APPENDIX 1

AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT

HOUSING NEEDS TECHNICAL REVIEW

December 2015

AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT HOUSING NEEDS

TECHNICAL REVIEW

Project Ref: 24734/A5/SM 24734/A5/SM Status: Draft Final Issue/Rev: 01 01 Date: 23/11/2015 26/11/2015 Prepared by: Simon Macklen Simon Macklen Checked by: Michael Knott Michael Knott Authorised by: Simon Macklen/ Simon Macklen/ Michael Knott Michael Knott

Barton Willmore LLP The Observatory Southfleet Road Ebbsfleet Dartford Kent DA10 0DF

Tel: 01322 374660 Ref: 24734/A5/SM/kf Fax: 01322 374661 Date: December 2015 Email: [email protected]

COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Barton Willmore LLP.

All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil based inks.

CONTENTS

Page No

1.0 INTRODUCTION 01

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 02

i) Introduction 02 ii) National Planning Policy Framework (27 March 2012) 02 iii) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG, 06 March 2014) 03

3.0 REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE COUNCIL’S EVIDENCE BASE 07

i) Introduction 07 ii) Central Buckinghamshire HEDNA 07 iii) Housing Market Area 07

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 15

Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Technical Note has been prepared by Barton Willmore in order to review the findings of the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2015 (CB HEDNA) as evidenced by Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) in its Issues and Options Consultation Document (2013 – 2033) (October 2015).

1.2 The note has been undertaken in the context of the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the supporting Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requirements that Local Plan housing targets are sufficient to ensure that the full objective assessment of overall housing need is met within the housing market area (HMA).

1.3 The note is structured as follows:

Section 2 provides an outline of the relevant National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the supporting Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), and Local Planning Policy.

Section 3 provides a critical review of the evidence presented by AVDC relating its future housing need, including the CB HEDNA, as well as the Aylesbury Vale HEDNA published by AVDC in June 2015.

Section 4 summarises our analysis of housing need for Aylesbury Vale District and the surrounding HMA in the context of published evidence, to recommend an appropriate way forward in assessing overall housing need.

24734/A5/SM/kf 1 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Planning Policy Context

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

i) Introduction

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 27 March 2012) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG, 06 March 2014) set out the requirements within which local planning authorities should be setting their overall housing targets as part of a full objective assessment of overall need. These requirements are summarised below.

ii) National Planning Policy Framework (27 March 2012)

2.2 NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. NPPF states that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes that the Country needs, and that every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet housing needs, taking account of market signals (paragraph 17).

2.3 In respect of delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, NPPF confirms the need for local authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing. To do so, it states that local authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (paragraph 47).

2.4 Furthermore, it states that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (paragraph 50).

2.5 With regard to plan-making, local planning authorities are directed to set out strategic priorities for their area in the Local Plan, including policies to deliver the homes and jobs needed in the area (paragraph 156).

2.6 NPPF states that Local Plans should plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of the Framework (paragraph 157).

24734/A5/SM/kf 2 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Planning Policy Context

2.7 Further, Local Plans are to be based on adequate, up to date and relevant evidence, integrating assessments of and strategies for housing and employment uses, taking full account of relevant market and economic signals (paragraph 158).

2.8 For plan-making purposes, local planning authorities are required to clearly understand housing needs in their area. To do so they should:

“prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries; The SHMA should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:

 meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;

 addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes).”1

iii) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG, 06 March 2014)

2.9 PPG was issued as a web based resource on 6th March 2014. Guidance on the assessment of housing development needs (PPG ID: 2a) includes the SHMA requirement set out in NPPF and supersedes all previous published SHMA practice guidance (CLG, 2007).

2.10 The primary objective of the housing development needs assessment (the SHMA) is to identify the future quantity of housing needed, including a breakdown by type, tenure and need (PPG ID2a 002)

2.11 Housing need refers to the scale of housing likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period, should cater for the housing demand in the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet that demand. (PPG ID2a 003)

2.12 The assessment of need is an objective assessment based on facts and unbiased evidence and constraints should not be applied (PPG ID2a 004).

1 Paragraph 159, National Planning Policy Framework, 27 March 2012;

24734/A5/SM/kf 3 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Planning Policy Context

2.13 Use of the PPG methodology for assessing housing need is strongly recommended, to ensure that the assessment is transparent (ID2a 005). The area assessed should be the housing market area (ID2a 008), reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people live and work (ID2a 010).

PPG methodology for assessing housing need

2.14 The full methodology is set out at ID 2a 014 to 029 (overall housing need at ID2a 015 to 020), and is introduced as an assessment that should be based predominately on secondary data (ID2a 014).

Starting point estimate of need

2.15 The methodology states that the starting point for assessing overall housing need should be the household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, but that they are trends based and may require adjustment to reflect factors, such as unmet or supressed need, not captured in past trends (ID2a 015).

“The household projection-based estimate of housing need may require adjustment to reflect factors affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not captured in past trends. For example, formation rates may have been suppressed historically by under-supply and worsening affordability of housing.” (2a-015) (Our emphasis)

Adjusting for demographic evidence

2.16 The PPG methodology advises that plan makers may consider testing alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates. It also states that ‘account should be taken of the most recent demographic evidence including the latest Office for National Statistics population estimates’ (2a-017).

Adjusting for likely change in job numbers

2.17 In addition to taking into account demographic evidence the methodology states that job trends and or forecasts should also be taken into account when assessing overall housing need. The implication is that housing numbers should be increased where this will enable labour force supply to match projected job growth (2a-018).

“Where the supply of working age population that is economically active (labour force supply) is less than the projected job growth, this could result in unsustainable commuting patterns … and could reduce the resilience of local businesses. In such circumstances, plan makers will need to consider how the location of new housing or infrastructure development could help address these problems.” (2a-018)

24734/A5/SM/kf 4 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Planning Policy Context

2.18 The PPG also confirms the importance of ensuring sufficient growth in the working age population (16-64), at paragraph 2a-018 and 2a-21:

“Plan makers should make an assessment of the likely change in job numbers based on past trends and/or economic forecasts as appropriate and also having regard to the growth of the working age population in the housing market area.” (2a-018)

“When considering future need for different types of housing, plan makers will need to consider whether they plan to attract a different age profile e.g. increasing the number of working age people.” (2a-021)

Adjusting for market signals

2.19 The final part of the methodology regarding overall housing need is concerned with market signals and their implications for housing supply (2a-019:020).

“The housing need number suggested by household projections (the starting point) should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals, as well as other market indicators of the balance between the demand for and supply of dwellings.” (2a-019)

2.20 Assessment of market signals is a further test intended to inform whether the starting point estimate of overall housing need (the household projections) should be adjusted upwards. Particular attention is given to the issue of affordability (2a-020).

“The more significant the affordability constraints … and the stronger other indicators of high demand … the larger the improvement in affordability needed and, therefore, the larger the additional supply response should be.” (2a-020)

Overall housing need

2.21 An objective assessment of overall housing need can be summarised as a test of whether the household projection based starting point can be reconciled with a) the latest demographic evidence, b) the ability to accommodate projected job demand, c) the requirement to address worsening market signals. If it cannot be reconciled, then an adjustment should be made.

2.22 The extent of any adjustment should be based on the extent to which it passes each test. That is:

 It will at least equal the housing need number implied by the latest demographic evidence,  It will at least accommodate projected job demand; and,  On reasonable assumptions, it could be expected to improve affordability.

24734/A5/SM/kf 5 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Planning Policy Context

Affordable housing need assessment

2.23 The methodology for assessing affordable housing need is set out at 2a-022 to 029 and is largely unchanged from the methodology it supersedes (SHMA 2007). In summary, total affordable need is estimated by subtracting total available stock from total gross need. Whilst it has no bearing on the assessment of overall housing need, delivering the required number of affordable homes can be used to justify an increase in planned housing supply (2a-029).

“The total affordable housing need should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments … An increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.” (2a- 029) (our emphasis)

SUMMARY

2.24 The NPPF and PPG requires that in planning for future levels of housing, local authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing in their area that meets in full, the objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing. In doing so local authorities should;

 identify a scale of housing that meets household and population projections;  account for migration and demographic change in formulating housing requirements;  ensure that assessment of, and strategies for, housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals; and  Work closely with the business community to understand their changing needs and identify and address barriers to investment, including a lack of housing.

24734/A5/SM/kf 6 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

3.0 REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE COUNCIL’S EVIDENCE BASE

i) Introduction

3.1 Aylesbury Vale District Council have issued its Issues and Options Consultation Document (October 2015) for consultation. The Council briefly outline the history of its housing needs evidence base confirming the preparation of an Aylesbury Vale specific HEDNA (June 2015). Subsequently the Council jointly commissioned consultants to carry out a housing market area wide study of housing need, which determined that the most appropriate housing market area comprised Aylesbury Vale, Wycombe, and Chiltern. This housing market area (HMA) forms the basis on which the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (CB HEDNA) has been undertaken.

3.2 The AVDC Issues and Options Document confirms based on evidence from the CB HEDNA that the objectively assessed housing need of the HMA totals 43,000 dwellings, of which 21,300 relate specifically to Aylesbury Vale District.

3.3 The Issues and Options Document goes on to confirm that AVDC plan to provide for 30,000 dwellings, comprising 21,000 dwellings to meet Aylesbury Vale needs and 10,000 dwellings to meet the unmet need of surrounding authorities.

3.4 We review the Central Buckinghamshire HEDNA below:

ii) Central Buckinghamshire HEDNA

3.5 The Report published in October 2015 was jointly commissioned by Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe District Councils. We review the conclusions of this report in accordance with the requirements for undertaken an OAN as outlined in the PPG.

iii) Housing Market Area

3.6 The Report concludes that the best fit housing market area comprises the three instructing local authorities, which it also states corresponds with the functional economic area. The Report goes on to confirm that Aylesbury Vale also forms its own local housing market area, whilst Chiltern and Wycombe form the High Wycombe and Amersham Local HMA.

24734/A5/SM/kf 7 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

3.7 It is also now understood that South Buckinghamshire Council also consider themselves part of this housing market area, and as such it will be important to understand the reasoning behind this and the implications on the OAN of the housing market area, and how this can be met in full. At the time of writing, a revised HEDNA report incorporating has not been published.

3.8 Furthermore, we note that the GL Hearn Aylesbury Vale HEDNA (June 2015) presented that the north of Aylesbury Vale falls within the Milton Keynes housing market area, and functional economic area, therefore it will be important to ensure that Aylesbury Vale District Council liaise closely with Milton Keynes Council in ensuring that any (further) unmet need can be accommodated.

Establish the starting point estimate

3.9 The starting point estimate of housing need as outlined in the ORS report is presented in Figure 13. We summarise the household projections over the 20 year period of the AVDC Local Plan (2013 – 2033) in Table 3.1 below. The projections broadly concur with those presented by ORS (the difference due to differing time periods being presented). The total household growth projected over the 20 year period equates to 920 households per annum within Aylesbury Vale and 1,716 household per annum across the HMA.

Table 3.1: 2012-based household projections – the starting point estimate 2013-2033 change 2013 2033 Total Per annum Aylesbury Vale 71,759 90,163 18,404 920 Chiltern 37,273 41,825 4,552 228 Wycombe 69,123 80,492 11,369 569 HMA Total 178,155 212,480 34,325 1,716 Source: DCLG

Adjust for demographic evidence

3.10 The CB HEDNA acknowledges that the 2012-based household projections project higher levels of household growth than the previous series. The underlying 2012-based Sub National Population Projections (SNPP) published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) are cited as the main reason for the difference. However, household representative rates (HRRs) are also acknowledged.

24734/A5/SM/kf 8 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

3.11 The CB HEDNA presents two alternative population projection based on migration trends observed over the period 2001-2011, as well as more recent migration trends 2004 – 2014 (referred to as the ‘alternative trend’). Table 3.2 outlines the resulting levels of population growth in 2033, comparing with the published 2012-based sub-national population projections.

Table 3.2: Population growth based on a 10-year migration trend and 10-year alternative migration projection 2033 2033 2033 2013 10 Yr Trend Alt 10 Yr Trend 2012-SNPP (2001-11) (2004-14) Aylesbury Vale 179,618 214,975 207,480 213,988 Chiltern 93,250 100,117 101,896 102,306 Wycombe 173,850 193,419 193,167 194,659 HMA Total 446,702 508,511 502,544 510,594 Source: Figure 44, Page 61, Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment, October 2015

3.12 The intercensal 10 year migration trend leads to a noticeably lower level of population growth in Aylesbury Vale, than projected by the 2012-based SNPP, which are based on shorter term 5 year migration trends. The figures remain similar for the other two authorities. The alternative migration trend projections presented by ORS, reflect net migration trends between 2004 and 2014. As summarised in Table 2, the projected population under this scenario exceeds the 2012-based SNPP in both Chiltern and Wycombe and remains slightly below the 2012-based SNPP for Aylesbury Vale.

