Strategic Growth Options - 16-07-13 - Swansea...Figure 1: Summary of the Strategic Growth Options...

TOPIC PAPER

STRATEGIC

GROWTH OPTIONS

APPRAISAL

1 of 37

About This Document This document is one of series of Topic Papers www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpps which provide the supporting evidence to underpin the preparation of the City and County of Swansea Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP). Each Topic Paper provides in-depth analysis of a particular issue that the LDP needs to respond to, including the national policy context, a review of local policy, current circumstances and trends, and also suggests appropriate polices for inclusion within the Plan. As further evidence and information becomes available each Paper will be revised and updated as appropriate. Who to Contact for Further Information Further information on the LDP process is available to view on the Council’s website: http://www.swansea.gov.uk/ldp. The Council’s Planning Policy Team is available during normal office hours to discuss any aspect of the LDP. They can be contacted by letter/in person: Planning Policy Team, Room 2.6.2, City and County of Swansea Council, Civic Centre, Oystermouth Road, Swansea, SA1 3SN Or via: Tel: 01792 635744 Email: [email protected]

If you require this document in a different format, e.g. large print, Braille, audio version, etc. please contact the Planning Policy Team on 01792 635744, email [email protected] or write to Room 2.6.2, Civic Centre, Oystermouth Road, Swansea, SA1 3SN.

2 of 37

Contents Page No. About This Document 1 Who to Contact for Further Information 1 Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Summary of the Strategic Growth Options 4 3.0 Testing the Options 7 4.0 Strategic Option 1 8 5.0 Strategic Option 2 12 6.0 Strategic Option 3 14 7.0 Strategic Option 4 17 8.0 Strategic Option 5 20 9.0 Alternative Lower Scenarios 23 10.0 Main Findings and Conclusions 24 Appendices Appendix 1 Economic Growth Projections for the County 2010-

25 27

Appendix 2 The LDP Objectives 28 Appendix 3 Appraisal of the Strategic Growth Options against

the LDP Objectives 29

3 of 37

1.0 Introduction

1.1 To inform the dwelling requirement to be accommodated by the LDP, different

demographic projection scenarios termed ‘Strategic Growth Options’ (the Options) have been devised and tested in-line with the LDP Manual (2006) and Planning Policy Wales (PPW), 2012.

1.2 This report sets out the Options and provides further detail on how they have

been tested and the findings of this research.

4 of 37

2.0 Summary of the Strategic Growth Options 2.1 The Options that have been considered and their related additional dwelling

requirements for 2010-25 are summarised below:

Option 1: Based on the latest Welsh Government (WG) (2008) projection but considers the impact of higher net international in-migration, using average rates for the period 2006-09, when it was at its highest over the last decade.

Base household population (2010): 103,100

Projected household population (2025): 125,500

Household population change, 2010-2025: +22,400

The LDP will need to provide 23,500 dwellings

Option 2: Derived directly from the latest WG (2008) projection, based on births, deaths and migration data for 2003-08.



Household population change, 2010-2025: +18,300 The LDP will need to provide 19,200 dwellings

Option 3: Based on the latest WG (2008) projection but includes migration data for the later 2004-09 period, removing the peak of internal (UK) migration observed in 2003-04 and including the on-set of the economic crisis in 2008-09.




5 of 37

Option 4: Takes a 10-year view of births, deaths and internal (UK) migration (1998-2008) providing some ‘smoothing’ of annual peaks/troughs. The international migration element retains the 5-year trend (2003-08) due to the unavailability of pre-2001 published data.




Option 5: Again smoothes out peaks and troughs by using the 1998-2008 births and deaths assumptions; includes the 2003-08 international migration trend, but applies more recent estimates for lower internal (UK) migration between 2006-09.




2.2 Options 2 to 5 were published as part of the Vision, Objectives and Strategic

Options (VOSO) Consultation Document. Option 1 has subsequently been formulated in response to WG consultation responses requesting the inclusion of a higher growth rate.

2.3 The Options were devised by the Council’s Research & Information Unit using

established software (PopGroup), and are based on trends from official published statistics.

2.4 Figure 1 illustrates the different scales of growth put forward by the Options.

6 of 37

Figure 1: Summary of the Strategic Growth Options for 2010-25

(in terms of growth in numbers of households)

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

2019

2022

2025

No. of households

Household estimates (2001-10)

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Option 1

- Household estimates 2001-10

- Option 1

- Option 2

- Option 3

- Option 4

- Option 5

7 of 37

3.0 Testing the Options

3.1 The latest Welsh Government (WG) (2008) Population and Household

Projections for Local Authority areas, based on 5 years of fertility, mortality and migration data for 2003-08, have been used as the starting point for considering future growth in-line with PPW (2012). WG also produced lower and higher variants of these projections which have been referred to in the analysis.

3.2 It should be noted that these published WG projections, in common with all

trend-based projections, can only provide an indication of future population should those trends continue. If the period from which the trend is measured is untypical of times before or since, the projections may not provide a future view which can be considered realistic. The projections are not policy-based forecasts of what may happen and do not make allowances for the effects of local or central Government policies on future population levels, or change caused by other local or national social and economic factors. Therefore it is important to test other options before making a decision on the level of growth to take forward in the Plan.

3.3 PPW and the LDP Manual require that the Options are tested against a

number of criteria in order to make a transparent judgement on the appropriate level of growth to take forward in the Plan.

3.4 In order to cover these criteria, the Options have been assessed against the

latest WG household projections (2008), economic growth projections (see Appendix 1) and recent demographic and housing trends recorded in the County. They have also been tested against the LDP’s Objectives which take forward the LDP Vision and were formulated with reference to national planning policy guidance; the regional spatial planning and City Region context; local community and housing strategies and regeneration aims; and key economic, housing, social, cultural, infrastructure, and environmental issues, requirements, constraints and drivers identified in the LDP evidence base1. The Options have also been subject to a Sustainability Assessment (SA), the results of which are provided in the separate SA Report2, but the main findings of which are summarised in this document.

1 See www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

2 See www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

8 of 37

4.0 Strategic Growth Option 1 – 23,500 dwellings 2010-25

4.1 In response to the consultation in 2012, both WG and the Homebuilders Federation (HBF) felt that the WG (2008) household projection should not be the maximum possible growth scenario and that further higher testing should be considered.

4.2 Option 1 is based on the WG (2008) household projection but considers the

impact of higher net international in-migration using the trend between 2006-09, which was significantly higher than in 2003-08, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Net Internal (UK) and International Migration 2001-11

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

Net Internal Migration

Net International Migration

Source: ONS

3

4.3 The net result of applying these migration trends is a projected level of

population growth above that suggested by the WG (2008) projection. The population is projected to increase by 34,100 between 2010-25 (+14.6%) equating to an increase of 2,300 people per annum. This significantly exceeds the average rate of population increase recorded over the last decade (1,540 per year)4.

4.4 This population increase is projected to lead to a rise of 22,400 households

(+21.7%) over the period, 1,500 per annum, and a requirement for 23,500 dwellings (1,565 dwellings each year). This is well in excess of the WG higher variant household projection that was published alongside the 2008 projections and put forward a growth of 20,800 new households over the period.

3 ONS migration estimates are available for Swansea for 2001-02 onwards

4 ONS Mid Year Population Estimates 2001-11

International Migration 2001-11 average (660 / yr)

Internal Migration 2001-11 average (380 / yr)

9 of 37

4.5 In analysing this Option, it is clear that the international net in-migration trend

between 2006-09 (which averaged 880 per year) was significantly higher than during the 5-year period considered by the WG projections (2003-08 average 640 per year). It was also similarly higher than the longer term trend5 over the last decade (2001-11 average 660 per year). Furthermore, this very high level of net international in-migration into the County has not been sustained since 2009.

