Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment · 2016. 5. 3. · 5. The Methodology for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 9 6. Results and Analysis 13 7. Conclusions

Waveney District Council

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

November 2007

2

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

November 2007

Stephen Archer Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment) Town Hall High Street Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 1HS

2

Executive Summary Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments are at the heart of the Government’s ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach to housing development. The results of this Assessment will inform the setting of brownfield targets, the allocation of land in the Local Development Framework and the phased release of sites. Other policy development, particularly for affordable housing, will also be informed by this Study. This Assessment follows on from previous Urban Capacity Studies and has been carried out in accordance with emerging Practice Guidance but has borrowed heavily from the processes and methodology followed during the preparation of the 2002 Urban Capacity Study. The assessment of sites and the analysis undertaken followed much of the advice in the now superseded document ‘Tapping the Potential’. The base date for this Assessment is April 2007 and the study area includes Lowestoft, the market towns and the larger villages (as identified within the Core Strategy Preferred Options document, June 2006). The Assessment analyses the likely supply of housing to 2025 to reflect the need to identify at least a 15 year supply of land for housing from adoption of the Core Strategy. The study focuses on brownfield sites as they typically represent the most sustainable solution for housing provision within the District. Identification of sites was achieved predominantly through analysis of the 2002 Study sites and Waveney’s National Land Use Database – Previously Developed Land monitoring. Other sites were highlighted as a consequence of the Site Specific Allocations Document consultation exercise undertaken during the early stages of the preparation of the LDF. These sites are referred as the ‘core data’ in this document. In addition, the potential for housing in the broad location of Lake Lothing has been assessed. This analysis has drawn on the content of the emerging Area Action Plan being prepared by 1st East Urban Regeneration Company in partnership with the District Council. Finally, the potential for housing on existing Greenfield allocations is assessed. Core Data (excluding Lake Lothing, Lowestoft – Broad Location and Greenfield Allocations) Almost 62% of the potential capacity is in Lowestoft, with more in the north of the town than the south. Outside of Lowestoft 11% of the capacity is in Beccles, 5% in Bungay, 7% in Halesworth and 9% in Southwold and Reydon. Potential capacity in the villages is negligible. The largest sources of future housing capacity are expected to be ‘sites in existing use’, ‘previously developed vacant and derelict land and buildings’ and ‘intensification’ sites. These three sources are expected to account for 68% of total potential capacity. The average density of identifiable sites is 26/ha. This is lower than the government minimum of 30 dwelling per hectare but this is due to the high proportion of small sites that could only accommodate one or two dwellings. In terms of site size, it is likely that a significant proportion of the sites (91%) will yield less than 10 units. Only 5% of sites are likely to have a capacity of 25 or more units. In terms of phasing, almost 70% of the units are expected to come forward by 2020. The tendency has been to assume that, unless the constraints are considered almost insurmountable, that in the context of a strong housing market and the Government emphasis on brownfield sites, a significant proportion of the sites are likely to come forward sooner rather than later in the Plan period. However, changes in key factors, such as a down turn in the housing market, could result in some of the ‘realistic’ sites with development constraints such as landownership, access, flood risk and contamination, no longer proving financially viable.

Lake Lothing, Lowestoft - Broad Location This document considers the Lake Lothing area and its key invention sites, as identified in the Area Action Plan, as a ‘broad location’, for residential development. Other, smaller sites within the Lake Lothing area identified for housing in the Waveney Interim Local Plan have been included in the core data. 1,500 dwellings are proposed within the Lake Lothing ‘broad location’ with a third being proposed in the Brooke Peninsula intervention area. All will be located on brownfield land, have a capacity of over 25 dwellings and will be phased in the medium and long term. Greenfield Allocations The allocation for Bloodmoor, Carlton Colville, in the Waveney Interim Local Plan is the only greenfield housing allocation in the District that had not been subject to a planning application by April 2007. This site has a potential capacity of 80 dwellings at an approximate density of 29/ha, just under the national minimum. The results of the Study reveal that the potential housing capacity for all sites in Waveney is 3264 units to the year 2025. Potential Capacity Core Data 1684 Lake Lothing, Lowestoft – Broad location 1500 Greenfield Allocations 80

Total 3264

Contents PAGE NO. 1. Introduction 1 2. Policy Context 3 3. The Housing Market in Waveney 6 4. Suffolk Urban Capacity Study Methodology and its Application 6 in Waveney District 5. The Methodology for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 9 6. Results and Analysis 13 7. Conclusions 38 8. Future Monitoring and The Way Forward 39 9. References and Sources 39 Table 1 Summary by Source of Capacity for the District (excluding the key 15

Intervention areas in the lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and greenfield allocations) Table 2 Summary of Total Capacity by Phase of Release 16 Table 3 Summary of Capacity by Settlement 17 Table 4 Summary of Capacity for North Lowestoft 19 Table 5 Summary of Capacity for South Lowestoft 20 Table 6 Summary of Capacity for Beccles 22 Table 7 Summary of Capacity for Bungay 23 Table 8 Summary of Capacity for Southwold and Reydon 24 Table 9 Summary of Capacity for Halesworth 25 Table10 Summary of Capacity for Kessingland 27 Table 11 Summary of Capacity for Barnby and North Cove 28 Table 12 Summary of Capacity for Blundleston 29 Table 13 Summary of Capacity for Corton 30 Table 14 Summary of Capacity for Holton 32 Table15 Summary of Capacity for Wangford 33 Table16 Summary of Capacity for Wrentham 34 Table 17 Site Size Analysis of Core Data for the District 36 Table 18 Key Invention areas for the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan 37 Table19 Summary of Total Capacity by Phase of Release including 37

the Lake Lothing Broad Location and Greenfield Allocations Appendix 1 Net Gains and Loses to the housing stock through subdivisions i

and the merging of two or more units over the past five years. Appendix 2 Past Trends for Flats over Shops ii Appendix 3 Past Trends Analysis to assess and predict likely contribution iv

from small sites in existing use Appendix 4 Discounting Checklist v Appendix 5 Site Size Analysis for core data by settlement vii Appendix 6 Summary of Capacity by Site – Details of sites allocated in the xx

Waveney Interim Local Plan (May 2004) plus maps

Contents PAGE NO. Appendix 7 Details of Key Intervention Areas in the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan xxvii

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Planning Policy Statement 3, Housing (November 2007) sets down the requirement to identify a 15 year supply of available land to meet the housing needs of the District. As with PPG3, priority is given to the need to focus new development on previously developed land (before greenfield sites). In addition land is required to be ‘released’ at an appropriate rate to enable housing targets (within the East of England Plan) to be met annually.

1.2 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) are integral to the identification and

allocation of land required to meet the housing needs of an area. Practice Guidance (CLG 2007) states that the role of a SHLAA is to:

• Identify sites with potential for housing; • Assess their housing potential; • Assess when they are likely to be developed.

1.3 The SHLAA should, as a minimum, identify sufficient sites to meet housing targets for the first 10

years of a plan period, and, ideally for at least 15 years. The Waveney SHLAA will cover the years 2007 to 2025 to be in keeping with the Core Strategy. However, it is recognised that it can be extremely difficult to predict the likely development of sites over such a long time scale. Therefore the end date should be viewed as approximate.

1.4 The SHLAA should be updated regularly in order to give an up to date picture of the land availability

position within the District. The maintenance of this up to date data is essential in order for the Council to evidence that there is an adequate available supply of land within the District.

1.5 The Practice Guidance (CLG 2007) advocates SHLAAs should be produced on a sub regional basis in

partnership with other authorities. However, due to the time constraints to produce a position to inform the Core Strategy for the Local Development Framework and the different timetables for adjacent Local Authorities Waveney has decided that (as is permitted by the Guidance) the SHLAA will be produced just for the Waveney District. The council is also awaiting the findings from the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to further inform the sites.

1.6 Whilst this Assessment differs from Waveney’s 2002 Urban Capacity Study, in that it does more than

look solely at urban brownfield sites, the 2002 Study forms the basis for this SHLAA. The majority of this Assessment was prepared during the transitional period between Urban Capacity Studies and SHLAAs. As a consequence it borrows heavily from the approach followed within the Urban Capacity Study, as advocated within the now superseded Government Good Practice Guidance - Tapping the Potential - Assessing Urban Housing Capacity (December 2002). Essentially this Assessment updates and expands the previous 2002 Study, in accordance with the new SHLAA approach. Unlike Urban Capacity Studies SHLAAs can consider greenfield sites and ‘broad locations’. Those greenfield sites already allocated have been assessed at this stage. Any further work on greenfield sites will be undertaken as part of the plan making process.

1.7 The guidance also states that brownfield sites outside settlement boundaries should be identified.

However this study has not included brownfield sites in unsustainable locations in the open countryside.

1.8 As stated, the findings of the 2002 study form the basis for this 2007 update. Each site identified

during the previous study has been reviewed in order to identify whether or not it has been developed and whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant altering the 2002 projections (regarding potential densities or likely timescales for sites to be brought forward). The Council do not consider a further comprehensive survey of the District is necessary just 5 years after the previous survey. Monitoring over the past 5 years has assisted in keeping the 2002 data up to date and

2

additional sites have been identified as part of monitoring for the National Land Use Database - Previously Developed Land (NLUD - PDL) database.

1.9 Other sites have been identified during public consultation on the Site Specific Allocation Document

(to be included within Waveney’s LDF), and through officers’ knowledge of the District.

1.10 The results of the 2007 Waveney SHLAA will be fed into the Local Development Framework. The findings will assist in allocating adequate land for residential development and phasing the release of sites. The findings will also feed into monitoring of development on previously developed land at the county and regional levels. In addition, the results will continue to inform decisions on other issues such as the threshold to set for securing affordable housing.

1.11 In addition to the requirements of PPS3, a further driver requiring the SHLAA to be produced is the proposed redevelopment of the Lake Lothing area of central Lowestoft (to be covered by an Area Action Plan being prepared by 1st East Urban Regeneration Company in Partnership with Waveney District Council). This urban area, which is made up predominantly of previously developed land, is likely to make a significant contribution towards the housing needs of the District in the medium to long term and beyond.

