1

Gateshead Flood Risk Sequential Test and Exception Test Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne

September 2013

2

Contents

1. Introduction 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Sequential Test Methodology 4. Local Plan 5. Flood Risk Overview

6. Sequential Test of Core Strategy and Urban Core

7. Exception Test of Core Strategy and Urban Core

8. Housing Provision

9. Economic Development

10. Conclusions

Appendices

1. Housing Requirement and Supply Summary 2. SFRA Sequential Test Screening Spreadsheet – housing, employment and urban

core areas and sites

3

1. Introduction 1.1 This report sets out the Sequential Test and Exception Test for the Core Strategy and Urban Core of the Local Plan, associated with flooding within the Gateshead Local Authority Area in accordance with national planning policy.

2. National Planning Policy Framework 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Technical Guidance (and previously PPS25: Development and Flood Risk) set out the national planning policy in relation to development and flood risk. The NPPF requires the Local Plan is supported by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The SFRA is an important element of the Local Plan evidence base and ensures that the Local Plan takes account of flooding in the plan area. The SFRA assesses the risk from flooding from all sources, now and in the future, taking account of the impacts of climate change. The Local Plan should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to area with lowest probability of flooding using the SFRA. The Sequential Test should be applied to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the use proposed. If it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for development to be located in the zones of lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test should be applied. Application of the sequential approach in the plan-making process will help ensure that development can be safely and sustainably delivered and developers do not waste their time promoting proposals which are inappropriate on flood risk grounds. 2.2 The overall aim should be to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 (low probability – less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding). Where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1, Local Plans should take account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2 (medium probability – between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding or between a 1 in 200 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of sea flooding), applying the Exception Test if required. Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1 or 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 (3a high probability – 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea) be considered, taking into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the Exception Test if required. The Sequential Test is based upon the application of the current flood risk areas, the climate change extents will need to be taken into account in the site specific flood risk assessment and detailed design of any development sites that may be affected. Regard will also be given to avoiding and managing flood risk from other flood sources. 2.3 If, following the application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. The Exception Test comprises of two parts: the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk informed by the SFRA; and a site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing the flood risk elsewhere and where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. The scope of the Level 2 SFRA and site specific plans1 provide the information regarding the variation of flooding and likely performance of flood risk management infrastructure necessary for the application of the Exception Test.

1 (MetroGreen Flood Management Plan, Metrogreen Detailed Surface Water Management Plan, Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Study, Team Valley Integrated Modelling, Follingsby Stage 1 and 2 SuDS Suitability and Viability assessment)

4

3. Sequential Test Methodology 3.1 The methodology is based upon the amalgamation of methodologies used by other Local Planning Authorities. These include the North East regional template for sequential testing based on the Stockton-on-Tees Stockton Site Allocations DPD Preferred Options approach, the discounting approach used for Leeds Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan and JBA Consulting methodology within Gateshead’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. It also takes account of the new online national planning practice guidance and NPPF Technical Guidance. The results of the SFRA and Sequential Test and Exception Test report have fed into the Sustainability Appraisal and flood risk policies. 3.2 The report is based on the current evidence base in terms of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA), Employment Land Review (ELR) and the Strategic Land Review and will be updated throughout the preparation of the Local Plan. The level of detail included reflects the strategic nature of the Core Strategy and focus on the Urban Core allocations. Further Sequential and Exception Tests will be undertaken to inform the Site Allocations and Development Management and Metrogreen Area Action Plan parts of the Local Plan. 3.3 This report uses the best information currently available from a number of sources: • Gateshead Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (September 2011) • Gateshead Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 (September 2011) • Gateshead Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Updates Strategic, ELR and SHLAA (September

2013) • MetroGreen Flood Management Plan (October 2011) • Metrogreen Draft Surface Water Management Plan (August 2013) • Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Study (October

2011) • Draft Team Valley Flood Risk Study (June 2012) • Stage 1 SLR SuDS suitability and viability assessments for Gateshead (July 2013) • Follingsby Stage 1 and 2 SuDS Suitability and Viability assessment (May 2013) • NewcastleGateshead Surface Water Management Plan (October 2011) • Gateshead Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment (Part 1) (Sept 2011) • Gateshead Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment (Part 2) (June 2012) • Gateshead Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment (Part 3) (July 2013) • Gateshead Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments 2013 (July 2013) • Newcastle Gateshead Office Needs Study (July 2012) • Gateshead Employment Land Review (July 2012) • NewcastleGateshead Draft Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report

(August 2013) • Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle

upon Tyne Proposed Submission Document (September 2013)

4. Local Plan 4.1 Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy sets out the overriding spatial strategy to direct development to most sustainable locations. It seeks to prioritise major office, retail, higher and further education, leisure, culture and tourism development to the Urban Core. Outside of the Urban Core economic development will be supported in Key Employment Areas in Team Valley and Follingsby (Policy CS5). Residential development will be supported in Neighbourhood Opportunity Areas in Bensham and Saltwell, Birtley, Dunston and Felling (CS3). Policy CS7 seeks to enhance the role of existing centres within a retail hierarchy. 4.2 Section 5 of the Local Plan sets out a number of sub areas and site specific policies:

5

• Urban Core - GC1 Gateshead Central Sub-Area - GC2 Gateshead Central Development Opportunity Sites 1. Old Town Hall Area 2. High Street Area 3. Jackson Street - SG1 Southern Gateway Sub-Area - SG2 The Examplar Neighbourhood Key Site - SG3 Southern Gateway Development Opportunity Sites 1. Askew Road East 2. Askew Road West - QB1 Quays and Baltic Sub- Area - QB2 Gateshead Quays Key Site - QB3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites 1. Millennium Quay/Hawks Road 2. Pipewellgate 3. Hudson Street/Half Moon 4. The Point 5. Baltic Business Quarter. • Metrogreen Area of Change (AOC2) • Strategic housing sites: Dunston Hill Neighbourhood Growth Area (GN1) and Village

Growth Areas in Chopwell (GV1), Crawcrook (GV2), Highfield (GV3), High Spen (GV4), Kibblesworth (GV5), Ryton (GV6) and Sunniside (GV7).

• South of Follingsby Strategic Employment Site (KEA2) strategic employment site.

5. Flood risk overview 5.1 The main rivers River Tyne, River Team and River Derwent are the primary sources of flood risk in the Borough. In addition there are several smaller tributaries which are sources of flooding including the Black Burn, Lady Park Burn and Coltspool Burn. The Tyne estuary and the lower Derwent are influenced by a combination of tide and fluvial events, although the tidal influence is the predominant source. Tidal flood risk is affects parts of Blaydon/ Derwenthaugh, Swalwell, Dunston and Teams. The River Team’s fluvial flood risk affects parts of Team Valley, Lamesley and a small part of Birtley. Along the River Derwent, Lintzford and Blackhall Mill are identified at risk of fluvial flooding. Surface water flood risk has been identified across the borough including Blaydon, MetroCentre area, Ryton and Team Valley Trading Estate.

6. Sequential Test of Core Strategy and Urban Core 6.1 This section of the report provides a sequential test of development areas and sites identified in the Core Strategy and Urban Core. Table 1 demonstrates the application of the Sequential Test of the Core Strategy and Urban Core development areas and sites, informed by the SFRA screening tables in Appendix 2. The table considers whether there are any alternative development areas/sites in lower flood zones and compatibility with flood vulnerability classifications. The table concludes which development areas/sites require more detailed assessments and Exception Testing.

6

Table 1 Sequential Test of Core Strategy and Urban Core development areas / sites 1. Is the proposed development in Flood Zone 1 – low probability of flood

risk?

Yes No No

The following development areas/sites are located wholly within flood zone 1 - GC1 Gateshead Central Sub-Area - GC2 Gateshead Central Development Opportunity Sites 1. Old Town Hall Area 2. High Street Area 3. Jackson Street - SG1 Southern Gateway Sub-Area - SG2 The Examplar Neighbourhood Key Site - SG3 Southern Gateway Development Opportunity Sites 1. Askew Road East 2. Askew Road West - QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites 3. Hudson Street/Half Moon 4. The Point 5. Baltic Business Quarter - GN1 Dunston Hill Neighbourhood Growth Area - GV1 Chopwell Village Growth Area - GV2 Crawcrook Village Growth Area - GV3 Highfield Village Growth Area - GV4 High Spen Village Growth Area - GV5 Kibblesworth Village Growth Area - GV6 Ryton Village Growth Area - GV7 Sunniside Village Growth Area For these areas/sites in Flood Zone 1 they are considered appropriate and there is no need to proceed with the Sequential Test. The following development areas /sites are predominantly within flood zone 1, with small margins in Flood Zone 2 or 3 and built development can be avoided within the flood risk areas. -CS1, CS2 Gateshead Urban Core -CS1, CS5 Follingsby Key Employment Area -KEA2 South of Follingsby Lane - Policy KEA2 requires landscape and buffer along southern boundary of River Don will avoid flood zones. -CS3 Felling Neighbourhood Opportunity Area -CS3 Bensham and Saltwell Neighbourhoood Opportunity Area -CS3 Birtley Neighbourhood Opportunity Area The following development areas /sites are located in Flood Zone 2 or 3: -CS3/AOC2 MetroGreen Area of Change -CS3 Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity Area -CS1, CS5 Team Valley Key Employment Area -QB2 Gateshead Quays Key Site -QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites 1. Millennium Quay/Hawks Road 2. Pipewellgate

7

For areas/sites identified in the Core Strategy in Flood Zone 2 and 3 proceed to Question 2.

2. Could the development proposals for the following allocated areas/sites in flood zone 2 and 3 alternatively be located in Flood Zone 1 Low probability of flood risk?

Development areas/sites in Flood Zone 2 & 3 include in whole and in part: Site Ref /Policy Ref Name -CS3/AOC2 MetroGreen Area of Change -CS3 Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity Area -CS1, CS5 Team Valley Key Employment Area -QB2 Gateshead Quays Key Site -QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites 1. Millennium Quay/Hawks Road 2. Pipewellgate Development areas/sites in flood zone 2 and 3 without alternatives.

