.… towards sustainable development

Monitoring Report

2001/2 and 2002/3

Produced by Local Planning Authorities, April 2004

1 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 2

LIST OF TABLES ...... 7

LIST OF FIGURES...... 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...... 9

INTRODUCTION...... 1

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SUFFOLK ...... 1 THE FUTURE ROLE OF SUFFOLK’S ENVIRONMENT...... 2 INDICATOR 1 – HOUSING STOCK...... 3

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 3 TARGET ...... 3 COMMENTARY...... 3 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 4 INDICATOR 2 – HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY...... 4

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 4 TARGET ...... 4 COMMENTARY...... 5 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 5 INDICATOR 3 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING...... 6

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 6 TARGET ...... 6 COMMENTARY...... 7 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 8 INDICATOR 4 – NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF NEW DWELLINGS COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED (BROWNFIELD) LAND (PDL)...... 8

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 8 TARGET ...... 8 COMMENTARY...... 9 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 10 INDICATOR 5 – NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HOUSING COMMITMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND...... 10

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 10 TARGET ...... 10 COMMENTARY...... 11 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 11 INDICATOR 6 – DWELLINGS PER HECTARE OF NET DEVELOPABLE AREA ...... 11

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 11 TARGET ...... 11 COMMENTARY...... 12 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 12 INDICATOR 7 – AVERAGE PROPERTY PRICE TO INCOME RATIO...... 12

GENERAL INTRODUCTION...... 12 TARGET ...... 12 COMMENTARY...... 13 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 14

2 INDICATOR 8 – HOUSE TYPES AND SIZES ...... 14

GENERAL INTRODUCTION...... 14 TARGET ...... 14 COMMENTARY...... 15 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 16 INDICATOR 9 – TAKE-UP OF EMPLOYMENT FLOORSPACE...... 16

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 16 TARGET ...... 16 COMMENTARY...... 17 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 18 INDICATOR 10 – EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY...... 18

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 18 TARGET ...... 18 COMMENTARY...... 19 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 19 INDICATOR 11 – EMPLOYMENT PERMISSIONS AND ALLOCATIONS...... 20

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 20 TARGET ...... 20 COMMENTARY...... 21 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 21 INDICATOR 12 – UNEMPLOYMENT MEASURED THROUGH CLAIMANT COUNT...... 22

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 22 TARGET ...... 22 COMMENTARY...... 22 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 23 INDICATOR 13 – NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES BY EMPLOYMENT DIVISION ...... 23

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 23 TARGET ...... 23 COMMENTARY...... 24 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 24 INDICATOR 14 – LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS AND THE INFLUENCE OF PLANNING ...... 24

INDICATOR 15 - AREA OF DESIGNATED LANDSCAPES, HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS ...... 24

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 24 TARGET ...... 24 COMMENTARY...... 25 AONB and Special Landscape Areas...... 25 Historic Parks and Gardens...... 26 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 26 INDICATOR 16 – PROTECTION CHANGE IN NUMBER AND AREA OF DESIGNATED ECOLOGICAL SITES ...... 26

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 26 TARGET ...... 26 COMMENTARY...... 28 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 28 INDICATOR 17 – PROTECTION OF SUFFOLK’S BIODIVERSITY MEASURED THROUGH SAMPLING 28

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 28 TARGET ...... 28 COMMENTARY...... 31 Lowland Heathland and Lowland Dry Acid Grassland ...... 31 Great-crested newts ...... 31 Bats...... 31 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 31

3 INDICATOR 18 - NUMBER OF LISTED BUILDINGS AND LISTED BUILDINGS AT RISK ...... 32

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 32 TARGET ...... 32 COMMENTARY...... 33 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 33 INDICATOR 19 - NUMBER AND AREA OF CONSERVATION AREAS AND ARTICLE 4 DIRECTIONS .. 34

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 34 TARGET ...... 34 COMMENTARY...... 34 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 35 INDICATOR 20 - CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISALS COMPLETED AND ENHANCEMENT SCHEMES IMPLEMENTED ...... 35

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 35 TARGET ...... 35 COMMENTARY...... 37 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 37 INDICATOR 21 - NUMBER OF SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS (SAMS) DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF DEVELOPMENT...... 38

OBJECTIVE...... 38 TARGET ...... 38 COMMENTARY...... 38 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 38 INDICATOR 22 - NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO APPLICATIONS AFFECTING KNOWN OR POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ...... 38

OBJECTIVE...... 38 TARGET ...... 38 COMMENTARY...... 39 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 40 INDICATOR 23 – LAND USE IN TOWN CENTRES...... 40

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 40 TARGET ...... 40 COMMENTARY...... 41 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 41 INDICATOR 24 - VACANT UNITS IN TOWN CENTRES ...... 42

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 42 TARGET ...... 42 COMMENTARY...... 42 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 42 INDICATOR 25 – CAR PARKING IN TOWN CENTRES...... 43

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 43 TARGET ...... 43 COMMENTARY...... 44 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 44 ON TARGET?...... 44 INDICATOR 26 - RECORDED CRIME RATES PER 1000 POPULATION ...... 44

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 44 TARGET ...... 44 COMMENTARY...... 45 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 46 INDICATOR 27 – PERCENTAGE OF JOURNEYS TO WORK UNDERTAKEN BY SUSTAINABLE MODES ...... 46

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 46 TARGET ...... 46

4 COMMENTARY...... 47 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 48 INDICATOR 28 – NUMBER OF AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS AND DWELLINGS AFFECTED 48

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 48 TARGET ...... 48 COMMENTARY...... 48 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 49 INDICATOR 29 – NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS WHERE A TRAVEL PLAN IS SUBMITTED OR IS A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT...... 49

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 49 TARGET ...... 49 COMMENTARY...... 50 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 50 INDICATOR 30 – PERCENTAGE OF ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TAKING PLACE IN MAJOR TOWNS, OTHER TOWNS AND ELSEWHERE ...... 50

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 50 TARGET ...... 50 COMMENTARY...... 51 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 51 INDICATOR 31 – PERCENTAGE OF RURAL POPULATION LIVING IN PARISHES WHICH HAVE A FOOD SHOP OR GENERAL STORE, POST OFFICE, PUB, PRIMARY SCHOOL AND MEETING PLACE ...... 52

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 52 TARGET ...... 52 COMMENTARY...... 53 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 53 ON TARGET?...... 54 INDICATOR 32 – CAR PARKING STANDARDS ...... 54

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 54 TARGET ...... 54 COMMENTARY...... 54 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 54 INDICATOR 33 – PERCENTAGE OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN 13 MINUTES’ WALK OF AN HOURLY BUS SERVICE...... 54

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 54 TARGET ...... 54 COMMENTARY...... 55 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 55 INDICATOR 34 - RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION ...... 56

OBJECTIVE...... 56 TARGET ...... 56 INSTALLED ELECTRICITY GENERATING CAPACITY USING RENEWABLE ENERGY ...... 56 COMMENTARY...... 56 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 56 INDICATOR 35 - RECYCLED AGGREGATE PRODUCTION...... 57

OBJECTIVE...... 57 TARGET ...... 57 COMMENTARY...... 57 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 57 INDICATOR 36 - HOUSEHOLD WASTE PRODUCED AND TONNAGE RECYCLED ...... 58

OBJECTIVE...... 58 TARGET ...... 58 COMMENTARY...... 59

5 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 59 INDICATOR 37 – WATER QUALITY IN RIVERS AND ESTUARIES...... 59

INDICATOR 38 - FLOOD RISK...... 59

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 59 TARGET ...... 59 COMMENTARY...... 60 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 60 INDICATOR 39 - NUMBER OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REFUSED BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION BEING PRONE TO COASTAL EROSION ...... 61

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 61 TARGET ...... 61 COMMENTARY...... 61 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 61 INDICATOR 40 – PLAYING PITCH ASSESSMENTS ...... 62

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ...... 62 TARGET ...... 62 COMMENTARY...... 62 ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE ...... 63 FURTHER INFORMATION...... 64

6 List of Tables

Table 1: Change in housing stock in relation to Structure Plan targets ...... 3 Table 2: Change in housing land availability against Structure Plan requirements ...... 5 Table 3: Local Authority affordable housing targets/recommendations ...... 6 Table 4: Affordable housing completions as a proportion of total completions*...... 6 Table 5: Affordable housing approvals ...... 7 Table 6: Number and percentage of net housing completions on PDL...... 9 Table 7: Number and percentage of net housing commitments on PDL ...... 10 Table 8: Dwellings per Hectare of Net Developable Area...... 11 Table 9: Average house prices and income ...... 13 Table 10: Permanent dwelling completions: whole houses or bungalows 2001/2 ...... 14 Table 11: Permanent dwelling completions: whole houses or bungalows 2002/3 ...... 15 Table 12: Permanent dwelling completions: flats, maisonettes or apartments 2001/2 ..... 15 Table 13: Permanent dwelling completions: flats, maisonettes or apartments 2002/3 ..... 15 Table 14: Gains and losses of business (B1-B8) floorspace (m2) by district* ...... 16 Table 15: Urban / rural split of business use (B1-B8) land change by district* ...... 18 Table 16: Outstanding business permissions (m2) by district at end of 2002/3 monitoring year ...... 20 Table 17: Outstanding land allocations for business use by district at end of 2002/3 monitoring year...... 20 Table 18: Land allocations and completions of cluster developments...... 21 Table 19: Quarterly national, regional and county unemployment levels...... 22 Table 20: Quarterly unemployment levels by district/borough ...... 22 Table 21: Employment by sector, 2001 ...... 23 Table 22: Employment by sector, 2002 ...... 23 Table 23: Area of Designated Landscapes by type ...... 25 Table 24: Historic Parkland in Suffolk...... 25 Table 25: Number and area of sites with ecological designations ...... 26 Table 26: Consideration of Lowland Heathland and Lowland Dry Acidic Grassland in planning decisions...... 28 Table 27: Consideration of Great Crested Newts in planning decisions ...... 29 Table 28: Consideration of the presence of bats in planning decisions...... 30 Table 29: Number of listed buildings ...... 32 Table 30: Number of entries to the Historic Buildings at Risk Register 1995 - 2003...... 32 Table 31: Buildings at risk in Suffolk 2000 - 2003...... 32 Table 32: Conservation Areas ...... 34 Table 33: Article 4 Directions in Conservation Areas...... 34 Table 34: Conservation Area Appraisals Completed ...... 36 Table 35: Enhancement Schemes completed 2001 to 2003 ...... 37 Table 36: Known archaeological sites for which evaluation is required prior to determination of planning application ...... 39 Table 37: Number of applications affecting known archaeological sites of less than national importance approved with no provision for preservation or recording during development...... 39 Table 38: Percentage of A1 units in Suffolk town centres ...... 41 Table 39: Number of car-parking spaces 2002/ 2003...... 43 Table 40: Recorded crimes and crime rates 2001-2003...... 45 Table 41: Modal share of journeys-to-work - sample employers ...... 47 Table 42: Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and dwellings affected...... 48 Table 43: Planning approvals where (green) travel plans were submitted or a condition of development...... 49

7 Table 44: Distribution of new housing development by settlement size 2001-03 (percentage of housing stock increase by district)...... 50 Table 45: Percentage of rural population with access to all five listed facilities, 2003 ...... 53 Table 46: Rural parishes / population with access to at least one ‘service’ ...... 53 Table 47: Percentage of households within 13 minutes’ walk of an hourly bus service.... 55 Table 48: Percentage of household waste recycled/composted...... 58 Table 49: Playing pitch assessments undertaken...... 62

List of Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of housing completions on PDL 2000/01 to 2002/03...... 9 Figure 2: Average property price to income ratio, 2000 – 2003...... 13 Figure 3: Area of Designated Landscapes 2002–3...... 25 Figure 4: Number of applications affecting no known archaeological sites but judged of high potential and approved with conditions requiring prior excavation or recording during development...... 39 Figure 5: Percentage of each land-use class in all town centres 2002/ 2003 ...... 40 Figure 6: Percentage of vacant units in Suffolk town centres 2002/2003 ...... 42 Figure 7: Type of parking provision in Suffolk 2002/3...... 43 Figure 8: Parking charges in Suffolk 2002/3...... 43 Figure 9: Crime rates by district, 2001-2003...... 45 Figure 10: Journeys to work by mode by district, 2001 Census...... 47 Figure 11: Distribution of housing stock since 1991 ...... 51 Figure 12: Percentage of rural population with access to listed facilities in 2003 ...... 52 Figure 13: Recycled aggregate sales in Suffolk 1996-2002 ...... 57 Figure 14: Percentage of household waste recycled/composted...... 58 Figure 15: Planning permissions refused in line with Environment Agency advice...... 60 Figure 16: Planning permissions granted against Environment Agency advice ...... 60

8 List of Abbreviations

BDC Council EEDA East of Development Agency FHDC Forest Heath District Council IBC Borough Council MSDC District Council SCC SCDC Suffolk Coastal District Council SEBC St Edmundsbury Borough Council WDC Waveney District Council

N/R Not Recorded

Km kilometre Ha hectare

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AQMA Air Quality Management Area BVPI Best Value Performance Indicator FRA Flood Risk Assessment HERS Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme LDF Local Development Framework LTP Local Transport Plan ONS Office for National Statistics PDL Previously Developed Land PPG/S Planning Policy Guidance/Statement RPG Regional Planning Guidance RSL Registered Social Landlord RSS Regional Spatial Strategy SAC Special Area of Conservation SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SCI Statement of Community Involvement SLA Special Landscape Area SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

9 Introduction

Suffolk’s Environment is a partnership project involving eight local planning authorities and other relevant organisations (such as the and the Environment Agency). The partnership monitors a range of social, economic and environmental indicators, which enables them to assess Suffolk’s progress towards sustainable development.

The inaugural report was published in 1997, and this report summarises the results of the 6th and 7th years of monitoring, for the reporting years 2001/2 and 2002/3.

Planning for sustainable development in Suffolk The land-use planning system has a key role to play in influencing progress towards sustainable development and in 2002 the Government announced far-reaching changes to the planning system. When the new Planning & Compulsory Purchase Bill is enacted in summer 2004, the current three-tier planning system (Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), County Structure Plans and Local (District/Borough) Plans will be replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), with the second tier Structure Plans abolished. Whilst RSSs will not be too different to the current RPGs, the LDFs will differ considerably from Structure and Local Plans and will comprise a series of Local Development Documents, including a Local Development Scheme, a Core Strategy, site-specific proposals and actions, Area Action Plans and a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

The Government has indicated that it wishes to see all districts with an adopted LDF in place by 2007. As the Suffolk districts are at differing stages in the current Local Plan cycle, the date at which they will produce their first LDF will vary; some districts – such as Babergh - are sufficiently far advanced under the old system that they will continue following those procedures and adopt one final Local Plan, before preparing an LDF. Other districts – such as Ipswich – will, once the Act has been passed, move immediately towards preparing the LDF. The table below shows the current state of Development Plans in Suffolk:

Suffolk County Council Structure Plan Adopted 2001

Suffolk Minerals Local Plan Adopted May 1999

Waste Local Plan Revised Draft on Deposit April 2004 Babergh Local Plan District-wide Local Plan being altered. Inquiry to start September 2004. Forest Heath Local Plan LDF to be developed following commencement of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act. Ipswich Local Plan LDF to be developed following commencement of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act. Options Report & SCI likely to be published at the same time at the earliest opportunity. Mid Suffolk Local Plan Changes to affordable housing policies to be pursued as an Alteration to existing adopted Local Plan LDF to be developed following commencement of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act. St. Edmundsbury Local Plan District-wide Local Plan being replaced. Revised Deposit anticipated September 2004.

