Growth Distribution Options - Longlist Assessment

Growth Distribution Option

Description

Initial Assessment

Take Forward

Option 1: Repeating the adopted LDP

Related Settlement Hierarchy Option(s): Growth option to be considered against Settlement Hierarchy Options 1 & 2. If this growth distribution option is chosen it is likely to reflect one of these settlement hierarchy options.

Using the currently adopted settlement hierarchy in the LDP (adopted and as appraised) to allow for a proportional sustainable distribution of development based on community's needs, population size and sustainability criteria. As per the LDP 85% of growth was distributed throughout the urban areas and 15% to the rural area (Tier 1 and 2 Settlements)

This approach would be based on the information contained in the current LDP settlement hierarchy and seeks to permit a proportional distribution of growth based sustainability. Development would be focused on the first three tiers of the settlement hierarchy (A55 Urban Corridor, Tier 1 and Tier 2 Settlements), based on identifying the most sustainable settlements and sites. The approach would take into account overall sustainability, Key Planning Principles and Placemaking Outcomes in draft PPW Edition 10.

In the rural settlements outside of the Tier 1 and 2 Settlements, a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure protection of the local character and delivery of local needs housing.

This option is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options. However, the lack of previous rural development and constraints in some urban settlements would need to be factored into a full appraisal

YES

Option 2: Distributing Growth to all the urban centres along the A55 Corridor

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: Growth option is more suited to Settlement Hierarchy options 1, 2 & 3. Although, it can be considered against all the urban areas identified in the Settlement Hierarchy Options 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. If this Growth distribution option is chosen it will reflect one of these settlement hierarchy options.

Directing all development to all urban centres along the A55 Corridor as identified in the current hierarchy with the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate development. Under this option there would be no rural allocations for development.

In the rural settlements a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure that a more flexible approach is taken to bringing about and delivering local needs housing whilst protecting local character and the open countryside.

Focusing growth to the urban centres along the A55 Corridor is considered to be compatible with guidance in PPW in terms of identifying the most sustainable locations for development, as it is these larger settlements which generally have infrastructure, services and facilities. The approach also takes into account the five key Planning Principles and mirrors the conclusions of the Employment Land Review and Property Market Assessment.

In the rural settlements a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure that a more flexible approach is taken to bringing about and delivering local needs housing whilst protecting local character and the open countryside.

This option is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options. However, similar to issues raised in Option 1, further appraisal and evidence base work is required to assess capacity and deliverability of some urban settlements e.g. Flood Risk and Innovative Design Solutions will need to be considered to determine whether new development can be accommodated in urban settlements to the East of the County e.g. Pensarn, Towyn & Kinmel Bay and Traffic Management Solution in Abergele

YES

Option 3: Focused urban growth in line with the Wales Spatial Plan.

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: More suited to Settlement Hierarchy Options 4 & 5. If this growth distribution option is chosen it will likely reflect one of these options

Directing development in line with the Wales Spatial Plan Primary Key Settlements and Key Settlements, with the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate development.

In the rural settlements a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure that a more flexible approach is taken to bringing about and delivering local needs housing

Focusing growth in line with the Wales Spatial Plan is considered to be compatible with PPW in terms of identifying the most sustainable locations for development, as it is these larger settlements which generally have infrastructure, services, facilities and potential land availability. The approach also takes into account the five key Planning Principles and mirrors the conclusions of the Employment Land Review and Commercial Market Analysis. The market in these areas is also more buoyant and attractive to developers. Importantly, this option also takes on board the constraints identified in the urban areas outside of the WSP i.e. Abergele, Pensarn, Towyn and Kinmel Bay.

In the rural settlements a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure that a more flexible approach is taken to bringing about and delivering local needs housing whilst protecting local character and the open countryside.

This option is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options. However, whilst the Wales Spatial Plan is still relevant, the National Development Framework is in production. Despite this, the option put forward still promotes sustainability and looks to meet the Key Planning Outcomes and Placemaking Outcomes

YES

Option 4: Focused urban growth in line with the Wales Spatial Plan and Satellite Settlements

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: More suited to Settlement Hierarchy Options 4 & 5. If this growth distribution option is chosen it will likely reflect one of these options

Directing development in line with the Wales Spatial Plan Primary Key Settlements and Key Settlements, plus Satellite Settlements, with the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate development.

In the rural areas outside of Satellite Settlements a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure that a more flexible approach is taken to bringing about and delivering local needs housing whilst protecting local character and the open countryside.

This is similar to Option 3, but also distributes an element of growth to the Satellite Settlements. This option does not distribute as far as Option 1 (current LDP) into the Satellite Settlements. It is therefore considered to be in-line with Wales Spatial Plan and considered to be compatible with PPW in terms of identifying the most sustainable locations for development, as it is these larger settlements which generally have infrastructure, services, facilities and potential land availability. The approach also takes into account the five key Planning Principles and mirrors the conclusions of the Employment Land Review and Commercial Market Analysis.

