Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

2 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5

2 Context...... 8

3 Methodology...... 13

4 Assessment Findings...... 21

5 Remaining Commitments and Projected Housing Requirements...... 28

6 Next Steps...... 31

APPENDICES ...... 33

Appendix A – Potential Hosing Renewal Areas (Coast & Country Housing)

Appendix B – Focus Group membership & list of attendees at 16 August workshop

Appendix C – Suitability Assessment Methodology

Appendix D – Developers Surveys Pro-Forma

Site Location Maps ...... 51

3 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

4 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Additional land for housing is required in Redcar & Cleveland in order to meet projected increasing demand in accordance with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for North East England. This will involve allocating appropriate sites for residential development through the Local Development Framework Communities Development Plan Document (LDF Communities DPD), which is due to adopted in 2010.

Since the issue of the Redcar & Cleveland Local Plan Review Key Issues Report in 2002, a range of sites have been put forward for housing by and on behalf of landowners and developers, while other sites have been identified in surveys, particularly the Redcar & Cleveland Urban Housing Capacity Study (2003) and its 2006 review.

As many of these of sites are unlikely to be needed to meet the Borough’s additional housing requirements, a robust and objective assessment is required in order to select the most appropriate sites for development. In accordance with the policy framework established by national guidance, the RSS and the LDF, sites will be selected which can most effectively:

• contribute to the sustainable development of the Borough;

• support the creation of sustainable communities, and

• ensure targets and requirements for additional housing are achieved.

This Draft Strategic Housing Land Assessment (SHLA) sets out the findings of an assessment of potential housing sites carried out in Summer 2007.

In order to manage the large amount of information generated by the study, the assessment comprises two volumes:

• This Report, and

• Site Assessment Summary Tables.

This document sets out the context for the assessment, an explanation of the methodology and a summary and analysis of the key findings. The Site Assessment Tables provide site details and a summary of assessment findings for each site. Both documents include site location maps towards the back.

The assessment is one of two key background research papers providing supporting evidence for the allocation of housing sites in the LDF Communities DPD. The other background paper, the Housing Evidence Report, is currently being prepared and will consider the mix of housing types and tenures required in different areas of the Borough.

As the study was undertaken in Summer 2007 it reflects the position at that time, based on available information. During the course of the study, related guidance on undertaking Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was published and the Assessment has been completed in accordance with the new guidance.

5 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

The work has been co-ordinated by the Policy & Design section of the Planning Services division of the Council and includes contributions from housing industry professionals, environmental specialists and local government officers.

1.2 Purpose The purpose of the SHLA is to inform the preparation of the Redcar & Cleveland Local Development Framework by:

• providing an objective survey of potential housing sites through an assessment of site suitability, availability and achievability in accordance with national guidance;

• identifying the issues which need to be resolved in selecting appropriate sites for development;

• estimating the requirement for numbers of additional dwellings to meet projected housing demand, and

• reviewing progress in the development of sites with planning permission.

The study provides background evidence for the Communities DPD Preferred Options Report will include preferred housing allocation sites to meet projected housing requirements in the Borough to 2021.

It should be noted that the inclusion of particular sites and the nature of the comments made about them either in this Report or in the Site Assessment Tables does not in any way infer that those sites will be granted planning consent or allocated for development in the LDF.

1.3 Scope The Assessment has considered sites within Redcar & Cleveland excluding areas inside the North York Moors National Park: this is the area covered by the LDF.

Over 160 sites have been assessed and are listed towards the front of the Site Assessment Tables document, along with a small number of sites which have been submitted for consideration since the process started and for which, consequently, information and analysis is outstanding.

The assessment considered sites which might be expected to provide at least 10 additional dwellings. Sites expected to yield fewer than 10 dwellings were excluded because it is unlikely that they would become allocations in the LDF, regardless of their acceptability for residential development. They will instead be treated as ‘small windfalls’ and treated through the normal planning application process. For small sites which have been put forward but are outside development limit boundaries, a review of development limits is being undertaken as part of the preparation of the Communities DPD.

A number of potential housing renewal areas have been put forward by Coast & Country Housing (CCH). As it was not clear that any of these potential housing

6 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______replacement schemes would provide additional housing and because these sites tend to be in sustainable locations, they have not been included in the assessment.

However, as the renewal of sub-standard or unpopular housing needs can clearly be a key element in regenerating neighbourhoods and creating sustainable communities, and clearance and redevelopment could affect the nature of housing mix and demand at the neighbourhood level, it is important to be aware of these proposals. Therefore, these sites are listed at Appendix A.

7 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______2 CONTEXT

The Assessment has been carried out in accordance with the policy context provided by the following:

• Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing

• Emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for North East England

• Redcar & Cleveland Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD)

• Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Practice Guidance

2.1 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) was published in November 2006, replacing PPG3, and sets out national planning policies and objectives for housing. PPS3 was prepared in response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004) and accordingly places strong emphasis on increasing the rate of housing supply in order to meet growing demand. The PPS stresses the importance of:

• developing a strong evidence base to support housing delivery strategies;

• ensuring a continuous deliverable supply of housing, and

• taking a collaborative approach in devising housing strategies.

Para. 53 advises that ‘local authorities should develop housing strategies to enable the delivery of housing land for at least at fifteen years from the date of adoption [of the DPD], taking account of the level of housing provision set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy’.

The new PPS stresses the importance of preparing a solid evidence base to support housing strategies and principally through undertaking Housing Land Availability Assessments (HLAA) and Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA).

Para 54-55 advises that local planning authorities should, by drawing on information from a SHLAA or other evidence, identify specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years of the development plan. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available (at the point the development document is adopted), suitable and achievable (there is a reasonable prospect that housing could be developed within five years).

Annex C of PPS3 advises that an HLAA should:

• Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.

• Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously-developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed-use developments.

8 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

• Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.

• Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall sites coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.

• Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.

• Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.

• Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.

2.2 Emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for North East England The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which sets out the strategic land use planning framework for the North East and the Tees Valley sub-region, includes an estimate of additional housing requirements in the Borough from 2004 to 2021 broken down into five year phases or targets.

The RSS is in the final stages of consultation and is due to be adopted in 2008. During the consultation period, the indicative requirement for additional housing in Redcar & Cleveland has progressively increased as follows:

June 2005 - Submission RSS: 4800 dwellings

July 2006 - Inspectors Panel Report: 5665 dwellings.

July 2007 – Tees Valley Authorities response to Panel Report: 5760 dwellings

The agreed requirement will be confirmed when the RSS is adopted.

This study has used the most recent (i.e. the highest) figure in analysing the need for additional dwellings.

The RSS also includes the following policies in relation to the selection of sites and development locations:

Policy 3 - Sequential Approach to Development Policy 3 of RSS states that Local Planning Authorities should adopt a sequential approach to the identification of land to give priority to previously developed land and buildings in the most sustainable locations. Sites and locations should be selected in the following priority order:

a) suitable previously developed land and buildings within urban areas, particularly around public transport nodes;

b) other suitable locations within urban areas not identified as land to be protected for nature or heritage conservation or recreational purposes;

c) suitable sites in locations adjoining urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings

9 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______d) suitable sites in settlements outside urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings

Policy 7 – Tees Valley City Region Policy 7 sets out a strategic policy for the Tees Valley City Region. The Policy includes confirmation that:

• The primary focus for regeneration should include the conurbation area taking in the Stockton, Middlesbrough and Redcar areas;

• Support should be given to the regeneration of Saltburn, Brotton, Skelton and Loftus for sustainable indigenous growth without adversely impacting on the regeneration of the conurbation area, and

Housing market renewal strategies for the city region should be prepared and the development of other housing should not undermine renewal strategies.