1.12 The Preferred Options consultation document for the Area Action Plan states that the intention of the

Action Plan is “to provide a coherent strategy and concept for the whole URC Area, to demonstrate how the significant areas of vacant and under-utilised land can be revived and regenerated.” A significant part of this revival and regeneration includes the provision of new housing.

1.13 The Action Plan will “focus on priority areas for implementation and will seek to: • Address barriers to delivery; • Act as a catalyst for development; • Specify and coordinate requirements for new infrastructure and services; • Provide a mechanism for controlling development, to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, mix

and quality; • Provide a delivery framework for coordinating public sector investment and programmes for

the area; • Provide a spatial dimension to other local authority initiatives (eg the Community Strategy).”

1.14 However, there are a number of obstacles that will need to be overcome in order for sites in the area to

become deliverable. These include mitigating against potential flood risk issues, identifying and funding (potentially through developer contributions) additional transport infrastructure, securing funding for many of the infrastructure requirements and securing a change of private investors’ perceptions of the Lake Lothing Area of Lowestoft, thereby encouraging additional private sector finance to bring developments forward. As a consequence it is unlikely that there will be early delivery of housing.

1.15 The ability of the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan area to provide dwellings (viability, feasibility,

flood risk etc) will need to be further explored prior to any firm predictions for numbers of houses and specific allocations being made in the area. In addition the completion rate will need to be carefully assessed in coming years in order to appreciate the rate at which allocated sites are built out.

2. Policy Context

3

Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing (November 2006)

2.1 PPS3 draws on the findings of the Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004) to reaffirm the Government’s position on delivering housing. PPS3 highlights the need for a ‘step change in housing delivery through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level.’

2.2 The Planning Policy Statement promotes more sustainable patterns of development, provision of housing to meet the needs of communities and a high quality of design. PPS3 lists the key housing outcomes required from the planning system as being:

• High quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; • A mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to

support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural; • A sufficient quantity of housing taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve

choice; • Housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities

and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. • A flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use

of land, including re-use of previously developed land where appropriate.

2.3 PPS3 reiterates that 60% of new housing should be provided on previously developed land. Assessing the capacity of urban areas to accommodate more housing is seen as fundamental to achieving this target and to the sequential, managed release of housing sites.

• Paragraph 38 of PPS3 sets out the criteria against which the potential and suitability of sites for development should be assessed, considerations include: The spatial vision for the local area (having regard to relevant documents such as the Sustainable Communities Strategy);

• Evidence of current and future levels of need and demand for housing; • The contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions from focussing new development in

locations with good public transport accessibility and where the use of the private car can be minimised;

• Any physical, environmental, land ownership, land use, investment constraints or risks, including, for example, the level of contamination, stability and flood risk;

• Accessibility of proposed development to existing community facilities, infrastructure and services;

• The need to provide housing in rural areas, not only in market towns and local service centres but also in villages in order to enhance or maintain their sustainability;

• The need to develop mixed, sustainable communities across the wider local authority area as well as at neighbourhood level.

2.4 Paragraphs 52–61 identify how the planning system should deliver a flexible, responsive supply of

land utilising a ‘plan, monitor, manage’ approach over a 15 year timeframe. The section also outlines when a site should be considered deliverable and how progress should be monitored in order to ensure that a minimum 5year supply of land is always available.

2.5 In order for a site to be considered deliverable it should be:

• Available now; • Suitable for development now and would contribute immediately towards the creation of

sustainable, mixed communities; • Achievable within the next 5 years.

2.6 The identified supply of housing land to fulfil the housing requirements between years 6 and 15 should be developable. Developable sites “should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available, and could be developed at the

4

point envisaged” (PPS3). Developable sites are likely to become deliverable as and when obstacles to development are overcome, or when market conditions become more favourable.

2.7 Annex C to PPS3 underlines how the District’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment and Housing

Land Availability Studies should inform the preparation of the LDF giving information on the level of need and demand within the District and the opportunities that exist to meet this need. Tapping the Potential - Assessing Urban Housing Capacity: Towards Better Practice (December 2002)

2.8 As previously stated ‘Tapping the Potential’ has been replaced by Practice Guidance on SHLAA. However, the document continues to be relevant in that it formed the basis behind which the 2002 study, which this assessment builds upon, was produced. ‘Tapping the Potential’ provided guidance on the scope and methodology for carrying out Urban Capacity Studies and was based on a 4 stage process:

1. Identifying capacity sources; 2. Surveying the capacity; 3. Assessing the yield; and 4. Discounting.

Identifying capacity sources

2.9 This stage initially involved identifying the ‘urban’ areas to be assessed. The guidance acknowledged that defining urban areas is not a simple statistical task and that villages may also include previously developed sites that can contribute to sustainable patterns of development. The guidance therefore suggested that a useful rule of thumb would be to include in the study all settlements that may be considered for housing development.

2.10 The next stage was to consider all sources of capacity. The guidance stated that it was important that as many sources of capacity as possible should be considered, no matter how unlikely some sources and locations may initially have appeared. Eleven sources of capacity were suggested:

1. Subdivision of existing housing 2. Flats over shops 3. Empty homes 4. Previously developed vacant and derelict land and buildings (non housing) 5. Intensification of existing areas 6. Redevelopment of existing housing 7. Redevelopment of car parks 8. Conversion of commercial buildings 9. Review of existing housing allocations in plans 10. Review of other existing allocations in plans 11. Vacant land not previously developed

Surveying capacity

2.11 ‘Tapping the Potential’ set down three approaches to surveying the capacity: 1. Comprehensive surveys of the whole defined area 2. Priority Area studies 3. Typical Urban Area studies

2.12 A comprehensive survey was by definition held to be the most robust approach because all potential

opportunities within the study area were identified. This approach also allowed for a database of all potential sites to be tracked.

5

Assessing Yield

2.13 Having surveyed the area and identified the opportunities for additional housing the next step was to assess the number of units that could be accommodated on each of the sites and in each of the buildings identified. The guidance stressed the importance of appropriately applying expectations for densities, parking and layout. Three approaches for assessing yield were suggested.

1. Density multipliers 2. Design-led approach 3. Yardsticks

2.14 The guidance suggested that all approaches have advantages and disadvantages but that the design-led

approach was the most effective for most capacity sources as it provided a more realistic assessment to be made of a site’s development potential. In particular, it allowed densities to be increased by showing how these could be accommodated while producing attractive homes in keeping with the surrounding area. However, the design-led approach was probably the most resource intensive. Also, where potential capacity was difficult to measure on a site by site basis, for example flats over shops, yield may be more appropriately assessed using yardsticks.

2.15 The assessment of yield produced what is referred to as the ‘unconstrained’ capacity. The unconstrained housing capacity of an area is the theoretical total number of dwellings that it could accommodate if all the potential capacity was developed optimally. Discounting

2.16 The final part of an Urban Capacity Study was to predict how much of the unconstrained capacity could be brought forward within the time horizon being considered i.e. calculating the ‘constrained’ capacity. This was addressed through ‘discounting’ procedures, and typically local authorities discounted their unconstrained figure quite substantially, by up to 60%.

2.17 The guidance highlighted that this stage was inherently judgmental and therefore it was important that discounting took place only once the unconstrained capacity had been identified. It also suggested that involving the development industry, including house builders, in the discounting stage could increase reliability and produce an acceptance of the assumptions made.

2.18 The levels of discounting should vary according to how the capacity was assessed. A comprehensive survey combined with a design-led approach to assessing yield should require less discounting than estimates based on the Typical Urban Area technique and density multipliers.

2.19 Four general principles against which to discount the capacity were suggested: 1. Developability 2. Market viability 3. Local character 4. Planning standards

2.20 Discounting rates for different sources of capacity were suggested as a guide. Discounting rates

devised by local authorities should be based on professional judgements and knowledge of the local area informed by consultation with those active in the market.

3. The Housing Market in Waveney

3.1 The current housing market conditions in Waveney provide a context for the SHLAA. The housing market can influence the rate at which sites identified come forward. Waveney District Council in partnership with Great Yarmouth Borough Council commissioned a Housing Market Assessment

6

(HMA) for the sub region. The HMA has only recently been produced in its final draft format and therefore its analysis is considered sufficiently up to date (late 2006 data) to be used during the preparation of this Assessment, thereby negating the need for additional research. As a consequence the HMA has informed various stages of this SHLAA.

3.2 Whilst this Assessment does not intend to repeat the HMA it is relevant to note that the housing market in Waveney as a whole remains strong and has seen significant growth over the past 8-10 years. Average house prices over the five year period 2001 to 2006 have increased significantly in all parts of the District for all types of property, with Southwold and Reydon continuing to have the highest prices (an average in 2006 of £317,000). Generally the Halesworth area has the second highest average prices, followed by the Bungay and Beccles areas. The lowest prices tend to be in Lowestoft but there are considerable differences between the different postcode areas, with central Lowestoft being the lowest.

3.3 House prices in some parts of the District, namely Southwold and to some extent Halesworth and

other surrounding areas are largely fuelled by second home owners and those retiring to the area, primarily from London and the south east. Also, because prices in the District have tended to be lower than surrounding areas such as Norwich, Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds, an increasing number of people who are prepared to commute to work are moving into the area.

3.4 During 2006, the percentage increase in house prices in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney sub region (7.6%) was lower than the Suffolk (9.3%) and England and Wales (8.7%) figures. Rural areas in Waveney showed the greatest percentage increase at 20%. This growth in house prices has significantly affected the ability of many to purchase properties in the District, thereby affecting the tenure mix within the District and the levels of demand for private rented and affordable housing. Affordability concerns are highlighted by the house price to income ratio. In 2006 the average house price is 7 times the average annual salary. However, this ratio varies widely across the District.

3.5 In terms of mixed use sites, the market is still considered to be predominantly made up of house builders and commercial developers. There are only a limited number of developers who are in a position to carry out both functions and these companies are tending to work in strong locations and are less likely to be attracted to Waveney.

