Housing Market Areas and Functional Economic Market Areas in Buckinghamshire and the Surrounding Areas

Housing Market Areas and Functional Economic Market Areas in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas

Volume II: Study Appendices March 2015

Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected]

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Opinion Research Services | The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF Jonathan Lee | David Harrison | Tara McNeill enquiries: 01792 535300 · [email protected] · www.ors.org.uk

Atkins | Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road NW1 3AT Richard Ainsley enquiries: 020 7121 2280 · [email protected] · www.atkinsglobal.com

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Contents

Appendix A: Analysis of Valuation Office Data

Appendix B: Sectoral Strengths

Appendix C: LA-LA Commuting and Migration Flows

Appendix D: Stakeholder Engagement

Appendix E: Study Method Statement

Appendix F: Responses to Study Method Statement

Appendix G: Workshop Presentation of Emerging Findings

Appendix H: Further Information Circulated following Workshop

Appendix I: Responses to the Emerging Findings

Appendix J: Responses to the Report of Findings Consultation Draft

Appendix K: Schedule of Changes to the Final Report of Findings

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix A Analysis of Valuation Office Data

Distribution of Floorspace

Figure A1: Total office and industrial floorspace in Bucks

Office % of Industrial % of (000’s sq.m) Bucks total (000’s sq.m) Bucks total South Bucks 157 18% 186 9% Chiltern 124 14% 217 11% Wycombe 407 46% 751 38% Aylesbury Vale 190 22% 830 42% Total Bucks 878 100% 1,984 100%

Figure A2: Distribution of office floorspace – MSOA level

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Figure A3: Distribution of factory floorspace – MSOA level

Average Unit Sizes

Figure A4: Average office unit size

450 400

350 300 250 200 150 100 Average unit size (sq.m) size unit Average 50 0

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Figure A5: Average industrial unit size

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400 Average unit Size (sq.m) unit Average 200

Figure A6: Average office unit size – MSOA level

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Figure A7: Average factory unit size – MSOA level

Average Rateable Value

Figure A8: Average rateable value per sq.m – office

140

120

100

Average Rateable Value per sq.m (3) per Value Rateable Average 0

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Figure A9: Average rateable value per sq.m – industrial

Average Rateable Value per sq.m (£) per Value Rateable Average 0

Figure A10: Average office rateable value per sq.m – MSOA level

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Figure A11: Average industrial rateable value per sq.m – MSOA level

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix B Sectoral Strengths

Sectoral Composition

The sectoral composition of each of the four Buckinghamshire local authorities, alongside other authorities in Berkshire and Surrey, is shown below.

Figure A12: Sectoral Composition

orest Sector Slough Chiltern Reading Wycombe Spelthorne Wokingham South Bucks South Maidenhead Windsor andWindsor Aylesbury Vale West Berkshire Bracknell F

A: Agriculture, forestry and fishing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

B: Mining and quarrying 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

C: Manufacturing 7% 7% 4% 7% 3% 2% 9% 5% 11% 4% 4%

D: Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

E: Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%

F: Construction 5% 5% 5% 6% 3% 2% 3% 8% 5% 5% 4%

G: Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 19% 21% 21% 22% 23% 17% 17% 17% 18% 16% 13%

H: Transportation and storage 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 10% 8% 3% 2% 1%

I: Accommodation and food service activities 6% 6% 10% 6% 5% 6% 4% 8% 6% 9% 6%

J: Information and communication 4% 6% 7% 8% 12% 13% 16% 10% 12% 11% 18%

K: Financial and insurance activities 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%

L: Real estate activities 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1%

M: Professional, scientific and technical activities 8% 12% 12% 9% 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 12% 12%

N: Administrative and support service activities 9% 4% 9% 8% 9% 7% 10% 9% 7% 6% 9%

O: Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 6% 2% 1% 2% 2% 5% 2% 4% 3% 2% 1%

P: Education 10% 12% 7% 9% 9% 7% 7% 8% 8% 10% 12%

Q: Human health and social work activities 13% 12% 11% 9% 8% 13% 8% 7% 6% 8% 8%

R: Arts, entertainment and recreation 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% 3% 5% 3%

S: Other service activities 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

The analysis of sector strengths is supported by an employment Location Quotient (LQ) analysis of Buckinghamshire (by two sector Standard Industrial Sector) which shows the concentration of key employment sectors in Buckinghamshire’s economy. The table below shows those comparative strengths across the four Local Authorities within Buckinghamshire.

Figure A13: LQ analysis (2014)

Sector Chiltern Wycombe South Bucks South Aylesbury Vale Aylesbury Buckinghamshire

21 : Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and 3.91 24.82 * * * pharmaceutical preparations 26 : Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 2.96 1.65 * * 5.08 59 : Motion picture, video & television production, sound 2.27 1.14 10.34 0.64 0.76 recording and music publishing activities 30 : Manufacture of other transport equipment 1.77 0.75 4.13 2.62 * 46 : Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 1.75 1.26 2.10 1.42 2.11 70 : Activities of head offices; management consultancy 1.75 2.33 2.29 1.53 1.48 activities 73 : Advertising and market research 1.73 0.64 1.61 2.74 1.33 62 : Computer programming, consultancy and related activities 1.71 1.82 1.04 1.09 2.51 31 : Manufacture of furniture 1.67 * * 0.94 3.46 74 : Other professional, scientific and technical activities 1.49 3.10 1.29 1.00 1.36 96 : Other personal service activities 1.48 1.62 2.54 1.34 1.09 60 : Programming and broadcasting activities 1.44 3.93 * * 2.06 18 : Printing and reproduction of recorded media 1.38 1.71 1.07 1.69 1.11 42 : Civil engineering 1.35 0.45 0.52 2.69 0.89 45 : Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and 1.35 1.06 1.33 1.36 1.48 motorcycles 68 : Real estate activities 1.33 1.47 1.77 1.13 1.25 41 : Construction of buildings 1.33 1.68 1.62 0.96 1.38

Source: Atkins & BRES 2014 - * is where employment is not enough to be strength.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix C LA-LA Commuting and Migration Flows

Aylesbury Vale

Figure A14: Local authority commuting flows to and from Aylesbury Vale (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of commuters to/from Aylesbury Vale was 500 or more)

12,000 32%

10,000 Chiltern

8,000 19% 31% Wycombe 17% 6,000 Chiltern Oxford 13% 12% 20% 21% 4,000 Wycombe Cherwell 13% Camden 11% Milton 7% Hillingdon Cherwell Keynes 2,000 Luton Milton South 4% Central Westminster Dacorum Keynes South Oxon Central Beds Dacorum South & City Oxon Norfolk Beds S Norfolk 0 Rest of Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere Rest of Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere Bucks Bucks Inbound commuting Outbound commuting

Figure A15: Local authority migration flows to and from Aylesbury Vale (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of migrants to/from Aylesbury Vale was 100 or more. Excludes moves within Aylesbury Vale)

38% 53% 2,000 1,800 20% ↑ ↑ 1,600 3,100 4,100 1,400 Chiltern 15% 15% 1,200 Chiltern 1,000 Milton 11% 11% 10% 10% Keynes 800 Wycombe

Oxford Oxford 600 6% 6% 6% South Cherwell 400 Oxon Wycombe Milton Dacorum Central Central Keynes 200 South Beds Cherwell Beds South Oxon Dacorum S Norfolk Hillingdon 0 Norfolk Rest of Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere Rest of Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere Bucks Bucks UK inward migration UK outward migration

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Chiltern

Figure A16: Local authority commuting flows to and from Chiltern (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of commuters to/from Chiltern was 500 or more)

10,000 42%

9,000

8,000 30% 7,000 50%

South Aylesbury Ealing 6,000 Bucks Vale Camden 5,000 Aylesbury South Vale Bucs 4,000 Hillingdon 13% 3,000 18% 8% 13% 11% Watford 7% 2,000 Westminster Wycombe Three Rivers Wycombe 7% Three Rivers & City 1,000 Dacorum Dacorum Hillingdon Slough 0 Rest of Herts London Berks Elsewhere Rest of Herts London Berks Elsewhere Bucks Bucks Inbound commuting Outbound commuting

Figure A17: Local authority migration flows to and from Chiltern (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of migrants to/from Chiltern was 100 or more. Excludes moves within Chiltern)

2,400 42% 2,200

2,000 1,800 31% 34% 1,600 Milton Keynes

1,400 South 26% Bucks 1,200 24%

1,000 Aylesbury Aylesbury Vale Vale 15% 800 South Bucks 13% Wandsworth 600 Harrow 8%

400 Ealing Dacorum Wycombe 4% Wycombe 4% Three Rivers 200 Hillingdon Three Rivers Dacorum 0 Rest of Herts London Berks Elsewhere Rest of Herts London Berks Elsewhere Bucks Bucks UK inward migration UK outward migration

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

South Bucks

Figure A18: Local authority commuting flows to and from South Bucks (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of commuters to/from South Bucks was 500 or more)

10,000 44% 9,000 8,000

7,000 31% 28% 29% Hounslow 6,000 24% Ealing 5,000 Windsor & Westminster Windsor & Maidenhead 4,000 Chiltern Maidenhead & City 14% 3,000 13% Ealing Chiltern 8% 2,000 Slough Wycombe Slough 6% Hillingdon Hillingdon 3% 1,000 Wycombe 0 Rest of Berks London Herts Elsewhere Rest of Berks London Herts Elsewhere Bucks Bucks Inbound commuting Outbound commuting

Figure A19: Local authority migration flows to and from South Bucks (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of migrants to/from South Bucks was 100 or more. Excludes moves within South Bucks)

1,800 36% 1,600 35%

1,400

1,200 23% 24% 21% 21% 1,000 20%

Windsor & Hounslow 800 15% Maidenhead Chiltern Ealing Windsor & 600 Maidenhead Chiltern 400 Slough Hillingdon Wycombe 3% Slough 200 Wycombe 2% Hillingdon 0 Rest of Berks London Herts Elsewhere Rest of Berks London Herts Elsewhere Bucks Bucks UK inward migration UK outward migration

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Wycombe

Figure A20: Local authority commuting flows to and from Wycombe (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of commuters to/from Wycombe was 500 or more)

10,000 30% 33% 28% 9,000

South 8,000 Aylesbury Bucks Vale 22% 7,000 23% Bracknell Camden 6,000 Wokingham Hounslow

Chiltern South Reading Ealing 5,000 17% Bucks Wokingham 4,000 12% Slough Westminster Slough 11% & City 3,000 8% 8%

Aylesbury 2,000 Oxford 4% Vale Windsor & 5% Chiltern Windsor & Maidenhead South Maidenhead Hillingdon 1,000 Oxon South Oxon Hillingdon 0 Rest of Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere Rest of Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere Bucks Bucks Inbound commuting Outbound commuting

Figure A21: Local authority migration flows to and from South Bucks (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where number of migrants to/from Wycombe was 100 or more. Excludes moves within Wycombe)

22% 38% 47% 2,000

1,800 20% ↑ ↑ 3,200 3,800 1,600 18% Aylesbury 1,400 Vale South Bucks 14% 1,200 11% South 1,000 Bucks 11% Chiltern

800 Wandsworth 8% Wokingham Westminster 600 Slough 5% Ealing Slough Oxford 400 Chiltern 4% Aylesbury Vale Windsor & Windsor & 2% South 200 Maidenhead Hillingdon Maidenhead South Oxon Oxon Dacorum Birmingham Hillingdon Birmingham 0 Rest of Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere Rest of Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere Bucks Bucks UK inward migration UK outward migration

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix D Stakeholder Engagement

Attended Follow-up Organisation Representative Workshop Discussion Bedford Borough Council Carolyn Barnes   Charlie Fulcher  Bracknell Forest Council Max Baker  Sue Scott  Buckinghamshire County Council John Rippon Jim Sims Bucks and Thames Valley LEP Richard Harrington Paul McKim  Central Bedfordshire Council Simon Andrews Cherwell District Council Adrian Colwell  Chiltern Rail Thomas Painter  John Chapman  Dacorum Borough Council Laura Wood  John Lett Greater London Authority James Gleeson Jorn Peters  Hertfordshire County Council Paul Donovan London Borough of Hillingdon James Gleave Luton Borough Council Kevin Owen  Milton Keynes Council Bob Wilson  Oxford City Council Adrian Roche Reading Borough Council Kiaran Roughan Ian Bellinger   Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Jennifer Heaton   Babatunde Adebutu  Runnymede Borough Council Georgina Pacey  Richard Ford Pippa Hopkins  Slough Borough Council Paul Stimpson   South Northamptonshire Council Andy Darcy South Oxfordshire District Council Peter Canavan  John Brooks Spelthorne Borough Council John Devonshire   David Holmes  Three Rivers District Council Claire May Vicky Owen Watford Borough Council Catriona Ramsay West Berkshire Council Caroline Peddie West Northants (Joint Planning Unit) Colin Staves  John Spurling Wokingham Borough Council Rebecca Bird 

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 28 August 2014 09:54 Subject: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good Morning

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

My name is Katie Amesbury and I am a Research Executive at Opinion Research Services (ORS). We are an independent social research company with vast experience of conducting many different types of research across the UK, and are currently engaged in a joint research project with W S Atkins for District Councils in Buckinghamshire; this e mail is to let you know that the study has commenced.

Wycombe District Council, in conjunction with Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council (the Buckinghamshire District Councils) have commissioned ORS and W S Atkins to undertake a study to determine Housing Market Areas (HMAs) and Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMAs) in the County and beyond, using an analysis of secondary data. The outputs from the study will provide important evidence to planning policy in the County.

We are approaching you directly as you have been identified as an important stakeholder within the County whose views the project steering group (of Council officers) would very much like to hear.

A first key objective of the study is to ensure stakeholders have the opportunity to comment and feed into the research methodology. A methodology statement is currently being prepared which we will shortly circulate to you for your consideration; this is what we propose to use to determine the outputs for the HMA and FEMA. We would be very grateful if you could consider this document and provide any feedback or comments which you may have.

Later in the process, when outputs emerge, we will invite all stakeholders to a project workshop. At this event, ORS and W S Atkins will present findings and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide further feedback to the project. The workshop will also be attended by Council officers. We hope to confirm the date for the workshop shortly and will circulate attendance details then.

In the meantime, if you have any further queries about the process or the outputs, please do not hesitate to get in contact with me.

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 04 September 2014 09:30 Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good Morning,

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Workshop Venue

Further to my email below I can confirm that the workshop will be held on 29th September at 2pm at ‘The Hub’, Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1NJ. There is a multi-storey car park immediately next door for parking. Please confirm your attendance with me in advance.

We will be circulating the methodology by the end of the week.

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 10 September 2014 16:22 Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good afternoon,

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Methodology Paper

Please find attached the Buckinghamshire Councils HMA-FEMA proposed method statement for the study. The document outlines the anticipated methodology as well as the next steps of engagement. You are invited to give any feedback by 17th September by emailing myself and I will arrange for someone to get back in touch with you (either by telephone or email).

