APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendices to the Further Proof of Evidence of Stephen Nicol on Housing Supply and Demand in Ribble Valley
Appendix 1 – RVBC Core Strategy Revised Housing Evidence 25 June 2013
Appendix 2 – RVBC letter to DLA re A1 reopening 16 July 2013
Appendix 3 – RVBC Housing Land Availability Schedule July 2013
Appendix 4 – Waddington Road Appellant Opening Statement 6th August 2013
Appendix 5 – RVBC Employment Land Study Refresh 2013
Appendix 6 – RVBC Planning Development Committee Report 6th August 2013
Appendix 7 – RVBC Emergency Committee Report Appeals Update 1 July 2013
Appendix 8 – Mitton Road Appeal Decision 3-2012-0637
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630 APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 1 – RVBC Core Strategy Revised Housing Evidence 25 June 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630 DECISION
RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Agenda Item No.
meeting date: 25 JUNE 2013 title: CORE STRATEGY – REVISED HOUSING EVIDENCE submitted by: CHIEF EXECUTIVE principal author: COLIN HIRST – HEAD OF REGENERATION & HOUSING
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To consider updated evidence in relation to housing requirements.
1.2 Relevance to the Council’s ambitions and priorities:
• Council Ambitions – To match the supply of homes in our area with identified housing needs and to progress the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is a central Strategy of the Local Development Framework. It will help in the delivery of housing, employment and the protection and enhancement of the environment, ultimately presenting the Delivery Strategy for implementing the vision for the Ribble Valley for the next 15-20 years.
• Community Objectives – As a tool for delivering Spatial Policy the Core Strategy identifies how a range of issues relating to the objectives of a sustainable economy, thriving market towns and housing provision will be addressed through the planning system.
• Corporate Priorities – The Core Strategy is the central document of the LDF. The housing requirement is fundamental to determining planning applications and for the purposes of formulating planning policy.
• Other Considerations – The Council has a duty to prepare Spatial Policy under the Local Development Framework system.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 As Members are aware the provision of housing is a key element of the Council’s land- use planning and its role in determining planning applications. As an issue, it generates without doubt high levels of interest and concern amongst the local community, as demonstrated in recent Core Strategy consultations. Housing provision brings great pressure from landowners and developers; it plays a key economic role, has a role in delivering sustainable mixed communities; regeneration benefits and opportunities to deliver both affordable and a choice of market houses (and location) to meet people’s aspirations.
2.2 Previously, strategic planning for housing requirements had been delivered through a top down approach, formerly through the County Structure plans and more recently by way of regionally set requirements in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). District Authorities as consultees in the statutory planning process have had the opportunity to contribute to establishing housing requirements. However, the removal of the Regional
1 tier puts the responsibility of establishing housing requirements with district planning authorities and this has been undertaken through the Core Strategy process.
2.3 The housing requirement that has informed the preparation of the Core Strategy was the subject of a study undertaken by Nathanial Litchfield and Partners in 2011; that work was subsequently the subject of public consultation before a figure for developing the Core Strategy was established and incorporated into the Council’s submitted Core Strategy. Members will recall a previous report dealing with this issue was considered in February 2012 (Minute 716 refers) and subsequent reports dealing with the objections to the Core Strategy proposals have been considered by Members at a number of key consultation stages. In relation to the Core Strategy Examination, a number of unresolved objections remain in relation to the issue of housing requirements.
2.4 The Council submitted its Core Strategy for Examination in September 2012. The housing evidence that informed the plan suggested a housing requirement range of between 190-220 dwellings per annum or a requirement over the plan period of between 3800-4400 dwellings. The housing requirement established and taken forward in the submitted Core Strategy was a level of 200 dwellings per annum as a minimum, or 4000 dwellings over the plan period. Houses built or granted permission from 2008 would be taken account of in identifying the additional land necessary.
2.5 Following submission of the Core Strategy, the Inspector raised as a particular concern the need to ensure the evidence underpinning the plan was up to date. The housing and economic evidence would also need to be aligned for consistency and it was also important to take account of the most recently available data. As a consequence, the Inspector agreed to suspend the Examination for a period of six months to allow the evidence to be updated and refreshed to inform the Examination. The need to update the evidence base was a significant matter from the Inspector’s viewpoint.
3 OVERALL HOUSING EVIDENCE
3.1 In relation to the key elements of the housing evidence base, evidence in relation to housing requirements, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation (GTAA), housing land supply (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHLAA) and a refresh of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, together with viability work has been commissioned. A separate report on the outcome of the GTAA has already been presented to Members at the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 23 May 2013.
3.2 The emerging work updating the evidence base has been discussed with the Core Strategy Working Group that was established to support the evidence review process.
3.3 Work in relation to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) is at the time of writing close to completion. The principal element outstanding is the completion by the Council’s consultants of the economic viability appraisals to provide a basis on which to undertake final testing of identified sites. An update on this will be provided to Members at the Committee meeting.
3.4 Members will recall that the primary purpose of the SHLAA is to ensure that sufficient land can be identified to meet any requirements. Although the current review is yet to be completed, the adopted SHLAA identifies a more than adequate supply of land for the
2 number of dwellings within the submitted development strategy. The adopted study clearly identified that as a principal land supply in general was not a constraint on the borough in meeting its housing requirements. To date, the refresh of the SHLAA has identified a considerable number of additional sites over and above those sites that are still available from the adopted study. The emerging analysis is once again anticipated to show that land supply is not a constraint as a matter of principle. It is important to bear in mind that sites identified in the SHLAA do not have any status as an allocation nor should it be automatically assumed that they will attain planning permission. Any SHLAA site would still be the subject of the appropriate planning application process or future Local Plan allocations. The SHLAA does however provide an important starting point when considering land for allocations.
3.5 The Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has similarly been the subject of a refresh and update. A draft has been considered by the Core Strategy Working Group. Members will recall that the SHMA provides a key part of the housing evidence, informing the nature of housing tenures, types and sizes required and in particular the overall need for affordable housing. Its process reflects the current government guidance.
3.6 A copy of the draft SMHA has been placed in the level D Members’ Room and can be viewed on the Council’s website. A copy of the document is attached at Appendix 1 to this report for Members of the Planning and Development Committee. The SHMA report sets out a number of key findings. Of significance are the following particular aspects:
• The CLG based estimate of affordable need is 404 dwellings per year (this compares to 264 in the 2008 SHMA). However, it must be emphasised that this figure does not equal the number of new affordable units to be built. It does however draw attention to the continued demand for affordable housing provision that the borough will need to plan for. The details of the needs assessment model are set out in section 5 of the SHMA. • In terms of the accommodation required to provide housing market balance over the longer term, the model applied in the SHMA suggests that of the new housing required, 70% should be market dwellings, 6% shared ownership, 19% affordable rent and 5% new social rented dwellings. This supports the Council’s existing affordable housing target overall of 30%. Details of these issues are set out in section 6 of the SHMA.
3.7 Section 7 of the SHMA draws together the policy implications of the results as a summary. In relation to the overall scale of new housing growth and taking account of the work undertaken by Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners, the SHMA results recognise the need to increase the housing target towards the figure of 250 dwellings per year to better meet the objectively assessed need. It also recognises that the assessed need is a part of the consideration of establishing the housing target for the borough and highlights the need to underpin the housing requirement with an assessment of other mitigating factors that would need to be taken account of such as environment and infrastructure capacity.
3.8 The summary also identifies that the Council’s current affordable housing target of 30% remains appropriate although the Council will need to consider the delivery rate of new housing such that significant growth related to economic development (that is delivering a higher number of new homes than anticipated) may result in a lower affordability target
3 being required and this may need to be adjusted following a future review. Similarly, if a higher proportion of sites coming forward are below the policy threshold and consequently new development is not bringing forward sufficient affordable housing units, the Council will need to review and promote alternative mechanisms such as grant schemes and increasing use of existing stock to contribute to the affordable/market mix.
3.9 The report highlights the need to have regard to achieving growth in the affordable rented sector as opposed to the social rented sector with a latent potential demand for this type of accommodation being identified. This will need to be taken into account when negotiating provision and tenure mix on individual applications whilst overall the evidence in the SHMA will need to be utilised to inform the direction of housing and planning policies going forward.
3.10 A review of the overall housing requirement has been undertaken by Nathanial Litchfield and Partners. A copy of the consultant’s report is attached at Appendix 2 for Members of the Committee and reference copies have been placed in the Members Room on level D. The report can also be viewed on the Council’s website.
4 HOUSING REQUIREMENTS UPDATE
4.1 The consultant’s update has incorporated a range of new statistical information including:
• 2011 census data • RVBC 2013 Employment Land Review • Revised 2010/2011 – based median population estimates • Revised ONS median population/migration estimates for 2001-2011 factoring in the 2011 census • 2010 based ONS sub national population projections (SNPP) • Interim 2011 based SNPP • Interim 2011 based household projections
4.2 Members will recall that the previous study looked at a series of scenarios for population household and economic change. The consultants in revisiting the earlier work, have incorporated a series of new scenarios to cover a range of revised projections. The new scenarios include:
• Pop Group baseline scenario – a demographic led scenario model on the ONS 2011 based SNPP for fertility, mortality and migration rates and utilising the 2011 based (interim) household projections giving a figure of 221 dwellings per annum. • Long term past migration trends – a demographic led scenario modelled on the basis of past migration trends in Ribble Valley over the past 10 years giving a figure of 214 dwellings per annum. • Short term past migration trends – a demographic led scenario modelled on the basis of past migration trends in Ribble Valley over the past 5 years, when net in migration rates have been much lower a figure of 185 dwellings per annum. • Employment land review preferred scenario employment growth – an economic led scenario based upon delivering the anticipated job growth in Ribble Valley as projected by Oxford Economic Forecasts and incorporated within the 2013 ELR, equivalent to +1600 new jobs over the period 2010-2028. This scenario is
4 demographically modelled based on the broad relationship between jobs, labour force population and dwellings = 280 dwellings per annum.
4.3 In summary the remodelled scenarios demonstrate the impacts of the revised household projections and the growth implications of the economic evidence base. A balance in policy terms needs to be struck between the change in population trends, in particular the effects of an ageing population that removes over time the pool of labour to support the local economy. The consultant’s report emphasises the need for a policy balance to be maintained including the need to recognise the implications of past actual delivery rates and sustainability factors.
4.4 These considerations of delivery rates and balancing sustainability in policy terms were important factors in supporting the position taken when establishing the housing requirement for the Core Strategy and which subsequently became a key area of dispute in relation to the objections made to the Core Strategy.
4.5 In updating the work, the consultants have identified that in the light of more up to date information, the lower end of the original range (190-220 dpa outlined in 2011) lacks validity now as up to date information on vacancy rates does not support the lower level of growth. If the projections were being produced now in the light of that new information, the lower range of the figures would have come out at around 220 dwellings per annum.
4.6 Previous concerns about the credibility of economic evidence and how it related to housing requirements have now been superseded by the updated economic evidence. This has been used to inform the impact on housing requirements to deliver housing and support of the economic growth aspirations set out in the employment land review and the Core Strategy. Whilst accounting for other policy issues and the need to achieve a balance through all aspects of sustainability, the economic based forecasts would lead to a housing requirement of some 280 dwellings per annum.
4.7 Whilst a level of housing requirement at 280 dwellings per annum would address concerns regarding the delivery of housing to support economic growth and the need to take account of longer term changes in the labour force, there is also a need to recognise the constraints on actual delivery, in particular the rural character of the area and its environmental attractions. Additional work to clarify these constraints will need to be undertaken to ensure that these points can be adequately addressed at the Examination to demonstrate why a lower figure is appropriate.
4.8 NLP concludes that a revised housing requirement within the range of 220-250 dwellings per annum would be appropriate. The upper end of the range would be in the consultant’s view capable of meeting the majority of national policy objectives based on the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the objectively assessed demographic needs together with the majority of economic needs. It is stressed by the consultants that a figure above 250 must be carefully considered against the wider context of the nature of the borough and the policy context that applies, for example AONB and conservation designations. This is an important part of ensuring that all the policy implications of the Framework are taken into account to ensure that the housing requirements supports in full the delivery of sustainable development. As indicated, the Council will need to be able to demonstrate that it has considered these issues. The
5 consultants have also identified that the lower end of the range would only serve to address the demographic requirements for housing.
4.9 For comparison, the distribution of housing as currently set out in the Core Strategy model of spatial distribution, has been tabulated to illustrate the implications of both the upper figure in the Litchfield range at 250 dpa and the 280 dpa requirement. These tables are set out at Appendix 3. The tables highlight the impact of increasing the housing requirement in the light of the latest evidence and the implications that would arise in terms of suggesting modifications to the strategy to reflect this information. What is of importance is the extent to which the existing distribution model remains appropriate at these increased levels of proposed housing and the need to undertake further work to inform the impact upon the strategy. This will be informed by the response from the sustainability appraisal. The Council’s sustainability consultants have been asked to provide an initial view on the implications of the increased housing requirements in relation to the submitted Core Strategy and Members will be updated at the meeting.
4.10 In addition to the need to review the implications of the proposed housing requirement on the existing strategy, the latest evidence will also have an impact with regard to decision making on planning applications and dealing with appeals as the information represents the most up to date evidence the Council has, albeit subject to the need to both provide further supporting information and analysis in relation to the evidence and the Core Strategy and significantly the evidence being subjected to testing through consultation and later Examination.
4.11 The current evidence base has established a housing requirement of 4000 houses over the plan period equivalent to 200 dwellings per annum which is currently adopted for decision making purposes. This figure should continue to be the basis for decision making, however the strong likelihood is that applicants and appellants would wish to utilise the most up to date evidence for the purposes of progressing their applications. In the absence of additional supporting work by the Council, it is likely that the figure of 280 dpa would be pursued by applicants as the appropriate figure against which decisions should be made and this may be referred to by Inspectors in planning appeals. There is an imperative therefore in undertaking the additional work to support the Council’s confirmation of housing requirements as a matter of urgency, not just in relation to progressing the Core Strategy but to enable the Council to deal with this issue when dealing with applications..
4.12 At this stage in terms of the available information for the Core Strategy Examination, the Council can put forward its latest evidence base and accept the advice of its consultants, however further work must be undertaken in the light of the evidence to establish the housing target that the Council considers is appropriate to apply to the Core Strategy and to assess the implications for the submitted strategy model.
5 NATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 The basis of addressing housing issues is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which has at its heart the delivery of sustainable development. In essence the Framework emphasises the three roles that the planning system has to perform in order to achieve sustainable development.
6 5.2 The three roles, which should not be taken in isolation, are:
• An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and co-ordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing; and • An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
5.3 At the heart of national policy and within the overarching roles of the planning system, the Framework sets out 12 core planning principles, which includes amongst other things, that planning should be
• Genuinely plan led – empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area and significantly that plans should be kept up to date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues.
In addition, the core planning principles include that planning should:
• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of the area and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.
