Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
5. FUTURE DEMAND – SHORT TERM/LONG TERM
Short Term Demand
5.1 In the short term existing property market information provides a reasonable basis upon which to assess demand. However we would urge caution against reading too much into past trends in terms of spatial distribution. There has been limited availability of development opportunities in CMK over the last 5 years or so and burgeoning office development has therefore been met out of town. Whilst there is some differentiation between out of town and in town office markets there is also extensive overlap. It would be wrong to assume that the extent of out of town office take up in the past points necessarily towards the trend continuing in the future.
5.2 Our conclusions, based on a level of growth the same as that outlined by the monitoring reference value in the MKSM Strategy of 44,900 additional jobs by 2031, are:
• Continuing demand for offices floorspace. Development trend data would suggest an average take-up of land of 23,000 sqm/year – 6.3 ha/year depending on the densities assumed. This will consist of demand from established business of all sizes. This demand will contain elements wanting to purchase freeholds given the still attractive proposition to place property assets in pension funds for this sector. Buildings from 290 sq m to 900 sq m are likely to be in the greatest demand from this source;
• External demand for offices seems likely to focus on back office functions rather than corporate headquarters. Some of this will focus on CMK but a lack of readily available Grade A supply may well frustrate this and lead to further pressure on more peripheral sites. Encouraging a pipeline of supply in CMK is therefore crucial if further peripheral development is to be avoided;
• We would anticipate continuing modest demand from industrial occupiers. Most of this will originate locally and be driven by restructuring or the opportunity to capture value up lift on existing sites; and
• Distribution demand will continue to expand driven by relative land availability and price close to motorway junctions, or where large plots are available for development. Requirements would be large a minimum of over 9,000 sq m (100,000 sq ft) up to 70,000 sq m (750,000 sq ft) although we expect most requirements to be less than
May 07 76 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
45,000 sq m (500,000 sq ft). Milton Keynes’ growing population and availability of land will continue to attract demand from this sector. Overall to meet industrial/distribution 16 net ha per annum (17.5 – 19 ha gross) will be required.
Demand to 2021/2031 – Future Economic Scenarios
Economic Projections and Scenarios
5.3 The following section sets out the methodology for the preparation of the land demand forecasting component of the study. This includes the use of employment forecasts and the development of alternative forecasting scenarios, their translation into employment floorspace forecasts and subsequently into estimates of future land requirements. The approach requires the development of a series of alternative economic scenarios to 2031 which form a starting point for the demand forecast.
Selected Scenarios
5.4 At present there are no employment forecasts for Milton Keynes for the relevant period that are sufficiently disaggregated to use as a basis for employment land forecasting. The only agreed quantified estimates of future employment in Milton Keynes are the jobs targets set in the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy (see Chapter 2 above) of 44,900 additional jobs expected within Milton Keynes to 2021. It was decided, in consultation with the client group, that base-case employment projections for this study would be based on this MKSM monitoring reference value and an alternative economic scenario would be formulated to take account of the client group’s own local economic development aspirations, policies and strategies.
5.5 In addition to the economic policy and research documents and initiatives reviewed in Chapter 2 above, the client group provided guidance regarding the potential direction of alternative scenarios, taking account of local economic strategies, policy-led economic targets, “aspirational” benchmarks for economic growth and consideration of the distribution of employment growth between sectors. On the basis of this information, it was decided to adopt an MKSM base-case Scenario 1 and an alternative policy-on Scenario 2 for the employment land forecasts.
5.6 With regard to future employment and employment land needs, the study brief also proposed examining the link between the development of housing and the way in which this might directly increase the need for local service employment in, for example, education, health services, retailing, personal services, etc. These sectors of employment
May 07 77 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
are often referred to as “non-basic” sectors (the “basic” sectors being those such as most of the manufacturing sectors, primary industries and other footloose service sectors which are not dependent on local demand). Economic Base Analysis has been used to define and measure the size of these sectors and this study has examined the relationship between these and the growth of housing using the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy housing monitoring reference values to 2021 and 2031. As this is only a partial analysis of the impact on the non-basic local service sectors, this is not treated as a full alternative scenario but the analysis and results are presented as an economic base projection with the analysis of scenarios below.
Scenario 1: MKSM Base-case Scenario
5.7 The base-case scenario is a projection of employment growth to 2031 based on the stated MKSM Strategy jobs monitoring reference value for Milton Keynes - i.e. an additional 44,900 jobs from 2001 to 2021 and then rolling this same level of growth forward to 2031. It should be noted that MKSM job reference values have been determined assuming 1 job per new house from 2001 to 2021. The projection here uses actual employment levels – based on ABI sample data – for 2001 and 2004 and then projects a linear rate of growth to the 2021 target and on to 2031.
5.8 Whilst the MKSM Strategy provides an overall reference point for job growth to 2021, it does not provide any estimate of how the sectoral structure of the economy could be expected to change during this period. For a base-case scenario the existing 2001 or 2004 sectoral structure could be adopted, but as the studies reviewed in section 2 indicate Milton Keynes has had a relatively dynamic and changing economic structure. It was therefore recommended that the projected distribution of the MKSM target jobs between sectors should be based on the changing sectoral trends from the period 1995 to 2004 – the longest period over which consistent employment data by sector is available. Thus the base case scenario projects the structural changes based on the 1995-2004 trend in each 2-digit SIC sector and then controls these sectoral changes proportionately back to the reference point 44,900 jobs in 2021. A straight line trend was assumed in all sectors from 2004 to 2021 and on to 2031. In some cases it was necessary to make manual adjustments to the trend data before it was controlled to these targets, since compound growth rates were not thought to be appropriate for all sectors. In the case of industries which had grown from a very low base in 1995, the total number of additional jobs over the 10 year period was added for the whole period to 2031. For other selected sectors which have grown by a very high proportion it is more appropriate to use a fraction of the compound growth figure. The following adjustments were made in the following 10 sectors:
May 07 78 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.1 – Sectors in which Adjustments were made
Total jobs change 02 : Forestry, logging and related service activities 95-04 taken to 2031 Total jobs change 23 : Manufacure of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear 95-04 taken to fuel 2031 Total jobs change 35 : Manufacture of transport equipment 95-04 taken to 2031 One fifth of 95-04 60 : Land transport; transport via pipelines trend taken to 2031 Total jobs change 61 : Water transport 95-04 taken to 2031 63 : Supporting and auxiliary transport activities; activities of travel One fifth of 95-04 agencies trend taken to 2031 Total jobs change 67 : Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation 95-04 taken to 2031 One fifth of 95-04 72 : Computer and related activities trend taken to 2031 Total jobs change 91 : Activities of membership organisations not elsewhere classified 95-04 taken to 2031 Half of 95-04 trend 92 : Recreational, cultural and sporting activities taken to 2031 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
Scenario 2: Policy–on Scenario
5.9 The policy-on growth scenario is based on a more aspirational forecast which maintains job growth levels of around 3,750 jobs per annum, based on recent employment growth trends continuing into the future. From the base year (2004) this would generate around 65,000 additional jobs in the 17 years to 2021 – again rolled forward at the same rate to 2031. It should be noted that, although this rate of jobs growth is based on recent jobs growth trends, this scenario is equivalent to more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling in 2021 if MKSM housing targets are met.
5.10 In this case, the base-case sector growth is assumed to be the same and then the additional jobs are distributed between sectors based on economic policies and targets implied in the MK2031 Growth Strategy and MK Local Plan policy. This was calculated through an estimation of potential changes in employment in 13 “policy-on” sectors identified qualitatively in the strategy and plan using appropriate regional, national or trend growth benchmarks for the relevant sectors. The remainder of the target is distributed amongst the other service sector industries according to their current employment
May 07 79 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
structure. The assumptions for the “policy-on” scenario for the 13 relevant sectors were as follows:
Table 5.2 – Policy-on Assumptions
51 : Wholesale trade and commission Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to trade, except of motor vehicles and SEEDA projections for transport and motorcycles communications 52 : Retail trade, except of motor Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to vehicles and motorcycles; repair of SEEDA projections for distribution hotels and personal and household goods catering Base scenario already above comparator 55 : Hotels and restaurants projections, so set to half '95-'04 trend Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to 60 : Land transport; transport via SEEDA projections for transport and pipelines communications Average p.a. growth rate adjusted downward to 63 : Supporting and auxiliary transport SEEDA projections for transport and activities; activities of travel agencies communications Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to 65 : Financial intermediation, except SEEDA projections for financial and business insurance and pension funding services Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to 66 : Insurance and pension funding, SEEDA projections for financial and business except compulsory social security services Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to 67 : Activities auxiliary to financial SEEDA projections for financial and business intermediation services Base scenario already above comparator 72 : Computer and related activities projections, so set to half '95-'04 trend Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to 73 : Research and development SEEDA projections for financial and business services Average p.a. growth rate already above SEEDA 74 : Other business activities projections so adjusted upwards to UK projections for financial and business services Average p.a. growth rate adjusted upwards to UK 80 : Education projections for Health and Education 92 : Recreational, cultural and sporting Base scenario already above comparator activities projections, so set to half '95-'04 trend
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
An Economic Base Projection
5.11 As noted above the study is also examining the direct effects of the MKSM housing growth targets to 2021 and 2031 on the demand for so called “non-basic” local service jobs – expected to result in the growth of local service employment in, for example, education, health services, retailing, personal services, etc - with or without any aspirations or policy targets for jobs growth. This scenario analyses the impact on employment of the MKSM
May 07 80 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Strategy targets for an extra 44,900 dwellings being constructed by 2021 and a further 23,700 new homes within Milton Keynes, making a total of 68,600 new homes, to 2031.
5.12 In order to test the relationship between the growth of new dwellings and local service employment a cross sectional regression analysis was carried out using 2001 census and ABI data from every local authority in England. The analysis tested the relationship between number of dwellings and two groups of local services defined by using 2-digit SIC data:
• Taking nine local service sectors where nearly all employment can normally be classified as non-basic, the analysis shows that the relationship is significant and remarkably consistent across the sample of towns and cities such that an increase of one dwelling is associated with an increase of 0.31 jobs in these sectors, irrespective of the size of the town. These sectors are:
• Other service activities;
• Private households as employers of domestic staff;
• Undifferentiated goods producing activities of private households for own use;
• Undifferentiated services producing activities of private households for own use;
• Health and social work;
• Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities;
• Renting of machinery and equipment, personal and household goods;
• Retail trade and repair of personal and household goods;
• Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; and
• retail sale of fuel.
5.13 A further seven local service sectors were identified where most employment can normally be classified as non-basic depending on the size and local / regional / national role of the town or city. When these are incorporated into the non-basic sector the analysis again shows that the relationship between number of dwellings and these local service jobs is still statistically significant and does indeed vary as towns increase in size. Furthermore, a distinct structural break in the relationship between the size of towns and employment in
May 07 81 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
this larger group of local service sectors was found to be statistically significant with the break around the 200,000 population mark (approximately the size of Milton Keynes now). This analysis suggests that, if Milton Keynes rises above this population level in future and as the city’s regional role grows, an increase of one dwelling would be associated with a further increase of 0.37 jobs in these seven larger local sectors, i.e.:
• Construction;
• Hotels and restaurants;
• Real estate activities;
• Public administration, defence and social security;
• Education;
• Activities of membership organisations; and
• Recreational, cultural and sporting activities.
5.14 These ratios were therefore used to examine the impact on employment in these sectors of the projected increase in dwellings in Milton Keynes to 2021 and 2031.
Results of the Scenario Projections
5.15 Summaries of the employment forecasts in 2021 and 2031 for Milton Keynes under each scenario, together with estimates of the impact of the “Economic Base Projection” are given in Table 5.3 below.
May 07 82 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.3 - Summary of Employment Projections based on Economic Scenarios
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Base Case Policy-on Economic Base Projections 2004 (actual) 2021 2031 2021 2031 2021 2031 01 : Agriculture, hunting and related service activities 82 84 86 84 86 82 82 02 : Forestry, logging and related service activities 48 68 79 68 79 48 48 05 : Fishing, operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms; service activities incidental to fishing ------10 : Mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat ------11 : Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities incidental to oil and gas extraction42 excluding surveying 0204 4 12 : Mining of uranium and thorium ores ------13 : Mining of metal ores ------14 : Other mining and quarry 25 14 7 14 7 25 25 15 : Manufacturing of food and beverages 1,969 1,081 559 1,081 559 1,969 1,969 16 : Manufacture of tobacco products ------17 : Manufacture of textiles 32 14 3 14 3 32 32 18 : Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur 18 7 1 7 1 18 18 19 : Tanning and dressing of leather; manufacture of luggage, handbags, saddlery, harness and42 footwear 17 3 17 3 42 42 20 : Manufacture of wood and products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles193 of straw and 219 plaiting materia 234ls 219 234 193 193 21 : Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 581 777 892 777 892 581 581 22 : Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media 934 453 171 453 171 934 934 23 : Manucature of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel 189 241 272 241 272 189 189 24 : Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 415 177 38 177 38 415 415 25 : Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 939 423 120 423 120 939 939 26 : Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products 118 115 114 115 114 118 118 27 : Manufacture basic metals 198 96 36 96 36 198 198 28 : Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 1,494 890 534 890 534 1,494 1,494 29 : Manufacture of machinery and equipment not elsewhere classified 1,579 1,078 783 1,078 783 1,579 1,579 30 : Manufacture of office machinery and computers 144 100 74 100 74 144 144 31 : Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus not elsewhere classified 652 301 95 301 95 652 652 32 : Manufacture of radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus 996 892 831 892 831 996 996 33 : Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks 458 197 43 197 43 458 458 34 : Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 942 599 398 599 398 942 942 35 : Manufacture of transport equipment 345 424 470 424 470 345 345 36 : Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing not elsewhere classified 421 204 76 204 76 421 421 37 : Recycling 44 23 10 25 14 44 44 40 : Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply 100 44 10 46 15 100 100 41 : Collection, purification and distribution of water 55 23 4 24 5 55 55 45 : Construction 3,433 5,907 7,362 7,741 10,274 5,456 6,531 50 : Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive4,715 fuel 3,883 3,394 4,729 4,737 6,560 7,581 51 : Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 9,503 10,108 10,464 11,280 12,325 9,503 9,503 52 : Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles; repair of personal and household18,897 goods 21,207 22,565 21,788 23,489 25,477 29,446 55 : Hotels and restaurants 6,182 8,061 9,166 9,085 10,793 9,165 10,970 60 : Land transport; transport via pipelines 3,572 4,315 4,753 4,240 4,633 3,572 3,572 61 : Water transport 20 27 32 35 44 20 20 62 : Air transport ------63 : Supporting and auxiliary transport activities; activities of travel agencies 4,868 8,172 10,115 5,778 6,314 4,868 4,868 64 : Post and telecommunications 3,152 1,469 479 1,588 668 3,152 3,152 65 : Financial intermediation, except insurance and pension funding 5,330 3,465 2,368 7,142 8,208 5,330 5,330 66 : Insurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security 239 99 17 320 368 239 239 67 : Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation 877 1,017 1,099 1,175 1,351 877 877 70 : Real estate activities 2,081 6,030 8,352 8,110 11,657 2,900 3,471 71 : Renting of machinery and equipment without operator and of personal and household goods778 2,872 4,104 3,895 5,728 998 1,153 72 : Computer and related activites 6,294 13,735 18,111 13,735 18,111 6,294 6,294 73 : Research and development 89 49 25 104 113 89 89 74 : Other business activities 20,748 30,371 36,032 30,624 36,433 20,748 20,748 75 : Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 5,056 5,632 5,971 7,120 8,334 7,142 8,550 80 : Education 8,811 7,255 6,340 12,046 13,949 13,464 16,116 85 : Health and social work 8,939 20,279 26,949 26,992 37,611 11,570 13,372 90 : Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities 527 592 630 748 879 670 775 91 : Activities of membership organisations not elsewhere classified 1,452 1,722 1,881 2,191 2,626 1,881 2,251 92 : Recreational, cultural and sporting activities 3,369 5,256 6,365 6,254 7,951 4,498 5,384 93 : Other service activities 1,484 1,514 1,531 1,895 2,137 1,897 2,192 95 : Private households as employers of domestic staff ------96 : Undifferentiated goods producing activities of private households for own use ------97 : Undifferentiated services producing activities of private households for own use ------99 : Extra-territorial organisation and bodies ------
Total 133,433 171,598 194,048 197,183 234,683 159,385 175,501 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
5.16 Table 5.3 provides an overall comparison of the two alternative scenarios and the effect on non-basic local service sectors (only) of the economic base projection. The base-case scenario generally shows modest rises in employment from 2004 of just over 38,000 to a total of 171,500 by 2021 and to 194,000 by 2031. The increase of 38,000 from 2004 to 2021 is nearly 7,000 less than the baseline jobs reference value from 2001 to 2021 of 44,900 jobs – implying that nearly 7,000 jobs of the 44,900 MKSM reference value had been achieved during the period 2001 to 2004. The Policy-on scenario (scenario 2) projects a higher level employment growth of around 64,000 jobs to 197,000 jobs by 2021
May 07 83 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
– higher than the 2031 level for Scenario 1. By 2031 Scenario 2 jobs are projected to grow to nearly 235,000 – growth of over 100,000 jobs.
5.17 Sectorally, employment in the Milton Keynes economy is expected to decline in virtually all manufacturing sectors at more or less the same level in both Scenarios 1 and 2. This is because the policy–on scenario does not target manufacturing sectors significantly and existing declining trends are expected to continue. Service sector employment in sectors such as construction, transport, retailing, computing services, professional services, other business services is expected to grow significantly in both scenarios – and at generally higher levels in Scenario 2. Sectors such as finance and education show additional significant growth under scenario 2 however.
5.18 The Economic Base projection, as noted above, focuses only on the non-basic local service sectors identified (no change is shown at all in the other service and manufacturing sectors) but shows that, if the effect of simply increasing the number of dwellings is as analysed, then total employment in these local service sectors can be expected to rise “automatically” by 26,000 jobs by 2021 (+44,900 dwellings) and 42,000 jobs by 2031(+ 68,600 dwellings). It is stressed that this is a partial (local service only) view of jobs growth - and to some extent overlaps with, and is included in, Scenario 1 and 2 - and it is not recommended that this economic base projection should be treated as a scenario for employment land requirement purposes.
