Newcastle-Under-Lyme and Stoke-On-Trent Core Spatial Strategy Examination

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME AND STOKE-ON-TRENT CORE SPATIAL STRATEGY EXAMINATION

DOCUMENT CCD4

Response to Planning Inspector’s Question (ICD4)

(a) Clarification as to the relationship between demolitions and the housing targets in the CS. What do the ‘net’ and ‘gross’ figures include? 1. Strategic housing development targets (net additional dwellings 2006 – 2026) are currently set out in the seventh row of the table at paragraph 5.25 of the Core Spatial Strategy. These are derived from the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Preferred Option (RSS/002 – Policy CF3, Table 1). They are ‘net’ figures and represent the increase in housing stock over the plan period excluding allowance for demolition replacements and changes as a result of conversions / changes of use. ‘Gross’ figures comprise the ‘net’ figure plus a notional allowance for replacement of demolished dwellings over the plan period. (b) Do the Councils’ figures for completions include or exclude demolition replacements? 2. In respect of Stoke-on-Trent, the completion figure for 2006/07, shown in the first row of the published table at paragraph 5.25 of the Core Spatial Strategy is a ‘net’ figure. Thus allowance is made for demolitions, conversions and changes of use within that year. In Stoke-on-Trent this means 850 completions (gross) less 219 demolitions less 15 changes of use out of housing. 3. In respect of Newcastle-under-Lyme the completion figure for 2006/07, shown in the first row of the published table at paragraph 5.25 of the Core Spatial Strategy is a ‘gross’ figure. The net additional dwellings are calculated by deducting the number of demolitions from the gross completion figures. The completions 2006/07 are gross figures, the latter includes conversions and change of use. 4. A revised table has been prepared, as requested for in ICD4(d) and is shown below in response to that point. (c) The current RSS assumes a replacement rate of 0.6 for Stoke-on-Trent but the Phase 2 Revision does not appear to give such a figure (although accepting that it might be necessary) and it is not clear at what point a reduced replacement rate is to be taken into account. It would assist if an illustration were given e.g. if 100 dwellings were demolished and 60 replacements built on the same site, is there a requirement to provide land elsewhere for the 40 dwellings not replaced in addition to the net additional dwellings from the RSS?

(Supplementary Question 4a) With respect to ICD 4 questions (b), (c) and (d), the Inspector directs the Councils’ attention to a technical document underpinning the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase Two Revision – Preferred Option. This is Communities for the Future Housing Background Paper Final version (Amended) January 2008 which can be viewed at http://www.wmra.gov.uk/documents/RSS%20Phase%202%20Preferred%20 Option%20%20Housing%20Background%20Paper%20-Final%20- %20%20Amended%20version%20Jan%2007.pdf Before preparing the response to ICD 4, the Inspector requests the Councils to consult with the West Midlands Regional Assembly to clarify the position regarding the gross and net housing figures in the Phase Two Revision when dealing with demolition replacements at a rate of less than 1:1. If this does not accord with the assumptions made in the Core Strategy then a revised ‘Strategic Housing Targets’ section (pages 42-45) should be prepared.

5. The justification for a replacement rate of less than 1 for 1 in Stoke-on-Trent in the adopted RSS was because there is an imbalance in housing demand and supply in the city. North Staffordshire was chosen as a Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder because, amongst other considerations, having regard to high vacancies, low house prices and poor stock conditions it had the weakest housing market in the West Midlands by a considerable margin. There was a crude numerical surplus of residential properties over demand in the conurbation.

6. Adopted RSS (RSS/001, paragraph 6.10) states; “Whilst a similar approach will be necessary in North Staffordshire the failure of the housing market is more pronounced than in the metropolitan area and the level of anticipated economic activity substantially lower. Renewal strategies will need to take account of the extent to which out-migration can be stemmed and avoid over-provision. In this case high overall replacement rates may not be appropriate. This issue will evolve as the pathfinders are developed and will need to be kept under review by the RPB”.

7. Adopted RSS (RSS/001 – Policy CF3, paragraph 6.15) provides for the removal of 4,000 surplus properties from the housing stock to address the housing supply/demand imbalance in the city’s housing stock. This is the basis of the 0.6 figure, calculated as follows;

Adopted RSS requirements are 2,000 net /12,000 gross / 10,000 demolitions

Of the 12,000 gross:

6,000 are for demographic change, and 6,000 are for demolition replacements (10,000 x 0.6 = 6,000)

8. The imbalance of housing market supply and demand continues. This is recognised in the RENEW North Staffordshire Business Plan 2008-11 (EB/037, page 4, third paragraph and page 6, fifth paragraph) and in RSS Preferred Option (RSS/002, paragraph 6.9) which states:

“The North Staffordshire conurbation, particularly the inner core, has experienced a decline in population and economic activity which has led to a weak housing market in this inner core. The concerted actions being put in place with the support of government and in conjunction with the local authorities have a good prospect for success if these are sustained and economic development is renewed to underpin other aspects of regeneration”.

It continues (RSS/002, paragraph 6.27):

Actual land requirements for housing provision will vary with the level of demolitions and the replacement rates which can be achieved on housing redevelopment sites. The proposals in Table 1 assume that there can be a 1:1 replacement. If the average ratio of new housing to demolitions in a local planning authority is less than 1:1, the authority will need to identify further land as part of the LDD. If the average ratio achieved is greater than 1:1, fewer additional housing sites will need to be identified through the LDD. The amount of land required will also be dependent on the densities achieved. Because of weak housing demand within the North Staffordshire conurbation, a replacement rate of 1:1 may not be appropriate in this area.

9. Housing market imbalance is evidenced by Stoke-on-Trent having a vacancy rate nearly twice the regional average in 2008 at 6.0% locally compared to 3.1% regionally (Ref EB/087 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix, November 2008).

10. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent a replacement rate of 0.66 replacement dwellings for each dwelling demolished is assumed in published tables 5.25 and 5.28 of the Core Spatial Strategy. This is a mathematical error. In common with adopted RSS a figure of 0.6 should have been used. We wish to correct this mathematical error. The following text and replacement tables use the correct figure of 0.6. Since adoption of RSS, projected demolitions in Stoke-on-Trent over the plan period have been substantially reduced (from 10,000 to 3,500). There remains a need to reduce the number of surplus properties in the city as shown in the trajectory at paragraph 5.28. Thus the revised calculation would be:

RSS Revision requirements are 11,400 net with 3,500 demolitions (RSS/002 Policy CF3, table 1 and table 2).

11,400 are for demographic change; and 2,100 are for demolition replacements (3,500 x 0.6 = 2,100)

Giving a gross total of 13,500 (this replaces the 13,710 figure in published tables 5.25 and 5.28)

11. In common with adopted RSS the replacement rate is taken into account across the whole of the plan period.

12. As explained at paragraph 8, in numerical terms in 2008, 6,677 properties are recorded as vacant in Stoke-on-Trent. The reduction of this vacancy rate to a rate closer to the regional average is clearly a desirable policy aim. The result of the reduction in the housing stock by 1,400 dwellings (3,500 minus 2,100) will be to reduce the void rate from 6.0% to 4.7% over the plan period.

13. It must be stressed that the replacement rate of 0.6 referred to in the supplemental question relates to projections of housing targets and not to the physical capacity of a clearance site. The physical capacity of clearance sites is clearly important and is taken into account in land supply calculations and at the point of monitoring. But for the purposes of better understanding if, for example, 100 dwellings were demolished (and assuming each dwelling was occupied prior to demolition) 60 dwellings would be replaced (although not necessarily on the same site and for the displaced households) and the remaining 40 households would ultimately be accommodated within the city’s void housing stock. If the dwellings were replaced on a 1:1 basis then this would perpetuate the continued high vacancies within the city’s housing stock.

14. In the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme a replacement rate of 1 replacement dwelling for each dwelling demolished is assumed. Thus 5,700 net dwellings, plus 557 predicted demolitions, equals a gross requirement of 6,257 dwellings.

15. Following receipt of supplementary question ICD4a we have discussed the issue of replacement rates with the West Midlands Regional Assembly. They are supportive of the lower replacement rate as a result of specific local circumstances, as outlined above. Formal confirmation of this support from the Regional Assembly is attached to this paper (Appendix One). (d) A revised table is needed for page 42 to accord with the clarifications in (a) – (c). In particular it would assist to have the net figure from the RSS used first, followed by the steps needed to arrive at the gross figure rather than taking the gross figure or ‘additional requirements’ as given.

16 A revised table has been prepared and is reproduced below. It is requested that this replace the published table at paragraph 5.25 of the Core Spatial Strategy.

Newcastle-under- Stoke on Trent Lyme

RSS Preferred Option 5,700 11,400 Housing Requirement (net)

Projected demolitions 557* 3,500

Demolition replacements 557 2,100**

Housing Requirement 6,257 13,500 (gross)

Newcastle-under- Stoke on Trent Lyme

Indicative Annual 285 570 Requirement (net)

Indicative Annual 313 675 Requirement (gross)

* RSS Preferred Option projects a total of 976 demolitions for the period 2006 – 2026. This level was based upon early assumptions regarding the expected nature and level of intervention within the Borough by RENEW North Staffordshire. A more realistic estimate (based upon historical trends and the actual programme of clearance for the Knutton and Cross Heath Area of Major Intervention) revises this figure to 557. ** Based upon RSS Preferred Option estimates of 3,500 demolitions and a replacement rate of 0.6 per dwelling demolished.

(e) Confirm that the table at Para 5.26 should show net housing completions per year.

17. It is confirmed that the table should show net annual housing completions. A revised table has been prepared and is reproduced below. It is requested that this replace the published table at paragraph 5.26 of the Core Spatial Strategy.

2006 – 2016 2016 - 2026

Net housing 900 800 completions (per year)

(f) Have the SHLAAs for each authority been prepared in accordance with the CLG Practice Guidance July 2007? In particular, do they follow the methodology in paras 14 and 15 of the Practice Guidance? What input has there been from landowners and developers about deliverability?

18. Neither authority has produced a final SHLAA. Publication of a SHLAA is not a pre-requisite to submission of the Core Spatial Strategy. The principles of paragraphs 14 and 15 of the SHLAA guidance have / will be followed in preparation of the formal SHLAA’s.

19. PPS3 (paragraph 54) states that authorities should identify specific deliverable sites drawing on information from the SHLAA and/or other relevant evidence. Available evidence indicates that there is considerable development potential within the plan area, well in excess of adopted and emerging RSS strategic housing development targets.

20. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council commenced work on a SHLAA in February 2008. As set out in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - Summary (EB/023), the SHLAA is seen as an ongoing project to be regularly reviewed, and further work is still required in terms of viability. Having said this, all work carried out to date has been in accordance with CLG Practice Guidance.

21. The methodology followed is set out in the SHLAA methodology document 2008 (Ref EB/023d) This is broadly consistent with the methodology set out in CLG Practice Guidance, and as such requires no justification. The only respect in which the CLG Guidance is not followed is that the assessment is limited to the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, rather than the ‘north housing market’ identified in RSS. As explained in methodology document, a shared study has been unfeasible due to differing LDF timetables in the region, and the earlier commencement of such work in neighbouring authorities.

22. All work carried out to date has been in a transparent manner and has included the input of key stakeholders. On 18th February 2008 the proposed methodology for the SHLAA was sent to a range of stakeholders, along with an invitation to put forward sites for consideration. Stakeholders were asked to provide as much detail as possible on sites they put forward in terms of constraints, justification, and infrastructure. The list of stakeholders invited to comment was based on their knowledge and interest in the plan area. It included: • Utilities companies • Telecommunications providers • Neighbouring local authorities • Landowners • Developers • Housebuilders • Planning consultants • Estate agents • Transport providers • Government agencies • Housing Associations • Community groups

23. All details were also published on the Borough Council’s website; effectively making involvement in the SHLAA open to anyone.

24. At this time it was made clear that the Borough Council would only be reviewing sites above 0.1 hectares in size, and that sites in the functional flood plain would be excluded from the assessment as undeliverable.

25. An initial deadline of 7th April 2008 was set for comments on the methodology and identifying sites. In light of comments received from Centro, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Whitmore Parish Council, Madeley Parish Council, Newcastle-under-Lyme Civic Society, and Advantage West Midlands; the methodology was revised before site assessments began in May 2008. During this time, a range of sites, including details about their constraints, justification and infrastructure, were put forward for consideration by landowners, housebuilders, planning consultants, housing associations and internal partners.

26. To date only summary findings from the initial survey have been published. These are set out in the form of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - Summary (EB/023). Further work on viability is now being undertaken in consultation with stakeholders to provide a more realistic picture about deliverability. As details on constraints and justification to date have only been forthcoming from parties with an interest in developing specific sites, this viability element of the assessment is being undertaken with more impartial stakeholders. It includes: • Staffordshire County Council Highways and Property Divisions • Newcastle Borough Council Landscape, Environmental Health, and Development Control Officers • A local estate agent

27. Once the deliverability element of the study has been completed a full list of sites with boundaries, constraints, and development capacities will be published. As the SHLAA is seen as an ongoing project, there will then be further opportunities for the identification and assessment of alternative sites in the future, or the revision of any identified sites should new information come to light.

28. The data required to complete a SHLAA for Stoke-on-Trent has been assembled, analysed and published in the form of the City Council’s ‘Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment’ (SHELAA) (ref EB/058 and EB/058e- g). Some work remains to be done before this can be published as a formal SHLAA – notably the transfer of site boundaries from our internal GIS system to a publicly accessible mapping format. Analysis of the sites, subject to final refinement following consultation, has been completed and has been placed in the Core Spatial Strategy evidence base (ref ED/058f).

(g) Do the SHLAAs include sites where demolition and replacement will take place? 29. The evidential base only accommodates those clearance areas which have been identified by Councils’ resolution. To do otherwise could precipitate blight. 30. As discussed above (paragraph 13) the loss and replacement of dwellings in numerical terms is considered separately from the physical capacity of a site. The use of ‘gross requirement’ figures ensures that sufficient land is identified to replace dwellings lost through clearance, be that on the same site or on a different site and regardless of the physical, on site, replacement rate. The table at paragraph 44 below indicates the net and gross capacity of sites thus taking account of known clearance sites. The net figures allow for the loss of dwellings presently on the identified sites and the gross figure assumes replacement at an average of 45 per hectare.

(h) As the SHLAAs are recent documents, how have their earlier stages (or any previous studies) contributed to the preparation of the CS?

31. Both authorities maintain comprehensive records of potential development sites. These derive from a wide range of sources and were used to inform both earlier stages of Core Spatial Strategy preparation and to prepare the respective draft SHLAA’s. Furthermore the information provided by the records held was used to inform the RSS Preferred Option figures for both authorities. The requirement to produce a SHLAA and the guidelines on the methodology to be used have formalised existing data collection, analysis and industry liaison practices.

(i) PPS3 requires a 5 year supply of deliverable sites, 6-10 year supply of specific developable sites and 11-15 year supply of specific sites or broad locations for future growth. Paras 54 and 58 of PPS3 expand on deliverability. Reference should also be made to the CLG advice note Demonstrating a 5 Year Supply of Deliverable Sites which is available on the Planning Inspectorate website. A 15 year trajectory for the RSS housing requirement should be prepared for each of the two authorities. This should begin in 2009/10 but also show columns for estimated completions for 2008/9 and actual completions for 2006/7-2007/8. It should show how many dwellings are expected from each site/broad location for each year, whether they are greenfield or brownfield and comments regarding the deliverability of each site. It should make clear whether the annual average used to calculate the 5 year and 15 year supply includes demolitions/replacements, in line with the clarification in (a) – (c).

32. A top priority for Government is to ensure that land availability is not a constraint on the delivery of more homes.

33. National planning policy, as set out in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) underpins the Government’s response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply and the necessary step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. It requires local planning authorities to:

• identify specific, deliverable sites for the first five years of a plan that are ready for development , and to keep this topped up over-time in response to market information; • identify specific, developable sites for years 6–10, and ideally years 11– 15, in plans to enable the five year supply to be topped up; • where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11–15 of the plan, indicate broad locations for future growth; and • not include an allowance for windfalls in the first 10 years of the plan unless there are justifiable local circumstances that prevent specific sites being identified.

34. To be considered deliverable sites should be:

• Available – the site is available now. • Suitable – the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. • Achievable – there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

35. The current recession has affected the viability of all housing developments of all kinds throughout the country (greenfield and brownfield, city centre, suburban and rural). A return to more stable market conditions will be required before we see significant dwelling completions. The revised 20 year trajectories below take this downturn into account, predicting a substantial reduction in completions for the next few years followed by a gradual recovery. Forecast annual completions have been revised whilst plan period targets to 2026 have not changed.

36. Both authorities have identified specific, deliverable, sites for the first five years of the plan, drawn from sites with planning permission rather than allocations. These have been assessed as being deliverable as at 31 March 2008. Both authorities have identified a longer term pool of developable sites for the remainder of the plan period. It will be the role of subsequent site allocation Development Plan Documents to assess individual sites and allocate them for appropriate uses. The sites are shown individually in the evidence base (Newcastle-under-Lyme at EB/023c and Stoke-on-Trent at EB/058f).

Trajectory for Stoke-on-Trent

37. The table and graph following paragraph 5.28 of the Core Spatial Strategy show a 20 year housing trajectory for Stoke-on-Trent. We did not rely upon a simple 5 year average to prepare the trajectory. Due to the nature of regeneration programmes and the pattern of development activity in the city in the past a simple average is not an appropriate basis for preparing a trajectory in our case. Instead we have taken known outputs from regeneration programmes (principally the RENEW North Staffordshire – see Business Plan EB/037) and modelled the RSS target figure. The resulting trajectory shows a pronounced front loading of housing activity (both completions and demolitions) up to the anticipated end of Housing Market Pathfinder funding (2013/14), followed by a gradual run-off period, and followed by a steady state to the end of the plan period.

38. There has been considerable disturbance to the normal operation of the housing market since preparation of the Core Spatial Strategy (in early 2008), subsequent consultation and submission. Whilst it is too early to predict with certainty the long term impact of the current recession and mortgage rationing it is clearly necessary to take this into account and prepare a replacement 20 year trajectory. There are two likely outcomes; 1) a drop in completions followed by a catching up period with no overall change to housing completions over the 20 year plan period, or 2) a drop in completions followed by a continued period of less than previously expected completions with a resulting ‘shortfall’ against plan period targets. For the purposes of the replacement trajectory we have assumed the first scenario.

39. The methodology used to prepare the replacement trajectory is that used by NLP as part of their work for GOWM on RSS housing numbers. In essence this predicts a 50% fall (from 2006/07 values) in gross completions for the years 2008/09 and 2009/10, followed by lesser falls of 70% in 2010/11, and 90% in 2011/12. A rebound to 110% follows in years 2012/13 and 2013/14. Beyond this no advice is given. In our replacement trajectory, the balance of the RSS target is distributed across years 2014/15 to 2025/26. The modelling has been done on a gross completions basis as this reflects actual houses built and ensures adequate replacement for demolished properties. Demolition numbers are not significantly changed in the replacement trajectory as they are related to funding regimes not currently affected by the recession. The result of this is a significant dip in net completions. Land supply requirements take the indicative gross housing requirement as their starting point.

40. In order to tie the trajectory in with the plan period, its has been run for two years beyond the 15 years required by PPS3 and requested for in ICD4(i).

41. The revised trajectory table and chart is reproduced below. It is requested that these replace the published table and chart at paragraph 5.28 of the Core Spatial Strategy.

Indicative Net Housing Projected Demolition gross Requirement Demolitions replacements housing (a) (b) (c) requirement (d) 2006/07 719* 219* 131 850* 2007/08 746* 224* 134 880* 2008/09 180 400 240 420 2009/10 180 400 240 420 2010/11 330 450 270 600 2011/12 470 490 294 764 2012/13 740 315 189 929 2013/14 820 189 113 933 2014/15 855 72 43 898 2015/16 760 67 40 800 2016/17 710 68 41 751 2017/18 660 67 40 700 2018/19 610 67 40 650 2019/20 560 68 41 601 2020/21 510 67 40 550 2021/22 510 67 40 550 2022/23 510 68 41 551 2023/24 510 67 40 550 2024/25 510 67 40 550 2025/26 510 68 41 551 11,400 3,500 2,100 13,500

* Figures for 2006/07 and 2007/08 are actual figures.

The indicative gross housing requirement is calculated by taking the net requirement and adding a figure for demolition replacements at the rate of 0.6 replacements for each dwelling lost.