A paper setting out the emerging outputs from the analysis will be circulated prior to the workshop arranged for the 29th September (details of which are below).

If you have any queries then please don’t hesitate to get in contact with me.

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 10 October 2014 15:21 Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good afternoon,

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Emerging Findings

Following on from the workshop last week, please find attached a PDF copy of the slides that have already been circulated on paper.

In addition, please find attached a short document that summarises the data flows underlying the key outputs. This document also presents the results from further analysis based on migration flow data from the 2001 Census. As discussed at the workshop, we had anticipated that the outcomes from this analysis would reflect the outputs already produced based on commuting data. These results now confirm this and therefore do not change any of our previous conclusions.

We would be grateful for any comments or feedback as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 17 October 2014. As outlined at the workshop, we would also be pleased to discuss any queries about the work on a one-to-one basis. If you would like to arrange an appointment, we would be grateful if you could confirm this early next week.

Kind regards

Katie

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 22 October 2014 17:08 Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good afternoon,

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Responses following on from the Workshop

Many thanks to those who have sent responses following on from the workshop. We have now responded to everyone who sent in comments so please can you let us know if you’ve sent anything across and not yet received a response from us.

If you have any final comments to make, please can you provide these by the end of the week (24th October) in order for us to finalise the report which will be circulated in due course.

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Jonathan Lee Sent: 22 January 2015 17:41 Subject: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good afternoon

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Study Report Consultation Draft

Thank you very much to everyone that has contributed to this study so far; through attending the workshop, participating in interviews and providing feedback.

I am pleased to confirm that we have now completed the study report, but would welcome your comments on the document before it is finalised. The Buckinghamshire Councils have therefore decided to published a Consultation Draft of the report, which can be downloaded from the following link: https://www.ors.org.uk/securefiles/download.php?reference=24efe0ff7d463c5033258280ee094098

There is a separate document which contains the study appendices (which are listed on the contents pages of the main report), so please get in touch if you would also like a copy of this.

We are keen to finalise the study as soon as possible and would therefore be grateful if you could provide any feedback as soon possible, and ideally no later than Tuesday 3 February. Nevertheless, if you do have any concerns or queries about any aspect of the report, then please get in touch so that these can be discussed. Similarly, if you can’t respond before Tuesday 3 February, please let us know as we want to ensure that all feedback can be properly incorporated before the report is finalised.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards

Jonathan

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Jonathan Lee Sent: 23 January 2015 15:38 To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Good Afternoon

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Opinion Research Services (ORS) is an independent social research company that specialises in housing research. ORS and W S Atkins were jointly commissioned by Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council (the Councils) to undertake a study to identify Housing Market Areas (HMAs) and Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMAs) in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas. The outputs from the study will provide important evidence to inform planning policy in the county, and the Councils are keen to reach agreement about the areas with all Local Planning Authorities and other stakeholders that could be affected by the study’s conclusions.

Given this context, the Councils have involved their immediate neighbours, other nearby LPAs and relevant stakeholders throughout the study. A method statement was circulated for comment at the outset, and a workshop was convened to discuss the emerging outputs which were circulated for feedback. Interviews and meetings have also been undertaken to reach agreement on assumptions and ensure consistency with work being completed elsewhere. The Councils did not seek to involve you during these earlier stages of the project, given that you are further away from the county and it was not anticipated that the study conclusions would be relevant to you. However, the study has concluded that it would appropriate for South Bucks to be considered as part of a wider HMA and FEMA which covers Reading and Slough, extending along the M4 corridor from London; so the Councils would like to give you opportunity to comment on the study report before it is finalised.

A Consultation Draft of the study report was published yesterday, which can be downloaded from the following link: https://www.ors.org.uk/securefiles/download.php?reference=24efe0ff7d463c5033258280ee094098

There is a separate document which contains the study appendices (which are listed on the contents pages of the main report), so please get in touch if you would also like a copy of this.

The Councils are keen to finalise the study and we would therefore be grateful if you could provide any feedback as soon possible, and ideally no later than Tuesday 3 February – but if you can’t respond before Tuesday 3 February, please let us know as we want to ensure that all feedback can be properly incorporated before the report is finalised.

In the meantime, if you have any concerns or queries about any aspect of the study then please get in touch with me by email: [email protected] or phone: 01792 535300; or if there are any issues that you would like to discuss with the planning authorities responsible for the work, you can contact Ian Manktelow at Wycombe District Council by email: [email protected] or phone: 01494 421579.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards

Jonathan

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix E Study Method Statement

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

Identifying Housing Market Areas and Functional Economic Market Areas A proposed approach from Opinion Research Services and Atkins for Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CLG, March 2012) requires local planning authorities to have a “clear understanding of housing needs in their area … working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries” (paragraph 159).

2. Similarly, the Framework requires local planning authorities to have a “clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area” and “work together with county and neighbouring authorities and with Local Enterprise Partnerships” (paragraph 160).

3. Planning Practice Guidance on the Assessment of housing and economic development needs (PPG) (CLG, March 2014) provides guidance on how Housing Market Areas (HMAs) and Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMAs) can be defined. Whilst this Guidance provides the basis for identifying HMAs and FEMAs for Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas, this Paper sets out the specific methodology for the proposed approach for the Buckinghamshire study.

4. The study hopes to derive a consensus from local planning authorities and other relevant stakeholders about the most appropriate HMAs and FEMAs for Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas. These functional geographies will then provide the Buckinghamshire councils basis to undertake further work and develop the evidence base required for the objective assessment of housing and economic need.

Housing Market Areas

5. Planning Practice Guidance sets out at paragraph 10 that: A housing market area is a geographical area defined by household demand and preferences for all types of housing, reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people live and work. It might be the case that housing market areas overlap. The extent of the housing market areas identified will vary, and many will in practice cut across various local planning authority administrative boundaries. Local planning authorities should work with all the other constituent authorities under the duty to cooperate. Where there is a joint plan, housing requirements and the need to identify a five year supply of sites can apply across the joint plan area. The approach being taken should be set out clearly in the plan.

6. It subsequently states that “housing market areas can be broadly defined by using three different sources of information”, these being: » House prices and rates of change in house prices

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

» Household migration and search patterns » Contextual data (for example travel to work area boundaries, retail and school catchment areas)

7. However, advice recently published in the Planning Advisory Services (PAS) technical advice note “Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets” (PAS, June 2014) suggests that the main indicators will be migration and commuting (paragraph 4.4). The PG provides a long list of possible indicators, comprising house prices, migration and search patterns and contextual data including travel-to-work areas, retail and school catchments. With regard to migration, it explains that areas that form an HMA will be reasonably self-contained, so that a high proportion of house moves (typically 70%) occur within the area5. In practice, the main indicators used are migration and commuting.

8. The PAS advice note also suggests that analysis reported in the CLG report “Geography of Housing Market Areas” (CLG, November 2010) should provide a starting point for drawing HMAs. This study was commissioned by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) and undertaken by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS) at Newcastle University. However, the analysis of migration and commuting was based on data from the 2001 Census, so the PAS advice note recognises that “more recent data should always ‘trump’ this geography” (paragraph 4.9).

Functional Housing Market Areas

9. The NPPF recognises that housing market areas will cross administrative boundaries, although the PAS advice note suggests that (paragraph 4.11): It is best if HMA boundaries do not cut across local authority areas. Dealing with areas smaller than local authorities causes major difficulties in analysing evidence and drafting policy. For such small areas data availability is poor and analysis is complex.

10. Nevertheless, the PPG emphasises that housing market areas reflect functional linkages between places where people live and work.

11. The previous CLG advice note “Identifying sub-regional housing market areas” (CLG, March 2007) established that functional housing market areas were not constrained by administrative boundaries, though recognised the need for a “best fit” approximation to local authority areas for developing evidence and policy (paragraph 9): The extent of sub-regional functional housing market areas identified will vary and many will in practice cut across local authority administrative boundaries. For these reasons, regions and local authorities will want to consider, for the purposes of developing evidence bases and policy, using a pragmatic approach that groups local authority administrative areas together as an approximation for functional sub-regional housing market areas.

12. When identifying housing market areas, it remains important to properly differentiate between functional housing market areas and the pragmatic need for a “best fit” to local authority boundaries. It is also important that the process for identifying functional housing market areas is not constrained by local authority boundaries. This allows the full extent of each functional housing market to be properly understood and ensures that all of the constituent local planning authorities can work together under the duty to cooperate, as set out in Guidance (PPG, paragraph 10).

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

13. However, as suggested by the recent PAS advice note (and the previous CLG advice note), it is also necessary to identify a “best fit” for each functional housing market area that is based on local planning authority boundaries. This “best fit” area provides an appropriate basis for analysing evidence and drafting policy, and would normally represent the group of authorities that would take responsibility for undertaking a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).

Defining Housing Market Areas

14. When defining housing market areas, it is important that functional housing markets are not constrained to local authority boundaries – so it is necessary to use smaller geographic areas as the basic “building block”. Whilst we would normally focus initially on migration patterns, migration data from the 2011 Census is currently only published at local authority level, and the most recent data at a sufficiently fine-grained geography is still the 2001 Census. However, commuting flow data from the 2011 Census has recently been published for smaller areas, namely Middle-layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs). Given this context, it is appropriate to start our analysis using the commuting flow data and the migration flow data will then be analysed once it is available.

15. In considering the housing market areas for Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas, our initial analysis will be based on the geographic area from Northampton in the north to Basingstoke in the south, and from Swindon in the west to the City of London in the east. This will ensure that all functional housing market areas are properly identified without unduly focussing on the local planning authorities within the county. Nevertheless, the study will only identify the full extent of those housing market areas for Buckinghamshire – neighbouring housing markets will only be identified as far as is necessary to establish the most appropriate boundary between them and the housing market areas being identified in Buckinghamshire.

Identifying Travel to Work Areas

16. Insofar as the proposed analysis will initially focus on commuting flows, the areas established will be travel to work areas rather than housing market areas. Nevertheless, as previously outlined, commuting patterns form an important element of the analysis required to establish functional housing market areas.

17. The process for identifying the travel to work areas can be summarised as follows: » Step 1: Identify MSOAs within the geographic area (but outside the Greater London region) where all of the constituent Census Output Areas have been classified as being “urban” under the 2011 Rural Urban Classification (DEFRA, September 2011). » Step 2: Group together any contiguous urban MSOAs (outside the Greater London region) into single seed points. Note that the Greater London MSOAs are excluded from steps 1 and 2 as almost all MSOAs within the region are urban, and this would create a single seed point covering the whole of London at the outset of the analysis process. Whilst Greater London will clearly be an important housing market, we do not want this to be based simply on it being a contiguous urban area. Greater London MSOAs are introduced into the process from step 3 onwards. » Step 3: Identify MSOAs within the geographic area (including those in Greater London) with a commuting ratio that is less than 1.0 (i.e. where the workplace population is larger than the resident population).

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

» Step 4: Associate those MSOAs with concentrations of employment with the existing seed point with which they have the strongest relationship. Where these MSOAs are not contiguous with an urban area (including all MSOAs in Greater London) and have only weak relationships with the existing seed points, employment MSOAs will form a new independent seed point. » Step 5: For every MSOA in the geographic area, associate it with the seed point (or seed point cluster) that has the largest number of workers resident in that MSOA. » Step 6: Based on the MSOAs associated with each seed point (or seed point cluster) at Step 5, calculate the proportion of the resident population that work in the area and the proportion of the workplace population that live in the area to establish a self-containment ratio. » Step 7: If all seed points (or seed point clusters) have an acceptable self-containment ratio, the process will stop; otherwise for the seed point with the lowest self-containment ratio, the seed point with which it has the strongest relationship (based on the commuting flows and distance between the two seed points) is identified and the two seed points are clustered together. Where the seed point with the lowest self-containment ratio is already formed of a cluster of seed points, the cluster is separated and the strongest relationship is identified for each of the original seed points before new clusters are formed. The process from Step 5 to Step 7 is then repeated until an acceptable self-containment ratio is achieved across all seed points (or seed point clusters).

18. The final distribution of areas will depend on the level at which the self-containment ratio is considered to be acceptable. The higher that the self-containment ratio is required to be, the larger (and more strategic) the identified areas will become – as smaller areas will tend to have lower levels of self-containment.

Self-Containment Thresholds

19. Given that there is no single correct threshold for self-containment, the analysis will consider the distribution of areas at different threshold points. These will include: » 75% which is the target for ONS Travel-To-Work Areas; » 70% which is set out as representing “a relatively high proportion of household moves” in paragraph 11 of the Planning Practice Guidance; and » 66.7% which is the minimum threshold for ONS Travel-To-Work Areas that have a working population in excess of 25,000 workers.

20. It is likely that the London housing market will be important given the number of workers that commute from Buckinghamshire to London, and the number of people that migrate from London to Buckinghamshire each year. Given the potential influence of London, it is important to note that paragraph 10 of the Planning Practice Guidance recognises that “it might be the case that housing market areas overlap” and it would be important to identify local housing market areas that might also exist.

21. Given this context, depending on the outputs and the extent to which London is shown to extend into Buckinghamshire on the basis of these thresholds, it may be appropriate to sensitivity test self-containment ratios at lower thresholds. If this is considered necessary, we would initially review the analysis based on thresholds of 40, 50 and 60%. It may also be appropriate to repeat the analysis excluding all workers who work in the centre of London, but ensuring that local patterns (such as those workers commuting to Heathrow and other parts of outer London) continue to be included within the analysis.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

Migration and House Price Data

22. The analysis of commuting patterns from the 2011 Census will form an important part of the evidence used to establish housing market areas – but it will also be important to review the available migration and house price data.

23. In the absence of detailed migration flows from the 2011 Census, local-level data from the 2001 Census will be reviewed to understand the proportion of movers that stayed within the areas identified using the commuting flow data; although this analysis will exclude long-distance moves where it is likely that people will also change employment at the time of their move.

24. More recent data about migration between local authorities will also be considered, although this is often less useful as the main relationships tend to normally be with neighbouring areas. This is recognised in the PAS advice note, which states (paragraph 4.5): One problem in drawing boundaries is that, if each local planning authority were to draw an HMA centred on its area, there would be almost as many HMAs as local authorities. This is because the largest migration flows in and out of any individual authority are usually those linking it with immediately adjacent authorities. But each of these adjacent authorities will most probably find that their largest migration flows link them to their immediate neighbours, and the chain continues indefinitely.

25. With regard to house prices, whilst the analysis will consider the latest absolute (and relative) prices, it is arguably more important to understand the rate of change – for whilst a housing market area is likely to include houses with a range of different prices, prices are likely to increase (or reduce) at a comparable rate in each housing market area. However, once again, the proximity of London is likely to also be a significant influence on house price patterns across Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas.