5.19 As noted above the study is also examining the direct effects of the MKSM housing growth targets to 2021 and 2031 on the demand for so called “non-basic” local service jobs – expected to result in the growth of local service employment in, for example, education, health services, retailing, personal services, etc - with or without any aspirations or policy targets for jobs growth. This scenario analyses the impact on employment of the MKSM Strategy targets for an extra 44,900 dwellings being constructed by 2021 and a further 23,700 new homes within Milton Keynes, making a total of 68,600 new homes, to 2031.
Long Term Property Requirements
5.20 One of the principal tasks of the employment land study has been to provide long term forecasts of floorspace requirements by linking the property and economic analysis. The study notes that this has been subject to some discussion on achieving an appropriately detailed level of spatial and sectoral analysis to meet the requirements of the recent ODPM Guidance (Employment Land Reviews – Guidance Note ODPM 2004). An analysis was carried out to determine the most appropriate sectoral groupings for the Milton Keynes
May 07 84 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
economy, which is sufficiently robust as a basis for the economic forecasting of future floorspace needs and their use in the spatial modelling of employment land scenarios.
5.21 As noted above the employment land forecasts have been based on the employment projections scenarios developed in the previous section. With regard to translating employment forecasts into floorspace and land use classes/property types, we have noted that the ODPM Guidance acknowledges that this is also "difficult and to some extent a matter of professional judgement." This is best achieved by grouping SIC data into say 20- 30 sectoral groupings appropriate for the study area and the employment property product types available. This section sets out the methodology underpinning the preparation of the land demand forecasting component of the study providing a clear audit trail of the methods, assumptions and stages of work of the study.
5.22 Based on the principles above the methodology for the employment land forecasts is set out in five steps:
• Employment forecasts;
• Employment and land categorisation;
• Apply employment densities;
• Prepare floorspace requirement forecasts;
• Convert floorspace to land estimates and forecast land requirements.
Step 1: Employment Forecasts
5.23 The scenario based employment projections used in this study utilise ABI employment data which aggregates 2-digit SIC activity groupings into 62 industrial sectors, as shown in Table 5.3 above. The projections include historical data from 1995 to 2004 and projections from 2005 to 2031 for Milton Keynes.
Step 2: Employment and Land Categorisation
5.24 The next step was to identify appropriate sector groupings for Milton Keynes, which reflect the structure and spatial distribution of employment and also reflect different land use types. This requires the selection and aggregation of the 62 ABI sectors to develop a shortlist of between 20 and 30 sector groupings, based on an analysis of sector size, growth, and local concentrations / competitive advantages.
May 07 85 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
5.25 Some 26 groups - 10 manufacturing groups and 16 service groups - were adopted for forecasting purposes. The groupings are set out below in Table 5.4, together with the corresponding ABI 2-digit SIC categories for each. It should be noted that not all CE sectors and 2-digit categories are included – primary agricultural and extractive industries are for example excluded since they do not directly give rise to demand for employment land. In addition, in the following SIC categories, only the following percentages of employment were assumed to give rise to demand for employment land:
• Construction: 15% of employment assumed to be located in fixed employment premises;
• Education: 10% of employment assumed to be in non-educational - mainly office premises; and
• Health and social work: 15% assumed to be in headquarters, back-office and other office premises
Table 5.4: Selected Sector Groups and Corresponding SIC Sectors Sector Groupings SIC 2003 M1 Manufacturing of food and beverages 15 M2 Manufacture of textiles, wood products and 17, 18, 19, 20, furniture 36 M3 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper 21 products M4 Publishing, printing and reproduction of 22 recorded media M5 Manufacture of coke, chemicals, minerals, 23, 24, 26, 27, basic metals and recycling 37 M6 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 25 M7 Manufacture of machinery and metal 28, 29 products M8 Manufacture of electronic goods 30, 31,32 M9 Manufacture of medical, precision and 33 optical instruments, watches and clocks M10 Manufacture of transport equipment 34, 35 S1 Construction 45 S2 Sale, maintenance and repair of motor 50 vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel S3 Wholesale trade and commission trade, 51 except of motor vehicles and motorcycles S4 Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and 52 motorcycles; repair of personal and household goods S5 Hotels and restaurants 55 S6 Land transport and auxiliary activities 60,63 S7 Post and telecommunications 64 S8 Financial intermediation and insurance 65. 66. 67 S9 Other business activities and real estate 70, 71, 74 S10 Computer and related activites 72 S11 Research and development 73
May 07 86 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Sector Groupings SIC 2003 S12 Public administration and defence; 75 compulsory social security S13 Education 80 S14 Health and social work 85 S15 Other service activities and organisation 91, 93 membership S16 Recreational, cultural and sporting activities 92 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
5.26 Table 5.5 below gives the total and sector breakdown of employment for these 26 sector groups under each scenario and for the economic base projection (referred to in the Table as Scenario 3). It should be noted that the total employment in 2004 is reduced from 133,433 (see Table 5.1) to 110,922 – and similarly for each scenario total - as a result of excluding non-relevant sectors for employment land purposes.
May 07 87 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.5 Employment in Selected Sector Groups Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Economic Base Base Case Policy-on Projections 2004 2031 Change 2031 Change 2031 Change
M1 1,969 559 -1,410 559 -1,410 1,969 0
M2 706 317 -389 317 -389 706 0
M3 581 892 311 892 311 581 0
M4 934 171 -763 171 -763 934 0
M5 964 469 -495 473 -491 964 0
M6 939 120 -819 120 -819 939 0
M7 3,073 1,317 -1,756 1,317 -1,756 3,073 0
M8 1,792 1,000 -792 1,000 -792 1,792 0
M9 458 43 -415 43 -415 458 0
M10 1,287 868 -419 868 -419 1,287 0
S1 1,133 2,429 1,296 3,391 2,258 2,155 1,022
S2 4,715 3,394 -1,321 4,737 22 7,581 2,866
S3 9,503 10,464 961 12,325 2,822 9,503 0
S4 18,897 22,565 3,668 23,489 4,592 29,446 10,549
S5 4,946 7,333 2,387 8,634 3,688 8,776 3,830
S6 8,440 14,868 6,428 10,947 2,507 8,440 0
S7 3,152 479 -2,673 668 -2,484 3,152 0
S8 6,446 3,485 -2,961 9,927 3,481 6,446 0
S9 23,607 48,489 24,882 53,818 30,211 25,372 1,765
S10 6,294 18,111 11,817 18,111 11,817 6,294 0
S11 89 25 -64 113 24 89 0
S12 5,056 5,971 915 8,334 3,278 8,550 3,494
S13 881 634 -247 1,395 514 1,612 731
S14 1,788 5,390 3,602 7,522 5,734 2,674 886
S15 2,936 3,412 476 4,762 1,826 4,443 1,507
S16 337 637 300 795 458 538 201
Total 110,922 153,441 42,519 174,727 63,805 137,775 26,853
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
May 07 88 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Match Sector Groupings to Land Use Class Categories
5.27 This step goes on to allocate all or divide parts of these employment sector groups between the standard land use categories. These were allocated on the basis of professional judgement and experience of the consultants’ team, but have remained disaggregated as far as possible in order to narrow the range of the judgement to be made for any individual employment group or land use category. Thus the full breakdown of land use classes (e.g. A1, A2a,b,c etc, A3, B1a,b,c etc., B2, B8, C1) is used together with the 26 sector groups. Where an employment group is allocated to more than one land use class the percentage of employment assumed to be in each land use class is identified. Wherever possible this has been determined using 2, 3 or even 4-digit SIC data (2004 ABI data) to determine the proportions of employees in each relevant sub-sector, for example to reflect the split between employment in hotels and employment in restaurants for the study area.
5.28 Table 5.6 shows how the 26 sectors and the proportion of employment in each sector are allocated to the land use categories. All further aggregations of employment, floorspace and employment land use categories are based on this disaggregation.
Step 3: Apply Employment Densities
5.29 In order to convert the employment forecasts to floorspace requirements the other key variable is the worker density assumptions to be applied in the model. Employment densities are a key link between employment change and land use. The ODPM Guidance cites a number of comparative density analyses of which the most detailed are those prepared by Arup Economics and Planning based on original survey data. We have re- examined these and compared them with those also cited in the Guidance and other international data. The variation in the key sectors such as office, warehousing and industrial are limited and the Arup densities cited are the most disaggregated and therefore adaptable for use in the disaggregated model form adopted for this study. We therefore recommend the use of the Arup estimates as the most authoritative and fit for purpose. These are summarised in Table 5.6 below.
5.30 It should be noted that most of the Arup densities are quoted as gross internal floorspace per worker and that these have been converted to gross external rates by increasing all business and industrial classes (B1 and B2) by +3.5%, and increasing all shops, financial and professional services, hotels and catering premises (A1, A2, A3 and C1) by +10%, whilst the densities for storage and distribution (B8) have remained unchanged.
May 07 89 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.6: Worker Densities for Milton Keynes Study Sectors Land Use Density (sq. m / Activity Sector Group Category worker) General & Specialist Manufacturing B2 34 Manufacturing M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8 Precision and Electronic Goods M8, M9 B2 / B1c 34 / 29 Transport equipment M10 B2 34 Logistics & Distribution S3 B8 50 Distribution Transport & Communications S6, S7 B8 50 - 80
Offices Various S1, S12, S13, S14, S15, S16 B1a / A2c 19 - 20
Retail Retail – general S4 C1 / B1a / A2 19 Retail Shops / Computer Services S10 A1 19 Insurance, Banking & Finance S7 A2a 20 Retailing, Computing / Professional A2a/b 19 – 20 Services S7, S8 Miscellaneous Services A2c 20 Hotels and Restaurants S5 C1 / A3 13 Research and development S11 B1b 29 Automotive Motor distribution & fuel S2 B2 34
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
5.31 The density assumptions used are based on current worker/floor space densities. There are factors impacting on future employment densities which may move towards lower overall densities or less reliance upon traditional forms of employment floorspace to meet economic needs. This study has not made adjustments for such changes because we believe it is better to use consistent and well understood national estimates for a long term forecasting whilst recognising that these should be monitored.
Step 4: Prepare Floorspace Requirement Forecasts
5.32 The resulting estimates of floorspace requirements for 2031 are summarised in Table 5.5 below. As might be expected from the employment results there are similar declines in the requirement for B1b/c and B2 floorspace in both scenarios as a result of the continuing decline in manufacturing and related activities. There are increasing requirements in all other use classes particularly in A2 and B1a. In the case of Scenario 2, this requires significantly more B1a space than Scenario 1 and proportionately high increases in some of the smaller use classes. There is also a growing demand for B8 space in both scenarios of 175,000 (Scenario 2) to 275,000 sq.m (Scenario 1) - although in proportion to the existing stock of over 1.1million sq.m this reflects a lower level of increase than in other high growth sectors. In the case of B8 the growth in demand in Scenario 1 derives from the continuing 10 year growth trend in distribution, transport and logistics employment but in Scenario 2, the “Policy-On” assumption is that further growth in these sectors will be
May 07 90 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
encouraged but at a rather lower level than the recent high trend – in line with SEEDA (lower) growth policies for some B8-type sectors (se Table 5.2).
5.33 Although, as noted above, the Economic Base Projection should not be treated as an independent scenario, the analysis of the effects of increasing the number of dwellings on local service jobs suggests that this would, in turn, translate into the need for additional floorspace particularly in the A1 / A2 and B1a classes of use.
Table 5.7 Floorspace requirements by land use class (sq.m) 2004 2031 2031 2031 Change 2004-2031 Scenario Scenario Economic Scenario Scenario 2 Economic 1 2 Base 1 Policy-on Base Base Policy-on Projections Base Projections Case Case A1 144,804 195,059 201,492 218,292 50,255 56,688 73,489 A2 131,649 157,206 163,640 205,138 25,557 31,991 73,489 A2a 86,448 95,221 186,542 94,801 8,773 100,094 8,353 A2b 59,195 170,337 170,337 59,195 111,142 111,142 - A2c 64,592 75,074 104,775 97,754 10,482 40,183 33,162 A3 35,361 52,432 61,734 62,751 17,071 26,373 27,390 B1a 873,720 1,539,292 1,819,785 1,094,502 665,572 946,065 220,783 B1b 2,671 751 3,393 2,671 -1,920 722 - B1c 71,740 33,884 33,884 71,740 -37,856 -37,856 - B2 538,829 287,848 335,244 639,691 -250,981 -203,585 100,862 B8 1,161,910 1,433,088 1,336,008 1,161,910 271,178 174,098 - C1 35,361 52,432 61,734 62,751 17,071 26,373 27,390 Total 3,206,280 4,092,624 4,478,567 3,771,196 886,344 1,272,287 564,916 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
Step 5 - Churn Property
5.34 The existing baseline floorspace was calculated using Commercial and Industrial Floorspace and Rateable Value Statistics 2004, obtained from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). This information gave the amount of floorspace in each district “bulk class”, the main classification of commercial and industrial property. For the data used in this study, bulk classes are split into four discreet categories, these being:
• Retail premises;
• Offices;
• Factories; and
• Warehouses.
5.35 The Retail and Offices categories can then be sub-divided further to give more detailed floorspace figures, due to the varied nature of the land use types in these categories. Table
May 07 91 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
5.8 below shows the baseline position in terms of the amount of floorspace in each bulk class by district.
Table 5.8 – Baseline Amount of Floorspace Bulk Class Existing Floorspace (m2) (2004) Retail Premises 465,000 Commercial Offices 627,000 "Other" Offices 48,000 Factories 991,000 Warehouses 1,531,000 Other Bulk Premises 90,000 Source: ODPM, 2004
5.36 It can be seen above that the dominant bulk classes are Factories and Warehouses, which together account for over two thirds of all floorspace in Milton Keynes.
5.37 Non-employment growth led property demand, otherwise known as Churn, takes account of existing businesses that may require new premises due to expansion of their operations or their desire simply to relocate, in order to acquire newer premises or for strategic reasons as part of their business operation.
5.38 Churn can have a significant effect on the amount of employment land and floorspace that is required in order to meet the predicted demand. We have used knowledge from previous studies to agree a level of churn for different land uses within the study area, which are detailed below.
Table 5.9 – Churn Factors by Land Use Class Bulk Class Churn Factor Commercial Offices 0.50% "Other" Offices 0.50% Factories 0.50% Warehouses 0.50% Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
5.39 On the basis of these assumptions over a 25 year period 12.5% of employment stock would be replaced without any employment impact.
Step 6 - Leakage
5.40 We have also considered the effect of leakage from employment areas to other employment locations such as town centres and other urban and rural locations that are not existing employment areas.
May 07 92 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
5.41 We have based our analysis upon data from the Milton Keynes Employment survey. Using post code, sector and employment data we have been able to identify the extent of employment by broad land use in the following locations:
• Employment Areas;
• CMK; and
• Other locations (smaller centres residential area).
Table 5.10 – Employment by Location
% of Jobs Central Milton Keynes/Employment Areas 61% Other Urban/Rural Locations 39% Milton Keynes Employment Survey, 2004
5.42 Further examination of this data indicates that office uses are the major form of employment outside Employment Areas and CMK (70% of all employment in these locations). B8 uses are almost exclusively located within employment areas (90% of all employment) whilst B2 employment is located mainly within employment areas approximately 15% is located in other urban/rural areas probably reflecting standalone units.
5.43 We have therefore assumed a leakage of 35% of office employment to other urban/rural locations and 10% of employment for manufacturing and distribution. These reflect prudent assumptions based on the existing evidence. We consider a 10% leakage for manufacturing and distribution to reflect one off standalone units which may occur outside employment areas/sites including the expansion of existing facilities.
5.44 The table below represents how the effects of churn the amount of existing floorspace for the whole of Milton Keynes and its implications for employment land.
May 07 93 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.11 – Effects of Churn and Leakage within Milton Keynes Bulk Class Land Use Existing Churn Churn Churn Churn Churn Designation Floorspace (floorspace (land (land (land (land (m2/year)) (ha/year)) (ha(( 10 (ha)) 20 (ha)) 25 Year Year Year Summary Summary Summary (to 2016) (to 2026) (to 2031) Retail (A1) 465,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Premises Commercial B1a 627,000 3,135 0.8 7.8 15.7 19.6 Offices “Other” B1a/B1b 48,000 240 0.1 0.6 1.2 1.5 Offices Factories B2 991,000 4,955 1.1 11.0 22.0 27.5 Warehouses B8 1,531,000 7,655 1.7 17.0 34.0 42.5 Other Bulk - 90,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Premises TOTAL 3,752,000 15,985 3.6 36.5 72.9 91.1
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
5.45 Overall, the effects of churn in the study area make an additional requirement of 91 hectares of employment land to 2031. The effects of leakage to town centres and other locations reduce the overall land requirement across the study area by (CoH to add) ha.
5.46 Calculations of churn work on the premise that all predicted floorspace calculations are positive, therefore in order to produce a positive result where the economic scenarios predicted negative demand for floorspace in any of the use classes we have set these values to zero. For instance if demand for B2 floorspace is negative in terms of calculating land demand we have assumed this to be zero. Otherwise total demand for B2 land could well be negative when the evidence suggests that land for this use is still in demand.
5.47 The floorspace requirements therefore, for Scenarios 1 and 2 , are shown below.
Overall Floorspace and Land Requirements
Scenario 1 – MKSM Base Case
5.48 Taking into account both demand generated from additional employment and the effects of churn and leakage the following floorspace requirements are predicted up to 2031.
May 07 94 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.12 - Floorspace Requirements Scenario 1
2004 – 2011 2012 – 2016 2017 – 2021 2022 – 2026 2027-31 2004 - 2021 2004 - 2031
B1a/B1b 129,832 122,216 121,373 120,530 119,688 373,420 613,638 B1c/B2 34,685 24,775 24,775 24,775 24,775 84,235 133,785 B8 193,430 178,120 178,120 178,120 178,120 549,671 905,911 357,947 325,111 324,268 323,425 322,583 1,007,326 1,653,334 Source: GVA Grimley
5.49 The most significant increase in floorspace requirements is in the distribution (B8) sector at 549,000 m2 by 2021 and 906,000 m2 by 2031 (54.7%) of total floorspace demand. Light and general manufacturing (B1c/B2) would be expected to grow modestly (largely based around the relocation of existing businesses). Office and technology space requirements are expected to grow by 613,600 m2.
5.50 If all demand is assumed to take place at densities expected on employment sites (ignoring the potential for much higher densities in CMK and other centres) then the following employment land requirements are predicted up to 2021 and 2031.