No

Development areas/sites

Alternative Development Areas at lower risk of flooding considered but discounted

Search Area Is alternative being taken forward in Core Strategy? If not, explain why proposals cannot be redirected to alternatives in flood zone 1 and have been dismissed?

8

AOC2 Metrogreen

Area of Change

180ha area includes 17ha within flood zone 2 (10%), 13ha within flood zone 3a (7%) and 1ha within 3b (less than 1%).

-Baltic Business Quarter (FZ1) -Further Green Belt Strategic Release Sites (FZ1)

Borough wide – based housing market catchment and borough wide housing requirements identified in Core Strategy, Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Office Needs Study.

No. MetroGreen has potential to provide a significant proportion of the borough’s housing needs and create a sustainable mixed use community on under-used brownfield land. The long term vision is to create and consolidate a distinctive place in the wider MetroCentre area, which provide for sustainable communities and housing, business, employment, recreation and transport. To harness the existing environmental assets such as the Derwent Haugh and Tyne River corridors as an important element of the area’s structure, community identity and quality of life. In order to deliver 850 residential units within a mixed use development over the plan period, the LPA considered a range of possible alternative sites/areas at lower risk of flooding. They were not able to provide a reasonable alternative to Metrogreen and were discounted from the Core Strategy for the following reasons: 1. The re-allocation of all the Baltic Business Quarter from business use to predominantly housing use could provide 850 housing units within flood zone 1. Whilst the SHLAA 2013 Update has identified capacity for 200 residential units within the Baltic Business Quarter during the plan period, further housing provision would have a detrimental impact on the Urban Core office portfolio. This would prevent GatesheadNewcastle from catering for a range of business needs, meeting their long term economic requirements and undermine the potential for Urban Core to act as the key economic driver of region. The Baltic Business Quarter would not be suitable as an alternative office site to Metrogreen as it will support a different office market. Metrogreen expands a critical mass of business accommodation at Metro Riverside Park and Watermark, strengthening an established business cluster of business park accommodation and provides access to A1 providing access to wider labour pool. The office provision is also required to support cross subsidisation between the mix of uses at MetroGreen and to facilitate the long term MetroGreen regeneration, including beyond the plan period post 2030. 2. Green Belt releases were considered as part of the Strategic Land Review. The SLR has been able to identify suitable housing sites for 2400 homes within flood zone 1 at Chopwell, Kibblesworth, Dunston Hill, Highfield, High Spen, Ryton, Crawcrook and Sunniside through Green Belt releases. Further Green Belt release sites to make provision for a further 850 homes would not be sustainable and would not have local political support. 3. Small scale re-allocation of former employment areas for housing has been considered in the SHLAA 2013 Update. Employment areas/ parts of employment areas identified within the Employment Land Review no longer required for B uses were considered for the housing potential within the SHLAA 2013 Update. These reasonably available sites were unable to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate 850 units.

9

CS5 Team Valley Key Employment Area Of 276ha employment area, 22ha are located within flood zone 2 (8%) and 6ha are located within flood zone 3a (2%).

- East Gateshead Employment Area (FZ1) - Felling Employment Area (FZ1) -Portobello Employment Area (FZ1) -Follingsby Employment Area (predominantly FZ1)

Borough wide -based on Gateshead’s overall employment land requirements

No. Team Valley is a regionally significant employment area, provides a unique qualitative contribution to Gateshead’s employment land portfolio. The specific locational advantages include: industrial rents that ensure viable employment land, access to strategic road network, established manufacturing and engineering clusters, potential to attract key growth sectors and offer of industrial land. None of the employment areas at lower risk of flooding at East Gateshead, Felling, Portobello and Follingsby provide a comparable offer and suitable alternative. To maintain the regional position of the employment area, it will important to support redevelopment of the employment area and the recycling of existing sites. Quantitatively Team Valley through our Employment Land Review has identified 13 suitable sites and 16ha of employment land. Opportunities for expansion of the employment area are restricted given the restrictions of the Green Belt and A1, therefore infill of employment area will be necessary. The majority of 16 ha identified developable employment land is located within flood zone 1: only 3 potential sites and 1 ha (net) are identified within flood zone 2. There is scope for development within the employment area to avoid the highest flood risk areas, taking account of the Integrated Modelling, which will inform the Site Allocations and Development Management part of the Local Plan. The Council is working with the Environment Agency on environmental quality and flood protection projects for Team Valley such as upstream wetland habitat and pasture creation, SuDS and de-culverting which will inform the site allocations Local Plan document.

CS3

Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity

Area The majority of 197ha is located within flood zone: 8ha are located within flood zone 2 and 11 ha are located within flood zone 3a.

Borough wide – factoring in areas of deprivation which require greatest intervention

No. Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity Area provides brownfield development opportunities within established residential area which is need of local investment for housing and associated facilities. The area is currently used for residential and local retail purposes and future development will only enhance the facilities available to existing residents, the majority of which can be located within low flood risk areas. To develop sites away from Dunston will see the area decline further and create problems with regard to linking new development to existing development within Dunston. The highest tidal and fluvial flood risk areas are predominantly located along aside the River Teams within the Teams Employment Area. Teams Employment Area to continue to support the established industrial uses within this area. Development for vulnerable uses such as residential and community facilities will be avoided in these areas. The site allocations document of the Local Plan will be subject to a Sequential Test.

QB2

Gateshead Quays Key

Development Site

The majority of the site is located

Other development sites within Gateshead Urban Core Gateshead Central

Gateshead Urban Core – requires a central location for predominantly town centre uses and high trip generating uses such as office and tourism. This catchment

No. There is a lack of reasonably available alternative areas at lower risk Gateshead Central does not provide the capacity for the full range and scale of leisure and tourism uses required to continue the facilitation of cultural led regeneration of the urban core. Gateshead Central, The Point and Southern Gateway are not suitable alternatives for the range of tourism and leisure as they are not close enough to existing tourism assets of the BALTIC, the

10

within flood zone 1: 1ha is located

within flood zone 2 and 0.04 is located within flood zone

3a.

Development Opportunity Sites (FZ1) Southern Gateway Development Opportunity Sites (FZ1) Quays and Baltic Development Sites 3. Hudson Street/Half Moon (FZ1) 4. The Point (FZ1) 5. Baltic Business Quarter (FZ1)

area also supports the overall spatial strategy of Core Strategy CS1 with the urban core acting as key economic driver.

Millennium Bridge and Sage Gateshead to maximise the regeneration potential and would not support the creation of a riverside leisure route along the River Tyne from the Swing Bridge to the Millennium Bridge. This will improve the legibility between Gateshead Shopping Centre and the riverside. Whilst Gateshead Central, The Point and the Southern Gateway could accommodate some mixed use development, these uses would not complement and support the cross subsidisation of the office space development on Gateshead Quays. Gateshead Central, The Point and Southern Gateway would not be suitable to meet the requirements for the Grade A City Centre office market and support the critical mass of development required for the Accelerated Development Zone. The more vulnerable uses (residential and hotel uses) will form an integral part of the mix of uses that will ensure the viability and delivery of the development. It would therefore not be possible to substitute these more vulnerable uses with less vulnerable uses. Baltic Business Quarter - The site is not deemed suitable as it would fail to integrate with the existing cultural assets of the BALTIC, the Millennium Bridge and the Sage Gateshead and support the creation of a riverside route. In addition, the main land owner seeks to retain the area predominantly for business uses to develop the area out as a prestigious business park, therefore the area is not considered available and suitable. Hudson Street/Half Moon is not consider suitable alternative, given that they are too small to generate the critical mass of commercial mixed uses, are not within close proximity to existing cultural assets and would not attract Grade A City Centre office development.

QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites 1. Millennium Quay/Hawks Road East Half of the site is located within flood zone 2 (0.29ha) 2. Pipewellgate Nearly half of the site is located within flood zone 2 (0.26ha) and tiny area (0.03ha) is located within flood zone 3a.

Other development sites within Gateshead Urban Core Gateshead Central Development Opportunity Sites (FZ1) Southern Gateway Development Opportunity Sites (FZ1) Quays and Baltic Development Sites 1. Millennium Quay

Gateshead Urban Core – requires a central location for predominantly town centre uses and high trip generating uses such as office and tourism. This catchment area also supports overall spatial strategy Core Strategy CS1 with the urban core acting as key economic driver. .

No. There is a lack of reasonably available alternative areas at lower risk. Gateshead Central Development Sites, Southern Gateway Sites, Millennium Quay /Hawks Central and West, Hudson Street/Half Moon, The Point and the Baltic Business Quarter mixed use sites are within flood zone 1, however they are not suitable alternatives as they would not support the place making strategy for this regionally significant part of the Urban Core and generate the same level of socio-economic benefits: -They would not facilitate the extension of a continuous recreational riverside route along the river and link to the Riverside Park. This will improve the legibility between Gateshead Shopping Centre and the riverside; - They would not ensure a comprehensive redevelopment of river frontage providing active uses that complement and balance the existing development on Gateshead Quays and Newcastle Quayside, avoiding blight by retention of extant uses; - They would not significantly improve the iconic views of the Tyne Gorge. For Pipewellgate, more vulnerable uses (residential uses and drinking establishments) will form an integral part of the mix of uses that will ensure the viability and delivery of a private sector led development. It would therefore not be possible to substitute these more vulnerable uses with less vulnerable uses.

11

/Hawks Central and West 3. Hudson Street/Half Moon (FZ1) 4. The Point (FZ1) 5. Baltic Business Quarter (FZ1)

3 For development areas/sites in flood zone 2 medium probability of flood risk and zone 3a high probability are the proposed uses flood risk vulnerability classifications appropriate.

Development Area/Site Policy ref

Uses

Flood Risk Vulnerability Category

Inappropriate

Appropriate

Exception Test required

Metro Green

Strategic Area of Change

AOC2

Residential

Community Uses – schools,

nurseries,

Open space

Business

Retail

Leisure

Essential Infrastructure

More Vulnerable More Vulnerable Water-compatible development Less Vulnerable Less Vulnerable Less Vulnerable

Essential Infrastructure

Open Space

Business

Retail

Leisure in flood

zone 3a.

Yes -residential , community

facilities and essential

infrastructure located within flood zone 3a

and for essential

infrastructure within flood

zone 3b. Water

compatible open space will locate in

3b.

