15/05/2005 Social Baseline Data

Stage A: Presentation of Baseline Data – As of 31st March 2004 - Additional SA/SEA Indicators

KEY: ☺ = Good progress/positive trend/on target. = Mixed progress/unable to determine trend. = Poor progress/negative trend/below target

SOCIAL BASELINE DATA

Collected Indicator District Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borough Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it improve access to high quality, health facilities? SB Proportion of population with access BDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access FHDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access IBC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access MSDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access SEBC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access SCDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access WDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access Suffolk Can obtain from Graham Mateer (SCC) to hospital or GP or dentist surgery using Accession database in the future (DfT accessibility indicators) but need to define more clearly.

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates? Lowest in Suffolk. Decreasing trend since 2001. SB Overall death rate by all causes BDC Age standardised mortality ratio: ☺ Relatively low for Suffolk, and (PCT) 2003: 560.5 decreasing. 2002: 565.1 2001: 582.2 Highest in Suffolk. Increasing trend since 2001. Increasing age standardised mortality SB Overall death rate by all causes FHDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Relatively high for Suffolk, and (PCT) 2003: 674.9 ratio. increasing. 2002: 673.2 2001: 649.8 2nd SB Overall death rate by all causes IBC Age standardised mortality ratio: highest in Suffolk. Decreased since last year, and lowest Relatively high for Suffolk, but (PCT) 2003: 645.0 since 2001. decreased last year. 2002: 661.8 2001: 650.3 Increasing trend since 2001. Increasing age standardised mortality SB Overall death rate by all causes MSDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Increasing trend, and above (PCT) 2003: 612.9 ratio. average for Suffolk this year. 2002: 585.3 2001: 579.2 SB Overall death rate by all causes SEBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Decreasing trend since 2001. ☺ Decreasing trend, and below (PCT) 2003: 602.5

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates? SB Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) BDC Age standardised mortality ratio: 2nd lowest in Suffolk. Increased this year but remained Relatively low for Suffolk. under 75 per 100,000 population 2003: 107.6 below 2001 figure. ☺/ (PCT) 2002: 104.2 Increased this year but remained 2001: 111.0 below 2001 figure. Figures fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) FHDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Highest in Suffolk. Decreased this year but still much Monitor whether increase in cancer Relatively high for Suffolk. under 75 per 100,000 population 2003: 138.3 higher than 2001 figure. deaths this year represents long term / (PCT) 2002: 144.1 trend. Decreased this year but still much 2001: 84.3 higher than 2001 figure, and significantly higher than other districts. Figures fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) IBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Increasing trend. Monitor whether increase in cancer Around average for Suffolk, under 75 per 100,000 population 2003: 117.7 deaths this year represents long term / (PCT) 2002: 113.8 trend. but with an increasing trend. Figures 2001: 113.3 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) MSDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Increasing trend. Monitor whether increase in cancer Above average for Suffolk under 75 per 100,000 population 2003: 119.2 deaths this year represents long term / (PCT) 2002: 111.4 trend. this year, and with an increasing trend. 2001: 98.1 Figures fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) SEBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Increased this year, and now higher Monitor whether increase in cancer Above average for Suffolk under 75 per 100,000 population 2003: 118.0 than 2001 figure. deaths this year represents long term / (PCT) 2002: 110.5 trend. this year, and increased. Figures 2001: 116.0 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) SCDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Lowest in Suffolk. Decreasing trend. Relatively low for Suffolk, under 75 per 100,000 population 2003: 112.0 ☺/ (PCT) 2002: 102.4 and with a decreasing trend. Figures 2001: 99.4 fluctuate, so may take longer to

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates? Decreasing trend. SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per BDC Age standardised mortality ratio: ☺ Decreasing trend, and around 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 43.8 average for Suffolk this year. Consider 2002: 44.0 deleting if not a concern in area. 2001: 46.9 Decreasing trend. SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per FHDC Age standardised mortality ratio: ☺ Decreasing trend, though above 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 51.7 average for Suffolk this year. Consider 2002: 55.1 deleting if not a concern in area. 2001: 74.2 SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per IBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Decreased this year. Last year had highest 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 47.5 ☺/ 2002: 69.1 mortality rate from heart disease in 2001: 62.9 Suffolk - has fallen this year but still above average for county. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. Highest in Suffolk. Only district to Increased this year. Mortality from heart disease is SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per MSDC Age standardised mortality ratio: High for Suffolk and only district 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 52.5 have increased mortality from heart highest in Suffolk, and only district to to have increased mortality from heart 2002: 48.6 disease this year. have increased this year. disease this year. 2001: 48.9 2nd SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per SEBC Age standardised mortality ratio: lowest in Suffolk. Decreasing trend. ☺ Decreasing trend, and relatively 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 37.1 low for Suffolk. Consider deleting if 2002: 45.7 not a concern in area. 2001: 50.5 Lowest in Suffolk. Decreasing trend. SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per SCDC Age standardised mortality ratio: ☺ Decreasing trend, and relatively 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 29.0 low for Suffolk. Consider deleting if 2002: 41.2 not a concern in area. 2001: 52.0 SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per WDC Age standardised mortality ratio: 2nd highest in Suffolk. Decreasing trend. Relatively high for Suffolk, 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 52.4 ☺/ 2002: 53.7 though decreasing trend, Consider 2001: 61.0 deleting if not a concern in area. Decreasing trend. SB Heart Disease deaths under 75 per Suffolk Age standardised mortality ratio: ☺ Decreasing trend. Consider 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 43.6 deleting if not a concern in area. 2002: 50.9 2001: 55.5

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates?

Last update: 15/05/2005 Collected Indicator District Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borough SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) BDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Lowest in Suffolk. Increased this year and now higher Monitor whether increase in Increased this year and now per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 59.9 than 2001 figure. respiratory deaths this year ☺/ 2002: 53.2 represents long term trend. higher than 2001 figure. However, still 2001: 57.0 lowest district in Suffolk. Figures fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. Highest in Suffolk. Increasing trend. Increasing trend in respiratory deaths. SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) FHDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Relatively high for Suffolk, and per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 83.8 increasing trend. Figures fluctuate, so 2002: 74.5 may take longer to determine trends. 2001: 72.7 Consider deleting if not a concern in area. 2nd SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) IBC Age standardised mortality ratio: highest in Suffolk. Increased this year, but lower than Monitor whether increase in Relatively high for Suffolk, and per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 82.8 2001 figure. respiratory deaths this year increased this year. Figures fluctuate, 2002: 69.5 represents long term trend. so may take longer to determine 2001: 76.9 trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) MSDC Age standardised mortality ratio: 2nd lowest in Suffolk. Increased this year, but lower than Monitor whether increase in Relatively low for Suffolk, per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 63.5 2001 figure. respiratory deaths this year ☺/ 2002: 60.5 represents long term trend. but increased this year. Figures 2001: 62.6 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) SEBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Increased this year, and now higher Monitor whether increase in Above average for Suffolk, per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 74.1 than 2001 figure. respiratory deaths this year / 2002: 64.2 represents long term trend. and increased this year. Figures 2001: 70.0 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) SCDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Increasing trend. Increasing trend in respiratory deaths. Increasing trend, though still per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 65.6 / 2002: 61.4 below average for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 57.5 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) WDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Decreased this year, and now below Only district to record a per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 68.6 the 2001 figure. ☺/ 2002: 80.7 decrease this year, though still above 2001: 68.2 average for Suffolk. Figures fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area. SB Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) Suffolk Age standardised mortality ratio: Increasing trend. Increasing trend in respiratory deaths. Increasing trend. Figures per 100,000 population (PCT) 2003: 70.1 / 2002: 66.4 fluctuate, so may take longer to 2001: 65.7 determine trends. Consider deleting if not a concern in area.

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates? SB Deaths from self harm and injury BDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Decreased this year, but still higher Decreased this year, and undetermined per 100,000 2003: 7.4 than 2001 figure. ☺/ population (PCT) 2002: 11.7 below average for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 6.8 fluctuate, so may take longer to

SB Deaths from self harm and injury FHDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Decreased compared to 2001 this year. Decreased this year, now undetermined per 100,000 2003: 15.1 ☺/ population (PCT) 2002: N/A around average for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 8.9 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. SB Deaths from self harm and injury IBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Highest in Suffolk. Increasing trend. Increase in self harm/undetermined Increasing trend and undetermined per 100,000 2003: 13.2 deaths. Highest of any district in / population (PCT) 2002: 12.3 Suffolk. relatively high for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 6.8 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. SB Deaths from self harm and injury MSDC Age standardised mortality ratio: 2nd lowest in Suffolk. Decreased compared to 2001 this year. Decreased this year, and undetermined per 100,000 2003: 6.3 ☺/ population (PCT) 2002: N/A below average for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 8.9 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. SB Deaths from self harm and injury SEBC Age standardised mortality ratio: Decreased this year, but still higher Decreased this year, and undetermined per 100,000 2003: 7.2 than 2001 figure. ☺/ population (PCT) 2002: 9.5 below average for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 5.4 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. SB Deaths from self harm and injury SCDC Age standardised mortality ratio: 2nd highest in Suffolk. Increased this year, and now higher Monitor whether increase in self Increased this year and undetermined per 100,000 2003: 10.7 than 2001 figure. Very low in 2002. harm/undetermined deaths this year / population (PCT) 2002: 3.5 represents long term trend. relatively high for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 9.5 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. SB Deaths from self harm and injury WDC Age standardised mortality ratio: Lowest in Suffolk. Decreased this year, and lower than Decreased this year, and undetermined per 100,000 2003: 4.9 2001 figure. ☺/ population (PCT) 2002: 15.8 relatively low for Suffolk. Figures 2001: 8.1 fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends. SB Deaths from self harm and injury Suffolk Age standardised mortality ratio: Relatively stable over last 3 years, Has remained relatively undetermined per 100,000 2003: 8.7 small fluctuation. ☺/ population (PCT) 2002: 8.9 stable since 2001. Figures for 2001: 8.7 individual districts fluctuate, so may take longer to determine trends.

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates? BDC 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than Decrease in both fatal and serious No longer-term reduction in number of SB Number of people killed and The increase in road casualties seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 7 354 people killed or seriously injured in casualties compared to 2003 figures. serious road traffic accident reported in 2003 has been reversed accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 47 2004. (337 for 2005) Similar figures to 2001 for serious casualties. this year. Fewer fatalities but no (SCC) casualties but fatalities have longer-term reduction in serious decreased. casualties compared to 2001. FHDC 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than Decrease in both fatal and serious SB Number of people killed and ☺ Decrease in both fatal and serious seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 8 354 people killed or seriously injured in casualties compared to 2003 figures. road casualties in 2004 compared to accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 40 2004. (337 for 2005) Fewer serious casualties in 2004 than previous years. Fewer serious (SCC) any year since 2001. (2 fewer fatalities casualties in 2004 than any year since recorded in 2002). 2001. IBC 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than More serious, casualties than last year Increase in number of serious road SB Number of people killed and Fatalities remain low, but number seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 3 354 people killed or seriously injured in (1 fewer fatality). Serious casualties traffic accident casualties this year. of serious casualties currently higher accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 54 2004. (337 for 2005) higher in 2004 than have been in any than in any year since 2001. (SCC) year since 2001.

Last update: 15/05/2005 Collected Indicator District Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borough MSDC 2004 RTA casualties: SB Number of people killed and Target for Suffolk of no more than Decrease in both fatal and serious ☺ Decrease in both fatal and serious seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 5 354 people killed or seriously injured in casualties compared to 2003 figures. road casualties in 2004 compared to accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 41 2004. (337 for 2005) Fewer fatal and serious casualties in previous years. Fewer fatal and serious (SCC) 2004 than in any year since 2001. casualties in 2004 than any year since 2001. SEBC 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than Small increase in fatal and serious Small increase in number of fatal and SB Number of people killed and Small increase in number of fatal seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 8 354 people killed or seriously injured in casualties since last year. However, serious road traffic accident casualties and serious road traffic accident accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 58 2004. (337 for 2005) longer-term trend shows fewer fatal this year. casualties this year. However, longer- (SCC) and serious casualties in 2004 than in term trend shows a decrease since 2001. 2001. SCDC 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than One less fatality than last year, but no No reduction in serious road traffic SB Number of people killed and Serious casualties have decreased seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 6 354 people killed or seriously injured in change in serious. Longer-term trend accident casualties this year, which since 2001. However, no decline in accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 65 2004. (337 for 2005) shows decrease in serious casualties may need to be monitored, and no fatalities over time and serious (SCC) since 2001 but fatalities remained longer-term decrease in fatalities. casualties did not decrease last year. almost constant at 6 or 7. WDC 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than Decrease in both fatal and serious SB Number of people killed and ☺ Decrease in both fatal and serious seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 5 354 people killed or seriously injured in casualties compared to 2003 figures. road casualties in 2004 compared to accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 50 2004. (337 for 2005) Fewer serious casualties in 2004 than previous years. Fewer serious (SCC) in any year since 2001. Fatalities casualties in 2004 than any year since lowest since 2002, and equalled 2001 2001. figure this year. Suffolk 2004 RTA casualties: Target for Suffolk of no more than Decrease in both fatal and serious The target for 2004 was not met and SB Number of people killed and ☺ Decrease in both fatal and serious seriously injured in road traffic Fatal: 42 354 people killed or seriously injured in casualties compared to 2003 figures. further improvement is required. road casualties in 2004 compared to accidents per 100,000 population Serious: 355 2004. (337 for 2005) Fewer fatal and serious casualties in previous years. Fewer fatal and serious (SCC) (Totals for county) 2004 than in any year since 2001. casualties in 2004 than any year since 2001. However the target for 2004 was not met and further improvement is required.

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it reduce death rates? East of England Average: Life expectancy has increased each SB Life expectancy (SDA) BDC 2001-2003: ☺ Life expectancy is good, and has Male 78.7 years Male 77.3 years monitoring period since 1998-2000. increased each monitoring period since Female 82.4 years Female 81.4 years 1998-2000.

Longest life expectancy in Suffolk for both men and women. East of England Average: Life expectancy has increased for Low life expectancy for females, and SB Life expectancy (SDA) FHDC 2001-2003: Life expectancy has increased for Male 77.2 years Male 77.3 years males but decreased for females since decreasing trend, should be addressed. males but decreased for females since Female 80.5 years Female 81.4 years 1999-2001. 1999-2001.