Table 5.13 - Employment Land Requirements Scenario 1
2004 – 2012 – 2017 – 2022 – 2027 – 2004 – 2004 – 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2021 2031 B1a/b 35.7 33.6 33.4 33.1 32.9 102.7 168.8 B1c/B2 8.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 20.6 32.7 B8 47.3 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5 134.4 221.4 91.5 83.2 83.0 82.7 82.5 257.6 422.9 Source: GVA Grimley
5.51 Therefore, as a maximum 258 hectares of employment land would be required upto 2021; and 423 ha by 2031. Requirements are dominated by distribution (B8) 134 ha by 2021 and 221 ha by 2031. The overall land requirement 2006 -2026 is 306 ha.
Scenario 2 ‘Policy On’
5.52 Under this scenario overall floorspace requirements amount to 1.47 m2. This is less than Scenario 1 despite the higher numbers of jobs envisaged. This is the result of growth being focused in sectors requiring office and technology space which are occupied more efficiently in terms of jobs/m2 than distribution and manufacturing uses.
May 07 95 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 5.14 – Floorspace Requirements Scenario 2
2004 – 2011 2012 – 2016 2017 – 2021 2022 – 2026 2027 - 2031 2004 - 2021 2004 - 2031
B1a/B1b 198,956 192,504 192,797 193,089 193,383 584,256 970,729 B1c/B2 34,685 24,775 24,775 24,775 24,775 84,235 133,785 B8 85,825 70,515 70,515 70,515 70,515 226,856 367,887 319,466 287,794 288,087 288,380 288,674 895,347 1,472,401
5.53 Floorspace requirements are dominated by office and technology (B1a/b) space which are predicted to grow by 584,000 m2 by 2021 and 970,000 m2 by 2031. Light and general manufacturing space is predicted at the same level as under Scenario 1 (this is driven entirely by relocations). Distribution (B8) floorspace requirements are much reduced from Scenario 1 at only 368,000 m2. This reflects deliberate policy choices envisaged under this Scenario.
5.54 If converted into land requirements, Scenario 2 would require the following in terms of land supply (noting that for offices/technology space the requirement is based on business park plot ratios rather than those achievable in CMK and other centres).
Table 5.15 - Scenario 2 – Land Requirements
2004 – 2011 2012 – 2016 2017 – 2021 2022 – 2026 2027 - 2031 2004 - 2021 2004 - 2031
B1a/B1b 54.7 52.9 53.0 53.1 53.2 160.7 267.0 B1c/B2 8.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 20.6 32.7 B8 21.0 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 55.5 89.9 84.2 76.2 76.3 76.4 76.5 236.7 389.6
5.55 The overall land requirements under Scenario 2 are therefore less than Scenario 1 at 390 ha. This reflects the limited growth in B8 which requires far more land for given levels of employment than other sectors. Requirements are dominated by office/technology (B1a/b) 267 ha, 68% of all land required. The overall land requirement 2006 -2026 is 292 ha (including CMK sites).
Comparisons of Scenarios Against Past Development Trends
5.56 Employment Land Review Guidance (ODPM 2004) sets out a number of alternative means of calculating future employment requirements. Our approach has been based upon
May 07 96 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
economic scenarios using employment densities as this allows potential policy options to be fully explored. An alternative approach which is useful for comparison purposes is to consider past trends. Data on floorspace completions for office and industrial floorspace built over the period 1997 – 2006 is available. For comparison purposes we have examined completion rates over the short term (5 years) and longer term 10 years and compared these to predicted take-up rates (from Scenario 1 and Scenario 2).
5.57 Figure 5.1 below illustrates the comparison for offices/technology space over a ten year period using average development rates.
Figure 5.1 – Comparison of Predicted Development Rates (10 Year Period)
Comparison Offices
40,000 35,000 Scenario 1 Ave 30,000 Demand 25,000 20,000 Scenario 2 Ave Demand 15,000 10,000 5 Year Trend Floorspace m2 Floorspace 5,000 - 10 Year Trend 12345678910 Year
5.58 The 5 year development trend represents the highest level of demand at 36,000 m2 per annum with Scenario 2 slightly lower at 34,700 m2. The long term development trend represents a slightly higher average demand than Scenario 1. It is however worth noting that in Scenario 1 job growth is limited below that experienced in recent years by adhering to the MKSM reference value of 44,900 jobs to 2021.
5.59 Industrial/distribution development rates are compared against the scenario in Figure 5.2 below.
May 07 97 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Figure 5.2 – Comparison of Predicted Development Rates (10 Year Period)
Comparison Industrial / Distribution
80000 70000 Scenario 1 Ave 60000 Demand 50000 40000 Scenario 2 Ave Demand 30000 20000 5 Year Trend 10000 Built Floorspace m2 Floorspace Built 0 10 Year Trend 12345678910 Years
5.60 In both cases the trend data is significantly above that predicted by the scenarios. The following are likely explanations:
1. Scenario 2 represents a deliberate policy choice to limit the growth of distribution space therefore demand is limited.
2. Both the short term and long term development rates include very high peaks in the development in 1999 and 2003 which are likely to distort the figures.
3. Scenario 1 reflects a lower level of overall job growth than the period upon which the development floorspace figures are based (1997 – 2006).
Conclusions
5.61 The key points are:
• Overall demand for floorspace from employment sites, centres and in CMK is expected to rise to between 1.47 million to 1.65 million m2 (2004 – 2031), by 2021 requirements will have risen to 0.9 million m2 to 1.07 million m2;
• Land requirement terms (expressed as a maximum figure due to the use of low site densities for office space in CMK) would lead to a requirement for between 237 ha – 258 ha by 2021 and 389 – 423ha by 2031;
May 07 98 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
• In Scenario 1 the base case floorspace requirements are dominated by the distribution sector (reflecting relatively low employment densities and the growth in this sector in the recent past).
• Under Scenario 2 growth is focused towards offices reflecting policy choices and the fact the job growth under this scenario is not constrained by the MKSM Monitoring figure. This scenario does include a deliberate policy choice to curtail the growth for distribution and logistics (B8) most likely through limiting the land supply for this sector.
5.62 Further analysis has been undertaken of the impact of housing growth on the local economy. This has concluded that there is a relationship between housing growth and jobs. This is influenced by the size of the settlement with a particular change in settlements about 200,000 population. The conclusions from this analysis is that:
5.63 Based on this analysis it is possible to predict potential growth in employment fuelled by housing and therefore increases.
• By 2021 at 26,000 increase in employment from 2004 (not allowing for the difference in start dates) achieving 58% of the MKSM Monitoring reference value.
• By 2031 42,000 additional jobs.
5.64 Section 6 compares the scenarios against likely supply.
May 07 99 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
6. CONTRASTING FUTURE DEMAND/SUPPLY
6.1 The previous two chapters have outlined the total supply and demand within the study area under a number of scenarios. This chapter compares the amount of supply with that of demand to assess whether the predicted supply of employment floorspace will be sufficient to cope with expected demand.
Scenario 1
6.2 The projected demand for floorspace within Milton Keynes to 2031 under Scenario 1 is shown below.
Table 6.1 – Floorspace Requirement under Scenario 1
2004 – 2011 2012 – 2016 2017 – 2021 2022 – 2026 2027-31 2004 - 2021 2004 - 2031
B1a/B1b 129,832 122,216 121,373 120,530 119,688 373,420 613,638 B1c/B2 34,685 24,775 24,775 24,775 24,775 84,235 133,785 B8 193,430 178,120 178,120 178,120 178,120 549,671 905,911 357,947 325,111 324,268 323,425 322,583 1,007,326 1,653,334
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
6.3 When compared to the 10 year trend data this scenario reflects a slightly lower level of overall demand for office space. In contrast this scenario suggests industrial / distribution space requirements significantly below trend data (average take up figures of c73,500m2 per annum 1997 – 2006). However the trend figures do include a small number of very large developments which may skew the long term trend (e.g. Tesco distribution plant). It could also reflect much lower actual employment densities in distribution developments than we have assumed on the basis of the best available guidance.
Table 6.2 – Land Requirements under Scenario 1
2004 – 2012 – 2017 – 2022 – 2027 – 2004 – 2004 – 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2021 2031 B1a/b 35.7 33.6 33.4 33.1 32.9 102.7 168.8 B1c/B2 8.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 20.6 32.7 B8 47.3 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5 134.4 221.4 91.5 83.2 83.0 82.7 82.5 257.6 422.9
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
May 07 100 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
6.4 Under Scenario 1 the total demand for land to 2031 is 369.7ha, with the majority of demand for B1a and B8 floorspace. The table below shows the anticipated amount of supply from proposed employment sites.
Table 6.3 – Supply of Floorspace from Proposed Employment Sites, CMK & Other Centres
B1/b B1c/B2 B8 TOTAL LAND B1 B2 B8 TOTAL 1,621,5 GRAND TOTAL (ALL SOURCES) 846,336 283,612 491,562 10 103.50 88.35 81.55 273.40 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
6.5 The figure below compares the amount of anticipated demand with the supply from proposed employment sites, etc.
Figure 6.1 – Comparison of Supply and Demand under Scenario 1 to 2021 (Floorspace m2)
Supply / Demand to 2021 (Scenario 1)
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0 B1a/b B2 B8 -100,000
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
6.6 It can be seen above that there is a deficit of B8 space amounting to around 58,000 m2 sq.m equivalent to approximately 13 ha by 2021. There is a significant surplus of B1a/B1band B1c/B2 space. Given the potential surplus of light and general manufacturing land which broadly has the same characteristics as land suitable for distribution we would argue that no further land allocations are required prior to 2021.
May 07 101 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
6.7 Figure 6.2 below presents the analysis of demand and supply up to 2031.
Figure 6.2 – Comparison of Supply and Demand Scenario 1 to 2031
Supply / Demand to 2031 (Scenario 1)
500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 -100,000 B1a/ B1b B1c/ B2 B8 -200,000 -300,000 -400,000 -500,000
6.8 This analysis confirms that the deficit of B8 space will grow substantially 2021 – 2031 leading to an overall deficit 414,349m2 equivalent to approximately 100 hectares of land. However, it should be noted that there is a potential surplus of 383,000 m2 in B1c/B2 floorspace. This land will share the broad characteristics of land suitable for B8 uses. However it should be noted that not all of this land is likely to be suitable for B8 purposes particularly smaller infill sites in the established industrial areas which will lack the plot size suitable for B8 uses. The overall conclusion is that some additional B8 land would be required post 2021.
Employment Land Analysis
6.9 Figure 6.3 presents an analysis of employment land to 2031 supply against demand. In order to provide a meaningful analysis for office/technology uses we have assumed that all of the capacity in CMK and other centres will be developed by 2031, this has therefore been deducted from the overall requirement to establish a residual surplus/deficit which would need to be addressed in out of town locations.
May 07 102 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Figure 6.3 – Employment Land Demand and Supply Analysis
Demand Supply Scenario 1 2031
150
100
50
0 ha B1a/ B1b B1c/ B2 B8 -50
-100
-150
6.10 It can be seen above that when only taking into account the demand for employment land outside CMK under Scenario 1 there is a deficit of B8 (warehouse) land in the order of 100 ha by 2031. It would appear however that if CMK is developed to its potential, there would be enough capacity to accommodate the predicted demand for B1 (office) space without the need for additional land allocations. As can be seen above, there would be a surplus of around 60ha of B1a/B1b land and around 90 ha of B1c/B2 land, suggesting that under Scenario 1, some sites would not be required and could be re- allocated.
6.11 We would anticipate that the overall supply of B8 land would be exhausted by 2015, however as discussed above given the suitability of some of the stock of B1c / B2 land for B8 uses then additional allocations may not be required until post 2021.
Comparison of Demand Against Commitments
6.12 We have also assessed demand under the scenarios against commitments (outline and full planning consents) from 2007 onwards. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 compare this against demand.
May 07 103 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Figure 6.4 – B1 Demand compared to Commitments Scenario 1
B1 Demand compared to Commitments under Scenario 1
400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 Demand 200,000 Supply 150,000 100,000 Floorspace (sqm) Floorspace 50,000 0
0 1 5 6 0 1 1 1 1 2 009 0 0 014 0 019 0 2007 2008 2 2 2 2012 2013 2 2 201 2017 2018 2 2 202 Year
Figure 6.5 – B8 Demand compared to Commitment Scenario 1
B8 Demand compared to Commitments under Scenario 1
600000 500000 400000 Demand 300000 Supply 200000 100000 Floorspace (sqm) Floorspace 0
9 0 1 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 008 0 0 015 0 0 0 2007 2 2 2 201 2012 2013 2014 2 2 2 2 201 2020 2021 Year
6.13 Therefore, existing commitments (the supply of land and buildings with planning consent) is likely to be exhausted by the following:
B1a/b - 2011
B1c/B2 - 2022
May 07 104 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
B8 - 2013
6.14 Committed supply for offices is therefore likely to be exhausted in 3 – 4 years, whilst B8 distribution supply is likely to be exhausted in 6 years.
Scenario 2
6.15 The projected demand for floorspace within Milton Keynes to 2031 under Scenario 2 is shown below.
Table 6.7 – Floorspace Requirement under Scenario 2
2004 – 2011 2012 – 2016 2017 – 2021 2022 – 2026 2027 - 2031 2004 - 2021 2004 - 2031
B1a/B1b 198,956 192,504 192,797 193,089 193,383 584,256 970,729 B1c/B2 34,685 24,775 24,775 24,775 24,775 84,235 133,785 B8 85,825 70,515 70,515 70,515 70,515 226,856 367,887 319,466 287,794 288,087 288,380 288,674 895,347 1,472,401 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
Table 6.8 – Land Requirement under Scenario 2
2004 – 2011 2012 – 2016 2017 – 2021 2022 – 2026 2027 - 2031 2004 - 2021 2004 - 2031
B1a/B1b 54.7 52.9 53.0 53.1 53.2 160.7 267.0 B1c/B2 8.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 20.6 32.7 B8 21.0 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 55.5 89.9 84.2 76.2 76.3 76.4 76.5 236.7 389.6
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
6.16 Under Scenario 2 the total demand for floorspace to 2031 is 301.1ha, with the majority of demand (98%) for B1a and B8 floorspace. The table below shows the anticipated amount of supply from proposed employment sites, CMK and smaller centres.
Table 6.9 – Supply of Floorspace from Proposed Employment Sites
B1/b B1c/B2 B8 TOTAL LAND B1 B2 B8 TOTAL GRAND TOTAL (ALL SOURCES) 846,336 283,612 491,562 1,621,510 103.50 88.35 81.55 273.40 Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
May 07 105 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
6.17 The figure below compares the amount of anticipated demand with the supply from proposed employment sites.
Figure 6.6 – Comparison of Supply and Demand under Scenario 2 to 2021
Supply / Demand to 2021 (Scenario 2)
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0 B1a/b B1c/ B2 B8
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
6.18 There are significant surpluses to 2021 across all use classes and therefore this suggests a plentiful potential supply of employment land and premises to 2021.
Figure 6.7 - Comparison of Supply and Demand Scenario 2 to 2031
Supply / Demand to 2031 (Scenario 2)
200,000 150,000
100,000 50,000
m2 0 B1a/b B1c /B2 B8 -50,000
-100,000 -150,000
6.19 By 2031 there is a significant change with the supply of existing employment space and land for office and technology uses falling into a deficit of 124,000 m2 equivalent to 34 ha (assuming site densities of around 4,000 m2 per net ha). We anticipate that the supply of B1a/b space will be exhausted by 2026. This assumes that B1a/b demand will be met up
May 07 106 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
to 2026 by a mixture of sources including CMK, other local centres and a substantial supply of out of centre employment sites. Within the existing portfolio such as Shenley Wood, Linford Wood, etc.
Employment Land Analysis
6.20 Is it also possible to consider the analysis in terms of employment land to do this as with Scenario 1 we have assumed that office/technology space is brought forward in CMK and other centres to meet demand in this sector leading to a residual requirement to located elsewhere.
May 07 107 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Figure 6.8 – Employment Land Supply v Demand Analysis to 2031
Demand / Supply Scenario 2 2031
50 40 30 20 10
ha 0 -10 B1a/b B1c /B2 B8 -20 -30 -40
6.21 It can be seen above that when only taking into account the demand for employment land outside CMK under Scenario 2 there is a deficit of B1 (offices) land in the order of 34ha. It would appear however that if CMK is developed to its potential, there would not be enough capacity to accommodate the predicted demand for B1 (office) space without the need for additional land allocations out of town. As can be seen above, there would be a surplus of around 37ha of B1c/B2 land and around 30ha of B8 land, suggesting that under Scenario 2, some sites would not be required and could be re-allocated for alternative uses including focusing on B1 development.
Comparison of Demand Against Commitments
6.22 Figures 6.9 and 6.10 below demonstrate the level of commitments (outline and full planning consents) against demand to provide an assessment as to when these may be exhausted.
May 07 108 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Figure 6.9 – B1 Demand compared to Commitments under Scenario 2
B1 Demand compared to Commitments under Scenario 2
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000 Demand 300,000 Supply
200,000 Floorspace (sqm) Floorspace 100,000
0
08 13 16 19 011 2007 20 2009 2010 2 2012 20 2014 2015 20 2017 2018 20 2020 2021 Yea r
Figure 6.10 – B8 Demand compared to Commitments under Scenario 2
B8 Demand compared to Commitments under Scenario 2
300000
250000
200000
Demand 150000 Supply
100000 Floorspace (sqm)
50000
0
7 1 6 0 10 14 15 19 00 008 0 01 012 013 0 0 01 017 0 02 021 2 2 2009 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2018 2 2 2 Ye ar
May 07 109 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
6.23 Therefore, we can conclude that based on likely demand under this scenario existing commitments would be exhausted by:
B1a/b - 2009
B1c/B2 - 2022
B8 - 2023
6.24 There is a marked difference to Scenario 1 in relation to B8 (distribution). The extent of committed supply which appears capable of lasting to 2023 under the demand levels implied. If market demand for B8 continues at past levels then this supply and its associated employment may well be delivered much sooner than 2023 potentially 2010/11.
Comparison to Past Trends
6.25 We have compared available supply from all sources against the long term past trend (10 years). To do this we have had to combine industrial/distribution given the available data on take up rates. On this basis the following would be the dates when supply would be exhausted:
• B1a/b (Offices and Technology) – 2037
• B2/B8 (Industrial/Distribution) – 2016
6.26 Comparing against the short term (5 year) development rates results in the following:
• B1a/b (Offices and Technology) – 2026
• B2/B8 (Industrial/Distribution) – 2017
Impact of the Economic Base Projection
6.27 This should not be regarded as a scenario, moreover its purpose is to illustrate the potential job employment implications of future population rises upon base economic sectors whose primary function is to serve the needs of a residential population. It also reflects the impact of Milton Keynes exceeding a population of 200,000 and becoming a regional centre.
