of any disciplinary procedures the applicant has been subject to in which the disciplinary sanction is current
- Details of any disciplinary procedures the applicant has been subject to involving issue related to the safety and welfare of children or young people, or vulnerable adults or behaviour towards children or vulnerable adults, and the outcome of those concerns e.g. whether the allegations or concern was investigated, the conclusion reached, and how the matter was resolved.
19.4 When clearing a reference it is important to keep the following points in mind:-
- Normally at least two references should be obtained for external candidates. These should be from the candidates’ most recent employers. If the candidate is newly qualified or a school or college leaver a reference must be sought from their educational establishment.
- A minimum of one reference must also be sought for internal candidates.
- They should be on the organisations’ headed notepaper or have the organisations’ stamp on them.
- Any gaps or missing information needs to be identified and noted.
- The content of the references should be checked against the application form to ensure that the information provided by the candidate and referee is consistent. Any discrepancy should be taken up with the applicant at interview or after if, the reference is received later.
- If you are uncertain about the content of the reference, or have identified gaps. These can be followed up in a telephone conversation with the referee. If a telephone call is made it is important to ensure that you verify that the person on the telephone is who they say they are. You can do this by asking them to confirm some of the personal details they provided on the reference form.
- If the reference raises concerns these can be discussed with the candidate.
- If the reference and the candidate’s explanations are not adequate, these are grounds for not appointing the candidate.
19.5 Any information about past disciplinary action or allegations should be considered in the circumstances of the individual case. Cases in which an issue was satisfactorily resolved some time ago, or where an allegation was determined to be unfounded or did not require formal disciplinary sanctions, and in which no further issues have been raised, are less likely to cause concern than more serious or recent concerns, or issues that were not resolved satisfactorily. A history of repeated concerns or allegations over time is likely to give cause for concern.
19.6 It is important not to accept references or testimonials provided by the candidate, or open references or testimonials addressed to whom it may concern. There have been instances of candidates forging references, also open references or testimonials might be the result of a “compromise agreement” and are therefore unlikely to include any adverse comments.
20. PRE-EMPLOYMENT CHECKS - HEALTH
20.1 All offers of appointment must be subject to the satisfactory completion of a medical assessment form, and if required an examination by the Council’s Occupational Health Physician.
21. CONDITIONAL OFFER OF APPOINTMENT
21.1 A provisional offer of appointment will be sent to the successful candidate by the Shared Services Centre. This will be conditional upon the following mandatory employment checks;
- The receipt of at least two satisfactorily references (if they have not already been received prior to the interview)
- Verification of the candidate’s identity (if not verified at interview)
- For Regulated Positions and Controlled Positions, a check of the relevant barred list and where appropriate, a satisfactory CRB disclosure.
- Verification of the candidate’s medical fitness
- Verification of qualifications (if not verified after the interview)
- Verification of professional; status where required, e.g., GTC registration, QTS status (unless properly exempt), NPQH, GSCC registration (if not verified at interview)
- (For teaching posts) verification of successful completion of statutory induction period (applies to those who obtained QTS after 7 May 1999) and
All checks should be;
- Confirmed in writing
- Documented and retained on the personnel file (subject to certain restrictions on the retention of information imposed by CRB regulations); and
- Followed up where they are unsatisfactory or there are discrepancies in the information provided
22. ACTIONS REQUIRED WHERE PRE EMPLOYMENT CHECKS ARE UNSATISFACTORY
22.1 If a candidate is found to be on a list barring them from the work to which they have applied; the offer of employment should be withdrawn and the facts should be reported to the police and/or the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
If an applicant has provided false information in, or in support of their application, consideration should be given to the offer of employment being withdrawn. Advice should be obtained from the HR Advisory Team.
Where there are other serious concerns about an applicant’s suitability to work with children or vulnerable adults, the facts should be considered with a member of the HR Advisory Team.
23. CRIMINAL RECORDS
23.1 A criminal record arises from a conviction. There are also police records but these are not criminal convictions, and include reprimands, and final warnings.
23.2 Cautions (for adults) are based on the seriousness of the offence committed. A caution is a warning about future conduct given by a senior police officer, usually in a police station, after a person has admitted an offence. It is used as an alternative to a charge and possible prosecution. Reprimands and final warnings (for offenders under 18 years of age) are issued by police as an alternative to putting a young person before the courts. Again, the person has to have admitted to the offence.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
23.2 The rehabilitation of offenders act was designed to help ex-offenders become law abiding and productive members of society.
23.3 Under the rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 any conviction for a criminal offence can be regarded as spent provided:
“The conviction did not carry a sentence excluded from the Act, such as a custodial sentence of over two and a half years and no further convictions occurred within the rehabilitation period.”
23.4 A conviction is not spent until the rehabilitation period is complete. Once it is spent, the rehabilitated person does not have to reveal its existence in most circumstances and can answer no to the question “do you have a criminal record”.
23.5 The Act applies to offences where a custodial sentence in prison (or detention in a young offenders’ institution) of less than 30 months imprisonment was imposed. Any sentence above 30 months never becomes spent. • A sentence of imprisonment between 6 months and 30 months becomes spent after 10 years. • Imprisonment for less than 6 months becomes spent after 7 years • Fines, community service orders become spent after 5 years • Probation orders, conditional discharge or binding over become spent after a year or until the order expires (whichever is the longer) • Absolute discharges become spent after 6 months.
23.6 Certain occupations however are exempt from this; these include posts involving access to children, young people, the elderly, disabled people, alcohol or drug users and the chronically sick. Many posts within the health service and jobs involving the administration of justice, banking and other financial services and national security are also exempt.
24 CRIMINAL RECORD BUREAU (CRB) CHECKS
24.1 The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), an Executive Agency of the Home Office, provides wider access to criminal record information through its Disclosure service. This service enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially that involve children or vulnerable adults. The CRB was established under Part V of the Police Act 1997 and was launched in March 2002.
24.2 The Criminal Records Bureau allows us as an employer to ask successful job applicants to apply for one of two types of check. The type of check required will depend upon the nature of the position. These are called Enhanced and Standard Disclosures; both require a fee but are free of charge to volunteers.
Standard Disclosures
24.3 From 12 October 2009, Standard Disclosure will only provide details from the Police National Computer and will not provide details from barred lists. Therefore, Standard Disclosures will not be suitable for posts undertaking Regulated Activities.
Enhanced Disclosures
24.5 Enhanced Disclosures should be obtained in respect of all posts undertaking Regulated Activities with children or vulnerable adults. Reference should be made to the CRB category lists (see Regulated Activities – section 4 above). From 12 October 2009, only Enhanced Disclosures will identify if someone is included on a barred list. Additional Checks on Overseas staff
24.6 If the post undertakes Regulated Activities, an Enhanced CRB check must be undertaken even if the appointee has never previously lived in the UK. For overseas candidates who have not previously lived in the UK, and UK candidates who have lived abroad for significant periods, organisations should make an additional check by obtaining a certificate of good conduct from the relevant embassy or police force where that is available as well as obtaining an enhanced CRB Disclosure. The CRB website gives information about the availability and coverage of these certificates. The level of information contained in these certificates varies from country to country. Some are complete extracts from the criminal record; others are partial.
24.7 Where an applicant is from or has lived in a country where criminal record checks cannot be made for child protection purposes, or is a refugee with leave to remain in the UK, and has no means of obtaining relevant information, employers must take extra care in taking up references and carrying out other background checks. For example, additional references should be sought, and references followed up by phone as well as letter.
25 STARTING WORK PENDING A CRB DISCLOSURE
25.1 Ideally, where a CRB Disclosure is required, it should be obtained before an individual begins work. It must in all cases be obtained as soon as practicable after the individual’s appointment and the request for CRB Disclosure must be submitted in advance of the individual starting work.
25.2 Chief Officers have the discretion to allow an individual to start work pending receipt of the Disclosure but they must ensure that the individual is appropriately supervised, and that all other checks, including checks against barred lists and references have been cleared and the employee must have completed the CRB disclosure application form.
25.3 Appropriate supervision for individuals who start work prior to the outcome of the CRB Disclosure being returned, needs to reflect what is known about the person concerned, their experience, the nature of the duties and the level of responsibility they will carry.
25.4 For those with limited experience and where references have provided limited information, the level of supervision required should be high. For those with more experience and where the references are detailed and provide strong evidence of good conduct in previous relevant work, a lower level of supervision may be appropriate.
25.5 For all staff without confirmed CRB disclosures, it should be made clear that they are subject to this additional supervision. The nature of the supervision should be specified and the roles of staff in undertaking the supervision, spelt out. The arrangements should be reviewed regularly, at least every two weeks until the CRB Disclosure is received. 26. **ACTION NEEDED IF A CRIMINAL RECORD IS REVEALED ON A DISCLOSURE**
26.1 Appointments can be confirmed if there are no convictions, cautions, reprimands, final warnings, or other non-conviction information on the disclosure.
26.2 An Enhanced disclosure will show whether the person is barred from working or seeking work with young people under the age of 18, or vulnerable adults.
26.3 If the person is barred the matter should be referred to the HR Business Partner who should contact the police. The police will take appropriate action, as it is an offence for a barred person to apply for such work and also for an employer knowingly to employ a banned person in such a capacity.
26.4 If criminal record information is listed, this would normally simply confirm what the applicant has previously revealed, and the appointments panel will have taken this into account when offering the applicant the post provisionally. Where a Disclosure confirms information that has already been taken into account, this would normally not be a reason to rescind the offer.
26.5 Where information is provided, it will generally only provide the basic facts – the name and date of the offences, for instance and the sentence. It will not put them into context. Nor will it explain what particular offences mean, in which case you may need to take advice from the HR Advisory Service.
26.6 If, however, there are significant discrepancies between the information that the applicant has provided on the Declaration of Offences section of the application form and the information on the Disclosure, or if the information on the Disclosure has not been disclosed earlier, further consideration by the manager in conjunction with an HR Adviser will be necessary.
26.7 The CRB code of practice recommends that any new matters revealed by Disclosures should be discussed with the applicant before making a final decision. This does NOT extend to non-conviction (“additional information”) matters on the Enhanced Disclosure that must not be revealed to the applicant. In the past, some employers have not given further consideration to anyone who failed to disclose an offence, no matter how irrelevant the offence was. This is now considered unreasonable, as applicants should not be dismissed or rejected outright.
26.8 If it is clear from an early stage that an appointment is subject to a CRB Disclosure, applicants will be less likely to conceal their records deliberately.
26.9 If the discrepancies are serious, there is a possibility that a mistake might have been made, for instance the information contained in the Disclosure may relate to someone else with the same name. While every effort is made by the CRB to ensure that Disclosures are accurate, mistakes do occur from time to time. 26.10 In some instances, it may be clear immediately that the applicant is unsuitable for the post they have applied for because of their record.
- 26.11 It may be that at a subsequent discussion with the applicant, they can provide the reassurance that is needed, for example by making it clear that the offence(s) is (are) in the past, or they were committed when the applicant was young or going through particular difficulties which have since been resolved.
26.12 If the offence is not work related or if the post is at a level of responsibility which means that the applicant does not represent a risk, you could consider appointing the applicant if in all other respects they are suitable for the job.
26.13 In a small number of cases, an Enhanced Disclosure check may result in the local police force disclosing non-conviction information to the registered contact only, and not to the applicant; this may include information about a current investigation. This may be very important in detailing whether someone is suitable for a particular post, but it must be remembered that this information must not be discussed with or passed to the applicant. HR Business Partners will advise managers on the most appropriate way to deal with this information should this situation arise.
27. WHAT TO DO IS SOMEONE HAS A CRIMINAL RECORD
27.1 When deciding whether to appoint (or short-list) someone, you should determine how well the applicant can do the job; whether the person has the essential skills or experience for the post or an ability to develop these skills. Only then, if the person has the skills or experience, should convictions be taken into account.
Assessing the Relevance of criminal records
27.2 It is best to avoid using a blanket ban on employing people convicted of a particular category of offence, as such bans fail to take into account the precise nature of such offences or the applicant’s attitude to them. No two offences are exactly alike. Similarly a particular type of conviction or pattern of convictions may be deemed to make someone unsuitable for some types of post in the organisation but not for others.
27.3 Even violent offences can also cover a very wide range of behaviour and attitudes. The length of time since the offence, the circumstances which lay behind the committal of offences, the degree of intention on the part of the offender, the damage caused, the sense of remorse or otherwise of the offender, and the degree of risk the offence suggests that the applicant represents, will differ every time and may only be judged on the basis of a thorough individual risk assessment, 27.4 Where an applicant is still under probation or youth justice supervision, with the person’s consent HR could seek advice from the relevant probation officer or youth justice worker on behalf of the appointing manager about their suitability for the post.
27.5 To facilitate this process, an applicant’s criminal record should be assessed in relation to the tasks he or she will be required to perform and the circumstances in which the work is to be carried out. Managers in consultation with HR Advisers should therefore consider the following when deciding on the relevance of offences to particular posts:
- Does the post involve one-to-one contact with children or other vulnerable groups, customers or clients,
- What level of supervision will the post holder receive
- Does the post involve any direct responsibility for finance or items of value
- Does the post involve direct contact with the public
- Will the nature of the job present opportunities for the post holder to re-offend in the place of work?
27.6 The answers to such questions should help managers to determine the relevance of convictions to specific posts. For example, paedophile, or child pornography offences would almost certainly disqualify any person required to work with children; some violent offences would be relevant to positions involving unsupervised contact with the public, fraud should be considered in relation to posts involving the handling of significant amounts of money; and theft in relation to involving handling stock/supplies.
27.7 Whilst it may not be possible to carry out a risk assessment on each individual, managers should take the following issue into account as a minimum requirement:
- The seriousness of the offence and its relevance to the safety of other employees, customers, clients and property
- The length of time since the offence occurred
- Any relevant information offered by the applicant about the circumstances which led to the offence being committed, for example the influence of domestic or financial difficulties
- The circumstances surrounding the offence and the explanations offered by the candidate
- Whether the offence was a one off, or part of a history of offending
- Whether the applicant's circumstances have changed since the offence was committed, making re-offending less likely
- The country in which the offence was committed, some activities are offences in Scotland and not in England and Wales and vice versa
- Whether the offence has since been de-criminalised by parliament
- The degree of remorse, or otherwise, expressed by the applicant and their motivation to change 27.8 Despite this legislation, a court cannot compel an employer to engage a rehabilitated offender; it can only declare the exclusion of the applicant to be unlawful.
27.10 If a provisional offer of employment is withdrawn because the Director decides that the criminal record of the applicant makes them unsuitable for the post, the applicant must be informed of the reason for the rejection.
27.11 If the employee wishes to lodge a complaint this can be done in accordance with the Council’s Code on Recruitment and Selection.
27.12 If an applicant/employee does not disclose information, which is subsequently revealed by the CRB, the non-disclosure will be considered a breach of contract, and dealt with accordingly.
28. THE STORAGE, HANDLING, USE, RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF DISCLOSURES AND DISCLOSURE INFORMATION
28.1 As an organisation using the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure service to help assess the suitability of applicants for positions of trust, the Council complies fully with the CRB code of practice regarding the correct handling, use, storage, retention and disposal of disclosures and disclosure information. We also comply fully with the data protection Act.
28.2 Disclosure Information will not be kept on an applicants personal file and is always kept separately and securely, in lockable, non-portable storage containers) e.g. a lockable filing cabinet) with access strictly controlled and limited to only those who are entitled to see it as part of their duties.
28.3 Once a recruitment decision has been made, disclosures and associated correspondence should be retained by the Shared Services Centre for a period not exceeding 6 months (other than where specific exceptions are made in accordance with Government or Regulatory Body guidelines – e.g. Children’s’ Homes National Minimum Standards). This period allows for any dispute about the accuracy of a disclosure or a recruitment decision to be made and considered. In the case of a dispute the information may need to be retained for a longer period, but in general this should not exceed six months.
28.4 Disclosure information is only used for the specific purpose for which it was requested and for which the applicant’s full consent has been given.
29. PORTABILITY OF CRB CHECKS
29.1 Portability refers to the re-use of a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure, obtained for a position in one organisation/establishment and later used for another position elsewhere. 29.2 Due to risks involved in portability, the Council does not accept the re-use of Disclosures originally obtained by an external organisation.
29.3 The risks include the following.
- A Disclosure has no formal period of validity. It is for use immediately after issue and reflects the record available at that date. That record might change subsequently. A further Disclosure would reveal such change.
- The Disclosure might not be at the correct level of check required.
- Only the employer’s copy of an Enhanced Disclosure would indicate additional police information. Employers receive such information by separate letter, and it remains confidential to that employer.
29.4 In exceptional circumstances, we may allow internal portability of a Disclosure where:
- the Disclosure is at Enhanced level.
- the candidate is moving between posts within Hounslow schools or the Council and their Disclosure was obtained within the last three years.
- the Disclosure was obtained within the past twelve months for a similar position.
- an individual is to undertake two positions (paid and/or voluntary) that both require a CRB check.
30. RE-CHECKING CRB DISCLOSURES
30.1 Employees in certain posts, which require Disclosure checks, will be subject to being re-checked every 3 years. In accordance with past practice this incorporates all professional Social Care posts. Posts subject to re-checking will be identified on the Oracle HR/Pay system and Chief Officers will be asked to review the list of these posts from time to time in conjunction with advice from the HR service.
30.2 A new CRB check should be carried out where sessional or casual staff have a break in employment of more than three months.
31. SINGLE CENTRAL RECORD OF RECRUITMENT AND VETTING CHECKS
31.1 Certain services are required to set up and maintain a single central record of recruitment and vetting checks (e.g. children’s homes and schools).
31.2 This central record must cover all staff who are employed to work at the establishment, including agency staff. This record should also include all others such as volunteers, and governors who will have regular contact with children.
31.3 The central record must indicate whether or not the following pre-employment checks have been completed: • identity checks • Qualification checks for any qualifications legally required for the job, e.g. QTS • Checks of right to work in the UK • List 99 checks • CRB Enhanced Disclosure • Further overseas records checks where appropriate
31.4 The record must show the date on which each check was completed or the relevant certificate obtained, and should show who carried out the check. A suggested template for the record is provided below:
| Identity | Qualification | List 99 | CRB | Right to work in the UK | Overseas Criminal records check | |----------|---------------|---------|-----|-------------------------|--------------------------------| | Name | Address | Date of birth | Evidenced and date | Qualification required yes/no | Qualification evidenced and date | Check evidence and date | Check evidence and date | Check evidence and date | Check required yes/no |
32. INDUCTION
32.1 It is important that there is an induction programme for all staff and volunteers newly appointed in an establishment, including social workers and teaching staff, regardless of previous experience. The purpose of the induction is to:
• Provide training and information about the establishments /authority’s policies and procedures; • Support individuals in a way that is appropriate for the role for which they have been engaged; • Confirm the conduct expected of staff; • Provide opportunities for a new members of staff or volunteers to discuss any issues or concerns about their role or responsibilities; and, • Enable the person’s line manager or mentor to recognise any concerns or issues about the persons’ ability or suitability at the outset and address them immediately.
32.2 The content and nature of the induction process will vary according to the role and previous experience of the appointee or volunteer, but as far as safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and vulnerable adults is concerned the induction programme should include information about, and written statements of:
• Policies and procedures in relation to safer recruitment, safeguarding and promoting welfare, e.g. Child protection, anti-bullying, anti racism, physical intervention/restraint, intimate care, internet safety and any local child protection/safeguarding procedures;
- Safe practice and standards of behaviour expected of staff, and children, or residents using the facility/setting.
- Other relevant personnel polices and procedures e.g., capability, disciplinary and whistle-blowing
- Where relevant to the individual’s role, the programme should also include attendance at child protection training. APPENDIX A
CONVICTIONS WHICH WOULD BAR AN OFFER OF APPOINTMENT
A conviction for any of the following would preclude a person from work involving access to children and vulnerable adults. (There may, however be exceptional circumstances where an offer of employment could be offered for some of the offences listed in this Appendix. Each case should be carefully considered).
Offences where death results, violence is used or threatened or life recklessly endangered by a persons actions.
- Murder and Manslaughter
- Grievous Bodily Harm or Unlawful Wounding
- Robbery
- Aggravated Burglary
- Rioting
- Violent Disorder
- Infanticide and Child Destruction
- Arson
- Offences included in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
- Firearms offences – Possession of Firearms with Intent, Use of Firearms to Resist Arrest and Possession in Relation to Certain Offences
- Threats to kill
- Destroying or Damaging Property with Intent to Endanger Life
- Incitement of Racial Hatred
- Aggravated Vehicle Taking
Sexual offences
- Rape and Attempted Rape
- Abduction • Incest
• Buggery when the offence was committed with a child under 16 or any person without consent
• Gross Indecency
• Indecent Assault
• Intercourse with a Girl under 16 or a Mentally Retarded Person.
• Indecent Contact with Children
**Drug offences**
Importation and Exportation, Production, Supply and Possession with Intent to Supply. APPENDIX B
OFFENCES DISCLOSED WHERE MANAGEMENT DISCRETION COULD BE EXERCISED
It is recognised that there are a variety of “other” offences where convictions may or may not indicate that the person is unsuitable for work providing substantial access to children and vulnerable adults. The reason for having such a category is that circumstances surrounding some offences vary widely. It is not possible to establish the precise circumstances of the arrest or details of the offence merely from the information provided by the CRB. A person charged with “assault” may have been acting in self-defence or the offence of threatening behaviour, could arise from a dispute with a neighbour etc.
Careful consideration should be given where discretion is exercised and senior management and HR must be involved in the decision making process. Offences where discretion could be exercised include:
♦ Any Bound Over Orders or Cautions ♦ Breaches of the Peace ♦ Offences committed when the candidate was under 17 years of age therefore legally considered a juvenile, unless those detailed above ♦ Offences against the person Common Assault Carrying an Offensive Weapon Affray Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress ♦ Criminal Damage Destroying or Damaging Property ♦ Thefts Theft Making off without payment Burglary Taking a Conveyance
Obtaining property by Deception
Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage
Handling Stolen Goods
Going Equipped
♦ Sexual Offences
*Depending on the circumstances, some offences concerning indecency may afford discretion. The circumstances must be clearly established.*
♦ Drug offences
*Possession* of Class A, B & C Drugs. (Verify how long ago the offence occurred, and whether there is any medical history of drug taking).
These guidelines do not provide an exhaustive list but cover those most likely to be recorded. APPENDIX C
CRIMINAL RECORD BUREAU BANDING TABLES
The Criminal Records Bureau has identified 68 categories of professions, employments, work and occupations for which CRB Disclosures can be applied for. The categories that apply to roles within the Council or schools are listed in the table below.
When CRB Disclosures are applied for the job role must be assigned one of the CRB categories below. Managers are responsible for ensuring that postholders carrying out the job roles listed below have CRB checks.
The banding categories applicable for Hounslow Council are explained below the table. The full list can be accessed at
http://www.crb.gov.uk/guidance/rb_guidance/eligible_posts.aspx
| CRB CATEGORY | BANDING | Job roles | |--------------|---------|-----------| | 1 | 3 | Any work which is defined as regulated activity relating to children within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 | | 2 | 3 | Any work which is defined as regulated activity relating to vulnerable Adults within the meaning of Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 | | 3 | 3 | Any office or employment which is concerned with the representation of, or advocacy services for, vulnerable adults by a service that has been approved by the Secretary of State or created under any enactment; and which is of such a kind as to enable a person, in the course of his normal duties, to have access to vulnerable adults in receipt of such services. | | 4 | 3 | Any work in a further education institution where the normal duties of that work involve regular contact with persons aged under 18. | | 13 | 1 | Chartered accountant, certified accountant. | | 35 | 1 | Traffic wardens. | | 48 | 2 | Any employment which is concerned with the monitoring for the purposes of child protection, of communications by means of the internet. | | 49 | 2 | An individual designated under section 2 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. | | 52 | 2 | Any office, employment or other work which is concerned with the establishment or operation of a database under section 12 of the Children Act 2004. | | CRB CATEGORY | BANDING | Job roles | |--------------|---------|-----------| | | | and which is of such a kind as to enable the holder of that office or employment, or the person engaged in that work, to have access to information included in the database. | | 53 | 2 | Any office, employment of other work which is of such a kind that the person is or may be permitted or required to be given access to a database under section 12 of Children Act 2004. | | 54 | 2 | Any work which is normally concerned with the provision of any form of information, advice or guidance wholly or mainly to children which relates to their physical, emotional or educations well-being and is provided by means of telephone or other form of electronic communication including the internet and mobile telephone text messaging. | | 64 | 3 | For adoption purposes. | | 65 | 3 | For foster caring purposes. |
## APPENDIX D
### HOUNSLOW BANDING CATEGORIES FOR SAFER RECRUITMENT
| Band | Pre appointment/recheck requirements | Circumstances in which candidates can start work pending CRB checks | |------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | • Standard Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks\
• Identity checks\
• Standard reference form | Allowed to start work prior to CRB check. | | 2 | • Enhanced Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks\
• Identity checks\
• Enhanced reference form | Allowed to start work prior to CRB check only where close supervision can be guaranteed, the candidate has an Enhanced CRB Disclosure which is less than a year old and with the agreement of a Head of Service. | | 3 | • Enhanced Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks\
• Identity checks\
• Enhanced reference form | Normally would not start until checks are completed except on a limited range of duties where supervision can be guaranteed, the candidate has an Enhanced CRB Disclosure that is less than a year old and with the agreement of the Head of Service. | | 4 | • Standard Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks\
• Identity checks\
• Standard reference form | Allowed to start work prior to CRB check. |
CRB checks may need to be carried out for posts that fall into these categories at the discretion of the Head of Service. The CRB category guidance should be consulted to identify the appropriate category code. DISCLOSURE FLOWCHART
Offer of employment subject to Disclosure
Disclosure received by LBH
Disclosure confirms information already provided
Confirm appointment
Disclosure reveals new information about a criminal record
Discuss with applicant
Applicant confirms information is correct but discrepancies not serious or applicant is able to provide reassurance
Confirm appointment
Applicant confirms information is correct but record is too serious and/or applicant is not able to provide reassurance
Withdraw offer of employment
Applicant disputes the information on the Disclosure but the new information does not cause concern
Confirm appointment
Applicant disputes the information on Disclosure
The information, which is of a serious nature, is confirmed as correct and the applicant is unable to provide reassurance
Withdraw offer of employment
The information is correct; the applicant had given correct information
Confirm appointment
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3160-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 29,
"total-input-tokens": 55024,
"total-output-tokens": 12869,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2027,
1
],
[
2027,
3882,
2
],
[
3882,
6547,
3
],
[
6547,
8624,
4
],
[
8624,
11125,
5
],
[
11125,
13100,
6
],
[
13100,
15486,
7
],
[
15486,
17794,
8
],
[
17794,
20290,
9
],
[
20290,
23234,
10
],
[
23234,
25530,
11
],
[
25530,
27887,
12
],
[
27887,
30137,
13
],
[
30137,
33010,
14
],
[
33010,
35800,
15
],
[
35800,
38436,
16
],
[
38436,
41065,
17
],
[
41065,
43536,
18
],
[
43536,
45814,
19
],
[
45814,
47985,
20
],
[
47985,
48433,
21
],
[
48433,
49516,
22
],
[
49516,
49865,
23
],
[
49865,
51193,
24
],
[
51193,
51730,
25
],
[
51730,
54012,
26
],
[
54012,
54984,
27
],
[
54984,
56515,
28
],
[
56515,
57469,
29
]
]
} |
19788cd78e38abb762d7f48b70cdd290e4a58b02 | Statistical bulletin
House price statistics for small areas in England and Wales: year ending September 2015
House prices and number of transactions for property sales in England and Wales, on an annual basis, updated quarterly.
Contact: Nigel Henretty [email protected] +44 (0)1329 447934
Release date: 24 March 2016 Next release: 16 June 2016
Table of contents
1. Main points
2. Gap between lowest and highest house prices falls
3. Long-term growth for most expensive areas
4. Detached properties now most common new-build
5. New for this release
6. Things you need to know
7. Background note
8. Main points
The difference in median price between the most and least expensive parts of England and Wales was nearly £3.2 million in year ending September 2015, down from a peak of £3.5 million in year ending December 2014.
The most expensive area outside of London was in Elmbridge, Surrey where the median price paid for all properties was £997,475.
House price growth has diverged for the most expensive and least expensive areas since the recession.
Detached properties in England and Wales were the most commonly sold type of newly built property in year ending September 2015 (32% of all new property sales), having overtaken sales of new flats in year ending June 2015.
2. Gap between lowest and highest house prices falls
The difference in median price between the most and least expensive parts of England and Wales was nearly £3.2 million in year ending September 2015, down from a peak of £3.5 million in year ending December 2014. For all types of property, the median price paid ranged from £38,750 in one part of Pendle, Lancashire to £3,212,500 in one area of Westminster.
The median price paid for property in the most expensive middle layer super output areas (MSOAs) has also fallen, from a peak of £3.5 million in the year ending December 2014. This coincided with the introduction of new stamp duty rules where tax on the most expensive properties increased.
Part of the difference in price paid between the least and the most expensive areas is caused by different types of dwelling being sold in those areas. For example, detached properties in England and Wales sold for 61% more than semi-detached properties on average in the year ending September 2015. Therefore, an area with a higher proportion of detached property sales is likely to have a higher median price overall than an area which had a higher proportion of semi-detached property sales.
Map 1 shows that in the year ending September 2015 there were 581 MSOAs in which the median house price was in the lowest 10% of property prices in England and Wales overall. Generally, towns and cities in the north of England, the Midlands and also in south Wales contained most of these 581 MSOAs.
There were 27 MSOAs in which the median price paid for all properties was more than £1 million in year ending September 2015. All these areas are in London and are predominantly in the central and western boroughs. The most expensive area outside of London was in Elmbridge, Surrey where the median price paid for all properties was £997,475. Map 1: Median house price for all dwellings by MSOA, England and Wales
Year ending September 2015
Median Price (£)
- 1,000,001 to 3,212,500 (27)
- 400,001 to 1,000,000 (698)
- 203,001 to 400,000 (2,581)
- 136,001 to 203,000 (2,016)
- 95,001 to 136,000 (1,298)
- 38,750 to 95,000 (581)
3. Long-term growth for most expensive areas
Figure 1 shows the growth in median house prices for local authorities as an index between 1995 and year ending September 2015. It shows the 20 local authorities for which the median price paid for all properties has grown the most and the 20 in which it has grown the least over the last 20 years.
The local authorities with the most growth in house prices and those with the least growth form 2 distinct clusters. Those with most growth grew at a sharper rate whereas those with the lowest growth remained relatively stable until 2001. The 2 clusters began to converge until 2007 but have diverged again since then, as the group of 20 local authorities with the least growth dropped slightly and then stayed relatively flat whilst the highest price growth areas have increased rapidly over the last 8 years.
Figure 1: Median house price growth, local authorities in England and Wales
Year ending December 1995 to year ending September 2015
Figure 2 shows the range of median house prices for all dwelling types by English region (excluding London) and Wales in year ending September 2015. The median price paid for all dwellings for each local authority are displayed as points on each bar. The South East, South West and the East of England all stand out as having higher median prices for the lowest priced local authorities than the lowest priced local authorities in Wales and the other English regions. Despite large regional differences in the range of median prices, most regions and Wales had some degree of overlap.
The South East and the East of England had the widest ranges in local authority house prices. Both regions border London and most of the local authorities which had high median prices either border or have good transport links with London. In the South East for example the 3 local authorities in which the median price paid for all properties was highest were Elmbridge (£495,000), South Bucks (£475,000) and Chiltern (£445,750), all of which are immediately outside of London. The 3 local authorities in the South East for which the median price paid for all properties was lowest are on the south coast of England, further from London than the most expensive part of the region. These were Gosport (£164,973), Hastings (£167,500) and Portsmouth (£170,000). There was a similar geographic pattern in the East of England.
The region with the smallest range of median prices in year ending September 2015 was the North East, ranging between £110,000 (County Durham) and £155,000 (North Tyneside).
**Figure 2: Range of median house price in local authorities for English regions and Wales**
**Year ending September 2015**
Figure 3 shows the range of median house prices for different property types in London boroughs. Semi-detached properties had the largest range in median price within London and this is caused by a small number of outliers (Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Camden) which all had a particularly high median price for semi-detached properties. The range of median prices for detached and terraced properties was also affected to some extent by high prices in these few boroughs. If we ignore these outliers at the top, the ranges would be more similar, although the range of median prices for flats would still be the smallest. 4. Detached properties now most common new-build
Detached properties in England and Wales were the most commonly sold type of newly built property in year ending September 2015 (32% of all new property sales), having overtaken sales of new flats in year ending June 2015.
Figure 4 shows the changes in composition for sales for new properties over time. In year ending December 1995, sales of detached housing dominated the new build market with 44% of all sales for new properties. By 2000, the share of sales for new detached housing peaked at 52% but declined until 2008. Since then the share of sales for new detached property has been increasing steadily. The share of sales for new semi-detached properties has also been rising since 2008, albeit at a slower rate than the share of new detached properties.
The percentage of new terraced housing exceeded that of semi-detached in 2001 and remained higher until 2014. For newly built flats, the share rose rapidly between 2000 and 2008, during which time many urban areas were regenerated. Since then the share of newly built flats has fallen steadily. 5. New for this release
This release includes House Price Statistics for Small Areas data up to the year ending September 2015. For this release, we have produced house price statistics for a new geography, major towns and cities in England and Wales, along with analysis of house prices in major towns and cities.
We have also published an article which examines house price and the composition of property sales in rural and urban areas in England and Wales.
6. Things you need to know
House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSAs) use data from the Land Registry to provide statistics on the price paid and composition of residential property transactions which were sold at full market value in England and Wales.
Residential property transactions can be added to or edited in the Land Registry’s Price Paid data retrospectively. This can cause changes to the number of sales and price statistics reported in the HPSSAs. For this reason, the entire series of data in the HPSSAs (back to year ending December 1995) is revised quarterly and these data superseded all previously published HPSSA data. The smallest areas for which statistics are presented are middle layer super output areas (MSOAs), of which there are 7,201 in England and Wales. The largest area available is England and Wales overall. Statistics for the smallest areas provide a more detailed geographic understanding of housing trends. It can be useful to view them in the context of the larger areas in which they sit, such as local authorities, regions and the country as a whole. More information about these statistics and their uses can be found in our HPSSAs Explained.
These house price statistics provide an accurate representation of the price paid for residential properties sold in a given area. They are useful for assessing the affordability of housing for a range of geographical areas as well as examining broad patterns in prices and the number of house sales over time. They provide a level of spatial detail not included in the ONS House Price Index (HPI) which reports house prices at regional and national level. HPSSAs are different to statistics included in the HPI and the two are not directly comparable. The HPI provides an economic measure of inflation over time, representative of the changing mean value of the housing stock, taking into account the mix of different houses. This provides an appropriate measure for inflation in property value as it is mix-adjusted to account for differences in the characteristics of houses in an area. HPSSAs focus on the price paid for residential properties that were actually sold in a particular period. They are not mix adjusted, which means variations in the composition of dwelling types sold can influence the house prices reported here. These variations help inform understanding of spatial differences in sold house prices.
For more information about the quality and methods used to produce these statistics, see our Quality and Methodology Information document.
7. Background note
8. Details of the policy governing the release of new data are available by visiting https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/monitoring-and-assessment/code-of-practice/ or from the Media Relations Office email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3161-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 12797,
"total-output-tokens": 2898,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
606,
1
],
[
606,
3137,
2
],
[
3137,
3425,
3
],
[
3425,
5482,
4
],
[
5482,
6758,
5
],
[
6758,
7869,
6
],
[
7869,
8978,
7
],
[
8978,
11147,
8
]
]
} |
595e9891db7690ab48820e339313e53e3a2c8369 | House prices in London – an economic analysis of London’s housing market
Joel Marsden November 2015 Contents
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5 2 How are house prices set and do they matter? ................................................................. 6 3 Trends in the London housing market .............................................................................. 10 4 The affordability of housing in London, risks to the housing market and the responsiveness of housing supply ...................................................................................................................... 21 5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix 1: House prices to rent ratios, alternative investment returns and the buy-to-let market ....................................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 2: Demand from foreign and overseas investors .................................................. 56 Executive summary
This paper looks at the level of London’s house prices from an economic perspective. It looks at the fundamental processes that drive the market for buying and selling homes, considering the extent to which the observed changes in house prices are reasonable, and the possible long-term consequences of house price inflation for London. While highlighting potential issues for particular groups which may have long-term economic consequences, this paper focuses on the price of homes and costs of housing in London in economic terms. It therefore primarily considers the private market for owner-occupied and mortgage-backed housing.
In economic terms, house prices in equilibrium are set by the balance of demand and supply. However if, for example, supply persistently fails to respond to higher prices, or if prices are driven by factors other than the fundamental need for housing, the desire to buy it and corresponding ability to pay, house prices may potentially be deemed unaffordable or overvalued. This can place upward pressure on wages and the costs of doing business as well as increase the risks to macroeconomic stability. Housing affordability is thereby defined in economic terms as the relationship between market-determined housing costs and the ability to pay for them. It does not relate to the concept of ‘affordable homes’, which refers to social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.
Even at equilibrium, prices will be beyond the budget of some households, leaving some unable to pay and thereby unable to access home ownership. Such a lack of affordability, in social terms, can also have perverse effects on the costs of living by pushing up rents, and may also contribute to ill health and wellbeing due to sub-standard living conditions, over-crowding and insecure tenure. High house prices and the associated concentration of wealth among homeowners may also contribute to greater inequality across the generations and present a barrier to social mobility.
London’s house prices are considerably higher, and have been rising at a faster rate than the country as a whole. This is particularly true in desirable central London boroughs with median house prices in 2014 as high as £860,000 in Westminster (up 11.4 per cent annually in the five years since 2009) and £1.2 million in Kensington and Chelsea (up 12.2 per cent annually in the five years since 2009) based on Land Registry data. This compares to a London borough low median house price of £215,000 in Barking and Dagenham (up 6.1 per cent annually in the five years since 2009), which is still higher than the national average for England and Wales of £192,000 (up 2.6 per cent annually in the five years since 2009).
Over a longer-time horizon, housing markets in London have witnessed a number of ups and downs, with volatile house prices in London tending to amplify changes in national house prices. Although falls in the actual (nominal) value of the average home are relatively rare, London has experienced several episodes of real house price deflation since the ONS data series began in 1969. From the patterns of previous cycles, there are no clear trends from price data alone to suggest whether London house prices are approaching a new peak, and whether this will entail a levelling off, or a more exceptional downward adjustment.
The observed increases in the price of the average London home have far exceeded growth in individual earnings. This has led to house prices which were almost 10 times median earnings in London in 2014, compared to about 4 times in 1997, and considerably higher than a previous peak in 1974. Looking instead only at the earnings of residents in the top 70th percentile of income earners indicates a ratio of more than 8.4 times earnings, with this measure of affordability also widening over time. Such a measure does not however account for the role of households with multiple earners, non-wage incomes, or the availability of mortgage finance, and may therefore be an imperfect measure of the ability to finance home ownership insofar as these other factors have changed over time.
The ratio of house prices to the incomes of mortgage-holders provides an alternative measure of affordability. Based on this measure, London’s pre-crisis average house prices ranged between 1.9 and 3.5 times the income of mortgage applicants, notably lower than the UK as a whole. In each case the ratio of house prices to incomes ended the period at its peak level immediately before the start of the economic downturn. The average house price in London however is now 5.3 times the average income of mortgage applicants, compared to 4.4 times in the UK as a whole, in excess of its pre-crisis peak. From a borrowers’ perspective, the median value of mortgages secured on properties in London increased from being 2 times greater than buyers’ median income in the 1980s, to more than 3.5 times the value of borrowers’ income by 2013. These measures reflect the high house price rises in the capital but may also capture changes in the profile of applicants, or number of joint applications over time.
Standard measures of housing affordability in terms of the relationship between house prices, earnings and incomes therefore suggest that there is an increasing affordability gap. An alternative explanation for the observed trends in affordability, which the above ratios and multiples do not account for, relates to changes in the quality of the surrounding local area and the access to amenities that it offers. Evidence from academic research suggests that the wider benefits of urban living may explain a part of the difference in housing costs across cities and over time, as for example, cities have become safer, less crime-ridden places to live and a vibrant cultural life has given cities an edge in attracting talent. In the past decade, there is a range of evidence to suggest that London has become increasingly attractive as a place to live.
With the recent growth of the private rented sector and buy-to-let market, and recent growth also in overseas ownership, there are arguably two extra components of demand compared to the past. However, there is limited available evidence that either of these have had a profound impact on house prices. Indeed, although increasingly supported by buy-to-let mortgages, the share of the private rental market in London remains lower than it was previously in the 1960s and 1970s. It is however arguable that the strong long-run performance of London housing relative to alternative investments may have contributed to London’s housing stock being increasingly seen as a vehicle in which to hold money, acting as a possible further incentive towards owner-occupation. With regard to foreign or overseas ownership, the evidence is also mixed, and on balance suggests that it is responsible for only a small share of transactions and likely to have had only modest effects on house prices in London. There is also some evidence to suggest that following the economic crisis, the additional demand for new build properties may have to some extent lessened the negative impact of credit constraints on construction activity.
The purchase price of a house is not however the same as the cost of owning a home. Instead, the annual cost of home ownership can be more accurately measured by considering the share of incomes devoted to housing. Based on measures of the cost of financing mortgage repayments and the overall costs of housing, the annual cost of owning a home in London is below its previous peaks. This is primarily due to the historically low mortgage interest rates that homeowners currently face. This notwithstanding, since property prices (and the corresponding size of advances) are much higher in London, mortgage holding households still spent considerably more financing their mortgages costs in London than households in the rest of the UK.
Buyers, and particularly first-time buyers, face significant upfront costs in buying a house. The average deposit to income ratio for first-time buyers has increased at a rapid rate in London since 2008, reaching a high of 125 per cent in 2014. This is considerably above its long-run trend in the previous three decades, with deposits averaging 30 per cent of incomes from 1980-2007. The rapid deterioration in the affordability of home purchase, on this measure, is driven by a post-recession shift towards a larger size of deposits as a proportion of house values. There are signs that the value of larger deposits is increasingly being met by young first-time buyers through parental assistance and inheritance, which may have long-term implications for social mobility and entrench wealth inequality across generations.
Insofar as high house prices in London are supported by low costs of credit, this may make the London economy vulnerable to the risk of a price correction, particularly if the costs of borrowing were to rise, or access to credit and alternative income streams were to tighten. The Bank of England reports that a rise in bank rates from the current low of 0.5 per cent up to 2.5 per cent would almost double the proportion of households struggling to pay their mortgages (as those financed by a variable rate would face higher monthly costs of repayment). Given its increasingly high loan-to-income multiples, London households may be particularly exposed to changes in mortgage interest rates. Based on CML data, it is found that an increase in mortgage interest rates of three percentage points would significantly reduce affordability levels to their previous 1990 lows (such that almost a third of household incomes is taken on mortgage payments).
Demand for housing in London is partly driven by the desirability to live and work in London, but is also partly driven by natural changes in population (in terms of births and deaths) as well as socio-economic factors that drive household formation. It is this demand which, coupled with the increased ability to finance home ownership, places upward pressure on the price of housing in the capital. In a well-functioning housing market, the quantity of housing supplied should increase in response.
Comparing the cumulative growth in the housing stock and household population with house prices, it is notable that at a time of relatively stable real house prices from 1991 to 1997, the year-on-year growth in the number of London households was slower than growth in the number of London dwellings. Conversely, from 1998 to 2014, when the rates of growth in London’s population and number of households started to increase in excess of growth in the housing stock, real house prices rose by an annualised average of 9 per cent.
Limits on the responsiveness of supply seem to have amplified London house prices. Periods of high increase in house prices in London have been accompanied by only modest increases in the number of new homes built, and the levels of house-building in London have not kept pace with changes in house prices or the population. A number of factors may explain why housing supply in London has been relatively unresponsive to price signals to date, including constraints of the planning system as well as a number of possible market frictions which may slow, or inhibit, the response of private developers and house-builders. In this respect, further measures to overcome constraints in housing supply can be seen as an important step to address affordability in London’s housing market. 1 Introduction
There is considerable public debate and concern over the affordability of house prices in London, and the potential risks of instability from the housing market. But do these concerns have strong foundations? This paper aims to consider the level of London’s house prices from an economic perspective. It looks at the fundamental processes that drive the market for buying and selling homes, considering the extent to which the observed changes in house prices are reasonable, and the possible long-term consequences of house price inflation for London.
The paper begins by considering how house prices are set and why this might matter. It then presents the recent trends in the housing market, including a review of the data sources used and some of the limitations faced in producing the analysis. It then proceeds to analyse whether or not the evidence suggests house prices are in line with underlying economic ‘fundamentals’, based on a range of indicators. 2 How are house prices set and do they matter?
In economics, the efficient allocation of resources requires that in the long run the price of any market good or service should be determined by the balance of supply and demand. This is true for the housing market as well, where the supply of houses for sale and the demand for housing to occupy should determine prices.
In a well operating housing market the quantity of properties for sale should be determined by the factors influencing the available housing stock, including the availability of land and the cost of building new homes. Demand for housing is determined by housing need driven by demographic developments, as well as the ability to pay (incomes, access to finance), and the desire to purchase a house.
Unlike most market goods and services, which are demanded for the good itself – we demand an apple because we want to consume it – some goods or services are instead demanded because they provide access to other goods. Transport services, for example, are often demanded so that we can ultimately consume another good or service (e.g. cinema). Housing is also, in many respects, a good that is demanded indirectly – in terms of access to local facilities, employment opportunities and other services it provides. Because of this, the desire to purchase a house will be affected by demand for these other markets. High house prices in a particular area may therefore reflect a relative abundance of amenities and offer residents a high quality of life. London’s abundant amenities and access to employment opportunities, in this sense, may to some extent compensate its residents for the high costs of housing.
High prices, in any market, reflect the intersection of strong demand and limited supply. If, at any given current market price, the number of houses demanded increases then prices will rise assuming fixed supply. Such changes, if driven by the fundamental determinants of demand and supply (as set out above), could result in a dynamic supply response, that is, where possible, there would be an increase in the quantity of houses supplied. Price rises driven by these fundamentals should remain efficient in the long term.
However, in the period of adjustment, prices may be viewed as ‘unaffordable’ while prices are high and the market is not supplying all that it should be. Since the demand for housing is related to the demand for access to employment, local facilities and other services, these high house prices can in turn have knock-on effects.
2.1 Housing market failures and economic imbalances
As stated above, the price for private market housing should, in theory, reflect the balance between the supply of houses and the demand for living in them. In practice, however, the supply and demand for housing may also be distorted by other factors unrelated to their fundamental determinants.
On the demand side, for example, the use of housing as a long-term investment asset may stimulate additional demand from investors and homeowners seeking to speculate on a property’s value in the expectation of realising future capital gains. In turn, this speculative
______________________________________________________________________
1 Taking this logic a step further, it has been argued that ‘unaffordability’ at city level can itself be seen as an indicator of an area’s desirability and the quality of life it offers. See for example, Gibbons, S., Overman, H., and Resende, G. ‘Real earnings disparities in Britain’, SERC discussion paper 65. demand may increase the price for London housing over and above the value of housing derived from living there (because investors are expecting future price increases)(^2).
This effect will be exacerbated if investors choose to leave their investment units empty, and thereby directly reduce the supply of available housing(^1). There are also a number of innate qualities to housing, such as its long life, fixed location, the uniqueness of each property, and the one-off nature of most transactions, which mean that the market may fail to allocate housing efficiently(^4). On the supply side, for example, local scarcity of developable land, the time it takes to construct new housing and planning restrictions may also impede a timely response to changes in price(^5). As a result, house prices may be subject to high levels of volatility, and remain in excess of what might be considered as their equilibrium price for prolonged periods of time.
The implications of market distortions and knock-on effects can be serious, profoundly affecting the London economy and wellbeing of its residents. For London-based businesses, the rising costs of housing in an area place upward pressure on wages as firms compensate their workers for higher housing costs and/or longer commutes(^6). In turn, this may present an economic risk to London since it increases the costs of doing business, and reduces firms’ ability to recruit and retain staff in the capital(^7).
House price increases that are unrelated to the fundamental drivers of demand and supply, can also pose a threat to economic stability. In the 1980s rising house prices contributed to an economic boom that ultimately proved unsustainable. More recently, unsustainable house price rises in the US contributed to the global financial crisis in 2008. House price inflation in each of these examples increased indebtedness relative to income, and distorted economic behaviour. As house prices accelerate in a boom, households take on increasingly higher levels of debt, lenders are increasingly exposed to a volatile market and investment is increasingly directed towards, arguably, non-productive assets and activities. This increases the risk of economic instability if the costs of financing mortgage debt increases, or if house prices were to suddenly fall in value.
### 2.2 The wider, social implications of house prices
One of the most challenging obstacles to living in London, in terms of cost, is the cost of housing. In 2013, average housing expenditure in London was £135.90 per week, or 15 per cent of total weekly household expenditure(^8). This is higher than any other UK region, and average
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) Alternative investment-based metrics which consider the relationship between house prices, rents and returns from alternative investments are considered separately in Appendix 1.
(^1) In 2013, an estimated 59,313 properties in London are empty based on DCLG council tax statistics, representing 1.7 per cent of the total housing stock.
(^4) For an overview of the market failures associated with London’s housing market, see: GLA (2003), ‘Market failure and the London housing market’, accessed on 22/09/14.
(^5) See for example, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), ‘The impacts of restricting housing supply on house prices and affordability’, November 2010
(^6) For example, 49 per cent of London employees say they would likely consider moving out of London if house prices and rents continue to increase at current rates. Source: London First/Turner & Townsend, ‘Moving out: How London’s housing shortage is threatening the capital’s competitiveness’, September 2014.
(^7) Based on a representative sample of London business units, the London Business Survey 2014 found that around 63 per cent of businesses rated London as a poor or very poor location for their business in terms of the availability/cost of housing. Source: GLA Economics, ‘London Business Survey 2014: main findings’.
(^8) Housing expenditure here includes the cost of mortgage repayments and rent (less benefits, rebates and allowances received) on primary dwellings, as well as the costs of maintenance and repairs. It excludes council tax and other rates, property transaction costs, and expenditure on property improvements and insurance. Total expenditure includes all categories recorded housing expenditure in the UK as a whole was £86.10 per week, equivalent to 12 per cent of total weekly household expenditure. Such higher housing costs drive up the cost of living for Londoners.
An individual household has a given amount of income to spend and cannot influence the price of the goods and services it buys. In the market for any good or service, there will be a number of households that are unable to purchase housing at a given market price as it will exceed their budget. Even in a perfect market, housing costs will therefore be ‘unaffordable’ for those households whose budget constraint falls below the going market rate. Housing affordability in this sense relates to equity, rather than efficiency issues.
It follows that, if the costs of housing increase (relative to changes in household incomes), then increasingly more households will find themselves priced out of the housing market; there will be a growing gap between the willingness and ability to pay. Those priced out of owner occupation will either move away, or turn to renting or social housing (if possible).
This inability to access home ownership is likely to be a particularly acute challenge for those outside the labour market and dependent on fixed incomes from the state or other sources. Rising housing costs may also lead to worse outcomes for those workers in sectors and low paid occupations, where incomes fail to increase in line with the cost of living9. It follows that a lack of affordability in social terms can also have long-term implications for London businesses (and their employees) that rely on the support services provided by other sectors, and relatively low-paid workers. The economy in turn may suffer from the consequent impediments to labour mobility as workers are unable to find somewhere to live within easy reach of the workplace.
High and rising house prices have also been linked to a number of social challenges, such as sub-standard living conditions, overcrowding and insecure tenure10. This can present serious consequences for health, sustenance and the wellbeing of London’s population. A lack of affordability can also place increased pressure on local public finances by, for example, increasing the reliance on housing benefit11 as well as costs associated with health, education and to a lesser extent, crime and offending12. The social costs of poor housing to individuals and the state are particularly concentrated among those whose housing needs are not met and who experience homelessness and temporary accommodation. While this paper is concerned with the private market for housing, these costs may provide a rationale for the provision of a separate market for ‘social housing’ below market rents.
Finally, the cost of housing can also raise a number of distributional effects. By increasing the barrier to home ownership, high house prices can have a particularly limiting effect on first time buyers, and particularly young households. At the time of the 2011 Census, 50 per cent of London households owned their own homes (either outright or with a mortgage), compared to 65 per cent in England and Wales as a whole, and down from 59 per cent in 200113. Research
______________________________________________________________________
9 For analysis of the persistence of low paid employment, see: GLA Economics, ‘Low pay in London’, February 2014. 10 See for example: Whitehead, C. and Travers, T. (2011), ‘The case for investing in London’s affordable housing’, LSE London. 11 The total housing benefit bill for London has increased from £2.5 billion to £6.2 billion (146 per cent) from 1998/99 to 2013/14. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2014. 12 There are numbers of studies that clarify the extent that poor housing increases the costs to public finances. See, for example: Friedman, D. (2010), ‘The social impact of poor housing’, 2010. 13 Source: GLA analysis of historical Census data, accessed on 06/08/15 for Halifax finds that compared with other regions, London has the highest proportion of young people aged 20-45 who worry they will never be able to buy a house (82 per cent)\\textsuperscript{14}, with the majority of Londoners (69 per cent) citing high property prices as the most significant barrier to homeownership.
This barrier can contribute to housing wealth inequality across the generations, and may also limit social mobility. Property wealth is an important component of London’s unequal wealth distribution, accounting for almost 40 per cent of total wealth among the wealthiest 20 per cent of households in London\\textsuperscript{15}. Housing wealth is also an important source of inheritance. During 2010-12, it is estimated that 168,000 individuals in London received some form of inheritance in the preceding two years. Of these, 40,800 included a “house, flat, land, or share in property”, accounting for 24 per cent of all inheritances within London\\textsuperscript{16}.
So in conclusion, issues of house price affordability can be viewed in: (1) efficiency terms – the extent to which demand and supply are in balance; and (2) equity or social terms when prices are, arguably, in equilibrium but people cannot afford to pay. These present a range of different risks and problems for the London economy and the wellbeing of its residents. While highlighting potential issues for particular groups which may have long-term economic consequences, this paper focuses on the price of homes and costs of housing in London in economic terms. It therefore primarily considers the private market for owner-occupied and mortgage-backed housing. It does not relate to the concept of ‘affordable homes’, which refers to ‘social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market’\\textsuperscript{17}.
\\textsuperscript{14} Findings are based on over 40,000 interviews with 20-45 year olds across the UK from 2011-2015. Source: Halifax, ‘Five years of generation rent: perceptions of the first-time buyer housing market 2015’, April 2015.
\\textsuperscript{15} The wealthiest 20 per cent of households in London held aggregate total wealth of £1,018 billion, of which £400 million was held in net property wealth. Source: ONS wealth and assets survey.