3.13 It should be noted that ORS assume that unattributable population change (UPC) is directly related to migration. Barton Willmore disagree with this approach given the uncertainties which surround the cause of UPC. However, whilst UPC will negatively affect migration trends within Aylesbury Vale, this is more than offset by upsides generated by UPC in both Chiltern and Wycombe. As such UPC appears to have little bearing on the net migration trends of the housing market area, although we have not undertaken a detailed analysis of its implications at the current time.

3.14 In determining the levels of household growth associated with each of the above population projections ORS apply the 2012-based household representative rates (otherwise referred to as formation rates). Such an approach ignores the levels of household suppression inherent within the latest projections, which will have resulted from poor housing delivery and affordability issues experienced in recent years. However, it is also reasonable to assume that

24734/A5/SM/kf 9 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

this is a longer term issue, as the 2008-based series also incorporated household suppression, but that does by no means undermine the importance of the issue. The evidence presented by ORS confirms that the number of concealed household increased by 608 to +2,066 between 2001 and 2011, whilst the number of multi-adult households increased by 1,366 to +7,777 between 2001 and 2011. Both indicate increased affordability issues resulting in increased household suppression.

3.15 Furthermore, we append to this note graphs summarising the past and projected household formation rates (by ten year age bands) of the three authorities, which confirm that since 2001 the rate of household formation in those aged 25-34 has declined across the HMA, whilst it has remained broadly static in those aged 35-44. In contrast the 2008-based series household formation rate assumptions assumed a continued improvement in rates over this period. In older age groups the 2012-based series display similar rates of household formation as the 2008-based series. Whilst the CB HEDNA recognises that the household formation rates underpinning the 2012 based-series result in 10% fewer household than the 2008-based series (across England), ORS do not consider it appropriate to make an adjustment.

3.16 In contrast GL Hearn in its Aylesbury Vale HEDNA (June 2015) do concede that the household formation rates of those aged 25-34 years of age is of concern, as they show ‘quite a movement away from the figures in the 2008-based projections’2. GL Hearn seek to rectify this downturn in formation rates, albeit as a market signal adjustment. We disagree, and consider that this adjustment represents a correction to the demographic need calculations as required by paragraph 2a-015 of the PPG. The market signals adjustment should be considered over and above this.

3.17 The CB HEDNA converts household growth into dwelling growth taking account of vacancies and second homes based on proportions from the 2011 Census. Table 3.3 presents the two demographic-led housing growth scenarios set out by ORS. For comparison we set also set out the 2012-based CLG household projections which have been adjusted to dwellings. ORS conclude that the higher of these scenarios ‘alternative 10 year trend’ provide the most appropriate demographic projection on which to base the objectively assessed need.

2 Paragraph 3.24, GL Hearn Aylesbury Vale HEDNA June 2015

24734/A5/SM/kf 10 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

Table 3.3: Demographic-led Dwelling growth Scenarios CLG Household ORS Alternative 10 ORS 10 Yr Trend Projections 2012- Yr Trend (dwellings) based (dwellings) (dwellings) (2013- (2013-33) (2013-33) 33) Aylesbury Vale 19,081 16,332 18,841 Chiltern 4,724 5,349 5,502 Wycombe 11,767 11,940 12,509 HMA Total 35,572 33,621 36,853

3.18 We remain concerned that the demographic projection for Aylesbury Value has been suppressed by net migration assumptions adjusted down to incorporate UPC, although we accept that this effect is offset across the housing market area by a broadly opposite adjustment to increase net migration levels within Chiltern and Wycombe. However, it is clear that the level of household growth (and homes) forecast to meet this level of population growth do not seek to address household suppression, particularly in younger age groups, and on this basis we recommend that in order to fully account for demographic change the stated demographic need of 36,853 dwellings should be adjusted upwards. In the absence of any localised modelling, an uplift of +10% would seem reasonable on the basis that ORS consider this to be the difference in the 2008 and 2012-based household formation rates.

Adjust for likely change in job numbers

3.19 The CD HEDNA identifies that the demographic-led projections would provide a growth in the economically active population of 13,388 within Aylesbury Vale, and 25,010 across the HMA. ORS go onto to supplement this figure with a further 1,179 people within Aylesbury Vale, and 3,108 people across the HMA which are said to reflect the reduction in unemployment between 2013 and 2015. ORS then reduce this figure by 4,986 within Aylesbury Vale and 9,412 across the HMA to account for those residents who may out-commute. This results in a residual growth in the economically active population of Aylesbury Vale totalling 9,581, and 18,706 across the HMA respectively.

3.20 In contrast the CB HEDNA assumes a job growth forecast of 17,555 within Aylesbury Vale and 33,427 across the HMA. After making an allowance for a proportion of these jobs to be filled by in-commuters, as well as double jobbing the net additional job growth assumed within Aylesbury Vale totals 12,891 and 24,267 across the HMA. In accordance with the requirements of the PPG these figures are required to balance with an adequate level of labour force growth. As such ORS confirm there to be a shortfall in labour supply (based on its demographic projection) of 3,310 within Aylesbury Vale and 5,561 across the HMA. ORS go onto conclude

24734/A5/SM/kf 11 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

that as a result a further 2,313 dwellings are required within Aylesbury Vale and 3,827 across the HMA. This results in an overall need for housing (to balance jobs and workers) totalling +21,154 within Aylesbury Vale and +40,679 dwellings across the HMA (2013 – 2033).

3.21 The job growth figures appear to be sourced from evidence provided by Atkins, which was drawn from Oxford Economics, however no detail is provided. By way of comparison we note that the East of England Forecasting Model (published by Cambridgeshire County Council) and prepared by Oxford Economics, detail job growth of 20,100 jobs within Aylesbury Vale between 2011 and 2031. The figures published in January 2015 do not forecast beyond 2031.

3.22 We also note that whilst Atkins favour the Oxford Economics forecasts, they nonetheless test Experian forecasts, albeit only append job growth on an FTE basis, totalling some 30,600 FTE jobs (2013-2033) across the HMA (sourced from March 2015 forecast). We have separately obtained Experian forecasts from the same March 2015 series as utilised by ORS/ Atkins. Whilst Experian did not publish forecasts beyond 2031, Experian detail job growth over a 20 year period (2011 – 2031) totalling 31,000 FTE jobs, and 46,000 workforce jobs across the HMA. The equivalent workforce job growth for Aylesbury Vale totals 19,300 jobs (2011 – 2031).

3.23 It is clear therefore that based on the limited available evidence included within the CB HEDNA that the forecast level of job growth being tested for establishing the necessary growth in dwellings falls at the lower end of the range of forecasts tested.

3.24 Furthermore, the GL Hearn Aylesbury Vale HEDNA published in June 2015, which assessed two job growth scenarios, the first of which termed ‘synthesis baseline scenario’ was based on an average of three job growth forecasts (Experian, EEFM (Oxford Economics) and Cambridge Economics), resulting in job growth of 15,800 jobs (2013 – 2033). The second forecast tested by GL Hearn termed the ‘committed growth scenario’ considers the impact of planned infrastructure investment and key investment projects which result in additional employment growth over and above the synthesis scenario. This scenario resulted in job growth of 19,000 jobs within Aylesbury Vale.

3.25 This ‘committed growth scenario’ clearly represents a more robust level of job growth on which to test housing growth on the basis that it incorporates known changes to the local economy of Aylesbury Vale. Whilst equivalent localised assessments do not appear to have been undertaken for the remainder of the HMA, it is quite clear that the CB HEDNA should have assessed jobs growth on the basis of the ‘committed growth scenario’ detailed by GL Hearn. GL Hearn confirm that on the basis of +19,000 additional jobs, it would be necessary to provide

24734/A5/SM/kf 12 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

for 26,520 dwellings (2013 – 2033)3. This dwelling figure represents an additional 5,366 dwellings over that forecast by ORS, and in the absence of any detailed forecasts by ORS of this level of job growth we consider that a figure of +5,366 should be added to the OAN of the HMA as determined by ORS to account for local job growth factors specific to Aylesbury Vale.

Adjust for market signals

3.26 The CB HEDNA summarises a number of market signals across the HMA and concludes that on the basis of market signals the level of objectively assessed need for the HMA should be higher than suggested by the household projections. However, justification for an adjustment is based on a comparison of indicators with Eastleigh – where the Inspector recommended a 10% uplift to address market signals. As indicators for Central Buckinghamshire demonstrate greater housing pressure than in Eastleigh, the SHMA concludes that it would seem reasonable for a 15% uplift to the household projections in response to market signals in this area (10% in Aylesbury Vale and 20% within Chiltern and Wycombe). The CB HEDNA identifies a lower uplift for Aylesbury Vale on the basis of its slightly lower affordability ratio, which is similar to Eastleigh’s. We also note that the GL Hearn HEDNA (June 2015) proposes a similar uplift to Aylesbury Vale (of +11%) through an adjustment to the household formation rate of younger age groups. Whilst we welcome acknowledgement of this issue by GL Hearn, this adjustment should be addressed at the first stage of an OAN in establishing demographic need, and a market signals adjustment should be considered over and above this.

3.27 The purpose of adjusting for market signals as set out in the PPG is to improve affordability. Whilst ORS rely entirely on Eastleigh Inspector’s recommendation to apply a 10% uplift to address market signals in Eastleigh, there is no evidence to suggest that this level of uplift will be sufficient to address affordability issues. Indeed the Barker Review of Housing Supply, for example, indicated that an 86% increase in house building would be required to bring house price inflation down to the European average (1.1%):

“Achieving the desired improvement in the housing market would, it was asserted, require an additional 120,000 housing starts per year on top of the 140,000 in 2002/3, taking the annual total to 260,000. According to the Review’s modelling, this scenario would see between 5,000 and 15,000 newly formed households priced into the market in each year between 2011 and 2021.”4

3 Table 71, GL Hearn Aylesbury Vale HEDNA June 2015

4 Home Builders Federation (2014), ‘Barker Review – a decade on’, p.7

24734/A5/SM/kf 13 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Review and Critique of Council Evidence Base

3.28 Past completions within Aylesbury Vale have averaged 752 dpa since 2001, and as such an +86% uplift would equate to 1,398 dpa, which in fact only slightly exceeds the level of homes deemed necessary by GL Hearn to meet ‘committed job growth’, and totalling 1,326 dpa. Based upon published completions data from Chiltern and Wycombe (Chiltern since 2001 and Wycombe since 2006) averaging 160 dpa and 472 dpa respectively, a +86% uplift on past completions across the housing market area would equate to 2,574 dpa (51,485 dwellings 2013 – 2033).

Establish level of affordable housing need

3.29 The CB HEDNA contains an assessment of affordable housing need and identifies need for 429 affordable dwellings per annum over the period 2013-2033 across the whole HMA. However, this assumes a reliance on the Private Rented Sector (PRS). ORS go on to confirm that given this context the HEDNA has identified that the need for affordable housing could be considered as a range from a minimum of 435 dwellings per annum to a maximum of 700 dwellings per annum (assuming no support in the PRS). ORS go onto conclude that the proposed OAN for affordable housing is therefore 450 dwellings per annum. The CB HEDNA does not break this figure down by district.

Table 3.4: Full OAN 2013-2033 Total dwellings Per Annum Aylesbury Vale 21,289 1,064 Chiltern 6,602 330 Wycombe 15,011 751 HMA total 42,902 2,145

Source: ORS Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment, October 2015

3.30 The CB HEDNA full OAN (summarised in Table 3.4 above) is presented as including the OAN for affordable housing based on an average of 450 dwellings per annum. However, PRS should not be counted towards affordable housing supply and therefore in our opinion affordable need should be taken as 700 dwellings per annum which would affect the full OAN presented in Table 4, increasing it by 250 dpa, or 5,000 dwellings and are in addition to any further allowance required to deal with economic growth (as set out above).

24734/A5/SM/kf 14 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Summary and Conclusions

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 This Technical Note has considered the findings of the Central Buckinghamshire HEDNA (October 2015) alongside the Aylesbury Vale HEDNA of June 2015.

4.2 The CB HEDNA is prepared on behalf of the three local authorities (Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe) comprising the Central Buckinghamshire HMA.

4.3 The starting point CLG household projections total 920 households per annum within Aylesbury Vale and 1,716 households per annum across the HMA. The CB HEDNA presents two alternative demographic growth scenarios, based upon longer term migration trends, opting for the more recent of these scenarios which test levels of net migration which has occurred over the period 2004 – 2014. This scenario results in growth of +18,841 dwellings over the period 2013 – 2033 within Aylesbury Vale, and +36,853 dwellings across the HMA.