May 07 110 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 6.12: Employment Impacts of the Economic Base Projection
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Base Case Policy-on Economic Base Projections 2004 (actual) 2021 2031 2021 2031 2021 2031 01 : Agriculture, hunting and related service activities 82 81 81 81 81 82 82 02 : Forestry, logging and related service activities 48 65 75 65 75 48 48 05 : Fishing, operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms; service activities in ------10 : Mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat ------11 : Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities inciden 4 2 0 2 0 4 4 12 : Mining of uranium and thorium ores ------13 : Mining of metal ores ------14 : Other mining and quarry 25 14 7 14 7 25 25 15 : Manufacturing of food and beverages 1,969 1,060 526 1,060 526 1,969 1,969 16 : Manufacture of tobacco products ------17 : Manufacture of textiles 32 14 3 14 3 32 32 18 : Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur 18 7 1 7 1 18 18 19 : Tanning and dressing of leather; manufacture of luggage, handbags, sa 42 17 3 17 3 42 42 20 : Manufacture of wood and products of wood and cork, except furniture; 193 210 220 210 220 193 193 21 : Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 581 744 840 744 840 581 581 22 : Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media 934 447 161 447 161 934 934 23 : Manucature of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel 189 231 256 231 256 189 189 24 : Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 415 176 35 176 35 415 415 25 : Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 939 419 113 419 113 939 939 26 : Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products 118 111 107 111 107 118 118 27 : Manufacture basic metals 198 94 34 94 34 198 198 28 : Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equip 1,494 870 503 870 503 1,494 1,494 29 : Manufacture of machinery and equipment not elsewhere classified 1,579 1,049 737 1,049 737 1,579 1,579 30 : Manufacture of office machinery and computers 144 97 69 97 69 144 144 31 : Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus not elsewhere class 652 298 89 298 89 652 652 32 : Manufacture of radio, television and communication equipment and ap 996 862 783 862 783 996 996 33 : Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and 458 195 40 195 40 458 458 34 : Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 942 585 374 585 374 942 942 35 : Manufacture of transport equipment 345 406 443 406 443 345 345 36 : Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing not elsewhere classified 421 201 72 201 72 421 421 37 : Recycling 44 22 9 23 11 44 44 40 : Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply 100 43 10 44 12 100 100 41 : Collection, purification and distribution of water 55 23 4 23 4 55 55 45 : Construction 3,433 5,635 6,931 6,378 8,110 5,456 6,531 50 : Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail 4,715 3,758 3,196 4,101 3,739 6,560 7,581 51 : Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and m 9,503 9,722 9,851 10,472 11,042 9,503 9,503 52 : Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles; repair of person 18,897 20,375 21,245 21,788 23,489 25,477 29,446 55 : Hotels and restaurants 6,182 7,723 8,630 9,085 10,793 9,165 10,970 60 : Land transport; transport via pipelines 3,572 4,140 4,475 4,240 4,633 3,572 3,572 61 : Water transport 20 26 30 29 35 20 20 62 : Air transport ------63 : Supporting and auxiliary transport activities; activities of travel agencie 4,868 14,950 20,880 18,710 26,853 4,868 4,868 64 : Post and telecommunications 3,152 1,451 451 1,500 528 3,152 3,152 65 : Financial intermediation, except insurance and pension funding 5,330 3,378 2,230 7,142 8,208 5,330 5,330 66 : Insurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security 239 99 16 320 368 239 239 67 : Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation 877 976 1,035 1,175 1,351 877 877 70 : Real estate activities 2,081 5,722 7,864 6,564 9,201 2,900 3,471 71 : Renting of machinery and equipment without operator and of personal a 778 2,721 3,864 3,135 4,521 998 1,153 72 : Computer and related activites 6,294 13,067 17,051 13,067 17,051 6,294 6,294 73 : Research and development 89 48 24 104 113 89 89 74 : Other business activities 20,748 29,044 33,923 30,624 36,433 20,748 20,748 75 : Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 5,056 5,412 5,622 6,014 6,578 7,142 8,550 80 : Education 8,811 7,021 5,969 12,046 13,949 13,464 16,116 85 : Health and social work 8,939 19,286 25,372 22,003 29,687 11,570 13,372 90 : Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities 527 568 593 632 693 670 775 91 : Activities of membership organisations not elsewhere classified 1,452 1,653 1,771 1,843 2,073 1,881 2,251 92 : Recreational, cultural and sporting activities 3,369 5,021 5,993 6,254 7,951 4,498 5,384 93 : Other service activities 1,484 1,457 1,441 1,612 1,687 1,897 2,192 95 : Private households as employers of domestic staff ------96 : Undifferentiated goods producing activities of private households for ow ------97 : Undifferentiated services producing activities of private households for ------99 : Extra-territorial organisation and bodies ------Total 133,433 171,598 194,048 197,183 234,683 159,385 175,501
6.28 The impact of economic base projections would be an ‘additional’ 26,000 jobs by 2021 and 42,000 jobs by 2031. For illustrative purposes we have included these job increases in employment into our floorspace model as set out below.
May 07 111 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 6.13 Floorspace Requirements of Economic Base Projections
Change compared to 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 A1 13,483 26,967 40,450 47,568 54,685 A2 20,333 40,667 61,000 71,733 82,466 A3 5,018 10,036 15,054 17,702 20,351 B1a 39,721 79,442 119,164 140,130 161,097 B1b - - - - - B1c - - - - - B2 19,091 38,182 57,273 67,350 77,427 B8 - - - - - C1 5,018 10,036 15,054 17,702 20,351 Source: GVA Grimley, 2007
6.29 As would be expected retail (A1) and professional offices (A2) increase considerably such uses are likely to focus upon centres (from CMK to small district/local centres). Offices (B1a) will expand considerably with a potential increase of over 160,000 sq.m by 2031. Again this will focus on a range of locations including centres, out of town locations and we would expect non employment locations. In addition there are small impacts on the manufacturing (B2) and distribution sectors (B8) associated with basic services.
6.30 It is important to stress that the requirements set out in Table 6.13 above are not an addition to Scenarios 1 and 2, they are an illustration of what is likely to happen in terms of employment and floorspace demand to 2021 and 2031 if housing growth proceeds as planned.
Conclusions
6.31 Our recommendation is that Scenario 2 is adopted for future planning strategy work for the following reasons:
• It reflects policy aspirations to develop Milton Keynes as an international city.
• It targets higher paid/higher skilled jobs which will be important to balance lower skilled/lower paid jobs created to provide services to an expanded population and will therefore add greater value.
• It focuses growth in office and technology sectors which are less land hungry than distribution and warehousing which is a key feature of Scenario 1 thereby promoting a more efficient use of land.
May 07 112 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
• Whilst it proposes more jobs than the MKSM reference value, we would argue that new development at Milton Keynes is unlikely to impact adversely on other locations. Evidence of this is the importance of existing companies to creating employment in the Milton Keynes economy (these are unlikely to consider other locations due to maintaining existing their workforce), and the analysis of the impact of housing growth on employment.
6.32 However, our recommendation with regard to Scenario 2 has to be tempered with our analysis of commitments. It is clear that there is a large supply of B8 land committed through the planning system. It is difficult to envisage this not being brought forward unless landowners/developers change their strategy in terms of land use mix. Given the extent of demand for distribution in the recent past this seems unlikely and our analysis suggests that with past rates the committed supply of land for manufacturing/distribution will be taken up by 2011. This effectively means that it will be difficult to implement a policy of deterring B8 uses until after this date.
6.33 Adopting Scenario 2 would place a greater emphasis upon delivering floorspace within CMK (we address this in Chapter 8) as the most sustainable location and the major source of office capacity. This represents a significant challenge but one we feel should be addressed through a range of policy initiatives and a more robust approach to implementation.
6.34 However, even if this were to be achieved it should be recognised that out of centre office / technology space will still be required to meet anticipated demand demand.
May 07 113 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7. COMPARATOR CITY ANALYSIS
7.1 The socio-economic, office and industrial sectors of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Luton and Coventry have been used to compare against Milton Keynes as they are believed to be its competitors in the market.
Socio Economic and Property Market Context
Birmingham
7.2 Birmingham is the regional centre for the West Midlands with a total population, according to the mid-year population estimates (2004), of approximately 992,400. 63% of the population aged between 16-74 have some level of qualifications and 67% of the population are economically active and in employment. The gross weekly pay for full-time workers is approximately £424.60, with a job density of approximately 0.9.
7.3 From ODPM figures for rateable floorspace, Birmingham had approximately 1,843,000m2 of commercial office space and 356,000m2 of other office space.
7.4 Top rents in Birmingham at the end of 2005 stood at approximately £27.50, and were 4.8% higher than at the end of 2004. Within the Birmingham office sector, the largest sector is Public Services with approximately 32% of employment. The next largest sector is the Financial and Business Services with approximately 22%.
7.5 Major office employers in Birmingham are Banks such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB and insurance companies such as Britannic Assurance, Direct Line and Royal and Sun Alliance.
7.6 Factory floorspace was 5,091,000m2 and warehouse floorspace was 3,410,000m2 in 2005 with other bulk floorspace was 265,000m2.
7.7 Top industrial rents in Birmingham at the end of 2005 were approximately £6.00 per sq ft. industrial rental levels have remained consistent since 2000. The largest manufacturing sub-sector is Other Engineering and Vehicles, which accounted for 8.2% of total manufacturing jobs. Major manufacturers in 2004 in Birmingham area are Alstom UK, Cadbury Schweppes and Bass. Major Warehouse occupiers in 2004 were Royal Mail, J Sainsbury and TNT.
7.8 The following positive factors of Birmingham’s location for investment were noted by businesses considering the city, namely:
May 07 114 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
• Seen as the 2nd city;
• Central location/accessibility;
• Revitalised city Centre; and
• Iconic architecture.
Source: Milton Keynes Partnership, Investor Attitudes Survey
Manchester
7.9 Manchester is the regional centre for the north west and is one of the major business locations in the North. It has a population of approximately 392,189. Approximately 66% of the population have some level of qualifications. Manchester has an unemployment rate of 8% according to the Annual Population Survey (April 2004-March 2005).
7.10 ODPM figures for rateable floorspace for commercial office space was 1,732,000m2 and 370,000m2 for other office.
7.11 Top rents in Manchester at the end of 2005 were £27.50 per sq ft, identical to Birmingham. Top rental rates had increased by 2.4% since the end of 2004, where the top rate was £26.00 per sq ft. Manchester Central is the same size as Milton Keynes Central and the Blackwater Valley.
7.12 Within the office economy 45.9% of jobs were in the Financial and Business services sector, and within this the Professional and Business Services which accounted for just under 1/3 of total employment.
7.13 Major office employers in Manchester are financial or business institutions. The Co- operative Society and the Royal Bank of Scotland both have their HQ’sin the centre. Major consulting firms also operate within the city such as KPMG and Deloitte and Touche. Public sector employers include the Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise and Manchester City Council.
7.14 Factory rateable floorspace was 1,350,000m2 and warehouse space was 1,551,000m2 in 2005.
7.15 Top industrial rents for Manchester at the end of 2005 were £6.25 per sq. ft and have increased by 4.7% since the end of 2004. The nearest centre in size to Manchester is Birmingham.
May 07 115 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.16 Employment in manufacturing and transport and distribution accounted for approximately 16% of total industrial employment in Manchester.
7.17 The food and drink-manufacturing sector provides some of the largest employers in Manchester. These include Kellogg’s, McVities, Trafford Park Bakery and Boddingtons Brewery.
7.18 The investors attitudes survey research found that Manchester’s image for business was seen as:
• A first rate city Centre;
• Very successful University;
• ‘Culture and vibrancy in spades’;
• ‘Can do’ attitude to planning; and
• Relatively high living costs.
Source: Milton Keynes Partnership, Investor Attitudes Survey
Leeds
7.19 Leeds is located in West Yorkshire and is one of the greenest cities in Europe having more parkland than any other city in Europe. Leeds has a population of approximately 715,402 according to the 2001 Census.
7.20 ODPM figures for rateable floorspace for commercial office space was 1,620,000m2 and 194,000m2 for other office.
7.21 Top office rents in Leeds at the end of 2005 were £24.00 per sq. ft and top rents have increased by 6.7% since the end of 2004. The nearest centres in size are the West End and Glasgow. The financial and business services accounted for 26.4% of jobs in Leeds at the end of 2003, with the largest employment sector being public services at 27%.
7.22 Leeds is an important base for retail banks such as Barclays, Halifax, Natwest and Lloyds TSB. It also the vase for two of the largest telephone banking and insurance firms - First Direct and Direct Line. Other occupiers, which use Leeds as a regional centre, are British Gas, Asda Wal-Mart, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health.
May 07 116 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.23 ODPM figures for rateable floorspace for factory space was 3,479,000m2 and 2,903,000m2 for warehouse floorspace.
7.24 Top rents for industrial space at the end of 2005 in Leeds was £5.25 per sq. ft, an increase of 5% since the end of 2004. The nearest industrial centres in size to Leeds are Birmingham and Glasgow.
7.25 Employment in manufacturing, and transport and distribution accounted for 16%, with the largest manufacturing sub sector being food drink and clothing accounting for 4% of employment.
7.26 Major manufacturers present in Leeds are the food and drink companies such as Arla Foods, Carlsberg Tetley Brewing, and the Roberts Food Group. It also has some large engineering and vehicle sub sector firms such as AE Turbine Components, Cooper Cameron, Hydro Aluminium Motorcast and Merlin Gerin.
7.27 Major warehouse occupiers in Leeds are Royal Mail, The Reality Group, Premier Farnell, Shop Direct and Brown and Jackson.
7.28 The investors attitudes study done on behalf of Invest Milton Keynes highlighted the following points regarding the positive points Leeds had for businesses:
• Up and coming location;
• Legal and financial centre;
• University;
• Culture; and
• Excellent countryside.
Source: Milton Keynes Partnership, Investor Attitudes Survey
Reading
7.29 Reading is located in the Thames Valley region of the south east, and is know as the economic capital of the region. It has a population of approximately 143,096, according to the 2001 Census. Reading has a relatively well qualified workforce, with 77% having some level of qualifications. 77% of the economically active population are in employment.
May 07 117 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.30 ODPM figures for rateable floorspace in Reading as of 2005 was 616,000m² for office commercial and office other: 40,000m².
7.31 Top rents for office space in Reading was £23.00 sq. ft at the end of 2005 for both the town centre and out of town locations. Rents had increased by 2.2% from the same period in 2004. Within the M25 West Market Area, the nearest centres in size to Reading are Heathrow and Uxbridge and Blackwater Valley.
7.32 Financial and Business Services accounted for 34.4% of jobs in Reading in 2003 and Public Services accounted for 24.7% in the office sector.
7.33 Reading is an important centre for large international companies, due to its location within commuting distance with London as major office employers are Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco Systems and WorldCom. The largest financial occupier is the Prudential with ING and Natwest also being present.
7.34 ODPM figure for rateable industrial floorspace in Reading is 342,000m2 for factories, 434,000m2 for warehouses and 22,000m2 for other bulk.
7.35 Top industrial rents for Reading at the end of 2005 were reported to be approximately £9.00 per sq. ft. Top rents have increased by 2.9% from the same period in 2004. The nearest industrial centres in size to Reading are Plymouth and Portsmouth.
7.36 Employment in manufacturing transport and distribution stood at 10,300, which accounted for 10.4% of total employment in Reading in 2003. The largest manufacturing sub-sector in Printing and Publishing which made up 2.1% of total manufacturing employment.
7.37 Major manufacturers in Reading include Gillette UK, Scottish Courage, Dura, Berkshire Printing Co and RHM Food Services. Major warehouse occupiers in Reading are Royal Mail, Whitbread Food Logistics, Eddie Stobart, Hays Distribution and Lynx Express Delivery Network.
7.38 The investors attitude study gave the following positive points for the image of Reading:
• Capital of the Thames Valley;
• Telecoms/ technology cluster; and
• Good Business Parks.
Source: Milton Keynes Partnership, Investor Attitudes Survey
May 07 118 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Luton
7.39 Luton is located approximately 33 miles north of Central London with a train journey of approximately half an hour to the capital’s centre. At the time of the 2001 Census the population of Luton was 184,371. Luton also has a high employment rate of approximately 71%.
7.40 Top office rents for Luton at the end of 2005 were reported to stand at £19.00 per sq. ft out of town and in the town centre were lower at £14.00 per sq. ft. Top rents have stayed the same since 2004 and this is mainly due to demand being satisfied through purpose built or pre-let properties. Centres nearest in size to Luton are Watford and Newbury.
7.41 Within the office economy, the financial and business services sector accounted for 20.4% of jobs in Luton in 2003. Other major employers were the public services with 24.5%, manufacturing 15.6% and transport and distribution with 11.1%.
7.42 Luton only has a few office occupiers of significance, with the largest occupiers being Luton Borough Council with over 5000 staff. There are also a number of major manufacturers with office functions in the town such as AstraZeneca, Whitbread, Siemens and Measurement Technology. Whilst most of the financial and business services firms are small, there are a few major employers including Ernst and Young, Barclays Bank and CGNU.
7.43 ODPM figures for rateable floorspace for industrial premises are as follows in 2005: factories were 746,000m2, warehouses were 469,000m2 and other bulk was 46,000m2.
7.44 Top rents for industrial premises at the end of 2005 were reported to be £6.75 per sq. ft and top rents have remained the same since 2004.
7.45 Luton is a small industrial centre with the nearest industrial centres in size being Wycombe and Newbury. Employment in manufacturing and transport and distribution stood at 26.7% in 2003, with the largest manufacturing sub sector being other engineering and vehicles accounting for 7.9% of total employment.
7.46 Major manufacturers in Luton are mainly automotive related companies such as IBC Vehicles SKF. The presence of London – Luton airport has also attracted a number of aeronautical companies such as Aerospace Composite Technologies.
7.47 Major warehouse occupiers are located in and around the airport and in nearby Dunstable, which include McVities, Exel Logistics, Parcelforce, UPS World-wide Logistics and TNT
May 07 119 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Express. Transport employment is very important to Luton especially with the airport being present.
Coventry
7.48 Coventry sits right at the heart of Warwickshire just an hour by train from London and minutes from Birmingham International Airport and its own new, short-haul hub, Coventry Airport.