5.4 In establishing the housing requirement for the area, it is a fundamental principle that the Council has an up to date evidence base and applies that evidence to make decisions and plan for the needs of the area in an appropriate manner. Paragraph 152 of the Framework identifies that local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability and make net gains across all three areas. However, it is also stated in paragraph 152 that ‘significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. This is an important consideration in relation to the impact of development requirements identified through evidence gathering. Similarly, the Framework in paragraph 157 recognises that plans should be based upon co-operation with neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector organisations. This co- operation is a factor when considering the impacts of housing policy with neighbouring authorities in relation to their investment and regeneration priorities and these are considerations for the Council in determining the most appropriate housing levels. This
7 liaison to confirm the position of neighbouring authorities in the light of the consultants findings, will require additional work.
5.5 It is also clear from the Framework that whilst the Council is expected to use the evidence base to ensure the full objectively assessed needs are met, this is, as set out in paragraph 47 of the Framework only ‘as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework …’. This underpins the regard the Council must have whilst on the one hand recognising the requirements identified in its evidence base and balancing this against the detailed policy considerations required by the Framework to ensure sustainable development is achieved.
5.6 This is further illustrated for example at paragraph 115 of the Framework which states
‘great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in … Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty …’ and in subsequent paragraphs dealing with biodiversity and conserving and enhancing the historic environment for example. Similarly it is clearly relevant as set out in paragraphs 165 and 166 of the Framework referring to the regard to be given to wider environmental considerations when establishing planning policies, to ensure that there is balanced judgement between evidence on needs and evidence on protecting the characteristics and environmental considerations that apply across the borough.
5.7 In summary whilst it is clear from national policy that the Council has to address the needs that its evidence identifies, and the national policy and direction of NPPF is clearly growth based. It is also an imperative that the Council balances the delivery of sustainability in terms of the three key roles identified in the Framework. On this basis it is important that the further work identified in the report so far and in particular in relation to the housing requirements review, is undertaken in order to ensure that the Council can inform its decision on housing requirements and substantiate this decision through the Examination.
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The updated housing evidence provides a basis against which to assess the submitted Core Strategy. As indicated the GTAA provides an updated position that will need to be reflected in the supporting text of the strategy but does not lead to a fundamental change in the Gypsy and Traveller policy itself. Although some details of the SHLAA remain at the time of writing to be finalised, the overall position emerging is that there appears again to be no fundamental issues around the ability to identify sufficient land to meet the borough’s needs although this needs to be confirmed through the completion of the study.
6.2 The update of the housing requirements review identifies a range for housing provision of between 220-250 dwellings per annum as being an appropriate guide for housing requirements. It is emphasised by the consultants that a level of 220 would not address the economic needs of the borough. This would deliver the demographic based needs but a level of 250 would enable the Council to support the delivery of affordable housing and some economic growth. A level of 250 dwellings per annum, would not address the full assessed needs to align demographic and economic needs identified in the evidence base, which would require a housing target of 280 dwellings per annum but this does not account for other balances the Council needs to apply.
8 6.3 At a level of 280 dwellings per annum, no account is made of the need to ensure the delivery of all three strands of sustainable development. Further evidence will need to be collated and tested to support the lower figure at the Examination. Given the advice in the consultant’s report and subject to the requirement to support this position with further evidence, for the purposes of taking the Core Strategy forward, a requirement of 250 dwellings could be applied, however this will introduce an element of risk on soundness should the Inspector holding the Examination find that the lower figure is not fully justified.
6.4 An issue that arises as a result of the housing requirements review is its implications for the spatial distribution model applied in the Core Strategy that sets out the levels of growth anticipated at each settlement. Hyder Consulting, who undertook the Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy, have been asked to consider the implications of increasing levels of growth in accord with the Core Strategy model and whether the spatial distribution is still appropriate. An update on this will be provided at Committee, however it must be stressed that the proposed increase in housing and its effect on patterns of growth could have implications for the Core Strategy model continuing to be a suitable basis for planning at this level of anticipated growth. The forthcoming SA advice will help clarify this.
6.5 As discussed earlier, the Council will need to undertake further detailed analysis of the implications of the housing growth derived from the requirement review and this will need to be fed into the timetable to progress the Examination of the Core Strategy and will need to be raised with the Inspector for his guidance on how he would wish this to be addressed.
7 RISK ASSESSMENT
7.1 The approval of this report may have the following implications:
• Resources – Additional work will need to be resourced. Provision exists within existing reserves to support the Core Strategy, however this will need to be kept under review as no specific budget is allocated for the likely work now anticipated.
• Technical, Environmental and Legal – In forming a judgement Members will need to ensure a justified and evidence-based approach is taken in line with existing planning policy guidance.
• Political – There is significant interest in housing and related Core Strategy issues.
• Reputation – The decision taken will influence future planning decisions and demonstrate the ability to take the lead role on issues of significance to the local community.
8 RECOMMENDED THAT COMMITTEE
8.1 Note the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Housing Requirements update and submit the reports as part of the evidence base to the Core Strategy Examination.
9 8.2 Endorse the advice of Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners and agree to base further work on the Core Strategy housing requirement on the upper figure of 250 dwellings per annum as identified in the consultant’s conclusions subject to the outcome of the additional work to address matters of mitigation as identified.
8.3 Agree to seek further guidance from the Inspector appointed to examine the Core Strategy on the emerging implications of the housing evidence base in relation to the submitted Core Strategy and the need to undertake further work in relation to the housing requirement to inform the Examination.
8.4 Endorse the continued application of the submitted Core Strategy housing requirement of 200 dwellings per annum for the purpose of guiding decisions on planning applications pending consultation on the updated evidence.
COLIN HIRST MARSHAL SCOTT HEAD OF REGENERATION AND HOUSING CHIEF EXECUTIVE
BACKGROUND PAPERS
1 National Planning Policy Framework. 2 Submission Version Core Strategy September 2012. 3 Ribble Valley Housing Requirement Update – Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners. 4 Draft Strategic Housing Market Assessment – June 2013.
For further information please ask for Colin Hirst, extension 4503.
Ref: 250613/P&D/COLIN HIRST/EL
10 APPENDIX 1 RIBBLE VALLEY CORE STRATEGY – HOUSING MONITORING (250 units per year)
This table updates table 15.2 at Appendix 2 of the submitted Core Strategy and shows the residual number of houses for settlements based on the Housing Land position at 31st March 2013.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Settlement Number of Number of houses Unadjusted Longridge Proposed Residual number of houses to be already residual (less adjustment 3 Strategic houses required for provided 1 completed/permission number already Site - 1040 4 each settlement 5 given2 for each completed/ (figure of 230 is result of 'settlement'/ area (based permission given) Standen site subtracted on the Parish) from Clitheroe) Clitheroe 2,065 795 1270 0 230 Longridge 1,032 282 750 550 550 Whalley 463 248 215 0 215 Other 1440 908 532 732 732 settlements Standen 0 1040 1040 Total 5000 2233 2770 2767
1 For three main settlements total no. of dwellings is 3560. Number of houses is calculated from settlement population as a % of total main settlement population (see table at 15.2 of Submitted Core Strategy for data) – Clitheroe 58%, Longridge 29%, Whalley 13% 2 Does not include sites which are awaiting completion of section 106 agreements at 31.03.2013 3 This allowance reflects anticipated development in Preston Borough at Longridge – 200 taken from Longridge and reapportioned to the ‘Other Settlements’ 4 Proposed Strategic Site – 1040 dwellings proposed at Standen. 1040 taken from Clitheroe requirement. 5 As at 31st March 2013 – applications have been approved since
RIBBLE VALLEY CORE STRATEGY – HOUSING MONITORING (280 units per year)
THIS TABLE UPDATES TABLE 15.2 AT APPENDIX 2 OF THE SUBMITTED CORE STRATEGY AND SHOWS THE RESIDUAL NUMBER OF HOUSES FOR ST SETTLEMENTS BASED ON THE HOUSING LAND POSITION AT 31 MARCH 2013.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Settlement Number of Number of houses Unadjusted Longridge Proposed Residual number of houses to be already residual (less adjustment 8 Strategic houses required for provided 6 completed/permission number already Site - 1040 9 each settlement 10 given7 for each completed/ (figure of 485 is result of 'settlement'/ area (based permission given) Standen site subtracted on the Parish) from Clitheroe) Clitheroe 2,320 795 1525 0 485 Longridge 1,160 282 878 678 678 Whalley 520 248 272 0 272 Other 1600 908 692 892 892 settlements Standen 0 1040 1040 Total 5600 2233 3367 3367
6 For three main settlements total no. of dwellings is 4000. Number of houses is calculated from settlement population as a % of total main settlement population (see table at 15.2 of Submitted Core Strategy for data) – Clitheroe 58%, Longridge 29%, Whalley 13% 7 Does not include sites which are awaiting completion of section 106 agreements at 31.03.2013 8 This allowance reflects anticipated development in Preston Borough at Longridge – 200 taken from Longridge and reapportioned to the ‘Other Settlements’ 9 Proposed Strategic Site – 1040 dwellings proposed at Standen. 1040 taken from Clitheroe requirement. 10 As at 31st March 2013 – applications have been approved since
Implications of the 2011-based CLG Household Projections
Ribble Valley Housing Requirement Update
Ribble Valley Borough Council
30 May 2013
40895/02/MW/CRo
Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 3rd Floor One St James's Square Manchester M2 6DN nlpplanning.com
This document is formatted for double sided printing.
© Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2012. Trading as Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. All Rights Reserved. Registered Office: 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL All plans within this document produced by NLP are based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Background and Context 3 Ribble Valley Housing Needs Study ...... 3 Local Plan Proposals ...... 5 Summary...... 6
3.0 2011-based CLG Household Projections 7 Overview ...... 7 Issues with the Data ...... 8 Updated Scenarios...... 11
4.0 Implications of the Revised Projections 16 Overall Compliance...... 17 Conclusion ...... 22
4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
1.0 Introduction
1.1 In July 2011 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners [NLP] produced a study on behalf of Ribble Valley Borough Council [RVBC] concerning local housing requirements within the Borough 1. The study set out the potential scale of future housing requirements in Ribble Valley, based upon a range of housing, economic and demographic factors, trends and forecasts. This sought to provide the Council with evidence on future housing requirements to help it plan for future growth and make informed policy choices.
1.2 The study subsequently formed a key part of the evidence base underpinning Ribble Valley’s Submission Draft Local Plan, which was submitted for examination in September 2012.
1.3 In accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework [The Framework], the Local Plan must be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of their area [para 158].
1.4 For housing, this means that housing needs must be objectively assessed. This requires that the most up-to-date household and population projections are used, taking into account migration and demographic change. NLP’s earlier HEaDROOM report based the demographic scenarios on the most up-to-date evidence available at the time (spring 2011), which comprised the ONS 2008- based Sub-National Population Projections [SNPP] and CLG 2008-based household projections.
1.5 New evidence is now available including the 2011 Census, ONS 2010-based SNPP, the (interim) ONS 2011-based SNPP, the ONS mid-year migration estimates for 2001-2011 and the (interim) CLG 2011-based household projections. The 2013 Employment Land Review [ELR] for Ribble Valley (BE Group) has also been made available by RVBC. This report therefore updates the locally generated housing requirements produced for RVBC in 2011 in the light of the latest demographic evidence. This includes the following: 1 An analysis of the latest demographic and population releases for Ribble Valley Borough, notably the 2011 Census population figures; the (interim) ONS 2011-based SNPP, the ONS mid-year migration estimates for 2001- 2011 and the (interim) CLG 2011-based household projections, and how these forecasts compare with the data underpinning NLP’s 2011 HEaDROOM report; 2 New Scenarios exploring the likely impact of these new figures on dwelling requirements to 2028 through a re-run of the PopGroup baseline model, (incorporating the 2011-based ONS SNPP forecasts and headship rates from the 2011-based household projections), adjusted to take into
1 NLP: Ribble Valley Housing Requirement HEaDROOM Report (July 2011)
4808923v5 P1
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
account the 2011 Census population for the Borough and updated migration trend statistics; 3 A new economic-change scenario, based upon the job growth projected for Ribble Valley in the Council’s 2013 ELR; 4 A contextual overview exploring the reasons behind any significant changes to the forecasts and the extent to which the previous HEaDROOM results remain valid.
P2 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
2.0 Background and Context
Ribble Valley Housing Needs Study
2.1 The purpose of the Ribble Valley Housing Needs Study, undertaken by NLP in 2011, was to set out the scale of future housing requirements in the Borough based upon a range of housing, economic and demographic factors, trends and forecasts. NLP’s HEaDROOM model was used to provide RVBC with evidence on the future housing requirement for their area to help Officers plan for future growth and make informed policy choices through the Development Plan preparation process.
What is HEaDROOM?
2.2 At the heart of HEaDROOM is an understanding of the role of housing in ensuring that the future population of a locality can be accommodated and the extent to which housing plays a crucial role in securing the economic well-being of a local area. The model involves the use of a variety of forecasting techniques and analysis to avoid any over-reliance on 'predict and provide'. Specifically, this incorporates the ‘PopGroup’ demographic forecasting tool, with a variety of inputs including ONS population projections and comparable CLG household forecasts.
2.3 At the time of the 2011 study, the most up-to-date information available for the PopGroup model involved the 2008-based ONS SNPP and the 2008-based CLG household projections. On this basis, 11 future housing scenarios were agreed with the Council as follows: 1 Demographic Factors (Scenarios A-D) – what projections of natural change, migration and headship rates will mean for future levels of household growth. This primarily involved undertaking a series of sensitivity adjustments to the PopGroup Baseline model run (particularly concerning migration), as well as interpreting the 2008-based CLG household growth statistics for the area. An adjustment was also made to explore the implications of reducing the vacancy rate in Ribble Valley from 3.7% to 1.9%; 2 Economic Factors (Scenarios E-F) – what levels of housing are needed to sustain different estimates of employment change. This approach included taking forward job growth forecasts for the Borough underpinning the Council’s Employment Land Study, as well as applying a sensitivity test that changed the commuting balance; and, 3 Housing Factors (Scenarios G-H) – how past trends of delivery are likely to be reflected in future household growth. This included analysing construction rates to identify what the market could potentially bring forward, as well as revisiting the NWRS housing requirements.
4808923v5 P3
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Results of the 2011 HEaDROOM Model Runs
2.4 The scenarios resulted in a wide range of housing requirements for the period 2008 to 2028 based upon different indicators of what the need for housing within Ribble Valley could be, as summarised in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Summary of Scenarios
600
500
400
300
200
100 Estimated Annual Housing Requirement 2008-28
0
A. Baseline A. Sensitivity) B.Natural Change Balance Balance C. Zero C. NetZero Migration Aa. Baseline - Aa. (Vacancy H. NWRS Requirements E. Past Past TrendsE. Job Growth Changing Commuting the G. Past Development Rates - Changing the Commuting F. Forecast Job Growth Forecast F. (ELS) Ea. Past Past TrendsEa. Job Growth - Fa. Forecast Job Growth Forecast Fa. (ELS) D. 2008 HouseholdForecasts
RS Requirement Actual Delivery
Source: NLP Analysis
2.5 The projected dwelling requirements ranged from as low as 43 dpa (based on the zero net migration forecasts) to as high as 559 dpa (Past trends job growth). These were split into three broad groups – demographic based scenarios allowing for an element of in-migration (A, Aa and D) and housing scenarios (G and H); demographic based scenarios excluding net in-migration (scenarios B and C); and employment-led scenarios (E, Ea, F and Fa). The employment led and reduced migration scenarios were subsequently excluded on the grounds that they were neither realistic nor desirable.