Housing Trajectory

1000

900

800

700

600 Gross Completions 500 Net Additional Dwellings Demolitions Dwellings 400

300

200

100

5 08 10 12 19 21 23 2 08/09 10/11 12/13 14/15 16/17 23/24 25/26 2006/072007/ 20 2009/ 20 2011/ 20 2013/1420 2015/1620 2017/182018/2019/202020/2021/222022/ 20 2024/ 20 Years 2006 to 2026

42. The trajectory has been informed by our knowledge of potential sites and their development timetable; however a site by site, year by year, list has not been published. A diverse conurbation such as North Staffordshire, with a wide range of medium / small sites immediately available for development, does not lend itself to such an approach. Such an approach would present a false and misleading picture of the likely future development of specific individual sites. Assumptions about the build out rate of specific sites in specific years are prone to error and to rapid change, especially in a period of economic instability. Instead we have taken the amount of planned development across the geographies of the Core Spatial Strategy [see table at response to ICD4(j)] and compared this with the potential capacity available, as identified in the evidence base (EB/058f evidence base column). In all geographical areas and across the plan time periods there are more than enough capacity to meet the identified need.

43. It is not the role of the Core Spatial Strategy to carry out a full assessment of each potential site, merely to evidence that sufficient sites have been identified to meet our foreseeable housing needs. Future site allocation development plan documents will fully assess the pool of available sites, present for consultation a range of development options and ultimately make site proposals.

44. The following table summarises the results of this exercise (EB/058f).

Summary of identified capacity

Net Gross Completions 2006/07 616 850 Completions 2007/08 644 880 Commitments 3,731 3,793 Assessed Capacity 18,357 18,950 Total 23,348 24,473

Plan period requirement 11,400 13,500 (2006/07 to 2025/26)

Geographical analysis of identified capacity

Plan Period Potential Capacity Requirement (gross) Identified (gross) City Centre – completions 0 City Centre – commitments 92 City Centre – potential sites 710 City Centre – total 500 802 Inner Urban Core – completions 830 Inner Urban Core – commitments 2,121 Inner Urban Core – potential sites 6,284 Inner Urban Core – total 7,825 9,235 Outer Urban Area – completions 900 Outer Urban Area – commitments 1,580 Outer Urban Area – potential sites 11,956 Outer Urban Area – total 5,175 14,436 City-wide Total 13,500 24,473

*Completions are for 2006/07 and 2007/08

45. In addition to the significant pool of potential supply identified above (24,473 dwellings compared with a requirement of 13,500) further capacity could, if necessary, be drawn from sites specifically excluded from the SHELAA assessment, including:

• Sites within the green belt, and • Sites currently in use with no confirmed programme of closure / relocation of activities,

46. Further additional capacity could, if necessary, also be drawn from;

• Increased residential proportion on mixed-use sites, • Future housing demolition where specific sites have not been identified, • The 156 small sites (13ha) excluded from the analysis • Windfall developments.

47. It is necessary to demonstrate the deliverability or developability of sufficient sites to meet PPS3 requirements. On the basis of our local knowledge, developer’s information etc. it is our considered view that all of the capacity shown in the ‘evidence base’ column of EB/058f (totalling 18,950 potential dwellings) is developable i.e. it can be confidently placed in years 6 to 15 of the plan period. Furthermore a large majority of it is also deliverable and could be confidently placed in years 1-5 of the plan period if so required. It is the undesirability of doing so, leading to a potential glut of approved / allocated capacity, which the Core Spatial Strategy seeks to address through its focus on the Inner Urban Core. In Stoke-on-Trent, unlike many parts of the country, it is the demand for dwellings rather than the supply of sites which is the key inhibiter of the housing market.

48. PPS3 requires us to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. The replacement trajectory requires the provision of 4,066 dwellings (gross) in 2008/09 and the first 5 years of the plan period (2009/10 to 2013/14). Of these, following a discounting process, 3,793 are identified commitments and all of this capacity is deliverable. The remaining 273 will be drawn from the pool of potential sites (EB/058f evidence base column). There is no reason to believe that, of all the potential sites identified, 273 are not on deliverable sites. Indeed some will already have been granted planning permission in the current year.

49. Regarding discounting, EB/058f identifies site specific commitments of 4,394 dwellings. These are derived entirely from current planning permissions as there are no ‘saved’ local plan allocations in Stoke-on-Trent. Depending upon assumptions made regarding the current market and the deliverability of certain schemes (particularly proposals involving apartments), this can be discounted to either 4,113 dwellings (a 6.4% cut and as used in our 5 year housing land supply paper EB/058g), or 3,793 dwellings (a 13.7% cut and as used for the evidence base calculations in EB/058f evidence base column).

50. For years 6 to 10, PPS3 requires us to identify specific developable sites. The replacement trajectory requires the provision of 3,800 dwellings (gross) in the five year period 2014/15 to 2018/19. These will be drawn from the pool of potential sites (EB/058f evidence base column), of which there are more than enough to meet the requirement.

51. For years 11 to 15, PPS3 requires us to identify specific sites or broad locations for future growth. The replacement trajectory requires the provision of 2,802 dwellings in the five year period 2019/20 to 2023/24. These can be drawn from the pool of potential sites (EB/058f evidence base column), of which there are more than enough to meet the requirement.

Trajectory for Newcastle-under-Lyme

52. The graph below is a 15 year trajectory showing estimates of the number of dwellings that could be delivered in the borough each year. Detailed site information showing the number of dwellings expected in each year from each site is provided in Appendix Two. When viewing these data tables it should be noted that this trajectory is only indicative of how sites might come forward in the next 15 year, taking into account the practicality of building and phasing to reflect priority within the regeneration areas. Some sites may come forward earlier than this and by the same token some may come forward later. Any site’s inclusion does not guarantee its inclusion in the Site Allocations DPD as proposed sites will be subject to public consultation. There are some sites on the list that have not been nominated by the landowner. Where this is the case the landowner will be consulted before the site is formally proposed for inclusion in the Site Allocations DPD.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Housing Trajectory (Net additional dwellings) - 2006-2026 450

RSS preferred 400 option 285 per annum 350

300

250

200

150

100

Net additional dwellings completed dwellings additional Net 50

0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Actual Net Annual Estimated Net Annual Completions Completions

Cumulative RSS preferred Gross Net Completions to the Year Demolitions option annual Completions Completions end of the plan average period Actual Completions per Annum 2006/07 260 52 208 285 208 2007/08 204 62 142 285 350 Estimated Completions per Annum 2008/09 284 79 205 285 555 2009/10 216 48 168 285 723 2010/11 188 61 127 285 850 2011/12 269 31 238 285 1088 2012/13 345 16 329 285 1417 2013/14 411 16 395 285 1812 2014/15 375 16 359 285 2171 2015/16 427 16 411 285 2582 2016/17 421 16 405 285 2987 2017/18 432 16 416 285 3403 2018/19 427 16 411 285 3814 2019/20 437 16 421 285 4235 2020/21 367 16 351 285 4586 2021/22 331 16 315 285 4901 2022/23 307 16 291 285 5192 2023/24 268 16 252 285 5444 2024/25 144 16 128 285 5572 2025/26 144 16 128 285 5700

53. In light of the data that is set out in ICD4i, a new 20 year trajectory has been prepared reflecting that information to update the Core Spatial Strategy.

Cumulative Gross Net Additional Completions to Year Demolitions Completions Dwellings the end of the plan period 2006/07 260 208 52 208 2007/08 204 142 62 350 2008/09 284 205 79 555 2009/10 216 168 48 723 2010/11 188 127 61 850 2011/12 269 238 31 1088 2012/13 345 329 16 1417 2013/14 411 395 16 1812 2014/15 375 359 16 2171 2015/16 427 411 16 2582 2016/17 421 405 16 2987 2017/18 432 416 16 3403 2018/19 427 411 16 3814 2019/20 437 421 16 4235 2020/21 367 351 16 4586 2021/22 331 315 16 4901 2022/23 307 291 16 5192 2023/24 268 252 16 5444 2024/25 144 128 16 5572 2025/26 144 128 16 5700

Newcastle-under-Lyme Housing Trajectory 500

450 400

350 300 Gross Completions 250 Net Additional Dwellings

Dwellings 200 Demolitions 150

100 50 0

9 2 8 4 /0 /1 /15 /1 /21 /2 9/10 5/16 1/22 08 0 14 1 17 20 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 2006/072007/082 20 2010/112011 2012/132013/142 20 2016/172 2018/192019/202 20 2022/232 2024/252025/26 Years 2006 to 2026

(j) The distribution of housing targets is embedded in the strategies for the sub areas but it would be helpful to view this in one place. A table should be prepared to summarise how the RSS Phase 2 Revision requirement would be distributed across the sub areas by 5 year tranches. It should make clear whether this includes demolitions/replacements.

54. The tables below identify the broad geographical delivery of dwellings throughout the plan period, taken from the sub area strategies. The figures shown are gross completions which allow for replacement of demolitions at the appropriate rate.

Stoke-on-Trent 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 to 2014/15 to 2019/20 to 2024/25 Totals Actual Actual 2013/14 2018/19 2023/24 and 2025/26 City Centre 0 0 0 80 200 150 70 500 Inner Urban 359 471 170 3,080 2,250 1,250 245 7,825 Core Outer Urban 491 409 250 490 1,365 1,430 740 5,175 Area Total for 850 880 420 3,650 3,815 2,830 1,055 13,500 Stoke-on- Trent

Newcastle-under-Lyme 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 to 2014/15 to 2019/20 to 2024/25 Totals Actual Actual 2013/14 2018/19 2023/24 and 2025/26 Kidsgrove 38 12 13 142 146 443 - 794 Rural area 54 35 27 180 50 252 - 598 Newcastle 149 116 166 746 1,743 557 - 3,477 (RENEW area) Newcastle 19 41 91 361 143 458 - 1,113 (non RENEW area) Total for 260 204 297 1,429 2,082 1,710 - 5,982 Newcastle- under-Lyme

(k) How can the CS provide a housing implementation strategy to manage delivery as described in paragraphs 62-67 of PPS3?

55. The Core Spatial Strategy sets out strategic housing targets for Newcastle- under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent at paragraph 5.25; previously developed land targets at paragraph 5.19 and housing delivery trajectories at paragraphs 5.28 and 5.29. Performance will be subject to annual monitoring and reporting.

56, The Councils are involved in implementation both as local planning authorities in terms of statutory plan making including site allocation plans and as member of the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership (NSRP) actively engaged in housing market intervention including land assembly and promotion of residential development in priority areas. The latter component may increase if the Council is successful in PFI 6 initiatives.