Policy 8 – Rural Areas Policy 8 recognises Guisborough as a main rural service centre and advises that Local Development Frameworks should identify a settlement hierarchy to determine the appropriate scale and nature of development in rural settlements.

2.3 Redcar & Cleveland LDF Core Strategy DPD The Redcar & Cleveland LDF Core Strategy was adopted in July 2007 and provides overarching policies in the LDF with which the Communities DPD must be compliant.

The Core Strategy and the policies flowing from it give priority to achieving regeneration objectives and the creation of sustainable communities.

The Core Strategy includes several housing-related policies, and the following are particularly relevant to the site allocation process:

Policy CS2 ‘ Locational Strategy’ Policy CS2 advocates the provision of approximately 70% of additional housing requirements in the conurbation area of the Borough (taking in Greater Eston, Redcar and Marske) and 30% in the rest of the Borough, concentrating on the main settlements of Guisborough, Saltburn, Skelton, Brotton and Loftus with limited development in the smaller settlements. Development in the countryside will be limited to meeting local needs.

10 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______Para. 3.6 in the supporting text to Policy CS2 sets out a five-tier settlement hierarchy, with the conurbation area at the top and small villages at the bottom as shown in the table below:

Conurbation Conurbation (Greater Eston conurbation, Redcar & Marske) Rural Service Centre Guisborough East Cleveland Town Brotton Loftus Saltburn Skelton Service Villages Boosbeck Carlin How Lingdale New Marske Villages (Includes Liverton Mines, North Skelton, Moorsholm, Margrove Park, Skelton Green & Skinningrove)

Policy CS13 - Meeting Housing Requirements Policy CS13 supports the requirements for additional housing in accordance with the RSS and, taking into account regeneration priorities, also gives priority to development on brownfield sites.

Policy CS14 - Phasing of Housing Development Policy CS14 supports the phasing of development in order to balance housing supply needs with regeneration objectives.

Policy CS23 - Green Infrastructure Policy CS23 seeks to protect strategic areas of open land from development, including green wedges and valuable public green spaces.

Policy CS3 - Strategy for Greater Eston Policy CS3 supports the objective of achieving major housing development at Low Grange Farm, South Bank and on other sites in the Greater Eston area.

Policy CS5 – Strategy for Redcar Area Policy CS5 supports the development of housing at Coatham Enclosure and new housing development on other sites, giving priority to previously-developed land within the urban area

Policy CS6 – Strategy for East Cleveland and the Villages Policy CS6 recognises Saltburn, Skelton, Brotton and Loftus as the foci for development and community life and supports development of an appropriate scale in smaller settlements. CS6 also states the potential for executive housing on sites providing a small number of dwellings should investigated.

Policy CS7 – Strategy for Guisborough Policy CS7 supports the development of housing at an appropriate scale to provide a range of dwelling types and affordable and special needs housing.

The Core Strategy also includes policies on the following:

11 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

• housing density, with particular reference the provision of ‘executive’ housing (policy CS17);

• providing a mix of housing types and tenures (CS15), and

• improving the existing housing stock (CS16).

2.4 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Practice Guidance Practice Guidance for Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was published in July 20071 and builds on the advice in PPS3.

Para. 6 states that the primary purpose of the HLAA is to:

• identify sites with housing potential, • assess that potential, and • assess when they are likely to be developed.

Para. 8 of the Practice Guidance confirms that the assessment is an important evidence source to inform the plan-making process, but does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for housing development.

Para. 14 advises that the assessment should generate the following 5 core outputs:

1 A list of sites cross-referenced to maps showing locations and boundaries of specific sites;

2 Assessment of the deliverability / developabilty of each site (in terms of suitability, availability and achievability) to indicate when an identified site is realistically expected to be developed;

3 The potential quantity of housing that could be delivered on each site;

4 Constraints on the delivery of identified sites, and

5 Recommendations on how constraints could be overcome and when.

This Consultation Draft SHLA has provided an initial assessment in terms of outputs 1 to 4, but contributions are sought from key stakeholders on these issues and on how constraints can be overcome and when (including any new information which could enhance our understanding of site issues and capacities).

1 The full document can be downloaded from www.communities.gov.uk

12 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Background and Overview Annex C of PPS 3 (see para 2.2 above), has provided the starting point for undertaking the Assessment, which has comprised a review of housing commitments (sites with planning permission) and an assessment of the suitability, availability and achievability of potential development sites.

The SHLAA guidance sets out what needs to be achieved in carrying out an assessment but does not state how this should be done.

The approach which has been taken in this SHLA can be described as:

• policy-based and in accordance with the strategic framework provided in particular by the RSS and LDF Core Strategy, and

• a collaborative approach between the Council and housing industry professionals.

In undertaking the assessment, a straightforward ‘sequential grouping’ approach has been used which:

• distinguishes between sites in the conurbation and in rural locations, to reflect policy CS2 of the Core Strategy, which distinguishes between the two areas and sets percentage development targets for each, and

• categorises sites under one of six types (A to F) to reflect the sequential priorities to site selection set out in the RSS. The six site types are set out in Table1 below:

Table1 – Site Categorisation Type Description Definition A Previously Sites which have previously been developed and are inside developed land in the conurbation area comprising Greater Eston, Redcar and urban areas Marske or the main rural settlements of Guisborough, Skelton, Saltburn, Brotton and Loftus. With the odd exception, these sites are located inside Development Limits. B Other urban land Land which is usually located within the development limits of the conurbation and main settlements listed above but has not previously been developed. With the odd exception, these sites are located inside Development Limits. C Greenfield Sites which adjoin the conurbation or a main settlement on at Extensions least one side. All of these sites but are outside development limits and development would noticeably extend the built –up area. D Service Villages Sites in or adjacent to the four service villages (Carlin How, New Marske, Lingdale and Boosbeck) with preference given to previously developed sites in the settlement. E Other villages Sites in or adjacent to other, smaller settlements with preference given to previously developed sites in the settlement. F Open countryside Isolated sites in open countryside with preference given to previously developed land.

13 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______Applying this approach resulted in sites being divided into 10 groups, which has enabled easier management of the assessment process and comparison of sites. The site groupings are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Site Groupings

All Sites

Conurbation Rural Area Area PRIORITY

Type A Type A Brownfield Brownfield

Type B Type B Urban Urban Greefield Greenfield

Type C Type C Greenfield Greenfield Extension Extension

Type D Services Type F Villages Open Countryside

Type E Smaller Villages

Type F

Open Countryside

14 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______3.2 Classification and Distribution of Sites

Table 1 provides a breakdown of sites between the different categories. The total land area involved exceeds 700 hectares, with Type C sites (Greenfield Extensions to Main Settlements) accounting for over 60% of this.

Table 2 – Breakdown of sites by type

Classification No.of sites Area (ha) Conurbation Rural Area Type A 49 95 57 38 Type B 44 136 94 42 Type C 39 425 292 133 Type D 11 51 N/a 51 Type E 9 14 N/a 14 Type F 2 2 N/a 2 Total 154 723 443 280

The maps towards the back of the document show the location of the sites subject to assessment. The sites vary in size and although they are located in and around settlements across the Borough, the geographical distribution is uneven with clusters in the Marske, Brotton, Guisborough and Nunthorpe areas.