Reviewing the Evidence

26. Whilst the analysis of the housing market geography in and around Buckinghamshire proposed above will inevitably be based on more recent data than previous studies, we will also review the conclusions from earlier work. This will include: » Geography of Housing Market Areas in England (NHPAU/CURDS, 2010); » Broad Rental Market Areas (VOA); and » Strategic Housing Market Assessments and other studies undertaken in and around Buckinghamshire.

27. The evidence from the analysis of commuting flows, migration flows and house prices will be reviewed collectively in the context of these previous studies to provide recommendations about the most appropriate functional housing market areas.

28. Once the functional housing market areas have been established, the study will also consider the most appropriate “best fit” housing market areas based on local planning authority boundaries.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

Functional Economic Market Area

29. Planning Practice Guidance sets out at paragraph 12 that: The geography of commercial property markets should be thought of in terms of the requirements of the market in terms of the location of premises, and the spatial factors used in analysing demand and supply – often referred to as the functional economic market area. Since patterns of economic activity vary from place to place, there is no standard approach to defining a functional economic market area, however, it is possible to define them taking account of factors including: » extent of any Local Enterprise Partnership within the area; » travel to work areas; » housing market area; » flow of goods, services and information within the local economy; » service market for consumers; » administrative area; » catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social well-being; » transport network.

30. The proposed approach to defining the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) for the Buckinghamshire study is consistent with the Guidance and reflects the following key topics: » Administrative areas (e.g. Local authority, LEP and other bodies’ boundaries); » Travel to work areas; » Transport network. » Supply chains; » Flow of goods, services and information within the local economy; » Service market for consumers; and, » Catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social well-being.

31. The following steps outline our approach to defining the functional economic market area for Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas.

Travel to Work Area

32. The study will consider the travel to work analysis undertaken for establishing the HMA(s) (based on commuting flows from the 2011 Census) as a key element of the evidence for establishing FEMA(s).

Transport Network

33. The transport network is a key facilitator of commuting trips in the local area. Understanding the existing transport network, as well as potential changes in connectivity facilitated by improvements in the rail network, will be key to defining the final labour market catchment area. The study will consult with all local authorities in Buckinghamshire to understand current constraints to key transport corridors, and to identify planned investment which may affect future capacity and connectivity.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

34. We will also undertake an analysis of the projected changes in the balance between housing and employment for surrounding local authorities to understand whether this might impact on the spatial dynamics of the demand and supply of labour in the sub-region.

Supply Chain and Trade Flow Analysis

35. In order to explore supply chain dynamics in more detail we will explore business survey information from the Buckinghamshire Business Survey to explore supply chain linkages.

36. To capture a more qualitative picture of the trade and flow of commercial activities we will undertake a series of targeted telephone interviews with economic development and planning officers in each of the four Bucks local authorities. This would provide us with qualitative evidence to verify the more quantitative analysis set out in other stages.

Identification of local Socio-Economic and Property Market Characteristics

37. We will analyse the latest socio-economic data in order to identify clusters of activity to inform the FEMA. This will include analysis of: » Employment growth rates and entrepreneurial activity; » Property market characteristics, including rents, vacancy, take-up and planning pipeline; » Concentrations of specific clusters (such as motorsport);

Service market for consumers

38. We propose to use the retail studies undertaken by each of the local authorities in Buckinghamshire and neighbouring areas as the starting point to define the area of trade draw. We will then consider major retail developments across the County, as well as in neighbouring areas, to identify potential changes to retail catchments since studies have been made.

Catchment Areas for Cultural & Social Wellbeing

39. To explore cultural and social wellbeing we will explore the following: » IMD – Access to services & health; » Creative and cultural economy – Firms & Employment; » Visitor Economy Assets, Body Designations (e.g. National Trust, English Heritage etc)

40. This will be mapped to identify catchment areas for cultural and social wellbeing.

Composite analysis of FEMA

41. We will overlay all of the above analysis in order to identify the potential possibilities for extent of the FEMA. We propose that the analysis of the 2011 Travel to Work data will form the basis for identifying the FEMA, with other information as set out above acting as a means to verify or challenge the labour market analysis.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

Involving Stakeholders

42. The study includes provision for extensive stakeholder involvement on both method and outputs.

Stakeholder feedback on Methodology

43. This Methodology Paper is being circulated by email to stakeholders, together with an invitation to a stakeholder workshop.

44. Stakeholders are invited to feedback by Tuesday 17 September if they have any specific concerns or comments about the approach. If there are any queries about the methodology, these can be sent by email to [email protected] and we will get in touch (either by telephone or email) to discuss these.

45. Any feedback received and responses made will be recorded, and any issues which propose changes to study methodology will be discussed and agreed with the project steering group.

Stakeholder Workshop

46. A stakeholder workshop will be held on Monday 29 September. A paper setting out the emerging outputs of the analysis will be prepared and reviewed by the project steering group. Once agreed by the project steering group, we will circulate a copy by email to stakeholders in advance of the September workshop. This paper will be circulated as soon as possible, but the final date will depend on the nature of feedback received about the proposed method, and any changes to the study methodology agreed.

47. The emerging study analysis will presented and explained at the workshop, and Stakeholders will have the opportunity to ask any questions to clarifying the approach and the initial conclusions of the study. Stakeholders will also have the opportunity to discuss the emerging evidence and provide initial feedback.

Stakeholder feedback on Emerging Outputs

48. If any queries about the study arise after the workshop, these can be sent by email and we will get in touch (either by telephone or email) to discuss these. We would then ask for any formal comments about the emerging study outputs to be provided no later than Monday 13 October.

49. Where it would be helpful to discuss any feedback with individual stakeholders, we will do this by telephone or email in the first instance. Where any stakeholders had concerns that would benefit from one-to-one discussions, we propose to host a sequence of appointment-based face-to-face drop-in sessions at an agreed central venue to seek to respond to and, where realistically possible, resolve such issues. The date for this will be confirmed at the Workshop, if not sooner.

50. Any feedback received and responses made (including any subsequent discussions) will be recorded, and responses will be agreed with the project steering group. This will include any recommendations for changes to the assumptions associated with the emerging outputs and the initial conclusions of the study.

51. Following this process, the emerging study outputs and the study conclusions would be finalised and reported to the project steering group. The final study report will be published, together with supporting data, once the document has been agreed by the steering group.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas September 2014

Opinion Research Services | The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF Jonathan Lee | David Harrison | Katie Amesbury enquiries: 01792 535300 · [email protected] · www.ors.org.uk

Atkins | Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road NW1 3AT Martin Tedder enquiries: 020 7121 2288 · [email protected] · www.atkinsglobal.com

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix F Responses to Study Method Statement

Chiltern Railways

Dacorum Borough Council

Greater London Authority

West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Thomas Painter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 September 2014 15:52 To: Katie Amesbury Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Katie,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the methodology paper for the market area study.

Chiltern Railways’ welcomes the realisation that enhancements in transport infrastructure can shape commuting flows and by extension the housing market profile (points 33 and 34).

The East-West route for example will link communities in north Buckinghamshire (such as Winslow) to Oxford and Milton Keynes, creating journey opportunities that previously did not exist. Similarly, the extension of the Chiltern line to connect with the East-West route at Calvert will link the principal populations of Buckinghamshire (High Wycombe and Aylesbury) to Milton Keynes and the West Coast Mainline.

Both of these improvements in rail services might be expected to alter the functional economic market area in the county, expanding travel to work areas and easing the flow of people between key population centres.

Consequently, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these schemes with the study.

Kind regards,

Tom

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 16 September 2014 16:13 To: Thomas Painter [mailto:[email protected]] Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Hi Tom,

Many thanks for your feedback. I have forwarded it to Martin Tedder at Atkins who is working on the FEMA and have asked him to get in contact regarding your comments.

Kind Regards

Katie

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: John Chapman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 September 2014 17:19 To: Katie Amesbury Cc: Laura Wood; Chloe Thomson Subject: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Katie,

I am replying to your email to my colleague, Laura Wood.

Thank you for consulting the Council on the proposed method statement for identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire.

We consider that the proposed approach set out in the method statement is sound, as it follows the approach advocated in the NPPF, the PPG and the PAS SHMA guidance. The conclusions from your study will be very helpful in the SHMA, Demographic Study and Economic Study that Dacorum Council together with Hertsmere, Three Rivers and Watford Councils are commissioning shortly.

Regards

John

John Chapman Strategic Planning and Regeneration Officer Dacorum Borough Council Tel: 01442 228259

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 13 November 2014 12:12 To: John Chapman Cc: Laura Wood; Chloe Thomson Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Hi John,

I’m currently going through the correspondence on this project and it’s come to my attention that my response to your below email bounced without me noticing. Please accept my apologies and assurances that your comments were passed on to the steering group and have also been documented.

Kind regards

Katie

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Darren Richards [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 September 2014 15:57 To: Katie Amesbury Cc: John Lett; Elliot Kemp; Jorn Peters Subject: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Katie

The GLA, on behalf of the Mayor, has the following comments on the Study: 1. Draw your attention to the Mayor’s SHMA prepared to support the Further Alterations to the London Plan; 2. The geographical links with London should be recognised, and it should consider the impact of migration and commuting flows between Greater London and Buckinghamshire 3. For reasons set out in the SHMA and statement to the FALP EiP Inspector, the Mayor does not consider that the 2011-based projections are a suitable basis for planning London’s future housing needs. In particular, the Mayor has concerns over the way migration is treated in the latest projections, in the light of the impact of the recent recession. We suggest that your SHMA should draw on a range of data in addition to the most recent household projections.

Can you ensure that the Mayor is consulted on your draft SHMA, which we will consider and if necessary provide a formal response.

Regards

Darren

Darren Richards

Strategic Planning Manager Greater London Authority The Queen's Walk London, SE1 2AA 020 7983 4287

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 18 September 2014 13:52 To: Darren Richards Cc: John Lett; Elliot Kemp; Jorn Peters Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Hi Darren,

Many thanks for your response. I have forwarded it to Jonathan Lee who will hopefully get back to you in due course.

Kind regards

Katie

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Colin Staves [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 September 2014 10:21 To: Katie Amesbury Cc: Claire Berry Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Katie,

Thank you for providing the Joint Planning Unit with the opportunity to comment on the Methodology Paper.

Overall we think the methodology is clear and comprehensive. Under the Functional Economic Market Area section of the paper we think the proposals to identify the “Service Market for Consumers” and the “Catchment Areas for Cultural and Social Welfare” could also include reference to access to a wider range of services than just retail, i.e. leisure, health and education. A number of other similar studies refer to “travel to learning” areas for further education. Retail catchments are frequently used as a proxy for other services but if data about other services is available then this should also be used.

Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the workshop on 29th September, but we will of course let you have further comments on the emerging outputs when these are circulated.

Kind regards

Colin Staves

Principal Spatial Planner West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit The Guildhall, St Giles Square, Northampton NN1 1DE Tel: 01604 838678 Fax: 01604 838543 Email: [email protected]

From: Katie Amesbury Sent: 15 September 2014 15:27 To: Colin Staves Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Hi Colin,

Many thanks for your feedback. I have forwarded it to Martin Tedder at Atkins who is working on the FEMA and have asked him to get in contact regarding your comments.

Sorry to hear you can’t make the meeting – but as you said, please make any comments you have regarding the emerging outputs once they are circulated.

Kind regards Katie

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix G Workshop Presentation of Emerging Findings

www.ors.org.uk

Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas

Workshop to Review Emerging Outputs 29 September 2014

Overview of Workshop

Review of previous HMA analysis

Commuting Flows from 2011 Census

Further information for HMAs and FEMAs

1 www.ors.org.uk

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ANALYSIS OF HOUSING MARKET AREAS

Sub‐Regional Housing Markets in the South East (2004)

2 Buckinghamshire SHMA (2008)

Windsor & Maidenhead SHMA (2013)

3 NHPAU Study –PAS advice note “starting point”

NHPAU Study – alternative output

4 ONS Travel To Work Boundaries (2007)

www.ors.org.uk

PREVIOUS ORS ANALYSIS BASED ON 2001 CENSUS DATA

5 Wycombe SHMA –Housing Market Area analysis

Functional relationships in and around Wycombe

6 Wycombe SHMA –High Wycombe HMA

Wycombe SHMA –High Wycombe HMA

69% of workers live in the HMA 63% of residents work in the HMA (71% excluding those working in London) 72% of movers previously lived in the HMA 73% of movers stayed in the HMA

7 Milton Keynes SHMA – Milton Keynes HMA

Milton Keynes SHMA – Milton Keynes HMA

75% of workers live in the HMA 65% of residents work in the HMA 70% of movers previously lived in the HMA 74% of movers stayed in the HMA

8 www.ors.org.uk

COMMUTING FLOW ANALYSIS BASED ON 2011 CENSUS DATA

Approach for defining HMAs – establishing a framework

1. Select contiguous urban areas (except in London) 2. Identify adjoining areas where the commuting ratio < 1.0 3. Associate employment areas with the urban area where the largest number of workers live 4. Define seed areas based on urban centre + associated employment area, infilling any areas that are completely surrounded by MSOAs that have been selected

9 Urban Areas (DEFRA classification) + densely populated

Areas with commuting ratio less than 1.0

10 Urban areas + Employment areas

“Seeds” for Housing Market Areas

11 Approach for defining HMAs –iterative process

5. Associate all MSOAs with the seed with strongest links 6. The seed with the area of weakest self‐ containment is joined to the seed to which it has strongest links 7. If all seed points/clusters have acceptable self‐ containment the process stops; else steps 5 to 7 are repeated with the new seed points/clusters

Initial modelling @ 20% containment

12 Initial modelling @ 50% containment

Initial modelling @ 60% containment

13 Initial modelling @ 67% containment

Approach for defining HMAs –iterative process

5. Associate all MSOAs with the seed with strongest links 6. The seed with the area of weakest self‐ containment is joined to the seed to which it has strongest links, excluding Central London 7. If all seed points/clusters have acceptable self‐ containment the process stops; else steps 5 to 7 are repeated with the new seed points/clusters

14 Further modelling @ 50% containment

Further modelling @ 55% containment

15 Further modelling @ 67% containment

67% containment with LA boundaries

16 67% containment with VOA Broad Market Rental Areas

67% containment with ONS 2007 TTWA boundaries

17 67% minimum flow with ONS 2007 TTWA boundaries

67% minimum flow with LA boundaries

18 www.ors.org.uk

EMERGING CONCLUSIONS

Emerging Conclusions

» There is substantial commuting to London from all of Buckinghamshire

» The strongest links from Buckingham are to Milton Keynes

Initial analysis @ 67% containment

19 Emerging Conclusions

» The strongest links from Buckingham are to Milton Keynes

» Wycombe and Chiltern districts form the core of a High Wycombe area which including Beaconsfield, Amersham and Princes Risborough