4.6 It should be noted that whilst ONS’ own estimates of international in-migration

to Swansea during 2006-2009 rose sharply, published government (DWP) figures for the number of National Insurance Number (NINo) Allocations to Overseas Nationals showed three successive annual reductions between 2007 and 2010, suggesting a slowdown in the level of economic migration.

4.7 There are also some doubts about the sustainability of current levels of

student enrolment at Higher Education (HE) institutions, largely in view of uncertainties regarding the possible effects of current Government policy on the HE sector and the ability of young people and their families to financially commit to university education in the current economic climate. As one of the major university areas in Wales, this may have implications for Swansea which could be reflected in future migration statistics.

4.8 This Option also includes the 2003-04 period when net internal in-migration

peaked at a level not witnessed since (see Figure 2). 4.9 The dwelling provision (1,565 per year) required to support this population

increase is more than double the rate of completions between 2001-11 (780 per year), and much higher than the peak number of completions achieved during this period in 2007-08 (1,150) and 2008-09 (1,124). 2009-10 and 2010-11 have seen completions at much lower rates of 541 and 629.

4.10 Table 1 below summarises how Option 1 scored in terms of its potential to

meet the LDP’s Objectives (the Objectives are provided in full at Appendix 2 and a copy of the detailed appraisal can be found in Appendix 3). As can be seen, Option 1 scored fairly poorly, failing to meet 8 objectives and only partially meeting 6. It mostly met 3 and fully met 6 objectives.

5 ONS migration estimates are only available for Swansea for 2001-02 onwards

10 of 37

Table 1: Option 1 Scoring Against the LDP Objectives

Enhancing Communities, Facilities & Infrastructure

Delivering Economic Growth & Prosperity

Fostering a High Quality Environment

Objective 1

Objective

9

Objective 17

Objective 2

Objective

10

Objective 18

Objective 3

Objective

11

Objective 19

Objective 4

Objective

12

Objective 20

Objective 5

Objective

13

Objective 21

Objective 6

Objective

14

Objective 22

Objective 7

Objective

15

Objective 23

Objective 8

Objective

16

Objective 24

Key

Fully meets objective

Mostly meets objective

Partially meets objective

Fails to meet objective

Not applicable

4.11 Some of the main fails were in relation to the economic and housing

Objectives. Option 1 significantly exceeds the annual number of dwelling completions identified as required by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecast for 2010-25 (1,095 per year) even with the step change in the economy required by the City Region driver objectives. The building of too many homes over and above that required to accommodate workers in the new jobs created would lead to an increase in commuting to other local authority areas which would go against sustainability objectives. Furthermore, it may prejudice the ability of other local authorities in the City Region to achieve regeneration objectives if too much growth is diverted into the County. There are also question marks as to the practicality for developers to build this number of homes during the Plan period.

4.12 Option 1 also scored poorly in terms of the environmental objectives. The

Brownfield Land Capacity Study6 indicates that there is sufficient previously developed land to accommodate between 10,800 to 11,900 homes over the Plan period, therefore well over half (55%) of the dwelling requirement under this Option would need to be provided on Greenfield land posing a threat to

6 Brownfield Land Capacity Study at www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

11 of 37

natural heritage, biodiversity, landscape quality, soil resources, and the cultural identity of settlements.

4.13 This level of growth would run the risk of promoting too much development

ahead of the realistic likelihood of putting effective sustainable transportation solutions in place. It would have significant impacts on existing utilities and social infrastructure, and potential cultural implications in terms of the Welsh language which would need to be carefully considered and mitigated.

4.14 On the other hand, the large scale of sites that would be required would be

master planned enabling provision of sustainable new communities and provide economies of scale facilitating provision of supporting physical, social and green infrastructure; and the possibility of community renewable/low carbon energy infrastructure projects and incorporation of community waste management facilities. There would be potential for a broad range and choice of housing and mixed uses to be provided.

12 of 37

5.0 Strategic Option 2 – 19,200 dwellings 2010-25

5.1 This Option derives a housing requirement based on the WG (2008)

population and household projections which considered natural change and migration data for the 2003-08 period.

5.2 These 5-year trends have been projected to show a population increase of

26,000 between 2010-25 (+11.2%), an increase of 1,700 per annum. This exceeds the average rate of population increase recorded over the last decade (1,540 per year).

5.3 This is projected to lead to an increase of 18,300 households (+17.8%) over

the period, 1,200 per annum. From these projections a derived requirement for 19,200 dwellings has been calculated between 2010-25 requiring provision of 1,280 each year.

5.4 As shown in Table 2, the 5-year trends on which the WG (2008) projections

are based in terms of natural change, internal (UK) and international migration are fairly close to the corresponding longer term averages for the last decade (2001-11). The main difference being slightly more net internal (UK) in-migration in 2003-08 because the period included a peak level in 2003-04 which has not been witnessed since (see Figure 2). Table 2: Components of Population Change Averages:

Option 2 (2003-08) compared to the longer-term trend (2001-11)

Demographic Components Option 2 average*

2001-11 average

Natural change 0 +20

Internal migration (UK) +420 +380

International migration +640 +660 Source: ONS Notes: * Based on 2003-08 period

5.5 Although lower than Option 1, the dwelling provision required to support this population increase (1,280 per year) is significantly higher than the rate of completions achieved between 2001-11 (780 per year), higher than the peak number of completions achieved during this period in 2007-08 (1,150) and 2008-09 (1,124), and exceeds the annual number of dwelling completions required to support the employment forecast for 2010-25 (1,095 per year) with the same implications as those suggested for Option 1 albeit at a lesser scale.


meet the LDP’s Objectives. This Option scored slightly better than Option 1 in that it did not fail to meet any objectives but it did only partially meet 13 objectives. It mostly met 3 and still fully met just 6 objectives as Option 1.

13 of 37





Objective 1

Objective

9

Objective 17

Objective 2

Objective

10

Objective 18

Objective 3

Objective

11

Objective 19

Objective 4

Objective

12

Objective 20

Objective 5

Objective

13

Objective 21

Objective 6

Objective

14

Objective 22

Objective 7

Objective

15

Objective 23

Objective 8

Objective

16

Objective 24

Key





Not applicable

5.7 Option 2 scored fairly poorly on the economic and housing objectives for the

same reasons but to a lesser extent than Option 1. 5.8 Similarly it scored fairly poorly on environmental objectives. Although the total

dwelling requirement is less than Option 1, at least 45% of the requirement under this option would need to be provided on Greenfield sites again posing some threat to the natural heritage, biodiversity, landscape quality, soil resources, and cultural identity of settlements.

5.9 Although at a lower scale than Option 1, this level of growth would run the risk

of significant impacts on existing utilities and social infrastructure, and potential cultural implications in terms of the Welsh language which would need to be carefully mitigated.

5.10 On the other hand, the Option scored well for some objectives because the

large scale of sites that would be required, although perhaps fewer in number than for Option 1, would be master planned enabling provision of sustainable new communities and provide economies of scale facilitating provision of supporting physical, social and green infrastructure. There would be potential for a broad range and choice of housing and mixed uses to be provided. There would also be the possibility of community renewable/low carbon energy infrastructure projects and incorporation of community waste management facilities.

14 of 37

6.0 Strategic Option 3 – 16,700 dwellings 2010-25 6.1 This Option is based on the WG (2003-08 based) projection but considers

internal (UK) and international migration trends for a slightly later period between 2004-09, which removes the peak of internal migration observed in 2003-04 that has not been repeated since (discussed in Option 2), and considers the onset of the economic downturn and the gradual decline in net international in-migration at the end of this period (see Figure 2).