3.3 Suitability Assessment

The SHLAA practice guidance states ‘a site is suitable for housing development if it offers a suitable location for development and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities’ (para. 37).

Para 38 advises the following factors should be considered in assessing suitability for housing, either now or in the future:

• policy restrictions (this includes designations, protected areas, existing planning policy and corporate or community strategy policy);

• physical problems of limitations (such as access, infrastructure, ground conditions, flood risk, hazardous risks, pollution or contamination);

• potential impacts (for example on landscape and conservation), and

• environmental conditions (which would affect prospective residents).

15 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______The above factors were taken into account in devising the following set of suitability assessment criteria to enable a quick and consistent survey of all sites and identify potential benefits or constraints:

Strategic Policy Context: • Conformity with LDF Locational Strategy (Policy CS2) • Whether the site was in an regeneration area (as identified by Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) boundaries)

Locational Characteristics: • Within a HSE Consultation zone and / or having incompatible neighbouring uses • Flood Risk potential • Impact on settlement form (only applies to Type C greenfield extension sites) • Impact on ecological or archaeological assets • Impact on landscape • Whether the site is within a Green Wedge or Strategic Gap area

Access to Services: • Within 300m of local centre, 600m or district centre or 1000m of town centre • Within 1000m of major employment area or allocation • Within 300m of a primary school or 1000m of a secondary school • Within 600m of a railway station or halt • Within 300m of a main bus route (with at least one service operating every twenty minutes at peak times)

Existing Uses or Proposals: • The site currently provides a beneficial community facility or use • The site is used or safeguarded for employment purposes

Impact on Schools and Physical Infrastructure: • Potential impact on local school capacities • Potential impact on water and sewerage networks • Potential impact on highway network • Potential impact on energy networks

Sites were assessed against each criterion using a simple assessment matrix applying positive (+), negative (-) or neutral (0) ratings. This approach was discussed and agreed with the Housing Focus Group.

Appendix C explains the assessment methodology in more detail.

16 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

3.4 Availability

The SHLAA guidance advises that ‘a site is considered available for development when, on the best information available, there is confidence that there are no legal ownership problems such as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of landowners. This means that it is controlled by a housing developer who has expressed an intention to develop, or the landowner has expressed an intention to sell’ (para. 39).

In a lot of cases, sites have been put forward by or on behalf of an owner or developer and are therefore available in the context of the above definition. It should be noted however that; many of these sites are outside development limits and cannot therefore be considered currently available for development.

Other sites, inside development limits, currently have existing uses (including public open space), which could also delay or prevent their release for development.

Enquiries were undertaken with the Land Registry to clarify ownership where required to identify other potential constraints such as multiple-ownership. Ownership has been confirmed for most sites, and where land is in multiple ownership this has been noted. A small proportion of sites are either not currently available or availability is unknown and this has been recorded in the site assessment tables.

3.5 Achievability Assessment The SHLAA Practice Guidance states ‘ a site is considered ‘achievable’ for development where there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be developed on the site at a particular point in time. This is essentially a judgement about the economic viability of the site, and the capacity of the developer to complete and sell the housing over a certain period’ (Para. 40).

The guidance goes on to describe various market factors (such as the attractiveness of the locality), cost factors (such as physical constraints and the availability of funding to overcome constraints) and delivery factors (such as the developers own phasing), which could all impact on the delivery of development.

The assessment sought to obtain views, from different sectors of the housing industry, of the development potential of each site. This was done through the issue of questionnaire surveys to members of the Focus Group representing the following sectors:

• Volume Housebuilders (via Home Builders Federation)

• Smaller Developer

• Registered Social Landlords

• Chartered Surveyor & Estate Agent

The representatives were selected as they are locally based and have extensive experience and knowledge of the housing market in Redcar & Cleveland.

17 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______The survey documents included site location maps and factsheets which included dwelling estimates and any known availability, policy or potential physical constraints including the following:

• Flood risk (using the Environment Agencies indicative flood plain maps and the 2007 Tees Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment)

• Land stability and contamination (following discussions with the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer and Building Control team)

• Implications for water supply and sewerage infrastructure (through prior consultation with Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL)

• Archaeological implications (through prior consultation with Tees Archaeology).

Due to the limited time available and the large number of sites being considered, it was not possible to supply comments before the surveys were undertaken on other potential physical constraints such as ecological value and highway access.

Unless specific estimates of site dwelling capacity had previously been provided by site promoters, dwelling estimates were derived using a basic density multiplier approach which involved multiplying the gross area of the site by a given housing density. Guide densities of 20,30, or 50 dwellings per hectare (dph) were used depending on whether the sites were in rural, suburban or inner urban area/town centre location accordingly. Most sites were assessed at 30 dph.

Taking into account any identified potential constraints and the respondents knowledge of housing and land markets, the survey asked four questions concerning the following:

1. Developability: This question asked whether sites could be expected to come forward for development within 15 years. Participants were required to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘with assistance’ .

2. Delivery Timescale: Following on from Question 1, this question asked that if sites were considered developable, whether they were most likely to be fully built out within 5, 10 or 15 years.

3. Housing Types: This question asked which types of development would be most attracted to the site and offered a number of tick box options. Affordable housing was included as an option within the list notwithstanding any prospective obligation on the part of a developer to provide an affordable housing component as part of a planning agreement.

4. Estimated Dwelling Yield: This question asked whether dwelling estimates for each site were seen to be too high, to low or about right.

Space was provided to enable participants to provide explanatory comments and make any additional points.

A copy of the survey questionnaire is attached at Appendix D.

18 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______In practice, there were initial difficulties and delays in eliciting comprehensive comments, particularly on behalf of volume housebuilders. This was in part due to the summer holiday season and the large number of sites involved, but also because of the understandable conflict between vested interests already held by some developers on certain sites and the need to obtain an objective view of each site on behalf of the HBF. In the event, it was necessary to run a workshop with the HBF and representatives from several major housebuilders to discuss each site in turn and for them to agree a response to the questionnaire, albeit with the exception of unavailable sites2. There was also reluctance to comment on Council-owned sites where there has been no resolution to dispose, and other sites where availability is not established.

2 See Appendix B for list of attendees

19 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______3.6 Process

Para. 11 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance advises that in undertaking assessments, local authorities should adopt a partnership approach, including representatives from the different sectors of the housing industry.

The assessment has proceeded as follows:

March 2007 • Initial identification and recording of sites through reference to existing sites database, survey work and liaison with the Council’s Property Services Department and Coast & Country Housing

April / May • Research and plan HLAA process • Review of recent completions and existing housing commitments (sites awaiting or under development) and comparison with Regional Spatial Strategy targets • Comments requested from Northumbrian Water and Highways Engineers • Land Registry enquires made

May 2007 • Formation of a Housing Focus Group3 (comprising Council officers and representatives from different sectors of the housing industry) to oversee the assessment process • Devising and agreeing, with the Housing Focus Group, a methodology for assessing the suitability and achievability of sites. • Information from Land Registry received • Comments requested from Tees Valley Wildlife Trust • Liaison with Council’s Contaminated Land Officer

June 2007 • Northumbrian Water comments received • Comments requested and received from Tees Archaeology

July 2007 • Developers survey documents comprising factsheets and questionnaires prepared and issued for completion. • Assessment notification letter issued to site promoters • Highways Engineers and initial Tees Valley Wildlife Trust comments received

August 2007 • Final responses to developers surveys received, recorded and analysed

September / October 2007 • Further Tees Valley Wildlife Trust comments received • Suitability and availability assessments completed

October / November 2007 • Housing commitments reviewed and compared with potential RSS requirements • Draft Report prepared and issued for consultation

3 See Appendix B

20 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______4 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

The following paragraphs summarise the main findings of the assessment.