Shortest life expectancy for females in Suffolk. SB Life expectancy (SDA) IBC 2001-2003: East of England Average: No change in life expectancy since last Life expectancy is relatively low for No change in life expectancy since Male 76.6 years Male 77.3 years monitoring period, but longer-term Suffolk, but increasing. last monitoring period, but longer-term Female 81.3 years Female 81.4 years trend shows an increase. trend shows an increase. Relatively low life expectancy for Suffolk. Shortest life expectancy for males in Suffolk, and 2nd shortest for females. East of England Average: Life expectancy has decreased for SB Life expectancy (SDA) MSDC 2001-2003: ☺ Relatively long life expectancy for Male 78.4 years Male 77.3 years females this monitoring period, but Suffolk. Life expectancy has Female 82.3 years Female 81.4 years longer-term trend shows an increase, decreased for females this monitoring

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB Proportion of journeys to work on BDC 2001 Census: 8.9% foot, 2.7% cycle No other comparable data recorded. No trend information. foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) SB Proportion of journeys to work on FHDC 2001 Census: 10.6% foot, 4.6% cycle No other comparable data recorded. No trend information. foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) SB Proportion of journeys to work on IBC 2001 Census: 13.9% foot, 5.7% cycle Largest % of foot/cycle travel in No other comparable data recorded. No trend information. In 2001 foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) Suffolk. Ipswich had highest % in Suffolk of Willis (Ipswich) Employee Travel walking/cycling to work. Survey 2004: 10.1% foot, 1.5% cycle SB Proportion of journeys to work on MSDC 2001 Census: 6.9% foot, 3.8% cycle Lowest % of foot/cycle travel in No other comparable data recorded. Low use of walking/cycling to travel to No trend information. In 2001 foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) Suffolk. work in 2001 census. Mid Suffolk had lowest % in Suffolk of MSDC Employee Travel Survey 2004: walking/cycling to work. Small sample 5.6% foot, 2.8% cycle size (36) in employee travel survey. SB Proportion of journeys to work on SEBC 2001 Census: 11.9% foot, 3.5% cycle No other comparable data recorded. No trend information. Small foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) sample size (67) in employee travel SEBC Employee Travel Survey 2004: survey. 10.4% foot, 1.5% cycle SB Proportion of journeys to work on SCDC 2001 Census: 8.0% foot, 5.4% cycle BT (Martlesham Heath) Travel Survey Small sample size (116) in SCDC foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) 2003: 2.8% foot, 12.1% cycle employee travel survey. SCDC Employee Travel Survey 2004: 6.9% foot, 1.7% cycle No other comparable data recorded.

BT (Martlesham Heath) Travel Survey 2004: 19.0% foot, 6.9% cycle SB Proportion of journeys to work on WDC 2001 Census: 9.7% foot, 8.4% cycle 2nd largest % of foot/cycle travel in No other comparable data recorded. No trend information. Small foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) Suffolk in 2001 Census. sample size (40) in employee travel WDC Employee Travel Survey 2004:

SB Proportion of journeys to work on Suffolk 2001 Census: 10.1% foot, 5.0% cycle Suffolk County Council Employee Limited trend information. An foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG) Travel Survey 2003: 11.8% foot, 4.8% decrease has been recorded in use of Suffolk County Council Employee cycle walking/cycling by Suffolk employees Travel Survey 2004: 9.8% foot, 4.1% but is this representative of the wider cycle No other comparable data recorded. population?

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB How do children travel to school? BDC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? FHDC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? IBC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? MSDC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? SEBC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? SCDC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? WDC N/A N/A N/A (QOL/BVPI) SB How do children travel to school? Suffolk 2004 survey: Suffolk target of 23% by bus in 2004 Awaiting trend data from Terry (QOL/BVPI) 41% walk, 18% bus, 6% cycle, 35% car. Dodman, Suffolk

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB Obesity in the population (PCT) BDC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) FHDC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) IBC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) MSDC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) SEBC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) SCDC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) WDC No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc). SB Obesity in the population (PCT) Suffolk No data for baseline but anticipate will be available in the future (LAA etc).

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB Change in existing provision of BDC Under review. outdoor playing space (youth and adult space) (SSAG 5-year review)

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB Change in existing provision of BDC Under review. children's play space (SSAG 5-year review) SB Change in existing provision of FHDC Under review. children's play space (SSAG 5-year review) SB Change in existing provision of IBC Under review. children's play space (SSAG 5-year review) SB Change in existing provision of MSDC Under review. children's play space (SSAG 5-year review) SB Change in existing provision of SEBC Under review. children's play space (SSAG 5-year review) SB Change in existing provision of SCDC Total outdoor play space (adult, youth children's play space (SSAG 5-year and children) 2004 : review) = 264.46 ha. SB Change in existing provision of WDC Children's play space 2003/4: children's play space (SSAG 5-year = 60.87ha review) SB Change in existing provision of Suffolk Under review. children's play space (SSAG 5-year review)

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB Change in provision of open space BDC Data not yet available. (District open space assessments)

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? SB % of footpaths and other rights of BDC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) SB % of footpaths and other rights of FHDC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) SB % of footpaths and other rights of IBC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) SB % of footpaths and other rights of MSDC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) SB % of footpaths and other rights of SEBC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) SB % of footpaths and other rights of SCDC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) SB % of footpaths and other rights of WDC N/A way which are easy to use by members of the public (Suffolk BVPI) Suffolk 2004/5 survey: 59% Target for the county of 62% for 2003/4: 60.5% % of easy to use paths has decreased SB % of footpaths and other rights of % of easy to use paths has way which are easy to use by 2004/5 and 63% for 2005/6. 2002/3: 57.4% this year and did not meet target. decreased this year and did not meet members of the public (Suffolk 2001/2: 48% Improvement needed to meet 2005/6 2004/5 target. Improvement required BVPI) target to meet next years target. Improving trend since 2001 but decreased slightly this year.

Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall

Change in amount of accessible FHDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible IBC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible MSDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible SEBC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible SCDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible WDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible Suffolk No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) may be available in the future.

Headline Objective: To maintain and improve levels of education and skills in the population overall Will it improve qualifications and skills of young people? BDC 2004: 66.6% Target? Trend shows increase from 64.1% in SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C ☺ Good performance. Trend shows grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA 2001, though is currently less than the increase from 64.1% in 2001, though is / BVPI) Highest % in Suffolk. 68.1% recorded in 2002. currently less than the 68.1% recorded in 2002. FHDC 2004: 59.3% Target? Trend shows performance is improving SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C ☺ Trend shows performance is grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA each year. % has increased from 43.4% improving each year. % has increased / BVPI) in 2001. from 43.4% in 2001.

IBC 2004: 63.5% Target? Trend shows performance is improving SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C ☺ Trend shows performance is grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA each year. % has increased from 48.3% improving each year. % has increased / BVPI) in 2001 from 48.3% in 2001

SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C MSDC 2004: 55.4% Target? Performance is lowest since 2001, GCSE attainment is relatively low for Performance is lowest since 2001, grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA reversing an improving trend from Suffolk, and has decreased. reversing an improving trend from / BVPI) 2nd lowest in Suffolk. 2001-2003. Low for Suffolk this year. 2001-2003. Low for Suffolk this year.

SCDC 2004: 66.1% Target? Performance is currently lower than SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C ☺ Performance is good for Suffolk, grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA the 71.5% recorded last year. although currently lower than the / BVPI) 2nd highest in Suffolk. 71.5% recorded last year.

WDC 2004: 50.2% Target? Lowest performing District for last 3 GCSE attainment is relatively low for SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C Performance is low for Suffolk, and grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA years. Trend shows improvement from Suffolk, and has decreased. has been lowest performing District / BVPI) Lowest in Suffolk. 2001-2003, but has decreased this for last 3 years. Trend shows year. improvement from 2001-2003, but has decreased this year. Suffolk 2004: 57.3% Target? Trend shows performance is improving SB % of year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C ☺ Trend shows performance is grades at GCSE (District Wide SDA each year. % for county has increased improving each year. % for county has / BVPI) annually from 54.3% in 2001. increased annually from 54.3% in 2001, although some districts perform better and/or have improved more than others.

Headline Objective: To maintain and improve levels of education and skills in the population overall Will it improve qualifications and skills of young people? SB Average point score per student at BDC Average score 2004: 283.7 Target? Performance has improved from 222 in ☺ Performance is good for Suffolk A and AS level. (District Wide SDA 2002. and has improved in 2004 Data from / BVPI) 2nd highest in Suffolk. 2002 onwards not comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed. FHDC Average score 2004: 270.1 Target? Performance has decreased from 278.1 Performance is below average for SB Average point score per student at Performance is below average for A and AS level. (District Wide SDA in 2002. Suffolk, and has decreased. Suffolk, and has decreased in 2004. / BVPI) Data from 2002 onwards not comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed. IBC Average score 2004: 273.8 Target? Performance has improved from 239.6 SB Average point score per student at ☺ Performance has improved from A and AS level. (District Wide SDA in 2002. in2004. Data from 2002 onwards not / BVPI) comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed. MSDC Average score 2004: 250.1 Target? Performance has decreased from Performance is relatively low for SB Average point score per student at Performance is relatively low for A and AS level. (District Wide SDA 254.7 in 2002. Suffolk, and has decreased. Suffolk, and has decreased in 2004. / BVPI) 2nd lowest in Suffolk. Data from 2002 onwards not comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed. SEBC Average score 2004: 275.9 Target? Performance has improved from 263.5 SB Average point score per student at ☺ Performance is above average for A and AS level. (District Wide SDA in 2002. Suffolk and has improved in 2004. / BVPI) Data from 2002 onwards not comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed. SCDC Average score 2004: 294.9 Target? Performance has improved from 286.3 SB Average point score per student at ☺ Performance is good and has A and AS level. (District Wide SDA in 2002. improved in 2004. Data from 2002 / BVPI) Highest in Suffolk. onwards not comparable to previous data as method of calculating points

WDC Average score 2004: 247.9 Target? Performance has increased from 210.7 Performance is low for Suffolk but has SB Average point score per student at Performance is low for Suffolk but A and AS level. (District Wide SDA in 2002. increased. has increased in 2004. Data from 2002 / BVPI) Lowest in Suffolk. onwards not comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed. Suffolk Average score 2004: 264.9 Target? Performance has improved from 236.3 SB Average point score per student at ☺ Performance has improved in 2004. A and AS level. (District Wide SDA in 2002. Data from 2002 onwards not / BVPI) comparable to previous data as method of calculating points score has changed.

Headline Objective: To maintain and improve levels of education and skills in the population overall Will it improve qualifications and skills of adults? No trend data. SB Proportion of the population with no BDC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% ☺ Proportion is relatively low. qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications: 2nd lowest in Suffolk. 27.8% SB Proportion of the population with no FHDC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% No trend data. Proportion of the population with no Proportion is relatively high. qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications: qualifications is relatively high.

30.5% No trend data. Proportion of the population with no SB Proportion of the population with no IBC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% Proportion is relatively high. qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications: qualifications is relatively high. 2nd highest in Suffolk. 33.6% SB Proportion of the population with no MSDC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% No trend data. ☺ Proportion is relatively low. qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications:

27.9% SB Proportion of the population with no SEBC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% No trend data. ☺ Proportion is relatively low. qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications:

28.1% SB Proportion of the population with no SCDC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% No trend data. ☺ Proportion is relatively low, and qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications: less than other Districts in Suffolk. Lowest in Suffolk. 26.9% SB Proportion of the population with no WDC 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% No trend data. Proportion of the population with no Proportion is relatively high, and qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications: qualifications is relatively high. higher than other Districts in Suffolk. Highest in Suffolk. 35.8% SB Proportion of the population with no Suffolk 2001 Census, % of population aged 16- England average: 28.9% No trend data. Proportion of the population with no Proportion is relatively high for qualifications (Census) 74 with no qualifications: qualifications is relatively high. Suffolk compared to England average, though varies between Districts. 27.8%

Headline Objective: To maintain and improve levels of education and skills in the population overall Will it improve qualifications and skills of adults?

FHDC February 2005: 24.8% Feb 2004: 20.1% SB Proportion of the population with ☺ Around average % for Suffolk. NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 17.1% Trend shows regular improvement since Observatory) Feb 2002: - 2003.

IBC February 2005: 22.3% 2nd SB Proportion of the population with lowest in Suffolk Feb 2004: 22.9% Below average % for Suffolk, but NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 13.6% trend shows regular improvement since Observatory) Feb 2002: 18.1% 2003.

MSDC February 2005: 33.9% Highest in Suffolk Feb 2004: 28.5% SB Proportion of the population with ☺ Above average % for Suffolk. NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 23.3% Trend shows regular improvement since Observatory) Feb 2002: 29.5% 2003.

SEBC February 2005: 23.9% Feb 2004: 17.2% Declining trend prior to this year, so SB Proportion of the population with Around average % for Suffolk. NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 21.2% should be monitored to ensure Trend shows regular decrease since Observatory) Feb 2002: 26.5% improvement is maintained. 2002, but this was reversed this year, and now highest since 2003. nd SB Proportion of the population with SCDC February 2005: 28.8% 2 highest in Suffolk Feb 2004: 28.9% Above average % for Suffolk. NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 26.3% Trend shows some fluctuation but little Observatory) Feb 2002: 27.2% change since 2002.