6.2 Based on this scenario, the population is projected to increase by 20,400

between 2010-25 (+8.8%), equating to an increase of 1,400 per annum, which is close to the average rate of population increase recorded over the last decade (1,540 / year between 2001-11).


the period, 1,100 per annum. This is exactly in-line with the WG lower variant 2008 projection which also put forward an increase of 15,900 households over the period 2010-25.

6.4 From this household projection a derived requirement for 16,700 dwellings

has been calculated over 2010-25 requiring provision of 1,115 each year. 6.5 As shown in Table 4, the trend on which the Option 3 projection is based in

terms of natural change is similar to the WG (2008) projection and longer-term trends for 2001-11. When projecting population change based on past trends, natural change is the most certain of the population elements due to the robustness of the data sources on recorded births and deaths.

6.6 Option 3 is under on internal migration but this is an aspect of population

change which has mostly shown a decline in recent years, especially during the last year (2010-11) – see Figure 2. Table 4: Components of Population Change Averages: Option 3

compared to WG (2008) projection and longer-term trend (2001-11)

Demographic Components

Option 3 average

WG 2008 projection*

2001-11 average

Natural change 0* 0 +20

Internal migration +235** +420 +380

International migration

+720** +640 +660

Source: ONS Notes * 2003-08 trend ** 2004-09 trend

15 of 37


meet the LDP’s Objectives. This Option scored well, fully meeting 12 objectives and mostly meeting 9. It partially met 2 and did not fail on any objectives.





Objective 1

Objective

9

Objective 17

Objective 2

Objective

10

Objective 18

Objective 3

Objective

11

Objective 19

Objective 4

Objective

12

Objective 20

Objective 5

Objective

13

Objective 21

Objective 6

Objective

14

Objective 22

Objective 7

Objective

15

Objective 23

Objective 8

Objective

16

Objective 24

Key





Not applicable

6.8 Option 3 scored particularly well on the economic and housing objectives.

The dwelling provision required to support this population increase (1,115 per year) is higher than the rate of completions achieved between 2001-11 (780 per year) but to a lesser extent than Options 1 and 2. In order to meet the City Region economic driver objectives of the Plan it has been recognised that a step change is required in the economy and employment growth forecasting has shown the need for around 16,400 additional homes over the Plan period (1,095 per year) to support new employment creation of in the order of 14,700 jobs. This number of homes is in very close alignment with Option 3. It is vital that the Plan delivers sufficient homes to support the County and Region’s economic objectives. Under provision may jeopardise these objectives. Under and over provision could result in other negative effects such as increases in commuting across the County’s boundaries.

6.9 This Option scored much better than Options 1 and 2 in terms of the

environmental objectives. Around 35% of the requirement would need to be provided on Greenfield sites, but the majority could be provided on previously

16 of 37

developed land, thus posing less of a threat to the County’s natural heritage, biodiversity, landscape quality, soil resources, and cultural identity of settlements.

6.10 This level of growth would have impacts on existing transport, utilities and

social infrastructure, and potential cultural implications in terms of the Welsh language (though to a lesser extent than Options 1 and 2) which would need to be carefully considered and mitigated.

6.11 Large scale sites would still be required for this Option though and would

provide economies of scale facilitating master planning of sustainable new communities with supporting infrastructure, provision of a range and choice of housing, and the incorporation of green infrastructure. There would also be the possibility of community renewable/low carbon energy infrastructure projects and incorporation of community waste management facilities to be developed.

6.12 It should be noted that, overall, this Strategic Growth Option was scored as

the most sustainable of the Options in the Sustainability Appraisal7 in terms of the extent to which it met the sustainability objectives of the Plan.

7 Sustainability Appraisal Report at www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

17 of 37


7.1 This Option considers trends in natural change and internal migration over a longer 10-year period (1998-2008) smoothing out annual peaks and troughs. The international migration element retains the 5-year trend (2003-08) in the WG (2008) projection due to the unavailability of published data from before 2001.

Figure 3: Natural Change and Net Migration 1998-2011

Source: ONS

7.2 Under this Option, population is projected to increase by 11,900 in 2010-25 (+5.1%) equating to an increase of 800 per annum. This is much lower than the average rate of population increase recorded over the last decade (1,540 / year between 2001-11).


the period, 800 per annum, leading to a requirement for 12,500 dwellings requiring provision of 835 each year.

7.4 By using a trend of negative natural change, Option 4 does not reflect the

consistent trend for births to exceed deaths recorded since 2007 and consequently is considered to under estimate population growth (see Figure 3).


meet the LDP’s Objectives. This Option failed to meet none of the objectives, but only partially met 14, mostly met 5 and fully met 4.

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1998-

99

1999-

00

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11



Natural change

International Migration 2003-08 average (640/yr)

Internal Migration 1998-2008 average (335/yr)

Natural Change 1998-2008 average (-140/yr)

18 of 37





Objective 1

Objective

9

Objective 17

Objective 2

Objective

10

Objective 18

Objective 3

Objective

11

Objective 19

Objective 4

Objective

12

Objective 20

Objective 5

Objective

13

Objective 21

Objective 6

Objective

14

Objective 22

Objective 7

Objective

15

Objective 23

Objective 8

Objective

16

Objective 24

Key





Not applicable

7.6 This Option scored fairly poorly on the economic and housing objectives.

While this dwelling requirement figure (835 / year) is fairly close to that of the current adopted Unitary Development Plan (755 per year), and the average number of completions achieved in the County between 2001-11 (780), it does not reflect the step change economic aspirations of the Plan. Under provision of housing to this level would undermine the economic objectives of the Plan and lead to other issues such as unsustainable commuting patterns.

7.7 Option 4 did score better though than the previous Options in terms of the

environmental objectives. Only around 15% of the requirement would need to be provided on Greenfield sites. The vast majority could be provided on previously developed land placing less pressure on the County’s natural heritage, biodiversity, landscape quality, soil resources, and cultural identity of settlements.

7.8 The impacts on infrastructure would be less than the previous Options but as

noted, under provision of housing compared to what is needed to support the employment forecast could lead to significant increases to in-commuting, and exacerbate congestion issues, while the lower number of dwellings and prioritisation of Brownfield sites may lead to smaller land allocations and mainly in urban areas. These would not have the economies of scale to fund major infrastructure improvements to remedy existing issues or to incorporate

19 of 37

significant community waste or energy infrastructure. It may lead to piece meal development without necessary supporting infrastructure, and would be less likely to be master planned to fully incorporate key sustainability principles. There would be less scope to provide a range and choice of homes.

20 of 37


8.1 This option also considers trends in natural change over a longer 10-year period (1998-2008). It retains the 2003-08 international migration trend used by the WG (2008) projection, but applies more recent trends witnessed between 2006-09 of low net internal (UK) migration.

Figure 4: Natural Change and Net Migration 1998-2011

Source: ONS

8.2 The population is projected to increase by 8,600 in 2010-25 (+3.7%) equating

to an increase of 600 per annum. This is much lower again than the average rate of population increase recorded over the last decade (1,540 / year between 2001-11).


the period, 700 per annum, leading to a requirement for 10,900 dwellings at 725 each year.

8.4 By using a trend of negative natural change, it is felt that Option 5, similarly to

Option 4, does not reflect the recent consistent trend since 2007 for births to exceed deaths resulting in an under estimate of growth. Furthermore, net internal (UK) in-migration is significantly under estimated compared to the long-term average (see Table 7).

