East Suffolk€¦ · Registered Social Landlords . Orwell Housing Association : Orbit Housing...

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

2012

Appendices

Appendix A - Maps of SHLAA area

Settlements included in the SHLAA (for sites not currently in the planning process)

1

Sub-areas for reference in Section 4

2

Appendix B – List of settlements considered in the SHLAA For sites not currently in the planning process.

Lowestoft (including Carlton Colville and Oulton) Beccles Worlingham Bungay Halesworth Southwold Reydon Barnby North Cove Blundeston Corton Holton Kessingland Wangford Wrentham

3

Appendix C – SHLAA stakeholder list

SHLAA Stakeholders Consultation List Registered Social Landlords Orwell Housing Association Orbit Housing Association Flagship Housing Circle Anglia Broadland Housing Association Cotman Housing Saffron Housing Planning agents, developers, builders and architects AAK Design Associates Ltd Architectural Design and Planning Arnolds Chartered Surveyors ASD Architecture Badger Building East Anglia Ltd. Bailey Dev Ltd Barry Cutts Barsham Securities Ltd. Brian Howard Charted Architect Brian Sabberton Ltd. Chaplin Farrant ltd Chediston Homes Ltd. Cripps Developments Ltd. Duncan and Son Ltd Gilbert Builders Hopkins Homes Ltd. Howard Group New Homes Land Division John Bennet Architect K Holdings Ltd (Anglia) Kingsway Builders M.S. Oakes Ltd. MDPC Ltd Oakwood Construction Oldman Homes Ltd OWL Partnership P J Spillings Persimmon Homes (Anglia) Ltd. Pure Architecture Ltd. Purple Property Riddle Construction Ltd Sprake and Tyrrell Ltd Taylor Properties Trading Ltd Tredwell Developments Utting Construstion

4

Vaughan Keal Associates Warnes and Son Ltd Wellington Construction Ltd John Kelly Paul Tungate MRICS Planning Authorities Broads Authority Great Yarmouth Borough Council Mid Suffolk District Council South Norfolk District Council Suffolk Coastal District Council Suffolk County Council Norfolk County Council Other Stakeholders Associated British Ports Anglian Water Environment Agency English Heritage Essex and Suffolk Water Great Yarmouth & Waveney PCT Home Builders Federation Homes and Community Agency Lowestoft & Waveney Chamber of Commerce Lowestoft Civic Society Lowestoft College Kirkley Business Association Natural England Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations Southwold and Reydon Society Suffolk ACRE Suffolk Preservation Society Suffolk Wildlife Trust The Beccles Society The Broads Society The Bungay Society The Halesworth & Blyth Valley Partnership

5

Appendix D - Standardised site assessment pro-forma

Site Ref:

Location:

Current use:

Surrounding uses and character of surroundings:

Physical constraints, (e.g. steep slopes, access, natural features, pylons)

Flood Risk Zone 2+3a unless in Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour Area Action Plan area

Flood Risk 2+3a if within Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour Area Action Plan area

Flood Zone 1 Flood Risk (tick box)

n/a Potentially contaminated

No known contamination

Contamination (tick box)

Comments:

n/a Site is within 250m of hazardous installation

The site is outside of 250m of any hazardous installation.

Hazardous Area (tick box)

6

Within Coastal Change Management Area

Within 30m of Coastal Change Management Area

No within 30m of Coastal Change Management Area

Coastal Erosion (tick box)

Development would result in sterilisation of a identified mineral deposit in the Minerals LDF

n/a No impact on known minerals sites

Minerals sites (tick box)

n/a Adjacent to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or Broads or otherwise likely have an impact on these designations. Likely to have a significant impact on landscape and townscape.

No impact on any landscape designation or wider landscape.

Visual Landscape and Townscape

Comments:

n/a Likely impact on a County Wildlife Site, Local Nature Reserve, Roadside Nature Reserve, and regionally important geological sites.

No likely impact on a County Wildlife Site, Local Nature Reserve, Roadside Nature Reserve, and regionally important geological sites.

Nature Conservation Designations

Comments:

7

Detrimental to setting of Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade I & II* built environment designations

Within Conservation Area or adjacent or near to Listed Buildings and Locally Listed buildings

No Conservation Area or built environment designations.

Heritage

Comments:

n/a At least part of site within a groundwater Source Protection Zone

No part of site within a groundwater Source Protection Zone

Impact on aquifers

Results in loss of viable local services such as shops, public houses or community facilities

n/a Does not involve the loss of viable local services such as shops, public houses or community facilities

Local service provision

Comments:

8

n/a Development is on open space as protected by Policy DM25 and therefore replacement is needed.

Development does not result in the loss of open space

Open Space

Comments:

Unacceptable impact on functioning of trunk roads and local roads that cannot be mitigated

Impact on functioning of trunk roads and local roads that can possibly be mitigated

No detrimental impact on functioning of local roads and trunk roads.

Transport Impacts

Comments:

No suitable on-site access with no scope for improvements

Access improvements required

No access issues

Access to Site

Comments:

9

n/a Access to none/one facility

Access to two or more facilities

Access to Facilities

Comments:

Likely impact from noise and other pollutants. 400m from a Sewage Treatment Works or between 15m and 100m of a sewage pumping station.

No likely impact from noise and other pollutants

Proximity to noise and (tick box), sources of nuisance and other pollutants

Comments:

n/a No Available capacity/infrastructure needed

Available capacity

Infrastructure capacity (sewage capacity , water supply capacity, electricity capacity)

Comments:

10

Appendix E – Viability Assessment Methodology Where sites assessed in this SHLAA have identified constraints that need to be overcome in order for the site to be deliverable a viability assessment will be required. The most common method for assessing the viability of a site is the residual land value method. It is this method which is promoted by the Homes and Communities Agency through the Economic Appraisal Tool. Residual land value is the gross development value of a development minus the costs of development and developer profit. It is the sum of money that a developer can afford to pay for the land. The critical test of viability of development is whether the residual land value is greater than the existing land value of the site or an alternative use land value. The diagram below seeks to explain this more clearly.

Gross Development Value This figure is calculated from the total sale values of the completed units or capitalised rents from commercial units

Development Costs This figure is the sum of costs. These will include build costs, S106 payments, professional fees, planning fees, taxes, interest and any abnormal costs

Residual Land Value

Developers Profit

Residual Land Value

Existing Use or Alternative Use

Potentially Viable

Just because residual land value is above an existing use or alternative use doesn’t mean a landowner will be willing to sell the land to the developer. The landowner is likely to want an incentive to sell in the form of an uplift in land value from its existing value. For example, if the residual land value is only marginally higher than the existing use value of agricultural land, the landowner would probably hold on to the land as he/she would receive a greater income from continuing to farm the land as opposed to disposing of the asset. Therefore in order for development on a site to occur the residual land value is normally going to have to be significantly higher than the existing use value of the land. Clearly there is no exact science to this, as different landowners will have different aspirations. The BNP Paribas Real Estate CIL Viability Study (March 2012) that was prepared for the Council to support the introduction of CIL used the following benchmarks which will be applied in this SHLAA.

High value residential land = £800,000 per hectare Low value residential land = £679,250 per hectare Industrial land = £350,000 per hectare Greenfield / vacant land in towns = £200,000 per hectare

11

As the viability assessment will be high-level with detail on many issues unknown, broad assumptions will be required with respect to development costs. The viability assessment will make the following assumptions:

Developer’s profit will be 20% on costs Professional fees will be 12% of development costs Build costs will based on BCIS regional averages as used in the CIL Viability

Study (BNP Paribas, 2012) A contingency of 5% of build costs will be included Contamination costs will be based on the English Partnership paper

“Contamination and Dereliction Remediation Costs” Affordable housing as per Policy DM18 CIL levels as per Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (March 2012)

12

Appendix F – Responses to Consultation on Methodology

Anglian Water (Sue Bull) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Anglian Water have a policy on asset encroachment that I have attached for your information. This needs to be included as a consideration of suitability for residential development. Appendix D - Standardised site assessment pro-forma (page27), should be amended: Infrastructure capacity: ( sewage treatment and sewerage network capacity......). (supporting documentation below)

13

Officer's Response Table 7 and Appendix D have been amended to reflect Anglian Water's encroachment policy

14

Broads Authority (John Clements) The Broads Authority suggests the Council amends paragraph 2.2 of the Methodology document (and any other relevant documentation) to make it explicit that the assessment area excludes the Broads, and provides a key to the map at Appendix A. The Authority has no comment to make on the methodology itself (and its response above does not fit the predetermined categories on the Council's consultation website). Officer's Response The Waveney SHLAA cannot explicitly exclude the Broads Authority area. Housing completions in the Broads Authority area that are within the Waveney District Council area, contribute towards Waveney's housing targets. Therefore, completions and commitments (sites with planning permission) in the Broads Authority area need to be considered in the SHLAA. The Waveney SHLAA will not identify sites that are not within the planning system as Waveney is not the LPA for that area and it is likely that most housing sites coming forward over the next 15 years within the Broads Authority area will be small windfall sites. A key will be added to the map in Appendix A.

Environment Agency (Joanna Hardwick) 1. Given the recent adoption of key Local Development Framework documents, do you agree with the general approach of the methodology in looking only at areas that are compliant with local policy? EA: Yes. 2. Are there any other sources of site with potential for housing that should be included in Table 3? EA: No. 3. Do you agree with the types of site identified in Table 4 which will be excluded from the SHLAA? EA: Yes. We are pleased that land within Flood Zone 3b has been included in table 4 as housing is not appropriate in this flood zone, as set out in table D.3 of PPS25. We are also supportive of sites within an SPA, SAC, RAMSAR, SSSI or NNR being included. 4. Do you consider the criteria outlined in Table 7 is appropriate for assessing the suitability of a site for housing? EA: Yes.In particular we are supportive of the flood risk restrictions which comply with policy CS05 of your Core Strategy and PPS 25. 5. Do you agree with the criteria for assessing availability of sites for housing? EA: No comment although the approach seems reasonable. 6. Do you agree with the approach to estimating windfall potential? EA: No comment 7. Do you agree with the methodology for assessing viability and the assumptions outlined in Appendix E? EA: No comment.

15

8. With respect to viability, what do you consider an appropriate uplift over existing use values is to incentivise landowners to release land for housing? Should this uplift be different for greenfield and brownfield land? EA: No comment. Officer's Response Comments noted.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council (Kim Balls) 1. Given the recent adoption of key Local Development Framework documents, do you agree with the general approach of the methodology in looking only at areas that are compliant with local policy? GYBC: Agree - however the main aim of PPS3 is to deliver a 'flexible, responsive supply of land' and it is stated in the proposed methodology (para 1.10) that the SHLAA will 'help the Council understand the likely level of housing that is additional to that identified [already]". In light of these two statements - it may be prudent to give the SHLAA a little flexibility when identifying broad locations (during the 11-15years) which may not conform to the adopted Spatial Strategy (WDC Core Strategy 2009) in the event that a release of additional land is necessary. 2. Are there any other sources of site with potential for housing that should be included in Table 3? GYBC: Agree 3. Do you agree with the types of site identified in Table 4 which will be excluded from the SHLAA? GYBC: Agree. Excluding sites that are within the curtilage of nationally protected environmental designations is justified as it would contravene national policy and legislation - however a site may still be detrimental to SPAs, SACs, Ramsar etc if it shares a hydrological relationship with a designation (such as through rivers, culverts or groundwater systems) which can be many miles away. For prudence, would suggest that Natural England are consulted at the exclusion stage for a technical view of any sites coming through. 4. Do you consider the criteria outlined in Table 7 is appropriate for assessing the suitability of a site for housing? GYBC: Yes - as generally in line with the principles of the Great Yarmouth SHLAA (2010) 5. Do you agree with the criteria for assessing availability of sites for housing? GYBC: Yes - as generally in line with the principles of the Great Yarmouth SHLAA (2010) 6. Do you agree with the approach to estimating windfall potential? GYBC: Agree 7. Do you agree with the methodology for assessing viability and the assumptions outlined in Appendix E? GYBC: Agree Officer's Response

16

Comments noted. Given the recent adoption of key development plan documents which are expected to remain until 2025 for housing, the Council does not consider it necessary for this SHLAA to consider broad locations for housing that are contrary to the strategy outlined in the Adopted Core Strategy. It may be necessary for future SHLAAs to include this source, particularly if monitoring and future SHLAAs show a projected under-supply of housing over a 15 year period. Natural England will be consulted on the assessment of sites in this SHLAA. If any sites included are likely to have an effect on SPA, SAC or Ramsar sites, they will be excluded.

Homes and Communities Agency (Nhi Huynh-MA) Thank you for your recent enquiry to the Homes and Communities Agency received on 14 Mar 2011, reference number 121636, with regard to Waveney Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Draft Methodology. I have been working closely with Waveney Council in the delivery of the East Suffolk Local Investment (ESLIP) and responded to Waveney's housing and spatial investment priority through the ESLIP delivery process. I will continue with my respond to Waveney's housing and spatial investment priority through the ESLIP's for coming review process. Officer’s Response Comments noted.

17

18

Appendix G – Schedule of sites allocated in the Site Specific Allocations DPD Site Parish PDL Number of

homes allocated/ permitted

2012/13 current year

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25

LOW3 Lowestoft Y 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOW4 Lowestoft Y 34 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOW5 Lowestoft Y 32 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOW6 Lowestoft Y 76 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOW7 Lowestoft N 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0

LOW8 Lowestoft Y 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0

LOW9 Lowestoft Y 48 0 0 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BEC2 Beccles Y 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0

19

Site Parish PDL Number of homes allocated/ permitted


2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25

BEC3 Beccles N 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BUN1 Bungay N 35 0 0 0 25 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BUN2 Bungay Y 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

BUN3 Bungay Y 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HAL3 Halesworth N 50 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HAL4 Halesworth N 40 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SOU2 Reydon N 38 30 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 545 30 47 117 107 73 25 78 60 8 0 0 0 0

Site proposed to be allocated in the Broads Authority Site Specific Policies DPD.



2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25

20



2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25

OUL-DSSP-d Oulton Broad

Y 76 0 0 10 20 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21

Appendix H - Schedule of sites allocated in the Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour Area Action Plan

Site Name and address of site

PDL Number of homes allocated


2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/ 21

2021/ 22

2022/ 23

2023/ 24

2024/ 25

Total Identified Supply for plan period

SSP3 Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood

Partly

1,380 0 0 6 57 72 72 72 89 132 124 122 144 134 1,024

SSP5 Kirkley Rise Y 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 41

SSP6 Western End of Lake Lothing

Y 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 17 0 57

SSP7 Oswald's Boatyard

Y 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 50

SSP8 The Scores Y 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 30

Total 1,558 0 0 6 57 72 72 92 110 162 144 142 186 159 1202

SSP3 delivery post 2025

Site Name and address of site

PDL Number of homes allocated

2025/26 2026/27 2027/28

SSP3 Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood

Partly 1,380 132 135 89

22

Appendix I – Sites with Planning Permission Table AI.1 – Schedule of small sites with Planning Permission

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost

No. not being delivered

Net additional units expected within 5 years

Net additional units expected 2018-2025

Comments

Lowestoft area

(N) Lowestoft

DC/79/0547/OUT College Farm Estate Crestview Drive Lowestoft

22 0 0 22 08/04/1983

0.90 0 0 22 0 Outline: units reducing as detailed permissions granted

(N) Lowestoft

DC/01/0916/FUL Land off Crestview Drive Lowestoft

12 4 8 0 27/03/2002

0.45 0 0 4 0 Works in progress plots 7/9/11/12

(N) Lowestoft

DC/02/1353/FUL 28 Commercial Road Lowestoft NR32 2TD

1 1 0 0 20/11/2002

0.03 0 0 0 1 No residential use recorded

23

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/03/0116/FUL Land at St Peters Street & Factory Street Lowestoft

17 2 15 0 01/09/2003

0.17 0 0 0 2 15 units completed March 2005 - land ownership issues over remaining plots

(N) Lowestoft

DC/03/0448/FUL Land adj 5 Eastern Way Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 03/12/2004

0.01 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar 2011 - no progress since foundation inspections in 2008

(N) Lowestoft

DC/05/0364/ARM Land adj 13 Gorleston Road Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 30/01/2006

0.07 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 - looks almost complete and builders on site

24

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/06/0030/FUL Land adj 40 Royal Avenue Lowestoft

4 4 0 0 13/10/2008

0.08 0 0 4 0 Works commenced Aug 2011

(N) Lowestoft

DC/06/0836/ARM Land rear of 1 Bridge Road Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 24/08/2006