4.1 Suitability The methodology enabled a large number of sites to be considered within the time available through a simple process which has achieved the objective of flagging potential advantages and disadvantages of each site by identifying potential impacts, benefits and constraints.

The overall results by assessment criteria are briefly summarised below, with the exception of the impact on energy networks, against which it has not yet been possible to obtain a site level assessment. However, the relevant bodies (NEDL and Northern Gas Networks), will be consulted on this document.

Conformity with LDF Core Strategy policy CS2 A very small percentage of sites were judged to be contrary to policy CS2, and given a “-“ rating. This is based on the dwelling estimate in relation to the location of the site.

Sites in NRF areas and/or a potential housing renewal scheme There are a number of sites in areas of high deprivation (as defined by the government’s statistical Super Output Areas), which are currently eligible for funding under the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF). Sites in parts of the following locations fall with an NRF area:

• South Bank • Grangetown • Redcar • Skelton • Loftus

As explained above, Coast & Country Housing has submitted details of potential housing renewal sites and these are listed in Appendix A, but they have not been subject to the assessment.

Sites in HSE Consultation Zone or adjacent to potentially incompatible neighbouring uses A small number of sites are located partly or wholly within the HSE zones to the west and east of Wilton International. Other sites are close to uses such as major highways, industrial uses and sewage works.

Sites in high flood risk areas Few of the sites considered are within high flood risk areas (Zones 2 and 3) as identified on the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps, and in the 2006 Tees Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment which assessed a significant proportion of the sites in the SHLA. Given the growing significance of flood risk and mitigation as a planning consideration, it is proposed to refer the Assessment to the Environment Agency for any additional comments.

21 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______Potential Greenfield Extensions: impact on settlement form This criterion compares potential greenfield extensions in terms of the impact of development on settlement form and character and is based on the premise that sites which are more enclosed a likely to be more acceptable, notwithstanding other considerations. Most of the sites are bordered on one side by development, a few are bordered on two sides and one site is bordered on 3 sides.

Sites in or adjacent to areas of ecological or archaeological significance Tees Archaeology identified sites with potential impacts on archaeological assets in the following locations:

• Eston Hills • Skelton Ironstone Mine • East Guisborough • Moorsholm

Tees Valley Wildlife Trust carried out biodiversity audits against each site and identified 28 sites with biodiversity interest or potential interest. A number of sites are adjacent to other land which has a biodiversity interest.

Impact Sites in or adjacent to important landscape areas Reference to the Redcar & Cleveland Landscape Character Assessment map showed that impact on the landscape is a particularly significant issue for a number of sites which are in or adjacent to Sensitive Landscape Areas (SLAs) and / or are in highly visible, elevated or steep locations.

Sites designated as Green Wedges or in Strategic Gap locations Land in all but one of the five Green Wedges (the exception being Wilton / Dormanstown) and within both Strategic Gap locations has been put forward for development. Most of these sites have been identified as potential greenfield extensions (Type C sites) as development would constitute a noticeable extension to the built-up area.

Access to services There was difference between sites within major built-up areas (i.e. site Types A and B) having, overall, better access to key services (schools, shops, public transport, major employment sites) than those on the edge of the built-up area or in smaller settlements. It is proposed to check the accuracy of the findings against the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit’s journey time model.

Loss of beneficial community facility or use A large proportion of sites identified under site types A and B are currently used as community facilities, particularly public open space and allotments but also for purposes such as garage courts and public houses.

Employment Use or Allocation A number of sites are currently allocated as employment land in the Redcar & Cleveland Local Plan but have not been taken up. The need to retain these areas as

22 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______employment allocations is under consideration in the Council’s ongoing Employment Land Review. A small number of sites currently provide employment and some of these are also allocated as employment areas in the Redcar & Cleveland Local Plan.

Impact on school capacities Significant work was carried out in consultation with Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit and local education officers to consider the potential (positive and negative) impacts of development on school numbers. It is apparent that new development does not tend to affect classroom capacity to a significant degree; changes in the birth rate are more significant.

However the distribution of spare school places is uneven across the Borough and some of the largest sites fall within the catchment of schools with projected limited spare capacity. This has been noted as a potential constraint against a small number of sites, but it will require further investigation.

Very few sites were seen to have a potentially positive impact in terms of reducing surplus places to significant effect.

Impact on water and sewerage networks Comments from Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) identified a number of (typically larger) sites where, subject to further investigation, investment in major water supply or sewerage infrastructure is likely to be required.

In a few cases, developability may be affected by existing pipelines cutting across sites.

NWL also identified sites where further investigation is required but it is not yet known whether this is likely to have major implications for infrastructure capacity.

Impact on highway network Redcar & Cleveland highways engineers carried out a preliminary assessment of each site in terms of site access and the wider implications of development for the highway network and in accordance with the ‘Manual For Streets’ guidance.

The study identified a number of sites where access was difficult, and other, mostly larger sites which could place significant pressure on the capacity of the existing road network. Many sites would require a Transport Assessment in support of development proposals.

The Engineers also observed that as many developments in Redcar would impact on the local road network, the traffic management model for Redcar Town may need to be reviewed.

23 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

4.2 Achievability

The response received from the survey work has provided a useful initial assessment from different sectors of the market on the development potential of each site, based on available information.

Overview

• Most sites are seen to be developable, within 5 or 10 years, and in some cases for a wide range of dwelling types.

• Volume housebuilders were generally not interested in the smaller sites of 10 dwellings or so but some of these sites may appeal to smaller developers and RSLs.

• Because the volume housebuilders have not supplied comments on sites where availability has not been confirmed4, the level of data is not consistent for all sites.

• There is general agreement on the developability of many greenfield extension sites from all parties, the vast majority of which are seen to be attractive to the different market sectors.

Responses to questions

Question 1 – Developability Although most sites were seen as developable, there was some variation in terms of the level of agreement in responses to this question, which may reflect the different perspectives of the respondents. The entries in the Site Assessment Tables reflect the overall view, with any supporting or conflicting comments noted in the ‘Comments Summary’ box.

Most of the responses answered ‘yes ‘ or no’. In a small number of cases, the dominant view was that assistance may be required to bring sites forward for development, either in terms of acquiring third party land to resolve access constraints, or through wider investment to make sites and locations more attractive to the market by improving adjacent areas of land or housing.

Question 2 - Delivery Timescale There was a divergence of opinion in terms of development timescales against most sites, which may again be due to the different perspectives of the participants, though it could also reflect the vague nature of the question. The responses take into account the prospective scale of development and any potential constraints which could delay development, such as accessibility and the need for major infrastructure investment. It was noted that the realistic delivery phase for some of the largest sites may exceed the 15-year development phase.