1

Suffolk Coastal Local Plan Changes to affordable housing policies to be pursued as Second Alteration to existing plan in spring 2004. LDF to be developed following commencement of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act. Waveney Local Plan Interim Local Plan [Feb 2004] in place and will be progressing the policies in this plan through the LDF route following commencement of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act.

The new planning system also allows greater flexibility in plan-making than is currently the case. Districts will be permitted to prepare joint LDFs, and there will be a particular focus on sub-regional areas; action plans for the sub-regions will be prepared, even when sub- regions cross current administrative boundaries. Parts of Suffolk fall within three different sub-regions:

• The Haven Gateway Sub-region. The Haven Gateway Partnership was launched in 2001, and brings together the ports of , Harwich, Ipswich, Mistley and surrounding hinterlands. It includes much of the Suffolk Coastal area, Babergh District, the Boroughs of Ipswich and Colchester as well as the north-east District of Tendring. Its aim is to raise the profile of this area, so that by 2004 the region should be recognised at regional, national and European levels as a major economic growth point.

• The Great Yarmouth and Sub-region. The vision for the Sub-region is: to build on the unique qualities of the sub-region and its links with Europe through an urban renaissance and other initiatives to harness established strengths, realise leading edge opportunities, encourage the environmental economy and promote comprehensive regeneration.

• The Sub-region. Given the national and international strengths of parts of the Cambridge economy, there is considerable pressure for new housing and employment land. RPG 6 (for East Anglia) states that the challenge for the sub-region “is to develop a planning framework which will allow the sub-region’s development needs to be met in a sustainable way, while protecting and enhancing the important environmental qualities of the city (Cambridge) and surrounding area and achieving new development of the highest corridor”. Parts of Forest Heath and Haverhill (in St Edmundsbury) lie within the sub-region.

The future role of Suffolk’s Environment Suffolk’s Environment assists in the monitoring of policies contained in the contained in the district Local Plans and the county’s Structure, Minerals and Waste plans. Suffolk’s Environment will evolve to assist the monitoring of the new planning documents, focussing on drawing together information at the County level. The District level information will facilitate comparison across the County whilst the County totals will help us to see how Suffolk stands in the regional context.

2 Indicator 1 – Housing Stock

General objective The development of a healthy economy requires an adequate supply of new housing; Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 3, published in March 2000, states that “everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home”. The Suffolk Structure Plan 2001, which provides a blueprint for the forward development of the county, outlined the requirement for the provision of more than 50,000 dwellings in the County in the 20 year period to 2016. This indicator provides a measurement of the total housing stock in each district and the net change in the number of dwellings. These figures are measured against the rates of development required to achieve both the overall Structure Plan target and the quotas that were also set for individual authorities.

Target "To meet housing stock targets established in the Structure Plan" (Structure Plan Policy CS8)

Table 1: Change in housing stock in relation to Structure Plan targets Change Structure Plan Housing stock Rate now District / Annual rate at 31st March Total since Overall needed to Borough Annual rate required 1996- 2003 1996 requirement meet overall 2016 requirement BDC 36,744 2,143 317 6,900 345 359 FHDC 24,870 1,050 156 5,200 260 313 IBC 52,679 1,892 280 8,000 400 461 MSDC 37,593 2,742 406 8,100 405 404 SEBC 43,571 3,361 498 8,800 440 410 SCDC 54,016 3,786 561 9,400 470 424 WDC 52,674 2,650 393 6,700 335 306

IPA* 69,340 4,690 694 13,100 665 635

SUFFOLK 302,147 17,624 2,611 53,100 2,655 2,677 * Ipswich Policy Area – the whole of Ipswich Borough plus some surrounding parishes such as , and Claydon. See Indicator 30 for a complete list

Commentary • Since 1996, more than 17,500 dwellings have been provided in Suffolk at an average rate of more than 2,611 per annum. This is slightly below the annual target of 2,655 dwellings specified in the Structure Plan. • However, in the period since the last monitoring report, dwellings have been completed at a rate of almost 2,700 per annum, higher than the average rate of completion since 1996. If this were to be maintained, the requirements of the Structure Plan would be met. • Of the seven district / borough authorities, four have achieved annual rates of change in dwelling stock that are in excess of those required to meet Structure Plan targets. If the average rate of change in the dwelling stock is sustained in Mid Suffolk, St Edmundsbury, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney, the overall quota in each of these authorities will be met.

3 • The remaining three authorities have experienced rates of change in dwelling stock that are below the targets specified. In these instances, an increase in the rate of change will need to be experienced between 2003 and 2016 if the quotas established are to be met. • In Suffolk as a whole, the rate of change in the dwelling stock needs to increase slightly from the current level of 2,611 per annum to more than 2,677 per annum if the Structure Plan target of providing 53,000 dwellings by 2016 is to be met. However, recent performance suggests that this is an achievable figure.

Issues for the future Overall, only a minor increase in the rate of house-building is needed to meet the Structure Plan target of 337,600 dwellings by 2016. However, it is important to ensure that increases in the rate of development are achieved in a sustainable manner, such as maximising the use of brownfield land, ensuring mixed communities and balancing new housing with new jobs.

On target? 

Indicator 2 – Housing Land Availability

General objective Local authorities should ensure that there is an adequate supply of land to meet Structure Plan requirements. This indicator provides a measurement of land that is available for housing development, through local plan allocations, the granting of planning permissions, or the identification of other suitable sites against the housing build rates required to meet the Structure Plan targets by 2016.

This indicator was initially devised to meet the previous version of PPG3, published in 1992, which demanded Local Authorities retain a 5-year supply of housing land at all times. A revised version of PPG3 now advises authorities to keep land supply “under regular review”, rather than setting specific targets.

Target "To ensure that appropriate housing provision is made for forthcoming five year periods." (Structure Plan paragraph 5.32)

4 Table 2: Change in housing land availability against Structure Plan requirements 2003 to 2016 Commitments at end of 2002/3 monitoring year District / Shortfall / Years’ Dwelling Rate Local Plan Other Borough Consents Total surplus supply** requirement required allocations sites* BDC 4,757 359 1,990 1,680 94 3,764 -993 10.5 FHDC 4,150 313 637 669 650 1,956 -2,194 6.2 IBC 6,108 461 1,553 4,085 1,412 7,050 942 15.3 MSDC 5,358 404 1,963 240 0 2,203 -3,155 5.4 SEBC 5,439 410 1,882 0 0 1,882 -3,557 4.6 SCDC 5,615 424 3,345 355 0 3,700 -1,915 8.7 WDC 4,050 306 1,608 606 996 3,210 -840 10.5 TOTAL 35,476 2,677 12,978 7,635 3,152 23,765 -11,711 8.9 *’Other sites’ includes “Other identified sites where the principle of development is accepted” and “contingent sites” as recorded by district / borough councils for regional monitoring purposes. In Waveney it also includes allocations made in the draft Local Plan ** Years’ supply is the total housing commitments divided by the annual housebuilding rate required between 2003 and 2016

Commentary • At the end of the 2002/3 monitoring year, there was provision for 23,765 dwellings in Suffolk. Almost 13,000 of these dwellings have a valid planning permission, more than 7,500 are allocated in Local Plans and provision for more than 3,000 others has been made on other identified sites. • With the exception of St Edmundsbury, all Local Authorities have a current supply of land that will last in excess of five years if the rate now required to meet Structure Plan housing quotas is matched. However the low level of land availability in St Edmundsbury is mitigated by the fact that all allocated sites in their Local Plan have been granted planning consents or are already completed. New allocations have yet to be brought forward. • If development was to occur at the rate required to meet Structure Plan requirements by 2016, Ipswich would have a fifteen-year supply of land on which to build housing whilst Babergh and Waveney would both have 10 years’ land supply. • Based on current Structure Plan requirements, at the end of the 2002/3 monitoring year, Suffolk had an overall 8.9 year supply of housing land. • Most of the Local Authorities have recently prepared Urban Capacity Studies to inform their Local Plans/Local Development Frameworks.

Issues for the future It is important to ensure that, in meeting dwelling requirements, the appropriateness of housing sites is considered against the sequential approach outlined in PPG3 (and echoed in policy CS7 of the Structure Plan), which advocates a “presumption…that previously developed sites should be developed before greenfield sites”.

The level of housing land supply will fluctuate depending on the stage of preparation of an authority’s Local Plan. If the plan is towards the end of its lifecycle, it is likely that very few, if any, of those sites allocated for housing development will remain available. By contrast, an authority with a local plan that has only recently been placed on deposit will have a large number of housing allocations, the majority of which are yet to be developed.

On target? 

5 Indicator 3 – Affordable Housing

General objective To plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community by providing housing opportunities and choice, including a mix in the size, type and tenure of housing in sustainable locations. In this context, affordable housing is defined as: “housing for local households whose incomes are insufficient to enable them to purchase or rent accommodation locally on the open market”.

Target To meet affordable housing targets set at the district level.

Table 3: Local Authority affordable housing targets/recommendations District / Local Plan target (for appropriate sites) Borough Babergh 33% on sites of 0.1+ hectares or where three or more dwellings is proposed (Second Deposit Draft 2003) Forest Heath No published, adopted targets

Ipswich 30% greenfield 25% brownfield 15% Waterfront on sites of 0.5 hectares+ or 15+ dwellings (First Deposit Draft 2001) Mid Suffolk 15%

St Edmundsbury 40% on: i) sites of 0.5 hectares+ or 15+ dwellings, in settlements of 3000+ ii) sites of 0.17 hectares+ or 5+ dwellings, in settlements of less than 3000 (First Deposit Draft 2003) Suffolk Coastal No published, adopted targets

Waveney 30% on sites of 3+ dwellings (First Deposit Draft October 2002) N.B. Some of the targets outlined above may contain a different definition of “affordable” to that used for regional monitoring purposes. It is the latter definition that is used to define affordable housing for the purposes of this indicator.

Table 4: Affordable housing completions as a proportion of total completions* 2001/2 2002/3 District / Net Net affordable Net Net affordable Borough % affordable % affordable completions completions completions completions BDC 242 55 22.7% 510 44 8.6% FHDC N/R N/R N/R 62 3 4.8% IBC 347 21 6.1% 468 157 33.5% MSDC 314 13 4.1% 292 15 5.1% SEBC 338 69 20.4% 468 62 13.2% SCDC 425 15 3.5% 568 22 3.9% WDC 574 37 6.4% 436 15 3.4% TOTAL 2240 210 9.4% 2804 318 11.3% * Housing Association-acquired stock is not included in the totals

6 Table 5: Affordable housing approvals District / 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 Borough BDC 88 0 0 FHDC 43 0 0 IBC 58 93 214 MSDC 125 27 0 SEBC 25 75 98 SCDC 54 42 7 WDC 14 32 17 TOTAL 407 269 336

Commentary • Data on affordable housing completions, which is collected for regional monitoring, is presented here for the first time. • The number and proportion of affordable completions appears to fluctuate dramatically both between monitoring periods and across Local Authorities. The number of affordable completions in Suffolk as a whole during the 2002/3 monitoring period was higher than during the previous year. • In many authorities, only a small proportion of completions (less than 5%) are classified as affordable. • The proportion of affordable completions in Suffolk as a whole rose from 9.4% in 2001/2 to 11.3% in 2002/3, though it should be noted that the 2001/2 figure for the county excludes data for Forest Heath. • The overall number of affordable approvals recorded in 2002/3 showed a slight rise on 2001/2. However, the 2002-3 approvals were dominated by Ipswich (214) and St Edmundsbury (98); Waveney and Suffolk Coastal mustered just 24 approvals between them and Forest Heath and Mid-Suffolk did not approve any new affordable houses. • PPG3 states that where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, this must be quantified through up-to-date Housing Needs Surveys before appropriate Local Plan policies can be justified. • In order to have binding development thresholds at which affordable housing has to be provided, Local Authorities must therefore have an appropriate policy in their Local Plan. Bringing in or altering targets via new Supplementary Planning Guidance is currently not legally permissible, and making alterations to a Local Plan can take several years. • Although five of the seven Districts have Local Plan targets for affordable housing, the thresholds at which affordable housing is triggered tend to be relatively high (often 10+ dwellings). For the more rural districts this can be especially problematic; with a large majority of housing proposals usually for small developments of less than 10 dwellings, few affordable dwellings are being constructed in these districts (particularly outside the main settlements of these districts). • Few Suffolk Local Authorities therefore have an adopted Local Plan policy with an affordable housing threshold approaching the sort of level recommended in Housing Needs surveys. • The figures for approvals and the lack of appropriate policies in Local Plans show that Local Authorities are unlikely to be able to increase the supply of affordable homes in the near future.

7 Issues for the future The results show clearly the impact of historical permissions that are still being worked through the development system. In parts of Kesgrave, for example, outline planning permissions were granted on large areas of land, thus negating the ability of Suffolk Coastal to negotiate an affordable element once the application reached the ‘detailed matters’ stage. Permissions like these are still being developed across the county, meaning that the number of affordable homes being completed, when expressed as a proportion of the total completions, is low. Only once these developments are completed will this indicator begin to more accurately reflect the efforts of the Local Authorities to implement affordable housing policies on large sites. Additionally, windfall and smaller sites are likely to only make a small contribution to affordable completions and consents until the status of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on affordable housing has been resolved.

A longer period of data collection will allow more reliable trends in affordable completions to be observed as well as monitoring the implementation of approvals into completions. It is planned that future monitoring reports will incorporate the total number of housing approvals, and the proportion of the total which is affordable, but this data was not available for the current report. However, it is clear that in some districts the level of affordable housing provision is below that specified in local targets.

On target? 

Indicator 4 – Number and Percentage of New Dwellings Completed on Previously Developed (Brownfield) Land (PDL)

General objective To maximise the development potential of vacant, underused and derelict land and buildings, thus minimising the loss of greenfield land.

Target Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia (RPG6) sets a regional target of 50%. However, the Structure Plan does not set a specific target for Suffolk, instead suggesting that “nearly 50% of allocations on larger sites (of 10+ dwellings) could theoretically be made on [brownfield sites]”.

