Site assess­ment template

Sup­port­ing doc­u­ment – August 2025

Site inform­a­tion

Site inform­a­tion

Site ref­er­ence:	Own­er­ship:	Sum­mary site description:
Site name and address:	Developer:
Set­tle­ment:	Pro­posed use:
Ord­nance Sur­vey grid ref­er­ence (East­ing, Northing):	Sup­port­ing information:	Site his­tory / pre­vi­ous plan­ning applic­a­tions, (ref. Nos. where applic­able and approv­al date):
Site size (hec­tares):		Exist­ing Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan allocations:	Date com­pleted:
Source of site sug­ges­tion (e.g. link to call for sites con­sulta­tion, Cairngorms Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 etc):

Key

1 Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies Tack­ling the cli­mate and nature crisis	12 Zero waste	23 Health and safety	Inform­a­tion source
2 Cli­mate mit­ig­a­tion and adaptation	13 Sus­tain­able transport	24 Digit­al infrastructure	Geo­graph­ic Inform­a­tion Sys­tem (GIS)
3 Biod­iversity	14 Design, qual­ity and place	25 Com­munity wealth building	Site vis­it (SV)
4 Nat­ur­al Places	15 Loc­al liv­ing and 20 minute neighborhoods	26 Busi­ness and industry	Con­sul­tee ©
5 Soils	16 Qual­ity homes	27 City, town, loc­al and com­mer­cial centers	Oth­er (0)
6 Forestry, wood­land and trees	17 Rur­al homes	28 Retail
7 His­tor­ic assets and places	18 Infra­struc­ture first	29 Rur­al development	Con­sulta­tion required (only if answer is Yes)
8 Green belts	19 Heat­ing and cooling	30 Tour­ism	Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency (SEPA)
9 Brown­field, vacant and derel­ict land and empty buildings	20 Blue and green infrastructure	31 Cul­ture and creativity	Trans­port Scot­land (TS)
10 Coastal development	21 Play, recre­ation and sport	32 Aquacul­ture	His­tor­ic Envir­on­ment Scot­land (HES)
11 Energy	22 Flood risk and water management	33 Min­er­als	NatureScot (NS)

Loc­a­tion Plan

Insert plan here

Site pho­to­graphs

Insert pho­to­graphs here

Stage one – ini­tial assessment

Site ref­er­ence:

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No / NA (Not appli­able)	Des­ig­na­tion / cat­egory	Com­ments / details	Con­sulta­tion required?
Site size
Is the site cap­able of accom­mod­at­ing at least four dwellings?				Comments/​details
Water
Is the site iden­ti­fied as being at risk of flood­ing (as defined by Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4) in SEPA’s future flood maps?	22		River extent: Future flood­ing (medi­um prob­ab­il­ity 1:200 year) Sur­face water and small water­course extent: Future flood­ing (medi­um prob­ab­il­ity 1:200 year)	Comments/​details
Soils
Would devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in the loss of prime agri­cul­tur­al land or land that is of less­er qual­ity that is cul­tur­ally or loc­ally import­ant for primary use?	5		Prime agri­cul­tur­al land Soil of less­er qual­ity that is cul­tur­ally or loc­ally important	Comments/​details
Is the site on peat­land, car­bon ‑rich soils or pri­or­ity peat­land hab­it­at? Does it meet NPF4 Policy 5© and (d)?	2  5		Peat­land Car­bon-rich soils Pri­or­ity peat­land habitat	Comments/​details
Pro­tec­ted sites
Is the site loc­ated with­in or imme­di­ately adja­cent to a European site?	3  4		Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC): Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (SPA) Ram­sar site	Comments/​details
Is the site loc­ated with­in or imme­di­ately adja­cent to a nation­ally des­ig­nated nature con­ser­va­tion site?	3  4		Site of Spe­cial Sci­entif­ic Interest (SSSI) Nation­al Nature Reserve (NNR)	Comments/​details
Is the site loc­ated with­in or imme­di­ately adja­cent to any oth­er des­ig­nated nature con­ser­va­tion site?	3  4  6		Nation­al Scen­ic Area Wild land areas Non stat­utory nature con­ser­va­tion des­ig­na­tion e.g. Roy­al Soci­ety for the Pro­tec­tion of Birds site Nat­ur­al and semi-nat­ur­al wood­land): Tree Pre­ser­va­tion Order (TPO): Ancient Wood­land:	Comments/​details
People and human health
Does the site’s loc­a­tion align with the broad prin­ciples of the Part­ner­ship Plan’s spa­tial strategy?				Comments/​details
Deliv­er­ab­il­ity
Is there a will­ing landowner(s)?				Comments/​details
Is there a will­ing developer? Is there an option agreement?				Comments/​details
Is there indic­a­tion of mar­ket potential?				Comments/​details
Are the landown­ers / developers aware of the likely plan­ning policy requirements?				Comments/​details
Are the landown­ers / developers aware of any infra­struc­ture requirements?				Comments/​details
If the site is not viable is there an indic­a­tion that defi­cit fund­ing is poten­tially available?				Comments/​details
Plan­ning over­view (ini­tial assessment)				Pro­gress to stage two/​Reject