7.49 Top office rental rates in Coventry were approximately £16.50 per sq. ft for out of town locations and £15 per sq. ft for town centre locations. At this level Coventry rentals are similar to those of other Midlands centres such as Leicester, but are well below those for Birmingham Central. They are also below the rates of Solihull and Birmingham out of town, even though it shares most of the same advantages.
7.50 It has an average sized office centre with the financial and business sector accounting for 18.3% of jobs in Coventry at 2003, significantly below the GB market average of 20.7%. Within this Financial and business services accounted for 10.7% of total employment. The nearest centres in size to Coventry are Bournemouth and Poole and Croydon.
7.51 The financial sector provides some of the largest office employment in the city, illustrated by Barclays Bank, Coventry Building Society and HSBC, all of which are located at out of town business parks. The city centre is home to two major companies, AXA and Dial Direct.
7.52 Coventry had also managed to attract call operators such as Capita Group and the TUI. Large public sector occupiers include Coventry City Council, job Centre Plus and The Inland Revenue. Utilities are also present with Powergen.
7.53 ODPM rateable floorspace figures for industrial floorspace is as follows: factories 1,759,000m2, warehouses 1,156,000m2 and other bulk 101,000m2. This is considerably less than Birmingham floorspace although it is at similar levels to that of Manchester.
7.54 Top rents for industrial premises at the end of 2005 were reported to be approximately £5.75 per sq. ft. and these have remained the same since 2004. Coventry has historically been seen as an important manufacturing industry based on vehicles, but it has now also emerged as a key national distribution location due to its central position within the country and it is within the centre of the ‘Distribution Golden Triangle’ with motorways surrounding the city.
May 07 120 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.55 Employment in manufacturing and transport and distribution accounted for 22.3% of total employment in Coventry in 2003. Coventry has emerged as a key location for retail firms operating national distribution centres (NDC) and regional distribution centres. Warehouse occupiers are operated by ToysRUs, Palmer and Harvey, Geest Bananas, book distribution Scholastic and Dixons subsidiary Mastercare Services and Distribution. Parcelforce also have a presence in Coventry.
7.56 Major manufacturers in Coventry are Rolls Royce, Agco Manufacturing, Staybright Windows and Bass Taverns. Major warehouse occupiers are P and O Distribution, Royal Mail, Palmer and Harvey, Parcelforce and Christian Salvesen.
Milton Keynes
7.57 Milton Keynes was designated as a New Town in 1967 and enjoys a strategic location, impressive design, first class industrial and commercial premises and an excellent quality of life. It is in the heart of one of the nation’s fastest growing regions which in turn is the most heavily populated urban area in Europe. In recent years, Milton Keynes has undergone a major leisure and growth expansion including the opening of the UK’s first real indoor ski slope complex, Xscape.
7.58 The top rent rates for office premises at the end of 2005 were reported to stand at £15.00 per sq. ft. Recent schemes have edged these figures a little higher, the hub most recent development in CMK in seeking to achieve £19 psf. The office centre is average in size and the nearest centres in size are Croydon and Central Manchester.
7.59 The local economy is diverse and is not overly dependant on any sector or company. For the office economy, financial and business services accounted for 27.2% of total employment, with professional and business services in Milton Keynes in 2003. Public services accounted for 19.0%.
7.60 Employers are attracted to Milton Keynes due to the ample supply of large inexpensive sites and central location. The financial and business services sector mainly has small to medium sized firms, although there are a few very large employers. The largest of these is Abbey, whilst other professional and business services employers include Fennemores, KPMG, Deloitte and Touche. A significant amount of space is taken by employers who fall into the education, health and public administration sectors such as Milton Keynes Council, the Open University and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
7.61 ODPM rateable floorspace figures for Milton Keynes industrial premises for 2005 were the following: factories were 991,000m2, warehouses were 1,513,000m2.
May 07 121 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.62 Top rents in Milton Keynes for industrial space was 6.25 per sq. ft which has remained unchanged since 2004. Employment in manufacturing and transport and distribution in Milton Keynes accounted for 17.9% of total employment. The largest manufacturing sub- sector in Milton Keynes is other engineering and vehicles accounting for 4% with the second largest being food, drink and clothing at 2.3%.
7.63 Major manufactures include Plysus, Aston Martin, CTP Wipac, Marshall Amplification and SMC Pneumatics. Within the vehicle manufacturing sector manufacturers include Volkswagen, Daimler Chrysler and Skoda.
7.64 Major warehouse occupiers include John Lewis, Tesco Stores, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Hays Logistics and Ingram Micro (UK).
7.65 One of the issues which will impact on new development is car parking ratios. Milton Keynes has a history of readily available car parking which is now changing in response to a wider sustainability agenda. Table 7.1 illustrates current car parking standards for new office development in competitor locations and Milton Keynes.
Table 7.1: Car Parking Provision for New Developments
City Car Parking Provision
Milton Keynes 1 space per 70sqm
Birmingham 1 space per 186sqm
Manchester (Greater) 1 space per 35sqm (stand alone offices)
Leeds 1 space per 33sqm (centre)
Luton 1 space per 30sqm
Reading 1 space per 50sqm
Coventry Operational parking only
Source: GVA Grimley, 2006
7.66 Compared to the other comparison cities, Milton Keynes ratio for car parking is low if compared to say Luton who provide 1 space per 30sqm. Coventry is the only city, which does not give a figure for city centre parking requirements.
7.67 Data on the amount of public car parking available in the city centres for each of these cities has also been examined.
May 07 122 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.68 Milton Keynes has approximately 20,000 council car parking spaces, which is the highest amount compared to any of the other comparison cities. According to Leeds Council the city centre only provides approximately 144 spaces. Birmingham City Council provides approximately 10,574 public car-parking spaces, but this is excluding any on street car parking that is available. Coventry provides approximately half of this with 5,386 spaces in the City centre.
7.69 If this is then compared to the amount of floorspace within the town centres then the 259,600sqm that makes up office space in the city of Birmingham compared to the number of public car parking spaces then it works out to be approximately 1 car space per 25sqm of existing floorspace. For Central Milton Keynes 236,500sqm with 20,000 car spaces, gives a ratio of 1 car space per 11sqm of existing development. This reflects the traditionally higher levels of car parking in Milton Keynes.
Land Disposal Processes
7.70 As part of this study we have briefly reviewed comparative land disposal processes. It should be borne in mind that the context in many locations is very different to Milton Keynes with more limited public sector land ownership.
7.71 In Birmingham the City Council has played an active role in the expansion of its City Centre in assembling sites and often playing a leading role in planning development beyond its role as local planning authority. A good example of this process is Masshouse, Birmingham where the City Council was faced with the issue of expanding the City Centre by removing the inner ring road. To achieve this a Highways CPO was promoted. At the same time outline planning application was submitted with a Masterplan for a broader area around the former ring road with a capacity of circa 160,000 sq.m. The City Council already owned land in the area and used acquisition by private treaty supported by a Planning CPO to assemble the remainder.
7.72 In terms of disposal, this c160,000sqm site with planning consent for a range of uses, was marketed as a series of development parcels, not at one time but through a series of competitions over a period of 2-3 years. Competitions were based on the masterplan but not in a prescriptive manner and the schemes that have led to developers being selected as joint venture partners have been designed by leading national architects with significant variance to the original masterplan. The city has entered into joint ventures on the basis of an agreed base value for a long lease with mechanisms to capture uplift if development took place beyond that prescribed in the development agreement.
May 07 123 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
7.73 The situation in the other major cities is similar - Manchester City Council has played an active role in promoting and controlling development, some times through land assembly. In a similar vein to Birmingham, designers have been allowed to innovate but the City Council has been instrumental in directing when schemes come forward by use of planning, land and simply influence to ensure a coherent development strategy for the City Centre. In Leeds the City Council has established its own development company to work with developers using its own land to foster development. This is at arms length from the City Council. In Coventry, the City Council are promoting development of the Swanswell area again involving removal of its inner ring road, a land pooling arrangement and some acquisition is being used to create development opportunities to developers on a competitive basis.
7.74 These examples reflect innovation and the extent to which it has been possible to set a framework, but then let the private sector innovate. In none of the cases has the public sector sought to impose restrictions on speculative development, in Birmingham, for instance, this would be positively welcomed.
Implications
7.75 Coupled with the information on investor attitudes, it is clear Milton Keynes faces a dilemma. It appears at present to be seen as a true regional centre and cannot demand the rental values of developer interest of Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. It is regarded as functional and lacking the interest of true regional centres. Its proximity to London is possibly a factor as is its new town legacy. The danger is that Milton Keynes will be drawn into competing on a cost basis with other centres such as Luton, Bedford and Northampton rather than being able to attract greater interest and rental levels on the basis of its dominance of the regional/sub-regional hierarchy. The role of CMK is crucial here as regional centres are judged above all on the strength and vitality of their centres. As the economy is driven more and more by the availability of skilled labour attractive centres with a range of interest and good cultural offer becomes more important. A true regional centre will need to offer environmental quality, interest and cultural interest rather than a collection of functional buildings.
May 07 124 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
8. DELIVERY STRATEGY
8.1 The preceding analysis focuses on strategic planning issues concerning the supply of land to meet a variety of economic scenarios for the future development of the City. This delivery strategy focuses on the short and long term delivery issues that need to be addressed to achieve scenario 2 which sets out to achieve a step change in the Milton Keynes economy. The advice provided here encompasses a range of areas including both a disposal and planning strategy.
The Challenge
8.2 Milton Keynes has a tremendous track record of development achieving significant growth in terms of both homes and jobs since its inception. The challenge presented by its future development is to transform itself from a new town to a regional centre and an international City. To achieve this a greater focus is required on Central Milton Keynes and its potential to drive the local economy together with securing stronger representation of higher value added sectors in the economy.
8.3 The Steering Group to this study believe that of the economic scenarios we have developed that scenario 2 represents the one most closely aligned to the City’s ambitions. Key aspects of this are:
• The creation of an additional 64,000 new jobs by 2021;
• Over 3,000 new jobs in each of the following economic sectors;
- Financial Services;
- Computers and related activities;
- Public administration;
- Other business services; and
- Real estate.
• A focus on knowledge and technology sectors in general;
• Growth in requirements for office and technology space arising from employment needs of almost 1million m2 to 2031;
May 07 125 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
• Providing the accommodation to house these jobs with a focus on high technology sectors;
• Limiting development of land hungry, but low density employment uses such as distribution;
• A geographical focus upon CMK for general office development in order that its capacity can fully contribute to economic development.
• Promoting high technology/higher value added developments through the development of Science and Technology locations - both inside and outside CMK.
• The targets are therefore:
- B1a 584,000 m2 of floorspace by 2021 of this around 216,000 m2 in CMK (12,000 m2 per annum) in order to achieve a greater balance between the in centre and out of centre market.
- B1c/B2 84,000 m2 by 2021 (20.6 ha) – focused on existing opportunities
- B8 226,000 m2 by 2021 (55.5 ha) – largely focused on the Nova Park development and other existing commitments;
• More limited requirements for distribution and logistics space compared to past trends amounting to less than 370,000 m2 by 2031 (90 ha);
• Small but continuing needs from the manufacturing sectors largely focused on the relocation of existing companies;
• A requirement in broad terms for 390 ha of employment land (including CMK sites) to 2031 broken down as follows;
- 267 ha office/technology (161 ha by 2021);
- 38.33 ha of manufacturing (21 ha by 2021); and
- 90 ha of logistics/distribution (55 ha by 2021).
8.4 Our analysis of the current potential supply suggests the following:
• A shortfall of approximately 34ha of office / technology land; and
• A surplus of circa 65ha of industrial / distribution land.
May 07 126 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
The Constraints
8.5 Our analysis of the existing property market and committed employment land supply indicates the following issues:
• The office market in CMK – whilst this should be the focus for development in the future in recent years there has been limited development in the recent past. Compared to other Cities it has lower rental levels discouraging speculative development. A transformation in delivery is required to achieve the level of growth anticipated. Rental levels at circa £20 psf for prime Grade A space are unlikely, in our view to support speculative development for buildings over 5 storeys given higher build costs psf at this height and above.
• The extent of office/technology provision envisaged is significantly above long term past trends but similar to development rates achieved in the past 5 years. The market may not respond quickly enough to deliver the extent of office/technology growth required.
• There is a large supply out of town office market supply (including 84,000m2/16.33 ha of committed floorspace/land (includes large site of 9.3ha at Knowlhill (Planning Application Ref: MK/1799/05)). This will hamper opportunities to focus development on CMK in the short term.
• An extensive supply of committed B8 space. This limits choices about land allocations policy for some years in to the future.
• Previously the City has adopted a ‘can do’ approach highlighted as a positive feature by pushing investors to focus on CMK Centre for offices might run counter to this positive image. Property Requirements
8.6 The following sections consider the property requirements arising out of key growth sectors that are identified under Scenario 2.
• Financial Services
8.7 This sector includes a wide range of activities including banks, building societies, investment companies, etc. Some of the anticipated growth in Milton Keynes in this sector is associated with customer facing branches, etc. Other aspects will be back office functions associated with retail scales, credit management etc. Smaller but higher value added activities will include niche aspects of financial markets. Some parts of this sector
May 07 127 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
will require large floorplate buildings and would consider both peripheral and city centre locations. The clear preference from a planning perspective will be for City Centre locations.
8.8 Property requirements will vary from high street, suburban and smaller centre locations for customer services; small to medium sized office suites for smaller firms; to large floorplate buildings for internet and telephone sales; and finally to headquarters buildings for the market leaders. The mix of such is impossible to predict. Key to Milton Keynes future will be to provide a City Centre offering to attract medium to large requirements between 1,800 m2 – 9,300 m2 (possibly larger) focused around the Central Business District of CMK.
• Business Services and Real Estate
8.9 Again, this is a large sector reflecting a wide range of activity. In employment terms it is dominated by other business services including:
• Legal Services;
• Accountancy;
• Management Consultancy; and
• PR and Advertising.
8.10 The space needs of this sector are difficult to predict, but companies are predominantly small (less than 50 employees) except for a small number of market leaders (the large accountants/lawyers for example). Many of these activities cluster around City Centre cores and this is therefore a major focus for expansion within CMK. Unit sizes will be predominantly small less than 930 m2 (10,000 sq ft) but a with small numbers of significant requirements. Again, whilst capable of locating in a variety of centres the focus should be on CMK and a range of property sizes. There is a potential role for peripheral office expansion around the Central Business District in CMK for this sector.
• Public Administration
8.11 As the City grows so will be the need for public services. At the same time reform of the delivery of public services will create its own level of demand as new organisations are established. This will be driven by national factors but will impact on Milton Keynes. Requirements will generally medium to large 4,500 m2 to 9,300 m2 (50,000 sq ft – 100,000 sq ft). We would not anticipate large relocations of civil service jobs given Milton Keynes South East location. However indigenous growth and reorganisation will give rise to
May 07 128 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
requirements. Locational preferences are likely to be driven by cost. Whilst out of centre locations may not be a preference the ability of this sector to deliver sustainable transport proposals is stronger than some of the more diverse sectors above. Attracting a greater public sector presence and key administrative functions would play an important role in establishing Milton Keynes as a regional centre.
• Computers and Related Services
8.12 This sector is rapidly growing in the national and regional economy and includes computer hardware consultancy, software and software publishing. Requirements in terms of property will be predominantly small to medium, 450 m2 – 1,800 m2 reflecting the dominance of small companies in this sector. There will remain some larger requirements offering service contracts to manufacturing and service companies. This later element may well remain a predominantly out of town sector, whilst smaller companies look to high street locations.
• Technology and Research and Development Sectors
8.13 These are not specifically identified in Scenario 2 as they are relatively small in employment terms. However they play an important role in developing the Milton Keynes economy out of proportion to their employment role. Such sectors include:
• Biometrics and Bioinformatics;
• Medical Technology;
• Display and Lighting Technology;
• Environment Technology;
• Digital Media; and
• Specialist Computing and Software Design.
8.14 Such activities will require high quality business environments offering flexible space through from offices to prototype manufacture. Space requirements are likely to be small and remain relatively so as mass manufacturing of products is unlikely in this location. This is an identified need in relation to South Central Technopole.
8.15 Table 8.1 below provides further details of our analysis of requirements.
May 07 129 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Table 8.1 – Property Requirements of Key Growth Sectors
Sector Key Components Floorspace Locations Unit Sizes Comments Requirements10 to 2031 2 Financial • Banking 45,500 m • Retail services Medium to Large Back office locations Services 1,800 – 9,300 m2 will be price sensitive • Insurance town centres/local cheaper large • Investment centres floorsplate City Centre Companies or peripheral will be • Back offices • Unit Trusts attractive - Peripheral Headquarter functions - City centre will view • Headquarters national/international - City Centre linkages and City - Peripheral Centre offer as important. 2 Business • Solicitors 390,000 m Very Diverse Predominantly Key issue for Milton Services & Real • small less than Keynes is to define • Accountants Centres of all 2 Estate sizes 930 m except for itself as a regional • Estate Agency regional/national centre by attracting • Higher • Consultancy names large regional/sub value/large Services regional firms from companies City professional services Centre sector to CMK. • Limited role for peripheral locations Public • 42,500 m2 • Medium to large Key influence will be Local Potentially City 2 Administration governments Centre but also 4,500 m – 9,300 reorganisation of public m2 in the main service delivery which • Central peripheral will drive property Government locations requirements Unlikely support to pay prime rents services therefore non Central • Social security Business District Occupier Computer • 154,000 m2 Various Small to Medium Some aspects will Computer 2 2 Services consultancy • Small centres 450 m – 1,800 m focus on high streets but with some and secondary • Software • Peripheral areas larger industrial locations i.e. publishing for data requirements maintenance and processing and • Data repair. processing larger maintenance • Maintenance and services and repair contractors • More limited City Centre role Technology and • Relatively Small • Small 450m2 – Limited property Medical Science and 2 R&D Sectors Technology Technology 1,800 m demand but very important to growth in • Bio research Parks • economy • Environmental Business Parks Technology • Digital Media • Specialist Software Source: GVA Grimley, 2007
8.16 This review highlights the importance of CMK as a key driver for the economy particularly to the financial services and business services sector. Here the overall offer of the City Centre and the readily availability of property will be key factors. It should also be
10 Based on anticipated employment growth less leakage to non business locations at 35%
May 07 130 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
recognised that many jobs to be created in the coming years will locate in smaller centres providing services to the needs of the local population or business community, this should not be underestimated. What also emerges is that some growing service sectors have a more limited relationship to the City Centre for instance computer services plus some aspects of business services and public administration. This suggests, at least to some degree, a central and non central office market.