0.05 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar 2011 - no progress

(N) Lowestoft

DC/07/1091/FUL Longs Dairy St Margarets Road Lowestoft NR32 4HN

21 0 0 21 03/06/2010

0.43 0 0 21 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/07/1648/FUL Rear of 70 Beresford Road Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 31/10/2007

0.01 0 0 1 0 Site visit Jan 2010 (nearly complete) Site visit Mar-12 - no further progress

25

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/07/2034/FUL Land adj 34 Mimosa Walk Lowestoft NR32 2SR

1 1 0 0 22/01/2008

0.02 0 0 1 0 Last inspection Feb-12

(N) Lowestoft

DC/08/1259/FUL 29 Blinco Road Lowestoft NR32 3PB

2 2 0 0 18/12/2008

0.07 0 0 2 0 Demolition counted 2009/10

(N) Lowestoft

DC/09/0246/OUT Land at 40 Plumtrees Lowestoft NR32 3JH

1 0 0 1 29/04/2009

0.03 0 0 1 0 Due to expire 29/04/2012

(N) Lowestoft

DC/09/0581/FUL 270 Normanston Drive Lowestoft NR32 2PS

4 0 0 4 17/09/2009

0.21 1 0 3 0

26

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/09/0943/FUL 9 Beresford Road Lowestoft NR32 2NQ

1 0 0 1 22/12/2009

0.01 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0277/COU 4 Regent Road Lowestoft NR32 1PA

1 0 0 1 10/05/2010

0.01 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0336/FUL 198 Denmark Road Lowestoft NR32 2EN

3 1 2 0 18/05/2010

0.02 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0538/EXT Rear of 237 Oulton Road Lowestoft NR32 4QX

5 0 0 5 11/06/2010

0.70 0 0 5 0 Extension of Time (Outline) for DC/07/0402/OUT approved May-08

27

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0737/EXT Rear of 62 High Street Lowestoft NR32 1JA

2 0 0 2 23/07/2010

0.03 0 0 2 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/1018/FUL approved Jul-07

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0965/FUL Former Tillets Cycles Love Road Lowestoft

4 1 0 3 15/11/2010

0.04 0 0 4 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0971/FUL Adj 81 Sands Lane Lowestoft NR32 3ES

1 1 0 0 28/10/2010

0.02 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/0990/COU 221 St Peters Street Lowestoft NR32 2LT

1 0 0 1 12/11/2010

0.03 0 0 1 0

28

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1198/FUL 99 Raglan Street Lowestoft NR32 2JU

1 1 0 0 14/01/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1302/FUL Land adj 6 Arnold Street Lowestoft NR32 1PU

1 0 0 1 01/12/2010

0.01 0 0 1 0 2 bed house NB alternative development DC/11/0011/FUL

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1375/FUL 36A Tedder Road Lowestoft NR32 4DD

1 1 0 0 16/12/2010

0.02 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1479/FUL Land adj 35 Love Road Lowestoft

1 0 0 1 05/01/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0

29

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1505/FUL Former Northumbria Water site St Margarets Road Lowestoft NR32 4HT

29 29 0 0 27/01/2011

0.48 0 0 29 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1615/EXT Briar Clyffe 8 Gunton Cliff Lowestoft NR32 4PE

18 0 0 18 22/03/2011

0.42 0 0 18 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/2029/FUL approved Feb-08

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1631/FUL Picture Studio 179 London Road North Lowestoft NR32 1HG

2 0 0 2 09/02/2011

0.02 0 0 2 0

30

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1645/EXT Land at Lothing Street Lowestoft NR32 3NB

4 0 0 4 11/05/2011

0.10 0 0 4 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/2004/FUL which expired 03/03/11

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1676/EXT 80 Oxford Road Lowestoft NR32 1TP

1 1 0 0 02/03/2011

0.01 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/2030/FUL approved Jan-08

(N) Lowestoft

DC/10/1682/FUL 45 Raglan Street Lowestoft NR32 2JS

2 0 0 2 02/03/2011

0.01 1 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0011/FUL 161 London Road North Lowestoft NR32 1HQ

1 0 0 1 07/03/2011

0.01 0 0 1 0 1 bed flat NB alternative development DC/10/1302/FUL

31

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0027/EXT Land at 56 Borrow Road Lowestoft NR32 3PN

1 0 0 1 16/12/2011

0.09 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/2035/FUL which expired 28/01/11

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0196/FUL The Lord Nelson 63 Bevan Street West Lowestoft NR32 2AE

1 1 0 0 08/04/2011

0.01 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0229/FUL 174 St Peters Street Lowestoft NR32 2LX

4 0 0 4 08/04/2011

0.06 0 0 4 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0264/FUL Plots 1-11 Rodber Way Gunton Lowestoft

11 0 0 11 03/06/2011

0.34 0 0 11 0 Full details for historic allocated site DC/95/0289/VOC

32

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0313/FUL 1 Avondale Road Lowestoft NR32 2HU

1 0 0 1 25/05/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0408/EXT Adj 74 Somerton Avenue Lowestoft NR32 4EZ

1 0 0 1 03/06/2011

0.01 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/08/0965/FUL approved Sep-08

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0524/FUL 19-21 Clapham Road South Lowestoft NR32 1PG

8 8 0 0 22/06/2011

0.03 0 0 8 0 Revises DC/10/1233/FUL for 4 units

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0595/FUL 263 Yarmouth Road Lowestoft NR32 4AA

8 0 0 8 19/07/2011

0.58 1 0 7 0

33

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0750/FUL Adj 2 Rock Road Lowestoft

1 0 0 1 23/08/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0844/FUL 8 Alma Street Lowestoft NR32 2EB

3 3 0 0 14/09/2011

0.01 1 0 2 0 Subdivision of house to 3 flats

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0909/FUL Corner of Rotterdam Road/Normanston Drive Lowestoft

5 0 0 5 10/01/2012

0.21 0 0 5 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/0924/FUL Adj 17 Gilpin Road Lowestoft NR32 3NS

1 0 0 1 03/10/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0

34

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/1173/FUL 81 Sands Lane Lowestoft NR32 3ES

1 0 0 1 06/12/2011

0.05 1 0 0 0 Replacement dwelling

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/1269/FUL Adj 50 Church Road Lowestoft NR32 1TH

1 0 0 1 06/02/2012

0.02 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/1341/COU First Floor 99 High Street Lowestoft NR32 1XW

1 0 0 1 19/01/2012

0.03 0 0 1 0

(N) Lowestoft

DC/11/1423/EXT Rear of 41 - 44 High Street Lowestoft NR32 1HZ

5 0 0 5 13/02/2012

0.08 0 0 5 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/0572/FUL approved Jan-09

35

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(N) Lowestoft

BA/2009/0295/EXT8W

Plot A Former Boatyard Caldecott Road Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 28/01/2010 0.10 0 0 1 0 Broads Authority area

(N) Lowestoft

BA/2011/0382/FUL Plot B (units B2+B3) Former Boatyard Caldecott Road Lowestoft

2 0 0 2 09/01/2012 0.06 0 0 2 0 Broads Authority area revises previous approval and reduces number of units from 3 to 2

(S) Lowestoft

DC/01/0658/FUL Adj 255 Victoria Road Lowestoft NR33 9LR

1 1 0 0 24/10/2001

0.02 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-11 - no progress since oversite inspection in 2004

36

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/02/0308/FUL Levington Court London Road South Lowestoft NR33 0PQ

9 0 6 3 07/10/2002

0.38 0 3 0 0 Owner confirms remaining 3 units will not be completed to be costs of relocating drains

37

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/02/0878/FUL Oulton Broad Caravan site Saltwater Way Lowestoft

56 0 0 56 22/06/2006

0.41 0 31 25 0 Sufficient works to the entrance, including junction and access arrangements have taken place to keep planning permission 'live'. May-12 developer intends to negotiate a revised scheme to change the 31 sheltered units into a care home

38

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/05/0324/FUL 124 Colville Road Lowestoft NR33 9QZ

2 0 1 1 07/12/2006

0.19 1 0 0 0 Garage conversion complete. Replacement dwelling to implement

(S) Lowestoft

DC/06/0252/FUL 4 Jubilee Road Lowestoft NR33 7BL

1 1 0 0 07/12/2007

0.05 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 looks almost complete but site fenced off

(S) Lowestoft

DC/06/0864/FUL 195 London Road South Lowestoft NR33 0DR

1 1 0 0 06/03/2006

0.03 0 0 1 0

39

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/07/0745/FUL 3 Grosvenor Road Lowestoft NR33 0BW

1 1 0 0 14/05/2007

0.01 0 0 1 0 Works almost complete

(S) Lowestoft

DC/07/1795/ARM Land at 32 Cotmer Road Lowestoft NR33 9PW

1 1 0 0 06/12/2007

0.08 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 almost complete and driveway yet to be laid

(S) Lowestoft

DC/08/0234/FUL Land adj 68 Elm Tree Road Lowestoft NR33 9ET

1 1 0 0 22/04/2008

0.03 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 shell only

(S) Lowestoft

DC/08/0326/ARM Land adj 41 Green Drive Lowestoft NR33 7JP

1 1 0 0 09/05/2008

0.03 0 0 0 1 Site visit Mar-12 no works visible as site overgrown

40

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/09/0583/RG3 1 Whitton Court Dell Road East Lowestoft NR33 9LF

2 0 0 2 08/09/2009

0.02 1 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/09/0819/FUL 15 Lawson Road Lowestoft NR33 0ES

1 0 0 1 29/10/2009

0.01 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/09/1177/FUL 46 The Avenue Lowestoft NR33 7LL

2 1 1 0 08/02/2010

0.18 0 0 1 0 Replacement dwelling counted 2011/12

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/0003/FUL 243 Long Road Lowestoft NR33 9DF

2 0 0 2 12/08/2010

0.19 0 0 2 0

41

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/0467/FUL Rear of 72A/72B Walmer Road Lowestoft

2 0 0 2 11/06/2010

0.08 0 0 2 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/0839/FUL Adj 15 Wentworth Way Lowestoft NR33 9JJ

1 0 0 1 27/09/2010

0.01 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/0847/FUL Oulton Broad Caravan Park Saltwater Way Lowestoft NR33 9GT

5 0 0 5 27/09/2010

0.00 0 0 5 0 see DC/02/0878/FUL for main application

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/1119/FUL Fashion Clean 140-142 London Road South Lowestoft NR33 0AZ

1 1 0 0 19/11/2010

0.01 0 0 1 0

42

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/1327/FUL Land adj 344 Long Road Lowestoft NR33 9DL

1 1 0 0 22/12/2010

0.02 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/1328/FUL Plot 9 Orchard Avenue Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 04/01/2011

0.06 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/1330/FUL 133 London Road South Lowestoft NR33 0AX

1 0 0 1 17/12/2010

0.01 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/1381/EXT Waveney Gardens Service Station Westwood Avenue Lowestoft NR33 9RL

4 0 0 4 14/01/2011

0.11 0 0 0 4 Landowner confirmed site in commercial use and not anticipated to be developed

43

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/10/1388/EXT Adj 5 Jubilee Road Lowestoft NR33 7BL

1 0 0 1 04/01/2011

0.05 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Outline) for DC/07/2037/OUT approved Jan-08

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0243/FUL 129A Carlton Road Lowestoft NR33 0LZ

1 0 0 1 20/05/2011

0.08 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0362/COU 3 Bittern Green Lowestoft NR33 8PH

1 1 0 0 27/05/2011

0.01 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0509/FUL Rear of 311 Victoria Road Lowestoft NR33 9LR

1 0 0 1 07/07/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0

44

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0619/OUT Adj 23 Westwood Avenue Lowestoft NR33 9RP

1 0 0 1 16/08/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0626/FUL Land adj 20 Colville Road Lowestoft NR33 9QT

1 0 0 1 29/07/2011

0.09 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0696/FUL Plot 10 Orchard Avenue Lowestoft

1 1 0 0 18/08/2011

0.04 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/0820/FUL 2 Cliftonville Road Lowestoft NR33 7AY

4 0 0 4 19/09/2011

0.41 1 0 3 0

45

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/1106/FUL Plot 3 243 Long Road Lowestoft NR33 9DF

1 1 0 0 12/12/2011

0.07 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/1219/FUL Land at Horn Hill/Kirkley Rise Lowestoft NR33 0PX

1 0 0 1 20/12/2011

0.10 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/1268/ARM Land adj 15 Westwood Avenue Lowestoft NR33 9RP

1 0 0 1 10/01/2012

0.03 0 0 1 0

(S) Lowestoft

DC/11/1386/ARM Land adj 301 Victoria Road Lowestoft NR33 9LR

1 0 0 1 28/02/2012

0.03 0 0 1 0

46

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

(S) Lowestoft

DC/12/0048/FUL 239 Long Road Lowestoft NR33 9DF

1 1 0 0 08/03/2012

0.09 0 0 1 0 Replacement dwelling Demolition counted 2011/12

Blundeston

DC/02/1250/FUL Land adj The Pippins Blundeston

6 1 0 5 08/07/2003

0.46 0 0 6 0 No progress since commencement Jun-08. Developer confirmed completion by Apr-14

Blundeston

DC/05/0572/FUL Builders Yard Hall Lane Blundeston

2 2 0 0 10/04/2006

0.15 0 0 2 0

47

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Blundeston

DC/09/0331/FUL Land rear of Pantiles Market Lane Blundeston NR32 5AP

1 1 0 0 08/06/2009

0.06 0 0 1 0

Blundeston

DC/09/0619/FUL Old Fire Station Church Road Blundeston NR32 5AJ

2 2 0 0 02/09/2009

0.03 0 0 2 0

Blundeston

DC/09/1178/EXT The Mill House 10 The Street Blundeston NR32 5AQ

1 0 0 1 28/01/2010

0.07 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/0310/FUL approved Mar-07

48

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Blundeston

DC/10/0381/FUL Land at 59 The Street Blundeston NR32 5AA

1 0 0 1 09/06/2010

0.03 0 0 1 0

Blundeston

DC/11/0307/EXT 20 The Street Blundeston NR32 5AQ

11 0 0 11 21/06/2011

0.29 0 0 11 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/0481/FUL approved May-08

Blundeston

DC/11/1438/FUL Highview Lowestoft Road Blundeston NR32 5BW

1 0 0 1 06/03/2012


Blundeston

DC/12/0118/FUL Tomara Lound Road Blundeston NR32 5AT

1 0 0 1 28/03/2012


49

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Carlton Colville

DC/07/1477/FUL Land adj 9 Famona Road Carlton Colville

1 1 0 0 25/09/2007

0.04 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 - looks almost complete but unable to access site

Carlton Colville

DC/08/0158/FUL Carlton Hall Church Lane Carlton Colville NR33 8AT

16 9 1 6 07/05/2008

1.24 0 0 15 0

Carlton Colville

DC/10/1028/FUL Applewood Chapel Road Carlton Colville NR33 8BL

18 0 0 18 04/01/2012

0.64 0 0 18 0

Corton DC/07/1219/FUL Plot 7 Corton Long Lane Corton

1 1 0 0 15/11/2007


50

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Corton DC/09/0332/FUL Crossways Farm Cottage and Oakavon Blundeston Road Corton NR32 5DD

2 0 0 2 03/06/2009

0.14 2 0 0 0 Replacement dwellings

Corton DC/10/1224/FUL Plot 4 land adj 50 Station Road Corton NR32 5HQ

1 1 0 0 29/11/2010

0.09 0 0 1 0

Corton DC/10/1524/FUL The Pightle Yarmouth Road Corton NR32 5NQ

1 0 0 1 19/01/2011


51

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Corton DC/11/0013/FUL Plots 1-3 land adj 50 Station Road Corton

3 1 0 2 17/02/2011

0.17 0 0 3 0

Corton DC/11/0226/EXT Land adj Fourstones Corton Long Lane Corton NR32 5HD

1 0 0 1 08/04/2011

0.20 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/08/0396/REN approved Jun-08

Corton DC/11/1039/FUL St Winifreds Yarmouth Road Corton NR32 5NG

1 1 0 0 31/10/2011


Gisleham DC/11/1032/FUL Jaydene London Road Gisleham NR33 7PG

1 0 0 1 10/11/2011


52

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Gisleham DC/11/1124/FUL Country Cottage Black Street Gisleham NR33 8EN

1 0 0 1 05/12/2011


Kessingland

DC/06/0007/FUL Land adj Copperfields Beach Road Kessingland

1 1 0 0 12/06/2006

0.05 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 works in progress

Kessingland

DC/07/1630/FUL The Bethel Bethel Drive Kessingland

2 2 0 0 07/11/2007

0.03 0 0 2 0 Works in progress

Kessingland

DC/07/1913/FUL Land rear of 183 & 185 Church Road Kessingland NR33 7SG

2 1 0 1 03/01/2008

0.16 0 0 2 0 Site visit Mar-12 unable to access site

53

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Kessingland

DC/08/0211/FUL Land adj 291 Church Road Kessingland NR33 7SB

1 1 0 0 16/04/2008

0.01 0 0 1 0 Last inspection Jan-12

Kessingland

DC/08/0347/REN Land adj 12 High Street Kessingland NR33 7QG

1 1 0 0 21/05/2008


Kessingland

DC/08/1244/FUL 24 High Street Kessingland NR33 7QQ

2 0 1 1 06/01/2009

0.03 0 0 1 0 Shop conversion completed. New build yet to commence.

