knebworth sites appraisal reportknebworthoptionsreport.org/documents/knebworth sites... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 2 of 19
CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PLANNING ISSUES 3.0 OPPORTUNITIES 4.0 FUNDING SOLUTIONS 5.0 SITES 6.0 OPTIONS APPENDIX 1 COST ESTIMATE: LOWES NEW BUILDING APPENDIX 2 COMMUNITY BUILDING (ILLUSTRATIVE) APPENDIX 3 DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL: LOWES SITE APPENDIX 4 LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY STUDY DIAGRAMS APPENDIX 5 LDF BACKGROUND PAPER SITES PLAN APPENDIX 6 – OPTION SITES AND ANALYSIS PLANS
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 3 of 19
1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to investigate the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of
various possible sites for development within and around Knebworth village. It has been
commissioned by Knebworth Parish Council to aid public discussion about the future
development of the village.
1.2 This report arises from work undertaken in respect of the Knebworth Parish Plan (First Edition
April 2007) which has identified a number of priorities and ideas to improve the social,
economic and environmental wellbeing of the Parish of Knebworth in line with the wishes of
the parish community. In addition, recent work in support of the North Hertfordshire District
Council Local Development Framework has suggested that Knebworth is one of the most
sustainable villages in the area - yet its future development is constrained by infrastructure
capacity. Taken together these two factors have stimulated the Parish to investigate whether
there is scope for an appropriate level of development to take place within and around the
village in order to overcome the infrastructure constraints and deliver community benefits.
Village Context
1.3 The village of Knebworth sits within a part of the county that is both highly attractive yet
subject to considerable development pressures. The village has a high standard of
accessibility, with a centrally located railway station and close proximity to the A1(M)
motorway. It is contained by the Metropolitan Green Belt. This has a presumption against
new development on Greenfield sites other than in very special circumstances.
1.4 Housing and infrastructure pressures in the area however continue to increase. Not only is
there an underlying high level of demand for new housing, particularly for affordable housing,
but the area is also subject to change as a result of central Government policy. For example,
nearby Stevenage is identified as a Key Growth Centre.
Relationship to the Parish Plan
1.5 At the instigation of Knebworth Parish Council, a Knebworth Parish Plan has been produced.
This is defined as being a statement of how the community sees itself in its future. Based
upon extensive local community involvement, the plan sought to identify local problems and
opportunities and thus prepare a plan of action for tackling the issues raised. The Parish Plan
has identified a number of priorities, including tackling traffic congestion in the village,
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 4 of 19
resolving the future of the Chas Lowe builders yard, maintaining and supporting a high
standard of primary school provision within the Parish etc. In terms of housing development,
the Plan seeks to preserve Knebworth’s essence as a rural parish. However, it also
acknowledges that there is a need to achieve a balance between local and national housing
needs. Taken together, this suggests that an appropriate level of development may be
acceptable if it were to meet local needs and help overcome identified problems to the benefit
of the community as a whole.
The Local Development Framework
1.6 North Hertfordshire District Council, as local planning authority, have responsibility for
development land allocations and control within the Knebworth area. Their policies are
regularly reviewed. The latest update is via the emerging Local Development Framework for
the area.
1.7 The new Local Development Framework (LDF) will set out the Council’s planning policies and
spatial vision for the District as a whole. It will also allocate land for housing and other land
uses and provide detailed guidance on other planning related matters. It will replace the
previous system of Local Plans. Some parts of the Local Plan will continue to be used until
replaced by the Local Development Framework. The LDF has to find room for 6200 new
dwellings within the District over the period 2001 – 2021. The provision and distribution of
new housing is a very delicate issue, as it has to reconcile the growth proposed with
maintaining the character of the district. The proposed housing will need to be carefully
planned to ensure that it becomes well integrated into the existing communities. Around
some settlements this will require the release of Greenfield land. Green Belt reviews will be
carried out where necessary to enable this to take place. National policy requires though that
Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances to maintain the
degree of permanence that Green Belts should have, so if altered under this LDF it is not
expected that a review should take place again for a significant length of time – perhaps
another ten years or so.