12

Team Valley Key

Employment Area

CS1 and CS5

Business

Industrial

Distribution

Less Vulnerable Less Vulnerable Less Vulnerable

Business

Industrial

Distribution

No – less vulnerable

uses in flood zone 3a and

2. Development sites will be

determined at site

allocations document of

the Local Plan.

Dunston Neighbourhood Opportu

nity Area CS7

Residential

Retail,

School,

Libraries,

GP

Surgeries/Health Centres

Leisure/Sports

centre

Local customer

service centre

Cultural and Entertainment

facilities,

Accessible open space

More vulnerable

Less vulnerable

More vulnerable

Less vulnerable

More vulnerable

Less vulnerable

Less vulnerable

Less vulnerable

Water-compatible

development

Retail.

Libraries

Leisure/Sports

Centres

Local customer service centres

Cultural and

Entertainment facilities

Open space

Yes –

If

residential

Schools

GP surgeries/Health Centre are

proposed within flood

zone 3a, however this is likely to be avoided and

will be determined at

site allocations

document of the Local

Plan.

QB2

Gateshead

Quays Key

Development Site

Office

Leisure

Hotel

Conference

Residential

Retail

Less Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

Office

Leisure

Conference

Retail

Yes - uses appropriate in flood zone 2, hotels and residential uses within flood zone 3a will require Exception Test, although this only covers 0.04ha

13

QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Site Site 1. Millennium Quay/Hawks Road East

Office Assembly & Leisure

Less Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

Office

Leisure

No - uses appropriate in flood zone 2

QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Site Site 2 Pipewellgate

Assembly and Leisure Cafes and Restaurants Residential Drinking Establishments Hotel Offices

Less Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

Assembly and Leisure Cafes and Restaurants Offices

Yes – uses appropriate in flood zone 2. However Exception Test required for residential, drinking establishments and hotel in flood zone 3a. 3a zone only covers 0.03ha and should be avoided.

MetroGreen Strategic Area of Change –Yes Given the extensive reach of the flood zone 3a (7%) and flood zone 2 (10%) across the Area of Change, more vulnerable uses, particularly residential uses, will not be able to avoid development in flood zone 3a area. The potential to pass the Exception Test is required for Core Strategy Gateshead Area of Change Policy AOC2. Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity Area - Yes Although, more vulnerable uses will be located within this area, these uses should be able to avoid the flood zone 3a locations which covers 11% of the total area. If more vulnerable uses are proposed within flood zone 3a area, the Exception Test will be applied, but this will be undertaken at later stage during the preparation of the site allocations Local Plan document. Team Valley Key Employment Area -No Given that the predominant uses within the key employment area will be less vulnerable uses (office, industrial and distribution) the Exception Test will not be required.

14

Gateshead Quays Key Development site – Yes Although only 7% is located within flood zone 2 and less than 1% of the site is located within flood zone 3a, as more vulnerable uses are proposed the Exception Test will be applied. However it is anticipated that any vulnerable uses should be able to avoid 0.04ha on the river edge affected by flood zone 3a. Millennium Quay/Hawks Road East Development Site– No Offices and leisure and assembly uses (less vulnerable uses) and more vulnerable uses are appropriate in flood zone 2. Pipewellgate Development Site – Yes Nearly 50% the site is located within flood zone 2 and however less than 5% of the site is located within flood zone 3a. As more vulnerable uses are proposed the Exception Test will be applied however it is anticipated that any vulnerable uses should be able to avoid 0.03ha on the river edge affected by flood zone 3a.

4

Do the development areas/sites in flood zone 2 and 3a have extant planning consent

Yes

List sites and uses - Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity Area (Derwentwater Road DC/11/00666/OUT business and residential uses, residential care facility and supported living accommodation DC/12/00106/FUL; Staiths 1346/01) - Team Valley (business uses DC/06/00237/FUL) - Millennium Quay/ Hawks Road East (office DC/08/01922/FUL)

5

Can the more flood sensitive development uses types be directed to parts of the area where the risks are lower.

Yes

List sites and the proposed uses which can be directed to parts of the site/area where the risks are lower. Dunston Neighbourhood Opportunity Area – residential and community facilities Gateshead Quays Development site – especially hotel and residential uses Team Valley – development sites will be identified in areas with lowest risk.

6 Areas/sites identified in Core Strategy in Zone 3b functional floodplain

Is the use appropriate in the functional floodplain?

15

No - Site ref Uses Flood risk vulnerability MetroGreen Strategic Area of Change – As less than 1% is functional floodplain built development can be avoided in these areas and they will be utilised for open space.

Development Areas/Sites to undergo more detailed assessment and Exception Testing in Table 3 Metrogreen Strategic Area of Change Gateshead Quays Key Development Site Pipewellgate Quays and Baltic Development Site

7. Exception Test of Core Strategy and Urban Core 7.1 Following the application of the Sequential Test, this section of report provides assessment of the Exception Test for Metrogreen Strategic Area of Change and Pipewellgate and Gateshead Quays Urban Core sites, which are located in flood zones 2 and 3. The table considers the wider sustainability objectives, whether the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community outweigh flood risk informed by the SFRA and area specific assessments demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing the flood risk elsewhere and where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. This has been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal, Level 2 SFRA, MetroGreen Flood Management Plan, Metrogreen Detailed Surface Water Management Plan and Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Study.

16

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

MetroGreen Strategic Area of Change AOC2

Wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk The vision is to create a sustainable mixed use community over the next +20 years and consolidate a distinctive place in the wider Metrocentre area, which provide housing, business, employment, recreation and transport. It will harness the existing environmental assets such as River Tyne and Derwent corridors as an important element of the area’s structure, community identity and quality of life. MetroGreen has potential to provide a significant proportion of the borough’s housing requirements (850 units) to 2030. The area is under-utilised previously developed land which will be remediated and brought back into use. It provides an opportunity to integrate the Metrocentre into the wider area, improve links to River Tyne and surrounding countryside and for a new community to benefit from the range of services and facilities at the Metrocentre. The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, the Metrogreen Flood Management Plan and the Metrogreen Surface Water Management Plan have appraised the level of flood risk from tidal, fluvial and surface water. - The level 2 SFRA modelled depths and hazards of the River Tyne and the lower reaches of the Derwent and Team, factoring 100 year allowance for climate change, which were utilised in the Metrogreen Flood Management Plan. For the land east of the Metrocentre, during the 1 in 200 year tidal event, peak tidal levels exceed bank height immediately downstream of the Costco warehouse, flooding open land east of Mandela Way and then are diverted south down Cross Lane underneath the railway. During this event, flood depths range from 0.5 and 0.9m. During the 1 in 200 year event plus 100 years climate change, the extent, depth and hazard places large areas of Metrogreen at significant risk: depths range from 1-2.5m at north of Wellington Road and Cross Lane. The land west of the Metrocentre is also at risk of fluvial and tidal flooding. Hannington Works is modelled to be at risk of tidal flooding for 1 in 200 year event with depths up to 0.49m rising to 1.38m when the impacts of climate change over the next 100 years are factored in. Derwent West Bank is anticipated to be at risk from extreme fluvial events with depths up to 0.28m and 1 in 200 year tidal event plus climate change to 2100 with depths up to 0.85m. - Gateshead Surface Water Management Plan identifies a number of areas at risk of surface water flooding: sites 2 and 6 at Cross Lane, sites 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24 Wellington Road, Halifax Road and Beech Drive and site 24 Hannington Works.

17

Area/Site

Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

MetroGreen Strategic Area of Change AOC2

The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates the wider sustainability benefits to the community of regenerating this area. The area would have a positive impact on social, environmental and economic objectives. It would encourage outdoor recreation and walking by improving greenspace along the Tyne. It has good access to jobs, facilities and services in the immediate area. Whilst the area is at risk of tidal flooding from the River Tyne, fluvial flooding from the River Derwent and is prone to surface water flooding from extreme rainfall events, comprehensive Surface Water and Flood Management Plans will mitigate the flood risk as set out in Policy AOC2:2iii; AOC2. The development commits to improving pedestrian and cycle routes, and a new public greenspace reflecting Policy AOC2:2iv. The area will generate economic benefits by encouraging tourism and visitors from the wider region, country and globe. It has excellent public transport provision given that the existing Metrocentre public transport interchange provides links to main centres of commerce and employment. More specifically the flood mitigation for Metrogreen will integrate with strategic blue and green infrastructure such as river corridors and will form new strategic links which will be fundamental to the place making strategy for the area. This will provide significant environmental and community benefits: ensuring Metrogreen is a distinct place, providing greenspace suitable for recreational use and focal points for the community and will protect and enhance diversity along wildlife corridors, supporting local wildlife sites and Biodiversity Action Plan species. The Metrogreen Flood Management Plan’s preferred approach is a soft landscaped embankment set back from the river frontage or river front land raising, incorporating green infrastructure. The Metrogreen Surface Water Management Plan’s preferred approach recommends restoring a critical land drainage network conveying the surface water over land into the River Tyne and River Derwent though a series of swales, open water channels and a series of strategic attenuation storage areas (ponds, wetlands / detention basins). The River Derwent and River Tyne are considered sensitive water bodies that require three stages of water treatment prior to discharging surface water, including a final stage of treatment within an environmental buffer along the river fronts. Policy AOC2 will ensure flood risk is mitigated and sustainability benefits outweigh flood risk: A mixed-use sustainable community will be delivered through a coordinated phased approach, providing new residential neighbourhoods, commercial, leisure and community facilities, a network of green spaces & routes for pedestrians and cyclists, and substantial improvements to public transport and flood & surface water management infrastructure……..Development requirements: iii integrated infrastructure to manage fluvial, tidal and surface water flooding in accordance with the Flood Management and Surface Water Management Plans.