57. The quantity of potential land supply is generally not an issue in the plan area, there being considerable potential previously developed land supply as well a greenfield land identified for consideration.

58. The projected housing trajectories included in the Core Spatial Strategy are front loaded to reflect the period of housing intervention arising from the approved the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Strategy, all of which has been subject to risk analysis and Audit Commission and DCLG scrutiny. The NSRP Business Plan and supplementary project development is based upon bringing about transformational change and infrastructural investment to support the transformation. This includes bending mainstream investment strategies to help deliver and complement regeneration priorities.

59. The critical issue at present is how long will it take for the housing development market to recover from its current, extraordinary malaise. If housing is not built at the rate required then the crest of the trajectories will be pushed further into the plan period. There is every prospect that the development targets set out in the Core Spatial Strategy will be delivered by 2026.

60. The NSRP and planning authorities have been actively engaged with the development industry to take account of their development aspirations during statutory plan making and add their specific interests to the pool of potential development sites which could meet development targets.

61. The preparation of site allocation plans to meet housing development targets set out in the area spatial strategies will provide for the target plus between 10 - 20 % contingency to provide a degree of flexibility.

62. A Monitoring Framework is provided at Section 8 of the Core Spatial Strategy. This will be subject to regular monitoring and reporting through the LDF Annual Monitoring Report. This will be supplemented by bespoke monitoring frameworks accompanying daughter site allocation development plan documents. As set out in paragraph 8.4 of the Core Spatial Strategy, this will provide the basis upon which remedial actions will be discussed and translated where necessary into re-phasing of site delivery; additional infrastructural investment to reduce constraints or in the final analysis comprehensively reviewing the site allocation plan. Identification of trigger points would be set out in site allocation development plan documents or where delivery of a five year supply of deliverable sites is at risk due to local circumstances.

(l) If there is an over abundance of previously developed land (PDL) in Stoke, how does the CS guide the next level of DPD to make choices between competing areas of PDL?

63. The Core Spatial Strategy apportions (net) housing development in the following manner:

Stoke-on- Sub Areas Reference Dwellings (net) Trent

City Centre City Centre Paragraph 5.71 500 minimum and Inner Inner Urban Core Paragraph 5.126 5,700 minimum Urban Core (Plan 5) Stoke Outer Meir Area of Major Paragraph 5.157 4,600 Urban Area Intervention (300) (Plan 6) Other Housing Intervention Areas (900) Residual Areas (3,400) Completions 616 Paragraph 5.25 616. 2006/07 11,416

64. Of this total as at 1 April 2007, 4,100 dwellings had the benefit of planning permission so that together with completions this leaves a residual of 6,700 dwellings to be found.

65. The spatial strategy seeks to maximise repopulation of the inner urban core (including the city centre) of the conurbation (wholly located within Stoke-on- Trent). The area spatial strategies at paragraphs 5.71 and 5.126 set a target of 6,200 dwellings. This is a floor rather than a ceiling target and within this area greater reliance can be placed on the use of sustainable transport systems. The capacity which can be delivered within this area will largely be determined by detailed infrastructural constraints and the ability of the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership to deliver the transformational agenda required for North Staffordshire. Planning policy will be a critical tool as explained in paragraph 5.16 of the Core Spatial Strategy.

66. National planning policy PPS3: Housing, paragraphs 36, 38 and 39 provide general guidance regarding identifying suitable locations for housing development.

67. The Core Spatial Strategy identifies the following additional locational considerations which are relevant to Stoke-on-Trent to help prioritize site selection:

• Relationship to the Inner Urban Core (Policy SP1.1, paragraph 5.15) • Relationship to the RENEW ‘Areas of Intervention’ (Policy SP1.1, paragraph 5.15) • Relationship to the city centre and significant urban centres ((Policy SP1.1, paragraph 5.15) • Relationship to strategic transportation corridors in Outer Stoke where this would not prejudice the sustained regeneration of the Inner Urban Core and the City Centre (paragraph 5.165)

68. For the better understanding of this strategic approach the areas referred to above are mapped on Plan One.

(m) How will an assessment be made as to whether a proposed housing development would have the potential to undermine the aims of the housing market renewal programme? Is there published guidance to which reference could be made?

69. Predicting the impact of proposed housing development on the housing market renewal programme is not an exact science. The Housing Market Renewal pathfinder was designated in response to a failing housing market. The approach is set out paragraphs 5.16 and 5.17 of the Core Spatial Strategy. This supply management approach is supported by national policy and regional spatial strategy. In the final analysis the issue is about the degree to which proposed housing development (individually or collectively) outside the priority areas would impact upon investor confidence within priority regeneration areas; risk population displacement from the targeted areas and set an unhelpful precedent prejudicing delivery of the transformational agenda.

70. There is no published guidance spelling out how to carry out an assessment in case specific circumstances. Relevant considerations will include the scale, character and market niche of the proposed development and compliance with PPS3: housing landbank requirements.

71. The tensions arising from competing demands have been tested by the Secretary of State through appeal proceedings. Reference is made to the Secretary of State decision dated 29 May 2008, paragraphs 19 – 24 inclusive (Ref 2054057) in respect of the proposed development of 278 residential units at Scotia Road, Tunstall. At a smaller scale the approach was supported by the Secretary of State dated 7 November 2005, paragraphs 11 – 16 inclusive (Ref 1185351) in respect of one dwelling at 70 Longton Road, Trentham. In both cases proposed development has been resisted because it would risk delivery of the approved housing market renewal strategy and programme.

72. Both authorities have established ‘development teams’ to consider major developments both pre- and post-application in order to achieve positive negotiations on development proposals. In order to ensure co-ordination with our regeneration partners, particularly RENEW North Staffordshire, they play an active role in the process.

(n) What are the implications for the CS of any increased housing requirement that might emerge from the RSS Phase 2 revision?

73. The RSS Phase 2 Preferred Option allocates 17,100 dwellings to Newcastle- under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent combined. Apportionment between the two authorities is a matter for the Core Spatial Strategy. For every three dwellings required over the period to 2026, two would be built in Stoke-on-Trent and one in Newcastle.

74. The examination of RSS Phase 2 is considering increasing the sub regional allocation to 23,100 dwellings. Again apportionment will be a matter for local determination, although consideration will need to take account of consequentially changes in population projections arising from increased strategic development targets; increased demand for employment and town centre uses and other services and increased infrastructural resources. Little detail of this nature has been provided to date from the regional examination.

75. The sub regional apportionment arising from additional allocations would need to be subject to options appraisal to determine allocation between Newcastle- under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent. This would require extensive engagement of plan making stakeholders.

76. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent the Submitted Core Strategy already seeks to maximise residential development within the inner urban core. Thus any additional growth is likely to be accommodated within Outer Stoke-on-Trent and delivery would be at a time which would not prejudice regeneration of the priority target areas.

(o) Is it intended that national policy will apply to housing density or will this be dealt with in subsequent DPDs?

77. The general approach to housing density is set out in paragraph 5.14 of the Submitted Core Strategy. Housing densities will vary dependent upon circumstance and will be a matter for site allocation development plan documents. However, as a generality for the plan area and as set out in the table accompanying Section 8, the Monitoring Framework, in terms of the density of residential development the projected target, in the middle of page 115, is about 50 dwellings per hectare.

(p) Following the reply to point 2 of ICD 1, a brief note should be prepared to bring together the up to date viability evidence for both authorities regarding the proposed affordable housing thresholds and percentages

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

78. In order to develop its policy position on affordable housing the city council commissioned planning consultants Adams Integra to produce a series of reports, taking account of existing policies and evidence, to develop a consistent planning led approach to the delivery of affordable housing. Adams Integra consulted widely in their research with strategic partners and the development industry as well as officers of the authority.

79. The Adams Integra study of the Viability Impacts of Policy Proposals (December 2006) explores whether there is sufficient in land values and profits to make a planning led approach to affordable housing feasible. It works on the assumption that the council will be moving from no affordable housing requirement to up to a 25% requirement. The study makes an assessment of the housing market across the city, examines both normal and abnormal building costs and determines residual land values. Justification is also provided for use of the 15 unit threshold.

Thresholds

80. The Viability Impacts study makes reference to the threshold in paragraphs 2.1.4 and 4.1.6. PPS3 allows flexibility on the 15 unit indicative minimum threshold. The city council has considered this and concluded that the additional affordable housing delivery likely to flow from a reduction in the threshold does not warrant this approach at the present time.

81. The affordable housing planning issues in the city are linked more to viability of sites than to land supply. In many rural and higher value urban areas, where sites coming forward are scarce and typically smaller, there is pressure to reduce the threshold. However, there is not a scarcity of land in the city and the Viability Impacts study advises against the reduction at the same time as introducing a requirement for an affordable housing contribution for the first time. The city’s Affordable Housing SPD (paragraph 3.3) identifies that this policy approach will be kept under review

Percentages

82. Specific reference is made to the justification of the affordable housing target percentage on page vi of the Introduction and paragraph 4.1.7 of the Viability Impacts study.

83. The basis of the study methodology was to appraise a series of typical (notional) site types using a developer type model and to vary the affordable housing assumptions. The modelling is across three value bands (lower, middle and higher) and was carried out after studying the local property market (Appendix III of the study), particularly the new homes market. The main indicator used was the change in approximate residual land value resulting from the policy proposals. Inevitably the land values are reduced, and sometimes very significantly in the lower property value areas which do not look as if they could support affordable housing as envisaged in the policy proposals. Even without affordable housing being required viability looks to be on the margins on notional schemes which contain mainly lower end value units. Generally the notional all flatted schemes were found to be less viable than the mixed or more traditional housing schemes.

84. A very clear trend emerged that the new build market is becoming rapidly established, and at very often significantly higher value levels than the resale market. In the light of this, the seeking of a target of 25% affordable housing on sites of 15 or more units is independently verified by the consultants to be reasonable and workable. This is necessarily linked to a negotiated approach that recognises particular site circumstances and other planning obligations. The availability or not of social housing grant will also affect deliverability. The study concludes that the expectation should be to secure 25% affordable provision with movement away from that only in the event of clear and fully justified circumstances.

85. A lower percentage target would have been unlikely to produce significantly delivery improvement on the 15% that had successfully been negotiated on a number of sites before the introduction of the policy.