International Migration 2003-08 average (640/yr)

Internal Migration 2006-09 average (100/yr)

Natural Change 1998-2008 average (-140/yr)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1998-

99

1999-

00

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11



Natural change

21 of 37

Table 7: Components of Population Change Averages:

Option 5 compared to the WG (2008) projection for 2003-08 and longer-term trend (2001-11)

Demographic Components

Option 5 average

WG 2008 projection***

2001-11 average

Natural change -140* 0 +20

Internal migration +100** +420 +380

International migration

+640*** +640 +660

Source: ONS Notes * 1998-2008 trend ** 2006-09 trend *** 2003-08 trend


meet the LDP’s Objectives. This Option failed to meet 5 of the objectives and only partially met 9. It mostly met 3 and fully met 6.





Objective 1

Objective

9

Objective 17

Objective 2

Objective

10

Objective 18

Objective 3

Objective

11

Objective 19

Objective 4

Objective

12

Objective 20

Objective 5

Objective

13

Objective 21

Objective 6

Objective

14

Objective 22

Objective 7

Objective

15

Objective 23

Objective 8

Objective

16

Objective 24

Key





Not applicable

8.6 Option 5 scored extremely poorly on the economic and housing objectives. While this dwelling requirement figure (725 each year) is in-line with that of the current adopted UDP (755 per year), and fairly close to the average number of completions achieved in the County between 2001-11 (780), it

22 of 37

does not reflect the step change economic aspirations of the Plan. Under provision of housing to this level would lead to even more significant issues than Option 4.

8.7 This Option scored very well in terms of the environmental objectives. Nearly

all the housing requirement could be provided on previously developed land helping to conserve the County’s natural heritage, biodiversity, landscape quality, soil resources, and cultural identity of settlements.

8.8 The impacts on infrastructure would be less than the previous Options but as

noted, under provision of housing compared to what is needed to support the employment forecast could lead to significant increases to in-commuting, and exacerbate congestion issues, while the lower number of dwellings and prioritisation of Brownfield sites may lead to smaller land allocations and mainly in urban areas (even more so than Option 4).

8.9 There would be even less scope than Option 4 to fund major infrastructure

improvements to remedy existing issues or to incorporate significant community waste or energy infrastructure. It may lead to piece meal development without necessary supporting infrastructure, and would be even less likely to be master planned to fully incorporate key sustainability principles. There would be much less scope to provide a range and choice of homes than under Options 1-4.

23 of 37

9.0 Alternative Lower Scenarios 9.1 The Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study puts forward

a base projection for employment growth over the LDP period which assumes that recent economic trends will continue (rather than the step change to the economy described above). This employment projection modelling yields a much lower dwelling requirement to support it - only 8,000 dwellings. This housing requirement is lower than all of the above Strategic Growth Options.

9.2 When producing the 2008 projections, WG also produced variants and one of

these was based solely on natural change trends and assumed zero migration. This projected a household increase of 11,300 between 2010-25, slightly higher than the lowest Strategic Growth Option above (Option 5). Therefore it can be suggested that to yield a growth requirement of only 8,000 homes, deaths would need to significantly exceed births over a sustained period reversing the consistent trend of positive natural change witnessed since 2007; and/or a period of significant net out-migration would be required which has not been recorded since the late 1990s and would not accord with the economic objectives of the Plan. The County’s population growth over the last decade has been firmly driven by migration. Consequently, for these reasons, a lower Strategic Growth Option has been discounted as unsound and not considered in more detail.

24 of 37

10.0 Main Findings and Conclusions 10.1 Detailed testing has shown that Option 1 puts forward a rate of population

increase (2,300 people each year) well in excess of that recorded over the last decade and the WG (2008) projection. Indeed, it exceeds the higher variant projection also produced by WG in 2008. It is based on very high short term net in-migration patterns that have not been sustained.

10.2 The number of dwellings (1,565 per year) required to house this population

increase would be significantly higher than the number of completions in the County even in the peak year of the last decade (1,150 in 2007-08). Notably, the housing requirement vastly exceeds the number identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study8 (1,095 per year) to support the projected employment growth over the Plan period. There are serious question marks over the practicality for developers to build this number of homes during a 15-year period.

10.3 To a lesser extent, Option 2 (the WG 2008 projection) raises similar issues.

The projection includes a period of very high net internal (UK) in-migration which has not been repeated since. Consequently, the level of population growth (1,700 people each year) is higher than the trend for the last decade.

10.4 The level of dwelling provision required (1,280 per year), although lower than

Option 1, is still higher than the peak recorded in the last decade and the number of dwellings required to support projected employment growth.

10.5 As such, Options 1 and 2 appear to project unjustifiable housing requirement

levels. Over-provision of housing in the County would lead to increased commuting to jobs in neighbouring areas and could undermine regeneration objectives in other parts of the City Region.

10.6 These Options would both require significant allocations on Greenfield land

(approximately 45%-55% of the total requirements) posing a threat to the natural heritage, landscape quality, soil resources and biodiversity of the County.

10.7 The scale of land required would put pressure on sites in Welsh language

sensitive areas and would have significant impacts on existing social and physical infrastructure that would need to be mitigated.

10.8 The level of population growth proposed by Option 3 (1,400 people per year)

is in-line with the trend over the last decade, removing the peak of internal (UK) net in-migration in 2003-04 included in the previous Options and importantly considering the onset of the economic downturn in 2008-09. The projected household increase (1,100 per year) corresponds almost exactly with the WG (2008) lower variant projection.

8 Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study available at

www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

25 of 37

10.9 The housing growth proposed by Option 3 (1,115 per year) is still in excess of

annual completion trends over the last decade (780 per year), though to a lesser extent than Options 1 and 2, but is in-line with the peak provision in 2007-08 (1,150). Furthermore, to meet the City Region economic driver objectives of the Plan it has been shown there is a need for around 16,400 additional homes (1,095 per year) over the Plan period to support new employment creation in the order of 14,700 jobs9. This number of homes is in very close alignment with Option 3. It is vital that the Plan delivers sufficient homes to support the County and the Region’s economic objectives.

10.10 While around 35% of this dwelling requirement would need Greenfield

allocations, the majority could be provided on Brownfield sites. The scale of sites required would provide some economies of scale and potential to incorporate improvements to physical and social infrastructure and provision of green infrastructure to off-set the loss of Greenfield land.

10.11 Option 3 would present the scope to provide a range and choice of housing

types and, significantly, was scored as the most sustainable of the 5 Growth Options in terms of its potential economic, social and environmental impacts in the Sustainability Appraisal.

10.12 Options 4 and 5 project a lower dwelling requirement (835 and 725 per year

respectively). Although these figures are close to the average dwelling completion rate over the last decade (780 per year), they do not reflect the step change economic aspirations of the Plan and for the City Region. Under-provision of housing could jeopardise these objectives and lead to unsustainable commuting patterns.

10.13 Both Options 4 and 5 put forward rates of population increase that are lower

than the trend witnessed over the last decade, being based on a period that saw negative natural change whereas births have since exceeded deaths consistently over the last 5 years. Option 5 is also felt to under estimate internal (UK) net in-migration compared to the average over the last decade.

10.14 Although Options 4 and 5 would require fewer Greenfield allocations, the

smaller scale sites likely to be allocated by prioritising Brownfield land may not provide sufficient economies of scale to address infrastructure issues and could lead to piecemeal development and unsustainable communities. There would also be less scope to provide a range and choice of housing types.

10.15 The Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study also puts

forward another projection for employment growth over the LDP period based on recent economic trends continuing (rather than a step change in the economy as outlined previously). Analysis has shown that this employment forecast would need to be supported by a much lower dwelling requirement (only 8,000 dwellings 2010-25) than all of the above Options.

9 Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision (2012) available at

www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

26 of 37

10.16 However, such a scenario would need to see deaths significantly exceed

births for a sustained period, reversing the consistent trend of positive natural change witnessed since 2007; and/or a period of significant net out-migration which has not been recorded since the late 1990s. This would not accord with the economic objectives of the Plan and the County’s population growth over the last decade has been firmly driven by net in-migration. For these reasons a lower Strategic Growth Option has been discounted.