54

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Kessingland

DC/09/0901/FUL Land rear of High Hedges Chipperfield Road Kessingland

1 1 0 0 07/12/2009

0.11 0 0 1 0

Kessingland

DC/09/1211/FUL Adj 10 Belvedere Drive Kessingland

1 0 0 1 10/02/2010

0.02 0 0 1 0

Kessingland

DC/10/0364/FUL The Chalet/Eversley High Path Kessingland NR33 7RS

1 0 0 1 08/12/2010


Kessingland

DC/10/0468/FUL Land rear of 31 Church Road Kessingland NR33 7TJ

1 1 0 0 10/06/2010

0.07 0 0 1 0

55

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Kessingland

DC/10/1006/FUL The Hollies London Road Kessingland NR33 7PQ

1 0 0 1 09/02/2011

1.29 0 0 1 0

Lound DC/10/1298/FUL Cartshed Site off Hall Farm Cottage Jay Lane Lound NR32 5LJ

1 1 0 0 10/12/2010

0.11 0 0 1 0

Lound DC/99/0648/FUL Barn and Coachhouse at Lodge Farm Halterway Lane Lound

2 1 0 1 20/07/1999

0.21 0 0 0 2 Site visit Mar-12 no progress on barn and coachhouse not commenced

56

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Oulton DC/03/0366/ARM Parkmeadows Phase 3 Oulton Road North Oulton

111 9 87 15 23/12/2004

4.00 0 0 24 0

Oulton DC/07/0625/FUL Plot 1 rear of 279 Oulton Road North Oulton NR32 4QZ

1 0 0 1 09/05/2007

0.04 0 0 1 0 Completion of double garage for No.279 as part of scheme keeps application for new dwellings 'live'

57

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Oulton DC/08/0644/FUL Plot 2 rear of 279 Oulton Road North Oulton NR32 4QZ

1 0 0 1 10/07/2008

0.05 0 0 1 0 Completion of double garage for No.279 as part of scheme keeps application for new dwellings 'live'

Oulton DC/09/0039/OUT Plots 2/3/4 former Ambulance Station Union Lane Oulton NR32 3AX

3 0 0 3 20/11/2009

0.24 0 0 3 0

Oulton DC/09/0245/FUL Adj 2 Park Hill Oulton NR32 3BL

1 1 0 0 30/04/2009

0.02 0 0 1 0

58

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Oulton DC/10/1094/FUL Land adj 28 Union Lane Oulton NR32 3AX

1 0 0 1 01/12/2010

0.03 0 0 1 0

Oulton DC/11/0148/FUL Plots 1-4 land at Oulton Road Lowestoft

4 1 0 3 28/03/2011

0.23 0 0 4 0 Details for plots 1-4 approved Dec-04 DC/03/0368/ARM (Plots 1-8 to be individually designed units)

59

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Oulton DC/11/0429/FUL Plots 5-8 land at Oulton Road North Oulton

4 0 0 4 03/06/2011

0.20 0 0 4 0 Details for plots 5-8 approved Dec-04 DC/03/0368/ARM (Plots 1-8 to be individually designed units)

Oulton DC/11/0664/FUL Plot 1 Former Ambulance Station Site Union Lane Oulton NR32 3AX

1 0 0 1 17/08/2011

0.08 0 0 1 0

Oulton DC/12/0090/EXT Adj 16 Union Lane Oulton NR32 3AX

1 0 0 1 20/03/2012

0.01 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/08/1120/FUL approved Feb-09

60

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Beccles area

Beccles DC/05/0819/FUL Beccles Station adj George Westwood Way Beccles

7 4 3 0 31/03/2008

0.18 0 0 0 4 Maltings conversion complete. New build commenced - developer confirms S106 incomplete so unable to progress

Beccles DC/06/0579/OUT Site to rear of 38/40 Blyburgate Beccles

4 0 0 4 18/09/2009

0.08 0 0 4 0

61

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Beccles DC/08/0793/FUL The Old Retail Coal Sales Office Gresham Road Beccles

1 1 0 0 22/08/2008

0.22 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 almost complete

Beccles DC/08/1335/FUL Land at Maple Way Beccles

5 5 0 0 03/03/2011

0.16 0 0 5 0

Beccles DC/09/0020/FUL Plot north of Ingate House London Road Beccles NR34 9YR

1 1 0 0 05/03/2009

0.05 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-12 - nearly complete

62

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Beccles DC/09/0532/FUL Former Tan House St Benedicts Road Beccles NR34 9DF

17 0 10 7 02/09/2009

0.24 20 0 -13 0 Phase 1 complete (10 flats) Demolitions: 6 counted 2010/11 and 8 counted 2011/12

Beccles DC/09/0694/FUL Gosford House Gosford Road Beccles NR34 9QP

6 0 0 6 23/11/2009

0.03 0 0 6 0

Beccles DC/10/0206/OUT Land south of Southfield Ringsfield Road Beccles NR34 9PE

1 0 0 1 14/09/2010

0.06 0 0 1 0

63

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Beccles DC/10/0269/FUL 42 Ringsfield Road Beccles

1 0 0 1 15/06/2010

0.04 0 0 1 0

Beccles DC/10/1034/FUL Adj 17 Pound Road Beccles NR34 9DQ

1 0 0 1 13/10/2010

0.03 0 0 1 0

Beccles DC/10/1257/FUL Adj 1 St Marys Road Beccles NR34 9NQ

1 0 0 1 15/12/2010

0.01 0 0 1 0

Beccles DC/10/1313/FUL Land at Russells Ringsfield Road Beccles NR34 9PQ

1 1 0 0 22/12/2010

0.09 0 0 1 0

64

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Beccles DC/11/0138/FUL Adj The Butchers Arms PH London Road Beccles NR34 9YT

2 2 0 0 30/03/2011

0.06 0 0 2 0

Beccles DC/11/0191/EXT Land rear of 32 Blyburgate Beccles NR34 9TB

2 0 0 2 31/03/2011

0.04 0 0 2 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/08/0164/FUL approved Apr-08

Beccles DC/11/0446/EXT 9 Newgate Beccles NR34 9QA

1 0 0 1 22/06/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/08/0842/FUL approved Sep-08

Beccles DC/11/0667/FUL 1 The Walk Beccles NR34 9AJ

3 1 0 2 09/08/2011

0.04 1 0 2 0 Conversion of HMO to 3 separate flats

65

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Beccles DC/11/0680/FUL Land between 77 & 79 Rigbourne Hill Beccles NR34 9JQ

2 2 0 0 28/07/2011

0.05 0 0 2 0

Beccles DC/11/0832/FUL Adj 69 Kemps Lane Beccles NR34 9XQ

1 0 0 1 09/11/2011

0.04 0 0 1 0

Beccles DC/11/0991/FUL 47-51 St Georges Road Beccles NR34 9XZ

2 0 0 2 27/10/2011

0.05 1 0 1 0

Beccles DC/11/1231/FUL Adj 9 Upper Grange Road Beccles NR34 9NU

1 0 0 1 04/01/2012

0.06 0 0 1 0

66

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Barnby DC/96/0840/OUT Land off Beccles Road Barnby

3 0 0 3 08/08/1997

0.30 0 0 3 0 Outline: units reducing as detailed permissions granted - Plots 7/8/12 remaining

Barnby DC/05/0090/ARM Plot adj Oak Tree Cottage Mill Road Barnby

1 1 0 0 10/05/2005


Barnby DC/10/0231/FUL Clear View The Street Barnby NR34 7QB

8 5 1 2 30/06/2010


67

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Barnby DC/11/0271/EXT Recasa Beccles Road Barnby NR34 7QB

3 0 0 3 21/04/2011

0.12 1 0 2 0 Extension of Time (Outline) for DC/08/0301/OUT approved May-08

Barnby DC/11/0283/EXT Rear of Aingarth House Swan Lane Barnby NR34 7QF

1 0 0 1 21/04/2011

0.08 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Outline) for DC/08/0807/OUT approved Aug-08

Barsham DC/02/0746/FUL City Farm Barn Barsham NR34 8JT

1 1 0 0 30/05/2003

0.26 0 0 0 1 Site visit Jan-10 - no progress

Barsham DC/07/0832/ARM Land at Gables Farm Hall Road Barsham NR34 8JN

1 1 0 0 04/06/2007

0.11 0 0 0 1 No progress since commencement May-09

68

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Barsham DC/09/0338/ARM Adj Oakmead Barsham City Barsham NR34 8JT

1 0 0 1 28/05/2009

0.09 0 0 1 0

Barsham DC/10/0661/FUL The Cottage 2 Clarkes Lane Barsham NR34 8HN

1 0 0 1 16/09/2010


Ellough DC/06/0171/FUL Glebe Farm Barn Church Road Ellough NR34 7TR

1 1 0 0 12/03/2007

0.12 0 0 1 0 Last inspection Apr-09

69

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Henstead DC/04/0588/FUL White House Farm Barns Henstead NR34 7LQ

2 2 0 0 15/06/2005

0.64 0 0 2 0 Last inspection Mar-11

Henstead DC/08/0101/FUL Firs Farm Hulver Street Henstead NR34 7UE

1 1 0 0 20/03/2008

0.12 0 0 1 0 Last inspection Jun-11

Henstead DC/08/1151/FUL Pheasant Cottage Sotterley Road Henstead NR34 7UJ

1 1 0 0 15/12/2008

1.00 0 0 1 0

Henstead DC/09/0024/FUL Woodrow Farm Barn Sotterley Road Henstead NR34 7NS

1 1 0 0 01/04/2009

0.61 0 0 1 0

70

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Henstead DC/09/0286/FUL The Bungalow Church Road Henstead NR34 7LE

1 1 0 0 27/05/2009

0.05 0 0 1 0 Replacement dwelling - demolition counted 2009/10

Hulver DC/09/0231/FUL The Old Chapel Chapel Lane Hulver

1 1 0 0 29/06/2009

0.05 0 0 1 0

Mutford DC/00/0936/FUL Farm Buildings Mutford Hall Mutford

2 2 0 0 11/10/2001

0.28 0 0 0 2

Mutford DC/06/0541/FUL Manor Farm Barns Church Road Mutford NR34 4UZ

1 1 0 0 13/12/2006

0.48 0 0 1 0 Works commenced Feb-10 and last inspection recorded Apr-11

71

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Mutford DC/09/0429/ARM Fullers Field Mutfordwood Lane Mutford NR33 8HD

1 1 0 0 02/07/2009


Mutford DC/11/0223/FUL Hawthorn Cottage 1 Mill Road Mutford NR34 7UR

2 2 0 0 18/04/2011


North Cove

DC/09/1114/ARM Adj 43 Pinewood Gardens North Cove NR34 7PQ

1 1 0 0 22/01/2010


72

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Redisham DC/10/0664/FUL 2 Rose Villas Beccles Road Redisham NR34 8LU

1 1 0 0 21/07/2010


Redisham DC/10/0736/FUL Adj Wig House Halesworth Road Redisham NR34 8NF

1 0 0 1 01/09/2010

0.27 0 0 1 0

Ringsfield DC/03/0658/FUL Redisham Hall Ringsfield NR34 8LZ

2 0 1 1 02/10/2003

0.02 0 0 0 1 Outbuilding to maisonette completed. Coach House convesion yet to start

73

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Ringsfield DC/10/1217/FUL Memory Cottage Church Road Ringsfield NR34 8JY

1 0 0 1 17/11/2010


Sotterley DC/11/1015/EXT Goldings Farm Barns (Plots 1-3) Smiths Road Sotterley NR34 7NR

3 0 0 3 27/10/2011

0.73 0 0 3 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/09/0595/VOC approved Sep-09

Weston DC/09/1136/FUL Landoc Cucumber Lane Weston NR34 7XH

1 0 0 1 04/02/2010


Weston DC/11/1444/FUL M J Hales Cucumber Lane Weston NR34 7XH

6 0 0 6 22/02/2012

0.56 0 0 6 0 Revises DC/07/1791/ARM

74

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Worlingham

DC/06/0405/FUL The Colville Arms PH Lowestoft Road Worlingham NR347EF

4 0 0 4 11/07/2006

0.09 0 0 4 0 Completion of conversion of former PH to pharmacy keeps application 'live'

Worlingham

DC/11/0484/FUL Land at 3 Lowestoft Road Worlingham NR34 7EH

5 0 0 5 29/06/2011

0.27 0 0 5 0 Demolition recorded 2008/09

Bungay area

Bungay DC/00/0725/FUL Upland Hall Farm Barn St Margarets Road Bungay

1 1 0 0 12/10/2000

0.21 0 0 0 1 Site visit Mar-11 - no progress since commencement

75

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Bungay DC/04/1015/FUL 34 St. Marys Street Bungay NR35 1AX

1 1 0 0 11/10/2004

0.01 0 0 0 1 Site visit Mar-11 - development not evident

Bungay DC/05/0540/FUL Hillside Garage Hillside Road East Bungay

10 1 0 9 08/11/2006

0.26 0 0 10 0 Works commenced Nov-11

Bungay DC/05/1403/FUL Garage to east of The Old Pottery Scales Street Bungay

1 1 0 0 08/03/2006

0.01 0 0 1 0 Site visit Mar-11 - works in progress

76

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Bungay DC/06/0457/FUL Outbuilding to rear of 1 to 3 Cross Street Bungay NR35 1AU

1 1 0 0 08/01/2007

0.03 0 0 1 0 Fire Aug-10 damaged all buildings. Owner intends to restore buildings 1-3 Cross Street, then complete residential conversion works

Bungay DC/08/0302/FUL 1 Broad Street Bungay NR35 1EE

3 3 0 0 20/05/2008

0.05 1 0 2 0 Last inspection Sep-11

Bungay DC/09/0391/FUL 1 Priory Lane Bungay NR35 1DB

3 0 0 3 23/06/2009

0.01 0 0 3 0

77

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Bungay DC/09/1129/FUL Adj 17 Southend Road Bungay NR35 1DN

2 1 0 1 10/02/2010

0.16 0 0 2 0

Bungay DC/10/0734/FUL Adj The Trees Hillside Road West Bungay NR35 1PJ

1 0 0 1 01/10/2010

0.06 0 0 1 0

Bungay DC/10/0961/FUL Rear of 16 Broad Street Bungay

1 0 0 1 15/10/2010

0.03 0 0 1 0

Bungay DC/11/0043/FUL Land between 89 - 91 Joyce Road Bungay

3 0 0 3 16/03/2011

0.11 0 0 3 0

78

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Bungay DC/11/1378/COU 4C Market Place Bungay NR35 1AW

1 0 0 1 06/03/2012

0.01 0 0 1 0

Bungay DC/11/1380/COU 4A Market Place Bungay NR35 1AR

1 0 0 1 06/03/2012

0.01 0 0 1 0

Bungay BA/2007/0119/FUL Site southwest of 51 Staithe Road Bungay

1 1 0 0 15/08/2007

0.04 0 0 1 0 Broads Authority area works almost complete

Flixton DC/10/1114/EXT Barn south of Retreat Farm Abbey Road Flixton NR35 1NJ

1 0 0 1 09/11/2010

0.17 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/1728/FUL approved Nov-07

79

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Ilketshall St Andrew

DC/01/0294/FUL Barn at Birchams Farm Clarkes Lane Ilketshall St Andrew NR34 4HR

1 1 0 0 31/07/2001

0.08 0 0 1 0 Inspections re-commenced 2010 - last inspection Jun-11

Ilketshall St Andrew

DC/07/1101/FUL Barn north east of St Andrews Hall Ringsfield Road Ilketshall St Andrew NR34 8NS

1 0 0 1 15/08/2007

0.75 0 0 1 0 Commencement of works to form B&B part of scheme keeps application for new dwelling 'live'

Ilketshall St Lawrence

DC/05/1015/FUL Tithe Farm Barn Ilketshall St. Lawrence

1 1 0 0 24/11/2005

0.31 0 0 0 1 Site visit Mar-11 - no progress since commencement

80

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Ilketshall St Margaret

DC/10/1140/FUL Site between The Old Shop and Burrell House High Street Ilketshall St Margaret