86. The evidence base has been kept under review and a Property Values Review report was commissioned from Adams Integra in February/March 2008 to revisit Appendix III (Property Market). This informed the authority’s assessment of typical new build property values for the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document following its formal consultation, and provided an independent view of the current new build property market.

87. In December 2006 the Land Registry Index for the City was at 234.5. At January 2008 it was 248.6 representing an increase in prices of 6% over that period. Over 2007 the rate of house price increase in the city generally declined from an annual increase rate at just over 8% recorded in the index at the beginning of 2007. Information sourced from the RICS Housing Market Survey (February 2008) showed a similar picture for the West Midlands, with continued house price decline (for the seventh consecutive month) and new buyer and vendor enquiries declining.

88. The Property Values Review report provided typical indicative new build price levels for different property sizes in the city. Average prices were in the range of the medium and higher value levels from the 2006 study. These average prices were used in the final published version of the Affordable Housing SPD but did not indicate such a significant or sustained change in values that would justify a review of the 25% target percentage.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

89. In September 2008 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council commissioned planning consultants Adams Integra to test the viability of its proposed affordable housing policies for the Core Spatial Strategy. This followed a similar methodology to the December 2006 Stoke-on-Trent study. However, it worked from a different baseline position in that since February 2008 the Borough Council had been successfully requesting 20% - 25% affordable housing on private residential schemes under its ‘Clarification of Policy on Housing Development’ note (EB/003)

Thresholds

90. As discussed in paragraph 2.1, PPS3 allows flexibility on the 15 unit indicative minimum threshold for requiring affordable housing. Subsequently, the viability study tested scenarios where 10 units may come forward in the urban area. As set out in paragraph 3.4.3 of the study, requesting affordable housing on such schemes (where they have not been required in the past), would considerably reduce residual land values and thus the viability of such schemes coming forward.

91. A lower threshold of 5 units has been set in the rural area. This is due to the Borough Council’s recognition that most schemes likely to come forward in the rural area during the plan period will be small in scale. Failure to introduce a reduced threshold would effectively concede to providing virtually no affordable housing in the rural area. Furthermore, rural areas traditionally offer higher development values and lower site clean up costs. Viability is therefore less fragile to affordable housing policy requirements than small scale urban schemes. On this basis, Adams Integra support the lower threshold for the rural area, as set out in 5.1.3 of the viability study.

Percentages

92. Paragraphs 5.1.2 – 5.1.4 of the viability study supports the policy requirement for 25% affordable housing on new developments. As with the Stoke-on-Trent study, this was derived by testing the impact on residual land values of affordable housing requirements on a range of development scenarios. In Newcastle-under- Lyme, a range of five value bands were assessed, at site sizes ranging from 5 to 100 dwellings.

93. To test that 25% is an appropriate percentage, modelling was carried out to assess the impact of requiring 20%, 25%, and 30% affordable housing. The findings showed that viability decreases as a higher percentage of affordable housing is sought, particularly in areas of low land values. Adams Integra subsequently advised the Borough Council that the policy requirement for 25% affordable housing is appropriately pitched, and should only be deviated from where clear evidence can be presented of viability issues due to matters such as abnormal costs. Requiring a higher percentage of affordable housing would be undeliverable under current market conditions, whilst going below 25% would fail to maximise affordable housing provision in line with the need identified elsewhere (i.e. Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2007).

94. As the Newcastle-under-Lyme Viability Study was carried out between September and November 2008, no updates to the study have been made or deemed necessary.

Appendix Two

CCD4i Newcastle-under-Lyme 15 Year Housing Trajectory - Supporting Data Tables

2008/09

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) N648A Keele Rd.,Newcastle G 186 274 12.4 30 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints N664A Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (South) B 138 206 5.8 20 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R583A Madeley Working Mans Club, Newcastle Road, Madeley B 22 25 0.48 10 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N760 Oxford Street, Basford (Brooks Laundry) B 13 20 0.29 6 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N758 High Street, May Bank (Marsh Head PH) B 14 14 0.11 4 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N635 Farcroft Ave.,Chesterton B 5 51 1.56 3 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints N710 Downing Ave, Basford (between 36-38) B 2 2 0.1 2 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R521 Main Road, Betley (Rear of Ivydene Garage) B 2 4 0.17 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R603 Lower Road, Ashley (the Croft) B 1 1 0.19 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints Total gross Completions 78 Completions to date in 2008/09 186 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 284 Minus Demolition Estimate 79 Net Total 205

2009/10

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Lower Milehouse, Newcastle (Former GEC Site) - Extra Knutton and Cross N769c B60601.2360 Permission granted - no known constraints Care Units Heath N664A Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (South) B 118 206 5.8 30 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N648A Keele Rd.,Newcastle G 156 274 12.4 30 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints N660 Lymewood Close, Newcastle G 26 26 0.4 13 Town Permission granted - no known constraints R583A Madeley Working Mens Club, Newcastle Rd, Madeley B 12 25 0.48 12 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N758 High Street, May Bank (Marsh Head PH) B 10 14 0.11 10 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints r602 75 High Street, Halmerend B 10 10 0.3 10 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N760 Oxford Street, Basford (Brooks Laundry) B 7 20 0.29 5 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N647 Clayton Rd., (Allotments),Newcastle G 5 135 3.5 4 Town Permission granted - no known constraints N681 Dimsdale View/Heath Street, Chesterton B 4 4 0.07 4 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints N779 London Road, Chesterton(Grove Methodist Church) B 4 4 0.03 4 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints K450 Congleton Road, Butt Lane (104) B 5 5 0.04 3 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N635 Farcroft Ave.,Chesterton B 2 51 1.56 2 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints N757 Allensway, Seabridge (Plots 1 and 15) G 2 2 0.24 2 Newcastle South Permission granted - no known constraints R452 Barhill Rd., Madeley, (Disused Reservoir) B 1 4 0.28 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K433 Church St, Rookery (adj. 4) B 1 1 0.03 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N585 Castle Street, Chesterton (Adj. 71) B 1 1 0.03 1 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints N674 Racecourse, Silverdale (adj. 38) B 1 1 0.03 1 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints N741 Seabridge Lane, Newcastle (adj. 210) B 1 1 0.13 1 Newcastle South Permission granted - no known constraints R545 Ravens Lane, Bignall End B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R599 Morton, Pinewood Road, Ashley B 1 1 0.07 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints Total gross Completions 196 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 216 Minus Demolition Estimate 48 Net Total 168

2010/11

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) N785 High Street, Wolstanton (Land at) B 76 76 0.4 38 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N664A Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (South) B 88 206 5.8 30 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N648A Keele Rd.,Newcastle G 126 274 12.4 30 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints N660 Lymewood Close, Newcastle G 13 26 0.4 13 Town Permission granted - no known constraints N776 Clayton Road , Newcastle (The White House) B 10 10 0.17 10 Newcastle South Permission granted - no known constraints N664B Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (North) G 39 39 1.4 8 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K438 Wellington Rd.,Kidsgrove (former Nursery School) B660.116Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N749 Basford Park Road, Basford (former Church Hall) B 10 10 0.1 5 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K394 Coalpit Hill,Talke B 7 8 0.21 4 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N759 Peake Street, Knutton (former Garage Site) B 4 4 0.04 4 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath R607 High Street, Halmerend (105-109) B 3 3 0.08 3 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N719 Sunny Hollow, Newcastle (adj.'White Gables') B 2 2 0.09 2 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K450 Congleton Road, Butt Lane (104) B 2 5 0.04 2 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N760 Oxford Street, Basford (Brooks Laundry) B 2 20 0.29 2 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N647 Clayton Rd., (Allotments),Newcastle G 1 135 3.5 1 Town Permission granted - no known constraints N753 Newport Grove,Chesterton (adj 25) B 1 2 0.03 1 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints N747 Cross May St.,Newcastle (adj 29) B 1 1 0.03 1 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints N702 Tunbridge Drive,Silverdale (between 18-20) B 1 1 0.03 1 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R487 Apedale Rd.,Wood Lane B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N631 London Rd., Chesterton (rear 89-91) B 1 1 0.03 1 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints K436 Park Ave.,Kidsgrove (adj 66) B 1 1 0.02 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N724 High St.,Silverdale (205) B 1 1 0.06 1 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R198 Church Street, Wood Lane (Site adj. 4/6) B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R434 The Holborn, Madeley (Land adj. Mount Pleasant) B 1 1 0.08 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R618 Holmcroft, Newcastle Road, Baldwins Gate B 1 1 0.21 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints Total gross Completions 168 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 188 Minus Demolition Estimate 61 Net Total 127

2011/12

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) N785 High Street, Wolstanton (Land at) B 76 76 0.4 38 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R622 Lea House, Furnace Lane, Madeley B 63 63 1.84 32 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N664A Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (South) B 58 206 5.8 30 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N769A Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle,(Former GEC) B 113 113 2.61 30 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath N648A Keele Rd.,Newcastle G 96 274 12.4 30 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints Cedar Ave/Banbury Street, Butt Lane (Former K455 B 12 12 0.27 12 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints Warehouse & Bakery) K447 William Rd., Kidsgrove (The Galley) B 20 20 0.18 10 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N769B Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle, (Former GEC) B 47 47 1.09 10 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath N664B Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (North) G 31 39 1.4 8 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N799 Knutton Road, Wolstanton B 12 12 0.24 6 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N726 Lily Street, Wolstanton B 11 11 0.11 6 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N749 Basford Park Road, Basford (former Church Hall) B 5 10 0.1 5 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K394 Coalpit Hill,Talke B 3 8 0.21 3 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N795 Peel Street, Wolstanton (Alsager Roofing Company) B 6 6 0.05 3 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K421 Chester Rd., Talke (139a) B220.122Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N796 8 Daly Crescent, Silverdale B 2 2 0.05 2 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R623 Rear 186, High Street, Halmerend B 2 2 0.02 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R580 New Rd.,Bignall End ('Spring Bank') B 2 2 0.15 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N763 High St.,Silverdale (138A) B 2 2 0.02 2 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R509 Eastwood Rise,Madeley Park Wood (Plot 33) G 1 1 0.05 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R507 Eastwood Rise,Madeley Park Wood (Plot 32) G 1 1 0.05 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R529 Pinewood Rd.,Ashley Heath ('Christleton') B 1 1 0.24 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R579 Holloway Lane, Aston (183) B 1 1 0.12 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R577 Eccleshall Rd.,Mucklestone ('Copthorn Cottage') B 1 1 0.13 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R536 Moss Lane,Madeley (adj Moss Cottage) B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K441 Pennyfields Rd.,Newchapel (rear 13) B 1 1 0.05 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints R587 Old Rd., Bignall End ('Field House') B 1 1 0.14 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R551 Moss Lane/River Lea Mews, Madeley B 1 1 0.02 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R591 Beresford Dale, Madeley (18) B 1 1 0.06 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K449 High Street, Talke, (82-84) B 1 1 0.05 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N794 18 Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath B 1 1 0.03 1 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath R595 Moss Lane, Madeley (garden of 'The Bungalow') B 1 1 0.05 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R606 Main Road, Betley (Rear of The Square) B 1 1 0.1 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N743 Scot Hay Road, Silverdale (adj. The Cottage ) B 1 1 0.17 1 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R565 Rear 14, Nantwich Road, Audley B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints Total gross Completions 249 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 269 Minus Demolition Estimate 31 Net Total 238