WDC February 2005: 14.0% Lowest in Suffolk Feb 2004: 17.7% Low % of population with NVQ level 1-4 SB Proportion of the population with Below average % for Suffolk. NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 14.6% or higher. Declining trend. Improvement shown in 2004 has not Observatory) Feb 2002: 14.5% been sustained, and levels are now lowest since 2002. Suffolk February 2005: 24.2% Feb 2004: 22.9% SB Proportion of the population with ☺ Trend shows regular improvement NVQ level 4 or higher (Suffolk Feb 2003: 19.8% in Suffolk since 2003. Observatory) Feb 2002: 21.6%

Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity Will it reduce actual levels of crime? SSAG Recorded Crime per 1000 population BDC 2004 57.7 Below average for county. 2001 46.8 The crime rate has increased steadily The crime rate has increased (SSAG) 2002 49.9 each year, however it remains steadily each year, however it remains 2003 51.6 relatively low for Suffolk relatively low for Suffolk The figure has shown a small increase each year over the recording period. SSAG Recorded Crime per 1000 population FHDC 2004 88.6 Above average for county. 2001 72.7 Figure for 2003/4 is higher than There are currently a number of (SSAG) 2002 84.9 previously recorded in recent years so projects in the District aimed at 2003 76.4 the trend will need monitoring reducing crime. The figure has fluctuated, but is highest this year. SSAG Recorded Crime per 1000 population IBC 2004 138.5 Highest crime rate in Suffolk. Above 2001 97.3 The crime rate has increased steadily As the main town in the area (SSAG) average for county. 2002 115.9 each year, and it is high for Suffolk, serving a wide catchment it is 2003 125.5 consistently higher than other inevitable that Ipswich will experience districts. higher levels of recorded crime than Starting with the highest baseline in more rural parts of the county. the county, the figure has also shown a

Previous years showed a trend of increasing crime rate but rate has decreased this year. SSAG Recorded Crime per 1000 population SCDC 2004 56.7 Below average for the county, 2nd 2001 45.6 Figure for 2003/4 is higher than ☺ Significantly below county (SSAG) lowest rate in Suffolk. 2002 48.8 previously recorded in recent years so average, and second lowest crime rate 2003 48.4 the trend will need monitoring in the county, despite small increase The figure has fluctuated, but is this year. highest this year. SSAG Recorded Crime per 1000 population WDC 2004 92.8 Above average for county. 2nd highest 2001 77.0 The crime rate has increased steadily The crime rate has increased (SSAG) rate in Suffolk. 2002 82.0 each year, and it is high for Suffolk. steadily each year. However, this may 2003 82.8 be due to increased reporting. A higher baseline than the more rural districts. SSAG Recorded Crime per 1000 population Suffolk 2004 80.3 2001 64.1 The crime rate has increased steadily The crime rate has increased (SSAG) 2002 ---- each year steadily each year. As well as a 2003 72.4 relatively low crime rate Suffolk has one of the highest success rates in the Substantially lower baseline than the country for solving crime. This may national figure (113 in 2004) lead to an increase in the level of reported crime.

Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity Will it reduce actual levels of crime? SG Burglary Rate per 1000 population BDC 2004: 7.1 Below average for the county. Increased each year since 2002, rising Burglary rate is below average for Burglary rate has increased (SDA) from 6.4 in 2002. Suffolk, but increasing annually. annually in recent years, but is still relatively low. SG Burglary Rate per 1000 population FHDC 2004: 9.5 About average for the county. 2004 figure is lower than previous 2 ☺ Average for the county, and has (SDA) years, decreasing from a rate of 10.1 in decreased this year. 2003. SG Burglary Rate per 1000 population IBC 2004: 16.7 Above average for the county. Highest 2004 figure is higher than previous 2 Highest burglary rate in Suffolk and Highest burglary rate in Suffolk (SDA) burglary rate in Suffolk. years, increasing from a rate of 9.6 in higher than the national average. and increased this year. Currently 2003. higher than the national average. SG Burglary Rate per 1000 population MSDC 2004: 5.9 Below average for the county. Lowest 2004 figure is lower than previous 2 ☺ Relatively low burglary rate, and (SDA) burglary rate in Suffolk. years, decreasing from a rate of 6.6 in has decreased this year. 2003. SG Burglary Rate per 1000 population SEBC 2004: 8.4 Below average for the county. 2004 figure is lower than previous 2 ☺ Below average for the county, and (SDA) years, falling from 9.1 in 2003. has decreased this year. SG Burglary Rate per 1000 population SCDC 2004: 6.5 Below average for the county. 2nd Burglary rate has increased since 2003 Burglary rates generally low, although ☺ Relatively low burglary rate,

Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity Will it reduce actual levels of crime? SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 BDC 2004: 8.9 Below average for the county. Rate has increased each year since Violent crime increasing annually, more Violent crime has increased population (SDA) 2002. Has more than doubled from 4.0 than doubling since 2002, although still annually since 2002, although rates are in 2002. relatively low. still relatively low. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 FHDC 2004: 14.9 A little below average for the county. Rate has increased each year since Violent crime increasing annually, more Violent crime has increased population (SDA) 2002. Has more than doubled from 6.5 than doubling since 2002, although still annually since 2002, although rates are in 2002. relatively low. still below average. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 IBC 2004: 23.0 Above average for the county, and for Rate has increased annually from 17.1 Violent crime rates are high, and Violent crime rates are above population (SDA) England and Wales. in 2002. increasing annually. average for Suffolk, and for England and Wales, and are increasing annually. Highest rate in Suffolk. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 MSDC 2004: 8.0 Below average for the county. Rate decreased from 5.2 to 4.7 in 2001 Violent crime has increased this year, Violent crime has increased in population (SDA) to 2002, but has increased in 2004. although still relatively low. 2004, although rates are still relatively Lowest rate in Suffolk. Currently higher than previous 2 years. low. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 SEBC 2004: 13.5 Below average for the county. Rate decreased from 15.3 to 11.6 in Violent crime has increased this year, Violent crime has increased in population (SDA) 2001 to 2002, but has increased in although still relatively low and 2004, although rates are still relatively 2004. Currently only district with rate improved compared to 2002. low and less than in 2002. lower than 2002 figure. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 SCDC 2004: 8.1 Below average for the county. Rate has increased annually from 6.5 in Violent crime increasing annually since Violent crime has increased population (SDA) 2002. 2002, although still relatively low. annually since 2002, although rates are 2nd lowest rate in Suffolk. still relatively low. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 WDC 2004: 19.2 Above average for the county. Rate has increased annually from 13.6 Violent crime rates are relatively high, Violent crime rates are above population (SDA) in 2002. and increasing annually. average for Suffolk, and are increasing Highest rate in Suffolk. annually, although still lower than England and Wales average. SG Violent Crime Rate per 1000 Suffolk 2004: 15.6 Below averages of 16.9 for the East of Rate has increased annually from 10.2 Violent crime has increased across the Violent crime has increased in population (SDA) England, and of 21.1 for England and in 2002. county since 2002. Most districts have Suffolk in recent years. However it is Wales. shown an annual rise. still below the average rates for the Eastern region and for England and Wales.

Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity Will it reduce the fear of crime? SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk BDC % of respondents who feel safe in the Joint highest in Suffolk. N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 94% of safety and crime/disorder is high for Suffolk. % of respondents who feel their area

Last update: 15/05/2005 Collected Indicator District Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borough is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 71% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk FHDC % of respondents who feel safe in the Lowest in Suffolk. N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 73% of safety and crime/disorder is low for Suffolk. % of respondents who feel their area Lowest in Suffolk. is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 45% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk IBC % of respondents who feel safe in the 2nd lowest in Suffolk. N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 76% of safety and crime/disorder is low for Suffolk. % of respondents who feel their area 2nd lowest in Suffolk. is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 48% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk MSDC % of respondents who feel safe in the Joint highest in Suffolk. N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 94% of safety and crime/disorder is high for Suffolk. % of respondents who feel their area Highest in Suffolk. is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 77% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk SEBC % of respondents who feel safe in the N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 91% of safety and crime/disorder is high for Suffolk, perception of % of respondents who feel their area crime/disorder is a little above is safe with low levels of crime and average. disorder: 65% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk SCDC % of respondents who feel safe in the N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 93% of safety and crime/disorder is high for Suffolk. % of respondents who feel their area 2nd highest in Suffolk. is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 72% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk WDC % of respondents who feel safe in the N/A No trend information. Perception Speaks, British Crime Survey) area where they live: 88% of safety is around average for Suffolk, perception of crime/disorder % of respondents who feel their area is low. is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 51% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005) SG Fear of Crime (British Crime Suffolk Suffolk police force area. England and Wales average. No trend data available. ☺ Fear of crime is low compared to Survey) national average and other counties in Respondents very worried about: Respondents very worried about: the East of England, particularly for Burglary 6% Burglary 13% burglary and car crime. Perceived Car crime 9% Car crime 15% levels of local disorder also much lower Violent crime 14% Violent crime 16% than national average. Respondents perceiving local levels of Respondents perceiving local levels of disorder as high: 8% disorder as high: 17%

% of respondents who feel safe in the area where they live: 87%

% of respondents who feel their area is safe with low levels of crime and disorder: 61% (Suffolk Speaks, 2005)

Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity Will it reduce noise and odour concerns? SG Number of domestic noise BDC 2004: 262 domestic complaints Relatively stable from 227 in 2002 to Number of noise complaints is higher Number of noise complaints is complaints (Environmental Health 224 in 2003, but increased this year. than 2002/3 figures. higher than 2002/3 figures. Depts Districts) 2004 figure is highest since 2002. SG Number of domestic noise FHDC 2004: 219 domestic complaints Lowest number of complaints in Decreased from 235 in 2002 to 208 in The number of complaints has Number of noise complaints is complaints (Environmental Health Suffolk. 2003, but increased this year. There decreased since 2002 and is low lower than 2002 figure, but has Depts Districts) were fewer complaints in 2004 than overall, but need to monitor whether increased this year. 2002. the increase recorded this year continues in the future. SG Number of domestic noise IBC 2004: 903 domestic complaints Highest number of complaints in Decreased from 920 in 2002 to 821 in The number of complaints has complaints (Environmental Health Suffolk. 2003, but increased again this year. decreased since 2002 but it is still / Number of noise Depts Districts) There were fewer complaints in 2004 relatively high, and need to monitor complaints is lower than 2002 figure, than 2002. whether the increase recorded this but has increased this year and is year continues in the future. relatively high for Suffolk. SG Number of domestic noise MSDC 2004: 241 domestic complaints Increased slightly from 200 in 2002 to Number of noise complaints has Number of noise complaints has complaints (Environmental Health 208 in 2003, and increased again this increased annually since 2002. increased annually since 2002. Depts Districts) year. 2004 figure is highest since 2002. SG Number of domestic noise SEBC 2004: 486 domestic complaints 2nd highest number of complaints in Decreased from 563 in 2002 to 426 in The number of complaints has complaints (Environmental Health Suffolk. 2003, but increased again this year. decreased since 2002 but it is still / Number of noise Depts Districts) There were fewer complaints in 2004 relatively high, and need to monitor complaints is lower than 2002 figure, than 2002. whether the increase recorded this but has increased this year and is year continues in the future. relatively high for Suffolk. SG Number of domestic noise SCDC 2004: 232 domestic complaints 2nd lowest number of complaints in Decreased from 248 in 2002 to 219 in The number of complaints has Number of noise complaints is complaints (Environmental Health Suffolk. 2003, but increased this year. There decreased since 2002 and is low lower than 2002 figure, but has Depts Districts) were fewer complaints in 2004 than overall, but need to monitor whether increased this year. 2002. the increase recorded this year continues in the future. SG Number of domestic noise WDC 2004: 402 domestic complaints Increased from 371 in 2002 to 424 in The number of complaints has Number of noise complaints has complaints (Environmental Health 2003, but decreased this year. decreased this year but is still higher fallen this year, but remains higher Depts Districts) Opposite trend to most districts and than 2002 figures. Need to monitor than 2002 baseline. only one to record a decrease in 2004. whether complaints continue to However there were still more decrease. complaints in 2004 that 2002. SG Number of domestic noise Suffolk 2004: 2745 domestic complaints (total Decreased from 2,764 in 2002 to The number of complaints has Number of noise complaints is complaints (Environmental Health for county) 2,530 in 2003, but increased again this decreased since 2002 but need to lower than 2002 figure, but has Depts Districts) year. There were slightly fewer monitor whether the increase recorded increased this year. complaints in 2004 than 2002. this year continues in the future.

Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity Will it reduce noise and odour concerns? Number of odour complaints BDC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts

Number of odour complaints FHDC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts) Number of odour complaints IBC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts) Number of odour complaints MSDC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts) Number of odour complaints SEBC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts) Number of odour complaints SCDC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts) Number of odour complaints WDC Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts)

Number of odour complaints Suffolk Each District/Borough to do. (Environmental Health Depts Districts)

Headline Objective: To reduce poverty and social exclusion Will it reduce poverty and social exclusion in those areas most affected? SB Proportion of the population who live BDC IMD 2004: Low levels of deprivation. in wards that rank within the most Most deprived 10% = 0% population deprived 10% and 25% of wards in Most deprived 25% = 0% population the country (Suffolk) SB Proportion of the population who live FHDC IMD 2004: Low levels of deprivation. in wards that rank within the most Most deprived 10% = 0% population deprived 10% and 25% of wards in Most deprived 25% = 0% population the country (Suffolk) SB Proportion of the population who live IBC IMD 2004: Highest % of people in most deprived Relatively high levels of deprivation in Relatively high levels of deprivation for in wards that rank within the most Most deprived 10% = 7% popn areas of any district/borough in areas of Ipswich. Suffolk. deprived 10% and 25% of wards in Most deprived 25% = 32% popn Suffolk the country (Suffolk) SB Proportion of the population who live MSDC IMD 2004: Low levels of deprivation. in wards that rank within the most Most deprived 10% = 0% population deprived 10% and 25% of wards in Most deprived 25% = 0% population the country (Suffolk) SB Proportion of the population who live SEBC IMD 2004: Low levels of deprivation. in wards that rank within the most Most deprived 10% = 0% population deprived 10% and 25% of wards in Most deprived 25% = 0% population the country (Suffolk) SB Proportion of the population who live SCDC IMD 2004: Higher than other rural districts in Relatively high levels of deprivation in Relatively high levels of deprivation in in wards that rank within the most Most deprived 10% = 0% popn Suffolk (but much lower than Ipswich areas of Saxmundham only. Saxmundham. Low levels in rest of deprived 10% and 25% of wards in Most deprived 25% = 1% popn or Waveney) district. the country (Suffolk)

Headline Objective: To reduce poverty and social exclusion Will it reduce poverty and social exclusion in those areas most affected? SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) BDC Each LA to complete for own area.

SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) FHDC Each LA to complete for own area.

SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) IBC Each LA to complete for own area.

SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) MSDC Each LA to complete for own area.

SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) SEBC Each LA to complete for own area.

SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) SCDC 2004/5: 5,318 Claimants have increased each year Increase in number of claimants in Number of claimants has increased in 2003/4: 4,814 since 2003. 2004/5 figures are recent years - check whether this in recent years. 2002/3: 4,689 highest since 2001/2. proportion to total population growth. 2001/2: 4,778 SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) WDC Feb 2005: 10237 May 2004: 9188 Aug 2003: 10725 SB Housing benefit recipients (LAs) Suffolk Awaiting data from districts.