1.9 The District Council have recently held a consultation about two parts of the Local
Development Framework namely the Core Strategy and Development Policies. This is the
second stage in preparing these documents following an initial “Issues and Options” stage in
2005/6. The most recent stage, which expresses “Preferred Options”, acknowledges that
Knebworth is North Hertfordshire’s largest village and the only one with a station actually
within it. Knebworth has the best range of shops amongst the North Hertfordshire villages
and it is probably “the most sustainable village in the district therefore should be allowed to
grow a modest amount to take advantage of the existing facilities”.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 5 of 19
1.10 The District Council will now prepare another draft of their strategy. This will be submitted to
the Secretary of State, who arranges an independent examination of the document to assess
if it is “sound”. Any changes that are made by the Inspector at this stage must be carried out
prior to the plan being finally adopted. Based on their view about Knebworth as expressed
above, the District Council officers have indicated informally that in respect of Knebworth they
may consider further changes to the plan before it is submitted to the Secretary of State if a
strong case can be made to this effect. The current debate, of which this report forms part,
therefore is an important part of this process. If the District Council can be convinced of the
merits of an appropriate scale of enabling development in and around the village, then they
will give very careful consideration to the inclusion of this within the next stage of the Local
Development Framework. If this happens, then not only does this set a mechanism for
controlling any new development but it will also significantly enhance the prospect of it being
delivered.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 6 of 19
2.0 LOCAL ISSUES Issues arising from Parish Plan – the Chas Lowe site
2.1 The Chas Lowe site is at the centre of the village on London Road close to the junction with
Station Road. It has an area of approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre). The site only has
frontage to London Road. This is used for both deliveries and customers. Given its limited
size and the difficulty of safely turning vehicles within the site and restricted storage areas etc,
this leads to congestion on London Road itself. Lowes have publicly acknowledged that they
have outgrown the site and are keen to find more suitable premises within the local area.
Given that Lowes occupies a strategically important location in the centre of the village, and
that it faces difficulties in its operation and impacts, the Parish Plan supports the relocation of
Chas Lowes as a high priority objective.
Community Provision
2.2 The Parish Plan identifies a number of other high priority issues within the village in addition
to the relocation of Lowes yard. These included maintaining and improving local services -
such as the GP surgery, dealing with concerns about traffic and parking and the limited
capacity of the primary school. The Parish Plan raises the possibility of building a new mixed
use community centre. This would act as a village focal meeting point and potentially provide
accommodation for local amenities, such as a GP surgery etc.
Parking
2.3 Knebworth is a vibrant village with many of its facilities concentrated in its central area which
results in a traditional bustling “high street”. This though leads to significant congestion and
high demand for car parking. Particular hot spots include Lowes yard and the primary school.
The Parish Plan has thus supported the promotion of initiatives to reduce congestion and
provide an appropriate level of additional car parking where it helps relieve existing problems.
Sewerage
2.4 As already described, the District Council are in the process of preparing the new Local
Development Framework for North Hertfordshire. As part of this process a series of
background papers has been produced. These provide an evidence base for the proposed
LDF policies. Although the Local Development Framework acknowledges that Knebworth
could be allowed to grow by a modest amount, such growth is constrained by available
infrastructure capacity. In general, Thames Water has concerns about waste water services
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 7 of 19
in and around Knebworth village. Following discussions with Thames Water, the advice
reflected in the Transport and Utilities Constraints Background Paper (August 2007) concerns
the strategic trunk sewer capacity for the area. The surrounding area is one within which
considerable growth is already taking place, eg at West Stevenage. Sewerage is dealt with at
Rye Meads Sewerage Treatment Works near Hoddesdon. The works and the trunk sewers
leading into it are close to capacity. Therefore, the Water Companies have expressed
concern about their ability to cope with further major development until further capacity is
provided or alternative strategies for dealing with the sewerage are worked out.
Consequently in the meanwhile Thames Water have expressed concerns about further major
development in certain locations, such as Knebworth, until such a strategy is established.
This would mean that any development proposed of any significant scale would have to work
out its own detailed assessment to determine its level of impact on the sewerage system to
establish what, if any, additional works will need to be carried out.