P4 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Suggested Range
2.6 The HEaDROOM report concluded that the dwelling requirements for Ribble Valley Borough should be for between 190 dpa and 220 dpa over the period 2008 to 2028.
2.7 This refined range was derived following the consideration of the combined outputs from the various model runs, set against the environmental issues and constraints that could preclude the Borough from physically accommodating certain levels of housing need. In particular, and as noted in the HEaDROOM report, a sensitivity test was undertaken on the baseline figure of 220 dpa using a lower rate of 1.9% in 2028, based on the Borough’s valuation list data 2. This resulted in a reduction in the dwelling requirement figure to 190 dpa. The HEaDROOM report concluded that there would be a need to continue to monitor and update existing evidence, including reviewing dwelling vacancy levels in the Borough, to test whether a higher/lower figure should be incorporated into a recalibrated PopGroup model.
2.8 It was considered that a requirement of between 190 dpa and 220 dpa represented a sensible range for the Borough, providing a realistic level of housing to deliver some economic growth, whilst recognising environmental issues and the challenges ahead.
2.9 It should be noted that the evidence within the report did not include any allowance for backlog/past over-provision; nor did it seek to make a planning or policy judgement. Both points were considered to be matters for RVBC Officers taking into account the information before them. The 2011 report therefore represented a first stage for further consideration of all relevant factors through the Local Plan process.
Local Plan Proposals
Ribble Valley Borough Local Plan
2.10 Key Statement H1 of the Submission Ribble Valley Local Plan (2012) states that land for residential development will be made available to deliver 4,000 dwellings , at an average annual completion rate of at least 200 dpa over the period 2008 to 2028 in accordance with baseline information.
2.11 Policy H1 states that RVBC will seek affordable housing provision at 30% of units on housing developments within the settlement boundaries of Clitheroe and Longridge comprising of 10 or more dwellings (or sites of 0.5 hectares or more, irrespective of the number of dwellings). In all other locations in the
2 Valuation List Data comes from Valuation Office Agency of HMRC. It is based on property values at 1 April 1991, with homes allocated to one of eight bands in England: the lowest - band A - is for homes worth less than £40,000, and the highest - band H - is for those worth more than £320,000. The valuation lists show to which band a property has been allocated, which reflects a value range.
4808923v5 P5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Borough, for developments of 5 or more dwellings (or sites of 0.2 hectares or more), RVBC will require 30% affordable units on the site.
2.12 Policy EC1 states that RVBC will aim to allocate an additional 9 ha of land for employment purposes in appropriate and sustainable locations during the lifetime of the plan. This figure excludes the Enterprise Zone at the BAe Samlesbury site, which is considered to be of regional significance.
Summary
2.13 Table 2.1 compares the NLP housing requirement range identified in the 2011 HEaDROOM report against the amount RVBC is actively planning for. It suggests that RVBC are planning for a level of housing growth that is approximate to the middle of the recommended range in NLP’s 2011 HEaDROOM report.
Table 2.1 Annual Housing Requirements Comparison
2011 HEaDROOM – Local Plan Provision Recommended Range
Ribble Valley (2008-28 – 20 year) 190 – 220 dpa 4,000 (200 dpa) Source: NLP analysis, RVBC
P6 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
3.0 2011-based CLG Household Projections
Overview
3.1 The Framework [para 47] requires LPAs to meet the full, objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing within their HMA. To have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area, LPAs should prepare a SHMA which should identify the scale and mix of housing need over the plan period to meet household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change [para 159].
3.2 In this regard, since the submission of the 2011 HEaDROOM Study, the demographic data which underpinned NLP’s modelling work has been updated by both the ONS and CLG. New statistical information includes: 1 2011 Census data; 2 RVBC’s 2013 Employment Land Review; 3 Revised 2010/2011-based mid-year population estimates; 4 Revised ONS mid-year population/migration estimates for 2001-2011, factoring in the 2011 Census; 5 2010-based ONS SNPP; 6 (Interim) 2011-based SNPP; and, 7 (Interim) 2011-based household projections.
3.3 The latter dataset is of particular relevance to this update. The latest set of household projections was published by CLG on 9 th April 2013. The CLG 2011- based interim household projections cover the period 2011 to 2021 and supersede the previous 2008-based household projections which covered the period 2008 to 2033 but which were built up from a 2001 Census base.
3.4 A comparison of the latest household projections against the previous 2008- based household projections for Ribble Valley Borough is set out in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Household Projections Comparison 2011-2021
2008-based Household 2011-based Household Projections Projections
Annual Annual Annual Annual 2011 2021 2011-21 H’holds Dwellings* H’holds Dwellings* Ribble Valley 24,099 25,978 1,879 188 196 250 261 Source: CLG (interim) 2011/2008-based household projections / NLP analysis
*Converts households into dwellings by making an additional allowance for vacant units/second homes (4.2% for Ribble Valley as recorded in the October 2012 Council Tax Base for Formula Grant Purposes)
3.5 Both Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 indicate that whilst household growth is forecast to continue to increase in Ribble Valley under the latest projections, the level of change between 2011 and 2021 is projected to be much lower than the
4808923v5 P7
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
previous 2008-based household projections suggested. The most recent projections are around 25% lower than the 2008-based projections. This appears to be due, at least in part, to a past over-estimation of the number of residents living in the Borough based on the mid-year estimates. This indicated 58,500 residents living in the Borough in 2011, whereas the more accurate 2011 Census recorded that the total resident population was significantly lower, at 57,100.
Figure 3.1 Ribble Valley Borough CLG Household Projections Comparison
31,000
29,000
27,000
25,000 Households 23,000
21,000
19,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
2011-based H'hold Projections 2008-based H'hold Projections
Source: NLP Analysis / CLG 2008/2011-based household projections
3.6 Overall, the latest CLG household projections indicates that the number of households in the Borough is likely to increase by around 188 households per annum [hhpa], compared to 250 hhpa as suggested by the previous set of projections. Converting this into dwellings would indicate a need of 196 dpa for Ribble Valley up to 2021, around 25% lower than the previous projections suggested.
Issues with the Data
3.7 The 2011-based (interim) household projections represent the most up-to- date indication of household change currently available at a national, regional and local level. The projections incorporate 2011 Census data and supersede the 2008-based household projections.
3.8 However, it is important to note that there are a variety of limitations with the projections, not least the fact that these are demographic and trend- based only and do not take into account any policy changes that may affect actual household formation in the future.
3.9 The most obvious statistical shortcoming is that the projections only span a 10-year period, which presents difficulties for LPAs looking to plan for a
P8 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
minimum of 15 years into the future. Furthermore, although Census 2011 data was used where possible, where data was not available (for example, household representative rates by age and marital status) information was used from the Labour Force Survey data or from previous projections instead.
3.10 In this regard: ‘The household projections are derived from the SNPP, so any limitations with the interim population projections would also need to be taken into account when interpreting household projections. For example, population projections generally update underlying demographic assumptions on fertility and migration in line with new available data, but for the 2011- based SNPP trends from the 2010-based projections were used’.‘3
Household Formation Rates
3.11 There is a marked difference between the household formation rates underpinning the 2008-based and (interim) 2011-based household projections. At the national level, the latest 2011-based projections strongly reflect recently observed trends in suppressed household formation which are associated, at least in part, with the impacts of the recession and past housing under-supply. CLG caution against simply rolling forward household formation rates beyond 2021: "There are also particular limitations in the use of the 2011-based interim household projections. The projections only span for a 10-year period so users that require a longer time span would need to judge whether recent household formation trends are likely to continue."3
3.12 Overall household formation rates in Ribble Valley have been on a consistently downward trend for many years. Indeed, unlike many other parts of the country which experienced a relatively static formation rate between 2001 and 2011, Figure 3.2 demonstrates that the downward trend towards smaller household size has continued in Ribble Valley up to the present day despite the economic downturn. Post 2011, the downward trend carried forward in the latest 2011- based projections is less pronounced than the 2008-based projections suggested, which are more reflective of long term trends.
3 CLG (2013): 2011-based Interim Household Projections - Quality Report
4808923v5 P9
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Figure 3.2 Trends in Household Formation (Average Household Size) in Ribble Valley (1991-2033)
2.55 Census Census 2011-based Post-2021
2001 2011 Projections 2.50
2.45
2.40
2.35
2.30
Average Household Size 2.25
2.20
2.15
2.10
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Estimated Average Household Size - 2008-based projections Average Household Size Estimated Average Household Size - 2011-based projections
Indexed Change Projection Census 2001 to Census 2011
Source: Census 2001, Census 2011 and ONS/CLG Population and Household Estimates and Projections
3.13 The 2011-based projections expect this moderated average household size to continue in the short term up to 2021. Conversely, the previous 2008-based household projections projected forward the trends in Ribble Valley experienced pre-2001 and suggested a steeper decline.
3.14 For the purposes of an objective assessment of needs in line with The Framework, it is reasonable to assume that beyond 2021, rates of household formation (and therefore trends in average household size) will reflect a change in line with long term trends, i.e. decreasing household size as a result of the country’s ageing population and changing social imperatives. This is likely to occur in particular as the wider economy returns to growth and peoples’ circumstances improve, with an improvement in confidence and their ability to form new households.
3.15 NLP considers that as the market recovers the suppressed demand resulting from the recessionary constraints on household formation will simply be unlocked. In particular, this will include people in the 25-44 age brackets (and in many cases seeking to start families) being able to get on the housing ladder and form new households.
3.16 Therefore, beyond 2021 NLP has applied the rate of annual change in household formation from the 2008-based household projections to reflect such long term trends (and in the absence of other long-term projections of
P10 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
household formation). This is illustrated for individual age cohorts in Figure 3.3, which shows increasing headship rates (the proportion of a population that will form a head of household) within Ribble Valley among 35 to 54 year olds, whilst a decreasing headship rate among 25-34 year olds and those aged 60+.
Figure 3.3 Projected Household Headship Rates for Ribble Valley
100.0%
90.0% usehold) 80.0%
70.0% 15-24 25-34 60.0% 35-44
50.0% 45-54 55-59 40.0% 60-64 65-74 30.0% 75-84 85+ 20.0%
10.0% Headship Rate (Proportion of Age Group a HeadshipHead of Age Rateof Ho (Proportion
0.0%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Source: CLG 2011-based Interim Household Projections, NLP
3.17 These age-specific projections of household headship rates are applied to the projected population of Ribble Valley to arrive at an estimate of the future number of households in the Borough post 2021.
Updated Scenarios
3.18 NLP has re-visited the 2011 HEaDROOM analysis to incorporate new scenarios based on the latest CLG 2011-based (interim) household projections; the updated ONS mid-year sub-national population and migration estimates for 2001-2011; and the 2013 ELR. As discussed above, various assumptions have been made concerning the headship rates post 2021. Similar assumptions have been made concerning vacancy rates, unemployment and economic activity as in the 2011 HEaDROOM report, albeit again, more up-to- date information has been used where available. The output sheets are provided in Appendix 1, whilst a summary of the key assumptions is provided in Appendix 2. The new scenarios are as follows: 1 PopGroup Baseline Scenario – A demographic-led scenario modelled on the ONS 2011-based SNPP for fertility, mortality and migration rates and utilising the 2011-based (interim) household projections;
4808923v5 P11
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
2 Long Term Past Migration Trends ---- A demographic-led scenario modelled on the basis of past migration trends in Ribble Valley over the past 10 years; 3 Short Term Past Migration Trends ---- A demographic-led scenario modelled on the basis of past migration trends in Ribble Valley over the past 5 years, when net in-migration rates have been much lower; 4 ELR Preferred Scenario Employment Growth ---- An economic-led scenario based upon delivering the anticipated job growth in Ribble Valley as projected by Oxford Economic Forecasts and incorporated within the 2013 ELR, equivalent to +1,600 new jobs over the period 2012-28 (+100 jobs per annum). This scenario is demographically modelled based on the broad relationship between jobs, labour force, population and dwellings.
Scenario I: Revised PopGroup Baseline (2011-based CLG Household Projections)
3.19 This scenario represents the housing and economic implications of the projected demographic shift based on current factors and past trends in Ribble Valley, using projected assumptions from the 2011-based SNPP, results from the 2011 Census and CLG 2011-based projected headship rates. The results of this updated PopGroup Baseline model run are outlined in Table 3.2.
3.20 It should be noted that the figures below do not include any allowance for backlog; nor do they seek to make a planning or policy judgement as to their suitability. This is also the case for the other two new scenarios modelled.
Table 3.2 Summary of PopGroup Baseline Scenario, (2011-based CLG Household Projections) 2011-28
2011-28 Ribble Valley
Population Change +5,596
of which Natural Change -1,881
of which Net Migration +7,477
Household Change +3,603
Dwelling Change +3,761
Dwellings p.a. +221
Economic Activity +33
Jobs +96 Source: NLP Analysis Using PopGroup
3.21 The analysis indicates that the overall Ribble Valley dwelling requirement figure for the period 2011-2028, at 221 dpa , is slightly higher than the 200 dpa currently being planned for by the Council in their emerging Local Plan. It extends just beyond the top end of the 190-220 dpa range recommended by the previous HEaDROOM report.
P12 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
3.22 Table 3.2 indicates that migration - and specifically domestic migration from elsewhere in the UK - is the driver of population growth in Ribble Valley. Over the 17-year modelling period, around 47,900 people are anticipated to move into the Borough from elsewhere in the UK, with around 40,700 leaving, resulting in a net increase in the population of over 7,200 (almost 7,480 including international migrants).
3.23 Conversely, as the Borough’s population is already weighted towards the older age cohorts, the number of deaths significantly outnumbers births, resulting in a negative natural change figure of over 1,880. Therefore due to the ageing population and despite growing by almost 5,600 residents over the Plan period, the number of economically active residents living in Ribble Valley is barely expected to change.
Scenario J: Long Term Past Migration Trends
3.24 As noted above, migration is the key driver of population growth in Ribble Valley. In order to understand the sensitivity of the housing requirements figure to changes in migration rates, this scenario - examining long term past migration trends - incorporates the average rate of internal and international migration over the past ten years. These rates are shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Long Term Annual Average Migration Trends (2001/02 – 2010/11)
Migration Type Long Term Average
Domestic Migration In +2,957
Domestic Migration Out -2,477
Net Domestic Migration +480
International Migration In +158
International Migration Out -123
Net International Migration +35
Total Net Migration +515 Source: ONS mid-year sub-national population estimates for mid-2001 to mid-2011, revised following the 2011 Census (30 April 2013)
3.25 This scenario is a reasonable proxy for what can be expected to occur in migration terms going forward, particularly as these long term past trends show that migration has fluctuated significantly during this period, and therefore this scenario represents a ‘smoothed’ trend. This scenario would lead to a growth in the population totalling c.5,215 by 2028, of which -1,885 would be from natural change, with 7,100 from net migration.
3.26 This would lead to household growth totalling 3,480 between 2011 and 2028. Again, taking account of the dwelling vacancy and second home rate, this generates a requirement for c. 3,633 new dwellings over the 17-year period, equivalent to 214 dpa .