Headline Objective: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population Will it improve accessibility to key local services? SSAG Percentage of rural population living BDC Total Rural Population 45,561 Target to increase % of rural % of rural population with access to all Rapid loss of rural services during last There has been a significant in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access five listed facilities has halved - 64% year is a concern. decrease this year indicating a rapid or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities to 5 services recorded in 2002/3 (no data for decrease in rural service provision. Not primary school and meeting place 18,921 2001/2). on track to meet target. Needs to be (SSAG) % of rural population with access to all Highest % in Suffolk monitored and improved in the future. five listed facilities 41.5 SSAG Percentage of rural population living FHDC Total Rural Population 9384 Target to increase % of rural Rural population with access to 5 The source of population data has in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access services changes and so figures are not directly or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities N/A to 5 services 2002/3: 4.4% (no data for 2001/2). comparable. primary school and meeting place % of rural population with access to all (SSAG) five listed facilities N/A Lowest % in Suffolk in 2002/3

Last update: 15/05/2005 Collected Indicator District Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borough SSAG Percentage of rural population living IBC Total Rural Population 0 Target to increase % of rural IBC does not have a rural population, in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access therefore this indicator is not or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities N/A to 5 services applicable primary school and meeting place % of rural population with access to all (SSAG) five listed facilities N/A SSAG Percentage of rural population living MSDC Total Rural Population 60,987 Target to increase % of rural Rural population with access to 5 Not currently on track to meet in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access services target, but has increased this year. or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities to 5 services 2002/3: 39.8% The adoption of SPG to safeguard primary school and meeting place 26,312 2001/2: 49.8% pubs, shops and post offices have (SSAG) % of rural population with access to all sought to protect access to these key five listed facilities 43.1% A 7% decrease since 2001/2, but has services. increased since last year. SSAG Percentage of rural population living SEBC Total Rural Population 40,961 Target to increase % of rural Rural population with access to 5 There has been a small decrease in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access services this year. However rural service or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities to 5 services 2002/3: 51.6% provision is currently higher than primary school and meeting place 19,580 2001/2: 41.6% 2001/2 baseline, so still on track to (SSAG) % of rural population with access to all meet target. five listed facilities 47.8 Figure increased in 2002/3, but a small decrease recorded this year. Currently higher than 2001/2 baseline. SSAG Percentage of rural population living SCDC Total Rural Population 47,401 Target to increase % of rural Rural population with access to 5 ☺ There has been a significant in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access services increase this year indicating an or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities to 5 services 2002/3: 29.8% increase in rural service provision. On primary school and meeting place 21,090 2001/2: 29.6% track to meet target. (SSAG) % of rural population with access to all five listed facilities 44.5 Has increased significantly this year from a previously stable 30%

SSAG Percentage of rural population living WDC Total Rural Population 13,486 Target to increase % of rural Rural population with access to 5 Loss of rural services during last year There has been a decrease this in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access services is a concern. year indicating a further decrease in or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities 1602 to 5 services 2002/3: 11.9% rural service provision. Not on track to primary school and meeting place % of rural population with access to all 2001/2: 33.8% meet target. Needs to be monitored (SSAG) five listed facilities 8.9 and improved in the future. Decrease due to Kessingland, previously included as a rural parish but now grown to become 'urban'. SSAG Percentage of rural population living Suffolk Total Rural Population 208,396 Target to increase % of rural Rural population with access to 5 The source of population data has in parishes which have a food shop Rural Population living in parishes with population living in parishes with access services changed and so figures are not directly or general store, post office, pub, access to all five listed facilities to 5 services 2002/3: 43.2% comparable. primary school and meeting place 87,505 2001/2: 41.0% Not all districts returned data for (SSAG) % of rural population with access to all each year, therefore not accurate to five listed facilities 42.0 Appears to have been a slight decrease compare. in provision of rural services over the (Total excludes FHDC) past year. However this does not include FHDC, which had lowest % last year, so actual decrease may in fact be greater.

Headline Objective: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population Will it improve accessibility to key local services? SSAG Percentage of Rural Households BDC % of rural households 2003/4: 33.0% To achieve a one-third increase in % of 2002/3: 25.2% New indicator in 2001/2, and within 13 minutes’ Walk of an Hourly households in rural areas within about 2001/2: 30% results have varied since then with no Bus Service (SSAG) 10 minutes walk of hourly or better bus

SSAG Percentage of Rural Households FHDC % of rural households 2003/4: 54.2% To achieve a one-third increase in % of 2002/3: 35.1% ☺ Target increase has been achieved within 13 minutes’ Walk of an Hourly households in rural areas within about 2001/2: 35.0% based on this year's figure. Large Bus Service (SSAG) 10 minutes walk of hourly or better bus increase this year. New indicator in service by 2010 (Transport Ten Year Previously remained stable but large 2001/2. Plan, 2000). increase recorded this year. Highest % coverage in Suffolk, more than twice Highest % in Suffolk. the average for the county.

SSAG Percentage of Rural Households IBC No rural areas. To achieve a one-third increase in % of No rural areas. within 13 minutes’ Walk of an Hourly households in rural areas within about Bus Service (SSAG) 10 minutes walk of hourly or better bus service by 2010 (Transport Ten Year Plan, 2000). SSAG Percentage of Rural Households MSDC % of rural households 2003/4: 15.3% To achieve a one-third increase in % of 2002/3: 9.9% Proportion of rural households within New indicator in 2001/2. Has within 13 minutes’ Walk of an Hourly households in rural areas within about 2001/2: 10% 13 mins of an hourly bus route is low increased this year by target amount Bus Service (SSAG) 10 minutes walk of hourly or better bus compared to the rest of the county. but coverage is still low. Problems service by 2010 (Transport Ten Year Previously remained stable, but has encouraging new bus service routes due Plan, 2000). increased this year by over 50%. to rural locality. However coverage is still low as this is 2nd lowest % in Suffolk. based on lowest baseline figure in Suffolk, and it is below average for the county.

SSAG Percentage of Rural Households SEBC % of rural households 2003/4: 24.3% To achieve a one-third increase in % of 2002/3: 22.7% Levels have increased slightly within 13 minutes’ Walk of an Hourly households in rural areas within about 2001/2: 23% which is encouraging but doesn’t help Bus Service (SSAG) 10 minutes walk of hourly or better bus towards achieving the target set. New service by 2010 (Transport Ten Year Small increase this year but has indicator in 2001/2. Plan, 2000). remained relatively stable. Below average for the county.

SSAG Percentage of Rural Households SCDC % of rural households 2003/4: 33.3% To achieve a one-third increase in % of 2002/3: 36.6% Proportion of rural households within Decrease in coverage of hourly within 13 minutes’ Walk of an Hourly households in rural areas within about 2001/2: 37% 13 mins of an hourly bus route is bus routes in rural areas this year Bus Service (SSAG) 10 minutes walk of hourly or better bus decreasing. (though levels are still relatively high service by 2010 (Transport Ten Year Levels of coverage have previously for Suffolk). New indicator in 2001/2. Plan, 2000). have remained stable, but have decreased this year. Still above 2nd highest in Suffolk average for the county.

Headline Objective: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population Will it improve accessibility to key local services? SB Proportion of population with access BDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access FHDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access IBC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access MSDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access SEBC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access SCDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access WDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly. SB Proportion of population with access Suffolk Can obtain from Graham Mateer to key local services (eg GP, post (Suffolk) using Accession database in office) (DfT accessibility the future but need to define more indicators) clearly.

Headline Objective: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population Will it improve accessibility to shopping facilities?

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town FHDC Each LA to complete for own area. Centres (AMR)

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town IBC Each LA to complete for own area. Centres (AMR)

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town MSDC Each LA to complete for own area. Centres (AMR)

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town SEBC Each LA to complete for own area. Centres (AMR)

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town SCDC Each LA to complete for own area. Centres (AMR)

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town WDC Each LA to complete for own area. Centres (AMR)

HH New Retail Floor Space in Town Suffolk Awaiting data from Districts. Centres (AMR)

Headline Objective: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population Will it improve accessibility to shopping facilities? SB Proportion of population with access BDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access FHDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access IBC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access MSDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access SEBC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access SCDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly. SB Proportion of population with access WDC Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more

SB Proportion of population with access Suffolk Can obtain from Graham Mateer to a food shop (DfT accessibility (Suffolk) using Accession database in indicators) the future but need to define more clearly.

Headline Objective: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population Will it improve access to childcare? HH Number of child care places per BDC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per FHDC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per IBC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per MSDC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per SEBC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per SCDC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per WDC Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker) HH Number of child care places per Suffolk Waiting info from County – Ken thousand children under 5 (Mark Sanderson Parker)

Headline Objective: To offer everybody the opportunity for rewarding and satisfying employment Will it reduce unemployment overall? SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) BDC April 2003 1.4 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 1.5 ☺ Consistent very low unemployment. July 2003 1.4 unemployment levels do not exceed October 2003 1.2 those in the East of England Unemployment rate fluctuating but January 2004 1.5 remaining low and staying below East of England: regional rates and well below national April 2003 1.8 rates July 2003 1.8 October 2003 1.7 January 2004 1.8

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan

SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) FHDC April 2003 0.9 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 1 ☺ Consistent very low unemployment. July 2003 0.9 unemployment levels do not exceed October 2003 0.9 those in the East of England Unemployment rate remaining low and January 2004 1.0 staying well below regional rates and East of England: very much below national rates. April 2003 1.8 Forest Heath has the lowest levels in July 2003 1.8 Suffolk October 2003 1.7 January 2004 1.8

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005] SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) IBC April 2003 3.8 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 3.8 Encouraging, if slight, decrease in July 2003 3.8 unemployment levels do not exceed rate identified but it remains at double October 2003 3.6 those in the East of England Overall decrease identified but rates the average for the region as a whole. January 2004 3.6 still exceed regional and even East of England: national rates April 2003 1.8 July 2003 1.8 October 2003 1.7 January 2004 1.8

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005] SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) MSDC April 2003 1.2 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 1.2 ☺ Stable low unemployment levels. July 2003 1.2 unemployment levels do not exceed October 2003 1.1 those in the East of England Unemployment rate stable and January 2004 1.2 remains well below regional and East of England: national levels April 2003 1.8 July 2003 1.8 October 2003 1.7 January 2004 1.8

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005]

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005] SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) SCDC April 2003 1.6 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 1.7 ☺ Stable low unemployment levels. July 2003 1.4 unemployment levels do not exceed October 2003 1.4 those in the East of England Trend of slight decrease identifiable January 2004 1.5 over time. Rate remains below East of England: regional and well below national levels April 2003 1.8 July 2003 1.8 October 2003 1.7 January 2004 1.8

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005] SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) WDC April 2003 3.1 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 3.4 ☺ Hopefully given the amount of July 2003 2.9 unemployment levels do not exceed regeneration work and EU funding October 2003 3.0 those in the East of England Level for WDC has fluctuated quite coming into the district this situation January 2004 3.7 considerably, with an overall increase should continue to improve. East of England: evident and a sharp rise from 2003 – April 2003 1.8 4. Rates consistently well above July 2003 1.8 regional levels and even exceed October 2003 1.7 national levels January 2004 1.8

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005] SSAG Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR) Suffolk April 2003 2.0 Target to ensure that Suffolk’s Quarterly unemployment levels (%) 2.1 Overall unemployment rates are July 2003 2.0 unemployment levels do not exceed slightly higher than East of England October 2003 1.9 those in the East of England The Suffolk average rate remains

Great Britain: April 2003 2.6 July 2003 2.5 October 2003 2.4 January 2004 2.6 Source- ONS [From Nomis 21 Jan 2005]

Headline Objective: To offer everybody the opportunity for rewarding and satisfying employment Will it reduce long-term unemployment? RC Long-term unemployment (Nomis) BDC April 2004: 0.2% / 18.8% Downward trend. ☺ Long-term unemployement rates have fallen in the district since 1999 April 1999: 0.5% / 25.1% for overall unemployment. The percentage of unemployed, who are Unemployment 12 month duration (% of also long-term unemployed, has also total workforce/% of unemployed) fallen. [from Nomis on 15 February 2005] RC Long-term unemployment (Nomis) FHDC April 2004: 0.1% / 7.5% Downward trend. ☺ Long-term unemployement rates have fallen in the district since 1999 April 1999: 0.3% / 21.9% for overall unemployment. The percentage of unemployed, who are Unemployment 12 month duration (% of also long-term unemployed, has also total workforce/% of unemployed) fallen significantly. [from Nomis on 15 February 2005] RC Long-term unemployment (Nomis) IBC April 2004: 0.7% / 22.2% Downward trend. ☺ Long-term unemployement rates have fallen in the district since 1999 April 1999: 1.2% / 27.5% for overall unemployment. The percentage of unemployed, who are Unemployment 12 month duration (% of also long-term unemployed, has also total workforce/% of unemployed) fallen. [from Nomis on 15 February 2005] RC Long-term unemployment (Nomis) MSDC April 2004: 0.1% / 14.8% Downward trend. ☺ Long-term unemployement rates have fallen in the district since 1999 April 1999: 0.2% / 16.1% for overall unemployment. The percentage of unemployed, who are Unemployment 12 month duration (% of also long-term unemployed, has also total workforce/% of unemployed) fallen. [from Nomis on 15 February 2005] RC Long-term unemployment (Nomis) SEBC April 2004: 0.1% / 10.8% Downward trend. ☺ Long-term unemployement rates have fallen in the district since 1999 April 1999: 0.4% / 19.7% for overall unemployment. The percentage of unemployed, who are Unemployment 12 month duration (% of also long-term unemployed, has also total workforce/% of unemployed) fallen. [from Nomis on 15 February 2005

Headline Objective: To offer everybody the opportunity for rewarding and satisfying employment Will it provide job opportunities for those most in need of employment? RC Proportion of lone parents and long BDC 2001: No trend data available. A difficult indicator to collect data No comparable data. However, term-ill who are economically active Long term ill – 32.6% for, data is only easily available via the proportions of lone parents who are (Census) Lone parent – 62.5% census – table references ST021 and economically active is quite a high KS022. figure and can affect quality of life targets. RC Proportion of lone parents and long FHDC 2001: No trend data available. A difficult indicator to collect data No comparable data. However, term-ill who are economically active Long term ill – 35.8% for, data is only easily available via the proportions of lone parents who are (Census) Lone parent – 64.4% census – table references ST021 and economically active is quite a high KS022. figure and can affect quality of life targets. RC Proportion of lone parents and long IBC 2001: No trend data available. A difficult indicator to collect data No comparable data. However, term-ill who are economically active Long term ill – 29.5% for, data is only easily available via the proportions of lone parents who are (Census) Lone parent – 48.4% census – table references ST021 and economically active is quite a high KS022. figure and can affect quality of life targets. RC Proportion of lone parents and long MSDC 2001: No trend data available. A difficult indicator to collect data No comparable data. However, term-ill who are economically active Long term ill – 34.5% for, data is only easily available via the proportions of lone parents who are (Census) Lone parent – 60.2% census – table references ST021 and economically active is quite a high KS022. figure and can affect quality of life targets. RC Proportion of lone parents and long SEBC 2001: No trend data available. A difficult indicator to collect data No comparable data. However, term-ill who are economically active Long term ill – 35.3% for, data is only easily available via the proportions of lone parents who are (Census) Lone parent – 63.8% census – table references ST021 and economically active is quite a high KS022. figure and can affect quality of life targets.