Initial analysis @ 67% containment

Emerging Conclusions

» Aylesbury forms the core of another area, but containment is borderline even with London excluded

Further analysis @ 67% containment

20 Emerging Conclusions

» Aylesbury forms the core of another area, but containment is borderline even with London excluded

» South Bucks has strong links to London, even when Central London growth is restricted

Further analysis @ 67% min flows

Emerging Conclusions

» There are clear links that exist between South Bucks and Maidenhead and Slough

» These are evident until Slough clusters with other areas of West London

Further analysis @ 55% containment

21 www.ors.org.uk

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING Any Comments or Questions?

www.ors.org.uk

JONATHAN LEE Managing Director

Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF 01792 535300 [email protected]

22 Assessment of HMA and FEMA of Buckinghamshire authorities Emerging findings

29th September 2014

Approach to defining the FEMA

• NPPG states there is no single approach to defining a FEMA but the following might need to be considered:

• Labour market areas • Transport network • Business linkages – supply chains • Service market for consumers • Catchment areas of cultural services and social infrastructure • Administrative areas and LEP boundaries

1 Labour Market Areas

Labour Market Areas – 67% containment

Transport Network

• Not important by itself: Facilitator of labour market movements, business linkages, consumer catchments etc • North-south connections relatively poor • For most journeys, road is quicker than rail

2 Transport Network

• Commuting flows are a product of travel time and economic weight of settlement: E.g flows to London stronger due to wages differential and sector specialisation • Biggest driver for commuting flows across Bucks is distance

Commuting flows (out) Workplace (LA) Travel time from Aylesbury TC from Aylesbury TC Wycombe 6.6% 0:29 - High Wycombe Chiltern 3.6% 0:27 - Amersham, 0:25 - Chesham South Oxfordshire 3.4% 0:36 - Wheatley Dacorum 3.1% 0:23 - Hemel Hempstead Milton Keynes 2.7% 0:41 - Milton Keynes

Transport Network – Planned Investment

• Bucks Transport Strategy suggests connections by road and rail to London and other north-south links are congested • Also evidence of congestion between Bedford, MK, Aylesbury and Oxford • East West Rail will shorten journey times from Aylesbury to MK and Oxford significantly – less than 20mins to MK compared to 41mins by car • Current estimates of 140 additional passengers per day (17% increase) – would take it up on a par with South Oxfordshire • Potential for additional trips from other Bucks towns to MK – although estimated to be smaller • Significant employment growth planned for MK – likely to strengthen links further 6

3 Business Linkages

• Used BBF Business Survey to identify business links • Significant number of businesses have no supply chain links to other Bucks businesses • Sales to local customers are stronger • No detail on sub-county granularity

Business Purchases in Bucks Business Sales in Bucks 45% 45% 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0-19% 20-49% 50-69% 70-100% 0-19% 20-49% 50-69% 70-100%

Business Links: Economic characteristics

• County wide 4.5% 18 : Arts, entertainment, recreation & other… 5.2% 12.7% strengths in 17 : Health (Q) 11.1% 9.2% 16 : Education (P) 9.5% 4.6% Professional & 15 : Public administration & defence (O) 3.3% 8.3% 14 : Business administration & support… 8.5% Scientific, Property, 8.0% 13 : Professional, scientific & technical (M) 10.6% 1.8% 12 : Property (L) 2.5% Information and 3.8% 11 : Financial & insurance (K) 2.0% 4.0% Communication, 10 : Information & communication (J) 6.2% 6.8% 9 : Accommodation & food services (I) 5.9% 4.6% Wholesale sectors 8 : Transport & storage (inc postal) (H) 2.6% 10.2% 7 : Retail (Part G) 10.4% 4.2% 6 : Wholesale (Part G) 7.4% 1.8% 5 : Motor trades (Part G) 2.5% 4.6% 4 : Construction (F) 5.6% 8.4% 3 : Manufacturing (C) 7.4% 1.1% 2 : Mining, quarrying & utilities (B,D and E) 0.9% 1.4% 1 : Agriculture, forestry & fishing (A) 0.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%

England Buckinghamshire

4 Business Links: Economic characteristics

% of people employed in professional, scientific and technical • Higher proportion of people employed in professional, scientific and technical sectors in S Bucks and Chiltern – part of a west of London cluster

Business Links: Economic characteristics

• Southern parts of Aylesbury Vale have slightly greater share of people employed in this sector

% of people employed in professional, scientific and technical

5 Business Links: Economic characteristics

% of people employed in information and communications • Higher proportion of people employed in professional, scientific and technical sectors in S Bucks, Wycombe and Chiltern – part of a west of London cluster

Business Links: Economic characteristics

Business Birth Rate 2012 • Higher business birth rate in S Bucks, Wycombe and Chiltern – similar to all authorities in proximity to London

6 Business Links: Economic characteristics

• Differences in sector strengths recognised by the two LEPs • Aylesbury Vale (only district part of SEMLEP) part of wider automotive/motor sport cluster • South Bucks has much greater strength in Film, digital media etc

LEP Sectors Buckinghamshire Food; ICT/Film/Digital Media; Advanced Engineering; Healthcare and the Visitor Economy Thames Valley

SEMLEP Automotive Trade, Business and other services, Construction, Engineering, Food and Drink Manufacturing, Recreation, Tourism and Hospitality, Information and Communication, Transport and Logistics

Service Market Catchments - Retail

Aylesbury Vale Retail Catchments

7 Service Market Catchments - Retail

Chiltern and South Bucks Retail Catchments

Service Market Catchments - Retail

Wycombe Retail Catchments

8 Service Market Catchments - Retail

Areas of Bucks that form retail catchments outside the County

Local Authority Comment Source:

Zones 6, 7 and 8 link into Buckinghamshire, particularly Tring, Dacorum Dacorum Retail Study Update Aylesbury and Amersham.

Oxford Zone 4 links into much of rural Aylesbury Vale Oxford Retail needs Update

Zones 24, 19 and 18 link with rural Aylesbury Vale, Aylesbury Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Retail Update Town and Leighton Buzzard.

Maidenhead and Windsor Retail Capacity Maidenhead & Windsor Zone 4 passes into Buckinghamshire by Bourne End Update.

Zone 1, 4 and 5 link into the Western parts of Aylesbury Vale and South Oxford Retail and Leisure Needs South Oxfordshire Wycombe. Assessment

Central Bedfordshire Zones 9,8 and 5 link Aylesbury Vale Central Bedfordshire retail study.

Hillingdon Beaconsfield mentioned but not mapped. South Northamptonshire Retail Study

Cherwell Zone 8 has links with Aylesbury and Aylesbury Vale Cherwell Retail Study Update

Cultural Services

% of people that visit museums on regular basis • Higher proportion of people access museums in Chiltern and South Bucks

9 Cultural Services

% of people that access ‘the arts’ on regular basis • Higher proportion of people also access ‘the arts’ in Chiltern and South Bucks

Social Infrastructure

• NHS: Two Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) cover Bucks authorities – Aylesbury Vale and Chiltern • Largely fit with the geography of LA’s, apart from in the north where Milton Keynes CCG is larger and covers some areas designated as being in Aylesbury Vale (e.g Newton Longville) • All other services: Police, fire & rescue, Job Centre Plus all consistent with Bucks county boundary

10 Conclusions

• Extent of the FEMA very much depends on the type of economic activity being considered • North of Aylesbury Vale certainly different in terms of transport links, retail and sectoral composition than south of the District • South of AV is more distinct in terms of retail, with greater links to Wycombe. • South of AV has sectoral composition that is still somewhat different to S.Bucks and Chiltern however – less financial and professional services and more public sector

Conclusions

• East West Rail expected to increase commuting from Aylesbury Town Centre by 18% - could affect definition of FEMA – to be considered further •Although S.Bucks looks towards London in terms of labour market linkages, it does have a distinct sectoral profile and property market which is different to Greater London • Further work needed to verify sectoral composition of Chiltern, S.Bucks and Wycombe against Berkshire authorities

11 Questions

• Do you agree with analysis so far? • Have we missed anything?

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix H Further Information Circulated following Workshop

Opinion Research Services ▪ WS Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas October 2014

Commuting Zones 67% containment target (excluding Central London)

Workplace Resident Population Containment Living Population All workers Exc. Central London Score Commuting and Zone Working % % % Exc. Total Total Total in area living in working working Overall Central workers workers workers area in area in area London

Oxford 249,816 301,573 82.8% 295,612 84.5% 290,451 86.0% 83.7% 84.4% West London 1,110,056 1,564,150 71.0% 1,636,597 67.8% 1,338,889 82.9% 69.4% 76.5% Milton Keynes 138,224 186,061 74.3% 182,351 75.8% 176,579 78.3% 75.0% 76.2% Reading 207,194 280,119 74.0% 286,744 72.3% 277,869 74.6% 73.1% 74.3% Watford 297,694 417,046 71.4% 437,352 68.1% 398,930 74.6% 69.7% 73.0% Luton 108,333 146,246 74.1% 164,675 65.8% 156,342 69.3% 69.7% 71.6% High Wycombe 77,346 110,144 70.2% 122,124 63.3% 114,768 67.4% 66.6% 68.8% Aylesbury 36,138 51,573 70.1% 58,674 61.6% 56,633 63.8% 65.6% 66.8% Central London 179,623 1,574,645 11.4% 236,594 75.9% - - 19.8% -

Opinion Research Services ▪ WS Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas October 2014

Migration Zones Aylesbury and High Wycombe as separate seed clusters

Analysis of data from the 2001 Census shows the strongest relationships in terms of migration flows mirror exactly the strongest relationships in terms of commuting flows from 2011 Census data when the data is analysed at Middle-layer Super Output Area (MSOA) level.

Whilst data about migration flows from the 2011 Census has yet to be released, it is likely that this will also support a similar distribution.

For the Aylesbury migration zone, the data shows that: » 52% of all movers stayed in the area; and » 45% of movers to the area previously lived in the area.

However these figures increase to 69% and 62% respectively when long distance moves (likely to involve a change of job or lifestyle, for example retirement) are excluded.

For the High Wycombe migration zone, the data shows that: » 50% of all movers stayed in the area; and » 46% of movers to the area previously lived in the area.

Opinion Research Services ▪ WS Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas October 2014

However these figures both increase to 67% when long distance moves are excluded. Commuting Zones 67% flow target (excluding Central London)

Oxford 249,816 301,573 82.8% 295,612 84.5% 290,451 86.0% 83.7% 84.4% Milton Keynes 138,224 186,061 74.3% 182,351 75.8% 176,579 78.3% 75.0% 76.2% Reading 207,194 280,119 74.0% 286,744 72.3% 277,869 74.6% 73.1% 74.3% Watford 297,694 417,046 71.4% 437,352 68.1% 398,930 74.6% 69.7% 73.0% West London 1,110,056 1,564,150 71.0% 1,636,597 67.8% 1,338,889 82.9% 69.4% 76.5% High Wycombe 120,933 161,717 74.8% 180,798 66.9% 171,401 70.6% 70.6% 72.6% Luton 108,333 146,246 74.1% 164,675 65.8% 156,342 69.3% 69.7% 71.6% Central London 179,623 1,574,645 11.4% 236,594 75.9% - - 19.8% -

Opinion Research Services ▪ WS Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas October 2014

Migration Zones Aylesbury and High Wycombe as a single seed cluster

Analysis of data from the 2001 Census shows the strongest relationships in terms of migration flows once again mirror exactly the strongest relationships in terms of commuting flows from 2011 Census data at MSOA level.

Whilst data about migration flows from the 2011 Census has yet to be released, it is likely that this will also support a similar distribution.

For the High Wycombe migration zone, the data shows that: » 54% of all movers stayed in the area; and » 49% of movers to the area previously lived in the area.

However these figures increase to 72% and 70% respectively when long distance moves (likely to involve a change of job or lifestyle, for example retirement) are excluded.

Opinion Research Services ▪ WS Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas October 2014

Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF Jonathan Lee | Katie Amesbury enquiries: 01792 535300 · [email protected] · www.ors.org.uk

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix I Responses to Emerging Findings

Bedford Borough Council

Bracknell Forest Council

Luton Borough Council

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Carolyn Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 October 2014 16:22 To: Katie Amesbury Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Bedford BC - OFFICIAL-Unsecure

Kate,

My query is having looked at the outputs and additional material - what are you saying about how the housing market areas should be defined?

What is the basis for the 67% containment and flow target ie why was this set at 67% and why is this deemed to be an appropriate threshold?

You have demonstrated that the containment and flow approaches produce different outcomes in the Aylesbury High Wycombe area but you have not advanced an argument or methodology for determining which outcome is considered to be your recommendation for the HMAs for the area. What is your view on this and how do you propose to justify it? Will the outputs include a consideration of different tiers of HMA or not? Do you consider that it is important for FEMAs and HMAs to be aligned? What weight are you giving to the alignment / non alignment of FEMA/HMA data in reaching a recommendation?

Thanks

Carolyn

Opinion Research Services

The Strand · Swansea · SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | [email protected] | www.ors.org.uk

Carolyn Barnes Ask for: Katie Amesbury Bedford Borough Council Email: [email protected] Borough Hall Direct line: 01792 535 306 Cauldwell St Web: http://www.ors.org.uk/ Bedford Date: 22nd October 2014 MK42 9AP

Dear Carolyn,

Thank you very much for your response from Bedford Borough Council to the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA study being undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS).

I can confirm that the 67% containment rate was adopted based on this being the minimum threshold used by ONS when defining Travel to Work Areas. In terms of the two options currently presented (Aylesbury and High Wycombe either as separate areas or combined) we are currently considering which of these is likely to be most appropriate and would welcome any views from the local planning authorities in the surrounding areas. The study report will set out our final recommendation once we have considered all of the evidence and any feedback received. The report will also consider the implications of higher containment rates, but the influence of Greater London on commuting patterns will inevitably limit the potential for other areas to achieve significantly higher levels of containment.

With regard to the relationship between HMAs and FEMAs, the respective analysis has considered these separately. Nevertheless, given that both are influenced by commuting patterns, it is perhaps not surprising that our emerging conclusions are similar for both types of area. We also note that the recent PAS advice note suggests that there should be consistency between the HMAs and FEMAs and also the need to identify “best fit” areas based on LA boundaries; so we will have regard to these points when developing the study conclusions, but the final recommendations will depend on the evidence.