\\textsuperscript{16} This does not include inheritance involving property that is sold and reported as a monetary inheritance. Source: ONS ad hoc analysis of the Wealth and Assets Survey, 26 January 2015.
\\textsuperscript{17} For definitions of these terms, see: DCLG, ‘Definitions of general housing terms’, accessed on 01/10/15 3 Trends in the London housing market
This report next looks at the different ways in which house prices are measured and puts the most recent house price rises in the context of experiences of the past 45 years. This serves to provide a backdrop for the subsequent discussion on economic affordability and sustainability of London house prices.
3.1 Measuring house prices and house price trends
There are a number of measures of house prices, which can give rise to different estimates of the level of house prices and how they are changing over time. These reflect differences in the underlying data and methodologies for their collection. There are two ‘official’ measures of house price levels in the UK:
1. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) house price data: based on a representative sample of UK-wide mortgage lending through the Regulated Mortgage Survey of the Council of Mortgage Lenders.(^{18})
2. Land Registry price paid data: based on a complete register of all residential sales at full market value(^{19}) in England and Wales.
Alternative datasets are also produced by Nationwide and Halifax based on their own mortgage approvals, irrespective of whether these result in actual purchases. In addition, comparison websites such as Rightmove.com and Zoopla produce measures of advertised asking prices and estimated prices respectively, while the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) produces a leading sentiment indicator of conditions in the UK residential sales markets, based on new buyer enquiries. Such indicators can be useful to anticipate emerging market trends. This is because they overcome the time lags associated with the property search and offer process, having a mortgage approved, a transaction completed and registered with the Land Registry.(^{20})
However, since they are based on a representative sample or comprehensive register of actual house sales, the two official data sources provide a more reliable measure of the average price of house sales at a particular point in time. Land Registry data is a particularly rich source of data on the ‘going market rate’ of housing at a given time as it can also provide information at borough level. It also includes transactions based on cash purchases as well as those backed by mortgage finance, while the ONS data only captures purchases financed by UK mortgages.(^{21})
ONS data instead benefits from a richer time series, providing data on house prices by UK region back to 1969. The Land Registry data, though available at a more detailed level, dates back only as far as 1996.
Since house price changes over time may be affected by the quality and characteristics of the stock of housing available for purchase, the ONS, Land Registry, Nationwide and Halifax each produce their own House Price Index (HPI). The change in the index compared to a year earlier
______________________________________________________________________
(^{18}) For further details see: ONS, ‘Official House Price Statistics Explained’, April 2013, accessed on 06/08/15
(^{19}) This excludes the sale of part of a property, a share of a property, or the sale of a property at a discount. Examples include ‘Right to Buy’ sales at a discount, repossession sales or transfers between parties on divorce. Further details are available at: https://www.gov.uk/about-the-price-paid-data#data-excluded-from-the-house-price-index-and-price-paid-data, accessed on 06/08/15
(^{20}) For further information see the Council of Mortgage Lender (CML) mortgage statistics timeline accessed on 06/08/15.
(^{21}) Nationwide estimates that cash purchases represented 37 per cent of total housing market transactions in London in 2013, in line with the UK average of 36 per cent. Source: Nationwide house price index, May 2015. is used to tell whether prices are rising or falling. These indices also seek to isolate changes in prices from changes in the mix of houses sold from period to period, though no source is able to fully account for changes in the quality of housing stock that may result from home improvements or deterioration.
The ONS, Nationwide and Halifax HPIs adjust for the changing mix of properties made available in any given period (in terms of size, number of bedrooms and a range of other characteristics) to measure the price of an ‘average house’(^{22}). The corresponding Land Registry HPI is instead a form of ‘repeat sales regression’ index. This means that it measures average price changes in repeat sales on the same properties. It thereby controls for differences in the characteristics of each individual house that is resold. These indices are particularly relevant to understanding the value to those holding property at a particular moment in time, and the value of the housing stock that may be available for sale in the future.
While there are a range of sources available, the Land Registry data provides the most accurate picture of prices paid in the housing market. However, although it is less comprehensive in its coverage of transactions and arguably less rigorous in its mix-adjustment as a result(^{23}), the ONS HPI acts as a useful measure for the actual price of house sales for each UK region over longer periods of time. The alternative datasets are based on advertised, as opposed to the realised price of property transactions. The next section sets out the recent trends in London house prices, and places these in the context of the national picture and previous economic cycles.
### 3.2 Trends in London house prices
In each year since Land Registry records began in 1996, the average (median) house price in London(^{24}) has exceeded the average for every other region in England and Wales. This gap in average house prices between London and the country as a whole has also grown larger in each year, with the exception of 2009 when year-on-year average prices in London fell by £10,000, which was greater than the £1,000 fall in average prices in England and Wales (see Figure 1). In the period from 1996 – 2014 the gap between the average prices paid for housing across the different London boroughs has also grown markedly bigger. This reflects the rapid increase in house prices in central areas, where house prices were relatively high at the start of the period.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{22}) By combining the average price for each combination of characteristics into an indexed measure of house prices that holds these constant.
(^{23}) Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes that the ONS measure may be relatively more sensitive to changes in the type of property sold, and consequently may over-estimate current levels of house prices due to the strength of the ‘prime’ London market. Source: Chandler, D. and Disney, R. (IFS), ‘Housing market trends and recent policies’, chapter 5 in: ‘The IFS Green Budget: February 2014’.
(^{24}) In presenting the ‘average’ price, the median is typically used as it avoids over-estimates associated with mean values that result from a positive skew in the distribution of house prices. Figure 1: Median house prices in London exceed those across England and Wales, 1996-2014
By looking at repeat sales on the same properties, the seasonally adjusted Land Registry HPI signals an even sharper increase in London house prices in recent years. In the 12 months to June 2015 house prices in London increased by 9.2 per cent, compared to 5.4 per cent across England and Wales, and higher than any other region. In the five years since 2009, nominal house prices in London have risen year-on-year by an average of 7.8 per cent, compared to 2.6 per cent in England and Wales (see Table 1).
Source: Land Registry price paid data. Notes: Excluded from the above figures are sales at less than market price (e.g. Right to Buy), sales below £1,000 and sales above £20 million.
______________________________________________________________________
25 The annual change shown for February 2015 is the percentage change in the Land Registry HPI for the 12 months up to February 2015. This measures average price changes in repeat sales on the same properties, and is not available below regional level. Prices are not adjusted for inflation. For further information, see: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/house-price-index-statistical-report.
26 Nominal (or actual) house prices are not adjusted for inflation, and reflect the historical (or current) prices paid for a property. Table 1: Median house prices and house price trends in London, England and Wales, 1996-2014
| | Median house prices, £ | Compound growth rate, % | |----------------------|------------------------|-------------------------| | | 1996 | 2007 | 2009 | 2014 | 1996-2007 | 2007-2009 | 2009-2014 | | England and Wales | 57,000 | 176,000 | 169,000 | 192,000 | 10.8 | - 2.0 | 2.6 | | London | 77,000 | 265,000 | 250,000 | 364,000 | 11.9 | - 2.9 | 7.8 | | Inner London | 87,000 | 313,000 | 323,000 | 462,000 | 12.3 | 1.7 | 7.4 | | Outer London | 74,000 | 249,000 | 235,000 | 315,000 | 11.7 | - 2.9 | 6.1 |
Source: Land Registry price paid data, annual median (rounded to the nearest £1,000). The compound growth rate is the year-on-year rate of growth able to account for the change in house prices over the period.
These aggregate figures for London disguise a great deal of variation across different parts of London. The going market rate for houses sold in central boroughs in 2014 was particularly high, with median house prices as high as £857,000 in Westminster and £1.198 million in Kensington and Chelsea according to Land Registry data. In contrast, the average price paid for a house in Barking and Dagenham was £215,000 in 2014 (see Figure 2). This median figure was however still higher than the national average for England and Wales, which was £192,000 in 2014.
Figure 2: Median house prices by London borough in 2014
Source: Land Registry price paid data. Notes: City of London excluded due to low sample size. Excluded from the above figures are sales at less than market price (e.g. Right to Buy), sales below £1,000 and sales above £20m. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000. Not only are house price levels across the London boroughs higher than the national average, the rates of house price growth since the global recession have seen this gap grow larger. In the five years from 2009 to 2014, average growth rates have exceeded the national average for England and Wales (2.6 per cent) in each of the London boroughs. At the extremes, annual average growth rates in the median house price over the period exceeded 10 per cent in Haringey, Kensington, and Westminster. The average rate of growth in house prices in the outer boroughs, while relatively more modest, is still high and averaged 4.6 per cent in Havering and Enfield over the period (see Figure 3).
**Figure 3: Average growth rate in median house prices by London borough, 2009-2014**
Source: Land Registry price paid data. Notes: City of London excluded due to low sample size. Excluded from the above figures are sales at less than market price (e.g. Right to Buy), sales below £1,000 and sales above £20m. Notes: The average growth rate is the the year-on-year rate of growth able to account for the change in house prices from 2009 to 2014.
**The price of London rents**
As with the price of buying a home, the median price of private monthly rents in London is also considerably higher than in England as a whole. Based on data on private monthly rents from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), median rents in London in 2013/14 were £1,350 per month, more than twice as high as median rents in England as a whole (£595 per month). The VOA data provides a ‘snapshot’ on the median value of private monthly rents, and although it cannot enable robust comparisons over time, it can be used to illustrate the differences in average rents across London. Figure 4 shows that in the 12 months to March 2014, the median monthly private rent was highest in Westminster (£2,383) and Kensington and Chelsea (£2,275). These were the only two local authorities in England to have a median monthly private rent of more than £2,000 in 2013/14. While considerably lower, median rents recorded in the London Boroughs of Havering, Barking and Bexley were between 50-60 per cent above the national average. These patterns of rents across London shown in Figure 4 appear highly correlated with the house price data in Figure 2, and this relationship between house prices and rents is explored in further detail in Appendix 1.
Figure 4: Median monthly private rents by London borough, 2013/14
Source: VOA median private monthly rents, 2013/14. Notes: Data is based on private rental data entered into the lettings administrative information database were extracted for the twelve months to the end of March 2014. Cases where there was evidence of a transaction (i.e. rent has been paid) were retained while those with limited or no evidence of a transaction were removed.
London is not the only city where its residents face high levels of rents. Data from a UBS 2015 survey of 71 world cities found that London rent levels were, on average, the third highest in the World behind New York and Hong Kong (see Table 2).
Further information on the VOA methodology for calculating private rents can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-rental-market-statistics-england-only/release-notes-10-june-2014#methodology, accessed on: 02/10/15. Table 2: Average monthly rents by selected major city, 2015
| City | New York | Hong Kong | London | Chicago | Doha | Sydney | Tokyo | Paris | Munich | |------------|----------|-----------|--------|---------|------|--------|-------|-------|--------| | Normal local rent (£) | £2,530 | £1,680 | £1,530 | £1,440 | £1,330 | £1,160 | £1,120 | £1,050 | £890 | | UBS rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 14 | 16 | 21 |
Source: UBS prices and earnings 2015. Notes: The figures given are values for average rent prices (monthly gross rents) for local households. To capture local standards, the UBS survey asked for the price of a newly built apartment of typical size, location, and amenities for the respective city. US dollar values given in the report have been converted to pound sterling using the exchange rate 1 USD = 0.65 GBP.
3.3 Long-term trends in London house prices
Over a longer-time horizon, housing markets in London have witnessed a number of ups and downs, with the rate of change in London house prices from year-to-year fluctuating widely since the ONS data series on regional house prices began in 1969. This section places the recent, post-downturn house price rises in the context of previous economic cycles and longer-term trends.
Over the past 45 years, since the ONS series began, the London housing market has been characterised by periods of rapidly increasing house prices followed by a levelling off period, or a downward adjustment in house prices. An overall fall in the nominal value of the average house in London is however unusual; nominal house price deflation was experienced in only two periods in the previous 45 years, in 1991/92 and 2009. House price rises in London therefore tend to be the norm, with nominal adjustments relatively rare, as well as relatively short-lived.
Compared to the UK as a whole, Figure 5 reveals a tendency for movements in London house prices to be greater, thereby amplifying changes in national house prices. In addition, house price trends in London have tended to precede those exhibited across the rest of the country. These spatial differences in nominal house price changes across the UK are sometimes referred to as a ‘ripple effect’.
______________________________________________________________________
28 See for example: Meen, G. (1999) “Regional house prices and the ripple effect: a new interpretation”, Housing Studies, 14(6), pp 733–753. Figure 5: Volatility of year-on-year nominal house price inflation in London and the UK
Source: ONS mix-adjusted house prices index, reference table 33. Notes: Data is based on mortgages completed and adjusted for the mix of dwellings sold.
Figure 6 illustrates the volatility of house prices in real terms, relative to the price of other goods and services consumed by households. This reveals significant episodes of real house price deflation in 1973-1976, 1980-81, 1989-92 and 2007-09. The experience in the mid-1970s is interesting because real house price deflation occurred while actual or nominal house prices were continuing to grow. This occurred because rates of retail price inflation were especially high during this period. For example, while house prices grew by 7 per cent in the year to 1976, retail prices rose by 17 per cent. Relative to other consumer prices, house prices also decreased in real terms in 2005 and 2011 (see Figure 6). So while nominal terms adjustments are rare, in real terms such adjustments are more frequent with real prices decreasing in 11 of the last 35 years. Figure 6: Volatility of year-on-year real house price inflation in London and the UK
Source: ONS mix-adjusted house prices index, reference table 33, ONS long term indicator of prices of consumer goods and services (RPI all item). Notes: Data is based on mortgages completed and adjusted for the mix of dwellings sold. The house-price index is deflated by all item retail prices to take account of the effects of inflation on purchasing power.
Figure 7 shows the impact of general inflation on house price levels in London, and the relationship with the wider business cycle. The recent upturn in the London housing market follows the sharpest and deepest decline since the early 1990s. Based on ONS data from the Regulated Mortgage Survey, London nominal house prices fell by 18.1 per cent from a pre-recession peak in January 2008 to their lowest value in March 2009. This compares with a nominal fall in average London house prices of 20.9 per cent from peak to trough in the two-and-a-half years from the second quarter in 1989 to the fourth quarter of 1992.
______________________________________________________________________
29 This particular price level is a weighted index of the prices of categories of goods and services consumed by households, where the weights reflect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by each category of household consumption.
30 In nominal terms, using Land Registry price paid data, the price of an ‘average’ house in London fell from a peak of £350,529 in February 2008 to £292,497 in April 2009. This represents a fall of 17 per cent in less than 18 months.
31 Source: ONS table 8, mix-adjusted house price index, by region from Q2 1968 (quarterly) and from 2002 (monthly) Looking specifically at the peaks and troughs over time, there have been several prolonged periods of strong house price increases in London and the UK as a whole (see Table 3). In the eight years from 1982-1989, prior to the previous fall in London house prices in the early 1990s, house prices in London more than tripled as a result of an average annual increase in nominal London house prices of 17.1 per cent (or more than doubled in real terms due to 11.4 per cent average annual real increases).
Periods of sharp house price inflation in London have however not always been followed by a downward adjustment in prices, even in the event of a wider economic downturn. In the recessions of 1974 and 1981, house prices in London continued to rise, albeit at much slower annual rates than previously. The sharp increases in London house prices since the great recession of 2008/09 can also be seen in the longer-term context, to continue on from the pre-crisis trend rate (see Figure 7). In the 12 years prior to the 2008/09 recession, real house prices in London had increased by an average annual rate of 9 per cent, and have subsequently returned to these high levels. Table 3: House prices and the business cycle in London during selected periods, 1970-2014
| Time period | Nominal house prices (CAGR, %) | Real house prices (CAGR, %) | RPI (CAGR, %) | GVA (CAGR, %) | GDP (CAGR, %) | |-------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | London | UK | London | UK | All item | London | UK | | 1970 – 1973 | 28.5 | 27.0 | 18.4 | 17.0 | 8.6 | 4.7 | | 1973 – 1975 | 2.8 | 7.1 | - 14.4 | - 10.8 | 20.1 | - 2.0 | | 1977 – 1979 | 26.0 | 22.5 | 13.7 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 3.6 | | 1980 – 1981 | 3.0 | 5.5 | - 7.9 | - 5.7 | 11.9 | - 0.8 | | 1982 – 1989 | 17.1 | 15.2 | 11.4 | 9.6 | 5.1 | 3.9 | | 1990 – 1992 | - 7.1 | - 2.6 | - 11.4 | - 7.1 | 4.8 | - 0.4 | | 1994 – 1996 | 2.0 | 2.1 | - 1.0 | - 0.8 | 2.9 | 2.6 | | 1997 – 2007 | 11.7 | 11.2 | 8.7 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 6.3 | 3.1 | | 2008 – 2009 | - 8.2 | - 7.6 | - 7.9 | - 7.3 | - 0.5 | - 1.5 | - 4.3 | | 2012 – 2014 | 12.9 | 6.7 | 9.9 | 3.9 | 2.7 | \*4.0 | 2.1 | | Whole period| 10.2 | 9.3 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 6.1 | 2.2 |
Sources: ONS mix-adjusted house prices index, reference table 33, ONS regional workplace-based GVA, at current basic prices, 1997 – 2013. ONS UK GDP, chained volume measures (real terms), 1970 – 2014. Notes: The compound average growth rate (CAGR) is the year-on-year rate of growth able to account for the change in house prices or GVA/GDP from the first year to the last year of the period. \*London GVA data for 2012-14 is for the period 2012-13.
From the patterns of previous cycles, there are no clear trends from price data alone to suggest whether London house prices are approaching a new peak, and whether this will entail a levelling off, or a more exceptional downward adjustment. While a long-term trend in rising house prices may be a cause for concern as it may, for example, signal a structural imbalance between the demand and supply of housing, it is not necessarily unsustainable. It is a question instead of understanding whether current house prices differ systematically from economic fundamentals and are therefore vulnerable to an economic shock, or whether something fundamental has changed in London’s housing market that can account for the recent house price increases.
3.4 Summary of house price trends
House prices in London are currently experiencing rapid rates of growth – relative to the rest of the country and relative to overall prices in the economy. One cause for concern may be that the London housing market is characterised by periods of volatility, and though nominal falls in the actual value of the average London home are relatively rare, real term adjustments are not altogether uncommon. High house price inflation in itself is not however evidence that housing is overvalued or unsustainable.
To address this issue, it is necessary to assess whether these prices relate to their underlying determinants of demand and supply (e.g. purchasing a house as a medium to long-term asset for residential purposes), or whether they are distorted by market failures, or a desire to speculate in the expectation of future capital gains, or some other reason. In the next section, a range of indicators are considered to assess whether or not the evidence suggests house prices are in line with underlying economic ‘fundamentals’, and consider the possible economic implications of actual prices for prospective first-time buyers. 4 The affordability of housing in London, risks to the housing market and the responsiveness of housing supply
Section 2 highlighted that there are a number of demand and supply-related factors which could explain London’s house prices and house price inflation of recent years. These include fundamental drivers such as a possible rise in the ability to pay, the increased desirability of London as a place to live and work, as well as socio-demographic developments of the London population and household size.
This section considers a range of indicators in order to benchmark the observed changes in house prices against trends in the ability to pay for housing in London. This provides an assessment of the economic affordability of London house prices and, coupled with an assessment of households’ sensitivity to interest rates and credit market conditions, the sustainability of recent trends. The section finishes by considering the responsiveness of housing supply to meet demand to live in London and dampen house price inflation in the long-term.
4.1 The economic affordability of housing in London
One summary measure commonly used to assess housing market conditions is the degree to which the cost of housing is within the reach of the average buyer. This can either be determined in terms of house prices relative to the levels of incomes and earnings among the population, or in terms of the cost of owning a house – specifically, the ability of buyers to obtain a mortgage and meet the expense of monthly repayments and service charges.
If the ratio between the cost of housing and incomes rises too high, purchasing a house would be difficult. This could in turn lead to reduced demand and downward pressure on house prices in the case of a well-functioning market. Otherwise, if market demand is not driven by the economic fundamentals discussed in section 2, increased affordability constraints may lead to the accumulation of unsustainable mortgage debt and could pose a threat to economic stability.
4.1.1 Are earnings and incomes in London keeping pace with house price rises?
A common gauge of whether or not housing is within reach of the typical buyer is the median house price to median annual earnings ratio (‘median multiples’). Earnings data is sourced from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), and can be measured on the basis of where workers work (workplace-based earnings), and where they live (resident-based earnings).
While the overall picture for England as a whole is largely unchanged irrespective of whether workplace or resident earnings are used, patterns of commuting mean that greater differences are observed at regional and local authority level. Based on the ASHE data, median earnings for a full-time employee working in London were approximately 7 per cent or (£2,300 higher than
______________________________________________________________________
32 Earnings are the paid income from work. Personal or individual income differs from earnings in that it includes income from pensions and investments or social security benefits, for example, as well as earned income. Household income is taken as the combined income for all people in the household.
33 The median is typically the preferred measure of a typical home, as this reduces the effect of extreme prices (usually at the higher end of the scale) that influence the mean (or average) value. the earnings of a typical London resident in full-time employment in 2014 (£35,100 vs. £32,800), reflecting the higher earnings of commuters into London from surrounding regions.\\footnote{In 2014 around 900,000 people commuted into London for work based on the ONS Labour Force Survey.}
Figure 8 shows the ratio of median house prices to resident earnings in London has been steadily increasing over time. In 2014 house prices were almost 10 times median earnings in London, compared to about 4 times in 1997. House prices in England as a whole have instead remained at around 7 times earnings in recent years from 2005 to 2014.
Demographia’s annual survey of international housing affordability\\footnote{Demographia (2015), ‘11th annual survey of international housing affordability’} suggests that these are also high multiples by international standards. Based on national data from Q3 2014, London is rated the seventh least affordable of 86 major metropolitan markets\\footnote{The 2015 Demographia survey includes 86 metropolitan markets with a population greater than 1 million in: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK and United States.} with an estimated median multiple of 8.5. The data however suggests that London is not alone in experiencing issues of affordability, with Hong Kong ranked as the least affordable for the fifth year in a row, with a median multiple of 17.0. These figures should however be treated with caution as they do not account for cross-country differences in the measurement of house prices and incomes or for differences in the size and quality of housing, or differences in the way the city region is defined.\\footnote{Given affordability tends to improve the further out from a city centre the smaller the definition of the city area, the higher median prices will tend to be for example.}
Earnings in this case, are however average measures that cover the whole population. House prices on the other hand, are determined in a market where specific groups of buyers have different and likely higher incomes than the rest of the population. In a 2005 speech considering the role of house prices in monetary policy, Stephen Nickell\\footnote{Nickell, S. (2005), ‘Practical issues in the UK monetary policy: 2000-2005’, British Academy Keynes Lecture.} restricted his analysis to the top 70 per cent of income earners on the basis that the majority of the rest of the population are on state benefits and therefore unlikely to be in the market for houses. Similarly, research by Cheshire\\footnote{Cheshire, P. and Sheppard, S. ‘Estimating the demand for housing, land, and neighbourhood characteristics’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 60 (3), pp. 357-382, August 1998.} contends that houses are primarily bought ‘by households with income in the top 70 percent of the distribution’.
Measuring house prices against the earnings of residents in the 70th percentile\\footnote{70th percentile earnings among London residents in 2014 are estimated to be £43,400, compared to £36,100 for earners in England as a whole. Source: ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.} on this basis, indicates an average house price to earnings ratio in London of 8.4 in 2014, compared to 9.8 on a median earnings basis. On either metric, the London ratio is much higher than in England as a whole, with this gap widening over the past two decades. Figure 8: Median house price to earnings ratio in London and England, 1997-2014
Sources: Land Registry prices paid data and ASHE tables 7.7a and 8.7a. Notes: ASHE is based on a 1 per cent sample of employee jobs. Information on earnings and hours is obtained in confidence from employers. It does not cover the self-employed nor does it cover employees not paid during the reference period. The statistics used are full-time individual median earnings (excluding overtime). Data on earnings for 1997 to 2001 are workplace based, and residence-based from 2002 when this data series began. Data for 2014 are provisional. Land Registry data on median house prices excludes sales below market price (e.g. Right to Buy), and those above £20 million.41
Figure 9 looks back at house price to earnings ratios over a longer time horizon using alternative data sources. This suggests that current levels of affordability based on this metric are considerably higher than the previous peak observed in the mid-1970s, and have been in each year since 2003. The longer time series observed here however relies on simple average house prices which do not adjust for the quality of housing stock purchased, or control for a positive skew in the distribution of house prices (resulting in a likely over-estimate of the ratio throughout the period). In line with the more recent data, the overall trends observed in Figure 9 still point to an issue of increasing unaffordability of housing in London, and house price rises that cannot be attributed to earnings growth alone.
41 Land Registry price paid data does not distinguish between actual price movements and changes in the mix of housing for sale over time. House prices in London – an economic analysis of London’s housing market
Working Paper 72
Figure 9: House price to earnings ratio in London, 1969-2014
Sources: New Earnings Survey (NES) prior to 1997 and ASHE workplace-based earnings from 1997 to 2014. ONS simple average house prices, 1969-2014. Notes: for consistency with ASHE data, median annual earnings from 1969-1997 are based on weighted estimates of work-based weekly earnings from NES data.
House price to earnings ratios by London borough
Workplace earnings tend to be higher than those of the typical local resident in centres of employment, attracting in-commuting from other areas such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets. The reverse is true in desirable residential locations such as Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond upon Thames and Bromley where resident median earnings are greater than those earned by those working within the local administrative boundaries. Overall, the local authorities where earnings were highest tend to have the highest house prices, and highest rates of house price increases.
As house prices have increased at a faster rate than earnings, this has led to particularly pronounced house price to earnings ratios in central boroughs. In Kensington and Chelsea, median house prices in 2014 were in excess of 30 times median earnings of those employees working full-time in the borough, and over 26 times median earnings of local residents (despite the borough having the highest level of earnings in the country).
Looking only at those residents working full-time and earning in the 70th percentile, Figure 10 highlights that earnings differentials across London Boroughs are insufficient to offset the price of housing. Across many areas of inner and south-west London, 2014 median house prices were over 10 times greater than 70th percentile earnings of local residents (compared to 5.4 times in England as a whole).
42 In 2014, median residents’ earnings in these three Boroughs were estimated respectively to be £15,300, £8,300 and £8,300 higher than median earnings based on workplace. Source: ASHE 2014, tables 7.7a and 8.7a. Figure 10: Median house price to 70th percentile earnings ratio by London Borough, 2014
Sources: Land Registry price paid data, and ASHE residence based full-time earnings at the 70th percentile. Notes: Earnings data for Lambeth and Richmond are based on 2013. Data for Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and the City of London are not available due to the small sample sizes.
The slower rate of earnings growth relative to house price inflation across every Borough has meant that this differential has increased in each year since the recession in 2008. At their previous peak in 2007, house prices were considerably below 2014 levels, at up to 9 times’ 70th percentile earnings in the most expensive Boroughs.
Affordability measures based on earnings however fail to account for the role of households with multiple earners(^{43}), while also failing to account for non-wage incomes(^{44}), alternative forms of wealth, or the availability of mortgage finance. That the price of house purchases in London
(^{43}) Nationally, joint income borrowers accounted for 56 per cent of regulated residential loans in Q2 2007 and 61 per cent in Q1 2015 based on Mortgage Lending & Administration Return (MLAR) data produced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
(^{44}) Incomes used to fund house purchases in London may, for example, relate to wages earned outside of London, or to those earned through self-employment, or based on incentive payments or City bonuses. Households may also have access to unearned income derived from other sources. This may include income from the returns on investments (including the sale of other homes), pensions and/or inheritance. In 2013/14, wages and salaries accounted for 71 per cent of total weekly household income in London. Source: Family resources survey 2013/14. may be increasingly unaligned with individual earnings does not therefore mean that London houses are necessarily unaffordable in economic terms. Instead, it is necessary to consider further indicators that take account of household incomes, and alternative sources of finance that affect household’s ability to purchase a house in London.
**House price to income ratios among those taking out mortgages**
A second set of measures of housing affordability considers the relationship between the prices paid for property (or the value of the mortgage loan taken out against it) with the incomes of buyers based on mortgage survey data.
The resulting ratio (or ‘income multiple’) is based on the gross income, or joint incomes, of homebuyers and thereby directly takes account of the role of dual earner households. Such measures however exclude the estimated 37 per cent of transactions in London(^{45}) that do not rely on a mortgage to finance house purchases.
Figure 11 uses ONS data(^{46}) to divide the average (mean) house price in a region by the average (mean) income (individual or joint) of applicants for mortgages secured on properties in that region. As the ONS house price index captures changes in the price of homes purchased using a mortgage, this ratio can provide an alternative measure of how stretched recent house-buyers have become. Figure 11 plots the range and spread of this variable for London and the UK before the financial crisis between Q1 2002 and Q4 2007, as well as its pre-downturn peak and more recent value in Q2 2014.
Based on this measure, London’s pre-crisis average house prices ranged between 1.9 and 3.5 times the income of mortgage applicants – notably lower than the UK as a whole. In each case the ratio of house prices to incomes ended the period at its peak level immediately before the start of the economic downturn. Comparing the dark blue squares and the red circles in Figure 11 shows that the average house price in London is 5.3 times the average income of mortgage applicants, compared to 4.4 times in the UK as a whole in Q2 2014. While this may reflect the recent growth in house prices, it may also capture possible changes in the mix of applicants able to secure mortgage finance.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{45}) This figure is based on data estimates from Nationwide. See footnote 20.
(^{46}) Source: ONS, ‘Economic Review, June 2014’. Figure 11: Ratio of average house prices to incomes of those taking out mortgages, Q1 2002 – Q4 2007 average, spread and selected periods
Source: ONS Economic Review June 2014. Notes: The house price measure in the numerator is calculated using the ONS HPI. The income measure in the denominator is the average income of mortgage applicants, based on a sub-sample of Regulated Mortgage Survey data supplied by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. This records gross income of the mortgage applicant or applicants and may therefore be affected by shifts between joint and individual applications.
From a mortgage lenders’ perspective, the economic affordability of house prices is associated with applicants’ ability to repay the mortgage, rather than the house prices themselves. Prior to the UK Government Mortgage Market Review in April 2014 (which introduced greater scrutiny of applicants’ ability to repay)(^47); this was measured on the basis of calculating the value of mortgage loans that an applicant’s income(s) could typically afford, known as ‘income multiples’.
On this measure, using data from the Council for Mortgage Lenders (CML), Figure 12 shows that the median cost of mortgages secured on properties in London increased from being 2 to 2.5 times greater than buyers’ median income in the 1980s to early 1990s, to more than 3.5 times the value of borrowers’ income by 2013. Over this period, income multiples associated with housing in London have been consistently higher than those in the UK as a whole, with this gap widening over the period 1980-2015. This reflects the increasing size of mortgage loans in London, which may reflect the high house price rises in the capital, and may also capture changes in the profile of applicants, or number of joint applications over time.
(^{47}) For further details on the Mortgage Market review, see: [http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/firm-types/mortgage-brokers-and-home-finance-lenders/mortgage-market-review](http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/firm-types/mortgage-brokers-and-home-finance-lenders/mortgage-market-review). Most standard measures of housing affordability in terms of the relationship between house prices, earnings and incomes therefore suggest that there is an increasing affordability gap, and that incomes cannot alone explain the full extent of house price inflation in London. An alternative explanation for the observed trends in affordability which the above ratios and multiples do not account for however relates to changes in the quality of the surrounding local area and the access to amenities that it offers. Evidence from academic research suggests that the wider benefits of urban living may explain a considerable proportion of the differences in housing costs across cities and over time(^{48}), as for example, cities have become safer, less crime-ridden places to live and a vibrant cultural life has given cities an edge in attracting talent(^{49}). In the past decade, there is a range of evidence to suggest that London has become increasingly attractive as a place to live. Its population growth and ability to draw in young people from across the UK and rest of the world(^{50}) are, for example, in part perhaps testimony to this. There is however limited empirical evidence to suggest that these factors can fully account for the changes in London house prices, and house price to earnings ratios.
### 4.1.2 Are the annual costs of owning a home in London rising unsustainably?
Each of the above measures of the economic affordability of home-ownership treat the purchase price of a house as if it were the same as the cost of owning a home. In practice however, the annual cost of home ownership can instead be more accurately measured by taking account of the full costs of home ownership, also known in the literature as the ‘imputed
______________________________________________________________________
(^{48}) Glaeser, E., and Gottlieb, J. ‘Urban Resurgence and the Consumer City’, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, discussion paper 2109.
(^{49}) de Groot, H., Marlet, G., Teulings, C., and Vermeulen, W. (2015), Cities and the Urban Land Premium, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
(^{50}) The impact of London’s attractiveness to domestic and overseas investors on London’s house prices is considered in the next section. rent\\textsuperscript{51}, and comparing these with household incomes. These annual costs include the cost of foregone interest the homeowner could have earned through another investment, as well as mortgage repayments, plus any expenses on maintenance and repairs, insurance premiums, and other rates and charges such as council tax\\textsuperscript{52}.
As is often the case with theoretical constructs, the available data does not allow for a perfect measure of such an annual cost of home ownership\\textsuperscript{53}. Based on CML data it is however possible to calculate the average cost of servicing mortgage debt, and compare this to buyers’ incomes. This simple metric however only accounts for part of the user costs of housing, while it is also the case that CML data on incomes do not take account of incomes from dependants (household members not responsible for financing the mortgage).
Figure 13 shows that the ability to service that debt measured by the proportion of buyers’ income required to pay the off the full cost of the mortgage (interest plus repayments on the cost of capital) has been relatively stable since 2009 at around 20 per cent. This is down from 26 per cent in 2007/08, and below its estimated historic peak of 33 per cent in mid-1990. Despite the high property prices, mortgage payments as a proportion of income have remained close to their average over the last 35 years. Over time, it is notable that the interest payments component (red line) has decreased in its importance as mortgage interest rates have decreased, and as higher house prices have increased the absolute costs of capital repayment.
\\textsuperscript{51} See for example, Poterba, J. (1984), ‘Tax subsidies to owner-occupied housing: an asset market approach’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 99, pp. 729-752.
\\textsuperscript{52} These items should be viewed in terms of opportunity cost. For example, an owner might pay to carry out maintenance or repairs, or otherwise allow the home to depreciate in value; either way, a cost is incurred. Further information is available from: Himmelberg, C., Mayer, C. and Sinai, T. (2005), ‘Assessing high house prices: bubbles, fundamentals and misperceptions’, National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper 11643, September 2005.
\\textsuperscript{53} At the UK level a working paper by the OBR has set out an approach to modelling user cost. Data constraints however mean that it is not possible to replicate this at regional level. Source: Auterson, T., ‘Forecasting house prices’, OBR Working paper 6, July 2014. Figure 13: Mortgage affordability in London, 1980-2015
Average mortgage payments as % of income, London
Source: GLA calculations based on CML quarterly data. Notes: data is based on all home buyers including first-time buyers and home movers. Modelled interest plus capital repayments (blue line) assumes an average mortgage length of 25 years. The difference between this and the actual data from Q2 2005 (green line) suggests an average mortgage term for London home buyers of 27 years since 2005.
This indication of moderate affordability by historical standards has been largely driven by the low interest rates on mortgage advances (the total amount of loan actually provided to the buyer, by the lender). Figure 14 shows that interest rates on regulated mortgages secured on properties in London were 2.7 per cent in the first quarter of 2015, down from an estimated high of 13 per cent in 1990. Such historically low mortgage interest rates have reduced the nominal debt repayment burden and increased household’s borrowing power. It is also notable that while Bank of England base rates have been set at 0.5 per cent since March 2009, the mortgage interest rates faced by homebuyers has fallen by 1.6 percentage points in the past five years. Based on the latest 2015 Q2 figures, the total number of mortgages with arrears equivalent to 2.5 per cent or more of the mortgage balance was 106,400 (see Figure 15). This equated to less than 1 per cent of all mortgages, the lowest rate since quarterly records began in 2008. At the same time there were 2,500 properties taken into possession, equivalent to just 1 in 5,000 mortgages (down from a 2009 Q1 peak of 13,200). The ongoing costs of mortgage repayments however only account for part of the total user cost of housing. Data from the ONS Family Resources Survey used to calculate the average household incomes can provide an alternative, broader measure of household expenditure on owner-occupation. Housing costs in this measure are made up of mortgage interest payments, as well as the costs of water rates and charges, structural insurance premiums, rent and service charges. Income data from this source provides a measure of disposable income from all household members (including dependants). The data are also equivalised which takes into account the size and composition of households to make the income figures comparable.(^{54})
Figure 16 shows that housing costs in London represent a much higher share of disposable household incomes than in the UK as a whole, with a gap of between 5-8 percentage points. Based on the latest figures, this share in London has returned to its late 1990s peak, with housing costs representing 23 per cent of disposable incomes. In itself, this indicator suggests that the recent, high house prices have not had a considerable detrimental effect on housing affordability as there has been only a limited effect on the user costs of housing as a proportion of disposable income. Affordability constraints will however be increasingly acute as mortgage interest rates increase from their historic lows(^{55}), which may place increasing costs on households. The risks to households resulting from changes in interest rates are considered in Section 4.2.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{54}) Equivalisation is the process of accounting for the fact that households with many members are likely to need a higher income to achieve the same standard of living as households with fewer members. Equivalisation takes into account the number of people living in the household and their ages, acknowledging that while a household with two people in it will need more money to sustain the same living standards as one with a single person, the two person household is unlikely to need double the income.
(^{55}) Bank of England interest rates are expected to rise at a ‘very gradual’ pace from their historic lows. Further details on the outlook for Bank Rates are included in the Bank’s Quarterly Inflation Report. Figure 16: Housing costs as a share of disposable household incomes in London, 1995-2014
Source: Family Resources Survey. Notes: The figures presented are based on three-year averages. Figures are for the UK from 2002/03 onwards. Earlier years are for Great Britain only.
It should be noted however that this measure effectively averages out the costs of housing across all households, irrespective of tenure and mortgage-holdings. As a result, mortgage spending averaged across all households is lower than it otherwise would be since a relatively low proportion of owner occupiers in London (27 per cent) are mortgage-holding households, compared to the UK as a whole (33 per cent)(^56). Since property prices (and the corresponding size of advances) are much higher in London, mortgage holding households still spent considerably more financing their mortgages costs than households in the rest of the UK(^57).
It is also possible that the increasing share of income spent on housing may itself be a reflection of household preferences. That is, as incomes increase people may switch from renting to home ownership or demand more space, a bigger house, garden, driveway, etc. This places more demand for housing land which, if the supply is fixed, will likely contribute to increases in prices. Evidence suggests that the ‘income elasticity of demand’ for housing in the UK is positive meaning that market demand for housing does indeed grow as people become better off. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies however notes that typical estimates lie in the range 0.5 to 0.8(^58), which means that demand for housing tends to rise less than proportionately to income. In certain highly desirable London sub-markets it is possible that demand for housing is more sensitive to changes in incomes.
It has also been argued that two other changes in London’s housing markets, related to the use of property as an investment, have fed into overall increases in house prices: increasing foreign
(^{56}) 2011 Census data cited in: ONS, ‘Housing Expenditure’, chapter 2 in: ‘Family Spending’, December 2014.
(^{57}) Data from the 2013 ONS Living Costs and Food Survey estimates that household expenditure on mortgages by London’s mortgage-holding households averaged £211.80 per week in London, 46 per cent above the UK average of £145.40.
(^{58}) Source: Chandler, D. and Disney, R. (IFS), ‘Housing market trends and recent policies’, chapter 5 in: ‘The IFS Green Budget: February 2014’. ownership of housing and growth in the buy-to-let market. There is however limited available evidence that either of these have had a profound impact on house prices. Indeed, although increasingly supported by buy-to-let mortgages, the share of the private rental market in London remains lower than it was previously in the 1960s and 1970s. It is however arguable that the strong long-run performance of London housing relative to alternative investments may have contributed to London’s housing stock being increasingly seen as a vehicle in which to hold money, acting as a possible further incentive towards owner-occupation (see Appendix 1 for further analysis).
With regard to foreign ownership, the evidence is also mixed, and on balance suggests that it is responsible for only a small share of transactions and likely to have had only modest effects on house prices in London. There is also some evidence to suggest that following the economic crisis, the additional demand for new build properties may have to some extent lessened the negative impact of credit constraints on construction activity (see Appendix 2 for further analysis).
4.1.3 The impact of house prices on the upfront costs of home ownership
Buyers, and particularly first-time buyers, face significant upfront costs in buying a house associated with the value of the deposit needed to secure mortgage finance, as well as the costs of stamp duty tax on house purchases. As house prices increase, the upfront costs of home ownership (or the transaction costs of home moving) will also increase, other things being equal.
A number of indicators are available that can provide information on these costs and the consequent ability for first-time buyers to finance home ownership in London. This includes measures of the size of the deposit relative to incomes, as well as indirect indicators of first-time buyers’ affordability constraints, such as the proportion of mortgage lending to first-time buyers and the average age of such buyers, and how these compare to their long-term trends.
Figure 17 compares the estimated size of a median deposit for first-time buyers against the median borrower(s) income based on CML regulated mortgage survey data. This shows that the average deposit to income ratio for first time buyers has increased at a rapid rate in London since 2008, reaching a high of 125 per cent in 2014. As a result, the average size of a deposit for house purchases in London in 2014 was almost £70,000, equivalent to 1.25 times median borrower(s) total income. This is considerably above its long-run trend in the previous three decades, with deposits averaging 30 per cent of incomes from 1980–2007.
The rapid deterioration in the affordability of home purchase, on this measure, is driven by a post-recession shift towards a larger size of deposits as a proportion of house values. In each of the six years following the recession, London first-time buyers put down a deposit worth around 25 per cent of the total house price, compared to an average of 12 per cent in the 10 years before from 1998 to 2007. For the UK as a whole in contrast, the average deposit size as a share of the house price peaked at 25 per cent in 2009, but has since fallen back to 17 per cent, with the deposit to income ratio falling from 100 per cent to 67 per cent in this period. This suggests that there may be particularly persistent constraints on mortgage lending, and/or that there has been a shift in the incomes of first-time buyers receiving mortgage finance in London, such as a growth in the number of multiple income households seeking mortgage finance. Indirect indicators of affordability constraints for first-time buyers
In 2014, there were an estimated 48,800 loans for first-time buyers in London, equivalent to 57 per cent of all home-buyer mortgage loans. This represents the highest proportion since 1995 and a return to long-run trends in the 1980s and 1990s. This return to first-time buyers representing a relatively high proportion of mortgage loans in London may be a sign of reduced affordability constraints. It is notable however that the number of first-time buyer loans in 2014 is below pre-crisis levels which averaged around 60,000 per year (see Figure 18).
______________________________________________________________________
59 First-time buyers in London make up a larger proportion of the total mortgage market (around 50-60 per cent compared to around 40-50 per cent in the UK overall), reflecting demographics in London where there tend to be relatively more young people of a typical first-time buyer age. Figure 18: First-time buyer loans for house purchases in London, 1980-2014
Sources: CML Regulated Mortgage Survey, annual data for first-time buyers. Notes: First time buyer numbers will include some buyers who have previously owned a property before, but are not in owner-occupation at the time of this purchase. Estimates from the English Housing Survey suggest that that around 20 per cent of stated first-time buyers may fall into this category.
Faced with higher upfront costs to owner-occupation, affordability constraints would suggest that prospective buyers may increasingly delay making a house purchase in order to save enough money to put down a deposit. Evidence from CML data suggests that the median first-timer buyer in London was 31 years old in each year from 2010-2014. This is marginally higher than the long-term, pre-recession average of 29 years old, but remains below a 2003 peak of 32. The expected increase in the average of median buyers in light of increasing affordability constraints may however have been offset by a growing trend towards parental assistance for young buyers. In 2012, the CML reported that the majority of first time buyers (72 per cent) in London received financial assistance, compared to 66 per cent in the UK overall. The English Housing Survey 2013/14 also notes that the proportion of mortgagors who bought their first house with inheritance has increased in the last ten years, more than doubling from 2003/04 (from 3 per cent to 8 per cent). This growing trend towards financial assistance to meet the growing cost of deposits (shown in Figure 17) may have long-term implications for social mobility, and may entrench wealth inequalities across generations that were discussed in Section 2.2.
It follows from this assessment of a variety of standard and non-standard measures of affordability that rather than increased incomes, increased borrowing power (through easier access to mortgage finance and low rates of interest) may have contributed to households choosing to spend more money on housing. In addition, a number of demographic and social trends may have increased demand for housing in the London economy, and thereby driven the
______________________________________________________________________
60 CML, ‘Housing in London: challenges and solutions’, November 2012. 61 DCLG, English Housing Survey 2013/14, 25 February 2015. price of desirable and favourably located housing that is in limited supply. The role of these broader socio-demographic factors and the efficiency of a supply-side response are considered later in section 4.3, after first having looked at the potential vulnerabilities and risks to London’s housing market that may be associated with higher interest rates and tighter mortgage market conditions.
4.2 Vulnerabilities and risks to London’s housing market
House prices in London are rising in real terms and appear high relative to long-term trends on some measures, although within the realms of affordability on others as a result of historically low costs of credit and/or supported by alternative sources of income. This may make the London economy vulnerable to the risk of a price correction, particularly if the costs of borrowing were to rise, or access to credit and alternative income streams were to slow.
4.2.1 Sensitivity to tighter mortgage market conditions
Mortgage markets have greatly altered the terms and availability of credit for prospective homebuyers in the UK over the past 30 years. A 2005 OECD paper(^{62}) suggested that financial deregulation since the 1980s, and more recent lending innovations such as offset mortgages which allow borrowers to offset their savings against the mortgage balance, have significantly reduced household costs of borrowing(^{63}). The relaxation of borrowing constraints, and the reduced cost of mortgages, in turn may have positively fed back to house prices.
This longer-term trend towards easier access to mortgage finance has however been slightly reversed since the financial crisis. The Mortgage Market Review and macro-prudential measures announced by the Bank of England in 2014(^{64}), included several measures to tighten mortgage lending criteria including, loan to income caps, stress testing of borrowers’ affordability, and greater capital repayment requirements. These measures are designed to tighten the rules on firms responsible for mortgage lending.
While the analysis in the preceding section suggests that this may have been one of the main factors driving up the upfront costs of home ownership, the full impact of these changes on the prospects for future house price growth and affordability are as yet unknown. Preliminary analysis by Savills(^{65}) however suggests that the resulting affordability constraints will slow house price growth in London over the next five years as, without a considerable increase in income growth the average buyer will be unable to keep up with house prices in a changed lending environment. US research analysing the role of mortgage credit in driving house prices in developed countries in the past 140 years(^{66}) finds that while loose monetary conditions tend to make credit cheaper and houses more expensive, tighter credit conditions tend to make credit dearer and houses more affordable.
4.2.2 Sensitivity to changes in mortgage interest rates
Rapid house price growth that is fuelled by easier and cheaper access to credit, if not combined with sufficiently higher incomes, may lead to rising levels of indebtedness and increase the
______________________________________________________________________
(^{62}) OECD, ‘Recent house price developments: the role of fundamentals’, OECD Economic Outlook, 78, pp. 123-154.
(^{63}) Based on its analysis of the demand and supply of housing finance, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) also finds evidence on much higher levels of credit rationing prior to 1981. Source: Auterson, T., ‘Forecasting house prices’, OBR Working paper 6, July 2014.
(^{64}) For further details, see the FCA summary of the Mortgage Market review.
(^{65}) Savills, ‘Residential property focus: the effect of the London affordability squeeze’, February 2015.
(^{66}) Jordà, O., Schularick, M., Taylor, A. ‘Betting the house’, NBER working paper 20771, December 2014 number of households that are vulnerable to changes in interest rates. This in turn may reduce the ability of the economy to withstand further shocks.
Based on an annual survey of 6,000 UK households, the Bank of England reported(^67) that a rise in bank rates from the current low of 0.5 per cent up to 2.5 per cent would almost double the proportion of households struggling to pay their mortgages (as those financed by a variable rate would face higher monthly costs of repayment). The Bank however reports that the percentage of households with high debt-servicing ratios (those deemed most at risk of financial distress) is ‘not expected to exceed previous peaks’, assuming a likely gradual path of interest rate increases, and an assumed 10 per cent increase in household incomes.
Given the increasingly high loan-to-income multiples seen in Figure 12, London households may be particularly exposed to changes in mortgage interest rates, while data in Figure 14 shows that average mortgage interest rates may also move independently of bank base rates. This may, for example, result from increased competition between mortgage lenders to offer borrowers the best rates, or changed perceptions of the future path of interest rates.
Based on CML data on mortgage repayments, Figure 19 presents the modelled effects of percentage point increases in average mortgage interest rates on the levels of average payments as a proportion of average borrower income(s) in London. This shows that, assuming that those securing a new mortgage or those moving home will face this higher mortgage interest rate, an increase by a single percentage point would mean a return to pre-crisis affordability levels (26 per cent), while an increase by three percentage points would return affordability to levels not seen since the early 1990s. By historical standards such increases in mortgage rates are far from unprecedented, and even in the three percentage point scenario the new levels of mortgage interest rate (5-6 per cent) would remain far below 1980s levels(^68).
______________________________________________________________________
(^67) Bank of England, ‘Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q4: the potential impact of higher interest rates on the household sector’, December 2014.
(^68) Based on the latest inflation report, the path for UK Bank rates implied by market prices sees an increase of 1.2 percentage points in the next three years. Bank of England, ‘Inflation report’, August 2015 Figure 19: The estimated impact of higher mortgage interest rates on levels of affordability
The incomes and costs of housing in the figures presented above are however presented as average figures. There are however likely to be significant distributional consequences of changes in interest rates and the extent of any impact will also depend on developments in household incomes among those that are potentially most vulnerable. At higher levels of indebtedness, households may be more likely to encounter payment difficulties following negative shocks to income or interest rates. In addition, it’s possible that wider concerns about the risk of an increase in interest rates may lead to falls in consumer spending, even if the full impact does not eventually materialise. Rising incomes would however offset the risks to household budgets and wider financial stability that may arise from higher housing costs.
4.3 The responsiveness of housing supply to changing conditions
London is a particularly desirable place to live and work, with people attracted to the city for a number of reasons including the variety of career opportunities, the openness to different cultures, as well as the vast array of leisure and cultural offerings. While these pull factors draw in aspiring home owners from the rest of the UK and overseas, London’s population growth is also partly a product of high levels of natural growth in terms of births and deaths associated with its relatively youthful population. At its most fundamental level, the overall ‘need’ for housing in London can therefore be seen as a product of the impacts of these socio-economic and demographic drivers on the size of the capital’s population, and trends in the size of households.
It is this fundamental need which, coupled with the increased ability to finance home ownership (through higher incomes and access to credit seen in Section 4.1), places upward pressure on
______________________________________________________________________
69 London’s attractiveness as a place to live and work is considered in more detail in chapter 3 of: GLA Economics, ‘Economic Evidence Base’, May 2010. the price of housing in the capital. In a well-functioning housing market, rising prices act as a signal of increased demand in London, and will be met, to the extent possible, with an increase in the quantity of housing supplied; as the value of land rises there is an incentive to build on it or, if the land is already occupied, to increase the intensity of its use. If instead, demand is not sufficiently met by the supply of housing, it follows that prices (and rents) will continue to rise until a point is reached at which the benefits of living in London are outweighed by the costs. This section considers the overall trends in growth in the housing stock and construction activity to shed light on the ability of housing supply to respond to higher demand in London in the long term.
4.3.1 Housing London’s growing population
From 1991 to 2014, London’s population grew by 23 per cent (up 1.7 million) to 8.6 million and its number of households70 grew by 20 per cent (up 629,000) to 3.4 million. As the numbers of people and particularly, the number of households in London have risen, there is a corresponding need to house this growing population.
Figure 20 brings together trends in the number of people, households and homes in London between 1991 and 2013. All three have grown significantly over the period, but in recent years growth in the population and number of households have increasingly outpaced housing supply, which has remained subdued in the aftermath of the recession. From 1991 to 2014, the number of permanent dwellings in London (its housing stock) has increased by 516,000 dwellings to 3.4 million dwellings, equivalent to an average of 22,435 homes per year.
Comparing the cumulative growth in the housing stock and household population with house prices, it is notable that at a time of relatively stable real house prices from 1991 to 1997, the year-on-year growth in the number of London households was slower than growth in the number of London dwellings. Conversely, from 1998 to 2014, when the rates of growth in London’s population and number of households started to increase in excess of growth in the housing stock, ONS mix-adjusted house prices rose by an annualised average of 9 per cent. This may be indicative of house price sensitivity to shortfalls in growth in the housing stock relative to growth in the need for housing.
______________________________________________________________________
70 A household is defined as one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room or sitting room or dining area. The number of households is a distinct measure from population changes as it is influenced by a series of social and behavioural factors in addition to changes in overall population. As the Mayor’s housing strategy\\textsuperscript{71} highlights, London is not alone in facing a challenge in providing enough new homes to meet the demands of its growing population. From 2001 to 2011, London increased its housing stock at a faster annual rate than Paris and New York (0.8 per cent vs. 0.5 per cent), both of which had lower rates of population growth. However, London’s stock grew at a much slower rate than Tokyo’s, which increased by around two per cent per annum. The ability of the housing market to function efficiently to increase supply in response to demand in the longer-term, is an important determinant of whether London will remain an attractive city in which people can afford to live.
In view of the sustained high levels of London house prices over the past 15 years, the question therefore remains as to why the available supply of housing in London is not responding sufficiently to market signals. While scarce land for development is fixed in the short term, housing supply can be expanded in a number of ways: by building new homes, getting empty houses back into use, making more intensive use of the existing stock, and converting non-residential buildings into residential use. The next section considers the role of construction activity in shaping the availability of London housing for sale.
\\textsuperscript{71} Mayor of London, ‘\\textit{Housing in London 2014: the evidence base for the Mayor’s Housing Strategy}’, April 2014, p.36. 4.3.2 Construction activity in London in response to changes in house prices
While it is possible for existing owners to put their properties on the market for resale, rent out spare rooms, and for empty homes to come back into use in response to price rises, the overall stock of dwellings in London can only increase through construction activity related to new buildings, extensions and conversions.
In an efficient housing market, higher house prices would lead to an increase in the number of new homes being built, as private builders recognise the potential to make greater returns and expand output, and additional new firms enter the house building market. In reality, however, the supply of new building tends to be rather inelastic, or in other words supply tends to be relatively unresponsive to market signals of increased demand.
Figure 21 plots the annual starts and completions of new private sector house building against real house prices over the past 15 years. This suggests that while house building is relatively unresponsive to price increases, it does appear to be sensitive to price reductions. The sustained average annual increase in real house prices of 8.7 per cent between 1997 and 2007 was accompanied by a more gradual annual average increase in private housing starts72 (4.8 per cent) and private completions73 (5.3 per cent). In contrast, the 8 per cent decline in real house prices from 2008 to 2009 was accompanied by a 17 per cent annual decline in private starts in the same year, and a subsequent 38 per cent fall in private completions in 2009/10.