4 These are mostly open spaces and other sites in local authority ownership requiring a resolution to dispose.

24 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______Question 3 - Dwelling Types Most developable sites were seen be attractive to three of more of the listed housing types listed by one or more of the respondents. On larger sites and other sites attractive to different sectors of the market, most if not all types were specified.

Where a range of types have been suggested but there was strong support for particular types of development, this has been noted.

The following general comments were received on the type of housing needed in different areas of the Borough as evidenced by price trends and buyers preferences:

• There is a huge demand from first time buyers for low cost starter homes up to £120000 in all areas.

• Apartments priced at £130,000 upwards are proving difficult to sell with very little demand over £150000.

• Older people prefer bungalows as opposed to apartments. Demand well exceeds supply for bungalows resulting in premium prices when they come onto the market.

• There is particularly high demand for new build 2-bed semi-detached properties up to £150,000 and for 3-bed detached up to £185000. There is generally a shortage of 3-bed detached houses, particularly in Guisborough.

• In most areas too few 3-bed semi detached houses have been built in recent years.

• More new social housing for rent is required throughout the Borough area.

• There is demand for new build 4 bed detached houses in the price range up to £250000 due to the increase in stamp duty to 3% at this threshold

This information will also be used to inform the Housing Evidence Report.

Question 4 - Dwelling Estimate Due to the limited time available, the dwelling estimates provided by the density multiplier process provided an indication of unconstrained or gross capacity, that is, the number of dwellings that could be accommodated without generally taking into account the need for public open space and other infrastructure, suitable dwelling type and mix, etc. Accordingly, the dwelling estimate on some sites was seen to be too high, including a few smaller sites where it was felt that 10 dwellings may be unachievable due to the need for parking etc. In a small number of cases the dwelling estimate was seen to be too low.

The entries in the Site Assessment Tables seek to reflect the overall view and uses expressions such as ‘Low-OK’ and ‘OK-High’ where there is divergence of opinion. Where doubt about yield estimates has been expressed, they will need to be reviewed as part of the further assessment of site constraints.

Explanatory Comments Brief explanations were provided to support answers to question 1 to 4, though the extent of this varied between participants.

25 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

4.3 Area Analysis

The Site Assessment Tables provide site-specific summaries of the assessment findings.

There are also a number of general issues emerging from the surveys effecting sites in the same broad location, which can be summarised as follows:

Nunthorpe & Ormesby • Potential impact of some greenfield sites on landscape • Cluster of sites around Swan’s Corner could have implications for major road network • Impact on Green Wedges

Normanby & Eston • Impact of larger sites on Eston Hills landscape and local road network

South Bank, Teesville & Grangetown • Significance of Low Grange Farm as a focus and catalyst for development and regeneration • Weak demand in parts of area • Impact on Green Wedges

Redcar • Implications of larger sites and cumulative impact of other development on transport infrastructure and road capacity in particular • Potential availability of racecourse could have a significant impact on the prospective allocation of other large strategic sites • Impact on Green Wedge

Marske • Impact of large greenfield sites on Green Wedge and Strategic Gap • Impact of larger sites on school / road network • Limited opportunities within settlement

Saltburn • Impact of greenfield sites on landscape • Limited major opportunities within settlement • Need for affordable / low cost market housing

26 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

Guisborough • Impact of greenfield sites on landscape & conservation area • Identified lack of housing choice, including lower-cost market and affordable • Strong market interest in opportunities • Some sites within the town subject to potential flood risk

Skelton • Significant existing commitments may limit potential for large strategic allocation

Brotton • Some potential opportunities within village but will need to resolve delivery constraints, particularly access • Several sites outside existing development limits are being promoted but only a modest proportion of this land may be required, particularly if integral sites can be brought forward • Potential impact on landscape of sites to the north • Investment would be required in water and sewerage network to serve new development in higher parts of the village

Loftus • Physical constraints may restrict major new development opportunities in and around Loftus compared to the other main East Cleveland settlements

Smaller settlements • Limited opportunity for extensive development in view of Core Strategy policy to restrict development in Service Villages and Smaller Villages, though most of the sites are fairly modest in size.

27 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______5 REMAINING COMMITMENTS & POTENTIAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS

5.1 The need for additional housing and allocations

The amount of land which will need to be allocated for additional housing in the LDF Communities DPD will be determined by the extent to which projected RSS requirements have been met in the preceding years of the plan period (which started in 2004), and by the extent to which existing commitments (sites with planning permission for housing awaiting development) are implemented.

Estimating the need for additional housing is therefore reliant on assumptions about RSS requirements, which are not due to be confirmed until 2008, and the likelihood of existing sites coming forward for development.

In addition, any net loss of housing through the clearance and redevelopment of existing housing will increase supply requirements (see para. 5.3 below).

5.2 Potential RSS requirements The latest projected RSS requirement of 5760 dwellings for the period 2004-2021 is broken down into three phases, as follows:

Phase Dwelling requirement

2004-11: 2 310 (330 per year average)

2011-16: 1 825 (365)

2016-21: 1 625 (325)

5.3 Completions 2004-2007 Between 2004 and 2007 net additional completions were 590 dwellings – leaving an outstanding requirement of 1720 additional units between 2007 and 2011 (equivalent to 430 dwellings per year). This under-provision against the RSS target is largely due to high rates of demolition5, rather than the rate of new development. In 2006-07 for example, 481 dwellings were completed, well above the net revised requirement of 430, however this was tempered by 172 demolitions.

5.4 Review of current residential permissions The level of outstanding commitments exceeds the requirement of 1720 dwellings to 2011. As at 31/03/07, the Borough had an estimated 1725 outstanding dwelling commitments. Since 31 March 07, this figure is likely to have increased due to the 359-dwelling Coatham Links development being approved. Other major sites have also received permission since 31 March, including The Laurels, Grangetown (40 dwellings), Grangetown Kwik Save site (37), The Fairway Pub site, Dormanstown (36) and Brotton Hall (25). All of these sites were under development at the time of the survey.

5 Principally in the older housing area of South Bank and at the Blayberry-Burnmoor redevelopment area in Redcar.

28 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

Table 3 below provides an update of development progress of sites with at least 10 dwellings to complete. The update is based on site visits and desk-based research undertaken in October 2007 and shows that, with the exception of Coatham Enclosure, most of this capacity is under development or has since been built out.

Only one site can definitely be discounted as the original consent has been superseded by another permission, which is being implemented.

If all of the sites were to be developed according to the numbers shown, this would provide around 1500 additional dwellings.

On two sites which formerly had an outline residential permission (De Brus School and Redcar & Cleveland College) applications have been refused and have gone to appeal. In both cases, the applications were refused on density and design issues and the number of dwellings proposed is higher than the broad estimate shown in the table. Notwithstanding the outcome of the appeals, it is not inconceivable that both of these sites will come forward for residential development at some point in the future.

On two sites (the former St Albans and Rosecroft schools), outline consent expired in July 2007, however there is ongoing interest from developers in both of them.

Estimated Additional Housing Requirement Figure 2 shows that if existing commitments were to be realised and existing small windfall levels maintained, approximately 3000 dwellings would be needed on other sites in the period to 2021 in order to meet projected RSS requirements.

Figure 2 Estimated Additional Housing Requirement 2007-2021

Anticipated RSS Requirements to 2004 - 2021 5760

Less: Net completions 2004-2007 591

Less: Estimated commitments 31/03/07 1725 Major sites gaining permission 2007/8 500 ______Net Additional Requirement 2964

As part of the consultation on this document, it is proposed to approach the developers or owners of each site (and smaller sites not shown in the table) with a view to obtaining an update of progress and an anticipated completion date.