Education Provision
2.5 The Transport and Utilities Constraints Background Paper suggests that the Primary School
cannot absorb additional children. The background paper suggests that given that Knebworth
Primary School is the only school within the village, it faces high demand. The forecast is that
it will be nearly full in the coming years, then this will act as a significant constraint upon
further major development in the village. The Background Paper goes on to conclude that,
unless additional capacity can be found, primary school places for children arising from
significant new development cannot be accommodated.
2.6 These findings should not be treated as absolute. Much depends upon demographic
changes over the years and school rolls. These rise and fall. In addition, the number of
additional school places arising from development can only be accurately calculated once an
actual scheme has been fixed. However, it is acknowledged that this is an ongoing issue and
that there is limited capacity within the primary school. This capacity can only be increased
through the provision of an extension to the school or indeed its eventual relocation.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 8 of 19
3.0 OPPORTUNITIES Relocating Lowes
3.1 Supporting the relocation of the Chas Lowe site away from the centre of the village would
bring advantage in itself through a reduction in congestion. It would also, of course, release
an important site for redevelopment.
3.2 The company have indicated that they would do this if they can continue trading, expand and
improve their service. This would mean finding a new site - within the local area - that will
support their customer base and will be convenient for existing employees. The basic
requirements for such a relocation are:
• A site of around 2 acres in size
• Good access to a main road (the B197 ideally)
• An efficient layout
• A viable relocation funding package.
3.3 To maintain continuity of trading the relocation of Chas Lowe would require the new site to be
secured and developed before the existing site could be shut down and released for
redevelopment. This means that additional finance costs would be involved to cover the
costs of the new development whilst still operating the existing site. Importantly, it also
means that there must be certainty of the relocation site being delivered and completed from
the outset.
3.4 Chas Lowe have been actively looking for relocation sites for some time. The currently
preferred site is considered in further detail later in this report. The estimated cost of building
a suitable new facility is around £1.86M, excluding land cost (see Appendix 3).
Regenerating the Lowes site
3.5 The release of the Lowes site for alternative use would be of benefit to the village as a whole.
The current Local Plan (1996) envisages that it could have capacity to be regenerated for
‘mixed use development’ (housing, shopping, employment). The District Council’s latest
Housing Capacity Update (November 2006) suggests capacity for at least 16 dwellings.
Depending on choice of design this capacity could be higher. As a brownfield site within the
existing urban area this would be consistent with existing plan policy. Consequently, this
suggests that a residential land value could be achieved if the site were to be marketed.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 9 of 19
Given that such sites are rare then it can reasonably be expected that marketing would attract
a premium land value. The redevelopment of the site is not without issues however. For
example, its historic use means that it is likely to be subject to some degree of land
contamination (from fuel oil etc). Furthermore, if it were to be used for residential purposes it
would also need to satisfy strict planning criteria in respect of its design, contributions towards
local infrastructure, education, affordable housing etc.
3.6 As suggested by the Parish Plan, in the alternative, the Lowes site might be put to beneficial
use to provide a range of community facilities. Preliminary design proposals have been put
forward for this which might include a new community centre, village green etc (see
Appendix 2). Given that a pre-requisite of the relocation of the Chas Lowe business is that it
is able to fund the acquisition and development of a suitable, viable and available new site
then if the site were to be used for community benefit this would only happen if it were
acquired for a sufficient market value. This would be similar to its alternative residential
value. The cost of the new community facilities on the site would then also have to be met. If
some of these were to be in the form of commercial development (e.g. a café/restaurant for
example) this could be appraised as being viable in its own right. However, new community
facilities such as a centre or surgery would have to meet their own capital costs and ongoing
revenue needs.
3.7 Providing new community facilities on the Chas Lowe site is not the only option available. It
could be feasible for new community facilities to form similarly part of regeneration or
redevelopment schemes elsewhere in the village. However, these would face similar issues
in terms of the opportunity cost of redevelopment of existing sites. Despite the clear virtues of
the Chas Lowe site there may also be some logic in not putting “all of the eggs in one basket”.