Furthermore, in the five years since 2009, the numbers of new housing starts in London has remained below their pre-crisis peak in spite of the high price increases over the same period, while the levels of annual completions has fluctuated from year to year.
______________________________________________________________________
72 A new home (or dwelling) is counted as started on the date work begins on the laying of the foundation, but not including site preparation. Thus when foundation work commences on a block of flats all the dwellings in that block are counted as started.
73 In principle, a dwelling is regarded as complete when it becomes ready for occupation or when a completion certificate is issued whether it is in fact occupied or not. Historically, a similar pattern emerges. Figure 22 gives an indication of the responsiveness of the house building market to changes in house prices in London since 1969. While housing building has tended to fall following a drop in house prices, there is not always a corresponding increase during periods of rising prices. Although modest increases in the supply of private completed houses did however take place at the time of the previous two house price booms in the late 1980s and early 2000s, the levels of house-building in London have not kept pace with changes in house prices or the population. As a result, house building levels in London have remained stubbornly below the levels seen in the 1970s, at which time the majority of new builds were developed by the public sector (see Figure 22). Figure 22: New house building and house prices in London, 1969–2014
This construction data however only applies to new buildings (in effect, a gross measure) and does not take account of other possible changes to the dwelling stock as a result of conversions, changes of use and/or demolitions. While the supply of housing in recent years has been largely driven by the completion of newly constructed dwellings, it is likely to slightly under-estimate the overall changes in dwelling stock at times of rising prices as the balance of net conversions and changes in use against demolitions are likely to be positive as individuals seek to benefit from the uplift in house prices.
In each of the last five years for which data are available, overall net changes were 6 to 11 per cent higher than the number of new builds in London alone, adding almost 10,000 additional dwellings to the overall housing stock. In 2013/14, for example, net conversions and changes of use increased London’s overall dwelling stock by 1,265 and 2,298 respectively, while 1,647 dwellings were demolished. Table 4 shows that this pattern of additional supply from conversions and changes of use, with few demolitions, has been relatively consistent over the past 10 years (albeit with slightly higher rates of activity in all areas prior to the financial crisis in 2007/08). This notwithstanding, new build remains the primary driver of an increasing housing stock and the additional 10 per cent increase realised from conversions and other changes is still far from being responsive to the levels that recent trends in house prices would suggest are necessary to meet demand.
______________________________________________________________________
74 Source: London development database, extracted on 06/08/15. Table 4: Net additions to London’s housing stock, 2004/05 – 2013/14
| Financial year | New build | Demolitions | Conversions | Change of use | Net additions | |----------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|---------------|---------------| | 2004/05 | 22,657 | 3,551 | 2,053 | 3,526 | 24,685 | | 2005/06 | 23,178 | 3,084 | 2,494 | 3,043 | 25,631 | | 2006/07 | 24,380 | 3,281 | 2,394 | 3,664 | 27,157 | | 2007/08 | 24,746 | 2,008 | 2,626 | 2,882 | 28,242 | | 2008/09 | 25,271 | 1,717 | 2,801 | 3,210 | 29,565 | | 2009/10 | 22,076 | 2,130 | 1,978 | 2,807 | 24,736 | | 2010/11 | 17,516 | 2,280 | 1,554 | 2,085 | 18,882 | | 2011/12 | 20,024 | 1,942 | 1,431 | 2,779 | 22,292 | | 2012/13 | 21,036 | 1,870 | 1,152 | 1,954 | 22,272 | | 2013/14 | 22,399 | 1,647 | 1,265 | 2,298 | 24,315 | | All years | 223,283 | 23,510 | 19,748 | 28,283 | 247,777 |
Source: London development database, extracted on 20/07/15. Notes: net additions measure the absolute increase in stock from one year to the next, including self-contained homes from new build as well as other losses and gains (such as demolitions, conversions and changes of use). Figures on new build will include those ‘affordable homes’ built for social rent and intermediate housing, though these cannot be directly compared to the Mayor of London’s target on affordable homes delivery which also include acquisitions.
In addition to the conventional measures in Table 4, the housing provision targets set out in the London Plan also account for further additions to housing supply from non-self-contained housing based on the number of bedrooms in student halls of residence and other types of communal accommodation. In 2013/14, based on the latest available estimates, these non-conventional completions totalled 4,385 bedrooms – the highest rate in the past 10 years. The London Plan also includes the year-on-year change in the number of long-term empty homes, where a decrease is considered an addition to supply and an increase is a subtraction. In 2013/14, 1,057 dwellings were no longer considered to be empty on this measure (see Table 5).
Table 5: Further net additions to London’s housing stock, 2004/05 – 2013/14
| Financial year | Non-self-contained (communal) accommodation | Change in long-term empty homes | |----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | 2004/05 | 4,164 | 2,519 | | 2005/06 | 449 | -61 | | 2006/07 | 2,973 | 3,608 | | 2007/08 | 1,284 | 287 | | 2008/09 | 2,408 | -398 | | 2009/10 | 1,426 | 2,223 | | 2010/11 | 1,922 | 5,125 | | 2011/12 | 1,491 | 5,427 | | 2012/13 | 2,639 | 2,018 | | 2013/14 | 4,385 | 1,057 | | All years | 23,141 | 21,805 |
Source: London development database, extracted on 20/07/15. Notes: non-self-contained housing includes bedrooms in hostels, student halls of residence, care homes and other non-contained units. Long-term empty homes are those which have been empty for more than six months.
Looking back over a longer time period, Census estimates on the number of dwellings allow us to infer the net change across each decade. Figure 23 suggests that in contrast to recent trends, net additions to the housing stock were considerably less than gross levels of new building in the 1960s and 1970s. This is consistent with many of the new buildings at the time simply replacing existing stock following slum clearances and other demolitions.
**Figure 23: Gross new house building and change in dwelling stock in London by decade**
*Sources: DCLG house building statistics, and Census data from 1961 to 2011. Data on dwelling stock change for 2011-2014 are based on local authority estimates in DCLG table 125.*
On an annual average basis, gross new builds and net additions to the housing stock have been slightly lower in the three years between 2011 and 2014 than in the previous decade, at a time of rising house prices. Estimates of the changes in the overall dwelling stock however suggest that rates of annual net additions remain above historic figures from 1960s to 1990s. A number of factors may explain why housing supply in London has been relatively unresponsive to price signals to date. The most cited of these are the constraints of the planning system. In an assessment of the determinants of house prices in England, Hilber and Vermeulen(^{75}) estimated that around 35 per cent of the price of a house in England is directly attributable to regulatory restrictions on land use planning, which the authors find are most severe in London and the South East.
The government has introduced a range of measures as a result, including new permitted development rights for conversions from commercial to residential uses under certain conditions, as well as automatic permissions on suitable brownfield sites(^{76}). The extent to which these measures will speed up the response of housing supply to changes in the demand for housing in London is however yet to be seen.
Data on planning permission approvals however shows that it is not only a question of up-front planning restrictions. Typically, planning approvals are given for roughly 1.5 to 2 times the actual number of homes finally built, and this gap has been broadly consistent over the past 10 years (see Table 6) – so although the level of approvals indicate a capacity for more homes, something else is preventing these from actually being built.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{75}) Hilber, C. and Vermeulen, W. ‘The impacts of restricting housing supply on house prices and affordability’, November 2010
(^{76}) Further details of these regulatory changes are available at: [https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/planning-system](https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/planning-system) Table 6: Approvals for house building and completions, 2004/05 – 2013/14
| Financial year | Net conventional housing approvals | Net conventional completions | Net conventional housing pipeline | |----------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | 2004/05 | 37,724 | 25,300 | 108,818 | | 2005/06 | 39,462 | 25,084 | 124,862 | | 2006/07 | 41,806 | 27,226 | 142,305 | | 2007/08 | 63,114 | 28,215 | 173,464 | | 2008/09 | 35,102 | 29,534 | 173,772 | | 2009/10 | 34,496 | 24,732 | 173,702 | | 2010/11 | 50,482 | 19,185 | 177,782 | | 2011/12 | 78,316 | 21,988 | 211,200 | | 2012/13 | 38,492 | 21,923 | 216,476 | | 2013/14 | 54,828 | 23,986 | 240,983 |
Source: London development database. Notes: annual approvals include all units in planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year, or a subsequent year. The spike in approvals in 2011/12 is most likely due to the introduction of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy. Data on completions relates to three types of conventional housing supply: new build, conversions and changes of use. The ‘pipeline’ of housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet started or completed.
A number of possible market frictions and inefficiencies have been put forward by the literature to explain why housing is slow to respond to market signals. These include: difficulties for house-builders to access commercial finance; risk aversion or perverse incentives that lead to stock-piling of land, barriers to overcoming construction materials and skills shortages, as well as imperfect competition in the market for residential development (relative to other land uses). In a 2012 report, Molior highlighted that 45 per cent of schemes of 20 or more private homes in the GLA area were in the control of firms that were not builders, while it also remains possible that planning restrictions after consent is granted may act as a further barrier to completion.
In the short-run, the inelastic supply of housing contributes to house price volatility and increases the likelihood of volatile house price increases and falls. However, it does not necessarily follow that increases in the housing stock, will be sufficient to entirely dampen the pace of house price rises in the capital if the demand for housing in London continues to increase.
______________________________________________________________________
77 For a discussion, see HM Government (2006), ‘Barker Review of Land Use Planning’, December 2006. 78 GLA, December 2012, ‘Barriers to housing delivery: what are the market-perceived barriers to residential development in London?’ Report by Molior London for the GLA. 5 Conclusions
House prices in London are high, and increasingly so. This is true relative to the rest of the country, London’s own historical standards, and prices elsewhere in the economy i.e. in real terms. There is however mixed evidence of whether these are overvalued or when considered based on other metrics.
Fundamental drivers such as a growing population, attracted by London’s amenities and access to employment, and higher incomes and earnings are able to explain part of the rise in demand for housing in the capital.
The demand for housing has however also been fuelled by greater financial liberalisation and historically low costs of borrowing. The evidence shows that while earnings are increasingly disconnected from house prices, this affordability gap has to date been sustained by a combination of cheap, accessible mortgage credit and increasing transfers of wealth between friends and family to meet the costs of high deposit requirements.
This raises concerns as the former might have led to rising levels of indebtedness and thereby increased the number of households which are vulnerable to subsequent changes in interest rates. This indebtedness in turn may reduce the ability of the economy to withstand further shocks. A gradual tightening of mortgage criteria and future rises in mortgage interest rates on the horizon may therefore slow the demand for housing and dampen the pressure on house prices. In terms of social affordability, the high rates of deposits and substantial gap between prices and incomes has limited access to home ownership for those without recourse to alternative funding sources such as from bonuses, gifts or inheritance for example.
Evidence on the changes in London’s housing supply in response to house price signals suggests that in the past, increases in the housing stock were more in line with the rates of growth in London’s population and number of households and that these coincided with a period of more moderate house price increases. Since 1999, however, at a time of rapidly increasing house prices, housing supply has not kept pace with the demand for housing in London. In this respect, further measures to overcome constraints in housing supply can be seen as an important step to address affordability in London’s housing market. Appendix 1: House prices to rent ratios, alternative investment returns and the buy-to-let market
An alternative approach to contextualise the price of housing in the property market is to consider the case for investing in housing. An oft-used yardstick is based on the ratio of house prices to rents (or rather, what it would have cost to rent an equivalent property). The Economist likens this approach to how ‘stock-market investors look at the ratio of equity prices to earnings’79.
The decision to invest in property is not only concerned with the yields (or rents) accrued, but also considers the potential returns or capital gains against the foregone income that one could have received if the capital invested into the house had been put into an alternative investment (such as shares). This section presents the London data on rents and alternative investment returns.
Rents and rental yields
In theory, house prices are related to rents of new contracts through what is effectively an arbitrage condition, i.e. the present discounted value of the rental contract should be equal to the present value of buying and keeping the dwelling over the same period. Ignoring transaction costs and financial constraints, this means that the average rent paid over the duration of the new contract will be approximately equal to the user cost of the housing assets80.
However, since the dwellings in the price index are not the same as the dwellings in a rent index, several authors have referred to this as an “apples to oranges” comparison81. This is confirmed by research82 into London’s housing market which finds that different types of properties are associated with different price-to-rent ratios. This means that a higher ratio may be due to price rises for homes in desirable neighbourhoods being greater than the increase in rents of apartment buildings in a less desirable neighbourhood; or due to a change in the quality of the average home in either index.
In order to provide an illustration of the relationship between house prices and rents across London, this section uses data from the VOA to look at the geographical distribution of median monthly private rent by local authority for England. The method for producing these statistics provides a ‘snapshot’ of private monthly rent which does not enable comparisons over time, and so only data for 2013/14 have been presented in this analysis. Due to a lack of more suitable data on the purchase prices of rental properties in the VOA data, this is then compared to price paid data from the Land Registry.
Based on the VOA data, the median monthly private rent was highest in Westminster (£2,383) and Kensington and Chelsea (£2,275). These were the only two local authorities in England to have a median monthly private rent of more than £2,000 in 2013/14. These two London boroughs also had the highest house prices in 2014. Across London, the cost of private renting
79 The Economist, ‘Global house prices’, April 2015. 80 European Central Bank, ‘Structural Factors in the EU housing markets’, March 2003. 81 Smith, M. and Smith, G. ‘Bubble, bubble, where’s the housing bubble’, Brooking papers on economic activity 92(1); and Hill, R. and Syed, I. ‘Hedonic price-rent ratios, user cost, and departures from equilibrium in the housing market’, Graz economics papers, December 2012. 82 Bracke, P. (2013), ‘House Prices and Rents: Micro Evidence from a Matched Dataset in Central London’, SERC, LSE. was very strongly correlated with average house prices overall, as shown in Figure A1.1. The scatter plot shows median monthly private rents against median house prices and it shows how strongly correlated the two indicators are.
**Figure A1.1: Median house prices against median monthly rents by London borough, 2014**
The rental yield is the amount of money a landlord receives in rent over one year, shown as a percentage of the amount of money invested in the property, also known as the return on investment. A common way of calculating rental yield is by taking the annual rental income from the property, and calculating this as a percentage of the property cost. While these are only averages, commentators may often point to areas where rental yields are relatively low as an indicator of a potential over-valuation i.e. where investors pay a disproportionate amount to receive a relatively small stream of income (either physically through a buy-to-let arrangement or in the form of ‘imputed rents’ in the case of owner-occupiers).
On this snapshot measure, the average rental yield in Kensington and Chelsea (2.3 per cent) is considerably lower than the London average yield of 4.3 per cent (see Table A1.1). In effect this means that for a homebuyer in Kensington to receive rental yields equivalent to the London average, this would require a price fall of 49 per cent, from the current median price of £1,195,000 back to £607,000, or for rents to rise by 97 per cent. It is highly likely however that the quality of the housing stock available for sale in Kensington differs substantially to that available on the rental market, and as such it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from such analysis. Similar compositional effects may also explain why the estimated average rental yield is higher in England as a whole, than in many inner London boroughs. Table A1.1: House price to rent ratio and rental yields by London borough, 2014
| London borough | Median monthly rent (£) | Median house price (£) | House price: rent ratio | Average rental yield (gross, per cent) | |---------------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 950 | 215,000 | 226 | 5.3 | | Barnet | 1,300 | 400,000 | 308 | 3.9 | | Bexley | 900 | 250,000 | 278 | 4.3 | | Brent | 1,350 | 385,000 | 285 | 4.2 | | Bromley | 1,100 | 335,000 | 305 | 3.9 | | Camden | 1,840 | 675,000 | 366 | 3.3 | | City of London | 1,930 | 720,000 | 373 | 3.2 | | Croydon | 1,000 | 265,000 | 265 | 4.5 | | Ealing | 1,300 | 390,000 | 300 | 4.0 | | Enfield | 1,180 | 285,000 | 243 | 4.9 | | Greenwich | 1,200 | 318,000 | 265 | 4.5 | | Hackney | 1,520 | 430,000 | 283 | 4.2 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,580 | 665,000 | 420 | 2.9 | | Haringey | 1,300 | 405,000 | 312 | 3.8 | | Harrow | 1,250 | 371,000 | 296 | 4.0 | | Havering | 930 | 250,000 | 270 | 4.4 | | Hillingdon | 1,140 | 306,000 | 269 | 4.5 | | Hounslow | 1,250 | 320,000 | 256 | 4.7 | | Islington | 1,730 | 532,500 | 308 | 3.9 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 2,280 | 1,195,000 | 525 | 2.3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 1,250 | 385,000 | 308 | 3.9 | | Lambeth | 1,430 | 420,000 | 294 | 4.1 | | Lewisham | 1,100 | 315,000 | 286 | 4.2 | | Merton | 1,330 | 386,000 | 291 | 4.1 | | Newham | 1,160 | 250,000 | 216 | 5.6 | | Redbridge | 1,050 | 305,000 | 290 | 4.1 | | Richmond upon Thames | 1,560 | 535,000 | 344 | 3.5 | | Southwark | 1,430 | 420,000 | 294 | 4.1 | | Sutton | 1,000 | 285,000 | 286 | 4.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,500 | 380,000 | 253 | 4.7 | | Waltham Forest | 1,100 | 322,000 | 292 | 4.1 | | Wandsworth | 1,580 | 535,000 | 338 | 3.5 | | Westminster | 2,380 | 875,000 | 367 | 3.3 | | London | 1,350 | 364,000 | 280 | 4.3 | | England | 595 | 195,000 | 328 | 3.7 |
Sources: GLA Economics calculations based on Land Registry price paid data 2014, and VOA private rents 2013/14. Notes: Rents are rounded to the nearest 10, house prices to the nearest 1,000. Variations across areas may be influenced by differences in the sample composition rather than true differences in the rents.
It should also be noted that this gross measure does not take into account the ongoing expenses, such as maintenance work, agency fees, advertising, mortgage repayments and refurbishing, which should be deducted to give an estimate of net rental income. Nonetheless, research by Savills(^83) notes that relative to cash returns averaging less than 2 per cent, income
(^83) Savills, ‘Higher yields attracts investors’, May 2012. streams from investments in the private rental sector in London may offer some investors an attractive yield.
**Alternative investments and capital gains**
Investments in a durable asset such as housing may also yield profits, or capital gains, at the point of sale of a property. Ultimately an investor would be looking to make gains from both the rent and from increases in the price of the house. When combined, the rental yield and capital growth gives the total return on investment.
The decision to invest in property is not only concerned with the yields (or rents) accrued, but also considers the potential returns or capital gains against the foregone income that one could have received if the capital invested into the house had been put into an alternative investment (such as shares). In addition, investment decisions may also take into account the transaction costs associated with the sale of different asset classes. Unlike alternative investments such as bonds and equities, property is relatively illiquid and can take a significant amount of time and cost to trade.
Disregarding the issue of liquidity and transaction costs, it is possible to derive a crude measure to compare the long-term returns to investments in different assets in previous periods. Looking firstly at performance of house prices against shares, gold, and cash (bank base rates) over the past three decades, table A1.2 shows that a £100,000 investment in equities would have delivered the highest levels of return – particularly if dividends had been reinvested. The FTSE all share total-return index, which accounts for the reinvestment of all dividends, saw a 1,400 per cent increase since 1985, equivalent to an annual rate of return of 9.8 per cent.
This was higher than the average returns to house prices over the period based on ONS data, which shows that the same sum invested, brought in a nominal 7.8 per cent annual return. This compares to a 5.7 per cent return from putting it all in a cash savings account, and 4.6 per cent from investments in gold. The total returns to housing would however also include the net rental income (or ‘use value’ for owner-occupiers). Since the average gross rental yield for London for 2014 is estimated at about 4.3 per cent per annum, this suggests that the performance of long-term investments in housing over the period are at least comparable, if not better than equity investments.
**Table A1.2: Returns to long-term investment in different asset classes, 1985-2014**
| 1985–2014 | Return in 2015 (£’000s) | Sum invested (£’000s) | Per cent change | CAGR (%) | |----------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|----------| | ONS mix-adjusted HPI (London) | 889 | 100 | 789 | 7.8 | | UK equities (FTSE all-share, total return) | 1,500 | 100 | 1,400 | 9.8 | | UK equities (FTSE all-share, capital only) | 517 | 100 | 417 | 5.8 | | UK equities (FTSE 100, total return) | 1,391 | 100 | 1,291 | 9.5 | | UK equities (FTSE 100, capital only) | 465 | 100 | 365 | 5.4 | | Gold, London bullion market | 369 | 100 | 269 | 4.6 | | Base rate (average interest) | 498 | 100 | 80 | 5.7 |
Source: GLA Economics calculations using data from Macrobond and the Bank of England. Notes: CAGR is the the year-on-year rate of growth able to account for the change in value from the first year to the last year of the period. In the past 15 years, average returns to investments in London housing have been considerably higher than investments in shares which were particularly affected by the economic downturn, and higher also than the returns to cash holdings given the historically low levels of Bank base rates. Based on GLA Economics estimates of the annual average growth, house price increases have however been lower than those experienced by certain precious metals, such as gold bullion84 (see Table A1.3).
Table A1.3: Returns to long-term investment in different asset classes, 2000–2014
| 2000–2014 | Return in 2015 (£’000s) | Sum invested (£’000s) | Per cent change | CAGR (%) | |----------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|----------| | ONS mix-adjusted HPI (London) | 285 | 100 | 185 | 7.2 | | UK equities (FTSE all-share, total return) | 179 | 100 | 79 | 3.9 | | UK equities (FTSE all-share, capital only) | 109 | 100 | 9 | 0.6 | | UK equities (FTSE 100, total return) | 158 | 100 | 58 | 3.1 | | UK equities (FTSE 100, capital only) | 95 | 100 | 5 | 0.4 | | Gold, London bullion market | 416 | 100 | 316 | 10.0 | | Base rate (average interest) | 157 | 100 | 36 | 3.1 |
Source: GLA Economics calculations using data from Macrobond and the Bank of England. Notes: CAGR is the year-on-year rate of growth able to account for the change in value from the first year to the last year of the period.
The past strength of investments in the London housing market, and the relative resilience of prices to the economic downturn may have contributed to London’s housing stock being increasingly seen as a vehicle in which to hold money, acting as a possible further incentive towards owner-occupation as well as stimulating the buy-to-let market. To the extent that individuals compete to buy the same pool of properties, looser lending standards in the buy-to-let sector could contribute to general house price increases, and this group of investors may also be particularly vulnerable to rising interest rates (see Section 4.2).
While regional data on the buy-to-let segment of the housing market is not available, evidence at the UK level from the Bank of England85 suggests that the market has grown rapidly since buy-to-let mortgages were introduced in July 1996. In the year to the first quarter of 2015, the stock of buy-to-let lending expanded by 8 per cent, such that buy-to-let lending accounted for 15 per cent of the stock of outstanding mortgages (up from 2 per cent in 2000). This is consistent with a structural trend towards a larger private rental sector. In London, the private rental sector accounted for 25 per cent of households in 2011, compared with 15 per cent in 2001. This however remains below the levels of private renting in the 1960s and 1970s, when private renting accounted for more than 1 in 3 households (see Figure A1.2).
______________________________________________________________________
84 Halifax reports that the strong returns to precious metals such as gold, largely reflect the increased demand from China and India for industrial uses and jewellery, with gold prices also boosted by safe-haven investment flows into gold, in particular, during the financial market crisis. Source: Halifax, ‘Precious metals were the top performing asset class of the 2000s’, March 2010.
85 Bank of England, ‘Financial stability report’, July 2015. Figure A1.2: Long term trend in London household tenure, 1961 to 2011
Sources: GLA analysis of historical Census data. Notes: households renting from housing associations were included with private renting in 1961 and 1971. Appendix 2: Demand from foreign and overseas investors
While international investment in the UK economy is typically highly prized, such investment in residential property is sometimes regarded with suspicion and concern. London is however a global city, attracting people from across the world to work, study, settle, and enjoy the economic, social and cultural opportunities that the capital offers. Londoners themselves are also international in their origins, and may purchase housing using international sources of funding.
As well as purchases from foreign residents in London, foreign ownership of housing in London is also a product of investment in second homes by non-UK nationals who continue to reside overseas, as well as real estate investments by overseas investors, including corporations. This section looks at the role and impacts of international, non-resident investors in residential property.
How has foreign investment in London housing changed over time?
There is no accurate or timely data that tracks foreign investment in residential property in England. It is therefore not possible to know for certain how much foreign investment there is in residential real estate, nor where that investment comes from. Regional statistics that are available on the role of foreign-born and international investors in residential property instead tend to come from the major estate agents and concentrate on ‘prime locations’ in central London.
One issue in understanding these statistics is that the definition of ‘prime’ changes over time so longer-term comparisons are difficult to interpret. It is also not clear how the agents distinguish between sales to foreign investors, UK expatriates, non-domiciled residents and/or Londoners who happen to have overseas origins, when completing the surveys.
Looking at the trends over time, research by Savills 86 finds that, irrespective of residency, international buyers as a proportion of sales of existing homes in ‘prime’ London have increased from 23 per cent in 2005 to 40 per cent in 2014 (Figure A2.1). Savills report that international buyers for existing properties are concentrated in prime central London and the Canary Wharf area to the East (Figure A2.2).
______________________________________________________________________
86 Savills, July 2013, ‘World in London 2013: capital appreciation’. Figure A2.1: Trends in international buyers (re-sales), 2005 – 2014
Source: Savills, World in London 2013’ and ‘World in London 2015’
Figure A2.2: Map of international buyers in prime London (resale market)
Source: Savills, ‘World in London 2012’, July 2013. International buyers in London reflect the city’s diversity These increases are however broadly in line with Census data on London’s changing proportion of foreign-born population. At the time of the 2011 Census, more than one in three London residents (37 per cent) were born outside the UK, up from 27 per cent in 2001.
ONS census analysis for England and Wales also shows that the proportion of non-UK born residents living in owner occupied accommodation increases with the length of residence. As international migrants settle and seek a longer-term future, they (or their families) have increasingly taken up house ownership as a result. It therefore follows that long-term residency of non-UK nationals is likely to be a primary driver of observed patterns of international ownership of housing in London.
Overseas investors represent a small share of overall transactions Considering only the role of non-UK residents, Knight Frank research found that overseas residents represented 28 per cent of buyers of prime central London homes in the 12 months to June 2013, rising to 49 per cent when considering only those properties that were new build developments.
Analysis of the prime London property purchases by non-residents shows that Europe and the Middle East are the main source of non-resident purchasers of London property, though this may include investments made by UK nationals based overseas (see Figure A2.3).
Figure A2.3: Prime central London overseas sales by world region of buyer, 2012/13
Source: Knight Frank research, 2013. Notes: Sales includes new build developments and second hand sales of existing properties. Rest of world includes Africa, Australasia and South America.
______________________________________________________________________
87 While 18 per cent of recent arrivals (2007-2011) lived in owner-occupied accommodation, this figure rises to 78 per cent among those who had lived in the UK for more than 30 years. Source: ONS, ‘2011 Census analysis: social and economic characteristics by length of residence of migrant populations in England and Wales’, November 2014
88 Source: Knight Frank, ‘International buyers in London’, October 2013. While the overall figures for non-UK resident purchases may appear substantial, the ‘prime’ London area considered accounts for only a small share (8 per cent) of private housing stock in London(^89), and new builds represent an even smaller share of the overall market. Across London as a whole in the two years to June 2013, Knight Frank estimate that between 10 to 15 per cent of sales of new build sales in London were made to buyers normally resident overseas (ranging from 20 per cent in Inner London to less than 7 per cent in outer London). It also found no indication of a shift towards higher non-resident purchases in the two years to mid-2013(^90).
Putting this in the context of all property transactions, the Bank of England estimated that while foreign inflows are concentrated in certain sub-markets, overall they have accounted for around only 3 per cent of total residential property transactions in London(^91).
**The impact of international buyers on housing demand and prices in London**
The price for housing should, in theory, reflect the balance between the supply of houses and the demand for living in them. Other things being equal, increased foreign demand to invest and live in London housing will therefore increase prices in the short term. Given what is known about the magnitude of foreign investment on London housing markets, this price effect is likely to be strongest in prime London areas where foreign demand is greatest. If inflows are not offset by a corresponding reduction in demand among UK residents, then this will increase the overall demand for (and price of) housing. As a result there are also likely to be wider ‘knock-on’ or ‘ripple’ effects as, for example, those who would previously have bought in prime areas, move further out and increase demand elsewhere. In the long term, if the housing market is able to fully adapt, the increase in demand should drive further construction of housing and an overall increase in housing supply.
There is however conflicting evidence that the more recent settlement experience of international migrants has had much effect on London house prices. For example, in an analysis of the impact of international migration on house prices from 2003–2008, Meen (2012) finds that price effects are only modest. This is due to lower demand for housing among migrants, as well as the offsetting effects of prices on rates of household formation, and outflows of domestic residents which lead to a dispersion of the price effects across regions(^92).
On the other hand, research by the Said Business School in Oxford(^93) suggests that there is a direct correlation between London house prices in areas with a higher share of certain migrants, and political and economic uncertainty in the country of origin. The paper highlights however
______________________________________________________________________
(^89) Savills research estimate in 2014 that prime London as a whole accounts for only 8 per cent of London’s private housing stock. This includes, for example, prime areas in central London such as Kensington and the West End, as well as those near Canary Wharf in the East, Hampstead and Islington in the North and Richmond, Wimbledon and Barnes in South West London), Source: Savills, July 2014, ‘World in London 2014: Dynamics of a global city’.
(^90) This estimate is based on a sample of 3,500 new build properties in London purchased in the 24 months to June 2013. The sample includes developments in all Greater London boroughs, with sales ranging from £200,000 to £5,000,000. The residence of ownership is based on the proprietor record from Land Registry, and assumes that ‘non-natural’ owners (companies, trusts, etc.) represent international purchases, unless otherwise known. Source: Knight Frank, October 2013, ‘International buyers in London’.
(^91) The Bank’s 3 per cent estimate is based on estimates by Knight Frank and Savills of the size and scale of foreign purchases, and assumptions about the scale of foreign purchases in the secondary market outside of ‘prime’ London. Source: Bank of England, November 2014, ‘Financial Stability Report’.
(^92) Meen, G., November 2012, ‘The adjustment of housing markets to migration change: lessons from modern history’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 59, No. 5.
(^93) Badarinza, C., & Ramadorai, T., October 2013, ‘Home away from home: Safe haven effects and London house prices’, SAID Business School. that this observed relationship may be partly driven by migrants leaving their country of origin to join their compatriots in London, but also result from capital outflows and investments by high-net worth individuals seeking a safe haven.
The direction of international investments is also likely to be affected by exchange rate movements. The appreciation of Sterling against a number of currencies over the last two years(^4) means that the price of London housing has increased for many overseas buyers, perhaps reducing the attractiveness of London property as compared to the past few years. At the same time, those overseas buyers holding London property may stand to gain more from the recent house price increases as a result of foreign exchange movements, which may increase the incentive to sell up.
**The impact of overseas investors on house prices**
Perhaps the main concern expressed about overseas purchases of flats and houses in London is however that some of this may represent speculative demand, over and above the physical need for a home, which can inflate property prices. It is also argued that foreign investment may also increase the volatility of housing markets if, for example, international money suddenly enters (or leaves) in response to changing economic conditions and/or exchange rates.
Considering the role of overseas investors, evidence from Paris suggests that overseas buyers were responsible for only 2 per cent of the observed increase in Paris house prices between 1993 and 2008 (3 per cent of an overall increase in prices of 150 per cent)(^5). In other words, 98 per cent of the house price rises were attributed to domestic factors and increased demand from resident buyers. Despite an increase in the share of overseas buyers as a total of all transactions (from 4 to 8 per cent), and a tendency for them to pay over 20 per cent more on average, the research concluded that there was an insufficient number of overseas investors, concentrated in niche, high-end property markets that had little bearing on the rest of the Paris housing market i.e. there was limited evidence of a ripple effect resulting from foreign demand that economic theory may suggest.
While the origins and likely patterns of foreign investment in Paris are likely to differ somewhat to those in London, non-resident foreign investors in both cities are similarly concentrated in niche markets, representing a small proportion of the overall housing market. It remains possible however that a ‘ripple effect’ may be more pronounced in London if, for example, the housing stock available for purchase in areas neighbouring prime locations are close substitutes. For this reason, the ONS economic review in June 2014 cited ‘an increase in the level of foreign demand’ as a possible driver of house price rises in London, in addition to the likely role played by increasing employment, mortgage finance and consumer confidence(^6).
**The overall impact on the housing market depends not only on purchases, but also on their subsequent use.**
Foreign ownership of housing in London may have knock-on distortionary effects if investors choose to leave their investment units empty, and thereby directly reduce the supply of available housing in a given area. There is however little evidence that vacancy rates of property are higher as a result of overseas investment. Instead the number of properties recorded as
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) GLA Economics, ‘London’s economic outlook: Spring 2015’, May 2015.
(^5) Sotura, A., ‘Les étrangers font-ils monter les prix de l’immobilier? Estimation à partir de la base de la chambre des Notaires de Paris, 1993-2008’, thesis directed by Piketty, T. December 2011.
(^6) ONS, ‘Economic Review’, June 2014. empty or vacant has been decreasing in London in recent years\\textsuperscript{97}, as has the number of dwellings recorded as second homes\\textsuperscript{98}, although it remains possible that investors, whether domestic or from overseas, may not report property as empty or second homes, but still only occupy their properties for only part of the time.
The survey evidence available from property advisers suggests that the vast majority of homes purchased with overseas finance are however occupied, either directly as the primary residence of a foreign national (or their family), or as investments intended for the private rental market, while their use as a second home for short-term stays is reportedly less prevalent. For example, Savills estimate that few prime area new build sales were to international second home buyers\\textsuperscript{99}, although occupation of these residences is still expected to be lower than 100 per cent. Similarly, a 2014 Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) transaction survey of Asian buyers found that around 85 per cent intended to rent out the property, with the balance being a mix of main residencies for children in higher education, or for use as a second home\\textsuperscript{100}.
It remains possible however that demand from foreign investors can transform a traditionally non-traded good, housing, into a tradable one. If such purchases are significant, this can have a subsequent distorting effect not only on prices, but also on the types of properties built (size, layout, location, style) if the preferences of overseas investors systematically differ from those of permanent residents. Since housing is a durable good, this in turn may lock-in and lead to mismatches in the types of housing supplied and the needs of London residents.
**Overseas investments in new build developments may increase housing supply**
At the margin, the potential price effects of foreign demand for investment properties and second homes in particular wards, may also be offset by the impact of foreign investment on construction activity. Since overseas buyers invest disproportionately in new build London properties, and often purchase property ‘off-plan’ (i.e. prior to completion), it is arguable that construction activity of new buildings in London is higher than it otherwise would have been in the absence of overseas investment. It would be difficult, however, to determine the magnitude of any such impact, or determine the number of properties in London purchased by non-residents which add to the housing stock.
Based on a series of interviews with 26 private developers, in a 2012 assessment of the barriers to housing delivery in London, Molior concluded that ‘in the absence of an export market, many London residential schemes simply would not commence construction’\\textsuperscript{101}. Off-plan purchases in this regard, may have helped de-risk developments (which can be very costly to stop) by providing cash for construction and thereby guarantee finance supply of market housing. This may be particularly important for London’s high-density, capital intensive projects with relatively longer lead-in times. Ongoing research at the LSE\\textsuperscript{102} supports this view, contesting
\\textsuperscript{97} Based on Council Tax data, the number of recorded empty homes in London was at a historical low of 56,270 empty homes in 2014, equivalent to 1.7 per cent of total stock. Of these, there were 20,800 homes in London that had been empty for more than six months, equal to 0.6% of the stock and also a record low. These figures may however under-count empty homes since the removal of empty property discounts from Council Tax in many areas has reduced the incentive for owners to report homes as empty. Source: DCLG, Housing live table 615.
\\textsuperscript{98} In 2014 there were an estimated 48,390 second homes in London, down from 53,150 in 2012 and representing around 1.4 per cent of the total housing stock and . Source: DCLG, Council tax base.
\\textsuperscript{99} An estimated 750 of the 97,000 Greater London sales in 2012 were for use as second homes. Source: Savills, ‘World in London 2013: capital appreciation’, 2013
\\textsuperscript{100} Source: JLL, ‘International investment in London residential: understanding the benefits’, March 2014.
\\textsuperscript{101} GLA, ‘Barriers to housing delivery: what are the market-perceived barriers to residential development in London?’, December 2012. Report by Molior London for the GLA.
\\textsuperscript{102} LSE, ‘Housing in London: addressing the supply crisis’, February 2013. that since UK funders may be credit constrained or risk averse, inward overseas investments were particularly important to initiate and/or speed up the construction of new developments during the financial crisis. JLL residential argue that foreign investment at this time provided a much needed stimulus to the local residential construction industry and local suppliers.(^{103})
To the extent that this construction feeds into supply housing to London residents, either by renting them out, or by opening up further units for sale directly to domestic buyers, foreign inflows of finance may increase the overall housing stock that is available in London.
Through planning agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy, foreign investment may have also contributed to the delivery of affordable homes in London. For example, Savills estimate that off-plan sales of new builds to international buyers helped to ‘finance 3,000 new affordable homes that may otherwise not have been built’(^{104}). It remains difficult, however, to determine the extent to which these investments have been truly additional. In the case of large-scale private rented developments (such as student halls), offshore financing may also bring institutional experience of professional property management, and has the potential to raise to status of the private rented sector to being tenure of choice for an increasingly flexible workforce.
**Smoothing or exacerbating the economic cycle**
In the aftermath of the 2008/09 recession, weaknesses in the domestic market combined with funding restrictions meant that investors based in countries less affected by the shock, may have served to dampen the effects of the recession on London’s housing and construction markets. Based on a 2014 assessment of who buys new homes in London, the British Property Federation concluded that such overseas investors were ‘instrumental’ in maintaining a level of housing development in London’, which would otherwise have stalled due to a lack of cash or credit.(^{105})
While the limited evidence available suggests that foreign investment in housing may have helped to smooth out the full impact of the downturn, the risk remains that demand from overseas may serve to amplify the business cycle in an upturn, and thereby exacerbate house price volatility.
A further risk may be that, since in the case of non-UK residents, the ongoing revenues derived from rental incomes and capital gains from future sales may subsequently flow out of the UK. In the absence of offsetting inflows resulting from non-resident home ownership (if for example, foreign buyers decide to visit the UK more regularly on business or holiday than they otherwise would), such outflows will count as a negative entry in terms of London’s balance of payments.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{103}) JLL, ‘International investment in London residential: understanding the benefits’, March 2014.
(^{104}) Savills, ‘World in London 2013: capital appreciation’, July 2013.
(^{105}) British Property Federation, ‘Who buys new homes in London and why?’, November 2014. Prepared by Molior London.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3162-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 65,
"total-input-tokens": 129029,
"total-output-tokens": 38290,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
101,
1
],
[
101,
101,
2
],
[
101,
1342,
3
],
[
1342,
5165,
4
],
[
5165,
9295,
5
],
[
9295,
12990,
6
],
[
12990,
13971,
7
],
[
13971,
17451,
8
],
[
17451,
21851,
9
],
[
21851,
25802,
10
],
[
25802,
28475,
11
],
[
28475,
32230,
12
],
[
32230,
35515,
13
],
[
35515,
36852,
14
],
[
36852,
38622,
15
],
[
38622,
40339,
16
],
[
40339,
41962,
17
],
[
41962,
44376,
18
],
[
44376,
45483,
19
],
[
45483,
47150,
20
],
[
47150,
48326,
21
],
[
48326,
52822,
22
],
[
52822,
56183,
23
],
[
56183,
59608,
24
],
[
59608,
61308,
25
],
[
61308,
63432,
26
],
[
63432,
65255,
27
],
[
65255,
67648,
28
],
[
67648,
69729,
29
],
[
69729,
71926,
30
],
[
71926,
74501,
31
],
[
74501,
75755,
32
],
[
75755,
76179,
33
],
[
76179,
78500,
34
],
[
78500,
81008,
35
],
[
81008,
84652,
36
],
[
84652,
85570,
37
],
[
85570,
87905,
38
],
[
87905,
91791,
39
],
[
91791,
94219,
40
],
[
94219,
96319,
41
],
[
96319,
99101,
42
],
[
99101,
100582,
43
],
[
100582,
102867,
44
],
[
102867,
103674,
45
],
[
103674,
105399,
46
],
[
105399,
109823,
47
],
[
109823,
110722,
48
],
[
110722,
112393,
49
],
[
112393,
115942,
50
],
[
115942,
118253,
51
],
[
118253,
121730,
52
],
[
121730,
123614,
53
],
[
123614,
130144,
54
],
[
130144,
133949,
55
],
[
133949,
137720,
56
],
[
137720,
137945,
57
],
[
137945,
140257,
58
],
[
140257,
140519,
59
],
[
140519,
142646,
60
],
[
142646,
147077,
61
],
[
147077,
150847,
62
],
[
150847,
155452,
63
],
[
155452,
158579,
64
],
[
158579,
158579,
65
]
]
} |
b890b0479a67d5a6802b3138f62777adfc144954 | Cornwall Council Householder Team
Andrew England Assistant Head of Planning, Housing & Regeneration Householder Team Approach
- Context
- Budget
- Performance
- Aligning service resources
- Identifying what's important
- Feedback from Local Councils
- Enabling tool-
- Single IT system
- Moving work to staff Unitary Council
- 7 Councils into one unitary (now 5 years old)
- Circa 8,000 planning applications (4,000 household) a year
- New Development Management culture introduced at outset
- Generic Role profiles
- Functional teams
- e.g. Delivery, Majors, General, Householder.
- Service Delivery Options Appraisal
- Business approach Budget Context
- Budget for Planning service continues to reduce.
| | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | |----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Net budget (Millions) | £8.95 | £6.57 | £5.43 | £4.67 |
## Staffing
| | 2008/09 (estimated as at April 2009) | 2008/09 (as at June 2009) | 2009/10 (as at April 2010) | 2010/11 (as at August 2010) | Estimated reduction in posts since April 2009 | |----------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | Full Time Equivalent (FTE) | 413 | 384.88 | 329.78 | 323.83 | 90 | Key Issues for Planning & Growth
• Environment • World Heritage Site, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast, etc. • European Convergence Funding. • Renewable Energy. • Affordable Housing • Circa 28,000 on Home Choice Register. • Cornwall Local Plan Pre-submission • 47,500 Housing target. (Former SWRSS – circa 68,000) Opportunities - New ways of doing things
- Householder applications
- Householder team
- Fast track Accredited agents scheme
- Research Design Quality agents scheme
- Stream line pre-application process Householder team - why?
- **Drivers**
- Proportionality
- Efficiency
- Managing workloads
- Increased productivity
- Cost effective
- Local fee setting
- IT electronic files
- Local involvement – maintained
- Pilot project- 6 months Householder Team Scope of work
- **Extensions** and **alterations** to dwellings
- **Associated** listed building and conservation area applications
- **Certificate of lawfulness** for proposed works
- Works to **trees**
- in conservation area
- TPO applications Process....
- (Self) validate
- Publicity & consultation
- Desk top assessment
- Risk assessment
- Site visit?
- Simplified report template
- Decision issued
- **Note - no negotiation!** How will we know we have succeeded?
**Target**
- Increased productivity per officer
- Increased speed
- 6 weeks to determination (or better)
- Improved validation 60% to 90%
- Cost efficient/neutral
- Maintain approval rate
- Customer satisfaction
**Actual**
- Increase on average by 100% (450 cases pa)
- 70% decided within 6 weeks; 93% within 8 weeks
- Accredited agents 100%; more work needed here
- Fee £172 = 3 hours achieved cost neutral
- 96% approval rate Application Validity Rates
| Year | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | |----------|--------|---------|---------|---------| | % Validity Rates | | | | |
Linear (%)
www.cornwall.gov.uk Quotes....
'we just want to build our extension'
'my client was really happy with the service'
'why can't all applications be dealt with this way' Reduced hours ....increased productivity Avoiding duplication
Better service at reduced costs Householder guidance
- assisting self service
• Householder Design guide
• How to submit an application
• Do I need permission? Fast track accredited agents
- Simplified validation checklist
- Promote accredited agents
- Release officer time for other applications
- Faster decision making - target 6 weeks
- Key contact officers
- Less bureaucracy
- Pre application work What agents do?
- Electronic Submission
- Supporting documentation
- Photos
- Site impact on neighbours
- Consistent quality
- A3/A4 plans for usability
- Linear scaled drawings
- Neighbour/ Local Council engagement
- Identify neighbour Single Householder Team
- Reduced mileage costs (50%) and time by using Google earth, etc.
- Increased speed 70% in 6 weeks
- Increased productivity (450 cases pa per officer)
- Provide a cost effective service (£170 = 3.3 hours work)
- High approval rate (96%) Single Householder Team
- Procedures recorded and followed.
- Shorter reports.
- Managed risk no complaints/ ombudsman cases.
- Customers welcome speed of decision.
- High staff morale – Smarties!
- Allows focus on majors. Next steps
• Mediation role for local councils? • More Local Development Orders? Eg Feock, Newquay • Single permission process for planning and building control? • Start to finish processing? • Develop quality accreditation scheme?
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3163-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 27917,
"total-output-tokens": 2078,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
101,
1
],
[
101,
315,
2
],
[
315,
648,
3
],
[
648,
900,
4
],
[
900,
1510,
5
],
[
1510,
1849,
6
],
[
1849,
2061,
7
],
[
2061,
2309,
8
],
[
2309,
2577,
9
],
[
2577,
2765,
10
],
[
2765,
3233,
11
],
[
3233,
3458,
12
],
[
3458,
3608,
13
],
[
3608,
3649,
14
],
[
3649,
3703,
15
],
[
3703,
3834,
16
],
[
3834,
4079,
17
],
[
4079,
4321,
18
],
[
4321,
4584,
19
],
[
4584,
4808,
20
],
[
4808,
5041,
21
],
[
5041,
5041,
22
]
]
} |
b813507d294e56554e2b6a8f99f088dd2b1dc811 | Overview
- In 2018, the median household income in Tower Hamlets is £29,937, this was slightly less than London (£30,677) but greater than England (£27,901). The mean household income was £36,808, slightly more than London (£36,421) and greater than England (£32,513).
- 50 per cent of households in Tower Hamlets, in 2018, had a household income of less than £30,000 (London 49 per cent and England 55 per cent) and 86 per cent had less than £60,000 (London 88 per cent and England 91 per cent)
- 14 per cent of households had a household income of less than £15,000 and 3 per cent had a household income of greater than £100,000
- Amongst the London boroughs Tower Hamlets was 17th with a median household income of £29,937. City of London had the highest median household income of £44,546 and Barking & Dagenham had the lowest at £22,008. The median household income ranged from £18,714 in LSOA E01004236 Bromley North ward to £53,166 in LSOA E01004277 in Canary Wharf ward.
Half of the 144 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) had percentages (ranging from 15 to 34 per cent) of households with less than £15,000 household income, which were greater than the borough average (14 per cent).
The percentage of households with a household income of less than £30,000 ranged from 83 per cent in LSOA E01004236 (within Bromley North ward) and 14 per cent in LSOA E01004277 (Canary Wharf ward).
The geographic distribution of household income shows greater incomes in the south and west of the borough with lower incomes in the east and central areas.
Lansbury ward has the highest concentrations of households with a household income of less than £30,000.
Just over half (12) of the wards in Tower Hamlets had a median household income less than the Borough average of £29,937.
The lowest median household income is £22,213 in Lansbury ward, which is less than half of the highest median household income in St Katharine’s and Wapping ward (£45,654). Household Income Distribution (percentage), Tower Hamlets Wards 2018
- St Katharine’s & Wapping ward has the lowest percentage (24 per cent) of households with less than £30,000 household income and the highest percentage (31 per cent) of households with household income greater than £60,000. Lansbury ward has the highest percentage (70 per cent) of households with household income less than £30,000; this is almost 3 times the percentage of St Katharine’s & Wapping ward.
- 12 of the wards have greater percentage than the Borough average, (14 per cent,) of households with less than £15,000 household income.
Median Household Income Tower Hamlets, London, 2015-2018
- From 2015 to 2017 the median household income for Tower Hamlets has increased by just under £3,000 in total, however, in 2018 the median household income fell back by over £1,200.
- Over the past four years the gap between London and Tower Hamlets median household incomes has decreased by £2,000 from £2,734 in 2015 to £740 in 2018. Over the past 4 years the distribution of household incomes within Tower Hamlets has remained relatively stable.
The percentage of households with a household income of between £60,000 and £100,000 has increased by 3 percentage points to 2017 but then decreased again back to 10 per cent in 2018.
Between 2015 and 2018 the percentage of households with a household income of £30-60,000 increased by 3 per cent and those with less than £15,000 decreased by 4 per cent.
Source: CACI
Data: 2017 Equivilised Paycheck data
Pay check data provides gross household income estimates at postcode level for the UK. CACI uses data from Ocean, CACI’s lifestyle database, combined with data from the ONS’s Average Weekly Earnings and Living Costs & Food Survey, to build their income model. It is important to note that Pay check data is modelled annual household income data, presented as modelled gross household income (‘unequivalised’), and household income adjusted for household size (‘equivalised’). This means that the data is not based on real administrative datasets.
The 2018 household income data has been based on a household population for the borough of 134,266, calculated by CACI.
All figures in this briefing are based on the 2018 ‘equivilised’ data set.
Definitions: Equivilisation
Equivilising data reflects the notion that a household of five, for example, will need a higher income than a single person living alone to enjoy a comparable standard of living. The equivilisation process takes a couple living with no children as a reference point and adjusts the incomes of larger households downwards relative to this benchmark (i.e. assumes that a higher income would be needed for a larger household to have the same standard of living). The incomes of smaller households are adjusted upwards relative to the reference household type, recognising that the same income would allow smaller households a better standard of living.
Find out more
For more in-depth analysis about Tower Hamlets, please visit the Borough Statistics page on the council’s website or get in touch with the team at [email protected].