4.4 However, we note that ORS assume the UPC (unattributable population change) is related directly to migration and as such they reduce Aylesbury Vale’s past net migration levels to account for this. Whilst we disagree with this approach which we consider could have the effect of suppressing future demographic need within Aylesbury Vale, we also accept that ORS make an upward adjustment to migration trends within Chiltern and Wycombe offsetting the negative effect of UPC within Aylesbury Vale and effectively neutralising the impact of UPC across the HMA.

4.5 We also remain concerned that ORS apply the 2012-based household formation rates in determining future household growth without adjustment. Whilst ORS do appear to make a subsequent allowance for concealed households, this will not alleviate future levels of suppression inherent within the household formation rates. As we have demonstrated (and conceded by the GL Hearn HEDNA June 2015) there is a very clear suppression in the household formation of those aged 25-34 years of age. It is appropriate to correct this adjustment which in the absence of detailed analysis and based on the ORS evidence is likely to increase the stated demographic need figures by approximately +10%.

4.6 The CB HEDNA goes on to test the necessary level of housing required to balance with future job growth forecasts, confirming that the projected level of demographic based housing need will provide an insufficient level of growth in the labour force. However, whilst ORS make upward adjustments to the level of housing growth required to account for its lower job growth forecasts, we remain concerned that the job growth figures tested remain below the upper end forecasts detailed within the report, and ignore the localised job growth forecast tested by GL Hearn in the Aylesbury Vale HEDNA (June 2015). This forecast termed the ‘committed growth

24734/A5/SM/kf 15 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Summary and Conclusions

scenario’ incorporated planned levels of infrastructure and investment and as such is considered to provide a more reliable source of likely future job growth in Aylesbury Vale. GL Hearn forecast that this level of job growth within Aylesbury Vale, totalling +19,000 jobs would equate to a housing requirement of 1,326 dpa or +26,520 dwellings over the period 2013 – 2033. This level of housing growth represents an increase of +5,366 dwellings over that forecast by ORS based its lower job growth forecasts, and as such we consider that this level of housing should be added to the ORS recommended OAN figure for Aylesbury Vale and the HMA.

4.7 The CB HEDNA recognises that market signals issues exists across the HMA and proposes a +15% adjustment, drawing reference from the Inspector’s recommendation in Eastleigh. The purpose of the market signals adjustment is however to ease affordability issues, and there is no evidence to suggest that the limited level of adjustment proposed will in anyway facilitate a change to the affordability of homes across the HMA. By way of reference the Barker Review in 2004 recommended that it would be necessary to increase housing supply by +86% above past completions in order to facilitate a reduction in house price inflation. Applying this same percentage uplift would equate to a need to deliver 1,398 dpa within Aylesbury Vale, and 2,574 dpa across the HMA. The figure for Aylesbury Vale is not dissimilar to that considered necessary by GL Hearn (AV HEDNA June 2015) to meet committed job growth.

4.8 In calculating affordable need the CB HEDNA assume that a proportion of affordable homes will be delivered through the private rented sector (PRS). We do not consider it appropriate to rely on PRS in meeting affordable need, and the sensitivity analysis undertaken by ORS confirms that this would have the effect of increasing net affordable need by +250 dpa or 5,000 dwellings over the period 2013 – 2033.

4.9 The CB HEDNA concludes that the OAN for Aylesbury Vale totals 21,289 dwellings (1,064 dpa), and 42,903 dwellings across the HMA (2,145 dpa). However, following our assessment above we consider that in order to fully account for committed levels of job growth it will be necessary to plan for a further +5,366 dwellings within Aylesbury Vale (and the HMA), plus a further +5,000 dwellings across the HMA to account for full affordable need (without reliance on PRS). We therefore consider that based upon the published evidence (comprising the Central Buckinghamshire HEDNA and Aylesbury Vale HEDNA) that Aylesbury Vale’s OAN totals at least 26,655 dwellings (1,333 dpa), and for the HMA 53,268 dwellings (2,663 dpa). This higher OAN would also serve to address market signals issues based on the levels of uplift considered necessary by the Barker Review in order to reduce inflationary pressure on house prices.

24734/A5/SM/kf 16 December 2015 Aylesbury Vale Housing Need Technical Review Summary and Conclusions

4.10 We summarise these figures in the following table.

Table 4.1 Comparison of OAN Figures ORS HEDNA GLH HEDNA Barton Willmore (October 2015) (June 2015) (Dwellings Per (Dwellings (Dwellings Annum) Per Annum) Per Annum) Aylesbury Vale 1,064 1,326 1,333 HMA total 2,145 - 2,663

24734/A5/SM/kf 17 December 2015

APPENDIX 1:

COMPARISON OF 2008-BASED, ‘INTERIM’ 2011-BASED AND 2012-BASED HOUSEHOLD REPRESENTATIVE RATES FOR AYLESBURY VALE, CHILTERN & WYCOMBE DISTRICTS

Analysis of Household Representative (HR) Rates

Comparison of HR rates for persons aged 15+, by 10 year age band, 15 to 74 and for persons 75+ is presented in the panels below. The HR rates shown are taken from the DCLG 2008-based (blue line), interim 2011-based (red line) and 2012-based projections (green line). Although the position on a scale of 0 to 1 (0 to 100%) varies, the range on each left hand axis is the same (0.3 or 30%) so that like for like comparison can be made. By way of explanation, a rate of 0.5 means that 50% of persons in that age group are said to represent a household, so that a hypothetical 100 persons is assumed to represent 50 households.

Local Authority: Aylesbury Vale

15+ 2008-based 15+ 2011-based 15+ 2012-based 15-24 2008-based 15-24 2011-based 15-24 2012-based

0.60 0.30

0.55 0.25

0.50 0.20

0.45 0.15

0.40 0.10

0.35 0.05

0.30 0.00 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

25-34 2008-based 25-34 2011-based 25-34 2012-based 35-44 2008-based 35-44 2011-based 35-44 2012-based

0.60 0.70

0.55 0.65

0.50 0.60

0.45 0.55

0.40 0.50

0.35 0.45

0.30 0.40 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

45-54 2008-based 45-54 2011-based 45-54 2012-based 55-64 2008-based 55-64 2011-based 55-64 2012-based

0.70 0.70

0.65 0.65

0.60 0.60

0.55 0.55

0.50 0.50

0.45 0.45

0.40 0.40 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

65-74 2008-based 65-74 2011-based 65-74 2012-based 75+ 2008-based 75+ 2011-based 75+ 2012-based

0.70 0.90

0.65 0.85

0.60 0.80

0.55 0.75

0.50 0.70

0.45 0.65

0.40 0.60 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 Analysis of Household Representative (HR) Rates

Comparison of HR rates for persons aged 15+, by 10 year age band, 15 to 74 and for persons 75+ is presented in the panels below. The HR rates shown are taken from the DCLG 2008-based (blue line), interim 2011-based (red line) and 2012-based projections (green line). Although the position on a scale of 0 to 1 (0 to 100%) varies, the range on each left hand axis is the same (0.3 or 30%) so that like for like comparison can be made. By way of explanation, a rate of 0.5 means that 50% of persons in that age group are said to represent a household, so that a hypothetical 100 persons is assumed to represent 50 households.

Local Authority: Wycombe

15+ 2008-based 15+ 2011-based 15+ 2012-based 15-24 2008-based 15-24 2011-based 15-24 2012-based

0.60 0.30

0.55 0.25

0.50 0.20

0.45 0.15

0.40 0.10

0.35 0.05

0.30 0.00 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

25-34 2008-based 25-34 2011-based 25-34 2012-based 35-44 2008-based 35-44 2011-based 35-44 2012-based

0.60 0.70

0.55 0.65

0.50 0.60

0.45 0.55

0.40 0.50

0.35 0.45

0.30 0.40 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

45-54 2008-based 45-54 2011-based 45-54 2012-based 55-64 2008-based 55-64 2011-based 55-64 2012-based

0.70 0.70

0.65 0.65

0.60 0.60

0.55 0.55

0.50 0.50

0.45 0.45

0.40 0.40 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

65-74 2008-based 65-74 2011-based 65-74 2012-based 75+ 2008-based 75+ 2011-based 75+ 2012-based

0.70 0.90

0.65 0.85

0.60 0.80

0.55 0.75

0.50 0.70

0.45 0.65

0.40 0.60 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 Analysis of Household Representative (HR) Rates

Comparison of HR rates for persons aged 15+, by 10 year age band, 15 to 74 and for persons 75+ is presented in the panels below. The HR rates shown are taken from the DCLG 2008-based (blue line), interim 2011-based (red line) and 2012-based projections (green line). Although the position on a scale of 0 to 1 (0 to 100%) varies, the range on each left hand axis is the same (0.3 or 30%) so that like for like comparison can be made. By way of explanation, a rate of 0.5 means that 50% of persons in that age group are said to represent a household, so that a hypothetical 100 persons is assumed to represent 50 households.

Local Authority: Chiltern

15+ 2008-based 15+ 2011-based 15+ 2012-based 15-24 2008-based 15-24 2011-based 15-24 2012-based

0.60 0.30

0.55 0.25

0.50 0.20

0.45 0.15

0.40 0.10

0.35 0.05

0.30 0.00 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

25-34 2008-based 25-34 2011-based 25-34 2012-based 35-44 2008-based 35-44 2011-based 35-44 2012-based

0.60 0.70

0.55 0.65

0.50 0.60

0.45 0.55

0.40 0.50

0.35 0.45

0.30 0.40 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

45-54 2008-based 45-54 2011-based 45-54 2012-based 55-64 2008-based 55-64 2011-based 55-64 2012-based

0.70 0.70

0.65 0.65

0.60 0.60

0.55 0.55

0.50 0.50

0.45 0.45

0.40 0.40 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

65-74 2008-based 65-74 2011-based 65-74 2012-based 75+ 2008-based 75+ 2011-based 75+ 2012-based

0.70 0.90

0.65 0.85

0.60 0.80

0.55 0.75

0.50 0.70

0.45 0.65

0.40 0.60 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031

APPENDIX 2

AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT

Housing Needs Technical Review: Addendum

September 2016

AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT

Housing Needs Technical Review: Addendum

September 2016

Project Ref: 24734 Status: Final Issue/Rev: 02 Date: 02 September 2016 Prepared by: JD Checked by: MK Authorised by: MK

Barton Willmore The Observatory Southfleet Road Ebbsfleet Kent DA10 0DF

Tel: 01322 374660 Ref: 24734/A5/JD/kf/djg Email: [email protected] Date: 02 September 2016

COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Barton Willmore LLP.

All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil based inks.

CONTENTS

PAGE NO.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

1.0 INTRODUCTION 01

2.0 IMPLICATION OF THE 2014-BASED HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS 03

3.0 LOCAL PLAN EXPERT GROUP PROPOSED OAN METHODOLOGY 07

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 09

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 A Technical Review was prepared by Barton Willmore in December 2015 that reviewed the findings of the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2015) (CB HEDNA), now incorporated within the Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2015) (Bucks HEDNA). The review was carried out in the context of Planning Practice Guidance methodology for assessing full objectively assessed housing need.

1.2 The Technical Review found that the CB HEDNA calculation of Aylesbury Vale’s housing need is a considerable underestimate of need and therefore not Fully Objectively Assessed Need (FOAN), because it:

• Fails to address evidently supressed household formation rates, • Underestimates demographic need, • Fails to provide for future job growth, • Makes an inadequate market signals uplift.

1.3 Since the Technical Review was produced, CLG have published the 2014-based household projections, providing a new starting point estimate of housing need, and ONS has published 2015-based mid-year population estimates, alongside updated affordability analysis, also to 2015.

1.4 This Addendum examines the implications for Aylesbury Vale’s housing need and the Buckinghamshire Functional Economic Market Area (the FEMA) comprising Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe, confirming the conclusion of the Technical Note, that FOAN in excess of 26,000 dwellings remains a robust and PPG alternative to CB HEDNA’s underestimate of need for 21,289 dwellings. The reasons are as follows; Aylesbury Vale figures are set alongside the FEMA figures in brackets:

• The 2014-based starting point estimate of need is 21,409 (43,761) dwellings, • After adjusting for supressed need, ‘demographic OAN’ is 23,752 (48,513) dwellings, • However 23,752 (48,513) is insufficient to meet forecast job growth, • Providing for a forecast of 19,000 (42,300) future job requires in excess of 26,400 (60,000) dwellings, • 26,400 (60,000) dwelling over the period 2013 to 2033 could reasonably be expected to help improve affordability that exceeded a multiplier of 10 (house price to income) in 2015.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg i September 2016 Executive Summary

1.5 In addition, this Addendum describes the proposed Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) housing need assessment, which if adopted, will replace the current PPG assessment methodology. Applying the approach to assessing housing need proposed by LPEG results in a need for 29,656 dwellings for Aylesbury Vale and 60,641 across the FEMA.