8 Table 6: Number and percentage of net housing completions on PDL 2001/2 2002/3 District / Net Net Total net Total net Borough completions % on PDL completions % on PDL completions completions on PDL on PDL BDC 242 138 57.0% 510 199 39.0% FHDC N/R N/R N/R 62 45 72.6% IBC 347 267 76.9% 468 403 86.1% MSDC 314 144 45.9% 292 118 40.4% SEBC 338 151 44.7% 468 271 57.9% SCDC 425 126 29.6% 568 303 53.3% WDC 574 122 21.3% 436 107 24.5% TOTAL 2240 948 42.3% 2804 1446 51.6%

Figure 1: Percentage of housing completions on PDL 2000/01 to 2002/03

90% 2000/01 L 80% D 2001/2 70% 2002/3

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

% of Housing Completions on P 10%

0% BDC FHDC IBC MSDC SEBC SCDC WDC Suffolk

Commentary • In 2002/03 more than half of all housing completions in Suffolk were on PDL, rising from 42% during the previous monitoring period. • In both 2001/02 and 2002/03, Ipswich recorded the highest number and proportion of housing completions on PDL, reflecting its largely urban nature. • Over the last three years, Mid Suffolk has seen a year-on-year fall in the proportion of housing completions on PDL whilst St Edmundsbury has experienced year-on-year increases. • The lowest proportion of PDL completions occurred in Waveney during the last two monitoring periods; this is due, in part, to a number of allocated greenfield sites that have not yet been fully developed. • It is inevitable that the proportion of developments occurring on PDL will be lower in Suffolk’s more rural districts.

9 Issues for the future Overall, Suffolk is on target with just over half of all housing completions in the 2002/03 monitoring period being on PDL. However, this masks considerable variations between the districts, both in terms of the proportions measured and the trends recorded (see Figure 1). Although it is reasonable to expect some fluctuation on a year-to-year basis, it would be hoped that a longer-term data set would reveal a generally upward trend amongst most of the Local Authorities as well as for the county as a whole.

On target? 

Indicator 5 – Number and Percentage of Existing Housing Commitments on Previously Developed Land

General Objective To maximise the development potential of vacant, underused and derelict land and buildings minimising the loss of greenfield land. This indicator provides a measure of the number of housing commitments (local plan allocations and planning permissions) for housing development on previously developed land.

Target If local authorities are to meet the regional brownfield target (see previous indicator), within the proposed timescale, at least half of new housing commitments should be on previously developed land.

Table 7: Number and percentage of net housing commitments on PDL District / 2001/2 2002/3 Borough Total PDL % on PDL Total PDL % on PDL BDC1 N/R N/R N/R 3,764 195 5.2% FHDC2 N/R N/R N/R 1,956 114 5.8% IBC 5,997 4,273 71.3% 7,050 5,248 74.4% MSDC 2,131 818 38.4% 2,203 944 42.9% SEBC 2,421 N/R N/R 1,882 437 23.2% SCDC 4,070 1,391 34.2% 3,700 1,301 35.2% WDC 2,525 476 18.9% 3,210 1,107 34.5% TOTAL3 14,7234 6,958 47.3% 18,045 9,037 50.1%

1 PDL figures were not available for extant planning permissions. At the end of the 2002/3 monitoring year, there were 1990 extant permissions in Babergh. If these are removed from the Total, the % of commitments on the remaining sites (Local Plan Allocations and Other Identified Sites) on PDL rises to 11%. 2 PDL figures were not available for extant planning permissions. At the end of the 2002/3 monitoring year, there were 637 extant permissions in Forest Heath. If these are removed from the Total, the % of commitments on the remaining sites (Local Plan Allocations, Other Identified Sites and Contingent Sites) on PDL rises to 8.6%. 3 Totals for 2003 exclude figures from Babergh and Forest Heath. This allows for more meaningful totals to be calculated as all other authorities provided PDL figures for all categories of housing commitments. 4 Excludes St Edmundsbury to allow meaningful figures to be presented. 10 Commentary • At the end of the 2002/03 monitoring year, there were more than 9,000 housing commitments on previously developed land in Suffolk, this represented 50% of all planning permissions and allocations in the county. • More than half of the PDL commitments in Suffolk at the end of the latest monitoring year were in Ipswich. • Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney all recorded an increase in the proportion of housing commitments on PDL between 2001/02 and 2002/03. • Almost three-quarters of all housing commitments in Ipswich are on PDL. • Babergh and Forest Heath have only a very small proportion of housing commitments on PDL. This is largely due to the fact that neither authority was able to monitor the number and percentage of extant planning permissions that were granted on PDL.

Issues for the future It is important to ensure that, in future years, all authorities develop monitoring systems to allow all necessary data for this indicator to be collected. The collection and presentation of a complete data set will allow for more meaningful commentary and comparison and the development of reliable year to year comparisons. The regional figure of 50% is an average that masks significant levels of variation within and between authorities. It may be appropriate to set more localised targets that better reflect the urban/rural character of the respective district and borough authorities.

On target? 

Indicator 6 – Dwellings per Hectare of Net Developable Area

General objective To protect and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of the built environment. This indicator aims to ensure best use of land by meeting guidelines set out in PPG3.

Target “To avoid developments which make inefficient use of land” (PPG3). This would normally be developments built at a density of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net, although it is recognised that 30 is only the “recommended” guideline; in some developments, a density of 30 or more might be inappropriate.

Table 8: Dwellings per Hectare of Net Developable Area 2001/2 2002/3 District / Gross dwelling Gross dwelling Borough Area (Ha) Density Area (Ha) Density completions completions BDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R FHDC N/R N/R N/R 112 4.7 23.83 IBC 214 8.5 25.18 437 12.39 35.27 MSDC 121 4.84 25.00 172 5 34.40 SEBC N/R N/R N/R 468 16.71 28.01 SCDC 319 10.89 29.29 383 14.76 25.95 WDC 245 10.69 22.92 227 9.31 24.38 TOTAL 899 34.92 25.74 1799 62.87 28.61

11 Commentary • Density monitoring only applies to developments of 10 dwellings or above. • For the 2001/02 monitoring period, whilst none of the authorities that returned data achieved the 30 dwelling per hectare target, Ipswich, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal all recorded densities of more than 25 dwellings per hectare. This resulted in an overall figure for Suffolk of almost 26 dwellings per hectare. • In 2002/03, the overall figure for Suffolk rose to more than 28 dwellings per hectare. Both Ipswich and Mid Suffolk exceeded the target while St Edmundsbury and Suffolk Coastal recorded densities of more than 25 dwellings per hectare. • Due to the rural nature of much of the county, it is reasonable to expect lower densities in the more rural districts due to the predominance of smaller towns and villages. In the urban areas of the county, such as Ipswich, higher densities of up to 50 dwellings per hectare are achievable.

Issues for the future Within a rural county like Suffolk there is a need to carefully balance the requirement for higher densities with the preservation of local style and character. High densities will not be appropriate for all sites and it will be necessary for higher density developments to ‘compensate’ for lower density dwellings if the overall target is to be met.

This indicator still reflects a number of older approvals and policies that are being worked through the system which, in some instances, results in densities lower than those proposed in PPG3 being recorded. However, compliance with these guidelines is enforced much more strictly in permissions currently being granted. Consequently, in the coming years, this indicator should record a continuing rise in dwelling densities as these newer permissions are implemented.

On target? 

Indicator 7 – Average Property Price to Income Ratio

General introduction As the previous indicators have demonstrated, it is important to ensure that housing provision meets the needs of the county and its population. However, it is also important to ensure that housing is affordable and does not exclude certain income groups.

Target As this is a contextual indicator, a specific target is not appropriate.

12 Table 9: Average house prices and income 2001-2 2002-3 District / Average Average Average Average Borough Ratio (X:1) Ratio (X:1) House Price Income* House Price Income* BDC £127,752 £24,691 5.2 £167,284 £21,173 7.9 FHDC £103,208 £20,957 4.9 £123,810 £21,473 5.8 IBC £90,117 £22,357 4.0 £105,183 £25,395 4.1 MSDC £122,679 £20,017 6.1 £145,342 £19,800 7.3 SEBC £120,709 £20,922 5.8 £145,747 £21,420 6.8 SCDC £131,246 £22,728 5.8 £156,957 £23,581 6.7 WDC £82,977 £18,019 4.6 £103,586 £19,579 5.3 Suffolk £109,906 £21,520 5.1 £134,588 £22,286 6.0 Sources: The Land Registry (House Prices), NOMIS New Earnings Survey (Income) * The following average income figures are either based on a sample of less than 30 people or their coefficient of variation exceeds 5% and, as such, they should treated with caution: Babergh (2001,2002), Forest Heath (2001,2002), Ipswich (2002).

Figure 2: Average property price to income ratio, 2000 – 2003

8.0 2000 7.5 2001 7.0 2002 2003 6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

House Price:Income Ratio (x:1) 4.0

3.5

3.0 BDC FHDC IBC MSDC SEBC SCDC WDC Suffolk

Sources: The Land Registry (House Prices), NOMIS New Earnings Survey (Income)

Commentary • House prices have risen sharply over the last two years resulting in a widening gap with income levels. In 2001/02, the average house price in Suffolk was more than 5 times the average income. By 2002/03 an average income represented only one sixth of the average house price in the county. This is notably higher than both the traditional ‘maximum mortgage’ of x3.5 a single income and the 2000/01 baseline of 4.7. • In both 2001/02 and 2002/03, the narrowest gap between house prices and incomes, with a ratio of approximately 4:1, was experienced in Ipswich.

13 • In 2001/02, the ratio was approximately 5:1 in Forest Heath and Babergh and around 6:1 in Mid Suffolk, St Edmundsbury and Suffolk Coastal. • In 2002/03, the average house price in both Mid Suffolk and Babergh exceeded the average income by a factor of 7:1 (although the Babergh figure should be used with caution because of the small sample size). • Waveney has seen the biggest percentage increase since 2000. • All local authorities have seen a year-on-year increase in the average house price: income ratio since the 1999/2000 monitoring year.

Issues for the future Although no target has been set for this indicator, as it is difficult to directly influence through the planning system, this information will set the context for affordable housing indicators.

Indicator 8 – House Types and Sizes

General Introduction Meeting the housing needs of the county and its population demands a wide variety of housing sizes and types. This indicator, included on the Housing Flows Reconciliation form, which the Local Authorities complete annually, provides a contextual picture of the types of housing being provided in the districts.

Target As this is a contextual indicator, a specific target is not appropriate.

Table 10: Permanent dwelling completions: whole houses or bungalows 2001/2 District / Private Sector (Sub - RSL* (Sub - Borough Total total) total) Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ BDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R FHDC 0 11 35 57 103 0 11 11 2 24 127 IBC 0 37 119 76 232 0 24 7 0 31 263 MSDC 1 41 118 120 280 0 8 30 0 38 318 SEBC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R SCDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R WDC 0 73 225 198 496 0 17 11 3 31 527 Total 1 162 497 451 1111 0 60 59 5 124 1235 % of total 0.1% 13.1% 40.2% 36.5% 90.0% 0.0% 4.9% 4.8% 0.4% 10.0% 100% * RSL = Registered Social Landlord

14 Table 11: Permanent dwelling completions: whole houses or bungalows 2002/3 District / Private Sector (Sub - RSL* (Sub - Borough Total total) total) Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ BDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R FHDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R IBC 3 30 74 52 159 0 26 6 7 39 198 MSDC 0 34 126 132 292 0 0 20 8 28 320 SEBC 11 45 143 155 354 10 6 0 0 16 370 SCDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R WDC 0 58 167 157 382 0 8 7 0 15 397 Total 14 167 510 496 1187 10 40 33 15 98 1285 % of Total 1.1% 13.0% 39.7% 38.6% 92.4% 0.7% 3.1% 2.6% 1.2% 7.6% 100% * RSL = Registered Social Landlord

Table 12: Permanent dwelling completions: flats, maisonettes or apartments 2001/2 District / Private Sector (Sub - RSL (Sub - Borough Total total) total) Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ BDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R FHDC 5 16 0 0 21 5 0 0 0 5 26 IBC 3 40 0 0 43 12 22 4 4 42 85 MSDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEBC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R SCDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R WDC 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 9 56 0 0 65 17 22 4 4 47 112 % of Total 8.0% 50.0% - - 58.0% 15.2% 19.6% 3.6% 3.6% 42.0% 100%

Table 13: Permanent dwelling completions: flats, maisonettes or apartments 2002/3 District / Private Sector (Sub - RSL (Sub - Borough Total total) total) Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ 1 2 3 4+ BDC 3 0 1 0 4 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 4 FHDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R IBC 4 51 0 0 55 7 3 0 0 10 65 MSDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEBC 16 31 5 0 52 35 11 0 0 46 98 SCDC N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R WDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 23 82 6 0 111 42 14 0 0 56 167 % of Total 13.8% 49.1% 3.6% - 66.5% 25.8% 8.6% - - 34.4% 100%

Commentary • This is the first time that this data, which Local Authorities return as part of the housing flow reconciliation, has been presented in Suffolk’s Environment. • In both of the monitoring periods for which data is presented, the private sector accounted for 9 in 10 houses or bungalows that were completed. • Of all the houses completed across the two-year period, approximately 40% contained four or more bedrooms, 43% were three-bedroomed properties and 16% two- bedroomed. Only a very small percentage (about 3%) of properties contained one bedroom.

15 • In 2001/2, only 58% of flats, maisonettes or apartments were completed by the private sector. This was due largely to the high number of RSL properties completed in Ipswich, In 2002/3, the private sector accounted for 85% of such property completions. • Three-quarters of flat, maisonette or apartment completions across the two-year monitoring period were two-bedroom dwellings.

Issues for the future Ensuring that returns are received from all local authorities over a longer time period will allow for trends to be identified. The continuing rise in the house price / income ratio (see previous indicator) means there is a high demand for lower cost (i.e. smaller) properties. This contextual indicator will allow the monitoring of housing provision to ensure such needs are being met and will also help set the context for affordable housing indicators.

Indicator 9 – Take-Up of Employment Floorspace

General objective

To seek the successful take up of vacant employment floorspace and monitor this across the county by district as a means of assessing Suffolk’s economic health and its attractiveness as a business environment.

Target To maintain a supply of available land where appropriate and to encourage year-on-year employment development in all districts across the county.

Table 14: Gains and losses of business (B1-B8) floorspace (m2) by district*

2000/1 District / Development Development Development 2 2 Net change Urban/rural Borough gained (m ) lost (m ) gained on PDL Babergh N/R Forest Heath Ipswich 2354 2354 U Mid-Suffolk 21,728 12,810 R N/R St 20,959 U N/R Edmundsbury 1022 R Suffolk Coastal N/R Waveney

16 2001/2 District / Development Development Development Net change Urban/rural Borough gained (m2) lost (m2) gained on PDL Babergh N/R Forest Heath Ipswich 6400 6400 U Mid-Suffolk 6794 1506 R N/R St 624 U N/R Edmundsbury 0 R Suffolk Coastal N/R Waveney

2002/3 District / Development Development Development Net change Urban/rural Borough gained (m2) lost (m2) gained on PDL Babergh N/R Forest Heath 3145 138 3007 2922 R Ipswich 2354 2354 U N/R Mid-Suffolk 7777 1608 R St 48,700 1900 46,800 4800 U Edmundsbury 23,380 01 23,380 5000 R Suffolk 6577 0 6577 4922 R Coastal 5516 0 5516 5516 U Waveney 2562 N/R 2394 2394 R

Source: Suffolk District returns to Regional Assembly for Regional Annual Monitoring Report 2003 * Babergh, Forest Heath, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal have no urban areas as defined in this exercise (towns with over 25,000 inhabitants); whilst Ipswich has no rural areas as hereby defined.