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3164-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 14946,
"total-output-tokens": 1550,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
847,
1
],
[
847,
1957,
2
],
[
1957,
2969,
3
],
[
2969,
5103,
4
]
]
} |
025448fbfb792b1754b8ced3c68c09f0521edc63 | ## Portfolio - Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 55 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Business Intelligence Hub June 2018
| 1. Building Works | 2. Housing | |-------------------|------------| | **BW05** | **BW06a** | | Gas safety - % of properties having valid Gas Safe registered gas certificates - (Snapshot) | No of council homes in York failing to meet the decency standard | | Monthly | Annual | | 99.65% | 0 | | 99.93% | 298 | | 99.91% | - | | 99.61% | - | | 99.87% | - | | 99.81% | - | | 99.91% | - | | **BW19** | **CAN061** | | % of Urgent Repairs completed within Government Timescales | Number of new affordable homes delivered in York | | Monthly | Quarterly | | 96.21% | 109 | | 96.30% | 91 | | 97.83% | 74 | | 97.57% | 2 | | 97.34% | 15 | | 97.52% | 49 | | 97.83% | 8 | | **BW20** | **CAN200** | | % of Urgent Gas Repairs completed within Government Timescales | Number of council homes let by direct exchange - (YTD) | | Monthly | Monthly | | 95.52% | 138 | | 97.57% | 134 | | 98.49% | 124 | | 98.19% | 37 | | 98.26% | 59 | | 98.23% | 94 | | 98.49% | 124 | | **CJGE172** | **CJGE178** | | Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio) | Private rents (Average) - All (£) | | Annual | Annual | | 8.64 | £840 | | 8.9 | £866 | | 9.15 | £892 | | **Benchmark - National Data** | Benchmark - National Data | | Annual | Annual | | 7.11 | £820 | | 7.16 | £852 | | 7.26 | £829 | | **Regional Rank (Rank out of 14)** | Benchmark - Regional Data | | Annual | Annual | | 14 | £556 | | 14 | £573 | | 14 | £585 | | **Regional Rank (Rank out of 15)** | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | | Annual | Annual | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | **HM03** | **HOU107** | | Net Additional Homes Provided - (YTD) | Number of active applicants on North Yorkshire Home Choice who are registered with CYC (Waiting List) - (Snapshot) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 1,121 | 1,612 | | 977 | 1,597 | | - | 1,540 | | NC | 1,569 | | 1,036 | 1,676 | | NC | 1,527 | | - | 1,540 | | **HOU108** | **HOU109** | | Current council tenant arrears as % of annual rent due - (Snapshot) | % of rent collected (including current arrears brought forward) - (Snapshot) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 1.62% | 97.62% | | 2.09% | 97.26% | | 2.50% | 97.04% | | 2.39% | 90.76% | | 2.54% | 94.57% | | 2.70% | 95.82% | | 2.50% | 97.04% |
**Target**
- Up is Good
- Up is Neutral
- Up is Bad
**Polarity**
- Good
- Neutral
- Bad
**DOT**
- Up is Good
- Up is Neutral
- Up is Bad
## Portfolio - Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 55 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Business Intelligence Hub June 2018
| 2. Housing | 3. Homelessness | |-------------|-----------------| | **HOU210** Bring empty private sector properties back into use | **HOU101** Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | | Annual | Quarterly | | 60 | 56 | | - | 62 | | - | 49 | | - | 60 | | - | 58 | | - | 51 | | - | 49 | | - | 60.00 | | **HOU215** Rent lost through voids - (Snapshot) | **HOU102** Number of homeless households with dependent children in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 0.78% | 30 | | 0.72% | 33 | | 1.20% | 27 | | 0.21% | 34 | | 0.46% | 36 | | 0.84% | 31 | | 1.20% | 27 | | **HOU245** Average number of days to re-let empty properties (minus major works) - (YTD) | **HOU103** Number of households for whom positive action has prevented homelessness - (YTD) | | Annual | Quarterly | | 23.91 | 630 | | 20.87 | 778 | | - | 616 | | - | 193 | | - | 342 | | - | 481 | | - | 616 | | **HOU251** Number of applicant households for which decisions were taken - (YTD) | **HOU105** Number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need - (YTD) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 163 | 91 | | 186 | 97 | | 166 | 90 | | 44 | 22 | | 90 | 46 | | 123 | 67 | | 166 | 90 | | **HOU259** Benchmark - National Data | **HOU106** Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 6,570 | 0 | | 6,660 | 0 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | **HOU259** Benchmark - National Data | **HOU108** Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 17 | 163 | | 20 | 186 | | 27 | 166 | | 7 | 44 | | 16 | 90 | | 20 | 123 | | 27 | 166 | | **HOU259** Benchmark - National Data | **HOU108** Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 6,570 | 0 | | 6,660 | 0 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | - | 1 | | **HOU259** Benchmark - National Data | **HOU108** Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | | Quarterly | Quarterly | | 17 | 163 | | 20 | 186 | | 27 | 166 | | 7 | 44 | | 16 | 90 | | 20 | 123 | | 27 | 166 |
**Previous Years**
| Collection Frequency | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|--------|----------|-----| | **HOU210** Bring empty private sector properties back into use | Annual | 60 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | **HOU215** Rent lost through voids - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 0.78% | 0.72% | 1.20% | 0.21% | 0.46% | 0.84% | 1.20% | - | Up is Bad | Red | | **HOU245** Average number of days to re-let empty properties (minus major works) - (YTD) | Annual | 23.91 | 20.87 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | **HOU101** Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 56 | 62 | 49 | 60 | 58 | 51 | 49 | 60.00 | Up is Bad | Neutral | | **HOU102** Number of homeless households with dependent children in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 30 | 33 | 27 | 34 | 36 | 31 | 27 | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | **HOU103** Number of households for whom positive action has prevented homelessness - (YTD) | Quarterly | 630 | 778 | 616 | 193 | 342 | 481 | 616 | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | **HOU105** Number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need - (YTD) | Quarterly | 57,760 | 59,090 | - | 14,400 | 29,690 | 43,330 | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | **HOU106** Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | Quarterly | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | **HOU251** Number of applicant households for which decisions were taken - (YTD) | Quarterly | 163 | 186 | 166 | 44 | 90 | 123 | 166 | - | Neutral | Neutral | | **HOU259** Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 6,570 | 6,660 | - | 1,660 | 3,490 | 5,170 | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | **HOU259** Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 17 | 20 | 27 | 7 | 16 | 20 | 27 | - | Up is Bad | Red | | 3. Homelessness | 4. Satisfaction | |-----------------|-----------------| | **HOU268** | **TAP04** | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent - (YTD) | % of panel satisfied with York as a place to live | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent | Quarterly | 18.70% | 20.62% | 30.00% | 31.80% | 34.80% | 29.90% | 30.00% | - | Neutral | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 11.40% | 11.27% | - | 11.50% | 11.80% | 11.90% | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent | Quarterly | 18.70% | 20.62% | 30.00% | 31.80% | 37.50% | 19.00% | 30.43% | - | Neutral | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 12.50% | 2.17% | 2.22% | 0.00% | 2.20% | 3.00% | 2.22% | - | Neutral | Neutral | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - Domestic Violence | Quarterly | 2.41% | 2.27% | - | 2.40% | 2.30% | 2.40% | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 2 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | Neutral | Neutral | | % of panel satisfied with York as a place to live | Quarterly | NC | 92.20% | 91.70% | 92.65% | NC | 91.70% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | % of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to live | Quarterly | NC | 4.40% | 5.53% | 4.01% | NC | 5.53% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | % of panel who agree that they belong to their local area | Quarterly | NC | 74.70% | 75.27% | 78.44% | NC | 75.27% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 71.00% | 61.56% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - LG Inform | Annual | 66.80% | 69.17% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | % of panel who disagree that they belong to their local area | Quarterly | NC | 25.10% | 23.03% | 19.11% | NC | 23.03% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Quarterly | NC | 70.11% | 72.84% | 75.24% | NC | 72.84% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | % of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together | Quarterly | NC | 9.44% | 11.85% | 6.55% | NC | 11.85% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 89.00% | 81.33% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | % of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together | Quarterly | NC | 65.72% | 73.55% | 73.28% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | % of tenants satisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts on them | Annual | 65.72% | 73.55% | 73.28% | - | - | - | - | 73.28% | Up is Good | Neutral | | % of tenants dissatisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts on them | Annual | 13.95% | 10.08% | 11.48% | - | - | - | - | 11.48% | Up is Bad | Neutral | | No | Indicator Description | Collection Frequency | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | 111| First time entrants to the Youth Justice System aged 10-17 (per 100,000 10-17 year olds in York) - (Rolling 12 Month) | Quarterly | 477 | 385.46 | 425 | 419 | 425 | 451 | 425 | 385 | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 357 | 321 | - | 313 | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Quarterly | 427 | 363 | - | 358 | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Benchmark - Comparator Data (New Family Group from 2017/18) | Quarterly | 440 | 349 | - | 255 | 245 | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | New Cases recorded by ASB Hub (from Feb 2015) | Monthly | 1,172 | 799 | 236 | 54 | 56 | 76 | 50 | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Cases Closed by ASB Hub within Period - Resolved | Monthly | 699 | 265 | 108 | 25 | 36 | 17 | 30 | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | All Crime | Monthly | 12,015 | 11,221 | - | 3,004| 3,111| 5,191| - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | Criminal damage (excl. 59) | Monthly | 1,612 | 1,526 | - | 384 | 384 | 408 | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Overall Violence (Violence Against Person Def.) | Monthly | 2,513 | 2,509 | - | 716 | 916 | 751 | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Hate Crimes or Incidents as Recorded by NYP | Monthly | 141 | 189 | - | 69 | 64 | 26 | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Number of Alcohol related ASB incidents | Monthly | 1,749 | 1,495 | - | 412 | 331 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Number of Incidents of Violent Crime Within the ARZ | Monthly | 720 | 662 | - | 223 | 231 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | % of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence | Quarterly | NC | 77.03% | 70.51% | 74.72%| NC | 70.51%| NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence | Quarterly | NC | 12.80% | 17.52% | 14.41%| NC | 17.52%| NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | % of panel who think that hate crime is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | 5.42% | 3.85% | 4.71% | NC | 3.85% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | % of panel who think that hate crime is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | 87.15% | 83.30% | 86.55%| NC | 83.30%| NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of panel who think that people using or dealing drugs is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | 19.11% | 17.20% | 16.11%| NC | 17.20%| NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Indicator | Collection Frequency | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | TAP26 | Quarterly | NC | 62.37% | 57.42% | 56.15% | NC | 57.42% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TF2-A01 | Quarterly | 500 | 742 | 891 | 761 | 786 | 815 | 891 | - | Up is Good | Green | | TF2-A01i | Quarterly | - | 474 | 618 | 488 | 521 | 548 | 618 | - | Up is Good | Green | | TF2-A02 | Quarterly | 0.00% | 6.00% | 10.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% | 10.00% | - | Up is Good | Green | | PP07 | Annual | 63.20% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TAP22 | Quarterly | NC | 10.87% | 9.85% | 8.99% | NC | 9.85% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP23 | Quarterly | NC | 18.53% | 20.22% | 15.47% | NC | 20.22% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP24 | Quarterly | NC | 38.79% | 39.27% | 40.49% | NC | 39.27% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP25 | Quarterly | NC | 19.40% | 16.03% | 16.78% | NC | 16.03% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP27 | Quarterly | NC | 28.28% | 29.53% | 25.50% | NC | 29.53% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP28 | Quarterly | NC | 2.02% | 0.65% | 1.81% | NC | 0.65% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral |
## Portfolio - Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 55 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Business Intelligence Hub June 2018
| Public | 6. TAP28 | % of panel who think that abandoned or burnt out cars are not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | Collection Frequency | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |--------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|--------|----------|-----| | | | | | | 89.92% | 90.48% | 87.58% | NC | NC | 90.48% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | | Hospital admissions due to substance misuse (15-24 years), per 100,000 population | Annual | | 90.07 | 97.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | | 95.45 | 89.8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | | 98.05 | 92.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | | Number of mothers recorded by Midwifery Services in regard to alcohol or substance misuse (by Estimated Delivery Date) | Quarterly | | 33 | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral |
| Substance Misuse | 7. CHP23 | Hospital admissions due to substance misuse (15-24 years), per 100,000 population | Annual | | 90.07 | 97.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | | 95.45 | 89.8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | | 98.05 | 92.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| CSB17 | Number of mothers recorded by Midwifery Services in regard to alcohol or substance misuse (by Estimated Delivery Date) | Quarterly | | 33 | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral |
| Large Projects | 8. CORP10 | Large Project - Local Plan | Quarterly | | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Community Stadium | Quarterly | | Green | Amber | Green | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - York Central | Quarterly | | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Castle Gateway | Quarterly | | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Guildhall | Quarterly | | Green | Green | Red | Green | Green | Green | Red | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Older Person's Accommodation | Quarterly | | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Digital Services (CRM) | Quarterly | | Amber | Red | Amber | Red | Red | Red | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Outer Ring Road (A1237) | Quarterly | | N/A | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Allerton Park (NYCC Managed) | Quarterly | | - | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Housing development (HCA partnership) | Quarterly | | - | - | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Adult Social Care Future Focus | Quarterly | | - | - | Green | NC | Green | Green | Green | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Provision of School Places | Quarterly | | - | - | Green | NC | Green | Green | Green | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | | Large Project - Specialist Disabled Children Short Break Facility | Quarterly | | - | - | Green | NC | Green | Green | Green | - | Neutral | Neutral | | Large Project - Library Procurement Project | Collection Frequency | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | Quarterly | - | - | Green | NC | NC | NC | NC | Green | - | Neutral | Neutral |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3165-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 28324,
"total-output-tokens": 7983,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2584,
1
],
[
2584,
6805,
2
],
[
6805,
9824,
3
],
[
9824,
13856,
4
],
[
13856,
15541,
5
],
[
15541,
21136,
6
],
[
21136,
21597,
7
]
]
} |
b3f7e405b182197ee61eb9ed9d4ea7407337448d | 1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to:
- To agree to increase the HRA budget envelope by an additional £25M to enable additional HRA capital programme expenditure for 2019/20 funded through borrowing if Developer Affordable Home opportunities become available.
- To agree to increase the HRA budget envelope by an additional £6M to enable additional programme expenditure for 2019/20 funded through borrowing to support NCC led specialist housing schemes.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That Council approve:
a) An increase in the HRA budget envelope by an additional £25M to enable additional HRA capital programme expenditure for 2019/20 funded through borrowing, for the acquisition of blocks of homes as the element of delivering affordable homes on major developments.
b) An increase in the HRA budget envelope by an additional £6M to enable additional capital programme expenditure for 2019/20 funded through borrowing, for the acquisition or development of specialist homes (form of supported living) in support of Social Care outcomes.
c) That Cabinet be authorised to approve new capital schemes and variations to existing schemes during 2019/20, subject to a business case, the funding being available and the schemes being in accordance with the objectives and priorities of the Council. 3. Issues and Choices
3.1 Report Background
Housing Revenue Account
3.1.1 The HRA is a ring-fenced account that represents the costs of holding the Council housing stock. There are strict rules surrounding the costs and income that can be charged to this account. Much of the income and expenditure is dictated by legislation and regulation leaving the Council with direct control over a limited number of these budgets.
Developments in Housing Finance.
3.1.4 Since the introduction of self-financing in 2012 there have been a host of government policy initiatives that have impacted upon housing finances. Some of the financially more significant ones are:
- the legislative backed 1% rent reductions for 4 years from 1 April 2016;
- the encouraging of right to buy (RTB) by increasing RTB discounts, and;
- the introduction of Universal Credit and Benefit Cap.
- rent increases from 2020/21 capped at CPI plus 1% for 5 years.
3.1.5 In addition to this the Autumn 2018 Budget announced the removal of the HRA Debt Cap and the introduction of prudential borrowing which gives Council more scope to pursue new build programmes to deliver much needed new housing within the HRAs.
3.2 Decision Details
HRA Budget 2019/20
3.2.1 The Council approved the HRA Budget on 25 February 2019 and further work has been undertaken on the 30 Year HRA Business plan since then, resulting in the proposal to increase by £31M the HRA capital programme expenditure for 2019/20 funded through borrowing.
Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme
3.2.2 Capital expenditure is essential for the Housing Revenue Account to maintain and improve the Council’s housing stock as well as deliver new council housing. The HRA is an asset driven service and as such the capital programme plays a key part in the delivery of the HRA service.
3.2.3 The HRA Capital Programme has been developed within the context of the 30 year Business Plan and the existing Asset Management Plan. Further input from the HRA Business Plan review is currently being undertaken and which may lead to changes being brought back to Cabinet in 2019/20 as the New Build programme is developed in light of the removal of the debt cap. This report to Council is the first part of that process.
3.2.4 Included in the capital programme is a significant increase to the New Build programme, (£22.6M to deliver over 150 new homes), reflecting the removal of the HRA Debt Cap from October 2018 and the ability to prudentially borrow within the HRA. The proposed additional £25M is to ensure that the Council is best placed to enable it to be agile in taking advantage of opportunities to acquire blocks of homes from developers as part of their planning objectives to deliver affordable homes as and when they occur to enable it to better address the shortage of housing in the Borough. The additional £6M is to enable the Council to progress with schemes that are housing related, but will enable the delivery of enhanced care facilities within the Borough.
3.2.5 The medium term plan currently shows the investment in new build dropping off slowly over the next few years. This additional borrowing will help the Council, working closely with Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) to increase the new build programme for delivering new social and affordable homes over the coming years.
Opportunities to acquire new affordable housing
3.2.6 Homes England schemes and developer-led schemes require the provision of affordable housing. Developers often invite Registered Providers to bid for the affordable housing and, typically, this will sell for 50% - 60% of the market value.
3.2.7 As Northampton Borough Council is a Registered Provider, NPH is actively monitoring such opportunities. However, the timescales are often very short and Registered Providers are usually required to provide confirmation, when they submit their expression of interest, that funds are available (or will be) to complete the purchase.
3.2.8 Although each scheme will require its own business case to demonstrate due diligence and value for money, there is a need to obtain Council approval to increase the HRA borrowing and expenditure envelope to make the most of these opportunities to acquire new affordable housing.
HRA Capital Programme and Funding 2019-20
3.2.9 The table below shows a summary of the Capital programme and includes the proposed additional £25m expenditure and borrowing for 2019-20. This will be revised and reported to Cabinet in respect of the £6M when more detailed information is available.
3.2.10 The HRA capital programme for 2019/20 and beyond will be refined in conjunction with NPH, in line with the updated Asset Management Plan, and the HRA Business Plan review.
| | Approved 2019-20 £000s | Proposed Additional 2019-20 £000s | Revised 2019-20 £000s | |------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------| | External Improvements | 10,600 | 0 | 10,600 | | Internal Works | 3,500 | 0 | 3,500 | | Environmental Improvements | 3,000 | 0 | 3,000 | | Structural Works and Compliance | 450 | 0 | 450 | | Disabled Adaptations | 1,300 | 0 | 1,300 | | IT Development | 400 | 0 | 400 | | New Build Programme/Major Projects | 22,576 | 25,000 | 47,576 | | Buybacks and Spot Purchases | 500 | 0 | 500 | | **Total** | **42,326** | **25,000** | **67,326** | 4. Implications (including financial implications)
4.1 Policy
4.1.1 The revenue and capital budgets are set in support of the Council’s priorities.
4.1.2 The HRA Revenue Budget is set in the overall context of the HRA 30 year business plan and the Council’s Asset Management Plan.
4.1.3 The Capital Programme for the HRA is set in the context of the Council’s Capital Strategy.
4.2 Resources and Risk
4.2.1 One of the ways to reduce the pressure of homelessness and temporary accommodation is to increase the supply of affordable housing. The Council is already supporting and financing increases in the HRA stock through a programme of NPH developments. However, there are opportunities to acquire a significant number of new HRA council homes by purchasing properties ‘off plan’ through developer / Homes England schemes.
4.2.2 As such acquisitions are likely to be of a large scale and require substantial investment, there is a need to gain Council approval to increase the HRA borrowing envelope to progress such schemes.
4.2.3 The specialist housing schemes offer the opportunity to contribute to the reduction in social care costs for the County Council and future Unitary Council.
4.2.4 None of these schemes through use of HRA funds or NPH resources will put delivery of the existing homes development schemes at risk.
4.2.5 There will be associated increase in revenue costs and revenue income, from rents that will be appraised based on a specific scheme basis to ensure that the HRA remains in a sustainable financial position. Cabinet will receive a full and formal business cases before any actual funds are committed, Council are reminded that this is an approval to increase the borrowing and expenditure envelope, it is not approval for any specific schemes.
| FINANCING: | | | | |---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------| | Major Repairs | 9,642 | 0 | 9,642 | | Reserve/Depreciation | | | | | Capital Receipts - RTB (excl 1-4-1) | 3,134 | 0 | 3,134 | | Capital Receipts - RTB 1-4-1 | 7,035 | 0 | 7,035 | | Receipts | | | | | Revenue/Earmarked Reserve | 9,405 | 0 | 9,405 | | Borrowing / CFR | 13,110| 25,000| 38,110| | **Total Financing - HRA** | 42,326| 25,000| 67,326| 4.3 Legal
4.3.1 The Council has a legal duty to set a balanced budget each year, bearing in mind its fiduciary duties to the taxpayer, and the HRA is not allowed to go into deficit by law. In exercising these duties the Council must comply with various legislation and administrative duties.
4.4 Equality
4.4.1 The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires the Council to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out its activities. Failure to comply with this duty would be challengeable in the courts.
4.4.2 Equality and diversity were considered as part of the medium term planning options submitted. There are no adverse impacts at this stage but will be considered in accordance with the Council policy when appropriate.
4.5 How the Proposals deliver Priority Outcomes
The creation of new Council owned homes for rent is a key corporate priority.
4.6 Other Implications
There are none specifically.
5. Background Papers
5.1 See Council HRA Budget report 25 February 2019.
Stuart McGregor, Chief Finance Officer George Candler, Chief Executive
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3166-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9823,
"total-output-tokens": 2734,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1309,
1
],
[
1309,
4030,
2
],
[
4030,
7343,
3
],
[
7343,
9734,
4
],
[
9734,
10907,
5
]
]
} |
6a0db3fd362ec1c33963f6a74508307cd31c6b17 | ## Portfolio - Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 55 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Strategic Business Intelligence Hub August 2017
### Previous Years vs 2017/2018
| Indicator Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | 1. Building Works | | | | | | | | | | | | | BW05 Gas safety – % of properties having valid Gas Safe registered gas certificates - (Snapshot) | Monthly | 99.71% | 99.65% | 99.93% | 99.61% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | BW19 % of Urgent Repairs completed within Government Timescales | Monthly | 94.73% | 96.21% | 96.30% | 97.57% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | BW20 % of Urgent Gas Repairs completed within Government Timescales | Monthly | 89.71% | 95.52% | 97.57% | 98.19% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | BW06a No of council homes in York failing to meet the decency standard | Annual | 3 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | CAN061 Number of new affordable homes delivered in York | Quarterly | 136 | 109 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | CAN200 Number of council homes let by direct exchange - (YTD) | Monthly | 153 | 138 | 134 | 41 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | CJGE172 Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio) | Annual | 8.4 | 8.92 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CJGE178 Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 6.95 | 7.02 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CJGE178 Regional Rank (Rank out of 14) | Annual | 14 | 14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | 2. Housing | | | | | | | | | | | | | CJGE178 Private rents (Average) - All (£) | Annual | £841 | £840 | £866 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CJGE178 Benchmark - National Data | Annual | £788 | £820 | £852 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CJGE178 Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | £557 | £556 | £573 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CJGE178 Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 1 | 1 | 15 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HM03 Net Additional Homes Provided - (YTD) | Quarterly | 507 | 1,121 | 977 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU107 Number of active applicants on North Yorkshire Home Choice who are registered with CYC (Waiting List) - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 1,545 | 1,612 | 1,597 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU108 Current council tenant arrears as % of annual rent due - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 1.62% | 1.62% | 2.09% | 2.39% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU109 % of rent collected (including current arrears brought forward) - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 97.84% | 97.62% | 97.26% | 90.76% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | Indicator | Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | HOU210 | Bring empty private sector properties back into use | Annual | 106 | 60 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU215 | Rent lost through voids - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 0.75% | 0.78% | 0.72% | 0.21% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | HOU245 | Average number of days to re-let empty properties (minus major works) - (YTD) | Monthly | 29.76 | 23.91 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | OCC12 | New Homes Bonus Grant (£m) - (Cumulative) | Annual | £2.99 | £3.62 | £4.65 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | HOU101 | Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 65 | 56 | 62 | 60 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU102 | Number of homeless households with dependent children in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 41 | 30 | 33 | 34 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HOU103 | Number of households for whom positive action has prevented homelessness - (YTD) | Quarterly | 665 | 630 | 778 | 193 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU105 | Number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need - (YTD) | Quarterly | 105 | 91 | 97 | 22 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU106 | Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | Quarterly | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU251 | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - Relationship Breakdown Violent - (YTD) | Quarterly | 188 | 163 | 186 | 44 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HOU259 | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - Relationship Breakdown Violent | Quarterly | 6,530 | 6,570 | 6,660 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | No. | Indicator Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | 3. | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent (YTD) | Quarterly | 16.50% | 18.70% | 20.62% | 31.80% | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 12.27% | 11.40% | 11.27% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent | Quarterly | 16.50% | 18.70% | 20.62% | 31.80% | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 9.40% | 12.50% | 2.17% | 0.00% | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Domestic Violence (YTD) | Quarterly | 2.82% | 2.41% | 2.27% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 3 | 2 | 12 | 0 | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - Domestic Violence | Quarterly | NC | NC | 92.20% | 92.65%| - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of panel satisfied with York as a place to live | Quarterly | NC | NC | 92.20% | 92.65%| - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of panel dissatisfied with York as a place to live | Quarterly | NC | NC | 4.40% | 4.01% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | | % of panel who agree that they belong to their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 74.70% | 78.44%| - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 72.00% | 71.00% | 61.56% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | | Benchmark - LG Inform | Annual | 66.30% | 66.80% | 69.17% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | | % of panel who disagree that they belong to their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 25.10% | 19.11%| - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | | % of panel agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together | Quarterly | NC | NC | 70.11% | 75.24%| - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 86.00% | 89.00% | 81.33% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | | % of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together | Quarterly | NC | NC | 9.44% | 6.55% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | | % of tenants satisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts on them | Annual | 61.26% | 65.72% | 73.55% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | | % of tenants dissatisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts on them | Annual | 16.47% | 13.95% | 10.08% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green |
## Portfolio - Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 55 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Strategic Business Intelligence Hub August 2017
### Previous Years vs 2017/2018
| Indicator | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|---------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | ASBH01 | Monthly | 416 | 1,172 | 799 | 54 | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | ASBH04 | Monthly | 248 | 699 | 265 | 25 | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | CSP01 | Monthly | 10,807 | 12,015 | 11,221 | 3,004 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP12 | Monthly | 1,389 | 1,612 | 1,526 | 384 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP15 | Monthly | 2,130 | 2,513 | 2,509 | 716 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP23 | Monthly | 108 | 141 | 189 | 69 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CSP24 | Quarterly | 1,852 | 1,749 | 1,495 | 412 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP27 | Quarterly | 561 | 720 | 662 | 224 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP28 | Monthly | 2,576 | 2,305 | 2,175 | 487 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | PHOF23 | Annual | 413.64 | 451.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 409.06 | 368.65 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 473.02 | 425.8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 7 | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TAP20 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 77.03% | 74.72% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TAP21 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 12.80% | 14.41% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | TAP26 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 19.11% | 16.11% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | 5. Crime | 6. Public Realm | |----------|----------------| | **TAP26** | % of panel who think that people using or dealing drugs is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 62.37% | 56.15% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ▼ Red | | **TF2-A01** | Number of Troubled Families (Families identified with 2 or more headline criteria) | Quarterly | 52 | 500 | 742 | 761 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ▲ Green | | **TF2-A01i** | Number of Troubled Families On-Programme (New for 2016/17) | Quarterly | - | - | 474 | 488 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ⇨ Neutral | | **TF2-A02** | % of Troubled Families who have achieved an outcome | Quarterly | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ⇨ Neutral | | **CSPEC3** | Calls for Service - Noise | Monthly | 1,581 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | ⇨ Neutral | | **PP07** | % of businesses that were compliant with legislation concerning the illegal use and sale of alcohol and tobacco | Annual | 100.00% | 63.20% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ▼ Red | | **TAP22** | % of panel who think that noisy neighbours or loud parties are a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 10.87% | 8.99% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | ⇨ Neutral | | **TAP23** | % of panel who think that noisy neighbours or loud parties are not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 87.32% | 88.31% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ▲ Green | | **TAP24** | % of panel who think that people hanging around on the streets is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 18.53% | 15.47% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | ▼ Green | | **TAP25** | % of panel who think that people hanging around on the streets is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 79.23% | 81.61% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ▲ Green | | **TAP26** | % of panel who think that rubbish or litter lying around is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 38.79% | 40.49% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | ▼ Red | | **TAP27** | % of panel who think that rubbish or litter lying around is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 61.01% | 59.51% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ⇨ Neutral | | **TAP28** | % of panel who think that vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 19.40% | 16.78% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | ▼ Green | | **TAP29** | % of panel who think that vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 77.40% | 80.76% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ▲ Green | | **TAP30** | % of panel who think that people being drunk or rowdy in public places is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 28.28% | 25.50% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | ▼ Green | | **TAP31** | % of panel who think that people being drunk or rowdy in public places is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 66.87% | 68.68% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | ⇨ Neutral | | 6. Public Realm | TAP28 | % of panel who think that abandoned or burnt out cars are a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 2.02% | 1.81% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | 7. Substance Misuse | CHP23 | Hospital admissions due to substance misuse (15-24 years), per 100,000 population | Annual | 70.17 | 90.07 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 88.84 | 95.45 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 94.8 | 98.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | CSB17 | Number of mothers recorded by Midwifery Services in regard to alcohol or substance misuse (by Estimated Delivery Date) | Quarterly | 26 | 33 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3167-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 24272,
"total-output-tokens": 5987,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4549,
1
],
[
4549,
6847,
2
],
[
6847,
11061,
3
],
[
11061,
13450,
4
],
[
13450,
16487,
5
],
[
16487,
17261,
6
]
]
} |
1821f69bc8683869d5066344ba13d3ec9a7021c1 | | Indicator | Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|--------|----------|-----| | BW05 | Gas safety - % of properties having valid Gas Safe registered gas certificates - (Snapshot) | Monthly | 99.71% | 99.65% | 99.93% | 99.61% | 99.87% | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | BW19 | % of Urgent Repairs completed within Government Timescales | Monthly | 94.73% | 96.21% | 96.30% | 97.57% | 97.34% | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | BW20 | % of Urgent Gas Repairs completed within Government Timescales | Monthly | 89.71% | 95.52% | 97.57% | 98.19% | 98.26% | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | BW06a | No of council homes in York failing to meet the decency standard | Annual | 3 | 0 | 298 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CAN061 | Number of new affordable homes delivered in York | Quarterly | 136 | 109 | 91 | 2 | 14 | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | CAN200 | Number of council homes let by direct exchange - (YTD) | Monthly | 166 | 138 | 134 | 41 | 58 | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | CJGE172 | Housing affordability (lower quartile house prices to earnings ratio) | Annual | 8.18 | 8.64 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | CJGE178 | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 6.91 | 7.11 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CJGE178 | Regional Rank (Rank out of 14) | Annual | 14 | 14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HM03 | Net Additional Homes Provided - (YTD) | Quarterly | 507 | 1,121 | 977 | NC | 1,036 | NC | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU107 | Number of active applicants on North Yorkshire Home Choice who are registered with CYC (Waiting List) - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 1,545 | 1,612 | 1,597 | 1,569 | 1,676 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU108 | Current council tenant arrears as % of annual rent due - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 1.62% | 1.62% | 2.09% | 2.39% | 2.54% | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HOU109 | % of rent collected (including current arrears brought forward) - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 97.84% | 97.62% | 97.26% | 90.76% | 94.57% | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | Indicator | Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | HOU210 | Bring empty private sector properties back into use | Annual | 106 | 60 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU215 | Rent lost through voids - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 0.75% | 0.78% | 0.72% | 0.21% | 0.46% | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HOU245 | Average number of days to re-let empty properties (minus major works) - (YTD) | Annual | 29.76 | 23.91 | 20.87 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | OCC12 | New Homes Bonus Grant (£m) - (Cumulative) | Annual | £2.99 | £3.62 | £4.65 | £3.21 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU101 | Number of homeless households in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 65 | 56 | 62 | 60 | 58 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU102 | Number of homeless households with dependent children in temporary accommodation - (Snapshot) | Quarterly | 41 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 36 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HOU103 | Number of households for whom positive action has prevented homelessness - (YTD) | Quarterly | 665 | 630 | 778 | 193 | 342 | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | HOU105 | Number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need - (YTD) | Quarterly | 105 | 91 | 97 | 22 | 46 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU106 | Number of 16-17 year olds accepted as homeless - (YTD) | Quarterly | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | HOU251 | Number of applicant households for which decisions were taken - (YTD) | Quarterly | 188 | 163 | 186 | 44 | 90 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | HOU259 | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - Relationship Breakdown Violent - (YTD) | Quarterly | 17 | 17 | 20 | 7 | 16 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | 3. Homelessness | 4. Satisfaction | |-----------------|----------------| | **HOU268** | **TAP04** | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent - (YTD) | % of panel satisfied with York as a place to live | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 16.50% | 18.70% | 20.62% | 31.80% | 34.80% | - | - | - | Neutral | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent | Quarterly | 12.27% | 11.40% | 11.27% | 11.50% | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 16.50% | 18.70% | 20.62% | 31.80% | 37.50% | - | - | - | Neutral | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Domestic Violence - (YTD) | Quarterly | 9.40% | 12.50% | 2.17% | 0.00% | 2.20% | - | - | - | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 2.82% | 2.41% | 2.27% | 2.40% | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - Domestic Violence | Quarterly | 3 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 1 | - | - | - | Neutral | | **HOU281** | **TAP07** | | Households accepted as being homeless and in priority need - % Relationship Breakdown Violent - (YTD) | % of panel who agree that they belong to their local area | | Benchmark - National Data | Quarterly | 72.00% | 71.00% | 61.56% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 66.30% | 66.80% | 69.17% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | % of panel who disagree that they belong to their local area | Quarterly | 25.10% | 20.11% | 19.11% | NC | 23.03% | NC | - | - | - | Neutral | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 86.00% | 89.00% | 81.33% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | % of panel disagree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together | Quarterly | 70.11% | 75.24% | 72.84% | NC | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 61.26% | 65.72% | 73.55% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | % of tenants satisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts on them | Annual | 16.47% | 13.95% | 10.08% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | % of tenants dissatisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts on them | Annual | 61.26% | 65.72% | 73.55% | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | | Indicator | Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|--------|----------|-----| | ASBH01 | New Cases recorded by ASB Hub (from Feb 2015) | Monthly | 416 | 1,172 | 799 | 54 | 56 | 76 | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | ASBH04 | Cases Closed by ASB Hub within Period - Resolved | Monthly | 248 | 699 | 265 | 25 | 36 | 17 | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | CSP01 | All Crime (IQUANTA data) | Monthly | 10,807 | 12,015 | 11,221 | 3,004 | 3,111 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CSP12 | Criminal damage (excl. 59) | Monthly | 1,389 | 1,612 | 1,526 | 384 | 384 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP15 | Overall Violence (Violence Against Person Def.) | Monthly | 2,130 | 2,513 | 2,509 | 716 | 916 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CSP23 | Hate Crimes or Incidents as Recorded by NYP | Monthly | 108 | 141 | 189 | 69 | 64 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP24 | Number of Alcohol related ASB incidents | Monthly | 1,852 | 1,749 | 1,495 | 412 | 331 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | CSP27 | Number of Incidents of Violent Crime Within the ARZ | Monthly | 561 | 720 | 662 | 223 | 231 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | CSP28 | Number of Incidents of ASB within the city centre ARZ | Monthly | 2,576 | 2,305 | 2,175 | 487 | 539 | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | PHOF23 | First time entrants to the youth justice system (per 100,000 population aged 10-17) | Annual | 413.64 | 451.3 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 409.06 | 368.65 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 473.02 | 425.8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 7 | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | TAP20 | % of panel who agree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence | Quarterly | NC | NC | 77.03% | 74.72% | NC | 70.51% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TAP21 | % of panel who disagree that York is a safe city to live in, relatively free from crime and violence | Quarterly | NC | NC | 12.80% | 14.41% | NC | 17.52% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP22 | % of panel who think that hate crime is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 5.42% | 4.71% | NC | 3.85% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP23 | % of panel who think that hate crime is not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 87.15% | 86.55% | NC | 83.30% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TAP26 | % of panel who think that people using or dealing drugs is a problem in their local area | Quarterly | NC | NC | 19.11% | 16.11% | NC | 17.20% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Indicator | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----------|---------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | TAP26 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 62.37% | 56.15% | NC | 57.42% | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TF2-A01 | Quarterly | 52 | 500 | 742 | 761 | 786 | 815 | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | TF2-A01i | Quarterly | - | - | 474 | 488 | 521 | 548 | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | TF2-A02 | Quarterly | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | PP07 | Annual | 100.00% | 63.20% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TAP22 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 10.87% | 8.99% | NC | 9.85% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP23 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 18.53% | 15.47% | NC | 20.22% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP24 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 38.79% | 40.49% | NC | 39.27% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP25 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 19.40% | 16.78% | NC | 16.03% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP27 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 28.28% | 25.50% | NC | 29.53% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | TAP28 | Quarterly | NC | NC | 2.02% | 1.81% | NC | 0.65% | NC | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Public | TAP28 | % of panel who think that abandoned or burnt out cars are not a problem in their local area | Quarterly | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |--------|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | | | | Collection Frequency | 89.92% | 87.58% | 90.48% | NC | NC | NC | NC | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | 7. Substance Misuse | CHP23 | Hospital admissions due to substance misuse (15-24 years), per 100,000 population | Annual | 70.17 | 90.07 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 88.84 | 95.45 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 94.8 | 98.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | CSB17 | Number of mothers recorded by Midwifery Services in regard to alcohol or substance misuse (by Estimated Delivery Date) | Quarterly | 26 | 33 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3168-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 24451,
"total-output-tokens": 5019,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2288,
1
],
[
2288,
4262,
2
],
[
4262,
6559,
3
],
[
6559,
9417,
4
],
[
9417,
11085,
5
],
[
11085,
12409,
6
]
]
} |
447f4dba90fa324a9abbdf6e24cb9d19128a7673 | Housing Delivery in Bournemouth Gary Josey Director of Housing and Communities [email protected]
Lorraine Mealings Head of Housing and Customer & Deputy Director for Housing [email protected] Overview
• Introduction to housing issues in Bournemouth
• Our emerging wider ‘enabling’ role
• Different models of delivery we have used
• The way forward Our Housing Profile
- 183,500 population, 82,374 households
- Large private rented sector
- Retained stock / HRA – 5,100 rented units
- Affordability issues – home ownership and market rent
- Regeneration areas defined
- 3,000 known HMOs
- 4,600 on Housing Register in Housing Need
- University Town
- 730 new homes p.a. in Local Plan
- Mostly windfall development
- Greenbelt and Heathland issues Enabling overall housing supply
- Elphicke-House Report 2015 was key
- Wider ‘enabling’ role across all tenures
- *Landlord* and *developer* and *strategic enabler* roles
- Cross party support for increasing housing supply
- Housing is key to economic growth Development of Affordable Housing on HRA land
- Registered Provider in 2009
- Housing Development Team well established
- Approximately 200 units completed or acquired since 2009/10 and more in the pipeline
- Majority are new build
- Property acquisition – ex-RTB properties
- HRA and appropriated General Fund land
- Various funding sources including HRA reserves
- Open market tendered and some built in-house
- Squeeze on HRA finances? General Needs Duck Lane Specialist housing HMO conversions Town Centre Vision
- Housing supply and economic growth
- Additional 1,500-2,000 people living in Town Centre over 5-8 years
- Council owned surface car-parks
- 17 sites - 20 year vision
- Bournemouth Development Company is a joint venture
- Limited Liability Partnership – Council and Morgan Sindall Investments - land value and profit share benefits
- Additional income benefits - Section 106 contributions, Council Tax and New Homes Bonus
- Leyton Mount and Madiera Road schemes completed
- 3 schemes in next phase The Citrus Building (Leyton Mount)
Madiera Road Local Government Association
ANNUAL 2016
CONFERENCE
5-7 July | Bournemouth International Centre Use of other Council General Fund assets
- Gladstone Mews - Community Land Trust
- Princess Road site – 110+ units, mixed tenure
- Palmerston Road site – shared ownership, appropriated land
- Two sites being sold for capital receipt and to maximise density
- Managed by our Housing Development Team
- Use of both HRA and PWLB borrowing Companies
3 housing related companies now established :-
- **BBML** – Oct 14, c100 FTEs, £6.6m annual turnover
- **Seascape South** – Apr 15, no staff, £522k annual turnover in year 1
- **Seascape Homes and Property Limited** – Feb 16 Background to Seascape Homes and Property Limited
Large private rented sector locally, but many barriers:
- Bouyant rental market → Unaffordable rents and non benefit-reliant customers
- Overall reluctance to house homeless households due to risks
- Welfare reforms – direct payments, Benefit Cap, Universal Credit
- Additional assurances – references, rent in advance, guarantors etc. Aims of portfolio
• To discharge the Council’s **statutory homeless duty**
• To provide **high quality and well managed** private rented properties
• To generate a **trading surplus** for the Council
• To invest in additional **public sector assets** for the **longer term** Governance
- Wholly owned company
- Limited by shares
- Council as the sole shareholder
- All dividends back to the Council
- Board within Group Company structure Seascape Homes and Property Limited – Phase 1
Phase 1 – acquisition of existing homes
- Purchase 110 new existing units
- £11m Public Works Loans Board borrowing plus capital receipts plus s106
- 100% referrals for homelessness duty
- Council to purchase all
- Some retained within Council - non-secure tenancies
- Some to be leased on to Seascape Homes and Property Limited - assured shorthold tenancies
- HMOs and self-contained
- Cross subsidised rent levels
- Surpluses from Year 3 Phase 2 business plan
• Increase portfolio
• New build properties
• Diversifying into other customer markets (non-homeless)
• Providing a management service to private landlords
• Convert HMOs to self-contained The new Housing and Finance Institute (HFi)
• External assessment in March 2016 - ‘Housing Business Ready’ programme
• We passed all 18 assessment criteria!
• Particular strengths: ➢ political leadership ➢ officer experience ➢ track record ➢ appetite to do more
• [email protected] The Way Forward – final thoughts....
• Lots more to do
• Explore different approaches and models
• The ‘will’ to do more
• Continually learn from others Gary Josey Director of Housing and Communities [email protected]
Lorraine Mealings Head of Housing and Customer & Deputy Director for Housing [email protected] Local Government Association
ANNUAL 2016
CONFERENCE
5-7 July | Bournemouth International Centre
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3169-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 30378,
"total-output-tokens": 2085,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
32,
1
],
[
32,
224,
2
],
[
224,
384,
3
],
[
384,
783,
4
],
[
783,
1043,
5
],
[
1043,
1483,
6
],
[
1483,
1497,
7
],
[
1497,
1507,
8
],
[
1507,
1526,
9
],
[
1526,
1542,
10
],
[
1542,
2061,
11
],
[
2061,
2110,
12
],
[
2110,
2209,
13
],
[
2209,
2546,
14
],
[
2546,
2785,
15
],
[
2785,
3173,
16
],
[
3173,
3452,
17
],
[
3452,
3616,
18
],
[
3616,
4104,
19
],
[
4104,
4320,
20
],
[
4320,
4612,
21
],
[
4612,
4769,
22
],
[
4769,
4961,
23
],
[
4961,
5059,
24
]
]
} |
79597c8b93237c677e85a19788d98d299b569212 | Housing Rents City of York Council Internal Audit Report 2015/16
Business Unit: Communities & Neighbourhood Services Responsible Officer: Assistant Director – Housing and Community Safety Service Manager: Housing Landlord Manager Date Issued: 14 September 2016 Status: Final Reference: 11710/007
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Overall Audit Opinion: Substantial Assurance Summary and Overall Conclusions
Introduction The Housing Services department has responsibility for the billing, collection and recovery of rent for council housing. The service is responsible for maintenance of accounts and collection of rent for nearly 7,800 council owned properties.
During 2014/15 the gross rental income from these properties was £32.1 m, with an average rent of £75.18 per property per week. In April 2014 rents were increased by 4.95%, raising weekly rent by £3.72. At the end of the 2014/15 financial year the level of current rent arrears was £529k with former tenant arrears being £441k. During 2014/15 £120k of former tenant arrears was written off because they were uncollectable.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system will ensure that:
- Rents are calculated accurately in accordance with council financial regulations, relevant legislation and government guidelines
- Tenants are correctly billed for rents due and sufficient preparations are made prior to upcoming changes in legislation
- Rent income is correctly accounted for
- Rent is paid in advance when new and existing tenants sign a tenancy
- Rent arrears are subject to appropriate recovery action
- Performance is monitored and managed on an ongoing basis
Access to the rents system has not been tested as part of this audit, as it was included in a separate audit, “Access to Key IT Systems”.
Key Findings In the audit we found that the Housing department generally had an effective control environment with only a small number of issues to report on. The level of rent set was in accordance with government legislation and the level of rent was accurately uploaded to SX3. Rent income was accounted for and there are regular reconciliations between SX3, FMS and Cash payments.
Before tenants move into a property they should provide identification, however there is no record kept that a member of the housing team has seen the identification. The council encourages tenants to pay in advance but testing showed this was not always done and there was no explanation provided for this.
The council frequently monitors the current performance for collecting rent and managing arrears with recovery actions being well documented. The recovery actions are in line with the council’s current rent arrears escalation policy. The audit showed that the council only write off arrears when all possible recovery actions have been exhausted. However there is no policy or written procedures for managing former tenant arrears. This is an issue as there is only one individual who is in charge of managing former tenant arrears.
The council takes part in benchmarking exercises that are carried out by house mark, to compare performance with other councils and housing agencies.
**Overall Conclusions**
It was found that the arrangements for managing risk were good with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation, but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Substantial Assurance. 1 No policy or procedure notes for managing former tenants arrears.
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | There are no policy or procedure notes to assist staff in managing former tenant arrears. | Lack of business continuity for managing former tenant arrears. |
**Findings**
If a tenant in arrears moves out of a council property, the possible actions the council can take to recover the arrears are limited. Former tenant arrears are monitored separately from current tenant arrears.
There are no policy or procedure notes to assist staff in managing former tenant arrears. This is a concern as currently there is only one member of staff who manages former tenant arrears. If this individual leaves, procedure notes may assist a new member of staff that takes on the role of managing former tenant arrears.
**Agreed Action 1.1**
Procedure notes will be produced for managing former tenant arrears.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Housing Team Leader - Central Team - Income Lead | 31 October 2016 | 2 A record is not kept proving that tenants have provided ID.
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | There is no record kept to prove that a member of the housing team has seen tenants identification before they move in. | Applicants successfully obtain tenancies using false details. |
**Findings**
It is a requirement for housing tenants to provide proof of identification when moving into a property that is owned by the council. This will enable the council to know for certain who is living in the council's properties and prevent individuals committing identity fraud.
Many tenants are in receipt of housing benefit. To claim housing benefit, tenants would need to provide identification. Therefore the council would not need to request identification from these individuals. However the housing rents team do not keep either copies of other tenant identification, or a record to confirm that a member of the housing rents team has seen the tenant's identification. This is an issue if the tenant is not in receipt of housing benefit, as it would mean that the council do not have a record to show that their identities have been confirmed.
**Agreed Action 2.1**
A photograph is taken as a record of identification for customer when the tenant signs up. This will be stored on DMS for the duration of their tenancy.
| Priority | 3 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | Housing Team Leader - Central Team - Income Lead | | Timescale | 30 September 2016 |
### 3 Rent does not always appear to have been paid in advance.
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | Not every tenant has paid rent in advance before moving in to a property. There is no record on SX3 of why the tenants have not paid in advance. | The tenants that have not paid in advance may not have the funds to pay for rent in the future. |
#### Findings
The housing team encourages tenants to pay rent in advance before moving in to a property. Undertaking a sample test showed that some accounts have not been paid in advance. On these accounts it does not appear that there is a note on the system to state the reason why the tenant has not been paid in advance.
#### Agreed Action 3.1
Each staff member is ensuring that they are asking for a rent in advance, weekly, fortnightly or monthly dependant on how the customer wishes to make their payments. This is implemented at the viewing stage on acceptance of a property and should be noted on the voids form to advise the Housing Enforcement Manager that this is how it is to be paid. Unable to note directly to rent account because until the customer is signed to the tenancy a tenancy is not created and so no where to place the details. If a customer is then to decide to amend their payment then they will be advised of rent in advance with the payments amended as required.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Housing Team Leader - Central Team - Income Lead | 30 September 2016 | Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
### Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
### Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3170-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 13900,
"total-output-tokens": 2493,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
425,
1
],
[
425,
2912,
2
],
[
2912,
3669,
3
],
[
3669,
4786,
4
],
[
4786,
6289,
5
],
[
6289,
7844,
6
],
[
7844,
10046,
7
],
[
10046,
10646,
8
]
]
} |
6765c1fba46805420da288bb2d5300e3efd05890 | Draft Housing Delivery Strategy Consultation
Cllr Shaban Mohammed – Lead Member for Housing Services Darren Levy – Director of Housing Donna Morelli – Assistant Director of Housing Services Bobby Arthur – Commissioning Leader, Housing Management Emma Brunskill-Powell – Senior Policy Officer
People at the Heart of Everything We Do Housekeeping
- Please remain muted when you’re not speaking
- The session will not be recorded
- You will be invited to join breakout rooms for the two discussion rounds
- Gallery view is easiest to see everyone
- In the interest of privacy, please do not raise any personal housing cases.
- If you have a query about your place on the housing waiting list, please contact [email protected] and an officer will respond to discuss your case.
- For any other issues, please send a message using the chat function within Zoom Agenda
5:30pm Welcome and introductions, housekeeping 5:35m Presentation 5:45pm Discussion 1: overview and general direction 6:10pm Regroup and response 6:20pm Discussion 2: specific proposals 6:45pm Regroup and response 6:55pm Thanks and next steps 7:00pm Close Purpose of the draft Housing Delivery Strategy
- The interventions and actions in this strategy are focused on what we can do now (over the next 3 to 5 years) within the resources and constraints that the council operates under.
- They represent the first steps towards the long-term vision for housing.
- Achieving our vision and reversing decades of neglect during which secure, affordable council housing was marginalised will take many years.
- If we are going to achieve our vision it will require sustained and growing investment over a long period and fundamental changes to national housing policy on issues like tenants’ rights, affordable housing programmes and climate change. Newham’s Housing Crisis
- Newham has the longest Housing Register of any London Borough.
- It also has the highest number of homeless households in temporary accommodation in London.
- Approximately 1 in 4 households are overcrowded.
- Newham has the lowest average earnings in London with 27% earning less than minimum wage in 2017.
- Around one in three residents live in the private rented sector (compared with one in four across London) where the rising cost of rent far outstrips wage rises.
| Borough | Waiting list | |---------------|--------------| | Newham | 27,635 | | Lambeth | 25,198 | | Tower Hamlets | 19,826 | | Greenwich | 15,386 | | Islington | 14,567 | Six key areas
1. Putting people at the heart of housing
2. Building, buying and securing more and better homes
3. Addressing the Climate Emergency
4. A safe and secure private rented sector
5. Better Council stock and specialist housing
6. Tackling homelessness Putting people at the heart of housing
- Resident involvement strategy, setting out the housing service’s new residents-first approach
- More opportunities for residents to discuss housing issues through housing hubs, housing liaison officers, and regular tenant and leaseholder forums.
- Our responses to homelessness and rough sleeping will be caring and compassionate
- Regeneration programmes will continue to prioritise co-production
- New homes delivered through our partners as well as by the Council will be able to meet a range of housing needs.
- Explore how we can establish a renters’ rights service Building, buying and securing more and better homes
- Delivery of new homes through the Council’s own affordable housebuilding programme
- Innovative approaches to boosting supply include air rights to build on the top floors of existing blocks, modular homes to boost temporary accommodation, and a joint venture with the NHS.
- Procuring and acquiring new homes, for use as temporary accommodation or as Council homes to be let at social rent.
- Working with partners including private developers, housing associations and GLA and TfL Addressing the Climate Emergency
- A quarter of Newham’s CO₂ emissions come from domestic energy use. We are setting ourselves high standards for low-energy homes.
- We will be starting a programme of energy-efficient retrofit across Council properties and using the landlord licensing scheme to address poor standards in the PRS.
- We also are exploring an innovative retrofit scheme that would incentivise owner-occupiers to invest in making Victorian homes more energy efficient. A safe and secure private rented sector
- Build on the licencing scheme, continuing to prosecute bad landlords and support them to make improvements
- Cracking down on poor energy performance in the PRS.
- We will promote a professional PRS sector to drive up quality, and continue to campaign for legal and administrative changes Better Council stock and specialist housing
- Reviewing how we allocate Council properties via the waiting list, prioritising those most in need. Proposals will be consulted on from October to December 2020.
- We will also invest in these existing properties to ensure that these properties are safe, well maintained and managed, contribute to climate change avoidance.
- Meeting specialist housing need, based on evidence about what our residents need. Tackling homelessness
- Work to prevent homelessness by providing good quality advice and information and where homelessness cannot be prevented, we will ensure early intervention
- Build on the progress on rough sleeping made with the “everybody in” programme and develop a long-term plan for Stratford
- Reduce the numbers in temporary accommodation by procuring longer term solutions
- As you may be aware, the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy published at the end of last year is due to be replaced by a new, longer-term strategy by the end of 2021. We will be starting work on this over the coming weeks. Discussion questions 1
1. Does anything need clarifying or explaining?
2. Do you agree with the overall ambition of the strategy, and the three-five year timescale?
3. Do we have the balance of priorities right with the six key themes? Discussion questions 2
4. Looking at the actions within each of the themes, do they seem appropriate to the scale of the crisis?
5. Are there any actions that you particularly agree with/disagree with?
6. Are there any actions we have missed, that you think should be included? How to get involved
- The draft Housing Delivery Strategy can be downloaded at https://www.newham.gov.uk/housingstrategy
- There is an optional short survey asking respondents whether they agree with each of the sections of the strategy, as well as the overall approach
- If you wish to submit more detailed comments or have questions about the Strategy please send your response to [email protected]
- The consultation closes on Monday 4 January 2021
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3171-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 21670,
"total-output-tokens": 2008,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
334,
1
],
[
334,
868,
2
],
[
868,
1141,
3
],
[
1141,
1141,
4
],
[
1141,
1830,
5
],
[
1830,
2561,
6
],
[
2561,
2824,
7
],
[
2824,
3437,
8
],
[
3437,
3975,
9
],
[
3975,
4459,
10
],
[
4459,
4791,
11
],
[
4791,
5246,
12
],
[
5246,
5865,
13
],
[
5865,
6102,
14
],
[
6102,
6381,
15
],
[
6381,
6853,
16
]
]
} |
22c8dbeb27abdec87f1065546ce07f359fed90e1 | Housing in London 2020 The evidence base for the London Housing Strategy
Georgie Cosh and James Gleeson October 2020
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Contents | 3 | | Introduction | 4 | | List of charts | 5 | | London Housing Strategy monitoring | 10 | | Key statistics for London Boroughs | 12 | | 1. Demographic, economic and housing context | 16 | | 2. Housing stock and supply | 33 | | 3. Housing costs and affordability | 55 | | 4. Housing needs | 73 | | 5. Mobility and decent homes | 84 | | 6. The impacts of Coronavirus | 100 | | Appendices | 117 | | A1. Discontinued charts | 118 | | A2. Glossary of acronyms | 120 | | A3. Sources of data on housing supply | 121 | Introduction
Housing in London is the evidence base for the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy, and also informs housing policies in the London Plan. It summarises key patterns and trends across a range of topics relevant to housing in the capital, and is divided into nine sections, including six core thematic chapters:
- London Housing Strategy monitoring
- Key statistics for London boroughs
1. Demographic, economic and housing context
2. Housing stock and supply
3. Housing costs and affordability
4. Housing needs, including homelessness and overcrowding
5. Mobility and decent homes
6. The impacts of Coronavirus
Appendices
The data in chapters 1 to 5 generally describes the situation before the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, while chapter 6 brings together a range of more recent data to illustrate both the impact of the pandemic and aspects of the housing policy response.
This document sits alongside a range of other Greater London Authority (GLA) publications that provide evidence or statistics on housing. These include (click to follow links):
- GLA Affordable Housing Programme statistics
- The London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports
- The 2017 London Strategic Housing Market Assessment
- The 2017 London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
- The 2018 London Housing Strategy
- The Mayor’s Annual Equality Reports
- The London Datastore, including statistics on housing and demographics
Where available to share, the data used to produce this report has been uploaded to the London Datastore.
Some charts included in previous versions of Housing in London have been discontinued for this edition, usually due to a lack of new data. A list of discontinued charts is provided at Appendix A1. Previous editions of Housing in London can be found at https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/housing-london.
Comments and suggestions are welcomed and should be sent to [email protected]. List of charts
Housing in London 2020 is structured around six thematic chapters, with tables of key London borough statistics at the beginning of the document. Each thematic chapter starts with a summary page, with links to every chart provided.
This chart list contains hyperlinks to the relevant section of the document.