1.6 In conclusion, this Addendum confirms that Aylesbury Vale District Council’s (the Council’s) FOAN is clearly not a sound estimate of full housing need in the terms described by NPPF and PPG. It represents a significant underestimate of at least 5,000 dwellings, rising to an underestimate of over 8,000 dwellings when compared to the LPEG calculation of need. At FEMA level, we estimate that the shortfall exceeds 10,000 dwellings compared to both the true FOAN and the LPEG calculation of need.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg ii September 2016 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 A Technical Review was prepared by Barton Willmore in December 2015 that reviewed the findings of the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2015) (CB HEDNA). The review was carried out in the context of Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph ID2a 015 to 020, which describes the methodology for assessing full objectively assessed housing need (summarised at figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: PPG OAN Guidance PPG ID 2a 015 to 020 Latest CLG household projections starting point 1. Demography A. Household formation (ID2a 015, 016) may have been supressed historically by undersupply and worsening affordability of housing. As a result, the CLG household formation rate projections may also be suppressed. If so they must be adjusted upwards so that the

suppression is removed. B. Migration and population change (ID2a 016, 017). Sensitivity testing of local migration and population change, taking account of the most recent demographic evidence from ONS. 1. Gives rise to the ‘demographic OAN’ 2. Future job growth (ID2a 018) based on past trends and or projections should be taken into account. The OAN must be capable of accommodating the supply of working age population that is economically active (labour force supply), if it does not them it should be adjusted upwards.

Adjustments to projections 2. Gives rise to the ‘future jobs OAN’ 3. Market signals (ID2a 019, 020) of undersupply relative to demand that are worsening trigger an upward adjustment to planned housing numbers that are based solely on household projections. The more significant the affordability constraints, the larger the additional supply response should be. 3. Gives rise to the ‘market signals uplift’ Full objectively assessed housing need (FOAN)

1.2 The December 2015 Technical Review concluded that the CB HEDNA; 1) fails to address, by way of an upward adjustment, supressed household formation rates, 2) underestimates demographic need 3) fails to provide for future job growth, 4) makes an inadequate market signals uplift.

1.3 Consequently, Barton Willmore’s Technical Review found that the CB HEDNA assessment that Aylesbury Vale’s FOAN is for 21,289 dwellings is demonstrably an underestimate of need and therefore not FOAN. In its place, based on work carried out by GL Hearn, the Technical Review concluded that FOAN was likely to be at least 26,665 in Aylesbury Vale (to account for suppressed housing need and meet future job demand).

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 1 September 2016 Introduction

1.4 Since the Technical Review was produced, CLG have published the 2014-based household projections, providing a new starting point estimate of housing need, and ONS has published 2015-based mid-year population estimates. In addition the Local Plan Expert Group (LPEG)_has proposed a new methodology for assessing housing need, which, if adopted will replace the PPG methodology summarised at figure 1.1.

1.5 This Addendum examines the implications of the latest household projections and mid-year estimates for housing need in Aylesbury Vale and across the Housing Market Area (HMA), concluding whether 26,665 dwellings remains a robust alternative to CB HEDNA’s 21,289, now transferred, unchanged, to the Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2015) (Bucks HEDNA), published in draft for consultation in January 2016.

1.6 The Bucks HEDNA was prepared by the same main author (ORS) as CB HEDNA and retains the same assessment of need for Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe, extending the analysis to South Bucks district and addressing all four districts as the Buckinghamshire Functional Economic Area (FEMA).

1.7 In addition, this Addendum describes the proposed LPEG housing need assessment, which we understand the main author of the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA are strongly opposed to, and presents the results of applying the LPEG methodology in Aylesbury Vale and across the FEMA.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 2 September 2016 Implication of the 2014-Based Household Projections

2.0 IMPLICATION OF THE 2014-BASED HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS

2.1 The 2014-based household projections, published by CLG on 12 July 2016, provide a new starting point estimate of overall housing need. They replace the 2012-based projections and incorporate more up to date population projections, themselves informed by domestic migration flows observed over the 5 year period 2009/10 to 2013/14 (whereas the 2012-based projections used the period 2007/08 to 2011/12).

2.2 As can be seen from Table 2.1, after adjusting for vacant and second homes, the 2014-based household projections give rise a higher starting point estimate of housing need in Aylesbury Vale than the 2012-based projections and the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA ‘demographic OAN’1.

Table 2.1: Starting Point Estimate of Housing Need, 2013 to 2033 2014-based Starting 2012-based Starting CB HEDNA and Point Estimate of Point Estimate of Bucks HEDNA Housing Need Housing Need Demographic OAN Aylesbury Vale 21,409 19,081 18,976 Chiltern 4,875 4,724 5,541 Wycombe 11,244 11,767 12,793 CB Total 37,528 35,572 37,310 South Bucks 6,233 6,730 6,077 Bucks Total 43,761 42,302 43,388

2.3 An increased starting point estimate of housing need in Aylesbury Vale gives rise to a higher CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA starting point estimate of housing need, despite there being little change between the 2012-based and 2014-based estimates in Chiltern and Wycombe, and reduction in South Bucks.

2.4 Aylesbury Vale’s increased starting point estimate of housing need can be attributed to population growth that has accelerated over recent years, in contrast to the experience of both its HMA neighbours, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, which highlights the 2014-based population projection measurement period, 2010 to 2014 for reference. Note that Aylesbury Vale’s mid- year 2015 population estimate (published June 2016) continues the relative sharp rise in population, compared with the period prior to 2010.

1 Bucks HEDNA 2015, page 11, figure 3 column titled ‘baseline housing need based on demographic projections’

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 3 September 2016 Implication of the 2014-Based Household Projections

2.5 Aylesbury Vale’s population growth profile lends weight to a case for retaining a 5 year trend there for the purposes of assessing ‘demographic OAN’, as opposed to the 10 year trend preferred by ORS, based on the period 2003 to 2013 and taking in only 2 or 3 years of more rapid growth, which has been sustained ever since.

Figure 2.1: Indexed Population Change, 2001 to 2015

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Aylesbury Vale Chiltern Wycombe South Bucks

2.6 The household formation rate projections used by the 2014-based household projection is largely the same to the formation rate projections used in the 2012-based projections. In the light of updated affordability ratios published by CLG on 14th July 2016 (see figures 2.2 and 2.3), which show that lower quartile and median affordability ratios now exceed 10 in all three districts, the 2014-based formation rate are evidently supressed, in exactly the same way as the 2012-based projections. Accordingly, an upward adjustment to the starting point estimate of need should be made to address locally evident formation rate suppression.

2.7 Whilst the need to make some form adjustment for supressed household formation is widely accepted, the precise nature of the headship rate adjustment is the subject of debate and disagreement. Table 2.2 shows the effect of making an adjustment to the 25-44 year age group formation rates only, by applying a partial (50%) return to the 2008-based rates, consistent with the approach advocated by LPEG and discussed more fully in Section 3.

2.8 The implication of adjusting the headship rate projection of the 2014-based starting point estimate of need impacts profoundly upon Aylesbury Vale, lifting it significantly (+2,436) above the FOAN of 21,289 dwellings arrived at by CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 4 September 2016 Implication of the 2014-Based Household Projections

Table 2.2: Adjusted Starting Point Estimate of Housing Need, 2013 to 2033

Starting Point Estimate of Housing Need CB HEDNA and BUCKS HEDNA

2014-based, Household 2014-based, No ‘D emographic Full OAN Formation Adjusted Adjustments OAN’

Aylesbury 21,289 23,725 21,409 18,976 Vale Chiltern 5,661 4,875 5,541 6,602 Wycombe 12,346 11,244 12,793 15,011 CB Total 41,732 35,572 3 7,311 42,902 South Bucks 6,781 6,233 6,077 7,051 Bucks Total 47,417 43,761 43,388 49,954

2.9 An updated starting point or ‘demographic OAN’ of 23,725 for Aylesbury Vale and 47,417 for FEMA is the first step of three that are taken to arrive at FOAN. The second step considers the number of homes needed to support future jobs growth to arrive at the ‘future jobs OAN’.

2.10 New analysis by Barton Willmore of the 2014-based household projections reveals that they do not supply enough labour to fulfil the future jobs growth forecast relied upon by the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA (17,600 in Aylesbury Vale and 42,300 across the FEMA). The shortfall is about 1,260 jobs in Aylesbury Vale and 11,700 at FEMA level). The number of additional homes (in excess of the ‘demographic OAN’) has not been calculated but would be significantly in excess of 11,700 homes, giving rise to a ‘future jobs OAN’ in excess of 60,000 dwellings at FEMA level.

2.11 The Barton Willmore Technical Review of December 2015 identifies a higher, preferred, future jobs projection of 19,000 for Aylesbury Vale which would give rise to a shortfall of 2,660 jobs, equating to a shortfall in excess of 2,660 homes and giving rise to a future jobs OAN in excess of 26,400 dwellings, confirming the conclusion of the Technical Review that Aylesbury Vale’s ‘future jobs OAN’ is in the region of 26,655.

2.12 The latest evidence from ONS confirms that affordability is deteriorating rapidly in Aylesbury Vale, in absolute and relative (to England) terms, reaching 10.6 in 2015 (the latest available data point) (see figures 2.2 and 2.3). Across Buckinghamshire, there is clear absolute deterioration in all districts, and in the last three years, affordability has deteriorated more rapidly than across England as a whole, reaching between 11 and 17 times lower quartile incomes in 2015, compared to the national average of 7 times.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 5 September 2016 Implication of the 2014-Based Household Projections

2.13 Affordability is a key market signals and in the context of PPG ID2a019-020, any uplift to the starting point estimate of housing need must be sufficient to help improve affordability. In line with the findings of the Technical Review, this Addendum confirms that an uplift to 26,400 dwellings (consistent with in excess of 60,000 dwellings at FEMA level) would be sufficient to exert downward pressure on affordability in Aylesbury Vale.

Figure 2.2: Lower Quartile Affordability, Absolute Change 1997 to 2015

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 2015

Aylesbury Vale Wycombe Chiltern South Bucks ENGLAND

Figure 2.3: Lower Quartile Affordability, Indexed Change 1997 to 2015

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0 19971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013 201320142015

Aylesbury Vale Wycombe Chiltern South Bucks ENGLAND

2.14 Note that ONS has revised their method of measuring house prices, the old method series ending and the new method series starting in 2013. Accordingly, the affordability time series shown in figures 2.2 and 2.3 is presented in 2 blocks, the first (old method) up to 2013 and the second (new method) from 2013.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 6 September 2016 Local Plan Expert Group Proposed OAN Methodology

3.0 LOCAL PLAN EXPERT GROUP PROPOSED OAN METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Local Plan Expert Group (LPEG) was established by the then Communities Secretary, Greg Clark and the Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis MP, in September 2015, with a remit to consider how local plan making can be made more efficient and effective.

3.2 In short, the LPEG identified two main problems for local authorities, as follows:

• There is no pre-set determination of the boundaries of Housing Market Areas; • There is no definitive guidance on the way in which to prepare a SHMA, leading to significant disagreement and uncertainty over housing numbers, which then affects every stage of the plan making progress.

3.3 In respect of the second point, the LPEG report includes Appendix 6, which recommends changes to the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) section of PPG in order to establish FOAN. The recommended methodology is summarised overleaf (Figure 3.1).

3.4 The LPEG recommendations are currently being consulted on, and it is important to emphasise that they do not, at the present time, hold any weight in the determination of FOAN. Nevertheless, they represent current thinking and a possible direction of travel in housing need assessment so are worthy of consideration here.

3.5 In summary, LPEG’s OAN is arrived at over 4 outputs, A to D. Output A includes a mandatory adjustment to household formation as per the household formation adjustment used to arrive the ‘demographic OAN’ calculated in Section 2 of this addendum. In LPEG terms, the current PPG ‘demographic OAN’ is essentially proposed LPEG’s ‘Output A, Demographic Starting Point’. That is, 23,725 dwellings for Aylesbury Vale in the context of 48,513 dwellings for the Buckinghamshire FEMA as a whole.

3.6 The LPEG approach does not provide for an adjustment for future jobs, removing the requirement for a ‘future jobs OAN’. The second adjustment (to arrive at Output B) is in response market signals and is made by reference to median house price and or lower quartile rental affordability.

3.7 LPEG specifies that median house price affordability, averaged over the most recent three years, in excess of 8.7, must be addressed by a 25% uplift to Output A, giving rise to LPEG Output B need figures of 29,656 dwellings for Aylesbury and 60,641 for the FEMA, significantly in excess of the OAN proposed by CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 7 September 2016 Local Plan Expert Group Proposed OAN Methodology

3.8 The third output (Output C) is the current PPG assessment of affordable housing need. The final output (Output D) is the same as Output B, except in those circumstances where Output C (affordable housing need) is higher than Output B, which is not the case here, confirming 29,656 dwellings for Aylesbury and 60,641 dwellings for the FEMA as FOAN based on the proposed LPEG methodology.