I hope that this responds to your queries, and I can confirm that a copy of the Buckinghamshire report will be sent to you once it’s available.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE Managing Director

Opinion Research Services Ltd is registered in England and Wales | Company Registration Number 2904006 | VAT Registration Number 647 7177 02

Katie Amesbury Research Executive Housing Research Team

Sent by email to: [email protected]

13 October 2014

Dear Kate,

IDENTIFYING HMAs AND FEMAs IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA

Thank you for providing Bracknell Forest with the opportunity to comment on the methodology and initial findings of the HMAs and FEMAs for Buckinghamshire. Bracknell Forest has the following comments to make:

Housing Market Areas (HMAs)

The starting point for identifying HMAs is to consider a broad variety of datasets, and undertake multivariate analysis of these. The NPPG makes it clear that “no single source of information on needs will be comprehensive in identifying the appropriate assessment area; careful consideration should be given to the appropriateness of each source of information and how they relate to one another.”

The NPPG states that the three different sources of information are:  House prices and rates of change in house prices  Household migration and search patterns  Contextual data (e.g. travel to work areas).

The Buckinghamshire methodology has started with contextual data as a base and proposes that house price data and migration is not a defining step but is corroborative and will be used to modify the HMAs. The NPPG suggests that these three separate sources of information are the starting point, and should be analysed to determine the potential HMAs they generate. Once this has been undertaken, then the most suitable HMAs should emerge. Therefore, whilst commuting flow data is an important component when identifying a HMA, migration and house price data are also key in establishing a HMA and should not form secondary components of consideration.

The emerging analysis based on commuting flow data suggests that London will affect the HMAs in Buckinghamshire. The ‘seed points’ require London to be removed from the analysis, in order to gain a self-containment rate of 67% to show ‘local’ HMAs. London is considered to have its own unique housing market area, with sub-market

ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND COMMUNITIES Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1JD T: 01344 352000 F: 01344 352555 Minicom: 01344 352045 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk areas within, therefore its removal from the analysis could be considered appropriate in order to determine local HMAs in Buckinghamshire.

It should be noted that when defining travel to work areas, the Office of National Statistics seeks a self-containment rate of 75%, unless there is a working population in excess of 25,000 then self-containment as low as 67% can be accepted. The initial findings have only assessed as high as 67% and have not concluded if the HMAs would change at this higher self-containment rate.

Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMAs)

Similarly to HMAs, to define FEMAs there is a requirement to assess a variety of factors, one of which is travel to work areas or clusters of commuting flows. The Buckinghamshire methodology starting point of using commuting data is not the best practice set out the NPPG. All matters should be considered equally, and then a recommendation formed on the most suitable FEMA(s) the evidence supports. Matters such as the commercial property market and business clustering should also be analysed.

As with HMAs, it has not been demonstrated if self-containment rates of above 67% alter the labour market areas based on commuting data.

The emerging findings suggest that South Bucks could have strong FEMA links with parts of Berkshire. As such, the relevant Local Authorities should be consulted before the results are finalised.

Other considerations

An element of analysis that neither the HMA or FEMA methodologies include is an evaluation of existing identified HMAs and FEMAs in the surrounding area.

Bracknell Forest Council intends to embark on similar work in the near future, having recently sought quotes for work on identifying the FEMA, and having agreed to work with certain other Berkshire Authorities on a joint HMA.

At the workshop, a separate meeting was offered to discuss this work. Whilst this may not be appropriate at this stage, Bracknell Forest would like to be kept informed of progress on identifying both the Bucks HMAs and FEMAs.

Yours sincerely,

Max Baker (Head of Spatial Policy)

Opinion Research Services

The Strand · Swansea · SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | [email protected] | www.ors.org.uk

Max Baker Ask for: Katie Amesbury Bracknell Forest Borough Council Email: [email protected] Time Square Direct line: 01792 535 306 Market Street Web: http://www.ors.org.uk/ Bracknell Date: 22nd October 2014 Berkshire RG12 1JD

Dear Max Baker,

Thank you very much for the joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils to the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA study being undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS).

The points made in your response will be considered when determining final outputs for the study. As requested, we will keep you up to date with regard to any future progress on identifying the Buckinghamshire HMAs and FEMAs and I can confirm that a copy of the Buckinghamshire report will be sent to you once it’s available.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE Managing Director

Opinion Research Services Ltd is registered in England and Wales | Company Registration Number 2904006 | VAT Registration Number 647 7177 02

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Owen, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 September 2014 14:43 To: Katie Amesbury Cc: Troy Hayes Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Hi Katie,

Luton is interested in the work you are undertaking for the bucks LAs from two potential perspectives:-

 HMA - as you may know ORS have completed Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA 2014 and the HMA for Luton and Central Beds currently defines a small part of AVDC within it - however, it would be helpful to clarify whether you foresee anything changing whether it be new because of new TTWA information or different methodology - that is likely to change this in your work? If so Luton would be interested to know the reasons.  FEMA - I note from the methodology how the TTWA and commuting data will be used - but there is also reference to the NPPG indicators e.g. flow of goods and services and transport network - I would encourage the use of such commercial and supply chain information whether quantitative or qualitative in particular because of Luton's busy and growing airport (with recent planning permission to expand to 18mppa and M1 J10a improvement underway) which has a regional/sub regional impact not only in terms of travel to work but also business aviation as well as passengers - it would be helpful to see whether you think this is significant for your study area.

I will not be attending the meeting on Monday but would be happy for these matters to be circulated and discussed at the meeting and would be grateful for any minutes and outcome of the meeting including any further agenda papers for meetings.

Rgs

Kevin

From: Owen, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 October 2014 15:16 To: Katie Amesbury Cc: Hayes, Troy; Troy Hayes Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Katie - attached are my earlier email comments sent admittedly fairly late in the day but before the meeting on the 29th Sept and I would like some feedback on the questions/points I've raised as I've not received any yet.

Recap

 HMA - am I correct in ascertaining that the work now suggests that there is no overlap between Luton's HMA and Aylesbury Vale's administrative area? I would very much appreciate an explanation why this may be so given the recent Luton and Central Bedfordshire joint SHMA 2014 Refresh ORS completed for us in June this year? Does it reflect the latest TTWA intelligence?  FEMA - has there been any analysis of the economic influence of London Luton Airport on the sub region affecting your study area e.g. commuting, passengers, investment and flow of goods and supply chain?

Rgs

Kevin

Opinion Research Services

The Strand · Swansea · SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | [email protected] | www.ors.org.uk

Kevin Owen Ask for: Katie Amesbury Team Leader – Local Plans Email: [email protected] Luton Borough Council Direct line: 01792 535 306 Town Hall Web: http://www.ors.org.uk/ Luton Date: 31st October 2014 LU1 2BQ

Dear Kevin,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this.

In terms of the HMA, there are two issues to consider.

The first is that the Bucks work is based on 2011 data whereas the Luton/CB work was based on 2001 data – so there may be real changes in the patterns.

The second is that the 2011 data is currently only published at Middle-layer Super Output Area (MSOA) geography, whereas the 2001 data is published at Census Output Area (COA). The MSOA “building blocks” are much bigger than COAs, so if some COAs in an MSOA had stronger links to Luton but the rest of the COAs in the same MSOA had stronger links to somewhere elsewhere (e.g. Aylesbury) then the majority would determine the outcome for the whole MSOA. This is a more likely reason for the results differing, as it was only a small area in AV that was counted in the Luton HMA.

Flow data from the 2011 Census will be published at COA level at some point in the future (possibly November or December, but these dates have been already put back so I wouldn’t place much weight on this timetable either). When it is published, we will review the detailed boundaries for the various HMAs that we have defined; so some of AV may still have stronger links with Luton HMA when they are considered at a more fine-grained geography.

I hope that this helps and will ask Martin Tedder from Atkins to get back to you on the queries about the FEMA.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE Managing Director

Opinion Research Services Ltd is registered in England and Wales | Company Registration Number 2904006 | VAT Registration Number 647 7177 02

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Jennifer Heaton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 November 2014 09:17 To: Katie Amesbury Cc: Ian Bellinger Subject: FW: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Katie,

Thank you very much for the attached documents detailing the emerging findings from the Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study. Apologises for not feeding back comments earlier, we have been in the process of collecting data sets to inform this discussion, to allow us to provide meaningful feedback.

Reading through the information provided has generated a number of observations, which we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you and officers from the Buckinghamshire districts. These are outlined below.

We would also be grateful if you could expand on your next steps of engagement and your anticipated timescales for the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA work going forward.

We look forward to working with you,

Yours faithfully,

Jennifer Heaton

Planning Research Officer, & Statistical Liaison Officer

Planning Services

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1RF

Tel: 01628 796066

[email protected]

Observations on emerging findings from Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA work:  Whilst detailed analysis has been done of the 2011 Census commuting data and 2001 Migration data at low level geographies, what other datasets have been assessed? The National Planning Policy Guidance suggests a range of datasets which should be considered when identifying the area over which housing and economic development should be assessed. E.g. house prices and affordability, contextual data.  Whilst the technique of identifying housing and employment “seeds” and repeatedly conglomerating them to form travel to work areas is one way of analysing the Commuting and Migration data, it is a method where small changes in methodology can have significant changes in the resulting output, especially in areas exhibiting low levels of containment. E.g. the choice and size of the original seeds, the geography at which the analysis is performed, what constraints are applied, whether iterations can undo earlier groupings to optimise the final allocations.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

 Was the Census data also analysed in its “raw” form and at different geographies e.g. if an urban area sitting on a boundary has almost equal pull in two directions, what weight should be given to its suggested allocation to a HMA? What consideration was taken of the statistical significance of flows across suggested boundaries (e.g. as shown on the ONS website http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc193/index.html?) When ONS used the 2001 Census ward level data to create TTWAs, the London TTWA was smaller than when the same data was used at LSOA level. The NHPAU CURDS study chose to analyse the same data at Census ward level and produced a different set of HMAs. Has the sensitivity of the work to the building block geography been tested?  In your presentation you commented that the seeds coalescence analyses have been run through to higher containments (e.g. 75% for the commuting and migration data at supply and demand side?) If so, can this be shared as part of the data analysis to be considered?  How relevant is historical data and analysis such as the 2001 Census data compared to more recent data sets e.g. the ONS Internal Migration Estimates data series based on administrative datasets (e.g. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc25/index.html)?  Analysis of previous HMA work suggests there are different levels of HMA ranging from those defined at the strategic sub-regional level to those reflecting local housing market areas, all of which can cross local authority boundaries. The Duty to Cooperate requires local authorities to cooperate on important strategic issues, such as housing delivery and economic growth at the Framework / Strategic Housing Market Area and Functional Economic Area, where as the Local Market Areas inform detailed spatial planning considerations. The NHPAU CURDS work used commuting data to define the Strategic HMAs, then migration data (at a lower level of self- containment) to define local HMAs, then used standardised house prices to refine the boundaries. How much weight did the review of previous analysis of Housing Market Areas give to the different levels of HMA geographies? Is the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA work likely to define a hierarchy of geographies?  When looking at the FEMA background data, where employers in industry sectors known to co- locate represent a high percentage of the workers for the area, it is important to consider where the jobs are located (e.g. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/LQ/Locationquotients.html) and where the workers who work in that industry live (https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs605ew), to better understand the commuting patterns. For example, looking at the Professional, scientific and technical activities sector and the Information and Communication sector, there appears to be a concentration to the West of London but it extends out to the west of Oxfordshire.  Smaller geographical contextual data such as retail, school and cultural facilities catchments may be more relevant to the definition of sub-areas within the framework HMA and FEMA rather than the definition of the strategic geographies.  What consideration has been given to house price data e.g. Land Registry House Price Index changes, price paid data, CLG lower quartile house price to earning ratios, Valuation Office monthly rental data?  Have trends in Employment been taken into consideration e.g. where industry sectors are growing or shrinking? (e.g. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc198/index.html)  Whilst the analysis started with 2011 Census urban areas, were the 2011 Census Built-up areas used to sense-check the results of the analysis? (https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/Docs/Boundaries/Built- up_areas_(E+W)_Mar_2011_Boundaries_(Generalised_Grid).zip)

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study: Notes of Meeting with council officers from Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Slough

16th January 2015, 2.00pm

Attendees

AB Alison Bailey (South Bucks) GW Graham Winwright (Chiltern and South Bucks) IB Ian Bellinger (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) IM Ian Manktelow (Wycombe) JH Jennifer Heaton (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) JL Jonathan Lee (ORS) PH Pippa Hopkins (Slough) PS Paul Stimpson (Slough) PW Peter Williams (Aylesbury Vale) TM Tara McNeil (ORS)

Introduction

JL: The core analysis and FEMA report have been based on commuting data from the 2011 Census as this is the most complete dataset. In terms of migration data, we don’t yet have access to data below Local Authority level. Given that we wanted to look at functional areas that possibly crossed administrative boundaries (consistent with expectations set out by NPPF/PPG) it was necessary to work with data below LA level.

We undertook three the analysis of commuting data in three phases. Firstly we allowed the Central London area to grow, however all surrounding areas quickly merged into London. Secondly we constrained growth of the Central London area but allowed outer parts of London to grow. The Boroughs to the west of London joined with Slough and South Buckinghamshire. Finally, we did not allow London to grow at all and arrived at final areas that are focused on in the study conclusions.

The Broad Rental Market Areas defined by the Valuation Office Agency provide similar boundaries to the areas that we have defined based on 2011 Census commuting data.

The FEMA data is based on the nature of businesses in the area. Whilst a wide range of contextual data exists, the commuting zones are the strongest determinant. Given that there is nothing substantive in the other data sources to disagree with the commuting zones, we believe that the commuting zones provide the most appropriate basis for defining the FEMA.

The guidance recognises that it is appropriate to move towards a model of ‘best fit’ based on local authority administrative boundaries. Whilst the conclusions need to be evidence based, there will always be an element of judgement; but on balance we believe that a Central Bucks HMA/FEMA (that comprises Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe districts) and Reading/Slough HMA/FEMA (that comprises the Berkshire authorities and South Bucks) is the most appropriate conclusion given all of the evidence.

A consultation draft of the report will be published shortly and we would welcome feedback from all stakeholders, given that the Councils are keen to agree this key building block.

Issues regarding Evidence and Conclusions

PS: Do the Buckinghamshire authorities agree?

IM: It appears to be evidence led, so we agree with the conclusions. It is finely balanced on the South Bucks question.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

GW: The evidence was not clear cut, so the councils have challenged the findings. We want the most robust outcome and we feel we have reached this point and can move forward. This research is critical for South Bucks with regards to any future working. Under the duty to cooperate, it is important for South Bucks and the other Bucks districts to continue to engage under the Duty to co-operate regardless of the outcome.

PW: It is evident that we have significant relationships with other places; we have now reached a best fit so we are happy. It is still necessary for us to have a relationship with the other areas in order to recognise the other strong connections. It is extremely complicated but it is necessary to reach the best pragmatic solutions.

PS: I was always convinced that Slough was so different and that we would end up on our own. However now I am more convinced that we can look at a wider catchment area. We can think of it as a complementary area including South Bucks, Slough and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. What would happen if the Berkshire assessment concludes that there are separate ‘Reading’ and ‘Slough’ market areas, would South Bucks still be our area? Would it all unravel?