3.6 Of particular note is the concern over the potentially fragile state of the housing market. Market changes could impact on the (economic) viability of sites. In particular sites which are currently only marginally viable are likely to be vulnerable to changes in housing market conditions, such as further increases in interest rates over the coming months and years.

4. Suffolk Urban Capacity Study Methodology (January 2002) and its application in Waveney District

4.1 Whilst this SHLAA goes further than simply up dating the 2002 Urban Capacity Study a significant proportion of the methodology followed that advocated in the Suffolk Urban Capacity Study Methodology. As a consequence this methodology is included for information. Where appropriate comments have been made indicating how this 2007 SHLAA has built upon the work undertaken in 2002.

4.2 The Suffolk Methodology was produced by a joint working group of Suffolk local planning

authorities. It applied the 4 stage procedure set down in ‘Tapping the Potential’ to the Suffolk context. The document contained a methodology for the assessment of yield for each source of capacity identified, a Site Assessment Checklist, a range of templates for different types and sizes of sites, a Discounting Checklist and sample tables for the presentation of results. Identifying Capacity Sources

7

4.3 In terms of defining the settlements to be included in the Study, the methodology took the approach as

advised in ‘Tapping the Potential’. The guidance suggested assessing the capacity of all settlements which could be considered as sustainable locations for housing development taking into account the allocation criteria set out in paragraph 31 of PPG3. The Structure Plan 2001, namely Policy CS3(a) - (e), therefore provided the policy framework for determining which settlements in Suffolk were considered to be the most sustainable (see para 2.27 above).

4.4 For Waveney this resulted in the inclusion of the following settlements in the 2002 Study.

Towns Lowestoft (the larger urban area, including Carlton Colville and Oulton) Beccles including Worlingham Bungay Halesworth Southwold Villages Barnby/North Cove Corton Holton Kessingland Reydon Wangford Wrentham N.B. The 2007 Assessment also assesses sites in Blundeston as the village has been identified as a ‘larger village’ in the Preferred Options document for the Core Strategy.

4.5 ‘Tapping the Potential’ identified 11 sources of capacity to be assessed. All these sources were

included in the Suffolk Methodology apart from empty homes. This category was excluded as an allowance for the reduction in empty homes to the 3% national target had already been taken into account in the Structure Plan housing requirement for each District/Borough. Inclusion would only have resulted in double counting.

4.6 In addition to the sources identified in ‘Tapping the Potential’ it was agreed to include the following ‘other’ potential sources:

Lapsed planning permissions NLUD - ‘type e’ sites (sites in use with potential) Green space Transport land and buildings Utilities land and buildings Institutional (residential and non-residential buildings) Community buildings Minerals and waste land; and Agriculture and forestry land

4.7 The additional sources acted as a ‘catchall’ and wherever possible sites were included in the main list.

It should also be noted that unimplemented planning permissions for housing were also reviewed, to assess the potential for increased capacity should an application for renewal be submitted. In the Suffolk Methodology this source of capacity was included with the review of Local Plan allocations. Surveying Capacity and Assessing Yield

8

4.8 It was agreed early on in developing the methodology that a comprehensive survey approach, combined with a design-led method of assessing capacity would produce the most realistic and robust results as suggested in ‘Tapping the Potential’. It would also assist in the monitoring and review of sites. The benefits were considered to outweigh the additional resources that such an approach required.

4.9 An initial desktop analysis of OS maps at 1:2500 was required, including the use of aerial photos. This work also involved the use of information held on overlays on the GIS system, in terms of identifying sites such as Local Nature Reserves and allotments to exclude from the Study. This was followed by a survey of the whole study area using a Site Assessment Checklist and OS maps at 1:1250.

4.10 A methodology for surveying and assessing yield for each source of capacity has been developed. How these have been applied in Waveney is set out below. The desktop analysis and site surveys were common to all sources of capacity except sub-division of existing housing, flats above shops and the small NLUD ‘e’ sites. All sites surveyed were plotted on the GIS and site information recorded.

4.11 As part of the design-led approach to the assessment of yield, templates for a variety of typical sites in Suffolk were developed. These were supplemented, where appropriate, by templates from the North West Region Urban Capacity Study. Where an appropriate template was not available an assessment of yield was made based on site considerations, planning standards, surrounding character and the local planning context. The input of local knowledge from Development Control Case Officers was particularly useful at this stage. Estimates of yield assumed that the whole site could be developed for housing, regardless of constraints or the potential for mixed use. In accordance with the methodology, it was not until the discounting stage that these factors were taken into account.

4.12 Estimates of yield were made based on two alternative scenarios where relevant:

Scenario 1 reflected the policy approach set down in PPG3. Car Parking standards had already been reviewed in the light of PPG3 and PPG13 but an informal application of the other planning standards was made pending a formal review as part of the Local Plan process. Scenario 2 reflected the relaxation of one or more of the policies applied e.g. car parking standards, to increase the potential capacity on site.

4.13 A ‘best fit’ for each site was then selected. The adoption of the comprehensive survey approach enabled a judgement, as to when and how to apply a second scenario, to be carried out on a site by site basis. This judgement was based on considerations including accessibility to public transport, town or village centres, open space, services and facilities and the need to provide mixed and balanced communities.

4.14 The Methodology also recommends the use of a standard density approach, as a comparison of what can be achieved by applying a consistently higher density. The standard density selected for Waveney was 37 dwellings per hectare. This figure was considered to be reasonable as a benchmark given local characteristics but challenging, given the average density achieved for completed developments across the District for 2000/01 of 26/ha.

5. The Methodology for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments

5.1 This update has involved a desk top reassessment of the sites identified during the 2002 Study,

consideration of additional sites put forward during consultation on the Local Development Framework, and an assessment of the numbers of units provided from different sources over the past 5

9

years (to provide necessary past trends information to inform future predictions and assess the accuracy of previous predictions). In view of the continuous monitoring that has taken place since 2002, the 2002 survey results are (in association with the identified additional sites) still considered to accurately reflect the capacity of the urban areas within the District (with the exception of sites within the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan area, Lowestoft). As a consequence a further comprehensive survey was not considered to be necessary for this update.

5.2 The method of assessing and evaluating likely numbers of units of accommodation to be provided

over the next 15–18 years from each source is detailed below on a source by source basis. In most instances the means of identifying or predicting likely contributions from each source is detailed with regards to the initial 2002 assessment and the method undertaken during this 2007 Assessment. The assessment/reassessment of the sites included within this Assessment have predominantly been carried out using a design based approach as in 2002. The 2007 figures give the position as of the 1st April 2007.

5.3 As in 2002 this Assessment compares the (realistic) number of units that are likely to be provided

with a standard density. Whilst average densities of development within the District have risen since 2000/01, 37/ha is still considered to represent a realistic yet challenging density figure for the delivery of housing within the District in 2007.

The sub-division of an existing house into 2 or more units. 5.4 As in 2002 the predicted number of sub divisions has been based on past trends, particularly the net

gains/losses to the housing stock through subdivisions and the merging of two or more units over the past five years (see Appendix One). On the basis of recent past trend analysis predictions for housing supply through sub division have been increased slightly above the levels predicted in 2002.

The potential for residential use above shops and offices in the town centres, secondary centres, neighbourhood, shopping areas and village centres. ‘Corner shops’ and retail warehouses were excluded.

5.5 In 2001, in accordance with the Methodology, existing retail survey work for May 2001 was used to

assist in assessing this source of capacity. Uses of upper floors and potential access arrangements for residential use were also recorded to feed into this Study. In addition, as a cross check, all residential accommodation above ground floor level in the defined areas was identified from Council Tax and Electoral Registration information and plotted on the GIS. Villages were also included in this latter exercise. At this stage it became clear that there would be negligible further potential in the villages, so they were excluded from the Study.

5.6 Once all the premises with non-residential uses above ground floor level had been identified, the

theoretical capacity was calculated, for each town, based on one floor equating to one flat. To assist with discounting, a sample survey of one in three of the owners/occupiers of these premises was carried out to assess the likelihood of the accommodation becoming available for residential use over the 15 year timescale. A separate survey was also carried out for all the premises where the space above ground floor was vacant.

5.7 This 2007 Assessment uses past trends to identify likely levels of capacity over the next 15-18 years

in order to update the previous survey work carried out in 2001/02 (see Appendix Two). It is relevant

Subdivision of Existing Housing

Flats over shops

10

to note that the 2002 predictions for provision of units over shops tended to be over estimates. As a consequence of the information gained from this monitoring the 2007 predictions are lower than they were in 2002.

All previously developed vacant and derelict sites, such as areas of former industrial land, derelict buildings and vacant lots.

5.8 Sites identified within the 2002 study were reassessed in order to evaluate their likely capacity and

timeframe for delivery. In addition a number of new sites which were known to have become vacant or which have been put forward for redevelopment within the LDF were included within the study.

This includes the intensification of residential land such as gardens, garage courts and redevelopment of one or two dwellings. Residential garage/parking courts are excluded if they form an integral part of private housing development built since the 1970s.

5.9 In 2001/2 in accordance with the Methodology, all potential sites down to one dwelling were

identified across the Study area. 5.10 For this 2007 Assessment, these sites (and new ones identified) were reassessed during a desk-based

study in order to identify the likeliness of sites being developable and deliverable. Sites identified as being likely to be developed were then further discounted in order to give a theoretical capacity. The discounting exercise was based on an analysis of past trends for permissions and completions for intensification sites over the past 5 years (see appendix Three).

5.11 It is relevant to note that previous predictions and discounting undertaken during the 2002 Study have

turned out to be relatively accurate. 135 units have been provided over the past 5 years on intensification sites, compared with a prediction in 2002 of 125 for this period.

This source includes poor quality and derelict housing of more than 2 units where redevelopment is the only viable option.

5.12 In 2001/2 consultation with the District Council’s Environmental, Housing and Property Services

sections confirmed that there is likely to be little, if any, poor quality housing in this category over the next 15 years. In 2007 this situation is not considered to have changed.