Stage two – full assessment

Site ref­er­ence:

Pro­posed use (detail as known)

Hous­ing	Site assess­ment question	Yes / No / NA (Not appliable)	Details — enter number	Com­ments
Num­ber of dwellings			Detached Semi-detached Ter­raced Flats Oth­er (e.g. bungalows)
Pro­posed mix of sizes			One-bed­room Two-bed­room Three-bed­room Four-bed­room +
Ten­ure			Sale Rent Social rent Below mar­ket rent Shared own­er­ship Self-build
Employ­ment
Busi­ness and offices			Indic­at­ive floorspace
Gen­er­al industrial			Indic­at­ive floorspace
Stor­age and distribution			Indic­at­ive floorspace
Oth­er
Pro­posed Use Is there a spe­cif­ic occupier(s)?			Indic­at­ive floorspace

Sum­mary

Top­ic	Water	Biod­iversity, fauna and flora	Cli­mat­ic factors	Air qual­ity	Pop­u­la­tion and human health	Soils	Land­scape	Cul­tur­al her­it­age	Mater­i­al assets	Deliv­er­ab­il­ity
Plan­ning Score
SEA score:

Scor­ing Guidance

Impact	Sig­ni­fic­ant pos­it­ive impact	Pos­it­ive impact	Neut­ral impact	Unknown impact	Both Pos­it­ive and Neg­at­ive impacts	Neg­at­ive impact	Sig­ni­fic­ant neg­at­ive impact
Score sym­bol	++	+	0	?	+/​x	x	xx

Plan­ning overview:

SEA over­view:

Plan­ning score:

SEA score:

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No / NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
1. Cli­mate factors
Could adapt­a­tion to cli­mate change be pro­moted and enabled by devel­op­ment of the site?	2
Could nature-based solu­tions for cli­mate change mit­ig­a­tion and adapt­a­tion be used in the devel­op­ment of the site?	2 18 20
Could the devel­op­ment of the site main­tain and enhance resi­li­ence of exist­ing and planned grey and green infrastructure?	2 18 20
Is the site in an area of heat net­work poten­tial or a des­ig­nated Heat Net­work Zone (HNZ)?	2 19
What is the site aspect (N, W, etc. .flat/​step / undu­lat­ing etc.)?	2 14 19
Can the site make best use of sol­ar gain? Is the site over-shadowed?	2 14 19

Plan­ning over­view (cli­mate factors):

SEA over­view (cli­mate factors):

Plan­ning score (cli­mate factors):

