inside/outside - the winchester housing challenge
DESCRIPTION
A presentation on how Winchester might deliver it housing numbers.TRANSCRIPT
Inside/Outside
Where will we put all the houses?
The Old Coach House
80
166
341
569
1829
20302280
2103 2474
659
1950
2475
2461
2134
2081
1846
1801
1827
2545
2548
25462549
2557
2558
2556
2461
2547
2539
2543
2559
2560
2013
2490
2023
2541
2489
416
2437
2536
2022
420
2444
417
2014 2426
2026
2550
2417
423
2420
2421
2470
The Old Coach House
80
166
341
569
1829
20302280
2103 2474
659
1950
2475
2461
2134
2081
1846
1801
1827
2545
2548
25462549
2557
2558
2556
2461
2547
2539
2543
2559
2560
2013
2490
2023
2541
2489
416
2437
2536
2022
420
2444
417
2014 2426
2026
2550
2417
423
2420
2421
2470
The sugges7on is that all the ci7es housing supply can be delivered within the Se=lement Boundary. On this basis no sites outside the se=lement boundary are required.
This is a presump7on in favour densifica)on. This is a presump7on in favour of infill. This is a presump7on in favour of a saturated city. This is a big presump)on…
• presump)on prɪˈzʌm(p)ʃ(ə)n/ noun
1. an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability. "underlying presump7ons about human nature" the acceptance of something as true although it is not known for certain. "the presump7on of innocence” 2. behaviour perceived as arrogant, disrespecOul, and transgressing the limits of what is permi=ed or appropriate.
Is this deliverable, is this desirable?
Inside is complex and constrained Inside: Silver Hill – 300 down to 180 Police HQ – 297 down to 150 Fire Sta)on – 45 down to 16 On just 3 sites down 296 units Outside: Barton Farm – 2000 down to 2000
Is inside deliverable?
Site si^ing inside the Se=lement Boundary
• Si^ing criteria
• Case Studies
Financial Viability Suitability Availability
Amenity/ Agricultural loss Constraints
Access/ Road capacity Complexity
Un sustainable loca7on
Double counted Biodiversity Impact
SHLAA 80 Viability!
SHLAA ref
Area Gross (Ha)
Area Net (Ha) Density Ra7o
WCC Es7mate Housing Comments
Predicted ra7o
Predicted Net gain
80 0.2 0.2 50 1 10 Trees, CA, viability 0 5
Financial Viability Appraisal#
SHLAA 2539 Suitability/Employment loss!
SHLAA ref
Area Gross (Ha)
Area Net (Ha) Density Ra7o
WCC Es7mate Housing Comments
Predicted ra7o
Predicted Net gain
2539 1.38 1.38 40 0.8 44 Industrial estate and requires change of use. RPZ's, levels 1 44
Appraisal Summary#
Winchester SHLAA Assessment Table 34
INSIDE SETTLEMENT
WCC Target 421
SHLAA ref
Area Gross (Ha)
Area Net (Ha) Density Ra7o
WCC Es7mate Housing Comments
Predicted ra7o
Predicted Net gain Red Amber Green
Financial Viability Suitability Availability
Amenity/ Agricultural loss Constraints Access Complexity
Distance to centre
Double counted Biodiversity
80 0.2 0.2 50 1 10 Trees, CA, Viability 0.5 5 5 2 1 166 0.2 0.18 50 1 9 Social Housing, garages 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 341 0.4 0.12 50 1 6 Loss city centre site, loss carpark, 1 6 6 1
569 0.3 0.26 50 1 13 Access costs, proximity to prison, previously undeveloped. 1 13 13 1
659 0.2 0.2 50 1.2 12 Low values and complex site 1 12 12 1 1801 0.4 0.4 50 0.9 18 Chilbolten precedent 1 18 18 1827 0.5 0.5 50 0.95 24 Use value and viability, see 1829 1 24 24 1 1 1829 0.8 0.75 50 0.9 34 Hospital land swap with 1827 1 34 34
1846 0.2 0.2 50 1 10 Low value and complex geometry, loss of garages 0.7 7 7 1 1
1950 0.1 0.1 50 1 5 Beau7ful site, relocate rowing club 1 5 5 1 1951 0.4 0.35 50 0.9 16 Flood plain, biodiversity and trees 0.8 13 13 1 1 2009 0.4 0.35 50 1 18 Double counted in Sta7on masterplan? 0 0 0 2 2030 0.4 0.4 50 1 20 Access, Trees, Use value 0.5 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2072 0.2 0 75 1 0 -‐ 0.5 0 0 2 2081 0.4 0.12 50 1 6 Could be higher by design 1.9 11 11 1 2103 0.2 0.2 33 1 7 Access, Trees, Complexity 0.6 4 4 1 1 2104 0.6 0.23 50 0.9 10 Access, Residual Value, Trees 0.5 5 5 1 1 1 1 2134 0.5 0.47 38 0.9 16 Grounds listed building, CA, Access 0.8 13 13 1 1 2280 0.3 0.25 50 1 13 Access, Trees, Use value 0.5 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2450 0.4 0.4 75 1 30 Double counted in Sta7on Masterplan 0 0 0 2