4808923v5 P13
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Scenario K: Short Term Past Migration Trends
3.27 The short term past migration trends scenario is similar to Scenario J, in that it is based on past observed trends. However, it is based upon only the previous five years of migration, during which there has been a much lower observed level of net domestic in-migration and, to a lesser extent, lower levels of net international in-migration as well. Therefore, this scenario is based upon the migration levels outlined in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Short Term Annual Average Migration Trends (2006/07 – 2010/11)
Migration Type Short Term Average
Domestic Migration In +2,767
Domestic Migration Out -2,477
Net Domestic Migration +290
International Migration In +158
International Migration Out -148
Net International Migration +10
Total Net Migration +300 Source: ONS mid-year sub-national population estimates for mid-2001 to mid-2011, revised following the 2011 Census (30 April 2013)
3.28 This scenario would lead to a population increase of 3,877 over the period 2011 to 2028. This would comprise -1,934 fewer people associated with natural change factors and +5,810 from net in-migration. This would lead to a growth in the number of households in Ribble Valley Borough of 3,009 between 2011 and 2028, which would equate a total dwelling requirement of 3,140 dwellings . This would be the equivalent of 185 dpa .
Scenario L: ELR Job Growth
3.29 This scenario is based upon data informing the 2013 Ribble Valley ELR. The ‘Policy Off’ Oxford Economics Forecasting Model (2013) projected that Ribble Valley Borough would have an increase in jobs of 100 per annum over the period 2012 to 2028 (+1,600 in total). This is equivalent to a rise of 4.6% from 2012 (although this is significantly less than the UK growth figure of 8.1% and the North West growth rate of 6.2% over the same time period.) RVBC Officers have confirmed that the emerging Local Plan will include this figure as the anticipated level of job growth likely to be created in the Borough over the Plan period.
3.30 The necessary population growth to underpin an expansion in the indigenous labour supply, which would in turn support this given level of employment growth is modelled in this scenario, along with the quantity of housing required to ensure delivery of these jobs.
3.31 The modelling for this scenario assumes that rates of natural population change and household formation remain the same as for the baseline
P14 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
demographic scenario outlined earlier (i.e. based on past trends continuing). The scale of in-migration is adjusted to provide a sufficient quantity of economically active people to meet the job target for Ribble Valley.
3.32 To meet the job growth of 100 per annum between 2011 and 2028, an increase in the indigenous labour force of c.1,670 people would be necessary; this would require a population growth of 8,738 people (Table 3.5). This population growth (combined with household change within the existing population profile) would lead to a growth in households of 4,553 by 2028.
3.33 To accommodate this growth in households (and taking into account a second home and vacancy rate), an additional 4,753 homes would need to be built between 2011 and 2028, equivalent to 280 dpa.
Table 3.5 Summary of ELR Job Growth Scenario L 2011-28
2011-28 Ribble Valley
Population Change +8,738
of which Natural Change -1,124
of which Net Migration +9,862
Household Change +4,553
Dwelling Change +4,753
Dwellings p.a. +280
Economic Activity +1,670
Jobs +1,700 Source: NLP Analysis Using PopGroup / RVBC ELR 2013
4808923v5 P15
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
4.0 Implications of the Revised Projections
4.1 In the light of the recent publication of the 2011-based CLG household projections and other key data sources, this section of the report discusses the extent to which the previous forecasts remain valid, and whether as a consequence of this, the justification behind the range of dwelling requirements given in the previous report (and which underpins Ribble Valley’s Local Plan housing requirement) remains robust.
Figure 4.1 Summary of Retained Scenarios, including New Scenarios
600 559 Recommended Range 190-220 dpa
500
434
398 400
315
300 280 260
225 220 221 214 200 190 185 161 Estimated Annual Housing Estimated Annual 2011-28 Requirement
100 89
43
0
A.Baseline Forecasts Sensitivity) Trends Projections Trends L.ELR Growth Job Balance B. Natural Change Balance D. 2008Household C. C. Zero Net Migration Aa. Baseline Aa. -(Vacancy H. NWRS Requirements CLGI. 2011Household E. Past E.Past Trends Growth Job Changing Commuting the G.PastDevelopment Rates J. Long J. Term Past Migration - Changing Commuting the F. Forecast Job GrowthJob Forecast F. (ELS) Ea. Ea. Past TrendsGrowth Job - K. Short Term K.Short Past Migration Fa. Forecast Job GrowthJob Fa.Forecast (ELS)
Source: NLP Analysis of PopGroup Outputs
4.2 Figure 4.1 demonstrates the extent to which the latest CLG household projections scenario (I), the two past migration trend scenarios (J & K) and the ELR job growth scenario (L) compare with the previously modelled scenarios (excluding the less realistic/unsustainable projections) and the recommended range for Ribble Valley Borough. The more recent estimates of migration trends demonstrate lower levels of housing requirement, associated with lower levels of net in-migration, whilst the ELR job growth scenario suggests a much higher figure of 280 dpa. This is due to the ageing indigenous population, whereby existing residents are being removed from the pool of labour available to support the local economy. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between the various factors and this must be reflected in the Council’s policy aspirations.
P16 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
4.3 It is re-iterated that NLP has some reservations regarding an over-reliance of the 2011-based household projections to underpin Local Plan housing requirements (as set out in Section 3.0), as although they represent the most up to date indications of demographic change, there are issues over the quality of the data, its restricted time frame, and the lack of any policy emphasis in their formulation. With regards to this latter point, the previous HEaDROOM report sought to balance the various economic, social and environmental sustainability criterion to inform a suitable housing requirement of the Borough, which is beyond the scope of this report.
4.4 The most meaningful comparisons for the demographic-led projections relate to Scenario A (the previous PopGroup baseline); Scenario Aa (the baseline incorporating an allowance for adjustments to the vacancy rate) and Scenario D (the 2008-based household projections).
4.5 As can be seen in Figure 4.1, the projections for Scenarios J and K are very similar to the previous PopGroup baseline Scenario A, which indicated a requirement of 220 dpa compared to 221/214 dpa respectively. As no adjustment has been made to the vacancy rate, it is unsurprising that the three new scenarios are higher than Scenario Aa; indeed, were a similar approach to be taken to gradually reducing the vacancy rate to 1.9%, a not dissimilar figure of 189 dpa would also accrue from Scenario I. The continued merits of this sensitivity test are discussed below.
4.6 The three new demographic scenarios indicate dwelling requirements that all remain significantly below the previous CLG household projections would suggest (260 dpa). This is primarily due to the consistently lower headship rates used for the latter, even allowing for index-based adjustments to the 2011-based figures post 2021.
4.7 The new ELR job growth Scenario L is also significantly lower than the comparable earlier economic scenarios (E-F). Along with the demographic influences discussed above, this is primarily due to the much lower job growth projected for this scenario - 100 net additional jobs per annum compared to +418 jobs per annum based on past trends (Scenario E) and +230 jobs per annum based on the 2008 ELRS (Scenario F).
4.8 As this scenario factors in an objectively assessed level of job growth that incorporates the impact of the recession and subsequent economic downturn, it is considered that considerably more weight can be attached to this projection than for the two previous economic scenarios (and subsequent sensitivity tests), although questions still remain as to whether the resulting level of housing suggested for this scenario, at 280 dpa, is achievable for Ribble Valley to pursue in policy terms bearing in mind past delivery rates.
Overall Compliance
4.9 Following from the above analysis, it is relevant to revisit the original justification for Ribble Valley’s housing requirement range. The 2011 report reviewed the range of scenarios and excluded the more extreme, or
4808923v5 P17
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
unsustainable, forecasts such as the employment-led or reduced migration projections. Excluding the employment led and reduced migration scenarios, this left a broad range of 190-260 dwellings per annum, relating to the demographic projections for the area contained with Scenario A (PopGroup Baseline), Scenario Aa (the Baseline PopGroup model output sensitivity), Scenario D (2008 CLG Household forecasts) and G (Past Development Rates). Based on the core constraints on development delivery and policy choices, the analysis suggested that the realistic dwelling requirement for Ribble Valley Borough should sit somewhere within the 190-220 dwellings per annum range between 2008 and 2028.
4.10 This range was further justified on the grounds that: a Meeting Affordable Housing Need: Providing 190-220 dpa would contribute towards meeting some of the housing need identified in the SHMA. The SHMA identifies a critical need of 264 dpa in the Borough; the figure of 190-220 offered some scope to address the current affordable housing shortfall, and could provide between 57-66 affordable units per annum based on the Ribble Valley Submission Draft Local Plan requirement of 30% affordable housing on new sites. This level was more than double the average amount that has been achieved over the past five years, and hence represented an aspirational (but potentially realisable) target. b Supporting Ribble Valley’s economy: A dwelling requirement of 190-220 could lead to a neutral change in the number of residents in employment over the plan period. Whilst a neutral job gain does not, on the face of it, appear to be much of an aspiration, this should be set against the fact that a significantly higher proportion of the resident population are forecast to be economically inactive by 2028. As noted in the HEaDROOM report, any figure significantly lower than the 190-220 range would be unlikely to allow the Borough to pursue its economic growth objectives. The economic scenarios produced projections considerably in excess of the demographic and housing-led forecasts and demonstrated the difficult policy choices that would need to be taken by RVBC should the economic growth forecasts be aggressively pursued. NLP took the view that the negligible decline in the working age population at the top end of the range was not sufficient to cause significant harm to the local economy. Furthermore, the trend-based economic analysis underpinning the ELRS did not sufficiently factor in the adverse impacts of the recession and subsequent economic downturn. The figures taken from the 2008 ELRS are therefore outdated, a fact RVBC has accepted by commissioning an update in 2013. c Balancing constraints to delivery: The range of 190-220 dpa represented a similar level of delivery to the level that was achieved before the housing moratorium came into force in 2004 (i.e. 225dpa). Hence it was considered that this range could be readily achieved once the housing market regains its former strength.
P18 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
d Environmental Constraints: Given RVBC’s objectives for respecting, protecting and enhancing the environment, biodiversity and character of the Borough whilst protecting the Green Belt, the Council was concerned that a level of development above 220 dpa could have an adverse impact on the individual character and settings of Ribble Valley’s market towns and villages.
4.11 As required by The Framework, there is a need to balance each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and ideally achieve net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued [para 152].
4.12 A range of 190-220 was therefore considered to achieve a suitable balance across all three dimensions of sustainable development.
Analysis
Vacancy Sensitivity
4.13 NLP has revisited the earlier assumption that 190 dpa could be justified at the lower end of the range primarily on the grounds that the vacancy/second homes rate recorded previously (of 3.7%) could be reduced over time, with the increased occupancy rates necessitating the construction of fewer new homes.
4.14 In Ribble Valley (as in any area), it is expected that housing vacancies and second homes will result in the number of dwellings exceeding the number of households. In establishing future projections, it is likewise expected that the dwelling requirement will exceed the household forecast. A rate of 3.7% was previously factored into the PopGroup model, based upon the most recent vacancy data available for the Borough at the time (ONS 2008 Vacant Dwellings data).
4.15 As noted in the HEaDROOM report, tackling vacancy rates has long been an aspiration of RVBC. A sensitivity test was therefore undertaken on the baseline figure using a lower rate of 1.9%, based on the Borough’s valuation list data 4. This resulted in a reduction in the dwelling requirement figure, from 220 dpa to 190 dpa. The HEaDROOM report concluded that there would be a need to continue to monitor and update existing evidence, including reviewing dwelling vacancy levels in the Borough, to test whether a higher/lower figure should be incorporated into a recalibrated PopGroup model.
4.16 To this end, an analysis of the latest Council Tax Base data for Formula Grant Purposes (CTB October 2012) indicates that the Borough’s vacancy rate has actually risen slightly, from 3.7% to 4.2%. On this basis, there is no conclusive
4 Valuation List Data comes from Valuation Office Agency of HMRC. It is based on property values at 1 April 1991, with homes allocated to one of eight bands in England: the lowest - band A - is for homes worth less than £40,000, and the highest - band H - is for those worth more than £320,000. The valuation lists show to which band a property has been allocated, which reflects a value range.
4808923v5 P19
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
evidence to date of the vacancy/second homes rate reducing. In these circumstances the lower end of the housing requirement range would not be justified unless there is a clearly defined policy drive on the part of RVBC to ensure that more empty homes are brought back into use and/or the number of second homes is reduced over the Plan period. We are not aware of any specific policy response from RVBC in its emerging Local Plan that is specifically seeking to bring empty homes back into use, nor to reduce the numbers of second homes in the Borough.
4.17 This suggests that without a clear policy response to reduce vacancy rates in the Borough, the lower end of the range, 190 dpa, lacks validity.
4.18 As a consequence of this, NLP considers that if the data within the 2011-based household projections, updated migration statistics and the latest vacancy rates for Ribble Valley had been available to inform the 2011 HEaDROOM report, a figure of around 220 dpa would have been recommended at the lower end of the range. Whilst Scenario K, based on short-term migration trends, indicates a lower requirement figure, NLP has reservations about placing an over-reliance on migration data for the past 5-years alone, as this may have been unduly influenced by the economic downturn and may not be replicated in future as the economy recovers.
Economic Alignment
4.19 The Framework states that the planning system should: ‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth’ [para 17].
4.20 Furthermore, the document is clear that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. On this basis, it is important that the identified level of economic growth aspired to in the emerging Ribble Valley Local Plan dovetails with the level of housing provision therein. The updated 2013 ELR provides a more up-to-date and robust level of employment growth than the previous economic Scenarios in the earlier HEaDROOM report were able to rely upon. As such, it is considered that more weight could be attached to Scenario L (ELR Job Growth) than previous Scenarios E and F.
4.21 Based upon Scenario L, and assuming that factors such as forecast economic activity or current rates of commuting do not significantly shift in the future, Ribble Valley would need to deliver around 280 dpa to meet their anticipated job growth to 2028. Although lower than the previous economic scenarios, this figure remains considerably in excess of the updated demographic forecasts and demonstrates the tough policy choices that would need to be taken by the Council should this economic growth forecast be aggressively pursued.
P20 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
4.22 In particular, if the Council were to pursue a figure significantly lower than 280 dpa whilst also planning for annual job growth of 100 per annum to 2028 despite an ageing population, it would need to explain how it would mitigate or avoid the adverse housing, economic and other outcomes that a lower-growth approach would give rise to. It would also need to evidence how the adverse impacts of meeting housing needs, would ‘ significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ [The Framework, para 14] as well as make provision, through the duty-to-cooperate, for those needs to be met in full elsewhere within the housing market area.
4.23 As an alternative to the high levels of in-migration necessary to underpin the labour force under Scenario L, RVBC could meet their job growth projections through changing commuting patterns (i.e. ‘clawing back’ local residents currently commuting out to adjoining settlements); increasing economic activity rates / reducing unemployment (both of which would be very difficult to achieve in Ribble Valley); or through planning for a mix of housing which encouraged the retention of residents of an economically active age, or encouraged younger economically active people to move into the Borough. The practicalities of these options are discussed in further detail in the earlier HEaDROOM Report.
4.24 Set against this is the need to balance constraints to delivery and the extent to which a figure of 280 dpa can realistically be achieved in an area which only averaged 225 dpa pre-housing moratorium/recession.