Headline Objective: To offer everybody the opportunity for rewarding and satisfying employment Will it help to improve earnings? RC Average Earnings (Inland BDC April 2004: £24,554 The only decrease in wages for Suffolk Downward trend Average earnings have fallen revenue/AMR) (-6.7%) since 2002. However, wages April 2002: £26,339 still remain relatively high and only just below the county average. [Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004] RC Average Earnings (Inland FHDC April 2004: £23,473 Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 17.4% since 2002. April 2002: £19,986

[Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004] RC Average Earnings (Inland IBC April 2004: £22,647 Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 4.6% since 2002. April 2002: £21,635

[Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004] RC Average Earnings (Inland MSDC April 2004: £28,335 Highest increase in Suffolk. Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 30% since 2002. The highest increase April 2002: £21,794 in the county. [Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004] RC Average Earnings (Inland SEBC April 2004: £26,304 Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 0.2% since 2002. April 2002: £26,242

[Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004] RC Average Earnings (Inland SCDC April 2004: £27,418 Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 9.0% since 2002. April 2002: £25,132

RC Average Earnings (Inland WDC April 2004: £20,478 Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 6.4% since 2002. April 2002: £19,244

[Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004] RC Average Earnings (Inland Suffolk April 2004: £24,940 Upward trend ☺ Average earnings have increased revenue/AMR) 7.5% since 2002. April 2002: £23,194

[Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004]

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it reduce homelessness? DR Homelessness (districts BDC 2003/04 285 2000/01 272 upward trend homelessness presentations) 2001/02 275 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses 2002/03 282 on number of homeless cases prevented, so numbers expected to Upward trend. decrease. DR Homelessness (districts FHDC 2003/04 85 2000/01 109 ☺ downward trend homelessness presentations) 2001/02 139 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses (FHDC Housing Strategy 2004-2007) 2002/03 86 on number of homeless cases prevented, so numbers expected to Downward trend. decrease. DR Homelessness (districts IBC 2003/04 1322 2001/02 1054 upward trend homelessness presentations) 2002/03 1249 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses on number of homeless cases prevented. Upward trend DR Homelessness (districts MSDC 2003/04 226 2000/01 210 ☺ generally a downward trend homelessness presentations) 2001/02 238 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses 2002/03 225 on number of homeless cases prevented, so numbers expected to Generally a downward trend decrease. DR Homelessness (districts SEBC 2003/04 818 (164*) (This figure 2000/01 659 (132*) upward trend. homelessness presentations ) includes Housing Advice) 2001/02 616 (123*) *Until April 2004 Homelessness 2002/03 752 (150*) Presentation figures have included Housing Advice. Now being recorded (These figures include Housing Advice) separately. Homelessness Officers consider that approx one fifth of the Upward trend figure is actually presentations and for the financial year 04/05 there have been 235 to date (10/03/05).

New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses on number of homelessness cases prevented, so numbers expected to

DR Homelessness (districts SCDC 2003/04 454 2000/01 391 upward trend homelessness presentations) 2001/02 385 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses 2002/03 413 on number of homelessness cases prevented, so numbers expected to Upward trend decrease. DR Homelessness (districts WDC 2003/04 544 2001/02 256 upward trend homelessness presentations) 2002/03 436 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses on number of homelessness cases prevented, so numbers expected to Upward trend. decrease.. DR Homelessness (districts Suffolk 2003/04 3080 2001/02 2470 upward trend homelessness presentations) 2002/03 2841 (see note for St.Eds) New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16) focuses on number of homelessness cases prevented, so Upward trend numbers expected to decrease.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it provide enough housing? SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) BDC Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000-2004 Additional housing stock is required. Additional housing is required at 36,960 1996-2016: 6,990 has fluctuated ranging from 341 to a Trend shows that rate of increase has increased rate. Annual rate required 1996-2016: 345 peak this year at 370. It has been fallen below that required to meet Total since 1996: 2,360 Annual rate now required: 370 above that identified in the Structure Structure Plan requirements in recent Plan (345) since 2001. years. Annual rate: 305 So far the annual rate of change is below target. SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) FHDC Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000-2004 Additional housing stock is required. The shortfall in building rates is 24,960 1996-2016: 5,200 has been consistently higher than that Trend shows that rate of increase has due primarily to the time it has taken Total since 1996: 1,140 Annual rate required 1996-2016: 260 identified in the Structure Plan (260), been below that required to meet to complete S106 agreements relating Annual rate: 145 Annual rate now required: 330 ranging from 292 to 330 this year. Structure Plan requirements in recent to the major housing development at years. Red Lodge. Additional housing is So far the annual rate of change is required at increased rate. below target. (Largest shortfall in annual change in Suffolk) SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) IBC Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000, 2001 Additional housing stock is required. Additional housing is required at 53,220 1996-2016: 8,000 and 2003 had become increasingly Trend shows that rate of increase has increased rate. Total since 1996: 2,430 Annual rate required 1996-2016: 400 higher than that identified in the been below that required to meet Annual rate: 315 Annual rate now required: 455 Structure Plan (400), ranging from 415 Structure Plan requirements in recent to 461. Slight improvement this year years. So far the annual rate of change is but still below target. below target. (2nd largest shortfall in annual change in Suffolk) SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) MSDC Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000-2004 None, housing is being completed within ☺ Housing is being completed within 38,060 1996-2016: 8,100 has consistently remained just under the District levels required by the the District levels required by the Total since 1996: 3,210 Annual rate required 1996-2016: 405 that identified in the Structure Plan Structure Plan. Structure Plan. Annual rate: 415 Annual rate now required: 400 (405), ranging from 393 to 404. However, additional housing is still The rate of increase has consistently required. So far the annual rate of change is on met Structure Plan requirements in target. recent years.

SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) SEBC Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000, 2001 Housing is being completed within the ☺ Housing is being completed within 44,000 1996-2016: 8,800 and 2003 has become increasingly less borough above the levels required by the borough above the levels required Total since 1996: 3,790 Annual rate required 1996-2016: 440 than that identified in the Structure the Structure Plan. Need to monitor by the Structure Plan. However, Annual rate: 490 Annual rate now required: 410 Plan (440), ranging from 435 to 410, the situation as there may be a need to additional housing is still required. and has levelled off this year. The rate take action to ensure all development So far the annual rate of change is of increase has consistently exceeded does not take place too early in the above target. Structure Plan requirements in recent Plan period. years.

SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) SCDC Housing stock 31/03/03: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000-2004 Housing is being completed within the ☺ Housing is being completed within 54,490 1996-2016: 9,400 Annual rate required has become increasingly less than that borough above the levels required by the District above the levels required Total since 1996: 4,260 1996-2016: 470 identified in the Structure Plan (470), the Structure Plan. Need to monitor by the Structure Plan. However, Annual rate: 550 Annual rate now required: 420 ranging from 456 to 420. the situation as there may be a need to additional housing is still required. The rate of increase has consistently take action to ensure all development So far the annual rate of change is exceeded Structure Plan requirements does not take place too early in the above target. (Highest annual change in recent years. Plan period. above target rate in Suffolk)

SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) WDC Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement The annual rate required in 2000 was Housing is being completed within the ☺ Housing is being completed within 53,110 1996-2016: 6,700 387. In 2001-2004 the rate has borough above the levels required by the District above the levels required Total since 1996: 3,080 Annual rate required 1996-2016: 335 improved and become increasingly the Structure Plan. Need to monitor by the Structure Plan. Additional Annual rate: 395 Annual rate now required: 295 lower than that identified in the the situation as there may be a need to housing is still required. Structure Plan (335), at 324 to 295. take action to ensure all development So far the annual rate of change is The rate of increase has consistently does not take place too early in the above target. (2nd highest annual exceeded Structure Plan requirements Plan period. change above target rate in Suffolk) in recent years.

SSAG Housing Stock (SSAG) Suffolk Housing stock 31/03/04: Structure Plan overall requirement Overall, the annual rate required in Additional housing stock is required in Overall, housing stock in the 304,90 1996-2016: 53,100 2000-2004 has been higher than that the county. Trend shows that rate of county is below target, but the Total since 1996: 20,270 Annual rate required 1996-2016: 2,655 identified in the Structure Plan increase in Suffolk as a whole has been situation is improving as the deficit has Annual rate: 2,615 Annual rate now required: 2,680 (2,655). However the general trend is below that required to meet Structure narrowed. Slight increase this year that the gap has narrowed required Plan requirements in recent years. should be monitored. Additional So far the annual rate of change is annual rates decreasing from 2,721 to housing is still required. below target. 2,677 last year., increasing slightly at 2,680 in 2004.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it provide enough housing? SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) BDC Total commitments at end of 2003/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Years supply has fluctuated in recent Housing land supply will fluctuate 3,310 2016: 4,540 years. No clear trend. depending on stage of development of Local Authority’s Local Plan. Years supply: 8.9 Shortfall of 1,230 below the 2016 target.

SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) FHDC Total commitments at end of 2003/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Years supply has fluctuated in recent Housing land supply will fluctuate 2,920 2016: 4,060 years. No clear trend. depending on stage of development of Local Authority’s Local Plan. Years supply: 8.8 Shortfall of 1,140 below the 2016

SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) IBC Total commitments at end of 2002/3: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Years supply recorded in mid 1997, Large supply available. Structure plan ☺ Housing land supply will fluctuate 7,480 2016: 6,108 1999 and 2000 had showed a trend of levels have already been achieved. depending on stage of development of decreasing supply, falling from 7.7 Local Authority’s Local Plan. Years supply: 16.4 Surplus of 1,190 above the 2016 years in 1997 to 5.5 years in 2000. The target. 2003 figure was much higher than this at 15.3 years, and has increased again Years supply = highest in Suffolk. in 2004. Commitments already exceed the 2016 target. SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) MSDC Total commitments at end of 2003/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Current years supply is higher than the Housing land supply will fluctuate 2,430 2016: 4,890 3.6 years recorded in mid 2000 and 5.4 depending on stage of development of years in 2002/3. However this is well Local Authority’s Local Plan. Will need Years supply: 6.1 Shortfall of 2,460 below the 2016 below figures recorded in mid 1997 and to monitor the situation closely to target. Largest shortfall in Suffolk. 1999 of 12.7-12.8 years. ensure development meets Structure Plan levels within the Plan period. SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) SEBC Total commitments at end of 2003/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Current years supply is higher than at Large supply available. Structure plan ☺ Housing land supply will fluctuate 2016: 5,010 any time since 1997, and had increased levels have already been achieved. depending on stage of development of Years supply: 12.2 significantly since last year when less Local Authority’s Local Plan. Surplus of 10 above the 2016 target. than 5 years supply was recorded. 2nd highest surplus in Suffolk. Shortfall was highest in Suffolk in 2002/3, but SEBC now has a surplus of 10. SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) SCDC Total commitments at end of 2003/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Current years supply is slightly lower Housing land supply will fluctuate 3,470 2016: 5,140 than last year. Previous results show depending on stage of development of fluctuation from 9.0 years recorded in Local Authority’s Local Plan. Years supply: 8.3 Shortfall of 1,670 below the 2016 1999 and 10.4 years in 1997. target. SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) WDC Total commitments at end of 2002/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Current years supply is lower than the Large supply available. There may be a ☺ But need to monitor the situation 2,850 2016: 10.5 years recorded last year, but need to take action to ensure all closely as there may be a need to take 3,620 higher than supply recorded in mid development does not take place too action to ensure all development does Years supply: 9.7 1997, 1999 or 2000. Minimum recorded early in the Plan period not take place too early in the Plan Shortfall of 770 below the 2016 supply of 6.5 years in 1999. period. target.

SSAG Housing Land Availability (SSAG) Suffolk Total commitments at end of 2003/4: Structure Plan requirement 2004- Years supply recorded in mid 1997, Large supply available, and increasing. ☺ Supply has increased in the last 2 27,470 2016: 32,830 1999 and 2000 had showed a trend of years, reversing a previously decreasing supply, falling from 8.9 decreasing trend. However housing land Years supply: 10.3 Shortfall of 5,360 below the 2016 years in 1997 to 7.3 years in 2000, but supply will fluctuate depending on target. this is now reversed. The 2003 figure stage of development of Local matched the previous maximum supply Authority’s Local Plan so long-term for the county of 8.9 years, and this trends are difficult to identify. was exceeded this year.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) BDC Net affordable completions 2003/4 = (i) in settlements below 22.7% of net completions were Indicator fluctuates and requires 56 3,000 pop - 1 in every 3 new dw on affordable in 2001/2. a longer period of data collection to (= 26.4% of total completions) sites of 0.1 ha or which propose 3 or observe reliable trends. more dw. (ii) in settlements above Number of affordable approvals has 3,000 pop - on allocated sites and fluctuated since 1997-8, ranging from

Highest % of affordable completions in Suffolk 2003/4. SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) FHDC Net affordable completions 2003/4 - Seeks 25% affordable dw on No net completions were affordable in Affordable completions have been low Affordable completions have been 2/3: 0 developments at or above (I) in towns 2003/4. Number of affordable in last 2 years low in last 2 years. However, indicator (= 0% of total completions) and villages of more than 3,000 pop, completions was not recorded in fluctuates and requires a longer period dev of 25 or more dw, or sites of 1 or 2001/2 , and 3 were completed last of data collection to observe reliable more hectares.(ii) in rural villages with year. trends. pop less than 3,000, dev of 15 of more dw or residential sites of 0.5 or more ha. (Cir 6/98 and FH Housing Need Survey 2000)

Lowest % of affordable completions in Suffolk 2003/4. SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) IBC Net affordable completions 2003/4: 30% greenfield % of net completions which were Indicator fluctuates and requires 107 25% brownfield affordable ranged from 6.1% in 2001/2 a longer period of data collection to (= 18.9% of total completions) 15% waterfront to 33.5% in 2003/4. observe reliable trends. on sites of 0.5 hectares+ or 15+dwellings (Ipswich Local Plan First Deposit Draft 2001)