Delivery Strategy
8.17 This consists of five elements:
1. Development of the Spatial Strategy;
2. Review of Existing Employment Land Locations;
3. Inward Investment Priorities;
4. Disposal Strategy; and
5. Dvelopment of CMK .
Development of the Spatial Strategy
8.18 The implications of moving towards the adoption of Scenario 2 are as follows:
• A far greater requirement for office / technology space;
• Much less reliance upon warehousing and logistics activity than the recent past;
• Promotion of technology space opportunities to attract higher valued added activity;
• Moving towards higher development densities for employment sites; and
• Recognising the employment role of CMK and also other centres rather than simply their service functions.
8.19 In broad terms delivering the level of growth under Scenario 2 will require additional employment land beyond that currently identified. However as is set out in Chapter 6 there is a stark contrast between a potential surplus of B2/B8 land and a shortfall of that more suited to offices and technology even after taking into account the potential capacity of CMK.
May 07 131 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Issues for the Spatial Strategy
8.20 The following issues will need to be covered as part of the Spatial Strategy:
• The overall spatial balance/priorities for development;
• The balance between CMK and out of centre office/technology locations;
• The balance of employment land between office/technology and industrial/distribution locations;
• The role of other centres;
• The potential to increase densities; and
• Long term future of Established Employment Areas.
8.21 Each are discussed below:
Spatial Balance/Priorities
8.22 Specific advice has been requested from Milton Keynes Council on the development of the Core Strategy for the City. Following guidance set out particularly in PPS1 Creating Sustainable Communities it is clear that the focus for economic activity should be in sustainable locations. In the context of Milton Keynes CMK is the most sustainable location with its accessibility by bus and rail a key factor.
8.23 Other nodal points on the public transport network including those with railway stations such as Wolverton and Bletchley represent other locations which could be considered as the most sustainable.
8.24 However, Milton Keynes has a unique planned urban form with relatively low levels of congestion which is one of its attractions. An over emphasis of development in one or two locations could increase congestion at key points on the road network undermining the potential of these locations.
8.25 A balance between CMK and out of centre office/technology locations therefore needs to struck, which should acknowledge that out of centre locations will be required to accommodate growth, but favour in centre locations in terms of the priority for development. In the context of employment land and economic development policy there are a number of alternative approaches the Core Strategy could take as follows:
May 07 132 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Option 1
8.26 To provide a level playing field between in and out of town business locations leaving it to the market and the wishes to landowners the extent of land brought forward in CMK and other locations.
Option 2
8.27 The adoption of a policy which explicitly favours CMK through the use of a threshold size for office developments and a criteria based policy with a presumption in favour of CMK.
Option 3
8.28 To halt out of CMK office developments with a requirement for all office development to be within CMK.
8.29 Our view is that of these options, Option 2 presents a sensible approach. It would need the support of English Partnerships whose out of centre business park locations would be impacted upon at least in the short term. Option 1 would further peripheral growth without supporting CMK. Option 3 ignores the fact that there are potential uses that would find it difficult to locate in CMK; ignores the extent of land with in effect outline planning consent and the reality that unless capacity in CMK can be increased significantly out of town office/technology locations will be needed.
8.30 Option 2 could be developed on the basis of a size threshold focusing all schemes say over 1,000 m2 in CMK. This is useful as it provides a simple measurable test which all schemes whether occupiers are known or not could be judged against. However it may be viewed that 1,000 m2 is too low a threshold and too many schemes would be caught by this determining overall levels of investment. Criteria based policies could work but would be most appropriate when occupiers are known. Our advice is a combination of a threshold limit coupled with a criteria based approach when occupiers are known with a presumption in favour of CMK. As discussed later on such a policy will require a range of development opportunities in the City Centre to be available. All speculative development over 1,000 m2 should be directed towards CMK.
The balance between Office/Technology and Distribution/Industry Locations
8.31 Taking the results of the analysis of Scenario 2 as the starting point there would appear to be a surplus of some 65 ha of industrial/distribution locations by 2031 and a shortfall of circa 34 ha of office/technology locations. Broadly the Core Strategy should consider
May 07 133 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
whether some locations that are more likely to focus on industrial/distribution are suitable for either other employment uses or alternative uses such as housing.
8.32 The site that offers the greatest potential to achieve this is Fen Farm/Nova Park which in this study extends to some 95 ha. This site has outline consent for B2/B8 development and is considered appropriate for large distribution facilities which could not be accommodated elsewhere in Milton Keynes. There would appear, it seems, little prospect of a change in land use mix to preferably promote a greater mix of employment or a mix with housing. We note the extensive infrastructure requirements associated with this development when it reaches a certain size. Elsewhere there may be some opportunities to promote some locations for B1 and technology uses rather than B2/B8 uses (these are considered below).
The Role of Other Centres
8.33 It is likely that under Scenario 2 that after 2021 there may be a shortfall in employment land (including CMK) appropriate for office/technology uses assuming existing locations are brought forward. This would give rise to the means of accommodating additional growth. We would recommend consideration is given to identifying a further existing centre location accessible by public transport as an alternative office focused centre to CMK. Wolverton and Bletchley offer the most likely alternatives with Bletchley having the largest established office centre. The Core Strategy should explore this although its full implementation would probably be towards the end of the Core Strategy timeframe.
The Potential to Increase Site Densities
8.34 We have identified as part of this work that floorspace densities on Milton Keynes employment sites measured on a comparable basis appear to be lower than experienced elsewhere and those set out else in the Employment Land Review Guidance. This particularly applies to industrial/distribution locations. Evidence on the ground appears to suggest high levels of surface car parking. Such an approach represents an inefficient use of land. By adjusting car parking ratios and developing specific policies to provide a sensible minimum/maximums to built floorspace on sites densities could be raised over time. This could again form part of the Core Strategy.
8.35 We understand that existing analysis of the CMK Framework identifies what is believed to be the maximum potential of the Centre. However as set out later in this report there are a number of suggestions which could lead to increased capacity to house employment in CMK.
May 07 134 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Long Term Future of Established Employment Areas
8.36 It would appear that the overall demand for manufacturing space will fall in the future. This does create issues for established employment areas in terms of their long term need. The evidence presented in Chapter 4 of this report is that most of the established areas are of good quality reflecting their relatively young age and the expanding economy of the past 30 years. Figure 8.1 identifies these locations which we consider of poorer quality. In our view these should be areas which are considered for future redevelopment (albeit probably post 2021) for the following uses:
• Redevelopment for Technology and Office Uses; and
• Mixed use development including elements of employment.
8.37 Bleak Hall and Winterhill are not intensively used and offer potential for either new employment or mixed use.
Review of Existing Sites
8.38 As part of this study we have considered the existing identified portfolio of employment sites outside CMK (this is considered later on). This has taken place in the light of the overall requirements for employment land set out in Scenario 2. For ease of reference, this has been presented in tabular form, with some sites have been clustered together. Figure 8.2 identifies these locations.
May 07 135 Key
Poorer Quality Employment Areas
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence No. LA10019593
MILTON KEYNES PARTNERSHIP - MILTON KEYNES EMPLOYMENT SITES Figure 8.1 - Poorer Quality Employment Areas Employment Site Typology Logistics / Manufacturing Park (5) Smaller Manufacturing / Logistics Locations (20) LittleLittle LinfordLinford OlneyOlney Science and Technology Park (2) Mixed Employment (11) Low Density Business Park (11)
TongwellTongwell
OldOld WolvertonWolverton
StonebridgeStonebridge
LinfordLinford WoodWood WolvertonWolverton MillMill EastEast && SouthSouth WolvertonWolverton PinehamPineham LinfordLinford WoodWood PinehamPineham WolvertonWolverton MillMill EastEast && SouthSouth BrooklandsBrooklands
WymbushWymbush BroughtonBroughton KilnKiln FarmFarm RooksleyRooksley BrooklandsBrooklands
KilnKiln FarmFarm CMKCMK
CalvertonCalverton FenFen FarmFarm WymbushWymbush
CalvertonCalverton KentsKents HillHill WavendonWavendon GateGate
WinterhillWinterhill KnowlhillKnowlhill MountMount FarmFarm WaltonWalton RedmoorRedmoor WaltonWalton
ShenleyShenley WoodWood WestWest AshlandAshland
GranbyGranby CaldecotteCaldecotte
MountMount FarmFarm
CaldecotteCaldecotte
FennyFenny StratfordStratford
SnelshallSnelshall
BrickfieldsBrickfields
BrickfieldsBrickfields
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence No. LA10019593
MILTON KEYNES EMPLOYMENT SITES Figure 8.2 - Employment Sites within Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Inward Investment Priorities
8.39 There are a number of broad priorities for inward investment activity which flow from the analysis and particularly Scenario 2.
• Financial Services – particularly focused on the higher value elements including relocation of headquarter functions;
• Professional and business services – a more regionalised/localised focus seeking to attract to Milton Keynes key professional firms particularly key regional/national firms. This will be an important aspect of building Milton Keynes as a regional centre;
• Computer Services – particularly higher value added elements which cross over into the technology aspect below including software design, etc; and
• Technology Sectors – particularly in Bio Sciences, medical technology and computer software and hardware associated with creative industries. This will support the development of the Milton Keynes Technopole.
8.40 Inward investment campaigns will need to overcome some of the more negative aspects of Milton Keynes image as highlighted in this report. Projecting positive images of Milton Keynes and particular CMK will be key. Striving to improve graduate retention, promotion of a cultural offer will all be key aspects of marketing to corporates within the financial and professional services sector and should be fully developed.
May 07 138 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Disposal Practices
8.41 This responds to an aspect of the brief concerned with disposal practices for public sector owned land particularly that owned by English Partnerships. Three areas of potential concern have been highlighted during discussion with local agents and developers.
(i) Limitations on speculative development;
(ii) Environmental requirements; and
(iii) Financial appraisal of tendered bids for sites.
8.42 These have been discussed with the client during this study. Our conclusions are:
Speculative Space
8.43 This is now an historical perspective as the limitations imposed upon speculative space in development schemes have been relaxed within Milton Keynes. This removes any perception of a barrier to development and investment.
Environmental Requirements
8.44 Some agents reported a differential in prices paid for English Partnerships land and other land in the City. This again may be a largely historic viewpoint. Recent legislation has placed a greater emphasis upon environmental protection and sustainable development. Corporate occupiers are becoming more and more focused on achieving higher environmental standards. To some degree English Partnerships have led the market in this regard. Whilst there may have been a price differential this is likely to have narrowed and will continue to do so.
Financial Analysis of Tendered Sites
8.45 It has been argued by some developers that the appraisal of sites on a price basis works against quality when general market rents and yields are well known and the only potential area that can be varied to improve bid prices for land is construction costs. By lowering construction costs to improve bid prices would it is said lead to poorer design quality. It is understood the price forms only one aspect of the evaluation of bids for sites through a tender price, quality of the proposals features equally.
May 07 139 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
8.46 It would appear that whilst perceptions may continue of practices that curtain speculative development and that this is now largely historic. Similarly the use of environmental policies to promote sustainable development are now a cornerstone of national planning policy. Finally the bias financial analysis of proposals is largely a myth.
8.47 Whilst the dominance of single large landowners at such a scale is unusual in UK towns and cities. There are many cases where local authorities or private landowners are dominant in a particular location. The policies of such landowners will always play a significant role in the local market. In this respect Milton Keynes is no different to other markets with large landowners.
Development Targets and Strategy
8.48 The following are targets for development for sites to 2016. 2007 – 2016 is viewed as a sensible period for business planning purposes. Achievements against these targets would need to be monitored on a regular basis.
Table 8.2 Floorspace and Employment Targets 2007 - 2016
Use Land/Floorspace Jobs Locations Development B1a/b (CMK) 120,000m2 6,000 Central Business District, Train Station Area, Sustainable Business Quarter for smaller freehold offices. Focus on professional, financial services and public sector B1a/b (outside Maximum of 54 ha or 9,800 Linford Wood, Willen, Kents Hill, CMK) 197,000 m2 Walton, Knowhill as a first priority Other areas including the Western Expansion Areas, Shenley Wood ,Wavendon Gate and Sneleshall will need to be considered after the above have been exhausted. Focus on computer services, technology on science parks and other uses that cannot be accommodated in centres. B1c/B2 14.6 ha or 59,460 m2 660* Fen Farm, Knowhill, Wolverton Mill and Wolverton plus smaller infill sites. B8 37.2 ha or 156,340 m2 1,950 The majority of this is likely to be provided at Nova Park at Fen Farm. * likely to be relocations
8.49 We would stress that the figure for B1a/b space outside CMK should be viewed as a maximum and subject to careful monitoring. We have established this ‘target’ on the basis that it is unlikely that CMK development rates would exceed 12,000 m2 per annum and to meet economic needs and relocations some out of centre office space would be required.
May 07 140 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
However this out of centre ‘target’ should be applied on the basis of a disposal strategy that adopts a policy which favours CMK sites for general offices in line with that set out at paragraph 8. 30. The first priority should be to ensure that development rates in CMK are increased towards the target of 12,000 m2 per annum. We do not believe that achieving the out of centre target should be a priority over promoting development in CMK. Given the background from the MKSM Strategy priority should be given to achieving an appropriate spatial balance and promoting high technology uses rather than maximising jobs per se. Furthermore there is a danger that if B1a/b demand does not achieve the levels established in Scenario 2 that investment will take place outside CMK on the basis of land being brought forward to meet the target set out above.
8.50 Table 8.3 sets out our analysis of the existing portfolio of sites outside CMK with recommendations for disposal and planning policy as appropriate. Where ownership of land is with English Partnerships this has been specifically identified.
Table 8.3 Analysis of the Existing Portfolio of Sites outside CMK
Site Name(s) Size Expected Use Recommendations Fen Farm/Nova Park 95.0 ha Distribution and Outline consent has been granted for B2 Manufacturing and B8 uses. The site is in private ownership. Focus on B2/B8 is a missed opportunity for a more diverse mix of employment but additional out of town office uses may not be appropriate until post 2026.
Recommendation: Explore potential for alternative uses (residential) with landowner to reduce B8 commitment. If this is not possible retain as strategic B2/B8 site. Wavendon Gate 11ha Business Park Site in private ownership. Recommendation: Will be required to meet demand for office/technology space in the future. Development proposals should however but subject to policy test to favour CMK development. Target sectors computer services, public administration. Broughton 6.5 ha Distribution and No existing commitment site in private Manufacturing ownership. Recommendation: Potential to focus on office and technology uses given Greenfield nature but adjoining occupiers are predominantly B8. Subject to policy test in favour of CMK. Target sectors computer services, public administration. Kiln Farm (2 Sites) 0.9 ha Distribution and Two small sites in established Manufacturing employment area. One site 0.48 ha owned by English Partnerships. Recommendation: Retain in portfolio market as necessary encourage private
May 07 141 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Site Name(s) Size Expected Use Recommendations sector landowner to bring forward site. Kents Hill 5.2 ha Science Park English Partnerships owned site with potential to focus on science and technology uses alongside Walton proposals. Recommendation: Market for science and technology uses to developer market. General office development should be discouraged through disposal process. Walton 12.6 ha Science Park Potential to provide development land in close proximity to Bletchley Park and Open University. As with Kents Hill focus should be on technology uses rather than general office uses. As site is in private ownership this site should be the subject of Supplementary Planning Document or explicit reference should be made to science and technology uses in any site allocation DPD produced. Caldecotte Two sites Smaller Manufacturing Small infill site, one 1.9 ha owned by 1.9 ha and and Logistic Sites English Partnerships. 0.6 ha Recommendation: Market as appropriate, encourage private landowner to bring site forward. Mount Farm Two Sites Smaller Manufacturing Small infill sites. totalling Logistics Uses Recommendation: Retain in 2.1 ha employment land supply and encourage landowners to bring forward. Fenny Stratford 0.6 ha Smaller Manufacturing Small infill site. Logistics Use Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply and encourage landowner to bring forward. West Ashland 9.3 ha Mixed Employment Significant site owned by English B1/B2/B8 Partnerships. Recommendation: Focus should be towards B1a/B1b/B1c uses. However, potential of site for B1 uses may be limited. If further market review suggests sites is not suitable for B1 uses recommend alternative uses target sectors B1 computer services, public administration. Redmoor 2.3 ha Smaller Medium sized site in established Manufacturing/Logistics employment area. Commitments exist for 0.81 ha (B1/B2/B8 use). Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply. Granby 0.5 ha Smaller Small infill site. Commitment for Manufacturing/Logistics B1/B2/B8 use. Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply. Winterhill 0.9 ha Smaller Small English Partnership owned site in Manufacturing/Logistics established employment area. Recommendation: Market as necessary. Knowhill 12.8ha Mixed Employment Established mixed employment area for (B1/B2/B8) offices, light manufacturing and distribution uses. Two sites (total 3.6 ha) owned by English Partnerships. Existing commitments on site A3 (Offices) and Site J (small office units).
May 07 142 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Site Name(s) Size Expected Use Recommendations Recommendation: The current mix of uses on this high quality site should continue. Office schemes should be the subject of policy tests to focus development in CMK. English Partnership sites should not be disposed of for B8 uses. Shenley Wood 30.6 ha Business Park Major business park site with substantial (25 ha) English Partnership ownership. This site presents a dilemma in that further unconstrained office development could threaten efforts to stimulate the CMK market. However, there will be a limit to the office/technology space that can be delivered in CMK in any one year and the current evidence is that sites such as Shenley Wood will be required to meet B1a/b. Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply. Proposals for needs office development on English Partnership land involving office developments exceeding 1,000 m2 should be subject to scrutiny as to why the investment cannot be delivered in CMK. Wolverton Mill East and 9.5 ha Mixed Employment Collection of small and one large site all South (5 sites) [Check] B1/B2/B8 owned by English Partnerships. Recommendation: Retain in portfolio sites should not be released for B8 use unless there is clear evidence that the investment would be lost to the City if the disposal did not take place. The focus of these sites should be towards B1/B2 uses. Old Wolverton (4 Sites) 2.8 ha Smaller Manufacturing Employment sites in older established and Logistic Uses employment area. Itself not of particularly high quality. Recommendation: Old Wolverton employment area is one we consider appropriate for consideration for a comprehensive planning and development strategy to either re- invigorate it as an employment area or to effect change to mixed use. See Figure 8.1. Stonebridge (2 Sites) 2.6 ha Smaller Manufacturing Recommendation: Smaller infill sites in and Logistic Uses an area we consider appropriate for comprehensive planning and development strategy to either reinvigorate as an employment or effect change to mixed use. See Figure 8.1. Wolverton 2.6 ha Smaller Infill sites. Manufacturing/Logistic Recommendation: Smaller infill sites in Uses an area we consider appropriate for comprehensive planning and development strategy to either reinvigorate as an employment or effect change to mixed use. See Figure 8.1. Wymbush (2 Sites) 2.0 ha Smaller Infill sites. Manufacturing/Logistics Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply.