4.25 Should a figure of around 250 dpa be selected at the top end of the range (which would represent a mid-point between meeting demographic needs and full economic needs), this would appear to us to meet the majority of national policy objectives based on The Framework and specifically, objectively assessed demographic needs and the majority of economic needs. Any figure above 250dpa would have to be considered in the context of the rural and policy-protected nature of the Borough and against RVBC objectives for respecting, protecting and enhancing the environment, biodiversity and character of the Borough.
Table 4.1 Annual Housing Requirements - Updated Comparison
Scenario I: Scenario J: Scenario K: 2011-based Long Term Short Term Scenario CLG (interim) Past Past L: ELR Job Revised Local Plan H’hold Migration Migration Growth Range Provision 2008-28 Projections Trends Trends (2011-28) (2011-28) (2011-28) (2011-28) 220 – 4,000 Ribble Valley 221 dpa 214 dpa 185 dpa 280 dpa 250 dpa (200 dpa) Source: NLP analysis, RVBC
4.26 If RVBC are to take this revised range of 220-250 dpa forward in their Local Plan, then for their ELR aspirations to be achieved, a proportion of the new jobs created would either have to be filled by in-commuters, reflecting the location of major employment zones in the west of the borough close to the boundary with
4808923v5 P21
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Preston or by ‘clawing back’ Ribble Valley residents who currently commute out to places such as Preston. Alternatively, an agreement would need to be reached with adjoining Boroughs under the ‘duty to co-operate’ to meet some of Ribble Valley’s unmet needs within their boundaries.
4.27 Further evidence would therefore need to be provided by RVBC on how far these may be practically implemented in the context of the Borough’s economic aspirations.
4.28 Within all this, it is important to recognise that the statistics upon which the housing needs model is based are updated and adjusted on a regular basis, with more detailed 2012-based 25-year forward household projections likely to be made available by CLG in 2014. It will be important for RVBC to ensure that its housing figure remains under regular review, taking into account new and more detailed evidence as it emerges.
4.29 It is also important to remember that whilst the evidence within this statement takes into consideration the need and demand for housing, crucially, it does not seek to make a planning or policy judgement – this is a matter for the Council taking account of the information before it. This statement therefore seeks to stimulate the further consideration of all relevant factors through the appropriate Local Plan process.
Conclusion
4.30 This statement has tested the ongoing validity of the housing requirements identified in the original Ribble Valley Housing Needs study in the light of recently released demographic data and population projections.
4.31 Having modelled the latest CLG household projections, the 2013 ELR and related statistics on vacancy rates, unemployment and commuting, this points to a range of between 220 dpa and 250 dpa for Ribble Valley Borough . This would, at a minimum, meet need and demand arising from future projected demographic change within the Borough, but would also (at the top end of the range) support some economic growth, and would deliver affordable housing to respond to (at least some of) identified local needs.
4.32 To ensure that there is no disconnect between the housing requirement and the Council’s job growth aspirations, in order to justify a figure below 280 dpa, RVBC would need to demonstrate how it would mitigate or avoid the adverse housing, economic and other outcomes that a lower-growth approach could give rise to.
4.33 The 200 dpa figure that RVBC is currently planning to provide to meet the needs of residents in its emerging Local Plan sits below the bottom end of this range.
P22 4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Appendix 1 HEaDROOM Modelling Results
4808923v5
Population Estimates and Forecasts Scenario I: PopGroup Baseline 2011-based CLG Household Projections Components of Population Change Ribble Valley Year beginning July 1st ………….. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Births Male 266 267 267 265 265 265 264 263 262 261 259 259 258 257 257 256 257 259 260 262 266 270 276 282 Female 253 254 255 252 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 246 245 244 244 245 246 248 250 253 257 262 269 All Births 519 521 522 517 518 517 515 513 511 509 506 505 504 502 501 501 502 505 508 512 519 527 538 551 TFR 1.95 1.97 1.97 1.93 1.92 1.90 1.88 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.80 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 Births input Deaths Male 283 283 290 293 291 294 298 302 305 308 312 316 320 325 328 334 338 343 349 354 359 364 370 376 Female 303 304 307 309 305 305 306 308 309 310 312 316 320 324 330 335 340 345 351 358 363 370 377 383 All deaths 586 586 597 602 596 599 604 610 614 618 624 632 640 649 658 669 678 688 700 712 722 734 747 759 SMR: males 102.2 99.4 98.9 97.2 93.8 92.0 90.4 88.8 87.0 85.3 83.8 82.3 80.9 79.5 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 74.1 73.2 72.4 71.5 70.9 70.3 SMR: females 100.8 98.6 97.2 95.8 92.4 90.3 88.6 87.0 85.0 82.9 81.1 79.7 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 73.7 72.7 71.6 71.0 70.0 69.4 68.8 67.9 SMR: male & female 101.5 99.0 98.0 96.5 93.1 91.1 89.5 87.9 86.0 84.1 82.5 81.0 79.6 78.3 77.0 76.0 74.8 73.8 72.8 72.0 71.2 70.4 69.8 69.1 Expectation of life 81.1 81.3 81.3 81.5 81.7 81.9 82.0 82.2 82.4 82.5 82.7 82.8 82.9 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.8 83.9 84.0 Deaths input In-migration from the UK Male 1,373 1,393 1,397 1,405 1,428 1,434 1,437 1,442 1,447 1,457 1,451 1,460 1,467 1,474 1,478 1,479 1,481 1,485 1,488 1,492 1,496 1,498 1,498 1,501 Female 1,503 1,515 1,524 1,522 1,542 1,544 1,543 1,544 1,548 1,555 1,549 1,551 1,555 1,560 1,566 1,576 1,586 1,593 1,601 1,608 1,615 1,624 1,635 1,644 All 2,876 2,908 2,921 2,926 2,969 2,978 2,980 2,986 2,994 3,012 3,000 3,011 3,022 3,033 3,044 3,056 3,067 3,078 3,089 3,100 3,111 3,122 3,133 3,144 SMigR: males 52.3 53.1 53.3 53.5 54.4 54.6 54.7 54.8 55.1 55.6 55.3 55.4 55.5 55.4 55.2 54.7 54.3 53.9 53.5 53.1 52.5 51.9 51.3 50.7 SMigR: females 56.4 57.4 58.0 58.0 58.7 58.8 58.8 58.9 59.2 59.6 59.3 59.1 58.8 58.6 58.4 58.3 58.0 57.6 57.2 56.6 56.0 55.5 55.1 54.6 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to the UK Male 1,280 1,244 1,243 1,243 1,268 1,261 1,265 1,266 1,267 1,256 1,215 1,218 1,200 1,192 1,189 1,188 1,182 1,171 1,163 1,153 1,145 1,138 1,131 1,125 Female 1,405 1,347 1,336 1,330 1,363 1,361 1,355 1,348 1,338 1,332 1,285 1,271 1,278 1,275 1,266 1,256 1,252 1,251 1,248 1,247 1,244 1,240 1,235 1,231 All 2,686 2,592 2,579 2,574 2,631 2,622 2,620 2,614 2,606 2,588 2,500 2,489 2,478 2,467 2,456 2,444 2,433 2,422 2,411 2,400 2,389 2,378 2,367 2,356 SMigR: males 48.8 47.4 47.4 47.4 48.3 48.1 48.2 48.2 48.2 47.9 46.3 46.2 45.4 44.8 44.4 44.0 43.3 42.5 41.8 41.0 40.2 39.4 38.7 38.0 SMigR: females 52.7 51.1 50.9 50.7 51.9 51.9 51.7 51.4 51.2 51.0 49.1 48.4 48.3 47.9 47.2 46.5 45.8 45.2 44.6 43.9 43.1 42.4 41.6 40.9 Migrants input ************************ In-migration from Overseas Male 95 108 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 Female 82 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 All 177 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 SMigR: males 54.5 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.6 61.7 61.9 62.0 62.2 62.5 62.6 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.2 61.7 61.2 60.5 59.8 58.9 58.1 57.2 56.3 55.4 SMigR: females 48.0 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.5 54.8 55.0 55.2 55.4 55.6 55.9 56.0 55.8 55.7 55.5 55.2 54.8 54.2 53.6 52.9 52.1 51.3 50.6 49.7 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to Overseas Male 60 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 110 110 110 110 110 110 109 Female 49 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 91 All 109 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 SMigR: males 34.6 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.8 64.0 64.1 64.3 64.6 64.8 64.7 64.7 64.4 64.1 63.6 63.0 62.3 61.5 60.6 59.6 58.7 57.7 56.8 SMigR: females 28.5 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.3 52.6 52.8 53.0 53.2 53.4 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.5 53.3 52.9 52.4 51.8 51.2 50.5 49.7 49.1 48.2 Migrants input ************************ Migration - Net Flows UK +191 +316 +342 +352 +339 +356 +361 +372 +389 +425 +500 +522 +544 +567 +589 +611 +633 +656 +678 +700 +722 +744 +767 +789 Overseas +6800000000000000000000000 Summary of population change Natural change -67 -65 -75 -85 -78 -82 -90 -97 -103 -109 -118 -127 -136 -147 -157 -168 -176 -183 -192 -199 -203 -207 -209 -207 Net migration +259 +316 +342 +352 +339 +356 +361 +372 +389 +425 +500 +522 +544 +567 +589 +611 +633 +656 +678 +700 +722 +744 +767 +789 Net change +192 +251 +267 +267 +261 +274 +271 +274 +286 +316 +382 +395 +408 +420 +432 +443 +457 +472 +486 +501 +519 +538 +558 +582 Summary of Population estimates/forecasts Population at mid-year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 0-4 2,830 2,834 2,865 2,851 2,870 2,923 2,923 2,914 2,901 2,890 2,878 2,872 2,867 2,861 2,857 2,852 2,846 2,843 2,844 2,850 2,864 2,886 2,917 2,955 3,003 5-10 3,821 3,822 3,893 3,971 4,024 4,036 4,061 4,091 4,138 4,137 4,169 4,229 4,227 4,219 4,206 4,197 4,184 4,174 4,163 4,149 4,138 4,128 4,122 4,120 4,125 11-15 3,846 3,855 3,720 3,673 3,609 3,553 3,561 3,657 3,700 3,792 3,840 3,829 3,875 3,934 3,949 3,990 4,065 4,065 4,054 4,038 4,025 4,009 3,996 3,983 3,968 16-17 1,568 1,546 1,602 1,609 1,576 1,590 1,570 1,470 1,434 1,471 1,482 1,543 1,595 1,599 1,644 1,663 1,601 1,639 1,717 1,727 1,724 1,719 1,715 1,705 1,701 18-59Female, 64Male 31,400 31,266 31,155 31,110 31,103 31,125 31,090 31,023 30,998 30,931 30,879 30,801 30,800 30,792 30,784 30,808 30,893 30,954 31,004 31,109 31,318 31,509 31,755 32,084 32,446 60/65 -74 8,497 8,718 8,917 9,028 9,175 9,238 9,371 9,475 9,468 9,443 9,446 9,390 9,366 9,431 9,600 9,796 9,994 10,171 10,384 10,626 10,766 10,897 10,987 11,015 11,007 75-84 3,838 3,914 4,004 4,150 4,238 4,335 4,418 4,561 4,753 4,929 5,107 5,440 5,680 5,863 5,982 6,056 6,123 6,182 6,167 6,164 6,157 6,096 6,093 6,107 6,195 85+ 1,492 1,529 1,579 1,610 1,674 1,731 1,809 1,884 1,956 2,042 2,150 2,229 2,319 2,437 2,535 2,627 2,726 2,860 3,026 3,183 3,354 3,621 3,819 3,992 4,098 Total 57,292 57,484 57,735 58,002 58,269 58,530 58,804 59,075 59,349 59,635 59,951 60,333 60,729 61,137 61,557 61,989 62,431 62,888 63,361 63,846 64,347 64,866 65,404 65,961 66,543
Population impact of constraint Number of persons -1,182 -29 +16 +42 +52 -61 -44 -39 -28 -11 +25 Households Number of Households 24,096 24,312 24,522 24,714 24,898 25,096 25,279 25,457 25,634 25,804 25,980 26,198 26,423 26,681 26,928 27,184 27,443 27,698 27,947 28,193 28,458 28,705 28,967 29,259 29,543 Change over previous year -460 +216 +211 +192 +184 +198 +183 +178 +176 +170 +176 +218 +225 +258 +248 +256 +258 +256 +249 +246 +264 +247 +262 +293 +284 Number of supply units 25,152 25,377 25,597 25,798 25,990 26,196 26,388 26,573 26,757 26,935 27,119 27,346 27,581 27,851 28,109 28,376 28,646 28,913 29,172 29,429 29,705 29,963 30,237 30,542 30,839 Change over previous year -480 +225 +220 +200 +192 +207 +192 +186 +184 +178 +183 +228 +234 +270 +258 +267 +270 +267 +260 +257 +276 +258 +274 +305 +296