Chapter 1: Demographic, economic and housing context
1.1 Historic and projected London population, 1801 to 2041 1.2 Indexed trend in number of jobs, people and homes in London, 1997 to 2019 1.3 Net domestic migration to London by age group, 2002 to 2019 1.4 Proportion of households in London with dependent children by tenure, 2004 to 2020 1.5 National household income quintile by tenure, London, 2018/19 1.6 London households by national household income quintile and tenure, 1994/95 to 2018/19 1.7 Median household net property wealth of property owners by region, 2006 to 2018 1.8 Attitudes towards local housebuilding in London, 2010 to 2018 1.9 Estimated new build homes in Greater London, 1871 to 2019 1.10 Estimated number of people per dwelling in England, London and other regions, 1971 to 2019 1.11 Annual trend in household tenure, London, 1981 to 2019 1.12 Home ownership rate by age group of household head, London 1990 to 2019 1.13 Trend in mix of buyers of new market homes in London, 2006 to 2019 1.14 Average floor area (square metres per person) in London by tenure, 1996 to 2018 1.15 Average density of dwellings per hectare of residential land by local authority, London and rest of England, 2018 1.16 Satisfaction with accommodation and tenure, London, 2017/18
Chapter 2: Housing stock and supply
2.1 Net conventional completions by tenure, London, 2004/05 to 2018/19 2.2 New housing completions: comparison of various housebuilding datasets, London, 2010 to 2020 2.3 Net conventional completions by borough and tenure, London, 2016/17 to 2018/19 2.4 Family sized homes (three bedrooms or more) as a proportion of total gross house building in London, 1991/92 to 2018/19 2.5 Trend in net conventional housing approvals in London by tenure, 2004/05 to 2018/19 2.6 Affordable and market homes on referable planning applications recommended for approval by the Mayor, 2012 to 2019
2.7 Homes approved on small schemes (1 to 9 homes) by development type, London, 2012/13 to 2018/19
2.8 Trend in applications, permissions, starts and completions of tall buildings in London, 2001 to 2019
2.9 Cumulative Build to Rent starts and completions in London, 2009 to 2019
2.10 Map showing Sites on the ‘Small Sites Small Builders’ portal, by current status and affordable housing restriction (if any), as at June 2020
2.11 Affordable housing starts in London funded by the GLA, 2012/13 to 2019/20
2.12 Number of council homes started by London boroughs, 1980/81 to 2019/20
2.13 Affordable housing completions in London, 1991/92 to 2018/19
2.14 Estimated housing construction costs per square metre in London, English regions and other world cities, 2018 (in PPP-adjusted GBP)
2.15 Housing scheme design audit ratings by region, 2014 to 2019
2.16 Accessible homes as a proportion of all new build homes approved in London, 2009/10 to 2018/19
2.17 Concentrations of new home completions in London by tenure, 2012/13 to 2018/19
2.18 Annual Right to Buy council housing sales and average discount, London, 1980/81 to 2019/20
2.19 Affordable homes in London (excluding shared ownership) by landlord, 1997 to 2019
2.20 Empty homes in London as a proportion of total stock, 1978 to 2019
2.21 Number of mandatory licensed Homes in Multiple Occupation in London, 2012 to 2019
Chapter 3: Housing costs and affordability
3.1 Median of housing costs as a percentage of gross household income (including benefits and income from all household members) by tenure, London, 2010 to 2017
3.2 Average house prices in London and England after adjusting for inflation, 1970 to 2020
3.3 Median house price by Middle Super Output Area, London, 2019
3.4 Annualised new home buyer mortgages by type, London, 2004 to 2020
3.5 Annualised number of loans to London first time buyers, by loan-to-value ratio, 2006 to 2019
3.6 Mean mortgage deposit put down by first-time buyers in London and England, 2005 to 2020
3.7 Mean loan-to-income ratio for new loans to first time buyers and home movers in London, 1980 to 2019
3.8 Annualised Help to Buy loans in Inner and Outer London, 2014 to 2019 3.9 Residential Stamp Duty receipts in London, 1988/89 to 2018/19 (in 2018/19 prices) 3.10 Modelled number of sales and average Stamp Duty holiday savings by price band, London, 2019 (excluding first-time buyer relief) 3.11 Index of change in average private rents by English region, 2005 to 2020 3.12 Index of cumulative change in private rents, earnings and implied affordability in London, 2005 to 2019 3.13 Median monthly market rent by English region and number of bedrooms, April 2019 to March 2020 3.14 Lower quartile, median and upper quartile monthly rents for a two-bedroom home by London borough, April 2019 to March 2020 3.15 Trend in Housing Benefit and Universal Credit caseload in London by tenure, May 1998 to May 2020 3.16 Proportion of tenants who say that Housing Benefit covered the entire rent, London and rest of England, 2008/09 and 2018/19 3.17 Median weekly rents for new social rent and Affordable Rent lettings to two-bedroom homes in London, 2007/08 to 2018/19 (nominal)
Chapter 4: Housing needs
4.1 People seen sleeping rough in London, 2006/07 to 2019/20 4.2 Number of contacts with people seen sleeping rough for the first time in London, 2008/09 to 2019/20 4.3 Areas of origin of people seen sleeping rough in London, 2008/09 to 2019/20 4.4 Households owed a prevention or relief duty and accepted as statutorily homeless in London, Q2 2018 to Q1 2020 4.5 Households owed a homelessness duty in London, by reason for loss of last settled home, 1998/99 to 2019/2020 4.6 Homeless households placed in temporary accommodation by London boroughs by type of accommodation, 1988 to 2020 4.7 Households in London by bedrooms required and available, 2016/17 to 2018/19 4.8 Proportion of households in London overcrowded (according to the bedroom standard) by tenure, 1986/87 to 2018/19 4.9 Proportion of households with dependent children who are overcrowded by tenure, London and England, 2016/17 to 2018/19 4.10 Households in London under-occupying their accommodation (according to the bedroom standard) by tenure, 1995/96 to 2018/19 Chapter 5: Mobility and decent homes
5.1 Length of time in current home by tenure, London, 2016/17 to 2018/19 5.2 Flows between tenures of London households moving in the last year, 2016/17 to 2018/19 5.3 Lettings to new tenants in London by local authorities and housing associations, 1996/97 to 2018/19 5.4 Distance moved by people moving into private rented homes in London, 2019 5.5 Housing Moves lettings per year by category, 2012/13 to 2019/20 5.6 Social rented homes freed up through Seaside and Country Homes, moves by borough, 2007/08 to 2018/19 5.7 Trend in non-decent homes by tenure, London, 2006 to 2018 5.8 Trend in number of non-decent affordable homes in London by landlord type, 2005 to 2019 5.9 Progress of remediation on high-rise residential buildings in London identified for removal of ACM cladding systems, June 2020 5.10 Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in London by sector, 2000 to 2017 5.11 Median energy efficiency rating of housing stock by ward, London, 2019 5.12 Energy efficiency band of EPCs lodged for existing buildings and new dwellings, London, 2019/20 5.13 Trend in median SAP (energy efficiency) rating by tenure, London, 1996 to 2018 5.14 Proportion of households in fuel poverty in London and England, 2003 to 2018 5.15 Fuel poverty rates by tenure or landlord, England and London, 2018
Chapter 6: The impacts of Coronavirus
6.1 Ratio of prevalence of various housing problems to the London average, by ethnicity of household head, 2015 to 2017 6.2 Employed households in London without enough financial assets to cover a 20% loss in income for one, two or three months, by tenure, 2016 to 2018 6.3 Access to parks and private outside space by local authority, London and England, 2020 6.4 Number of rental and sale listings in London added to Rightmove portal fortnightly, March to August 2020 6.5 Monthly indicators of sales market demand and supply, as reported by RICS survey respondents, England and Wales and London, 2018 to 2020 6.6 Quarterly change in private rent indicators, London, 2015 to 2020 6.7 Number of properties listed on Airbnb in London with a review in the previous month, April 2018 to August 2020 6.8 Number of homes in planning applications for schemes in London with 20+ private homes, January 2017 to July 2020
6.9 Four-weekly rolling number of EPCs for new dwellings by English region, 2020
6.10 Employment type and typical means of travel to work of London’s construction workforce, 2019
6.11 Cumulative share of construction workers in London taking up furlough or self-employment income support schemes, as of end June 2020
6.12 Housing tenure of London’s key workers, 2019
6.13 Mortgage and landlord possession claims in London region courts by case type, January to June 2019 and 2020
6.14 Reported and expected rate of rent arrears in London by tenure, July 2020
6.15 Number of people seen sleeping rough in London between April and June, 2019 and 2020
6.16 Number of homeless people in emergency accommodation arranged by the GLA due to the Coronavirus pandemic, London, March to August 2020 London Housing Strategy monitoring
The London Housing Strategy (May 2018) sets out the Mayor’s policies and proposals for tackling London’s housing crisis and is centred around five key priorities:
- building homes for Londoners;
- delivering genuinely affordable homes;
- high quality homes and inclusive neighbourhoods;
- a fairer deal for private renters and leaseholders; and
- tackling homelessness and helping rough sleepers.
The London Housing Strategy: Implementation Plan (May 2018) brings together key policies, proposals and actions for implementation; Mayoral targets or milestones where these have been agreed; and headline indicators of success, which have been chosen to measure the long-term impact of the London Housing Strategy and the state of the housing market in London more generally. These indicators are reported in detail in the remainder of this publication and summarised in the table below.
The original indicator under the ‘Preventing and addressing homelessness’ outcome was the annual number of households accepted as homeless in London. However, changes as a result of the Homelessness Reduction Act mean that comparable figures are no longer collected. This indicator has therefore been replaced with the rolling four-quarter total number of households who are assessed as being owed a main duty due to being unintentionally homeless and in priority need. The first comparable data was collected in Q3 2018.
Table 1: London Housing Strategy monitoring indicators
| Outcome | Indicator | Baseline | Latest Indicator | Chart number | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------| | Increasing the supply of new homes | Net housing supply (London Plan definition, including change in long-term empty homes) | 38,550 in 2015/16 | 35,700 2018/19 (provisional data) | 2.1 | | Increasing the stock of social housing | Additions to low cost rented affordable housing stock minus loss to affordable housing stock | 786,925 in 2016¹ | 785,083 in 2019 | 2.19 |
¹ These figures differ from those presented in recent reports because they are based on a new data source that excludes a small number of non-self-contained homes that were included in previous data sources. | Outcome | Indicator | Baseline | Latest Indicator | Chart number | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|--------------| | Making housing more affordable | Housing costs as a percentage of household income | 27% in 2015/16 | 26% in 2017/18 | 3.1 | | Improving the quality of housing | Percentage of homes at or above the Decent Homes standard | 84% in 2015 | 85% in 2018 | 5.7 | | Reducing overcrowding | Percentage of London households that are overcrowded | 7.5% in 2015/16 | 8.3% in 2018/19 | 4.8 | | Improving energy efficiency of housing | Median SAP rating of London’s homes | 62 in 2015 | 65 in 2018 | 5.13 | | Improving the private rented sector | Percentage of private renting households satisfied with their tenure | 58% in 2015/16 | 65% in 2017/18 | 1.16 | | Improving conditions in the private rented sector | Number of Homes in Multiple Occupation issued with mandatory licences by London boroughs | 9,683 in April 2017 | 11,704 in April 2019 | 2.21 | | Preventing and addressing homelessness | Number of households assessed, following the end of a relief duty, as owed a main duty due to being unintentionally homeless and in priority need | 9,180 in Q3 2018 to Q2 2019 | 10,910 in Q2 2019 to Q1 2020 | 4.4 | | Reducing rough sleeping | Number of people seen sleeping rough | 8,108 in 2016/17 | 10,726 in 2019/20 | 4.1 | | Reducing homelessness | Number of homeless households living in temporary accommodation | 54,370 in December 2017 | 60,720 in March 2020 | 4.6 | Key statistics for London Boroughs
Definitions used The dwelling, household and tenure definitions used in Housing in London 2020 are in line with Census and Office for National Statistics definitions. An explanation of the different measures of housing supply, with reference to the targets set out in the Mayor’s London Plan and London Housing Strategy, can be found on the housing supply data sources page on the London Datastore.
Map of Inner and Outer London Boroughs A map of Inner and Outer London Boroughs, as defined by the ONS, is provided below: Table 2: Population and households
| Borough | Sector | Population (2019) | Projected households (2019) | Dwellings (2019) | Persons per dwelling (2019) | |--------------------------|--------|-------------------|-----------------------------|------------------|-----------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | Outer | 212,906 | 78,387 | 75,829 | 2.81 | | Barnet | Outer | 395,869 | 150,028 | 152,946 | 2.59 | | Bexley | Outer | 248,287 | 98,947 | 98,391 | 2.52 | | Brent | Outer | 329,771 | 116,865 | 120,448 | 2.74 | | Bromley | Outer | 332,336 | 140,021 | 139,684 | 2.38 | | Camden | Inner | 270,029 | 112,211 | 105,598 | 2.56 | | City of London | Inner | 9,721 | 4,212 | 6,506 | 1.49 | | Croydon | Outer | 386,710 | 153,958 | 161,060 | 2.40 | | Ealing | Outer | 341,806 | 125,126 | 135,305 | 2.53 | | Enfield | Outer | 333,794 | 130,256 | 126,255 | 2.64 | | Greenwich | Outer | 287,942 | 111,337 | 114,398 | 2.52 | | Hackney | Inner | 281,120 | 119,447 | 111,559 | 2.52 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | Inner | 185,143 | 81,986 | 89,186 | 2.08 | | Haringey | Inner | 268,647 | 109,259 | 109,388 | 2.46 | | Harrow | Outer | 251,160 | 87,000 | 91,909 | 2.73 | | Havering | Outer | 259,552 | 104,460 | 102,459 | 2.53 | | Hillingdon | Outer | 306,870 | 109,483 | 110,734 | 2.77 | | Hounslow | Outer | 271,523 | 101,258 | 101,838 | 2.67 | | Islington | Inner | 242,467 | 106,831 | 103,740 | 2.34 | | Kensington and Chelsea | Inner | 156,129 | 77,123 | 87,726 | 1.78 | | Kingston upon Thames | Outer | 177,507 | 69,047 | 67,642 | 2.62 | | Lambeth | Inner | 326,034 | 140,392 | 141,507 | 2.30 | | Lewisham | Inner | 305,842 | 130,246 | 128,115 | 2.39 | | Merton | Outer | 206,548 | 80,188 | 84,570 | 2.44 | | Newham | Inner | 353,134 | 114,695 | 116,979 | 3.02 | | Redbridge | Outer | 305,222 | 108,285 | 104,688 | 2.92 | | Richmond upon Thames | Outer | 198,019 | 83,603 | 85,564 | 2.31 | | Southwark | Inner | 318,830 | 133,526 | 136,178 | 2.34 | | Sutton | Outer | 206,349 | 82,820 | 83,553 | 2.47 | | Tower Hamlets | Inner | 324,745 | 132,174 | 121,539 | 2.67 | | Waltham Forest | Outer | 276,983 | 102,925 | 103,642 | 2.67 | | Wandsworth | Inner | 329,677 | 136,494 | 148,075 | 2.23 | | Westminster | Inner | 261,317 | 120,823 | 125,312 | 2.09 | | **London** | | **8,961,989** | **3,553,413** | **3,592,322** | **2.49** |
______________________________________________________________________
2 ONS, Mid-year population estimates, 2019 3 GLA, Household projections: central trend (ONS model, 2018-based) 4 MHCLG, Live table 100: number of dwellings by tenure and district Table 3: Housing stock and new homes
| Borough | Sector | Growth in dwelling stock (2009 to 2019) | Affordable dwelling stock (2019) | Houses as percentage of total stock (2019) | Net new homes (2018/19) | |-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | Outer | 7.0% | 22,140 | 906 | 68% | | Barnet | Outer | 11.0% | 18,839 | 2,209 | 52% | | Bexley | Outer | 4.3% | 14,204 | 486 | 74% | | Brent | Outer | 9.3% | 26,930 | 1,741 | 41% | | Bromley | Outer | 4.5% | 19,135 | 708 | 68% | | Camden | Inner | 7.1% | 35,471 | 827 | 12% | | City of London | Inner | 19.0% | 686 | 55 | 1% | | Croydon | Outer | 10.2% | 26,578 | 1,590 | 60% | | Ealing | Outer | 7.1% | 23,918 | 1,754 | 50% | | Enfield | Outer | 4.7% | 18,723 | 500 | 60% | | Greenwich | Outer | 11.5% | 35,513 | 1,514 | 48% | | Hackney | Inner | 11.9% | 45,462 | 1,522 | 18% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | Inner | 10.1% | 25,384 | 1,046 | 24% | | Haringey | Inner | 6.9% | 26,956 | 568 | 38% | | Harrow | Outer | 7.6% | 9,137 | 1,229 | 65% | | Havering | Outer | 4.2% | 13,887 | 466 | 76% | | Hillingdon | Outer | 7.6% | 17,708 | 957 | 69% | | Hounslow | Outer | 7.2% | 21,573 | 1,103 | 54% | | Islington | Inner | 9.5% | 41,429 | 916 | 15% | | Kensington and Chelsea | Inner | 3.8% | 19,771 | 115 | 15% | | Kingston upon Thames | Outer | 4.1% | 7,402 | 501 | 60% | | Lambeth | Inner | 9.5% | 48,512 | 1,219 | 24% | | Lewisham | Inner | 10.8% | 37,221 | 1,628 | 41% | | Merton | Outer | 4.3% | 11,444 | 273 | 60% | | Newham | Inner | 15.8% | 29,294 | 2,505 | 46% | | Redbridge | Outer | 4.8% | 9,304 | 764 | 66% | | Richmond upon Thames | Outer | 4.5% | 9,932 | 423 | 58% | | Southwark | Inner | 13.8% | 55,386 | 3,208 | 20% | | Sutton | Outer | 5.2% | 11,883 | 575 | 63% | | Tower Hamlets | Inner | 21.0% | 43,499 | 1,524 | 11% | | Waltham Forest | Outer | 6.6% | 22,122 | 613 | 54% | | Wandsworth | Inner | 12.1% | 27,865 | 1,913 | 30% | | Westminster | Inner | 8.9% | 26,947 | 803 | 9% | | **London** | | **8.6%** | **804,255** | **36,161** | **44%** |
______________________________________________________________________
5 GLA analysis of MHCLG, Live table 125: dwelling stock estimates by local authority district 6 MHCLG, Live table 100: number of dwellings by tenure and district, including Local Authority and Registered Provider 7 VOA, Council tax: stock of properties 2019: table CTSOP3.0 8 MHCLG, Live table 122: housing supply: net additional dwellings by local authority district Table 4: Rents, house prices and earnings
| Borough | Sector | Average private rent (2019/20) | Average house price (May 2019) | Median earnings (2019) | Price to earnings (2019) | |-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | Outer | £1,200 | £295,744 | £29,454 | 11.0 | | Barnet | Outer | £1,400 | £532,503 | £36,287 | 16.3 | | Bexley | Outer | £1,100 | £339,408 | £36,657 | 11.2 | | Brent | Outer | £1,450 | £466,574 | £31,664 | 15.7 | | Bromley | Outer | £1,200 | £420,036 | £41,009 | 13.8 | | Camden | Inner | £2,050 | £862,209 | £42,125 | 19.2 | | City of London | Inner | £2,102 | £899,831 | £34,890 | 11.1 | | Croydon | Outer | £1,100 | £369,791 | £32,903 | 14.5 | | Ealing | Outer | £1,425 | £490,596 | £31,676 | 15.3 | | Enfield | Outer | £1,250 | £408,018 | £35,525 | 14.2 | | Greenwich | Outer | £1,375 | £402,463 | £36,015 | 13.8 | | Hackney | Inner | £1,700 | £572,410 | £35,926 | 16.6 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | Inner | £1,733 | £688,761 | £41,706 | 19.5 | | Haringey | Inner | £1,500 | £563,752 | £35,769 | 17.0 | | Harrow | Outer | £1,350 | £449,553 | £35,525 | 14.2 | | Havering | Outer | £1,150 | £367,809 | £33,843 | 11.3 | | Hillingdon | Outer | £1,200 | £422,073 | £31,457 | 11.8 | | Hounslow | Outer | £1,275 | £416,681 | £34,559 | 11.3 | | Islington | Inner | £1,850 | £652,895 | £43,533 | 14.6 | | Kensington and Chelsea | Inner | £2,383 | £1,428,516 | £46,562 | 39.6 | | Kingston upon Thames | Outer | £1,250 | £480,619 | £38,575 | 15.3 | | Lambeth | Inner | £1,720 | £523,127 | £36,896 | 14.5 | | Lewisham | Inner | £1,300 | £423,031 | £33,830 | 13.4 | | Merton | Outer | £1,495 | £513,216 | £37,925 | 14.8 | | Newham | Inner | £1,400 | £376,579 | £31,694 | 12.2 | | Redbridge | Outer | £1,250 | £423,193 | £35,294 | 14.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | Outer | £1,550 | £664,536 | £43,118 | 18.3 | | Southwark | Inner | £1,600 | £525,473 | £39,183 | 13.9 | | Sutton | Outer | £1,100 | £376,155 | £36,093 | 11.6 | | Tower Hamlets | Inner | £1,700 | £498,228 | £42,602 | 10.6 | | Waltham Forest | Outer | £1,300 | £443,510 | £34,911 | 14.5 | | Wandsworth | Inner | £1,750 | £615,207 | £43,470 | 18.4 | | Westminster | Inner | £2,492 | £937,356 | £44,711 | 21.8 | | **London** | | **£1,425** | **£479,018** | **£36,797** | **12.1** |
9 ONS, Private rental market summary statistics, April 2019 to March 2020 10 Land Registry, UK House Price Index, May 2019. This figure is adjusted for the mix of dwellings sold. 11 ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2019. Median gross annual full-time, residence-based earnings. 12 ONS, House price to workplace-based earnings ratio: table 5c, 2019. This uses a different measure of earnings and the median house price is not adjusted for the mix of homes sold, so is not comparable to the other figures in the table.
1. Demographic, economic and housing context
London’s population rose to a record 9.0 million in mid-2019, with rapid growth over the last decade in both Inner and Outer London (1.1). Since 1997, the number of jobs in London has grown by 46% and the number of people by 28%, but the number of homes has grown by only 19% (1.2). Since at least the turn of the century, London has seen a net annual inflow of residents in their 20s from the rest of the UK and a net outflow of those aged 30 or above (1.3).
Nearly one in three private renting households in London include children, up from one in five in 2004 (1.4). London’s private rented sector accommodates households on a wide range of incomes, while low income households are primarily concentrated in social rented housing (1.5). The growth in London’s private rented sector has included households from across the income spectrum, but particularly better-off ones (1.6).
Rising house prices in London have generated significant property wealth for its homeowners and widened the wealth gap with other regions (1.7). Around 65% of Londoners say they would support new homes being built in their area, up from just over one third in 2010 (1.8).
The history of housebuilding in London is marked by two distinct booms, the first of private housing in the 1930s and the second of council housing in the 60s and 70s (1.9). After a decade of increases, the estimated number of people per home in London has stabilised since 2016 as the rate of housing growth has caught up with population growth (1.10).
An equal share of households in London own their home, either outright or with a mortgage, and rent their home, either from a public or a private landlord (1.11). Home ownership rates among younger Londoners have fallen sharply in recent decades, though seem to have stabilised in the last couple of years (1.12). The market for new homes in London has diversified over the past 13 years, with an increase in new tenures such as Build to Rent and a decrease in Buy to Let and speculative investment (1.13).
The average floor area per person in London has increased slightly over the past two decades, but there are starkly divergent trends between different tenures (1.14). The density of housing in most London boroughs is far higher than the England average, with densities highest in the City of London and Tower Hamlets (1.15).
Only two in three private tenants in London are satisfied with private renting as a tenure, though eight in ten are satisfied with the accommodation itself (1.16). 1.1. London’s population rose to a record 9.0 million in mid-2019, with rapid growth over the last decade in both Inner and Outer London.
- The trend in London’s population has three distinct periods: first, over a century of rapid expansion from a population of just over one million people in 1801 to 8.6 million in 1939; a half-century of decline to 6.7 million in 1988; and a new period of thus far uninterrupted growth that brought the total population to 8.96 million in 2020.
- The population grew by 53,910 between 2018 and 2019, down from 83,080 in the previous year and below the average annual population growth of 101,900 over the previous decade.
- Growth over the last decade was particularly rapid in Inner London, which saw an increase of 14% compared to 9.2% in Outer London. GLA projections anticipate a further increase of 1.5 million people between 2019 and 2041, which would leave London’s population at 10.4 million.
Source and notes: Compiled by GLA from:
- 1801-1961: Persons present on Census day (ONS);
- 1961-2019: Estimated mid-year resident population (ONS);
- 2020-2041: GLA 2018 based population projections - central trend
The GLA projections are ‘unconstrained’ by housing supply: if enough new housing is not built, population growth may well be lower. 1.2. Since 1997, the number of jobs in London has grown by 46% and the number of people by 28%, but the number of homes has grown by only 19%.
- Since 1997, London’s population and economy have grown rapidly, although the trend in jobs is far more cyclical. Between 1997 and 2019, the number of jobs in London grew by 1.91 million (46%) while the population grew by 1.95 million (28%).
- However, this rapid economic and demographic growth was not matched by an increase in the housing stock, which grew by only 566,300 homes (19%) over the same period. If the housing stock had grown at the same rate as the population since 1997 there would now be an extra 273,600 homes in London today.
- In 2019, London’s housing stock grew faster than the population (1.0% versus 0.6%). The growth in housing stock in London in 2019 was the second highest annual increase recorded since 1997.
Source and notes:
- Compiled by GLA from:
- Jobs: ONS, Workforce jobs by industry, seasonally adjusted
- People: ONS, Mid-year estimates
- Homes: Stock levels from MHCLG live table 125 1.3. Since at least the turn of the century, London has seen a net annual inflow of residents in their 20s from the rest of the UK and a net outflow of those aged 30 or above.
- For many years, London has been central to the system of domestic migration flows around the UK. London’s population dynamic is particularly characterised by large net domestic inflows of 20-somethings and domestic outflows of those in their 30s and older. These net flows are themselves the difference between much larger gross flows in and out.
- Since 2009, the net domestic outflow of those in their 30s has increased from 16,160 to 38,250 in the year to mid-2019, which is on par with the 2004 peak outflow. The net domestic inflow of those in their 20s has remained steadily above 30,000 during that period, and increased sharply to 46,050 in the year to mid-2019. The total net inflow of 20-39 year olds in the year to mid-2019 was positive (7,800), the first year since 2015 in which there has been a total net domestic migration inflow of these age groups.
- Over the same period London has also seen a consistent net domestic outflow of those aged 40 and above.
Source and notes:
- ONS, data on domestic migration 1.4. Nearly one in three private renting households in London has children, up from one in five in 2004.
- 34% of all households in London in 2020 include dependent children aged under 19, a figure that hasn’t changed much since 2004.
- The share of households with children has varied little for households that own their home outright (from 13% in 2004, to 14% in 2020) and fallen slightly for social renting households (from 43% to 38%).
- The most dramatic change over this period has been the substantial growth in the proportion of privately renting households with children, from 20% in 2004 to 34% in 2018, falling slightly to 31% in 2020. In numerical terms, there are now around 274,700 privately renting households with children in London, compared to 95,550 in 2004.
- More recently, the share of households with children has risen for households that are buying with a mortgage (from 44% in 2012 to 51% in 2020).
Source and notes:
- Labour Force Survey household data, 2020
- These figures include any households containing dependent children under 19 1.5. London’s private rented sector accommodates households on a wide range of incomes, while low income households are primarily concentrated in social rented housing.
- Compared to England, London has a relatively unequal distribution of household income, with 33% of London households in the top fifth of national household incomes and 20% in the poorest fifth.
- There are large differences in the income distribution of households in social rented accommodation and in private rented accommodation. 35% of London social tenants are in the bottom fifth of the national household income distribution and only 16% are in the top two fifths. In contrast, 58% of private tenants are in the top two fifths of the national household income distribution and only 14% are in the bottom fifth.
- While the distribution of owner occupiers who own outright is relatively evenly spread, owner occupiers with mortgages are significantly under-represented in the lower income quintiles. 76% of owner occupiers with a mortgage are in the top two fifths of the national household income distribution, while only 9% are in the bottom fifth.
Source and notes:
- Households Below Average Income 2018/19
- The income definition used is net equivalised household income after tax but before housing costs. Previous reports used gross household income from the English Housing Survey. 1.6. The growth in London’s private rented sector has included households from across the income spectrum, but particularly better-off households.
- The number of households in London’s private rented sector more than doubled between 1994/95 and 2018/19. There was significant growth in the number of households from across the income distribution (measured here as quintiles of the national household income distribution), but the fastest growth was in the top two income brackets.
- There was also growth in the number of households owning their home outright, especially at the top and bottom of the income scales.
- The number of households with a mortgage and the number in social housing both fell, with a striking shrinkage in the number of mortgagors from the middle 60% of the national income distribution.
Source and notes:
- Households Below Average Income 2018/19
- The income definition used is net equivalised household income after tax but before housing costs. Previous reports used gross household income from the English Housing Survey. 1.7. Rising house prices in London have generated significant property wealth for its homeowners and widened the wealth gap with other regions.
- A typical homeowner in London has more than twice the net property wealth of one in England, where the median net property wealth is £200,000.
- The typical amount of net property wealth (after subtracting any outstanding mortgage debt) held by homeowners in London nearly doubled in just a decade, rising 86% from a median value of £220,000 in 2006 to 2008, to £410,000 in 2016 to 2018.
- Across England as a whole, the median level of property wealth increased ‘only’ 25% in this period, but this average hides sharp regional divides. Median wealth levels rose only slightly across most of the Midlands and North, and fell 4% in the North East, but grew 50% and 31%, respectively, in the South East and East of England.
Source and notes:
- ONS Property Wealth: Wealth in Great Britain, July 2006 to June 2016, and April 2014 to March 2018
- The data is for two-year periods (for example, July 2006 to June 2008) and the points on the chart are the midpoint of each period. The break in the series is due to the Wealth and Assets Survey moving from a July-to-June year to financial years (April to March) in the 2014 to 2016 period. 1.8. Around 65% of Londoners say they would support new homes being built in their area, up from just over one third in 2010.
- The proportion of Londoners who say they would support or ‘strongly’ support new homes being built in their area has fallen slightly from 67% in 2016 to 65% in 2018 but is still far higher than the figure of 34% in 2010.
- The proportion who say they would oppose it (including ‘strong’ opposition) also fell, from 47% in 2010 to 13% in 2017, but rose slightly to 18% in 2018. Net support (support minus opposition) rose from minus 13% in 2010 to plus 49% in 2016 and 2017, and plus 47% in 2018.
- Support for house building is significantly higher in London than in England as a whole, where net support was plus 34% in 2018.
- Both in London and across the country as a whole, net support for house building is highest among social tenants (plus 74% in London) and private tenants (plus 51%) and lowest among homeowners (plus 28%).
Source and notes:
- British Social Attitudes Survey 2010 to 2018 1.9. The history of housebuilding in London is marked by two distinct booms, the first of private housing in the 1930s and the second of council housing in the 60s and 70s.
- In 2019, MHCLG’s house building statistics recorded 22,000 new build completions. While useful for historical purposes, these figures are known to undercount new supply in London in more recent years – for comparison, there were net completions of 36,120 new homes in London 2018/19 (see section 2.1 in this report).
- The previous two peaks of housebuilding in London were in the 1930s (when new builds averaged 61,500 a year) and the 1970s (averaging 29,400 a year). The 1930s boom was dominated by private builders and the 1960s and 1970s booms were dominated by local authorities, with many of the new homes replacing those lost to slum clearances.
- These figures exclude supply from conversions and changes of use, which are included in other charts later in this report. The growing undercount in recent years is believed to be due to increasingly patchy data returns from building control inspectors (see section 2.2).
Source and notes: Compiled by GLA from:
- 1871-1937: Report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, via Quandl.com
- 1946-1960: GLA estimates based on national data from 1946 to 1960 (MHCLG, live table 244) and London’s share of the national total before World War II (from B. Mitchell, British Historical Statistics, p392) and after the war from the GLA and MHCLG data below
- 1961 to 1969: Annual Abstracts of Greater London Statistics
- 1970 to 2019: MHCLG house building statistics 1.10. After a decade of increases, the estimated number of people per home in London has stabilised in the last few years, as the rate of housing growth has caught up with population growth.
- In 1971 there were 2.9 people for each dwelling in both London and England. Over the next two decades the number of people per dwelling fell across the country but particularly in London, due to a combination of population decline and steady house building.
- In the 1990s new house building in London fell behind population growth, and the estimated number of people per dwelling rose from 2.3 in 1991 to 2.5 in 2014.
- The number of people per dwelling has remained at 2.5 for the past five years as housing growth kept pace with population growth. Over the same period the number of people per dwelling fell in every other region of England.
Source and notes: Compiled by GLA from:
- ONS mid-year population estimates;
- MHCLG dwelling stock data (tables 104, 109 and 215)
- GLA historical Census tables 1.11. A roughly equal share of households in London own their home, either outright or with a mortgage, and rent their home, either from a public or a private landlord.
- London’s tenure mix underwent a significant change in the first decade of the 21st century; the proportion of households that own their home with a mortgage fell from 38% in 2000 to 29% in 2011, while the proportion that rent on the open market rose from 15% to 25%. The proportion of households in London that rent on the open market rose from 15% in 2000 to 25% in 2011, and in 2019 was 27%.
- In 2019, 51% of households in London owned their homes, including 24% who owned their home outright and 26% who owned their home with a mortgage.
- The proportion of households in London who were in social rented housing, including Affordable Rent housing, was 23% in 2019. Social housing is now the smallest tenure, having been the largest group in the early 1980s.
Source and notes: Compiled by GLA from:
- Housing Trailers to the Labour Force Survey (1981, 1984, 1988 and 1991, with intervening years interpolated)
- Labour Force Survey (1990, 1992 to 1996 and 2009 to 2018) and Annual Population Survey (2019) data
- MHCLG analysis of Labour Force Survey data (1997 to 2008) 1.12. Home ownership rates among younger Londoners have fallen sharply in recent decades, though seem to have stabilised in the last couple of years.
- London’s home ownership rate has fallen in recent decades, but there are stark differences in the trends for different age groups. In 1990, 25% of households in London headed by someone aged 16-24 and 57% of households headed by someone aged 25-34 owned their home. However, by 2019 these figures had fallen to 5% and 29% respectively, although recent years have seen some stabilisation.
- Home ownership rates also fell for households headed by someone aged 35-44 (from 69% to 47%) and 45-54 (71% to 54%). The proportion of households headed by someone 65 or older that owned their own home rose relatively steadily from 49% in 1990 to 69% in 2014 but also seems to have levelled off recently.
Source and notes:
- Labour Force Survey household datasets, 1990 to 2018
- Annual Population Survey household dataset 2019 1.13. The market for new homes in London has diversified over the past 13 years, with an increase in new tenures such as Build to Rent and a decrease in Buy to Let and speculative investment.
- The research consultancy Molior analysed London’s housebuilding sector in 2006, 2013 and 2019, identifying the mix of buyers of new market homes on large (20+ open market sale homes) sites in each year.
- Buy to Let landlords were the largest category of buyers in 2006 and 2013, accounting for 45% of sales in 2006, but by 2019 accounted for just 25%. Meanwhile, the share of Build to Rent purchasers increased threefold from 9% in 2006 to 26% of new home sales in 2019.
- Owner occupiers using Help to Buy were the largest category of buyers in 2019, accounting for 32% of sales. Owner occupiers buying without assistance from Help to Buy accounted for just 10% of new home sales in 2019.
- The market share of Buy to Sell investors decreased from 16% in 2006 to just 2% in 2019. The remaining market homes were bought by social landlords for use as affordable housing.
Source and notes:
- Molior London research 1.14. The average floor area per person in London has increased slightly over the past two decades, but there are starkly divergent trends between different tenures.
- The average home in London has 81m² of floor area and, when divided by the average household size of 2.48, that gives an average of just under 33m² of floor area per person, a figure that has risen slightly from 31m² in 2001.
- There are stark differences in average floor area per person by tenure, with those in owner occupied homes seeing an increase in floor area from 34m² per person in 1996 to just over 40m² in 2017. Meanwhile, private renters saw a decrease in floor area per person from 31m² to 25m².
- Social renters, who in the 1990s had noticeably the least space, now have an average of 27m² per person, slightly more than in 1996 and slightly more than private renters.
Source and notes:
- Survey of English Housing and English Housing Survey
- Floor area per person is calculated as the average floor area per occupied dwelling divided by average household size
- The points represent estimates for individual years, and a trend has been interpolated to smooth out volatility (which is indicated by the shaded area) 1.15. The density of housing in most London boroughs is far higher than the England average, with densities highest in the City of London and Tower Hamlets.
- London has an average housing density of 67 dwellings per hectare (dph) when taking into account just residential land (homes plus gardens) as opposed to all land, compared to 31dph across England as a whole.
- Apart from the City of London at 345dph, the local area with the highest density in the country is Tower Hamlets at 241dph. 18 of the top 20 are in London, with Portsmouth the highest density non-London area at 76dph.
- Some of London’s boroughs have densities similar to the national average, with Bromley the lowest density borough at 31dph. Across the country as a whole the least dense area is Wealden, in East Sussex, at 13dph.
Source and notes:
- GLA analysis combining data from MHCLG land use statistics and dwelling stock statistics, both 2018 1.16. Only two in three private tenants in London are satisfied with private renting as a tenure, though eight in ten are satisfied with the accommodation itself.
- Owner occupiers in London are predominantly satisfied with their accommodation and with homeownership in general (94% and 95% satisfied respectively), though satisfaction levels fell slightly in 2017/18.
- Satisfaction levels are lower for social tenants, of whom 78% reported being satisfied with their accommodation and 81% being satisfied with social renting as a tenure. Satisfaction levels of social tenants improved in 2017/18.
- The most striking pattern is among private rented tenants, of whom 80% are satisfied with their accommodation but only 65% are satisfied with renting privately as a tenure. This disparity may be driven in part by frustrated aspirations to homeownership or by insecure tenancies.
- Across all tenures, 86% of households are satisfied with their accommodation and 83% with their tenure. These measures have changed little over the last five years.
Source and notes:
- English Housing Survey data, 2017/18
2. Housing stock and supply
According to provisional estimates, there were 36,130 net conventional new housing completions in London in 2018/19, a 16% increase on the previous year (2.1), but the various official data sources give present quite different pictures of housebuilding trends in London (2.2). A net 107,800 new homes were completed in London in the last three years, with both total supply and tenure mix varying widely at borough level (2.3). Around one fifth of new homes built in 2018/19 had three or more bedrooms, up from 15% in 2008/09 (2.4).
Planning approval was granted for around 82,800 new homes in London in 2018/19 (2.5). 37% of homes recommended for approval by the Mayor in 2019 were affordable homes, although in absolute terms the number of affordable homes approved fell (2.6). A total of 10,100 homes were approved on small schemes in London in 2018/19, two fifths of which were in new build developments (2.7).
The number of tall buildings completed in London increased significantly between 2001 and 2019, but looks likely to fall in 2020 (2.8). The Build to Rent (BTR) sector’s contribution to new housing supply in London is growing, though the rate of growth slowed in 2019 (2.9). In June 2020 there were 44 schemes in London being brought forward on publicly owned land through the Small Sites Small Builders programme (2.10).
2019/20 saw the highest number of affordable housing starts funded through GLA programmes since 2012/13, when housing investment was devolved to City Hall, and the highest number of affordable home starts since GLA records began in 2002/03 (2.11). Councils in London started 3,300 new homes in 2019/20, the highest figure since early 1980s (2.12). The number of affordable homes completed in London in 2018/19 was 9,205, the third annual increase in a row but still below the average of the last three decades (2.13).
London (as well as other English regions) has relatively high housing construction costs compared to other world cities (2.14). But the design quality of London’s housing schemes is good compared with other English regions (2.15). The proportion of newly approved new build homes in London meeting accessibility and wheelchair standards had fallen in recent years, but increased in 2018/19 (2.16).
In the seven years between 2012/13 and 2018/19, there were around 260,000 new homes completed in London (2.17). 1,435 council homes in London were sold through the Right to Buy scheme in 2019/20, continuing a downward trend since 2014/15 (2.18). There were 785,100 affordable homes (excluding shared ownership) in London in 2019, up slightly from the year before but down slightly from two decades ago (2.19).
The proportion of homes in London officially recorded as empty increased slightly in 2019, but at 2% is far below its long-term average (2.20). London boroughs have issued around 11,700 Homes in Multiple Occupation with mandatory licences, although this represents only a small portion of the total number of HMOs in London (2.21). 2.1. According to provisional estimates, there were 36,130 net conventional new housing completions in London in 2018/19, a 16% increase on the previous year…
- The net number of new homes completed in London in 2018/19 was 36,130, 16% higher than 2017/18 and the second highest number of completions recorded since 2004/05. When completions of non-self-contained homes and changes in the number of long-term empty homes are taken into account, the total net housing supply was 35,700.
- The number of market housing completions increased from 26,806 in 2017/18 to 29,620 in 2018/19, while the number of affordable homes rose from 4,240 in 2017/18 to 6,510. Affordable homes comprised 18% of net conventional housing completions in 2018/19, up from 14% in 2017/18 but down from 41% in 2011/12.
- Given the timescales involved in housing development, the recent increases in affordable housing approvals and starts reported later in this chapter will take time to feed through to the completions data reported here.
Source and notes:
- London Development Database. Data for 2018/19 is provisional based on LDD estimates
- GLA net conventional completions figures include new building, conversions and changes of use
- In 2004/05 and 2005/06 the negative supply of unknown tenure is due to the demolition of a number of homes for which the tenure was not recorded
- As the LDD is continually updated, these figures do not exactly match those published in past GLA London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports, or past Housing in London reports
- Appendix A3 compares the main sources of data on housing supply 2.2. … but the various official data sources present quite different pictures of housebuilding trends in London
- There are significant differences between the main sources of statistics on housebuilding in London, as set out in further detail in Appendix A3.
- The quarterly data released by MHCLG on ‘new build dwellings’ does not count new homes created through conversions and changes of use of existing properties, and is also believed to undercount the number of new build homes (see notes to the right).
- Analysts increasingly use MHCLG data on Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) to monitor the number of new dwellings. As seen above, this data has largely tracked the LDD net conventional completions data count over recent years. After a dip in 2017/18, the number of EPCs lodged rose to 42,510 in 2019/20.
Source and notes:
- London Development Database (provisional data for 2018/19)
- MHCLG EPCs
- MCHLG new build dwellings
- The undercount in the MHCLG new build dwelling series is partly due to a reduced market share of the National Housebuilding Council (NHBC), who provide the bulk of this data to MHCLG 2.3. A net 107,800 new homes were completed in London in the last three years, with both total supply and tenure mix varying widely at borough level.
- Over the last three years (2016/17 to 2018/19) a net 107,800 new homes were completed in London, of which 90,230 (84%) were market homes. 8,664 (8%) new homes were intermediate tenure, 5,084 (5%) were Affordable Rent and the remaining 3,825 (4%) were social rent (including 106 London Affordable Rent).
- At borough level, the highest numbers of completions over the last three years were in Tower Hamlets (7,798), Barnet (6,948) and Newham (6,826). More homes were completed in these three boroughs than in the 13 boroughs with the lowest number of completions combined.
- The chart above also shows the tenure split of completions in each borough. Over this period the highest proportion of new affordable housing was in Waltham Forest (28%), followed by Hounslow (26%) and Islington (26%). The lowest was in Harrow and Hillingdon (both 7%).
Source and notes:
- GLA Annual Monitoring Report 16 (provisional data)
- To ensure legibility the chart does not show net losses of social rented housing in four boroughs: 198 in Bexley, 108 in Enfield, 100 in Harrow, 82 in Greenwich, 81 in Newham and 12 in Barnet. 2.4. Around one fifth of new homes built in 2018/19 had three or more bedrooms, up from 15% in 2008/09
- The proportion of new homes with three or more bedrooms (the usual definition of ‘family sized’) in London rose to over a third of gross conventional housing completions at the turn of the century, but fell rapidly through the 2000s as the share of flats in new supply increased.
- With the end of the housing boom and the associated credit crunch in 2008/09, speculative investment in new flatted developments fell back. This led the proportion of family sized homes to rise again, reaching 24% in 2011/12 before falling to 20% in 2015/16, where it had remained.
- In 2018/19, 22% of new homes built had three or more bedrooms, including 41% of social rented homes. In absolute terms, 8,874 family sized homes were completed in 2018/19, the second highest number yet recorded after 8,927 in 2016/17.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG live table 254 (discontinued in 2011/12)
- GLA London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports from 2008/09 (provisional data for 2018/19)
- The figures in this chart are based on gross completions and take no account of losses due to demolition or replacement 2.5. Planning approval was granted for around 82,800 new homes in London in 2018/19
- The net number of new homes receiving planning approval in London is always higher than the eventual completions, as some approvals are duplicates and some schemes that are approved are never started.
- Over the last decade, a net average of around 72,300 new homes were approved each year, with a provisional figure of 82,800 approvals in 2018/19. The new London Plan target is 52,300 new homes per year from 2019/20.
- The percentage of total approvals that were affordable homes fell significantly between 2007/08 and 2014/15, from 33% to 14%. This is partly due to higher numbers of market housing increasing the total number of approvals. The percentage of new home approvals that were affordable was 22% in 2018/19.
Source and notes:
- GLA, London Plan Annual Monitoring Report and London Development Database (provisional data for 2018/19) 2.6. 37% of homes recommended for approval by the Mayor in 2019 were affordable homes
- 29,690 homes were recommended for approval at Stage Two or Stage Three by the Mayor in 2019. This is a 31% decrease on the previous year (due to a fall in the number of referable schemes rather than in increase in refusals) and below the average number of residential homes determined by the Mayor prior to 2016.
- Of the homes determined by the Mayor in 2019, 11,000 homes were affordable, down 22% on the previous year. The number of market homes determined by the Mayor in 2019 was 18,700, down 35% on the previous year.
- Despite the fall in the absolute number of homes determined by the Mayor, the share of homes recommended for approval that were affordable increased from 33% of the total in 2018 to 37% in 2019, the highest proportion of affordable homes yet recorded.
- Across all schemes approved in 2019, affordable housing comprised an average of 40% of habitable rooms, up from 32% in 2017 and 35% in 2018.
Source and notes:
- GLA monitoring of referable planning decisions
- The dates of the Stage Two decisions have been used to allocate schemes to years 2.7. A total of 10,100 homes were approved on small schemes in London in 2018/19, two fifths of which were in new build developments.
- A total of 68,500 homes have been approved on small schemes in London since 2012/13, the majority of which were on new build or change of use developments.
- Each year, around 10,000 homes are approved on small schemes of less than 10 homes in London. Up until 2016/17, the majority of homes approved on small schemes were in developments that involved a change of use from a non-residential use such as offices or industry. From 2016/17 onwards, new build developments accounted for the largest proportion of homes approved on small schemes.
- In 2018/19, 41% of homes approved on small schemes were in new build developments, while only 23% were in schemes involving a change of use. A further 24% of homes approved on small schemes were on schemes involving a total or part-conversion, and the remainder were on schemes involving an extension.
Source and notes:
- London Development Database (LDD) planning permissions data on the London Datastore
- Figures stated here may not match figures given in London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports as LDD data is revised over time 2.8. The number of tall buildings completed in London increased significantly between 2001 and 2019, but looks likely to fall in 2020
- In 2019 a total of 60 tall buildings (defined as those with 20+ storeys) were completed in London, more than double the 25 completed in 2018 and the highest figure since this data was first collected in 2001.
- However, even before the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic it seemed likely that tall building completions would fall in the following years, as both permissions and starts had fallen from their peaks in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
- These projects are mostly but not entirely residential: 88% of the 60 tall buildings completed in 2019 included some housing, delivering a total of 16,470 new homes.
Source and notes:
- New London Architecture tall buildings report (various years) 2.9. The number of purpose-built privately rented or Build to Rent homes in London is growing, though the rate of growth slowed in 2019.
- Build to Rent (BTR) schemes are purpose-built for market rent. There are a range of organisations active in London’s BTR market including institutional investors, private developers, local authorities and housing associations.
- Since January 2009, 34,900 BTR homes have started construction and 21,990 have been completed.
- The sector is growing in importance: in 2019, 26% of new build market homes sold in London were sold to BTR purchasers, down slightly from 32% in 2018.
- 12,910 BTR homes were under construction at the end of 2019, which is one in five of all open market homes under construction. This suggests BTR will continue to support new housing supply in London in the near future.
Source and notes:
- Molior, quarterly BTR starts and completions
- The cumulative figures count BTR homes that have been started or completed since 2009 2.10. In June 2020, there were 44 schemes in London being brought forward on publicly owned land through the Small Sites Small Builders programme.
- The Mayor’s Small Sites Small Builders programme, launched in 2018, helps to make more small, publicly-owned sites available to small developers, housing associations and community-led organisations so they play a bigger role in building the homes that London needs.
- As of June 2020, a total of 44 sites were at various stages of being brought forward. Ten were being marketed on the GLA portal, 30 had a preferred bidder(s) selected, three had been submitted to planning and 1 (in Barnet) had started on site.
- The public landowners could choose to impose restrictions governing the use of the site for affordable housing. Twelve schemes had no restrictions, three were earmarked for community housing, ten were to have 50% affordable housing and 19 (18 of them in Hounslow) were for 100% affordable housing.
Source and notes:
- GLA Small Sites Small Builders programme data 2.11. 2019/20 saw the highest number of affordable housing starts funded through GLA programmes since 2012/13, the year housing investment powers were devolved to City Hall.
- The number of GLA-funded affordable homes started in London in 2019/20 was 17,260, an increase of 19% from 14,540 in 2018/19. This was the highest level since investment powers were devolved to City Hall 2012/13, and indeed since GLA records began in 2002/03.
- 7,156 (41%) of the GLA-funded affordable homes started in 2019/20 were at social rent or London Affordable Rent (LAR) levels, a 79% increase from 3,991 in 2018/19 and also the highest number since 2012/13.
- 8,570 (50%) of the GLA-funded affordable homes started in 2019/20 were intermediate, down in percentage terms but slightly up in absolute terms from 2018/19. 8% of affordable homes started in 2019/20 comprised Affordable Rent homes above the London Affordable Rent benchmarks, and the tenure of the remaining 1% homes was still to be agreed.
Source and notes:
- GLA Affordable Housing Statistics
- Responsibility for affordable housing investment was devolved to the Mayor of London in April 2012
- The Mayor’s current funding programmes include, amongst others, the Homes for Londoners Affordable Homes Programme 2016-21 and Building Council Homes for Londoners
- Intermediate homes include shared ownership, intermediate rent, London Living Rent, and a number of other products 2.12. Councils in London started 3,300 new homes in 2019/20, the highest figure since early 1980s
- Council housebuilding in London peaked in the 1970s, and in the early 1980s London councils were still starting substantial numbers of new homes, with 4,670 homes started by councils at the last peak in 1982/83.
- By the end of the decade, the combined effect of government-imposed borrowing restrictions and an absence of grant funding meant that very few council homes were being started, a situation that persisted for two decades with only 990 homes started between 1990/91 and 2009/10.
- More recently, the re-introduction of self-financing and the Mayor’s Building Council Homes for Londoners programme have enabled councils to ramp up supply again. In 2019/20, 3,300 new council home starts were recorded by the GLA, almost double the 1,916 starts recorded in 2018/19, and the highest figure since the 1982/83 peak.
Source and notes:
- Figures for 1980/81 to 2017/18 are from MHCLG live table 253
- Figures for 2018/19 to 2019/20 are from GLA affordable housing statistics 2.13. The number of affordable homes completed in London in 2018/19 was 9,205, the third annual increase in a row but still below the average of the last three decades.
- Counting homes funded from all sources, a total of 9,205 affordable homes were completed in London in 2018/19, a 29% increase on 2017/18 and a 59% increase on the 28-year low recorded in 2015/16.
- The mix of new affordable homes completed has changed significantly since the beginning of the 2010s, with the introduction of Affordable Rent in 2010 and London Affordable Rent (LAR) in 2016.
- In 2018/19, only 1,536 social rent and LAR homes were completed, 17% of new affordable homes. This compares to 37% Affordable Rent completions (3,446) and 46% intermediate completions (4,223).
- The level of GLA-funded starts in 2018/19 (Chart 2.11) suggests the number of social rent and LAR completions is likely to rise in the coming years.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG affordable housing supply live tables 1006C, 1006aC, 1006bC and 1007c
- The method for collecting these statistics is different from the net conventional completions measure used earlier in this report. The figures include acquisitions and do not net off losses to the stock and therefore represent gross completions.
- As well as homes not funded by the GLA, MHCLG statistics include Assisted Purchase Sales and acquisitions. 2.14. London (as well as other English regions) has relatively high housing construction costs compared to other world cities.
- In 2019 Turner and Townsend estimated the average construction cost of different types of housing in the UK and in cities around the world, assuming a typical built form for each area and adjusting for the local costs of labour and materials.
- According to these estimates, the cost to build a townhouse in London is around £3,000 per square metre, compared to around £2,700 for a low-rise apartment and around £3,600 for a high-rise apartment.
- The estimated costs for each housing type were lower in other English regions, but on the whole were lower still in Paris, Tokyo and New York City. For example, the estimated construction cost per square meter of a low-rise apartment building in London is 66% more than in Paris, 41% more than in Tokyo and 140% more than in New York. Key factors behind London’s higher costs cited by Turner and Townsend include labour skills shortages, a weakening pound and rising material input prices.
Source and notes:
- Turner and Townsend international construction market survey 2019
- Data was collated in Q4 2018, and assumed that building costs are based on the typical building standards and methods for each area
- Costs were estimated by calculating costs in local currencies and then adjusting for the costs of a standard ‘basket’ of labour and material costs 2.15. The design quality of housing schemes in London is generally better than in other English regions, though the majority are ‘mediocre’
- A new audit of housing design quality was carried out in 2019, evaluating 142 recently built schemes around the country, including 20 in London.
- Out of the nine English regions, London received the highest average design quality score, and the highest proportion described as good (30%) or very good (20%). Across England as a whole 19% of schemes were described as good and 7% as very good. Only a small proportion of schemes in London (5%) were described as having ‘poor’ design quality and none were described as ‘very poor’ (compared to 19% and 1% respectively across England as a whole).
- London also showed the greatest improvement of any region in the proportion of schemes achieving high ratings since the previous comparable set of audits were carried out in 2004 to 2007.
Source and notes:
- Place Alliance, A Housing Design Audit for England
- The audit covered schemes of 50+ homes built between April 2014 and 2019 that reflected the ‘typical’ volume housebuilder’s product. Schemes from town / city centre locations were excluded. 2.16. The proportion of newly approved new build homes in London meeting accessibility and wheelchair standards had fallen in recent years, but increased in 2018/19.
- 74% of new build homes approved in London in 2018/19 were recorded as being in compliance with Building Regulation M4(2) (previously the Lifetime Homes Standard), a significant decrease from 2012/13 when 95% of new build homes approved were designed to be accessible or adaptable.
- 9.3% of new build homes approved in London in 2018/19 were recorded as being in compliance with Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair accessible homes), an increase from the 7.0% homes recorded in 2017/18 but still below the high of 10% in 2013/14.
- These changes are partly because compliance with Building Regulations M4(2) and M4(3) can be optional. Although homes may be designed to these standards, they are only counted if compliance is mentioned in the decision notice.
- The Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) requires 90% of new build homes to meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) and 10% should meet requirement M4(3).
Source and notes:
- GLA, London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports (provisional data for 2018/19)
- Only schemes that are 100% new build are included in the figures. Split schemes (some new build and some conversion of existing buildings) are not taken into account
- M4(2) and M4(3) replaced Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes standards on all approvals granted from October 2015 onwards 2.17. Between 2012/13 and 2018/19, there were around 260,000 new homes completed in London, with the greatest number built in the former Athlete’s Village and other parts of Stratford.
The map above shows where the new homes completed between 2012/13 and 2018/19 were located on a 1 kilometre grid. The size of each circle corresponds to the number of homes completed in an area and the shade to the proportion of homes that were affordable (darker shade indicating a higher share of affordable housing).
According to this measure, the area with most new homes completed between 2012/13 and 2018/19 was in Stratford, including the former Athletes Village. 31% of the homes completed there were of an affordable tenure.
Source and notes:
- GLA, Planning permissions on the London Development Database
- Completions have been aggregated to a 1 kilometre grid 2.18. 1,435 council homes in London were sold through the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme in 2019/20, continuing a downward trend since 2014/15.
- 1,435 council homes in London were sold through the RTB scheme in 2019/20, down 16% from 2018/19. This is far below the most recent peak of 12,780 in 2003/04, or the record annual figure of 26,260 in 1990.
- The average discount from market price in London was 34% in 2018/19, down slightly from the previous six years but still above the level of discounts recorded between 2006/07 and 2012/13. In 2015, the RTB maximum discount in London was increased to £100,000 and, since April 2020, the maximum discount in London is £112,300.
- The average market value of a home sold under the RTB scheme was £305,200 in 2018/19, up 8.8% from 2017/18, and the average discount was £103,200.