SEA score (cli­mate factors):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No / NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
2. Air quality
Could the devel­op­ment of the site lead to loc­al­ised air qual­ity man­age­ment issues?	2 23
Could the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in the des­ig­na­tion of a new AQMA?	23
Would the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in an increase of exist­ing emis­sions or cre­ate new emis­sions harm­ful to human health?	23
Could the devel­op­ment of the site lead to a sens­it­ive use being loc­ated close to a site with noise / odour issues or a site reg­u­lated for emis­sions to air by SEPA (e.g. new hous­ing adja­cent to a large man­u­fac­tur­ing factory)?	23

Plan­ning over­view (air quality):

SEA over­view (air quality):

Plan­ning score (air quality):

SEA score (air quality):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No/​NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
3. Water
Is any part of the site iden­ti­fied as being at risk of flood­ing (as defined by Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4) in Scot­tish Envir­on­ment pro­tec­tion Agency’s future flood maps?	22		River extent: Future flood­ing (medi­um prob­ab­il­ity 1:200 year) Sur­face water and small water­course extent: Future flood­ing (medi­um prob­ab­il­ity 1:200 years) Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area Past flood risk event Risk from sew­er net­work Reser­voir inund­a­tion area
If flood risk is not fully under­stood, a flood risk assess­ment should be under­taken. Spe­cify which of the fol­low­ing flood sources are applic­able: flu­vi­al, plu­vi­al, sew­er, or groundwater.	22		Flood risk assess­ment Comments/​details
Could the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in addi­tion­al flood risk elsewhere?	22
Could the devel­op­ment of the site alle­vi­ate any exist­ing flood­ing prob­lems in the area?	22
Could the devel­op­ment of the site affect the con­di­tion of the water envir­on­ment (water qual­ity, phys­ic­al con­di­tion, water resources, and the migra­tion of wild fish)? See The River Basin Man­age­ment Plan for Scot­land for fur­ther detail on water condition.	20 22
Could the pro­pos­al have a dir­ect impact on the water envir­on­ment (for example, res­ult in the need for water­course cross­ings or a large-scale abstrac­tion or allow the de-cul­vert­ing of a watercourse?	20 22
Can the pro­pos­al con­nect to the pub­lic foul sew­er? Is there suf­fi­cient capa­city for devel­op­ment to con­nect to the pub­lic foul sewer?	18
Is there suf­fi­cient capa­city for the devel­op­ment to con­nect to the mains water supply?	18 22
If not, is there a sus­tain­able water source that is resi­li­ent to peri­ods of water scarcity?	18 22
Are there any water­courses, wet­lands, and / or boggy areas on the site?	22
For major devel­op­ments, are there any private or pub­lic water sup­plies with­in 250m of the site which may be affected?	18 22

Plan­ning over­view (water):

SEA over­view (water):

Plan­ning score (water):

SEA score (water):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No/​NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
4. Soils
Does the pro­pos­al make use of a brown­field site or con­tam­in­ated and vacant and derel­ict land?	5 9
If on brown­field, is the site naturalised?	5 9
Would the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in soil erosion (e.g. adja­cent to steep slopes)?	5
Is the devel­op­ment at risk from landslides?	5 23
Will the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in the loss or erosion of car­bon rich soils?	5
Will the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult soil seal­ing or compaction?	5
Will the devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in the loss of any cul­tur­ally import­ant soils?	5
Are there any con­tam­in­ated soils issues on the site?	5 9
if so, will the option employ remedi­al actions to ensure the site is suit­able for use (as defined in PAN 33)?	5 9

Plan­ning over­view (soils):

SEA over­view (soils):

Plan­ning score (soils):