18

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

MetroGreen Strategic Area of Change AOC2

Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, the Metrogreen Flood Management Plan and the Metrogreen Surface Water Management Plan demonstrates that tidal, fluvial and surface water flood risk can be mitigated safely without adversely affecting the flood risk elsewhere over the lifetime of the development, and will help to reduce flood risk. -The Metrogreen Flood Management Plan overlays a masterplan concept, considers phasing of development and determines a preferred mitigation strategy to mitigate tidal and fluvial flood risk, taking account of reasonable alternatives set against the flood management hierarchy. The plan recommends a hybrid approach of comprehensive defence scheme in the form of a landscaped bund set back from the river frontage or increasing ground levels along the waterfront, incorporating climate change levels to 2100. It provides a delivery strategy over a 50 year period linked to potential development phasing and funding. For Metrogreen areas West, East and South a raised soft embankment could be built along the river front to a defence level of 5.55m AOD or the would be ground raised to 5.25m AOD along the river front. This would provide a standard of protection to mitigate for the 1 in 200 year event plus 100 years climate change (4.9m AOD), plus 600mm or 300mm freeboard. The extent of the embankment / ground raising would need to be extended further upstream past Costco to take account of the impacts associated with climate change providing a continuous defence. The mitigation could integrate a 30m strip along the river frontage linking with green infrastructure. This approach would eliminate tidal flood risk for the area and protecting transport and critical infrastructure. Additional flood resistant design would be required should the soft embankment be built to manage the risks associated with failure of the landscaped mound or overtopping in an extreme event. Vulnerable end users such as care homes and community facilities would be set back from the soft embankment subject to detailed masterplanning. Flood resistant design would not be required for ground raising. Given the tidal nature of the flood risk, building a soft embankment or land raising would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The FMP phased approach to development will avoid areas at highest risk of tidal flooding in the short term, until the landscaped embankment or riverfront land raising is in place, focusing on MetroGreen South in the short term. Once defences are in place, tidal risk will be mitigated and avoidance will no longer be required.

19

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

MetroGreen Strategic Area of Change AOC2

For Derwent East and West Banks, land raising to 5.26m AOD could achieve a suitable standard of protection to 1 in 200 year + 100 years climate change and 1 in 1000 year fluvial event. This would ensure that development was safe over the lifetime of the development. Although tidal flood risk is the dominant influence, Derwent West bank is at risk during an extreme fluvial event. The Level 2 SFRA (p31), models the impact of floodplain removal. This is not seen as significant along the lower reach of the Derwent. Any increase in levels could place land immediately upstream at greater risk, however currently this is open fields and should be used for flood storage. A detailed Flood Risk Assessment would be required once the detailed design was determined to ensure there are no implications for flood risk for people and property in the surrounding area and requirements for compensatory fluvial flood storage. The Metrogreen Surface Water Management Plan demonstrates that the surface water that is generated from Metrogreen can be mitigated. It utilizes the Northumbrian Water drainage model to consider the capacity of surface water infrastructure and consider the volume of surface water to be stored and managed. It calculates the peak greenfield runoff rates for 1 in 100 rainfall event and calculates the amount of storage which will be required. By maintaining greenfield runoff rates through use of SuDS including strategic attenuation storage areas the surface water flood risk overall should be reduced and should not increase flood risk elsewhere. Areas vulnerable to surface water flood risk will be used for surface water flood storage areas. The surface water will be discharged into the River Tyne and River Derwent land drainage network and swales conveying the surface water into the River Tyne and River Derwent.

20

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

QB2 Gateshead Quays Development Key Site

Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk Gateshead Quays Key Site is located on the south bank and is bounded by the river to the north, the Baltic Business Quarter to the east and Gateshead Centre. The site includes the BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art and the Sage Gateshead. It is the most significant development opportunity available on the riverside and offers the opportunity for major development, continuing the successful regeneration of the last 20 years. Gateshead Quays is allocated for mixed use development with a strong office component capable of attracting grade A city centre office development and a mix of supporting facilities and services, contributing to the Accelerated Development Zone. Development of Gateshead Quays will expand the commercial and cultural quarter for Gateshead and Newcastle and will utilise and further exploit the existing cultural and leisure attractions and unique landscape. It will also maximise the benefit of the internationally recognised location and support and complement the regeneration. It will create the North East’s premier business and visitor destination and will reconnect the river to the surrounding area. The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy appraised the level of tidal flood risk. According to the Level 2 SFRA modelling results, the quays wall does not overtop during the 1 in 200 year or 1 in 1000 year tidal events. However, when the effects of climate change on the 1 in 200 year tidal event are considered over the next 100 years, a number of sections of the quays wall between the Swing Bridge and the Tyne Bridge will be at risk. The level 2 SFRA modelling estimates the peak tidal level 200 year in 2100 of 4.92 m AOD: sections of the quays wall within the Gateshead Quays site are below this level which range from 4.84-5.53m AOD. The Level 1 SFRA level and NewcastleGateshead Surface Water Management Plan identify strong existing surface water flow paths running from Oakwellgate/Church Street and Mill Road.

21

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

QB2 Gateshead Quays Development Key Site

The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates the wider sustainability benefits to the community of regenerating this area. The area would have a positive impact on social, environmental and economic objectives. Continuing development of this site for culture and recreation will further build on the cultural distinctiveness of Newcastle, Gateshead and the wider region, making best use of the assets of the Baltic and Sage as cultural beacons. It will further encourage tourism and visitors from the wider region, country and globe and support the regeneration of the Quays site will further stimulate the economy and build on the economic success of the riverfront. Policy clauses QB2:2iv state the walking and cycling routes in the area will be improved to enhance connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians including links to national routes. Further green space and ‘pocket parks’ will address the gaps in green infrastructure, and help to encourage use of the space for outdoor recreation and thereby promote healthy, active lifestyles (clause QB2:2ii). The provision of a defined public realm network using streets, squares, lanes, and stairs, with a legible and permeable urban structure, will clearly define public and private spaces (clause QB2:2iii). The development will also enhance cultural sites and be sensitive to listed buildings. The site has good access to jobs, facilities and services in the immediate area. It will encourage tourism and visitors from the wider region, country and globe. The regeneration of the Quays site will further stimulate the economy and build on the economic success of the riverfront. The site has excellent public transport access provides links to main centres of commerce and employment, itself acting as one when completed. Urban Core Policies will ensure flood risk is mitigated and sustainability benefits outweigh flood risk. Policy QB1 Quays and Baltic sub-area requires development to provide improvements to the Gateshead Quay Wall to ensure its structural integrity and mitigate future flood risk taking account of the Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Policy QB2 includes provision to manage flood risk: viii the provision of effective surface water management, following the drainage hierarchy, ix avoidance and mitigation of tidal flood risk along the river front, over the lifetime of development, x consideration of the potential to incorporate surface water flow paths as a design feature, to convey surface water into the River Tyne.

22

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

QB2 Gateshead Quays Development Key Site

Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall The Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy demonstrates that tidal flood risk can be mitigated safely without adversely affecting the flood risk elsewhere over the lifetime of the development, and will help to reduce flood risk. The long term strategy (table 4-3) sets out the average additional height required between the Swing Bridge and Baltic Square ranging from 0.17m -0.63m to raise the quay walls to the 1 in 200 year tidal level plus allowance for climate change over the next 100 years, plus 600mm freeboard. In the short term where the risk is low and improvements to the condition of quays wall are not imminently required, incorporation of flood resilience and resistance measures into new development will help to reduce the residual risk without increasing the height of the wall. Reflecting Policy QB2, built development should be setback from the riverfront to avoid the tidal flood risk incorporating the 10-30m recreational route along the river edge. The detailed design of the mixed use scheme will have potential for more vulnerable uses such as hotels and residential to avoid the tidal flood risk areas. Given the tidal nature of the flood risk, increasing the height of the quays wall would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

23

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites Site 2 Pipewellgate

Wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk Pipewellgate offers a rare opportunity to provide a landmark development within the Tyne Gorge riverside that will contribute to the continuing growth of Gateshead’s riverside and the Urban Core by linking this part of the riverside to other developments. The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy appraised the level of tidal flood risk. According to the Level 2 SFRA modelling results, the quays wall do not overtop during the 1 in 200 year or 1 in 1000 year tidal events. However, when the effects of climate change on the 1 in 200 year tidal event is considered over the next 100 years a number of sections of the quays wall including Pipewellgate are at risk. The level 2 SFRA modelling estimates the peak tidal level 200 year 2100 of 4.92 m AOD sections of the quays wall within the Pipewellgate site parts are below this level ranging from 4.57-5.16m AOD. The Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and NewcastleGateshead Surface Water Management Plan also identifies extensive surface water flood risk from overland flows from the Riverside Park. The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates the wider sustainability benefits to the community of regenerating this area. The area would have a positive impact on social, environmental and economic objectives. Mixed development will build on service and facilities provision in the Urban Core and commits to providing active urban frontages which will contribute to creating cohesive local communities with a distinct sense of neighbourhood. The development will encourage outdoor recreation and walking, and links with the cycle network and improves pedestrian access in the Urban Core. There is potential to improve the urban green infrastructure throughout the development site and improving connectivity between habitats to the east and west. It will enhance cultural assets in the vicinity and ensure sensitivity to Listed Buildings. The site is in the heart of the Urban Core and consequently in close proximity to areas of retail and business, as well as tourism and leisure facilities. The site has excellent public transport access which provides links to main centres of commerce and employment, itself acting as one when completed. The regeneration of these areas will further stimulate the economy and build on the economic success of the riverfront.

24

Area/Site Exception Test: Will the development: - Provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, - Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

QB 3 Quays and Baltic Development Sites Site 2 Pipewellgate

Urban Core Policies will ensure flood risk is mitigated and sustainability benefits outweigh flood risk. Policy QB1 Quays and Baltic sub-area requires development to provide improvements to the Gateshead Quay Wall to ensure its structural integrity and mitigate future flood risk taking account of the Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Policy QB3 requires development: vi to provide overland or piped flow paths to convey surface water into the River Tyne, vii manage residual surface water flood risk; viii avoid and mitigate tidal flood risk over the lifetime of the development. Subject to full FRA, is anticipated to be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will reduce flood risk overall The Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy demonstrates that tidal flood risk can be mitigated safely without adversely affecting the flood risk elsewhere over the lifetime of the development, and will help to reduce flood risk. In the long term an additional height of 0.66m (table 4-3) will mitigate the 1 in 200 year tidal level plus allowance for climate change over the next 100 years, including 600mm freeboard. In the short term where the risk is low and improvements to the condition of quays wall are not imminently required, incorporation of flood resilience and resistance measures into new development will help to reduce the residual risk without increasing the height of the wall. Reflecting Policy QB3, built development should avoid the tidal flood risk. The detailed design of the mixed use scheme will have potential for more vulnerable uses such as hotels and residential to be located above the ground floor. Given the tidal nature of the flood risk, increasing the height of the quays wall would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

25

8. Housing provision 8.1 Gateshead has a gross additional housing requirement of 11,000 houses to 2030. The Council has considered a range of alternative development areas and sites across the Borough to accommodate this demand: previously developed land within existing built up areas identified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and potential Green Belt releases within the Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment.