Includes all stand-alone temporary and permanent ground, tiered and multi-storey car parks in public or private ownership. For car parks located within the curtilage of an existing business or facility only sites or parts of sites with potential for housing development are included.

Previously Developed Vacant and Derelict Land and Buildings (non housing)

Intensification

Redevelopment of Existing Housing

Redevelopment of Car Parks

11

5.13 In 2001/2 in accordance with the Methodology, the calculation of theoretical capacity excluded those sites within the curtilage of existing premises that clearly did not have potential for housing development. However, in practice, to get to this stage, a comprehensive desktop survey of all sites was required. Previous car parking survey work completed by the Highways Section was referred to wherever possible. This 2007 Assessment used a desktop assessment of previously identified sites to reassess the potential housing capacities of the car parks.

Vacant commercial and industrial premises located in areas suitable for residential development.

5.14 Care had to be taken to ensure double counting did not take place with the previously developed

vacant land and buildings category. Several sites were identified in 2002 but they were predominantly small sites and were not considered to contribute significantly as a source of capacity. For this update a desktop review of the previously identified, but yet to be developed, sites was undertaken in order to reassess potential capacity for this update. In addition a number of additional sites were identified/put forward and were subsequently assessed.

This category includes all existing Waveney Interim Local Plan (May 2004) allocations within the Study area, such as housing, retail, employment, car parking and residential and all sites with planning permission for housing. Includes greenfield and previously developed land.

5.15 In accordance with the Methodology, in 2002, a review of all allocations in the Study area and sites

with planning permission (as of February 2002) was undertaken. In terms of analysis and recording results for the Waveney Study, this category was subdivided into housing allocations, non-housing allocations and planning permissions for housing. The unconstrained and constrained figures for units achieved though Planning Permissions were recorded as potential net gains.

5.16 In reviewing existing allocations, achieving an appropriate balance between development for housing

and other uses was an important consideration. This was particularly so given the need to support regeneration through retaining an adequate supply of employment land and the need to promote sustainable neighbourhoods.

5.17 This 2007 update has reassessed the housing allocations to take into account changes to planning

policy (such as support for higher density development in sustainable locations); the implementation of allocated sites; and, site specific factors which may have changed since the 2002 study was carried out. Sites that have been developed have been omitted and other sites have been reviewed and included in order to bring the data up to date. In this study sites currently allocated for housing have been renewed and categorised, in the results tables, according to their existing land use, i.e. ‘previously developed vacant and derelict land’.

This category included vacant land not previously developed within the Study area (e.g. white land). It excludes agricultural, playing fields, parks or allotments.

Conversion of Vacant Commercial/Industrial Buildings

Review of Existing Allocations (housing and other) and Planning Permissions (housing)

Vacant land not previously developed

12

5.18 This source was investigated in accordance with the Methodology and, as highlighted in ‘Tapping the Potential,’ proved to identify considerably more sites than expected. In 2007 a reassessment of previously identified sites and sites put forward for consideration within the LDF have been assessed to inform this update.

The purpose of this category is to act as a ‘catchall’ to ensure that all potential capacity is taken into account. This category includes lapsed planning permissions, NLUD ‘type e’ sites, green space, institutional land and buildings, agriculture and forestry land.

5.19 Several sites that fall in the above categories have been recorded under the main categories already

referred to. It is acknowledged that the green space and agriculture and forestry land categories are not defined as previously developed land. They were included in the initial desktop and survey work for consistency at the regional level but are excluded from the final results.

5.20 In developing the Suffolk Methodology, the working group considered that the exclusion of sites in

existing use with known potential (NLUD ‘type e’ sites) was a significant omission from ‘Tapping the Potential’. In Waveney, several sites were identified from the NLUD_PDL database (National Land Use Database – Previously Developed Land). Others were suggested by landowners for development, in response to the consultation on the Local Plan Issues Report in January 2001. Input from Development Control staff also highlighted several sites where informal enquiries had been made. As the NLUD category only includes large sites, past completions for the 5 year period 1996 - 2001 were analysed to assess the potential from small sites e.g. change of use of a ground floor shop or office to residential use.

5.21 This update reassesses the previously identified sites and also looks at sites identified during the Local

Development Framework preparation process (particularly those put forward for inclusion within the site specific allocations document). Past trends analysis was again undertaken in order to assess/predict likely contributions from small sites in existing use (see appendix 3).

Discounting

5.22 The Methodology includes a Discounting Checklist (Appendix 4) based on the 4 general principles

suggested by ‘Tapping the Potential’. The Discounting Checklist is applied to the ‘best fit’ capacity for each site in order to arrive at a realistic or ‘constrained’ figure for the period 2007 to 2025. GIS overlays contained information relating to areas of flood risk, Conservation Areas, Tree Preservation Orders, listed buildings etc. Information relating to possible site contamination was obtained from an Environmental Services database. The Methodology allows for the discounting of whole or parts of sites, depending upon the site constraints and other site specific factors.

5.23 The anticipated 5 year phase during which the capacity is likely to be developed is also recorded

during the discounting process. The anticipated phase for development is predicted on the basis of site constraints and the experience of members of the planning team. It also takes into account knowledge gained from the development of previous similar sites, information from the Housing Market Assessment (HMA) and other relevant studies.

5.24 The findings of the HMA, and in particular the identified levels of housing need and prevailing

market conditions, have assisted in providing the context for this 2007 update. Whilst the study has indicated there is significant demand for property and therefore enhanced likelihood of sites being viable the study does highlight how changes to market conditions could adversely affect viability and

‘Other’ Potential

13

therefore the deliverability of sites. As a consequence if demand for property and therefore prices fall, the level of discounting on specific sites may need to be reassessed when the SHLAA is updated.

5.25 This update discounts sites in a similar way to the 2002 Study. Each site is individually assessed and

discounted as considered appropriate, on the basis of the sites specific constraints. Planning policy officers carried out the discounting with assistance, when required, from development control officers.

5.26 As discussed previously the discounting undertaken during the 2002 Study has been analysed and has

been found to be relatively accurate. This reinforces the view that the discounting process used is appropriate for predicting the likely level of supply in the future.

5.27 During the 2007 assessment, the discounting for intensification sites, given their small size and large

number, proved to be the most difficult. The initial discounting of sites based largely on site constraints such as access, protected trees and character of the locality produced 478 dwellings from the ‘best fit’ of 1091. However, this figure needed to be further discounted to take account of housing market conditions and the likely willingness of, usually home owners, to release part of their garden for development. Further analysis focused on past trends for planning permissions, completions and the results of the HMA. Past trends revealed that the number of sites and units granted permission were still increasing between 2002/3 (25 sites and 51 dwellings granted consent) and 2006/7 (53 sites and 70 dwellings granted consent). Completions on intensification sites having fluctuated between 21 and 33 over the past 5 years, with an average of 27 per year.

5.28 The HMA indicated continued interest across the District from residents, particularly the more

elderly, to subdivide and develop part of their garden. It was therefore assumed that, the average for completions over the past 5 years of 27 per annum, would continue to rise in the short term before gradually slowing down over the remainder of the Plan period, giving a realistic (discounted) figure of approximately 330 dwellings (69% of the 478 units identified as being likely to come forward). Site areas have also been reduced by 31%, this has helped to ensure that the likely density figures also remain accurate.

6. Results and Analysis

Potential Urban Capacity for the District 6.1 Table 1 sets down the overall results of the Urban Capacity Study, (excluding the key intervention

areas in the Lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and greenfield allocations). Through the comprehensive survey approach, 596 sites were identified and recorded on the GIS system. This figure excludes the potential sites associated with the sources of capacity assessed primarily through past trends. Following discounting the figure of 596 was reduced to 232 sites on a total of 65.81ha of land. Due to confidentiality considerations and the difficulties of identifying sites, where past trends or discounting through calculation has been used, a comprehensive list of sites is not identified as part of the results.

6.2 In Table 1 the maximum unconstrained or ‘theoretical’ capacity is that identified as the total for

Scenario 2 and amounts to 7123 units. However, the ‘best fit’ represents the most appropriate yield based on up to two scenarios for each site and is a lower figure of 6477. The unconstrained or ‘best fit’ has been discounted by 74%, giving a realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity of 1684 units.

6.3 In terms of density, the average for the realistic sites is 26 dwellings per hectare. This figure is

slightly below Government guidance of minimum densities of 30/ha. At the comparator density of 37 dwellings per hectare 2435 dwellings could be achieved, a significant increase of 751 dwellings across the Study area.

14

6.4 Further analysis has looked at site size. It is likely that a significant proportion of the sites (91%) will yield less than 10 units. Only 5% of sites are likely to have a capacity of 25 or more units.

6.5 The largest sources of future housing capacity are expected to be ‘sites in existing use’, ‘previously

developed vacant and derelict land and buildings’ and ‘intensification’ sites. These three sources are expected to account for 76% of total potential capacity.

6.6 ‘Subdivision’ of existing housing is anticipated to yield more dwellings than in the past whilst Flats

above Shops are anticipated to continue at a similar rate. The lack of potential from existing non-housing allocations reflects the need to retain land for competing uses particularly in town centre locations. Although some capacity is expected in areas zoned for other uses such as industry.