Commentary • As can be seen, in many cases information was not available for the years 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. This means that time series observations are in most cases difficult to make. • There is evidence of some substantial collective gains in B1 – B8 floorspace across the county, but at a district level these were of a reasonably modest scale. • Monitoring of employment land lost to other uses only began in earnest during 2002-3. From the few results available, there appears to be little indication of B1-B8 floorspace being lost to other land uses. However, anecdotal evidence suggests the actual ‘losses’ figure is somewhat higher. • The majority of development overall has not been on PDL but this may partly reflect the relative scarcity of PDL in most of Suffolk and the tendency for this to be recycled for residential use. Employment development in Ipswich and Waveney, though, was a notable exception. • It would also appear that the majority of development has taken place in urban areas, with the largest gains seen in Ipswich, Waveney and St Edmundsbury. The sizeable gains apparent in Mid Suffolk could have taken place in that district’s market towns, (which, for regional monitoring purposes, are not recorded as urban areas, as their populations are less than 25,000).

17 Issues for the future • Without complete information on current supply (quantity and quality) of employment land it is difficult to assess with any certainty but, given the extent of new business uses floorspace being gained, there are questions over the adequacy of supply. • Although not borne out by these data, some - if not all - districts have identified particular pressure for employment land to be lost to other uses. This gives rise to a need to protect employment land and sites through the planning process.

On target? Unable to assess meaningfully at present.

Indicator 10 – Employment Land Availability

General objective To achieve sustainable levels of prosperity and economic growth through the establishment, maintenance and expansion of employment uses.

Target To maintain an appropriate supply of available land and to encourage year-on-year employment development in all districts across the county.

Table 15: Urban / rural split of business use (B1-B8) land change by district*

2000/1 Development Development District / Development Net change lost to other gained on PDL Urban/rural Borough gained (ha) (ha) uses (ha) (ha) Babergh N/R Forest Heath Ipswich 0 0 U N/R Mid-Suffolk 14.84 9.64 R 7.36 U St Edmundsbury N/R 3.41 R Suffolk Coastal N/R R U Waveney N/R R

2001-2 Development Development Development Net change District / Borough gained on PDL Urban/rural gained (ha) lost (ha) (ha) (ha) Babergh N/R Forest Heath Ipswich 0.64 0.64 U N/R Mid-Suffolk 6.19 4.71 R 1.39 U St Edmundsbury N/R 0 R Suffolk Coastal R N/R U Waveney R

18

2002-3 Development Development Development Net change District / Borough gained on PDL Urban/rural gained (ha) lost (ha) (ha) (ha) Babergh N/R Forest Heath 0 0.98 -0.98 0 R Ipswich 0 0 U N/R Mid-Suffolk 4.6 0.42 R 4.87 0.19 4.68 0.48 U St Edmundsbury 2.34 0 2.34 0.5 R Suffolk Coastal 4.14 0.07 4.07 0.92 R 2.06 0.06 2 2.06 U Waveney 1.26 0.81 0.45 1.09 R Source: Suffolk District returns to East of England Regional Assembly for Regional Annual Monitoring Report 2003

* Babergh, Forest Heath, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal have no urban areas as defined in this exercise (towns with over 25,000 inhabitants); whilst Ipswich has no rural areas as hereby defined.

Commentary • Overall, the findings for Indicator 9 appear to be largely borne out by the findings for this indicator, since B1-B8 floorspace gains could be expected to reflect in roughly proportionate gains in hectarage of land used for that purpose. • As with Indicator 9, in many cases information was not available for the years 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. This means that time series observations are difficult to make. • It is evident that only a limited amount of new employment land for business uses has come forward in the last 3 years; for example, Forest Heath gained no new land and actually lost a small amount to other land uses. Employment land loss was identified in 5 out of the 6 districts for which information is available.

Issues for the future • Without complete information on current supply (quantity and quality) of employment land it is difficult to assess the actual position with any certainty, but there is anecdotal evidence of qualitative and quantitative shortfalls across the county. • Some districts face significant pressure to allow re-development of employment land, normally for housing. This pressure gives rise to a need to protect key employment land and sites through the planning process. • The predominance of employment land gained in urban areas reflects the thrust of current planning policy in directing development preferentially to PDL, and this is likely to continue in future years.

On target? 

19 Indicator 11 – Employment Permissions and Allocations

General objective To seek the successful take up of vacant employment floorspace through monitoring take up across the county by district as a means of assessing Suffolk’s economic health and its attractiveness as a business environment.

Target To maintain a supply of available land where appropriate and to encourage year-on-year employment development in all districts across the county.

Table 16: Outstanding business permissions (m2) by district at end of 2002/3 monitoring year Total outstanding Total outstanding District / Borough permissions at March permissions on PDL at Urban/rural 2003 (m2) March 2003 (m2) Babergh Not recorded R Forest Heath 16,830 15,644 R Ipswich 93,400 93,400 U Mid-Suffolk 179,002 0 R 190,440 26,060 U St Edmundsbury 666,400 474,400 R Suffolk Coastal 463,770 36,956 R 108,961 37,761 U Waveney 180,020 86,365 R Source: Suffolk District returns to East of England Regional Assembly for Regional Annual Monitoring Report 2003

Table 17: Outstanding land allocations for business use by district at end of 2002/3 monitoring year Total outstanding Total outstanding District / Borough permissions at March permissions on PDL at Urban/rural 2003 (ha) March 2003 (ha) Babergh 8.9 0 R Forest Heath 20.57 0 R Ipswich 9.34 9.34 U Mid-Suffolk 23.73 3.9 R 2.73 1.83 U St Edmundsbury 45.46 33.62 R Suffolk Coastal 58.96 14.93 R 3.5 0 U Waveney 8.3 0 R Source: Suffolk District returns to East of England Regional Assembly for Regional Annual Monitoring Report 2003

20 Suffolk Coastal was the only district to report any cluster development during the monitoring period:

Table 18: Land allocations and completions of cluster developments Development Development Land allocated (ha) Suffolk Coastal 2 completed (m ) completed (ha) 2001/2002 2500 0.19 13.46 2002/2003 2500 0.19 13.46 Source: Suffolk District returns to East of England Regional Assembly for Regional Annual Monitoring Report 2003

Commentary • Tables 16-18 above show that there are outstanding planning consents for significant amounts of commercial floorspace in all districts except Forest Heath (although no data was available for Babergh). • Although it is not known how long these permissions have remained unimplemented, the amount of floorspace identified could suggest delays in uptake of such space. Conversely, this situation could be seen as beneficial to businesses and commerce since there would appear to be a readily available supply of floorspace. • For most districts/boroughs the majority of outstanding permissions are on greenfield land. • The tables also show only very small amounts of urban land allocated for business uses in all districts. Ipswich and Babergh have the most, with around 9 hectares each. • The rural situation is very different, with Forest Heath, Mid Suffolk, St Edmundsbury and Suffolk Coastal all retaining substantial rural employment land allocations (the majority of which is greenfield land) • Finally, there is little evidence of ‘cluster’ developments (which are normally high technology or knowledge based sectors where linked product development, manufacturing strengths, expertise and supply may benefit from proximity). The only district to show (limited) evidence of cluster developments is Suffolk Coastal, at Suffolk Innovation Park/Adastral Park on the edge of Ipswich.

Issues for the future • Take up of commercial floorspace appears slow, suggesting some economic implications from a slowing of some commercial activity. • Commercial development may need to be targeted more to brownfield sites, although these often tend to be monopolised by residential development. • Most districts may well need to allocate more urban land for business development in order to ensure they provide a range of different kinds of sites in various types of locations. • Encouragement of cluster developments will need to be raised if Suffolk districts have serious aspirations to secure these in the interests of their local economies.

On target? 

21 Indicator 12 – Unemployment Measured through Claimant Count

General objective To ensure that all in Suffolk who are able to work can participate in the workplace through the maintenance and expansion of the labour market.

Target To ensure Suffolk’s unemployment levels do not exceed those of the East of England.

Table 19: Quarterly national, regional and county unemployment levels Date Great Britain (%) East of England (%) Suffolk (%) Apr-01 2.8 1.7 2 Jul-01 2.6 1.6 1.9 Oct-01 2.5 1.6 1.8 Jan-02 2.8 1.8 2.1 Apr-02 2.7 1.8 2 Jul-02 2.6 1.7 1.9 Oct-02 2.5 1.7 1.9 Jan-03 2.7 1.9 2.1 Source: ONS [from Nomis on 15 May 2003]. Crown copyright reserved

Table 20: Quarterly unemployment levels by district/borough Date BDC FHDC IBC MSDC SEBC SCDC WDC Apr-01 1.3 1 3 1.2 1.3 1.4 3.6 Jul-01 1.3 1 3.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 3.2 Oct-01 1.2 0.9 3 1.1 1.1 1.3 3.2 Jan-02 1.4 1.2 3.3 1.2 1.3 1.6 3.6 Apr-02 1.4 1.1 3.3 1.1 1.3 1.5 3.2 Jul-02 1.3 0.9 3.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.9 Oct-02 1.3 0.9 3.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.9 Jan-03 1.5 1 3.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 3.4 Source: ONS [from Nomis, 15 May 2003]. Crown copyright reserved

Commentary • The figures show that Suffolk’s unemployment level remains consistently higher than that for the East of England, but below the national average. • Most Suffolk districts showed little change over the monitoring period. The only exceptions were Waveney (where a small overall decline is evident) and Ipswich (which rose 0.8%). However, Waveney and Ipswich, which include the two largest towns in the county, consistently had an unemployment rate at least 1.5% higher than all other districts. • The lowest unemployment levels are in Forest Heath, where the rate has averaged around 1.0%.

22 Issues for the future There appear to be grounds for concern for Ipswich, the only district to show a marked increase in unemployment over the monitoring period (rising from 3% to 3.8%). The Ipswich rate is well above both the Suffolk and East of England average and is also significantly higher than the national average. Whilst the current unemployment rate in Ipswich may not pose immediate problems in itself, if the upward trend continues there would be a need for co-ordinated action by the relevant local authorities and economic development agencies.

On target? 

Indicator 13 – Number and Percentage of Employees by Employment Division

General objective To achieve sustainable levels of prosperity and economic growth through the establishment, maintenance and expansion of employment uses.

Target As this is a contextual indicator, a specific target is not appropriate.

Table 21: Employment by sector, 2001 Category Great Britain East of England Suffolk Agriculture (%) 1 1.5 0.5 Energy (%) 0.8 0.7 1.5 Manufacturing (%) 14.2 14.4 16.4 Construction (%) 4.5 4.9 4.3 Distribution (%) 24.3 25.6 27.5 Transport (%) 6.1 6.6 9 Finance (%) 19.6 19.1 13.8 Public Administration (%) 24.3 22.3 21.7 Other (%) 5.2 4.8 5.1 Total (%) 100 100 100 Source: Suffolk Observatory website

Table 22: Employment by sector, 2002 Category Great Britain East of England Suffolk Agriculture (%) 0.9 1.5 0.6 Energy (%) 0.8 0.6 1 Manufacturing (%) 13.4 13.5 15.1 Construction (%) 4.5 5.3 6 Distribution (%) 24.6 26.2 28.2 Transport (%) 6.1 6.3 8.6 Finance (%) 19.6 19.1 13.1 Public Administration (%) 24.9 22.6 21.6 Other (%) 5.3 5.0 5.9 Total (%) 100 100 100 Source: Suffolk Observatory website

23

Commentary • There were relatively few changes in employment by sector between 2001 and 2002, and the only four changes of particular note are a drop of 1.3% in Manufacturing, a 0.7% fall in Finance and rises of 0.7% in Distribution and 1.7% in Construction. • The manufacturing sector in Suffolk was not immune from the wider national downturn, and in 2001/2 witnessed the closure of a number of factories across the county. • The increasing importance of distribution industries is clear from the figures, and a number of new operations opened during 2002, particularly along the A14 corridor. • The rise in employment in the construction industry partly reflects the building ‘boom’ in Ipswich, with a number of mixed-use developments being constructed around the Waterfront, and the commencement of the Ravenswood development on the former Ipswich Airfield.

Issues for the future With the Government’s increased investment in the public sector in 2003/4, employment in public administration is likely to increase over time, and a further rise in distribution-related employment can also be expected. By contrast, the manufacturing sector will probably continue to contract in the county, with an increasing number of jobs transferring to the service sector. In the interests of a balanced economy, positive action may need to be taken to protect the more vulnerable sectors of the Suffolk economy such as Energy and Manufacturing.

Indicator 14 – Landscape Character Areas and the Influence of Planning

The partnership of Suffolk local planning authorities, the Suffolk Coast and Heaths project and the Suffolk East and Suffolk West Federations of Women’s Institutes (WIs) is currently re-surveying a sample of 1 km squares, to record changes in local landscape features. As a five-yearly indicator, the results will be published in a future report.

Indicator 15 - Area of Designated Landscapes, Historic Parks and Gardens

General objective To protect and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of Suffolk’s landscape.

Target To ensure that 100% of historic parks and gardens are maintained and enhanced and to ensure that no loss of designated landscape areas is experienced.

24 Table 23: Area of Designated Landscapes by type District/borough AONB* (Ha) Special Landscape 2002-2003 Area (Ha) 2002-2003 BDC 9487 19780 FHDC N/R 19244 IBC 17 N/R MSDC N/R 11235 SEBC N/R 16687 SCDC 31962 14788 WDC 5050 3613 * AONB = Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Figure 3: Area of Designated Landscapes 2002–3

36,000 33,000 30,000 27,000 BDC 24,000 FHDC 21,000 IBC 18,000 MSDC Ha 15,000 SEBC 12,000 SCDC 9,000 WDC 6,000 3,000 0 ANOB Special Landscape area

Table 24: Historic Parkland in Suffolk Nationally designated County designated District/borough Historic Parkland (Ha) 2002- Historic parkland (Ha) 2003 2002-2003 146 BDC No change 4 parks FHDC 0 No change IBC 109.3 No change 407.3 MSDC No change 2 parks 1542 SEBC No change 4 parks 420.26 1745 SCDC 6 parks 21 parks 455.37 WDC No change 3 parks

Commentary AONB and Special Landscape Areas

• Suffolk Coastal has the largest land cover of Areas of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB) due to the presence of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB within the district.

25 Historic Parks and Gardens

• St Edmundsbury BC contains the highest area of nationally-designated Historic Parks and Gardens whilst Forest Heath DC continues to have none. • St Edmundsbury and Waveney DC have also seen an increase in nationally- designated parkland; Waveney’s increase is due to Belle Vue Park in Lowestoft, which was registered in June 2002. • Suffolk Coastal is the only authority with county-designated parkland, and this has not changed since 1996. Suffolk Coastal has had an increase in the number of nationally- designated Historic Parklands from 4 in 2001 to 6 currently, due to the Old Cemetery in Woodbridge and the Cliff Gardens/Town Hall Gardens in Felixstowe being added.