If community benefit could be provided in an equally good location elsewhere - without being
dependent upon the relocation of the existing business - then this will also be worthy of further
investigation.
Enabling Development
3.8 However applied, the concept has therefore been put forward of establishing some form of
enabling development strategy. Under this, the release of land on the periphery of the village
could be used to generate enough funds to deliver the new community facilities in the centre
of the village and overcome infrastructure constraints etc. Under the alternative scenario the
relocation of the Lowes site would be self funded through its regeneration for housing
purposes and meeting community ambitions and infrastructure requirements would have to
be met elsewhere out of gains achieved from the sites released.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 10 of 19
3.9 The cost of acquiring the Chas Lowe site having regard to its current estimated open market
value, would be in the region of £2M. This assumes the planning permission can be gained
for 19, 3-bedroom houses. An appraisal is attached at Appendix 3. The cost of building a
new community facility of the type illustrated in Appendix 2 would add at least a further
£0.75M. This figure has been calculated using the BCJS Quarterly Review of Building Price
(January 2007, issue no. 104). This identified community centres as costing £110.21/sq.ft
giving a total build cost of approximately £610,000. Due to the possible contamination of the
site, this build cost has been increased to £750,000 to allow for the remediation of the site.
Therefore, in addition to any infrastructure costs, the contribution of new development to
enable the regeneration scheme to be achieved would have to be in the order of £2.75M.
Greenfield land values in the Knebworth area with permission for residential use are currently
in the region of £1.8M per acre net of Section 106 costs. Put another way the equivalent of
around 1.5 acres of unconstrained Greenfield land would have to be given over as “planning
gain” to fund the type of community scheme envisaged.
3.10 Two thirds of the land at the edge of Knebworth Village is owned by Knebworth Estates,
which, at a public open meeting in October 2006, offered that, if residential development was
required at Knebworth’s village-edge by the LDF, it would look to donate the proceeds to
Parish Charities as long as the Knebworth House Education and Preservation Trust was a
priority. Other private land is also being promoted for development in and around the village,
which could also contribute towards satisfying community aims.
3.11 In terms of overcoming infrastructure costs, this is harder to estimate without considering an
actual scheme, of course. In circumstances where proposed residential development is
projected to generate an oversupply of pupils to schools within reasonable proximity,
developers will be expected to contribute towards the provision of education facilities,
services and management. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to apply a Section
106 agreement to improve existing facilities where they fall below acceptable standards.
Based on recent experience elsewhere, and using the latest cost multipliers advised by
Government, then a contribution of around £2,500 per unit for primary education would arise.
This excludes land value. In the case of Knebworth, if acquisition of additional land was
required to extend the school, then this would be a further cost at market value.
3.12 Sewerage costs are a complex issue, depending on which route is used for the provision of
services under the Water Acts. Besides direct costs, in this instance a ‘per roof’ tax is
expected to meet indirect costs, i.e. upgrading of the trunk sewer and works etc. This is now
known as a Community Infrastructure Levy.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 11 of 19
3.13 The issue is met through the net value paid for sites. Based on recent local transactions,
these are reflected in the net value expressed above.
Footnote:
This advice has been carried out very much on a “desk top” basis and is an expression of opinion. It is not to be
relied upon by any third parties and is not to be construed as a Red Book Valuation. Certain assumptions have been
made with regard to the design, density, cost of remediation, planning and costs in respect to the proposed
residential development, new builders yard and community centre.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 12 of 19
4.0 FUNDING SOLUTIONS Local Authority Enabling Funding
4.1 Informal discussions with District and County Council officers suggest that it is unlikely that
early and sufficient funding resources could be made available within Knebworth to achieve
the type of development and infrastructure improvements sought. In general, it is also the
case where there is the opportunity to meet such costs through private sector development
initiatives, then this should be fully explored before seeking to draw on limited public monies.
Brownfield Enabling Development
4.2 Knebworth is surrounded by the statutory Metropolitan Green Belt. As already pointed out,
the presumption made by planning policy is that such land should be protected from
development other than in very exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, Government
policy encourages the regeneration and recycling of brownfield sites in sustainable locations.