Labour Force Number of Labour Force 29,371 29,319 29,263 29,243 29,265 29,269 29,199 29,145 29,115 29,082 29,065 29,051 29,055 29,103 29,142 29,196 29,270 29,404 29,569 29,732 29,949 30,190 30,463 30,743 31,031 Change over previous year -829 -52 -56 -20 +22 +4 -70 -54 -30 -33 -17 -13 +4 +48 +38 +55 +74 +134 +165 +163 +217 +241 +273 +280 +287 Number of supply units 28,702 28,503 28,449 28,429 28,493 28,539 28,513 28,502 28,515 28,482 28,466 28,453 28,456 28,504 28,541 28,595 28,667 28,798 28,960 29,119 29,332 29,568 29,836 30,110 30,391 Change over previous year -871 -199 -54 -20 +64 +46 -26 -11 +13 -33 -17 -13 +3 +47 +37 +54 +72 +131 +161 +159 +213 +236 +268 +274 +281 Population Estimates and Forecasts Scenario J: Long Term Past Migration Trends Components of Population Change Ribble Valley Year beginning July 1st ………….. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Births Male 266 267 267 265 265 265 264 263 262 261 259 259 258 257 256 255 255 255 255 255 256 258 261 264 Female 253 254 255 252 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 246 245 244 243 243 243 243 243 244 246 248 251 All Births 519 521 522 517 518 517 515 513 511 509 506 505 504 502 500 498 497 498 498 499 501 504 509 515 TFR 1.95 1.97 1.97 1.93 1.92 1.90 1.88 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.80 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 Births input Deaths Male 283 283 290 293 291 294 298 302 305 308 312 316 320 324 328 333 338 342 347 352 357 361 366 371 Female 303 304 307 309 305 305 306 308 309 310 312 316 320 324 329 334 339 343 349 355 359 366 372 377 All deaths 586 586 597 602 596 599 604 610 614 618 624 632 640 648 657 667 676 685 696 707 716 727 738 748 SMR: males 102.2 99.4 98.9 97.2 93.8 92.0 90.4 88.8 87.0 85.3 83.8 82.3 80.9 79.5 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 74.1 73.2 72.4 71.5 70.9 70.3 SMR: females 100.8 98.6 97.2 95.8 92.4 90.3 88.6 87.0 85.0 82.9 81.1 79.7 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 73.7 72.7 71.6 71.0 70.0 69.4 68.8 67.9 SMR: male & female 101.5 99.0 98.0 96.5 93.1 91.1 89.5 87.9 86.0 84.1 82.5 81.0 79.6 78.3 77.0 76.0 74.8 73.8 72.8 72.0 71.2 70.4 69.8 69.1 Expectation of life 81.1 81.3 81.3 81.5 81.7 81.9 82.0 82.2 82.4 82.5 82.7 82.8 82.9 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.8 83.9 84.0 Deaths input In-migration from the UK Male 1,373 1,393 1,397 1,405 1,428 1,434 1,437 1,442 1,447 1,457 1,451 1,434 1,436 1,437 1,437 1,433 1,430 1,430 1,430 1,430 1,430 1,429 1,425 1,424 Female 1,503 1,515 1,524 1,522 1,542 1,544 1,543 1,544 1,548 1,555 1,549 1,523 1,521 1,520 1,520 1,524 1,527 1,527 1,527 1,527 1,527 1,528 1,532 1,533 All 2,876 2,908 2,921 2,926 2,969 2,978 2,980 2,986 2,994 3,012 3,000 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 SMigR: males 52.3 53.1 53.3 53.5 54.4 54.6 54.7 54.8 55.1 55.6 55.3 54.4 54.3 54.0 53.7 53.2 52.7 52.4 52.0 51.6 51.2 50.8 50.3 50.0 SMigR: females 56.4 57.4 58.0 58.0 58.7 58.8 58.8 58.9 59.2 59.6 59.3 58.1 57.6 57.2 56.9 56.7 56.3 55.8 55.4 54.9 54.4 54.0 53.7 53.4 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to the UK Male 1,280 1,244 1,243 1,243 1,268 1,261 1,265 1,266 1,267 1,256 1,215 1,212 1,200 1,198 1,201 1,206 1,205 1,200 1,199 1,194 1,193 1,192 1,192 1,192 Female 1,405 1,347 1,336 1,330 1,363 1,361 1,355 1,348 1,338 1,332 1,285 1,265 1,277 1,279 1,276 1,271 1,272 1,277 1,278 1,283 1,284 1,285 1,285 1,285 All 2,686 2,592 2,579 2,574 2,631 2,622 2,620 2,614 2,606 2,588 2,500 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 SMigR: males 48.8 47.4 47.4 47.4 48.3 48.1 48.2 48.2 48.2 47.9 46.3 46.0 45.4 45.0 44.9 44.7 44.4 43.9 43.6 43.1 42.7 42.4 42.1 41.8 SMigR: females 52.7 51.1 50.9 50.7 51.9 51.9 51.7 51.4 51.2 51.0 49.1 48.2 48.3 48.1 47.7 47.3 46.9 46.7 46.4 46.1 45.7 45.4 45.1 44.7 Migrants input ************************ In-migration from Overseas Male 95 108 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Female 82 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 All 177 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 SMigR: males 54.5 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.6 61.7 61.9 62.0 62.2 62.5 62.6 49.3 49.4 49.4 49.2 49.0 48.7 48.4 48.0 47.5 47.2 46.8 46.4 46.0 SMigR: females 48.0 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.5 54.8 55.0 55.2 55.4 55.6 55.9 44.2 44.1 44.0 43.9 43.8 43.6 43.3 43.0 42.7 42.3 41.9 41.6 41.3 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to Overseas Male 60 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 Female 49 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 All 109 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 SMigR: males 34.6 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.8 64.0 64.1 64.3 64.6 64.8 39.8 39.8 39.7 39.5 39.3 39.0 38.8 38.4 38.1 37.7 37.4 37.1 36.8 SMigR: females 28.5 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.3 52.6 52.8 53.0 53.2 53.4 53.6 33.0 32.9 33.0 33.0 32.9 32.8 32.5 32.3 32.1 31.8 31.6 31.4 31.1 Migrants input ************************ Migration - Net Flows UK +191 +316 +342 +352 +339 +356 +361 +372 +389 +425 +500 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 +480 Overseas +68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 +35 Summary of population change Natural change -67 -65 -75 -85 -78 -82 -90 -97 -103 -109 -118 -127 -136 -147 -157 -170 -179 -187 -198 -208 -215 -223 -229 -233 Net migration +259 +316 +342 +352 +339 +356 +361 +372 +389 +425 +500 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 +515 Net change +192 +251 +267 +267 +261 +274 +271 +274 +286 +316 +382 +388 +379 +368 +358 +345 +336 +328 +317 +307 +300 +292 +286 +282 Summary of Population estimates/forecasts Population at mid-year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 0-4 2,830 2,834 2,865 2,851 2,870 2,923 2,923 2,914 2,901 2,890 2,878 2,872 2,865 2,857 2,848 2,838 2,825 2,814 2,805 2,797 2,795 2,799 2,806 2,818 2,836 5-10 3,821 3,822 3,893 3,971 4,024 4,036 4,061 4,091 4,138 4,137 4,169 4,229 4,225 4,214 4,196 4,181 4,161 4,143 4,123 4,100 4,078 4,056 4,036 4,018 4,004 11-15 3,846 3,855 3,720 3,673 3,609 3,553 3,561 3,657 3,700 3,792 3,840 3,829 3,873 3,929 3,941 3,977 4,046 4,039 4,021 3,998 3,977 3,952 3,930 3,906 3,881 16-17 1,568 1,546 1,602 1,609 1,576 1,590 1,570 1,470 1,434 1,471 1,482 1,543 1,593 1,595 1,638 1,655 1,590 1,626 1,701 1,707 1,701 1,693 1,684 1,671 1,662 18-59Female, 64Male 31,400 31,266 31,155 31,110 31,103 31,125 31,090 31,023 30,998 30,931 30,879 30,801 30,803 30,782 30,745 30,724 30,748 30,731 30,686 30,679 30,759 30,803 30,885 31,032 31,195 60/65 -74 8,497 8,718 8,917 9,028 9,175 9,238 9,371 9,475 9,468 9,443 9,446 9,390 9,365 9,429 9,595 9,786 9,978 10,147 10,351 10,581 10,708 10,824 10,898 10,909 10,882 75-84 3,838 3,914 4,004 4,150 4,238 4,335 4,418 4,561 4,753 4,929 5,107 5,440 5,678 5,860 5,976 6,047 6,110 6,164 6,145 6,136 6,124 6,057 6,048 6,055 6,135 85+ 1,492 1,529 1,579 1,610 1,674 1,731 1,809 1,884 1,956 2,042 2,150 2,229 2,318 2,434 2,529 2,618 2,713 2,843 3,004 3,154 3,318 3,577 3,766 3,929 4,026 Total 57,292 57,484 57,735 58,002 58,269 58,530 58,804 59,075 59,349 59,635 59,951 60,333 60,721 61,100 61,469 61,826 62,172 62,508 62,836 63,153 63,460 63,760 64,052 64,338 64,620
Population impact of constraint Number of persons -1,182 -29 +16 +42 +52 -61 -44 -39 -28 -11 +25 Households Number of Households 24,096 24,312 24,522 24,714 24,898 25,096 25,279 25,457 25,634 25,804 25,980 26,198 26,421 26,671 26,903 27,134 27,360 27,576 27,778 27,969 28,169 28,343 28,521 28,721 28,903 Change over previous year -460 +216 +211 +192 +184 +198 +183 +178 +176 +170 +176 +218 +223 +250 +231 +231 +226 +216 +202 +191 +200 +174 +179 +199 +182 Number of supply units 25,152 25,377 25,597 25,798 25,990 26,196 26,388 26,573 26,757 26,935 27,119 27,346 27,580 27,841 28,082 28,323 28,559 28,785 28,996 29,196 29,404 29,585 29,772 29,980 30,170 Change over previous year -480 +225 +220 +200 +192 +207 +192 +186 +184 +178 +183 +228 +233 +261 +241 +241 +236 +226 +211 +200 +208 +181 +187 +208 +190
Labour Force Number of Labour Force 29,371 29,319 29,263 29,243 29,265 29,269 29,199 29,145 29,115 29,082 29,065 29,051 29,056 29,092 29,103 29,117 29,136 29,199 29,278 29,340 29,440 29,548 29,672 29,787 29,894 Change over previous year -829 -52 -56 -20 +22 +4 -70 -54 -30 -33 -17 -13 +4 +36 +12 +14 +18 +64 +79 +62 +100 +108 +124 +115 +107 Number of supply units 28,702 28,503 28,449 28,429 28,493 28,539 28,513 28,502 28,515 28,482 28,466 28,453 28,457 28,492 28,504 28,517 28,535 28,598 28,675 28,735 28,834 28,939 29,061 29,173 29,278 Change over previous year -871 -199 -54 -20 +64 +46 -26 -11 +13 -33 -17 -13 +4 +35 +11 +14 +18 +62 +77 +60 +98 +105 +122 +112 +104 Population Estimates and Forecasts Scenario K: Short Term Past Migration Trends Components of Population Change Ribble Valley Year beginning July 1st ………….. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Births Male 266 267 267 265 265 265 264 263 262 261 259 259 256 253 249 246 243 241 239 236 235 234 234 235 Female 253 254 255 252 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 244 241 237 234 232 230 227 225 224 223 223 223 All Births 519 521 522 517 518 517 515 513 511 509 506 505 500 493 487 480 475 471 466 462 458 457 456 458 TFR 1.95 1.97 1.97 1.93 1.92 1.90 1.88 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.80 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 Births input Deaths Male 283 283 290 293 291 294 298 302 305 308 312 316 320 323 327 331 335 339 344 348 352 356 360 365 Female 303 304 307 309 305 305 306 308 309 310 312 316 319 323 327 332 336 340 345 350 354 360 366 370 All deaths 586 586 597 602 596 599 604 610 614 618 624 632 639 646 654 663 671 679 688 698 706 716 726 735 SMR: males 102.2 99.4 98.9 97.2 93.8 92.0 90.4 88.8 87.0 85.3 83.8 82.3 80.9 79.5 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 74.1 73.2 72.4 71.5 70.9 70.3 SMR: females 100.8 98.6 97.2 95.8 92.4 90.3 88.6 87.0 85.0 82.9 81.1 79.7 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 73.7 72.7 71.6 71.0 70.0 69.4 68.8 67.9 SMR: male & female 101.5 99.0 98.0 96.5 93.1 91.1 89.5 87.9 86.0 84.1 82.5 81.0 79.6 78.3 77.0 76.0 74.8 73.8 72.8 72.0 71.2 70.4 69.8 69.1 Expectation of life 81.1 81.3 81.3 81.5 81.7 81.9 82.0 82.2 82.4 82.5 82.7 82.8 82.9 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.8 83.9 84.0 Deaths input In-migration from the UK Male 1,373 1,393 1,397 1,405 1,428 1,434 1,437 1,442 1,447 1,457 1,451 1,341 1,345 1,347 1,348 1,345 1,344 1,344 1,345 1,346 1,346 1,345 1,343 1,343 Female 1,503 1,515 1,524 1,522 1,542 1,544 1,543 1,544 1,548 1,555 1,549 1,426 1,422 1,420 1,419 1,422 1,423 1,423 1,422 1,421 1,421 1,422 1,424 1,424 All 2,876 2,908 2,921 2,926 2,969 2,978 2,980 2,986 2,994 3,012 3,000 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 SMigR: males 52.3 53.1 53.3 53.5 54.4 54.6 54.7 54.8 55.1 55.6 55.3 50.9 51.1 51.2 51.2 51.0 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.7 50.6 50.4 50.2 50.1 SMigR: females 56.4 57.4 58.0 58.0 58.7 58.8 58.8 58.9 59.2 59.6 59.3 54.3 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.2 54.1 54.0 53.9 53.6 53.4 53.3 53.3 53.2 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to the UK Male 1,280 1,244 1,243 1,243 1,268 1,261 1,265 1,266 1,267 1,256 1,215 1,212 1,200 1,199 1,203 1,208 1,208 1,204 1,203 1,199 1,198 1,197 1,198 1,198 Female 1,405 1,347 1,336 1,330 1,363 1,361 1,355 1,348 1,338 1,332 1,285 1,265 1,277 1,278 1,274 1,269 1,269 1,273 1,274 1,278 1,279 1,280 1,279 1,279 All 2,686 2,592 2,579 2,574 2,631 2,622 2,620 2,614 2,606 2,588 2,500 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 2,477 SMigR: males 48.8 47.4 47.4 47.4 48.3 48.1 48.2 48.2 48.2 47.9 46.3 46.0 45.6 45.6 45.7 45.8 45.7 45.5 45.4 45.2 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.7 SMigR: females 52.7 51.1 50.9 50.7 51.9 51.9 51.7 51.4 51.2 51.0 49.1 48.2 48.6 48.6 48.5 48.3 48.2 48.3 48.3 48.2 48.0 48.0 47.9 47.8 Migrants input ************************ In-migration from Overseas Male 95 108 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Female 82 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 All 177 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 SMigR: males 54.5 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.6 61.7 61.9 62.0 62.2 62.5 62.6 49.3 49.7 50.1 50.3 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.3 50.2 50.1 50.0 49.8 49.7 SMigR: females 48.0 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.5 54.8 55.0 55.2 55.4 55.6 55.9 44.2 44.4 44.6 44.8 45.0 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.1 44.9 44.9 44.8 44.7 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to Overseas Male 60 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 83 82 83 Female 49 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 65 66 65 All 109 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 SMigR: males 34.6 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.8 64.0 64.1 64.3 64.6 64.8 47.9 48.2 48.4 48.6 48.7 48.7 48.7 48.6 48.5 48.3 48.2 48.1 48.0 SMigR: females 28.5 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.3 52.6 52.8 53.0 53.2 53.4 53.6 39.7 39.9 40.2 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.6 40.5 40.5 40.4 Migrants input ************************ Migration - Net Flows UK +191 +316 +342 +352 +339 +356 +361 +372 +389 +425 +500 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 +290 Overseas +68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 +10 Summary of population change Natural change -67 -65 -75 -85 -78 -82 -90 -97 -103 -109 -118 -127 -139 -153 -167 -183 -196 -208 -222 -236 -248 -259 -270 -277 Net migration +259 +316 +342 +352 +339 +356 +361 +372 +389 +425 +500 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 +300 Net change +192 +251 +267 +267 +261 +274 +271 +274 +286 +316 +382 +173 +161 +147 +133 +117 +104 +92 +78 +64 +52 +41 +30 +23 Summary of Population estimates/forecasts Population at mid-year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 0-4 2,830 2,834 2,865 2,851 2,870 2,923 2,923 2,914 2,901 2,890 2,878 2,872 2,850 2,825 2,799 2,770 2,736 2,703 2,670 2,639 2,612 2,590 2,572 2,558 2,551 5-10 3,821 3,822 3,893 3,971 4,024 4,036 4,061 4,091 4,138 4,137 4,169 4,229 4,210 4,184 4,151 4,121 4,086 4,053 4,016 3,973 3,931 3,885 3,840 3,795 3,751 11-15 3,846 3,855 3,720 3,673 3,609 3,553 3,561 3,657 3,700 3,792 3,840 3,829 3,862 3,905 3,905 3,930 3,987 3,970 3,942 3,909 3,878 3,842 3,810 3,775 3,737 16-17 1,568 1,546 1,602 1,609 1,576 1,590 1,570 1,470 1,434 1,471 1,482 1,543 1,588 1,586 1,625 1,637 1,569 1,600 1,669 1,672 1,662 1,650 1,638 1,621 1,609 18-59Female, 64Male 31,400 31,266 31,155 31,110 31,103 31,125 31,090 31,023 30,998 30,931 30,879 30,801 30,659 30,491 30,307 30,137 30,010 29,842 29,645 29,484 29,407 29,295 29,221 29,209 29,211 60/65 -74 8,497 8,718 8,917 9,028 9,175 9,238 9,371 9,475 9,468 9,443 9,446 9,390 9,353 9,404 9,556 9,733 9,910 10,063 10,251 10,463 10,574 10,672 10,728 10,723 10,680 75-84 3,838 3,914 4,004 4,150 4,238 4,335 4,418 4,561 4,753 4,929 5,107 5,440 5,672 5,847 5,956 6,021 6,078 6,126 6,100 6,085 6,067 5,995 5,980 5,981 6,053 85+ 1,492 1,529 1,579 1,610 1,674 1,731 1,809 1,884 1,956 2,042 2,150 2,229 2,313 2,423 2,513 2,597 2,687 2,812 2,968 3,113 3,272 3,524 3,707 3,864 3,956 Total 57,292 57,484 57,735 58,002 58,269 58,530 58,804 59,075 59,349 59,635 59,951 60,333 60,506 60,667 60,814 60,947 61,064 61,169 61,261 61,339 61,402 61,455 61,495 61,526 61,549