SEA score (soils):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No / NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
5. Mater­i­al assets
Is the site with­in the vicin­ity of a major acci­dent haz­ard site or major acci­dent haz­ard pipeline?	18 23
Is the site brown­field or greenfield?	9		Comment/​detail If green­field, con­sider avail­ab­il­ity of exist­ing land and build­ings in the set­tle­ment brown­field green­field
Is the site vacant or derelict?	9		Comment/​detail vacant derel­ict
Would devel­op­ment of the site min­im­ise demand on primary resources e.g. does the devel­op­ment re-use an exist­ing struc­ture or recycle or recov­er on-site mater­i­als / resources?	9 12
Does the site have exist­ing and poten­tial min­er­al extraction?	33
Will the site adversely affect import­ant work­able min­er­al resources which are of eco­nom­ic or con­ser­va­tion value?	33
Is the site in the vicin­ity of a waste man­age­ment site and could, there­fore, com­prom­ise the waste hand­ling operation?	12
For waste infra­struc­ture and facil­it­ies (except land­fill and energy from waste) does the pro­pos­al com­ply with the cri­ter­ia lis­ted in Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 Policy 12(d)?	13 15
Is the trans­port net­work cap­able of accom­mod­at­ing: Act­ive travel? Prox­im­ity to cycle paths, core path net­work, oth­er foot­path pro­vi­sion etc. Pub­lic trans­port? Dis­tance to nearest bus stop, fre­quency of ser­vices etc. Private vehicle traffic?	13 15
Can a suit­able road access be achieved, does the access affect a trunk road?
Does the site have 4G coverage?
Does the site have 5G coverage?
Does the site have access to super­fast fibre broadband?
Will devel­op­ment of the site require con­sulta­tion with any of the fol­low­ing bodies?	18 23		Nation­al Air Traffic Ser­vice Min­istry of Defence Health and Safety Executive
Is the site sub­ject to ser­vi­cing constraints?	18 23		Over­head lines Under­ground cables or pipes Planned elec­tri­city trans­mis­sion and dis­tri­bu­tion infra­struc­ture projects

Plan­ning over­view (mater­i­al assets):

SEA over­view (mater­i­al assets):

Plan­ning score (mater­i­al assets):

SEA score (mater­i­al assets):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No/​NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
6. Biod­iversity, flora and fauna
Would devel­op­ment of the site con­serve, restore and enhance biodiversity?	3 4
Would devel­op­ment of the site facil­it­ate the cre­ation of nature net­works and improve eco­lo­gic­al connectivity?	3 4
Would an inter­na­tion­al or European site be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site? includ­ing via connectivity?	3 4
Would a nation­ally des­ig­nated con­ser­va­tion site be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site? includ­ing via connectivity?	3 4
Would any oth­er des­ig­na­tions be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site? includ­ing via connectivity?	3 4 6
Would any non-des­ig­nated hab­it­ats, includ­ing pri­or­ity hab­it­ats, be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site? includ­ing via connectivity?	3 4 6
Would pro­tec­ted or pri­or­ity spe­cies be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site? Has a phase 1 hab­it­at sur­vey been undertaken?	3 4
Would and trees, includ­ing those with Tree Pre­ser­va­tion Orders or iden­ti­fied as ancient or vet­er­an trees, be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site?	3 4 6
Would loc­al geo­di­versity sites or wider geo­lo­gic­al or geo­mor­pho­lo­gic­al interest be affected by the devel­op­ment of the site?	3 4
Would devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in hab­it­at fragmentation?	3 4 5
Would devel­op­ment of the site res­ult in great­er con­nectiv­ity, poten­tially sup­port­ing nature networks?	3 4 6

Plan­ning over­view (biod­iversity, flora and fauna):

SEA over­view (biod­iversity, flora and fauna):

Plan­ning score (biod­iversity, flora and fauna):