Issues for the future Relatively little change is expected in this indicator over the next couple of years, as reviews of AONB/SLA boundaries do not occur frequently. Similarly, although some additions to the nationally- and county-designated parkland/gardens can be expected, the overall figures are not expected to alter a great deal.

It is proposed that this indicator not be monitored again until the 10-Year Review in 2006/7.

On target? 

Indicator 16 – Protection Change in Number and Area of Designated Ecological Sites

General objective To protect and enhance biodiversity throughout the county.

Target No loss in the number of sites and total area of ecological designations. However, as many of the ecological designations are made outside the normal planning system (e.g. English Nature designates SSSIs), this is a contextual target only.

Designated ecological sites:

Table 25: Number and area of sites with ecological designations Designation/Name District Hectarage 2003 RAMSAR sites Alde-Ore SCDC 2536 WDC 5525 Deben Estuary SCDC 975 Minsmere- SCDC 1981 Redgrave and South Lopham Fens MSDC 33 Stour and Orwell Estuaries SCDC/BDC 3304

(continued…)

26 Table 25: Number and area of sites with ecological designations (continued) Special Protection Areas (SPAs) Alde-Ore Estuary SCDC 2406 Benacre – Easton Bavents WDC 515 Breckland FHDC/ SEBC 13,263 Deben Estuary SCDC 975 Broadland WDC 247 Minsmere-Walberswick SCDC/ WDC 1981 Stour and Orwell Estuaries SCDC/BDC 2423

Special Areas Of Conservation (SACs) 2003 Alde-Ore and Butley Estuaries SCDC 1554 Benacre – Easton Bavants Lagoons WDC 365 Brecklands FHDC/ SEBC 1881 Devil’s Dyke FHDC 8 Dews Pond SCDC 7 Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and SCDC 1260 Marshes Orford Ness – Shingle St SCDC 897 Rex Graham SCDC 3 Staverton Park and Thicks SCDC 79 WDC 190 Waveney and Little Ouse Fens SEBC/ MSDC 90

Sites of Special Scientific 2003 Interest (SSSIs) District/borough Total area BDC 2560 FHDC 12,375 IBC 44 MSDC 426 SEBC 4682 SCDC 10,362 WDC 1064

County Wildlife Sites 2003 District/borough Number Total area BDC 150 1333 FHDC 57 5342 IBC 17 198 MSDC 162 1290 SEBC 135 3539 SCDC 200 3363 WDC 112 1674

Local Nature Reserves 2003 District/borough Number Total area BDC 11 142 FHDC 1 19 IBC 4 36 MSDC 6 32 SEBC 0 0 SCDC 3 66 WDC 2 38 Source: Suffolk Biological Records Centre

27 Commentary • In previous years the area of all the ecologically-designated sites - apart from Local Nature Reserves - were assessed using map-based (two-dimensional) calculations rather than spherical (three-dimensional) calculations. Spherical calculations are more accurate and are therefore being used from 2002/3 onwards. • The site numbers have also changed. In previous years the number of polygons were counted, rather than the number of sites; this has now been rectified and the numbers given in the tables above will be used from now on. • The actual number and size of Ramsar sites, SPAs, SACs and SSSIs have remained unchanged over the last two years. • The method for calculating County Wildlife Sites has also been modified to eliminate overlaps.

Issues for the future This indicator will be used for information purposes, updating the number and size of these protected sites, rather than identifying change.

Indicator 17 – Protection of Suffolk’s Biodiversity measured through Sampling

General objective To protect and enhance biodiversity throughout the county.

Target To use the new planning system more effectively to move towards the achievement of the Suffolk Local Biodiversity Action Plan (SLBAP) targets/aims.

Sample - Habitat Action Plans (HAPs)

Table 26: Consideration of Lowland Heathland and Lowland Dry Acidic Grassland in planning decisions Number of applications 2001/2 Approved Refused District/borough With safeguarding With a reason Total condition relating to Total relating to HAP HAP BDC 0 0 0 0 FHDC 2 0 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 0 MSDC 2 0 0 0 SEBC 0 0 0 0 SCDC 0 0 3 0 WDC 1 1 0 0 TOTAL 5 1 3 0

28

Number of applications 2002/3 Approved Refused District/borough With safeguarding With a reason Total condition relating to Total relating to HAP HAP BDC 0 0 1 1 FHDC 2 0 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 0 MSDC 1 0 0 0 SEBC 0 0 0 0 SCDC 0 0 1 0 WDC 2 1 0 0 TOTAL 5 1 2 1

Table 27: Consideration of Great Crested Newts in planning decisions Number of applications 2001/02 Approved Refused Where a Which On the District/borough survey was include a grounds that Total carried out condition Total the species prior to safeguarding was present decision the species BDC 1 1 1 0 0 FHDC 1 0 0 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 1 0 MSDC 9 3 3 1 0 SEBC 0 0 0 0 0 SCDC 2 0 1 0 0 WDC 3 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 16 4 5 2 0

Number of applications 2002/3 Approved Refused Where a Which On the District/borough survey was include a grounds that Total carried out condition Total bats were prior to safeguarding present decision bats BDC 0 1 0 1 1 FHDC 0 0 0 0 0 IBC 1 1 0 1 0 MSDC 7 0 1 2 0 SEBC Not recorded SCDC 2 0 0 1 1 WDC 2 1 0 2 0 TOTAL 12 3 1 7 1

29 Table 28: Consideration of the presence of bats in planning decisions Number of Applications 2001/2 Approved Refused Where a Which On the District/Borough survey was include a grounds that Total carried out condition Total bats were prior to safeguarding present decision bats Known Bat Roosts BDC 10 1 4 1 0 FHDC 0 0 0 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 0 0 MSDC 3 1 1 0 0 SEBC Not recorded SCDC 6 Not recorded 0 0 WDC 2 0 1 2 0 Potential bat roosts BDC 26 8 7 0 0 FHDC 1 0 0 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 0 0 MSDC 74 2 9 7 0 SEBC Not recorded SCDC 25 Not recorded 6 Not recorded WDC 15 0 12 2 0 TOTAL 162 11 34 18 0

Number of applications 2002/3 Approved Refused Where a Which On the District/borough survey was include a grounds that Total carried out condition Total the species prior to safeguarding was present decision the species Known bat roosts BDC 10 3 4 1 0 FHDC 1 1 0 0 0 IBC 1 0 0 0 0 MSDC 3 0 0 0 0 SEBC Not recorded SCDC 8 Not recorded 0 0 WDC 3 0 1 0 0 Potential bat roosts BDC 28 7 12 7 6 FHDC 8 1 2 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 0 0 MSDC 79 3 30 8 0 SEBC Not recorded SCDC 33 Not recorded 4 Not recorded WDC 13 0 10 1 0 TOTAL 185 16 59 21 6 Source: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

30 Commentary Lowland Heathland and Lowland Dry Acid Grassland • Only a small number of relevant planning permissions included a safeguarding condition which sought to protect either habitat (23% in 2001/2 and 20% in 2002/3) • In 2001/2, no planning applications were refused on the grounds of the SLBAP habitats being present. • Waveney District Council is the only authority to have attached a condition on a planning permission to safeguard the habitat; generally it appears that little consideration is given to lowland heathland and lowland dry acid grassland when planning applications are being determined.

Great-crested newts • A small number of planning applications included a survey prior to a decision being made. Mid Suffolk, Babergh, Ipswich and Waveney carried out this good practice measure. • Only a small number of planning permissions included a safeguarding condition which sought to protect the species (36% in 2001/2 and 0% in 2002/3) • Only Babergh District Council refused a planning application on the grounds that this BAP species was present. • It appears that there is a growing awareness of the importance of great-crested newts when determining planning applications.

Bats Planning applications involving known bat roost sites: • In 2001/02 only two planning applications had had a pre-decision survey carried out. This increased to five in 2002/03. • Only a small number of planning permissions on known bat roost sites included a condition to safeguard the species (29% in 2001/2 and 21% in 2003). • No planning applications in either monitoring year were refused on the grounds that bats were present on the site.

Planning applications involving potential bat roost sites: • There has been a steady increase in the number of planning permissions that include a safeguarding condition, with a climb from 20% in 2001/2 to 34% in 2002/3. • Only Babergh refused any planning applications on the ground that bats might be present.

Issues for the future It is hoped that more Local Authorities will adopt good practice measures when considering planning applications that relate to Biodiversity Action Plan species/habitats and will request a survey to be carried out prior to determining the application. Local Authorities are working closely with conservation bodies such as English Nature and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust to improve the situation. In one example of good practice, Suffolk Coastal planning staff have been trained to spot potential bat-roost sites when considering planning applications, so the figures for this district are expected to rise over the next few years.

On target? 

31 Indicator 18 - Number of Listed Buildings and Listed Buildings at Risk

General objective To protect designated areas of the historic environment.

Target To reduce the number of Historic Buildings at Risk to 0.7% of the total listed buildings in Suffolk by 2006.

Table 29: Number of listed buildings District/ Grade I Grade ll* Grade II Total Borough 2001 2003 2001 2003 2001 2003 2001 2003 BDC 88 88 219 219 3387 3402 3694 3709 FHDC* 12 12 22 23 444 448 478 483 IBC** 9 13 33 32 568 565 610 610 MSDC*** 85 85 190 190 3126 3781 3401 4056 SEBC 98 98 160 160 2969 2976 3227 3234 SCDC 59 59 168 168 2524 2529 2751 2756 WDC 50 49 74 75 1472 1474 1596 1598 Suffolk 401 404 866 867 14,490 15,175 15,757 16,446 *FHDC figures show an increase largely due to improved record keeping. ** The change in figures for IBC is due to re-gradings. *** For MSDC the figures for 2001 are listing entries and not buildings, hence the significant increase in the total between 2001 and 2003.

Historic Buildings at Risk

Table 30: Number of entries to the Historic Buildings at Risk Register 1995 - 2003 District/ 1995 1997 2000 2003 Borough BDC 5 3 6 11 FHDC 11 10 12 9 IBC 13 10 6 6 MSDC 48 45 40 32 SEBC 19 23 33 31 SCDC 31 29 37 31 WDC 11 12 18 14 Suffolk 138 132 152 134 (% of total) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8%

Table 31: Buildings at risk in Suffolk 2000 - 2003 2000 - 2003 Total number Buildings at District/ Removed Entered of listed At risk as % Risk (2003 Borough from on buildings of total register) register register (April 2003) BDC 3 8 11 3709 0.3% FHDC 3 0 9 483 1.9% IBC 1 1 6 610 1.0% MSDC 15 7 32 4056 0.8% SEBC 9 7 31 3234 1.0% SCDC 13 7 31 2756 1.1% WDC 7 3 14 1598 0.9% Suffolk 51 33 134 16,446 0.8%

32 Commentary The listing of buildings is a means of conserving and enhancing Suffolk’s cultural heritage, and the number of listed buildings can be used as a measure of Suffolk’s historic heritage. This indicator measures the number of listed buildings/properties as opposed to listing entries.

Suffolk has approximately 16,000 listed buildings, the majority of which are Grade II. The majority of listed buildings in Suffolk are well maintained but a small number are in poor condition, usually due to lack of maintenance, but occasionally through deliberate neglect. In recognition of this, the Suffolk Local Planning Authorities publish an Historic Buildings at Risk Register. The purpose of the Register is to draw attention to these buildings in the hope that publicity will prompt action by owners or other interested parties making the building’s futures more secure. The Register also assists in the case for making grant money available at the local and national level. The number of historic buildings at risk assists in monitoring change in the condition of the historic built environment. It should be noted, however, that not all at-risk buildings appear on the register (e.g. where there is no prospect of a building being rescued).

Despite movements of properties on and off the Registers since 1995, the percentage of all listed buildings in Suffolk that have been at risk has tended to remain stable at 0.9%. Since 2000, more buildings have been removed from the Register than have been added and for the first time since 1995 the percentage at risk has dropped, to 0.8%. This demonstrates progress towards the target of 0.7%.

51 buildings have been removed from the Register, with a change in ownership often being a key factor in stimulating repairs. New ownership has been responsible for over a third of the buildings removed since 2000. It is also encouraging to see buildings repaired and brought back into use by existing owners, without any form of financial assistance.

Just over a quarter of the 44 buildings repaired and removed from the Register since 2000 received grant aid towards the work. These included the railway station at , the former Ebenezer Baptist Chapel in Glemsford, and The Ark in Kessingland.

Some buildings on the Register were in very poor condition and have been lost. Hillside Cottage at has had to be demolished, South View, Road, Walpole was destroyed by fire and South Lodge, Poslingford House, Polingsford collapsed.

Issues for the future It is considered that a buoyant property market has proved a strong incentive for owners to take positive action to repair buildings at risk. It is the intention that the Register of Buildings at Risk will now be updated annually. It will be interesting to see how the property market continues to influence progress in removing properties from the Register.

On target? 

33 Indicator 19 - Number and Area of Conservation Areas and Article 4 Directions

General objective To protect designated areas of the historic environment.

Target No target appropriate as this is a contextual indicator.

Table 32: Conservation Areas District/ Number of Conservation Areas Area (Ha) borough 2001 2002 2003 2003 BDC 28 28 28 1809 FHDC 13 13 13 595 IBC 12 12 12 231 MSDC1 32 34 34 715 SEBC 31 31 34 1671 SCDC1,2 33 33 33 937 WDC2,3 14 14 14 331 Suffolk total 163 165 168 6288 1 (with part of ) Conservation Area lies both within Suffolk Coastal District and Mid Suffolk. To avoid double counting it has been included only in SCDC’s entries. 2Walberswick Conservation Area lies within SCDC and WDC. To avoid double counting it has been included only in SCDC’s entries. 3In addition to the figures for Waveney, a small part of Ellingham Conservation Area (South District Council) also lies within the District.

Table 33: Article 4 Directions in Conservation Areas Article 4(2) Directions District/ 2000* 2002 2003 borough No. Properties No. Properties No. Properties BDC 4 400** 4 400** 4 400** FHDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 IBC 2 438 2 438 2 438 MSDC 0 0 1 N/A 1 N/A SEBC 8 315 6 1003 6 1003 SCDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 WDC 7 6000*** 7 6000*** 7 6000*** Suffolk total 21 7153 22 7841 22 7841 * No figures for 2001 were available **Approx. total for Glemsford CA only. Other 3 Article 4(2) Directions cover only parts of CAs. *** This figure is an estimate.

Commentary Effective conservation of Suffolk’s rich heritage is important in demonstrating progress towards sustainable development. Conservation Areas were introduced through the 1967 Civic Amenities Act as ‘’areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’’. In Suffolk, most conservation areas focus on town and village centres. Since 2001, three new Conservation Areas have been designated, all in St Edmundsbury Borough (, and Hamlet Road and Queen Street (both Haverhill)).