2nd highest % of affordable completions 2003/4 SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) MSDC Net affordable completions 2003/4: 15% (Adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan % of net completions which were ☺ Indicator fluctuates and requires 42 1998) seeks provision affordable has increased each year a longer period of data collection to (= 12.1% of total completions) of 35% affordable housing on (i) 15dw from a minimum of 4.1% in 2001/2. observe reliable trends. Percentage is or more or sites of 0.5 ha and above, in increasing and will continue to do so settlements of 3,000 pop and above (ii) once the affordable housing policy 5 dw or more or sites of 0.17 ha and (alteration to the adopted Plan) is above, in settlements of less than adopted. 3,000 pop (MS Local Plan 1st Alteration- 1st Deposit - July 2004) SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) SEBC Net affordable completions 2003/4: 40% on: % of net completions which were Affordable completions have % of affordable completions have 27 i) sites of 0.5 hectares+ or affordable has decreased each year decreased over last 3 years fallen over last 3 years. However, the (= 4.4% of total completions) 15+dwellings, in settlements of 3,000+ from a minimum of 20.4% in 2001/2. indicator fluctuates and requires a ii) sites of 0.17 hectares+or longer period of data collection to 5+dwellings, in settlements of less than observe reliable trends. Levels of 3000 approvals indicate that affordable (Redeposit Replacement Local Plan housing is rising however this will take 2005) time to be reflected in the completions. SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) SCDC Net affordable completions 2003/4: 15 1 in 3 units (33%) for (i) sites of 6 3.5% of net completions were Indicator fluctuates and requires (= 3.3% of total completions) units+ in towns and (ii) sites of 3 units+ affordable in 2001/2. a longer period of data collection to in villages.(Local Plan 2nd Alterations observe reliable trends. 1st Deposit Draft 2004) % of affordable completions has varied little since since 2001/2, ranging from

SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) WDC Net affordable completions 2003/4: 30% on sites of 3 + dwellings % of net completions which were Indicator fluctuates and requires 64 (Waveney Interim Local Plan May affordable ranged from 3.4% in a longer period of data collection to (= 12.6% of total completions) 2004). The Housing Strategy sets a 2002/3 to 12.6% in 2003/4. observe reliable trends. Percentage target of 46 new dwellings per annum. achieved is also affected by the number of large developments still Lowest % of affordable completions in being completed that were granted the county. permission before the affordable housing policy was implemented. Lack of Housing Corporation funding is a further constraint. SSAG Affordable Housing (SSAG) Suffolk Total net affordable completions No target for county as a whole 9.4% of net completions were Indicator fluctuates and requires 2003/4: 311 affordable in 2001/2. This years figure a longer period of data collection to (= 11.2% of total completions) has changed little from the 11.3% observe reliable trends. recorded in 2002/3.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP BDC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP FHDC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP IBC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP MSDC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP SEBC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP SCDC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP WDC Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

SSAG Special Needs Housing (HIP Suffolk Each District/Borough to do. Needs Returns) further definition.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) BDC 2003/4 Houses/Bungalows: No target. 2002/3 Houses/Bungalows: New indicator, no data prior to Private sector 1 bed: 0 Not recorded. 2001/2. Limited data. Private sector 2 bed: 25 Private sector 3 bed: 37 2002/3 Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 4+ bed: 21 Private sector 1 bed: 3

2001/2 Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 1 bed: 5 Private sector 2 bed: 16 Private sector 3 bed: 0 Private sector 4+ bed: 0 RSL 1 bed: 5 RSL 2 bed: 0 RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) IBC 2003/4 Houses/Bungalows: No target. 2002/3 (2001/2) Houses/Bungalows: Lack of data. N/A Private sector 1 bed: 3 (0) Private sector 2 bed: 30 (37) 2003/4 Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 3 bed: 74 (119) N/A Private sector 4+ bed: 52 (76) RSL 1 bed: 0 (0) RSL 2 bed: 26 (24) RSL 3 bed: 6 (7) RSL 4+ bed: 7 (0)

2002/3 (2001/2) Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 1 bed: 4 (3) Private sector 2 bed: 51 (40) Private sector 3 bed: 0 (0) Private sector 4+ bed: 0 (0) RSL 1 bed: 7 (12) RSL 2 bed: 3 (22) RSL 3 bed: 0 (4) RSL 4+ bed: 0 (4) SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) MSDC 2003/4 Houses/Bungalows: No target. 2002/3 (2001/2) Houses/Bungalows: A shift towards smaller units would No data prior to 2001/2. A shift Private sector 1 bed: 3 Private sector 1 bed: 0 (1) provide a more diverse housing market towards smaller units would provide a Private sector 2 bed: 20 Private sector 2 bed: 34 (41) supply more diverse housing market supply Private sector 3 bed: 127 Private sector 3 bed: 126 (118) Private sector 4+ bed: 140 Private sector 4+ bed: 132 (120)

Last update: 15/05/2005 Collected Indicator District Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borough RSL 1 bed: 0 RSL 1 bed: 0 (0) RSL 2 bed: 7 RSL 2 bed: 7 (8) RSL 3 bed: 8 RSL 3 bed: 8 (30) RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 (0)

2003/4 Flats/Maisonettes: 2002/3 (2001/2) Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 1 bed: 0 Private sector 1 bed: 0 (0) Private sector 2 bed: 19 Private sector 2 bed: 0 (0) Private sector 3 bed: 0 Private sector 3 bed: 0 (0) Private sector 4+ bed: 0 Private sector 4+ bed: 0 (0) RSL 1 bed: 0 RSL 1 bed: 0 (0) RSL 2 bed: 0 RSL 2 bed: 0 (0) RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 3 bed: 0 (0) RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 (0)

Similar to previous years with slightly more 3 and 4+ bed houses and less 2 beds. SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) SEBC 2003/4 Houses/Bungalows: No target. 2002/3 Houses/Bungalows: Figures do appear to indicate that New indicator, no data prior to Private sector 1 bed: 8 Private sector 1 bed: 11 most completions have been for 3 and 2001/2. Private sector 2 bed: 78 Private sector 2 bed: 45 4 bed units. The emphasis perhaps Private sector 3 bed: 190 Private sector 3 bed: 143 needs to shift towards more smaller Private sector 4+ bed: 198 Private sector 4+ bed: 155 units to assist households into the RSL 1 bed: 0 RSL 1 bed: 10 housing market. RSL 2 bed: 4 RSL 2 bed: 6 RSL 3 bed: 1 RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0

2003/4 Flats/Maisonettes: 2002/3 Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 1 bed: 52 Private sector 1 bed: 16 Private sector 2 bed: 51 Private sector 2 bed: 31 Private sector 3 bed: 2 Private sector 3 bed: 5 Private sector 4+ bed: 4 Private sector 4+ bed: 0 RSL 1 bed: 20 RSL 1 bed: 35 RSL 2 bed: 4 RSL 2 bed: 11 RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0

Not recorded for 2001/2. More 1 and 2 bed flats in 2003/4 than last year and, but also more houses in all 2+ bed categories. SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) SCDC Not recorded. No target. Not recorded for 2001/2 or 2002/3. No data available.

SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) WDC 2003/4 Houses/Bungalows: No target. 2002/3 (2001/2) Houses/Bungalows: Figures do appear to indicate that New indicator, no data prior to Private sector 1 bed: 0 Private sector 1 bed: 0 (0) most completions have been for 3 and 2001/2. Figures do appear to indicate Private sector 2 bed: 52 Private sector 2 bed: 58 (73) 4 bed units. The emphasis perhaps that most completions have been for 3 Private sector 3 bed: 180 Private sector 3 bed: 167 (225) needs to shift towards more smaller and 4 bed units. The emphasis perhaps Private sector 4+ bed: 170 Private sector 4+ bed: 157 (198) units to assist households into the needs to shift towards more smaller RSL 1 bed: 1 RSL 1 bed: 0 (0) housing market. units to assist households into the RSL 2 bed: 21 RSL 2 bed: 8 (17) housing market. RSL 3 bed: 4 RSL 3 bed: 7 (11) RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 (3)

2003/4 Flats/Maisonettes: 2002/3 (2001/2) Flats/Maisonettes: Private sector 1 bed: 4 Private sector 1 bed: 0 (1) Private sector 2 bed: 0 Private sector 2 bed: 0 (0) Private sector 3 bed: 0 Private sector 3 bed: 0 (0) Private sector 4+ bed: 0 Private sector 4+ bed: 0 (0) RSL 1 bed: 30 RSL 1 bed: 0 (0) RSL 2 bed: 8 RSL 2 bed: 0 (0) RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 3 bed: 0 (0) RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 (0)

Similar to previous years, though with more 1 and 2 bed flats in 2003/4. SSAG Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG) Suffolk 2003/4 Houses/Bungalows (where No target. 2002/3 (2001/2) Houses/Bungalows County figures are incomplete, so recorded): (where recorded): care should be taken interpreting Private sector 1 bed: 0.8% Private sector 1 bed: 1.1% (0.1%) trends. New indicator, no data prior to Private sector 2 bed: 13.5% Private sector 2 bed: 13.0% (13.1%) 2001/2. It is not possible to identify Private sector 3 bed: 41.2% Private sector 3 bed: 39.7% (40.2%) any long-term trends. Data available Private sector 4+ bed: 40.8% Private sector 4+ bed: 38.6% (36.5%) shows little difference in house sizes RSL 1 bed: 0 RSL 1 bed: 0.7% (0) since last year but % of 1 bed flats RSL 2 bed: 2.5% RSL 2 bed: 3.1% (4.9%) (especially private sector) has RSL 3 bed: 1.0% RSL 3 bed: 2.6% (4.8%) increased. RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 1.2% (0.4%)

2003/4 Flats/Maisonettes (where 2001/2 Flats/Maisonettes (where recorded): recorded): Private sector 1 bed: 31.2% Private sector 1 bed: 13.8% (8.0%) Private sector 2 bed: 37.0% Private sector 2 bed: 49.1% (50.0%) Private sector 3 bed: 1.0% Private sector 3 bed: 3.6% (0) Private sector 4+ bed: 2.1% Private sector 4+ bed: 0 (0) RSL 1 bed: 26.5% RSL 1 bed: 25.8% (15.2%) RSL 2 bed: 2.1% RSL 2 bed: 8.6% (19.6%) RSL 3 bed: 0 RSL 3 bed: 0 (3.6%) RSL 4+ bed: 0 RSL 4+ bed: 0 (3.6%)

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net BDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 34.96 “To avoid developments which make Not recorded for 2001/2 or 2002/3. Currently 2nd highest density in Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). No data for comparison. Suffolk, but no past trend data for Recommended guideline = minimum of comparison 30 dwellings/hectare.

2nd highest density recorded in Suffolk, 2003/4. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net FHDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: N/R “To avoid developments which make Density last year was recorded at Limited data available. Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). 23.83 dwellings per hectare. Not Recommended guideline = 30 recorded for 2001/2. dwellings/hectare.

SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net IBC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 39 “To avoid developments which make Density has increased annually in last 2 ☺ Highest density in Suffolk and Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). years, and is now above the increasing year on year. Recommended guideline = minimum of recommended guideline. 30 dwellings/hectare.

SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net MSDC Dwellings per hectare 2002/3: 32.34 “To avoid developments which make Density has decreased since last year, ☺ Decreased this year but above the Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). but is still above the recommended PPG3 density minimum requirement. Recommended guideline = minimum of guideline. Indicator has fluctuated 30 dwellings/hectare. between 25.0 in 2001/2 and 34.4 in 2002/3. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net SEBC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 33.98 “To avoid developments which make Not recorded for 2001/2, but has Lack of time related data means it Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). increased this year from 28.01 in is difficult to discern any trends but Recommended guideline = 30 2002/3. Now above the recommended the figure for 2003/4 is above the dwellings/hectare. guideline. PPG3 density minimum requirement. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net SCDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 26.80 “To avoid developments which make Density has decreased each year since Density has decreased annually and is Increased this year but still is Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). 2001/2 when a density of 29.29 was consistently below recommended below the PPG3 density minimum Recommended guideline = minimum of recorded, and is below recommended guideline. requirement. 30 dwellings/hectare. levels.

2nd lowest density recorded in Suffolk, 2003/4. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net WDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 23.22 “To avoid developments which make Dwellings per hectare 2001/2: 22.92 Density is below recommended Decreased this year and is below Developable Area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). guideline, and decreased this year. the PPG3 density minimum requirement. Recommended guideline = minimum of Density has decreased since last year, This indicator measures completions on 30 dwellings/hectare. and is consistently below the large sites (10+ units) and many of the recommended guideline. Indicator has permissions coming through were Lowest density recorded in Suffolk, fluctuated between 24.4 in 2002/3 and granted some years ago. Approvals 2003/4. 22.92 in 2001/2. indicate an improving trend. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of Net Suffolk Excluding BDC: “To avoid developments which make Combined density in Suffolk meets the Density is below recommended Housing meets the recommended Developable Area (SSAG) Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 30.39 inefficient use of land” (PPG3). recommended guideline. County totals guideline. guideline for the county as a whole. Recommended guideline = minimum of do not include all districts in previous Varies between districts and data for 30 dwellings/hectare. years so trends are difficult to previous years are incomplete. discern.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? SSAG Average property price to income BDC Ratio 2003 / 4-: 6.7 No target. Ratio 2002 /3: 7.9 Income figures based on either ratio (SSAG) small or variable sample and should be Apparent decrease in ratio but it still treated with caution. remains very high and indicates major housing affordability problems. SSAG Average property price to income FHDC Ratio 2003 / 4: 6.7 No target. Ratio 2002 /3: 5.8 Income figures based on either ratio (SSAG) small or variable sample and should be Apparent increase in ratio, as could be treated with caution. expected, for a district with comparatively low income levels. These are lower than the Suffolk average. SSAG Average property price to income IBC Ratio 2003 / 4: 5.6 No target. Ratio 2002 /3: 5.8 Income figures based on either ratio (SSAG) small or variable sample and should be Has lowest property price / income Apparent slight decrease in ratio but it treated with caution. ratio in Suffolk. still remains high and indicates serious housing affordability problems.

Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community Will it reduce the number of unfit homes? nd HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 BDC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes 2 highest proportion recorded in No trend data available No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) which were non-decent - 45 Suffolk. BVPI as of April 2005 Not a BVPI as of April 2005 HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 FHDC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes Lowest proportion recorded in Suffolk. No trend data available No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) which were non-decent - 1 BVPI as of April 2005 Not a BVPI as of April 2005 HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 IBC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes No trend data available No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) which were non-decent – 31 BVPI as of April 2005 Not a BVPI as of April 2005 HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 MSDC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes Highest proportion recorded in No trend data available No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) which were non-decent - 50 Suffolk. BVPI as of April 2005 Not a BVPI as of April 2005 No trend data available HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 SEBC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) which were non-decent. BVPI as of April 2005 Not recorded due to transfer of Not a BVPI as of April 2005 councils housing stock to housing association. HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 SCDC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes No trend data available No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) which were non-decent. BVPI as of April 2005 Not recorded due to transfer of Not a BVPI as of April 2005

nd HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 WDC BVPI 184a Proportion of LA homes 2 lowest proportion recorded in No trend data available No trend data available. Not a dwellings (BVPI) Suffolk. which were non-decent - 9 BVPI as of April 2005 Not a BVPI as of April 2005 HH Number of unfit homes per 1,000 Suffolk N/A dwellings (BVPI)

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it improve the satisfaction of people with their neighbourhood as a place to live? BDC Very Satisfied – 40% No trend data available The question is not reviewed on a ME % of residents who are happy with Baseline data. their neighbourhood as a place to Fairly Satisfied – 47% regular basis; SSAG will need to live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL Neither satisfied or dissatisfied – 5% request the Suffolk Speaks Panel to surveys) Fairly dissatisfied – 6% mail this question again, annually? Very dissatisfied – 1% Don’t Know/not stated - 0 (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004) FHDC Very Satisfied – 20% No trend data available The question is not reviewed on a ME % of residents who are happy with Baseline data their neighbourhood as a place to Fairly Satisfied – 54% regular basis; SSAG will need to live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL Neither satisfied or dissatisfied - 15% request the Suffolk Speaks Panel to surveys) Fairly dissatisfied – 10% mail this question again, annually? Very dissatisfied - 0 Don’t Know/not stated – 1% (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004) IBC Very Satisfied – 21% No trend data available The question is not reviewed on a ME % of residents who are happy with Baseline data their neighbourhood as a place to Fairly Satisfied – 54% regular basis; SSAG will need to live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL Neither satisfied or dissatisfied - 12% request the Suffolk Speaks Panel to surveys) Fairly dissatisfied – 5% mail this question again, annually? Very dissatisfied – 5% Don’t Know/not stated – 2% (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004) MSDC Very Satisfied – 35% No trend data available The question is not reviewed on a ME % of residents who are happy with Baseline data their neighbourhood as a place to Fairly Satisfied – 52% regular basis; SSAG will need to live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL Neither satisfied or dissatisfied – 7% request the Suffolk Speaks Panel to surveys) Fairly dissatisfied – 4% mail this question again, annually? Very dissatisfied – 1% Don’t Know/not stated – 0 (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004) SEBC Very Satisfied – 38% No trend data available The question is not reviewed on a ME % of residents who are happy with Baseline data their neighbourhood as a place to Fairly Satisfied – 48% regular basis; SSAG will need to live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL Neither satisfied or dissatisfied – 10% request the Suffolk Speaks Panel to surveys) Fairly dissatisfied – 5% mail this question again, annually? Very dissatisfied - 0 Don’t Know/not stated – 0 (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004) SCDC Very Satisfied – 45% No trend data available The question is not reviewed on a ME % of residents who are happy with Baseline data their neighbourhood as a place to Fairly Satisfied – 45% regular basis; SSAG will need to live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL Neither satisfied or dissatisfied – 5% request the Suffolk Speaks Panel to surveys) Fairly dissatisfied – 1% mail this question again, annually? Very dissatisfied – 2% Don’t Know/not stated – 2% (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004)

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it increase access to natural green space? Area of land managed in whole or BDC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk) Area of land managed in whole or FHDC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk) Area of land managed in whole or IBC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk) Area of land managed in whole or MSDC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk) Area of land managed in whole or SEBC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk) Area of land managed in whole or SCDC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk) WDC Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings No trend data available Area of land managed in whole or Baseline data part for its ecological interest and (SCC) The areas of land included are Local with public access over and above Nature Reserves and proposed Local public rights of way (Suffolk) Nature Reserves were current local groups/WDC managing the site.

Area of land managed in whole or Suffolk Awaiting data from Sarah Jennings part for its ecological interest and (SCC) with public access over and above public rights of way (Suffolk)

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it increase access to natural green space? Change in amount of accessible BDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible FHDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible IBC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible MSDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible SEBC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible SCDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible WDC No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Change in amount of accessible Suffolk No data for baseline but anticipate it natural green space (Districts) will be available in the future.

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation

st ME Electoral turnout in local authority FHDC Overall Turn Out – 29.34% 1 May 2003 No trend data available Baseline data elections (FHDC)

st ME Electoral turnout in local authority IBC Overall Turn Out – 31.88% 1 May 2003 No trend data available Baseline data elections (IBC)

st ME Electoral turnout in local authority MSDC Overall Turn Out – 37.89% 1 May 2003 No trend data available Baseline data elections (MSDC)

ME Electoral turnout in local authority SEBC Awaiting data after the 2005 elections elections – email sent

ME Electoral turnout in local authority SCDC Awaiting data after the 2005 elections elections BDC – telephone message

st ME Electoral turnout in local authority WDC Overall Turn Out – 30.21% 1 May 2003 No trend data available Baseline data elections (WDC)

ME Electoral turnout in local authority Suffolk 7th June 2001 Unable to obtain a figure to date – left elections message

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it encourage engagement in decision making? ME Number of Parish Plans adopted BDC 7 complete and * 1 MT Heath check Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

ME Number of Parish Plans adopted FHDC 3 complete and * 2 MT Heath check Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

ME Number of Parish Plans adopted IBC N/A Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

ME Number of Parish Plans adopted MSDC 16 complete and * 1 MT Heath check Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

ME Number of Parish Plans adopted SCDC 20 complete and * 2 MT Heath check Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

ME Number of Parish Plans adopted WDC 3 complete and * 1 MT Heath check Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

ME Number of Parish Plans adopted Suffolk 59 complete and * 8 MT Heath check Each authority to complete. (Suffolk Acre)

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it increase the number of people involved in volunteer activities? ME Number of people involved in BDC Each District/Borough to do. Need to No Response volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in FHDC Each District/Borough to do. Need to No Response volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in IBC Each District/Borough to do. Need to No Response volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in MSDC Each District/Borough to do. Need to volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in SEBC Each District/Borough to do. Need to No Response volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in SCDC Each District/Borough to do. Need to No Response volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in WDC Each District/Borough to do. Need to volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) define types of activities.

ME Number of people involved in Suffolk Awaiting response from Lyn Dicker volunteer activities (Suffolk/CVS) SCC. Need to define types of activities.

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it improve ethnic relations?

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it improve access to cultural facilities? Number of visits to/uses of Council BDC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council FHDC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council IBC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council MSDC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council SEBC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council SCDC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council WDC Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Number of visits to/uses of Council Suffolk Each District/Borough to do. funded or part-funded museums per 1,000 population (BV170a)

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it improve access to cultural facilities?

Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation Will it improve access to cultural facilities? The number of pupils visiting BDC Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

The number of pupils visiting FHDC Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

The number of pupils visiting IBC Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

The number of pupils visiting MSDC Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

The number of pupils visiting SCDC Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

The number of pupils visiting WDC Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

The number of pupils visiting Suffolk Each District/Borough to do. museums and galleries in organised school trips (BV170c)

Last update: 15/05/2005 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) FHDC Data coming soon….

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) IBC Data coming soon….

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) MSDC Data coming soon….

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) SEBC Data coming soon….

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) SCDC Data coming soon….

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) WDC Data coming soon….

AN Water quality in rivers (EA) Suffolk Chemical water quality 2003: None specifically for Chemical water quality 2000: 5 yearly indicator. Biological Grade A: 2.6% chemical/biological water quality in Grade A: 4.3% water quality seems to be improving Grade B: 26.1% Suffolk as a whole. However, River Grade B: 34.5% but chemical water quality Grade C: 37.8% Quality Targets have been set for Grade C: 32.7% deteriorating in the county as a whole. Grade D: 21.2% individual river reaches Grade D: 15.8% But the situation will vary considerably Grade E: 11.6% Grade E: 12.1% from river reach to river reach Grade F: 0.8% Grade F: 0.5%

Biological water quality 2003: Deterioration since 2000 – only 28.7% Grade A: 32.7% rated as ‘very good’ (A) or ‘good’ (B) cf Grade B: 46.9% 38.8% in 2003 Grade C: 17.4% Grade D: 2.3% Biological water quality 2000: Grade E: 0.7% Grade A: 24.9% Grade F: 0% Grade B: 48.9% Grade C: 14.8% Grade D: 5.7% Grade E: 0.6% Grade F: 0% Grade O (unclassified): 5.0%

Improvement since 2000 –77.6% grade A or B cf 73.8%

Headline Objective: To improve water and air quality Will it improve the quality of inland waters? AN Groundwater quality (may be available BDC Uncertain if information is available from EA in future - CAMS) AN Groundwater quality (may be available FHDC Uncertain if information is available from EA in future - CAMS) AN Groundwater quality (may be available IBC Uncertain if information is available from EA in future - CAMS) AN Groundwater quality (may be available MSDC Uncertain if information is available from EA in future - CAMS)

Headline Objective: To improve water and air quality Will it improve the quality of coastal waters? AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) BDC Data coming soon…

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) FHDC N/A

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) IBC Data coming soon…

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) MSDC N/A

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) SEBC N/A

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) SCDC Data coming soon…

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) WDC Data coming soon…

AN Water quality in estuaries (EA) Suffolk Estuarine water quality 2000: No target. Estuarine water quality 1995: ☺ 5 yearly indicator. Almost all Waveney: 15km all Grade A Waveney: 15km all Grade A estuarine water in the county is top Blyth: 7km all Grade A Blyth: 7km all Grade A quality, and Orwell and Stour have Alde: 26.5km all Grade A Alde: 26.5km all Grade A shown improvement in last 5 years. Butley: 9km all Grade A Butley: 9km all Grade A Deben: 16km all Grade A Deben: 16km all Grade A No update in 2003-4 – estuarine water Orwell: 21.5km Grade A and 4km Grade Orwell: 6.5km Grade A and 6km Grade quality only monitored every five years B B + 9km Grade C Stour: 27km all Grade A Stour: 25km Grade A and 2km Grade B

Orwell and Stour have shown improvement. All other estuaries retained good water quality.

Headline Objective: To improve water and air quality Will it improve the quality of coastal waters? AN Bathing water quality (EA) BDC N/A

AN Bathing water quality (EA) FHDC N/A

AN Bathing water quality (EA) IBC N/A

AN Bathing water quality (EA) MSDC N/A

AN Bathing water quality (EA) SEBC N/A

Last update: 15/05/2005 Collected Indicator Distri Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? ct or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borou gh AN Bathing water quality (EA) SCDC 2004 The quality of designated bathing Felixstowe North One of the requirements for obtaining ☺ Standards are generally high. Felixstowe North – Guideline pass waters in England and Wales is 2003: Guideline pass a ‘Blue Flag’ designation is passing Improvements to sewage treatment Felixstowe South – Guideline pass monitored against standards in the 2002: Guideline pass Guideline standards for all 3 works, and the building of new Bathing Water regulations), which 2001: Guideline pass parameters is necessary. However, a treatment works, has led to a general come from the EC Bathing Water 2000: Imperative pass single failure of the Guideline standard increase in bathing water quality over Directive (76/160/EEC) . 20 samples 1999: Guideline pass is enough to deny a Blue Flag award, time are taken per year (weekly) to cover and this failure could be due to a storm the bathing season (15 May-30 Felixstowe South event (when surface water can mix September). 2003: Guideline pass with sewerage in storm overflow 2002: Guideline pass channels and be discharged direct to Three pathogens are measured: total 2001: Guideline pass the sea). Thus failure of the Guideline coliforms, faecal coliforms and faecal 2000: Guideline pass standards needs to be put into context streptococci. In order to pass the 1999: Guideline pass – it could be systematic failure (e.g. Bathing Water Directive targets, 19 of untreated or poorly-treated sewage is the 20 samples must pass the routinely discharged to the sea) or just mandatory (imperative) standards. The spot failures guideline standards, which are 20 times higher for the two coliforms, should be achieved ‘where possible’ AN Bathing water quality (EA) WDC 2004 The quality of designated bathing Gunton Denes One of the requirements for obtaining ☺ Standards are generally high. Gunton Denes (Lowestoft) – Guideline waters in England and Wales is 2003: Guideline pass a ‘Blue Flag’ designation is passing Improvements to sewage treatment pass monitored against standards in the 2002: Guideline pass Guideline standards for all 3 works, and the building of new North of Claremont Pier (Low) – Bathing Water regulations), which 2001: Guideline pass parameters is necessary. However, a treatment works (e.g. at Corton), has Guideline pass come from the EC Bathing Water 2000: Imperative pass single failure of the Guideline standard led to a general increase in bathing South of Claremont Pier (Low) – Directive (76/160/EEC) . 20 samples 1999: Imperative pass is enough to deny a Blue Flag award, water quality over time Guideline pass are taken per year (weekly) to cover and this failure could be due to a storm The Pier (Southwold) - Guideline pass the bathing season (15 May-30 North of Claremont Pier event (when surface water can mix The Denes (Southwold) – Imperative September). 2003: Guideline pass with sewerage in storm overflow pass 2002: Guideline pass channels and be discharged direct to Three pathogens are measured: total 2001: Imperative pass the sea). Thus failure of the Guideline coliforms, faecal coliforms and faecal 2000: Imperative pass standards needs to be put into context streptococci. In order to pass the 1999: Guideline pass – it could be systematic failure (e.g. Bathing Water Directive targets, 19 of untreated or poorly-treated sewage is the 20 samples must pass the South of Claremont Pier routinely discharged to the sea) or just mandatory (imperative) standards. The 2003: Guideline pass spot failures guideline standards, which are 20 2002: Guideline pass times higher for the two coliforms, 2001: Guideline pass should be achieved ‘where possible’ 2000: Imperative pass 1999: Guideline pass

The Pier, Southwold 2003: Guideline pass 2002: Guideline pass 2001: Guideline pass 2000: Guideline pass 1999: Guideline pass

The Denes, Southwold 2003: Guideline pass 2002: Guideline pass 2001: Imperative pass 2000: Imperative pass 1999: Guideline pass