SEA score (biod­iversity, flora and fauna):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No/​NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
7. Land­scape
Would the Cairngorms Nation­al Park’s spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies or its Nation­al Scen­ic Areas, Wild Land Areas or loc­al land­scape des­ig­na­tions be affected by devel­op­ment of the site?	4		Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies Deeside and Loch­nagar Nation­al Scen­ic Area The Cairngorm Moun­tains Nation­al Scen­ic Area
Is the site with­in or adjoin­ing any of the following?	4		Loch Tum­mel Nation­al Scen­ic Area Wild Land Areas (15. Cairngorms and 16. Loch­nagar — Mount Keen) Tomin­toul and Glen­liv­et Dark Sky Park
			Visu­al issues and sens­it­iv­it­ies Com­ments / details Wild land area Nation­al Scen­ic Areas Com­ments / details
Would the devel­op­ment of the site exceed the capa­city of the land­scape to accom­mod­ate it? Such as rela­tion­ships to cur­rent set­tle­ment bound­ar­ies, exist­ing town­scape and char­ac­ter of sur­round­ing area and its visu­al qualities?	4
Would fea­tures of land­scape, cul­tur­al or aes­thet­ic interest, includ­ing water­courses, land­forms, trees / wood­land or sig­ni­fic­ant slopes / changes in level be affected by devel­op­ment of the site?	4
Could devel­op­ment of the site be well integ­rated visu­ally with the exist­ing settlement?	4
Are there any loc­ally import­ant views that would be impacted by devel­op­ment of the site?	4

Plan­ning over­view (land­scape):

Plan­ning score (land­scape):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No/​NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
8. Cul­tur­al heritage
Will the devel­op­ment of the site or set­ting affect des­ig­nated or non-des­ig­nated cul­tur­al her­it­age assets? (The loc­al author­ity His­tor­ic Envir­on­ment Record is the primary source of inform­a­tion for this purpose)	7 9 12 18 27 29		Lis­ted build­ings Con­ser­va­tion areas Build­ings at Risk Prop­er­ties in Care Sched­uled monu­ments Archae­olo­gic­al sites Invent­ory gar­dens and designed land­scapes Loc­al his­tor­ic designed land­scapes Invent­ory bat­tle­fields Non-des­ig­nated his­tor­ic envir­on­ment assets Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity his­tor­ic designed land­scape site Oth­er archae­olo­gic­al fea­ture (Can­more) Streets­capes and set­tle­ment pat­terns Com­ments / details
Would the devel­op­ment of the site pro­mote or enable the reten­tion, main­ten­ance and sus­tain­able use or reuse of his­tor­ic build­ings and infrastructure?	7 9 12 18 27 29
Would devel­op­ment of the site: Sup­port the repair and appro­pri­ate ret­ro­fit of his­tor­ic buildings?	7 9 12 18 27 29
Sup­port the trans­ition to green energy sup­ply in his­tor­ic buildings?	14
Include adapt­a­tion meas­ures to make the his­tor­ic envir­on­ment assets and places more resi­li­ent to the effects of cli­mate change (e.g. coastal erosion, flood­ing etc)?	15 21 30 31
Would devel­op­ment of the site: Enable the his­tor­ic envir­on­ment to sup­port cre­ation of high-qual­ity places and spaces?
Pro­mote sus­tain­able, respons­ible tour­ism, recre­ation and cul­tur­al activity?

SEA over­view (land­scape):

Plan­ning score (cul­tur­al heritage):