16

Table 1 Capacity for Whole District (excluding the key intervention areas in the Lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and greenfield allocations)

Dwelling Capacity by Scenarios (net)

Total Units identified

Sc1 Sc2 Best Fit Best Fit (Unconstrained Capacity)

Realistic no. of units (Constrained Capacity)

Housing ‘site area’ for Realistic sites

Average Density/ha for Constrained Capacity

No of units at Comparator density of 37/ha

Phase of Release S/M/L for Realistic Units

No of sites

Area (ha) Number of Sites

0 Subdivision of existing housing

69 69 69 69 69 0 0 0 0 23/23/23

0 Flats over shops 48 48 48 48 48 0 0 0 0 17/17/14 34 PD vacant and derelict land 686 823 771 771 208 4.53 13 46/ha 168 172/31/5 315 Intensification 1053 1131 1091 1091 330 21.00 137 16/ha 777 145/129/56 1 Redevelopment of housing 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

135 Redevelopment of car parks 974 1437 1277 1277 60 1.31 17 46/ha 48 15/11/34 4 Commercial/industrial

conversions 72 76 76 76 16 0.28 3 57/ha 10 4/12/0

3 Review of non housing allocations

181 206 206 206 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

8 Review of planning permissions for housing

22 28 (net gain)

22 (net gain)

22 21 1.02 8 21/ha 38 20/1/0

18 Vacant land not PD 430 515 499 499 61 6.75 8 9/ha 250 57/2/2 50 Sites in existing use with

potential (identifiable-large sites)

1753 2265 1963 1963 743 27.92 33 27/ha 1033 212/192/339

0 Sites in existing use with potential (unidentifiable-small sites)

47 47 47 47 47 0 0 0 0 21/13/13

28 Other 391 469 399 399 81 3.00 13 27/ha 111 46/10/25 596 TOTALS 5735 7123 6477 6477 1684 65.81 232 26/ha 2435 732/441/511

15

17

6.7 Table 2 provides a summary of total potential capacity by anticipated phase of completion. Three phases from 2007 to 2025 are assumed. The short term and medium term span 5 year periods and the long term up to 8 years. Across the three phases there appears to be variation in the release of sites for development, with least apparently being likely to be developed in the medium term. The figures suggest that 732 units are likely to be completed in the short term, 441 in the medium term and 511 in the long term. It is difficult to conclude whether this variation in sites coming forward is due to the capacity ‘drying up’ at different times or the difficulties in anticipating what is likely to happen over a 15-18 year period. The phasing may also be distorted by the large number of ‘sites in existing use’ that are likely to come forward over the Plan period. Clearly, if it is known that a site in an existing use is likely to come forward then they are more likely to be put in the first phase (thereby significantly weighting the figures). The question remains whether this source will dry up given the need to retain sites in employment use, or whether the first phase of likely supply in any future capacity study will always contain such a large number of ‘sites in existing use’ as more sites become available for reuse over time as businesses and the need for other uses changes. With regards to the lower levels of supply in the medium term this is not considered to represent a site supply issue as in reality it is likely that some sites identified as being deliverable in the short term will slip into the medium term whilst others may come forward sooner than anticipated. However, it is considered an issue that will need to be regularly monitored in order to ensure that there isn’t a shortfall in future years. Table 2 Summary of Total Capacity by Phase of Release (excluding the key intervention areas in the Lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and greenfield allocations)

Phase of Capacity Release

SHORT (2007 – 2012)

MEDIUM (2012 – 2017)

LONG (2017 – 2025)

732 441 511 Potential Urban Capacity by Settlement

6.8 Table 3 provides a summary of the potential capacity by settlement. What is clear from this table is that the majority of the potential capacity (91%) lies on 84% of the sites in the main towns, i.e. Lowestoft, Beccles, Bungay, Halesworth and Southwold including Reydon. As expected most capacity, 61% is in Lowestoft, particularly the north, on 33% of the sites. The small number of sites is a reflection of their size, being generally larger than those elsewhere in the District. The rest of the capacity is divided between Beccles (11%), Southwold (4%), Bungay (6%) and Halesworth (8%). Capacity outside of Lowestoft and the market towns accounts for only 9% of the District’s total, reflecting the need for development to be provided in the more sustainable locations.

16

18

Table 3 Summary of capacity by settlement.

Summary for Towns and Villages


Total Units Identified

SC1 SC2 Best Fit Best Fit (Unconstrained Capacity)

Realistic No. of Units (Constrained Capacity)

Housing ‘site area’ for Realistic Sites

Average Density/ha for Constrained Capacity*

No. of Units at Comparator Density of 37/ha


Area (ha) Number of sites

North Lowestoft 1921 2560 2356 2356 646 16.46 41 39/ha 609 237/168/241 South Lowestoft 2177 2639 2384 2384 393 22.18 36 18/ha 821 120/92/181 Beccles 350 404 351 351 189 7.58 43 25/ha 280 133/42/14 Bungay 235 307 265 265 99 4.16 26 24/ha 154 47/39/13 Halesworth 431 537 481 481 143 5.89 25 24/ha 218 72/62/9 Southwold/Reydon 194 209 201 201 62 1.90 23 33/ha 70 30/18/14 Kessingland 297 304 300 300 63 2.92 11 22/ha 108 39/8/16 Barnby/North Cove 13 19 19 19 13 0.58 3 22/ha 21 8/5/0 Blundeston 24 43 24 24 17 1.57 5 11/ha 57 6/0/11 Corton 26 26 26 26 6 0.71 6 7/ha 27 4/1/0 Holton 28 28 28 28 27 0.95 3 30/ha 33 27/0/0 Wangford 22 26 24 24 14 0.51 5 27/ha 19 4/5/5 Wrentham 17 21 18 18 13 0.40 6 31/ha 14 5/1/7

TOTALS 5735 7123 6477 6477 1684 65.81 232 26/ha 2435 732/441/511

17

19

Lowestoft

6.9 Tables 4 and 5 provide summaries for north and south Lowestoft respectively (excluding the key intervention areas in the Lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and Greenfield allocations). The unconstrained capacity for Lowestoft (4740 units) has been discounted by 78% (north Lowestoft 73% and south by 84%).

6.10 The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity for Lowestoft is expected to be 1039 dwellings on over 77 sites. 646 dwellings (62%) are predicted for north Lowestoft and 393 (38%) for the south. This imbalance north and south is a reflection of the development of the town and its associated characteristics. Early development of the town was focused north of Lake Lothing. Hence the town centre and the larger proportion of business and industrial premises are located here. It is this mix of uses that has yielded greater opportunities for development. The south has largely developed as a residential area. Considerable residential development has taken place in the past 20-30 years at densities and layouts that allow few opportunities for ‘intensification’ However, it is relevant to note that this north - south divide has become less distinct since the 2002 Study was published.

6.11 It terms of numbers of sites, roughly equal numbers are expected to come forward north and south, reflecting the greater number of large sites north of Lake Lothing. Average density on sites in the north is likely to be 39/ha and 18/ha in the south.

6.12 Over 73% of the capacity in north Lowestoft is expected to be on ‘previously developed vacant or

derelict land and buildings’ or on identifiable ‘sites in existing use’. In the south, over 57% of the capacity is expected to come forward on ‘vacant land not previously developed’ and identifiable ‘sites in existing use’. In both north and south Lowestoft, most units are anticipated to come forward in the short or long term.

6.13 The potential housing capacity in the key intervention areas for the Lake Lothing area (Table 19) are

excluded from the above analysis for Lowestoft. However, it should be noted that three smaller sites in this area have been included, as they are allocated for housing in the Waveney Interim Local Plan (May 2004)

• NLOW126 Former Oswalds Marina • SLOW192 Land to the South of Horn Hill • SLOW 199 Land to the East of the Railway Line, West end of Lake Lothing

18

20

Table 4 Summary of Capacity for North Lowestoft North Lowestoft









No of sites


0- Subdivision of existing housing

24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 8/8/8

0 Flats over shops 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 2/2/2 8 PD vacant and derelict land 232 292 292 292 80 0.60 1 133/ha 22 80/0/0

48 Intensification 173 192 190 190 53 3.99 19 13/ha 148 22/31/0 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


conversions 62 62 62 62 2 0.01 1 200/ha 0 2/0/0


131 131 131 131 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

Review of planning permissions for housing

12

12

(net gain)

12 (net gain)

12 (net gain)

12 (net gain)

0.13

1

92/ha

5

12/0/0



608 829 770 770 390 10.33 10 38/ha 382 99/115/176

0

Sites in existing use with potential (unidentifiable-small sites)

17

17

17

17

17

0

0

0

0

7/5/5

6 Other 93 139 93 93 19 0.50 2 38/ha 19 1/0/18

148 TOTALS 1921 2560 2356 2356 646 16.46 41 39/ha 609 237/168/241

19

21

Table 5 Summary of Capacity for South Lowestoft South Lowestoft









No of sites



24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 8/8/8




conversions 8 12 12 12 12 0.21 1 57/ha 8 0/12/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0



924 1151 954 954 221 11.92 8 16/ha 441 24/50/147


11

11

11

11

11

0

0

0

0

5/3/3


20

23

Beccles including Worlingham

6.14 Table 6 provides a summary for the Beccles area. The unconstrained capacity for the Beccles area (351 units) has been discounted by 46%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 189 units on over 43 sites, with an average density of 25/ha. Site sizes are expected to be small. It is anticipated that 78% of the units will be on identifiable ‘sites in existing use’, ‘intensification’ sites and ‘previously developed vacant and derelict land or buildings’. Over 70% of the identified capacity is expected to come forward in the first phase, with a marked decline to 2025. In the long term (2018-2025) capacity for only 14 units is identified. This situation will need to be monitored over the coming years. Bungay

6.15 Table 7 provides a summary for Bungay. The unconstrained capacity for Bungay (265 units) has been discounted by 63%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 99 units on 26 sites, with an average density of 24/ha. As for Beccles, site sizes are expected to be small. It is anticipated that 63% of the units will be on identifiable ‘sites in existing use’, ‘intensification’ sites and ‘previously developed vacant and derelict land or buildings’. 47% of the units are expected to come forward in the first phase, with a gradual decline to 2025.