May 07 143 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Site Name(s) Size Expected Use Recommendations Rooksey 1.3 ha Smaller Manufacturing Infill site owned by English Partnerships. and Logistic Uses Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply market for B1c/B2 uses. Tongwell (2 Sites) 1.4 ha Logistics and Infill sites, one site 0.5 ha owned by Manufacturing English Partnerships. Recommendation: Retain in employment land supply to English Partnerships site to be marketed for B1c/B2 and small scale B8 uses. Linford Wood (7 Sites) 9.9 ha Business Park Part of site (4.1 ha) owned by English Partnerships. Existing commitments Brecklands (20,000 m2) offices building. Recommendation: As with Shenley Wood. Proposals for office development on English Partnership sites above 1,000 m2 should be subject of test to establish the use/development cannot be accommodated in CMK. Target sectors public administration, computer services and other financial and business services that cannot be accommodated in CMK. Olney 2.7 ha Smaller Logistics and Older manufacturing site in Olney. Manufacturing Uses Recommendation: Given lack of demand for B2 in this location. Seek alternative mixed use development. Brooklands 10.6 ha Mixed Employment Large site in eastern expansion area in B1/B2/B8 private ownership. Recommendation: Focus towards B1a/B1c development. B1a schemes above 1,000 m2 should be subject (when policy in place) to test as to why use/development cannot be accommodated in CMK B8 uses should be revisited. Little Linford 3 ha Mixed Employment Site in northern expansion area currently B1/B2/B8 used as lorry park. Recommendation: Retain as lorry park. Calverton (2 Sites) 18.0 ha Mixed Employment Two sites in western expansion area. B1/B2/B8 Recommendation: Focus should be on B1 and technology uses. B1 proposals over 1,000 m2 should (when policy in place) be subject to test as to why use/development cannot be accommodated in CMK. Brickfields 6.5 ha Mixed Employment Recommendation: Consider potential B1/B2/B8 for alternative use. Shelshall (5 Sites) 9.8 ha Business Park Some sites have proved difficult to develop. Relatively isolated location of south western fringe of City Sites owned by English Partnerships. Hotel and leisure uses have been considered. Recommendation: Retain significant offices proposals are 1,000 m2 should be the subject of scrutiny by English Partnerships to ensure use/development could not take place in CMK. * B1 projects should favour CMK, however other projects (B2 for eg) should be viewed in isolation to consider whether the development would improve the knowledge bare of the economy.
May 07 144 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
8.51 Of the sites above a number are worthy of specific consideration:
• Fen Farm/Nova Park – A large site and therefore attractive to logistics/distribution occupiers B8/B2 outline consent in place. B8 development at this scale contrary to thrust of Scenario 2. Limited opportunity to revisit unless landowner/developer aspirations change. If it were possible mixed use including additional housing and office / technology space (particularly if this were to come forward post 2026) would be an alternative;
• Shenley Wood – recent consent for circa 10,000 m2 office space. Future role as a large peripheral business park needs careful consideration given longer term potential shortfall of office/technology space (supply likely to be exhausted by 2026).It has to be recognised that unless significant additional capacity was to be found in CMK then this and other peripheral office sites are likely to be needed to meet economic needs. That being the case it will be more effective to retain such sites but use disposal and planning policy to steer development towards CMK. Deleting such sites seems to make little sense unless there are more sustainable alternatives that could be brought forward.
• Walton and Kents Hill – Identified as part of Milton Keynes Technopole close proximity to university and key to aspiration as future driver of local economy. This site offers the potential to offer a technology focus something currently lacking in the Milton Keynes Employment Land portfolio.
8.52 We have suggested alternative uses be considered for a range of smaller sites such as at Caldercotte, West Ashland. Other sites particularly small infill sites on established employment areas offer limited prospect for re use for alternative uses and have therefore been retained.
Promotion and Development of CMK
8.53 Adopting Scenario 2 requires the delivery of almost 1million m2 of office and technology floorspace up to 2031 and 584,000 m2 by 2021. This presents a significant challenge in terms of absolute floorspace it also creates an issue in that in terms of sustainable development the priority for such development should be CMK given its accessibility by public transport and the potential for focusing office based employment in the centre to support its retail and service functions through additional footfall. Our review of capacity suggests the maximum potential of CMK is circa 336,000 m2 in terms of offices (plus
May 07 145 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
existing commitments). However, CMK is important to the economy of Milton Keynes not just because of its capacity to absorb development but also because:
• It represents the potential to draw occupiers particularly those in professional and financial services who will be attracted by broader quality of life issues including the cultural offer of the centre which impact on their labour supply; and
• It is a potent symbol of Milton Keynes overall offer in the market place. Judgements about Milton Keynes will reflect its City Centre more than any other single aspect of the City.
The CMK Framework
8.54 As part of the brief we were asked to review the CMK Framework. To this end we have discussed the operation of the CMK Framework with English Partnerships staff who are involved in its implementation.
Development and Operation of the Framework
8.55 The CMK Framework responds to the desire to promote the City Centre as a means of delivering a step change in the environment and development form. It is a direct response to pressures in the late 1990’s for inappropriate low density development, promoting less reliance on the car and creating a city centre for the 21st Century. The Framework was developed in consultation with Milton Keynes Council and adopted in 2002. In 2003, English Partnerships created a core team to implement the Framework whose role is to bring forward sites to the market in line with the frameworks principles.
8.56 In discussion with the CMK Team it is clear that the Council Framework is not perceived as a rigid document and its interpretation is the key role of the CMK Team in dialogue with developers through the production of planning and design guidance (jointly with Milton Keynes Council) on key sites. The Framework should not be viewed as a rigid masterplan which would impose a barrier on the massing of development. The role of the Core Team is certainly seen as improving on the initial designs of developers.
8.57 Timescales to bring forward sites through to the market and approving planning and design guidance has through experience taken 6 months (Sustainable Residential Quarter) but for instance CBXIII was developed and approved in a matter of weeks which suggests this process is not a fundamental barrier to the market.
May 07 146 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
Challenges to the Framework
8.58 Our review of the CMK Framework has identified a number of issues these have been discussed with the CMK Team as part of the study process. Each key issue is considered below.
• A lack of tall buildings – This is not precluded in the Framework. The Jurys Inn and Crest Nicholson Schemes rise up to 14 storeys from ground level. Tall buildings are acceptable in certain locations, these are not pre-determined and therefore would be appropriate depending on the local context;
• Innovative Design – there is potential to identify sites which could act as ‘wow’ developments. This could not be everywhere but appropriate locations and the use of design competitions to encourage innovation would be acceptable;
• Car Parking – The Framework envisages the loss of surface level car parking to intensify development and create greater vitality and interest. This will require new multi storey car parks on a phased basis. This is being progressed through a potential joint venture and new car parking provision is being added through new developments such as John Lewis; and
• Lack of Speculative Development – This has largely been addressed through a relaxation of the extent of speculative spaces in office schemes to the minimum threshold for occupancy as appropriate for achieving and contributing towards the economic objectives of the city and delivering the framework.
8.59 New development proposals are coming forward for office space or are near to completion including:
• 50,000 sq ft Frontier Estates CBXIII
• 50,000 sq ft Mixture of Freehold and Leasehold Sites
Recommendations
8.60 A fundamental review of the CMK Framework is not required at this time however it will be necessary to consider whether there is potential for additional capacity in CMK to meet economic needs in the future, other wise post 2021 land will need to found for additional technology/ office development outside CMK. A balance does need to be struck between increasing development rates within the City Centre and adopting a sensible estate management strategy. It would be unwise to flood the market with development
May 07 147 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
opportunities and thus drive down rental values. On the other in order to fit with a planning strategy of focusing development in CMK then sites need to be available for development to meet a variety of needs; otherwise acceptable development may be turned away or have to be accepted on out of centre sites. We make the following recommendations:
i. Increase resources to the CMK Team. If English Partnerships are to continue to guide development there will need to be resources to achieve and sensibly increase the number of site opportunities;
ii. CMK should seek to focus its marketing activity on the following sectors:
• Final Services
• Business Services and Real Estate
• Public Administration
• Computer Services
These should be a target for Invest Milton Keynes which should seek to promote CMK as an identity in its own right.
iii. Focus more on the overall product of CMK mixing uses within developments and focusing on improving design. Occupiers, particularly larger ones and those focused on higher value uses, are more and more concerned with the overall offer of centres and Milton Keynes needs to create a suitable product. This is more than just simply the office buildings provided although that it is important, it is also the quality of public realm, the mix of uses to interest to the location. One aspect of this would be to create a Local Design Review Panel (based around offices from Milton Keynes Council and English Partnerships) to assist in ensuring that at the pre-application stage development proposals are improved.
iv. Explore the potential to increase density of massing of development around the railway station and transport interchange. This represents the most highly sustainable location with CMK where development densities could be higher and taller buildings would be appropriate;
v. Consider the potential of the Sustainable Residential Quarter to incorporate flexible office space. We would recommend consideration of a slightly amended approach to this area. There is potential we believe to provide smaller office buildings particularly long leaseholds and freeholds. The close proximity to the Central Business District
May 07 148 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
offers the opportunity to provide smaller footprint offices inter mixed with residential squares and streets. Buildings would not exceed 5 storeys and should relate well to residential buildings in a genuine mixed use community. We would suggest a target of 2,000 – 3,000 sqm of floorspace to create a critical mass of office floorspace in each location. The target market would be professional and smaller financial services firms;
vi. Coupled with the above market sites for a smaller office product particularly freeholds including freehold offices. These should be flexible buildings capable of conversion to alternative uses. We believe that a market exists to create an in centre freehold office market which will meet the aspirations of smaller companies to achieve ownership of their business premises. Whilst this has previously been considered an out of centre market there is no reason why this could not be achieved in centre. In order to implement early phases such sites may need to be marketed to developers as mixed use opportunities combining this with residential development. Major housebuilders who will dispose on a freehold/long leasehold basis would not find this product unusual.
vii. Promote a series of ‘WOW’ Development Opportunities. Linked to the valiant efforts of Invest Milton Keynes to promote the role of the City Centre is a need to use changes to the built environment to support this. Milton Keynes already has interesting buildings such as Xscape. However challenging national and international architects to provide innovative design is important in the context of changing perceptions. It would not be appropriate to take this approach on every site, but it will have value through its impact on the property and national press. Current rental levels for offices might inhibit this approach but residential mixed with hotels and retail/leisure at ground and lower levels could be deliverable;
viii. Campbell Park – this offers potential to form a new office quarter but needs to be integrated in terms of public transport if it is to be a fully sustainable development. We have not expressed a firm view on its future but the level of potential in terms of office development and the ability to build large floorplate offices offers a future opportunity;
ix. Central Business District and around Railway Station – opportunities should continue to be brought forward for new developments. A key focus should be attracting larger occupiers in the professional services and financial sectors promoting active ground floor uses, but with large ground floor office receptions creating floorplates of 8,000 – 10,000 sq ft. This area should be the focus for speculative development;
May 07 149 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
x. Speculative development – this is an important component of an office market and assists in attracting occupiers However our view is that rental levels should would need to increase to at least £22 psf possibly higher to achieve viable speculative development. It is important that English Partnerships and Milton Keynes Council use their land holdings in a way in which a sensible level of supply is established and that developments are brought forward that are of a quality to attract quality occupiers and drive rents for prime space higher creating as a result the potential for further speculative development to follow A target of 100,000 sq ft of speculative office space available at any one time would be reasonable. All of this should be Grade A space;
xi. The above target needs to be balanced with a deliberate strategy to increase rental levels. The lack of product in CMK over recent years (until the Frontier Estates CBXIII Scheme) has depressed rental growth. Supply side improvements through new development particularly high quality schemes should be viewed as part of the process of achieving rentals more akin to those in Reading (now approaching £25 psf). This benchmark would represent a level at which speculative development would be viable (except very tall buildings over 15 storeys).
xii. Encouraging speculative development will require a more flexible attitude to land values on behalf of English Partnerships. Values on some sites have achieved £1m per acre which whilst encouraging as a sign of developer interest can deter speculative development by increasing acquisition and holding costs. By entering into joint ventures where a land value is invested at the outset, rather than being required as an upfront payment there is an opportunity to participate in the upside of the development process and at the same time encourage speculative development. The alternative as demonstrated by the CBXIII Scheme ‘The Hub’ is mixed use development combining offices with retail and residential development with a requirement to deliver a given amount of speculative office development.
xiii. Improving the transport network increasing the development potential of Milton Keynes will require investment in the centre’s public transport infrastructure to enable it to act as a sub regional / regional centre and therefore fulfil its potential. This is particularly important as additional development may well over time reduce the ratio overall parking in the centre. To balance this and to continue to support the development market CMK will need to become more accessible by public transport.
Monitoring Framework
May 07 150 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
8.61 This study has raised a number of issues which will need to be monitored to ensure that policy can be refined. PPS12 (Development Plans) places a great deal of emphasis upon the importance upon monitoring to inform policy and in particular the production of Annual Monitoring Reports. We believe the following are key requirements:
• Monitoring of site development densities – this is essential to ensure that development is becoming more efficient in the use of land. Consistent and well understood approaches to measuring gross and net areas will be required;
• Monitoring actual employment densities. Our study has used well accepted national data sources, however there is an opportunity through the employers survey to begin to understand local densities. Cross referencing with rateable value data may provide a useful way of establishing approximate floor areas;
• Monitoring employment space developed by location. This already exists and is a well used and understood system and should be developed if possible to differentiate between use classes industrial (B2)/distribution (B8) and various classes of B1 development; and
• Monitoring the origin of companies in new developments probably via sampling to assess the extent to which new development is attracting new companies to the area, employment led expansion by existing companies or simply relocations. This will assist in developing more robust estimates of churn factors.
8.62 The above should be supplemented by use of the existing employers survey which provides invaluable information on employment change and location.
May 07 151 Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
APPENDIX A – EXISTING EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND EMPLOYMENT SITES PROFORMAS
May 07 152 Existing Employment Areas Proforma
Site Ref No
Address
Criteria Score Notes
1 – An industrial estate owned and managed as an investment likely to have similar types of buildings, etc. Typology 2 – Other industrial areas dominated by owner occupiers interwoven with other small industrial estates.
1 – Pre 1945 2 – 1945 – 1960, post war but likely to have similar characteristics Building Age 3 – 1960-1980 more modern buildings portal frame with modern car parking emerging 4 – 1980-2003 modern buildings good specification and car parking
5 – Good condition – lower than normal level of maintenance requirement within medium term. Building Quality 4 – Satisfactory condition – normal level of maintenance and repair requirement within the medium term. 3 – Fair condition – capable of attracting satisfactory condition rating but with a notable backlog of maintenance and /or technical upgrading works required within the medium term. 2 – Poor condition – major repair and /or technical work required in the short term but capable of attaining with expenditure that does not exceed 50% of replacement cost. 1 – Very poor condition – as per as poor condition but level of expenditure required to obtain satisfactory condition exceeds 50% of replacement cost.
5 – Excellent quality environment – extensive external public realm areas well maintained, road maintenance no issues, buildings of high quality external General External Environment appearance for use, no derelict sites, vacant plots maintained. 4 – High quality – less extensive landscaping but public realm maintained, road maintenance adequate but minor defects, buildings of appropriate quality, no derelict sites but vacant plots need some maintenance. 3 – Average quality – few landscaped areas, and where present maintenance required. Buildings of average quality for use. Road maintenance some significant repairs needed, some derelict sites but not highly visible, vacant plots untidy and requiring major improvement. 2 – Below average quality – maintenance of public realm poor, extensive repairs needed to roads, some open storage uses – vacant plots appear abandoned, buildings of below average quality. 1 – Very poor /poor quality – evidence of fly tipping in public areas, roads system in need of complete overhaul, major /derelict sites, buildings of very poor /poor quality even taking use. Numerous open storage uses presenting poor image.
5 – 90 – 100% of buildings occupied 4 – 80% - 90% of buildings occupied Level of Visible Voids 3 – 60 – 80% of buildings occupied 2 – 40% - 60% of buildings occupied 1 – less than 40% of buildings occupied
5 – National /international names significant presence. 4 – Some national /international names present, but majority of occupiers from Nature of Existing Tenants drawn from regional companies. 3 – No national /international names companies exclusively Buckinghamshire based. 2 – Companies drawn from local area but could be seen as having choice of locations in local area. 1 – Very local companies who by nature of their business would be expected to have very limited choices in terms of alternative location.