In the rural area outside of Satellite Settlements a more refined policy approach would be developed to ensure that a more flexible approach is taken to bringing about and delivering local needs housing whilst protecting local character and the open countryside.

This option is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options.

YES

Option 5: Regeneration Led

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: More suited to Settlement Hierarchy Options 1, 2 & 3. If this growth distribution option is chosen it will likely reflect one of these options.

Development would be focused in those settlements where development would bring about regeneration benefits (e.g. Colwyn Bay, Abergele, Pensarn, Towyn, Kinmel Bay and Llanrwst)

The settlements in need of regeneration tend to be poorer performing in terms of a local housing market area. Relatively lower viability would make it difficult to ensure a complete range of planning obligations could be secured (education, affordable housing etc.). The overall delivery of housing could be prejudiced and this would have implications for housing land supply. Focusing development in such settlements might also have impacts on the capacity of local infrastructure, services and facilities. Although not considered appropriate to be carried forward as a formal option, there are elements of this approach that would need to be built into the preferred option to ensure that some growth takes place in settlements in need of regeneration.

This option is not considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options.

NO (Although not considered appropriate to be carried forward as a formal option, there are elements of this approach that would need to be built into the preferred option to ensure that some growth takes place in settlements in need of regeneration)

Option 6: Hubs and

Corridors

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: More suited to Settlement Hierarchy Options 3, 4 & 5. If this growth distribution option is chosen it will likely reflect one of these options

Development would be distributed based on a strict interpretation of key road and rail transport hubs and routes

A key principle in PPW is bringing about a sustainable distribution of development, underpinned by a sustainable transport system with an emphasis on public transport and other forms of sustainable transport. The County has a strategic road network comprising the A55, Coastal Rail Line, and A470, A5, Conwy Valley Rail.

These corridors may be at odds with the strategic transport function of such routes which could be compromised by encouraging local traffic and journeys.

Overall, this option is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options.

YES

Option 7: Dispersal

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: More suited to Settlement Hierarchy Options 1 & 2. If this growth distribution option is chosen it will likely reflect one of these options

Distributing development evenly to all settlements irrespective of their position in the settlement hierarchy or sustainability

This would, for instance, result in a percentage or quota of growth which would be applied to all settlements. Such an approach has little regard to the basis upon which the settlement hierarchy has been drawn up and would have little regard to the particular role or character of each settlement in terms of sustainability or constraints. This would represent a planning by numbers approach and would not represent an informed or responsible approach. Furthermore, if every settlement were to grow at the same rate then this would exceed the overall housing requirement, given the sheer number of settlements in the County.

This option is not considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options.

NO

Option 8: No strategy

Related Settlement Hierarchy Options: Not applicable.

Development would take place in locations as and when development proposals arise.

This 'unplanned' approach conflicts with the importance of the Plan led approach whereby growth is distributed based on a clear Plan strategy which has sustainability as its underpinnings. Growth would take place on a random and ad hoc basis and could only be controlled based on the site specific assessment of the merits of each proposal.

This option is not considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options.

NO

Option 9: New Settlement

Related Settlement Hierarchy Option(s): More suited to Settlement Hierarchy Options 1, 2 & 3. Subject to the location of the new settlement the preferred settlement hierarchy will be amended to reflect the new settlement. Growth distribution chosen will reflect the preferred settlement hierarchy chosen from these options.

The identification of a new settlement based on a sustainable transport corridor, which takes on board current PPW Edition 9 and draft PPW Edition 10. Establishing a new settlement, either through an entirely 'new' settlement or the expansion of an existing settlement into a new settlement.

PPW advises that 'New settlements on greenfield sites are unlikely to be appropriate in Wales, and should only be proposed where such development would offer significant environmental, social and economic advantages over the further expansion or regeneration of existing settlements'. The likely level of growth (in the form of new allocations) is not considered sufficient to make a new settlement a sustainable proposition as new settlements typically need in the region of 5,000 dwellings to be sustainable. Furthermore, the length of time necessary to deliver a new settlement, plus the lack of other housing allocations in the Plan, would mean that housing delivery in the early / mid Plan period would be severely restricted and this would not help address the present housing land supply deficit.

Draft PPW (Edition 10) also states

Para 2.61 Due to their strategic nature new settlements or major urban extensions of 1,000 or more dwellings, which will have significance beyond a single local authority, should only be proposed as part of a joint LDP, SDP or the NDF.

Papa 2.62 New settlements should only be proposed where such development would offer significant environmental, social, cultural and economic advantages over the further expansion or regeneration of existing settlements and the potential delivery of a large number of homes is supported by all the facilities, jobs and services that people need in order to create a Sustainable Place. They need to be self-contained and not dormitory towns for overspill from larger urban areas

Despite the above, the option of major extension consisting of potentially less than 1000 units could still be progressed. Therefore, this option is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant being carried forward to a short list of options.

YES