Population impact of constraint Number of persons -1,182 -29 +16 +42 +52 -61 -44 -39 -28 -11 +25 Households Number of Households 24,096 24,312 24,522 24,714 24,898 25,096 25,279 25,457 25,634 25,804 25,980 26,198 26,348 26,523 26,677 26,828 26,972 27,104 27,222 27,327 27,439 27,524 27,612 27,720 27,809 Change over previous year -460 +216 +211 +192 +184 +198 +183 +178 +176 +170 +176 +218 +151 +175 +154 +151 +144 +132 +118 +105 +111 +85 +89 +107 +89 Number of supply units 25,152 25,377 25,597 25,798 25,990 26,196 26,388 26,573 26,757 26,935 27,119 27,346 27,504 27,686 27,847 28,004 28,154 28,293 28,416 28,525 28,642 28,730 28,823 28,935 29,028 Change over previous year -480 +225 +220 +200 +192 +207 +192 +186 +184 +178 +183 +228 +157 +183 +161 +157 +150 +138 +123 +110 +116 +89 +93 +112 +93
Labour Force Number of Labour Force 29,371 29,319 29,263 29,243 29,265 29,269 29,199 29,145 29,115 29,082 29,065 29,051 28,924 28,826 28,703 28,580 28,461 28,385 28,323 28,244 28,201 28,165 28,145 28,114 28,076 Change over previous year -829 -52 -56 -20 +22 +4 -70 -54 -30 -33 -17 -13 -128 -97 -123 -123 -119 -76 -62 -80 -42 -36 -20 -30 -38 Number of supply units 28,702 28,503 28,449 28,429 28,493 28,539 28,513 28,502 28,515 28,482 28,466 28,453 28,328 28,232 28,112 27,991 27,874 27,800 27,740 27,662 27,620 27,585 27,565 27,535 27,498 Change over previous year -871 -199 -54 -20 +64 +46 -26 -11 +13 -33 -17 -13 -125 -95 -121 -120 -117 -74 -60 -78 -41 -36 -20 -30 -38 Population Estimates and Forecasts Scenario L: ELR Job Growth Components of Population Change Ribble Valley Year beginning July 1st ………….. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Births Male 266 272 277 278 282 285 289 292 295 299 300 299 297 292 289 288 287 285 284 284 286 289 294 300 Female 253 259 263 265 268 271 275 278 281 285 286 285 283 278 276 274 273 272 271 271 272 275 280 286 All Births 519 532 540 543 550 555 563 571 576 583 585 584 580 571 565 562 559 557 555 555 558 564 573 586 TFR 1.95 1.97 1.97 1.93 1.92 1.90 1.88 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.80 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 Births input Deaths Male 283 284 291 295 293 296 300 304 307 310 314 318 323 327 331 336 341 345 351 356 362 367 372 379 Female 303 305 310 312 308 308 311 313 314 316 318 322 325 330 335 340 344 349 354 361 366 373 380 386 All deaths 586 589 601 606 600 604 610 617 621 626 632 640 648 656 665 676 685 694 706 717 728 739 752 764 SMR: males 102.2 99.4 98.9 97.2 93.8 92.0 90.4 88.8 87.1 85.2 83.8 82.2 80.9 79.5 78.1 77.1 76.0 74.9 74.1 73.2 72.4 71.6 70.9 70.3 SMR: females 100.8 98.6 97.2 95.8 92.4 90.3 88.6 87.0 85.0 83.0 81.2 79.8 78.2 77.1 76.0 74.9 73.7 72.7 71.6 71.0 70.0 69.4 68.8 67.9 SMR: male & female 101.5 99.0 98.0 96.5 93.1 91.1 89.5 87.9 86.0 84.1 82.5 81.0 79.6 78.3 77.0 76.0 74.8 73.8 72.8 72.0 71.2 70.4 69.8 69.1 Expectation of life 81.1 81.3 81.3 81.5 81.7 81.9 82.0 82.2 82.4 82.5 82.7 82.8 82.9 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.8 83.9 84.0 Deaths input In-migration from the UK Male 1,601 1,506 1,476 1,423 1,439 1,517 1,515 1,501 1,545 1,537 1,521 1,522 1,479 1,505 1,494 1,479 1,424 1,477 1,482 1,488 1,491 1,495 1,495 1,497 Female 1,754 1,663 1,651 1,570 1,573 1,650 1,635 1,618 1,666 1,656 1,642 1,633 1,580 1,609 1,599 1,599 1,547 1,600 1,607 1,612 1,620 1,627 1,639 1,647 All 3,355 3,168 3,127 2,993 3,012 3,167 3,151 3,119 3,211 3,193 3,163 3,155 3,059 3,114 3,093 3,079 2,970 3,078 3,089 3,100 3,111 3,122 3,133 3,144 SMigR: males 61.0 56.6 55.0 52.7 53.1 55.9 55.4 54.5 55.9 55.4 54.5 54.1 52.3 52.8 52.0 51.0 48.7 50.3 50.0 49.7 49.3 48.8 48.3 47.7 SMigR: females 65.8 61.8 60.9 57.5 57.5 60.3 59.4 58.6 60.3 59.7 58.9 58.1 55.6 56.2 55.4 55.0 52.6 54.0 53.7 53.1 52.6 52.2 51.8 51.4 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to the UK Male 1,274 1,250 1,251 1,248 1,244 1,243 1,250 1,254 1,264 1,260 1,212 1,219 1,194 1,187 1,187 1,187 1,180 1,167 1,161 1,150 1,142 1,135 1,129 1,122 Female 1,397 1,350 1,349 1,352 1,356 1,357 1,350 1,346 1,336 1,340 1,288 1,270 1,284 1,279 1,269 1,257 1,253 1,255 1,250 1,250 1,247 1,243 1,238 1,234 All 2,671 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,500 2,489 2,478 2,467 2,456 2,444 2,433 2,422 2,411 2,400 2,389 2,378 2,367 2,356 SMigR: males 48.5 46.9 46.6 46.2 45.9 45.8 45.7 45.5 45.7 45.4 43.4 43.3 42.2 41.7 41.3 41.0 40.4 39.7 39.2 38.4 37.8 37.1 36.4 35.8 SMigR: females 52.4 50.2 49.8 49.5 49.6 49.6 49.1 48.8 48.4 48.3 46.2 45.2 45.2 44.7 44.0 43.2 42.6 42.3 41.8 41.2 40.5 39.8 39.2 38.5 Migrants input ************************ In-migration from Overseas Male 95 107 107 107 107 106 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 106 106 Female 82 93 93 93 93 94 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 94 94 All 177 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 SMigR: males 54.5 60.5 59.6 59.1 58.8 58.7 58.8 58.6 58.6 58.4 58.2 57.8 57.7 57.6 57.3 56.9 56.4 56.2 55.6 54.9 54.2 53.6 52.7 51.9 SMigR: females 48.0 53.1 52.4 51.7 51.9 52.1 51.7 51.9 51.9 51.9 51.9 51.8 51.5 51.4 51.2 51.0 50.7 50.2 49.8 49.3 48.5 47.8 47.3 46.6 Migrants input ************************ Out-migration to Overseas Male 60 111 111 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 109 109 Female 49 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 All 109 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 SMigR: males 34.6 62.5 61.6 60.9 60.7 60.6 60.6 60.3 60.3 60.1 60.0 59.7 59.5 59.1 58.7 58.4 58.0 57.7 57.1 56.5 55.7 55.0 54.1 53.4 SMigR: females 28.5 51.1 50.4 49.9 50.0 50.2 49.9 50.1 50.2 50.2 50.1 49.9 49.7 49.8 49.7 49.4 49.1 48.7 48.2 47.7 47.0 46.3 45.9 45.1 Migrants input ************************ Migration - Net Flows UK +684 +568 +527 +393 +412 +567 +551 +519 +611 +593 +663 +666 +582 +648 +638 +634 +537 +656 +678 +700 +722 +744 +767 +789 Overseas +6800000000000000000000000 Summary of population change Natural change -67 -57 -61 -63 -50 -48 -47 -46 -45 -43 -47 -56 -68 -85 -100 -114 -126 -137 -151 -162 -170 -175 -179 -178 Net migration +752 +568 +527 +393 +412 +567 +551 +519 +611 +593 +663 +666 +582 +648 +638 +634 +537 +656 +678 +700 +722 +744 +767 +789 Net change +685 +511 +466 +330 +362 +519 +504 +473 +567 +551 +616 +610 +513 +562 +538 +520 +411 +518 +527 +538 +553 +569 +588 +611 Summary of Population estimates/forecasts Population at mid-year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 0-4 2,830 2,876 2,936 2,933 2,965 3,053 3,096 3,136 3,170 3,210 3,241 3,269 3,287 3,288 3,278 3,253 3,220 3,181 3,153 3,133 3,124 3,125 3,135 3,156 3,191 5-10 3,821 3,852 3,940 4,044 4,117 4,139 4,184 4,233 4,310 4,318 4,383 4,504 4,557 4,598 4,638 4,676 4,701 4,707 4,705 4,686 4,655 4,613 4,570 4,529 4,495 11-15 3,846 3,879 3,755 3,716 3,647 3,582 3,602 3,729 3,780 3,924 4,004 3,981 4,025 4,097 4,100 4,158 4,277 4,315 4,352 4,381 4,413 4,438 4,456 4,462 4,453 16-17 1,568 1,557 1,615 1,629 1,601 1,629 1,619 1,498 1,457 1,506 1,514 1,591 1,662 1,651 1,717 1,752 1,645 1,675 1,772 1,795 1,810 1,825 1,844 1,857 1,868 18-59Female, 64Male 31,400 31,608 31,679 31,768 31,785 31,855 31,957 32,018 32,099 32,176 32,249 32,278 32,394 32,428 32,494 32,564 32,724 32,747 32,803 32,910 33,157 33,375 33,670 34,072 34,512 60/65 -74 8,497 8,741 8,952 9,073 9,225 9,289 9,442 9,568 9,574 9,553 9,554 9,521 9,496 9,565 9,747 9,941 10,128 10,289 10,493 10,745 10,866 10,988 11,059 11,055 11,030 75-84 3,838 3,926 4,018 4,166 4,251 4,348 4,428 4,569 4,763 4,947 5,134 5,479 5,729 5,921 6,042 6,116 6,190 6,253 6,239 6,235 6,221 6,168 6,171 6,186 6,272 85+ 1,492 1,540 1,594 1,626 1,694 1,751 1,837 1,918 1,989 2,073 2,181 2,252 2,335 2,450 2,547 2,639 2,733 2,863 3,030 3,189 3,368 3,633 3,829 4,006 4,111 Total 57,292 57,977 58,488 58,955 59,285 59,647 60,165 60,669 61,142 61,708 62,259 62,875 63,485 63,999 64,561 65,098 65,618 66,030 66,548 67,075 67,613 68,166 68,735 69,323 69,933 Population impact of constraint Number of persons -1,182 +464 +268 +227 +93 +12 +167 +151 +119 +211 +193 +163 +144 +37 +81 +49 +23 -96 Labour Force Number of Labour Force 29,371 29,626 29,728 29,831 29,890 29,948 30,006 30,064 30,122 30,224 30,326 30,428 30,530 30,632 30,735 30,837 30,939 31,041 31,239 31,426 31,681 31,964 32,294 32,637 32,992 Change over previous year -829 +254 +103 +103 +58 +58 +58 +58 +58 +102 +102 +102 +102 +102 +102 +102 +102 +102 +198 +187 +255 +283 +329 +343 +355 Number of supply units 28,702 28,801 28,901 29,001 29,101 29,201 29,301 29,401 29,501 29,601 29,701 29,801 29,901 30,001 30,101 30,201 30,301 30,401 30,595 30,778 31,029 31,306 31,628 31,964 32,312 Change over previous year -871 +99 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +194 +183 +250 +277 +323 +336 +348
Households Number of Households 24,096 24,442 24,706 24,939 25,160 25,409 25,698 25,928 26,139 26,370 26,594 26,882 27,164 27,459 27,783 28,102 28,410 28,649 28,905 29,158 29,433 29,698 29,976 30,301 30,626 Change over previous year -460 +346 +264 +233 +221 +249 +289 +230 +211 +231 +224 +288 +282 +295 +324 +320 +307 +240 +256 +254 +275 +265 +278 +326 +325 Number of supply units 25,152 25,514 25,789 26,033 26,263 26,523 26,825 27,065 27,285 27,526 27,759 28,061 28,355 28,663 29,001 29,335 29,655 29,905 30,172 30,437 30,724 31,000 31,290 31,630 31,969 Change over previous year -480 +362 +275 +244 +230 +260 +302 +240 +220 +241 +234 +301 +294 +308 +338 +334 +321 +250 +267 +265 +287 +276 +290 +340 +339 Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
Appendix 2 Inputs and Assumptions
4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
DEMOGRAPHIC Scenario I: 2011-Based CLG Household Projections Scenarios J & K: Past Migration Trends Scenario L: ELR Job Growth
Population
Baseline A 2010 baseline population is taken from the 2010 Mid-year population estimates for Ribble Valley Borough, split by age cohort and gender. The population for Population 2011-2021 is constrained to the 2011-based SNPP for the Borough, by age and sex. Births Future change assumed in the Total Fertility Rate [TFR] uses the birth projections from the ONS 2010-based Interim SNPP. This in turn is used to derive future projected TFRs through PopGroup. Deaths Future change assumed in the SMR uses the death projections from the ONS 2010-based Interim SNPP. This in turn is used to derive future projected SMRs through PopGroup. Internal Gross domestic in and out migration flows are adopted based on forecast As Scenario I to 2021; post 2021, Internal in-migration and outmigration Migration migration in Ribble Valley Borough from the ONS 2010-based SNPP for 2010, Gross domestic internal migration is flexed (inflated or deflated) to and using the 2011-based Interim SNPP for the actual internal migration flows flows are adopted based on average achieve the necessary number of 2011-2021. This is the sum of internal migration (elsewhere in England) and gross past trends for the past 5/10 economically active people to cross-border migration (elsewhere in the UK) (SNPP Table 5). Internal migration years. underpin the economy in the Borough includes moves to all other Local Authority areas, including to neighbouring in the employment scenario. areas (i.e. a move of two streets might be classed as internal migration if it involves a move to another LA area). Beyond 2021, a trend rate is applied. International Gross international in and out migration flows are adopted based on forecast As above but for international flows As above but for international flows Migration migration in Ribble Valley Borough from the ONS 2010-based SNPP for 2010, and using the 2011-based Interim SNPP for the actual internal migration flows 2011-2021. Beyond 2021, a trend rate is applied. Propensity to Age Specific Migration Rates (ASMigR) for both in and out domestic migration are based upon the age profile of migrants to and from Ribble Valley Borough in the Migrate (Age 2010-based SNPP. These identify a migration rate for each age cohort within the Borough (for both in and out flows separately) which is applied to each individual Specific age providing an Age Specific Migration Rate. This then drives the demographic profile of those people moving into and out of Ribble Valley Borough (but not the total Migration Rates) numbers of migrants). Housing
Headship Rates Headship rates that are specific to Ribble Valley Borough and forecast over the period to 2021 were taken from the government data which was used to underpin the 2011-based CLG household forecasts and applied to the demographic forecasts for each year as output by the PopGroup model. These headship rates were split by age cohort and by household typology. These are the most up-to-date headship rates available at the time of writing. Beyond 2021 this is assumed to resume the long term trends identified within the 2008-based household projections with index trends from the 2008-based projections applied to the 2021 end point of the 2011-based household projections. Population not in The number of population not in households (e.g. those in institutional care) is similarly taken from the assumptions used to underpin the 2011-based CLG households household forecasts. No change is assumed to the rate of this from the CLG identified rate.
