TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL (“TDC” or “Council”)
VIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF GREENFIELD SITES IN THE TENDRING DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
Issued by the Council on 4 July 2013
If you are interested in submitting a quotation please complete and email this form as your quotation to our email address:-
by the deadline of mid-day on THURSDAY 11THJULY 2013
Quotations will only be accepted by this method and any submissions sent to an alternative email address will not be considered.
As the email address will remain locked until after the deadline please ensure you direct any queries to email address or telephone number 01255 686115.
Company Name:
………………………………………………………………………………………
Company Address:-
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………….
Email Address:-
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Telephone Number:-
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Tendring District Council are seeking quotations for the testing of greenfield housing sites within Tendring is a continuation of the on-going process to establish if a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be charged, whilst ensuring that Affordable Housing Policy and other related Section 106 demands and general requirements of planning policy are both affordable and deliverable by the private sector. This work is an essential part of the evidence base for the Local Plan.
The viability assessment will include a representative sample of greenfield sites across the district e.g:
Jaywick Lane/Rush Green Road, Clacton;
Centenary Way, Clacton;
Turpins Farm, Frinton;
Pond Hall Farm, Dovercourt (residential only);
Bromley Road, Lawford;
Robinson Road, Brightlingsea;
A few examples from the Key Rural Service Centres?
For each of these, the assessment should test the ‘best case’ scenario (from the Council’s point of view).
The new SHMA suggests we need the following over 16 years.
Market / Shared/O / Afford-Rent / Social-R1 bed / 868 / 9 / 515 / 102 / 1494
2 bed / 2657 / 121 / 699 / 31 / 3508
3 bed / 3884 / 124 / 420 / 190 / 4618
4+ bed / 941 / 52 / 137 / 230 / 1360
8350 / 306 / 1771 / 553 / 10980
In percentage terms this is:
Market / Shared/O / Afford-Rent / Social-R1 bed / 8.00% / 0.00% / 5.00% / 1.00% / 14%
2 bed / 24.00% / 1.00% / 6.00% / 0.00% / 31%
3 bed / 35.00% / 1.00% / 4.00% / 2.00% / 42%
4+ bed / 9.00% / 1.00% / 1.00% / 2.00% / 13%
76% / 3% / 16% / 5% / 10980
So, in applying the revised policies (which broadly follow the SHMA advice), we would want to test the following mix:
6% 1 bed market housing (of which 75% would be 50sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 100sqm aspirational)
19% 2 bed market housing (of which 75% would be 83sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 166sqm aspirational)
40% 3 bed market housing (of which 75% would be 96sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 192sqm aspirational)
10% 4 bed market housing (of which 75% would be 107sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 214sqm aspirational)
6% 1 bed affordable (@65% market value) (of which 75% would be 50sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 100sqm aspirational)
7% 2 bed affordable (@65% market value) (of which 75% would be 83sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 166sqm aspirational)
7% 3 bed affordable (@65% market value) (of which 75% would be 96sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 192sqm aspirational)
5% 4 bed affordable (@65% market value) (of which 75% would be 107sqm gross internal floor area and 25% would be 214sqm aspirational)
The assessment should identify which sites (if any) are viable in applying these requirements and, if so, how much money, if any, could be extracted for CIL.
If it is viable in any of the areas (which it might not be), then we only need to test alternative scenarios (less affordable/affordable at 80% market value, lower size standards etc) for areas where it is not – through a later commission.
Please note that the final decision will be made based on price, deliverability and quality of service.