Therefore if enabling development is to be identified the starting point ought to be to look to
see if appropriate brownfield sites can be identified within the village.
4.3 Knebworth is relatively small in comparison to most surrounding urban areas. Consequently,
it is not surprising that few brownfield sites can be identified within it. The District Council’s
Housing Capacity Update of November 2006 only identified a handful of very small sites that
might be released. Excluding the Lowes site itself, these were estimated to only have
capacity for a handful of sites (excluding current planning permissions). It would seem
unlikely that such few sites would generate enough “planning gain” to fund the required
development.
Greenfield Enabling Development
4.4 If the District Council were to advocate and promote a relaxation of the Green Belt in order to
release land for enabling development then not only must it be of sufficient scale to achieve
the required results but it may also be appropriate in its own terms. Consequently, it would
have to satisfy general planning objectives in respect of such matters as landscape impact,
containment, avoiding coalescence etc. So, it is not a case that any site will do. Significant
care will have to be taken to ensure that the most appropriate site is brought forward in the
right manner to achieve the required results.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 13 of 19
5.0 DEVELOPMENT SITES 5.1 In considering ‘greenfield’ enabling development three types of site have been defined:
i. Relocation site(s)
ii. Sites identified via the LDF process, and
iii. Other possibilities.
Relocation Site(s)
5.2 These comprise potential sites to accommodate Chas Lowe. As already described, the basic
criteria are that they must fit the needs of the business i.e. in terms of location, scale etc. This
very much restricts the number of suitable sites within the local area. One has been put
forward so far – Woolmer Green Field.
LDF Sites
5.3 As part of the background work to the LDF preparation, the District Council carried out a
Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study. This study considered the landscape’s ability to
accommodate development and impact on nature conservation. It made no distinction
between the Green Belt and non-Green Belt land, examining all peripheral sites regardless of
current use. Extracts from the study are contained at Appendix 4.
5.4 The similar Transport and Utilities Constraints Background Paper took a different approach by
undertaking a site based sieving exercise. This involved the consideration of various housing
options in terms of those sites most likely to be released and possibly released. This is being
used for the basis of consultation with the various utility providers, etc. The results of this
exercise is shown on the plan contained in Appendix 5.
Other Possibilities
5.5 In addition to the work undertaken on the LDF so far, other land around the village could
possibly be considered for development. The suggestion has been made that there may be
cause in Knebworth to examine possible sites beyond those highlighted by the LDF. For
instance, by redrawing field boundaries or contemplating parish/district boundary adjustment,
other possibilities may arise. It has been thought appropriate, whilst core strategy is being
assessed to consider three such sites as examples in this appraisal.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 14 of 19
5.6 Each of these different types of site – relocation, LDF and other possibilities – has its own
advantages and disadvantages in terms of delivering appropriate enabling development.
Sites
5.7 The following sites have been identified, and are shown on the plan forming Appendix 6;
a) Lowes relocation
Site 1 – Woolmer Green Field
b) LDF sites
Site 2 – Gypsy Lane Field
Site 3 – Watton Road Field
Site 4 – Swangleys Field
c) Other possibilities
Site 5 – South Knebworth Field
Site 6 – Oakfield Extension
Site 7 – Park Lane Field.
Site 1 – Woolmer Green Field
5.7 Site area ; 1.6 ha (3.96 acres)
Ownership; Knebworth Estates
Capacity ; n/a
Value range; n/a
Advantages ;
- suitable site size for Chas Lowe relocation
- acceptable business location for Lowes
- extension of existing employment area
- self contained, infill site
Disadvantages;
- Green Belt
- Two councils involved
- Perceived Coalescence
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 15 of 19
Comments;
This is an attractive, suitable and available business location . If coordinated with the release
of the existing Lowes site , it could provide sufficient justification for the release of this Green
Belt site.
Site 2- Gypsy Lane Field
5.8 Site area : 9.79 ha (24.18 acres) gross
Ownership ; Knebworth Estates
Capacity ; 342 dwellings
Value range ; £40-45M
Advantages;
- identified as holding potential in LDF
- low/moderate landscape impact
- contained by existing urban area and motorway
Disadvantages;
- traffic congestion/access
- noise constraint
- sewerage
- school capacity
Comments;
A large ,well contained site of sufficient scale to provide a significant level of ‘planning gain ‘ .