21

24

Table 6 Summary of Capacity for Beccles BECCLES









No of sites



9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 3/3/3


63 Intensification 137 155 138 138 51 2.73 30 19/ha 101 27/21/3 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 9 Redevelopment of car parks 33 61 33 33 8 0.16 3 50/ha 6 1/4/3 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


1 1 (net gain)

1 (net gain) 1 (net gain) 1 (net gain) 0.08 1 13/ha 3 1/0/0

1 Vacant land not PD 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 3 Sites in existing use with


47 52 47 47 35 2.76 3 12/ha 102 28/7/0


7

7

7

7

7

0

0

0

0

3/2/2


22

25

Table 7 Summary of Capacity for Bungay

Bungay









No of sites



6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 2/2/2

0 Flats over shops 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 2/2/2 4 PD vacant and derelict

land 19 25 19 19 3 0.03 2 100/ha 1 3/0/0

37 Intensification 87 92 87 87 33 2.52 15 13/ha 93 13/17/3 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 9 Redevelopment of car

parks 35 56 47 47 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

1 Commercial/industrial conversions

2 2 2 2 2 0.06 1 33/ha 2 2/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


2 3 (net gain)

2 (net gain)

2 (net gain) 2 (net gain) 0.12 1 17/ha 4 2/0/0



47 70 59 59 27 0.91 3 30/ha 34 18/9/0


4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 2/1/1


23

26

Table 8 Summary of Capacity for Southwold and Reydon Southwold









No of sites



3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 1/1/1

0 Flats over shops 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 2/2/2 0 PD vacant and derelict land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0



conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0



24 31 30 30 14 0.37 3 38/ha 14 6/4/4


4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 2/1/1

0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 69 TOTALS 194 209 201 201 62 1.90 23 33/ha 70 30/18/14

24

27

Table 9 Summary of Capacity for Halesworth Halesworth









No of sites



3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 1/1/1



conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


50 75 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0



51 69 51 51 39 1.08 2 36/ha 40 32/7/0


4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 2/1/1

4 Other 4 7 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/ 69 TOTALS 431 537 481 481 143 5.89 25 24/ha 218 72/62/9

25

28

Southwold and Reydon

6.16 Table 8 provides a summary for Southwold and Reydon. The unconstrained capacity for Southwold and Reydon (201 units) has been discounted by 69%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 62 units. The units are predicted to be developed on 23 sites at an average density of 33/ha. Most of the units are expected to come forward in either the short term (30 units). The lack of potential capacity reflects the location of the town in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and the Heritage Coast, and the extent of the Conservation Area (Appendix 2). Expansion outward and within are both restricted. Halesworth

6.17 Table 9 provides a summary for Halesworth. The unconstrained capacity for Halesworth (481 units) has been discounted by 70%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 143 units on 25 sites, with an average density of 24/ha. Site sizes are expected to be small. It is expected that 64% of the units will be on ‘intensification’ sites and identifiable ‘sites in existing use’. Additional units from ‘previously developed vacant and derelict land and buildings’ are negligible. 50% of all the units are expected to come forward in the first phase, with only 6% anticipated in the long term (2018-2025). Kessingland

6.18 Table 10 provides a summary for Kessingland. The unconstrained capacity for Kessingland (300 units) has been discounted by 79%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 63 units on 11 sites at an average density of 22/ha. Most sites are expected to be small. It is anticipated that 52% (33 units) of the capacity will come forward on intensification sites with most of the remainder (38%) on identifiable ‘other’ sites. Levels of development in Kessingland are likely to be higher in the short term than in 6-18 years time. Barnby/North Cove

6.19 Table 11 provides a summary for Barnby/North Cove. The unconstrained capacity for Barnby/North Cove (19 units) has been discounted by 32%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 13 units on 3 sites, at an average density of 22/ha. All but one unit is expected to be located in the intensification sites. Potential is therefore extremely limited. The fact that these villages comprise primarily residential development, with employment sites located on industrial estates nearby, largely explains the lack of potential housing capacity. The sites are expected to be developed in the short/medium term. Blundeston

6.20 Table 12 provides a summary for Blundeston. The unconstrained capacity for Blundeston (24 units) has been discounted by 29%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 17 units on 5 sites, at an average density of 11/ha. The 5 sites are a mix of ‘intensification’, ‘review of planning permission for housing’, ‘sites in existing use with potential’ and ‘other’. The units are anticipated to be provided for in the short and long term. Corton

6.21 Table 13 provides a summary for Corton. The unconstrained capacity for Corton (26 units) has been discounted by 77%. The realistic or ‘constrained capacity’ is expected to be 6 units on 6 sites at an average density of 7/ha. The density figure is distorted by one very low density site. Excluding this site, the average density would be over 27/ha.

26

29

Table 10 Summary of Capacity for Kessingland Kessingland









No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 PD vacant and derelict land 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0



40 40 40 40 5 0.22 2 23/ha 8 5/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


27

30

Table 11 Capacity for Barnby and North Cove Barnby and North Cove









No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 PD vacant and derelict land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 3 Intensification 12 18 18 18 12 0.51 2 24/ha 19 7/5/0 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 Redevelopment of car parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


1 1 1 1 1 0.07 1 14/ha 3 1/0/0



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00//0 4 TOTALS 13 19 19 19 13 0.58ha 3 22/ha 21 8/5/0

28

31

Table 12 Capacity for Blundeston Blundeston









No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 PD vacant and derelict land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 Intensification 2 2 2 2 1 0.13 1 10/ha 3 1/0/0 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 Redevelopment of car parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


4 8 4 4 2 0.49 1 4/ha

18 2/0/0



9 20 9 9 9 0.28 1 32 10 0/0/9


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


29

32

Table 13 Capacity for Corton Corton Dwelling Capacity by

Scenarios (net) Total Units identified







No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 PD vacant and derelict land 7 7 7 7 1 0.60 1 2/ha 22 1/0/0 4 Intensification 17 17 17 17 2 0.06 2 29/ha 3 1/1/0 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 Redevelopment of car parks 1 1 1 1 1 0.03 1 33 1 1/0/0 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


1 1 1 1 2 0.02 2 50/ha 1 1/0/0



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 8 TOTALS 26 26 26 26 6 0.711ha 6 7/ha 27 4/1/0

30

33

Holton

6.22 Table 14 provides a summary for Holton. The unconstrained capacity for Holton (28 units) has been discounted by 4%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 27 units on 3 sites, at an average density of 30/ha. All units are expected to come forward in the first phase. Wangford

6.23 Table 15 provides a summary for Wangford. The unconstrained capacity for Wangford (24 units) has been discounted by 47%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 14 units on 5 sites, at an average density of 27/ha. The units are anticipated to be provided relatively evenly during the 15-18 year period. The limited capacity reflects the setting of Wangford in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, giving few opportunities for outward expansion of the village. Wrentham

6.24 Table 16 provides a summary for Wrentham. The unconstrained capacity for Wrentham (18 units) has been discounted by 28%. The realistic or ‘constrained’ capacity is expected to be 13 units on 6 small sites, at an average density of 31/ha. It is anticipated that 85% of the capacity will come forward on ‘intensification’ sites or identifiable ‘sites in use’.

31

35

Table 14 Capacity for Holton

Holton Dwelling Capacity by Scenarios (net)








No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 PD vacant and derelict land 25 25 25 25 25 0.88 1 28/ha 30 25/0/0 2 Intensification 2 2 2 2 1 0.05 1 17/ha 2 1/0/0 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 Redevelopment of car parks 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 1 50/ha 1 1/0/0 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 4 TOTALS 28 28 28 28 27 0.95ha 3 30/ha 33 27/0/0

32

36

Table 15 Capacity for Wangford

Wangford Dwelling Capacity by Scenarios (net)








No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 PD vacant and derelict land 5 5 5 5 5 0.10 1 50/ha 3 0/0/5 2 Intensification 12 12 12 12 5 0.25 2 23/ha 10 1/4/0 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 1 Redevelopment of car parks 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


1 1 1 1 1 0.05 1 20/ha 2 0/1/0



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

1 Other 2 4 4 4 3 0.11 1 27/ha 4 3/0/0 6 TOTALS 22 26 24 24 14 0.51ha 5 27/ha 19 4/5/5

33

37

Table 16 Capacity for Wrentham

Wrentham Dwelling Capacity by Scenarios (net)








No of sites



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 0 PD vacant and derelict land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 5 Intensification 11 12 12 12 8 0.26 3 29/ha 10 4/1/3 0 Redevelopment of housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 3 Redevelopment of car parks 3 5 3 3 1 0.03 1 33/ha 1 0/0/1 0 Commercial/industrial

conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0


0 1 0 0 1 0.06 1 16/ha 2 1/0/0



3 3 3 3 3 0.05 1 60/ha 1 0/0/3


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0

0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0/0 10 TOTALS 17 21 18 18 13 0.40 ha 6 31/ha 14 5/1/7

34

38

Site size analysis for Core Data

6.25 Table 17 has been compiled to indicate how the size of sites coming forward from different sources varies (excluding the Lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and greenfield allocations). The table also indicates how the majority of units (1081 (59%)) are provided on a relatively small number of sites (32 (9%)) containing 10 or more units. However, it is also relevant to note that approximately 408 units may be provided on sites of 2 units or less. Whilst accounting for only 22% of total units these sites do make up 72% of the total number of sites identified. Sites of between 3 and 10 units accounts for 343 units, 19% of the total number identified within the District. The initial data shows that, as would be expected, the majority of the large sites (20 out of 36) are located in Lowestoft.

6.26 Of further note is that 107 sites are likely to provide 3 or more units compared with only 32 sites, which would provide 10 or more units. This is of particular relevance for identifying an appropriate threshold at which affordable housing should be required. See Appendix 5 for site size analysis for each settlement.

35

39

Table 17 Site Size Analysis of Core Data for the District Realistic

Units/Sites Number of sites and units (and % of totals) at different unit thresholds

Source of Capacity

Total units

Total number of sites

Less than 3

Units Sites

3 and above Units Sites

10 and above

Units Sites

15 and above

Units Sites

20 and above

Units Sites

25 and above

Units Sites Subdivisions 69 35 Based on past trends assume 35 sites based on est. of 2 units per dwelling (net). Therefore assume 35 sites of less than 3 units. Flats over shops

48 24 Based on past trends assume 24 sites based on est. of 2 units per dwelling (net). Therefore assume 24 sites of less than 3 units.