JL: Looking at page 31, Figure 20, in the maps showing 72% to 74% containment, this is the point that Slough and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead join with Reading. At this stage, the southern parts of South Bucks were already part of the Slough and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, so the important relationship is between South Bucks and these areas regardless of whether or not they combine with Reading.

In terms of whether the area covering Slough, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and the south of South Bucks should be separate from the area focussed on Reading, the statistics in Figure 21 on page 33 show that this area has proportions that are not dissimilar to Aylesbury town prior to it being merged as part of Central Bucks – though it is a judgement call as to what containment level is high enough. Regardless of this, the South Bucks relationship will still be important even if the Berkshire assessment concludes that there should be more than one HMA.

JH: There is a hierarchy of geographies, the M4 corridor is important for commuting flows.

PS: My main concern is that it would unravel, but I have now been reassured. Slough is very different and we have to recognise the geography that we sit within.

JL: Slough is similar to Luton in the sense that it is different. Luton is a good example. Different areas can form part of wider housing markets.

JH: Are there views on overlapping?

PW: There may be some overlap. We also have relationships with Milton Keynes and Oxford and we need to take this into account. The main focus is on Central Bucks. It won’t be significantly difficult to plan for.

JH: It seems to me that the decision about Aylesbury Vale is as finely balanced as South Bucks. The town is self-contained.

PW: Where is the significant population? One third of the population is spilt 3 ways.

JL: If Aylesbury Vale was joined with Amersham and High Wycombe, how likely is it that this is going to be challenged? It is necessary to consider the thresholds. With Aylesbury Vale working alone they are at a greater risk. This will be mitigated if Aylesbury Vale is part of a wider area. There is less risk if you take the three areas together.

JH: It will be interesting to see what thresholds the next round of Travel to Work Areas uses.

JL: Around London, the thresholds are very borderline. There will be nothing new published on Travel to Work Areas until at least next year.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

IM: I would have expected Aylesbury Vale to go to Milton Keynes based on the 2001 travel to work data.

JH: What about the sectorial changes in Wycombe?

IM: The 2011 data shows that there is less self-containment in Wycombe partly due to job losses in the district, and there are stronger links between Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale.

JL: In terms of the Milton Keynes Travel to Work Area, this is stronger is terms of self-containment whereas the Slough Travel to Work Area is more borderline. Including Aylesbury town with Milton Keynes would have caused less harm to the containment target than including it with Slough and this may be why Aylesbury was included with Milton Keynes. Our decisions have been based on the strength of the relationships.

PS: At some point, it is necessary to take a decision and go with it but do we have to snap onto the Local Authority boundaries.

JL: It is easier if the areas comply with administrative boundaries.

IM: We are comfortable with the way the study deals with overlapping and uses Local Authority boundaries as a best fit.

JH: This is a technical issue not a political one.

IB: The scale of the geography is good. In Surrey, there are 5 housing market areas there, everything is a local area and they join them together. There are variations within the areas. We have to recognise the need for a best fit, it is helpful if they follow administrative boundaries. This is more comforting than less comforting. The Berkshire study needs to be complementary.

PS: The Surrey fit is going to be okay.

IM: Given where we sit in Buckinghamshire, we didn’t always know what the housing market area would be.

London

JH: Is it worth discussing the London element?

JL: The Greater London Authority hasn’t done anything to define a functional HMA as far as I’m aware. They have based their work on the regional boundary and that’s probably appropriate. Given that the London Plan introduces a two tier system, having a different grouping of local authorities for the functional HMA wouldn’t help and it’s probably appropriate to take the regional boundary. On that basis it didn’t seem pragmatic to suggest that South Bucks was part of the London HMA. There is a meeting between consultants and the GLA next month to discuss their approach and cross-boundary issues which Alison has been involved in arranging.

AB: The recurring point made by GLA is that they are not comfortable with the demographics coming out of the latest ONS and CLG projections, which is why we proposed the meeting. The Electoral Summit will be a tentative first step to discussing cross-boundary issues.

PS: One of the big issues is the expansion of Heathrow. This is critical to Slough, we are imagining that we will become part of London.

IB: Housing needs will also need to be considered.

PS: There needs to be an estimated 500 houses a year for the 16 authorities.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Update on Berkshire HMA

IB: In terms of the timetable for Berkshire, we will consider the HMA in the first few months, and then consider the rest after May. The report will come after May with need figures.

GW: Given that South Bucks is part of the Berkshire HMA/FEMA, South Bucks would welcome the opportunity to feed into the Berkshire needs work.

AB: Depending on the first part of Berkshire study; if it was to divide Berkshire up, would it be possible that the need work will also be spilt up?

IB: The need for each area will be reported in the study.

Further Evidence

The group was happy with the existing evidence and did not see any need for any further evidence.

IM: I wouldn’t expect the message to change if there was further evidence.

Buckinghamshire Authorities SHMA and FEMA Studies

Thank you for engaging Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils with respect to the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA studies. This response is a joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede who are currently working together on a joint SHMA study. Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils are committed to working with authorities outside of their area and welcome the opportunity to engage in the Bucks HMA and FEMA study. We would also like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding to your request for comments.

It should be noted however that the comments made in this response are at officer level only and as such, Runnymede and Spelthorne Borough Councils reserve the right to raise any further issues at any subsequent Examination if Members of either Council wish to do so.

Further to the e-mail dated 10th September 2014 from ORS which attached the draft HMA & FEMA methodology and the stakeholder event held on 29th September 2014 at High Wycombe, we have the following comments to make: -

HMA

The proposed approach (dated September 2014) to identify housing market areas (HMAs) appears to be in line with advice in the Planning Practice Guide on Housing and Economic Needs Assessments. The approach appears to consider travel to work areas, migration flows and house prices/house price change to determine a functional HMA as suggested by the PPG. It is noted that the proposed approach will determine functional HMAs first and then consider the ‘best fit’ based on local planning authority boundaries. Spelthorne & Runnymede agree that this approach is a pragmatic solution whilst recognising that discussions under the Duty to Co-operate will need to take place with all authorities falling within the functional HMA.

As already indicated Spelthorne & Runnymede are currently undertaking a joint SHMA, which at the time of writing is still considering the extent of the HMA. Early indications from the draft Stage 1 Report is that Spelthorne/Runnymede is a localised HMA (with some overlap into neighbouring areas) which sits within the context of a wider HMA. South Bucks District Council has been engaged in this process.

It is noted that the ‘Identified Areas’ PDF attached to the e-mail sent by ORS on the 10th October, shows that at a 67% containment target or flow rate, areas of South Bucks are located within a West London zone which may also include Spelthorne and possibly Runnymede. The ‘Identified Areas’ PDF also shows that this zone is exactly the same for migration flows.

There is no indication at this time whether these zones constitute the ‘functional HMA’ and if so whether this can be disaggregated down further into more localised HMAs. Spelthorne & Runnymede will be interested to see the results of this in due course.

In the meantime Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils would urge ORS to consider the Spelthorne/Runnymede SHMA and any other neighbouring SHMAs to ensure consistency in defining the wider HMA. In this respect Officers at Spelthorne/Runnymede would be happy to share the work undertaken so far on the draft Stage 1 Report and/or answer any questions you may have in this respect.

FEMA

Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils have no comment to make with respect to the FEMA methodology as it appears to follow guidance set out in the PPG.

It should be noted that Runnymede have begun assessing their possible FEMA (which may include Spelthorne) and as such the two authorities would wish to be kept informed of the work undertaken for the Buckinghamshire authorities.

If you have any queries regarding the comments set out in this response or would like more information on the work we are doing, please do not hesitate to contact the Officers below.

Yours sincerely

John Devonshire, 01784 446345 [email protected] Babatunde Adebutu, 01932 425274 [email protected] Georgina Pacey, 01932 425248 [email protected]

Opinion Research Services

The Strand · Swansea · SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | [email protected] | www.ors.org.uk

John Devonshire Ask for: Katie Amesbury Spelthorne Borough Council Email: [email protected] Council Offices Direct line: 01792 535 306 Knowle Green Web: http://www.ors.org.uk/ Staines-upon-Thames Date: 22nd October 2014 TW18 1XB

Dear John Devonshire,

Thank you very much for the joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils to the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA study being undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS).

We note that the response is only provided at officer level and understand that both Councils reserve the right to raise any further issues at any subsequent Examination should Members of either Council wish to do so. Nevertheless, the Buckinghamshire councils are keen to agree the Housing Market Area boundaries with other planning authorities in the surrounding area, therefore we would be grateful if you could identify if any concerns are likely to emerge at a later stage.

We would be grateful if you could forward a copy of the draft Stage 1 report of the joint Spelthorne and Runnymede SHMA to Katie Amesbury at [email protected] and we will seek to ensure consistency with the emerging outputs as far as possible.

Finally, I can confirm that a copy of the Buckinghamshire report will be sent to you once it’s available.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE Managing Director

Opinion Research Services Ltd is registered in England and Wales | Company Registration Number 2904006 | VAT Registration Number 647 7177 02

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix J Responses to the Report of Findings Consultation Draft

Bracknell Forest Council

Cherwell District Council

Greater London Authority

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils

West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit

Bucks Advantage on behalf of Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Sue Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 February 2015 16:06 To: Jonathan Lee Subject: UNRESTRICTED: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Jonathan,

I apologise for not having responded to your e-mail at an earlier stage, but, as you will be aware, we are at a difficult stage at the moment as our SHMA work (including defining the HMA) has only just begun. We also have consultants working on defining the FEA within which Bracknell Forest sits. The latter is at a slightly more advanced stage.

Whilst I have not looked at your report in detail, my initial reaction is one of surprise in terms of the suggestion that South Bucks should be in a Berkshire HMA and FEMA that includes Bracknell Forest as I would not have thought that there would have been a strong relationship between the 2 of us or with some of our surrounding Authorities.

We would like to study the draft report a little further but could you let us know whether or not there are any further opportunities to feed into the process.

Regards

Sue Scott

Development Plan Team Leader Spatial Policy 01344 351181

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Jonathan Lee Sent: 19 February 2015 13:08 To: 'Sue Scott' Subject: RE: UNRESTRICTED: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Sue

Thank you for your email, and I'm sorry that you haven't yet had chance to study the Buckinghamshire report. Given that it's been four weeks since the consultation draft was published and two weeks since the date for feedback, we are now close to finalising the document - but the Buckinghamshire Councils are keen to make sure that the study does take on board and respond to any concerns, so if you could let us have any comments by the end of the week (or next Monday at the very latest) then we will make sure that these are properly considered.

With regard to your concerns about the conclusions for South Bucks, please accept my assurance that this is based on the evidence available that is presented in the report (see pages 93-96 in particular).

It is also perhaps worth noting that the previous Berkshire SHMA identified that South Bucks should be considered alongside Slough and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead as an area that they called "East Berkshire Plus"; whilst Bracknell Forest and the remaining Berkshire authorities, together with part of South Oxfordshire, formed an area called "West Central Berkshire" (see page 23). That conclusion is consistent with our findings for the Buckinghamshire study (albeit that our analysis is based on more recent data) where we also identify these two separate areas (see page 38, figure 21 at 72% containment) - although our final areas are based on higher levels of self-containment, which lead to a single HMA covering the whole of Berkshire together with South Bucks south of the M40.

As part of the Buckinghamshire study, we did meet with officers from Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Slough in January to discuss the relationship between their respective areas and South Bucks, and their subsequent feedback does not raise any concerns about the study conclusions. They also noted that the Berkshire SHMA is currently in its early stages and the relevant HMA boundaries are being considered. We have already discussed the conclusions from the Buckinghamshire study with Chris Cobbold (who is working on the current Berkshire SHMA) and whilst they had yet to undertake their analysis of the latest data when we spoke, he was anticipating a likely relationship with South Bucks given the conclusions of the previous Berkshire SHMA and his involvement in that work.

I hope that this additional information and signposting of the most relevant parts of the report is helpful, but if you would like to discuss any of these issues further then please don't hesitate to get in touch. In the meantime, if you would like us to take account of any feedback then we would be most grateful if this could be provided as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Jonathan

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Sue Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 February 2015 17:52 To: Jonathan Lee Cc: Max Baker Subject: UNRESTRICTED: RE: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your response to this matter. I am pleased to hear that you have already discussed the conclusions from the Buckinghamshire study with Chris Cobbold.

We have been looking at the draft document and have concluded that the evidence presented indicates that South Bucks is clearly split with the northern part which contains the main town of Beaconsfield having stronger links with Buckinghamshire and the southern part being more closely connected with Berkshire (although the evidence appears to be mixed depending on which indicators you use). It seems to be suggested that the inclusion of South Bucks could go either way, but greatest weight has been given to labour market analysis, commuting and migration. However. Aylesbury Vale is also clearly split and yet this is included apparently due to a significant proportion of the population being within the Central Bucks element. Could you assure us that a consistent approach has been taken?

We are also wondering whether or not there has been a review of any possible significant areas of change in Buckinghamshire which might be relevant.

Regards,

Sue

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Jonathan Lee Sent: 24 February 2015 17:33 To: 'Sue Scott' Cc: Max Baker Subject: RE: UNRESTRICTED: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Sue

Thanks for your email.

South Bucks is clearly divided between the Central Bucks area (to the north) and the Slough/Maidenhead area (to the south), and this is recognised in the report. In terms of the key factors, the southern part has the largest population and the LA-LA commuting and migration patterns both show stronger linkages to the Berkshire authorities.

Aylesbury Vale is also divided: but the split covers four different areas, with the Central Bucks area covering around two-thirds of the population and the other areas (Milton Keynes, Oxford and Watford/Luton) when combined only covering a third of the population. LA-LA commuting is divided between the rest of Bucks, eastern Oxfordshire, Milton Keynes and London (with gross commuter flows totalling 9,700, 9,400, 7,700 and 6,800 respectively); so the strongest linkages are with the other Bucks LAs. Similarly, LA-LA migration is divided but the strongest linkages are with the other Bucks LAs.

I hope that this helps to reassure you that the analysis and decision-making was consistent for South Bucks and Aylesbury Vale.

With regard to future change, the FEMA analysis does consider planned infrastructure improvement (such as East-West rail) but there was nothing that affected the final conclusions in relation to the proposed "best fit" groupings.

We are in the process of finalising discussions with stakeholders following feedback, so if you do have any further comments then please let us know.

Kind regards

Jonathan

Strategic Planning & the Economy

Adrian Colwell – Head of Strategic Planning & the Economy

Jonathan Lee Bodicote House Opinion Research Services Bodicote The Strand Banbury Swansea Oxfordshire SA1 1AF OX15 4AA www.cherwell.gov.uk

Please ask for: Adrian Colwell Direct Dial: 01295 227985 Email: [email protected] Our Ref: Buckinghamshire

2 February 2015

Dear Mr Lee,

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Draft Report Consultation

Thank you for inviting Cherwell District Council to comment on the above consultation. Please see our comments below.