- The number of RTB replacement homes started/acquired by local authorities in London since 2012/13 is 9,512, which is less than half of the number of RTB homes sold over the same period (20,140).
Source and notes:
- MHCLG, live tables 643, 670 and 685, 693 and Local Authority Housing Statistics (Section B)
- The number of sales in 2019/20 is estimated by annualising the total for the first three quarters
- Data on sales values and discounts is not yet available for 2019/20 2.19. There were 785,100 rented affordable homes owned by social housing landlords in London in 2019, up slightly from the year before but down slightly from two decades ago.
- Local authorities in London owned 391,000 affordable homes (including social rent and Affordable Rent) in April 2019, and housing associations owned another 394,100, for a total of 785,100 (excluding shared ownership). This total was up slightly from 783,000 in 2018 but down 4.8% from 1997, although the total has been relatively steady at around 800,000 for the last two decades.
- Over this period the share of affordable homes in London owned by housing associations has grown from 25% in 1997 to 50% in 2019, driven by a combination of new supply and stock transfers from council ownership.
- In England, the number of homes owned by local authorities and housing associations fell by 7.3% between 1997 and 2019, and the proportion of affordable homes owned by housing associations rose from 22% to 61%.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG live table 109
- These figures differ from those presented in recent reports because they are based on a new data source that excludes a small number of non-self-contained homes that were included in previous data sources. 2.20. The proportion of homes in London officially recorded as empty increased slightly in 2019, but at 2% is far below its long-term average.
- According to Council Tax data there were 71,670 empty homes in London in 2019, equivalent to 2.0% of the total dwelling stock, up from a low of 1.7% in 2014.
- Long term data indicates that both the number of recorded empty homes in London and their share of the total housing stock are at very low levels, having fallen steadily from a figure of 160,500 empty homes in 1993 (5.4% of the stock at the time).
- In 2019, there were 24,680 homes in London that had been recorded as empty for more than six months, equal to 0.7% of the total dwelling stock.
- These figures show homes recorded as empty for Council Tax purposes. As such, it is likely that they will not pick up some ‘frictional’ vacancies, such as homes that are briefly vacant between one tenant moving out and another tenant moving in.
Source and notes:
- Data from 1978 to 2011 is a combination of historical data provided to GLA by MHCLG and figures reported by local authorities in their Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix returns.
- Data from 2004 onwards is from council tax statistics published by MHCLG in live table 615.
- MHCLG suggest that these figures may undercount empty homes since the removal of empty property discounts from Council Tax in many areas has reduced the incentive for owners to report homes as empty. 2.21. In 2019, there were 11,700 Homes in Multiple Occupation with mandatory licences issued by London boroughs, although this represents only a small portion of the total number of HMOs.
- A House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) is a property rented out by at least three people who are not from the same ‘household’ (such as a family), but who share facilities like bathrooms and kitchens.
- An HMO must be licensed if it is rented to five or more people who share facilities and who form more than one household, and where the property being occupied by that household is at least three storeys high.
- The number of HMOs that have been issued with mandatory licences in London increased by 30% from 9,020 in 2018 to a high of 11,700 in 2019.
- The number of HMOs that have been issued with mandatory licences are a fraction of the total number of HMOs. In 2019, local authorities estimated there were a total of 185,910 HMOs in London, of which 46,540 were mandatory licensable.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG, Local Authority Housing Statistics: data returns for 2018 to 2019 (Section F – condition of dwelling stock)
3. Housing costs and affordability
Housing affordability, as measured by the median share of housing costs in total household income, improved for all tenures between 2016/17 and 2017/18 (3.1). Average house prices in London in March 2020 were six times their 1970 level after adjusting for inflation (3.2). Average neighbourhood level house prices vary enormously in London, from just over £200,000 in parts of outer East London to around £3 million near Hyde Park and Knightsbridge (3.3).
The level of new home buyer mortgage lending in London continues to be subdued, with new home mover mortgages as low as the levels last seen during the crash in 2008/09 (3.4). First-time buyers in London are generally taking out mortgage loans at lower shares of their home’s value than they were before the financial crisis (3.5). Those who manage to buy a home for the first time in London are now putting down an average deposit of over £150,000, up from £45,000 in 2005 (3.6). First-time buyers and home movers are also borrowing much higher multiples of their income than in previous decades (3.7). There were 6,290 homes bought in London through Help to Buy in 2019, with almost two thirds of those purchases in Outer London (3.8).
London’s housing market generated almost £3.3 billion in Stamp Duty receipts in 2018/19, the lowest in four years but still 39% of the England total (3.9). Buyers of London property worth over £500,000 would save £15,000 due to the government’s temporary Stamp Duty reduced rates, assuming prices did not rise in response (3.10).
Average private rents in London have risen by 43% since 2005, by far the largest increase of any English region (3.11). 2019 saw a continued improvement in the affordability of private rents in London, when compared to trends in average earnings (3.12). London has by far the highest average private sector rents in England, with a typical one-bedroom home costing more than a typical three-bedroom home in other regions (3.13). There is significant variation in monthly market rents within London, and within the most expensive boroughs, there is substantial difference between the top and bottom of the market (3.14).
The total number of Housing Benefit and Universal Credit recipients in London increased to a high of 953,100 in May 2020 due to a spike caused by the Coronavirus pandemic (3.15). A decade of cuts to Housing Benefit and other welfare reforms have left tenants in London with much less support to pay their rent (3.16). The typical rent for a two-bedroom social rented home in London is £114 a week, compared to £180 a week for an Affordable Rented home (3.17). 3.1. Housing affordability, as measured by the median share of housing costs in total household income, improved for all tenures between 2016/17 and 2017/18
- There are several ways to measure the affordability of housing. This chart compares trends in affordability using a relatively comprehensive measure, which includes gross income from benefits and from all household members.
- By this measure, the median household in London spent 26% of their income on housing costs in 2017/18, down from the high of 28% in 2016/17 but above the 25% of income spent on housing costs in 2010/11.
- There are significant disparities by tenure, with the typical private renting household spending 33% of its income on housing costs in 2017/18 (down from 37% in 2016/17 but up from 30% in 2010/11), social housing tenants spending 30% (up from 29% in 2010/11) and homeowners just 17% (up from 16% in 2010/11).
Source and notes:
- GLA analysis of English Housing Survey data 3.2. Average house prices in London in March 2020 were six times their 1970 level after adjusting for inflation
- London’s average house price was £465,500 in March 2020, according to the UK House Price Index (adjusted for inflation), which is 1.9% higher than a year before. Prices fell 11% in real terms between March 2016 and May 2019, before rising 5% through to March 2020. The effects on house prices of the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdown are not yet clear.
- The average house price across England fell by 0.5% over the last year in real terms, to £237,100. However, the average house price in England is still 7% above its level a decade earlier, while the average house price in London is 30% higher than in 2010.
- Since the mid-1980s, every market cycle has left London’s real terms house prices considerably higher than they were before. Average house prices in London are now over six times their 1970 level, after adjusting for inflation.
Source and notes:
- UK House Price Index (UKHPI) adjusted for RPI
- Data is quarterly until the end of 1994 and monthly thereafter
- Publication of the UK House Price Index was suspended following the March 2020 publication due to the impact on sales of Coronavirus 3.3. Average neighbourhood level house prices vary enormously in London, from just over £200,000 in parts of outer East London to around £3 million near Hyde Park and Knightsbridge.
In 2019, the simple median price for a home sold in London (unadjusted for the type of home sold) was £475,000, up from £467,500 in 2018. At neighbourhood level the median price varied enormously, from £3.1 million in Knightsbridge, Belgravia and Hyde Park to £217,000 in Erith East.
The top six most expensive neighbourhoods in London are all in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, with the Wimbledon Common area of Merton and the Bankside area of Southwark the only exceptions in the top ten.
Over the course of 2019 there was a slight convergence in neighbourhood-level house prices across London, with prices in cheaper areas rising faster (or falling slower) than those in expensive areas.
Source and notes:
- ONS, House price statistics for small areas in England and Wales to year ending December 2019 3.4. The level of new home buyer mortgage lending in London continues to be subdued, with new home mover mortgages as low as the levels last seen during the crash in 2008/09.
- In 2019/20 there were 41,340 new mortgages advanced to first-time buyers in London, up 1.1% from 2018/19 but below both the recent annualised peak of 47,400 in Q3 2014 and the recorded high of 59,600 in Q3 2004.
- The number of loans to home movers (owner occupiers moving house) in London has fallen by almost a quarter (24%) since the beginning of 2016. There were 27,350 in 2019/20, up 0.8% on the previous year but far below the recorded annualised peak of 99,200 in Q3 2004. First-time buyers now account for 60% of all new mortgage advances, an all-time high.
Source and notes:
- UK Finance mortgage lending statistics (tables RL1R and RL2R)
- These figures are different to those reported in previous bulletins, in part due to a change in the data source and data collection methodology when UK Finance replaced the Council of Mortgage Lenders industry data tables in 2019. 3.5. First-time buyers in London are generally taking out mortgage loans at lower shares of their home’s value than they were before the financial crisis.
- In 2005/06, loans with LTVs of more than 90% comprised over one third of all lending to first-time buyers in London. However, this share fell to just 1.5% in 2010/11.
- Since 2015, the proportion of loans at LTVs of 90% and above increased and was 15% in the year to June 2019. Loans at LTVs of more than 95% have remained virtually non-existent (0.6% of the total) since the financial crisis. Loans with LTVs of 50% or less comprised 21% of total first-time buyer mortgage loans in the year to June 2019. This figure has been broadly stable for the last four years.
- The trend towards lower LTVs is partly supported by Help to Buy policy in London, which reduces the amount of debt to be covered by a mortgage. 14% of first-time buyers in London in the year to June 2019 used Help to Buy.
- These figures do not reflect the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic, which at the time of writing appears to have reduced the availability of high-LTV mortgages even further.
Source and notes:
- FCA, Mortgages Product Sales Data (PSD) Table 6.1, H1 2019
- Help to Buy in London provides government-backed equity loans of up to 40% of the property value, on properties valued up to £600,000. 3.6. Those who manage to buy a home for the first time in London are now putting down an average deposit of over £150,000, up from £45,000 in 2005.
- A combination of rising prices and falling loan-to-value ratios has resulted in huge increases in the average mortgage deposit put down by first-time buyers in London over the last fifteen years.
- In 2005, the average first-time buyer deposit in London was £45,000, already significantly higher than the average of £26,000 across England as a whole.
- By 2020, the average deposit in London had more than trebled to £151,000, while at the national level the increase was ‘only’ to £61,000. In both cases, these amounts far exceed the savings of most renting households.
Source and notes:
- UK Finance mortgage lending statistics
- These figures are different to those reported in previous bulletins. This change reflects access to more comprehensive data and improved information on total market size, as well as a move to mean averages rather than medians
- Smoothing has been applied to the original monthly data 3.7. First-time buyers and home movers are also borrowing much higher multiples of their income than in previous decades
- The average first-time buyer in London borrowed 3.83 times their income in 2019, up from just 1.88 in 1980.
- Home movers, who usually have equity from the sale of their previous home, had typically borrowed at a lower income ratio than first-time buyers. However, the two have now converged. Home movers in London borrowed an average of 3.78 times their incomes in 2019.
- In June 2014, the Bank of England recommended that mortgage lenders do not extend more than 15% of new residential mortgages at loan-to-income ratios at, or greater than, 4.50. This is expected to constrain further increases in median loan-to-income ratios for buyers in London.
- London’s average loan-to-income ratios are higher than the national averages. Across the UK first-time buyers borrowed an average of 3.51 times their income in 2019.
Source and notes:
- UK Finance mortgage lending statistics (tables RL1A and RL2A)
- These figures are different to those reported in previous bulletins, in part due to a change in the data source and data collection methodology. In 2019 UK Finance replaced the Council of Mortgage Lenders industry data tables. This change reflects access to more comprehensive data and improved information on total market size, as well as a move to mean averages rather than medians. 3.8. There were 6,290 homes bought in London through Help to Buy in 2019, with almost two thirds of those purchases in Outer London.
- 6,290 new homes were bought in London with assistance from the government’s Help to Buy equity loan scheme in 2019, up from 5,640 in 2018. 4,060 of these purchases were in Outer London boroughs and 2,220 were in Inner London. The annualised total of Help to Buy sales fell in the final quarter of 2019, the first fall since 2015.
- The number of Help to Buy equity loan purchases in 2018/19 is equivalent to 21% of the number of new build private completions in London in that year (data on new build completions in 2019 is not yet available – see Chart 2.1 of this report).
- 96% of homes purchased using Help to Buy in London in 2019 were purchased by first-time buyers. The median income of London households buying with Help to Buy was around £65,200 and the average loan value was £170,500.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG Help to Buy equity loan statistics 3.9. London’s housing market generated almost £3.3 billion in Stamp Duty receipts in 2018/19, the lowest in four years but still 39% of the England total.
- In 2018/19 Stamp Duty receipts from purchases of homes in London generated £3.3 billion for the national exchequer, down from the heights of recent years but still far above the long-term average even after adjusting for inflation.
- Over the long term, Stamp Duty receipts in London have increased hugely due to a combination of higher prices and a higher effective tax rate, with Londoners consistently paying higher rates due to the nationally-set thresholds and rates.
- London’s share of the total national receipts fell from a high of 47% in 2015/16 to 39% in 2018/19, partly due to faster price growth and higher transaction levels in other regions.
Source and notes:
- 1996/97 to 2017/18 figures from HMRC UK Stamp Tax statistics
- 1988/89 to 1995/96 from 1999/00 UK Housing Review
- Historic prices have been adjusted for inflation using the official GDP deflators as at March 2019 3.10. Buyers of London property worth over £500,000 would save £15,000 due to the government’s temporary Stamp Duty reduced rates, assuming prices don’t rise in response.
- In July 2020, the government announced a Stamp Duty ‘holiday’ until April 2021, exempting sales at prices up to £500,000 from any Stamp Duty liability. The chart above compares the number of sales in different price bands in London in 2019 with the modelled Stamp Duty saving. The analysis does not reflect the impact of the existing relief for first-time buyers.
- In percentage terms, the biggest impact is on sales at £500,000, which are exempted from the entire Stamp Duty bill of £15,000. More expensive sales still incur a Stamp Duty liability - for example, a sale at £1 million will incur a bill of £28,750 during the holiday and £43,750 after it.
- These calculations all assume no behavioural impacts: in practice, sellers increasing their asking prices is likely to offset at least some of any Stamp Duty saving.
Source and notes:
- GLA analysis of Land Registry Price Paid Data 3.11. Average private rents in London have risen by 43% since 2005, by far the largest increase of any other English region.
- The Office for National Statistics track changes in average private rents at regional level since January 2005, and estimates that between then and June 2020 private rents in London grew 43% in nominal terms. This is by far the largest increase of any English region, although there has been some convergence since 2017, as rents in London have grown more slowly than in other regions.
- The next largest increase is in the South East and the South West, where rents have risen 35% since 2005. The North East and the North West have seen the smallest increases over this period at 20%.
Source and notes:
- ONS, Experimental Index of Private Housing Rental Prices
- The ONS index calculates changes in the rents of both new and existing tenancies, while most other indices cover new rents only. 3.12. 2019 saw a continued improvement in the affordability of private rents in London, when compared to trends in average earnings.
- Between 2005 and 2016 average private rents in London rose by 38%, while average individual earnings rose by just 21%, leading to a worsening in affordability. The so-called ‘unaffordability’ index above is the cumulative change in rents divided by the cumulative change in earnings.
- Since then, rents have been relatively stable in nominal terms, while earnings have increased, bringing affordability back towards where it was at the start of the 2010s.
- In 2019, the rent index increased only slightly (0.5%) while the earnings index increased by 3.3%, closing the gap between the two indices and resulting in a third consecutive year of improvements in affordability.
- The affordability index compares changes in rents to changes in median earnings, but there is little difference if lower or upper quartile earnings are used instead, as the earnings distribution has been quite steady over the period.
Source and notes:
- Earnings: Median full-time weekly earnings by place of work, London. From ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, republished on London Datastore
- Rents: ONS Index of Private Rental Housing Prices, April each year to match ASHE data (Jan 2011=100)
- Affordability index: Rent index divided by median weekly earnings
- The earnings index here is workplace-based and is therefore not comparable to the earnings figures in table 3 of the key statistics 3.13. London has by far the highest average private sector rents in England, with a typical one-bedroom home costing more than a typical three-bedroom home in other regions.
- In the year to March 2020, the median rent for a privately rented home in London was £1,425 per calendar month, more than twice as high as the median in England as a whole (£700).
- London’s rents are so much higher than those of other regions that the median monthly rent for a one-bedroom home in the capital (£1,204) is almost as high as the national median monthly rent for a home with four bedrooms or more (£1,300).
- It should be noted that the ONS statistics exclude any cases where the tenant receives Housing Benefit. As the average private rent for households on Housing Benefit is below the overall average, excluding these cases is expected to inflate the average reported.
Source and notes:
- Office for National Statistics, Private Rental Market summary statistics
- The ONS figures are based on data collected from open market sources, and exclude any cases where the tenant receives Housing Benefit. 3.14. There is significant variation in monthly market rents within London, and within the most expensive boroughs there is substantial difference between the top and bottom of the market.
- The lowest median monthly rent for a two-bedroom home is £1,100 in Bexley and in Havering, while the median rent in Kensington and Chelsea is around two and a half times higher at £2,817.
- Richmond-upon-Thames was the Outer London borough with the highest median private rent for a two-bedroom home (£1,600). Lewisham was the Inner London borough with the lowest median private rent for a two-bedroom home (£1,350).
- 24 boroughs had median monthly rents within £600 of each other (from £1,100 in Bexley and Havering up to £1,710 in Lambeth). Divergence is much greater at the top of the market, with £1,100 separating the median rent in Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea.
- Expensive boroughs also tend to have a wider distribution of rents, as shown by the range between the lower and upper quartile figures.
Source and notes:
- Office for National Statistics, Private Rental Market summary statistics
- These figures exclude any cases where the tenant receives Housing Benefit 3.15. The total number of Housing Benefit and Universal Credit recipients in London increased to a high of 953,100 in May 2020 due to a spike caused by the Coronavirus pandemic.
- The number of Housing Benefit recipients in London grew from a low of 586,000 in 2001 to a peak of 851,900 in 2013, before falling to 557,700 in May 2020. 405,100 (73% of the total) recipients were in social housing, while 152,700 (27% of the total) rented privately.
- Some of the fall in the Housing Benefit caseload is due to the widening roll-out of Universal Credit for new claimants. In May 2020, there were 395,400 households in receipt of Universal Credit in London, over double the 162,900 households in receipt of Universal Credit in May 2019. 156,000 (39% of the total) were in social housing, while 239,400 (61% of the total) rented privately.
- Adding together Housing Benefit recipients and households receiving Universal Credit gives a total of 953,100, of which 561,000 (59% of the total) are social housing tenants and 392,100 (41% of the total) are private tenants. The proportion of private tenants in receipt of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit increased significantly in the first half of 2020, from just 34% in January 2020.
Source and notes:
- DWP, Housing Benefit caseload statistics and Stat Xplore
- Housing Benefit recipients are measured in terms of benefit recipients, and Universal Credit recipients in terms of households 3.16. A decade of cuts to Housing Benefit and other welfare reforms have left tenants in London with much less support to pay their rent.
- The last decade has seen a substantial shift in the amount of rent covered by Housing Benefit.
- In 2008/09, 45% of private renters in London said that the Housing Benefit they received covered all of their rent, but by 2018/19 this figure had fallen to just 16%.
- There was a significant but less sharp drop among private renters in the rest of England, from 30% to 18%.
- Social housing tenants have also been affected, with the proportion of those who said Housing Benefits covered their entire rent falling from 48% to 40% in London and 68% to 54% in the rest of England.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG, ‘English Housing Survey 2018 to 2019: housing costs and affordability’ 3.17. The typical rent for a two-bedroom social rented home in London is £114 a week, compared to £180 a week for an Affordable Rented home.
- Rents for new general needs social housing tenancies rose substantially between 2007/08 and 2015/16, largely because until recently they were determined by a formula that ensured they rose above inflation. After three years of legislated annual rent reductions, however, median social two-bedroom rents fell and then rose again, and in 2018/19 were 1% lower than in 2015/16.
- When Affordable Rent was introduced by the coalition government, it allowed homes to be let at rents at up to 80% of the equivalent market rent. The average two-bedroom rent in London was £180 a week in 2018/19, 9% lower than in 2017/18.
- This reduction is likely to be due at least in part to the introduction of the Mayor’s new London Affordable Rent product, which sets benchmark rents based on social rent levels. The London Affordable Rent benchmark for a two-bedroom property was £159 a week in 2018/19.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG, Social Housing Lettings in England, CORE summary tables
- Weekly rent excludes supplementary charges such as service and support charges
- The Affordable Rent category includes homes both above and below the London Affordable Rent benchmarks
4. Housing needs
In 2019/20, 10,730 people were seen sleeping rough in London, 21% more people than a year before (4.1). 73% of people seen sleeping rough for the first time in 2019/20 spent only one night on the streets, a proportion which has been broadly unchanged for the past four years (4.2). The number of UK nationals and Central or Eastern European nationals seen sleeping rough in London each increased by 16% compared to 2018/19 (4.3).
Since the introduction of new statutory homelessness duties for local authorities in April 2018, the number of households owed a duty has continued to increase (4.4). The most common reason given for newly homeless households in London losing their last home is that friends or relatives were no longer willing or able to accommodate them (4.5). The number of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in London was 60,720 at the end of March 2020, a 7% increase on March 2019 (4.6).
Around 44% of family-sized homes in London are under-occupied, while a small proportion (6%) of one bedroom homes are overcrowded (4.7). 8.3% of households in London are overcrowded, up from 5.5% at the turn of the millennium, due primarily to an increase in overcrowding among social renting households (4.8). One in five of households with children in London are overcrowded, more than twice the rate in the rest of England (4.9). 39% of home-owning households in London are under-occupying their home, higher than in the mid-1990s but down from the mid-2010s (4.10). 4.1. 10,730 people were seen sleeping rough in London in 2019/20, 21% more than a year before.
- The largest group of people seen sleeping rough on London’s streets in 2019/20 were the 7,053 people seen sleeping rough for the first time. This ‘flow’ of new people onto the streets grew by 28% in the last year and has more than quadrupled since 2007/08, although some of this increase is probably due to increased monitoring.
- The ‘stock’ figure, which measures the number of people seen sleeping rough two years in a row, increased by 14% in 2019/20 to 2,371, and has more than doubled since 2007/08.
- The ‘returner’ figure, which represents those who were last seen sleeping rough more than a year ago, grew by 4% in 2019/20 to 1,302, and has trebled in the last decade.
- 26% of all people seen sleeping rough in 2019/20 were seen in Westminster. Other boroughs with high numbers of people seen sleeping rough include Camden, Newham, Southwark, Ealing and Lambeth.
Source and notes:
- CHAIN annual reports, 2006/07 to 2019/20 4.2. 73% of people seen sleeping rough for the first time in 2019/20 spent only one night on the streets, a proportion which has been broadly unchanged for the past four years.
- 5,133 people, or 73% of those new to the streets in 2019/20, were seen sleeping rough only once in the year, up from 4,036 in 2018/19 but similar in percentage terms to the last three years.
- 1,920 new rough sleepers were seen more than once in 2019/20 (27% of the total). Of this group, around half were seen just twice.
- 80 people were seen sleeping rough more than ten times, up from 76 in 2018/19 and 65 in 2017/18.
Source and notes:
- CHAIN annual reports, 2008/09 to 2019/20 4.3. The number of UK nationals and Central or Eastern European nationals seen sleeping rough in London each increased by 16% in 2019/20, compared to 2018/19.
- The nationality profile of rough sleepers in London remains diverse, with a total of 131 different nationalities recorded during 2019/20.
- People from the UK accounted for 4,683 of those seen sleeping rough in London in 2019/20, 55% of the total. This is similar to 49% in 2018/19 but lower than the recent peak of 54% in 2017/18.
- The number of people from Central or Eastern European countries seen sleeping rough has increased again after a previous dip, accounting for 34% of those seen in 2019/20, reversing the decline in their numbers between 2015/16 and 2017/18.
- There were also notable increases in 2019/20 in people from the rest of the world, and those whose nationality was not known or recorded, seen rough sleeping.
Source and notes:
- CHAIN annual reports, 2008/09 to 2019/20 4.4. Since the introduction of new statutory homelessness duties for local authorities in April 2018, the number of households owed a duty has continued to increase.
- The Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) came into force in April 2018, creating new prevention and relief duties for local authorities.
- Under the new Act, a prevention duty is owed to households threatened with homelessness within 56 days and a relief duty is owed to households that are already homeless and require help to secure accommodation. The relief duty also lasts 56 days, after which a household is owed a main homelessness duty and accepted as statutorily homeless.
- There were 13,680 households owed a new prevention or relief duty in Q1 2020, including 7,360 prevention and 6,320 relief duties. This is a 2.2% increase on Q1 2019 and an 8.7% increase from the first HRA data in Q2 2018.
- There were 2,920 households accepted as statutorily homeless by London boroughs in Q1 2020, a 24% increase on Q1 2019 and a 55% increase from the first recorded HRA data in Q2 2018.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG live tables A1 and MD1, from the collection ‘Statutory homelessness in England’
- The MHCLG table A1 and MD1 statistics are defined as ‘experimental’ while it continues to work with local authorities to improve the quality of the HRA data
- HRA prevention, relief and main homelessness duties are shown in the chart independently, as opposed to stacked
- Main duty figures are lower than the “equivalent” figures prior to April 2018, as the new HRA process aims to help families into housing before they reach this category 4.5. The most common reason given by newly homeless households in London for losing their last home is that friends or relatives were no longer willing or able to accommodate them.
- When households are accepted as homeless, the reason they lost their last settled accommodation is recorded. Until 2017/18 the reason for loss of last settled home was recorded only for households accepted as being owed a main (original) duty; however, under the HRA reporting, this is also now recorded for the wider group of households who are owed a new prevention or relief duty.
- In 2019/20, 29% of homeless households in London reported losing their last home because friends or relatives were no longer willing or able to accommodate them. This figure is decreasing as reasons contained within ‘other’ increase (33% of homeless households in 2019/20).
- After a sharp increase in the proportion of households owed a homelessness duty because of the end of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST), provisional estimates suggest this figure is coming down again. In 2019/20, 20% of households were owed a homelessness duty because of the end of an AST, which is down from 40% in 2015/16.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG statutory homelessness statistics 4.6. The number of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in London was 60,720 at the end of March 2020, a 7% increase on March 2019.
- At the end of March 2020, there were 60,720 homeless households in temporary accommodation arranged by London boroughs, almost three times the lowest recorded rate in late 1988.
- 21,760 of these households, or 36% of the total, were accommodated outside of their home borough.
- The number of households in bed and breakfast accommodation (3,520) increased 17% in the year to March 2020 and has more than tripled since 2009, although bed and breakfasts still only account for 6% of all temporary accommodation placements.
- 36% of households in temporary accommodation in March 2020 were in accommodation leased from private sector landlords; 36% were in other private sector accommodation; 16% in social housing used as temporary accommodation; and 6% in hostels and women’s refuges.
Source and notes:
- Housing Finance Review 1995/96
- UK Housing Review 2004/05
- MHCLG live table 775
- MHCLG live table TA1 4.7. Around 44% of family-sized homes in London are under-occupied, while a small proportion (6%) of one-bedroom homes are overcrowded.
- The 'bedroom standard' estimates how many bedrooms a household requires, based on the ages and relationships of the household members. Households lacking at least one bedroom according to this standard are considered overcrowded, and those with at least two 'spare' bedrooms are considered to be under-occupying. In practice, a 'spare' bedroom may well be occupied or in use.
- There are almost 1.8 million occupied family homes in London (those with three bedrooms or more), but around 800,000 of them are under-occupied, including 400,000 that are occupied by one person.
- By contrast, according to the bedroom standard there are over 1.6 million households that require just one bedroom, but only 600,000 one-bedroom homes (nearly 100,000 of which are overcrowded).
Source and notes:
- English Housing Survey 2016/17 to 2018/19 4.8. 8.3% of households in London are overcrowded, up from 5.5% at the turn of the millennium, due primarily to an increase in overcrowding among social renting households.
- In 2018/19, 8.3% of households in London were estimated to be overcrowded according to the ‘bedroom standard’, which compares the size and composition of households to the bedrooms available.
- The overall overcrowding rate is above its level in the 1980s and 1990s, primarily due to rising overcrowding in social housing, with overcrowding in private renting following a more cyclical pattern. The proportion of overcrowded homeowner households has declined slightly over the same period.
- 15% of households in social housing, 13% of those in private rented housing, and 2.7% of homeowners were overcrowded.
Source and notes:
- 1986/87 data from the London Housing Survey
- 1995/96 to 2018/19 data from the Survey of English Housing and English Housing Survey data, using three-year rolling averages
- 2006 definition of bedroom standard and rolling three year averages used 4.9. One in five of households with children in London live in overcrowded housing, more than twice the rate in the rest of England.
- Rates of overcrowding are higher in London than anywhere else in the country, and households with children are particularly likely to be affected.
- 20% of all households with children in London are considered to be overcrowded according to the bedroom standard measure, compared to 8% in the rest of England.
- Overcrowding rates in London are particularly high in the private rented sector, where 35% of households with children are overcrowded, and in social housing where 27% of households with children are overcrowded.
Source and notes:
- English Housing Survey, 2016/17 to 2018/19
- This chart replaces a version in the 2019 report which estimated the number of children living in overcrowded conditions, but which used restricted data that is not currently available for 2018/19. 4.10. 39% of home-owning households in London are under-occupying their homes, higher than in the mid-1990s but down from the mid-2010s.
- Over the last two decades the proportion of households that are under-occupying their home in London has remained steady at around a quarter.
- However, this stability has masked increasing differences at the level of individual tenures. There has been a notable increase in the proportion of homeowner households who are under-occupying, from 33% in the mid-1990s to 39% in the three years ending 2018/19.
- Meanwhile, 6.6% of social rented households and 9.1% of private rented households are currently under-occupying. Both figures have been fairly stable since the mid-1990s.
Source and notes:
- Survey of English Housing and English Housing Survey data, 1993/94 to 2018/19 (rolling three-year average)
- Under-occupation is defined as a household having two or more bedrooms than the Government recommended bedroom standard indicates they require
5. Mobility and decent homes
11% of all London households and 27% of private renting households have lived in their current home for less than a year (5.1). Almost two thirds of all moves in London in the last three years were households moving from one private rented sector home into another (5.2). The number of households moving into social housing each year in London has fallen by over two thirds since the mid-1990s (5.3). Many moves in London's private rented sector are relatively local, with a quarter of tenants moving within a mile of their previous home (5.4). The Mayor’s Housing Moves programme enabled 172 social housing tenants to move between boroughs in 2019/20, double the number of moves in 2018/19 (5.5). Almost 2,300 social rented homes in London have been freed up through the Seaside and Country Homes scheme since 2007/08 (5.6).
While the proportion of non-decent homes has fallen in each tenure since 2006, most of this improvement came in the first five years of this period (5.7). The number of affordable homes in London below the Decent Homes standard fell from 260,290 in 2005 to 41,430 in 2016 and has remained at roughly that level since (5.8). In June 2020 there were 232 high-rise residential buildings identified in London with Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding systems unlikely to meet Building Regulations, more than half of the England total (5.9).
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions from London’s housing stock have fallen by over two fifths in the last decade, but were higher than emissions from workplaces and transport in 2017 (5.10). The most energy efficient homes in London are found in high-density areas with many recently built homes, while the least energy efficient tend to be in low-density outer suburbs (5.11). The energy efficiency of new dwellings in London far out-performs existing dwellings, but few of them achieve the highest rating (5.12). Progress in improving the energy efficiency of existing homes has picked up again after slowing in recent years (5.13).
11% of households in London were estimated to be living in fuel poverty in 2018, above the national average (5.14), although the rate of fuel poverty in social housing is similar in London to the national average, and in private rented housing is lower (5.15). 5.1. 11% of all London households and 27% of private renting households have lived in their current home for less than a year.
- 11% of households in London moved to a new home in the last year (including those moving to London from elsewhere), while 61% have lived more than five years at their current home, 44% more than ten years, and 25% more than 20 years.
- Mobility is far higher in the private rented sector, where 27% of households moved in the last year. This compares to just 5% of social renting households and 3% of owner occupiers.
- While mobility rates for individual tenures are similar in London and the rest of England, London has a higher overall mobility rate due to its larger private rented sector.
Source and notes:
- English Housing Survey, 2016/17 to 2018/19 average 5.2. 70% of all moves in London in the last three years were households moving from one private rented sector home into another.
- 10% of households in London moved in the last year (including those who moved to London from elsewhere), and 84% of those moves were either into or within the private rented sector. 70% were moves from one private rented home to another.
- Newly forming households accounted for 14% of moves, 10% of which were into the private rented sector, 2% into owner occupation and 2% into social housing.
- 15% of all moves were into or within owner occupation, of which 6% comprised owner occupiers moving within the tenure, while 7% were households moving from the private rented sector.
- 12% of moves were into or within social housing, most of which (8%) were within-tenure moves.
Source and notes:
- English Housing Survey, 2016/17 to 2018/19 average
- Data shows the proportion of households moving in the last year, as an average of measures taken in 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 5.3. The number of households moving into social housing each year in London has fallen by over two thirds since the mid-1990s.
- In 2018/19 15,130 households new to social housing moved into council or housing association homes in London, a figure that has fallen from 49,800 in 1996/97.
- 9,565 of these lettings were to new council tenants and 5,565 to housing association tenants.
- The number of council lettings to new tenants has fallen from 40,500 in 1996/97, partly due to the shrinking of the council housing stock over the same period.
- The number of housing association lettings to new tenants fell from 9,300 to 5,565 over the same period, with a growing stock failing to compensate for a falling letting rate.
Source and notes:
- UK Housing Review, various years
- 2018/19 housing association figure estimated from MHCLG’s social housing lettings tables
- Before 2010/11 the local authority figures include a small number of tenants transferring from housing association homes 5.4. Many moves in London's private rented sector are relatively local, with a quarter of tenants moving within a mile of their previous home.
- An analysis of anonymised tenant referencing data by Dataloft for the GLA reveals that a high proportion of moves in London's private rented sector are very local. 24% of tenants move from less than a mile away, another 14% from 1-2 miles away and another 20% from 2-5 miles.
- The pattern of distances moved by those moving into new build rental homes is quite similar, with a slightly smaller proportion coming from the local area (20% from within 1 mile and another 10% from within 1-2 miles) and a higher proportion coming from overseas (15% compared to 9% of all moves).
Source and notes:
- Dataloft analysis for the GLA 5.5. The Mayor’s Housing Moves programme enabled 172 social housing tenants to move between boroughs in 2019/20, double the number of moves in 2018/19.
- The Mayor’s Housing Moves programme offers social housing tenants in London the opportunity to move to suitable accommodation in another borough. The programme enabled 172 social housing tenants to move between boroughs in 2019/20, up from 84 in 2018/19.
- The programme prioritises applicants who fall into certain categories. Households in work or training comprise the majority of those moving, accounting for 69% of moves in 2019/20 (119 moves in total), of which around two thirds were overcrowded before the move. Eight under-occupying households also moved.
- In 2019, two new pilot pathways were launched to give greater priority to former rough sleepers ready to move on from supported accommodation and to social housing tenants who needed to move home due to domestic abuse. 21 of the housing moves in 2019/20 were made by tenants in these groups.
Source and notes:
- GLA Housing Moves programme monitoring data 5.6. Almost 2,300 social rented homes in London have been freed up through the Seaside and Country Homes scheme since 2007/08
- Between 2007/08 and 2019/20 there were 2,284 social rented homes freed up in London after the tenants moved out through the Seaside and Country Homes scheme, which helps older council and housing association tenants in London move to a home outside London.
- The borough that has had the most homes freed up is Greenwich (207), followed by Barking and Dagenham (159) and Southwark (158). The City of London (with five), Brent (ten) and Kensington and Chelsea (ten) have had the least homes freed up.
Source and notes:
- GLA, Seaside and Country Homes programme monitoring data 5.7. While the proportion of non-decent homes has fallen in each tenure since 2006, most of this improvement came in the first five years of this period.
- The proportion of homes below the official Decent Homes standard in London has fallen significantly in each tenure between 2006 and 2018; from 41% to 20% for privately rented homes, 37% to 10% for social rented homes, and 36% to 15% for owner occupied homes. Across all tenures, 37% of homes were below the standard in 2006 and 15% in 2018.
- However, in each tenure most of these improvements came in the first five years, when the overall figure fell from 37% to 22%.
- The higher proportion of homes below the standard in the private rented sector is likely to reflect in part the older mix of housing in the sector.
Source and notes:
- Survey of English Housing data 2006 to 2007 and English Housing Survey stock data 2008 to 2018
- Confidence intervals are not shown for reasons of legibility, but are plus/minus 3% or 4% for each of the main tenures throughout most of the period. 5.8. The estimated number of affordable homes in London below the Decent Homes standard fell from 260,290 in 2005 to 41,430 in 2016 and has remained at roughly that level since
- In April 2019, there were estimated to be 40,190 council or housing association owned homes in London below the Decent Homes standard. This is down 3.8% from 41,780 in 2018 and the lowest number of homes below the Decent Homes standard recorded since 2005.
- Between 2005 and 2017, the number of non-decent housing association homes fell from 48,520 to 1,357. However, the number of non-decent housing association homes then more than doubled to 3,480 in 2018, and remained at a similar level (3,466) in 2019.
- The number of non-decent council homes fell from 211,800 in 2005 to an all-time low of 36,730 in 2019, after an increase in 2017.
Source and notes:
- Council data from Business Plan Statistical Appendix and Local Authority Housing Statistics data published by MHCLG
- Housing association data from Regulatory Statistical Return data published by the Tenant Services Authority and Statistical Data Return published by the Regulator of Social Housing 5.9. In June 2020, there were 232 high-rise residential buildings identified in London with ACM cladding systems unlikely to meet Building Regulations, more than half of the England total.
- 77 of the buildings identified for remediation in London were owned by social housing landlords, 144 were private housing blocks and another 11 were student blocks.
- As of the end of July 2020, cladding remediation works had been completed on 50 housing blocks in London (22% of the total), over half of which were social housing blocks, while remediation works had started on another 99 housing blocks (a further 43% of the total).
- Remediation of buildings owned by social housing landlords was further progressed than buildings owned by private landlords, with cladding remediation works completed on 35% of buildings owned by social housing landlords and 13% of buildings owned by private landlords.
Source and notes: MHCLG, Building Safety Data Release July 2020 5.10. Per capita greenhouse gas emissions from London’s housing stock have fallen by over two fifths in the last decade, but were higher than emissions from workplaces and transport in 2017.
- The GLA’s London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI) measures greenhouse gas emissions from London’s workplaces, homes and transport.
- Per capita emissions of greenhouse gases from London’s homes were 1.3 tonnes in 2017, unchanged from 1.3 in 2016 but 41% lower than the 2007 measure of 2.2 tonnes.
- Per capita emissions from workplaces have fallen even faster and have halved in the last decade, from 2.6 tonnes in 2007 to 1.2 tonnes in 2017.
- Transport emissions per Londoner are lower than emissions from homes and workplaces, but have fallen less in recent years, fluctuating around 1.0 tonnes per capita.
- Total greenhouse gas emissions in London have reduced by two fifths since the beginning of 2000, from 50 megatonnes in 2000 to 30 megatonnes in 2017.
Source and notes:
- GLA London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2017 (Table 2.0)
- LEGGI 2017 figures are interim
- Emissions prior to 2009 were measured in megatonnes of carbon dioxide. From 2010 onwards emissions are measured in megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. 5.11. The most energy efficient homes in London are found in high-density areas with many recently built homes, while the least energy efficient tend to be in low-density outer suburbs.
Every home must have an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) when built, sold or let. This map shows the median energy efficiency rating (defined as the energy required for space heating, water heating and lighting, multiplied by fuel costs) of the current housing stock in each ward in London as measured by the EPCs registered in 2019, excluding new build homes.
According to this measure the most energy efficient homes are typically found in high-density areas with many new recently built homes. The highest rating is in Canary Wharf in Tower Hamlets where the typical home has an energy efficiency rating of 81 out of 100. The lowest is in Longlands in Bexley where the typical rating is 57 out of 100.
Source and notes:
- GLA analysis of Energy Performance Certificate data from OpenDataCommunities 5.12. The energy efficiency of new dwellings in London far out-performs existing dwellings, but few of them achieve the highest rating.
- According to data from Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), 96% of new build dwellings in London in 2019/20 were in energy efficiency bands A to C, with homes in band B accounting for the largest proportion (82%). 1.3% achieved an A rating.
- 4% of new build dwellings in London were in bands D or E (with E being the minimum legal level of energy efficiency for privately rented property in England). Just 15 new build homes in London in 2018/19 were registered in bands F or G.
- The majority of existing dwellings in London with EPCs lodged in 2019/20 had a rating of C (39%) or D (44%). A further 11% of existing dwellings had an EPC rating of E and 1.5% were in EPC bands F or G.
- 4% of existing dwellings with EPCs lodged in 2019/20 had an EPC rating of B and only 11 homes were in band A.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG, Live tables on Energy Performance of Buildings Certificates 5.13. Progress in improving the energy efficiency of existing homes has picked up again after slowing in recent years.
- The energy efficiency of housing can also be measured by the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP), which gives ratings in percentage terms (with 100% representing zero energy cost). This chart tracks these ratings since 1996 for all homes in London and for each of the three main tenures.
- The median rating for all homes in London was 65% in 2018, up from 48% in 1996 and 64% in 2017.
- Social housing is the most energy efficient tenure, with a typical rating of 69% in 2017. Owner occupied and privately rented homes had median SAP ratings of 63% and 66% respectively in 2018.
- The last year saw renewed improvements in energy efficiency, after a period of stagnation since 2013.
Source and notes:
- English House Condition Survey and English Housing Survey stock data, 1996 to 2018
- This analysis uses the 2012 SAP definition throughout, and refers to all dwellings including empty homes. 5.14. 11% of households in London were estimated to be living in fuel poverty in 2018, above the national average…
- The government’s Low Income High Costs measure defines a household as living in fuel poverty if they have required fuel costs above the national average and would be below the official poverty line if they were to spend that amount (and after taking housing costs into account).
- According to this definition, 11% of households in London were fuel poor in 2018, a figure that had risen each year from 8.5% in 2012, but fell slightly between 2017 and 2018. The causes of the recent increase in fuel poverty rates in London are not clear, but could include changes in income (including benefits), fuel costs or energy efficiency.
- The proportion of households in London that were fuel poor in 2018 is above the national rate for the second consecutive year. In England, 10% of households are estimated to be in fuel poverty, the lowest level recorded for England since 2003.
Source and notes:
- Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Fuel poverty statistics
- Fuel poverty is measured according to the ‘low income high costs, after housing costs (AHC), equivalised income’ definition 5.15. … although the rate of fuel poverty in social housing is similar in London to the national average, and in private rented housing is lower.
- When the headline rate of fuel poverty is broken down by tenure or landlord, there are similar rates of fuel poverty in London and England in each tenure, with all differences within standard margins of error.
- 14% of households renting on the open market in London in 2018 were fuel poor, compared to around 18% of those across England as a whole. The London figure is down slightly from 17% in 2017, although the change is not statistically significant due to the relatively small samples involved.
- 11% of owner occupiers in London in 2018 were fuel poor, compared to just 8% of owner occupiers at the national level.
- London households living in local authority and housing association housing in London had by far the lowest rate of fuel poverty, at 9% each (very similar to the national averages).
Source and notes:
- English Housing Survey fuel poverty data
- Fuel poverty measure used: Low income high costs (to match the Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics report) with 95% confidence intervals
6. The impacts of Coronavirus
The onset of the Coronavirus pandemic highlighted and exacerbated existing inequalities in London’s housing market, including stark differences in the prevalence of housing problems between Londoners of different ethnicities (6.1). Private renters in London have far fewer financial assets than homeowners to cover a loss of income associated with loss of employment income (6.2). And households in London are less likely to have access to a private or shared garden than households in the rest of England, but are more likely to live close to a park (6.3).
The pandemic and associated lockdown had profound impacts on the housing market. The flow of new rental and sales listings in London fell initially during lockdown, but has since recovered to levels exceeding the fortnight leading up to 24th March (6.4). London’s sales market was stronger than the national average immediately prior to lockdown, but has so far recovered more weakly from the crisis (6.5). Several indicators suggest that average private rents in London dipped in the second quarter of 2020 (6.6), perhaps related to the fact that the number of properties in London listed on Airbnb with a recent review collapsed after lockdown measures were announced (6.7).
The crisis also affected housing supply. The number of homes on planning applications submitted in London in the first half of 2020 is subdued compared with the same period in the past four years (6.8). Housebuilding in London, as measured by the weekly number of Energy Performance Certificates for new dwellings, fell during lockdown but has since recovered to roughly its previous level (6.9).
London’s construction workforce is distinctive due to its high rates of self-employment and heavy use of public transport to get to work (6.10). As of 30 June, 55% of all eligible construction roles in London had been placed on furlough at some point (6.11). London had around 1.2 million key workers in 2019, the majority of whom lived in an owner occupied home either with or without a mortgage (6.12).
The number of mortgage and landlord claims for home repossession in London courts fell sharply during lockdown (6.13), but a quarter of privately renting adults in London said in July that they had either fallen behind on their rent or that they were likely to do so soon (6.14). The number of people seen sleeping rough for the first time in London between April and June 2020 was 77% higher than in the same period in 2019 (6.15). In late May there were nearly 1,400 homeless people staying in emergency hotel accommodation arranged by the GLA due to the pandemic (6.16). 6.1. Before the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, there were stark differences in rates of housing problems between Londoners of different ethnicities
- London’s housing challenges do not affect all Londoners equally, with ethnicity being one important dimension of inequality. The most extreme difference is in experiences of homelessness, with Black ethnic households being twice as likely as the average London household to be assessed as owed a homelessness duty, while White households are only half as likely.
- Black and Asian households are also much more likely to live in housing that is overcrowded, while Black households experience higher rates of damp problems at home, and Asian households are slightly more likely to live in non-decent homes. Black households are twice as likely to be dissatisfied with their housing.
- These are broad patterns, and there can also be differences within ethnicity groups, for example between White households from Britain and those from other parts of Europe.
Source and notes:
- GLA analysis of English Housing Survey data, 2015/16 to 2017/18, and of MHCLG homelessness statistics March 2019
- Households are classified according to the ethnicity of the household head, but ethnicity can also vary within households 6.2. Private renters in London have far fewer financial assets than homeowners to cover a loss of income associated with loss of employment income
- Private renters in London, even those in work, have far less of a financial cushion to cope with losses of employment income than homeowners. 22% of them don’t have enough financial assets to cover a 20% loss in income for even one month, compared to 2% of outright owners and 5% of homeowners with a mortgage.
- 36% of private renters don’t have enough financial assets to cover a loss of 20% of monthly income over three months, compared to 16% of homeowners with a mortgage. The vast majority of outright owners would still be insulated from such a shock, with only 5% not having enough assets to cover the loss.
Source and notes:
- ONS Financial resilience of households by household type, standard industrial classification, region and main house tenure: Wealth and Assets Survey, Great Britain, April 2016 to March 2018 6.3. Households in London are less likely to have access to a private or shared garden than households in the rest of England, but are more likely to live close to a park.
- 21% of households in London had no access to a private or shared garden during the Coronavirus lockdown, compared to 10% in the rest of England.
- However, 45% of Londoners live within a five-minute walk (300 metres as the crow flies) of a public park, compared to 24% of those in the rest of England.
- At local authority level, Tower Hamlets had both the lowest share of households with private outside space (60%) and the highest share within five minutes of a park (78%) of any local authority in England.
Source and notes:
- ONS, ‘One in eight British households has no garden’, 2020
- Uses Ordnance Survey data
- Chart excludes City of London and Isles of Scilly due to their small size. 6.4. The flow of new rental and sales listings in London fell initially during lockdown, but has recovered to levels exceeding the fortnight leading up to 24th March.
- In the fortnight leading up to March 24th, when concern was mounting over Coronavirus but legal restrictions had not been imposed, there were just over 15,000 properties for rent and 5,000 for sale added to the Rightmove portal in the London postcodes area.
- During lockdown the number of rental listings added each fortnight fell about a third, while the number of sale listings fell over 80%. Since then, both have recovered to well above their mid-March levels.
- Since mid-June, the flow of rental listings has steadied at around 25,000 a fortnight, while the flow of sales listings continued to increase, reaching 10,000 in mid-August.
Source and notes:
- Data compiled by GLA from public Rightmove portal
- The London area referred to covers only the London postcode districts (excluding those starting with ‘CR’, ‘BR’ etc) 6.5. London’s sales market was stronger than the national average immediately prior to lockdown, but has so far recovered more weakly from the crisis.
- According to the RICS monthly housing market survey, London’s housing market was performing relatively strongly immediately before the lockdown, with demand growing faster than supply, and both prices and sales expected to increase in the coming months.
- The effect of lockdown was similar across the country, with sales and prices falling. However, since the lockdown was lifted, London’s market has recovered more slowly than the national average, with demand growing more slowly than supply and most surveyors reporting price falls.
- In July 2020, RICS survey respondents in London reported 12 sales per surveyor, higher than the sales rate in April, May and June 2020 but still low by historic standards.
Source and notes:
- RICS, Residential Market Survey 6.6. Several rental market indicators suggest that average private rents in London dipped in the second quarter of 2020.
- The official ONS index of private rents provides estimates of changes in the rent levels of all privately rented properties, not just newly let or advertised ones, and as a result tends to respond fairly slowly to sudden changes in market condition.
- This chart therefore compares several more responsive measures of rental market conditions, all on a quarterly basis: the balance of demand and supply reported by RICS surveyors, the annual change in Rightmove’s asking rents index, the annual change in Zoopla’s index and the estimated annual change in Homelet’s monthly index of achieved rents after being aggregated to quarters.
- Each of these measures shows a fall or at least a slowdown in rents in the first two quarters of 2020, suggesting that the ONS index will eventually show a drop in rents in London in 2020.
Source and notes:
- GLA analysis of data from RICS, Homelet, Zoopla and Rightmove
- Monthly Homelet data has been averaged over quarters to align with the other three quarterly sources
- The data should be seen as indicative, so the trends have been smoothed 6.7. The number of properties in London listed on Airbnb with a recent review collapsed in April, after lockdown measures were announced.
- From early 2018 to early 2020, the number of Airbnb listings in London that had received a review in the last month averaged around 20,000 at any given time. The total number of listings in London is far higher but many of them are either inactive or are not regularly rented out.
- After lockdown was imposed in late March, the number of listings with a recent review collapsed, to just under 6,000 in mid-April and then around a thousand in May and June, before partially recovering to almost 5,000 in late August.
- Roughly half of the active listings before lockdown comprised entire homes, implying that up to 10,000 homes may have become available for long-term renting as a result of the lockdown.
Source and notes:
- Data extracted from Inside Airbnb
- Active listings are defined as listings that received at least one review in the previous month 6.8. The number of homes on planning applications submitted in London in the first half of 2020 is subdued compared with the same period in the past four years.
- The research firm Molior monitor planning applications for schemes in London with at least 20 market units. While this data is subject to revision, the number of homes on planning applications submitted for schemes in London shows the effect of the Coronavirus pandemic.
- In the first seven months of 2020, the number of homes on planning applications submitted in London was subdued compared to the same period in previous years, falling from almost 7,000 in February (roughly average compared to previous years) to just under 4,000 in April.
- Applications increased in June but fell again in July, to below the level seen at the same time in any of the previous three years.
Source and notes:
- Molior London database 6.9. Housebuilding in London, as measured by the weekly number of Energy Performance Certificates for new dwellings, fell during lockdown but recovered to roughly its previous level.
- New, experimental data published by MHCLG shows the weekly number of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) for new dwellings registered in each region. According to these figures, the number of new homes completed fell sharply in every region during lockdown, although by less in London than in other regions - from around 3,000 completions in a typical four-week period to around 1,000.
- Since then each region has seen a broadly similar recovery to around its pre-lockdown level of completions, with only the West Midlands showing signs of exceeding this level as of mid-August.
- Compared to the pre-lockdown trend there was a loss of around 5,000 completions in London during late March and mid-June. Weekly completions have yet to rise above their pre-lockdown levels in any region, and have stabilised slightly below those levels in London and other southern regions, indicating that it will take some time to make up for the ‘lost’ supply.
Source and notes:
- MHCLG, experimental Energy Performance Certificate statistics 6.10. The resilience of the construction workforce is affected by high rates of self-employment and, in London, heavy use of public transport to get to work.
- Just prior to the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, 39% of London’s 350,000 construction workers were self-employed, compared to 16% of workers in other sectors. A similar proportion of construction workers in the rest of the country are self-employed.
- Around 50% of London’s construction workers used public transport to get to work before the crisis - slightly less than the 60% in other sectors but far more than in the rest of the country, where just 3% of those in construction travelled to work by public transport.
Source and notes:
- Labour Force Survey (person dataset), Q4 2019 6.11. As of 30 June, 55% of all eligible construction roles in London had been placed on furlough at some point.
- The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) allowed employers to claim financial support of up to 80% of salary (up to a maximum £2,500 per month) for each furloughed employee from early March.
- As of 30 June, 1.29 million or 30% of all eligible roles in London had been placed on furlough (the same number as in England as a whole) at some point. This figure rose to 55% of construction employment, second only to the arts, entertainment and recreation sector.
- Construction workers in London also had a high rate of claims to the self-employment income support scheme, with 79% of potentially eligible workers making a claim at some point.
Source and notes:
- HMRC, Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and Self-Employment Income Support Scheme statistics, July 2020
- The figures represent the total take-up over the course of the scheme, rather than a snapshot at a particular point in time. 6.12. London has around 1.2 million key workers in 2019, the majority of whom live in an owner occupied home either with or without a mortgage.
- Based on the categorisation used by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, London had around 1.2 million key workers in 2019, split between just over 500,000 in the public sector and nearly 700,000 in the private sector.
- In broad terms, key workers live in the different housing tenures at similar rates to other workers in London, but there are some important differences. Notably, private sector key workers are less likely to own their home and more likely to live in social housing than either public sector key workers or other workers.
Source and notes:
- Labour Force Survey (person dataset), Q4 2019 6.13. The number of mortgage and landlord claims for home repossession in London courts fell sharply during lockdown …
- As a result of FCA announcements and the passing of the Coronavirus Act in March 2020, mortgage and landlord repossession claims fell sharply in London courts (as in other regions) between March and June.
- There were just nine mortgage possession claims in June (compared to 312 in February), 115 claims by social landlords (compared to 975), 159 by private landlords (compared to 537) and another 119 (down from 538) through the 'accelerated landlord' channel, mostly used by private landlords.