29 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

Table 3 Housing Commitments Update (Sites with min. 10 dwellings outstanding)

Site Latest Outstanding Status as at October 2007 Commitments (31/03/07 or later)

Coatham Enclosure 359 Approved. On site start scheduled 2008, subject to judicial review. Housing to be developed in three phases, anticipated completion 2013. The Courts 266 Under development. 4 year construction phase, completion 2009. North of Skelton High St 169 Under development. 2006/07 86units completed – therefore likely to be built out by 2010 Redcar & Cleveland College 73 Outline planning permission; (RCBC estimate for statistical application to develop 187 units purposes) refused; appeal decision 2008 Former De Brus School 63 Outline permission; application to (RCBC estimate for statistical develop 109 units refused; purposes) appeal decision 2008 Grangetown St. Mary’s 67 Superseded by scheme for 40 units (see below) Wharton Place 50 Under development Ings Lane / McLean Roaf 47 Under development Former St. Albans School 43 (RCBC est. for stats purposes) Outline permission exp. 29/07/07 Rosecroft School 42 (RCBC est. for stats purposes) Outline permission exp. 29/07/07 The Laurels 40 Under development Lodge Farm Road 40 Under development Grangetown Kwik Save 37 Under development The Fairway 36 Under development Cliffe Garage 30 Approved Regency Hotel 26 Built out Brotton Hall 25 Under development Ryehills Farm 23 Approved Woodhouse Triangle 21 Under development Chris Myers Cars 20 Under development Rear Coach Road 20 Approved Milton Street 19 Built out East Meadows 196 Under development Mickledales 18 Built out Skelton Institute Site 17 Approved Turner Street 16 Built out Charles Street 14 Built out Rosecroft Lane 14 Approved Greenbank Quarry 14 Under development Grosvenor Gardens 14 Under development Chaloler Day Nursery 13 Under development Country Store & Service Stn 12 Built out Stapylton Park 10 Built out Dormanstown Methodist Ch 10 Built out

6 55 dwellings in total, but 36 are replacement units

30 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

6 NEXT STEPS

Para. 33 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance advises that assessments should provide information to inform the plan-making process as to indicate whether sites are deliverable and developable.

As stated in para 2.1 above, a site is said to be deliverable if it is available now and there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years of the adoption of the plan.7 This is particularly significant for the many sites currently outside existing development limits which may only become available for development through allocation in the LDF and the consequent revision to the development boundary.

A site is considered developable if it is in a suitable location for development and there is a reasonable prospect that the site will be available for development at a specified point in time – such as within 10 or 15 years. Alternatively, a site should be considered not currently developable if it is severely constrained and it is not clear when constraints are likely to be overcome.

The SHLAA guidance (para. 42) states ‘where constraints have been identified, the Assessment should consider what action would be needed to remove them. Actions might include the need for investment in new infrastructure, dealing with fragmented land ownership, environmental improvement, or a need to amend planning policy which is currently constraining housing development’.

This Draft Assessment has identified issues which will help determine whether sites are deliverable and developable. A few sites have significant physical, policy or availability constraints and would not reasonably be expected to come forward for development. On that basis they should, at some point, be classed as not currently developable and removed from further consideration.

Most sites have at least one constraint which needs to be investigated further, however, as this is will enable the assessment to be refined and allow further comparison of sites to inform the site selection process.

In considering sites and constraints in more detail it is proposed to issue the Assessment for consultation. The consultation exercise will also:

• enable full consideration of sites which have been submitted since the assessment started;

• provide a check against the factual accuracy of the Draft Assessment and obtain any outstanding comments and information;

7 The LDF Communities DPD is due to be adopted in 2010.

31 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

• provide opportunities for comment by other key stakeholders, including the following:

- Community organisations and individuals - Statutory consultees (English Heritage, Natural England, Sport England and the Environment Agency) - Highways Agency - Health and Safety Executive - Primary Care Trust - The Council’s RSL housing needs delivery partners - Energy Infrastructure providers

• enable further consideration of development schedules of sites with existing permissions through liaison with developers and landowners.

Comments and draft scheme layouts for some sites have previously been submitted from site promoters and these, along with responses to the consultation, will be taken into account in analysing the constraints.

The Assessment will be amended to reflect this further work and will confirm, with justification, whether sites should be considered deliverable, developable or not currently developable.

Para 43 of the SHLAA guidance advises that once developability and deliverability have been assessed, an indicative housing trajectory should be prepared to show how much housing can be provided and at what point in the future. The amended Assessment, which will be completed and published in early 2008, will include a housing trajectory to reflect site deliverability, taking into account existing commitments.

The finalised document will inform the proposed site allocations in the LDF Communities DPD Preferred Options document.

32 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

APPENDICES

33 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

34 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______APPENDIX A

POTENTIAL HOUSING RENEWAL AREAS (COAST & COUNTRY HOUSING)

Grangetown • St George's Road • Broadway • Grange Bungalows • Church Lane

Lazenby • Chestnut Close

Loftus • Westfield Estate

Marske • Rosemary Cottages

Redcar • Blayberry and Burnmoor Renewal Area • Westmoreland Road • The Closes • West Dormanstown

Skelton • Whitby Close

Teesville • Fabian Court Shops

35 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______APPENDIX B

Focus Group Members

Valerie Adams - RCBC (Planning) Paul Barrow - Taylor Wimpey (representing Home Builders Federation) Caroline Blackburn - RCBC (Estates) Derek Brough - Lexington Payne Homes Ian Cook - Cook & Forth Chartered Surveyors and Estate Agents Anna Gibson - Coast & Country Housing Martin Jefferson - Accent Housing Roger Kay - RCBC (Housing) Rosemary Kidd - RCBC (Planning) Bryan Kitchen - RCBC (Regeneration) Mark Mein - RCBC (Planning) Linda Wright - Home Builders Federation

______

Volume housebuilders represented at HBF site assessment meeting 16/08/07

Barratt: Alex Procter

Taylor Wimpey: Steve Willcock Caroline Proctor Rob McLackland

Gladedale: Ed Alder Clare Curley

Miller Homes: Mark Steedman

Persimmon: Simon Usher Simon Miller

Bellway: Paul Medcalf Keith Lewis

36 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

APPENDIX C

SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

37 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Issue Criteria Assessment Notes Conformity with Conformity with Policy CS2 of the Yes + strategic policies LDF Core Strategy No - The site is in an NRF regeneration Yes + area No - Locational The site is in an HSE consultation Yes - characteristics zone and / or contains or is adjacent to potentially incompatible No + neighbouring uses Part o Less than 50% of site The site is within a high flood risk Yes - zone No + Part o Less than 50% of site The site is outside development Bordered - ‘Development’ limits and abuts the built-up area on 1 side by includes commercial development and other uses as well Bordered o as housing. on 2 sides by development Bordered + on 3 sides by development Not o applicable The site is in or adjacent to an area Yes - In the professional of ecological or archaeological opinion of Tees Valley significance which could be No + Wildlife Trust / Tees adversely affected by development Archaeology Part or all of the site is included in Yes - the Redcar & Cleveland Landscape No + Character Assessment or is in an elevated or steep location The site is currently designated as Yes - green wedge or is within a strategic gap location No + Access to The site is within 300m (5 minutes Yes + Measured from the services walk) of a local centre, 600m (10 perimeter of the minutes walk) of a district centre or No - local/district/town 1000m (15 minutes walk) of Redcar centre using straight- Town Centre Part o line distances. Partial access = 20- 50% falling within distance catchment The site is within 1000m of a major Yes + Parameters as above employment area or allocation No - Part o The site is within 300m of a primary Yes + Parameters as above school and 1000m of a secondary No - school Part o