Figure 3.1: LPEG Housing Need Assessment Methodology

Source: Page 22, Local Plans Expert Group Appendices, March 2016

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 8 September 2016 Summary and Conclusions

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 In PPG housing need assessment methodology terms, the 2014-based household projections provide a new starting point estimate of housing need for Aylesbury Vale (21,409 dwellings), the Central Buckinghamshire Housing Market Area (35,572 dwellings) and the Buckinghamshire Functional Economic Market Area (43,761 dwellings).

4.2 The new starting point estimate of housing need is of particular significance to Aylesbury Vale because it is marginally higher than the housing need estimate calculated by the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA of 21,289. Whether or not it has a significant bearing on full objectively assessed housing depends on the results of further analysis as follows.

4.3 First, the 2014-based household formation rates are manifestly suppressed and, in light of PPG ID2a015, must be adjusted upwards which in turn increases the starting point estimate of housing need. The extent of any upward adjustment is a matter of judgement and controversial. This addendum illustrates the effect of applying the approach advocated by LPEG; a partial (50%) return to the 2008-based household formation rate projections.

4.4 The result of addressing supressed household formation in the way described above increases Aylesbury Vale’s starting point estimate of need to 23,752 dwellings, significantly higher than the Aylesbury Vale FOAN of 21,289 calculated by the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA.

4.5 23,752 dwellings per annum assumes that population will grow in line with population change observed between 2009 and 2014. The rate of population growth has been greater over this 5 year period than over the 10 year period 2004 to 2014 and clearly the author of CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA prefer a 10 year trend, which would inevitably give rise to a lower ‘demographic OAN’.

4.6 Nevertheless, it is clear that the higher 5 year rate of growth has continued beyond 2014 and may now represent the trend growth rate. In any event if neither a 5 nor a 10 year trend based ‘demographic OAN’ is sufficient to support future jobs growth then the difference has no bearing on FOAN.

4.7 Our analysis makes it clear that 23,752 dwellings is insufficient to accommodate growth in the local labour supply associated with the future jobs projection used by the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA (17,600 jobs). Nor is it sufficient to supply the preferred projection of 19,000 future jobs that informs the Aylesbury Vale HEDNA, published by GL Hearn in June 2015.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 9 September 2016 Summary and Conclusions

4.8 The number of additional homes (in excess of the ‘demographic OAN’) associated with projected growth of 19,000 has not been calculated, however we have calculated that 23,752 dwellings would give rise to a shortfall of 2,660 jobs, equating to a shortfall in excess of 2,660 homes and giving rise to a future jobs OAN in excess of 26,400 dwellings, confirming the conclusion of the Technical Review that Aylesbury Vale’s ‘future jobs OAN’ is in the region of 26,655.

4.9 The latest evidence from ONS confirms that affordability is deteriorating rapidly in Aylesbury Vale and across the FEMA, in absolute and relative (to England) terms, reaching 10.6 in Aylesbury Vale and by 2015 (the latest available data point). Affordability is a key market signals and in the context of PPG ID2a019-020, any uplift to the starting point estimate of housing need must be sufficient to help improve affordability.

4.10 In line with the findings of the Technical Review, this Addendum confirms that an uplift to in excess of 26,400 dwellings would be sufficient to exert downward pressure on affordability in Aylesbury Vale, in the context of a Buckinghamshire FEMA wide FOAN which we estimate to be in excess of 60,000 dwellings.

4.11 Finally it should be noted that applying the approach to assessing housing need proposed by LPEG results in a need for 29,656 dwellings for Aylesbury Vale and 60,641 dwellings for the FEMA; significantly higher housing numbers than the CB HEDNA and Bucks HEDNA FOAN.

4.12 In conclusion, analysis of the latest household projections (CLG 2014-based), mid-year population estimates (ONS, 2015) and affordability analysis (ONS, 2013 to 2015) confirm the findings of the Barton Willmore Technical Review, 2015; that Aylesbury Vale Council’s FOAN is clearly not a sound estimate of full housing need in the terms described by NPPF and PPG.

4.13 The Council’s 21,289 dwellings represents a significant underestimate of at least 5,000 dwellings, rising to an underestimate of over 8,000 dwellings when compared to the LPEG calculation of need. At Buckinghamshire FEMA level, we estimate that the shortfall exceeds 10,000 dwellings compared to both the true FOAN and the LPEG calculation of need.

24734/A5/JD/kf/djg 10 September 2016

APPENDIX 3

SUITE B, GROUND FLOOR WEST, ST JAMES’ COURT, ST JAMES’ PARADE, BRISTOL, BS1 3LH TEL: 0117 922 6266 FAX: 0117 922 6813 EMAIL: [email protected]

Project Name: South Milton Keynes Project №: W16191 Date: 05 August 2016 By: AK

Technical Note – National Infrastructure Commission – Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford ‘growth corridor’ Call for Evidence

Introduction

1. Jubb have been commissioned by Gallagher Estates to provide highways and transportation in relation to the National Infrastructure Commission call for evidence in relation to the Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford ‘growth corridor’ and in particular the emerging proposals for a high speed, high quality ‘expressway’ link to run between Cambridge and Oxford in the context of Milton Keynes.

2. Jubb have considered a number of potential alignments of the of the ‘expressway’ on land to the south of Milton Keynes, in particular on the land nestled beaten the main built area of Milton Keynes and the settlements of Woburn Sands, Bow Brickhill to the South East of Milton Keynes.

Design Parameters

3. While at the time of writing no definitive adopted standard for an ‘expressway’ in the UK, the Department for Transport1 describes an expressway as “a consistently good road which is largely or entirely dual carriageway, with grade-separated junctions, giving most users a motorway-quality journey.”.

4. In preparing the expressway alignments, Jubb have assumed an ‘expressway’ corridor of 26.1m (including verges) and is based on the ‘Dual 2 Lane’ or D2AP road type as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DMRB - see 4/13 of DMRB Vol 6 Section 1 Part 2 TD 27/05). The assumed expressway corridor cross section is provided on plans Alignment 1, Alignment 2 and Alignment 3 appended to the rear of this note.

5. As set out above, three alignments have been prepared – the first alignment has been designed to meet the standards appropriate to a 120 kph road (70 mph speed limit) as set out in the DMRB (see Table 3 at 1/3 of DMRB Vol 6 Section 1 Part 1 TD 9/93). The second and third alignments have been designed to meet the standards appropriate to a 100 kph road (60 mph) as set out in the DMRB.

6. All three alignments have been prepared with regard and consideration to local constraints; these alignments avoid scheduled ancient monuments and the settlements of Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill and seek to minimise impacts on areas of established woodland or areas containing Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).

7. As can be seen from the attached plans, the alignments would safeguard the future expansion of Milton Keynes and would maintain a significant amount of potential developable land in this area.

1 Department for Transport - Road Investment Strategy: Investment Plan, December 2014, page 7

Page | 1

ALIGNMENT #1

N KEY

NORTH Expessway Route Alignment 1

Existing Major Grid Road

Existing Minor Grid Road

To Cambridge Local Road Re-alignment

A 421 Existing Rail Line

M1

Train Station A 421

Potential Developable Land

Link to MK Grid Road via existing A421.

Eastern Expansion Area

A 421

Magna Park (Employment)

A 507 Eagle Farm North (Employment)

M1 Glebe Farm / Eagle Farm South (Residential) Continuation of alignment of A421

Bridges over existing Rail Line to be provided.

Realignment of Woburn Sands Rd.

Junction realignment to provide access to developable land.

Potential Park & Ride site.

Proposed Junction to link the Expressway with the existing MK Road Grid and the DateRev Description By Apvd potential Park & Ride location. Project Milton Keynes South

Title Possible Alignment of Cambridge to Oxford Expressway Expessway Route Alignment 1

Client Gallagher Estates

Proposed Junction to link the Expressway with the existing MK Road Grid.

Scale @ A1 1 : 20,000 - Cross Section 1 : 125

Project Ref Drawing No Rev 001 -

irisbus

KAROSA

To Oxford

ALIGNMENT #2

N KEY

NORTH Expessway Route Alignment 2

Existing Major Grid Road

Existing Minor Grid Road

To Cambridge Local Road Re-alignment

A 421 Existing Rail Line

M1

Train Station A 421

Potential Developable Land

Link to MK Grid Road via existing A421.

Eastern Expansion Area

A 421

Magna Park (Employment)

A 507 Eagle Farm North (Employment)

Expressway Alignment provided to M1 Glebe Farm / Eagle Farm avoid the existing Golf Course. South (Residential) Continuation of Bridges over existing alignment of A421 Rail Line to be provided.

Realignment of Woburn Sands Rd.

Junction realignment to provide access to developable land.

Potential Park & Ride site.

Proposed Junction to link the Expressway with the existing MK Road Grid and the DateRev Description By Apvd potential Park & Ride location. Project Milton Keynes South

Title Possible Alignment of Cambridge to Oxford Expressway Expessway Route Alignment 2

Client Gallagher Estates

Proposed Junction to link the Expressway with the existing MK Road Grid.

Scale @ A1 1 : 20,000 - Cross Section 1 : 125

Project Ref Drawing No Rev 002 -

irisbus

KAROSA

To Oxford

ALIGNMENT #3

N KEY

NORTH Expessway Route Alignment 3

Existing Major Grid Road

Existing Minor Grid Road

To Cambridge Local Road Re-alignment

A 421 Existing Rail Line

M1

Train Station A 421

Potential Developable Land

Link to MK Grid Road via existing A421.

Eastern Expansion Area

A 421

Magna Park (Employment)

A 507 Eagle Farm North (Employment)

M1 Glebe Farm / Eagle Farm South (Residential) Continuation of Bridges over existing alignment of A421 Rail Line to be provided.

Realignment of Woburn Sands Rd.

Junction realignment to provide access to developable land.

Potential Park & Ride site.

Proposed Junction to link the Expressway with the existing MK Road Grid and the DateRev Description By Apvd potential Park & Ride location. Project Milton Keynes South

Title Possible Alignment of Cambridge to Oxford Expressway Expessway Route Alignment 3

Client Gallagher Estates

Proposed Junction to link the Expressway with the existing MK Road Grid.

Scale @ A1 1 : 20,000 - Cross Section 1 : 125

Project Ref Drawing No Rev 003 -

irisbus

KAROSA

To Oxford

APPENDIX 4

OXFORD TO CAMBRIDGE EXPRESSWAY STRATEGIC STUDY Deliverable 1 – Examination of the Strategic Case for New Expressway East-West Road Links

08/07/2016

Quality Management

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks First Issue Second Issue Final Version Date February 2016 April 2016 July 2016 Prepared by Andi Redhead Andi Redhead Andi Redhead Edward Shortridge Edward Shortridge Edward Shortridge Shane Luck Shane Luck Shane Luck Signature Checked by Adrian Hames Adrian Hames Adrian Hames Signature Authorised by Mike Batheram Mike Batheram Mike Batheram Signature Project number 70015095 70015095 70015095 Report number 1 1 1 Revision 1.4 1.5 1.6

1 | 19

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study Deliverable 1 – Examination of the Strategic Case for New Expressway East-West Road Links

08/07/2016

Client Highways England / Department for Transport

Lead Consultant WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Limited

Tel: 01223 558 050

www.wsp-pb.co.uk

Registered Address WSP UK Limited 01383511 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF

Integrated Delivery Team Contacts Adrian Hames – [email protected] 07825643848

Helen Spackman – [email protected] 01793 816555

Mike Batheram – [email protected]

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 2 | 19

Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ...... 4 1.1 Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Study Area ...... 5 1.3 Study and Stage 1 Objectives ...... 6 1.4 Key Findings ...... 8 1.5 Need for Intervention ...... 14

3 | 19

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 The ‘Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study’ is sponsored by the Department for Transport (DfT) and undertaken by Highways England on their behalf. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, CH2M, TRL and Steer Davies Gleave were commissioned to undertake the study. 1.1.2 The requirement for this study was set out in the first Roads Investment Strategy (RIS), published in December 2014, which announced a programme of new Strategic Studies to explore options to address some of the Strategic Road Network’s (SRN) large and complex challenges. The results of these high-level studies will inform the second RIS. The Strategic Studies are: ■ Northern Trans-Pennine Study; ■ Trans-Pennine Tunnel Study; ■ Manchester North-West Quadrant Study; ■ A1 East of England Study; ■ Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Study; and ■ M25 South-West Quadrant Study. 1.1.3 This strategic study demonstrates that there is a strong case for transport interventions within the broad arc defined by the study area. Such interventions would improve east-west connectivity, build transport network resilience and promote economic growth. Study area transport interventions are expected to improve economic productivity, thus supporting jobs and growth across the local and regional areas as well as the country as a whole. Interventions in the corridor could provide opportunities at three functional levels: ■ Strategic: the role of the corridor in the context of the national rail and strategic road network; ■ Regional: supporting significant growth planned along the corridor and the contribution that these areas have to the UK economy and international markets; and ■ Local: sections of the corridor will have potential positive impacts in their own right, such as access between homes and jobs. 1.1.4 There is expected to be around forty percent increase in travel demand by 2035, with associated worsening of congestion on the existing primary east-west road route, resulting in reduced journey time reliability and increased journey times. Interventions in the corridor would address this and have a positive impact on local, regional and national economic performance, contributing strongly to the UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When combined with similar performance across the rest of the corridor there is significant potential to deliver economic growth and uplift to the benefit of the UK. 1.1.5 The Governments investment strategy for the SRN for the period 2015 to 2020 identifies the existing weak connection between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge and the need for an Expressway that connects the three settlements to help promote knowledge based economic growth. It is anticipated that existing roads will form much of the Expressway; however gaps along the network need to be addressed, particularly the section between the M1 near Milton Keynes and the M40. This would complement other national infrastructure projects including East West Rail (EWR).