1 0 0 1 08/11/2010

0.07 0 0 1 0

South Elmham All Saints

DC/10/1316/FUL Abbey Farm House St Margarets Road South Elmham All Saints IP19 0PB

1 0 0 1 08/12/2010


81

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

South Elmham All Saints

DC/11/0356/FUL Adj Rockford House St Margarets Road South Elmham All Saints IP19 0PB

1 0 0 1 11/08/2011

0.16 0 0 1 0

South Elmham St Cross

DC/01/0897/FUL Hearthover Common Road St Cross South Elmham IP20 0PA

1 1 0 0 29/03/2001

0.08 1 0 0 0 Replacement dwelling site visit Mar-11 - almost complete

South Elmham St James

DC/09/0441/FUL Cuckoo Farm Rookery Lane South Elmham St James IP19 0HH

1 0 0 1 29/10/2009

0.76 0 0 1 0

82

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

South Elmham St James

DC/10/1128/FUL The Bungalow The Street South Elmham St James IP19 0HS

1 0 0 1 04/11/2010


Halesworth area

Halesworth

DC/04/0923/FUL Adj The Copse Beech Close Halesworth

1 1 0 0 28/02/2005

0.18 0 0 1 0 Commenced Apr-09 last inspection Apr-11

Halesworth

DC/06/0076/FUL Former Ridgeons Premises Quay Street Halesworth IP19 8ET

38 9 26 3 16/07/2008

0.67 0 0 12 0

83

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Halesworth

DC/08/0084/OUT Adj 1 Mount Pleasant Halesworth IP19 8JE

1 1 0 0 11/03/2008

0.03 0 0 1 0 Incorrect application form completed - Full details submited and treated as Full application

Halesworth

DC/08/0723/FUL 153 Chediston Street Halesworth IP19 8BD

1 1 0 0 08/08/2008

0.04 0 0 1 0 Commenced Jun-11

Halesworth

DC/09/0173/FUL Adj 1 Queens Drive Halesworth IP19 8DN

1 1 0 0 18/03/2010

0.04 0 0 1 0

84

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Halesworth

DC/09/0279/REN Broadway Place Norwich Road Halesworth IP19 8QQ

2 0 0 2 07/08/2009

0.19 0 0 2 0

Halesworth

DC/09/1028/FUL Rear of 65/67 Bedingfield Crescent Halesworth IP19 8EE

1 1 0 0 21/12/2009

0.03 0 0 1 0

Halesworth

DC/10/0240/FUL Site of Old Maltings River Lane Halesworth IP19 8AP

1 0 0 1 02/09/2011

0.06 0 0 1 0

85

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Halesworth

DC/10/0691/EXT Adj Belmont London Road Halesworth IP19 8LR

1 0 0 1 23/07/2010

0.04 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/1003/FUL approved Jul-07

Halesworth

DC/10/1633/EXT Land adj 20 Mount Pleasant Halesworth IP19 8JF

1 0 0 1 14/02/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/07/1800/FUL approved Dec-07

Halesworth

DC/10/1640/OUT Former Water Tower Site London Road Halesworth

1 0 0 1 24/03/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0

86

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Halesworth

DC/11/0384/EXT Land at Hill Drive London Road Halesworth IP19 8DH

1 0 0 1 25/05/2011

0.14 0 0 1 0 Extension of Time (Full) for DC/08/0172/OUT approved Apr-08

Halesworth

DC/11/0935/FUL Adj Meadow Croft Wissett Road Halesworth

2 0 0 2 30/09/2011

0.18 0 0 2 0

Halesworth

DC/12/0056/FUL Land adj Abbotts Hill Holton Road Halesworth IP19 8HG

2 0 0 2 13/03/2012

0.08 0 0 2 0

Blyford DC/12/0011/FUL Adj Laurel Cottage Southwold Road Blyford IP19 9JU

1 1 0 0 06/03/2012

0.16 0 0 1 0 Revised design (DC/08/0253/FUL)

87

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Brampton DC/11/0134/FUL Land adj The Elms Molls Lane Brampton NR34 8DB

1 1 0 0 31/03/2011

0.12 0 0 1 0

Holton DC/08/1409/FUL Barn adj Holton Lodge The Street Holton IP19 8PN

1 0 0 1 09/12/2009

0.23 0 0 1 0

Rumburgh DC/10/1062/FUL Barn at White House Farm Rumburgh IP19 0NG

1 1 0 0 22/10/2010

0.78 0 0 1 0

88

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Stoven DC/10/1611/COU The Cherry Tree Inn Southwold Road Stoven NR34 8ER

1 0 0 1 17/02/2011

0.00 0 0 1 0

Westhall DC/11/0757/FUL 2 Meadow View Cottages Westhall IP19 8RL

1 0 0 1 24/08/2011


Wissett DC/01/0090/FUL Barn west of Manor Farm The Street Wissett IP190JH

1 1 0 0 27/06/2002

0.07 0 0 0 1 No inspections since commencement Nov 2006.

Wissett DC/07/0003/FUL 16 - 17 The Street Wissett IP19 0JE

2 2 0 0 14/03/2007

0.38 1 0 1 0

Southwold area

89

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Southwold DC/01/0751/FUL 11 Market Place Southwold IP18 6EA

1 1 0 0 26/02/2002

0.01 0 0 0 1 Site visit Mar-11 - not complete

Southwold DC/06/0271/FUL Service Station Site Mights Road Southwold

22 22 0 0 22/06/2007

0.18 0 0 0 22 Site visit Mar-11 - not complete Site stalled

Southwold DC/09/0559/FUL Lusaka 16 Ferry Road Southwold IP18 6NB

1 1 0 0 14/07/2010


Southwold DC/10/0779/VOC Garden Gallery Victoria Street Southwold IP18 6HZ

1 0 0 1 06/08/2010

0.02 0 0 1 0

90

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Southwold DC/10/0819/COU Ellesborough House 62 Pier Avenue Southwold IP18 6BU

1 1 0 0 09/08/2010

0.10 0 0 1 0

Southwold DC/10/1030/EXT 10 North Green Southwold IP18 6AT

1 0 0 1 27/10/2010


Southwold DC/10/1458/FUL The Perch 27 Ferry Road Southwold IP18 6HQ

1 1 0 0 13/01/2011


Southwold DC/10/1679/FUL Cliffside 15 Field Stile Road Southwold IP18 6LD

3 3 0 0 16/02/2011

0.03 1 0 2 0 Subdivision = PDL New build = Greenfield

91

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Southwold DC/11/0528/FUL 5 Victoria Street Southwold IP18 6HZ

1 0 0 1 05/07/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0

Southwold DC/11/1216/FUL 33 Field Stile Road Southwold IP18 6LX

1 0 0 1 23/12/2011


Southwold DC/11/1429/FUL Old Bakehouse Store Blackmill Road Southwold IP18 6AQ

1 0 0 1 10/02/2012

0.01 0 0 1 0

Frostenden

DC/09/0453/FUL Lodders Frostenden Corner Frostenden NR34 7JA

1 0 0 1 14/07/2009


92

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Henham DC/10/1641/VOC Valley Farm Henham NR34 8AE

2 2 0 0 04/02/2011

0.23 0 0 2 0

Reydon DC/02/0294/VOC Barn Two Wood Farm Barns Reydon

1 1 0 0 15/08/2002

0.09 0 0 0 1 Site visit Mar-11 - not complete

Reydon DC/06/0824/FUL Land rear of 53 & 55 Wangford Road Reydon

5 5 0 0 16/09/2009

0.30 0 0 5 0

Reydon DC/07/1434/FUL Land adj 130 Wangford Road Reydon IP18 6NZ

1 1 0 0 28/09/2007

0.03 0 0 1 0

Reydon DC/08/0928/FUL Quay House Quay Lane Reydon IP18 6SF

1 1 0 0 25/09/2008

6.46 1 0 0 0 Replacement dwelling last inspection Mar-12

93

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Reydon DC/09/1103/FUL Land adj The Croft Mount Pleasant Reydon IP18 6QG

4 3 1 0 04/03/2010

0.11 0 0 3 0

Reydon DC/10/0616/FUL Smear Farm Cottages Rissemere Lane East Reydon IP18 6SR

1 0 0 1 16/07/2010

0.43 3 0 -2 0

Reydon DC/10/1101/FUL 43/43A Covert Road Reydon IP18 6QS

2 1 1 0 02/11/2010

0.07 0 0 1 0 Demolition counted 2010/11 Replacement dwelling = PDL New build = Greenfield

94

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Reydon DC/10/1110/FUL Fairway Fairfield Road Reydon IP18 6QR

3 3 0 0 02/11/2010

0.10 0 0 3 0 Demolition counted 2010/11 Replacement dwelling = PDL New build = Greenfield

Reydon DC/10/1477/FUL Adj Woodrough Mount Pleasant Reydon IP18 6QG

1 1 0 0 09/02/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0

Reydon DC/11/0516/FUL 1 Longmarsh Close Reydon IP18 6RS

1 0 0 1 01/07/2011


95

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No. Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Reydon DC/11/0861/FUL 2 Marsh Cottages Shepherds Lane Reydon IP18 6SB

1 1 0 0 21/09/2011

0.27 0 0 1 0 Replacement dwelling Demoiltion counted 2011/12

Reydon DC/11/1130/FUL 10 Gorse Lane Reydon IP18 6NG

1 0 0 1 20/12/2011

0.05 0 0 1 0 Replacement dwelling Demolition counted 2011/12

Reydon DC/11/1390/FUL Land adj 7 Green Lane Close Reydon IP18 6PE

1 0 0 1 06/02/2012

0.04 0 0 1 0

Reydon DC/12/0029/FUL Reydon Grove Farm Rissemere Lane East Reydon IP18 6SN

1 0 0 1 29/03/2012

0.55 0 0 1 0 Emailed Kim re demolition

96

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No.

Available

Consent Date

Site

Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Uggeshall DC/02/0458/FUL Manor Farm Uggeshall NR34 8BD

2 2 0 03/01/2003

1.80 0 0 0 0 2 No inspections since commencement

Uggeshall DC/10/0742/FUL Barn at Brick Kiln Farm Wash Lane Uggeshall NR34 8BW

0 0 1 10/08/2010

1 0.24 0 0 1 0

Uggeshall DC/10/1293/VOC Stackyard Valley Farm Stoven Road Uggeshall

1 1 0 0 11/01/2011

0.20 0 0 1 0

Wangford DC/10/0031/FUL Land adj Little Priory Church Street Wangford NR34 8RW

1 0 0 1 20/07/2010

0.17 0 0 1 0

97

Parish

Planning Ref.

Address

No. Proposed

Under Const.

No. Complete

No.

Available

Consent Date

Site

Area (ha)

No. Lost




Comments

Wangford DC/11/0085/FUL Wangford Veterinary Clinic Pound Corner Wangford NR34 8AX

1 0 0 1 29/03/2011

0.02 0 0 1 0

Wrentham DC/10/0619/FUL Building plot rear of 9 Mill Lane Wrentham NR34 7JQ

1 1 0 0 01/09/2010

0.09 0 0 1 0

Wrentham DC/11/0024/FUL Adj 4 Southwold Road Wrentham NR34 7JF

1 0 0 1 08/03/2011

0.03 0 0 1 0

Total 846 248 165 433 55.21 60 34 538 49

No. available: Dwellings with planning permission but construction not yet started No. lost: Number of dwellings lost due to redevelopment No. not being delivered: Dwellings with planning permission where the developer has informed they do not intend to build.

98

Table AI.2 – Schedule of Large sites with Planning Permission

Parish Ref No Address Number Proposed

Under Const.

Number Complete

Number Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost



Comments

Lowestoft area

Carlton Colville DC/96/0058/OUT Carlton Hall Farm Carlton Colville

124 0 0 124 17/03/1999 4.77 0 0 124 Outline: units reducing as detailed permissions granted/ Developer confirmed May 2011 that all units will be delivered post April 2017

Oulton DC/86/0517/OUT Dunston Development Gorleston Road / Hall Lane Oulton

50 0 0 50 17/09/1990 2.40 0 10 40 Outline: units reducing as detailed permissions granted. Developer confirmed May 2011 that 50 units will be delivered in total: 2 units 2015/16, 3 units 2016/17 and remaining 45 units after April 2017

Total 174 0 0 174 7.17 0 10 164

No. available: Dwellings with planning permission but construction not yet started No. lost: Number of dwellings lost due to redevelopment

99

Table AI.3 - Schedule of Large sites with Resolution to grant Planning Permission subject to the signing of a Section 106

Parish Ref No Address Number Proposed

Under Const.

Number Complete

Number Available

Consent Date

Site Area (ha)

No. Lost



Comments

Lowestoft area

Oulton DC/01/0977/OUT Woods Meadow, Land off Hall Lane, Oulton

800 0 0 800 17/03/1999 4.77 0 280 520 Main developer confirmed phasing and delivery May-12. Development anticipated to be completed by 2024/25

Table AI.4 – Planning Permissions Trajectory

Source 2012/13 current year

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total Identified Supply***

Large Site Planning Permissions 0 0 0 2 3 5 20 24 24 24 24 24 24 174

Small site Planning Permissions 106 108 108 108 108 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 587

100

101

Source 2012/13 current year

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total Identified Supply***

Large sites with Resolution to grant Planning Permission subject to the signing of a Section 106

0 0 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 40 800

Total 106 108 148 190 191 85 107 111 111 111 111 111 71 1561

Appendix J – Assessment of sites not currently in the planning process

102

North Lowestoft

Maps of sites

103

104

105

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: NLOW/1 Address: ADJACENT 271, GORLESTON ROAD Summary

Site Area: .42 hectares Suitable Yes

Planning details: No planning history Available No

Source of Capacity Previously developed, vacant and derelict land and buildings

Availability Evidence

Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints n/a

Current use: Dwelling and back garden land Viable n/a


Suburban Residential Number of homes n/a


Some trees of amenity value within site

Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Appropriate location for residential development with road frontage on both sides, but never put forward by owners.

Constraint Assessment

Column A Column B Column C Suitability Assessment framework Criteria The site is

constrained to a degree to not be overcome

The constraint is relevant to the site and may bring into question the suitability, availability or achievability of the site

The site is unconstrained, and/or, the suitability, availability or achievability of the site is favourably enhanced

Comments

Flood Risk No No Yes

Contamination n/a No Yes n/a

Hazardous Area n/a No Yes n/a

Coastal Erosion No No Yes

Minerals sites No Yes


n/a No Yes n/a

Nature Conservation n/a No Yes n/a

106

107





Comments

Designations

Heritage No No Yes n/a

Impact on aquifers n/a Yes No


No n/a Yes n/a

Open Space n/a No Yes n/a

Transport Impacts No No Yes n/a

Access to Site No No Yes n/a

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Shops, bus route, open space, health centre, schools.

Proximity to noise and other pollutants

n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes Individually acceptable, cumulative impact with other development proposals may need to be taken into consideration

Site Reference: NLOW/10 Address: REAR OF OAKLANDS, HALL LANE Summary

Site Area: .43 hectares Suitable No




Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Access to land, potentially requires demolition of a dwelling or via land in other ownership.

Current use: Multiple back gardens Viable n/a


Between low and medium density suburban residential

Number of homes n/a


Currently not independently accessible


Summary: Site in multiple ownership rear gardens and would require agreement of all land owners for a development to go ahead. Access would be required.






Comments






108

109





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a



Access to Site No Yes No Would possibly require land outside the identified site to gain access



n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/31 Address: REAR, GUNTON ST PETERS Summary


Planning details: Refused Outline Applications (1990 and 1996) for the northern and southern ends of this land. No subsequent applications.

Available No


Availability Evidence Planning Permission Refusal

Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Vehicular access required involving demolition of existing properties.



Low density suburban residential

Number of homes n/a


Currently not independently accessible


Summary: The site comprises of multiple ownership rear gardens and would require agreement of all land owners for development. Access would require demolition of existing housing or over land in other ownership.






Comments




110

111





Comments




n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a


Impact on aquifers n/a No Yes


No n/a Yes n/a



Access to Site No Yes No New access road would be required



n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/33 Address: REAR OF 184 AND 188, YARMOUTH ROAD Summary


Planning details: Planning permission refused for single dwelling 1984.

Available No



Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Vehicular access required.

Current use: Two back gardens Viable n/a



Number of homes n/a


Area TPO covers northern part of site


Summary: Agreement of two owners required and new access would need to be created. TPO'd trees may limit development area.