10.17 Despite the release of 2011 Census outputs it is not currently feasible to

update the Options in a sufficiently comprehensive and robust manner. 10.18 The WG are due to produce a 2011-based set of Local Authority population

and household projections later in 2013 and it is considered advisable to wait until these official WG projections are published before re-visiting the levels of growth outlined above. Any projections which are produced before the WG projections, and therefore fail to take account of the official statistics, will be open to challenge.

10.19 On balance, after considering all of the findings, the Strategic Growth Options

appraisal leads to the following conclusion:

The LDP will need to provide for about 16,700 dwellings and 14,700 new jobs over the period 2010-25

27 of 37

APPENDIX 1

ECONOMIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR THE COUNTY 2010-25

To inform the production of economic growth projections for the County, the Council commissioned an Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study10. This Study produced the following outputs for employment growth using the Experian Economics Forecasting Model. The modelling also identified the number of additional homes that would be required to support the employment forecasts:

• Firstly, a base level forecast with recent economic trends projected to continue. As a result the LDP would need to provide for 6,100 new jobs over 2010-25. This would need to be supported by the provision of around 8,000 additional homes

• The second forecast was based on a ‘step change’ level of growth that would raise the economy in-line with the Council and wider Region’s economic regeneration objectives and the LDP Vision and Objectives. For this projection, the LDP would need to provide for 14,700 new jobs over 2010-25. This would need to be supported by the provision of around 16,400 additional homes.

10

Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision (2012) available at www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

APPENDIX 2

THE LDP OBJECTIVES

29 of 37

APPENDIX 3

APPRAISAL OF THE STRATEGIC GROWTH OPTIONS AGAINST THE LDP OBJECTIVES

LDP Objectives11

Option 1

23,500 dwellings

45% Brownfield Land12

55% Greenfield Land

Option 213

19,200 dwellings

55% Brownfield Land 45% Greenfield Land

Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


1. Ensure that communities have a mix of uses and facilities to create sustainable, inclusive neighbourhoods that allows community life to flourish

The amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing provision of a mix of housing tenure, types and size; mixed uses; supporting facilities and infrastructure; and inclusive design. Scale of housing numbers required will necessitate spread of smaller sites too, helping to meet local needs. Developments will need to be integrated with existing neighbouring communities. However, this Option will result in more homes being provided than is needed to support the Employment Growth projection so there may not be sufficient job opportunities for residents in communities. This will result in unsustainable commuting patterns.

Though the housing requirement is less than Option 1, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing provision of a mix of housing tenure, types and size; mixed uses; supporting facilities and infrastructure; and inclusive design. Scale of housing numbers required will necessitate spread of smaller sites too, helping to meet local needs. Developments will need to be integrated with existing neighbouring communities. However, this Option will also result in more homes being provided than is needed to support the Employment Growth projection, though to a lesser extent than Option 1, so there may not be sufficient job opportunities for residents in communities. This will result in some unsustainable commuting patterns.

Though the housing requirement is less than Options 1 and 2, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of some large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing provision of a mix of housing tenure, types and size; mixed uses; supporting facilities and infrastructure; and inclusive design. Scale of housing numbers required will necessitate spread of smaller sites too, helping to meet local needs. Developments will need to be integrated with existing neighbouring communities. This Option is very closely in-line with the number of homes identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study as needed to support the step change in the economy and deliver the economic driver objectives of the LDP meaning more likelihood of sufficient jobs provision within communities.

Fewer dwellings required than Options 1-3 and mainly on Brownfield land. Smaller developments may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’ and may be less mix of housing tenure and size; and less scope for mixed use developments. Under provision of housing in terms of the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study findings may undermine job growth and the opportunities to provide employment within communities. The likely lack of economies of scale on sites will mean fewer opportunities to provide all the supporting infrastructure and facilities required. However, spread approach of housing provision will help meet local needs.

Even fewer dwellings than Options 1-4 and nearly all on Brownfield land. Even more likely that it will involve smaller developments that may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’ and may be less mix of housing tenure and size; and less scope for mixed use developments. Under provision of housing in terms of the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study findings may undermine job growth and the opportunities to provide employment in communities. The likely lack of economies of scale on sites will mean fewer opportunities to provide all the supporting infrastructure and facilities required. However, spread approach of housing provision will help meet local needs.

2. Encourage development of town and district centres as focal areas for regeneration

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy, but growth in population should provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain existing centres. Strategic scale mixed use sites are likely to be provided that may form their own district centres and care will need to be taken to ensure any new centres created complement other existing ones.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Option 1, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain existing centres. Strategic scale mixed use sites are likely to be provided that may form their own district centres and care will need to be taken to ensure any new centres created complement other existing ones.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Options 1 and 2, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain existing centres. Strategic scale mixed use sites are likely to be provided that may form their own district centres and care will need to be taken to ensure any new centres created complement other existing ones.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Options 1-3, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain existing centres. Smaller scale sites and infill housing developments are likely to be located in and around existing settlements and centres.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Options 1-4, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain existing centres. Smaller scale sites and infill housing developments are likely to be located in and around existing settlements and centres.

11

Taken from Draft Preferred Strategy June 20th

2013 12

These are approximate percentages on how much of the dwelling requirement for each Growth Option could be accommodated on Brownfield Land and how much would need to be allocated on Greenfield. The figures are based on the lower end of the range of Brownfield Land identified as available in the Housing Landbank and Previously Developed Land Capacity Study, April 2013. See http://www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers 13

Growth Option 2 is derived directly from the latest Welsh Government (2008) Population and Household Projections. The other Growth Options use the WG (2008) projection as their starting point but test other population scenarios using established modelling software and techniques and trend data on natural change and migration. See the Population Background Paper for more details on the Growth Options at http://www.swansea.gov.uk/ldpbackgroundpapers

30 of 37

LDP Objectives11

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 213

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


3. Improve access to healthcare, lifelong learning, leisure, recreation, and other community facilities

The amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’ and provide economies of scale, thereby allowing provision of supporting facilities and infrastructure.

Though the housing requirement is less than Option 1, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’ and provide economies of scale, thereby allowing provision of supporting facilities and infrastructure.

Though the housing requirement is less than Options 1 and 2, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of some large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’ and provide economies of scale, thereby allowing provision of supporting facilities and infrastructure.

Fewer dwellings than Options 1-3. Smaller developments may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’ and may be fewer economies of scale and so less scope for provision of supporting infrastructure and facilities.

Even fewer dwellings than Options 1-4. Even more likely that it will involve smaller developments which may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’ and may be fewer economies of scale and so less scope for provision of supporting infrastructure and facilities.

4. Promote walking, cycling and public transport as integral elements of a sustainable transport system

The scale of development is likely to enable funding of improved infrastructure, and enable masterplanning to incorporate sustainable design principles including promotion of walking and cycling. Scale of sites will also enable mixed use development and provision of supporting facilities and infrastructure to reduce need to travel further afield for these by car. However, this Option will result in more homes being provided than is needed to support the Employment Growth projection so there may not be sufficient job opportunities for residents in communities. This will result in unsustainable commuting patterns.

The scale of development is likely to enable funding of improved infrastructure, and enable masterplanning to incorporate sustainable design principles including promotion of walking and cycling. Scale of sites will also enable mixed use development and provision of supporting facilities and infrastructure to reduce need to travel further afield for these by car. However, this Option will also result in more homes being provided than is needed to support the Employment Growth projection, though to a lesser extent than Option 1, so there may not be sufficient job opportunities for residents in communities. This will result in some unsustainable commuting patterns.