Site 3 – Watton Road Field
5.9 Site Area ; 4.22 ha (10.42 acres) gross
Ownership ; Wallace Family
Capacity ; 147
Value Range ; £18-£21M
Advantages ;
- identified via the LDF
- low/moderate landscape impact
- contained by existing roads/lanes
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 16 of 19
Disadvantages;
- traffic congestion
- sewerage
- school capacity
Comments;
A significant ,well contained site that could provide an appropriate level of ‘planning gain’.
Site 4 – Swangleys Field
5.10 Site Area ; 5.68 ha (14.04 acres) gross
Ownership ; Wallace Family
Capacity; 198
Value Range ; £25-£28M
Advantages;
- identified via the LDF
- moderate landscape impact
- proximity to school
- could provide school expansion land
Disadvantages;
- traffic congestion
- sewerage
- school capacity
- Open countryside beyond
Comment ; A significant site that could provide an appropriate level of ‘planning gain ‘
Site 5 – South Knebworth Field
5.11 Site area; 13.75 ha (33.97 acres) gross
Ownership ; Knebworth Estates
Capacity; 481
Value Range ; £61-£68M
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 17 of 19
Advantages;
- consistent with Lutyens design
- could accommodate other uses , eg secondary school, cemetery extension,
woodland park etc.
Disadvantages;
- coalescence with Woolmer Green
- access would need to cross railway from B197
- straddles District boundaries.
- Sewerage
- School capacity
Comments;
A very large site that has lots of potential yet raises significant strategic planning issues
Site 6 – Oakfield Extension .
5.12 Site area; 3.47 ha (8.58 acres) gross
Ownership ; Knebworth Estates
Capacity; 121
Value Range; £15-£17M
Advantages ;
- large site
- part of Lutyens design
- direct access to B197
Disadvantages;
- high landscape impact
- development towards Stevenage
- Sewerage
- School capacity
- Traffic through Oakfields
Comments;
This site holds good development potential yet raises significant planning issues.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 18 of 19
Site 7 – Park Lane Field
5.13 Site area; 5.65 ha (13.96 acres) gross
Ownership ; Knebworth Estates
Capacity; 197
Value Range; £25-£28M
Advantages;
- defined site around underused recreation ground
- similar distance to station as other peripheral sites
Disadvantages;
- development west of motorway
- further from facilities , eg shops, school etc
- would raise issues about appropriate scale of development in Old Knebworth
- sewerage
- school capacity
Comments;
A large site that holds development potential yet raises significant planning issues.
KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT
Page 19 of 19
6.0 OPTIONS 6.1 The opportunities raised in this brief report arise due to two factors – the potential to relocate
Chas Lowe and address the infrastructure needs of the village.
6.2 The Lowes relocation could be self-funding, i.e. the existing site sold for housing and a new
site bought elsewhere. This though would forego the option of using the site for community
uses.
6.3 In terms of options for the future, it could be decided to accept the current view of the LDF
that, despite its attributes, it is not appropriate to seek further significant development around
the village at present, in effect this is a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario.
6.4 There is a major decision to be made in whether or not to encourage Greenfield land to be
released in order to cross-fund community and infrastructure gains. This raises fundamental
issues about the Green Belt. If the village could play a role in meeting strategic housing
need, and infrastructure constraints overcome, then this would be a good justification. This
would be stronger if it also brought advantage to the community, particular in terms of its long
term sustainability.
6.5 In general terms, the donation of around 2 to 3 acres of Greenfield land would create enough
value to meet the costs of the Lowes site regeneration. The peripheral sites considered
(excluding Site 1, the Lowes relocation site) are all of sufficient scale to accommodate this
scale of donation. Of course, in the alternative new facilities might be located on one of the
sites themselves and not the existing Lowes site. A similar displacement effect occurs in
terms of value. So, if the concept of releasing land is pursued, it is a matter of the
appropriateness of the sites that is the deciding matter – their advantages and disadvantages
– which will be tested via the LDF process.