34

In addition to controls over demolition, it is possible to control other types of development in Conservation Areas that would not usually require planning permission but may adversely affect the preservation or enhancement of the area. Article 4(2) Directions are made under the respective part of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Their designation removes the usual right to carry out specified types of works, such as the replacement of windows, erection of fences and removal of chimneys.

Of the 168 Conservation Areas in Suffolk, 22 have Article 4(2) Directions. This is an increase of 1 since 2000, with Conservation Area being the first in Mid Suffolk. Approximately 7,000 properties are covered by the Directions. None of the Conservation Areas in Forest Heath or Suffolk Coastal have Article 4(2) Directions.

The increase in the number of Conservation Areas and Article 4(2) Directions since 2000 tends to suggest that progress is being made towards sustainable development. However, for a more accurate conclusion this would need to be backed by evidence that these measures are proving effective.

Issues for the future There are difficulties in identifying the number of properties covered by Article 4(2) Directions, particularly where they cover extensive areas, but progress to address this is being made.

This indicator could be more informative by assessing the quality of control in Article 4(2) areas, for example, the monitoring of the number of planning applications triggered by Article 4’s approved and refused and appeals dismissed. Ipswich BC already undertakes this monitoring. This approach needs to be investigated further with other local authorities. However, this would still exclude information on the extent to which Article 4’s influence the decision of residents not to pursue certain works, such as the removal of sash windows.

Indicator 20 - Conservation Area Appraisals Completed and Enhancement Schemes Implemented

General objective To protect designated areas of the historic environment.

Target No target appropriate as this is contextual information.

35 Table 34: Conservation Area Appraisals Completed

(June 2001) Number of Interim Statements Conservation Area Conservation appraisals District/borough Areas No. % No. % BDC 28 0 0% 4 14% FHDC 13 10 77% 3 23% IBC 12 4 33% 8 67% MSDC 32 1 3% 13 41% SEBC 31 27 88% 2 6% SCDC 33 17 52% 12 36% WDC 14 6 43% 8 57% Suffolk 163 65 40% 50 31%

(April 2002) Number of Interim Statements Conservation Area Conservation Appraisals District/Borough Areas No. % No. % BDC 28 0 0% 4 14% FHDC 13 10 77% 3 23% IBC 12 3 25% 9 75% MSDC 34 1 3% 13 41% SEBC 31 27 88% 2 6% SCDC 33 17 52% 12 36% WDC 14 5 36% 9 64% Suffolk 165 63 38% 52 32%

(April 2003) No. of Interim Statements Conservation Area Conservation Appraisals District/Borough Areas No. % No. % BDC 28 0 0% 5 18% FHDC 13 10 77% 3 23% IBC 12 3 25% 9 75% MSDC 34 1 3% 13 41% SEBC 34 27 88% 2 6% SCDC 33 17 52% 12 36% WDC 14 5 36% 9 64% Suffolk 168 62 37% 53 32%

36 Table 35: Enhancement Schemes completed 2001 to 2003 Monitoring Year District/borough 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 BDC 1 0 0 FHDC 1 0 0 IBC 1 0 0 MSDC 2 0 0 SEBC 1 N/R N/R SCDC 1 1 0 WDC 2 N/R N/R Suffolk 9 1 0

Commentary Only two Conservation Area appraisals have been completed in Suffolk in the last two years: Waveney completed an appraisal for in 2001/02 (based on an earlier photographic survey) and Babergh District completed an appraisal for Sudbury in 2002/03. In addition, in 2002/03, Waveney completed an appraisal for the extension of the South Lowestoft Conservation Area. This has not been included in the figures in terms of progress, as an appraisal already exists for the larger part of the existing Conservation Area. In terms of enhancement schemes there has been a significant slow down in the completion of schemes since 2000/01. However, there are other joint-funded conservation area initiatives in operation, such as the Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme (HERS). These schemes run for 3 years and English Heritage funding has to be matched by local sources either from local authorities or via the Single Regeneration Budget or European Regional Development Fund e.g. Glemsford in Babergh District, North Lowestoft and Beccles in Waveney, in Suffolk Coastal and in Mid Suffolk.

Issues for the future The new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill suggests that Conservation Area Appraisals will become Action Area Plans for Conservation. This indicator will need to be kept under review in the light of this impending change.

This indicator was originally intended to look at enhancement schemes over and above those being achieved through funding initiatives such as HERS. HERS funding usually contributes to a range of projects but this information is no longer monitored. Further consideration needs to be given as to how this indicator is to be progressed.

37 Indicator 21 - Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) damaged as a result of development

Objective To protect Suffolk’s nationally important archaeological resources.

Target To protect and prevent damage to any SAMs as a result of any planning permission.

Commentary There have not been any cases of actual damage to SAMs during 2001-2 or 2002-3. However, two applications in Suffolk Coastal (one in each reporting period) were approved that might potentially impact on a SAM. Both were for sites that abut a SAM site rather than actually being included within one.

It is pleasing that, during the seven-year lifetime of Suffolk’s Environment, no developments damaging to SAMs have been granted planning permission. For the two cases mentioned above, appropriate archaeological conditions were imposed that satisfied the County Council’s Archaeological Service Conservation Team. It would appear that landowners, Local Authorities and the Archaeological Service Conservation Team are working well together and with English Heritage to prevent damage to the most valuable archaeological sites in Suffolk.

Issues for the future In order to prevent unacceptable damage to the 400 SAMs in Suffolk, continued vigilance will be necessary. National reviews of heritage policy currently underway include consideration of the possibility that some responsibility for SAM control may devolve upon Local Authorities.

On target? 

Indicator 22 - Number and type of conditions attached to applications affecting known or potential archaeological sites

Objective To protect Suffolk’s archaeological interest.

Target To ensure that developments affecting: 1) known archaeological sites for which evaluation is required prior to determination of planning application; 2) archaeological sites of less than national importance; and 3) archaeological sites of unknown importance but of high potential are granted appropriate protection against potentially damaging activities. 38

Table 36: Known archaeological sites for which evaluation is required prior to determination of planning application District 2001-2 2002-3 Babergh 0 0 Forest Heath 0 0 Ipswich 0 0 Mid-Suffolk 1 0 St Edmundsbury 1 0 Suffolk Coastal 2 0 Waveney 0 0 Total 4 0

Table 37: Number of applications affecting known archaeological sites of less than national importance approved with no provision for preservation or recording during development District 2001-2 2002-3 Babergh 0 0 Forest Heath 0 0 Ipswich 0 0 Mid-Suffolk 0 0 St Edmundsbury 0 2 Suffolk Coastal 0 2 Waveney 0 0 Total 0 4

Figure 4: Number of applications affecting no known archaeological sites but judged of high potential and approved with conditions requiring prior excavation or recording during development

120 100 80 2001-2 60 2002-3 40 20

Number of applications 0

C C C C C C C D IB D BD H WD Total F MSD SEB SC

Commentary Only a small number of applications are made annually which affect sites of national importance (SAM), or with the potential to be of national importance (i.e. circumstances where preservation in situ is likely to be the only acceptable mitigation). In the majority of applications the use of planning conditions (to secure adequate mitigation by a record of the archaeological information which will be lost through development) has been mostly

39 successful. However, there have been four proposals affecting known archaeological sites approved without adequate requirements for preservation or recording, despite archaeological advice. As a secondary issue, there is growing concern that the planning enforcement system is not suited to the requirements of archaeological sites – it can be near-impossible to repair the damage if destructive development commences without compliance to a condition.

Annual totals for the final sub-indicator can be expected to vary from year to year. New archaeological sites are continually being found and there is a trend towards defining archaeological sites more broadly on the ground (particularly medieval urban areas), thereby altering the balance between ‘known’ and ‘potential‘ sites.

Issues for the future As discussed above, increased development pressures will lead to further land being identified for housing, employment land and roads. There will be a need for continued vigilance to ensure that Suffolk’s archaeological resource is protected against inappropriate development.

On target? 

Indicator 23 – Land Use in Town Centres

General objective To protect and improve the vitality and viability of town centres by offering a range of community, shopping and employment opportunities.

Target To ensure that the proportion of A1* uses does not fall below the national average of 50% in any one centre.

Figure 5: Percentage of each land-use class in all town centres 2002/ 2003

D1 B2 B8 4% 0% 0% D2 SG B1 1% 2% 3% A3 12%

A2 A1 15% 62%

40 *NB: A1 use = shops, A2 use = financial and professional services, A3 use = food and drink outlets. Class B = employment uses; class C = hotels and private homes; class D = non-residential buildings & leisure uses; sui generis = uses falling outside the above categories

Table 38: Percentage of A1 units in Suffolk town centres Town 2001/2 2002/3 Change 62% 62% 0 Beccles 59% 61% 2% Brandon 49% 45% -5% 64% 64% 0 74% 73% -1% 57% 56% -1% Eye 68% 68% -1% Felixstowe 66% 61% -4% 51% 52% 1% Hadleigh 58% 57% -1% Halesworth 67% 64% -2% Haverhill 65% N/R N/R Ipswich 68% 68% 0 53% 51% -2% Lowestoft 53% 80% 27% Mildenhall 53% 56% 3% Needham Market 65% 62% -3% Newmarket 56% 57% 1% Saxmundham 49% 51% 2% 69% 70% 1% Stowmarket 60% 61% 1% Sudbury 65% 65% 0 Woodbridge 62% 60% -2%

Commentary • There is an above average number of A1 units in Suffolk’s town centres (62%). • Brandon is the only town below the national average percentage in 2003 (49% in 2002, falling to 45% in 2003). • The town centre boundaries for Beccles and Lowestoft were amended in Waveney Local Plan Revised Draft (October 2002). This explains the large increase in the percentage of A1 units in Lowestoft (from 53% to 80% - the total number of units in the town halved). • Only data on ground floor units is presented here. The collection of floorspace figures is inconsistent across the authorities, making analysis difficult.

Issues for the future Local Authorities will continue to come under pressure to allow changes from A1 units to either dwellings or A3 premises. It is therefore important to ensure that town-centre land- use information is as up-to-date as possible, so that appropriate decisions can be made.

On target? 

41 Indicator 24 - Vacant Units in Town Centres

General objective To protect and improve the vitality and viability of town centres by offering a range of community, shopping and employment opportunities.

Target The number of vacant units in any one town centre should not exceed the national average (which is currently 11%). Figure 6: Percentage of vacant units in Suffolk town centres 2002/2003

15%

National average

11% 10%

County average 6% 5%

0% t s n d of o n Eye ngay u dbury hwold u andon m u r Leist Ipswich B ut Beccles deburgh S B Haverhill l Hadleigh o Lowest owmarket Mildenhall A t S Felixstowe Debenham xmundham Halesworth Newmarket S Woodbridge a St Ed Framlingham S y r Needham Market Bu

Commentary The average vacancy rate in the county is 6%. Southwold currently has no vacant units whereas Brandon is the only town centre above the national average, with a vacancy rate of 13%. All other towns meet the target by being below 11%.

Issues for the future In any town, it is important that there are a number of vacant units at any one time so that any new retailers are able to move in fairly quickly. There is a continuing demand for new retail premises in Southwold, but the lack of space within the town centre means that there is likely to be little potential for future growth. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the vacancy rate in Brandon is above the target, and efforts are currently being made to reduce it by encouraging new retailers to the town.

On target? 

42 Indicator 25 – Car Parking in Town Centres

General objective 1. To reduce the stock of long stay spaces within town centres or convert to short stay spaces in line with Policy P3 of the 2001-2006 Local Transport Plan (LTP). 2. To manage parking supply by reviewing parking charges in line with Policy P4 of the LTP.

Target The LTP suggests that each town produces a Local Action Plan. It would not therefore be appropriate to set a universal target for this indicator.

Table 39: Number of car-parking spaces 2002/ 2003 Short Long Park & Free Charged Stay Stay Ride Hadleigh 252 66 0 318 0 Sudbury 547 504 0 1051 0 Brandon 0 257 0 257 0 Mildenhall 0 342 0 342 0 Newmarket 150 776 0 926 0 Ipswich 3994 1978* 1150 0 7022 Debenham 0 57 0 57 0 Eye 0 178 0 178 0 Needham Market 105 122 0 227 0 Stowmarket 580 99 0 0 679 Bury St Edmunds 1018 2864 0 0 3882 Haverhill 0 608 0 0 608 Aldeburgh 0 320 0 112 320** Felixstowe 254 1389 0 245 1643*** Framlingham 0 105 0 105 0 Leiston 8 137 0 35 113 Saxmundham 89 175 0 8 256 Woodbridge 311 141 0 44 452 Beccles 368 418 0 418 368 Bungay 136 32 0 32 136 Halesworth 50 216 0 50 216 Lowestoft 764 2328**** 0 764 2328 Southwold 116 641 0 116 641 Total spaces 8742 11775 1150 5285 18664 * Of which 970 spaces are Saturdays only ** Free October to March *** Of which 865 spaces are free October to March **** Of which 32 spaces are weekends only

Figure 7: Type of parking provision in Suffolk 2002/3 Figure 8: Parking charges in Suffolk 2002/3

43

Figure 7: Type of parking Figure 8: Parking charges in provision in Suffolk 2002/ Suffolk 2002/ 2003 Park & 2003 Ride Free 5% Short 22% Stay 40%

Long Charged Stay 78% 55%

Commentary Trend analysis has proved difficult in the past, as each local authority has monitored car parking in a different way. Some authorities did not monitor privately owned car parks. It is therefore difficult to consistently compare data to baseline information and monitor progress towards the objective. The data in this report will be used as baseline data for future monitoring reports. On the face of it, the vast majority of parking spaces across the county are charged (78%). However, the table above shows that most of these spaces are concentrated in the larger towns and tourist destinations. The availability of free parking in the smaller towns reflects the greater reliance on the car in rural areas.

Issues for the future The next monitoring report will show an increase in the number of Park & Ride spaces serving Ipswich, with the new site at providing an additional 540 spaces.

On target? The 2003 information is not comparable with previous years’ data, so this is impossible to assess.

Indicator 26 - Recorded Crime Rates per 1000 Population

General objective To reduce both crime and the fear of crime. High levels of crime can impose economic costs (e.g. reducing property values, forcing businesses to relocate) and hasten the environmental decline of an area.

Target As a contextual indicator, a specific target is inappropriate

44 Table 40: Recorded crimes and crime rates 2001-2003 Crimes recorded Crime rate (per thousand of population) District / Borough 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 Babergh 4,153 4,119 4,308 46.8 49.9 51.6 Forest Heath 4,037 4,772 4,242 72.7 84.9 76.4 Ipswich 11,406 13,626 14,696 97.3 115.9 125.5 Mid Suffolk 2,045 3,208 3,100 34.1 37.1 35.7 St. Edmundsbury 6,566 6,982 7,201 67.4 70.7 73.3 Suffolk Coastal 5,322 5,720 5,571 45.6 48.8 48.4 Waveney 8,603 9,229 9,303 77.0 82.0 82.8 Suffolk 42,711 47,656 48,421 64.1 71.0 72.4 England & Wales 5,170,800 5,527,000 5,899,000 100 106 113 Source: Suffolk Observatory (http://www.suffolkobservatory.co.uk/), Office for National Statistics.