Comments






112

113





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes Note: Site is adjacent to a County Wildlife Site but not considered to have any direct impact




No n/a Yes n/a






n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/70 Address: OFF, LAKELAND DRIVE Summary


Planning details: No unimplemented planning consents.

Available No






Low density suburban residential to north with railway land and commercial/industrial uses to the south

Number of homes n/a


None Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Multiple owner agreement would be required therefore no certainty that the site would be available for development.






Comments


Contamination n/a Yes No Historic Landfill Site




114

115





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a



Access to Site No No Yes Could access from existing road network.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Train and bus routes, open space, shops.


n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/72 Address: REAR OF 39 TO 47, SOMERLEYTON ROAD Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Vehicular access required.



Medium density suburban residential

Number of homes n/a


Vehicular access is not available


Summary: Multiple owner agreement would be required therefore no certainty that the site would be available for development. In addition access to the site would involve demolition of a property on Somerleyton Road, be provided through existing allotments to the east of the site or require additional land from a residential property off Tunstall Drive.






Comments






Visual Landscape and n/a No Yes n/a

116

117





Comments

Townscape


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a



Access to Site No Yes No Access is possible but would involve loss of allotments.



n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/73 Address: END OF, PATRICIA CLOSE Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Subject to access improvements.

Current use: Multiple back gardens/ownership??

Viable n/a


Medium density suburban residential

Number of homes n/a


Requires new vehicular access Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Multiple ownership requiring agreement of all landowners and new vehicular access from Patricia Close would involve loss of land for one property.






Comments






118

119





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a



Access to Site No Yes No Access possible from Patricia Close but would involve land from existing property.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Shops, train station, bus route, open space, health centre, schools.


n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/79 Address: REAR OF 7 - 13, PROSPECT ROAD Summary


Planning details: Planning permission refused. Available No



Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Subject to access improvements.



low density suburban residential

Number of homes n/a


Requires new vehicular access Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Site in multiple ownership rear gardens and would require agreement of all land owners for a development to go ahead. Access would be required.






Comments






Visual Landscape and n/a No Yes n/a

120

121





Comments

Townscape


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a



Access to Site No Yes No Access possible would involve land from existing property or in other ownership.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes School, shop, bus route.


n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/127 Address: WAVENEY DC CAR PARK, CLAPHAM ROAD SOUTH Summary



Source of Capacity Land in non-residential use which may be suitable for redevelopment as housing


Previously Developed: Yes Cost of removing Constraints ?

Current use: Existing car park Viable n/a


Mixed area, offices, retail, town centre uses, high density residential

Number of homes n/a



Summary: Site currently in use as a town centre car park with potential for redevelopment if came forward as available.






Comments






122

123





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a


Transport Impacts No Yes No Suffolk County Council would object due to loss of town centre car parking


Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Town centre location access to all services and facilities.


n/a Yes No Likely traffic noise and pollution from A12



Site Reference: NLOW/171 Address: REAR OF SOMERFIELD, BATTERY GREEN ROAD Summary


Planning details: Retail and car park related planning history only

Available No



Previously Developed: Yes Cost of removing Constraints n/a

Current use: Multi-storey car park Viable n/a


Between town centre and office/commercial/industrial uses

Number of homes n/a



Summary: Site predominantly in retail use.






Comments






124

125





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




Yes n/a No Large retail floor space could be lost.


Transport Impacts No Yes No Suffolk County Council would object due to loss of town centre car parking




n/a Yes No Likely traffic noise and pollution from A12


n/a No Yes Cumulative impacts will need to be taken into account.

Site Reference: NLOW/42 Address: DEPOT, CAMP ROAD Summary


Planning details: Boundary amended (to 0.55ha) to exclude 18 completed flats (DC/05/0170/FUL)

Available Yes


Availability Evidence Submitted by Landowner for SHLAA

Previously Developed: Yes Cost of removing Constraints Contamination and demolition costs approx. £228,600 (based on English Partnerships: Best Practice Note 27 and CIL Viability Study (BNP Paribas Real Estate, 2012)

Current use: Car repair workshop, vacant factory buildings, trade/retail sales building materials

Viable No


Edge of town centre, some commercial uses mixed with high density residential

Number of homes 17


Timescale for Delivery 2025+

Summary: Part vacant site. Other mixed uses including a car repair garage. Suitable location and interest for development. Will result in loss of commercial premises close to town centre. However, the site is unlikely to be viable. Even with zero affordable housing a negative land value is returned. A significant increase in sales values will be needed for this tie to come forward. As such, it is not foreseeable that this site will come forward during the plan period. Particularly as part of the site is still in active commercial use.






Comments


126

127





Comments

Contamination n/a Yes No Former and existing uses may have caused contamination.





n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes Car repair workshop and MOT testing centre



Access to Site No Yes No Improvements required.



n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/76 Address: Rear 16-54, Chestnut Avenue Summary


Planning details: No unimplemented planning permissions.

Available No







Number of homes n/a



Summary: Multiple gardens/ownership, dependent of new access that requires demolition of existing property. Poor backland development.






Comments






128

129





Comments


n/a Yes No n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




No n/a Yes n/a




Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Close to public transport and within reasonable distance of all other facilities and services.


n/a No Yes n/a



Site Reference: NLOW/253 Address: Roman Hill Primary School, Love Road Summary

Site Area: 1.17 hectares Suitable No

Planning details: No relevant planning history. Available Yes


Availability Evidence Submitted by Landowner for SHLAA

Previously Developed: Yes Cost of removing Constraints ?

Current use: School buildings and playground

Viable n/a


High density residential area Number of homes 0



Summary: Suitable location for housing development. The redevelopment of housing on this site would be contrary to Policy DM26 of the Development Management Policies DPD. Unless there are no viable community uses for the site, only then could the site be considered suitable for housing.






Comments


Contamination n/a Yes No Historic Landfill Site




130

131





Comments


n/a No Yes n/a


n/a No Yes n/a




Yes n/a No Policy DM26 requires schools to be used first for community use prior to housing




Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Central location close to all services and facilities.


n/a No Yes n/a



South Lowestoft

Map of Sites

132

133

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: SLOW/7 Address: REAR OF, BECCLES ROAD Summary


Planning details: No relevant planning history. Available No



Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Demolition of dwelling, potential improvements to wastewater disposal



Suburban residential Number of homes 0


Trees, limited access without demolishing house


Summary: It will be difficult to develop this site in way that respects the character of the surrounding area. To access the site at least one dwelling will have to be removed. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. Additionally, the multiple ownership of the site means it is unlikely to come forward as a whole. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments


Contamination n/a No Yes

Hazardous Area n/a No Yes

134

135





Comments




n/a Yes No Screened back gardens. Development would however, represent backland development which could harm the character of this area if poorly designed


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes

Open Space n/a No Yes

Transport Impacts No No Yes

Access to Site No Yes No It is presently not possible to access the site without removing at least one dwelling

Access to Facilities n/a No No Column C


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes Potential sewerage network capacity constraints

Site Reference: SLOW/38 Address: 149 AND 155, STRADBROKE ROAD Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints

Current use: Large single dwelling and back garden

Viable n/a




Part of the site is covered by an area TPO, limited access


Summary: The access to this site is unsuitable to accommodate more development. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments






136

137





Comments


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes



Access to Site Yes No No Single track provides only access.



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/47 Address: 2, CLIFTONVILLE ROAD Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Demolition of existing dwelling will be required and replacement trees.

Current use: Large single dwelling and back garden

Viable n/a




The site is largely covered by an area TPO


Summary: Development of this site will be difficult in design terms given the number of protected tress. Some will inevitably be lost through development and will need to replaced. There is no evidence that the site is available for development. Therefore the site is not currently deliverable






Comments






138

139





Comments


n/a Yes No Development would result in a loss of trees which would be harmful to the street scene


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes



Access to Site No No Yes Site will only be suitable for dwellings which front the existing road



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/51 Address: ARBOR LANE Summary

Site Area: 2.59 hectares Suitable Yes




Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Contamination remediation and stability of land

Current use: Paddock Viable n/a


Holiday park and suburban residential

Number of homes 0


Former landfill, potentially unstable land


Summary: Providing contamination/stability issues and access issues could be overcome, the site could be suitable for development. There is no evidence that the site is available for development. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments


Contamination n/a Yes No Former landfill




140

141





Comments


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes



Access to Site No Yes No Suffolk County Council (SCC) advise that access is likely to require the reconstruction of Arbor Lane, which is a road not adopted by SCC as Highway Authority.



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/54 Address: 11, WILLOW ROAD Summary






Current use: Children's play area associated with holiday camp and back garden

Viable n/a


Holiday park and suburban residential

Number of homes 0



Summary: The site is largely free from constraints. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. In conclusion the site is not deliverable.






Comments






142

143





Comments


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes

Open Space n/a No Yes Private children’s play area associated with holiday camp, therefore not a loss of public open space


Access to Site No Yes No Potential issues due to junction, however, level of development capable may mean there is no issue



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/140 Address: CLAREMONT ROAD, KIRKLEY CLIFF Summary





Previously Developed: Yes Cost of removing Constraints Coastal Erosion Vulnerability Assessment, higher design quality to minimise impact on conservation area

Current use: Public car park Viable n/a


Historic seafront conservation area

Number of homes 0



Summary: Development would detract from the townscape and block views of the pier and sea and could also impact on the conservation area. It is unlikely that development could therefore be suitable on this site, although there is no single constraint that would completely rule development out. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments




Coastal Erosion No Yes No

144

145





Comments



n/a Yes No Development would detract from the townscape and block views of the pier and sea.


n/a No Yes

Heritage No Yes No Development has the potential to detrimentally impact on the integrity of the conservation area.



No n/a Yes Would result in a loss of a sea front car park which is of benefit to locals and tourists



Access to Site No No Yes



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/189 Address: REAR OF 25-57, THE AVENUE Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints



Edge of low density residential conservation area

Number of homes 0


Protected trees under conservation area, limited access without demolishing house


Summary: Development has a high potential to detrimentally impact on the integrity of the conservation area. This could undermine the suitability of development on this site. To access the site at least one dwelling will have to be removed, which could further harm the integrity of the conservation area. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. Additionally, the multiple ownership of the site means it is unlikely to come forward as a whole. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments






146

147





Comments


n/a Yes No Screened back gardens. Development would however, represent backland development which could harm the character of this area


n/a No Yes

Heritage No Yes No Development has a high potential to detrimentally impact on the integrity of the conservation area. At least one house fronting on to the Avenue would need to be demolished to access this site.



No n/a Yes



Access to Site No Yes No It is presently not possible to access the site without removing at least one dwelling



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/135 Address: HALL FARM, CHAPEL ROAD Summary


Planning details: No relevant planning history. Available Yes


Availability Evidence Promoted by Developer through SSA or AAP

Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Access issues

Current use: Horse paddock, open field Viable n/a


New residential development surrounds the site to the west and north.

Number of homes 0


Trees along road frontage Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Due to a potential unacceptable impact on the setting of a Listed Building this site is not considered suitable. Potential negative impact on landscape/townscape. Access issues would also need to be addressed on this site, however, there are potential solutions that can be explored. Should access be required over third party land, it is recognised that this could render the site unviable.






Comments






Visual Landscape and n/a Yes No Large greenfield site with trees fronting the road provides a rural setting to St

148




The site is unconstrained, and/or, the suitability, availability

Comments

or achievability of the site is favourably enhanced

Townscape Peters Church. Development could therefore undermine this


n/a No Yes

Heritage Yes No No The site is adjacent to Carlton Hall a listed building and in close proximity to St Peters Church also a listed building. Development could cause an unacceptable impact upon the setting of St Peters Church



No n/a Yes



Access to Site No Yes No Not particularly good visibility on to Chapel Road, previous comments from the Highway Authority suggest a need to access from Aveling Way which may be in different ownership. There may be potential for access from Burlingham Drive



n/a No Yes



149

Site Reference: SLOW/207 Address: Elm Tree Primary School, Elm Tree Road Summary





Previously Developed: Cost of removing Constraints Demolition of existing buildings, potential improvements to wastewater disposal, replacement open space

Current use: School Viable


Residential/school Number of homes


Existing school buildings, few trees on site

Timescale for Delivery

Summary: The redevelopment of housing on this site would be contrary to Policy DM26 of the Development Management Policies DPD. Unless there are no viable community uses for the site, only then could the site be considered suitable for housing.






Comments





150

151





Comments



n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes




Open Space n/a Yes No If school playing fields were to be developed, replacement open space would be needed





n/a No Yes



Site Reference: SLOW/208 Address: Carlton Colville Primary School, Church Lane Summary





Previously Developed: Cost of removing Constraints Demolition of existing buildings, potential improvements to wastewater disposal, replacement open space

Current use: School Viable


Residential/school, countryside Number of homes


Existing school buildings Timescale for Delivery

Summary: The redevelopment of housing on this site would be contrary to Policy DM26 of the Development Management Policies DPD. Unless there are no viable community uses for the site, only then could the site be considered suitable for housing.






Comments





152

153





Comments



n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes




Open Space n/a Yes No If school playing fields were to be developed, replacement open space would be needed





n/a No Yes



Bungay

Map of sites

154

155

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: BUN/17 Address: CASTLE LANE Summary

Site Area: .41 hectares Suitable No.




Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints N/A

Current use: Open space. Viable N/A


Bound on two sides by open space and countryside. Open setting on other sides as well but used for very low density dwellings.

Number of homes N/A


Flood zone along western boundary.

Timescale for Delivery N/A

Summary: Open space that links an allocated open space to the east to open countryside to the west. Development is likely to impact on the character of the area. Access is unsuitable. No evidence that the site available for development. In conclusion the site is not deliverable.






Comments



Hazardous Area n/a No Yes -


156





Comments



n/a Yes No Leads into open countryside and may have visual impact on adjacent properties including church grounds. Must be considered in the context of a Conservation Area.


n/a No Yes Located between the Broads area and a local park. Development would result in loss of connectivity for wildlife movement.

Heritage No Yes No Within conservation area. In close proximity to Bungay Castle.



No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a Yes No Loss of site would be detrimental to green infrastructure.

Transport Impacts No No Yes -

Access to Site Yes No No Narrow road leading to site would be unsuitable to serve the development. Suffolk County Council would likely object.

Access to Facilities n/a No No -


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes No issues.

Site Reference: BUN/18 Address: ADJACENT TO 59A, LOWER OLLAND STREET Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints N/A

Current use: Open space. Viable N/A


Surrounded by residential properties. Rear of site is very low density.

Number of homes N/A


None. Timescale for Delivery N/A

Summary: Site is open space that is in an area of deficit although the site is not publically accessible. No evidence that the site is available for development.






Comments


Contamination n/a No Yes None.




Visual Landscape and n/a No Yes Unlikely to have any significant impact on wider townscape.

157

158





Comments

Townscape


n/a No Yes Located within town centre area and is open space with tress and scrub. Has potential to support wildlife.

Heritage No Yes No Within conservation area.



No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a Yes No Replacement open space needed if whole site is developed. If only brownfield part of site is developed this is not an issue.


Access to Site No No Yes Potential for access to site but currently limited.



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: BUN/43 Address: ADJACENT TO 101, BECCLES ROAD Summary

Site Area: .39 hectares Suitable Yes.




Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Unknown.

Current use: Farming purposes. Viable n/a


Residential development on three sides and open countryside to the north.

Number of homes n/a


Flood zone along north boundary.


Summary: Residential development in a residential area would be deemed appropriate. No evidence that the site is available.






Comments


Contamination n/a No Yes Unlikely to have contamination issues but has been used for commercial purposes.




Visual Landscape and n/a Yes No No significant impacts.

159

160





Comments

Townscape


n/a No Yes Little conservation value.

Heritage No No Yes -



No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a No Yes Greenfield site that links into the countryside. No significant implications likely.


Access to Site No No Yes Easily accessed.



n/a No Yes



Site Reference: BUN/55 Address: Utilux, Hillside Road East Summary


Planning details: Single Storey office extension Available No

Source of Capacity Land in non-residential use which may be suitable for redevelopment as housing.


Previously Developed: Yes Cost of removing Constraints N/A

Current use: Commercial - in use Viable N/A


Adjacent to sewerage works Number of homes N/A


None. Timescale for Delivery N/A

Summary: Currently used for commercial purposes and located next to sewage works would make this site inappropriate to develop.






Comments


Contamination n/a Yes No Contamination unlikely as buildings are for commercial uses.




161

162





Comments


n/a No Yes No significant impacts.


n/a No Yes -




No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a No Yes No loss





n/a Yes No Adjacent to sewerage works



Site Reference: BUN/56 Address: Rainbow Food Store, Hillside Road East Summary

Site Area: 1.23 hectares Suitable No.