The scale of development is likely to enable funding of improved infrastructure, and enable masterplanning to incorporate sustainable design principles including promotion of walking and cycling. Scale of sites will also enable mixed use development and provision of supporting facilities and infrastructure to reduce need to travel further afield for these by car. This Option is very closely in-line with the number of homes identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study as needed to support the employment forecast which should minimise unsustainable commuting patterns likely to result from Options 1 and 2.

Development will be located mainly within existing settlements which would be served by existing transport infrastructure and bus routes. Due to the scale of sites, scope for masterplanning, walking and cycling into developments will be more limited.

Nearly all development will be located within existing settlements which would be served by existing transport infrastructure and bus routes. Due to the scale of sites, scope for masterplanning, walking and cycling into developments will be limited.

5. Facilitate the provision of appropriate utility and transport infrastructure to support communities and businesses

Provision for utility infrastructure to compensate for increased demand would need to be made for all developments. Due to the scale of sites, economies of scale may provide opportunities for major transport and physical infrastructure improvements and scope for masterplanning, walking and cycling into developments will be possible.



Provision for utility infrastructure to compensate for increased demand would need to be made for all developments. Sites may not be of a scale to facilitate major new infrastructure or transport works and scope for masterplanning, walking and cycling into developments will be more limited.

Provision for utility infrastructure to compensate for increased demand would need to be made for all developments. Sites may not be of a scale to facilitate major new infrastructure or transport works and scope for masterplanning, walking and cycling into developments will be limited.

6. Encourage appropriate development of low carbon and renewable energy resources and energy infrastructure

New developments have the potential to incorporate renewable and low carbon energy technologies. Scale of development may enable larger ‘community’ renewable/low carbon infrastructure projects to be developed.



New developments have the potential to incorporate renewable and low carbon energy technologies but scale of development will not enable larger ‘community’ renewable/low carbon infrastructure projects to be incorporated.

New developments have the potential to incorporate renewable and low carbon energy technologies but scale of development will not enable larger ‘community’ renewable/low carbon infrastructure projects to be incorporated.

31 of 37

LDP Objectives11

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 213

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


7. Support the safeguarding and sustainable use of natural resources where appropriate

New development will inherently involve the use of some minerals/aggregate in the construction of infrastructure and dwellings. The scale of development may put pressure on developing areas which are to be ‘safeguarded’ and to develop new quarries for primary aggregate or sand/gravel. Number of dwellings required will result in Greenfield land release and potential pressure to develop on soils which provide a carbon store.

New development will inherently involve the use of some minerals/aggregate in the construction of infrastructure and dwellings. The scale of development is less than Option 1 but may put pressure on developing areas which are to be ‘safeguarded’ and to develop new quarries for primary aggregate or sand/gravel. Although to a lesser extent than Option 1, the number of dwellings required will result in Greenfield land release and potential pressure to develop on soils which provide a carbon store.

New development will inherently involve the use of some minerals/aggregate in the construction of infrastructure and dwellings. The scale of development is less than Options 1 and 2 and should put less pressure on developing areas which are to be ‘safeguarded’ and for the development of new quarries for primary aggregate or sand/gravel. Amount of Greenfield land released will be less than Options 1 and 2, with the majority of development being on Brownfield land helping to restore/remediate some derelict land.

New development will inherently involve the use of some minerals/aggregate in the construction of infrastructure and dwellings. The lower scale of development than Options 1-3 and prioritising Brownfield land will put less pressure on developing areas which are to be ‘safeguarded’. Majority of development will be on Brownfield land, though will require some Greenfield release. Will help to restore/remediate some derelict land.

New development will inherently involve the use of some minerals/aggregate in the construction of infrastructure and dwellings. The lower scale of development than Options 1-4 and prioritising Brownfield land will put even less pressure on developing areas which are to be ‘safeguarded’. Nearly all development will be on Brownfield land. Will help to restore/remediate some derelict land.

8. Facilitate the sustainable management of waste

Scale of new developments may enable the incorporation of new community waste management facilities.



Developments have the potential to incorporate recycling and waste collection facilities, but may not have the potential for new community facilities as in Options 1-3.

Developments have the potential to incorporate recycling and waste collection facilities, but may not have the potential for new community facilities as in Options 1-4.

9. Direct new housing to economically viable and deliverable sites at sustainable locations

Site allocations will need to be realistic, appropriate and founded on a robust and credible evidence base.





10. Support development that positions Swansea as an economically competitive place and an economic driver for the City Region

The Option would provide much more homes than required to support economic objectives. It significantly exceeds the number of dwelling completions identified as required by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecast for 2010-25 (16,400 dwellings) even with the step change in the economy required by the City Region driver objectives. The building of too many homes over and above that required to accommodate workers in the new jobs created would lead to an increase in commuting to other local authority areas, which would go against sustainability objectives. Furthermore, it may prejudice the ability of other local authorities in the City Region to achieve regeneration objectives if too much growth is diverted into Swansea.

The Option would provide more homes than required to support economic objectives. Although to a lesser extent than Option 1, this option exceeds the number of dwelling completions identified as required by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecast for 2010-25 (16,400 dwellings) even with the step change in the economy required by the City Region driver objectives. The building of too many homes over and above that required to accommodate workers in the new jobs created would lead to an increase in commuting to other local authority areas, which would go against sustainability objectives. Furthermore, it may prejudice the ability of other local authorities in the City Region to achieve regeneration objectives if too much growth is diverted into Swansea.

Option is in-line with the number of homes identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study as needed to support the step change in the economy and deliver the economic driver objectives of the LDP.

Number of dwellings would fall short of the figure identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecasts. Under-provision of housing to this level would undermine the economic objectives of the LDP and lead to other issues such as unsustainable commuting patterns.

Number of dwellings would fall significantly short of the figure identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecasts. Under- provision of housing to this level would undermine the economic objectives of the LDP and lead to other issues such as unsustainable commuting patterns.

32 of 37

LDP Objectives11

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 213

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


11. Facilitate growth and diversification of the local economy and an increase in high value, skilled employment

As Objective 10. The Employment Forecast, which the dwelling requirement would need to support, is for a step change in the economy with an associated increase in high value skilled employment.





12. Reinforce and improve the City Centre as a vibrant regional destination for shopping, culture, leisure, learning and business

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy, but growth in population should provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain the City Centre. Strategic scale mixed use sites are likely to be provided that may form their own district centres and care will need to be taken to ensure any new centres created complement the City Centre.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Option 1, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain the City Centre. Strategic scale mixed use sites are likely to be provided that may form their own district centres and care will need to be taken to ensure any new centres created complement the City Centre.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Options 1 and 2, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain the City Centre. Some strategic scale mixed use sites are likely to be provided that may form their own district centres and care will need to be taken to ensure any new centres created complement the City Centre.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Options 1-3, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain the City Centre.

Effect would depend on the spatial strategy. Although a lower growth in population would occur than Options 1-4, it should still provide a greater critical mass of people to sustain the City Centre.

13. Ensure Swansea represents a strong commercial investment opportunity for developers and other partners to deliver the Council’s priority regeneration schemes

The economy and housing requirement are linked as stated for Objective 10.





14. Ensure that communities have sufficient, good quality housing to meet a range of needs and support economic growth

The number of homes required will allow for provision of the greatest range and choice of housing and the scale of sites required will provide opportunities for affordable housing to be developed. However the building of too many homes over and above that required to accommodate workers in the new jobs created would lead to an increase in commuting to other local authority areas which would go against sustainability objectives. Furthermore, it may prejudice the ability of other local authorities in the City Region to achieve regeneration objectives if too much growth is diverted into Swansea.