2012/13

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Knutton and Cross Market constraints. Developer wants to wait until they have sold some of No PP yet Lower Milehouse Lane (Wilmot Drive) B 240 240 6.86 50 Heath the Collins & Aikman units before they commence on this site. R622 Lea House, Furnace Lane, Madeley B 31 63 1.84 31 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N769A Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle,(Former GEC) B 83 113 2.61 30 Knutton and Cross Permission granted - no known constraints N648A Keele Rd.,Newcastle G 66 274 12.4 30 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints N664A Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (South) B 28 206 5.8 28 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Liverpool Road/Ashfields New Road, Newcastle (New N775 B 56 56 0.66 28 Town Permission granted - no known constraints Sainsburys Site) K447 William Rd., Kidsgrove (The Galley) B 10 20 0.18 10 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N725 Silverdale Rd.,Newcastle (Forge Garage) B 20 20 0.37 10 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N769B Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle, (Former GEC) B 37 47 1.09 10 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath N664B Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (North) G 23 39 1.4 8 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N774 Knutton Lane, Knutton (The Forge Inn) B 7 7 0.19 7 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath N799 Knutton Road, Wolstanton B 6 12 6 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N726 Lily Street, Wolstanton B 5 11 0.11 5 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath, (former Cask & Knutton and Cross N576 B 8 20 0.25 4 Permission granted - no known constraints Mallet) Heath N722 Pitgreen Lane,Wolstanton (rear 10/12) B 4 4 0.09 4 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R572 Butterton Nurseries, Butterton G 4 4 0.84 4 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N797 31 Southlands Ave, Wolstanton B 4 4 0.05 4 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N761 Victoria St, Newcastle (7) B 8 8 0.06 4 Town Permission granted - no known constraints N712 Clayton Rd.,Newcastle (rear OrchardHouse) G 3 3 0.5 3 Town Permission granted - no known constraints N795 Peel Street, Wolstanton B 3 6 0.05 3 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R589 Mucklestone Rd.,Loggerheads B 2 2 0.04 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N528 Sandy Lane, Cross Heath, (rear 'Cornwall House') B 2 2 0.15 2 Knutton and Cross Permission granted - no known constraints K458 16&18 Skellern Street, Butt Lane B 2 2 0.02 2 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints R515 Newcastle Rd.,Loggerheads (adj.'Green Bungalow') B 2 2 0.17 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K459 St Saviours Street, Butt Lane B 2 2 0.06 2 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N663 Dimsdale Parade,Wolstanton (adj.261) B 2 2 0.14 2 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K448 Congleton Rd.,Butt Lane (adj 26) B220.042Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N798 41 Sneyd Terrace, Newcastle B 2 2 0.03 2 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints N742 Heaton Terrace, Porthill (adj 119) B 2 2 0.03 2 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R605 New Road, Bignall End (New Hall) B 2 2 0.02 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N687 Audley Rd., Chesterton (290) B 1 2 0.07 1 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints K437 Spey Drive,Kidsgrove (adj 1) B 1 1 0.03 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints K443 Birchenwood, Kidsgrove B 1 1 0.04 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints K35 Avon Close, Whitehill (adj 4) B 1 1 0.03 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N708 Goodwin Ave.,Newcastle (12) B 1 1 0.03 1 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Sandy Lane, Cross Heath, (Adj. Gaunts Hatch, 45 Sandy N623 B 1 1 0.11 1 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Lane) R548 Moss Lane,Madeley (rear 87) B 1 1 0.08 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R576 Pinfold Lane, Almington (Upper House Farm) B 1 1 0.35 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R588 Newcastle Rd.,Loggerheads (Acorn Bungalow) B 1 1 0.05 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K445 Merelake Rd.,Talke (Mill Heath) B 1 1 0.07 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N606 Wolstanton Rd., Chesterton, (Adj. 45) B 1 1 0.05 1 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints R590 Station Road, Onneley, (Peaks Farm) G 1 1 0.17 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K442 Stonebank Rd.,Kidsgrove (site of 45) B 1 1 0.01 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints R559 Mucklestone Wood Lane,Loggerheads (The Croft) B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints

2012/13 continued

R597 Agger Hill, Leycett (Ivy Cottage) B 1 1 0.07 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R511 Station Rd.,Madeley (Town House) B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K451 Ian Road, Newchapel, (49) B 1 1 0.04 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N768 James Street, Wolstanton, (1) B 1 1 0.01 1 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K446 High St.,Harriseahead (Castle View Works) B 1 1 0.03 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N728 Milehouse Lane,Newcasltle (rear 7) B 1 1 0.06 1 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R452 Barhill Rd., Madeley, (Disused Reservoir) B 1 4 0.28 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R593 The Butts, Betley (adj Church Villas) B 1 1 0.05 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R542 Oak Tree Drive.,Loggerheads (Plot 4) The Paddock B 1 1 0.14 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N754 Chapel St.,Silverdale (adj.16) B 1 1 0.01 1 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R586 Beresford Dale, Madeley (rear 12) B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N789 Jason Street, Newcastle (Land between 21 & 23) B 1 1 0.01 1 Town Permission granted - no known constraints Total gross Completions 325 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 345 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 329

2013/14

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Knutton and Cross Market constraints. Developer wants to wait until they have sold some of No PP yet Lower Milehouse Lane (Wilmot Drive) B 190 240 6.86 50 Heath the Collins & Aikman units before they commence on this site. N766 Silverdale Colliery B 255 255 9.35 50 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints K453 West Ave, Kidsgrove (Land at) B80802.1640Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N648A Keele Rd.,Newcastle G 36 274 12.4 36 Thistleberry Permission granted - no known constraints N786 Heathcote Street, Chesterton (Chesterton Ex- B 31 31 0.4 31 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N769A Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle,(Former GEC) B 53 113 2.61 30 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath N775 Liverpool Road/Ashfields New Road, Newcastle (New B 28 56 0.66 28 Town Permission granted - no known constraints Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical SHLAA 35 Bristol Street Motors, London Road, Newcastle B 65 65 1.3 22 Town constraints. Owner unknown. N771 Brampton Rd., May Bank, (Victoria Court) B 28 28 0.16 14 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N725 Silverdale Rd.,Newcastle (Forge Garage) B 20 20 0.37 10 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints Knutton and Cross N769B Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle, (Former GEC) B 27 47 1.09 10 Permission granted - no known constraints Heath N766a Silverdale Colliery B 45 45 1.65 10 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints N664B Wolstanton Colliery, Wolstanton (North) G 15 39 1.4 8 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints K452 The Avenue, Kidsgrove (11A, Harecastle House) B 7 7 0.14 7 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints N735 Heaton Terrace,Porthill (115) B 5 5 0.03 5 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath, (former Cask & Knutton and Cross N576 B 4 20 0.25 4 Permission granted - no known constraints Mallet) Heath R560 Heathcote Rd.,Halmerend (former 'Boars Head') B 4 4 0.14 4 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N761 Victoria St, Newcastle (7) B 4 8 0.06 4 Town Permission granted - no known constraints R600 Old Springs, Market Drayton B 2 2 0.04 2 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N791 Ford St.,Silverdale (adj 11) B 2 2 0.03 2 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints N695 Bradwell Lane, Porthill (rear No 4) B 2 2 0.19 2 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints N765 Plane Grove, Chesterton (Land between Applecroft and B 1 1 0.02 1 Chesterton Permission granted - no known constraints R513 Eastwood Rise,Madeley Park Wood (Plot 34) G 1 1 0.49 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R596 Den Lane, Wrinehill (Sulby) B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R604 Hope Street, Bignall End (8) B 1 1 0.02 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N773 Daleview Drive, Silverdale (Adj 36) B 1 1 0.02 1 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints R568 Maer, Newcastle ('Slaters') G 1 1 0.18 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R454 Boon Hill Rd.,Bignall End (Adj 10) B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints K454 Pennyfields Road, Newchapel (adj 11a) B 1 1 0.11 1 Kidsgrove Permission granted - no known constraints R578 Lordsley, Ashley ('Manor Hill') B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R612 Gorse Crescent, Loggerheads (Garden of 4) B 1 1 0.08 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R567 Butterton Grange Farm, Butterton G 1 1 0.16 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R566 Butterton Grange Farm, Butterton G 1 1 0.02 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R613 Haddon Lane, Chapel Chorlton (Manor Cottage) B 1 1 0.22 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N781 Lawson Terrace, Wolstanton (Former Builders Store) B 1 1 0.01 1 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R200 Chester Rd., Audley, (Adj. The Croft) B 1 1 0.11 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R616 Snape Hall Road, Baldwins Gate (Rose Cottage) B 1 1 0.07 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R617 Ravens Lane, Bignall End (51) B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints N762 Sandy Lane, Newcastle, (Rear 43) B 1 1 0.16 1 Newcastle East Permission granted - no known constraints R592 The Butts, Betley (Opposite Church Villas) B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R571 Beresford Dale, Madeley (rear 16) B 1 1 0.03 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R585 Beresford Dale, Madeley (rear 14) B 1 1 0.04 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints R199 Manor Road, Baldwins Gate G 1 1 0.17 1 Rural Permission granted - no known constraints Total gross Completions 391 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 411 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 395 2014/15

2015/16

Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 30 Hanging Gate Pub, Liverpool Road, Newcastle B 15 15 0.22 8 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 181 Staffordshire Knot Pub, Loomer Road, Chesterton B 15 15 0.58 8 Chesterton problems or other physical constraints

Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 53 Land at Bradwell Lane, Bradewell B 15 15 0.2 8 Newcastle East problems or other physical constraints

Car park at Chesterton Community Centre, London Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 179 B 12 12 0.22 6 Chesterton Road, Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - permission currently being sought for SHLAA 24 243 Liverpool Road, Cross Heath B 6 6 0.23 6 Heath residential use. No infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 132 Land at Heathcote Street, Kidsgrove B 10 10 0.23 5 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 258 Windsor Street Car Park, Newcastle B 10 10 0.1 5 Town problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No Knutton and Cross SHLAA 295 Land at Cotswold Ave, Knutton B 10 10 0.51 5 infrastructure problems or other physical constraints. There may be a Heath geological fault in the immediate vicinity - needs further investigation.

Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical SHLAA 19 Land at Valentine Road, Kidsgrove B 8 8 0.16 4 Kidsgrove constraints. Owner unknown.

Total gross Completions 407 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 427 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 411 2016/17

Brownfield / Remaining Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Capacity Size Completions N766 Silverdale Colliery B 105 255 9.35 50 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints

Knutton and Cross Market constraints. Developer wants to wait until they have sold some of No PP yet Lower Milehouse Lane (Wilmot Drive) B 40 240 6.86 40 Heath the Collins & Aikman units before they commence on this site. Knutton and Cross No PP yet Charter Road, Cross Heath B 67 100 2.83 33 No policy constraints. Current market constraints may have an impact. Heath Permission granted for housing - site being considered for bingo hall - no N751 Marsh Parade, Newcastle ('Zanzibar') B 92 92 0.35 31 Town permission sought for this use at this time. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145 Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton B 115 145 6.96 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145a Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton G 120 150 9.15 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 296 Land at Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath B 120 120 2.94 30 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 297 Land at Meadow Street, London Road, Chesterton B 80 110 2.41 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure Knutton and Cross SHLAA 115 Knutton Recreation Centre, Knutton Lane, Knutton B 35 55 2.15 20 problems or other physical constraints. Reprovision of facility is the Heath biggest constraint and may delay development to 2017/18 and beyond. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 173 Club on Bradwell Lane, Bradwell B 15 30 0.26 15 Newcastle East problems or other physical constraints. Reprovision of club facility needed. N766a Silverdale Colliery B 15 45 1.65 10 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 53 Land at Bradwell Lane, Bradewell B 7 15 0.2 7 Newcastle East problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 30 Hanging Gate Pub, Liverpool Road, Newcastle B 7 15 0.22 7 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 181 Staffordshire Knot Pub, Loomer Road, Chesterton B 7 15 0.58 7 Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 65 Land at Chapel Street, Silverdale B 12 12 0.53 6 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Car park at Chesterton Community Centre, London Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 179 B 6 12 0.22 6 Chesterton Road, Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 132 Land at Heathcote Street, Kidsgrove B 5 10 0.23 5 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 299 Fairmont, Sandy Lane, Newcastle B 10 10 0.26 5 Newcastle East infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 258 Windsor Street Car Park, Newcastle B 5 10 0.1 5 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 51 Sites at Kent Grove/ Cross Street, Chesterton B 5 5 0.5 5 Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 43 Land at Church Walk/Victoria Place B 10 10 0.14 5 Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No Knutton and Cross SHLAA 295 Land at Cotswold Ave, Knutton B 5 10 0.51 5 infrastructure problems or other physical constraints. There may be a Heath geological fault in the immediate vicinity - needs further investigation. Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 56 Camillus Road, Newcastle B 5 5 0.2 5 Heath problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 67 Land at High Street, Silverdale B 5 5 0.11 5 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints 2016/17 continued

Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical SHLAA 19 Land at Valentine Road, Kidsgrove B 4 8 0.16 4 Kidsgrove constraints. Owner unknown. Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 61 Land at Pentland Grove, Knutton B 2 2 0.11 2 Heath problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 22 Site at Boxwood Place, Birch House Road, Chesterton B 2 2 0.19 2 Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 226 Garage Site at Moorland Road, Mow Cop B 1 1 0.2 1 Rural problems or other physical constraints Total gross Completions 401 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 421 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 405

2017/18

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) N766 Silverdale Colliery B 55 255 9.35 55 Silverdale Permission granted - no LA controlled constraints to development SHLAA 334 Blackfriars Site, Newcastle B 150 150 1.9 50 Town No policy constraints. Knutton and Cross No PP yet Charter Road, Cross Heath B 34 100 2.83 34 No policy constraints. Current market constraints may have an impact. Heath Permission granted for housing - site being considered for bingo hall - no N751 Marsh Parade, Newcastle ('Zanzibar') B 61 92 0.35 31 Town permission sought for this use at this time. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145 Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton B 85 145 6.96 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145a Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton G 90 150 9.15 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 297 Land at Meadow Street, London Road, Chesterton B 50 110 2.41 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 296 Land at Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath B 90 120 2.94 30 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Permission granted for housing - no known constraints other current N752 Water St/George St.,Newcastle B 87 87 0.48 30 Town market conditions.

Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 115 Knutton Recreation Centre, Knutton Lane, Knutton B 15 55 2.15 15 Heath problems or other physical constraints

Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 256 Jubilee Baths, Brunswick Street, Newcastle B 30 30 0.19 15 Town problems or other physical constraints. Relocation of this facility will be the onlylikely constraint to development. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 257 School Street Car Park, Newcastle & Subaru site B 15 45 0.15 15 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 65 Land at Chapel Street, Silverdale B 6 12 0.53 6 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 307 Land at Church Lane, Knutton G 6 6 0.67 6 Heath problems or other physical constraints N766a Silverdale Colliery B 5 45 1.65 5 Silverdale Permission granted - no known constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 299 Fairmont, Sandy Lane, Newcastle B 5 10 0.26 5 Newcastle East infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 43 Land at Church Walk/Victoria Place B 5 10 0.14 5 Chesterton problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure Knutton and Cross SHLAA 308 Cotswold Ave, Knutton G 8 8 0.31 4 problems or significant physical constraints. Possible geological fault in Heath immediate vicinity - needs further investigation. Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 294 Land at Church Lane, Knutton G 8 8 0.32 4 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 293 Land at Pentland Grove, Knutton G 4 4 0.25 4 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 75 Land at Bath Road, Silverdale B 4 4 0.16 4 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 66 Land at Church Street, Silverdale B 2 2 0.16 2 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 230 Land Rear of William Road, Kidsgrove B 2 2 0.15 2 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Total gross Completions 412 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 432 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 416 2018/19

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) SHLAA 334 Blackfriars Site, Newcastle B 100 150 1.9 50 Town No policy constraints. Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical constraints. Owner - Crewsline. Relocation of the facility will be the main SHLAA 23 Speedway Stadium, Loomer Road, Chesterton B 190 190 6.3 50 Chesterton constraint and may result in delivery on this site being delayed significantly if a suitable site cannot be found for this substantial facility. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. Old landfill site - may SHLAA 109 Clayhanger Close, Bradwell G 100 100 2.53 35 Newcastle East need further investigation Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145 Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton B 55 145 6.96 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145a Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton G 60 150 9.15 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Permission granted for housing - site being considered for bingo hall - no N751 Marsh Parade, Newcastle ('Zanzibar') B 30 92 0.35 30 Town permission sought for this use at this time. Permission granted for housing - no known constraints other current N752 Water St/George St.,Newcastle B 57 87 0.48 30 Town market conditions. Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 296 Land at Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath B 60 120 2.94 30 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 113 Land at Newchapel Road, Newchapel G 70 70 2.34 25 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 297 Land at Meadow Street, London Road, Chesterton B 20 110 2.41 20 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 256 Jubilee Baths, Brunswick Street, Newcastle B 15 30 0.19 15 Town problems or other physical constraints. Relocation of this facility will be the onlylikely constraint to development. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 257 School Street Car Park, Newcastle & Subaru Site B 30 45 0.15 15 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 259 West Street, Newcastle B 20 20 0.18 10 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical SHLAA 6 Land rear of 15-35 Millstone Ave, Butt Lane B 15 15 0.4 8 Kidsgrove constraints. Owner unknown. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 15 Maple Ave, Talke B 6 6 0.31 6 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 308 Cotswold Ave, Knutton G 4 8 0.31 4 Heath problems or significant physical constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 17 Lower Ash Road, Talke B 4 4 0.1 4 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 294 Land at Church Lane, Knutton G 4 8 0.32 4 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 18 Garage Site at Grove Ave, Talke B 8 8 0.31 4 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 13 Land South of Wedgwood Road, Talke B 7 7 0.52 4 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 314 95 Jamage Road, Talke B 6 6 0.25 3 Kidsgrove infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Total gross Completions 407 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 427 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 411

2019/2020

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) SHLAA 334 Blackfriars Site, Newcastle B 50 150 1.9 50 Town No policy constraints Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical constraints. Owner - Crewsline. Relocation of the facility will be the main SHLAA 23 Speedway Stadium, Loomer Road, Chesterton B 140 190 6.3 50 Chesterton constraint and may result in delivery on this site being delayed significantly if a suitable site cannot be found for this substantial facility. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. Old landfill site - may SHLAA 109 Clayhanger Close, Bradwell G 65 100 2.53 35 Newcastle East need further investigation Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145a Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton G 30 150 9.15 30 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 9 Land at West Ave, Kidsgrove B 85 85 5.04 30 Kidsgrove infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Knutton and Cross Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 296 Land at Lower Milehouse Lane, Cross Heath B 30 120 2.94 30 Heath infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Permission granted for housing - no known constraints other current N752 Water St/George St.,Newcastle B 27 87 0.48 27 Town market conditions. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 145 Land south of Apedale Road, Chesterton B 25 145 6.96 25 Chesterton infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 113 Land at Newchapel Road, Newchapel G 45 70 2.34 25 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 329 Seabridge Centre, Ash Way, Seabridge B 75 75 2.47 25 Newcastle South infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 114 Land at Pennyfields Road, Newchapel G 55 55 1.86 20 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 327 Thistleberry House, Keele Road, Newcastle B 25 25 0.8 15 Newcastle South infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 257 School Street Car Park, Newcastle & Subaru Site B 15 45 0.15 15 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 259 West Street, Newcastle B 10 20 0.18 10 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 88 Land around Paris Ave, Thistleberry B 20 20 0.45 10 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical SHLAA 6 Land rear of 15-35 Millstone Ave, Butt Lane B 7 15 0.4 7 Kidsgrove constraints. Owner unknown. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 18 Garage Site at Grove Ave, Talke B 4 8 0.31 4 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 71 Garage site at Laverock Grove, Madeley B 3 3 0.14 3 Rural problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 314 95 Jamage Road, Talke B 3 6 0.25 3 Kidsgrove infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 13 Land South of Wedgwood Road, Talke B 3 7 0.52 3 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Total gross Completions 417 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 437 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 421