38 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

Issue Criteria Assessment Notes Access to The site is within 600m of a Yes + Parameters as above services railway station No - Part o The site is within 300m of a Yes + Parameters as above, bus route operating at least except measured from No - perimeter of potential every twenty minutes at peak housing site times Part o Existing uses or The development of the site Yes - Community facilities proposals would result in the loss of a are defined in the No supporting appendix beneficial community facility + or use The site is used for or is Yes - safeguarded for employment No purposes + Impact on Potential impact on school Would help to + To be discussed with schools and capacities sustain a school RCBC Education with surplus or Officers physical projected surplus infrastructure capacity No significant o impact Likely to require investment in a - school with limited or no spare capacity Potential impact on water and No investment + No investment sewerage networks required required as site already serviced Minor investment o Connection required required but no perceived major off – site implications Major investment - Connection required required and perceived major off-site investment or strategic capacity implications Potential impact on highway Not significant + Existing access and network no major network implications Minor significance o Connection required but no major perceived network implications Major significance - Connection required and major perceived network implications / Potential impact on energy Not significant + No investment networks required as site already serviced Minor significance o Connection required but no perceived major off – site implications Major significance - Connection required and perceived major off-site investment or strategic capacity implications

39 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______EXPLANATION OF APPROACH

The suitability assessment matrix has been devised to enable a straightforward and rapid initial assessment of a large number of sites within the strategic policy framework provided by the RSS and the LDF Core Strategy.

An alternative scenario involving scoring and weighting was considered and rejected on the grounds of the additional time required, the methodological difficulties which could be encountered in devising and justifying appropriate scoring mechanisms against a diverse range of criteria, and because the sequential grouping approach has automatically provided some order of priority to site selection.

The following paragraphs set out the rationale for each assessment criteria and the methods used to apply them.

CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC POLICIES

Conformity with Policy CS2 of the LDF Core Strategy The size of some sites and their potential housing capacity could undermine the locational strategy. This could include, for example:

• very large greenfield sites on the edge of the conurbation and main towns which could draw attention away from regeneration sites, and focus development in one particular location, possibly to the detriment of other areas, or

• substantial sites in and around smaller settlements where only limited development is proposed.

Such sites would present, in policy terms, unrealistic and inappropriate opportunities unless there are significant reductions in dwelling numbers.

The assessment has assumed that approximately 4000 additional dwellings may be required on top of existing commitments to meet the projected RSS requirement of 5750. Using a 75:25 urban - rural ratio of development8, and with reference to the settlement hierarchy set out in the supporting text to Policy CS2, the following broad thresholds were used in applying this criteria against the dwelling estimate for each site:

• Conurbation Area – 1200 dwellings: this is equivalent to 40% of the urban area estimated requirement of 3000 dwellings.

• Guisborough – 400 dwellings: this is equivalent to 40% of the anticipated rural area requirement of 1000 dwellings

• East Cleveland Towns – 300 dwellings: this is equivalent to 30% of the anticipated rural requirement of 1000 dwellings

8 This reflects the 70-30 urban-rural split set out in policy CS2, while allowing for the fact that existing rural commitments and completions since 2004 in the rural area exceed 30%

40 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______• Service ViIlages - 100 dwellings: equivalent to 10% of the anticipated rural requirement

• Smaller Villages - 50 dwellings: equivalent to 5% of the anticipated rural requirement

The site is in an NRF area The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) is a national regeneration funding stream which targets deprivation in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods. Statistical ‘Super Output Areas’ (SOAs) in parts of the following wards of the Borough are eligible for NRF support:

• Ormesby • Normanby • Eston • Teesville • South Bank • Grangetown • Dormanstown • Coatham • Newcomen • Kirkleatham • Skelton • Loftus

In seeking to arrest decline and create sustainable communities, the RSS and LDF are targeting investment to these areas.

LOCATIONAL FACTORS

The site is in an HSE consultation zone and / or contains or is adjacent to potentially incompatible neighbouring uses HSE Consultation areas restrict the type and scale of development close to hazardous industry and installations and residential development may be discouraged by the HSE in some cases. It is therefore desirable to avoid significant residential development in these areas; other uses may be more appropriate. There are HSE consultation areas around Wilton International taking in residential areas to the west and east.

It may also be desirable to avoid development in locations which are in close proximity to ‘bad neighbour’ uses such as B2 noisy or heavy industry or major fixed infrastructure (such as pylons or powerlines, gas pipelines, railways and the strategic road network).

The site is within a high flood risk zone The Tees Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) has identified areas which fall within high flood risk areas (Zones 3a and 3b). Most of the Borough falls outside high-risk areas but a few sites, particularly in Guisborough, are affected by flood risk and some greenfield sites operate as functional flood plains providing natural flood defences for nearby built-up areas. It may be preferable to avoid development in these areas in accordance with the SFRA and PPS25.

41 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

The site is outside Development Limits and abuts the built–up area A significant proportion of the sites and land under consideration are ‘Type C- Greenfield Extension to Main Settlement’ and the assessment will need to identify the differences between them. The impact on the landscape and townscape is an important consideration in comparing and assessing these sites. Where sites are bordered on two or three sides by development, they may be seen as more acceptable and logical extensions to the built-up area than sites with just one urban boundary, notwithstanding other environmental considerations such as the impact on landscape quality, biodiversity and the topography and configuration of the site.

The site is in, or adjacent to an area of ecological or archaeological significance which could be adversely affected by development The Borough contains areas of important ecological or archaeological value. Many of these areas are designated at European, regional or local levels. Some of these sites are close to major settlements and it may be preferable to avoid development on or near them.

Work has been undertaken by Tees Valley Wildlife Trust to assess the biodiversity value of each site, and proximity to and potential impact on other sites and areas having biodiversity value.

Similarly, comments have also been obtained from Tees Archaelogy regarding the archaeological value of sites, or their impact on adjacent sites.

Part or all of the site is included in the Redcar & Cleveland Landscape Character Assessment or is in an elevated or steep location Development in steep or elevated locations is more visible than that on sites in flat areas and consequently has a greater visual impact on the existing landscape or townscape. This is particularly significant on sites in or near areas of high landscape value. The Redcar & Cleveland Landscape Character Assessment has identified sensitive and restorative landscape areas, with Sensitive Landscape Areas (which focus on coastal sites, elevated landscapes and beck valleys) being most significant. In fact, all areas of open land around the Borough’s towns, villages and industrial areas, including designated Green Wedges (see below), are identified as Restoration Landscape Areas. On that basis, all greenfield extension sites could have landscape impacts. Sensitive Landscape Areas are located in the following broad areas near settlements and potential housing sites:

• East of Guisborough • Eston Hills • Kirkleatham Historic Estate • South and West of Skelton Green • Coastal areas between Redcar and Marske and Marske and Saltburn • Between Saltburn and Skelton • Between Skelton and Brotton • North and North East of Brotton, to the coast and towards Carlin How • Around Loftus Bank • Between Loftus and Liverton Mines and around the south of Loftus

42 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

The site is currently designated as green wedge or is within a strategic gap location. Green wedges provide separation between settlements, and between settlements and industry in the conurbation. Their purpose is to maintain settlement identity by retaining corridors of open land. Development which would undermine the integrity of a green wedges should therefore be resisted. Strategic Gaps serve a similar purpose to green wedges, but are to maintain separation between the conurbation and rural settlements. There are two Strategic Gaps in the Borough, between Saltburn and Marske and Marske and New Marske. Any development in these gaps will have to be justified and similarly not significantly undermine them.