Transport Connectivity This section should make reference to the Government’s Road Investment Strategy (December 2014) which sets out a long-term vision for motorways and major roads to improve the network and create better roads for users. In particular it looks to improve the connection between Oxford and Cambridge by creating an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, which would create a high-quality link between the two cities, via Bedford and Milton Keynes.

Reference should also be made on High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) as the Hybrid Bill for Phase 1 of HS2 proposes a route that passes through Aylesbury, Waddesdon, Quainton, Calvert and Twyford. The village of Steeple Claydon is also an area proposed for a maintenance depot which will serve the HS2 line.

Expected impact of East West Rail It will be helpful to include some text on how the East West Rail could help inform new growth locations within the Aylesbury district and what implications this could have on Cherwell district.

Future Growth and Impact on Travel Demand Aylesbury Vale borders Cherwell District to the east which is within reasonable distance to Bicester. Bicester is one of the main areas for growth at Cherwell. The Submission Local Plan (as proposed to be modified) includes over 10,000 homes at Bicester (2011-2031). The designation of Bicester as a Garden Town by Government provides further opportunities including additional homes, employment uses, a garden park, a strategic rail-freight site and a new M40 junction to the south of Junction 9. The potential new M40 junction south of Junction 9 borders Aylesbury Vale which looks to connect through Arncott on to the A43 and on to Bicester to serve the area and

1 strategic rail-freight site. This will have implications on the strategic road networks in the area to the north and south of the potential junction. Therefore it is important to consider the planned growth expected at Bicester as it is likely to have an impact on travelling patterns within the Buckinghamshire area in particular Aylesbury district.

Duty to Cooperate This section could be expanded to cover how the Duty to Cooperate has been undertaken in a wider context and how this could be continued either as part of this process or other strategic planning related work; in particular showing how this process and the engagement with neighbouring Councils and has helped refine the consideration of issues and proposed outcomes.

We consider that now would be a good opportunity for Cherwell District, Aylesbury Vale District and Buckinghamshire County Councils to meet and discuss the Garden Town proposals at Bicester. Bicester is expecting to accommodate a high level of growth which will have implications on the strategic A41 route, and the potential new M40 junction south of junction 9 will also present a major opportunity for the supporting growth of the areas around Aylesbury and the rest of the Buckinghamshire study area.

Housing Market Areas We acknowledge that containment issues have been addressed as part of this study however more could be considered in relation to the neighbouring authorities. Planned growth at Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Luton is worth highlighting.

LEP Sector Priorities It is good to see that the study has considered the priorities of the Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP and the SEMLEP which Cherwell District is part of and Aylesbury District is too. However we feel that it will be useful to also make reference to the neighbouring Oxfordshire LEP which borders Buckinghamshire.

Advanced Engineering Paragraph 5.44 - Needs correcting as the Motorsport Valley is located around Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, not Oxford and Northampton which is currently referenced.

Paragraph 5.44 - The final sentence could be expanded to say that Silverstone borders Northamptonshire where most of the development is taking place.

Visitor Economy This appears to be too brief considering the area contains some of the most visited sites such as the National Trust gardens at Stowe, the Chilterns and Waddesdon. Trends and investments in the area should be considered so that the analysis could take this into account when defining FEMAs.

Supply Chain Data Paragraph 5.55 – The impact of the University Technical College at Aylesbury which opened in September 2013 is worth referencing in this paragraph.

Service Market for Consumers The study has already identified authorities outside of Buckinghamshire who have prepared a retail study however it does not explain what the impacts are of the major retail centres such as Milton Keynes and Oxford. The section needs to consider retail leakage which Aylesbury Vale and others experience.

Other Public Services We feel that it is particularly important to make reference to the projected public sector changes as budget cuts necessitate major service changes and some consideration of how this might affect a range of services and employment patterns.

General

There are still some outstanding data from the 2011 Census to be released such as data at parish/ward level. Would the study be affected by these or would it be considered once this data is released?

Thank you once again for giving us the opportunity to comment on the draft report of findings and we hope that the above points are useful. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the above in detail please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Colwell Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Jorn Peters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 February 2015 12:13 To: Jonathan Lee Cc: Elliot Kemp; John Lett; Gerard Burgess; Jennifer Peters Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Jonathan

Thank you for your email of 22 January consulting the Mayor of London on the Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Study Report Consultation Draft.

The report covers supply chain analysis, however, it could benefit from including some analysis of logistics with regard to the functional relationships of Buckinghamshire based logistics serving London and the wider South East.

This specific comment is in addition to the points raised earlier in the preparation process of your Study by my colleague Darren Richards – please see attached his e-mail of 17 Sept 2014.

Kind regards

Jörn Peters Senior Strategic Planner – Spatial Strategy Development, Enterprise & Environment GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY City Hall, The Queens Walk, London SE1 2AA

T: +44 (0)20 7983 4432 E: [email protected]

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Ian Bellinger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 February 2015 15:16 To: Jonathan Lee Cc: Jennifer Heaton Subject: Bucks HMA and FEMA study

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study Report. It is a clear and comprehensive report covering the evidence from commuting flows, migration flows and market data informing the definition of strategic housing market areas, local housing market areas and functional economic areas, in what is a complex interrelated area.

As you are aware, the Berkshire local authorities have jointly commissioned a Strategic Housing Market Assessment which will include consideration of the relevant housing market area(s). This study will hopefully deliver draft results on the recommended geography in Spring 2015. This will allow officers to provide a more informed response to the Buckinghamshire results in due course. We have drawn your report to the attention of the appointed consultant. The Berkshire local authorities have not commissioned a joint study of the Functional Economic Market Area although it is noted that the PAS Technical advice note suggesting HMAs and functional economic areas would be expected to be geographically similar.

Your report comments that regardless of the final groupings, Chiltern and Wycombe will need to maintain dialogue with Reading, Slough and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead; South Bucks will need to maintain dialogue with the other Buckinghamshire districts, and all districts will need to maintain dialogue with the boroughs to the West of London as well as the Mayor of London through the Greater London Authority. This is something that we support and we welcome the opportunity to continue to cooperate on strategic issues.

Please note that this feedback is at officer level only, and reflects the current progress Berkshire local authorities have made to define strategic geographies. As this work develops, it is envisaged that continued discussions with Buckinghamshire authorities will be required, including both at officer and member levels.

Kind regards, Ian.

Ian Bellinger, Principal Planning Officer (Planning Policy) Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1RF. T: 01628 796634 E: [email protected]

6th February 2015

Jonathan Lee Opinion Research Services The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF

By email only to: [email protected]

Dear Mr Lee

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Study Report Consultation Draft

Thank you for engaging Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils with respect of the Buckinghamshire councils’ work which seeks to identify the extent of the housing market areas and functional economic market areas relevant to the study area. This response is a joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils who are currently working together on a joint SHMA study. Spelthorne & Runnymede are committed to working with authorities outside of their area and welcome the opportunity to engage in this work.

The FEMA analysis appears comprehensive; addressing all key points and reaching clear and robust conclusions. The only comment we would wish to make is that the FEMA analysis does not appear to acknowledge the potential links and influence of Heathrow airport. Whilst this may not be an issue for the majority of Buckinghamshire, the area of South Bucks within the Slough-Reading FEMA could potentially be affected and therefore the potential impact of Heathrow should be more clearly explored.

Runnymede and Spelthorne Borough Councils have no substantive comments to make on the HMA analysis. We do note from the analysis however that the Runnymede and Spelthorne HMA is located adjacent to the Reading and Slough HMA. As such both Councils will follow the remainder of the Buckinghamshire Councils’ SHMA work with interest and we ask that Runnymede and Spelthorne Borough Councils continue to be consulted at key stages of the project.

Please note that this is an officer level response and as such, Runnymede and Spelthorne Borough Councils reserve the right to raise any further issues during the course of this work or during the Plan making processes of the Buckinghamshire Councils if Members of our Councils wish to do so.

We hope that you will find these comments constructive, but if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned using the contact details provided below.

Runnymede Borough Council, Civic Centre, Station Road, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 2AH Tel: 01932 838383 Fax: 01932 838384 www.runnymede.gov.uk www.runnymede.gov.uk/enews

Yours sincerely

G. Pacey

GEORGINA PACEY PRINCIPAL PLANNING OFFICER-POLICY AND STRATEGY TEAM

E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: 01932 425248

Runnymede Borough Council, Civic Centre, Station Road, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 2AH Tel: 01932 838383 Fax: 01932 838384 www.runnymede.gov.uk www.runnymede.gov.uk/enews

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Colin Staves [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 February 2015 10:47 To: Jonathan Lee Cc: 'Andy Darcy (SNC)' Subject: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Dear Jonathan

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the draft study. We are pleased to note that the study reflects the comments that we made on the original methodology and overall we are content with the findings. It would be helpful if you could let the JPU and South Northamptonshire Council know when the final report is published.

Kind regards

Colin

Colin Staves

Principal Spatial Planner

West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit

The Guildhall, St Giles Square, Northampton NN1 1DE

Tel: 01604 838678 Fax: 01604 838543

Email: [email protected]

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

From: Paul McKim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 February 2015 14:59 To: Jonathan Lee Cc: Jim Sims; Richard Harrington Subject: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study

Jonathan

Thank you for an opportunity to comment on the Draft Report, please see below which are comments sent on behalf of Richard Harrington Chief Executive Officer BTV LEP, apologies for the delay.

Firstly we would say the report is thorough in its analysis of economic statistics and existing context in considering what the Central Bucks HMA and FEMA should be. However from a TVB LEP perspective we would say the report is limited to existing economic context and does not consider future growth opportunities that will arise through the implementation of the Buckinghamshire Strategic Economic Plan.

In some ways the Report is self fulfilling in its pursuit to exclude South Bucks from the HMA which could lead the reader to raise an questions of whether that is an intention from the outset that leads to the ultimate conclusion, as to all intents and purposes the statistical and context analysis would appear to support the ultimate conclusion for the Central Bucks HMA and FEMA to consist of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe. Additional evidential critical analysis and consideration of reasonable alternatives would be helpful- this may be embedded in the statistical analysis.

Our main and substantive comment would be the Report relies on the existing or extant economic characteristics of the area, especially in regards to the economy and existing markets in that there is no detailed analysis of the BTVSEP and what that would mean for the HMA or FEMA in terms of future economic and housing growth. This is a potential weakness as guidance is clear around the need to plan for growth. In this context the report limits itself to a very high level rehearsal of LEP priority areas and what they mean in terms of existing linkages and impacts.

Whilst this may not be an issue at this stage as the primary reason being is to define the HMA/FEMA to enable future collaboration on housing and economic evidence, it is important to ensure this does not set the tone and lead later evidence which then ignores the potential or opportunities for economic growth and what that may mean for assessing the need for and linkages between jobs and homes mix and tenure. In essence, the report appears to ask ‘what do we have now’ rather than asking ‘what do we want in the future’ whilst has ever been the problem with the need to evidence gather ahead of preparing strategy. But, in the interests of the LEP and considering the intentions of paragraph 160 of the Framework Report we’d might have expected to see more analysis of existing business needs and economic forecasting linked to scenario planning and respective changes in markets and sectors at a national and sub regional level.

The Report does briefly rehearse transportation investment, however we do not concur with the findings of the Report that Buckinghamshire is well connected. Connectivity to and through Buckinghamshire is congested, this is a strategic weakness particularly in relation to sustainable and public transportation.

With regard to the method in defining FEMAs: The report appears to suggest that the primary test for defining a FEMA is travel to work (and tests of self containment) but when it comes to commenting on the FEMAs the report identifies labour force characteristics (retail catchment, property markets, and distinct sectoral strengths) as reasons why a particular area may be a FEMA. This is interesting, not least for the sub areas as it restricts itself to not only ‘what is there’ rather than ‘what is its potential ’ but also because it does not recognise the need for strengthening a balanced and diverse labour market area.

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

This could be a distinct issue if there is structural failure in an area and it is too small and too isolated a FEMA for future economic programmes and funding packages which could have a limited effect in a outcome/VFM context. Any scope for flexibility, re-ordering of priorities and funding programmes and movement of projects between FEMAs could be restricted by such an approach and could be issues of consistency between sub FEMA strategies as future problems should be tackled under Duty to Co-operate. It could also result in local impacts not warranting sufficient benefits as part of an business case and/our economic appraisal for external interventions. In this case it maybe better not to seek sub-FEMA and not to prepare strategy or programmes that rely on or reflect them, rather promote a more flexible joined up response across the FEMA as a whole.

The flip side to this above is that distinct, focused sub-FEMAs may allow for specific, focussed strategies and funding programmes. Ultimately, a question for those who administer the funding and intervention strategy as to the measurement of impacts and benefits when considering how they wish to move forward in demonstrating VFM and economic benefits.

Findings on FEMAs: The pre-existing FEMAs are generally recommended for retention although the South Bucks (Beaconsfield) element of the FEMA is recommended for exclusion from Central Bucks FEMA. This provides for a consistent HMA/FEMA area, however, the Report also considers the Central Bucks FEMA to be made up of two ‘distinct’ sub areas. This type of drilling down may not be helpful for the reasons above.

In summary;

 The Report appears to present a defensible case for defining Central Bucks HMA/FEMA, subject to the comments raised above concerning the question of scale, flexibility, impacts, benefits and VFM in assessing future investment and interventions.  The Report reflects existing circumstances rather than economic potential or opportunities- depending on the application of FEMAs and direction of travel for economic strategies there may be a risk that the FEMAs and sub FEMAs are too closely defined around single sectors and are too localised as to be able achieve structural change.  The definition of FEMAs may also limit ability to respond to economic opportunities flexibly and creatively. Although this will depend on how the definition of the Central HMA/FEMA will presumably lead to evidence being prepared for the number of homes and assessment of jobs growth in that light. This could be important if the ultimate identification is to rely on existing economic circumstances (including labour supply) rather than looking at the opportunities to drive economic growth and the number and types of jobs to achieve that and the mix and tenure homes required in the HMA to support growth.

I trust you find these comments useful.

Regards

Paul McKim Project Manager

The Saunderton Estate, Wycombe Road, Saunderton HP14 4BF

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Appendix K Schedule of Changes to the Final Report of Findings

Respondent Comment Response Change

Cherwell DC Transport Connectivity Agreed. Add text as This section should make reference to the suggested Government’s Road Investment Strategy (see Para 5.15). (December 2014) which sets out a long- term vision for motorways and major roads to improve the network and create better roads for users. In particular it looks to improve the connection between Oxford and Cambridge by creating an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, which would create a high-quality link between the two cities, via Bedford and Milton Keynes.