5 – National /international market 4 – National and regional market Market Assessment 3 – Regional companies 2 – Local but district wide companies 1 – Company with a very local limited choice of locations
5 – 0 -5 minutes drive time 4 – 5-10 minutes drive time Accessibility Strategic 3 – 10-20 minutes drive time 2 – 20-30 minutes drive time 1 – 30 minutes plus
5 – easy site access no issues available public transport 4 – No access for issues for vehicles but no public transport Access Local 3 – Easy immediate site access but wider issues on link to strategic highway net work 2 – Restricted access for HGV’s and restricted access to major road network 1 – restricted access by all commercial vehicles not public transport Employment Sites Proforma
Site Ref No
Address
Criteria Score Notes
5. Adjoining main road or motorway junction; easy site access for all vehicles; access to rail, air and sea networks 4. Close to major road network; easy site access for all vehicles 3. Easy site access for all vehicles; indirect or restricted access to major C1 – Access road network 2. Restricted access for HGVs; restricted access to major road network 1. Restricted access for all commercial vehicles, severely restricted access to major road network
5. Close to a station, peak time bus route and cycle route; on a pedestrian C2 – Public Transport route 4. Close to a station or peak time bus route, close to cycle route, on a pedestrian route 3. Close to either a station or peak time bus route or cycle route; on a pedestrian route 2. Not near a station, peak time bus route or cycle route; on a pedestrian route 1. Not on a pedestrian route; not near a station, peak time bus route or cycle route NB. “Close” = within about 10 minutes walk
5. Gateway site to a prominent estate, visible from major road network C3 – Prominence 4. Visible site, on a main road or prominent estate 3. On a main road or prominent estate, tucked away from view 2. Visible, on a minor road or estate 1. On a minor road or estate, tucked away from view
5. Close to a town centre with a wide range of services C4 – Local Amenities 4. Close to local centre with a reasonable range of services 3. Close to a limited range of basic services 2. Close to one or two services 1. No services in close proximity NB1: Employment related services such as banks, travel agents, shops, leisure/recreation, pubs/restaurants NB2: “Close” = within about 10 minutes walk
5. Clear plot, no obstructions C5 – Site Layout 4. Regular shaped plot, obstructed 3. Regular shaped plot, fragmented 2. Irregular shaped plot, obstructed 1. Irregular shaped plot, fragmented
5. Well established commercial area C6 – Character of Area 4. Established commercial area, with residential area or rural area nearby 3. Mixed commercial and residential area 2. Mainly residential or rural area with few commercial uses 1. Mainly residential or rural area with no existing commercial uses
5. Detailed planning permission A1 – Planning Status 4. Outline planning permission 3. Published development brief 2. Local Plan allocation 1. Allocation in Deposit Draft Local Plan, or reserve site
5. No obstacles to development A2 – Economic Constraints 4. Minor obstacles to development; relatively easy, quick and cheap to resolve 3. Minor obstacles to development; more difficult, expensive and time- consuming to resolve 2. Major obstacles to development; very difficult, expensive and time- consuming to resolve 1. Major obstacles to development; extremely difficult, expensive and time- consuming to resolve NB: Obstacles to development would include access difficulties, infrastructure requirements, contamination remediation costs, etc.
5. M1 Corridor L1 – Strategic Location 4. Other Strategic Roads (A5, A421, A509, A4146) 3. CMK 2. Large Towns (Newport Pagnell, Woburn Sands, Olney) 1. All other sites Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
APPENDIX B – METHODOLOGY FOR RANKING OF EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND SITES
May 07 153 Methodology for Ranking of Employment Areas and Sites
Introduction
This note outlines the methodology we have used to rank each of the existing employment areas and proposed employment sites within Milton Keynes.
The key steps and assumptions are outlined below in two parts, focussing separately on existing employment areas and employment sites. For each we describe the methodology for ranking each site or area, and explain the assumptions we have made.
This note accompanies the schedules of sites and areas, which detail how we have scored each site and its subsequent rank.
Employment Areas
For employment areas, the factors we have taken into account are detailed in Table 1.1 below, together with our notes for scoring them.
Table 1.1 - Employment Area Scoring Criteria Criteria Reference Notes for scoring Typology A1 1 – An industrial estate owned and managed as an investment likely to have similar types of buildings, etc. 2 – Other industrial areas dominated by owner occupiers interwoven with other small industrial estates. Building Age A2 1 – pre 1919 Victorian Multi storey factories etc, 2 – 1920 1940 pre war northern light factories 3 – 1945 – 1960, post war but likely to have similar characteristics 4 – 1960 1980 more modern buildings portal frame with modern car parking emerging 5 – 1980 2003 modern buildings good specification and car parking Building Quality A3 5 – Good condition – lower than normal level of maintenance requirement within medium term. 4 – Satisfactory condition – normal level of maintenance and repair requirement within the medium term. 3 – Fair condition – capable of attracting satisfactory condition rating but with a notable backlog of maintenance and /or technical upgrading works required within the medium term. 2 – Poor condition – major repair and /or technical work required in the short term but capable of attaining with expenditure that does not exceed 50% of replacement cost. 1 – Very poor condition – as per as poor condition but level of expenditure required to obtain satisfactory condition exceeds 50% of replacement cost. General External Environment A4 5 – Excellent quality environment – extensive external public realm areas well maintained, road maintenance no issues, buildings of high quality external appearance for use, no derelict sites, vacant plots maintained. 4 – High quality – less extensive landscaping but public realm maintained, road maintenance adequate but minor defects, buildings of appropriate quality, no derelict sites but vacant plots need some maintenance. 3 – Average quality – few landscaped areas, and where present maintenance required. Buildings of average quality for use. Road maintenance some significant repairs needed, some derelict sites but not highly visible, vacant plots untidy and requiring major improvement. 2 – Below average quality – maintenance of public realm poor, extensive repairs needed to roads, some open storage uses – vacant plots appear abandoned, buildings of below average quality. 1 – Very poor /poor quality – evidence of fly tipping in public areas, roads system in need of complete overhaul, major /derelict sites, buildings of very poor /poor quality even taking use. Numerous open storage uses presenting poor image. Level of Visible Voids A5 5 – 90 – 100% of buildings occupied 4 – 80% 90% of buildings occupied 3 – 60 – 80% of buildings occupied 2 – 40% 60% of buildings occupied 1 – less than 40% of buildings occupied Nature of Existing Tenants A6 5 – National /international names: significant presence. 4 – Some national /international names present, but majority of occupiers from drawn from Devon companies. 3 – No national /international names companies exclusively Devon based. 2 – Companies drawn from local area but could be seen as having choice of locations in local area. 1 – Very local companies who by nature of their business would be expected to have very limited choices in terms of alternative location. Market Assessment A7 5 – National /international market 4 – National and regional market 3 – Regional companies 2 – Local but district wide companies 1 – Company with a very local limited choice of locations Accessibility Strategic A8 5 – 0 5 minutes drive time 4 – 5 10 minutes drive time 3 – 10 20 minutes drive time 2 – 20 30 minutes drive time 1 – 30 minutes plus Access Local A9 5 – easy site access no issues available public transport 4 – No access for issues for vehicles but no public transport 3 – Easy immediate site access but wider issues on link to strategic highway net work 2 – Restricted access for HGV’s and restricted access to major road network Criteria Reference Notes for scoring 1 – restricted access by all commercial vehicles not public transport
In order to rank the employment areas we have assessed various criteria together in order to come up with a “market lead” rank and a “physical lead” rank. This allows different aspects of the employment areas to be assessed against each other. The criteria that we have used to come up with each rank are detailed below.
Employment Areas Assessments
Market Factors: A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9
Max score: 35 (no weighting)
Scores / Ranking
Score Qualifying Criteria High 26 – 35 No more than one score of 3 or below Above Average 21 – 25 No more than one score of 3 or below Average 16 – 20 No more than one score of 2 or below and no score of 1 Below Average 11 –15 No more than one score of 1 Low 0 –10
Physical Factors: A2, A3, A4, A9
Max Score: 20 (no weighting)
Scores / Ranking
Score Qualifying Criteria High 17 – 20 No more than one score of 3 or below Above Average 13 – 16 No more than one score of 3 or below Average 9 – 12 No more than one score of 2 or below and no score of 1 Below Average 5 – 8 No more than one score of 1 Low 0 – 4
Where an employment area does not meet the qualifying criteria as set out above, it is moved down one rank. For example, if a site were to score 27 in the market rank (High), but had two scores of 3, it would be moved down to Above Average. This is to reflect the fact that sites should not be classes as being High or Above Average if there are aspects of them that do not meet that standard.
Employment Sites For employment sites, the factors we have taken into account are detailed in Table 1.2 below, together with our notes for scoring them.
Table 1.2 - Employment Site Scoring Criteria
Criteria Reference Notes Access C1 5. Adjoining main road or motorway junction; easy site access for all vehicles; access to rail, air and sea networks 4. Close to major road network; easy site access for all vehicles 3. Easy site access for all vehicles; indirect or restricted access to major road network 2. Restricted access for HGVs; restricted access to major road network 1. Restricted access for all commercial vehicles, severely restricted access to major road network Public Transport C2 5. Close to a station, peak time bus route and cycle route; on a pedestrian route 4. Close to a station or peak time bus route, close to cycle route, on a pedestrian route 3. Close to either a station or peak time bus route or cycle route; on a pedestrian route 2. Not near a station, peak time bus route or cycle route; on a pedestrian route 1. Not on a pedestrian route; not near a station, peak time bus route or cycle route NB. “Close” = within about 10 minutes walk Prominence C3 5. Gateway site to a prominent estate, visible from major road network 4. Visible site, on a main road or prominent estate 3. On a main road or prominent estate, tucked away from view 2. Visible, on a minor road or estate 1. On a minor road or estate, tucked away from view Local Amenities C4 5. Close to a town centre with a wide range of services 4. Close to local centre with a reasonable range of services 3. Close to a limited range of basic services 2. Close to one or two services 1. No services in close proximity NB1: Employment related services such as banks, travel agents, shops, leisure/recreation, pubs/restaurants NB2: “Close” = within about 10 minutes walk Site Layout C5 5. Clear plot, no obstructions 4. Regular shaped plot, obstructed 3. Regular shaped plot, fragmented 2. Irregular shaped plot, obstructed 1. Irregular shaped plot, fragmented Character of Area C 5. Well established commercial area 4. Established commercial area, with residential area or rural area nearby 3. Mixed commercial and residential area 2. Mainly residential or rural area with few commercial uses 1. Mainly residential or rural area with no existing commercial uses Planning Status A1 5. Detailed planning permission 4. Outline planning permission 3. Published development brief 2. Local Plan allocation 1. Allocation in Deposit Draft Local Plan, or reserve site Economic Constraints A2 5. No obstacles to development 4. Minor obstacles to development; relatively easy, quick and cheap to resolve 3. Minor obstacles to development; more difficult, expensive and time consuming to resolve 2. Major obstacles to development; very difficult, expensive and time consuming to resolve 1. Major obstacles to development; extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming to resolve NB: Obstacles to development would include access difficulties, infrastructure requirements, contamination remediation costs, etc. Strategic Location L1 5. A38, A35 and A30 Corridors 4. Other Strategic Roads (A361, A377, A385, A386, A39) 3. Sub regional centres(Barnstaple) 2. Large Towns (Bideford, Dartmouth, Ivybridge, Kingsbridge, Totnes) 1. All otter sites In order to rank the employment sites we have assessed various criteria together in order to come up with a “market lead” rank, a “sustainability lead” and a “physical lead” rank. This allows different aspects of the employment areas to be assessed against each other. The criteria that we have used to come up with each rank are detailed below.
Employment Sites Assessments
Market Factors: C1, C3, C5, C6, A2, L1
Max score: 30 (no weighting)
Scores / Ranking
Score Qualifying Criteria High 25 – 30 No score lower than 3 Above Average 21 – 24 No more than one score lower than 3 Average 16 – 20 No more than one score of 2 or lower Below Average 11 –15 No more than one score of 1 Low 0 –10
Sustainability Factors: C2, C4, L1
Max score: 15 (no weighting)
Scores / Ranking
Score Qualifying Criteria High 11 – 15 No score lower than 3 Average 6 – 10 No score lower than 2 Low 0 – 5
Physical Factors: C1, C5
Max Score: 10 (no weighting)
Scores / Ranking
Score Qualifying Criteria High 9 – 10 Average 5 – 8 Low 0 – 4
The following pages contain the schedules of employment sites and areas and detail the scores we have given each of them. Next to these scores, the rank of each employment site / area is given. Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
APPENDIX C – DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES
May 07 154 Development Typologies Black Country Study
1. Logistics/Manufacturing Park
Typically, from 10ha – 20 ha upwards. Some high bay buildings, reasonable quality landscaping, split of activity would be 1/4 light and general manufacturing and 3/4 distribution. Surface level car parking.
Building Type: Portal frame clad, office context typically 5%
Development Density: 4,150 per net developable ha 18,000 sq ft per net acre)
Ancillary Use: None
Building Sizes: 2,800 sq m – 9,300 sq m 30,000 – 100,000 sq ft)
Current Example: Wednesbury Parkway 2. Logistics Park
Typically, from 10 ha min upwards to 100 ha, more typically 20 –25 ha. High bay buildings up to 30 metres but usually 20m. Exclusively logistics/distribution but signs of introduction as additional ancillary uses. Surface level car parking.
Building Type: Portal frame building, office content 3%. If logistics centre then 10 % office content
Development Density: 5,070sqm per net developable ha 22,000 sq ft per acre)
Ancillary Uses: None but currently operators looking to develop ancillary retail , hotel and health and fitness
Building Sizes: 9,300 sqm – 40,000 sqm 100,000 sq ft to 450,000 sq ft)
Current Example: Prologis Park, Coventry 3. Smaller Manufacturing/Logistics Locations
Ranging anything from 0.5 ha – 5ha. Minimum size for logistics use 1 ha. Often focused on local manufacturing industry, small scale logistics and local services.
Building Type: Portal frame building, office content 5% -10%
Development Density: 4,000 sq m per net developable ha 17,500 sq ft per acre)
Ancillary Uses: Trade counter, local services/repair uses. Car showrooms on road frontages
Unit Sizes: 90 sq m upwards to 5,000 sq m 1,000 sq ft – 55,000 sq ft.
Current Example: Iconic Park 4. Technology Park
Typical size from 8 ha – 10 ha. Mixture of office B1a) and R&D B1b) buildings although B1a dominates. Car parking surface level unless in high value areas £215 per sqm) potential for multi storey. High quality landscaping and increasingly shared use with health and fitness, hotel/restaurant and ancillary retail uses.
Building Type: Typically 2 storey, but possibly up to 4 storey development buildings with floorplates of 2,000 – 15,000 sq ft
Development Density: 4,600 sqm per net developable ha 20,000 sq ft per acre)
Ancillary Uses: Health and fitness, creche, hotel, A3 uses. Likely 10- 15% of overall mix
Building Sizes: Overall 270 sq m – 3,500 sq m 3,000 – 40,000 sq ft)
Current Example: Coventry Technology Park 5. Science Park
Typical size will be 5 ha to 20 ha. Mixture of B1a, B1b and B1c uses with flexibility between these. Car parking likely to surface level in all but high value areas. Often include an innovation centre of 3,000 – 5,000 sqm offering flexible space to start up small companies and project teams.
Building Type: 2 – 4 storey although usually 2 - 3) buildings with floorplates of 185 – 1,400 sq m and window to window distance of 13.5 – 18m.
Development Density Typically 4,600 sq m per net ha 20,000 per sq ft)
Ancillary Uses: Education/learning, increasingly science parks looking to introduce leisure and hotel and ancillary retail uses. Likely 10% of development floorspace.
Building Sizes: Innovation Centre – 2,709 sq m – 3,250 sq m 30,000 – 35,000 sq ft)
Other Buildings – 270 sq m – 3,000 sq ft and +)
Current Example: Aston Science Park 8. Low Density Business Park
Typically from 5 ha up to 20 ha+ but can be larger). Two storey buildings dominated. Mainly housing B1a offices with surface level car parking and high quality landscaping.
Building Type: 2 – 3 storey offices
Development Density: 4,600 sqm per net developable hectare 20,000 sq ft per net acre)
Ancillary Uses: Hotel, health and fitness, creche 10% - 15%
Building Sizes: From development mix 370 sq m 4,000 sq ft +)
Current Example: Wolverhampton Business Park, Pendeford Office Park Milton Keynes Partnership GVA Grimley LLP
APPENDIX D – CMK PLOTS
May 07 155 301 300 288 P179 299 P177 287 H1 283 317 P153 Proposed Buildings 303 315 P180 302P150281 298 295 P178 282 314 279 P148 289 294 285 P151 P185 P146 G1 290 291 H2 312 313 276 P152 P144 318 P149 292 305 307 275 278P190 280 272 P147 P189 306 P141 304 273 P145 P182 308 271 311 F1 286 P142 215P176 284 270 P188 P143 P187309 H3 P195 P194 269 120 214 P59 P174 P175 123 P58 231 213 124 233 230 232 P57 P170234 222 126 P172 268 235 E1 227 P171316 P56 228 217 130 224 P114 P55 P191 131 196 P167 H4 133 218 244 195 G3 P48 245 229 P164 216 246 138 P113 197 243 135 194 249 127 136 193 P186 237 P168 P173 P54 P115 210 P47 P50 212 134 137 P165 247 125 226225 G4 122 178 P192 258 242 P169 139 E2 179 P46 140 P112 257 116 121 P51 P122 P166 204 P162 P45 192 F3 199 P181 256 P163 211 P103 202 P156 P44 203 254 263 264 D1 200 252 219 117 D1 P120 201 141 209 205 255 250 P1 180 177 P154 P159 P42 P53 198 P157 253 181 P111 236 248 115 101 103P49 P121 206 P158 260 P43 102 F4 P123 207 241 P39108 P104 176 P155 P41 P102 E3 208 191 189 168 P38 P34 P119 P101 P110 110 175 P40 188 P118 P37 P33 190 P109 112 D2 P52 146 100 169 182 P136 114 P100 P36 P32 P105 173 113 186 P108 C1 170 149 174 P35 P97 P31 111 145 P99 E4 183 P107 P29 P23 CBX3 187 171 148 150 109 184 P30 D3 P98 106 P22 161 107 167 P106 172 147 P135 P133 P117 C2 C2 P137 163 105 P28 185 P132 P21 P134 144 162 165 B1 P116 166 143 P131 164 P27 P20 142 P124 104 D4 160
159 P130 C3 P125 154 153 P127 P96 156 96 157 P26 P126 P25 97 B2 155 P129 B2 91 95 A1 158 P89 90 94 93 P95 151 P24 152P183 92 4 87 P90 P94 P88 88 P183 C4 39 5 86 89 P17 P87 P140 P91 A2 54 38 98 13 B3 P92 2 P3 71 41 99 10 P19 P139 P74 P73 1 P15 55 72 P128 P2 56 67 14 P81 P16 P138 77 63 40 36 P86 76 75 P82 65 70 81 P93 P84 P78 P75 66 P72 8 12 P14 78 P4 73 83 37 P13 11 79 P83 62 64 7 P85 9 61 A3 80 P76 S P12 A3 69 S 17 85 B4 59 P80 P70 P5 P11 60 84 P71 74 53 P77 42 68 6 58 15P10 16 52 57 46 Elder House P79 P69 Key P18447 35 25 51 Label Key P7 P62 P63 48 45P68 26 24 43 P6 P61 50 82 44 Proposed Buildings 34 P60 19 P67 49 20 P123 = Plot Numbers 31 P64 30 18 21 P9 A4 2928 Proposed Plots 33 234 = Building Number P8 27 P65 32 22
23 P66 Meters
0250 500 1,000