2461 0.1 0.1 50 1.1 6 Exis7ng buildings on site, grounds listed buildings, CA, no net gain? 0 0 0 1 1
2471 0.1 0.075 40 1 3 Trees and geometry 0.3 1 1 1 1
2474 1.1 0.43 40 0.8 14
Replacement of 8 exis7ng and access through centre. Net gain and viability affected 0.45 6 6 2
2475 0.1 0.065 32 1 2 Could increase number by design 2 4 4
2013 sites
SHLAA ref
Area Gross (Ha)
Area Net (Ha) Density Ra7o
WCC Es7mate Housing Comments
Predicted ra7o
Predicted Net gain Red Amber Green
Financial Viability Suitability Availability
Amenity/ Agricultural loss Constraints Access Complexity
Distance to centre
Double counted Biodiversity
2539 1.38 1.38 40 0.8 44 Industrial estate and requires change of use. RPZ's, levels 1 44 44 1 2 2 2
2542 0.8 0.8 40 0.9 29 Tree, complexity. 0.9 26 26 1 0.5 0.5
2543 0.18 0.18 50 0.75 7 Winchester College and CA, constraints, trees, and use value 0.6 4 4 1 2 1 2
2544 0.18 0.18 50 0.75 7 Trees, access, CA, use value 0.8 5 5 1 1 1 2545 0.56 0.56 50 0.9 25 CA, Trees 0.9 23 23 1 2546 0.067 0.067 50 1 3 Winchester College, CA, Trees. 0.6 2 2 1
2547 0.152 0.152 50 1 8 Winchester College and CA, Trees, Grounds Listed Buildings 0.8 6 6 1
2548 0.485 0.485 50 0.9 22 Winchester Colege, CA, Trees, Compexity and exis7ng use value 0.8 17 17 1
2549 0.093 0.093 50 1 5 Replacement of exis7ng recrea7on use? 1 5 5 1 2550 0.06 0.06 40 1 2 Protected and complex site 1 2 2
2556 0.188 0.188 75 1 14 CA, Replacement dwelling so no/low net gain? Actual applica7on increaes numbers. 1.9 27 27
2557 0.186 0.186 50 1 9 WCC social housing 1 9 9 2558 0.368 0.368 40 1 15 WCC social housing 1 15 15 2559 0.086 0.086 75 1 6 Has planning? 1 6 6 1
2560 0.228 0.228 50 1 11 Winchester College, CA, Trees and Use Value 1 11 11
507 409 76 55 279
Deliverable units 409 334 279
ShorOall 12 87 142
The Old Coach House
659
1950
2475
2461
2134
2081
1846
1801
1827
2545
2548
25462549
2557
2558
2556
2461
2547
Inside city boundary Amber sites off Green only
Red and Amber sites removed = 279!
Sites inside city boundary!
We have a shorOall
Housing supply deficit: WCC target of 421 less 279 deliverable units 142 shorVall within seXlement boundary
Development inside the city boundary
Pros – Perceived proximity to facili7es – Protec7on of countryside
Cons
– Impact on exis7ng residents (Objec7ons) – Impact on character (Conserva7on Area has most SHLAA sites) – Code 5 unviable – 40% Affordable Housing unviable – Contextual constraints on density – Financial costs/risk – Archeology
Site si^ing outside the Se=lement Boundary
Sustainable location#
OUTSIDE SETTLEMENT
SHLAA ref
Area Gross (Ha)
Area Net (Ha) Density Ra7o
WCC Es7mate Housing Comments
Predicted ra7o
Predicted Net gain Red Amber Green
Financial Viability Suitability Availability
Amenity/ Agricultural loss Constraints
Access/ Road capacity Complexity
Un sustainable loca7on
Double counted Biodiversity Impact
416 5 0 40 1 0 SINC, access, TPO's 1 0 0 2 2 2 417 5.7 5.7 40 0.6 137 Adjacent to SINC 1 137 137 1 1 1 418 165 60.85 40 0.5 1217 Greenfield 1 1217 1217 2 2 419 6 6 40 0.6 144 Loca7on, TPO's and access 0.5 72 72 1 1 1 1 1
420 68.6 68.55 40 0.5 1371 Loca7on, Golf course use, Ground listed building, impact. 1 1371 1371 2 1 2 2
423 0.9 0.9 40 0.9 32 Infill but local gap. They show 33, land owner wants 4 units, 0.15 5 5 0.5
424 2.6 2.57 40 0.65 67 Infill frontage, local gap, local character 0.75 50 50 1 0.5 1 501 2.1 2.1 40 0.65 55 Impact SDNP, distance to centre 1 55 55 2 2