Planning details: No relevant planning history Available No



Previously Developed: Y Cost of removing Constraints N/A

Current use: Commercial - in use Viable N/A


Adjacent to sewerage works Number of homes N/A


North of site is within flood zone.

Timescale for Delivery N/A

Summary: Currently used for commercial purposes and located next to sewage works would make this site inappropriate to develop.






Comments







n/a No Yes No significant impacts.

Nature Conservation n/a No Yes -

163





Comments


Designations




No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a No Yes No loss





n/a Yes No Adjacent to sewerage works



164

165

Halesworth

Map of Sites

166

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: HAL/6 Address: POLICE HOUSES, BRAMFIELD ROAD Summary


Planning details: No recent applications Available No

Source of Capacity Previously developed land. Availability Evidence

Previously Developed: Previously developed land. Cost of removing Constraints Site is fairly close to Blyth Road industrial estate but its impact will be limited: no remediation measures required.

Current use: Private residential Viable n/a




Site divided into separate residences with gardens.


Summary: This site would probably be viable were it to be developed. However, it is currently divided into three different dwellings and none of the owners has enquired about developing this site.






Comments


Contamination n/a No Yes No known sources of contamination.

Hazardous Area n/a No Yes No hazardous materials on this site or in the surrounding area.



Visual Landscape and n/a Yes No Situated adjacent to conservation area.

167

168





Comments

Townscape


n/a No Yes No protected sites within the immediate area.

Heritage No Yes No Situated adjacent to conservation area.



No n/a Yes No impact upon local service provision.

Open Space n/a No Yes Site is not on or near to any area of open space.

Transport Impacts No No Yes No impact on local roads or trunk roads.

Access to Site No No Yes The residences on this site currently have access to public roads and it is unlikely that these will need to be changed significantly.

Access to Facilities n/a Yes No Access to facilities in Halesworth town centre.


n/a Yes No Blyth Road industrial estate and a sewage farm fairly nearby, although these are unlikely to have a major impact on housing.


n/a No Yes No known constraints on capacity.

Site Reference: HAL/10 Address: REAR OF HILL HOUSE, LONDON ROAD Summary





Previously Developed: Not previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints Site will need improved road access.

Current use: Garden land Viable n/a




A TPO order covers the west side of the Hill House site and there are 4 trees with TPOs along the border with Sandalwood to the south. There is nothing on the land to the rear.


Summary: No evidence that this site is available and access issues would need to be resolved. Otherwise a suitable site close to services and facilities in Halesworth Town Centre.






Comments





169

170





Comments



n/a Yes No Situated behind a large historic residence, but unlikely to have any impact upon the wider surrounding area.



Heritage No No Yes No heritage assets on the site or in the immediate area.



No n/a Yes Development of this site is unlikely to negatively impact upon local service provision.

Open Space n/a No Yes Site is not on or near to any area of open space.

Transport Impacts No No Yes No impact on local roads or trunk roads.

Access to Site No Yes No Access is currently shared with the existing Hill House and is unlikely to be sufficient for additional housing development.

Access to Facilities n/a Yes No Access to facilities in Halesworth Town Centre.


n/a No Yes No pollutants in the immediate area.



Site Reference: HAL/11 Address: REAR OF SOUTH LODGE, BRAMFIELD ROAD Summary

Site Area: 1.91 hectares Suitable Yes.




Previously Developed: Not previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints Site will need improved road access.






Summary: This is a very large site in the middle of Halesworth. Road access will need to be improved. No evidence that this site is available.






Comments






171

172





Comments


n/a No Yes Situated away from public roads and surrounded by housing and an industrial estate. Very little impact upon the visual appearance of the area.






No n/a No This is a large site and a big housing development could place a strain on local services.


Transport Impacts No Yes No This is a large site and housing development will have an impact on local roads. Access to this site will need to be improved.

Access to Site No Yes No Access to this site is currently poor and will require improvement.






Site Reference: HAL/90 Address: REAR OF HAMMOND LAND ROVER/HAMMOND, NORWICH ROAD Summary





Previously Developed: Not previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints No road access.

Current use: Unsure - possibly garden land. Viable n/a


Industrial/car showroom and suburban residential.

Number of homes 0


Column C Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: This is a large strip of land that has no road access and is located close to car dealerships and industrial uses, which could cause a disturbance to any residents who live here.






Comments


Contamination n/a No Yes No known contamination.

Hazardous Area n/a No Yes Next to former factories - may be issues with hazardous materials.



173

174





Comments


n/a No Yes Surrounded by development and so is unlikely to have any impact on surrounding countryside.







Open Space n/a No Yes Site is a large area of open space, albeit not publicly accessible. Open space provision will be necessary.

Transport Impacts No Yes No Quite a large site so some possible impact on surrounding roads.

Access to Site Yes No No No road access - site is landlocked.



n/a No Yes Possible pollution from nearby industrial units.



Site Reference: HAL/91 Address: REAR OF SPRINGFIELD, FAIRVIEW ROAD Summary


Planning details: Alterations and extensions to Springfield House.

Available No

Source of Capacity Previously developed land. Availability Evidence

Previously Developed: Not previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints Site may be suitable but issues surrounding access will need to be resolved.





Column B Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: This site may be suitable, although there is no evidence that the owner wishes to develop it. There are also issues surrounding road access that need to be resolved.






Comments



Hazardous Area n/a No Yes No known hazardous materials on this site or in the surrounding area.



175

176





Comments


n/a No Yes Surrounded by existing residential development. Only a small part of the site is visible from the countryside.







Open Space n/a No Yes This site is not located on open space.

Transport Impacts No No Yes Size of development likely to be small so impact on road network is unlikely.

Access to Site No Yes No Unsure about where access to this site will be and so some improvements may be necessary.

Access to Facilities n/a Yes No Access to facilities in Halesworth town centre.




n/a No Yes Given the small size of potential development capacity is unlikely to be an issue.

Site Reference: HAL/96 Address: REAR OF 42 TO 65, THOROUGHFARE Summary


Planning details: No previous planning applications but site was submitted as a site specific allocation for housing.

Available Yes



Previously Developed: Site not previously built upon but unsure as to exact use.

Cost of removing Constraints Potentially very high costs of removing flood risk and improving road access.

Current use: Unsure - possibly garden land. Viable n/a


Surrounded by shops on the Thoroughfare and Market Place. Some residential use on the latter.

Number of homes 0


Very poor road access and significant flood risk.


Summary: This site is available and was submitted as a site specific allocation for housing. However there is very poor access and a high risk of flooding. Both of these problems would be very expensive to resolve.






Comments

Flood Risk Yes No No


177

178





Comments





n/a No No This site is an area of open space within a conservation area. It is an important part of the setting for surrounding buildings.



Heritage No Yes No Within a conservation area and near to listed buildings and locally listed buildings.




Open Space n/a Yes No Site is a large area of open space defined on the LDF proposals map.

Transport Impacts No Yes No May be some impact upon roads in the town centre.

Access to Site Yes No No Very poor road access which will be difficult to improve due to tightly packed buildings surrounding this site. Suffolk County Council would likely object.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Very good access to town centre facilities.




n/a No Yes Given the small size of potential development capacity is unlikely to be an issue.

Site Reference: HAL/103 Address: REAR OF 6 TO 18, THOROUGHFARE Summary


Planning details: W13357/4 Supermarket allowed on Appeal Feb 2002

Available Yes


Availability Evidence Promoted by Developer through SSA or AAP

Previously Developed: Site previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints High cost of ameliorating flood risk.

Current use: Site currently used for retail; a WDC car park is situated to the north.

Viable n/a


Retail on the Thoroughfare. Town Park to other side of Saxons way. Some residential development at Mayfield House.

Number of homes 0


Significant flood risk. Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Site owned by a supermarket chain who would prefer to develop this site for non retail uses (including housing) but this site is the optimum location for future retail development. May need expensive work to ameliorate flood risk.






Comments

Flood Risk No Yes No


179

180





Comments





n/a Yes No Site is within the conservation area and development could affect views of the Thoroughfare.



Heritage No Yes No Within a conservation area and near to listed buildings and locally listed buildings.



No n/a Yes Will not result in the loss of a viable local service.

Open Space n/a No Yes Development does not result in the loss of open space.

Transport Impacts No Yes No If all of this site were developed it could result in the loss of parking and a significant increase in residential traffic.

Access to Site No Yes No Volume of residential traffic could result in some improvements to access being required. Suffolk County Council have advised that access would need to be from the Thoroughfare.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Very good access to town centre facilities.




n/a Yes No If all of the site were developed there may be some issues with capacity.

Site Reference: HAL/121 Address: Halesworth Middle School, Summary

Site Area: 1.27 hectares Suitable No.

Planning details: No previous planning applications for housing and the site was not submitted as a site specific allocation.

Available No



Previously Developed: Site previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints Cost of improving road access.

Current use: Currently used as a middle school.

Viable n/a


Suburban residential, some industrial and agricultural.

Number of homes 0


Middle School buildings; need to retain playing fields.


Summary: This site should only be developed for housing if there is no educational or community need. Sports fields must be retained wherever possible and form an important part of the plans for Halesworth Playing Fields Association.






Comments




181

182





Comments




n/a Yes No Site is fairly prominent and should be developed with care.



Heritage No No Yes No conservation area or listed buildings nearby.



No n/a Yes Will not result in the loss of a viable local service.

Open Space n/a Yes No Would take place on existing school playing fields.

Transport Impacts No Yes No This is a large site and if all of it were developed there would be a significant increase in residential traffic that would impact upon the road network.

Access to Site No Yes No Some access improvements may be necessary if all of the site were developed.

Access to Facilities n/a Yes No Reasonable access to facilities in Halesworth town centre.




n/a Yes No If all of the site were developed there may be some issues with capacity.

Southwold

Map of Sites

183

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: SOU/93 Address: SOUTHWOLD BUSINESS CENTRE, ST EDMUNDS ROAD Summary


Planning details: Application for a certificate of lawful use - refused due to insufficient fee. Previous application refused. Pre-application inquiry about converting unit 18 for residential development

Available No

Source of Capacity Land in non residential use which may be suitable for redevelopment as housing.


Previously Developed: Previously developed. Cost of removing Constraints Access may need to be improved which could be expensive.

Current use: Business centre. Viable


Residential (including holiday homes).

Number of homes


Large number of separate units.


Summary: This site is in a sustainable location. However care needs to be taken to ensure that development does not impact upon the conservation area and that access issues are resolved. It is unlikely that all owners would agree to release this site at once and it may be that housing development takes place on a piecemeal basis.






Comments


Contamination n/a No Yes No known sources of contamination in the immediate area.

184

185





Comments

Hazardous Area n/a No Yes No known hazardous materials in the immediate area.




n/a Yes No Set within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the edge of a conservation area.


n/a No Yes Unlikely to impact upon any protected areas.

Heritage No Yes No Close to listed buildings in the conservation area.



No n/a Yes Will not result in the loss of any local services.

Open Space n/a No Yes Will not result inn the loss of any open space.

Transport Impacts No Yes No May be some impact upon surrounding narrow roads.

Access to Site No Yes No Access requirements may be required as roads leading to the site are fairly narrow and there is only one point of road access.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Excellent access to facilities in Southwold.


n/a No Yes No pollutants nearby.


n/a Yes No There is probably adequate capacity for a small development.

Kessingland

Map of Sites

186

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: KES/5 Address: REAR OF 1 TO 19, WASH LANE Summary


Planning details: Boundary amended (to 0.42ha) to exclude 2 completed dwellings (159/161 Church Road) at southern end of site

Available No



Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Drainage improvements

Current use: Gardens of listed building and other properties

Viable


Residential Number of homes


Access is covered by an area TPO, trees cover majority of the site


Summary: Due to potential impact on the setting of a listed building this site is not considered suitable for development. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. Additionally, the multiple ownership of the site means it is unlikely to come forward as a whole. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments






187

188





Comments


n/a Yes No The narrow nature of this site would mean it would be difficult to design a development that respects the character of the local townscape. The loss of trees would also damage the amenity of the area


n/a No Yes

Heritage Yes No No Development will likely be of detriment to the setting of the adjacent listed building



No n/a Yes




Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Kessingland has a range of accessible facilities including a school, shops and health care


n/a No Yes


n/a Yes No There are reported surface water drainage issues in this area of Kessingland which would need to be addressed

Site Reference: KES/7 Address: REAR OF 133 & 135, CHURCH ROAD Summary


Planning details: Available No



Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Drainage improvements, removal of existing dwelling

Current use: Back gardens Viable n/a




Unlikely to achieve suitable access to the site without demolishing one of the existing dwellings on the site frontage


Summary: If access to the site could be achieved the site could be considered suitable for development. There is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. Additionally, the multiple ownership of the site means it is unlikely to come forward as a whole. In conclusion the site is therefore not deliverable.






Comments






189

190





Comments


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes



Access to Site No Yes No Access improvement would likely be required. To achieve this one of the dwellings on the site frontage would have to be demolished



n/a No Yes


n/a Yes No There are reported surface water drainage issues in this area of Kessingland which would need to be addressed

Site Reference: KES/11 Address: REAR OF 12 TO 52 CHURCH ROAD, CHURCH ROAD Summary





Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Removal of existing buildings

Current use: Predominantly back gardens, with a builders yard creating access

Viable n/a




Removal of existing buildings on builders yard


Summary: With the exception of the need to remove the existing buildings associated with the builders yard, the site is free from any known constraints. However, there is no evidence to suggest the site is available for development. Additionally, the multiple ownership of the site means it is unlikely to come forward as a whole. In conclusion the site is not deliverable.






Comments






191

192





Comments


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes






n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Site Reference: KES/25 Address: REAR OF 137 TO 141, CHURCH ROAD Summary


Planning details: Various refusals for affordable housing

Available Yes


Availability Evidence Planning Permission Refusal

Previously Developed: No Cost of removing Constraints Potential sewerage improvements

Current use: Viable Potentially, dependant on cost of resolving foul water issues. It should be noted that the site has been subject to a planning application for 100% affordable housing which may suggest the landowner is willing to accept a depressed land value for the site. If an element of market housing was provided this could enhance the viability of the site.


Number of homes 0


Site is covered by an area TPO Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: Providing the infrastructure capacity issues on this site could be overcome, this site could become suitable for development. There is currently no foreseeable solution to issues encountered therefore the deliverability of this site within the plan period is questionable.






Comments


193

194





Comments




Minerals sites No No


n/a No Yes


n/a No Yes

Heritage No No Yes



No n/a Yes






n/a No Yes


n/a Yes No Previous planning applications on this site have been refused due to concerns about the disposal of foul water. These issues need to be addressed in order for the site to be suitable

Barnby

Map of Sites

195

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: VDB/2 Address: ADJACENT TO HIGHFIELD, THE STREET, Barnby Summary





Previously Developed: No. Cost of removing Constraints Unknown.

Current use: Open space. Viable n/a


Backs on residential properties to the east and open space/ open break to the west.

Number of homes n/a


Site is covered by an area TPO Timescale for Delivery n/a

Summary: No evidence that the site is available for development. Provides trees and open space for wildlife and is in an area of low density residential development.






Comments



Hazardous Area n/a No Yes None.




n/a No Yes If density is similar to surrounding area then impacts unlikely to be significant.

196





Comments



n/a No Yes Covered in trees. The site is likely to have biodiversity value.

Heritage No No Yes None.



No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a Yes No None.

Transport Impacts No No Yes None.

Access to Site No No Yes None.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes Limited facilities available.


n/a No Yes None.


n/a No Yes None.

197

198

Corton

Map of Sites

199

Assessment of Sites Site Reference: VDB/14 Address: LAND SOUTH OF STATION HOUSE, STATION ROAD, Corton Summary





Previously Developed: No. Cost of removing Constraints Access improvements required. Shape of site limits the potential for development so viability will be an issue.

Current use: Open space. Viable n/a


Bound by low density residential properties.

Number of homes n/a



Summary: Limited potential for development due to shape of the site. Could be brought forward but number of dwellings not likely to be large enough to warrant inclusion in the SHLAA.






Comments



Hazardous Area n/a No Yes None.



200

201





Comments


n/a No Yes Will only affect visual amenity of residents along eastern side of site.


n/a No Yes Covered in trees site likely to have biodiversity value. Site adjacent to open break so potential impact will need to be investigated.

Heritage No No Yes None.



No n/a Yes None.

Open Space n/a Yes No None.

Transport Impacts No No Yes None.

Access to Site No Yes No Narrow access and improvement would be required. Access via Corton Long Lane will be difficult.

Access to Facilities n/a No Yes None.


n/a No Yes None.


n/a No Yes None.