8.2 The majority of Gateshead’s potential housing growth areas identified in the Local Plan are located within areas of low risk of fluvial and tidal flooding, although surface water flood risk will still need to be addressed: 8.3 Within areas of low risk of fluvial and tidal flood risk (flood zone 1) housing capacity has been identified for:

- 4702 units – SHLAA (suitable, deliverable and developable sites) - 2420 units - Green Belt releases at Dunston Hill, Chopwell, High Spen, Sunniside,

Kibblesworth, Highfield, Ryton and Crawcrook. 8.4 As set out in Appendix 1, 7122 units can be accommodated in flood zone 1 on the suitable, deliverable and developable SHLAA sites and the preferred Green Belt release sites from the Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment. Taking account of reasonably available SHLAA sites, an allowance for windfall development and outstanding planning permissions, a shortfall of around 836 residential units remains. To fill this housing supply gap to meet Gateshead’s overall gross additional housing requirement of 11,000 homes, it is anticipated that there will be no alternative but to bring forward 850 resident units during the plan period within MetroGreen which includes high/medium risk flood zones. This will support wider sustainability benefits by creating a sustainable mixed use community on under-used brownfield land and enhance the quality of the riverside environment. The site allocations will be determined within Metrogreen Area Action Plan which will apply a further Sequential Test, considering the variation in flood risk within the area in more detail from all sources.

8.5 The MetroGreen Flood Management Plan (FMP) has been prepared to: demonstrate that the Exception Test can be passed i.e. sustainable, safe development which does not increase the flood risk elsewhere; set out a strategic flood management approach for Policy AOC2; and inform flood risk policy and site allocations within the forthcoming Metrogreen Area Action Plan. The FMP recommends that a hybrid of ground raising and strategic soft embankment could safely mitigate the tidal flood risk factoring in the impact of climate change over the next 100 years. In the short term, a phased approach to development should avoid the highest flood risk areas of Metrogreen until the flood mitigation infrastructure is in place. The Metrogreen Surface Water Management Plan will ensure that the surface water flood risk is managed effectively through a co-ordinated plan and highest risk areas can be avoided. It identifies a strategic land drainage network to convey surface water over land into the River Tyne and River Derwent opening up culverts, utilising swales and creating attenuation storage, linked with green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancement. 8.6 The Strategic Land Review housing sites are at low risk of fluvial and tidal flooding (flood zone 1). However management of surface water flood risk will be important for the greenfield sites by maintaining at least the equivalent of greenfield runoff rates for 1 in 100 year storm events and following the drainage hierarchy. In addition, to the SFRA, local SuDS assessments have been undertaken to understand the potential surface water infrastructure requirements for each Gateshead site and consider the suitability and viability for SuDSs. The assessments: review local flood risk issues, including existing overland flow routes which should be incorporated within green infrastructure; review the suitability for infiltration and attenuation SuDS considering ground conditions; provide an indicative land take for SuDS to attenuate surface water to achieve

26

greenfield runoff rates for 100 year rainfall event plus climate change; consider the potential surface water discharge destination i.e. to the ground, to a watercourse or to public sewers. The assessments have identified localized flooding issues which will need to be assessed and mitigated including ground water flood risk at Chopwell, High Spen and Kibblesworth, small ordinary watercourses located within the vicinity of some sites (High Spen, Kibblesworth, Sunniside, Chopwell) and foul and surface water infrastructure upgrades that may be required. These assessments have been used to inform the development frameworks and site specific policies (GN1, GV1-GV7), which will need to be considered by developers to avoid and mitigate other sources of flooding.

9. Economic Development 9.1 The majority of economic development within Gateshead will occur in low risk areas of tidal and fluvial flood risk. 9.2 However, in order to support future leisure, business and tourism development within the Urban Core, there will be no alternative but to bring forward riverside sites in Gateshead Quays building upon the iconic and regionally significant cultural regeneration in this area. Some of the Gateshead Quays sites (Pipewellgate, Gateshead Quays Key Site and Millennium Quay/Hawks Road East) are located within flood zone 2 of tidal flooding (although the SRFA Level 2 does not consider the sites to be at risk of 1 in 1000 year tidal events). However, the tidal flood risk is anticipated to worsen with climate change over the next 100 years. Gateshead Quays Wall Condition Survey and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy sets out a phased management approach to improve the structural condition the wall and reduce the risk of tidal flooding over the next 100 years. This will be implemented through within the Urban Core Policy (QB1:3).The SFRA recommends development should be set back from the river frontage to reduce flood risk which has been followed through in Policies QB2:2ix and QB3. The SFRA and Surface Water Management Plan have identified areas that are vulnerable to surface water flood risk and strong flow routes given the steep topography and areas of impermeable surfacing, therefore surface water management will be important which has been reflected in Policies GC1:5, QB2 and QB3. 9.3 The Team Valley Trading Estate (TVTE) is identified as a key employment area within of the Core Strategy. Whilst it is recognised that a proportion of the area is located within an area of medium and high risk of fluvial and tidal flood risk and within a Critical Drainage Area which is vulnerable to surface water flooding; given the established critical mass of businesses and level of regionally significant employment within this employment area, it is consider that no alternative employment area within the Borough could contribute towards the Borough’s employment land portfolio and Gateshead’s economic prosperity. In conjunction with the Environment Agency, further integrated modelling of the interaction between sewer, fluvial and surface water flooding is underway to improve the understanding of flood risk in this area. This will help to ensure that long term flood mitigation measures will be put in place for all sources of flooding to ensure that the redevelopment/new development within TVTE is sustainable and does not increase flood risk elsewhere. There is scope for new development within the employment area to avoid the highest flood risk areas, only three developable sites within the Employment Land Review are identified within flood zone 2. The Council is working with the Environment Agency on environmental quality and flood mitigations projects for the TVTE such as upstream wetland habitat and flood storage creation, SuDS and de-culverting which will inform the Site Allocations and Development Management part of the Local Plan.

9.4 An element of office development is required at Metrogreen to provide a mixed portfolio of office sites and support the long term regeneration of a mixed use community.

27

9.5 South of Follingsby Lane strategic employment site includes small areas at risk of flooding. The southern boundary lies along the River Don which includes an area of functional floodplain and has some strong surface water flow paths. Policy KEA2 requires a buffer of green infrastructure along the River Don avoiding the functional floodplain and buffer strips running north to south along the western and eastern boundaries will ensure avoidance and mitigation of surface water flood risk.

10. Conclusions

10.1In accordance with national planning policy, Gateshead Council has used the SFRA and site/area specific flood risk assessments/management plans to steer development away from highest risk flood areas for the Core Strategy and Urban Core. Where development cannot be avoided within flood risk areas, our flood risk studies demonstrate that sustainable development can be achieved incorporating appropriate mitigation measures which has been reflected within the Local Plan policies. By sequentially testing proposed development areas/sites, this will ensure that where possible development is directed to the most sustainable locations with the lowest flood risk.

28

Appendix 1 Housing Requirement and Supply Summary

Gateshead Housing Summary

Category

Number of sites

Area (ha)

Estimated No of dwellings

Remaining dwellings

Gross Housing Requirement 11,000 11,000

Remaining capacity on existing sites with planning permission or under construction

2640 8360

Windfall allowance 250 8110

Reasonably Available Sites

7274 836

SHLAA – Reasonably Available Sites (excluding MetroGreen). (Suitable, deliverable and developable)

4854

Suitable, deliverable and developable Zone 1

4702

Suitable, deliverable and developable Zone 2

3 2.99 152*

Suitable, deliverable and developable Zone 3a

2 0.08

Strategic Land Review sites in Flood Zone 1 (Suitable, deliverable and developable)

2420

Green Belt release sites (Flood Zone 1) Neighbourhood Growth Area Dunston Hill Village Growth Areas Chopwell High Spen Kibblesworth Highfield Sunniside Ryton Crawcrook

530 385 174 225 55 131 550 370

MetroGreen (Phased approach 850 units within plan period – potential capacity for 2500- 3000)

850

0

*Three sites with capacity for 152 homes are also identified in the SHLAA in flood zone 2 and 3a: two have planning permissions (Derwentwater Road and Horsecrofts) and the other has scope to avoid the flood zones within the development site (Jennings Ford).

Ap

pen

dix

2 -

Flo

od

Zo

ne

Scr

een

ing

Ho

usi

ng

Key

Flo

od Z

one

3bF

lood

Zon

e 3a

Flo

od Z

one

2F

lood

Zon

e 1

+sur

face

wat

erF

lood

Zon

e 1

Lo

cal P

lan

P

olic

y R

efer

ence

Sit

e ID

Nam

eD

evel

op

men

t T

ype

Cap

acit

yA

rea

(ha)

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

SH

LA

A r

easo

nab

ly a

vaila

ble

sit

es48

54G

1B

rand

lign

Vill

age

Hou

sing

240

8.50

8.50

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

001.

7720

.82

0.56

6.59

0.00

0.00

G2

Eas

t of E

lgin

Roa

d, D

ecka

hmH

ousi

ng30

3.45

3.45

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

3W

hitle

y C

ourt

Hou

sing

551.

061.

0610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

2.90

0.01

0.53

0.00

0.00

G4

Hal

lgar

th D

epot

, Win

lato

nH

ousi

ng38

0.83

0.83

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

5E

lisab

ethv

ille,

Birt

ley

Hou

sing

109

2.83

2.83

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

6322

.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G6

Site

of f

orm

er R

aven

swor

th C

are

Hom

eH

ousi

ng16

0.40

0.40

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

12D

ixon

Str

eet

Hou

sing

106

2.78

2.78

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

248.