Although on a lesser scale than Option 1, the number of homes required will allow for provision of a range and choice of housing and the scale of sites required will provide opportunities for affordable housing to be developed. However, the building of too many homes over and above that required to accommodate workers in the new jobs created would lead to an increase in commuting to other local authority areas which would go against sustainability objectives. Furthermore, it may prejudice the ability of other local authorities in the City Region to achieve regeneration objectives if too much growth is diverted into Swansea.

Although on a lesser scale to Options 1 and 2, the number of homes required will allow for provision of a range and choice of housing and the scale of sites required will provide opportunities for affordable housing to be developed. Option is in-line with the number of homes identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study as needed to support the step change in the economy and deliver the economic driver objectives of the LDP.

Due to the smaller housing requirement than Options 1-3, there will be less scope to provide a range and choice of housing but the likely spread approach of development would allow local needs to be met. Number of dwellings would fall short of the figure identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecasts. Under provision of housing to this level would undermine the economic objectives of the LDP and lead to other issues such as unsustainable commuting patterns.

Due to the even smaller housing requirement than Options 1-4, there will be less scope to provide a range and choice of housing but the likely spread approach of development would allow local needs to be met. Number of dwellings would fall significantly short of the figure identified by the Economic Assessment & Employment Land Provision Study to support the employment forecasts. Under provision of housing to this level would undermine the economic objectives of the LDP and lead to other issues such as unsustainable commuting patterns.

33 of 37

LDP Objectives14

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 216

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


15. Promote and enhance a diverse and sustainable rural economy

The scale of the dwelling target and Greenfield land requirement would result in pressure for increased development in rural areas, potentially degrading natural assets which attract businesses and visitors; and also development of agricultural land. It would potentially result in increased commuting if the local economy cannot provide sufficient jobs. However, increasing the size of rural communities could help sustain local services thereby enhancing the rural economy.

Although to a lesser extent than Option 1, the scale of the dwelling requirement would put pressure for increased development in rural areas, potentially degrading natural assets which attract businesses and visitors; and also development of agricultural land. This would potentially result in increased commuting if the local economy cannot provide sufficient jobs. However, increasing the size of rural communities could help sustain local services thereby enhancing the rural economy.

Number of dwellings will require some development in rural areas and may result in some increased commuting if local economy cannot provide sufficient jobs. However, the lower dwelling requirement than Options 1 and 2 should enable rural development to be restricted to small sustainable extensions of existing rural settlements and help sustain local services thereby enhancing the rural economy.

Development will mostly be focused on Brownfield land in urban areas and do little to enhance the rural economy.

Development will primarily be focused on Brownfield land in urban areas and do little to enhance the rural economy.

16. Improve, expand and diversify appropriate sustainable tourism facilities and infrastructure

Objective relates to provision of tourism facilities and infrastructure which is not directly related to dwelling provision.





17. Promote a sustainable development strategy that prioritises the re-use of appropriate previously developed land, avoids significant adverse environmental impacts and respects environmental assets

Will exceed housing supply based on the Economic Growth Scenarios and Employment Land Provision study which may be detrimental to neighbouring LPA’s regeneration objectives and commuting patterns. Will require large scale Greenfield releases, and put pressure to release ‘sensitive’ land, detrimental to landscape quality and natural heritage. However, will enable large scale ‘planned communities’.

Will also exceed housing supply based on the Economic Growth Scenarios and Employment Land Provision study with similar negative consequences, though to a lesser extent. Will require large scale Greenfield releases, though not to the scale of Option 1, and put pressure to release ‘sensitive’ land, detrimental to landscape quality and natural heritage. However, will enable large scale ‘planned communities’.

Will provide the housing requirements to support proposed economic growth, based on the Economic Growth Scenarios and Employment Land Provision study. Will require some Greenfield releases, though not as extensive as Options 1 and 2 so reducing pressure to release ‘sensitive’ land, the majority of provision will be Brownfield. Sufficient dwellings will be provided to ensure a range and choice of housing and so that housing need is met. Large scale releases will enable ‘planned communities’ and less detrimental impact on infrastructure and facilities. Landscape impact will be kept to a minimum as will impact on natural heritage.

Will not provide the housing requirements to support proposed economic growth, based on the Economic Growth Scenarios and Employment Land Provision study. Will require minor Greenfield releases, though not as extensive as Options 1 – 3, with minimum pressure to release ‘sensitive’ land. Fewer ‘large’ sites may result in some ‘piecemeal’ development, less able to deliver a range and choice of housing to meet housing need and less infrastructure improvements. However, landscape and natural heritage impact will be less than in Options 1-3 and the reuse of Brownfield land can potentially improve townscape. Will do little to help rural economy.

Will not provide the housing requirements to support proposed economic growth, based on the Economic Growth Scenarios and Employment Land Provision study. All development will be on Brownfield land in existing urban areas. Fewer ‘large’ sites may result in some ‘piecemeal’ development, less able to deliver a range and choice of housing to meet housing need and less infrastructure improvements than Options 1-4. Landscape and natural heritage impact will be minimal if care taken to ensure that sensitive Brownfield sites are mitigated against. The reuse of Brownfield can potentially improve townscape. Will do little to help rural economy.

14


2013 15



34 of 37

LDP Objectives17

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 219

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


18. Preserve and enhance the County’s high quality cultural and historic environments

Development may intrude into green wedges and be of a scale which may alter the cultural identity and historic settlement patterns. Also likely to put pressure on language sensitive areas. Maybe potential to restore/enhance historic landscapes as part of developments

Although to less of an extent than Option 1, development may intrude into green wedges and be of a scale which may alter the cultural identity and historic settlement patterns. Also likely to put pressure on language sensitive areas. Maybe potential to restore/enhance historic landscapes as part of developments

Dwelling requirement is less than Options 1 and 2 and majority can be provided on Brownfield sites. Some development may still be of a scale which may alter the cultural identity and historic of some settlement patterns. May put some pressure on language sensitive areas. Maybe potential to restore/enhance historic landscapes as part of developments

More of the development is likely to be within the existing urban areas. Reduced scale of development compared to Options 1-3 and therefore impact on language may be less significant. Potential to bring historic buildings back into use.

Development likely to be within existing urban area. Reduced scale of development compared to Options 1-4 and therefore impact on language may be less significant. Potential to bring historic buildings back into use.

19. Conserve and enhance the County’s natural heritage

Option will require much greater amount of Greenfield land than Options 2, 3, 4 & 5 as only approximately 45% of the requirement can be accommodated on Brownfield land. Amount of development may well result in pressure to release land that is important for biodiversity linkages. Some mitigation will be possible to provide compensatory green infrastructure due to the scale of the sites, but this option will require a significant release of Greenfield land.

Option will require greater amount of Greenfield land than Options 3, 4 & 5 as only approximately 55% of the requirement can be accommodated on Brownfield land. Amount of development may well result in pressure to release land that is important for biodiversity linkages. Some mitigation will be possible to provide compensatory green infrastructure due to the scale of the sites, but this option will require a significant release of Greenfield land, though to a lesser extent than Option 1.

Will require Greenfield land release to accommodate approximately 35% of the requirement, much less than Options 1 and 2. The majority of development could be provided on Brownfield land. However, some Brownfield land is ecologically rich and therefore mitigation for its loss may be required. Overall, there would be less pressure to release marginal Greenfield sites, such as SINCS. The scale of development sites required would allow for provision of compensatory green infrastructure to mitigate against negative effects.

Only approximately 15% of the requirement would need to be provided on Greenfield land. Most development can be accommodated on Brownfield land. However, some Brownfield land is ecologically rich and therefore mitigation may be required for its loss.