- Any possession claims still registered in the system during this time may not be progressed until the lifting of the stay on repossessions.
- As was the case before the pandemic, it is likely that not all claims will progress to actual possessions.
Source and notes:
- Data provided by Ministry of Justice, and consistent with information published in its Q2 2020 possession statistics
- Data for April to June 2020 is provisional and may be revised. Claims are allocated to London on the basis of the location of the court, so may include some claims for properties outside the London area. 6.14. … but a quarter of privately renting adults in London said in July that they had either fallen behind on their rent or that they were likely to do so soon.
- In a survey carried out by YouGov in July 2020, 9% of private renters in London said they had fallen behind on some or all of their rent since the start of lockdown, and a further 17% said they were likely to fall behind soon.
- Social housing tenants were more likely to report already being in arrears but were less worried about falling behind in future. 11% said they had fallen behind on some or all of their rent, while 7% said they were likely to fall behind soon.
Source and notes:
- YouGov survey for the GLA
- Total sample size was 1,082 adults in London, including 259 private tenants and 148 social housing tenants. Fieldwork was undertaken between 28th - 31st July 2020. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). 6.15. The number of people seen sleeping rough for the first time in London between April and June 2020 was 77% higher than in the same period in 2019.
- Between April and June 2020 outreach teams recorded 2,680 people sleeping rough in London for the first time, a 77% increase from the same period in 2019. Of these, 2,158 (81%) people spent just one night sleeping rough, while 39 were subsequently seen enough to be considered living on the streets.
- 1,322 people were considered ‘intermittently’ sleeping rough in London between April and June 2020, similar to the same period in 2019.
- By contrast, the number of people considered to be living on the streets fell by a third between 2019 and 2020, largely as a result of efforts to get people into Coronavirus emergency accommodation.
Source and notes:
- CHAIN quarterly report, April to June 2020 6.16. In late May, there were nearly 1,400 homeless people staying in emergency hotel accommodation arranged by the GLA due to the pandemic.
- In mid-March, the GLA began an emergency programme to block-book hotel accommodation for homeless people who would otherwise have been at severe risk of Coronavirus infection from living in shared shelters or on the streets.
- Within two weeks nearly 1,000 people had been moved into hotel accommodation, with a peak of around 1,340 in mid-May. Numbers have fallen since then, as the Mayor’s services focus on securing positive outcomes such as moves into supported and private rented accommodation, for those who have accessed the hotels. In total around 1,700 people were helped through the GLA hotels programme at some point.
- At the same time, London boroughs also obtained emergency accommodation via hotels and other Coronavirus-secure options, and over the same period have helped around 4,000 people.
Source and notes:
- GLA data Appendices
A1. Discontinued charts A2. Glossary of acronyms A3. Sources of data on housing supply A1. Discontinued charts
Some charts from previous editions have not been included in this edition of Housing in London. In some cases, this was because there were multiple charts on a specific topic. In other cases, for charts highlighted in grey, charts have been replaced with data on a similar and more relevant topic. Finally, some charts have been removed as the data included has not been updated in the last year, for example because it uses 2011 Census data.
Below is a list of the charts in Housing in London 2019 which have been discontinued in Housing in London 2020. The tables in the 2019 report can be found on the Housing in London webpage https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/housing-london using the below index numbers.
Table 5: Charts in Housing in London 2019 discontinued in Housing in London 2020
| Chart | Description | |-------|-------------| | 1.2 | Estimated numbers of dwellings and households in Greater London, 1901 to 2018 | | 1.7 | Annualised gross new homes built and net change in dwelling stock in London, by decade, 1961 to 2018 | | 1.8 | London Plan capacities and net completions, 1997 to 2028 | | 1.9 | Proportion of respondents (in Britain and in London only) identifying housing as one of the most important issues facing the country | | 2.1 | Population change by decade in London and Outer Metropolitan Area, 1811 to 2021 | | 2.2 | Components of London’s population change, 1996 to 2018 | | 2.4 | Share of people aged 20-34 living with their parents, London and UK 1996-98 to 2016-18 | | 2.8 | Median property wealth, by total household net equivalised income decile, London, 2010 to 2014/16 | | 2.9 | Non-UK nationals as a share of home building workforce by region and country, 2017 | | 3.4 | Annualised new house building starts in London by type of provider, 2000 to 2019 | | 3.5 | Percentage increase in housing stock by local authority, 2008 to 2019 | | 3.9 | Mean floor area by dwelling age, London and England | | 3.10 | Percentage of new build houses sold on a leasehold, London and England, 1998 to 2018 | | 3.14 | Estimated number of homes in each London borough that could be provided by tall buildings in the pipeline, 2019 | | Chart | Description | |-------|-------------| | 3.16 | Number of community-led housing projects by London borough, August 2019 | | 3.20 | Conversions of social rent homes to Affordable Rent compared to starts of social rent and Affordable Rent homes, London 2011/12 to 2018/19 | | 3.24 | Number of dwellings recorded as second homes for council tax purposes, 2018 | | 4.2 | Estimated income distribution of recently moving households in London by tenure | | 4.4 | Ratio of London and wider South East average house prices to UK average, 1974 to 2019 | | 4.11 | Court orders for mortgage repossession in London, 1980 to 2018 (with actual repossessions from 2003) | | 4.13 | Estimated number of properties listed on Airbnb in London by type, December 2013 to March 2019 | | 4.15 | Quarterly change in nominal rent and leading indicators for rental growth, London, 2010 to 2020 | | 4.20 | Change in private rent Housing Benefit and Universal Credit caseload by London Middle Super Output Area, April 2018 to February 2019 | | 5.4 | Support needs of rough sleepers in London, 2018/19 | | 5.7 | Homelessness prevention and relief in London, 2009/10 to 2018/19 | | 5.9 | Households leaving temporary accommodation, London, 1998/99 to 2017/18 | | 6.2 | Proportion of households in London who lived less than a year at current address by tenure, 1995 to 2018 | | 6.5 | Reasons for moving: households moving / forming in the last two years, by previous tenure, 2014/15 to 2016/17 | | 6.11 | Trend in proportion of non-decent homes in London and rest of England, 2006 to 2017 | | 6.14 | Fires in homes recorded by London Fire Brigade in 2018 |
## A2. Glossary of acronyms
Table 6: Glossary of acronyms used in Housing in London 2020
| Acronym | Full word / phrase | |---------|---------------------------------------------------------| | BTR | Build to Rent | | CPI | Consumer Price Inflation | | EPC | Energy Performance Certificate | | GLA | Greater London Authority | | HMO | House in Multiple Occupation | | HRA | Homelessness Reduction Act | | LAR | London Affordable Rent | | LDD | London Development Database | | LEGGI | London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory | | MHCLG | Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government | | NHBC | National Housebuilding Council | | ONS | Office for National Statistics | | RTB | Right to Buy | | UKHPI | UK House Price Index | A3. Sources of data on housing supply
Introduction
This note sets out the two main measures of housing supply used by the GLA, reflecting data gathered for the purposes of monitoring planning decisions and affordable housing funding programmes.
Planning data
The housing provision targets set out in the current London Plan are defined in terms of total net housing supply, comprising three components:
- Conventional completions: self-contained homes from new build, conversion or change of use;
- Non-conventional completions: non-self-contained housing such as bedrooms in hostels or halls of residence; and
- Change in long-term empty homes (those empty for more than six months), where a decrease is an addition to supply and an increase is a subtraction.
Progress against these targets is monitored in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report, the latest edition of which was published in October 2019. The source for conventional and non-conventional completions is the London Development Database (LDD), a uniquely detailed database of housing developments created from data provided by London borough planning departments and checked by the GLA. The number of long-term empty homes is monitored using annual statistics reported by MHCLG, based on local authority Council Tax data. The conventional component of total housing supply is reported by the GLA to MHCLG who publish it as part of their national statistics on the ‘Net supply of housing’.
MHCLG also publish quarterly national statistics on house building. These statistics are not strictly comparable to the conventional housing supply statistics published by GLA or MHCLG themselves, as they cover only new build developments and are reported on a gross rather than net basis. They are also known to undercount even new build completions. They can however be a useful indicator of future trends in completions when these caveats are borne in mind.
Affordable homes programme monitoring
The GLA publishes quarterly affordable housing statistics on affordable homes started and completed through its affordable homes programmes, which comprise the majority of affordable housing supply in London. These statistics cover not just new build but also acquisitions of existing private sector homes for affordable housing. The dates of start and completion are those recorded for the purposes of the affordable homes programme, and may differ from the dates reported through the planning system that inform the planning statistics described above.
MHCLG publishes an annual set of national statistics on affordable housing supply that incorporate the GLA statistics, but also add any affordable homes delivered in London without GLA support.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3172-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 122,
"total-input-tokens": 272764,
"total-output-tokens": 47358,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
118,
1
],
[
118,
118,
2
],
[
118,
1543,
3
],
[
1543,
3497,
4
],
[
3497,
5609,
5
],
[
5609,
7924,
6
],
[
7924,
9987,
7
],
[
9987,
12155,
8
],
[
12155,
13069,
9
],
[
13069,
15629,
10
],
[
15629,
17883,
11
],
[
17883,
18442,
12
],
[
18442,
23595,
13
],
[
23595,
30779,
14
],
[
30779,
37040,
15
],
[
37040,
39596,
16
],
[
39596,
40888,
17
],
[
40888,
41965,
18
],
[
41965,
43171,
19
],
[
43171,
44241,
20
],
[
44241,
45612,
21
],
[
45612,
46671,
22
],
[
46671,
47955,
23
],
[
47955,
48987,
24
],
[
48987,
50587,
25
],
[
50587,
51591,
26
],
[
51591,
52841,
27
],
[
52841,
53814,
28
],
[
53814,
54928,
29
],
[
54928,
56131,
30
],
[
56131,
57058,
31
],
[
57058,
58167,
32
],
[
58167,
61196,
33
],
[
61196,
62801,
34
],
[
62801,
63931,
35
],
[
63931,
65197,
36
],
[
65197,
66384,
37
],
[
66384,
67321,
38
],
[
67321,
68485,
39
],
[
68485,
69700,
40
],
[
69700,
70534,
41
],
[
70534,
71530,
42
],
[
71530,
72562,
43
],
[
72562,
73992,
44
],
[
73992,
75076,
45
],
[
75076,
76442,
46
],
[
76442,
77882,
47
],
[
77882,
79076,
48
],
[
79076,
80567,
49
],
[
80567,
81427,
50
],
[
81427,
82734,
51
],
[
82734,
83973,
52
],
[
83973,
85422,
53
],
[
85422,
86542,
54
],
[
86542,
89186,
55
],
[
89186,
90153,
56
],
[
90153,
91379,
57
],
[
91379,
92378,
58
],
[
92378,
93439,
59
],
[
93439,
94785,
60
],
[
94785,
95853,
61
],
[
95853,
97271,
62
],
[
97271,
98267,
63
],
[
98267,
99319,
64
],
[
99319,
100386,
65
],
[
100386,
101310,
66
],
[
101310,
102832,
67
],
[
102832,
103929,
68
],
[
103929,
105110,
69
],
[
105110,
106550,
70
],
[
106550,
107367,
71
],
[
107367,
108671,
72
],
[
108671,
110187,
73
],
[
110187,
111223,
74
],
[
111223,
111889,
75
],
[
111889,
112850,
76
],
[
112850,
114458,
77
],
[
114458,
115694,
78
],
[
115694,
116758,
79
],
[
116758,
117732,
80
],
[
117732,
118788,
81
],
[
118788,
119713,
82
],
[
119713,
120708,
83
],
[
120708,
123008,
84
],
[
123008,
123804,
85
],
[
123804,
124819,
86
],
[
124819,
125813,
87
],
[
125813,
126587,
88
],
[
126587,
127668,
89
],
[
127668,
128376,
90
],
[
128376,
129423,
91
],
[
129423,
130567,
92
],
[
130567,
131532,
93
],
[
131532,
132775,
94
],
[
132775,
133770,
95
],
[
133770,
134800,
96
],
[
134800,
135821,
97
],
[
135821,
137044,
98
],
[
137044,
138199,
99
],
[
138199,
140845,
100
],
[
140845,
142117,
101
],
[
142117,
143095,
102
],
[
143095,
143967,
103
],
[
143967,
144971,
104
],
[
144971,
145891,
105
],
[
145891,
147101,
106
],
[
147101,
148102,
107
],
[
148102,
148991,
108
],
[
148991,
150211,
109
],
[
150211,
150965,
110
],
[
150965,
151978,
111
],
[
151978,
152732,
112
],
[
152732,
153949,
113
],
[
153949,
154918,
114
],
[
154918,
155778,
115
],
[
155778,
156764,
116
],
[
156764,
156863,
117
],
[
156863,
159072,
118
],
[
159072,
160731,
119
],
[
160731,
161942,
120
],
[
161942,
164657,
121
],
[
164657,
164657,
122
]
]
} |
bb4416590b72be60515c36fd8de6df013f1d63d4 | Overtime City of York Council Internal Audit Report 2015/16
Business Unit: Corporate & Cross-Cutting Responsible Officer: All Directors Date issued: 20 December 2016 Status: Final Reference: 19130/008
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | Overall Audit Opinion | Reasonable Assurance | Summary and Overall Conclusions
Introduction
During the first six months of 2015-16 £392K has been spent by City of York Council on overtime. This compares to £561K over the same period in 2013-14 and £498K in 2014-15. The trend shows that overtime is reducing but it still represents a significant area of spend.
Overtime payments for the current financial year have been made to a total of 540 employees, and £197K of this total has been paid to just 55 individuals, with 16 employees receiving over £4,000 each in overtime alone during this period.
Overtime has been a key area of audit work since 2013-14 but further work in this area is still required to ensure that overtime is only used where necessary and to establish whether procedures for allocation and authorisation of overtime are sufficiently robust.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit
The purpose of the audit is to identify any areas of weakness and provide advice on potential areas for improvement in relation to overtime. The audit will review processes and controls in relation to overtime within the services with the greatest overall spend, as determined by analysis of spend information for the first six periods of the current financial year. The three cost centres with the greatest level of overall spend were identified as being NR250 Public Realm Operations, NR121 Building Maintenance and NR140 Highways. The use of overtime within the service will be discussed with the service managers.
The audit will cover the following areas:
- procedures for allocation and authorisation of overtime
- whether alternative working patterns or staffing structures could be used to reduce the use of overtime
The audit will also include follow-up work on the actions agreed as part of the 2014-15 audit relating to monitoring of standby hours and availability of management information on overtime hours and payments.
Key Findings
Overtime remains an area of high expenditure for the council and needs to be adequately monitored across the whole of the organisation, not just those services where the largest amount of expenditure occurs. Overall, service managers were clear on the allocation of overtime across their services. Where the same employees were found to be accessing overtime over a number of months, this could be explained either by service constraints or by a lack of volunteers. However, the concentration of overtime hours among a few individuals has caused the council to breach the Working Time Regulations 1998 in several instances and allowed staff to work hours that raise concerns over health and safety both for its employees and its customers.
Issues found with processes for authorising additional hours and overtime mainly related to those claims that are submitted via manual timesheets. Numerous errors and inconsistencies in the completion of timesheets were observed. These errors and inconsistencies, coupled with the fact that no provision has been made for staff to record reasons for the additional hours or overtime undertaken, leads to a lack of transparency. A wider issue is the overall monitoring of overtime usage by services, which is not routinely undertaken.
Work done to follow up the agreed actions from the 2014-15 audit of overtime revealed that significant progress had been made. However, some issues remained to be resolved at the time of the audit and further follow-up work will be carried out to confirm that the actions taken address the risks. Some issues were also observed with the availability and use of management information on overtime and additional hours, although significant improvements were made during the course of the audit and HR is currently undertaking work to improve the situation further.
Many issues that have been identified during the audit could be addressed through the corporate payroll system (iTrent). The system provides, through its Employee Self Service and People Manager modules, the facility for reasons for overtime to be recorded. It is also able to produce management information on payroll elements such that both hours worked by individuals and the cost of the payments made can be more closely monitored. If management were to be better informed of overtime usage, it follows that they would be in a better position to allocate more effectively (i.e. by reducing dependency on certain staff where possible) and authorise only those hours that are necessary for the most important of tasks.
Finally, satisfactory consideration was found to have been given to the possibility of implementing alternative working patterns and staffing structures to reduce overtime but, based on discussions held with service managers, there appears to be limited scope for further changes to be made within existing service delivery models. It is also important to recognise that overtime is a legitimate business practice, enabling the authority to flexibly deliver its services using the skills possessed by its existing workforce.
**Overall Conclusions**
It was found that the arrangements for managing risk were satisfactory with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Reasonable Assurance. 1 Overtime claiming
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | There is no requirement to provide a reason for additional hours or overtime worked on manual and electronic claims. | Increased risk of inappropriate or fraudulent overtime claims. | | Lack of control in the authorisation of manual timesheets. | Overtime paid is irreconcilable in the absence of a complete audit trail. |
Findings
Manual timesheets are formatted in such a way that a reason for the additional hours or overtime worked is not required. As a result, it is not possible to determine whether or not the work undertaken was necessary. Through Employee Self Service, the iTrent system has provision for staff to justify additional hours or overtime via a comments box although this is not a mandatory field. While some services do have overtime application forms which authorise a number of hours against a task, these are separate to the timesheets submitted for payroll purposes.
Review of manual timesheets completed for both additional hours and overtime payments revealed a large number of errors and inconsistencies. Breaks were, on occasions, not subtracted from hours worked, the total number of hours was incorrect and authorising officers were not clearly identified. There was one occasion where the signature differed from the printed name of the authorising officer. These errors were identified and corrected by the council’s payroll officers.
Agreed Action 1.1
iTrent Employee Self Service will be rolled out to all council staff.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------------| | 2 | Head of HR and Organisational Development | 31 March 2017 | 2 Compliance with the Working Time Regulations 1998
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | Failure to fully comply with the requirements of the Working Time Regulations. | The council is found to have failed in its duty of care and could face reputational damage and possible legal challenge. |
Findings
The 20 top council employees who earned the most overtime were identified and their working hours examined. It was found that nine had exceeded the maximum average working week of 48 hours during a 17 week reference period between the beginning of April and end of July 2015. All employees were found to have taken the minimum 48 hour rest period within a fortnight. However, four employees, on at least one occasion, had not had the required minimum 11 hour uninterrupted rest break within a 24 hour period. Two members of staff had failed to observe this rest period on more than 10 occasions.
Agreed Action 2.1
A corporate message will be distributed, reminding managers of the need to comply with the Working Time Regulations but also of the council’s duty of care to its staff.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | Head of HR and Organisational Development | 31 January 2017 |
Agreed Action 2.2
As Public Realm no longer uses weekly timesheets, breaches of the Working Time Regulations can only be identified from the data recorded on the overtime claim sheets. Therefore, the following arrangement will be implemented in November 2016 to include data from October 2016 onwards:
- Existing monitoring arrangements relating to the authorisation of overtime will be amended to include monitoring of compliance with the Working Time Regulations
- A monthly summary of overtime worked compared to hours authorised is provided to the Head of Operations. This will now include compliance with the Working Time Regulations
- Any Working Time Regulations opt-outs will be reviewed, updated and recorded
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | Head of Operations | 31 January 2017 |
### Agreed Action 2.3
Building Services is actively reviewing a range of short term and long term options to ensure that the demands of providing a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, reactive service are balanced with the requirements to maintain safe and compliant working hours for staff. The service will also be adapting existing overtime reporting to be able to more clearly identify, and act on, potential breaches of the Working Time Regulations.
| Priority | 2 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | Head of Building Services | | Timescale | 31 January 2017 |
### Agreed Action 2.4
OPH Operations will enquire with Legal Services as to whether or not current shift patterns are compliant with the Working Time Regulations in respect of the daily rest period and take any action necessary.
| Priority | 2 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | Service Manager – Provider Services | | Timescale | 31 January 2017 | 3 Monitoring of additional hours and overtime (Older People’s Homes)
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Lack of communication between Older People’s Homes (OPH) managers with regard to hours already worked by staff. | Unnecessary overtime is worked resulting in additional costs to the council. | | Shifts can be swapped without management consent. | Potential for the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be breached, posing significant risk to employee and customer health and safety and to the reputation of the council. |
Findings
The current arrangements for overtime allocation within OPHs is those staff who have not worked 37 hours for the week will be asked to cover shifts first (staff are contracted on part time hours). Managers would then look to use ‘Work with York’ (a council owned company), then contact staff working over 37 hour weeks and, as a last resort, find workers from external agencies.
An issue that the service encounters in monitoring the number of overtime hours worked is that staff are able to work across homes to cover shifts. Lack of communication between OPH management in terms of hours completed by staff at their permanent place of employment has allowed staff to work excessive hours and to accumulate significant amounts of overtime without challenge. By the time the service has realised that the level of overtime is abnormally high, the work has already been completed.
Staff also agree between themselves to swap shifts. Shift swaps have been permitted by the service for exceptional circumstances but the system can be easily exploited. Staff are able to work overtime hours by swapping shifts with a colleague so that the shift that they have swapped into will attract overtime rates. Although the biggest risk here is that unnecessary overtime is worked there is also a significant risk that, without regulation, the Working Time Regulations could be breached. Given the informal arrangements the service has in this area, monitoring is difficult.
Agreed Action 3.1
Rotas have now been centralised and a member of staff has been appointed to coordinate these. All services produce data on additional hours which is discussed with care home managers during weekly performance clinics run by the OPH management team.
The service has also introduced a guidance document which clearly outlines expectations with respect to the use of shift swaps. The guidance stipulates that shifts should only be swapped on a like for like basis (i.e. shifts which attract the same enhancements) and that these must be authorised by the registered manager and recorded on a swap form.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Service Manager – Provider Services | Implemented | Annex 1
Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
**Audit Opinions**
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
**Priorities for Actions**
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4473-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 16240,
"total-output-tokens": 3562,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
306,
1
],
[
306,
2773,
2
],
[
2773,
5670,
3
],
[
5670,
7693,
4
],
[
7693,
9855,
5
],
[
9855,
10802,
6
],
[
10802,
13908,
7
],
[
13908,
16120,
8
],
[
16120,
16720,
9
]
]
} |
c6054cd170b92669da16976b8577fdf702b1ba98 | 1 Budget Scrutiny – Reporting and Monitoring Working Group
1.1 In recent years the Overview and Scrutiny Committee has set up a Reporting and Monitoring Working Group annually that provides initial scrutiny input in the budget process. The Group reviews the budget and refers specific budget items to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider in detail. This takes place in January each year.
1.2 The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee is keen for this type of budget scrutiny to continue as he recognises this type of budget scrutiny as an example of best practice. It is suggested that this scrutiny activity continues to operate as a Working Group, operating directly with the Finance service, feeding back its schedule of budget items for Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider at its January 2020 meeting.
1.3 Membership of the Reporting and Monitoring Working Group comprises a number of members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, although other non-Executive members may also be invited to join. The Chair of the Working Group should be a member of Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
1.4 Membership of the Working Group for 2018/2019 was:
Councillor Jamie Lane (Chair) Councillors Aziz, Bottwood, Duffy, Meredith, Kilby-Shaw, Sargeant, Smith, Flavell and Russell.
1.5 The schedule of meetings of the Reporting and Monitoring Working Group are:
11 November 2019, 5:15pm 18 December 2019, 5:15pm
2 Recommendations
2.1 That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee approves the membership of the Reporting and Monitoring Working Group.
Author: Tracy Tiff, Democratic and Member Services Manager, on behalf of Councillor Jamie Lane, Chair, Overview and Scrutiny Committee
19 June 2019
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4474-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1823,
"total-output-tokens": 440,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1713,
1
]
]
} |
429699f24d3d1152cf2670bb664c1e0a3d07fd0b | Relationships between recovery and relapse, and default and repeated episodes of default in the management of acute malnutrition in children in humanitarian emergencies: A systematic review protocol Relationships between recovery and relapse, and default and repeated episodes of default in the management of acute malnutrition in children in humanitarian emergencies: A systematic review protocol
Authors Robert Akparibo, BSc, MSc, MPH, PhD Andrew CK Lee, MBChB, MSc, MFPH MD, MRCGP Andrew Booth, BA, Dip Lib, MSc, PhD MCLIP Janet Harris, BA, MSW, PhD Helen B. Woods, BA, MSc, MCLIP, FHEA Lindsay Blank, BSc, PhD Michelle Holdsworth, BSc, PGDip, PhD, RD, RNutr. (University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, UK).
Contact Dr Robert Akparibo, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK
Expert advisors Seth Adu-Afarwuah, BSc, MPhil, PhD (University of Ghana, Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Ghana) Mark Manary, B.S, MD (Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, USA) Tanya Khara, BA, MSc (Emergency Nutrition Network, UK)
Funding This is a report commissioned by the Humanitarian Evidence Programme, a partnership between Oxfam and Feinstein International Center at Tufts University, and funded by the Department for International Development. This material has been funded by UK aid from the UK Government, however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
Picture Mother and her baby boy at their home in Azel, Niger in March 2015. The Azel Treatment Centre is a small community health centre, largely dealing with malnutrition cases. Abbie Trayler-Smith/Oxfam.
© Copyright Authors of the systematic reviews protocols on the Oxfam GB website (policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications) hold the copyright for the text of their protocols. Oxfam GB owns the copyright for all material on the website it has developed, including the contents of the databases, manuals, and keywording. Oxfam and authors give permission for users of the site to display and print the contents of the site for their own non-commercial use, providing that the materials are not modified, copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the materials are retained, and the source of the material is cited clearly following the citation details provided. Otherwise users are not permitted to duplicate, reproduce, re-publish, distribute, or store material from this website without express written permission.
# CONTENTS
## ACRONYMS
| 1. BACKGROUND | 7 | |---------------|---| | 1.1 The global burden of acute malnutrition | 7 | | 1.2 Defining malnutrition | 8 | | 1.2.1 Severe acute malnutrition: definition and classification | 8 | | 1.2.2 Moderate acute malnutrition: Definition and classification | 11 | | 1.3 Rationale for the review | 12 | | 1.4 Aim of the review | 13 |
## REVIEW METHODS
| 2. Study design | 14 | |-----------------|---| | 2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria | 14 | | 2.2.1 Population and condition | 14 | | 2.2.2 Intervention and treatment | 14 | | 2.2.3 Outcomes | 15 | | 2.2.4 Study types | 15 | | 2.3 Search strategy | 16 | | 2.3.1 Mapping the literature | 16 | | 2.3.2 Published and unpublished literature | 17 | | 2.3.3 Bibliography and database search | 17 | | 2.3.4 Websites and Google Scholar searches for non-peer review and grey literature | 18 | | 2.3.5 Supplementary searches | 19 | | 2.3.6 Contacts with individuals and organisations | 19 | | 2.4 Search limitations | 19 | | 2.5 Screening studies | 19 | | 2.6 Data Extraction | 20 | | 2.6.1 Quantitative data | 20 | | 2.6.2 Qualitative data | 20 | | 2.6.3 Data extraction from programme reports | 20 | | 2.7 Data analysis | 20 | | 2.7.1 Quantitative data analysis | 20 | | 2.7.2 Qualitative data analysis | 21 | | 2.8 Dealing with missing data | 21 | | 2.9 Evaluating the quality of included studies | 21 |
## CONTRIBUTION OF MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW TEAM
| 3. | 22 |
## CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
| 4. | 23 |
## TIMELINE
| 5. | 24 |
## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
| 6. | 25 | 7. REFERENCES
8. APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Title and abstract screening guide for peer review studies
Appendix 2. Full-text screening guide
Appendix 3. Quantitative data extraction form: key information
Appendix 4. Qualitative data extraction form: key information
Appendix 5. Quality checklist: randomised control trial studies
Appendix 6. Quality evaluation checklist: non-randomised control trial studies
Appendix 7. Quality evaluation checklist: qualitative studies
Appendix 8. Quality evaluation checklist: systematic reviews
Appendix 9. Assessment of risk of bias of randomised and non-randomised controlled studies
Appendix 10. Initial search strategy /outputs of Medline scoping search
Appendix 11. List of organisations and contacts for grey literature
### ACRONYMS
| Acronym | Description | |---------|-------------| | CASP | Critical Appraisal Skills Programme | | CDC | Centre for Disease Control | | CENTRAL | Cochrane Centre Registers for Clinical Trials | | CINAHL | Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health | | CSB | Corn-soy blend | | CRD | Centre for Reviews and Dissemination | | CMAM | Community-based management of acute malnutrition | | DFID | Department for International Development | | ENN | Emergency Nutrition Network | | ELRHA | Enhanced Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance | | EMBASE | Excerpta Medica Database | | FANTA | Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance | | FAO | Food and Agriculture Organisation | | HPG | Humanitarian Policy Group | | INGOs | International non-governmental organisations | | IMEMR | Index Medicus for Eastern Mediterranean Region | | IMSEAR | Index Medicus for South-East Asian Region | | LILACS | Latin America Caribbean Health Sciences Literature | | MAM | Moderate acute malnutrition | | MSF | Medicine Sans Frontiers | | MUAC | Mid-Upper Arm Circumference | | ODI | Overseas Development Institute | | NCHS | National Center for Health Statistics | | SAM | Severe acute malnutrition | | SC | Supper Cereal | | RCT | Randomised controlled trials | | RUTF | Ready-to-use therapeutic foods | | Acronym | Description | |---------|-------------| | RUF | Ready-to-use foods | | RUSF | Ready-to-use supplementary foods | | R4D | Research for Development | | TSF | Target supplementary feeding | | USA | United States of America | | UK | United Kingdom | | UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | | UNSCN | United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition | | USAID | United States Agency for International Development | | UNICEF | United Nations Children’s Fund | | WHO | World Health Organization |
1. BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines malnutrition in children as ‘a state in which the physical function of a child from birth to five years is impaired due to either overnutrition or undernutrition’ whereby ‘the latter is the result of poor or insufficient nourishment, poor absorption, or poor biological use of nutrients consumed’ (WHO, 2006, p24). Malnutrition is the single greatest threat to child survival, and is measured by three main indicators: underweight, stunting and wasting. Underweight is an indicator for recent weight loss or the combined effect of wasting and stunting. Stunting is an indicator of long-term or chronic malnutrition, while wasting indicates acute deficiency in nutrient intake or disease (UNICEF, 2009). Of these three, wasting poses the greatest risk to mortality in children under five (Black et al., 2008, 2013). The condition is associated with a lack of body fat and wasting of skeletal muscles. Malnutrition is preventable and treatable, and there are appropriate guidelines developed by the WHO and other bodies for managing acute malnutrition in humanitarian emergencies to prevent the risk of mortality (UNICEF, 2009, 2013).
This review is funded through the Humanitarian Evidence Programme, a UK Aid-funded partnership between Oxfam and Feinstein International Center (FIC) at the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University. We plan to conduct a systematic review of evidence to understand what works in the management of acute malnutrition in emergency relief settings. The review primarily will focus on reviewing evidence from published and unpublished/grey literature to understand the relationship between recovery and relapse, and default rates and/or repeated episodes of default, following the management of acute malnutrition in children aged under five-years-old in humanitarian emergencies.
The review forms part of the Humanitarian Evidence Programme, which aims to synthesize evidence in the humanitarian sector and communicate the findings to stakeholders, with the ultimate goal of improving humanitarian policy and practice.
1.1 THE GLOBAL BURDEN OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION
Acute malnutrition in children has been described as a global human disaster, affecting one in three children under five years old in developing countries (WHO, UNICEF, 2013). The condition remains a major public health concern because it is associated with more than half of the eight million deaths in children under five worldwide (WHO, 2013). Estimates suggest that around eight percent of the world’s under-fives had MAM, and three per cent had SAM in 2013 (UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, 2012). In absolute terms, this translates to some 51 million and 17 million children respectively suffering MAM and SAM. Around two-thirds of these children live in South-East Asia and in sub-Saharan African countries (UNICEF, WHO and World Bank, 2012).
A rise in the number of acute malnutrition cases can be seen in the immediate aftermath of an emergency, such as when a natural disaster occurs and causes destruction to food sources and food distribution systems (Bagchi et al., 2004). A destruction of the food distribution system increases food insecurity by reducing the accessibility of roads needed to transport foods from one location to another (Moazzem et al., 2009). The disaster may also cause disruption to food crops, and this could have an adverse impact on the food security of the affected population. Food insecurity leads to inadequate dietary and nutrient intake, and the consequence of this is an increase of acute malnutrition rates. Moreover, in emergencies children become vulnerable to infectious diseases such as diarrhoeal diseases, which are a risk factor for malnutrition (Brundtland, 2000). These issues are well captured in the UNICEF conceptual framework published in 1998, on the causes of child malnutrition (UNICEF, 1998). If not treated, acute malnutrition may permanently impair the growth and development of infants and young children under five years old. Early studies have shown that children’s resistance to infections is lowered when they suffer from acute malnutrition (e.g. Golden, 2000). The risk of mortality associated with acute malnutrition is directly related to the severity of the condition. Estimates suggest that children suffering from MAM are associated with mortality rates of between 30 and 115 per 1000 children per year (Collins and Andre, 2010). The risk is higher for children suffering from SAM. A recent meta-analysis conducted by McDonald and colleagues (2013) showed that children who suffer from SAM are up to 11.6 times more likely to die, compared with their well-nourished counterparts. Earlier publication by Andre and Collins (2010) suggested that the mortality risk for children diagnosed with SAM is between 73 and 187 per 1000 children every year. In the Lancet series on Maternal and Child Nutrition, it was estimated that globally around two million children die each year as a result of SAM (Black et al., 2013).
1.2 DEFINING MALNUTRITION
Acute malnutrition in children includes severe wasting, also known as severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and wasting, also known as moderate acute malnutrition (MAM).
1.2.1 Severe acute malnutrition: definition and classification
SAM has been classified in the literature using different classification criteria. Programmes implemented before 2006 to manage SAM used the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reference standard, published in 1977, to classify children with SAM. The NCHS classifies infants and children under five years of age as having SAM where their weight-for-height/length is less than -3 standard deviations (SD) also known as z scores, or 70 percent below the median reference standard, and/or in the presence of bilateral oedema, or a mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) of less than 115mm in children aged between six and 60 months (NCHS, 1997).
It is important to note that the NCHS standard has been criticised for its shortcomings. It relied on data drawn on bottle-fed babies in the USA, and therefore is not comparable to breastfed babies and children born in developing countries (De Onis et al., 1996). To address this, the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2006 published new child growth standards, which replaced the NCHS reference standards (WHO, 2009; de Onis et al., 2006). The new standards also use the weight-for-height/length \<-3SD criterion to identify infants and young children as having SAM. However, unlike the NCHS the new standard is based on data drawn from breastfed babies and appropriately fed children from different ethnic backgrounds in developing countries (de Onis et al., 2006). Reports have indicated that the WHO growth reference classifies between two and four times as many children than the NCHS reference (de Onis et al., 2006; Seal and Kerac, 2007).
As well as the weight-for-height criteria recommended by these two growth standards, the WHO and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) also recommend the use of MUAC for classifying SAM in children aged six- to 60 months (WHO; UNICEF, 2009; 2013). Using this tool, a MUAC cut-off of less than 115mm is recommended for diagnosing SAM, as data suggests that children with this MUAC cut-off have a greatly elevated risk of death compared to those who are above (WHO, UNICEF, 2009). This cut-off point has replaced an earlier recommendation by a WHO expert panel to use a MUAC cut-off of less 110mm for recruiting children into therapeutic programmes designed to manage SAM (WHO, UNICEF, 2006, 2007). The higher cut-off adjustment now enables the identification of children below the 115mm mark to be prioritised and treated appropriately to avoid the risk of mortality (Black et al., 2008). Data generated by humanitarian non-governmental organisations (e.g. Valid 2006) show that the MUAC is a better predictor of SAM. Community health workers with little or no training can also easily use this method to diagnose SAM. Furthermore it requires no charts unlike the weight–for-height method (Picot et al., 2012). The WHO does not recommend the use of MUAC to diagnose SAM in infants/babies aged below six months. Rather the same weight-for-height/length threshold with or without the presence of clinical oedema is recommended (WHO, 2006). Forms of SAM
There are three recognized forms of SAM: kwashiorkor, marasmus and marasmus-kwashiorkor. Kwashiorkor, most commonly observed in young children over two-years-old is characterized by the presence of bilateral pitting oedema of nutritional origin (Brewster et al., 1997; Golden, 1997 & 1996). The condition is diagnosed regardless of whether the MUAC is less than 115mm or children have weight-for-height/length of less than 3SD since the build-up of fluid in tissue can result in a higher weight and swelling of the limbs. Marasmus, on the other hand, is more often seen in children aged under two (Waterlow, 1984, 1976, 1972), and is characterized by severe body wasting or massive loss of body fat, muscle and subcutaneous tissue. Kwashiorkor can sometimes be overlaid onto marasmus, and in that case the condition is called marasmus-kwashiorkor (Golden, 1996 & 1997). A summary of diagnostic criteria used for screening children with SAM is presented in Table 1 below.
| Indicator | Measure | Cut-off | |----------------------------|------------------|------------------| | Severe wasting | Weight-for-height| < -3SD | | Severe wasting | MUAC | \<115mm | | Bilateral oedema | Clinical sign | |
1 Based on WHO standards (www.who.int/chilgrowth/standards). 2, 3 independent indicators of SAM require urgent action (adapted from WHO 2006 child growth reference standard).
Several other classification systems existed prior to the NCHS and WHO growth standards, which used different anthropometric measures and clinical characteristics to identify SAM in children. These include the Wellcome classifications of kwashiorkor, defined as 60-80 percent expected body weight plus oedema, and marasmus-kwashiorkor, defined as less than 60 percent expected body weight with oedema (Waterlow, 1972; Dugdale, 1971) and the Gomez classification of marasmus as a percentage expected weight-for-age of less than 60% (Stuart and Stevenson, 1959; Gomez et al., 1956).
Managing SAM
In 1999, the WHO published a protocol that provides step-by-step guidelines on how SAM should be managed (WHO, 1999). The guidelines recommend three distinct phases of treatment: initial stabilisation, nutrition rehabilitation and follow-up phases. In the initial stabilisation phase, life-threatening conditions such as hyperglycaemia, hypothermia, dehydration and other severe co-morbidities are identified and treated alongside nutritional management using the F-75 feeding formula to improve the nutritional status of affected children. Treatment in this phase is typically delivered in an inpatient hospital setting or at specialised nutrition rehabilitation centres, usually attached to a hospital’s paediatric ward.
In the second phase of treatment, the child receives a more nutrient-dense therapeutic diet (F-100) in order to promote weight gain. Other care plans are implemented to stimulate the child’s emotional development alongside any physical improvements. Caregivers also receive training on the causes of malnutrition and the management of common ailments, such as diarrhoea and malaria, to help them prevent relapses and avoid a recurrence of malnutrition. The last phase of hospital-level management takes place after the children have been discharged and reintegrated with their families. During this phase, health workers conduct regular follow-up visits to the homes of treated children to support and counsel their caregivers with the aim of preventing relapse.
The evidence gathered thus far indicates that the 1999 guidelines used to manage SAM have resulted in improved nutritional status and led to significant reductions in mortality rates (Andre et al., 1999; Collins, 2004). However, the model has some shortcomings that are worth highlighting. It is a biomedical model of care, and does not take into account the wider social aspects of malnutrition (Andre, 2001; Collins, 2001). Collins and Yate (2010) argue that the majority of children suffering from SAM do not have medical complications, and thus can be rehabilitated at home with nutrient-dense foods. Some studies have found a lack of competence among health workers, leading to poor quality management of children with SAM in hospital settings (Puoane et al., 2001; Collins, 2007, 2004). Other issues identified include low coverage rates due to the high cost of care, longer durations of hospital stay to achieve recovery and the increased risk of cross-infections when children are admitted to hospitals with poor hygiene standards (Collins and Saddler, 2002; Collins 2001, 2004).
**Alternative approaches**
To improve the quality of care and treatment coverage, in 2000 international non-governmental organisations (INGOS) developed and piloted a new acute malnutrition management model – known as the community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) model. Different terminologies have been used previously to describe the CMAM model, including community therapeutic care (CTC); integrated management of acute malnutrition (IMAM), community-based therapeutic care (CBTC) and ambulatory care for the treatment of acute malnutrition. In this document, CMAM will be used to refer to all of the different terms formerly used to describe the community-based management of acute malnutrition model. The CMAM model allows for children who are diagnosed with SAM, and who have no medical complications to be treated at outpatient centres (WHO, UNICEF, WFP, SCN, 2007). CMAM programmes use a new solid-based ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) unlike the water-based F-75 or F-100 that is recommended for use in hospital-based care for children with acute malnutrition (WHO, 1999). The new RUTFs have the same nutrient content as for F-75 or F-100 and are made from a combination of groundnut or peanut butter, dried skimmed powdered milk, sugar and vegetable oil, enriched with vitamins and minerals (Nutriset, 2000). RUTF has a low water content, and therefore carries less risk of bacterial contamination (Collins, 2001; André, 1997).
Early clinical trials (Diop et al., 2003; Manary et al., 2004; Ndekha et al., 2005; Collins et al., 2006), controlled comparative studies (Gaboulaud et al., 2005; Cilberto et al., 2005; Sandige et al., 2004) and a large body of evidence generated by INGOs (e.g. Valid International, Concern Worldwide) following the pilot implementation of CMAM programmes in emergency situations have demonstrated that the CMAM approach can achieve successful outcomes. The recovery rates reported in most studies have exceeded the Sphere project’s minimum standards for therapeutic effectiveness (Sphere, 2000, 2011). Similarly, mortality rates reported were lower than five percent and significantly better than the stipulated Sphere minimum standard. Based on this evidence, the WHO, UNICEF, United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition (UNSCN) and the World Food Programme endorsed the CMAM model in 2007 as a strategy for managing SAM in community-based settings in humanitarian emergencies (WHO, UNICEF, WFP, UNSCN, 2007). However, intervention studies and published programme reports have found high rates of default and relapse (Kerac et al., 2009; Cilberto et al., 2006; Ndekha et al., 2004; Valid, 2006).
**Discharging children from SAM therapeutic programmes**
Table 2 below summarizes the latest WHO recommendation for discharging under five-year-olds from acute malnutrition management programmes (WHO, 2013).
| Table 2: Criteria for discharging children from SAM treatment | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | Children with SAM should only be discharged from treatment when they meet the following criteria: | | - A weight-for-height/length of > -2SD/z scores and no oedema for at least two weeks, or | | - MUAC of > 115 and no oedema for at least two weeks | | - The anthropometric indicator that is used to confirm severe acute malnutrition should be used to assess whether a child has reached nutritional recovery | | Children admitted with only bilateral pitting oedema should be discharged from treatment on whichever anthropometric indicator, MUAC or weight-for-height/length is routinely used in programmes | | The percentage of weight gain should not be used as a discharge criteria for those receiving treatment for SAM | 1.2.2 Moderate acute malnutrition: Definition and classification
Similar to SAM, various criteria have been used to define and classify MAM. The NCHS recommendation was to define children aged under five with MAM if their weight-for-height was less than 80 percent, or a weight-for-height between -3 and -2SD or z scores without oedema. In a consensus statement issued recently by the WHO (2010) similar weight-for-height between -3 and -2SD/z score without oedema has been recommended. However the WHO, also added MUAC to use cut-off from 115mm to < 125mm without oedema.
Additional criteria, according to the WHO recommendation, are to consider children who are discharged from outpatient treatment programmes (i.e. those with weight-for-height of -2SD or MUAC < 115mm, with no oedema) using the outpatient therapeutic programmes guidelines. The statement indicated that children identified using these criteria are likely to respond to appropriate treatment.
Managing MAM
The development of acute malnutrition occurs rapidly and is observed more frequently in emergency situations, especially if children are already experiencing mild to moderate malnutrition in a pre-disaster setting (Picot et al., 2012). The increase in the prevalence of malnutrition is compounded by infections such as diarrhoeal diseases, malaria, pneumonia and HIV (Brundtland, 2004). The link between malnutrition and infections has been well documented. Estimates suggest that 16 percent of pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria morbidity in children under five years old is attributable to severe wasting (Collins, 2007). The nutritional status of infants and young children can also be impaired by HIV infection (Rollins, 2009; Fergusson and Tomkins, 2009). Severely malnourished children diagnosed with HIV infection are significantly more likely to die compared with children with no HIV infection (Fergusson and Tomkins, 2009). For these reasons, acute malnutrition in infants and children needs to be seriously prioritized and managed to prevent loss of life.
MAM treatment options
For children diagnosed with MAM, different programme approaches need to be used to manage their condition. UNICEF (2014) classifies these interventions or programme approaches into three levels:
1. Target supplementary feeding (TSF), provided to manage MAM in individual children identified through anthropometric screening. Treatment is usually carried out in outpatient/community settings and includes the provision of specialized nutritious foods such as fortified blended flour (e.g. Super cereal (SC), SC plus or corn-soy blend (CSB) and/or oil-based ready-to-use supplemental foods (RUSF) e.g. Plumpy’Doz.)
2. Blanket supplementary feeding provided to children to prevent MAM from progressing to SAM. This type of intervention involves blanket distribution of dry food rations to the parents of children under five years old.
3. Depending on the context or situation, the purpose of some blanket supplementary feeding interventions is for the prevention and treatment of MAM. This could include during protracted conflicts or severe famine situations where it may be difficult to prioritise children for targeted supplementary feeding.
As this review focuses only on the management and treatment of acute malnutrition, we will not be considering studies aimed at preventing SAM. The MAM taskforce decision making tool (summarized in Table 3) provides guidance on when MAM preventions and treatment programmes should be implemented. Relationships between recovery and relapse, and default and repeated episodes of default in the management of acute malnutrition in children in humanitarian emergencies: A systematic review protocol
Table 3: Guidance on when MAM preventions and treatment programmes should be implemented
| GAM level | Risk level | MAM programme recommendation | |-----------|---------------------|------------------------------| | >15% | High, medium, low | Prevention and treatment | | 8-15% | High, medium | Prevention and Treatment | | \<8% | High | Preventions |
Source: MAM decision making tool for emergencies, 2012
Children are discharged from MAM programmes if they attain a
- Weight-for-height/length > -2SD/z scores. Children admitted using weight-for-height z scores can also be discharged using eight to 10 percentage weight gain.
- MUAC >125mm for two consecutive visits
1.3 RATIONALE FOR THE REVIEW
Previous systematic reviews seeking to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to manage acute malnutrition in children under five have been limited to exploring the effect of the therapeutic diet used (e.g. Schooness et al., 2013). There have only been a few reviews conducted more recently that have started to investigate the wider impacts of treatment for acute malnutrition (e.g. Lenters, et al., 2013; Picot et al., 2012; Alcoba et al., 2013). Lenters and colleagues (2013) compared the effectiveness of the WHO inpatient protocol for managing SAM with the CMAM approach. However, their review was limited to studying recovery/cure and mortality rates, and the rate of weight and MUAC gains as primary outcomes. On the other hand, Alcoba et al. (2013) assessed the appropriateness and efficacy of routine first-line antibiotics provided during outpatient care for children with uncomplicated SAM. These reviews did not include relapse or defaulting, although the findings are useful in broadening our understanding of the impact of interventions used to manage MAM and SAM. More research is needed to address the important knowledge gaps around relapse, and to study the relationship between relapse and recovery. Further research is also needed to uncover the rates of children defaulting from acute malnutrition management programmes, and to study the relationship between defaults, relapse or repeated episodes of acute malnutrition.
In essence, we need evidence to understand whether effective treatment of SAM and MAM reduces the risk of relapse in affected children, and whether children who default during the course of treatment have an increased risk of relapse. To the best of our knowledge no systematic review of the evidence has yet been carried out to explore these relationships. Our review will attempt to address this knowledge gap.
In addition, as noted earlier, default and relapse rates in humanitarian emergency settings have been high. By gathering data from existing sources, we can try to understand and explain why this occurs. We hypothesized that higher default rates, and potential relapse, would be recorded in programmes where the quality of the delivery is perceived by beneficiaries as poor. Poor quality could be the result of inadequate resources to deliver treatment, including human resources (e.g. staff that have the technical knowledge and skills to manage acute malnutrition in children). Poor staffing could also affect regular monitoring and counselling of carers about malnutrition and the benefit of the treatment programme. These factors are likely to impact largely on children’s attendance to, and completion of, the programme. Also, the existence and quality of community mobilisation and sensitization activities to educate community members on the programme. Rates of malnutrition before the programme implementation could also impact on children’s attendance, and hence default rates. Furthermore, an important assumption regarding relapse is that if there are adequate follow-up home visits after discharge from treatment, relapse or its episodes could be minimal and vice-versa. This review aims to identify relevant data from the literature in order to test these hypotheses.
A few recently-published studies (Guerrero and Gallapher, 2013, Collins and Saddler, 2002) have identified other factors as being responsible for the higher default rates recorded in acute malnutrition management programmes. These include the accessibility of treatment/programmes including geographical accessibility (e.g. distance), and traditional beliefs regarding the causes and management of malnutrition.
The majority of data that can help us to explain the reasons for increased default rates and its relationship with relapse following the management of acute malnutrition is to be found in the grey literature or unpublished reports. Our review will attempt to identify these literature sources and collate this data to explain the high default rates. The findings of the review are expected to contribute to the growing literature on the effectiveness of interventions used to treat acute malnutrition, with the ultimate aim of better informing programme and policy decisions.
1.4 AIM OF THE REVIEW
The review will investigate the relationship
- between recovery/cure and relapse, and
- between relapse and default and/or return defaults/episodes of default
in the management of acute malnutrition in children under five in humanitarian emergencies.
The review will also explore the contexts in which acute malnutrition management programmes were implemented, in order to identify and describe how context influences relapse and default and/or return default/episodes.
Specific objectives
The review aims to investigate:
- The effect of treatment on mortality risk among children suffering from SAM and/or MAM
- The relationship between recovery and relapse; and between relapse and default or return default/episodes of default
- Reasons for default and relapse or return defaults/episodes of default
2. REVIEW METHODS
2.1 STUDY DESIGN
The review will systematically identify a range of literature to investigate the relationship between recovery/cure rates, relapse and default or episodes of default in the management of SAM or MAM in children under five in the humanitarian emergency context. It aims to identify and describe factors that influence defaults and relapse. The review will feature published literature, quantitative and qualitative studies, as well as grey literature (i.e. reports not published in traditional academic journals). It is appropriate to adopt mixed methods and combine a quantitative and qualitative approach because our aim is not only to understand the relationship between therapeutic outcomes, but also to explore what factors influence these outcomes. The review finds that CMAM programmes delivered in humanitarian emergency contexts are complex, and therefore the impact of these interventions can only be understood by collating and synthesizing evidence from multiple studies (and different study designs) as well as programme reports.
2.2 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA
We will feature various types of literature, including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, reported in academic journals and the grey literature. Previous systematic reviews will be included if their question closely corresponds to this review. Where there is not a direct match, these reviews will be used as a source for identifying other potentially relevant studies to be included in our review. The inclusion criteria are described below.
2.2.1 Population and condition
- The review will include studies if they targeted infants and children under five years old, and cover the management of MAM and/or SAM.
- Because of the different definitions and classification criteria that have been used to identify children with acute malnutrition (see section 1.2) we will consider only studies that have used ‘standard and accepted’ definition (Picot et al., 2012). That is, definitions for MAM and SAM used by the authors should be based on the NCHS child growth standard if studies were published before or during 2006 and the WHO child growth standards if studies were published after 2006.
- We will not include studies that focused on the management of acute malnutrition in pregnant women or lactating mothers.
2.2.2 Intervention and treatment
The interventions considered for this review are those for the treatment of SAM or MAM delivered in humanitarian emergencies. These humanitarian emergencies are defined as major incidents that threaten human life and public health (WHO, 2010). These include protracted conflicts, flooding, earthquakes and other natural disasters, and nutrition emergencies when prevalence rates of malnutrition has reached a crisis level (>=15%) according to the WHO crisis classification using global acute malnutrition (WHO, 2003). The latter in particular may include government-led interventions designed to manage acute malnutrition in such a crisis situation. We will evaluate and include studies that are based on interventions implemented during emergencies situations. Interventions provided to manage/treat SAM in humanitarian emergencies described above should include inpatient care using therapeutic milks such as F-75 or F-100, and potentially RUTF, and outpatient care using RUTFs. Some commercially available RUTFs include Plumpy’Nut manufactured by Nutriset, and ZeePaste manufactured by GC Rieber Compact for the treatment of SAM.
Interventions provided to manage/treat MAM in humanitarian emergencies described above should include those that used fortified blended flour e.g. super cereal, super cereal plus, CSB and/or oil-based RUSF (e.g. Plumpy’Doz).
Studies that are based on blanket supplementary feeding provided to children to prevent MAM from progressing to SAM will not be considered. However, where studies state that the aim of the supplementary feeding programme was to manage rather than prevent MAM they will be included in the review.
2.2.3 Outcomes
Studies will be included if they reported on the following acute malnutrition management outcomes.
| Outcome of interest | Definition | |-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Recovery rate | As defined by authors based on standard criteria | | Default rate | The proportion of children who were absent from treatment for two consecutive sessions | | Treatment effect on mortality risks | | | Absence and or repeated absence | Proportion of children who were absent from treatment/number of absence recorded | | Return default rate/repeated default episodes | The proportion of children who re-enrolled into treatment after defaulting /number of times they re-enrolled | | Relapse rate/repeated relapse episodes | The proportion of children who re-enrolled after they recovery and discharged | | Weight gain or time to recover | (Discharge – admission weights/admission weight) length of stay between admission and discharge |
The above outcomes do not have to be the main primary outcomes of the included studies and can be either primary or secondary outcomes. We anticipate that different treatment programmes will have different follow-up periods, therefore outcome measures recorded after any length of follow up will be considered.
2.2.4 Study types
Quantitative study design
Randomised controlled-trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and non-randomised observational studies including retrospective and prospective cohort controlled and uncontrolled, before- and after- and controlled comparative studies will be assessed and included in the review. Qualitative studies
Also included are qualitative studies that use semi-structured interviews, focus groups and participant observation methods, or a combination of these techniques, to explore how nutritional management of MAM or SAM services were delivered in humanitarian contexts and the factors associated with default and relapses. Qualitative information reported in mixed methods studies that are relevant to the review to explain relapse and default outcomes will also be considered.