470.

000.

060.

000.

00G

14T

he L

onne

n, C

rook

hill

Hou

sing

120.

300.

3010

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

9.11

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G34

Bea

con

Loug

h E

ast J

oint

Ven

ture

H

ousi

ng17

44.

134.

1310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.29

6.96

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G41

Leaf

ield

Hou

se, B

irtle

y H

ousi

ng14

0.92

0.92

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

022.

370.

022.

660.

000.

00G

42S

ite o

f Axw

ell P

ark

Sch

ool

Hou

sing

510.

630.

6310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

12.0

20.

057.

530.

000.

00G

44S

ite o

f Wes

twoo

d, C

lasp

er V

illag

e H

ousi

ng14

0.28

0.28

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

54S

altw

ell R

oad

Wes

t - c

lear

ance

Mac

adam

Hou

sing

104

1.89

1.89

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

073.

580.

094.

650.

147.

29G

55B

ensh

am a

nd S

altw

ell -

Kel

vin

Gro

veH

ousi

ng67

1.30

1.30

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

57A

von

St,

Dec

kham

Hou

sing

160.

270.

2710

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G66

Site

of D

erw

ent T

ower

and

adj

oing

mai

sone

ttes

Hou

sing

922.

672.

6710

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.40

14.7

90.

6122

.67

0.00

0.00

G67

For

mer

Com

mun

ity P

rimar

y S

choo

lH

ousi

ng33

0.73

0.73

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

74F

orm

er F

reig

ht D

epot

Site

H

ousi

ng35

78.

338.

3310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.99

11.8

90.

060.

730.

000.

00G

76H

ighf

ield

Prim

ary

Sch

ool

Hou

sing

291.

061.

0610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G82

Land

to r

ear

of P

ensh

er S

t Eas

tH

ousi

ng34

0.86

0.86

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

86O

ppos

ite C

olts

foot

Gar

dens

H

ousi

ng67

1.63

1.63

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

148.

520.

000.

000.

000.

00G

90R

owla

nds

Gill

Infa

nts'

Sch

ool

Hou

sing

220.

660.

6610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.16

23.9

50.

000.

000.

000.

00G

91B

road

way

H

ousi

ng56

1.49

1.49

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

113

MU

14 G

ates

head

Col

lege

, Dur

ham

Roa

dH

ousi

ng17

54.

054.

0510

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G11

7aM

U4

Der

wen

twat

er R

oad

Hou

sing

912.

510.

2610

.37

2.22

88.4

90.

031.

140.

000.

000.

114.

372.

3091

.74

0.10

3.84

G11

8M

u15-

For

mer

Auc

tion

Mar

t Site

, Cra

wcr

ook

Hou

sing

281.

411.

4110

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G14

4S

outh

Wes

t Far

m -

C

Hou

sing

180.

360.

3610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G14

5S

outh

Wes

t Far

m -

DH

ousi

ng13

0.27

0.27

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

181

BA

E S

yste

ms

Hou

sing

289

11.1

211

.12

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

004.

7242

.41

0.32

2.88

0.00

0.00

G19

1aB

altic

Bus

ines

s Q

uart

er

Hou

sing

200

16.4

716

.47

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

003.

0818

.68

0.34

2.06

0.00

0.00

G19

9F

ewst

er S

quar

e, L

eam

Lan

e H

ousi

ng24

0.47

0.47

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

201

For

mer

LE

S D

epot

H

ousi

ng24

1.03

1.03

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

3028

.81

0.16

15.5

20.

000.

00G

221

For

mer

Shi

rt F

acto

ry, P

elaw

H

ousi

ng36

0.74

0.74

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

057.

120.

000.

000.

000.

00G

222

Ben

sham

and

Sal

twel

l - H

yde

Par

k H

ousi

ng87

1.50

1.50

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

242

Ben

sham

Gro

ve N

urse

ry

Hou

sing

230.

250.

2510

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

15.6

50.

000.

000.

000.

00G

267

Cho

pwel

l Hea

rtla

nds

Site

H

ousi

ng28

710

.03

10.0

310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.58

5.79

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G27

3aH

orse

crof

ts, F

ount

ain

Lane

, Bla

ydon

Hou

sing

70.

740.

022.

570.

7397

.43

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.21

28.1

70.

4155

.35

0.00

0.00

G31

2B

elle

Vue

Mot

ors,

Eas

tern

Ave

, Tea

m V

alle

yH

ousi

ng21

0.44

0.44

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

319

Mou

nt P

leas

ant S

ocia

l Clu

bH

ousi

ng12

0.30

0.30

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

340

5.4

Bou

leva

rd S

outh

H

ousi

ng42

1.16

1.16

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

1513

.17

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G34

13.

1 G

ates

head

Gre

en

Hou

sing

181.

211.

2110

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G34

6S

ite 4

New

Cha

ndle

ss

Hou

sing

471.

361.

3610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

3.56

0.02

1.13

0.00

0.00

G34

7S

ite 3

B N

ew C

hand

less

H

ousi

ng12

0.34

0.34

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

001.

130.

000.

000.

000.

00G

348

Site

3A

New

Cha

ndle

ss

Hou

sing

691.

971.

9710

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.14

6.96

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

G34

9S

ite 2

New

Cha

ndle

ss

Hou

sing

109

3.12

3.12

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

082.

660.

000.

000.

000.

00G

350

Site

1 N

ew C

hand

less

H

ousi

ng12

44.

134.

1310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.44

10.5

60.

030.

650.

000.

00G

354

Hig

h S

pen

Indu

stria

l Est

(S

outh

)H

ousi

ng30

3.38

3.38

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

130.

000.

000.

000.

00G

358

H3.

62 N

orth

side

, Birt

ley

Hou

sing

475

29.9

929

.99

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

662.

200.

943.

130.

220.

73G

362

MU

9 H

awks

Roa

d, S

outh

Sho

re R

oad

Hou

sing

120

3.70

3.70

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

082.

290.

000.

000.

000.

00G

375

Car

Par

k, H

udso

n S

tree

tH

ousi

ng84

0.23

0.23

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

001.

170.

000.

000.

000.

00G

N1

Vac

ant L

and,

Wid

drin

gton

Roa

d, B

layd

onH

ousi

ng7

0.17

0.17

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

002.

120.

000.

140.

000.

00G

488b

Jord

an E

ngin

eerin

g, S

hiel

ds R

oad,

Pel

aw

Hou

sing

410.

890.

8910

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

6.54

0.00

0.09

0.00

0.29

GN

27C

lasp

er V

illag

e H

ousi

ng17

34.

234.

2310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.17

4.10

0.04

0.84

0.00

0.00

GN

31D

erw

ents

ide

Nur

sing

Hom

e H

ousi

ng21

0.47

0.47

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

059.

870.

000.

000.

000.

00G

N34

Jenn

ings

For

d H

ousi

ng54

2.42

2.33

96.1

90.

041.

670.

052.

150.

000.

000.

4820

.01

0.11

4.63

0.05

1.87

GN

6T

enys

on a

nd N

ew B

olt T

ower

sH

ousi

ng50

1.88

1.88

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

052.

800.

052.

660.

000.

00G

N9

Qui

ck S

ave,

Fel

ling

Hou

sing

541.

221.

2210

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.15

12.1

50.

000.

000.

000.

00G

N10

Ret

ail U

nits

, Cro

udac

e R

ow, F

ellin

gH

ousi

ng15

0.29

0.29

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

0725

.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GN

39B

leac

h G

reen

Cle

aran

ce S

iteH

ousi

ng18

44.

844.

8410

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GN

44F

orm

er S

t Agn

es S

choo

lH

ousi

ng20

0.42

0.42

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

N46

Mal

ton

Gre

en V

illag

e H

all

Hou

sing

60.

120.

1210

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GN

49G

arag

es a

nd la

nd, R

yton

, Cro

okhi

ll, S

tella

Hou

sing

130.

250.

2510

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

13.0

00.

0935

.71

0.00

0.00

GN

63R

ockm

ore

Roa

d B

layd

onH

ousi

ng15

0.59

0.59

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00

Flo

od

Zo

ne

Co

vera

ge

Are

as S

usc

epti

ble

to

Su

rfac

e W

ater

Zo

nes

Flo

od

Zo

ne

1F

loo

d Z

on

e 2

Flo

od

Zo

ne

3aF

loo

d Z

on

e 3b

Lo

w S

usc

epti

bili

tyM

ediu

m

Hig

h S

usc

epti

bili

ty

Str

ateg

ic L

and

Rev

iew

Sit

es24

21G

V5

43K

ibbl

esw

orth

Nor

thH

ousi

ng16

29.

569.

5610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.57

6.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GV

122

4C

hopw

ell M

iddl

eH

ousi

ng89

3.80

3.80

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V7

263

Sun

nisi

de P

enny

fine

Roa

d M

iddl

e H

ousi

ng22

3.70

3.70

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

164.

320.

000.

000.

000.

00G

N1

269

Dun

ston

Hill

Mid

dle

Hou

sing

211

9.48

9.48

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

161.

690.

545.

700.

141.

53G

V7

358

Sun

nisi

de P

enny

fine

Roa

d S

outh

Hou

sing

371.

771.

7710

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GV

628

7R

yton

Wes

tH

ousi

ng10

012

.84

12.8

410

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.73

5.67

0.14

1.07

0.08

0.66

GV

536

3K

ibbl

esw

orth

Sou

thH

ousi

ng63

0.86

0.86

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V6

285

Ryt

on E

ast

Hou

sing

450

19.5

619

.56

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

985.

010.

321.

630.

050.

26G

N1

62D

unst

on H

ill S

outh

Hou

sing

223

8.15

8.15

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

060.

800.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V4

301

Hig

h S

pen

- E

ast

Hou

sing

132

6.30

6.30

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

325.

070.

284.

490.

000.

00G

V1

309

Cho

pwel

l - S

outh

Hou

sing

216

7.75

7.75

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

040.

480.

000.

000.

000.

00G

N1

270(

a)D

unst

on H

ill -

Nor

th

Hou

sing

964.

534.