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 4 | 19

1.1.6 Investment in strategic transport interventions contributes to economic performance by delivering user, productivity, investment and employment benefits. Interventions in the study area will generate user-benefits, comprising journey time and vehicle operating cost savings as a result of reduced congestion on the network. 1.1.7 Transport investment will lead to productivity benefits for firms and workers as transport improvements support economic interactions between firms and firms and consumers. Study area interventions will enable firms to reach wider markets, support the growth of the knowledge rich service sectors clustered in Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge and increase the catchment area of employees able to access these productive centres of activity. Finally, transport investment can alter patterns of private sector investment by making locations more attractive for investment. 1.1.8 Transport investment within the study area will deliver wider economic benefits, including increasing labour market catchment areas, supporting the expansion of the knowledge intensive clusters in Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge and encouraging firms and workers to locate within the study area. 1.1.9 The regional Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and England’s Economic Heartland Strategic Alliance recognise greater economic benefit can be achieved by investing in the transport system on a wider strategic basis. Interventions that improve east-west connectivity and deliver more reliable journey times between the functional economic areas will positively support the future economic growth potential of these nationally important knowledge-based economies and the wider regional growth aspirations. 1.1.10 England’s Economic Heartland Strategic Alliance has identified this study as one of its strategic transport priorities. England’s Economic Heartland recognises the strategic importance of the study corridor, linking the expanding, strong dynamic, innovative knowledge-based economies of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

1.2 Study Area 1.2.1 The geographical scope of the study area focuses on the broad arc from Didcot – Oxford – Milton Keynes – Bedford – Cambridge. The primary road route within the study area linking these conurbations is formed of the A34, M40, A43, A4421, A421 and A428. A map of the approximate geographical scope of the study area along with the primary east-west route (‘the route’) that is examined in this study is shown in Figure 1-1.

5 | 19

Figure 1-1: Study Area

1.2.2 The primary east-west corridor functions as an important regional commuter route into the major urban areas of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge, an important sub-regional route linking local communities along the corridor as well as interfacing with a number of national strategic routes including the M4, M40, M1, A1, A14 and M11. The various SRN interface points are considered to be of significant regional importance as these national strategic routes facilitate principal freight access, connecting with wider economic regions of the United Kingdom.

1.3 Study and Stage 1 Objectives 1.3.1 The strategic aim of this study is to investigate the case for linking existing roads and creating an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, which would create a high-quality link between Oxford and Cambridge, via Bedford and Milton Keynes. 1.3.2 The study will identify options for a new strategic Expressway corridor and upgrading existing routes, with the aim to improve east-west connectivity within the study area, build network resilience and support economic growth. 1.3.3 The study will identify options that can feasibly be constructed and appraise the strategic, economic, safety, environmental, operational benefits and impacts for each of the options, making recommendations regarding a preferred option(s). 1.3.4 Key to forming a judgement will be the wider economic costs and benefits of different options, in particular their impacts on the local labour/product markets and the economic geography of the study area. The assessment of the wider economic costs and benefits will provide an understanding of how the options can act as an enabler of the Local Authority and LEP growth plans within the study area. The study specific objectives are identified in Table 1-1.

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 6 | 19

Table 1-1: Study Objectives

NUMBER STUDY OBJECTIVES Review previous study work, relevant available data, and current investment plans to understand 1 current performance and constraints of the existing road infrastructure, and confirm the strategic case for considering further investment. Identify feasible options for improving and/or providing new road links within the study area that 2 improve east-west connectivity to create an Expressway standard route between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge. Understand the benefits and impacts resulting from the provision of a new strategic east-west corridor, to further inform the strategic and economic case for investment in new road infrastructure in 3 the study area. The benefits assessment will consider congestion-relief, reliability, safety, and environmental outcomes of constructing a new strategic east-west route. The study will consider a range of individual and combined investment proposals. Understand the wider socio-economic benefits that result from the strategic transport options, 4 including improved economic productivity and investment and employment benefits. Have reference to and reflect wherever possible the key findings of the proposals being developed by other studies in the south including EWR, High Speed 2 (HS2) and the A1 East of England strategic study to understand the interdependencies between the potential options arising from this study and the other strategic transport proposals. This study will have reference to and include: 5 • Understanding the implications of the timing and phasing of potential schemes; and • Identification of opportunities for synergy or optimal sequencing of major road and rail works involved in, and options for mitigating strategic risks arising from, major complex projects being undertaken within the same function geography potentially within the same Roads Period.

1.3.5 This is the Executive Summary of Stage 1 of the study, the objectives of which are to: ■ Understand the current and future context/conditions within the study area, including a review of previous studies, current policy, travel patterns, road congestion and capacity, safety, journey times, public transport options, environmental and physical constraints, future development, socio economics and labour markets; and ■ Establish the need for intervention through the preparation of a robust body of evidence to demonstrate the requirement for development of an appropriate improvement scheme.

7 | 19

1.4 Key Findings 1.4.1 The key issues that affect how the primary east-west corridor can support the economic future of the communities along the route as well as the wider regional economic findings in relation to Stage 1 of the study are summarised in Figures 1-2 to 1-5. Figure 1-2: Summary of the Route Standard and Function ■ The primary study area east-west road route linking Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge is of variable standard with gaps in Expressway standards on sections of the A34, A43, A421 and A428. ■ The route passes through the built-up urban area of Milton Keynes which has a high frequency of at-grade roundabout junctions. ■ Sections of the route interchange with and form important strategic routes for freight traffic. The primary east-west route provides access the M4, M40, M1, A1, M1, A14 and M11 TEN-T freight routes. The A34 which forms part of the primary east-west route is a comprehensive TEN-T freight route and accommodates a relatively high proportion of HGV movements. ■ The route provides an important regional and sub-regional function, linking the fast growing Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge functional economic areas. These functional economic areas generate substantial in-commuting flows, including from a number of local communities located along the route (Didcot, Abingdon, Bicester, Buckingham, Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne). The roads forming the route therefore provide an important transport connection for commuters and business users accessing the major employment centres (Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge) as well as providing local communities with access to services and amenities. ■ Due to the current lack of east-west transport connectivity, there are low levels of strategic long distance movements along the primary east-west route within the study area, including between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

1.4.2 This strategic study has demonstrated that the primary east-west route is formed of roads of variable standard which perform important regional, sub-regional and local functions including providing an important freight route (A34) between the southern coastal ports and the SRN. The importance of regional, sub-regional and local connectivity into and between the nationally important functional economic regions of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge support the strategic case for intervention, ensuring that the east-west route does not constrain the future economic growth potential of these regions. 1.4.3 Currently there is a lack of east-west connections across this part of the UK, north of London and south of the Midlands. Transport interventions across the broad Oxford to Cambridge arc would address this missing link in the national infrastructure. 1.4.4 Whilst the study area benefits from good radial connections into London, the Midlands and the North of England, east-west connectivity is poor, and capacity constraints occur along key roads, such as the M1, A34, A421 and A428 resulting in congestion and unreliable journey times. Congestion, unreliable journey times and poor connections to national and global markets constrains competitiveness, reduces business efficiency and increases business costs due to less productive employees.

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 8 | 19

1.4.5 Transport constraints are identified by England’s Economic Heartland and the study area LEPs as a key challenge to delivering housing and employment growth. Road congestion, limited capacity on the rail network, poor east-west connectivity and limited public transport are identified as barriers to future economic growth and prosperity. Furthermore, international competitiveness within high-tech and science based knowledge industries is restricted, as excellent connectivity is a vital pre-requisite for growth. 1.4.6 The evidence base shows low levels of interaction between the main urban areas within the study area due to existing travel times between the main conurbations. There is a very low commuter travel demand for longer-distances trips within the study area, for example between Oxford and Cambridge, and Oxford/Cambridge to Milton Keynes and vice versa. There are also only two percent of journey to work end to end trips through the corridor. This is as a direct result of a lack of any strategic infrastructure and the route being unattractive to all types of journey. New transport infrastructure could address this, and in particular potentially reduce the current unattractive journey times between Cambridge and Oxford, of over two and half hours by road and rail by an hour or more. This equivalent to being able to travel between Oxford and Milton Keynes in around 45 minutes and a similar time between Cambridge and Milton Keynes. This is in line with transport and economic performance guidance where a journey time of up to 45 minutes is acknowledged as encouraging wider economic benefits to occur in terms of productivity and investment benefits, allowing skilled workers to access jobs and improving business to business connectivity. 1.4.7 The study area has experienced substantial growth in population. There has been population growth of ten percent within the study area in the past ten years, two percent above the national average. Economic analysis shows that Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes are home to expanding, strong, dynamic, innovative and successful knowledge based economies generating greater value added per hour worked than the national average. For example, within Milton Keynes, Gross Value Added (GVA) per hour worked is approximately seventeen percent higher than the UK average. These high performing economies contribute disproportionately towards economic output and as such investment in strategic transport infrastructure is essential to drive their economic growth to the benefit of the functional economic areas and the UK as a whole.

9 | 19

Figure 1-3: Summary of the Current Route Performance ■ The public transport alternatives to the primary east-west route are limited resulting in high and unattractive journey times. Currently there is no direct rail link between, Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge. EWR has a committed scheme to provide a rail connection between Bicester and Bedford (by 2022). However, there is no committed scheme to deliver a rail link from Bedford to Cambridge. ■ The X5 (linking Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge) provides an important commuter service between urban conurbations along the route. The journey time reliability of the X5 and local bus routes is affected by congestion on the primary east-west route during peak travel periods. ■ Due to the lack of public transport alternatives, residents within the study area have a high car dependency and are reliant on the local and strategic road network to access jobs and services. The socio-economic demographic of the study area population consists of a high proportion of employed, highly educated, highly skilled and well paid professionals who have greater propensity to travel further to access the range of high value and skilled employment opportunities, than the national average. ■ There has been substantial levels of traffic growth on sections of the route between 2010- 2014. The A421 Expressway has experienced significant levels of traffic growth (41percent) from 2010-2014. The A421 (Milton Keynes to the A43), A428 Expressway and A43 have also experienced substantial levels of traffic growth (13 percent-19 percent) during this period. ■ There are a number of pinch points along the primary east-west route that suffer from congestion which impacts on journey times and reliability including: ■ A34: Tidal congestion inbound to Oxford in the morning and outbound in the evening, and between the Marcham and Milton interchanges; ■ A4421/A421 (A43 to M1): East and westbound delays and low journey speeds on the single carriageway sections; ■ Black Cat Roundabout: Congestion on the A421 and A1 approaches to the roundabout; and ■ A428 (A1 to A1198): East and westbound delays and low journey speeds on this single carriageway section including significant delays on approach to the Caxton Gibbet roundabout. ■ The A34 and the non-expressway standard sections of the A421 and A428 suffer from congestion, journey time reliability and highway safety issues. The serious and slight severity average accident rates per billion vehicle kilometres for the A421 and A428 single carriageways sections are substantially higher when compared to the Expressway standard sections of the route. ■ Highways England data shows the A1 north of the Black Cat roundabout and the single carriageway section of the A428 east of the A1 suffer from a journey time reliability of 65 percent or less. ■ There are environmental issues in the study area including: ■ Congestion on the existing route impact on Air Quality and Noise, especially in populated areas; ■ Scheduled monuments, Listed Buildings and Listed Parks and Gardens exist along the route that may affect the development of route realignment or dual carriageways; ■ The North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Oxford, London Area and Cambridge Greenbelts may constrain the development of new road solutions; and ■ Protection of areas of Natural and Geological interest as well as the water environment is likely to affect route proposals and construction processes.