ACCESS TO SERVICES

Locating new housing close to existing services can promote sustainable development and the creation of sustainable communities by:

• supporting existing services; • increasing the scope for walking and cycling, and • reducing the need to travel longer distances by car.

Access to the key, trip generating services – shopping areas, major employment areas, schools and public transport – was measured using straight-line distances to identify any locational advantages of each site in accordance with the parameters set out below.

The site is within 300m (5 minutes walk) of a local centre, 600m (10 minutes walk) of a district centre or 1000m (15 minutes walk) of Redcar Town Centre Local centres provide important facilities and a focal point for community life. Town and District Centres provide hubs for retailing, business services, health and community facilities and public transport networks. Locating development close to these centres can help to support them and reduce reliance on car journeys.

Policy CS18 lists six District Centres (including the proposed centre at Low Grange Farm) and ten local centres. The distance thresholds reflect the hierarchy of centres and the general variation in levels of service provision, though it accepted that there is some difference in provision, particularly between some District Centres.

The site is within 1000m of a major employment area Locating development close to major employment areas such as business and retail parks, industrial estates and manufacturing sites can contribute to reducing journey to work distances and increasing employment opportunities for those without access to a private car.

The following were identified as major employment areas and opportunities:

• Wilton International • Corus Redcar • Corus Lackenby • South Tees Business Parks

43 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______• Skippers Lane Industrial Estate • Kirkleatham Business Park • Longbeck Trading Estate • Morgan Drive / Guisborough Business Park • Skelton Industrial Estate • Skinningrove • Skelton Industrial Estate • Boulby Mine

The site is within 300m of a primary school and 1000m of a secondary school The school run is a major trip generator and cause of traffic congestion. Locating development close to schools can help reduce trips and encourage walking and cycling. Primary schools are greater in number and their catchments are much smaller than secondary schools, with children generally travelling much shorter distances and this is reflected in the different thresholds applied.

The site is within 600m of a railway station Access to passenger railway services varies across the Borough, with only Redcar, Saltburn and Marske and to a lesser extent Nunthorpe having direct regular services. If the proposal to upgrade the existing infrastructure to develop a Tees Valley Metro materialises, this could significantly improve public transport links between these settlements and major trip destinations in the sub-region, and could happen within the lifetime of the LDF. As access to rail is far more restricted than it is to bus services, a larger catchment area was used to measure accessibility.

The site is within 300m of a bus route operating at least every 20 minutes at peak times Locating development near major bus routes will improve access to jobs and services while potentially reducing reliance on the private car. The most frequent bus routes were mapped and 300m distance radii plotted to gauge the proximity of sites to the main network.

EXISTING USES OR PROPOSALS

The development of the site would result in the loss of a beneficial community facility or use A significant number of sites included in the assessment provide public open space and other facilities (such as allotments, garage courts and parking areas) which serve existing housing areas. Many of these sites have been put forward without supporting justification. Some of these uses were provided as part of the design and layout of housing estates or were provided to complement nearby housing. The loss of these facilities could have a negative impact on residential amenity and quality of life, particularly in more intensively developed neighbourhoods. In addition the loss of community facilities such as health and leisure centres, shops and pubs is not in keeping with promoting sustainable communities unless those facilities can be adequately replaced or are clearly surplus to community requirements.

The site is used or safeguarded for employment purposes

44 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______The loss of an existing employment site or land within an established employment location could undermine the local economy. This includes locations where business, industry and retailing are dominant uses, such as industrial estates, factories and major retailing and office developments. The Borough also contains areas of undeveloped land which is allocated for employment uses which may provide further opportunities for employment generation; in that regard the continued justification for these allocations is currently under review through an Employment Land review being carried out as part of the preparation of the LDF Economy DPD.

IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Potential impact on school capacities Schools are major trip generators and key community facilities. The distribution of surplus school places is uneven across the borough, and many schools have net surplus capacity. Locating development in areas where schools have high surplus capacity can help to sustain local schools by increasing potential pupil numbers. On the other hand, some popular schools have limited spare capacity and locating major development within the catchment of a school which is at or nearing capacity could place pressure on the ability to meet additional demand for places.

It should be noted however that on all but the largest sites, the impact on school numbers of new development tends to be limited as the effects are diffused across the eleven school years and through the option of parental choice. Moreover, where there is a particularly high surplus, a more immediate and effective response can be to reduce the capacity through removing surplus classrooms.

Potential impact on highway, water, sewerage or energy networks Although the provision of supporting infrastructure forms part of the cost of development, some major schemes which have off-site implications for service provision can impose significant costs on the environment and local communities (for example by new road building and contributing to traffic congestion). It is more sustainable to meet additional demand generated by new development within the capacity of existing resources where this is possible. Confirmation of the impacts of potential developments on existing capacity will be sought from the relevant agencies. To that end, the Tees Valley Highway Study is examining potential circulation impacts of new development on the trunk road network.

45 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

46 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

APPENDIX D

ACHIEVABILITY ASSESSMENT: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

47 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

48 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

Deliverability / Developability Assessment Taking into account any potential delivery constraints outlined overleaf and your understanding of local housing and land markets and housing need, please take a few moments to answer the following questions.

1. Developability

Is this site likely to come forward for residential development within the next 15 years? (please 9 one box):

Yes With assistance No

NB if you answered ‘No’ please go straight to question 4)

2. Delivery Timescale

Is the site likely to be developable:

Within 5 years? Within 10 years? Within 15 years? (9 1 box)

3 House Types Notwithstanding the requirement to provide a mix of dwelling types on larger sites in accordance with PPS3 and the need for affordable and specialist housing, which sector(s) of the market is the site likely to be primarily attractive too?

Type 9 all relevant Upper-market ‘executive’ or ‘executive-style’ housing (larger detached properties) Mid / upper-market ‘executive’ or retirement apartments 4-bed detached

3-bed detached 2/3-bed semi-detached or terraced Lower-cost market housing, including ‘starter homes’ Affordable (intermediate or social-rented housing) Sheltered or special needs housing Mixed-use scheme

4 Dwelling Estimate Is the estimate of ## dwellings given overleaf :

Too high ? Too low ? About right ? (9 1 box)

5 Briefly explain your answers to the above in the space below. Further comments can be made on the sheets towards the back of the document.

49 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

50 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

SITE LOCATION MAPS

51 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

52 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

53 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

54 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

55 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

56 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

57 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

58 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

59 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

60 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

61 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

62 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

63 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

64 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

65 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

66 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

67 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

68 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

69 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

70 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

71 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

72 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

73 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

74 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

75 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

76 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

77 Redcar & Cleveland Strategic Housing Land Assessment November 2007 Consultation Draft ______

79