PDVDLB 208 13 8 (4%)

6 (46%)

200 (96%)

7 (54%)

190 (91%)

5 (38%)

190 (91%)

5 (38%)

190 (91%)

5 (38%)

190 (91%)

5 (38%)

Intensification* 478 198 184 (38%)

144 (73%)

294 (62%)

54 (27%)

77 (16%)

6 (3%)

15 (3%)

1 (1%)

0 0 0 0

Redevelopment of housing

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Redevelopment of car parks

60 17 14 (23%)

12 (71%)

46 (77%)

5 (33%)

30 (50%)

1 (6%)

30 (50%)

1 (6%)

30 (50%)

1 (6%)

30 (50%)

1 (6%)

Commercial conversions

16 3 4 (25%)

2 (67%)

12 (75%)

1 (33%)

12 (75%)

1 (33%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Non housing allocations

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

Planning permissions

21 8 9 (43%)

7 (88%)

12 (57%)

1 (12%)

12 (57%)

1 (12%)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

61 8 8 (13%)

6 (75%)

53 (87%)

2 (25%)

50 (82%)

1 (13%)

50 (82%)

1 (13%)

50 (82%)

1 (13%)

50 (82%)

1 (13%)

Sites in use - large

743 33 10 (1%)

6 (18%)

733 (99%)

27 (82%)

668 (90%)

15 (45%)

668 (90%)

15 (45%)

650 (87%)

14 (42%)

630 (85%)

13 (39%)

Sites in use - small

47 24 Based on past trends assume 24 sites based on est. of 2 units per dwelling (net). Therefore assume 24 sites at less than 3 units.

Other 81 13 7 (9%)

4 (31%)

74 (91%)

9 (69%)

42 (52%)

2 (15%)

42 (52%)

2 (15%)

24 (30%)

1 (8%)

0 0

TOTAL 1832 376 408 (22%)

270 (72%)

1424 (78%)

107 (28%)

1081 (59%)

32 (9%)

995 (54%)

25 (7%)

944 (52%)

22 (6%)

900 (49%)

20 (5%)

36

40

Other Sites

6.27 Sites not included in the base data include large greenfield sites or sites identified in the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan. These figures are therefore over and above the results already analysed and the brief study below into each of these categories will further expand the potential urban capacity. The sites within the Lake Lothing area have been categorised into a Lake Lothing ‘broad location’ group in keeping with the latest guidance. However, it should be recognised that the smaller non-key intervention sites within the regeneration area have been included as separate sites in the core data (see p19). Lake Lothing, Lowestoft - Broad Location

6.28 The Lake Lothing ‘broad location’ is the 1st East Urban Regeneration Company area, as identified in the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan Preferred Options document (January 2007). Table 18 Key Invention Areas for the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan (See Appendix 7)

Key Intervention Area Number of dwellings proposed Brooke Peninsula Up to 500 plus 50 ‘water homes’ Peto Square 380 Fishers’ Wharf 180 Kirkley Waterfront 350

6.29 The two main areas identified for the new dwellings are Peto Square and Brook Peninsula with 380

and 550 proposed dwellings respectively. Other housing opportunities proposed are in Fishers’ Wharf (180 dwellings) and Kirkley Waterfront (350 dwellings).

6.30 As shown in Table 19 most housing development in the Lake Lothing ‘broad location’ will take place in the medium to long term due to various issues that need to be addressed, including impact on the existing transport network, flood risk and the appropriateness of housing close to port operations. Greenfield Allocations

6.31 Bloodmoor, Carlton Colville is the only greenfield allocation (part of a larger Greenfield development) that has not been subject to a planning application. This site is expected to have a realistic figure of 80 dwellings if developed following the Interim Local Plan guidance, with likely delivery in the short term. Table 19 Summary of Total Capacity by Phase of Release including the Lake Lothing Broad Location and Greenfield Allocations

Phase of Capacity Release

SHORT (2007 – 2012)

MEDIUM (2012 – 2017)

LONG (2017 – 2025)

812 (including 80 from Bloodmoor) 1191 (including 750 from Lake Lothing)

1261 (including 750 from lake Lothing)

37

41

7. Conclusions

7.1 The Study has been carried out following guidance in the SHLAA Practice Guidance, in association with the ‘Suffolk Methodology,’ which broadly follows the Government’s former guidance for Urban Capacity Studies set out in ‘Tapping the Potential’.

7.2 The Study concludes that the potential urban capacity for the most sustainable settlements in Waveney i.e. the towns and larger villages is 1684 dwellings (core data), at an average density of 26/ha, plus approximately 1500 dwellings in the Lake Lothing area of Lowestoft and 80 for the allocated Bloodmoor site. Potential housing capacity for all sites in Waveney is therefore 3264 dwellings.

7.3 73% of the core data capacity in Waveney is concentrated in Lowestoft and Beccles. As expected most capacity, 62% is in Lowestoft, particularly the north. 11% of the capacity is in the Beccles area, 5% in Bungay, 8% in Halesworth and 4% in Southwold including Reydon. Potential capacity in the villages is small. Generally, the larger the settlement in terms of population, the greater the capacity.

7.4 The largest sources of future housing capacity are expected to be ‘sites in existing use’, ‘previously developed vacant and derelict land and buildings’ and ‘intensification’ sites. These three sources are expected to account for 76% of total potential capacity.

7.5 In terms of site size, it is likely that a significant proportion of the sites (91%) will yield less than 10 units. Only 5% of sites are likely to have a capacity of 25 or more units.

7.6 In terms of phasing, almost 44% of units recorded in the base data are expected to come forward by 2012. This figure reflects the number of sites in existing use with known potential but also the difficulties of anticipating when a site may come forward over a 15-18 year period. However this figure is reduced to 25% when considering the other sites due to the lack of potential short-term development in the Lake Lothing ‘broad location’. The tendency has been to assume that, unless the constraints are considered almost insurmountable, in the context of a strong housing market and the Government emphasis on brownfield sites, a significant proportion of the sites are likely to come forward sooner rather than later in the Plan period. However, if key factors such as the housing market were to change, the likelihood is that many of the ‘realistic’ sites with development constraints such as landownership, access, flood risk and contamination, would no longer prove financially viable. This could particularly affect the larger sites where considerable up-front expenditure often needs to take place.

7.7 The study builds upon the 2002 Urban Capacity Study to produce an up to date picture of the likely sources and levels of supply of housing over the next 15-18 years. The Assessment uses the 2002 District wide (updated through monitoring) survey as base line data with additional sites added as a consequence of public consultation (on the LDF). As a result the identification of sites is considered comprehensive (although some sites are still likely to come forward unexpectedly) and representative of the District. The analysis and methodology is considered robust as it builds upon the work undertaken during the preparation of the 2002 Urban Capacity Study that (with its associated predictions and assumptions) was found to be accurate. Where predictions were found to be inaccurate lessons have been learnt (past trend analysis) and predictions have been revised within this Assessment.

38

42

8. Future Monitoring and The Way Forward 8.1 Future monitoring of the results will be essential to the ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach to

housing provision. This is likely to require increased liaison with the development industry and those involved in the housing market. The Assessment is likely to be updated on an annual basis (in accordance with PPS3) in order to ensure that the Council always has an up to date picture of the likely levels of supply within the District, in order to ensure that regional housing targets are achieved.

8.2 The results will assist in the allocation and phasing of sites as part of the LDF preparation process and with setting future brownfield targets. They will also inform the setting of thresholds for securing affordable housing and seeking contributions to the provision of other facilities such as open space.

8.3 Future SHLAA’s will more fully take on board the Government Guidance as published in July 2007.

9. References and Sources Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments – Practice Guidance (July 2007) Suffolk Urban Capacity Study Methodology (January 2002)

Tapping the Potential - Assessing Urban Housing Capacity: Towards Better Practice (2002) Draft Regional Methodological Framework for Urban Capacity Studies: East of England Local Government Conference (January 2002) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2006) Planning to Deliver: the Managed Release of Housing Sites; towards Better practice DTLR, (July 2001) Waveney Local Plan (Adopted November 1996) East of England Plan (draft) (EERA 2004)

Suffolk Structure Plan (June 2001) Waveney District Urban Capacity Study (November 2002) Waveney Interim Local Plan (2004) Waveney Housing Market Assessment (July 2007) NLUD-PDL Return April 2007 Waveney District Council in-house Planning and Building Control records Information from other WDC sections namely Development Control, Housing, Property Services, Leisure, Tourism, Environmental Services, Economic Regeneration, Operations, Highways, Drainage, Council Tax. Sites suggested for development by statutory utilities, landowners and developers in response to consultation on the Waveney Local Plan Issues Report (January 2001).

39

43

Sites suggested for development by statutory utilities, landowners and developers in response to consultation on the Waveney Local Development Framework (2006/7).

40

i

Appendix 1: Net Gains and Loses to the housing stock though sub divisions and the merging of two or more units over the past 5 years Housing market assessment early findings and demographic change in terms of increasing number of smaller households, suggest there will be increased pressure for smaller residential units. Therefore there may be an increase in completions for flats in market towns, although likely to be very small. Area 2002

prediction s/m/l

Actual net gain of units in short term

Prediction for 2007 to 2025 s/m/l

Comments

NLOW 5/5/5 13 8/8/8 Actual figures higher than expected. 2 consents in last 2 years and only providing net gains of 1 therefore still only appropriate to increase estimate marginally.

SLOW 5/5/5 16 8/8/8 Actual figures higher than expected. 4 consents in last 2 years but only providing net gains of 1 or 2 units therefore still only appropriate to increase estimate marginally.

Beccles 3/3/3 0 3/3/3 Continue to assume 3 each 5 years despite no recent consents. But as largest market town potentially pressure could increase. Although many purpose built flats built in last few years.

Bungay 2/2/2 0 2/2/2 Continue to assume 2 each 5 years based on consent for 3 in 2002/3. Roll forward of existing figures.

Halesworth 0 0 1/1/1 Assume 1 each 5 years based on recent consent 06/07

Southwold 0 1 1/1/1 Assume 1 each 5 years based on recent consent 06/07

Sust. Villages

0 3 0 De minimis and difficult to predict for each village

ii

Appendix 2 Past Trends for Flats over Shops Area 2002

prediction s/m/l



Comments

NLOW 14/14/7 2 2/2/2 2002 prediction was clearly an over estimate but assume one or two will still occur. Recent permissions indicate unlikely to be significant source of capacity in the future.