2.3 SEARCH STRATEGY
2.3.1 Mapping the literature
The team will undertake a scoping literature search to map out the literature that is available on outcomes of nutritional management of MAM and SAM in humanitarian emergencies, with a special focus on studies that addressed recovery/cure, default/dropout and relapse rates. The scoping search for peer review literature or published studies will be conducted via Medline using appropriate key terms summarised in Table 5. We also plan to conduct additional scoping searches via Google Scholar for relevant items by title e.g. ‘management of acute malnutrition in children in emergencies’. This technique allows for the identification of cited and related articles. The results of the scoping searches will:
- Enable us to understand the full scope of literature currently available to address the review question
- Make us aware of potential opportunities and difficulties that might arise during the review process
- Help us identify appropriate parameters for the review, as well as refine our search strategy
Table 5: Terms used to perform scoping search for peer-reviewed literature in MEDLINE (lower case indicates free-text terms, initial capitalisation indicates a Medical Subject Heading (MeSH))
| Population | Setting | |-----------------------------|------------------------------| | malnourish$ | humanitarian$ | | undernourish$ | conflict$ | | malnutrition | famine$ | | undernutrition | disaster$ | | kwashiorkor | natural disaster$ | | oedema | emergency$ | | marasmus | complex emergency | | acute malnutrition | protracted emergency | | severe acute malnutrition | Relief Work/ | | Malnutrition/ | Disaster Planning/ | | exp Protein-Energy Malnutrition/ | starvation/ (heading for famine) | Relationships between recovery and relapse, and default and repeated episodes of default in the management of acute malnutrition in children in humanitarian emergencies: A systematic review protocol
| Population | Setting | |-----------------------------|------------------------------| | child$ | Developing countr$ | | baby | sub-saharan africa | | babies | south-east asia | | infant$ | latin america$ | | child, preschool/ | | | infant/ | | | child nutrition disorders/ | |
2.3.2 Published and unpublished literature
Based on the initial results from the scoping searches, we will revise our search strategy and use it to perform final searches to identify published and unpublished studies to be included in the review. Additional keywords will be added, and search statements reflecting other facets of the research question will be considered for the main search strategy. Once a final search strategy is agreed, it will be run in the following specialized bibliographic and electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed journal articles. Detailed searches will also be performed in Google Scholar, and other identified relevant websites for grey unpublished literature using the search terms defined below.
2.3.3 Bibliography and database search
A comprehensive literature search, using a revised search strategy with agreed appropriate search terms will be conducted in specialised electronic databases including Medline (listed below). The databases were purposively selected, as they are known to ‘house’ most of the child health and nutrition journals in this area. They include:
- Medline (via PubMed) (1980 onwards)
- Medline in-process (via PubMed)
- EMBASE (1980 onwards)
- CINAHL (1950 onwards)
- Science Citation Index
- CAB abstracts Ovid – Nutrition Abstract Review
- Regional literature databases such as African Index Medicus, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region (IMSEAR)
- The Cochrane Library – Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane Other Reviews
- Cochrane Central Registers for Clinical Trials (CENTRAL)
- ZETOC, BIOSIS, PAIS International, Bioline
We will use cluster searching techniques (Booth et al., 2013) to enable the retrieval of ‘sibling’ studies (those closely associated with previously identified randomized controlled trials and observational studies) to broaden the collective understanding of the context in which these studies were conducted. 2.3.4 Websites and Google Scholar searches for non-peer review and grey literature
Grey literature, including programme reports, conference proceedings, technical reports, field exchanges that are published by humanitarian development organisations (NGOs), as well as government ministries of health will be searched using the Google Scholar and relevant websites listed below. We will use a combination of the following search terms to conduct the search in Google Scholar:
- Children under five
- Acute malnutrition
- Nutritional management
- Humanitarian emergencies
- Ready-to-use therapeutic foods
- Therapeutic care
- Developing countries
- Sub-Saharan Africa
- South and Latin America
We have prioritized the following international and national websites to search for grey literature, in addition to the Google Scholar, because the yield of published reports from these sites is potentially higher:
- DFID R4D
- Overseas Development Institute (ODI), including the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) and Humanitarian Practice Network
- Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN)
- International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
- EvidenceAid
- Feinstein International Center and Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University
- Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance (ELRHA)
- International Association of Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection (PHAP)
- The Network on Humanitarian Action
- The World Bank
- WHO Global Health Library and the Food and Nutrition Bulletin
- UNICEF
- World Food Programme
- The CMAM Forum
- Coverage Monitoring Network
- Nutritional Causal Analysis
- Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
- Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI)
- Humanitarian Social Network
- European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department
- USAID
- Reliefweb
- Oxfam Policy & Practice website
- OpenGrey
- UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service
- ELDIS
- Valid International
- Helen Keller International
- Concern Worldwide
- Save the Children
- Action Against Hunger
- Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)
- Free from Hunger
- International Medical Corps
- Centre for Reviews and Disseminations (CRD)
- Health technology assessment database 2.3.5 Supplementary searches
In addition to all of the above searches, we will consult the reference lists of the included studies, in order to identify potentially relevant studies not captured by the electronic database and/or websites and Google searches. We will systematically scan the PLoS open access resource and Food and Nutrition Bulletin as the most appropriate operationalization of ‘hand searching’. A citation follow-up search will be carried out to find additional relevant and related papers.
2.3.6 Contacts with individuals and organisations
We have identified key individual authors and organizations to be contacted for any unpublished data and/or reports or rejected or ongoing manuscripts (see list in Appendix 1). They include: UNICEF, Save the Children (UK & US), Action Against Hunger, Centre for Disease Control (CDC), Concern Worldwide, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA), USAID, DFID, Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), GOAL Global, International Committee of the Red Cross, and International Medical Corps.
2.4 SEARCH LIMITATIONS
We will limit our searches to studies published between 1980 and 2015. No language restrictions will be applied but searches will be conducted in English. We will attempt to translate any paper we identify that is not written in English, using expertise within the review team. For example, Michelle Holdsworth (MH) and Robert Akparibo (RA) speak and read French. Where the review team is unable to translate a paper, we will discuss the issue with Oxfam and the Feinstein International Center to identify additional translation expertise. EndNote Reference manager will be used to organise and manage the papers.
2.5 SCREENING STUDIES
Two independent reviewers will undertake a two-stage selection process as follows:
1. Title and abstract stage screening
Using a predefined selection checklist (see Appendix 1), two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts of peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed papers and grey reports identified by the search to ascertain their relevance or appropriateness for inclusion in the review.
2. Screening of full text
Potentially qualified papers identified based on titles screened will be subjected to full text screening to further ascertain their eligibility. The two independent reviewers, one subject specialist and one emergency management expert will apply a predefined checklist (see Appendix 2) to conduct the screening. The relevance of each paper will be coded onto an Excel spreadsheet. To minimize inter-observer variability in the screening and coding process, several measures would be instituted. For instance, before any coding is started, RA will provide an orientation tutorial on the management of MAM and SAM in humanitarian context. The training will draw on the UNICEF online training material for nutrition management in emergencies.
A third reviewer will be brought in to address any unresolved issues or disagreements that may arise between the two independent reviewers. If the issues are still unresolved we will hold a meeting involving all members of the review team to resolve them. For papers retrieved through contacts with individual authors, we will aim to clarify any uncertainty with these authors directly. 2.6 DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers will independently code and extract data from the included studies onto an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. A third reviewer will check the data extraction. The two reviewers will use the pre-defined data extraction form attached in Appendix 3. Where there are two or more papers published that describe the same study, these will be combined and analysed as one study, and the data extracted will be treated as such. We aim to contact the authors of papers that qualify for inclusion in the review during the extraction phase if there is a lack of clarity, missing or incomplete data, to ask for clarification or more information where necessary.
2.6.1 Quantitative data
We will extract the following specific details from quantitative papers: country and year of study, population, study design and methods, intervention details (including treatment received by intervention and controlled groups, if any, and duration of follow up), and outcomes of significance to the review (numerical results from studies). See details in data extraction template in Appendix 3.
2.6.2 Qualitative data
We will extract the following specific details from qualitative studies: country and year of study, population, design and methods, intervention details and main outcomes of significance to the review (see Appendix 4). Qualitative outcomes will typically be those labelled as ‘results’ or ‘findings’ in the study reports. Key concepts, quotes and information relevant to the review question and addressing qualitative components of the review question (i.e. acceptability, attitudes or implementation and context), or provide explanation to the quantitative findings will be extracted. Data from providers, recipients and those directing humanitarian efforts will be included.
2.6.3 Data extraction from programme reports
Specific details to be extracted from programme reports are: country and year of publication, title of the report, type, and focus of the report and outcomes related to the review (coverage, recovery, default and relapse rates; repeated absence and episodes of defaults/relapse, as well as reason for these outcomes).
2.7 DATA ANALYSIS
2.7.1 Quantitative data analysis
If possible, for example where there is homogeneity of studies of sufficient quality and robustness, a meta-analysis of the statistical data to combine the findings from the different peer review studies will be conducted. However, because of the nature of acute malnutrition (MAM and SAM), heterogeneity of the clinical manifestations of these conditions (e.g. Marasmus, and oedematous malnutrition/Kwashiorkor) and the criteria used to define these, as well as the different treatment approaches and therapeutic foods use to treat these conditions, we anticipate that the studies will be highly heterogeneous. If this is the case, a meta-analysis will not be performed.
We will ascertain the viability of carrying out a meta-analysis by first assessing the degree of heterogeneity of the quantitative studies. Although this analysis will be done purposefully to decide on whether or not to conduct a meta-analysis, it is also useful to assess the level of potential effect of different biases (selection bias, confounding and performance biases) that may impact on the quality of the quantitative findings. If appropriate, the degree of heterogeneity will be quantified or rated using the I² test (Higgins, 2002). Where necessary, we may perform a funnel plot to identify potential outliers that may reflect potential publication or reporting bias.
**When a meta-analysis is not possible**
If a meta-analysis is not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data, we will opt instead to summarise the data and report the outcomes descriptively using tables and a narrative approach. This will be appropriate as the focus of this review is to understand the relationship between key programme outcomes following the management of MAM and SAM in humanitarian emergencies, i.e. recovery/cure, relapse and default rates, and repeated absence and episodes of default and relapse. A tabular narrative description of the data can adequately capture this.
### 2.7.2 Qualitative data analysis
The textual data extracted from papers will be directly entered using NVivo qualitative analysis software. Two reviewers will then independently code the text according to similarities, meaning and content. Themes will be generated using the codes and thematic categories created from the codes. Where textual categorization is not possible the data will be presented descriptively.
### 2.8. DEALING WITH MISSING DATA
We will attempt to describe the completeness of the data extracted for each quantitative study, including the primary outcomes documented by individual studies. In particular, we will explore whether missing data were reported in each study. We will also examine whether any missing data were related to outcomes, and whether these were uniform across groups. We will look at the types of data excluded in the final analysis of each study, as well as identify the reasons for these exclusions.
### 2.9 EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF INCLUDED STUDIES
Two independent reviewers from the review team will each use the CASP quality assessment checklist to evaluate and grade the quality of the included studies. We anticipate that the included studies will differ in their methodological designs. The CASP quality assessment tool (available at [www.casp-uk.net](http://www.casp-uk.net)) has separate checklists for assessing a range of quantitative study designs, as well as qualitative and systematic review studies. CASP is also a well-recognized tool and, we believe, an appropriate instrument to use in our quality assessment of studies.
The two independent reviewers will also assess the risks of bias of each included study. They will use the Cochrane Collaboration’s handbook for the assessment of risks of bias for systematic review of randomized controlled studies (Higgins, 2011). Similarly, another validated tool will be applied to assess for the risk of bias for non-randomized controlled studies (Kim et al., 2013). We will particularly assess each study for adequate sequence generation, allocation of concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selection bias, performance bias, as well as other source of biases. We will then grade the risks of potential bias as low, high or unclear risk of bias. For cluster randomized controlled studies we will perform an additional risk of bias assessment to examine for bias in recruitment, baseline imbalances and loss of clusters. Any disagreement will be discussed with an independent fourth reviewer, Andrew Booth (AB). 3. CONTRIBUTION OF MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW TEAM
All members of the review team (Robert Akparibo (RA), Andrew Lee (AL), Andrew Booth (AB), Janet Harris (JH), Helen Wood (HW), Lindsay Blank (LB) and Michelle Holdsworth (MH)), and the members of the expert panel (Seth Adu-Afarwuah (SAA), Mark Manary (MM) and Tanya Khara (TK)) will contribute to the review based on their areas of expertise. The search strategy was designed by RA, a child/emergency nutrition specialist, AL, an emergency/disaster management specialist and HW, an information specialist. HW will test the initial strategy by conducting a scoping search in selected electronic databases. HW, RA and AL will revise and refine the search strategy upon completion of the initial scoping. HW and RA will conduct the final search in all the selected electronic databases. RA, AL and LB, a systematic review expert, will screen the papers for inclusion in the review. The three reviewers will also conduct data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Nutrition specialist MH will validate the extraction by cross checking a sample. JH, an evidence synthesis expert and AL, an expert systematic reviewer and advisor on evidence synthesis, will provide expertise in qualitative data synthesis and analysis. RA and the members of the expert panel will contact relevant organizations identified for further grey literature or unpublished reports. The panel members will review and advise on the final content of the review report, as well as assist in dissemination of the findings. All members of the expert panel are specialists in nutrition in emergency management. 4. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
We declare no competing interests. 5. **TIMELINE**
The submission deadline for the final review report is 31 July 2016. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We will like to thank Oxfam GB, Feinstein International Center, and UKAID from the UK Government for funding this review and for their continued support. 7. REFERENCES
Alcoba, G., Kerac, M., Breysse, S., Salpeter, C., Galetto-Lacour, A., Briend, A., Gervaix, A. (2013). Do Children with Uncomplicated Severe Acute Malnutrition Need Antibiotics? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e53184. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053184
Bank U-W-TW: Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: UNICEF-WHO-The World Bank Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. Washington D.C; 2012. WHO, UNICEF & WorldBank. (2012) Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. Levels and trends in child malnutrition. http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/jme_unicef_who_wb.pdf
Black, RE, Victora, CG., Walker, SP., Bhutta, ZA., de Onis, M., Ezzati, M., Grantham-McGregor, S., Katz, J., Martorell, R., Uauy, R.: Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. (2013). Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries. Lancet, 382(9890), 427–51. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(13)60937-X.pdf
Black, RE, Allen, LH, Bhutta, ZA, Caulfield, LE, de Onis, M, Ezzati, M, Mathers, C, Rivera, J.(2008). Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences. Lancet, 371(9608), 243–260. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(07)61690-0/abstract
Booth, A., Harris, J., Croft, E., Springett, J., Campbell, F., Wilkins, E. (2013). Towards a Methodology for Cluster Searching to Provide Conceptual and Contextual ‘Richness’ for systematic Reviews Of Complex Interventions: Case Study (Cluster). BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 118. http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-13-118
Brewster, D., Manary, M., Graham, S. (1997). Case Management of Kwashiorkor: An Intervention Project at Seven Nutrition Rehabilitation Centres in Malawi. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51, 139–47.
Briend, A. (2001). Highly Nutrient-Dense Spread: A New Approach to Delivering Multiple Micronutrients to High-Risk Groups. British Journal of Nutrition, 85(suppl 2), S175–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/BJN2000311
Briend, A., Brewster, D., Manary, M., Graham, S. (1997). Case Management of Kwashiorkor: An Intervention Project at Seven Nutrition Rehabilitation Centres in Malawi. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51, 139–147.
Briend, A., Lacsala, R., Prudhon, C., Mounier, B., Gralley, Y., and Golden, MHN. (1999) Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Food for Treatment of Marasmus. Lancet, 353(9166), 1767–68. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)01078-8/abstract
Briend, A. (1997), Treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition with a Therapeutic Spread. Field Exchange, 2 , 14.
Brundtland, GH. (2000) Nutrition and Infection: Malnutrition and Mortality in Public Health, 58(2), S1–S4.
Cilberto MA., Manary, MJ., Ndekha, MJ., Briend, A., Ashorn, P. (2006) Home-Based Therapy for Oedematous Malnutrition with Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Foods. Acta Paediatrica 95(8), 1012–5.
Cilberto M.A., Sandige H., Ndekha M.J., Ashorn P., Briend A., Cilberto H.M. & Manary M.J. (2005) Comparison of home-based therapy with ready-to-use therapeutic food with standard therapy in the treatment of malnourished Malawian children: a controlled, clinical effectiveness trial. *American Journal of Clinical Nutrition* 81, 864–870.
Collins, S., Dent, N., Binns, P., Bahwere, P., Sadler, K., Hallam, A. (2006). *Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Children*. *Lancet*, 368(9551), 1992–2000.
Collins, S. (2007). Treating Severe Acute Malnutrition Seriously. *ArchDis Child.*, 92(5), 453–61.
Collins, S. (2001). *Changing the way we address Severe Malnutrition during Famine*. *Lancet*, 358(9280), 498–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05630-6
Collins, S., Sadler, K., Dent, N., Khara, T., Guerro, S., Myatt, M., Saboya, M., Walsh, S. (2006). *Key Issues in the Success of Community-Based Management of Severe Malnutrition*. *Food and Nutrition Bulletin*, 27 (3 suppl), S49–82.
Collins, S., Nicky, D., Binns, P., Bahwere, P., Saddler, K., Hallam, A. (2006). *Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Children*. *Lancet*, 368(9551), 1992–2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69443-9
Collins, S., Briend, A. (2010). Editorial: Therapeutic Nutrition for Children with Severe Acute Malnutrition: Summary of African Experience. *Indian Paediatrics* (47).
Collins, S. (2004) Community-based Therapeutic Care. A new Paradigm for Selective Feeding in Nutritional Crisis. *Humanitarian Practice Network Paper Number 48*.
Collins, S., Sadler, K. (2002). *Outpatient Care for Severely Malnourished Children in Emergency Relief Programmes. A retrospective Cohort Study*. *Lancet*, 360(9348), 1824–30. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)11770-3/abstract
de Onis, M., Yip, R. (1996). The WHO Growth Chart: Historical Considerations and Current Scientific Issues. *Bibliotheca Nutritio et Dieta*, 53, 74–89. http://www.who.int/childgrowth/publications/deonis_yip_1996/en/
de Onis, M., Onyango, AW., Borghi, E., Garza, C., Yang, H., WHO Multicenter Growth Reference Study Group. (2006). Comparison of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards and the National Center for Health Statistics/WHO International Growth Reference: Implications for Child Health Programmes. *Public Health Nutrition*, 9(7), 942–47. Diop, EHI., Dossou, NI., Ndour, MM., Briend, A., Wade, S. (2003). Comparison of the Efficacy of a Solid Ready-To-Use Food and a Liquid, Milk-Based Diet for the Rehabilitation of Severely Malnourished Children: A Randomized Trial. *American Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, 78(2), 302–307. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/2/302/F1.expansion.html
Dugdale, AE. (1971). An Age-Independent Anthropometric Index of Nutritional Status. *American Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, 24(2), 174–6. http://intl-ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/2/174.abstract
Fergusson, P., Tomkins, A. (2009). HIV Prevalence and Mortality among Children Undergoing Treatment for Severe Acute Malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. *Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene*, 103(6), 541–8. http://trstmh.oxfordjournals.org/content/103/6/541.short
Golden, MHN. (1996) Severe Malnutrition. in: DJ Weatherall, JGG Ledington, DA Warrell (Eds.) The Oxford textbook of medicine. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1996: 1278–1296.
Golden, MHN. (1997). *Protein-Energy Interaction in the Management of Severe Malnutrition*. *Clinical Nutrition*, 16(suppl 1), 19–23. http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(97)80045-3/pdf
Gomez, F., Galvan, RR., Frenk, S., Munoz, JC., Chavez, R., Vazquez, J. (1956). *Mortality in Second and Third Degree Malnutrition*. *Journal of Tropical Pediatrics*, 2(2), 77–83. Guerrero, S., Myatt, M., and Collins, S. (2009). Determinants of Coverage in Community-Based Therapeutic Care Programmes: Towards a Joint Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. London: Blackwell.
Higgins, J., Alman, DG., Gotzsche, PC., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, AD., Savovic, J., Schulz, KF., Weeks, L., Sterne, JAC.; Cochrane Methods Group. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ,343(5928). http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928.full.pdf+html
Higgins, JPT., Green, S. (editors) (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions (2002 & 2008) and updated 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved 10 February, 2016 from http://handbook.cochrane.org/Kerac, M., Bunin, J., Seal, A., Thindwa, M., Tomkins, A., Sadler, K., Bahwere, P., Collins, S. (2009). Probiotics and Prebiotics for Severe Acute Malnutrition (PRONUT Study): A Double-Blind Efficacy Randomised Controlled Trial in Malawi. Lancet, 374(9684), 136–44
Kim, SY., Park, JE., Lee, YJ., Seo, HJ., Sheen, SS., Hahn, S., Jang, BH., Son, HJ. (2013). Testing a Tool for Assessing the Risk of Bias For Nonrandomized Studies Showed Moderate Reliability and Promising Validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(4),408–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.016
Lenters, LM., Wazny, K., Webb, P., Ahmed, T., Bhatta, ZA. (2013). Treatment of Severe and Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Low- and Middle-Income Settings: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Delphi Process. BMC Public Health, 13(suppl 3), S23.
McDonald, CM., Olofin, I., Flaxman, S., Fawzi, WW., Spiegelman, D., Caulfield, LE., Black, RE., Ezzati, M., Danaei, G. (2013). The Effect of Multiple Anthropometric Deficits on Child Mortality: Meta-Analysis of Individual Data in 10 Prospective Studies from Developing Countries. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 97(4), 896–901. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/4/896?cited-by=yes&legid=ajcn:97/4/896
NCHS Growth Chart for Children from Birth to 18 Years. Data from National Health Survey 1977, 11(165). Retrieved from http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a433981.pdf
Ndekha, MJ., Manary, M., Ashorn, P., Briend, A. (2005) Home-Based Therapy with Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Food is of Benefit to Malnourished, HIV-Infected Malawian Children. Acta Paediatrica, 94(2),222–25.
Picot, J., Hartwell, D., Harris, P., Mendes, D., Clegg, AJ., Takeda, A. (2012). The Effectiveness of Interventions to Treat Severe Acute Malnutrition in Young Children: A Systematic Review. Health Technology Assessment. 16(19), 1–316.
Prudhon, C., Briend, A. et al. (2006). WHO, UNICEF and SCN Informal Consultation on Community-Based Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Children. SCN Nutrition Policy Paper 21, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 27(3)http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/severemalnutrition/FNB_0379_5721/en/
Rollins, N. (2009). Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to the Nutritional Care of HIV-Infected Children (6 Months–14 Years). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved 16 February 2016, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/hivaid/9789241597524/en/
Sandige, H., Ndekha, MJ., Briend, A., Ashorn P., Manary MJ. (2004). Home-Based Treatment of Malnourished Malawian Children with Locally Produced or Imported Ready-To-Use Food. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 39(2), 141–146. http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2004/08000/Home_Based_Treatment_of_Malnourished_Malawian.3.aspx
Seal, A. and Kerac, M. (2007). Operational Implications of Using the 2006 World Health Organization Growth Standards in Nutrition Programmes: Secondary Data Analysis. BMJ, 334, 733. http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7596/733.full.pdf+html Schooness, A., Lombard, M., Musekiwa, A., Nel, E., Volmink, J. (2013). Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Food for Home-Based Treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Children from Six Months to Five Years of Age. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. http://www.cochrane.org/CD009000/BEHAV_ready-to-use-therapeutic-food-as-home-based-treatment-for-severely-malnourished-children-between-six-months-and-five-years-old
Sphere Project. (2011). Humanitarian Charter and Minimum standards in Emergency Response. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from https://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/95530/The-Sphere-Project-Handbook-2011.pdf.
Stuart, HC., Stevenson, SS. (1959). Physical Growth and Development. pp.12–61. in Nelson, WE. (ed.) Textbook of Paediatrics. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders.
Thandi, P., Sanders, D., Chopra, M., Ashworth, A., Strasser, S., McCoy, D., Zulu, B., Matinise, N., Mdingazwe, N. (2001). Evaluating the Clinical Management of Severely Malnourished Children – A Study of Two Rural District Hospitals. s South African Medical Journal, 91(2), 137–41.
UNICEF. (2009). Tracking Progress on Child and Maternal Nutrition: A Survival and Development Priority. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_51656.html.
UNICEF. (2013) Improving Child Nutrition. The achievable imperative for global progress. New York, USA: UNICEF. April 2013. http://www.slideshare.net/OutreachUNICEF/improving-child-nutrition-the-achievable-imperative-for-global-progress.
UNICEF. (2014). Preventing Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) Through Nutrition Specific Intervention. CMAM Forum Technical Brief. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.cmamforum.org/Pool/Resources/Nutrition-specific-MAM-prevention-CMAM-Forum-Technical-Brief-Sept-2014-.pdf.
UNICEF. (1998). The State of the World’s Children 1998. New York: UNICEF (Online). Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.unicef.org/sowc98/mainmenu.htm.
Valid International and Concern Worldwide. (2006). Community-Based Therapeutic Care: A Field Manual. Retrieved 11 February 2016, from http://www.validinternational.org/docs/CTC Field Manual.pdf
Waterlow, JC. (1976). Classification and Definition of Protein Energy Malnutrition in Beaton, GH. and Bengoa, HM. (eds.) Nutrition in Preventive Medicine. Monograph Series No. 62. Geneva: WHO.
Waterlow, JC. (1984). Kwashiorkor Revisited. The Pathogenesis of Oedema in Kwashiorkor and its Significance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 78, 438–41.
Waterlow, JC. (1972). Classification and Definition of Protein-Calorie Malnutrition. BMJ, 3, 566–69.
WHO, UNICEF, WFP & UNSCN. (2007). Joint Statement on Community Based-Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/statement_commbased_malnutrition/en/
WHO. (2006)– Working together for health. Geneva: WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/whr/2006/whr06_en.pdf.
WHO. (1999). Management of severe malnutrition: a manual for physicians and other health workers. Geneva: WHO. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1020-49891999000700020 WHO and UNICEF. (2009). *WHO Child Growth Standards and the Identification of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Infants and Children: A Joint Statement*. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/severemalnutrition/9789241598163/en/.
WHO. (2013). *Guideline–Updates on the Management of Severe-Acute Malnutrition in Infants and Children*. Geneva: WHO. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/severemalnutrition/9789241598163_eng.pdf
WHO. (2012). Technical Note: Supplementary Foods for the Management of Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Infants and Children 6–59 Months of Age, Geneva: WHO. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75836/1/9789241504423_eng.pdf
WHO. (2009). WHO Child Growth Standards and the Identification of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Infants and Children: A WHO and UNICEF Joint Statement. Geneva: WHO. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/severemalnutrition/9789241598163/en/
WHO, UNICEF, WFP and UNHCR (2010). Consultation on the Programmatic Aspects of the Management of Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Children Under Five Years of Age. *Food and Nutrition Bulletin*, 30(suppl 3). http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/moderatemalnutrition_consultation_programmaticaspects_MM_report.pdf
WHO. (2000). The Management of Nutrition in Major Emergencies. Geneva: WHO. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/emergencies/9241545208/en/ 8. APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. TITLE AND ABSTRACT SCREENING GUIDE FOR PEER REVIEW STUDIES
| # | Key guiding questions | Decision/action | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | 1 | Is this an intervention study? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Uncertain | | 2 | If yes, was the intervention delivered in an emergency context? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Uncertain | | 3 | Did the intervention target children under five? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Uncertain | | 4 | Was the intervention delivered to treat/manage MAM or SAM? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Uncertain | | 6 | Was the intervention delivered in a developing/low-middle income country? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Uncertain |
**Decision:** obtain full text – Yes/ No
Decision comments
______________________________________________________________________
1 Only the titles of grey and unpublished reports were screened to determine eligibility and relevance
## APPENDIX 2. FULL-TEXT SCREENING GUIDE
| # | Key guiding questions | Decision/action | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | 1 | Has the target population met the definition of MAM and SAM as defined by WHO (2006) and NCHS (1977)? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Can’t tell | | 2 | Did the study state that the intervention was an outpatient and/or inpatient therapeutic care for MAM or SAM? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Can’t tell | | 3 | Were any of the following therapeutic foods used to treat the children: F-100/F-75 or F-100/RUTF during stabilization phase (inpatient care) and RUTF during rehabilitation phase (outpatient care)? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Can’t tell | | 4 | Did the study use an appropriate study design e.g. RCT, controlled comparative, cohort (prospective/retrospective) and longitudinal before and after design (quantitative studies), semi-structured or unstructured interviews or participant/non participant observation (qualitative studies)? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Can’t tell | | 5 | Are the key outcomes of interest reported (recovery rate, default rate, relapse rate, mortality risk, repeated absence, repeated default and relapsed, reasons for relapse and/or default)? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Can’t tell | | 6 | Was the study published before 1980? | Yes – include | | | | No – exclude | | | | Can’t tell |
## APPENDIX 3. QUANTITATIVE DATA EXTRACTION FORM: KEY INFORMATION
| # | Quantitative information/data | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | First author | | 2 | Country of study | | 3 | Type of humanitarian emergency (Conflict, famine, flooding, mixed disasters) | | 4 | Country and year of study | | 5 | Year of publication | | 6 | Publication source | | 8 | Study design | | 9 | Study methods | | | • Participants | | | • Recruitment | | | • Study sample | | | • Data collection | | | • Data analysis | | 11 | Outcome measures | | | • Recovery rate | | | • Defaults rate/repeated episodes/repeated absence e.g. more than twice (or as defined by authors) | | | • Relapse rate/returned defaults (or as defined by authors) | | | • Mortality rate | | 12 | Quality grading | | 13 | Study limitations | | 14 | Conclusions/remarks |
## APPENDIX 4. QUALITATIVE DATA EXTRACTION FORM: KEY INFORMATION
| # | Qualitative information/data | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | First author | | 2 | Country of study | | 3 | Type of humanitarian emergency (Conflict, Famine, flooding, mixed disasters) | | 4 | Year of study | | 5 | Year of publication | | 6 | Publication source | | 7 | Study design | | 8 | Study methods | | | • Participants | | | • Recruitment | | | • Study sample | | | • Data collection | | | • Data analysis | | 11 | Programme delivery strategy/mechanisms | | 12 | Outcomes of interest | | | • Reasons for programme uptake | | | • Reasons for defaults | | | • Reasons for relapse | | 13 | Quality grading | | 14 | Study Limitation | | 15 | Conclusion/remarks |
## APPENDIX 5. QUALITY CHECKLIST: RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL STUDIES
| # | Checklist – question | Responses (Yes =1, No =2, Can’t tell=3) | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 1 | Did the trial address a clearly focused issue? | | | 2 | Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized? | | | 3 | Were patients, health workers and study blinded? | | | 4 | Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? | | | 5 | Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally? | | | 6 | Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion? | | | 7 | How significant was the treatment effect? | | | 8 | How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect? | | | 9 | Can the results be applied? In your context? (Or to the local population?) | | | 10 | Were all clinically important outcomes considered? | | | 11 | Are the benefits worth the harms and costs? | | APPENDIX 6. QUALITY EVALUATION CHECKLIST: NON-RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL STUDIES
| # | Checklist – question | Responses (Yes =1, No =2, Can’t tell=3) | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 1 | Did the study address a clearly focused issue? | | | 2 | Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? | | | 3 | Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias? | | | 4 | Was the outcome accurately measured to minimise bias? | | | 5 | Have the authors identified all important confounding factors? | | | 6 | Have they taken into account of the confounding factors in the design and/or analysis?| | | 7 | Was the follow-up of subjects complete enough? | | | 8 | Was the follow-up of subjects long enough | | | 9 | What are the results of this study? | | | 10 | How precise are the results? | | | 11 | Do you believe the results? | | | 12 | Can the results be applied to the local population? | | | 13 | Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? | | | 14 | What are the implications of this study for practice? | |
## APPENDIX 7. QUALITY EVALUATION CHECKLIST: QUALITATIVE STUDIES
| # | Checklist – question | Responses (Yes =1, No =2, Can’t tell=3) | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 1 | Was there a clear statement of the aims? | | | 2 | Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? | | | 3 | Was the research design appropriate to address the aim of the research? | | | 4 | Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aim of the research? | | | 5 | Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | | | 6 | Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? | | | 7 | Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | | | 8 | Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | | | 9 | Is there a clear statement of findings? | | | 10 | How valuable is the research? | |
## APPENDIX 8. QUALITY EVALUATION CHECKLIST: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
| # | Checklist – question | Responses (Yes =1, No =2, Can’t tell=3) | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 1 | Did the review address a clearly focused question? | | | 2 | Did the authors look for the right type of papers? | | | 3 | Do you think all the important, relevant studies were included? | | | 4 | Did the review authors do enough to assess quality of the included studies? | | | 5 | If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so? | | | 6 | What are the overall results of the review? | | | 7 | How precise are the results? | | | 8 | Can the results be applied to the local population? | | | | Were all important outcomes considered? | | | 9 | Are the benefits worth the harm and cost? | | APPENDIX 9. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS OF RANDOMISED AND NON-RANDOMISED CONTROLLED STUDIES
| RCTS | Details | Non RCTs | Details | |---------------------------|---------|---------------------------|---------| | Selection bias | - | Selection bias | - | | Confounding | - | Confounding | - | | Attrition bias | - | Attrition bias | - | | Selective reporting bias | - | Selective reporting bias | - | | Publication bias | - | Publication bias | - | APPENDIX 10. INITIAL SEARCH STRATEGY /OUTPUTS OF MEDLINE SCOPING SEARCH
Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) in-process and other non-indexed citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) \<1946 to Present>
Search strategy:
______________________________________________________________________
01. (malnourish$ or undernourish$ or malnutrition or undernutrition or kwashiorkor or marasmus).ti,ab. (39065)
02. Malnutrition/ (7780)
03. exp Protein-Energy Malnutrition/ (8495)
04. 1 or 2 or 3 (44198)
05. child, preschool/ or infant/ (1023482)
06. (child$ or baby or babies or infant$).ti,ab. (1300841)
07. 5 or 6 (1772685)
08. (humanitarian$ or conflict$ or famine$ or disaster$ or emergency relief or sub-saharan africa or south-east asia or latin america$).ti,ab. (130391)
09. Relief Work/ or Disaster Planning/ or starvation/ (22503) 10.8 or 9 (146588)
10. child nutrition disorders/ (2457) 12.10 and 11 (122) 13.4 and 7 (16526) 14.14 10 and 13 (813) 15.15 12 or 14 (851)
## APPENDIX 11. LIST OF ORGANISATIONS AND CONTACTS FOR GREY LITERATURE
| Organization | Email | Country | Primary or Alternative | |--------------|-------|---------|------------------------| | Action Against Hunger UK | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | Action Against Hunger UK | [email protected] | UK | Secondary | | Action Contre la Faim (ACF) | [email protected] | France | Secondary | | Action Contre la Faim (ACF) | [email protected] | France | Primary | | Action Contre la Faim (ACF) | [email protected] | France | Alternative | | Action Contre la Faim (ACF) | [email protected] | France | Alternative | | Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Canada SMART | [email protected] | Canada | Secondary | | Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Canada SMART | [email protected] | Canada | Primary | | CARE | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | CARE | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) | [email protected] | Belgium | Primary | | Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) | [email protected] | Belgium | Secondary | | CMAM Forum | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | CMAM Forum | [email protected] | France | Primary | | Concern Worldwide | [email protected] | Alternative | | Concern Worldwide | [email protected] | Alternative | | Concern Worldwide | [email protected] | Ireland | Alternative | | Concern Worldwide | [email protected] | Ireland | Alternative | | Concern Worldwide | [email protected] | Ireland | Secondary | | Department for International Development (DFID) | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | DG ECHO | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Organization | Email | Country | Primary or Alternative | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------| | DG ECHO | [email protected] | Senegal | Primary | | Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN) | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN) | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN) | [email protected]/[email protected] | UK | Secondary | | Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN) | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) | [email protected] | Italy | Primary | | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) | [email protected] | Italy | Secondary | | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) | [email protected] | Italy | Alternative | | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) | [email protected] | Italy | Alternative | | Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) | [email protected] | UK | Secondary | | GOAL | [email protected] | Ireland | Primary | | GOAL | [email protected] | UK | | | Helen Keller International (HKI) | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Helen Keller International (HKI) | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | HelpAge International | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | HelpAge International | [email protected] | UK | Secondary | | Independent | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Secondary | | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Alternative | | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | Organization | Email | Country | Primary or Alternative | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|------------------------| | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Alternative | | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Secondary | | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Alternative | | International Medical Corps (IMC) | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | International Medical Corps (IMC) | [email protected] | Kenya | GNC RRT | | International Medical Corps (IMC) | [email protected] | USA | Alternative | | International Medical Corps (IMC) | [email protected] | USA | Alternative | | International Medical Corps (IMC) | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) | [email protected] | Alternative | | | International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) | [email protected] | Alternative | | | International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) | [email protected] | Alternative | | | International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) | [email protected] | Alternative | | | International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) | [email protected] | Lebanon | Primary | | International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) | [email protected] | Alternative | | | International Rescue Committee (IRC) | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | International Rescue Committee (IRC) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Alternative | | International Rescue Committee (IRC) | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) | [email protected] | France | Secondary | | Merlin (Merlin will merge with SC UK in Q3) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | Micronutrient Initiative (MI) | [email protected] | Canada | Primary | | Nutrition Works | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | OFDA/USAID | [email protected] [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | OFDA/USAID | [email protected] | USA | Alternative | | OFDA/USAID | [email protected] | Switzerland | Alternative | | Organization | Email | Country | Primary or Alternative | |--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------|------------------------| | OFDA/USAID | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | OFDA/USAID | [email protected] | USA | Alternative | | Plan International | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | Plan International | [email protected] | UK | Secondary | | Samaritan's Purse | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | Samaritan's Purse | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Save the Children UK | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Save the Children UK | [email protected] | UK | Secondary | | Save the Children UK | [email protected] | UK | | | Save the Children UK | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Save the Children UK | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Save the Children UK (maternity leave 02.2014) | [email protected] | UK | Alternative | | Save the Children USA | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | Save the Children USA | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Secondary | | Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | The Earth Institute Columbia University | [email protected] | RDC | Primary | | UCL Institute for Global Health | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | UNHCR | [email protected] | Switzerland | Secondary | | UNHCR | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | UNHCR | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | UNICEF | [email protected] | Belgium | Alternative | | UNICEF | [email protected] | Somalia | Primary | | UNICEF | [email protected] | Kenya | Primary | | UNICEF USA | [email protected] | USA | Primary | | UNICEF USA | [email protected] | USA | Secondary | | UNICEF/GNC-CT | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | UNICEF/GNC-CT | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | Université Catholique de Louvain | [email protected] | Belgium | IM/KM TF | | Organization | Email | Country | Primary or Alternative | |--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------|------------------------| | Valid International | [email protected] | UK | Secondary | | Valid International | [email protected] | UK | Primary | | World Food Programme (WFP) | [email protected] | Italy | Primary | | World Food Programme (WFP) | [email protected] | Italy | Primary | | World Food Programme (WFP) | [email protected] | Kenya | Alternative | | World Food Programme (WFP) | [email protected] | Italy | Alternative | | World Health Organization (WHO) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Secondary | | World Health Organization (WHO) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | | World Vision (maternity leave 02.2014) | [email protected] | Canada | Alternative | | World Vision (maternity leave 02.2014) | [email protected] | Canada | Alternative | | World Vision International (WVI) | [email protected] | Canada | Alternative | | World Vision International (WVI) | [email protected] | Canada | Primary | | World Vision International (WVI) | [email protected] | Switzerland | Primary | OXFAM
Oxfam is an international confederation of 20 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty. Please write to any of the agencies for further information, or visit www.oxfam.org.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4475-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 48,
"total-input-tokens": 121139,
"total-output-tokens": 25693,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
199,
1
],
[
199,
2572,
2
],
[
2572,
4119,
3
],
[
4119,
4890,
4
],
[
4890,
6277,
5
],
[
6277,
6830,
6
],
[
6830,
10742,
7
],
[
10742,
15168,
8
],
[
15168,
19309,
9
],
[
19309,
23576,
10
],
[
23576,
27086,
11
],
[
27086,
31182,
12
],
[
31182,
33130,
13
],
[
33130,
36279,
14
],
[
36279,
39066,
15
],
[
39066,
41648,
16
],
[
41648,
44454,
17
],
[
44454,
46683,
18
],
[
46683,
49966,
19
],
[
49966,
53425,
20
],
[
53425,
56679,
21
],
[
56679,
58316,
22
],
[
58316,
58377,
23
],
[
58377,
58463,
24
],
[
58463,
58637,
25
],
[
58637,
61801,
26
],
[
61801,
65460,
27
],
[
65460,
69181,
28
],
[
69181,
72341,
29
],
[
72341,
73871,
30
],
[
73871,
76215,
31
],
[
76215,
80096,
32
],
[
80096,
81933,
33
],
[
81933,
83735,
34
],
[
83735,
85595,
35
],
[
85595,
87880,
36
],
[
87880,
89584,
37
],
[
89584,
91294,
38
],
[
91294,
91932,
39
],
[
91932,
92882,
40
],
[
92882,
94897,
41
],
[
94897,
99980,
42
],
[
99980,
105112,
43
],
[
105112,
109140,
44
],
[
109140,
111123,
45
],
[
111123,
111123,
46
],
[
111123,
111416,
47
],
[
111416,
111416,
48
]
]
} |
fc6f5d3efe9cdd5e17e4b5990b1183e4ea7877dc | An Overview of Extreme Rainfall Events from the British Rainfall Archive 1866-1968.
Dr. Harvey J. E. Rodda, Dr. Rose G. Wood and Dr. Nina MacDougall
Hydro-GIS Ltd. 10 Coles Lane Chalgrove Oxfordshire OX44 7SY UK [email protected] Acknowledgement
This presentation covers part of the work undertaken in the project:
*Quantifying the Flood Risk of Extreme Events using Density Forecasts Based on a New Digital Archive and Weather Ensemble Predictions*
Funded by NERC as part of the FREE (Flood Risk from Extreme Events) research programme.
A joint Hydro-GIS / Oxford University study with ECMWF and Met Office as contributors
Project duration: January 2007 – December 2008 Topics Covered
• British Rainfall
• Digital Archive
• Extreme Rainfall Observations
• Spatial Analysis and Classification
• Uses and Applications British Rainfall
Started by George J. Symons in 1860 with observations from 168 stations in the British Isles.
Was under the title “Symons British Rainfall” until his death in 1900
Continued until 1991 as a Met Office publication, with observations from approximately 6000 rain gauges. British Rainfall British Rainfall
Gave a listing of various rainfall observations:
- annual totals
- monthly totals
- days on which rain fell
- maximum falls in 24 hours
- extreme falls in short periods
- droughts
- averages over number of years
Also included special sections on methods of rainfall measurement, notable events, rules for observers, the staff of observers, evaporation and rainfall duration. British Rainfall Extreme Rainfalls
The chapter entitled “Heavy Rainfalls on Rainfall Days” or “Heavy Falls in 24 Hours” provided detailed information on extreme rainfall events:
• 24hr observations from 9am-9am
• Listings of all depths over a specified threshold: > 2.5 inches (63.5mm) or >7.5% of annual total 1866-1961; >50mm or >4% of annual total 1962-1968
• Descriptions of the event from observers including a summary of the weather conditions, the characteristics of the rainfall, ensuing floods and damage
• Isohyetal maps
• Photographs
The chapter was included in detail from 1866 -1968 Brief 1-page summaries included in editions from 1985-1991
This information has been compiled as a digital archive as part of the FREE research project Table for 24th and 25th August, 1891
| Division | Station | Rainfall 24th in. | Rainfall 25th in. | Total in 48 hrs in. | |----------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------| | VIII | Hawkshead, Eastwaite Lodge | 2.71 | 2.46 | 5.17 | | VIII | Duddon Valley, Seathwaite Vic. | 2.94 | 2.99 | 5.93 | | VIII | Monk Coniston Park | 3.25 | 2.7 | 5.95 | | VIII | Skelwith Fold (Ambleside) | 3.04 | 2.88 | 5.92 | | IX | Sedbergh, Brig Flatts | 3.11 | 2.18 | 5.29 | | X | Duddon Valley, Ulpha Vicarage | 2.58 | 2.49 | 5.07 | | X | Seathwaite | 6.14 | 4.10 | 10.24 | | X | Wythburn Vicarage | 5.28 | 1.65 | 6.93 | | X | Borrowdale Vicarage | 4.41 | 3.85 | 8.26 | | X | Buttermere, Hassness | 4.85 | 4.31 | 9.16 | | X | Keswick, Barrow House | 2.27 | 3.01 | 5.28 | | X | Kendal, Natland Park | 3.61 | 1.77 | 5.38 | | X | Dungeon Ghyll | 4.25 | 3.41 | 7.66 | | X | Ambleside, Nook Cottage | 2.44 | 2.68 | 5.12 | | X | Ambleside, Lesketh Howe | 2.59 | 2.78 | 5.37 | | X | Elterwater | 3.07 | 3.50 | 6.57 | | X | Grasmere, High Close | 2.54 | 3.40 | 5.94 | | X | Skelwith Bridge | 2.94 | 3.05 | 5.99 | | X | Grasmere, Pavement End | 3.53 | 3.43 | 6.96 | | X | Patterdale Hall | 2.24 | 4.15 | 6.39 | “During the next few days the passage of vigorous secondaries maintained unsettled stormy weather. On the 28th a very deep depression west of Ireland caused widespread gales, which in some districts were of exceptional violence and gave gusts exceeding 100 miles an hour at Dunfanaghy in north-west Ireland, at Tiree to the west of Scotland, at Paisley and at Renfrew. Entries in the table are confined entirely to Dartmoor where the fall exceeded 3 inches on that day.” Isohyetal Map from 22nd July 1907 Flooding in The Rhondda Valley 11th November 1929 Quality Control
Every effort was made to ensure the depths entered in British Rainfall were of good quality:
• Correspondence between BR editor and observers
• Unlikely depth observations compared with observations from nearby gauges
• Observations noted when gauges overflowed (“+” included)
• Averages taken to replace spurious values which could not be supported by other evidence
1884
“Nor does a shadow of suspicion rest upon the record; the gauge is a good one, the observations have always been carefully made, and the above figures are thoroughly supported by the surrounding stations.” An Overview of Extreme Rainfall 1866-1968
Numbers of Observations per Year
Minimum 24 (1868, 1878) Maximum 2237 (1968) Average 280 Total 28,223
Numbers of rain gauges per Year Maximum Observed 24hr Rainfalls
Maximum 279.4 (1955) Minimum 91.9 (1871) Average 149.8
## Maximum Observed 24hr Rainfalls
16 Observations over 200mm (128 > 150mm; 1616 >100mm)
| Date | Depth (mm) | Depth (in) | Location | County (pre 1974) | |------------|------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------| | 18/07/1955 | 279.4 | 11.0 | Martinstown (The Chantry) | Dorset | | 28/06/1917 | 242.8 | 9.6 | Bruton (Sexey’s School) | Somerset | | 18/07/1955 | 241.3 | 9.5 | Upwey (Friar Waddon) | Dorset | | 18/08/1924 | 238.8 | 9.4 | Cannington (Brymore) | Somerset | | 15/08/1952 | 228.6 | 9.0 | Longstone Barrow | Devonshire | | 18/07/1955 | 228.6 | 9.0 | Upwey (Higher Well) | Dorset | | 22/11/1908 | 217.9 | 8.6 | Snowdon (Llyn Llydaw Copper Mill) | Caernavonshire | | 28/06/1917 | 215.4 | 8.5 | Bruton (King’s School) | Somerset | | 28/06/1917 | 213.1 | 8.4 | Aisholt (Timberscombe) | Somerset | | 11/11/1929 | 211.1 | 8.3 | Rhondda (LluestWen Res.) | Glamorgan | | 18/07/1955 | 211.1 | 8.3 | Upwey (Elwell) | Dorset | | 11/10/1916 | 208.3 | 8.2 | Loch Quoich (Kinlochquoich) | Inverness-shire | | 12/11/1897 | 204.0 | 8.0 | Seathwaite | Cumberland | | 08/06/1957 | 203.2 | 8.0 | Camelford (Roughtor View) | Cornwall | | 28/06/1917 | 200.7 | 7.9 | Bruton (Pitcombe Vicarage) | Somerset | | 18/07/1955 | 200.7 | 7.9 | Wynford House | Dorset |
9 observations from just 2 events – July 1955 and June 1917 Seasonality
All observations
Observations > 100mm
Observations > 150mm Spatial Distribution of Extreme Rainfalls
British Rainfall Divisions
- All Observations
- > 100mm
- > 150mm Spatial Distribution of Extreme Rainfalls
All observations were listed by division, not ideal for a proper spatial analysis.
Distribution strongly affected by the numbers of gauges in each division.
Fewer gauges in upland, sparsely populated areas.
E.g. 1899 had data from 3528 gauges only 446 in Scotland and 188 in Ireland.
Observations from the Republic of Ireland stopped in 1939. Spatial Distribution of 24 hr Rainfalls Over 150mm
Some gauge grid references could be obtained from the Met Office
57 observations >150mm (45%) are from just six events Event Classification
A classification was required for more refined rainfall forecasting so that events with similar characteristics could be treated as specific set.
Classification based on information available in British Rainfall:
• Spatial distribution and patterns from maps
• Seasonality
• Maximum observed rainfall depths
• Information from observers such as descriptions of the rainfall intensity, duration, presence of thunder
Initial classification applied to mapped events, further work will cover all events and include synoptic meteorology indices such as Lamb and GWL. Types of Events
**Mesoscale Convective Complexes (MCC)** – small depressions characterised by intense precipitation from convective cells within a larger area of continuous rain. Occur in summer affect S and SW Britain, falls of over 200mm in 24 hrs can be observed. Also known as Mesoscale convective systems (MCS).
**East Coast (EC)** – depressions where the eastwards progression stalls over the UK bringing moist air and rainfall from the North Sea to affect areas of the east coast. Occur in summer and can bring continuous rain for up to 4 days.
**Thunderstorms (T)** – isolated occurrences or progressions of convective cells, occur in summer but lacking the structure of an MCC.
**Orographic (O)** – rainfall associated with the normal west – east movement of Atlantic depressions which is enhanced over the mountainous areas and occur throughout the year.
**Depression (D)** – rainfall associated with a depression but not showing the features of the other classes. Can occur throughout the year. Event Classification
1. MCC
2. East Coast
3. Thunderstorm
4. Orographic
5. Depression / other Class Frequency
Classification of Rainfall Maps
| Class | Frequency | |-------|-----------| | MCC | 22 | | EC | 28 | | T | 39 | | O | 68 | | D | 60 | Class Seasonality
- MCC
- EC
- T
- O
- D
Month
% Frequency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 Spatial Patterns
Required a revision of British Rainfall Divisions
Simple E/W split
Ireland not included due to lack of maps Spatial Patterns
Divisional location of maximum isohyet
% Events
- 0
- 1 – 10
- 11 – 20
- 21 – 30
- 31 – 40
- 41 – 50
- > 50 Potential Uses of the British Rainfall Archive
There are a wide range of research applications in meteorology, climatology, hydrology and other fields:
• Studies of extreme weather;
• Design rainfall estimation;
• Long term climatic trends;
• Flood studies;
• Drainage design
The digital archive will be made freely available for research purposes in the UK Applications
Information compiled in the digital archive is being used in the current study:
• As input, calibration and verification data for extreme rainfall forecasting;
• The classifications enable analysis to be undertaken for specific event types;
• Spatial prediction of rainfall;
• Application of computer learning and shape recognition for an automated classification.
Other practical uses include:
• Scenarios for flood forecasting;
• Emergency management planning;
• Assessments of historical flood risk;
• Thames EA GIS interface. Comparison of 20th July 2007 with events from BR archive
20th July 2007
200+ rainfall maps – potential scenarios for flood forecasting/emergency planning Historical Flood Records
Flood damage in Somerset following the Cannington storm, 18th August 1924.
Photos, descriptive text and rainfall observations are useful for historical flood studies and flood risk assessments.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4476-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 32,
"total-input-tokens": 44826,
"total-output-tokens": 4704,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
243,
1
],
[
243,
689,
2
],
[
689,
840,
3
],
[
840,
1129,
4
],
[
1129,
1146,
5
],
[
1146,
1541,
6
],
[
1541,
2297,
7
],
[
2297,
5018,
8
],
[
5018,
5489,
9
],
[
5489,
5523,
10
],
[
5523,
5573,
11
],
[
5573,
6175,
12
],
[
6175,
6354,
13
],
[
6354,
6442,
14
],
[
6442,
8542,
15
],
[
8542,
8616,
16
],
[
8616,
8726,
17
],
[
8726,
9116,
18
],
[
9116,
9288,
19
],
[
9288,
9878,
20
],
[
9878,
10889,
21
],
[
10889,
10948,
22
],
[
10948,
10984,
23
],
[
10984,
11188,
24
],
[
11188,
11297,
25
],
[
11297,
11425,
26
],
[
11425,
11552,
27
],
[
11552,
11917,
28
],
[
11917,
12470,
29
],
[
12470,
12626,
30
],
[
12626,
12847,
31
],
[
12847,
12847,
32
]
]
} |
8118b11c017dd95a89ee29bfa3d10eacee96aa29 | Dear Colleague,
**Formalisation of the Rail Delivery Group**
On 16 October 2012 ORR published its conclusions on proposals to formalise the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) through the introduction of a new condition into the licences of Network Rail and passenger and freight operators.¹
One of the key principles adopted by RDG, and endorsed by ORR, was the importance of the RDG leadership group being an efficient decision making body, comprising those with direct accountability to users and funders and who have the biggest influence to drive change across the industry. The original articles were therefore drafted with the intention that majority rather than minority shareholders in franchise owning groups (i.e. those that were most able to influence their operators) would act as board members.
After issuing our conclusions we received a further letter from Keolis(UK)Ltd² questioning the membership arrangements set out in the draft RDG articles of association. Keolis expressed the view that it should qualify as a leadership member because the terms of its shareholder agreements give it an equal say in all key decisions affecting its franchises, and therefore influence over its train operators even as a minority shareholder.
RDG has reconsidered this issue and concluded that minority shareholders should be allowed to be nominated as alternate directors and attend all meetings (but only have voting rights if their RDG member is not in attendance). ORR considers that this arrangement is consistent with the original intention of the formalisation proposals and is content with the amendment proposed by RDG to Article 11 of its articles.³ This revision does not affect our plan to formalise RDG through the modification of operator licences
______________________________________________________________________
¹ Our conclusions document can be found on our website at [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-conclusions-and-notice-161012.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-conclusions-and-notice-161012.pdf).
² This letter can be found on the ORR website at [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-keolis-response-151112.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-keolis-response-151112.pdf).
³ Available on the RDG website at [http://www.raildeliverygroup.org/files/2013/01/RDGArticlesofAssociationJanuary2013.pdf](http://www.raildeliverygroup.org/files/2013/01/RDGArticlesofAssociationJanuary2013.pdf). and has no impact on the terms of the statutory licence modification notice published on 16 October 2012.
However, if you think it does affect this proposal or any consent already given to make the licence change please let us know in writing, to the following address, by 1200 on 28 January 2013:
Andrew Eyles\
Office of Rail Regulation\
1 Kemble Street\
London WC2B 4AN\
Email: [email protected]\
Tel: 020 7282 2026
If no responses are received by this date we will proceed to implement the new RDG licence condition.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Beswick
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4967-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3330,
"total-output-tokens": 788,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2386,
1
],
[
2386,
2959,
2
]
]
} |
Subsets and Splits