Figure 9: Crime rates by district, 2001-2003 140

120

100

80 000 population)

60

40

Crime Rate (per ' 20

0 Suffolk Ipswich St. Babergh Waveney Wales Mid Suffolk England and Forest Heath Edmundsbury Suffolk Coastal

2001 2002 2003

Data source: Suffolk Observatory (http://www.suffolkobservatory.co.uk/), Office for National Statistics

Commentary • In the five-year review of Suffolk’s Environment, crime figures for selected settlements were presented. This information is not readily available for the subsequent monitoring periods. As such, district level data, which is more readily available, has been reported for this indicator. • Over the last three years, there has been a rise in both the number of recorded crimes and the crime rate (crimes committed per 1,000 population) in Suffolk. In the monitoring year ending 2003 almost 6,000 more crimes were reported than in 2001, a rise of 13%.

45 • Babergh, Ipswich, St Edmundsbury and Waveney have all seen a year-on-year increase in the crime rate over the last three years. • Forest Heath, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal have all seen a small decline in the crime rate over the last twelve months. • Ipswich has seen a 28% rise in the numbers of crimes recorded for the period for which data is shown above. • It is important to remember that most districts include a wide mix of rural areas, small and larger towns. District level comparisons can therefore mask some important trends and variations. • Despite a rise in the crime rate across Suffolk, it is important to remember that the crime rate for the county in 2002/3, 72.4 offences per 1,000 population, remained well below the England and Wales average of 113 offences per 1,000 (ONS UK 2004 Year Book). • As well as relatively low rates of crime, compared to the national average, Suffolk has one of the highest success rates in the country for solving crime.

Issues for the future Crime reduction and prevention requires a wide range of measures. The planning system has a role to play in helping to design out crime by ensuring that the layout of buildings allows for natural surveillance of the surrounding areas, landscaping to create a pleasant environment and ensuring that areas are well lit.

The Crime and Disorder Act places an obligation of Local Authorities to ensure they take into full account the impact of their actions and activities on crime, and they should ensure that measures, such as those outlined above, are included in proposals for developments to help ensure that these areas experience as low a level of crime as is possible.

Although Local Authorities cannot directly reduce the levels of crime, adhering to the standards outlined above when considering planning applications can play a role in reversing the trend of increasing crime rates at the county level.

Indicator 27 – Percentage of Journeys to Work Undertaken by Sustainable Modes

General objective A key obstacle to achieving sustainability is an over-reliance on the private motor vehicle. This indicator measures achievement of the objective to promote and provide for walking, cycling, park-and-ride and public transport use as alternative modes of travel and reducing the need to rely on the private motor vehicle.

Target A year-on-year increase in the percentage of travel conducted via “sustainable“ modes (public transport/cycling/walking).

46 Figure 10: Journeys to work by mode by district, 2001 Census

70

60

50

40

30

Modal Share (%) 20

10

0 Suffolk Suffolk Ipswich Coastal St. Babergh Waveney Mid Suffolk Forest Heath Edmundsbury

Car / Van Drivers Sustainable Modes* Work From / At Home Other**

Data Source: 2001 Census [Key Statistics for Local Authorities]. Crown Copyright. *LTP definition of sustainable modes: walking, cycling and public transport (bus/coach/minibus, rail and taxi) **Other includes those travelling to work as a passenger in a car or van, motorcycle / moped / scooter users and those who selected “other” on the census form.

Table 41: Modal share of journeys-to-work - sample employers Mode Suffolk County British Telecom Total (2001 Census - Council Suffolk) Walk 11.8% 2.8% 6.8% 10.1% Cycle 4.8% 12.1% 8.9% 4.9% Motorcycle 1.1% 3.2% 2.2% 1.3% Bus 7.0% 3.6% 5.1% 4.3% Train 1.7% 2.0% 1.9% 1.5% Car Passenger 7.0% 4.5% 5.6% 6.3% Car Driver 66.6% 68.7% 67.8% 60.6% Taxi N/A 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Worked from Home N/A 2.0% 1.1% 10.1% Other N/A 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% Sustainable Modes 25.2% 20.7% 22.7% 21.1% (Subtotal) Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Commentary • These figures provide a new baseline, replacing the previous data that was collected through Travel Diary surveys. • In all districts (with the exception of Ipswich and Waveney), more than 60% of journeys to work were made by people driving a car or van. In Ipswich and Waveney, more journeys to work were made by sustainable modes, reflecting the impact of greater access to public transport, more developed cycle route networks and shorter length of journeys-to-work.

47 • A workplace survey of Suffolk County Council employees, undertaken in May 2003, showed that 1 in 4 travelled to work by sustainable modes. • British Telecom, which has a (Green) Travel Plan, also undertook a survey at its Martlesham Heath site. This revealed 21% of employees travelled to work by sustainable modes, level with the overall figure given in the 2001 Census for Suffolk.

Issues for the future In order to provide a broader measure of travel-to-work habits, it will be necessary to ‘roll- out’ the surveys highlighted above to other major employers. The Suffolk Local Authorities have a role to play in leading by example with this indicator. It is hoped to survey the travel-to-work habits at each of the district / borough authorities during 2004. By inviting other companies with travel plans to participate, it will encourage them to influence their own employees to travel in a more sustainable manner.

On target? Not possible to judge without further time-series information

Indicator 28 – Number of Air Quality Management Areas and Dwellings Affected

General objective To ensure that the quality of air in Suffolk is as high as is practicable.

Target To not exceed the threshold limits and to meet the objectives contained in the National Air Quality Strategy.

Table 42: Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and dwellings affected District / 2001 2003 Borough Number of AQMAs Dwellings affected Number of AQMAs Dwellings affected BDC 4 18 4 18 FHDC 0 0 0 0 IBC 0 0 0 0 MSDC 0 0 0 0 SEBC 4 33 0 0 SCDC 0 0 0 0 WDC 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 8 51 4 18

Commentary • In March 2003, there were four Air Quality Management Areas in Suffolk, affecting 18 dwellings. All of these were in Babergh, adjacent to the A12 dual carriageway, and further monitoring is being carried out to establish pollution levels more precisely. • This figure represents a significant drop on the figures recorded in 2001. In December 2002, following a review, the AQMAs previously designated in St Edmundsbury were revoked.

48

Issues for the future A further update of assessments is to be completed by May 2003, with a rolling programme of review for every three years after. All authorities in Suffolk are monitoring air quality on a continuous programme, and it is possible that Ipswich may have to designate new AQMAs in the near future.

On target? 

Indicator 29 – Number of Developments where a Travel Plan is Submitted or is a Condition of Development

General objective The indicator provides a measurement of the influence of the Suffolk Local Authorities in encouraging sustainable travel to new developments. Submitted travel plans set out measures to reduce car use and to encourage walking, cycling or public transport use and to make the journey safer and/or more pleasant.

Target PPG13 states that travel plans should be submitted alongside planning applications for all major developments, new and expanded school facilities, and smaller developments which would generate significant travel in or close to AQMAs or areas with traffic reduction initiatives.

Table 43: Planning approvals where (green) travel plans were submitted or a condition of development 2001/2 2002/3 Approvals where a Approvals where a District / Approvals where a Approvals where a travel plan was a travel plan was a Borough travel plan was travel plan was condition of condition of submitted submitted development development BDC N/R N/R N/R N/R FHDC 0 1 0 3 IBC 0 0 0 0 MSDC 0 1 0 0 SEBC 0 0 0 0 SCDC N/R N/R N/R N/R WDC 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 2 0 3

49 Commentary • Over the past two years, five travel plans were required as a condition of planning approvals, with four of these occurring in Forest Heath. The other was in Mid Suffolk. • The four travel plans in Forest Heath all related to developments in Newmarket. Three of these were for office developments whilst one was for a retail store with ancillary office facilities. • In Mid Suffolk, the condition required that a bus service for employees be provided for a development on the Orion Business Park in . • Historically, figures for this indicator have been low, with just eight travel plans being submitted or required by condition or legal agreement since 1998.

Issues for the future An increase in the number of travel plans voluntarily submitted by applicants, rather than required as a condition, would also be desirable as it would provide evidence of a greater level of sustainable awareness by local businesses.

On target? 

Indicator 30 – Percentage of all new Residential Development Taking Place in Major Towns, Other Towns and Elsewhere

General objective To locate new development and protect existing services so as to minimise growth in the length and number of motorised journeys and to maximise use of public transport and other alternatives to the use of private motor vehicles.

Target “Most housing development will be located in or adjoining towns, at a scale consistent with the potential for sustainable development at each town” (Structure Plan policy CS3(a)).

Table 44: Distribution of new housing development by settlement size 2001-03 (percentage of housing stock increase by district) 2001/2 2002/3 District / Borough Major Other E/where Major Other E/where Babergh 43% 26% 30.5% 21.5% 55% 23.5% Forest Heath 0 72% 28% 0 20.5% 79.5% Ipswich 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 Mid Suffolk 5.5% 43.5% 51% 3.5% 53% 43% St. Edmundsbury 30% 54% 16% 52.5% 27.5% 20% Suffolk Coastal 43% 39.5% 17.5% 37.5% 43% 19.5% Waveney 57.5% 36.5% 6.5% 64% 27% 9.5% Suffolk 44.5% 37% 18.5% 46% 34% 20%

50 Notes: The following definitions are used for the categories throughout this indicator: Major Towns: Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds Other Towns: Hadleigh, Sudbury1, Brandon, Mildenhall, Newmarket, Debenham, Eye, Needham Market, Stowmarket1, Haverhill, Aldeburgh, Felixstowe1, Framlingham, Leiston, Saxmundham, Woodbridge1, Beccles1, Bungay, Halesworth1, Southwold1 (1 - including associated parishes) Elsewhere: All areas outside of the above-specified areas

The following parishes have been included in the 'Major Towns' category as they are part of Ipswich Policy Area: Belstead, Copdock, Pinewood, Sproughton, Washbrook and Wherstead (Babergh); , Barham, Bramford, Claydon, and Whitton (Mid Suffolk); Brightwell, Foxhall, Kesgrave, , Martlesham, , Playford, and Rushmere St. Andrew (Suffolk Coastal).

Figure 11: Distribution of housing stock since 1991 45.0%

42.5%

40.0%

37.5%

35.0%

32.5%

30.0%

27.5%

25.0%

22.5%

Location of Housing Stock Change (% Total) 20.0% 1991-1996 1991-2001 1991-2002 1991-2003 Major Towns Other Towns Elsewhere

Commentary • Within individual districts, the proportion of development occurring at each settlement size will fluctuate, dependant on the location of development within that monitoring period. This indicator predominantly reflects longer-term trends. • In 2001/02, 44.5% of the increase in Suffolk’s housing stock was in the major towns of the county. In the latest monitoring year, this figure showed a slight increase to 45.8%. • The proportion of development occurring in other towns fell from 37% to 34% between 2001/2 and 2002/3 while the share of development occurring elsewhere rose from 18.5% to 20%. • Looking at results over a longer time period, it can be seen that progress towards sustainable development is being made. Between 1991 and 1996, 41.5% of housing development took place in major towns, 31% in other towns and 27.5% elsewhere; however, between 1996 and 2003, these proportions were 47%, 36% and 17% respectively.

Issues for the future Although it is important to ensure that new residential development is located, as far as possible, in existing settlements (so as to minimise journey lengths and use of the car), it

51 is also important to ensure that the scale of each development is not out of scale to the pre-existing settlement size.

This is a slow moving indicator as its baseline is the entire housing stock of the county, which has been built up through many centuries of development. Reconciling this indicator with information collected for regional monitoring purposes that captures housing completions and permissions by settlement size would perhaps allow for more marked short-term trends to be captured.

On target? 

Indicator 31 – Percentage of Rural Population Living in Parishes which have a Food Shop or General Store, Post Office, Pub, Primary School and Meeting Place

General objective The Rural White Paper Our Countryside: the future. A fair deal for rural England had a stated aim for villages “to be active, living communities, where people are also able to meet their essential needs and with opportunities for both old and young.” The White Paper also establishes a requirement for the rural post office network to be maintained and a presumption against the closure of rural primary schools.

Target To maintain or increase the percentage of the rural population living in parishes which have a food shop or general store, post office, pub, primary school and meeting place.

Figure 12: Percentage of rural population with access to listed facilities in 20035

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% % of Rural Population

10%

0% BDC FHDC MSDC SEBC SCDC WDC

5 4 3 2 1 0

5 A parish has been defined as having access to a facility if one or more of that facility is available. E.g. a parish with three shops and two pubs would be categorised as having access to two categories of facility. A parish with one school, one meeting place and one post office would be categorised as having access to three categories of facility despite having a lower total number of amenities (3) than the previous example (5). 52 Table 45: Percentage of rural population with access to all five listed facilities, 2003 2003 % of rural District / Rural population % of rural population with Borough Total Rural living in parishes population with access to all five * Population with access to all access to all five listed facilities five listed facilities listed facilities (2001) BDC 56,195 35,960 64.0% N/A FHDC 9,377 416 4.4% N/A MSDC 65,972 26,237 39.8% 49.8% SEBC 41,310 21,300 51.6% 41.6% SCDC 38,228 11,410 29.8% 29.6% WDC 13,486 1,602 11.9% 33.8% TOTAL 224,568 96,925 43.2% 41.0% * Ipswich Borough does not have any “rural” areas

Table 46: Rural parishes / population with access to at least one ‘service’ Food shop Post office Pub Primary school Meeting place Parishes 141 155 254 213 235 Population 138,053 145,322 183,906 161,839 169,955 % of rural parishes 32.5% 35.7% 58.5% 49.1% 54.1% % of rural population 61.5% 64.7% 81.9% 72.1% 75.7%

Commentary • 2001 and 2003 figures are not directly comparable. The Suffolk totals should not be compared as different districts have returned data. Where possible, figures from the 2001 census have been used to calculate the 2003 proportions. • Almost 225,000 residents in Suffolk live in the 434 parishes defined as rural, around a third of the county’s total population. Of these more than 95,000 (43%) have access to all of the five listed facility types. • The highest figure is in Babergh, where 64% of the rural population live in parishes with access to a shop, post office, pub, primary school and meeting place. This reflects the activities of the local council in using its powers to encourage and support such facilities. In St Edmundsbury, more than half of the rural population has access to these five facilities. • In Waveney, a significant fall in the proportion of the rural population with access to all five listed facilities has been recorded due to exclusion of Kessingland (which was previously included as a rural parish). If Kessingland is included, the percentage of the rural population with access to all five listed facilities in 2003 is 32.8%, and the overall Suffolk figure would be 42.6%. • More pubs are to be found in rural parishes than any other facility. 254 parishes (58.5%) have at least one pub, meaning that 82% of the rural population live in a parish that has access to one. • ‘Meeting places’ were found to be the second most prevalent facility (235 parishes had at least one) while food shops were the least widely available (to be found in 141 parishes). Somewhat surprisingly, this was lower than the number of parishes with access to a post office (155).