SLOW 5/5/2 4 5/5/2 Given number of permissions granted in last 5 years this figure could continue in the short term, albeit on a small scale.

Beccles 3/3/3 4 3/3/3 Accurate prediction for short term and assume will continue.

Bungay 2/2/2 0 2/2/2 Assume there will be one or two conversions at least given the size of the town.

Halesworth 9/3/3 2 3/3/3 2002 prediction was clearly an over estimate. Scaled down to reflect predictions for latter years.

Southwold 10/3/2 0 2/2/2 2002 prediction was clearly an over estimate. Scale down assuming one or tow conversions will take place.

Sust. Villages

0 0 0 Accurate prediction and assume will continue.

iii

Appendix 3 Past Trends Analysis to assess and predict likely contribution from small sites in existing use

Area 2002

prediction s/m/l



Comments

NLOW 24/14/14 9 7/5/5 Overestimate so reduced expectation from this source of capacity.

SLOW 1/1/1 7 5/3/3 Actual indicates higher than expected number of units.

Beccles 10/5/5 1 3/2/2 Much lower than predicted but assume some units coming from this source.

Bungay 5/5/5 2 2/1/1 Lower than expected but assume some units coming from this source.

Halesworth 0 7 2/1/1 Much higher than predicted. Difficult to predict but unlikely to continue at this high level as only involves one site. Make assumption for small number of units.

Southwold 0 5 2/1/1 Much higher than predicted. Difficult to predict units produced by 3 sites so likely to continue, albeit on a limited scale given the small size of the town.

Sust. Villages

0 Kessingland 2 0 Assume 0 as small number and difficult to predict for such small settlements.

iv

Appendix 4 Discounting Checklist, Suffolk’s Urban Capacity Methodology

General Principle Factor &

Checklist Reference Selection Criteria

Developability Ownership (Q10) - is the site in single/ multiple ownership (if multiple approximately how many? Assume over 3 will be difficult to bring forward). This will influence phase of release. - has the owner(s) expressed an interest in releasing the site?

Current Use (Q4) - is the site currently in use? If so, for what?

Existing Building Condition (Q7) - what is the condition of stock/ properties on site?

Access (Q8) - is the access constrained? If so, can it be changed?

Site constraints (Q14) Flooding – is the site on an IFP/ at risk of flooding/ if developed, create potential to cause flooding? Contamination – is the site registered on the contaminated land register? Is it contaminated? (including contamination from landfill gas at/within 250m from the site) Infrastructure constraints – limits on capacity. Noise/smell/pollution – does the site result in unacceptable levels of … or is it adjoined by such polluting uses? Minerals reserve – would the development of the site sterilise mineral reserves? Aquifer – is there a protected aquifer at/in proximity to the site (source: groundwater vulnerability maps)? Designations – is it covered by any wildlife designation (international/national/local)? Bio-diversity – is the site of known ecological importance? Infrastructure capacity – capacity of road system or if there is a known constraint not likely to be overcome. TPOs

v

Other – are there any other constraints?

Covenants (Q14) - are there any covenants on the site (e.g. Article 4 Directions)? Market viability Competing land Use

(Q10, 12, 15, 20) - is there any pressure for a competing use? If so, would this use have a higher development value?

Demand Market demand/ strength of the market – what do local experts say Constraints (Q6, 14) -can any of the site constraints be overcome? If so, what is an estimate of the cost of

remedial/mitigation measures?

Contributions -are developer contributions required for the site to be considered suitable for development?

Relocation -would relocation costs be required?

Funding -would any funding be available to contribute to the development, e.g. European funding, regeneration programmes, etc…

Need -is there an identified housing need for a particular type of housing ? (source: Housing Needs Study)

Local Character Designations (Q11, 13) -is the site in a conservation area, is the building listed? Any other relevant designations.

Context (Q9) -in the context of its surroundings, is (further) residential development appropriate?

Planning standards Allocations (Q11, 17) -does the development accord with the latest development plan allocations. If the site is on land allocated for a use other than housing can reallocation be justified? This may necessitate further studies, e.g. an employment needs study.

Standards (Q13) -ability to comply with planning standards, including parking (revised), open space, garden size, settlement boundaries, density, etc.

Building control -ability to comply with building control regulations, e.g. means of escape, disabled access,…

vi

Appendix 5 Site Size Analysis for Core Data by settlement

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above N. Lowestoft units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 80 1 80 1 80 1 80 1 80 1 80 1 Intensification 76 29 50 8 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


40 5 36 2 30 1 30 1 30 1 30 1


2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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

Planning Permissions

12 1 12 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sites in use - large 390 10 388 9 377 7 377 7 377 7 377 7 Sites in Use - small

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 19 2 18 1 18 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 Total 669 51 584 22 529 12 505 10 487 9 487 9

vii

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above S. Lowestoft units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 66 26 44 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


5 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


12 1 12 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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

Vacant land not PD

52 3 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1


11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 9 2 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 414 44 335 20 275 7 263 6 263 6 243 5

viii

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Beccles units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 61 4 60 3 55 2 55 2 55 2 55 2 Intensification 73 41 42 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


8 3 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

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


7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 8 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 211 54 148 19 83 3 83 3 83 3 83 3

ix

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Bungay units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 47 21 21 6 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


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


2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 13 3 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 113 32 61 11 28 2 18 1 0 0 0 0

x

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Halesworth units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 31 2 30 1 30 1 30 1 30 1 30 1 Intensification 76 27 51 7 29 2 15 1 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


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

Vacant land not PD

3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 166 34 120 10 91 4 77 3 62 2 62 2

xi

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Southwold and Reydon

units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites

Subdivisions 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 48 29 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


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

Vacant land not PD

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


4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 77 33 33 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

xii

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Kessingland units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 49 10 40 4 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


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

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 24 1 24 1 24 1 24 1 24 1 0 0 Total 79 14 68 6 50 3 24 1 24 1 0 0

xiii

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Blundeston units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


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


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


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


2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 18 5 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

xiv

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Barnby and North Cove

units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites

Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 17 3 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


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


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


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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 18 4 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

xv

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Corton units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

xvi

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Holton units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 25 1 25 1 25 1 25 1 25 1 25 1 Intensification 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


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

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 28 4 25 1 25 1 25 1 25 1 25 1

xvii

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Wangford units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 8 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


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


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


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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 17 5 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

xviii

Number of sites and units at different unit thresholds Settlement Realistic No. of 3 and above 10 and above 15 and above 20 and above 25 and above Wrentham units sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Units Sites Subdivisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flats over shops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDVDLB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensification 11 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment of housing

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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


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


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


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vacant land not PD

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


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

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 16 8 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

xix

Appendix 6 Summary of Capacity by Site - Details of sites allocated in the Waveney Interim Local Plan (May 2004) plus maps

The table below lists all the housing allocations that as of April 1st 2007 had not yet been subject of a planning application. The latest planning status, as of completion of the study (Nov. 2007) is highlighted where appropriate.

Site Ref Location of site

Site Area (Ha)

dwelling capacity, by scenarios (net)

Standard Density @ 37 dpHa.

Total units identified (net)

Sc1 Sc2 Best fit

Best fit Unconstrained (theoretical)

capacity

Best fit Constrained

(realistic) capacity and

main reason for ‘discounting’

Net Developable

Area for Housing (Ha)

Density Phase of

release

S/M/L

Source of Capacity

North Lowestoft NLOW126

R2.1 Former Oswalds Marina, Bridge Road

0.60 50 80 80 22 80 80 0.60 133/ha S PDVDLB

Application received 17th July 2007 for 85 flats, 8 affordable housing units and a library/community centre – decision pending South Lowestoft

Greenfield Allocation

H1.2

Land West of Ullswater, Bloodmoor, Carlton Colville

2.80 80 80 80 104 80 80 28.57 29/ha S Greenfield

SLOW192 R2.2

Land to the South of Horn Hill

3.17 117 190 117 117 117 30 3.17 9/ha M Sites in Use with potential for redevelopment

SLOW199 TM3

Land East of Railway Line

4.33 160 200 160 160 160 57 4.33 13/ha L Sites in use with potential for redevelopment

Beccles

xx

BEC93 H1.4

Rear of 30-40 Banham Road

0.13 6 6 6 5 6 4 0.13 31/ha S Intensification

Application received 13/04/2007 for 4 houses, granted 20/08/2007 Bungay

BUN15 H1.5

62 Lower Olland Street, Telephone Exchange

0.26 12 24 24 10 24 8 0.26 31/ha M Sites in use with potential for redevelopment

BUN23 R2.4

Three Willows and Charlish Garage

0.54 20 20 20 20 20 18 0.54 33/ha S Site in Use with potential for redevelopment

Outline Application received 20/04/2007 for 14 dwellings on part of the site – decision pending Halesworth HAL116 and

HAL104 H1.9

Dairy Farm 1.13 34 55 55 42 55 30 1.13 27/ha M PDVDLB

All other sites identified as part of the Study are considered confidential. PDVDLB = Previously developed vacant and derelict land and buildings

xxi

NLOW/126 – Former Oswald’s Marina, Bridge Road, Lowestoft

Greenfield Allocation/ Land West of Ullswater, Bloodmoor, Carlton Colville

xxii

SLOW/192 – Land to the South of Horn Hill, Lowestoft

SLOW/199 – Land East of Railway Line

xxiii

BEC/93 – Rear of 30-40 Banham Road, Beccles

BUN/15 – Telephone Exchange, Lower Olland Street, Bungay

xxiv

BUN/23 – Three Willows and Charlish Garage, St John’s Road, Bungay

HAL/116 and HAL104 - Dairy Farm, Halesworth

xxv

Appendix 7 Details of Key Intervention Areas in the Lake Lothing Area Action Plan

xxvi

Planning Policy Waveney District Council

Town Hall High Street

Lowestoft NR32 1HS

Tel: 01502 523029 Fax: 01502 514617

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.waveney.gov.uk

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment · 2016. 5. 3. · 5. The Methodology for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 9 6. Results and Analysis 13 7. Conclusions

Documents