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 10 | 19

1.4.8 Stage 1 of the study has identified that the existing public transport alternatives within the study area are poor, offering limited east-west connectivity. Sections of the primary east-west road route have experienced substantial traffic growth, including the A421 Expressway around Bedford and the A428 Expressway towards Cambridge. Journey times and journey reliability are affected by a number of congested sections along the route including the A34, approaches to the A1 Black Cat Roundabout and the single carriageway sections of the A421 and A428. Delays on the primary east-west road route as a result of congestion inhibit strategic connectivity and result in additional costs borne by businesses due to constraints on business efficiency, investment and access to local, regional and global markets. 1.4.9 The current performance of the A34, A421 and A428 non-expressway sections is constraining housing and economic growth within the study area, and therefore there is a strong case for investigating interventions which could improve the performance of the corridor as an essential link for regional connectivity and economic growth. 1.4.10 Interventions in the study area will support the ambitious LEP and Local Authority growth plans. Within the study area, the total number of dwellings is predicted to increase by 230,000 over the next plan period to 2031, with 15 percent growth to 2021. Over a similar period to 2031 the growth in jobs is over 270,000. The corresponding increase in population is around 400,000 people within the study area over the period. To deliver this level and growth and seek to encourage new growth it is crucial to consider appropriate interventions that address challenges and provide a resilient transport network for the future. 1.4.11 There is a forecast growth in trips of 32 percent-40 percent by 2035 travelling along the primary east- west route which will result in a substantial increase in congestion, journey time delay and journey time variability without investment in new strategic infrastructure. For example the A34 serves a number of functions. It is an important commuter route into Oxford and the Science Vale, as well as a national and European freight route. If left unchecked the congestion and unreliability of journeys could waste an extra £22 billion worth of time, and add an extra £10 billion in annual costs to business, by this time (Roads – Delivering Choice and Reliability, Department for Transport). 1.4.12 The economies of Cambridge, Oxford and Milton Keynes and the wider study area can be considered strong, with high employment rates and economies primarily consisting of well-paid, productive jobs. Much of this success can be ascribed to their strengths in the ‘knowledge economy’: high-value, high- skill jobs in knowledge-intensive sectors such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing and scientific research. To enable future growth it is essential to overcome the restricted access to labour markets and improve business connectivity and while there is low unemployment and high GVA across the areas there is a lack of local skills for prevalent types of employment. This is also linked to the location of affordable housing.

11 | 19

Figure 1-4: Socio-Economic Summary ■ There has been rapid population growth, averaging 8.7 percent across the study area from 2001 to 2011, with a corresponding increase in the number of dwellings by 9.1 percent. ■ There are high employment levels in the study area, particularly across the three functional economic regions of Oxford, Cambridge and Milton Keynes. Employment rates reach as high as 80 percent within some rural local authorities compared to a national average of 72.9 percent, with correspondingly low unemployment rates. ■ There is a strong reliance on knowledge-intensive sectors in Cambridge, Oxford and Milton Keynes, such as scientific research and advanced manufacturing relative to the national average. ■ The strong, dynamic and innovative knowledge-based economies centered on Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge contribute disproportionately towards the national economic output, with higher average hourly wages and greater proportions of the workforce employed in managerial, professional and technical occupations. ■ These are highly productive economies, with high GVA per hour worked (in Milton Keynes 17 percent greater than the national average) and median hourly wages (South Cambridgeshire is 28 percent greater than the national average. ■ Based on the greater proportion employed in knowledge industry occupations, it is estimated that those employed in these sectors have a greater propensity to travel, both in terms of number and length of trips. ■ There are high levels of car ownership, especially in rural areas - 84 percent have access to at least one car, compared to a national average of 74 percent.

1.4.13 Stage 1 of the strategic study has identified that the study area has historically experienced high levels of population and dwelling growth, particularly in Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford. These three regions knowledge-based economies have high employment rates, well paid, educated and mobile workforces. 1.4.14 Firms within the ‘knowledge economy’ benefit greatly from economic agglomeration, relying on recruiting workers with highly specific skill sets to work within localised clusters of economic activity. Worsening transport links will undermine the effective density of the cities along the corridor, and limit the extent to which the productivity benefits generated through proximity to competitors and collaborators can be achieved.

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 12 | 19

Figure 1-5: Growth Agenda ■ Ambitious housing and employment growth plans have/are being set by the LEPs and Local Authorities within the study area with approximately 235,000 new dwellings and 270,000 new jobs to be delivered in the future. ■ A number of strategic developments are planned along the east-west corridor including expansion of Cambourne and Bourn airfield in Cambridgeshire, urban extensions to Bedford and Milton Keynes, the towns along the A34 corridor in Oxfordshire and Bicester Garden City. ■ High levels of growth in travel demand are forecast in Cambridgeshire, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury Vale, and Central Bedfordshire by 2041. ■ Traffic flows are forecast to grow across the east-west corridor network by 32 percent-40 percent by 2035. However there is significant uncertainty in forecasting traffic growth into the future. ■ Sections of the A34 to the south and around Oxford, M40 Junctions 9 to 10, the single carriageway sections of the A421 and A428 and the A421 Expressway are all forecast to be operating overcapacity by 2035 if no improvements to the strategic transport network are provided. ■ A number of local, regional and national transport improvements are proposed in the study area. The potential to integrate east-west transport interventions with national (EWR and HS2), regional and local infrastructure schemes is essential to the regional and national growth agenda and creating wider opportunities for growth and economic performance.

1.4.15 Stage 1 of the study has identified that the study area local and regional development plans include ambitious housing and job growth targets. Improved transport links are an important prerequisite to achieving the ambitions set out by the LEPs along the corridor. Without transport interventions the forecast increase in travel demand will significantly increase delays and congestion on the existing primary east-west route, creating further barriers to growth, and constraining the LEPs ambitions for new jobs and homes along the corridor. 1.4.16 The corridor is home to some of the strongest local economies in the UK, improvements in regional connectivity are vital to ensure that transport does not constrain future economic growth. Longer and less reliable commutes would, in effect, lead to the labour pools shrinking. Study area residents will find it increasingly difficult to access opportunities in Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford respectively, undermining the ability for companies to recruit and retain staff. In the longer term, households may choose to relocate closer to employment opportunities, placing pressure on the local housing market. Alternatively, businesses may choose to relocate to locations which support a deeper pool of labour, and which have better links to suppliers and customers. 1.4.17 Investment in study area east-west corridor interventions will act as an enabler for the delivery of new jobs, homes and wider economic benefits, directly supporting the growth aspirations of the LEPs and Local Authorities. Improved east-west connectivity will deliver more reliable journey times between local and regional urban centres, ensuring that transport connectivity does not constrain the future economic growth potential of the study area. 1.4.18 Improved transport linkages will expand the pool of labour available to firms along the corridor, and lead to greater benefits through economic agglomeration. Firms will be able to better match workers with specific skills to employment opportunities and increased proximity of firms will stimulate greater economic interaction and knowledge spill-over effects. Businesses in the corridor will become more competitive at both a national and international level, and the corridor will be better able to compete globally for highly mobile investment.

13 | 19

1.5 Need for Intervention 1.5.1 This study has identified that there is currently a lack of east-west connectivity across this part of the UK north of London and south of the Midlands. The evidence demonstrates the potential for improving strategic connectivity by addressing this missing link in the national infrastructure. 1.5.2 Failure to address the challenges identified in this study, and invest accordingly in east-west transport links within the study area, is likely to constrain economic growth along the Oxford to Cambridge corridor, and preclude the significant development opportunities highlighted by the LEPs. In the absence of transport interventions, congestion along the existing highway network is expected to intensify, leading to increased journey times for commuters and businesses. 1.5.3 This study has demonstrated that that there is a lack of strategic east-west transport connectivity across the study area. The existing primary east-west road route performs important strategic functions, connecting urban conurbations and employment centres, accommodating freight movements and providing access to national freight routes. 1.5.4 This study has identified that sections of the primary east-west road route currently suffer from congestion during the peak travel periods, resulting in journey time variability and delays, which inhibit strategic connectivity and constrain economic development in key growth areas including the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge functional economic areas. 1.5.5 Within the study area local and regional authorities are planning for substantial levels of population and job growth. In particular, substantial housing and job growth in Cambridge, Oxford and Milton Keynes functional economic areas is required to support their expanding, strong, dynamic, innovative and successful knowledge based economies which contribute disproportionately towards the national economic output. 1.5.6 The local, regional and national authorities have identified that congestion, unreliable journey times and poor east-west connectivity are barriers to delivering future housing development and economic growth within the study area. If strategic east-west transport improvements are not delivered, traffic growth on the existing primary road route is predicted to result in additional sections of the network operating over-capacity during the peak travel periods, further increasing journey time variability and delays. Delays as a result of increased congestion will be a cost borne by businesses, further restricting business efficiency, investment and access to local, regional and global markets. 1.5.7 In order to flourish, collectively knowledge-based sectors depend upon high quality support from ‘enabling’ sectors such as financial and professional services and other business services which are predominantly, but not exclusively, located in London. As a consequence, existing high-quality radial transport links into London allow firms located along the Oxford to Cambridge to access world-class support in London and improved east-west connectivity along the corridor, such as journey times of around 45 minutes between Oxford/Cambridge and Milton Keynes could enable such support in the corridor, further boosting economic growth. ■ East-west transport interventions could therefore address: x Limited commuting/interaction between Oxford and Cambridge (each has zone of influence) and the urban and rural areas in between; x Improved connectivity along the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway corridor is likely to increase the number of people commuting between local areas and may lead to better matching between skills and employment opportunities; and x Improved connectivity is likely to deliver increased economic interaction (with associated impacts on trade, specialisation, productivity etc.) between the local areas.

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 14 | 19

1.5.8 The potential to integrate east-west transport interventions with national (EWR and HS2), regional and local infrastructure schemes is essential to the regional and national growth agenda and creating wider opportunities for growth and economic performance. 1.5.9 Interventions that deliver improved east-west connectivity within the study area will therefore have a positive impact on travel reliability, network reliance and enhance future local, regional and national connectivity and support economic growth. 1.5.10 In summary interventions in the corridor could address issues at three functional levels: ■ Strategic – the role of the corridor in the context of the national rail and strategic road network and an intervention will deliver economic benefits in the form of productivity and increasing the contribution to UK GDP; ■ Regional – addressing significant growth planned along the corridor and the contribution that this areas has to the UK economy and international markets by improving access to labour markets and business connectivity; and ■ Local – sections of the corridor will have potential positive impacts in their own right, such as access between homes, jobs and services. 1.5.11 The current and future performance of the primary east-west road route, together with the study area growth aspirations and other transport improvements, all make a strong case for investigating interventions which could improve the performance of the corridor as a strategic route and an essential link for local communities. 1.5.12 Interventions in the corridor could deliver the following benefits: ■ Provide strategic east–west links, filling in the missing link in the road and rail network as there are no current strategic connections; ■ Address key constraints, such as environmental impact in local communities; ■ Promote further investment in the corridor and surrounding area; ■ Integrate with planned infrastructure (HS2, EWR and other road improvements) and create wider economic opportunities for growth; ■ Help facilitate significant planned housing and jobs growth; ■ Tackle significant current and future congestion and the network reliability worsening over time; ■ Provide interchange access to a number of national strategic roads including the M4, M40, M1, A1, A14 and M11; ■ Overcome the restricted access to labour markets and improve business connectivity; ■ Providing connections between homes and jobs, seeking to address the lack of affordable housing; ■ Overcome the potential negative impact on economic growth (and reduction in contribution to UK economy) from lack of and worsening performance of east-west connections; and ■ Seek to cater for some of the local infrastructure challenges, e.g. poor accessibility by all modes into urban centres.

15 | 19

1.5.13 The outline of the case for intervention in the study area is summarised below:

Key Points ■ There is a lack of strategic east–west transport connectivity across this part of the UK; ■ Sections of the existing primary east-west road route function as key national and regional freight routes (A34) and provide access to the national SRN network; ■ Sections of the route provide important regional and sub-regional functions, linking communities along the route with the main functional economic areas and improving these sections will significantly improve access to labour markets; ■ The current performance of the A34 and the non-expressway sections of the A421 and A428 are constraining its use, restricting labour catchments, regional connectivity and economic growth; ■ Without strategic transport interventions the forecast increase in travel demand and traffic growth will significantly increase delays and congestion on the primary east-west route, constraining economic growth of the communities within the study area and the key growth areas of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge; ■ There is a need for improved connections across the region and into main urban areas and local centres; ■ Interventions will have a positive impact on travel reliability, network resilience, regional and local connectivity which is vital to support economic growth and enable the delivery of new jobs and homes; and ■ This in turn will deliver economic benefits in the form of improved productivity. This will enable the area to contribute significantly to the national economy.