Appendix K – Viability Assessments Site Reference NLOW/42 Site Area (hectares) 0.55 Number of houses 17 Number of flats 0 Avg house size 90 Avg flat size 60 Total sqm 1,530

Density 31

Affordable Housing 35%

Existing Lawful Use 1,571 Quantum Rate Total Revenue Private Houses/Flats 995 sq m @ £1,615 per sq m £1,606,118 Affordable Houses 536 sq m @ £1,100 per sq m £589,050 Net Receipts £2,195,168 Costs Construction Costs of Flats (inc ext) 0 sq m @ £1,250 per sq m £0 Construction Costs of house (inc ext) 1,530 sqm @ £915 per sq m £1,399,950 Prof Fees (% of all construction) £1,399,950 @ 12.0% £167,994 Marketing & Sales (% of value) £2,195,168 @ 5.0% £109,758 Contingency £1,399,950 @ 5.0% £69,998 CIL 0 sq m @ £45 per sq m £0 Contamination 0.55 ha @ £130,000 per ha £71,500 Demolition 3,142 sqm @ £50.0 per sqm £157,100 Development Costs Finance 2.00 year @ 7.0% £138,341 Developer Profit £1,976,300 @ 20.0% £395,260 Total Costs £2,509,901 Land Value Realised at Sale -£314,733 Less Land Cost Finance 2.00 years @ 7.0% £0 Stamp Duty @ 4.0% £0 Residual Land Value -£314,733

RLV per Hectare -£572,242

Benchmark Land Value £192,500

202

203

Appendix L – Responses to Consultation on Draft SHLAA 2012 Anglian Water

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

General Further to our telephone conversation, I confirm that as there are no ‘new’ sites listed in the SHLAA that we have not already had the opportunity to comment on through the site allocations process or through planning application consultation process we have nothing further to add.

Comments noted

Badger Building

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Para 1.1.2 This quotes the NPPF as saying that …. “the main purpose of a SHLAA is to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet identified need for housing over the plan period” The emphasis is ours, as the key to a deliverable housing land supply is realism. We have been making submissions for the past 6 years on housing land supply. Each year during the past six, the Council has made unrealistic assumptions about the key assessment criteria for sites of viability, availability and deliverability. The local development framework process was supposed to bring an end to this hit and miss approach. It remains our view that for the most part the Council is continuing

Comments noted.

204

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

to make unrealistic assumptions on all these counts in terms of housing land availability.

Section 2.6.1 and 2

Are sites deliverable? This is the key to housing land supply. For too long sites have been included in the 5 year housing land supply which are not deliverable. I list some below where officers have previously insisted that deliverability was not an issue and projected time scales for delivery have been defended with vigour. Land at Oswald’s Boat Yard Land in the vicinity of Witham Oil and Paints Land at Saltwater Way Land at Carlton Colville controlled by Warnes Builders Land at Woods Meadow Land at Horn Hill Land at Dairy Farm Halesworth There are others! Deliverability is controlled by viability and availability not by allocation. The list above suggests to us that the Council’s track record of assessing deliverability has not met the “realistic” test now required by the NPPF. All the evidence suggests that where a site is in a multiplicity of ownerships – normally more than two, then deliverability is difficult. Where constraints are imposed by low selling prices and high development cost – including Section 106 requirements, then viability is squeezed and delivery falters. Where land is not available because land owners choose not to bring it to the market then nothing happens. We have long

Comments noted. The Council has consistently taken realistic and evidenced based assumptions based on the best available evidence at the time to support housing projections. It is appreciated that in some instances, factors beyond the Council’s control have lead to some schemes becoming stalled or shelved.

205

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

argued for a more realistic view to be taken of availability, viability and deliverability. The most recently published 5 year land supply document shows that once again we have been ignored.

Para 2.6.2 Para 2.6.2 is perhaps the most telling statement in the whole of the SHLAA document. It says that … “where it is unknown when a site could be developed then it will be regarded as not currently developable”. This is a simple concept and easy to apply. It should however be based on a realistic assessment of all the evidence not on assumption, conjecture or hope. On the basis that to meet the “Availability “ criteria required by the Practice Advice a site must be available to develop now, we applaud this attempt to define start dates more precisely. It is a sound one. Unfortunately its application has been ignored throughout the compilation of the 5 year land supply document! That document still contains a large number of sites with no known start dates, constrained by ownership and viability issues As a starting point it would be reasonable to assume that the 5 year land supply document was prepared in accordance with the principles set out in the SHLAA. That of course is one of the purposes of the document. It seems to us that it has not.

Paragraph 2.6.2 of the SHLAA is qualified by paragraphs 2.6.3 to 2.6.17. The Statement of a 5-year Supply of Housing Land has been informed by the SHLAA following the methodology outlined in the SHLAA. It is important to clarify what ‘available now’ actually means. Para. 39 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance states that a site is available for development if the site is controlled by a developer who has expressed an intention to develop or the landowner has expressed an intention to sell. It also states there should be confidence there are no legal, or ownership problems (such as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of owners).

Para 2.6.5 Suitability for residential development . This is an important issue and one which at a very late date has

The issue of noise with respect to the development at Brooke Peninsula (part of the Kirkley Waterfront and

206

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

raised its head on the Brooke Peninsula site. The Area Action Plan makes the point that port related activity, on the north bank of Lake Lothing, may give rise to disturbance to residents in the new housing. We have commented on this previously and instanced a protracted conflict in Great Yarmouth where failure to take proper account of this type of conflict cost the industrial operator – through no fault of his own – money to address what became a statutory nuisance. Such issues should be addressed prior to allocation not subsequently.

Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood allocation (SSP3)) was given detailed consideration at the examination on the Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour Area Action Plan (AAP). The Examiners Report into the AAP confirmed that there were no significant issues with noise that would question the overall suitability of the allocation.

Para 2.6.7

This states that ….” Sites allocated within the Adopted Site Specific Allocations document and the Area Action Plan have been assessed for their deliverability through independent examination and can therefore be considered available and achievable for the purpose of this document. We have to ask why they can be “considered available and achievable” when some evidently aren’t? Neither the Brooke Peninsula site SSP3 nor the Kirkley site SSP5 meet the requirements of paragraph2.6.2 in terms of a defined date for development. They remain in a multiplicity of ownerships. The access to Brooke Peninsula is ransomed by Jeldwen and work carried out since the “independent examination” by the Council’s own CIL consultants has shown that the Brooke Peninsula scheme is not viable by a very large margin. The Kirkley site is constrained by flood risk The BNP Paribus report concludes ( see appendix) that the

Paragraph 2.6.2 does not require a defined date of development to be known. Neither does the SHLAA Practice Guidance. With respect to achievability the SHLAA Practice Guidance states that a site is achievable where there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be developed at a particular point in time. It does not state that there needs to be an absolute defined date for development. That said, in many cases through consultation with landowners the Council has been made ware of a date when development is likely to commence. SSP3 and SSP5 are in multiple ownerships. However, these sites do not need to come forward as one development. With respect to SSP3 it is now highly likely that the site will come forward through multiple planning applications respecting the existing landownership. Therefore multiple ownership is only a limited constraint. Early delivery on the site (in the five

207

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Brooke Peninsula scheme could proceed, but only if no affordable housing is provided and the three key components of open space, a new primary school and the bridge over Lake Lothing are omitted. The Area Action Plan on the other hand at section 3.2.4 is quite specific in its requirements and says that planning permission will not be granted without the open space, or the school site and that the new footbridge is also deemed essential to the delivery of the site and is expected to be developer funded. Our previous submissions on this scheme have identified – using published figures - a shortfall in excess of £20m. By any standard this scheme is neither, available, viable, nor deliverable at the present time and will not be for some considerable time to come. The site should have been properly tested for viability before it was allocated – it was not.

year period) will come forward from the parts of the site that are not dependant on other parcels coming forward. It is assumed that where Brooke Peninsula is referred to the respondent is actually referring to the whole SSP3 allocation which also includes the Sanyo site, SCA Recycling, Witham Paints, Jeld Wen laying Fields, and the former Jeld Wen Factory. The BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study did not individually assess the viability of the Brooke Peninsula scheme. The respondent seems to confuse the Area Action Plan with the draft Development Brief for the Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Kirkley Waterfront Site. The draft Development Brief is currently being updated to take into account the findings of the CIL Viability Study. The adopted Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour Area Action Plan already provides a flexible response to viability. Para 3.2.7 states that where viability is a problem affordable housing and other contributions can be reduced. The BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study concludes that the SSP3 allocation is viable in the current market with no affordable housing and a limited infrastructure contribution. This would provide an acceptable return to the landowners and an acceptable profit to a developer. A 10% increase in sales values (above

208

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

build cost inflation) would enable the scheme to deliver 10% affordable housing and the primary school and open space. To overcome viability problems in the short-term and to enable short term delivery, it is likely that the Council will be promoting the use of overage/deferred contribution agreements where higher contributions will be sought as and when the market improves over the lifetime of the development. It should be noted that the BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study modelled the entire site as one scheme. This was suitable for the purposes of setting a CIL and for getting a high-level feel for the viability of the site. However, in reality, the site will likely come forward in multiple scheme reflecting existing landownership. Some parcels of land do not have as many constraints as other parts of land and could viably deliver housing in the short term. The SSP3 site is owned by landowners who have all expressed an intention to sell for development and therefore meets the availability criteria stated in the SHLAA Practice Guidance.

Para 2.6.8 The assumptions here – and they are nothing more than that – are exactly those which have led to undevelopable and undeliverable sites clogging up the housing land supply in the town for the past few years. Considering each of the criteria and numbered below to match

Para. 39 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance states that a site is available for development if the site is controlled by a developer who has expressed an intention to develop or the landowner has expressed an intention to sell. It also states there should be confidence there are no legal, or ownership problems

209

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

their order in the document, we make the following comments:- 1. As shown above there are sites which have been promoted through the Site Specific Allocations DPD and the Area Action Plan which are neither viable nor deliverable and will not be for many years. 2. Why are sites where permission has been refused considered deliverable? Has an analysis been carried out of the reasons for refusal to exclude those which are contrary to policy or where lack of infrastructure may make delivery impossible. With the application of that sort of “sieve” this is an unrealistic approach 3. Why does an informal inquiry make a site available. It might be about a site which is contrary to policy or where other constraints particularly viability arising from affordable housing requirements render the site uneconomic. This is often the case with the proposed redevelopment of existing commercial premises. 4. See three above – Land owners are keen to promote land but often loose interest when faced with the realism of section 106 and associated infrastructure costs.

(such as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of owners).

1. It should be noted that under the SHLAA Practice Guidance a site can be available regardless of viability. Viability is a consideration when considering the achievability of a site.

2. Sites where permission has been refused are not to be considered ‘deliverable’ The criteria is solely for assessing the availability of a site. A site where a planning application has been submitted gives an indication of availability.

3. As noted above this criteria is for assessing the availability of sites only not for assessing deliverability. Some sites may be available but not suitable or viable.

4. This criteria point clearly meets the definition of availability stated in SHLAA Practice Guidance, i.e. the landowner has expressed an intention to sell.

Para 2.6.12 This statement is factually incorrect – a position confirmed by you further statement at para 2.6.13! ( see comments below) The BNP Paribus report which is the most up to date and

The Paragraph is factually correct as all sites allocated in the Site Specific Allocations DPD for housing were assessed individually for their viability.

210

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

comprehensive assessment of viability commissioned by the Council, concludes that the Brooke Peninsula site is not viable. In the absence of a detailed assessment of the material identified by Harrisons in their assessment of Neeve’s Pit, the same conclusion has to be reached for that site, which was identified in the last land supply document as “unlikely to come to the market until conditions improve”. The robustness of the evidence for the Brooke Peninsula site was not tested to any extent in October 2010. The original viability report for the URC which led to the allocation contained significant summing errors and grossly overstated the selling prices and understated the construction costs. It is our view that on the basis of a properly constructed viability assessment, the site should not have even got past the options stage.

The BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study concludes that the SSP3 allocation is viable in the current market with no affordable housing and a limited infrastructure contribution. This would provide an acceptable return to the landowners and an acceptable profit to a developer. A 10% increase in sales values (above build cost inflation) would enable the scheme to deliver 10% affordable housing and the primary school and open space. To overcome viability problems in the short-term and to enable short term delivery, it is likely that the Council will be promoting the use of overage/deferred contribution agreements where higher contributions will be sought as and when the market improves over the lifetime of the development. It should be noted that the BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study modelled the entire site as one scheme. This was suitable for the purposes of setting a CIL and for getting a high-level feel for the viability of the site. However, in reality, the site will likely come forward in multiple scheme reflecting existing landownership. Some parcels of land do not have as many constraints as other parts of land and could viably deliver housing in the short term. The Sites Viability Study and subsequent Site Financial Viability Background Paper identified that Neeves Pit (LOW6) was a viable site. Additionally the site is owned and controlled by the Council as a

211

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

landowner.

Para 2.6.13 Para 2.6.13 acknowledges that the Area Action Plan was “not specifically tested for viability prior to adoption”, contrary to the assertion at para 2.6.12 above. Given the conclusions of BNP Paribus on this matter we are astonished by that statement. Much was made at the site specific allocations stage of the viability testing which was done by NPS to support other sites and in an attempt to demonstrate that they were capable of delivery and yet this crucial scrutiny was not afforded to the single largest allocation in the plan. Why not? Failure of delivery on this site puts the whole of the LDF housing strategy in jeopardy. What we now have, as a consequence, is a major housing allocation which is millions of pounds short in terms of viability and which stands no chance of delivery for a very long time. It seems that much reliance was placed on information and undertakings submitted by landowners for the Levell report in to affordable housing provision. These of course have for the most part proved to be worthless, in the same way that the undertakings in relation to the seven sites I listed in my opening statement have been. Developers and land owners have a vested interest in assuring the Council that sites will proceed; if they admit otherwise then they run the risk of allocations being deleted and replaced, or permissions not renewed. Time and again the Council has relied on assurances from developers only to find delivery failure. You even recognise this problem at

Given the viability work undertaken by landowners of the allocation referred to together with the site-specific viability assessments included in the Affordable Housing Viability Study (Levvel, 2009), which covered large parts of the allocation, it was considered that there was adequate evidence to show a reasonable prospect of delivery on the site. The BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study concludes that the SSP3 allocation is viable in the current market with no affordable housing and a limited infrastructure contribution. This would provide an acceptable return to the landowners and an acceptable profit to a developer. A 10% increase in sales values (above build cost inflation) would enable the scheme to deliver 10% affordable housing and the primary school and open space. To overcome viability problems in the short-term and to enable short term delivery, it is likely that the Council will be promoting the use of overage/deferred contribution agreements where higher contributions will be sought as and when the market improves over the lifetime of the development. It should be noted that the BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study modelled the entire site as one scheme. This was suitable for the purposes of setting a CIL and for

212

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

para 4.5.8 which states that…. “very few of the sites in the previous SHLAA and previous Urban Capacity Study have come forward for development” You attempt no analysis as to why this is the case. Why not? We return to the words in the NPPF “realistic assumptions”. Without them there will be no delivery.

getting a high-level feel for the viability of the site. However, in reality, the site will likely come forward in multiple scheme reflecting existing landownership. Some parcels of land do not have as many constraints as other parts of land and could viably deliver housing in the short term. It is appreciated that developer’s and landowners intentions for a site may change over time to take into account issues with market or site specific issues. It is also appreciated that developers/landowners have a vested interest, but if they have other sites they also have a vested interest in underestimating supply in order to take advantage of the provisions of the NPPF where supply falls below five years. The Council considers that in most circumstances the information provided by landowners and developers is still the best source of information on when a site might likely be developed. This approach is supported by the DCLG “Land Supply Assessment Checks” research and the original “Demonstrating a 5-Year Supply of Deliverable Sites” prepared by PINS. Paragraph 4.5.8 has been taken out of context. This paragraph relates to a single source of land supply from previous Urban Capacity Studies. Many of the sites that did not come forward under this source of supply had no developers involved in them.