Nearly all development can be accommodated on Brownfield land, therefore requiring very little Greenfield land to be released. However, some Brownfield land is ecologically rich and therefore mitigation may be required for its loss.

20. Maintain and enhance green infrastructure networks

Option will require much greater amount of Greenfield land than Options 2, 3, 4 & 5 as only approximately 45% of the requirement can be accommodated on Brownfield land. Amount of development may well result in pressure to release land that is important for biodiversity linkages. Some mitigation will be possible to provide compensatory green infrastructure due to the scale of the sites, but this option will require a significant release of Greenfield land.

Option will require greater amount of Greenfield land than Options 3, 4 & 5 as only approximately 55% of the requirement can be accommodated on Brownfield land. Amount of development may well result in pressure to release land that is important for biodiversity linkages. Some mitigation will be possible to provide compensatory green infrastructure due to the scale of the sites, but this option will require a significant release of Greenfield land, though to a lesser extent than Option 1.

Will require Greenfield land release to accommodate approximately 35% of the requirement, much less than Options 1 and 2. The majority of development could be provided on Brownfield land. The scale of development sites required would allow for provision of compensatory green infrastructure to mitigate against negative effects.

Only approximately 15% of the requirement would need to be provided on Greenfield land. Most development can be accommodated on Brownfield land.

Nearly all development can be accommodated on Brownfield land, therefore requiring very little Greenfield land to be released.

17


2013 18



35 of 37

LDP Objectives20

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 222

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


21. Support measures to minimise the causes and consequences of climate change

Number of dwellings required will result in pressure on land to be released in/adjacent to sensitive areas (e.g. areas adjacent to flood plains). However, the scale of housing also enables ‘future proofing’ of infrastructure.

Although less than Option 1, the number of dwellings required will result in pressure on land to be released in/adjacent to sensitive areas (e.g. areas adjacent to flood plains). However, the scale of housing also enables ‘future proofing’ of infrastructure.

The dwelling requirement is less than Options 1 and 2, resulting in less pressure on land to be released in/adjacent to sensitive areas (e.g. areas adjacent to flood plains). The scale of sites will still enable some ‘future proofing’ of infrastructure.

Most development will be on Brownfield land therefore resulting in less pressure to build on ‘unsuitable’ land. The scale of sites will provide less scope for ‘future proofing’ of infrastructure than Options 1-3.

Nearly all development will be on Brownfield land therefore resulting in less pressure to build on ‘unsuitable’ land. The scale of sites will provide less scope for ‘future proofing’ of infrastructure than Options 1-4.

22. Promote good design that is locally distinct, sustainable, innovative and sensitive to location

Would depend on the nature and location of the site, but should be achievable in schemes of all sizes.





23. Support the development of safe, accessible and vibrant places and spaces

The amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing the design of the sites to incorporate best practice safety techniques such as use of natural surveillance etc and incorporate walking and cycling into developments. Large sites will need to be combined with a spread of smaller sites to fulfil housing targets which should also be designed with community safety and accessibility objectives in mind, though the smaller sites may not be able to influence wider issues in existing communities.

Though the housing requirement is less than Option 1, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing the design of the sites to incorporate best practice safety techniques such as use of natural surveillance etc and incorporate walking and cycling into developments. Large sites will need to be combined with a spread of smaller sites to fulfil housing targets which should also be designed with community safety and accessibility objectives in mind, though the smaller sites may not be able to influence wider issues in existing communities.

Though the housing requirement is less than Options 1 and 2, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of some large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing the design of the sites to incorporate best practice safety techniques such as use of natural surveillance etc and incorporate walking and cycling into developments. Large sites will need to be combined with a spread of smaller sites to fulfil housing targets which should also be designed with community safety and accessibility objectives in mind, though the smaller sites may not be able to influence wider issues in existing communities.

The smaller housing requirement compared to Options 1-3 will not require release of strategic scale sites. Smaller developments may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’. However, most will be on Brownfield land and may enhance the feeling of community safety and vibrancy by restoring derelict/underused land.

The smaller housing requirement compared to Options 1-4 will not require release of strategic scale sites. Smaller developments may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’. However, nearly all will be on Brownfield land and may enhance the feeling of community safety and vibrancy by restoring derelict/underused land.

20


2013 21



36 of 37

LDP Objectives23

Option 1

23,500 dwellings


55% Greenfield Land

Option 225

19,200 dwellings


Option 3

16,700 dwellings


Option 4

12,500 dwellings


Option 5

10,900 dwellings


24. Create environments that encourage and support good health, well being and equality

Will result in a significant amount of Greenfield land being developed via large & strategic sites. The scale of developments will though enable play areas, green corridors, sustainable transport modes etc to be designed into the developments. In terms of equality, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing provision of a mix of housing tenure, types and size; and inclusive design. Scale of housing numbers required will necessitate a spread of smaller sites too, helping to meet local needs. Developments will need to be integrated with existing neighbouring communities. This Option will deliver more housing than is required to accommodate the employment forecast which is likely to lead to unsustainable commuting patterns to neighbouring Counties and less likelihood of using walking or cycling to get to work.

Though on a lesser scale than Option 1, this will result in a significant amount of Greenfield land being developed via large & strategic sites. The size of developments will though enable play areas, green corridors, sustainable transport modes etc to be designed into them. In terms of equality, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing provision of a mix of housing tenure, types and size; and inclusive design. Scale of housing numbers required will necessitate spread of smaller sites too, helping to meet local needs. Developments will need to be integrated with existing neighbouring communities. This Option will deliver more housing than is required to accommodate the employment forecast which is likely to lead to unsustainable commuting patterns to neighbouring Counties and less likelihood of using walking or cycling to get to work.

The housing requirement is lower than Options 1 and 2, so will result in less Greenfield land being developed via large & strategic sites. The majority of development will be Brownfield bringing previous derelict/disused areas into beneficial use, supporting health and wellbeing. There will still be some strategic scale developments which will enable play areas, green corridors, sustainable transport modes etc to be designed into the developments. In terms of equality, the amount of new dwellings will necessitate the release of large & strategic sites which will be ‘masterplanned’, thereby allowing provision of a mix of housing tenure, types and size; and inclusive design. Scale of housing numbers required will necessitate spread of smaller sites too, helping to meet local needs. Developments will need to be integrated with existing neighbouring communities. Housing requirement is in-line with that needed to meet the employment forecast.

Development will be focused on Brownfield land in existing urban areas, the redevelopment of which may bring previous derelict/disused areas into beneficial use supporting health and wellbeing and avoiding loss of Greenfield land. May be less scope than Options 1-3 to provide supporting infrastructure though e.g. play areas due to smaller scale of sites. Furthermore, the scale of developments may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’ and may be less mix of housing tenure and size. However, the likely spread approach of provision will help meet local needs.

Development will be focused mainly on Brownfield land in existing urban areas, the redevelopment of which may bring previous derelict/disused areas into beneficial use, supporting health and wellbeing, while avoiding loss of Greenfield land. May be less scope than Options 1-4 to provide supporting infrastructure though e.g. play areas due to smaller scale of sites. Furthermore, the scale of developments may not enable the schemes to be ‘masterplanned’ and may be less mix of housing tenure and size. However, the likely spread approach of provision will help meet local needs.

Summary of results

__6

__3

__6

__8

__1

__6

__4

__13

__0

__1

__12

__9

__2

__0

__1

__4

__5

__14

__0

__1

__6

__3

__9

__5

__1

23


2013 24



Strategic Growth Options - 16-07-13 - Swansea...Figure 1: Summary of the Strategic Growth Options...

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Growth Options - 16-07-13 - Swansea...Figure 1: Summary of the Strategic Growth Options...