2020/21

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical constraints. Owner - Crewsline. Relocation of the facility will be the main SHLAA 23 Speedway Stadium, Loomer Road, Chesterton B 90 190 6.3 50 Chesterton constraint and may result in delivery on this site being delayed significantly if a suitable site cannot be found for this substantial facility. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 103 Kentmere Place, Clayton Rd, Clayton G2 130 130 3.7 35 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. Old landfill site - may SHLAA 109 Clayhanger Close, Bradwell G 30 100 2.53 30 Newcastle East need further investigation Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5a Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 150 150 6.1 30 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 288 Hamptons Scrapyard and land to the west B/G 110 110 5.03 30 Thistleberry infrastructure problems. Brownfield part of site is scrapyard so there are likely to be significant land contamination issues. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 9 Land at West Ave, Kidsgrove B 55 85 5.04 30 Kidsgrove infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 329 Seabridge Centre, Ash Way, Seabridge B 50 75 2.47 25 Newcastle South infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 113 Land at Newchapel Road, Newchapel G 20 70 2.34 20 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 114 Land at Pennyfields Road, Newchapel G 35 55 1.86 20 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 255 King St Car Park, Newcastle B 25 25 0.66 13 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 327 Thistleberry House, Keele Road, Newcastle B 10 25 0.8 10 Newcastle South infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 88 Land around Paris Ave, Thistleberry B 10 20 0.45 10 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 73 Land at Rowney Close, Loggerhads B 12 12 0.2 6 Rural problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 90 Garage Site at Clayton Rd/Windermere Road B 10 10 0.29 5 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 86 Garage Site at Clayton Road, Clayton B 5 5 0.14 5 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 92 Garage Site at Rutland Place, Clayton B 5 5 0.48 5 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 84 Land at Poolfields Ave North, Poolfields B 5 5 0.16 5 Thistleberry problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 89 Garage Site at Seabridge Lane, Seabridge B 8 8 0.16 4 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 223 Land at Buckmaster Ave, Clayton B 4 4 0.13 4 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 87 Garage Site at Langdale Road, Clayton B 7 7 0.21 4 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 225 Land at Wedgwood Ave, Bignall End B 3 3 0.17 3 Rural problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 91 Site at Bedford Cres, Clayton B 3 3 0.11 3 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Total gross Completions 347 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 367 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 351 2021/22

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. Former SHLAA 304 Tadgedale Quarry, Muclestone Road, Loggerheads B 190 190 5.8 50 Rural quarry - ground preparation may be required depending Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other physical constraints. Owner - Crewsline. Relocation of the facility will be the main SHLAA 23 Speedway Stadium, Loomer Road, Chesterton B 40 190 6.3 40 Chesterton constraint and may result in delivery on this site being delayed significantly if a suitable site cannot be found for this substantial facility. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 103 Kentmere Place, Clayton Rd, Clayton G2 95 130 3.7 35 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5a Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 120 150 6.1 30 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 288 Hamptons Scrapyard and land to the west B/G 80 110 5.03 30 Thistleberry infrastructure problems. Brownfield part of site is scrapyard so there are likely to be significant land contamination issues. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 329 Seabridge Centre, Ash Way, Seabridge B 25 75 2.47 25 Newcastle South infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 9 Land at West Ave, Kidsgrove B 25 85 5.04 25 Kidsgrove infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5 Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 45 45 2.04 15 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 114 Land at Pennyfields Road, Newchapel G 15 55 1.86 15 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 255 King St Car Park, Newcastle B 12 25 0.66 12 Town problems or other physical constraints. Subject to completion of car parking study. Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other Known physical SHLAA 3 Land next to Dove Bank School B 20 20 0.67 10 Kidsgrove constraints. Owner unknown. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 73 Land at Rowney Close, Loggerhads B 6 12 0.2 6 Rural problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 90 Garage Site at Clayton Rd/Windermere Road B 5 10 0.29 5 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 78 Land at Westfield Road, Audley B 4 4 0.22 4 Rural problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 89 Garage Site at Seabridge Lane, Seabridge B 4 8 0.16 4 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 87 Garage Site at Langdale Road, Clayton B 3 7 0.21 3 Newcastle South problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 74 Land at East Lawns, Betley B 2 2 0.11 2 Rural problems or other physical constraints Total gross Completions 311 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 331 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 315

2022/23

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. Former SHLAA 304 Tadgedale Quarry, Muclestone Road, Loggerheads B 140 190 5.8 50 Rural quarry - ground preparation may be required depending Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5a Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 90 150 6.1 30 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 288 Hamptons Scrapyard and land to the west B/G 50 110 5.03 30 Thistleberry infrastructure problems. Brownfield part of site is scrapyard so there are likely to be significant land contamination issues. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 103 Kentmere Place, Clayton Rd, Clayton G2 60 130 3.7 30 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 118 Land at Deans Lane, Red Street G 40 40 1.37 20 Chesterton problems. May be some issues with land stability - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5 Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 30 45 2.04 15 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 325 Land at Hoon Ave, May Bank G 30 30 3.01 15 Newcastle East infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 116 Different sites ar Ravens Park Estate G2 25 25 1.66 15 Rural constraints. SHLAA 3 Land next to Dove Bank School B 10 20 0.67 10 Kidsgrove Suitable for housing. No infrastructure problems or other Known physical Site is suitable for housing. Owner is keen to develop. No known physical SHLAA 317 Land at Barhill Madeley G2 20 20 0.92 10 Rural constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 124 Kinnersley Street, Kidsgrove G 8 8 0.61 8 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 11 Land at Walton Grove/Coppice Grove, Talke G 10 10 0.4 5 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 247 Land at Gallowstree Lane, Thistleberry G2 10 10 0.3 5 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 282 Land at Brampton Road, Newcastle G2 10 10 1.41 5 Newcastle East constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 163 Land rear of HIgh Street, Talke Pits G2 10 10 0.31 5 Kidsgrove constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 194 Land at Hillwood Close, Madeley Heath G2 8 8 0.26 4 Rural constraints. SHLAA 93 Stafford Crescent, Clayton G2 8 8 0.47 4 Newcastle South Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No known constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 217 Land at Cambourne Cres, Westlands G2 8 8 0.57 4 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 131 Hillport Ave, Bradwell G 4 4 0.27 4 Newcastle East problems or significant physical constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 68 Land at Parkfields Close, Silverdale G 4 4 0.22 4 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 70 Land at Underwood Road, Silverdale G 7 7 0.31 4 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 80 Land at Ash Grove, Silverdale G 4 4 0.11 4 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 160 Land at Thomas Street, Butt Lane G 3 3 0.15 3 Kidsgrove problems or significant physical constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 280 Land at Highfield Drive, Wolstanton G 6 6 0.21 3 Newcastle East problems or significant physical constraints.

Total gross Completions 287 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 307 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 291 2023/24

Remaining Brownfield / Site Total Site Estimated Site ID Site Location Capacity Division Notes on deliverability Greenfield Capacity Size Completions (ETP) Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. Former SHLAA 304 Tadgedale Quarry, Muclestone Road, Loggerheads B 90 190 5.8 50 Rural quarry - ground preparation may be required depending Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5a Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 60 150 6.1 30 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 103 Kentmere Place, Clayton Rd, Clayton G2 30 130 3.7 30 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 118 Land at Deans Lane, Red Street G 20 40 1.37 20 Chesterton problems. May be some issues with land stability - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - Developer keen to develop. No SHLAA 288 Hamptons Scrapyard and land to the west B/G 20 110 5.03 20 Thistleberry infrastructure problems. Brownfield part of site is scrapyard so there are likely to be significant land contamination issues. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by County Council. No SHLAA 325 Land at Hoon Ave, May Bank G 15 30 3.01 15 Newcastle East infrastructure problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owner unknown. Old employment site - SHLAA 5 Land at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove G 15 45 2.04 15 Kidsgrove land may be unstable - needs further investigation. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 116 Different sites ar Ravens Park Estate G2 10 25 1.66 10 Rural constraints. Site is suitable for housing. Owner is keen to develop. No known physical SHLAA 317 Land at Barhill Madeley G2 10 20 0.92 10 Rural constraints. Amenity space with play area. Although only a few units were allocated to Knutton and Cross SHLAA 261 Land at Douglas Road, Cross Heath G2 10 20 2.69 10 this site it would be good to avoid building here if possible. Left to very Heath end of plan period Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 247 Land at Gallowstree Lane, Thistleberry G2 5 10 0.3 5 Newcastle South constraints. SHLAA 163 Land rear of HIgh Street, Talke Pits G2 5 10 0.31 5 Kidsgrove Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 282 Land at Brampton Road, Newcastle G2 5 10 1.41 5 Newcastle East constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 11 Land at Walton Grove/Coppice Grove, Talke G 5 10 0.4 5 Kidsgrove problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 194 Land at Hillwood Close, Madeley Heath G2 4 8 0.26 4 Rural constraints. SHLAA 93 Stafford Crescent, Clayton G2 4 8 0.47 4 Newcastle South Suitable for housing. Available - owned by Aspire. No known constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No known SHLAA 217 Land at Cambourne Cres, Westlands G2 4 8 0.57 4 Newcastle South constraints. Suitable for housing. Available - owned byAspire. No infrastructure SHLAA 70 Land at Underwood Road, Silverdale G 3 7 0.31 3 Silverdale problems or other physical constraints Suitable for housing. Available - owned by NULBC. No infrastructure SHLAA 280 Land at Highfield Drive, Wolstanton G 3 6 0.21 3 Newcastle East problems or significant physical constraints.

Total gross Completions 248 Plus Net Conversions est. 20 Sub Total 268 Minus Demolition Estimate 16 Net Total 252

Appendix 4

The following documents have been added to the Core Documents:-

Evidence Base Ref # Document EB/023d Newcastle-under-Lyme - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Methodology - February 2008 EB/087 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix – November 2008