Project number: 70015095

Dated: 08/07/2016 16 | 19

WSP UK Limited UK Tel: 01223 558 050 Fax: 0116 200 5001 www.wsp-pb.co.uk

APPENDIX 5

Milton Keynes/Bletchley

Housing Economic Development Reference Site Address Parish Site Site assessment Achieva Suitable Capacity 1-5 6-15 Suitable Capaci Area bility Years Years ty (ha) (sqm) Unsuitable - Development of the site Land at Eaton Leys, would have a harmful landscape and west of the A4146, Great visual impact on qualities and key GRB002 south of Watling 67.5 No No No Brickhill characteristics of this Area of Attractive Street and east of the River Ouzel Landscape and also the settlement pattern on this side of Bletchley.

Unsuitable - The site is in an Area of Attractive Landscape but the site is only Lavente Gate off Great GRB003 41.6 partly screened without significant slopes. No No No A4146 Bletchley Brickhill Development would be likely to have a harmful landscape and visual impact.

Unsuitable - site is highly exposed and remote from settlement. The site is in an Land west of Galley Great GRB004 6.6 Area of Attractive Landscape and there No No No Land and the A4146 Brickhill are views eastwards to more elevated land.

Unsuitable - The site is exposed to views and separated from surrounding Land at Lower Salden MUR001 Mursley 22.6 settlements. The site is known to support No No No Farm European Protected Species and designations / habitats of significance are

located within or immediately adjacent to

Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) Page 231 Housing Economic Development Reference Site Address Parish Site Site assessment Achieva Suitable Capacity 1-5 6-15 Suitable Capaci Area bility Years Years ty (ha) (sqm) the site. South of site near the railway is ecologically sensitive. It is also a rolling landscape from the northwest-southeast and there are prominent expansive views from the main road.

Unsuitable - In terms of the relationship to Newton Longville, the site is highly Land at Lower Salden exposed with important views, part in MUR002 Mursley 19.96 No No No Farm sensitive landscape and very visually separate to the existing settlement of Newton Longville.

Site west of Far Bletchley, at the Suitable – Site could provide for housing south western edge and employment and other economic of Milton Keynes. development uses . The site is adjacent Boundary A421 & Newton Bletchley's housing areas and well NLV001 143.90 Yes Yes 1,885 350 1,535 Yes 1,515 A4034, disused Longville connected by the strategic road network. railway and The site is also adjacent East West Rail Whaddon Road. should there be any potential for a future Adjoins residential of station. west Bletchley.

National Grid Site – Newton NLV009 land to the north of 23.46 Shown on the Newton Longville table Longville Newton Longville

Newton NLV011 Land to the north of 28.3 Shown on the Newton Longville table Stoke Road and west Longville

Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) Page 232 Housing Economic Development Reference Site Address Parish Site Site assessment Achieva Suitable Capacity 1-5 6-15 Suitable Capaci Area bility Years Years ty (ha) (sqm) of Milton Keynes, Stoke Road, Newton Longville, Bucks

Land to the north of Unsuitable - The site is in a rolling Stoke Road and west exposed landscape northwest to of Milton Keynes (to southeast. Development in this location Newton NLV013 the northeast of 32.2 would be harmful to the built character of No No No Longville Stoke Road Junction), the area and not relate to adjacent Stoke Rod, Newton settlements and be likely to have a Longville, Bucks harmful landscape and visual impact.

Land between Manor Newton NLV019 Farm and railway 15 Shown on the Newton Longville table Longville line, Whaddon Road

Unsuitable - The site is exposed to views and separated from surrounding settlements. Site contains an employment Newton site that is located in a small part of the Land At Weasel’s Longville, site within Flood Zone 3. As the functional NLV020 Lodge,Surrounding 76.5 No No No Mursley and floodplain (Zone 3b) is not defined outside Farm Land Whaddon of Aylesbury town, a cautionary approach is applied to not consider the site appropriate for further employment development.

Dagnall House and Newton Suitable - The site currently contains some NLV023 1.3 existing buildings and is immediately Yes Yes 39 39 No adjoining land Longville adjacent Bletchley. It could be Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) Page 233 Housing Economic Development Reference Site Address Parish Site Site assessment Achieva Suitable Capacity 1-5 6-15 Suitable Capaci Area bility Years Years ty (ha) (sqm) incorporated as part of a larger development on site NLV001.

Land r/o 39-51 Newton NLV027 0.39 Shown on the Newton Longville table Drayton Road Longville

Kysons, Land East of Newton NLV028 1.5 Shown on the Newton Longville table Newton Longville Longville

Unsuitable - Development in this location would be harmful to the built character of Land west of Newton Stoke SHM010 6.62 the area and not relate to adjacent No No No Leys Hammond settlements and be likely to have a harmful landscape and visual impact.

Unsuitable - the site is separated from Bletchley by a dual carriageway. There is an absence of any other built Land to the south of development on the west side of Fenny A4146 and west of Stoke Road in this location well beyond the SHM011 5.95 No No No Stoke Road, South of Hammond village of Stoke Hammond. Development Milton Keynes would be likely to have an adverse landscape and visual impact. The site does not also not have immediate access to the primary road network.

Land To The South Of Stoke Suitable - site has permission for 350 SHM012 Newton Leys Off 14.2 dwellings. Site is currently under Yes Yes 268 268 No Hammond Drayton Road And construction and has another 268

Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) Page 234 Housing Economic Development Reference Site Address Parish Site Site assessment Achieva Suitable Capacity 1-5 6-15 Suitable Capaci Area bility Years Years ty (ha) (sqm) Stoke Road dwellings to be complete as at 31.03.2015

Unsuitable - site is detached from Land at Rectory Stoke existing settlements, in a prominent and SHM016 Farm, Newton Road 13.2 No No No Hammond exposed landscape with land falling Parcel 3 towards the south.

Unsuitable - site is detached from Land at Rectory existing settlements, in a prominent and Stoke SHM017 Farm, Newton Road 19.7 exposed landscape with land falling No No No Hammond Parcel 1 towards the south and has a Gas pipeline through the site towards the A4146.

Unsuitable - site is detached from Land at Rectory existing settlements, in a prominent and Stoke SHM018 Farm, Newton Road 21.4 exposed landscape with land falling No No No Hammond Parcel 2 towards the south and has a Gas pipeline through the site towards site SHM017.

Part Suitable – (55ha of all but a large landscape buffer to Whaddon village) at around 35dph) for housing in the longer term (years 6-15) once the adjacent WHA001 Shenley Road Whaddon 90.1ha Tattenhoe Park site in Milton Keynes is Yes Yes 2,000 2,000 No substantially built out (is due to complete around 2025). The site is highly sensitive in landscape/visual impact terms so the, scale layout and form of development will

be very important. There would also need

Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) Page 235 Housing Economic Development Reference Site Address Parish Site Site assessment Achieva Suitable Capacity 1-5 6-15 Suitable Capaci Area bility Years Years ty (ha) (sqm) to be biodiversity surveys of potential Badger setts. In light of constraints and likely mitigation and green infrastructure, sustainable drainage and landscaping, the eventual development potential from a suitable site area could be lower than 2000 dwellings. This would need to be refined at the detailed development planning stage.

Total 4,192 657 3,535 1,515

Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) Page 236 HUNTINGDON CRESCENT W BUCKINGHAM ROAD ANE WINCA 1:42,000 NLV023 NTON WHA001 WEASEL L HI LL Newton Longville CP Whaddon CP NLV001

050 100 200 metres LTON LANE MI NLV023 HA

GRB002 NLV001 GRB004

LHW003 NLV020 NLV009 NLV024 GRB003 NLV019 WHA003 MUR001 Newton Longville CP MUR002 NLV005 NLV008 NLV011 NLV014 NLV006 SHM011 LHW001 NLV004 NLV026 NLV013 NLV017 NLV003

SHM012 NLV027 NLV028 NLV002 SHM010 NLV018 LHW002 NLV015 Great Brickhill CP NLV010 SHM017 SHM018 NLV012 SHM016

GRB001

Stoke Hammond CP SHM006 SHM007 SHM003 Mursley CP SHM005 SHM009 Suitable for housing SHM002 SHM001 Part suitable for housing DPA002 SHM004 DPA003 SHM013 Suitable for economic development SHM008 Part suitable for economic development DPA001 Suitable for housing or economic development Part suitable for housing or economic development SOU002 Unsuitable for housing or economic development SOU001 Parish boundary

District boundarySWA001 SOU010 SOU004 © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100019797 STW006 0250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 metres Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (May 2016) - Milton Keynes and Bletchley

APPENDIX 6

Design and Conservation

To: Area Planning Officer - West Attn: Claire Bayley Application No: 15/00314/AOP

From: Landscape Architect & Urban Designer Date: 7th July 2015

Site: South West Milton Keynes, Newton Longville

The applicant has submitted an LVIA in support of their application (dated January 2015) this concludes that the proposed development of up to 1855 dwellings etc., on this currently green field site, will not result in significant landscape character impacts in the long term on the site itself or in either the short or long term on the wider character area (Newton Longville – Stoke Hammond Claylands LCA 4.9) within which it lies. This is a conclusion that is unreasonable and with which I disagree.

The proposed development will be perceived, both from within the site and from the wider landscape as a significant change in landscape character terms in both the short and long term when assessed against the existing landscape character ‘baseline’ of undeveloped agricultural land in open countryside and it is upon this basis that the proposed development should properly be considered.

Similarly, the submitted LVIA reaches the conclusion that there will be no significant long term visual impacts on visual receptors as a result of the proposed scheme when assessed against the existing visual ‘baseline’. Again, I do not agree with this conclusion and would advise that the will be several instances of long term (permanent) significant visual impacts – not least from those receptors using public rights of way that currently traverse the site – and again would advise that this is a more reasonable basis upon which to consider the proposed development when considering the ‘planning balance’ of the application.

Without prejudice to the above comments, I have been asked to comment on the urban design principles of the proposed development as illustrated by the submitted ‘Land Use Parameter Plan’ (dated 16.9.14) which sought to respond to earlier comments by my colleague Paul Acton (dated 22.6.10) in response to an earlier application for a larger scheme.

With regard to the identified need for ‘better physical connections across Weasel Lane’ this seems to have been addressed in principle by the provision of both a ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ connection north south across the proposed area of GI that occupies the high ground in the centre of the site.

Jonathan Bellars BA Dip LA (Hons) Dip UD CMLI Landscape Architect & Urban Designer

APPENDIX 7

Inspector’s Report APP/J0405/A/12/2181033; APP/J0405/A/12/2189277; APP/J0405/A/12/2189387; & APP/J0405/A/12/2197073

9.136 In reaching this conclusion, it is apposite to note that the route of HS2, to the immediate west of the site, could introduce a new well-defined linear feature and add to the claim of the site being contained. At the same time the commitment to, or presence of houses at, Fleet Marston might necessitate bunding and/or fencing to mitigate noise impacts from the railway and lead to increased impacts on the character and appearance of the landscape.[3.104] 9.137 The final element of the relatively young tree belt along the western boundary of the site, as a shaping influence to the development, contradicts its very limited presence in the landscape. Moreover, even with sculpturing as part of the green infrastructure proposals and subsequent growth and maturity, the aspiration appears overstated in that the generally abrupt linear tree belt to the north of the A41 would offer little or nothing in securing an effective transition between the countryside and the undeniable harsh impact of the proposed built development. [2.106(b), 4.185(h), 5.66(d)]

Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan:- Policies RA.8 and GP.35

Policy RA.8 9.138 The point at issue is whether the proposal would conflict with Policy RA.8, relating to Areas of Attractive Landscape, which provides:- ‘Development proposals in these areas should respect their landscape character. Development that adversely affects this character will not be permitted, unless appropriate mitigation measures can be secured’. 9.139 Although the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by, amongst other things, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, it is a further requirement that local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals affecting protected landscape areas can be judged. 9.140 The policy is drafted in a manner which permits development if there is no harm to landscape character either inherently or by mitigation; but it does not set express criteria to be used in measuring whether or not harm would occur and the credentials for assessing mitigation. Additionally, there has been no comprehensive up-to-date analysis of the area and its boundaries and whether the designation continues to be justified. On this basis, and despite the Framework indicating that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by, amongst other things, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, the policy merits very little weight.[2.108(a)(vii), 3.29, 3.100-3.101, 3.193, 4.193]

Policy GP.35 9.141 The question here is whether Policy GP.35 is a landscape protection policy. It is in part of the local plan under a heading ‘Conservation of the Built Environment’; but the first paragraph of the text indicates that ‘an approach is required that respects the traditional character of towns and villages, and, where development in the countryside is necessary or appropriate, the traditional character of rural landscape and buildings’. Shortly thereafter reference is made to landscape designations in the district.[2.120-2.123, 3.102, 4.185(l)] http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 255