Cherwell DC Transport Connectivity HS2 will pass through Aylesbury (there will No change. Reference should also be made on High not be any stations), so will not have an Speed Rail 2 (HS2) as the Hybrid Bill for impact on transport connectivity for the Phase 1 of HS2 proposes a route that area. As such no impact on the FEMA is passes through Aylesbury, Waddesdon, envisaged as a result of HS2. The addition Quainton, Calvert and Twyford. The village of a maintenance depot at Steeple Claydon of Steeple Claydon is also an area proposed could provide some maintenance jobs in for a maintenance depot which will serve the district, but this is not anticipated to the HS2 line. have an impact on the FEMA.

Cherwell DC Expected impact of East West Rail Agree to include some text on the impact Add text It will be helpful to include some text on of East West rail on growth in Aylesbury. (see Para 5.17). how the East West Rail could help inform However, the implications that this will new growth locations within the Aylesbury have on Cherwell are unknown. district and what implications this could have on Cherwell district.

Cherwell DC Future Growth and Impact on Travel The Growth planned at Bicester potentially No change. Demand could have the impact of attracting people Aylesbury Vale borders Cherwell District to to work in Bicester Garden Town (BGT) the east which is within reasonable depending on the make-up and level of distance to Bicester. Bicester is one of the employment generating uses developed. main areas for growth at Cherwell. The Equally new residents of BGT could Submission Local Plan (as proposed to be realistically also work in Milton Keynes, modified) includes over 10,000 homes at London, Oxford, Banbury as well as in the Bicester (2011-2031). The designation of Bucks FEMA. It is assumed that a Garden Bicester as a Garden Town by Government Town should be planned with a level of provides further opportunities including self-containment in mind and this would additional homes, employment uses, a impact on the commuting patterns and the garden park, a strategic rail-freight site and economic geography of Cherwell and the a new M40 junction to the south of wider area. The implications / impacts of Junction 9. The potential new M40 junction BGT will need careful consideration and south of Junction 9 borders Aylesbury Vale cooperation between the adjoining which looks to connect through Arncott on authorities and there is likely to be a need to the A43 and on to Bicester to serve the for a study in its own right to consider the implications of this strategic housing

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Respondent Comment Response Change area and strategic rail-freight site. This will development, it is not something that can have implications on the strategic road be incorporated in this study. networks in the area to the north and south of the potential junction. Therefore it is important to consider the planned growth expected at Bicester as it is likely to have an impact on travelling patterns within the Buckinghamshire area in particular Aylesbury district.

Cherwell DC Duty to Cooperate Further information about the stakeholder Further details This section could be expanded to cover engagement has been added to the report; added to how the Duty to Cooperate has been however this only concerns the Duty to chapter 6. undertaken in a wider context and how Cooperate activities associated with this this could be continued either as part of study. this process or other strategic planning related work; in particular showing how this process and the engagement with neighbouring Councils and has helped refine the consideration of issues and proposed outcomes.

Cherwell DC Housing Market Areas We do not believe that planned growth at No change. We acknowledge that containment issues Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire or Luton would have been addressed as part of this study change the study conclusions about the however more could be considered in most appropriate housing market areas for relation to the neighbouring authorities. the Buckinghamshire Councils. Planned growth at Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Luton is worth highlighting.

Cherwell DC LEP Sector Priorities Agreed. Add Oxfordshire It is good to see that the study has and other considered the priorities of the neighbouring Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP and LEP priorities to the SEMLEP which Cherwell District is part Figure 41. of and Aylesbury District is too. However we feel that it will be useful to also make reference to the neighbouring Oxfordshire LEP which borders Buckinghamshire.

Cherwell DC Advanced Engineering Agreed. Amended as Paragraph 5.44 - Needs correcting as the suggested (see Motorsport Valley is located around para 5.45). Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, not Oxford and Northampton which is currently referenced. Paragraph 5.44 - The final sentence could be expanded to say that Silverstone borders Northamptonshire where most of the development is taking place.

Cherwell DC Visitor Economy The Visitor economy does not represent a Amend report This appears to be too brief considering the large part of the Buckinghamshire to clarify the area contains some of the most visited Economy, and is unlikely to be significantly issues / make sites such as the National Trust gardens at impacting on the economic geography of reference to the Stowe, the Chilterns and Waddesdon. Buckinghamshire. There is no visitor data visitor

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Respondent Comment Response Change Trends and investments in the area should available for the attractions referred to, so attractions (see be considered so that the analysis could not possible to provide more detail. para 5.48). take this into account when defining FEMAs.

Cherwell DC Supply Chain Data Agreed to add reference – although this Add reference – Paragraph 5.55 – The impact of the was after completion of the BBF survey in but with caveat University Technical College at Aylesbury 2013 and therefore no data is available on that no data which opened in September 2013 is worth the firms with links to this institution. available on referencing in this paragraph. links (see para 5.56).

Cherwell DC Service Market for Consumers See paragraph 5.62 which makes reference No change. The study has already identified authorities to parts of Aylesbury Vale being served by outside of Buckinghamshire who have Oxford and MK. Also see the conclusions prepared a retail study however it does not on service markets and how these have are explain what the impacts are of the major used to define sub-markets rather than retail centres such as Milton Keynes and define the FEMA itself. Oxford. The section needs to consider retail leakage which Aylesbury Vale and others experience.

Cherwell DC Other Public Services Public sector cuts are likely to affect service No change. We feel that it is particularly important to delivery in ways that we can’t assess as make reference to the projected public part of this study. sector changes as budget cuts necessitate major service changes and some consideration of how this might affect a range of services and employment patterns.

Cherwell DC General The study report will be published based No change to There are still some outstanding data from on the information currently available, current report, the 2011 Census to be released such as however we will produce a supplementary but a data at parish/ward level. Would the study note when we are able to access the more supplementary be affected by these or would it be fine-grained data. This may affect the note will be considered once this data is released? precise boundaries for the areas that have published when been identified, but will not change the key the data is conclusions. available.

Spelthorne BC The only comment we would wish to make There is a lack of suitable data to be able to No change - and is that the FEMA analysis does not appear make a case for Heathrow impacting on given the limit Runnymede BC to acknowledge the potential links and the FEMA (at present and in the future). of available influence of Heathrow airport. Whilst this The Heathrow Related Employment draft data on the may not be an issue for the majority of Final report (2011), considers the level of current linkages Buckinghamshire, the area of South Bucks employment related to Heathrow (both between Bucks within the Slough-Reading FEMA could direct and indirect). Of those working and Heathrow, potentially be affected and therefore the directly at the airport a large proportion both in terms of potential impact of Heathrow should be (45%) of these come from the local labour employees and more clearly explored. area (which does not include businesses, and Buckinghamshire). There is no data also given the available showing to what extent people in uncertainty Buckinghamshire work at Heathrow. The around the report does not provide detail on where future growth the jobs that are supported by Heathrow of Heathrow. are located other than in general terms (i.e. defined Local, London and UK). The future impact of Heathrow (in terms of Jobs) will be largely dependent on whether a third runway is built at the airport, this

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Respondent Comment Response Change remains uncertain until the Davies Commission has reported. As such we can’t factor this into defining the FEMA.

Greater London The report covers supply chain analysis, Logistics represents a very small proportion No change Authority however, it could benefit from including of the Buckinghamshire economy with given lack of some analysis of logistics with regard to transport and storage (including postal) data and the the functional relationships of representing only 2.2% of employment likely low level Buckinghamshire based logistics serving (BRES 2013). Another issue is that the data of logistics in London and the wider South East. for the supply chain section is based on the Bucks. Buckinghamshire Business Survey (2013) and therefore the data is not available to carry out the analysis that the GLA are suggesting. The data that is available suggests a low level of businesses on average making purchases (18%) and sales (19%) in ‘neighbouring counties / towns’, there is no data specifically identifying sales / purchases in London.

BTV LEP Firstly we would say the report is thorough The definition of FEMA is based on existing No change. in its analysis of economic statistics and evidence about how markets currently existing context in considering what the operate in Buckinghamshire. This is Central Bucks HMA and FEMA should consistent with advice on how FEMAs be. However from a TVB LEP perspective should be defined. we would say the report is limited to existing economic context and does not consider future growth opportunities that will arise through the implementation of the Buckinghamshire Strategic Economic Plan.

BTV LEP In some ways the Report is self fulfilling in The evidence supports the definition of the No change. its pursuit to exclude South Bucks from the Central Bucks HMA and FEMA excluding HMA which could lead the reader to raise South Bucks. This was a conclusion reached an questions of whether that is an on the basis of the analysis and there were intention from the outset that leads to the no preconceived outcomes. The councils ultimate conclusion, as to all intents and have positively challenged the evidence purposes the statistical and context and agree with the study findings. analysis would appear to support the ultimate conclusion for the Central Bucks HMA and FEMA to consist of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe. Additional evidential critical analysis and consideration of reasonable alternatives would be helpful- this may be embedded in the statistical analysis.

BTV LEP Our main and substantive comment would The definition of FEMA is based on existing No change – be the Report relies on the existing or evidence about how markets currently this will need to extant economic characteristics of the operate in Buckinghamshire. This is be considered area, especially in regards to the economy consistent with advice on how FEMAs as part of the and existing markets in that there is no should be defined. Economic forecasting needs detailed analysis of the BTVSEP and what and future growth across the FEMA are not assessments that would mean for the HMA or FEMA in part of the scope of this work and will and subsequent terms of future economic and housing come in the next stage of the work, which Plans. growth. This is a potential weakness as the Central Bucks authorities are now guidance is clear around the need to plan commissioning. for growth. In this context the report limits itself to a very high level rehearsal of LEP

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Respondent Comment Response Change priority areas and what they mean in terms of existing linkages and impacts. Whilst this may not be an issue at this stage as the primary reason being is to define the HMA/FEMA to enable future collaboration on housing and economic evidence, it is important to ensure this does not set the tone and lead later evidence which then ignores the potential or opportunities for economic growth and what that may mean for assessing the need for and linkages between jobs and homes mix and tenure. In essence, the report appears to ask ‘what do we have now’ rather than asking ‘what do we want in the future’ whilst has ever been the problem with the need to evidence gather ahead of preparing strategy. But, in the interests of the LEP and considering the intentions of paragraph 160 of the Framework Report we’d might have expected to see more analysis of existing business needs and economic forecasting linked to scenario planning and respective changes in markets and sectors at a national and sub regional level.

BTV LEP The Report does briefly rehearse The evidence shows that Buckinghamshire Add text (see transportation investment, however we do is well connected, but we note the para 5.2 and not concur with the findings of the Report concerns about congestion. 7.37). that Buckinghamshire is well connected. Connectivity to and through Buckinghamshire is congested, this is a strategic weakness particularly in relation to sustainable and public transportation.

BTV LEP With regard to the method in defining Guidance on preparing FEMAs identifies Revised FEMAs: The report appears to suggest that that it is important to identify any sub- conclusions re the primary test for defining a FEMA is markets that may exist within them. We Central Bucks travel to work (and tests of self recognise the need for balance between FEMA and sub- containment) but when it comes to the conclusions about the Central Bucks FEMAs (see commenting on the FEMAs the report FEMA and its constituent sub-FEMAs and paras 7.79-7.82 identifies labour force characteristics (retail have reviewed this in the light of these and exec catchment, property markets, and distinct comments. summary paras sectoral strengths) as reasons why a 29-32) particular area may be a FEMA. This is interesting, not least for the sub areas as it restricts itself to not only ‘what is there’ rather than ‘what is its potential ’ but also because it does not recognise the need for strengthening a balanced and diverse labour market area. This could be a distinct issue if there is structural failure in an area and it is too small and too isolated a FEMA for future economic programmes and funding packages which could have a limited effect in a outcome/VFM context. Any scope for flexibility, re-ordering of priorities and

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Respondent Comment Response Change funding programmes and movement of projects between FEMAs could be restricted by such an approach and could be issues of consistency between sub FEMA strategies as future problems should be tackled under Duty to Co-operate. It could also result in local impacts not warranting sufficient benefits as part of an business case and/our economic appraisal for external interventions. In this case it maybe better not to seek sub-FEMA and not to prepare strategy or programmes that rely on or reflect them, rather promote a more flexible joined up response across the FEMA as a whole. The flip side to this above is that distinct, focused sub-FEMAs may allow for specific, focussed strategies and funding programmes. Ultimately, a question for those who administer the funding and intervention strategy as to the measurement of impacts and benefits when considering how they wish to move forward in demonstrating VFM and economic benefits. Findings on FEMAs: The pre-existing FEMAs are generally recommended for retention although the South Bucks (Beaconsfield) element of the FEMA is recommended for exclusion from Central Bucks FEMA. This provides for a consistent HMA/FEMA area, however, the Report also considers the Central Bucks FEMA to be made up of two ‘distinct’ sub areas. This type of drilling down may not be helpful for the reasons above.

BTV LEP The Report appears to present a defensible The FEMA is defined for the purpose of No change. case for defining Central Bucks considering the future economic HMA/FEMA, subject to the comments development needs of the area, in raised above concerning the question of particular the employment land scale, flexibility, impacts, benefits and VFM requirements. Future investment and in assessing future investment and intervention decisions are likely to need interventions. strategy development at a broader geographical level, such as the local authority and or LEP level in consultation with other partners.

BTV LEP The Report reflects existing circumstances The FEMAs have been defined on the basis Revised rather than economic potential or of existing evidence (a range of factors conclusions re opportunities-depending on the have been considered to arrive at the Central Bucks application of FEMAs and direction of outcome for the FEMA) and the FEMAs are FEMA and sub- travel for economic strategies there may not too narrowly defined or based on a FEMAs (see be a risk that the FEMAs and sub FEMAs single sector. The future growth aspirations paras 7.79-7.82 are too closely defined around single of the LEP are acknowledged and and exec sectors and are too localised as to be able considered, however it is not possible to summary paras achieve structural change. build in scenario modelling of the how 29-32) FEMA might change over time based on these aspirations into this work. The next

Opinion Research Services ▪ Atkins | Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas Volume II: Study Appendices

Respondent Comment Response Change stage of the work would be to forecast how the FEMA would grow in the future.

BTV LEP The definition of FEMAs may also limit As above the next stage of the work would No change – ability to respond to economic look forward at how the economy (of the this will need to opportunities flexibly and creatively. FEMA) is forecast to grow, and the local be considered Although this will depend on how the authorities within the FEMA would need to as part of the definition of the Central HMA/FEMA will plan for this growth accordingly. needs presumably lead to evidence being assessments prepared for the number of homes and and subsequent assessment of jobs growth in that light. Plans. This could be important if the ultimate identification is to rely on existing economic circumstances (including labour supply) rather than looking at the opportunities to drive economic growth and the number and types of jobs to achieve that and the mix and tenure homes required in the HMA to support growth.