Headline Objective: To improve water and air quality Will it improve air quality? 3 AN Have annual mean concentrations of BDC NO2 mean concentration at: Annual mean objective for nitrogen Lattinford Bridge: 28.4 μg/m (2003) BDC believes that the objectives for 3 ☺ Concentrations of NO2 at all any of three pollutants been dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be the other six national Air Quality 3 locations are currently below the 40 exceeded? 1) Lattinford Bridge on the A12: 24.0 achieved by 31 December 2005 70 Cross St, Sudbury: 39.4 μg/m Objective pollutants are likely to be 3 3 μg/m threshold, but it is thought that μg/m (national Air Quality Objective) (2003) met, hence they are not routinely certain locations on the A12 and in 2) 70 Cross St, Sudbury: 38.4 μg/m3 monitoredother districts) (the same applies to all Sudbury town centre may be vulnerable . Because NO2 to higher levels, and future monitoring concentrations approach AQO levels at there will be important (Babergh Air Quality 2004 Annual certain points in the district Progress Report (April 2005)) (principally by major roads), it is monitored at 8 locations in the district. All 8 locations use diffusion tubes to

monitor NO2, and a correction factor has to be applied to the results. There is one continuous monitoring station at Lattinford Bridge (no correction factor necessary) 3 AN Have annual mean concentrations of FHDC NO2 mean concentration (μg/m ) at: Annual mean objective for nitrogen A total of 41 diffusion tube monitoring 3 Although air quality is generally any of three pollutants been dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be stations in FH, and, from August 2004, 00 01 02 03 good in Forest Heath, there have been exceeded? Newmarket 4 (Memorial Gardens): 21.9 achieved by 31 December 2005 one continuous monitor at Fiveways spot exceedences at various locations Mildenhall 2 (Kingsway): 34.9 (national Air Quality Objective) roundabout. The concentration is on over the past five years (Newmarket, Fiveways 2 (Little Chef): 43.7 locations in the A11/A14 corridor Brandon, Mildenhall and Barton Mills). Brandon 3 (Town Hall): 16.9 N4 17.3 22.9 19.6 14.5 In addition, levels at Elveden Primary Elveden (A11 Primary School): 39.9 After consultations with DEFRA, a School appear to have been generally detailed assessment of the air quality climbing since 2000, and the 2004 (Info from James Lemon @ FHDC: Air at the Fiveways roundabout is value was only 0.1 μg/m3 below the 40 Quality Update 2004) currently in progress, with six monitors M2 18.8 40.3 38.6 μg/m3 threshold. This is being in place examined in the production of LTP2 Monitoring in Newmarket has been NO thresholds have been exceeded at problematic due to vandalism at a 2 F2 46 51.3 45.3 55.5 the Fiveways 2 roundabout site every number of monitoring sites; more year since at least 2000, sometimes by secure sites have been selected in considerable margins. Future 2004. High levels of NO2 near the taxi development in Forest Heath that B3 23.7 22.6 22.3 16.7 rank and traffic lights in the High could increase traffic levels at this Street needs to be investigated in location would need to be considered more detail carefully, with the Highways Authority & Highways Agency key consultees E 34.1 33.4 37.5 32.1

AN Have annual mean concentrations of IBC Info coming soon… Annual mean objective for nitrogen 3 any of three pollutants been dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be exceeded? achieved by 31 December 2005 (national Air Quality Objective)

AN Have annual mean concentrations of MSDC 2004 mean annual NO2 concentration Annual mean objective for nitrogen The decision was made in 2004 to 3 3 ☺ General reduction in NO2 levels any of three pollutants been (μg/m ): dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be 98 99 00 01 02 03 located five monitoring tubes at over recent years is welcome, and exceeded? achieved by 31 December 2005 locations where it was felt there could concentrations at all locations are well Lower Crescent, Barham: 28.7 (national Air Quality Objective) be high levels of NOs close to below the 40 μg/m3 objective. High Street, Needham Market; 20.9 residential property. Four tubes are However, increasing traffic levels and Station Road, Claydon: 31.7 located adjacent to the A14, and the Last update: 15/05/2005 above-average periods of calm, sunny Forester’s Walk, Barham 31.0 fifth is located in Needham Market weather could lead to higher levels in Old Stowupland Road, Stowmarket: High Street future years 25.7 T ffi fl d lli d t ill Collected Indicator Distri Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and Targets (figures Trend Issue Identified? Comments/problems/ by? ct or brackets relate to data sources) in brackets relate to data source) issues for SA Borou gh

HS, 35.3 39.6 30.2 29.4 22.6 21.8 NM

SR, 33.3 34.3 31.7 25.2 28.6 23.5 C

OS 21.6 26.2 24.6 R, S

AN Have annual mean concentrations of SEBC 2004 mean annual NO2 concentration Annual mean objective for nitrogen The Air Quality Management Area 3 3 ☺ General reduction in NO2 levels any of three pollutants been (μg/m , bias corrected results): dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be covering four areas adjacent to the over recent years is welcome, and exceeded? achieved by 31 December 2005 A14 in Bury ran for one year between concentrations at all locations are Fornham Road, Bury St Edmunds: 32.5 (national Air Quality Objective) September 2001 and September 2002, below the 2005 40 μg/m3 objective Out Risbygate, Bury: 35.0 when the additional monitoring (and are expected to remain so in Withersfield Rd 2, Haverhill: 35.8 indicated that NO2 concentrations 2005). However, future developments Hollands Road, Haverhill: 20.3 were below the threshold of40 μg/m3 which could lead to increases in traffic (e.g. Snoasis, North-West Haverhill Monitoring takes place at 27 locations development, Felixstowe port in St Edmundsbury, and the location of extensions, Bury Cattlemarket etc) monitoring devices is constantly should be accompanied by an Air evaluated to assess their Quality Assessment to demonstrate appropriateness that there would not be unacceptably deleterious impacts on air quality in St Edmundsbury AN Have annual mean concentrations of SCDC Lime Kiln Road/The Thoroughfare Annual mean objective for nitrogen 3 3 any of three pollutants been junction, Woodbridge: 51.9 μg/m (bias dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be exceeded? corrected result, 2002) achieved by 31 December 2005 (national Air Quality Objective) (Source: SCDC Air Quality Report, March 2004, and direct from Penny Moys @ SCC)

AN Have annual mean concentrations of WDC 2003 (bias corrected) results (μg/m3): Annual mean objective for nitrogen Diffusion tube monitoring was carried 3 ☺ Air quality is generally fairly good any of three pollutants been Golden Court 39.3 dioxide (NO2): 40 μg/m , to be out at a number of locations in in Lowestoft, and is not thought to be exceeded? Saltwater Way 28.6 achieved by 31 December 2005 Lowestoft until 2003, when it was a problem in any other parts of Flying Dutchman (A1117/A146 (national Air Quality Objective) discontinued Waveney junction): 26.5

Pier Terrace (A146/A12 junction): 40.5 NO2 concentrations at the four sites However, the 2004 Review found that identified left are all predicted to be the 2010 annual mean objective for (all diffusion tube monitoring, and all below threshold levels in 2005 and fine particulates (PM10s) is, on current site are in Lowestoft) 2010, although at the Flying Dutchman trends, likely to be exceeded at the 2005 values may be very close to the Flying Dutchman junction. Although February-August 2004, continuous 40 μg/m3 limit. PM10s are not currently part of the monitoring at Flying Dutchman: 32.5 national Air Quality Regs (so AQMAs (estimated mean for 2003: 42) However, the opening of the South cannot be designated because of Lowestoft Relief Road is expected to elevated levels of PM10s), they will be (Source: December 2004 Air Quality lead to a reduction in traffic levels at in the future, so future development in Review & Assessment) the Flying Dutchman junction, and a Lowestoft will need to take account of consequent improvement in NO2 this, and mitigation strategies may be concentrations. Little change is necessary

AN Have annual mean concentrations of Suffolk any of three pollutants been exceeded?

Headline Objective: To improve water and air quality Will it improve air quality? 4 AQMAs covering 18 properties in Rolling three-year programme of SSAG Number of Air Quality Management BDC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To ☺ Reduction to 0 welcome, but Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National 2002/3 monitoring starting in 2004/5. future air quality pollution levels not Air Quality Strategy. entirely within the district’s control AQMA quite a crude measure of air (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council pollution responsible for roads, heatwaves can

increase NOx, fine particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) SSAG Number of Air Quality Management FHDC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County AQMA quite a crude measure of air Council responsible for roads, pollution heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of SSAG Number of Air Quality Management IBC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council responsible for roads,

heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of SSAG Number of Air Quality Management MSDC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council responsible for roads,

heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) SSAG Number of Air Quality Management SEBC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council responsible for roads,

heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of SSAG Number of Air Quality Management SCDC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council responsible for roads,

heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of SSAG Number of Air Quality Management WDC 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council responsible for roads,

heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc) 0 in 2002/3 Rolling three-year programme of SSAG Number of Air Quality Management Suffolk 0 To not exceed threshold limits. To ☺ But future air quality pollution Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG) meet objectives contained in National monitoring starting in 2004/5. levels not entirely within the district’s Air Quality Strategy. control (e.g. Highways Agency/County Council responsible for roads,

heatwaves can increase NOx, fine

particulates (PM10), tropospheric ozone and other pollutants etc)

Headline Objective: To conserve soil resources and quality Will it minimise the loss of greenfield land to development? DR Number and percentage of new BDC 2003/04 96 45.3% 2001/02 104 43% ☺ dwellings completed on greenfield land 2002/03 311 61% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Significant decrease in last financial year. DR Number and percentage of new FHDC 2003/04 19 28.4% 2nd lowest in the County. 2001/02 N/R ☺ dwellings completed on greenfield land 2002/03 17 27.4% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Figures fairly stable DR Number and percentage of new IBC 2003/04 97 17.1% Lowest percentage in the County. 2001/02 80 23.1% ☺ dwellings completed on greenfield land Targets relate to brownfield. 2002/03 65 13.9% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Fluctuating trend but figures remain low. DR Number and percentage of new MSDC 2003/04 155 44.7% 3rd lowest in the County. Targets relate 2001/02 170 54.1% ☺ dwellings completed on greenfield land to brownfield. 2002/03 174 59.6% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Significant decrease in last financial year. DR Number and percentage of new SEBC 2003/04 318 52% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 187 55.3% dwellings completed on greenfield land 2002/03 197 42.1% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Fluctuating trend DR Number and percentage of new SCDC 2003/04 239 52.5% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 299 70.4% dwellings completed on greenfield land 2002/03 265 46.7% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Fluctuating trend. DR Number and percentage of new WDC 2003/04 359 70.8% Highest in the County. Targets relate 2001/02 452 78.7% ☺ dwellings completed on greenfield land to brownfield. 2002/03 329 75.5% (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Overall trend is towards reduction in Greenfield completions

Headline Objective: To conserve soil resources and quality Will it minimise the loss of greenfield land to development? DR Number and percentage of existing BDC 2003/04 1832 55.3% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 N/R ☺ housing commitments on greenfield 2002/03 3569 94.8% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) significant downward trend over the last year DR Number and percentage of existing FHDC 2003/04 2808 96.3% Higest percentage in the County. 2001/02 N/R housing commitments on greenfield Targets relate to brownfield. 2002/03 1842 94.2% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Upward trend DR Number and percentage of existing IBC 2003/04 1769 23.6% Lowest percentage in the County. 2001/02 1724 28.7% ☺ housing commitments on greenfield Targets relate to brownfield. 2002/03 1802 25.6% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Downward trend DR Number and percentage of existing MSDC 2003/04 1207 49.8% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 1313 61.6% ☺ housing commitments on greenfield 2002/03 1259 57.1% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Downward trend DR Number and percentage of existing SEBC 2003/04 2117 42.2% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 N/R ☺ housing commitments on greenfield 2002/03 1445 76.8% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Significant downward trend over the last year. DR Number and percentage of existing SCDC 2003/04 2174 62.6% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 2679 65.8% ☺ housing commitments on greenfield 2002/03 2399 64.8% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Downward trend DR Number and percentage of existing WDC 2003/04 1775 62.3% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 2049 81.1% ☺ housing commitments on greenfield 2002/03 2103 65.5% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Downward trend DR Number and percentage of existing Suffolk 2003/04 13,682 49.8% Targets relate to brownfield. 2001/02 7765 52.7% ☺ housing commitments on greenfield 2002/03 9008 49.9% land (SSAG) (Derived from Regional Monitoring) Overall downward trend

Headline Objective: To conserve soil resources and quality Will it minimise the loss of greenfield land to development? SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net BDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 34.96 “To avoid developments which make Not recorded for 2001/2 or 2002/3. Currently 2nd highest density in developable area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). No data for comparison. Suffolk, but no past trend data for Recommended guideline = minimum of comparison 30 dwellings/hectare.

2nd highest density recorded in Suffolk, 2003/4.

SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net IBC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 39 “To avoid developments which make Density has increased annually in last 2 ☺ Highest density in Suffolk and developable area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). years, and is now above the increasing year on year. Recommended guideline = minimum of recommended guideline. 30 dwellings/hectare.

Highest density recorded in Suffolk, 2003/4. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net MSDC Dwellings per hectare 2002/3: 32.34 “To avoid developments which make Density has decreased since last year, ☺ Decreased this year but above the developable area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). but is still above the recommended PPG3 density minimum requirement. Recommended guideline = minimum of guideline. Indicator has fluctuated 30 dwellings/hectare. between 25.0 in 2001/2 and 34.4 in 2002/3. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net SEBC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 33.98 “To avoid developments which make Not recorded for 2001/2, but has Lack of time related data means it developable area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). increased this year from 28.01 in is difficult to discern any trends but Recommended guideline = 30 2002/3. Now above the recommended the figure for 2003/4 is above the dwellings/hectare. guideline. PPG3 density minimum requirement. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net SCDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 26.80 “To avoid developments which make Density has decreased each year since Increased this year but still is developable area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). 2001/2 when a density of 29.29 was below the PPG3 density minimum Recommended guideline = minimum of recorded, and is below recommended requirement. 30 dwellings/hectare. levels.

2nd lowest density recorded in Suffolk, 2003/4. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net WDC Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 23.22 “To avoid developments which make Dwellings per hectare 2001/2: 22.92 Decreased this year and is below developable area (SSAG) inefficient use of land” (PPG3). the PPG3 density minimum requirement. Recommended guideline = minimum of Density has decreased since last year, This indicator measures completions on 30 dwellings/hectare. and is consistently below the large sites (10+ units) and many of the recommended guideline. Indicator has permissions coming through were Lowest density recorded in Suffolk, fluctuated between 24.4 in 2002/3 and granted some years ago. Approvals 2003/4. 22.92 in 2001/2. indicate an improving trend. SSAG Dwellings per hectare of net Suffolk Excluding BDC: “To avoid developments which make Combined density in Suffolk meets the Housing meets the recommended developable area (SSAG) Dwellings per hectare 2003/4: 30.39 inefficient use of land” (PPG3). recommended guideline. County totals guideline for the county as a whole. Recommended guideline = minimum of do not include all districts in previous Varies between districts and data for 30 dwellings/hectare. years so trends are difficult to previous years are incomplete. discern.

Headline Objective: To conserve soil resources and quality Will it minimise loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land to development? DR Allocations on best and most versatile BDC This indicator needs developing for the agricultural land (grades 1, 2, and 3a) 05/06 financial year.