Para 2.6.16 This opens with the statement that ..”all delivery factors Agree that viability will influence when a site is

213

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

applicable to a site have been assessed and a judgement made as to whether cumulatively the factors are likely to impede development.” It’s quite evident that this is not the case. Any site which is not presently viable and not viable to the tune of £-22m like Brooke Peninsula is not deliverable now and will not be deliverable in the next five years. Any site which relies on the un-commenced action of others, ie relocation or construction of as yet unplanned or unfunded facilities is not presently available or deliverable. Any site in a multiplicity of ownerships and with out a robust consortium agreement is not presently available or deliverable. Any site with unresolved flood risk issues is not presently deliverable. Any site with an unsigned Section 106 agreement and which has been outstanding for 4 years is not deliverable now. Any site which is constrained in any of the ways outlined above, with the possible exception of the last one should only be included in the 6-10 or 10-15 year land supply. The guidance is unequivocal – to be included in the 5 year supply land must be available to develop now, not when the problems have been solved and must be viable now, not when the market recovers.

deliverable. For example the delivery of Oswalds Boatyard (SSP7) has been moved significantly back due to viability problems. Do not agree that a site which relies on the un-commenced actions of others is not available or deliverable. Providing there is a timescale for these issues to be resolved than the site could be considered available or deliverable. Do not agree that any site in a multiplicity of ownerships without a robust consortium agreement is not available or deliverable. Depending on the circumstances, sites could come forward in separate planning applications reflecting existing ownership, for example SSP3 – The Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. A site with unresolved flood risk issues could be deliverable if there is a work in place to resolve them. A site with an unsigned Section 106 agreement could be deliverable, as providing the agreement is signed and is capable of being signed than it could be delivered imminently. The SHLAA Practice Guidance states that a site is deliverable if it is available now, offers a suitable location for housing and there is a reasonable

214

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. Para. 39 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance states that a site is available for development if the site is controlled by a developer who has expressed an intention to develop or the landowner has expressed an intention to sell. It does not state that the site has to be on the market now or already sold for development. The guidance on achievability which determines whether there is a reasonable prospect of delivery recognises that some sites may have constraints they need to overcome. It does not state that these sites cannot be considered deliverable. Hence the need for Stage 7d of the SHLAA process. Agree that sites need to be viable now and not dependant on when the market recovers to be deliverable in five years.

Table 3.1.1

LOW 6 Given the findings of the Harrison report and the present lack of a suitable surface water outfall for this site there is no certainty that it is capable of being developed in purely practical terms. We think it likely that the cost of removing material identified by Harrisons will render this site uneconomic to develop. Lat year your own conclusion was that the site would not come forward until there had been an upturn in the market. On that basis the site should be moved to the post 2018 year supply. This sis a loss of 76 units from the projected supply LOW 7 This site does not meet the availability criteria set out in the Best

LOW6 The issues raised with respect to LOW6 were considered extensively during the examination on the Site Specific Allocations DPD. The Inspector concluded following advice from the Environment Agency “Given the underlying geology, some evidence has been presented that shows that SUDS or attenuation measures could be used here. The SVS [Sites Viability Study] has taken account of SUDS in so far as they are part of achieving Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3.”

215

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Practice Guide or the advice contained in the subsequent DCLG document entitled Land Supply Assessments. It is not presently available for development as it is still in use. In the absence of a consented site for the relocation of the Rugby Club and a timescale for delivery this site does not meet your own criteria set out at para 2.6.2. This is a loss of 60 units from the projected supply LOW 9 See our comments on this in the 5 year land supply response. This is a loss of 48 units from the projected supply BEC2 Is there a date for the release of this site? In the absence of a release date it should be moved out of the five year supply. This is a loss of 28 units from the projected supply BUN1 See comments at BEC2. This is a loss of 35 units from the projected supply. BUN 3 See comments at BEC2. This is a loss of 8 units from the projected supply

The Inspector goes on to state with respect to contamination: “27.The drainage and contamination issues are interlinked. I nevertheless conclude that there is sufficient evidence at this stage to indicate that they are capable of resolution. There are potentially significant costs associated with LOW6 and LOW9. However, the Council is the landowner and having regard to the suggested changes considered above relating to viability in the context of affordable housing and the conclusions of the SVS [Sites Viability Study] and SFV [Site Financial Viability Background Paper], I consider that both allocations are justified and deliverable.” Therefore disagree with deletion of 76 units from the supply. LOW7 The site is available and suitable. However, it is now doubtful as to whether housing could be achieved on the site within the five year period as the rugby club has not yet secured an alternative site and is unlikely to do so in the short term. Agree with the deletion of 60 units from the five year supply. These will be moved to years 6 to 10. LOW9 this site is available and has recently been

216

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

marketed by the Council. The comments provided by the respondent against the ‘Statement of a 5-year Supply of Housing Land’ do not indicate that the site would fall outside of the five year supply. BEC2 The Inspector who examined the Site Specific Allocations DPD stated in his report that “I conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that BEC2 would be deliverable”. However, the site is not currently available as the landowner has expressed an intention not to redevelop for housing. Therefore agree with the deletion of 28 units from the 5 year supply. These will be moved to the years 6 to 10. BUN1 This site can be considered available as it has a landowner that has expressed an intention to sell. BUN3 This site can be considered available as it has a landowner that has expressed an intention to sell. The replacement community centre on Old Grammar Lane has recently acquired planning permission.

Para 3.21

This states that … “new evidence on viability has recently been produced which casts doubt on whether site SSP7 can be delivered in the short term.” It would be helpful here to have some definition of short term.

The delivery for SSP7 has been moved back to post 2018 as shown in Table 3.2. The respondent appears to have confused SSP7 with SSP3. SSP3 will produce 1380 dwellings not 1,600. A large proportion

217

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

We have commented extensively on the viability issues for this site both in previous submissions on the AAP and earlier in this document. We ask you to consider the following simple scenario. This site will produce around 1600 properties a large proportion of which are flats. If we assume an average selling price for properties here at today’s values of £140k, then the scheme has total sales receipts of £224m. Presently the scheme shows a deficit of £minus22m. Assuming no cost increases in the life of the scheme then sales prices have to increase by 10% to return the scheme to a zero land value, by around 30% to achieve a land value approaching the expected values of the owners and by a further 10% to achieve a return to the developer. That is before any institution would contemplate funding the scheme. Applying the NPPF test of “realism” shows that this is not going to happen in the next five years and probably not in the next ten, if ever, on that basis the scheme has no place in the five year land supply and in the light of the BNP Paribus findings appears to be in urgent need of a proper independent review. We note that the document contains no reference to Woods Meadow. It may have been concluded that this does not need considering in a forward looking review. The Best Practice advice requires an examination of delivery failure as part of the process

will not be flats. It is projected that 350 of the 1380 units will be flats. It is not clear where the respondent has calculated the deficit from. The BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study (2012) shows that the scheme produces an acceptable return to a landowner and an acceptable profit to a developer with no affordable housing and a £2.8 million contribution to infrastructure the scheme is viable. The study shows that with a 10% increase in sales values (and no increase in build costs) the site will be viable with 10% affordable housing, provision of primary school and open space plus a contribution of £942,840 to other infrastructure such as the pedestrian bridge across Lake Lothing. It should be noted that the BNP Paribas CIL Viability Study modelled the entire site as one scheme. This was suitable for the purposes of setting a CIL and for getting a high-level feel for the viability of the site. However, in reality, the site will likely come forward in multiple scheme reflecting existing landownership. Some parcels of land do not have as many constraints as other parts of land and could viably deliver housing in the short term. Woods Meadow is considered in Section 3.3 of SHLAA on page 20.

Para 4.4.8 Para 4.4.8 states that …” past trends show that very few of the Paragraph 4.5.8 has been taken out of context. This

218

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

identified sites in the previous SHLAA and previous Urban Capacity Studies have come forward for development”. If that is the case then this document should include a coherent analysis of that delivery failure so that lessons can be learned from mistakes which have so obviously been made. For too long the 5 year land supply has included sites which we have consistently said will not be developed in the time scale projected. Every year we have been told we are wrong and every year we have been proved right. “We told you so” is an unhelpful response and we invite you to an open and realistic round table discussion about these issues based on our evidence in response to this document. We think that discussion should include chief officers and cabinet members so that they are aware of the full extent of the problem.

paragraph relates to a single source of land supply from previous Urban Capacity Studies.

Essex and Suffolk Water

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Section 3.1 - LOW 3

No foreseeable problem with supply to the stated estimated number of dwellings

Comments noted

Section 3.1 - LOW 4


Comments noted

219

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Section 3.1 - LOW 5


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - LOW 6


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - LOW 7

Offsite reinforcement mains may be required to supply this development further study will be required to establish the exact amount. Otherwise no foreseeable problem with supply to the stated estimated number of dwellings

Comments noted

Section 3.1 - LOW 8


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - LOW 9


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - BEC 2

A small amount of offsite main may be required to supply this development further study will be required to establish the exact amount. Otherwise no foreseeable problem with supply to the stated estimated number of dwellings

Comments noted.

Section 3.1 - BEC 3


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - BUN 1


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - BUN 2


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - BUN 3


Comments noted

220

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Section 3.1 - HAL 3


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - HAL 4


Comments noted

Section 3.1 - SOU 2


Comments noted

Section 3.2 - SSP5


Comments noted.

Section 3.2 - SSP6


Comments noted.

Section 3.2 - SSP7


Comments noted.

Section 3.2 - SSP8


Comments noted

221

Natural England

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

General Thank you for consulting us on the above document. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We have no specific comments to make on individual sites contained in the SHLAA, nor do we have any sites we wish to suggest for future development. We would, however, request full consideration of our interests in the process of selecting and assessing sites for allocation through the Local Development Framework (LDF). These interests include biodiversity; geodiversity; landscape character and quality; green infrastructure; access to the countryside and other open space; the protection and enhancement of soils; and environmental land management. We welcome development that incorporates sustainable design and construction and shows both adaptation to and reduction in the contribution to climate change. Natural England considers that there are a number of environmental constraints which may affect the size, scale, form and delivery of housing sites. Although the list below is not exhaustive, examples of environmental considerations include: International and national nature conservation sites, including Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar sites, SSSIs, National Nature Reserves. Locally and regionally designated sites for geodiversity and biodiversity.

Comments noted. It is considered that all of the issues raised in the response are covered in the Suitability Assessment Framework shown in Table 2.5 of the SHLAA with the exception of ‘soils’. Given that the scope of this SHLAA does not consider unallocated greenfield sites in the countryside it is not considered necessary to have criteria relating to soil quality. However, if the scope of future SHLAAs is widened to include greenfield sites in the countryside criteria relating to soil quality will then be needed.

222

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Landscape character, including National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coasts. UK BAP habitats and significant proportions of BAP or protected species. Sites where there is significant opportunity for biodiversity gain. Ancient woodland. Access to greenspace. Further detailed comments on key themes to assist the Local Authority in site selection are provided below. This information may also be of assistance in the development of policies and options to be delivered through the LDF: Biodiversity Biodiversity is a core component of sustainable development, underpinning economic development, and has an important role to play in developing locally distinctive and sustainable communities. The Local Authority may find the Nature on the Map website useful to source information on conservation sites and important habitats. We advise that any development proposals should aim to avoid damage to existing biodiversity features, and to create opportunities for enhancing biodiversity through the delivery of Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) targets. LBAPs identify the action required at a local level to deliver UK and regional targets for habitats, species, public awareness and involvement. They also identify targets for other habitats and species of importance in the more local context of their geographical area. Further information about Biodiversity in the UK is available on the JNCC website, including details relating

223

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

to UK BAP priority species and habitats. Natural England does not hold protected species records and therefore cannot advise as to the likelihood of their presence on SHLAA sites. Information on non-statutory sites and species records may be obtained from your Local Records Centre and such information should be considered when assessing sites for housing development. Geodiversity Planning policies should take a strategic approach to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of geodiversity, and promote opportunities for the incorporation of geodiversity interest as part of development. Local authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to the geodiversity interest of designated sites and also within the wider environment, and maximise opportunities to include geodiversity in and around developments as part of the design process. Further information on geodiversity is available on Natural England’s website. Soils Early consideration should be given to the quality of soil resource on potential housing sites and therefore the SHLAA process provides a useful opportunity to consider soils and to ensure their protection during the plan making process. Where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable, poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of higher quality, except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework is relevant when considering the protection of best and most versatile (BMV)

224

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

agricultural land. Land quality varies from place to place. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) provides a method for assessing the quality of farmland to enable informed choices to be made about its future use within the planning system. It helps underpin the principles of sustainable development. Further information is provided on Natural England’s website. Landscape Character The Local Authority should consider landscape character when allocating sites for development, particularly designated landscapes, including historic landscapes, to protect their natural beauty and amenity, wildlife and cultural heritage. This SHLAA should include thorough consideration of any impacts on National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Heritage Coasts and National Trails. A landscape character approach should be used to underpin and guide decisions on development and set out criteria based policies for landscape character areas. New development should build-in and ensure that consideration is given to the wider landscape based on landscape assessment. Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure (GI) should be an integral part of the creation of sustainable communities and the SHLAA process can provide a useful starting point in the consideration of GI provision and the allocation of new housing sites and policy development through the LDF. One important function of GI is the provision of new opportunities for access to open space. Natural England’s ‘standards for accessible natural greenspace’ (ANGSt) provides

225

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

a set of benchmarks, which should be used to ensure new and existing housing has access to nature. More information can be found on Natural England’s publication, ‘Nature Nearby, Accessible Greenspace Guidance’ (March 2010), available on our website, publication reference NE265. The CABE Space Guidance ‘Start with the Park’ (2005) outlines the importance of planning around green spaces, with consideration being given to the context of local landscape character and contribution to the wider GI network. The provision of new GI should be considered at an early stage to ensure it is deliverable at plan stage. We trust that the above information offers sufficient guidance in relation to your SHLAA. If I can provide any further advice relating to this consultation, please do not hesitate to contact me. For all other correspondence, please contact the address above.

Norfolk County Council

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

General Thank you for your email consultation below. I do not believe that the SHLAA or five year housing supply documents raise any strategic cross-boundary issues with Norfolk County Council. I assume, under your statutory duty to co-operate (Localism Act 2011), that if you feel there are any strategic cross-boundary

Comments noted

226

issues arising or likely to arise that you would seek further discussion with Norfolk County Council i.e. through myself as the first point of contact. If you have any queries with the above comments please call or email me.

South Norfolk District Council

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

General On behalf of South Norfolk Council we would like to make the following comment to your consultation on the above. South Norfolk Council has noted the content of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and 5 year housing supply and fully supports the approach bing taken.

Comments noted

Suffolk County Council

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

Appendix J Please note that these are outline comments based on a desktop assessment and are subject to change. Detailed comments on these sites would be provided on the basis of full transport assessment, should they be submitted as planning applications. If Waveney District Council requires clarification, further detail or comments on additional sites, please contact the officer named at the top of this letter. Subject to satisfactory access and surface water drainage being achieved, and the

Comments noted.

227

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

specific comments below notwithstanding, the county council as highways authority does not foresee any objection on highways grounds to the sites listed in Appendix J. Development of these sites would result in additional traffic, but it is unlikely to be at an unacceptable level.

Appendix J NLOW 127:

Objection, this would result in loss of town-centre parking. Please note that the county council’s approach to parking in Lowestoft is as follows, and that comments relating to sites NLOW 127 and NLOW 171 should be considered in terms of the strategy set by the Suffolk Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 (LTP3). Any county council response to applications to develop housing on this site would seek to support that strategy, in partnership with Waveney District Council. ‘We will work with Waveney District Council to develop a balanced plan for on and off street parking with the aim of discouraging peak hour traffic movements associated with cheap long stay parking in congested areas of the town’. LTP3, Part 2- Implementation Plan, page 14.

Comments noted and assessment table in Appendix J updated to recognise objection.

Appendix J NLOW 171:

Objection, some of this re-development would result in loss of town-centre parking. Please note that the county council’s approach to parking in Lowestoft is as follows, and that comments relating to sites NLOW 127 and NLOW 171 should be considered in terms of

Comments noted and assessment table in Appendix J updated to recognise objection.

228

229

Section / Paragraph

Comment Response

the strategy set by the Suffolk Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 (LTP3). Any county council response to applications to develop housing on this site would seek to support that strategy, in partnership with Waveney District Council. ‘We will work with Waveney District Council to develop a balanced plan for on and off street parking with the aim of discouraging peak hour traffic movements associated with cheap long stay parking in congested areas of the town’. LTP3, Part 2- Implementation Plan, page 14.

Appendix J SLOW 51

Comment, this would require the reconstruction of Arbor Lane, which is a road not adopted by SCC as HA.

Comments noted and assessment table in Appendix J updated to recognise access implications for the site.

Appendix J BUN 17

Objection, narrow highways access to this area.

Comments noted and assessment table in Appendix J updated to recognise access implications for the site

Appendix J HAL 96

Objection, poor access to serve redevelopment.


Appendix J HAL 103

Comment, access for residential re-development would be from the Thoroughfare.


Date post:	22-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

East Suffolk€¦ · Registered Social Landlords . Orwell Housing Association : Orbit Housing...

Documents