5310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GV

735

7S

unni

side

Pen

nyfin

e R

oad

Nor

thH

ousi

ng24

1.22

1.22

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

032.

070.

119.

420.

000.

00G

V7

312

Sun

nisi

de -

Nor

th S

tree

tgat

eH

ousi

ng18

0.80

0.80

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V2

292

Cra

wcr

ook

Nor

th

Hou

sing

174

7.16

7.16

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

050.

650.

010.

160.

000.

00G

V7

364

Sun

nisi

de -

Nor

th S

tree

tgat

eH

ousi

ng30

1.25

1.25

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V4

322

Hig

h S

pen

- W

est

Hou

sing

421.

651.

6510

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GV

130

7(a)

Cho

pwel

l - N

orth

H

ousi

ng80

2.99

2.99

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V3

305

Hig

hfie

ldH

ousi

ng55

2.38

2.38

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

114.

680.

000.

000.

000.

00G

V2

288

Cra

wcr

ook

Sou

th

Hou

sing

197

8.00

8.00

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

415.

120.

040.

530.

000.

00M

etro

gre

enA

OC

2M

etro

Gre

enS

trat

egic

Site

sS

patia

l Str

a85

017

9.29

147.

8182

.44

17.3

59.

6812

.75

7.11

1.38

0.77

25.4

614

.20

28.1

215

.68

7.68

4.28

CS

3F

ellin

gS

trat

egic

Site

sS

patia

l Str

ateg

y K

ey D

227.

0722

224.

6787

98.9

4595

0.49

5601

0.21

8257

1.89

7846

0.83

579

00

28.4

7067

12.5

3816

11.6

257

5.11

9828

2.83

0513

1.24

6526

CS

3B

ensh

am &

Sal

twel

lS

trat

egic

Site

sS

patia

l Str

ateg

y K

ey D

238.

0396

237.

1488

99.6

2577

0.31

6307

0.13

288

0.57

4521

0.24

1355

00

10.0

1422

4.20

6955

5.30

8115

2.22

9929

1.92

6538

0.80

9335

CS

3B

irtle

yS

trat

egic

Site

sS

patia

l Str

ateg

y K

ey D

649.

6962

5.60

96.2

97.

181.

1012

.81

1.97

4.10

0.63

69.7

810

.74

42.7

86.

587.

191.

11C

S3

Dun

ston

Str

ateg

ic S

ites

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Key

D19

6.53

1816

6.74

6784

.844

648.

3793

914.

2636

3221

.405

7110

.891

730

014

.143

37.

1964

4718

.015

729.

1668

245.

2768

742.

6849

98

Nei

gh

bo

urh

oo

ds

Op

po

rtu

nit

y A

reas

Ap

pen

dix

2 -

Flo

od

Zo

ne

Scr

een

ing

Em

plo

ymen

tK

eyF

lood

Zon

e 3b

Flo

od Z

one

3aF

lood

Zon

e 2

Flo

od Z

one

1 +

surf

ace

wat

erF

lood

Zon

e 1

Lo

cal P

lan

P

olic

y R

efer

ence

Sit

e ID

Nam

eS

ite

IDA

rea

(ha)

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

Are

a (h

a)%

EA

ST

GA

TE

SH

EA

DP

rim

ary

Em

ploy

men

t73

.743

7371

.929

3897

.539

661.

3795

931.

8707

940.

4347

520.

5895

450

013

.583

8418

.420

342.

6090

073.

5379

370.

3660

80.

4964

22C

S1,

CS

5F

OLL

ING

SB

YP

rim

ary

Em

ploy

men

t88

.233

7686

.57

98.1

10.

330.

370.

000.

001.

341.

528.

249.

343.

884.

401.

001.

13P

OR

TO

BE

LLO

, B

IRT

LEY

Pri

mar

y E

mpl

oym

ent

29.9

1566

29.9

1566

100

00

00

00

1.86

855

6.24

6062

0.20

750.

6936

160

0C

S1,

CS

5T

EA

M V

ALL

EY

Pri

mar

y E

mpl

oym

ent

275.

7586

247.

2989

.67

22.3

08.

096.

182.

240.

000.

0071

.33

25.8

756

.07

20.3

34.

811.

75A

DD

ISO

NP

rim

ary

Em

ploy

men

t17

.722

9517

.722

9510

00

00

00

03.

4742

7419

.603

264.

5392

8225

.612

460

0S

TA

RG

AT

ES

econ

dary

Em

ploy

men

t4.

6647

54.

6647

510

00

00

00

00.

4082

148.

7510

380.

2510

625.

3821

010

0W

HIN

FIE

LDS

econ

dary

Em

ploy

men

t5.

4416

515.

4416

5110

00

00

00

00.

7955

2114

.619

110.

3742

26.

8769

650

0W

HIC

KH

AM

Sec

onda

ry E

mpl

oym

ent

2.42

0643

2.42

0643

100

00

00

00

0.32

5589

13.4

5052

0.00

0365

0.01

509

00

GA

TE

SH

EA

D T

OW

N C

EN

TR

EG

ates

head

Tow

n C

entr

e10

7.31

3110

5.32

8298

.150

381.

8757

231.

7478

980.

1091

630.

1017

240

06.

4197

495.

9822

620.

7697

430.

7172

870.

3726

080.

3472

16B

LAY

DO

N/D

ER

WE

NT

HA

UG

HP

rim

ary

Em

ploy

men

t77

.668

9168

.424

488

.097

556.

4134

438.

2574

142.

5378

973.

2675

840.

2931

620.

3774

5110

.660

6713

.725

789.

0062

5611

.595

72.

5008

393.

2198

71F

ELL

ING

Pri

mar

y E

mpl

oym

ent

68.3

1613

67.4

6312

98.7

5139

0.65

2795

0.95

555

0.20

021

0.29

3064

00

12.3

5402

18.0

8361

4.40

1354

6.44

2628

0.17

3645

0.25

4179

PE

LAW

Sec

onda

ry E

mpl

oym

ent

4.79

5849

4.80

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

001.

1624

.11

0.82

17.0

70.

000.

00D

UR

HA

M R

OA

D,

BIR

TLE

YP

rim

ary

Em

ploy

men

t38

.879

328

.264

7172

.698

612.

4736

776.

3624

528.

1409

1220

.938

940

07.

8089

1820

.085

0314

.696

8437

.801

20.

8533

032.

1947

48T

EA

MS

Pri

mar

y E

mpl

oym

ent

13.0

3526

9.36

5083

71.8

4426

0.45

0322

3.45

4648

3.21

985

24.7

0109

00

2.91

5903

22.3

6936

1.38

3742

10.6

1538

0.92

8402

7.12

2239

Fo

llin

gsb

y em

plo

ymen

t si

tes

W o

f F

ollin

gsby

Way

G39

14.

6402

144.

6402

1410

00

00

00

00.

8310

8317

.910

450.

183.

8791

310

0F

ollin

gsby

Ave

nue

G39

20.

9253

560.

9253

5610

00

00

00

00

00

00

0La

nd A

djac

ent

To �

Sou

th F

ollin

gsb y

G31

04.

0065

394.

0065

3910

00

00

00

00.

3102

827.

7443

860.

215

5.36

6227

00

Fol

lings

by A

ve/W

hite

Ros

e W

ayG

384

12.6

0811

12.6

0811

100

00

00

00

0.82

4786

6.54

1714

0.70

4855

5.59

0493

0.29

2.30

0107

KE

A2

Str

ateg

ic e

mpl

oym

ent

site

Land

Sou

th o

f F

ollin

gsby

Lan

eG

478

39.0

737

.42

95.7

70.

310.

780.

000.

001.

353.

452.

857.

301.

152.

950.

300.

76T

eam

Val

ley

For

mer

Huw

oods

, K

ings

way

Nor

thG

494.

3836

744.

3836

7410

00

00

00

00.

1286

792.

9354

180.

0325

0.74

1387

00

Vac

ant

Fac

tory

/War

ehou

se�

For

mer

G42

62.

5609

41.

9596

7876

.521

840.

6012

6223

.478

170

00

01.

3883

5154

.212

560.

5197

6920

.296

010

0Q

ueen

sway

/Thi

rd A

veG

385

0.18

00

0.18

100

00

00

0.05

25.5

60.

1372

.91

00

Nor

th E

ast

Who

lesa

le F

ruit

and

Veg

Mar

ket,

Der

wen

t A

venu

e,

Ear

lsw

ay,

Tea

m V

alle

yG

521

11

100

00

00

00

0.57

57.4

0.03

3.13

00

Fift

h A

ve B

usin

ess

Par

kG

395

2.43

2.43

100

00

00

00

0.18

7.52

0.04

1.47

00

Pri

nces

way

/Cen

tral

way

G39

61.

281.

2810

00

00

00

00.

215

.80.

065.

040

0.22

R38

6, T

enth

Ave

nue

Wes

tG

431.

141.

1410

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

8.96

0.03

2.62

0.00

0.00

Land

bet

wee

n K

ings

way

Sou

th,

&

Sai

nbur

y's,

Ele

vent

h A

veG

190.

790.

7899

.10.

010.

90

00

00.

2228

.36

0.41

51.8

80

0

For

mer

Sai

a B

urge

ss E

lect

roni

cs,

D13

6 D

104

D33

, D

ukes

way

G40

2.27

2.27

100

00

00

00

0.03

1.45

00

00

Duk

esw

ay C

entr

alG

523

1.38

1.38

100

00

00

00

0.17

12.4

70

00

0D

ukes

way

Cen

tral

G18

0.78

0.78

100

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ear

lsw

ayG

513

0.85

0.85

100

00

00

00

0.2

23.5

40.

1112

.49

00

Mai

ngat

e P

hase

IIA

G

501

2.49

00

2.49

100

00

00

0.02

0.89

2.05

82.3

40.