1831 1.7 1.67 40 0.75 50 Exis7ng industrial uses, proximity to motorway 1 50 50 1 2 2 1 1 1 1937 128.9 128.9 31.035 0.5 2000 Barton Farm Granted 0 0 0 1951 0.4 0.375 40 1 15 CA, SINC, Floodplain, Exis7ng use 1 15 15 2 2 1 1 2 2013 11.2 11.2 40 0.5 224 Loca7on, Trees, 1 224 224 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2014 1.9 1.9 40 0.75 57 Exis7ng house value, TPO and adjacent SINC 0.8 46 46 1 1 2 1 1 2021 9.2 8.55 40 0.5 171 Greenfield 1 171 171 2022 16.3 16.25 40 0.5 325 Unsustainable loca7on, access, impact 1 325 325 2 1 2 1 1 2023 9.3 9.3 40 0.5 186 Greenfield 1 186 186 2026 1.3 0 40 1 0 SINC, Slope, trees, access 0.75 35 35 1 1 1 1 2 2394 71.8 71.84 40 0.5 1437 Loca7on, Prime agricultural land 1 1437 1437 2 1 1 2
2417 5.7 4.5 40 0.6 108 Recrea7on use, local oposi7on, floodplain, TPO's, SDNP key views 1 108 108 1 1 1 1 1
2420 0.3 0.3 40 1.2 14 Good sites. Setng of listed building and employment loss. 0.8 12 12 1 1
2421 0.1 0.1 50 1.2 6 Grounds of listed building 1 6 6 1 2426 0.8 0.8 40 0.9 29 Trees with TPO 0.8 23 23 1 2 1 2437 0.6 0.6 40 0.95 23 SDNP, unsustainable loca7on 1 23 23 2 2 2 2444 4.4 4.35 40 0.6 104 Touches se=lement 1 104 104 2470 0.3 0.3 40 1.2 14 Likely social housing 1 14 14 1 2479 0.2 0.15 40 1 6 NOT LISTED 0 0 2486 5 5 40 0.605 121 Dykes Farm in SDNP 1 121 121 0.5 1 2489 3.5 3.45 40 0.65 90 Local gap, impact, biodiversity 1 90 90 2 0.5 2 2490 26.8 26.8 40 0.5 536 Adjacent to SINC, loca7on, access 1 536 536 2 1 1 1 1 1 2507 18.93 18.93 40 0.5 379 Local Gap with Headbourne worthy 1 379 379 2 2 2 2536 1.28 1.28 40 0.8 41 Flood plain, biodiversity 0.5 20 20 2 2 2 2 2537 0.34 0.34 40 1 14 1 granted replacement dwelling 0 0 0 2
2538 0.965 0.965 40 0.9 35 Greenfield and separated from se=lement 1 35 35 2 2 2 2 2540 512.8 512.8 40 0.5 10256 Greenfield and distance from centre 1 10256 10256 2 2 2 2 2541 13.08 13.08 40 0.5 262 Greenfield/asymetry of city 1 262 262 1 2 1 1 2550 0.0633 0.0633 40 1 3 Public open space 1 3 3 1 2551 0.083 0.083 40 1 3 Exis7ng use 1 3 3 1 1 19531 17389 16631 544 214
The Old Coach House
659
1950
2475
2461
2134
2081
1846
1801
1827
2545
2548
25462549
2557
2558
2556
2461
2547
423
2420
2421
2470
Sites inside and outside city boundary!
Combined capacity = 279 inside + 214 outside = 493!
493 deliverable less 421 target = 72 surplus
Only with the inclusion of suitable sites outside the SeXlement Boundary are the housing
numbers confidently deliverable.
Is this desirable?
Development outside the city boundary
Pros
– Proximity to facili7es – Limited impact on exis7ng residents ( Less Objec7ons) – Posi7ve impact on character and approaches to city – (Outside Conserva7on Area) – Improved access to the countryside – Code 5 viable – 40% Affordable Housing viable – Limited contextual constraints on density
Cons – Loss of low grade countryside
The tyranny of the ‘or’
Inside or outside Cellular renewal or comprehensive development
The beauty of the ‘and’
Inside and outside Cellular renewal and comprehensive development
Where are the best sites?
Winchester 2020
1895
1895
?
• Not all countryside is the same. Some7mes the countryside is less precious than the town.
• Some7mes the countryside is closer to town than the town!
• Some7mes the countryside is more viable and deliverable than the town.
• We need to carefully consider the most appropriate loca7ons for development on a case by case basis.
• We need to consider development in the east of the city.
• We need to consider sites inside and outside the se=lement boundary.
• We need to avoid planning by appeal.
Development outside the se=lement boundary can on occasions be be=er than development inside the se=lement boundary.
Its 7me to forget the planners black line on the map and look for land on a case by case basis.