SEA score (cul­tur­al heritage):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No / NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
9. Pop­u­la­tion and human health
Is the site well related to an exist­ing settlement?	13 14 15		Note approx. dis­tance to nearest set­tle­ment, and how pro­posed site fits with exist­ing set­tle­ment pattern
Is devel­op­ment of the site sup­por­ted by a Loc­al Place Plan or Com­munity Action Plan?
Does the site’s loc­a­tion align with the Part­ner­ship Plan?
How is the site rated for to its walkab­il­ity to ser­vices accord­ing the 20-minute neigh­bour­hood tool?	13 15 27		15.1−19.8 — Very high level of walk­able ser­vices 10.1 — 15.0 — High level of walk­able ser­vices 5.1−10.0 — Some walk­able ser­vices 2.1−5.0 — Few walk­able ser­vices 0.1−2.0 — Very few walk­able ser­vices No walk­able services
Is the site close to a range of facil­it­ies? State dis­tance (km) to the ser­vices where they exist in the settlement.	13 15 27		Community/​village hall Primary school High school GP or hos­pit­al Play area Sport and recre­ation facil­it­ies / oppor­tun­it­ies for exer­cise Super­mar­ket Loc­al shops Employ­ment Allot­ments / com­munity food growing
Can these be accessed by pub­lic transport?	13
Can these be accessed by act­ive travel?	13
What is the edu­ca­tion catch­ment area (primary and sec­ond­ary) for the site and what is the remain­ing capa­city with­in the catchment?	18		Primary School name: Remain­ing capa­city: Sec­ond­ary School name: Remain­ing capacity:
Are there any known capa­city issues with doc­tors’ sur­ger­ies and dent­ists’ prac­tices with­in the catchment?	18		Doc­tors’ sur­ger­ies Dis­tance: Safe route? Dent­ists (NHS) Dis­tance: Safe route?
Would devel­op­ment of the site provide the oppor­tun­ity to incor­por­ate new or enhance exist­ing blue and / or green infra­struc­ture provid­ing mul­tiple bene­fits such as enhanced biod­iversity and man­age­ment of sur­face water in addi­tion to inform­al and form­al play?	18 21

Plan­ning over­view (pop­u­la­tion and human health):

SEA over­view (pop­u­la­tion and human health):

Plan­ning score (pop­u­la­tion and human health):

SEA score (pop­u­la­tion and human health):

Site assess­ment ques­tion	Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies	Yes / No / NA (Not appli­able)	Com­ments / details	Inform­a­tion source	Pre-mit­ig­a­tion score	Mit­ig­a­tion if appro­pri­ate	Post mit­ig­a­tion score	Con­sulta­tion required?
Deliv­er­ab­il­ity
Are there any leg­al factors which may pre­vent, or restrict, devel­op­ment? (eg wayleaves, restric­tion on land use, rights of way, ransom strips, access issues etc)
Is there a real­ist­ic pro­spect of the site being developed with­in the Loc­al Devel­op­ment timeframe?			Yes No	Com­ments / details
When is devel­op­ment expec­ted to start?			Year
Is the site expec­ted to be brought for­ward in the short (1−3 years), medi­um (4−6 years) or long-term (7−10 years) as defined by NPF4 policy 16?	16		0 – 3 years (site likely to have full plan­ning per­mis­sion) 4 – 6 years (site likely to have plan­ning in prin­ciple or an exist­ing alloc­a­tion) 7- 10 years (oth­er sites that align with the spa­tial strategy) 10 + years (sites with con­straints where the con­straint could be removed)	Com­ments / details
Does the devel­op­ment sup­port the viab­il­ity of an exist­ing business?
Has the com­munity been engaged in consultation?
Is indic­at­ive viab­il­ity data available?
Indic­at­ive devel­op­ment costs (con­struc­tion and on-costs e.g. fees)			Rate per sq.m. Com­ments / details
Ser­vices / infra­struc­ture / abnor­mal costs			Costs
Anti­cip­ated sales prices / val­ues (mean)			Rate per sq.m.
Developer’s profit margin			Per­cent­age
Anti­cip­ated land value (not developable)			Rate per hectare

Plan­ning over­view (deliv­er­ab­il­ity):

SEA over­view (deliv­er­ab­il­ity):

Plan­ning score (deliv­er­ab­il­ity):

SEA score (deliv­er­ab­il­ity):

Stage three – engage­ment with key agencies

Sites that passed stage one and assessed under stage two of the assess­ment pro­cess will be sent to key agen­cies with a request for input. The inform­a­tion provided by key agen­cies will be used to inform the over­all assess­ment and final­ise the iden­ti­fic­a­tion of pre­ferred sites and altern­at­ive sites.