4116

.61

Flo

od

Zo

ne

Co

vera

ge

Are

as S

usc

epti

ble

to

Su

rfac

e W

ater

Zo

nes

Flo

od

Zo

ne

1F

loo

d Z

on

e 2

Flo

od

Zo

ne

3aF

loo

d Z

on

e 3b

Lo

w S

usc

epti

bili

tyM

ediu

m

Hig

h S

usc

epti

bili

ty

Em

plo

ymen

t A

reas

Em

plo

ymen

t S

ites

Ap

pen

idx

2 -

Flo

od

Zo

ne

Scr

een

ing

Urb

an C

ore

Flo

od Z

one

3bF

lood

Zon

e 3a

Flo

od Z

one

2F

lood

Zon

e 1

+ s

urfa

ce w

ater

Flo

od Z

one

1

Lo

cal P

lan

Po

licy

Ref

eren

ceS

ite

IDN

ame

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

eC

apac

ity

Are

a (h

a)A

rea

(ha)

%A

rea

(ha)

%A

rea

(ha)

%A

rea

(ha)

%A

rea

(ha)

%A

rea

(ha)

%A

rea

(ha)

%

Urb

an C

ore

G

C1

Gat

eshe

ad C

entr

al S

ub A

rea

G34

32.

1 In

terc

hang

e N

orth

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.02

1.02

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

011.

020.

000.

000.

000.

00G

C1

Gat

eshe

ad C

entr

al S

ub A

rea

G41

52.

2 In

terc

hang

e S

outh

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.59

1.59

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

127.

660.

000.

000.

000.

00G

C1

/GC

2:2G

ates

head

Cen

tral

Dev

elop

men

t Opp

ortu

nity

Site

sG

414

1.5

Old

Tow

n H

all S

quar

eM

ixed

use

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s2.

032.

0310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.09

4.30

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GC

1 G

ates

head

Cen

tral

Sub

Are

aG

485

Trin

ity S

quar

e -

Gat

eshe

ad T

own

Cen

tre

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.76

1.76

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

C1/

GC

2:2G

ates

head

Cen

tral

Dev

elop

men

t Opp

ortu

nity

Site

sG

338

2.3

Jack

son

Str

eet

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.11

1.11

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00G

C1

Gat

eshe

ad C

entr

al S

ub A

rea

G33

72.

4 H

igh

Str

eet N

orth

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.20

1.20

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

010.

470.

000.

000.

000.

00G

C1

Gat

eshe

ad C

entr

al S

ub A

rea

G34

55.

3 B

oule

vard

Nor

thM

ixed

use

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s1.

361.

3610

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

2.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GC

1 G

ates

head

Cen

tral

Sub

Are

aG

336

5.2

Oak

wel

lgat

eM

ixed

use

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s1.

681.

6810

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

GC

1 G

ates

head

Cen

tral

Sub

Are

aG

335

5.1

Mec

ca B

ingo

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.63

1.63

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

063.

640.

000.

230.

000.

06G

C1

Gat

eshe

ad C

entr

al S

ub A

rea

G35

1D

avy

Rol

l site

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

4.58

4.58

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

275.

810.

122.

690.

091.

95Q

B 1

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

Are

a/Q

B3:

4- Q

uays

and

Bal

tic D

evel

opm

ent S

ites

G46

0G

reen

sfie

ld L

oco

Sho

p G

ates

head

(al

so N

EB

S)

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.06

1.06

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

087.

310.

000.

000.

000.

00Q

B1/

QB

3:3

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

-are

a an

d si

tes

G41

31.

4 H

alf M

oon

Lane

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

0.94

0.94

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

077.

680.

000.

000.

000.

00Q

B1/

QB

3:2

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

-are

a an

d si

tes

G36

3M

U 1

9 P

ipew

ellg

ate

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

0.52

0.26

50.4

20.

2548

.51

0.01

1.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.00

0.86

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B2

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

-are

a -

Gat

eshe

ad Q

uays

Key

Site

G36

1AM

U 8

Hill

gate

Qua

yM

ixed

use

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

760.

5572

.39

0.21

27.1

60.

000.

450.

000.

000.

2228

.58

0.00

0.15

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B2

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

-are

a -

Gat

eshe

ad Q

uays

Key

Site

G40

6M

U8

- H

illga

te G

ates

head

Qua

ysM

ixed

use

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

830.

4756

.48

0.35

41.3

90.

022.

130.

000.

000.

000.

450.

010.

620.

000.

00Q

B1/

QB

2 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub-a

rea

- G

ates

head

Qua

ys K

ey S

iteG

334

1.2

Tyn

e B

ridge

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.06

1.06

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

3331

.26

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B2

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

-are

a -

Gat

eshe

ad Q

uays

Key

Site

G41

21.

1 T

SG

Con

fere

nce

Cen

tre

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.31

1.31

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

021.

710.

000.

000.

000.

00Q

B1/

QB

2 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub-a

rea

- G

ates

head

Qua

ys K

ey S

iteG

362

MU

9 H

awks

Rd

/ Sou

th S

hore

Rd

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

3.70

3.70

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

082.

290.

000.

000.

000.

00Q

B1/

QB

2 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub-a

rea

- G

ates

head

Qua

ys K

ey S

iteG

ates

head

Qua

ysS

trat

egic

Site

sS

patia

l Str

ateg

y K

ey D

e15

.33

14.2

693

.01

1.03

6.73

0.04

0.26

0.00

0.00

1.42

9.28

0.10

0.64

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B3:

5 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

Dev

elop

men

t Site

G19

1cB

altic

Bus

ines

s Q

uart

er

Ene

rgy

Cen

tre

SH

LAA

0.73

0.73

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

2432

.64

0.01

1.59

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B3:

5 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

Dev

elop

men

t Site

G19

1(a)

Bal

tic B

usin

ess

Qua

rter

Mix

ed u

se o

ffice

l eE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

17.1

617

.16

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

003.

0918

.01

0.36

2.11

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B3:

1 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

Mill

eniu

m Q

uay/

Haw

ks R

oad

Dev

elop

mG

463a

Mill

Roa

d E

ast G

ates

head

PE

A (

also

NE

BS

)M

ixed

use

offi

ce l e

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

210.

2110

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

9.69

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B3:

1 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

Mill

eniu

m Q

uay/

Haw

ks R

oad

Dev

elop

mG

419a

C.P

.S. H

aula

ge (

Tyn

esid

e) L

tdM

ixed

use

offi

ce l e

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

180.

1810

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.84

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B3:

1 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

Mill

eniu

m Q

uay/

Haw

ks R

oad

Dev

elop

mG

486

Bal

tic P

lace

Pha

se II

Mix

ed u

se o

ffice

l eE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.21

1.21

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

2722

.20

0.32

26.1

40.

000.

00Q

B1Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

G46

7K

elvi

n W

orks

Site

Sou

th S

hore

Roa

dM

ixed

use

offi

ce l e

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

520.

5210

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.19

36.5

60.

000.

320.

000.

00Q

B1/

QB

3:1

Qua

ys a

nd B

altic

Sub

Are

a M

illen

ium

Qua

y/H

awks

Roa

d D

evel

opm

G42

0aS

ite O

f Ste

rling

Hou

seM

ixed

use

offi

ce l e

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

310.

1961

.65

0.12

38.3

50.

000.

000.

000.

000.

1446

.39

0.01

2.77

0.00

0.00

QB

1/Q

B3:

1 Q

uays

and

Bal

tic S

ub A

rea

Mill

eniu

m Q

uay/

Haw

ks R

oad

Dev

elop

mG

487

Vis

com

Hou

se S

outh

Sho

re R

oad

Mix

ed u

se o

ffice

l eE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

0.41

0.20

48.8

80.

2151

.11

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.23

55.0

50.

0511

.30

0.00

0.00

SG

1 S

outh

ern

Gat

eway

Sub

Are

a/S

G2

Exa

mpl

ar N

eigh

bour

hood

Exa

mpl

ar N

eigh

bour

hood

Hou

sing

S

patia

l Str

ateg

y K

ey D

e38

.07

38.0

710

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.45

11.6

80.

932.

440.

340.

89S

G1

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ay S

ub A

rea/

SG

2 E

xam

plar

Nei

ghbo

urho

odG

341

3.1

Gat

eshe

ad G

reen

Mix

ed u

seE

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.21

1.21

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00S

G1

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ay S

ub A

rea/

SG

2 E

xam

plar

Nei

ghbo

urho

odG

344

4.2

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ayM

ixed

use

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s1.

781.

7810

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SG

1 S

outh

ern

Gat

eway

Sub

Are

a/S

G2

Exa

mpl

ar N

eigh

bour

hood

G35

0S

ite 1

New

Cha

ndle

ssH

ousi

ng

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s4.

134.

1310

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.44

10.5

60.

030.

650.

000.

00S

G1

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ay S

ub A

rea/

SG

2 E

xam

plar

Nei

ghbo

urho

odG

349

Site

2 N

ew C

hand

less

Hou

sing

E

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

3.12

3.12

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

082.

660.

000.

000.

000.

00S

G1

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ay S

ub A

rea/

SG

2 E

xam

plar

Nei

ghbo

urho

odG

346

Site

4 N

ew C

hand

less

Hou

sing

E

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.36

1.36

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

053.

560.

021.

130.

000.

00S

G1

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ay S

ub A

rea/

SG

2 E

xam

plar

Nei

ghbo

urho

odG

347

Site

3B

New

Cha

ndle

ssH

ousi

ng

Em

ploy

men

t Site

s0.

340.

3410

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.17

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SG

1 S

outh

ern

Gat

eway

Sub

Are

a/S

G2

Exa

mpl

ar N

eigh

bour

hood

G34

8S

ite 3

A N

ew C

hand

less

Hou

sing

E

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

1.97

1.97

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

146.

960.

000.

000.

000.

00S

G1

Sou

ther

n G

atew

ay S

ub A

rea/

SG

2 E

xam

plar

Nei

ghbo

urho

odG

74F

orm

er F

reig

ht D

epot

site

Hou

sing

E

mpl

oym

ent S

ites

8.34

8.34

100.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

9911

.92

0.06

0.74

0.00

0.00

Flo

od

Zo

ne

Co

vera

ge

Are

as S

usc

epti

ble

to

Su

rfac

e W

ater

Zo

nes

Flo

od

Zo

ne

1F

loo

d Z

on

e 2

Flo

od

Zo

ne

3aF

loo

d Z

on

e 3b

Lo

w S

usc

epti

bili

tyM

ediu

m

Hig

h S

usc

epti

bili

ty