Issues for the future It is important that the planning system safeguards against the speculative closure of parish facilities (e.g. by refusing inappropriate applications for a change of use) to ensure the continued vitality of small communities.

53 On target? Unable to assess due to changing baseline information

Indicator 32 – Car Parking Standards

General objective To locate new development and protect existing services so as to minimise growth in the length and number of motorised journeys and to maximise use of public transport and other alternatives to the use of private motor vehicles.

Target For every local authority to have adopted car parking standards to PPG13 standards (or equivalent) and to be fully implementing those standards.

No data collected in 2001/2 or 2002/3

Commentary • This indicator was introduced as part of the recent review and is also to be included in Regional Monitoring returns. The monitoring systems required to collect the information have yet to be implemented in many authorities. It is hoped that the necessary systems will be in place for this indicator to be reported in 2003/4. • This indicator applies to all major applications only.

Issues for the future There is a need to develop monitoring systems that allow the collection of data for this revised indicator.

Indicator 33 – Percentage of Rural Households within 13 Minutes’ Walk of an Hourly Bus Service

General objective To locate new development so as to minimise growth in the length and number of motorised journeys and to maximise use of public transport and other alternatives to the use of private motor vehicles.

Target “To achieve a one-third increase in the proportion of households in rural areas within about 10 minutes walk of an hourly or better bus service by 2010.” (Transport Ten Year Plan 2000)

54

Table 47: Percentage of households within 13 minutes’ walk of an hourly bus service District / % of Households Borough* 2000/01 2002/3 BDC 30% 25.2% FHDC 35% 35.1% MSDC 10% 9.9% SEBC 23% 22.7% SCDC 37% 36.6% WDC 16% 16.8% TOTAL 23% 22.7% * Ipswich Borough excluded as it has no “rural” areas

Commentary • There was very little change in the overall level of service between 2000/01 and 2002/03 with 22.7% of rural households in the latter period having access to an hourly or better bus service. • Babergh has experienced a fall in the levels of its rural bus services while Waveney has seen a small increase.

Issues for the future If the target is to be met, the number of households in Suffolk within 13 minutes’ walk of an hourly (or better) bus service needs to rise by approximately 1% per annum until 2010. The rural nature of much of the county provides a challenge for public transport provision with private companies reluctant to maintain routes that run at a loss. As a consequence, ‘demand-responsive’ services are now being introduced more widely across the county. One example is the Buzabout service, which was introduced in October 2002 to cover the Shotley peninsula. The Buzabout Community Car can be booked for the price of a bus service for any journey which cannot otherwise be carried out via public transport. Other similar initiatives will be rolled out across the county over the next few years. The use of such services will be monitored in future years.

On target? 

55 Indicator 34 - Renewable Energy Generation

Objective To promote and enable the use of renewable energy sources.

Target The East of England Sustainable Development Round Table has adopted a target to meet 14% of the regional demand for energy from renewable resources by 2010, primarily using onshore wind energy and biomass. Their report “Making Renewable Energy a Reality” suggests that Suffolk should meet 12% of its energy demand through renewables (the onshore wind element of which is 270GWh).

Installed electricity generating capacity using renewable energy There has been no change to the 2000-1 figure of 19.5 megawatt hours (MWh) during 2001-2 or 2002-3.

Commentary Although there have been no changes to the installed capacity from 2001-3, two wind turbines for Lowestoft were granted planning permission during 2002-3 (April 2002 and December 2002). The first turbine, to be operated by SLP Energy, will have a capacity of 2.75MW whilst the second, to be operated by Ecotricity, will have a capacity of 0.6MW. When these two turbines are operational, total electricity-generating capacity will rise by approximately 20% to 23MW.

Issues for the future The situation is likely to improve in the next few years, at least in part due to Planning Policy Statement (PPS)22 Renewable Energy, the consultation draft of which was released in October 2003. The guidance within PPS22 is aimed at encouraging further the development of wind turbines; currently, many wind turbine proposals are rejected on landscape or other environmental grounds, and PPS22 states that there cannot now be blanket exclusions of wind turbines in areas of high landscape value (e.g. Heritage Coasts, AONBs, SSSIs etc).

In the first half of 2002-3, four scoping consultations for wind farms in Suffolk have been received, at Flixton (Waveney), (Mid-Suffolk) and Parham (Suffolk Coastal). More wind farm proposals are expected in the coming months and years (both onshore and offshore), but the rate of increase will need to be dramatic if Suffolk’s onshore wind target of 270GWh is to be met by 2010. Judging by the considerable resistance to most on-shore wind-farm proposals in Suffolk so far, reaching the target will be even more challenging than first thought.

On target? 

56 Indicator 35 - Recycled Aggregate Production

Objective To ensure that production of recycled aggregates is maximised each year.

Target The Waste Local Plan calculates that, over the period 1995-2006, an annual average of 347 000 tonnes of recycled aggregates should be produced. However, as a contextual indicator only, the target is not relevant in the context of Suffolk’s Environment.

Figure 13: Recycled aggregate sales in Suffolk 1996-2002

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000 Tonnes per year 100000

0 _1996 _1997 _1998 _1999 _2000 _2001 _2002 Year

Commentary The 2001 and 2002 figures (506 000 and 515 000 tonnes respectively) show the climb in sales of recycled aggregates continuing. The data is produced from annual surveys of all the aggregates producers in Suffolk and is thus the most reliable available.

Continuing climbs in the level of recycling are at least in part due to the landfill tax on inert materials (currently £2 per tonne) and the aggregates tax on virgin materials (currently £1.60 per tonne). Aggregates companies are continuing to invest in their recycling plant to maximise production of recycled aggregates, and this is likely to continue, at least in the short-medium term.

Issues for the future There are two main factors driving demand for recycled aggregates. The first is the levels of the landfill and aggregates taxes; if these taxes are increased in future years, this will stimulate further the recycling of aggregates. The second is the state of the construction industry. If the industry remains relatively buoyant, demand for aggregates (both virgin and recycled) will be high and vice versa.

57 Indicator 36 - Household waste produced and tonnage recycled

Objective To promote and enable best practice on waste management, minimising waste arising through encouraging the reuse, recycling and recovery of waste.

Target Statutory waste recycling Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) targets have been set for all seven Suffolk districts and the county as a whole:

Year Target 2002/3 18.2% 2003/4 28% 2004/5 35% 2005/6 38%

Figure 14: Percentage of household waste recycled/composted

35 30 25 20 2001-2 15 2002-3

Percentage 10 5 0 BDC FHDC IBC MSDC SEBC SCDC WDC Total

Table 48: Percentage of household waste recycled/composted

2001-2 2002-3 P P R R r r e e ( ( ( ( D e e e e t t t t W W r r o o o o Total Total T Total Total T c c c c c c i s n n n n o o a a y y y y e e t n n n n s s t t c c c c n n r a a e e e e i t t l l l l t t c i i e e e e l l a a s s s s n n

t d d

g g ) ) ) )

g g

e e

BDC 38 832 7158 45 990 15.6 36 696 7482 44 177 16.9 FHDC 22 516 9517 32 122 29.6 22 652 9070 31 723 28.6 IBC 52 272 12 144 64 415 18.9 53 033 13 729 66 761 20.6 MSDC 32 253 7196 39 449 18.2 32 396 7927 40 322 19.7 SEBC 40 064 17 089 57 153 29.9 41 293 18 213 59 507 30.6 SCDC 47 133 11 500 58 633 19.6 46 761 12 651 59 412 21.3 WDC 57 546 6547 64 093 10.2 57 523 7205 64 728 11.1 Total 290 616 71 150 361 852 19.7 290 354 76 276 366 630 20.8 * Total recycling levels are calculated from ‘dry’ recycling (e.g. of plastics) and the amount of ‘green’ material composted (these are measured separately)

58 Commentary As the target table shows, the 2002-3 BVPI target of 18.2% has been exceeded in Suffolk, although the rate of increase from 2001-2 to 2002-3 was only 1.1%. The figures also show that, with the exception of Forest Heath (which recorded a minor fall in 2002-3), all districts reported an increase in the amount and percentage of recycling in 2002-3.

Issues for the future A seven-figure grant from DEFRA in 2003 has enabled a substantial increase in the area of Suffolk with kerbside collection of dry recyclables. There have also been increases in the kerbside collection of ‘green’ wastes, particularly in Waveney.

In October 2003, the Suffolk Local Authorities agreed a joint Municipal Waste Strategy. The Strategy proposes that the ‘three-bin’ collection (recyclable (blue), compostable (green) and residual waste (black)) - currently available only in limited areas of Suffolk – will reach at least 80% of homes by 2010. Through these collections, it is hoped that at least 60% of municipal waste will be recycled by 2010, and that a 35% recycling rate will be reached by 2004-5.

On target? 

Indicator 37 – Water Quality in Rivers and Estuaries

This indicator is monitored every 5 years, and was last reported in the 5 Year Review in 2002: http://www.suffolkcc.gov.uk/e-and-t/structure_changes/suffenv/five_yr_rvw_2002/index.html

Indicator 38 - Flood Risk

General objective To ensure that new development is safe and not exposed unnecessarily to flooding.

Target The Local Government Association and Environment Agency have signed up to a joint performance target that, by 2007, Local Planning Authorities and the Agency will be preventing all new inappropriate developments in the floodplain. However, as a contextual indicator, a specific target is not relevant in the context of Suffolk’s Environment.

59 Figure 15: Planning permissions refused in line with Environment Agency advice

18 16 14 12 10 2001-2 8 2002-3 6 4 2 0

C C tal IBC DC B DC o BDC E W T FHDC MS SCD S

Figure 16: Planning permissions granted against Environment Agency advice

10 9 8 7 6 2001-2 5 4 2002-3 3 2 1 0

l C ta DC IBC DC o B HDC CDC EB W T F MSDC S S

Commentary The publication of PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) in final form in July 2001 has had a clear impact on the refusal figures in Suffolk. In 2001-2, there were only three refusals in line with Environment Agency advice, indicating that relatively low weight was being given to Environment Agency objections. In 2002-3, however, as knowledge of PPG25 deepened in Local Authorities and the objections of the Environment Agency began to be taken more seriously, refusals quintupled to 16 across Suffolk.

Although the rise in refusal figures is pleasing, the number of applications approved against Environment Agency advice changed little, falling from nine in 2001-2 to eight in 2002-3.

Issues for the future There are two categories of ‘approval against advice’ that Local Authorities and the Environment Agency need to work on in the future to improve this figure:

60 1. The first is where permission is granted because the Agency’s representation was received too late (i.e. after the application has been determined). The Agency must ensure that all its responses are timely, particularly for major applications.

2. The second is where the Local Authority has granted permission despite the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). PPG25 could not be less ambiguous in this respect: developers must provide “an assessment (i.e. an FRA) of whether any proposed development is likely to be affected by flooding”. Even if the actual risk might be very low and the Local Planning Authority has a general view that the proposed development is beneficial (e.g. a derelict brownfield site being re-developed), Local Planning Authorities should not be approving any applications in flood risk areas which are received without a FRA.

Indicator 39 - Number of planning applications refused because of the location being prone to coastal erosion

General objective To prevent all inappropriate developments in areas prone to coastal erosion

Target Not relevant for this indicator. A high number of refusals could mean that many applications are being ‘picked up’ and rejected successfully, but it could also mean that inappropriate applications are not being ‘screened out’ at an earlier stage in the planning process.

Commentary After being triggered only once before (2000/1, an application for beach chalets in Southwold, Waveney), this indicator was not triggered in 2001/2. There was one refusal in 2002/3, again in Waveney. The application was for the removal of a planning condition for a caravan park at Pakefield (Lowestoft) which limited occupation to the ‘summer’ season (roughly April-October). It was refused on the basis of Waveney’s policy ENV15, which does not permit permanent residential development proposals in a zone which has a maximum expected "life" of 50 years before it is lost to coastal erosion. In addition, further grounds for refusal was the development would have been within 10 metres of the existing cliff edge.

Issues for the future There will continue to be pressure to develop Suffolk’s coastal zone, particularly for tourist-related accommodation and activities. Although the results since 1996 indicate that very few inappropriate development proposals have come forward, continued vigilance will be necessary.

61 Indicator 40 – Playing Pitch Assessments

General objective The revised PPG17 (Sport and Recreation) stresses the importance of local authorities undertaking assessments, producing local strategies and setting local standards for open space and sport and recreation.

Playing pitch assessments; • Provide a basis for establishing new pitch requirements arising from new housing developments; • Are one of the best tools for the protection of pitches threatened by development; and • Link closely with work being undertaken on open space to provide a holistic approach to open space and protection.

Target An important outcome of a playing pitch assessment is the development of local standards of provision in accordance with national planning policy.

Table 49: Playing pitch assessments undertaken BDC FHDC IBC MSDC SEBC SCDC WDC

Date of Publication N/A July-01 July-01 N/A Aug-03 March-02 Football Pitches Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Hockey Pitches Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Rugby Pitches Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Cricket Pitches Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Bowling Greens Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Tennis Courts Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Athletics Tracks Yes No Yes No No No No Netball Courts Yes Yes No No No No Yes Assessment Undertaken? Golf Courses No No No Yes No No No Date of Next Review July-04 July-04 Aug-04

Commentary • Local Authorities have undertaken a large number of assessments, some of which are quantitative and others qualitative. • Some assessments have been carried out formally, whilst others form part of studies such as Leisure Needs studies. • Authorities should refer to Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch Strategies (produced by Sport England) for guidance on how to produce strategies. • Sport England recommends that data be reviewed every two years.

62

Issues for the future Data should be used to develop action plans with SMART objectives. This would ensure that this indicator could be monitored in the future.

63 Further Information

Suffolk's Environment ... towards sustainable development is a joint venture involving the County Council and all at the District/Borough Councils in Suffolk. More detailed information relating to each indicator reported is held centrally at Suffolk County Council, at the address below. For more information relating to a particular District/ Borough please contact one of the following:

Belinda Godbold Rich Cooke Environment & Transport Babergh District Council Suffolk County Council Corks Lane Endeavour House Hadleigh 8 Russell Road IPSWICH IP7 6SJ IPSWICH IP1 2BX

Tel: 01473 264303 Tel: 01473 825881 [email protected] [email protected]

Hannah Springham Andrew McCormack Forest Heath District Council Ipswich Borough Council District Offices Civic Centre College Heath Rd, Civic Drive MILDENHALL IP28 7EY IPSWICH IP1 2EE

Tel: 01638 719000 Tel: 01473 432938 [email protected] [email protected]

Marie Edwards Liz Humphreys Mid Suffolk District Council St Edmundsbury Borough Council 131 High Street St Edmundsbury House Needham Market Western Way IPSWICH IP6 8DL BURY ST EDMUNDS IP33 3YS

Tel: 01449 727240 Tel: 01284 757364 [email protected] [email protected]

Wilf Garford Desi Reed Suffolk Coastal District Council Waveney District Council Melton Hill Rectory Road WOODBRIDGE LOWESTOFT IP12 1AU NR33 0BX

Tel: 01394 444290 Tel: 01502 523055 [email protected] [email protected]

64