4808923v5
Ribble Valley Housing Need : Implications of the 2011-based CLG H'hold Projections
DEMOGRAPHIC Scenario I: 2011-Based CLG Household Projections Scenarios J & K: Past Migration Trends Scenario L: ELR Job Growth
Vacancy / 2nd A vacancy and second homes rate is applied to the number of households, representing the natural vacancies/not permanently occupied homes which occur within Home Rate the housing market. This means that more dwellings than households are required to meet needs. The vacancy/second home rate in Ribble Valley Borough totals 4.2% (estimated using data from the Council Tax Base for Formula Grant Purposes (October 2012), held constant over the forecast period. Economic
Economic Age and gender specific economic activity rates are used. The basis for this is ONS 2006-based National Labour Force Projections. The economic activity annual Activity Rate growth rates for each age cohort from these national projections are applied to the Census 2001 economic activity profile for the three districts across the forecast period. At 2011 these have been rebased from their 2011 estimate using a uniform adjustment to all age cohorts to meet current total economic activity in the districts from the Annual Population Survey (APS). These are assumed to remain the same as the projection with the exception of an adjustment to take account of changing pension ages beyond that already taken into account in the ONS 2006-based projections (i.e. to account for pension age increases for both men and women above age 65). In this regard, 1% has been added to the female 60-64 age cohort activity rates in 2011, 2% in 2012, 3% in 2013 and so forth up to 8% in 2018. This 2018 rate has then been held constant across the remainder of the forecasting period. Furthermore, 1% has been added to the Male 65-69 and Female 65-69 age cohorts’ economic activity rates in 2019 and 2% in 2020. These 2020 rates were then held constant across the forecasting period. Commuting Rate A standard net commuting rate is inferred through the modelling using a Labour Force Ratio which is worked out using the formula: (A) Number of employed workers living in area ÷ (B) Number of workers who work in the area (number of jobs). For Ribble Valley Borough, data from the 2011 APS and 2011 BRES identifies an LF ratio of 0.987 (30,000 employed people ÷ 30,381 jobs in Ribble Valley). This has not been flexed over the forecasting period with no assumed increase or reduction in net commuting rates. Unemployment To calculate the unemployment rate, NLP took Jan 2011–Dec 2011 NOMIS unemployment figures (3.5% for Ribble Valley Borough) to equate to the 2011 rates, and the Jan 2012-Dec 2012 NOMIS unemployment figures (4.0% for Ribble Valley Borough) to equate to the 2012 rates. NLP kept this figure constant for 2013 and 2014 to reflect initial stabilisation at the current high rate, and then gradually reduced the rate on a linear basis to the 7-year average (06-12) of 3.29% for Ribble Valley Borough over a five year time frame. This figure was then held constant to the end of the forecasting period on the grounds that as the economy grows out of recession unemployment is likely to fall back to a similar rate as seen pre-recession.
4808923v5
Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Draft June 2013
Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Important Notice
HDH Planning and Development Ltd has prepared this report for the sole use of Ribble Valley Council in accordance with the proposal and instructions under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report or any other services provided by us. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of HDH Planning and Development Ltd.
Some of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by HDH Planning and Development Ltd, unless otherwise stated in the report. The recommendations contained in this report are concerned with affordable housing and current planning policy, guidance and regulations which may be subject to change. They reflect a Chartered Surveyor’s perspective and do not reflect or constitute legal advice and the Council should seek legal advice before implementing any of the recommendations.
Certain statements made in the report may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the report, such forward-looking statements, by their nature, involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. HDH Planning and Development Ltd specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this report.
RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH HDH Planning and Development Ltd Bellgate, Casterton Kirkby Lonsdale Cumbria. LA6 2LF [email protected] 015242 76205 / 07989 975 977
COPYRIGHT
© This report is the copyright of HDH Planning and Development Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited
2 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Chapter Listing
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Socio-economic profile ...... 5
3. The housing market ...... 17
4. The cost and affordability of housing ...... 25
5. Housing need ...... 45
6. Improving market balance over the longer term ...... 63
7. Policy implications of the results ...... 73
Glossary ...... 77
i Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
ii Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
1. Introduction
Summary
i) This study provides an update of the original SHMA undertaken in Ribble Valley in 2007 (finalised in 2008). It is required to check the suitability of the housing policies set out in the Council’s Core Strategy which is soon to go through an Examination in Public. In addition the Coalition Government have made a range of changes to the housing sector, including the introduction of Affordable Rent - the scope of which needs to be established. The report will assess the local impact and the appropriate response within the current market conditions and new policy landscape. ii) The study will meet the requirements of paragraph 159 of the National Planning Policy Framework and adhere to the approach set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment – Practice Guidance.
Purpose
1.1 A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was originally published for Ribble Valley in December 2008 based on secondary data available on the housing market. This SHMA examined the local housing market, setting out the level of housing need alongside the requirements of particular groups of the population and concluding with an overview of the type of housing required to sustain the local market.
1.2 The Council recognises that as the Core Strategy prepares to go through Examination in Public it would be beneficial to review the current housing policies within the Strategy against up-to-date evidence and have therefore commissioned this SHMA update to provide this. In addition the new National Planning Policy Framework was published last Spring and this SHMA will meet these altered requirements.
1.3 This new SHMA report is also timely because the Coalition Government have made a range of changes to the housing sector since the original SHMA. This includes the introduction of the new social tenure ‘Affordable Rent’ and the new LHA (Local Housing Allowance) cap. This SHMA will assess the appropriate response within the current market conditions and new policy landscape. This is done by direct examination of secondary data available.
Government Guidance
1.4 National Planning Policy is now the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 159 of the NPPF (March 2012) sets out the role of this SHMA.
1 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing requirements in their area. They should:
• Prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to require over the plan period which:
–– meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change
–– addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); and
–– caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand (para 28)
1.5 Whilst the NPPF outlines how an SHMA fits into the wider housing policy framework, the detailed Practice Guidance (Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance, August 2007) provides an indication as to how a SHMA should be undertaken and what topics should be covered. The Practice Guidance provides details about the whole process of conducting a SHMA and, importantly, sets out a comprehensive model for the assessment of affordable housing need.
Report coverage
1.6 The original SHMA presented a large range of data on the housing market and related subjects, whereas this new SHMA will be focused on the areas of interest to the Council and the consequences of the planning and housing reforms. This report is therefore limited to:
• Examination of the latest data on the labour market and the resident population • A profile of the housing stock in Ribble Valley and the changes that have occurred to it, including the notable growth of the private rented sector which is examined in more detail • Analysis of the price of property in Ribble Valley and the affordability of housing for residents • Production of outputs for the housing needs assessment model in accordance with the Practice Guidance approach, including an analysis of the suitability of Affordable Rent within Ribble Valley • Production of an analysis of the entire housing market within the balancing housing markets model, which will identify the amount and nature of housing required in Ribble Valley over the Core Strategy period
2 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
• A summary of the policy implications these findings within the requirements of NPPF and how they relate to the current Core Strategy objectives.
3 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
4 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
2. Socio-economic profile
Summary
i) Various secondary data sources were used to inform the socio-economic profile in Ribble Valley. The recent Census indicates that in 2011 the population of the Borough was 57,132 and that since 2001 the population has increased by 5.9%, the size of the household population, has also increased by a faster rate between 2001 and 2011 (8.3%). ii) Ribble Valley contains a lower proportion of the population that are of working age than is found regionally and nationally, principally because there is a larger than average proportion of people of pensionable age in the Borough. The Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic population of Ribble Valley is just 2.1% of the total population. iii) There has been a notable growth in part-time employment in Ribble Valley over the last ten years, whilst the number of people in full-time employment has risen more modestly. iv) Ribble Valley continues to have the capacity to undergo continued economic growth, with the proportion of economically active residents that are unemployed having increased from 0.7% at the time of the previous SHMA to 1.4% currently, however unemployment in the Borough has stabilised over the last 12 months. v) Ribble Valley contains proportionally more residents working in managerial jobs than is found regionally and nationally. The Borough also contains a lower than average level of working-age residents without any qualifications. vi) The mean earned income for employees in Ribble Valley in 2012 is £32,859, higher than the equivalent figures for the North West region and England.
Introduction
2.1 Two main drivers of the housing market are the resident population and the local labour market. They affect the nature of housing demand including household formation rates and households’ investment in housing. The most recent data available on these topics at the time of the 2008 report was generally from 2007. This chapter uses information that has been published since then to document the current socio-economic profile in Ribble Valley and how it has changed. The information presented compares the circumstances in the Borough to the regional and national situation where possible.
Demography
2.2 The 2008 SHMA described the nature of the population in the Ribble Valley using the latest information available at the time, principally the ONS 2006 mid-year population estimates and the 2001 Census. The recently released 2011 Census data provides a comprehensive profile of the population of Ribble Valley and how it has changed since the previous Census.
5 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Population
2.3 The Census indicates that the resident population in Ribble Valley in 2011 was 57,132 and that since 2001 the population had increased by 5.9%, almost 3,200 people. In comparison the population of the North West region increased by 4.8% between the 2001 and 2011 Census, whilst the population of England increased by 8.9%. Figure 2.1 illustrates the age composition of the population in Ribble Valley in 2001 and 2011 according to the Census. It shows that since 2001 the number of people aged 60 to 74 has markedly increased as has the population of the Borough aged 75 and over. In contrast the number of people aged between 30-44 has decreased notably .
Figure 2.1 Population composition in Ribble Valley (2001 and 2011)
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75plus
2001
2011
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Number of people
Source: 2001 & 2011 Census
2.4 The 2011 Census figures also indicate that Ribble Valley contains a lower proportion of the population that are working age than is found regionally and nationally: 61.3% in Ribble Valley compared to 64.6% in the North West region and 64.8% across England. This is principally because there are a larger than average proportion of people of pensionable age in the Borough (20.2% in Ribble Valley compared to 16.6% in the North West region and 16.3% in England).
2.5 The 2011 Census indicates that the population density in Ribble Valley is 98 people per km², an increase from 93 people per km² in 2001. The 2011 figure for England is 407 people per km². The figure for the North West region is not currently available.
2.6 Some 16.7% of the resident population in Ribble Valley have a long-term health problem or disability, compared to 20.3% of residents in the North West region and 17.6% of people across England. This is quite notable, given the older than average profile of the population.
6 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Ethnicity
2.7 According to the 2001 Census, the proportion of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) (non-White) groups in Ribble Valley was 1.6%, lower than the figure recorded for the North West region (5.6%) and the national average (9.1%). The 2011 Census suggests that the BAME population of Ribble Valley has increased to 2.1% of the total population, but remains notably smaller than the regional and national figures (9.8% in the North West and 14.5% in England). This amounts to an increase of around 400 people (an increase of 42.8%) in BAME groups between 2001 and 2011.
2.8 Figure 2.2 presents the ethnicity of the population in the Borough in 2011. The ‘Asian or Asian British’ represents the largest BAME groups in Ribble Valley (comprising 1.3% of total population).
Figure 2.2 Ethnicity of Ribble Valley population, 2011
0.6% White
Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups
97.9% 2.1% Asian or Asian British 1.3% Black or Black British
Other ethnic group
0.1% 0.1%
Source: 2011 Census
2.9 The Census reveals that just 0.4% of the population of Ribble Valley in 2011 had been resident in the UK for less than two years, compared to 1.1% in the North West region and 1.8% across England. The overwhelming majority of the population of the Borough have resided in the UK for over 5 years (including those born in the UK); 99.1% in Ribble Valley compared to 97.6% in the North West and 96.0% in England.
2.10 Figure 2.3 presents further detail on the components of population change in Ribble Valley between 2001 and 2010. It indicates that an average of 2,989 people moved into the Borough each year from elsewhere in England, whilst 2,478 people moved from Ribble Valley to elsewhere in the country. This equates to a net growth of 511 people per year from internal migration. The Figure shows that net internal migration was positive, whilst net international migration and net natural change from the existing population was negative.
7 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 2.3 Components of population change in Ribble Valley 2001 to 2010
4000
2,989 3000
2000
1000 501 511 -563 -62 -2,478 132 -142 0 -10 Births Deaths migration Average people in change annual -1000 Net internal migration in International International migration migration out England England Net international Flow out to rest of Net natural change -2000 Flow from in rest of
-3000
Source: ONS components of change for England and Wales - annual tables for 1991-2 to 2009-10
Number of households
2.11 The 2011 Census revealed that the household population in Ribble Valley has increased by 8.3% since 2001, a faster rate than regionally (7.0%) and nationally (7.9%). As the population has increased at a slower rate than the number of resident households between 2001 and 2011, this implies that the average size of households in Ribble Valley is decreasing as is illustrated in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Change in average household size, 2001 to 2011
2001 2011 Population 53,960 57,132 Households 22,210 24,045 Average household size 2.43 2.38 Source: 2001 & 2011 Census
2.12 It is interesting to note that this average household size of 2.38 compares to an average of 2.9 bedrooms per household in the Borough according to the 2011 Census. The 2011 Census also indicates that 1.7% of households in Ribble Valley had fewer bedrooms than they required (compared to 3.7% across the North West region and 4.8% nationally), whilst 80.2% have at least one bedroom more than they require (as opposed to 71.6% in the North West and 68.7% across England).
8 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
2.13 Figure 2.4 compares the household composition in Ribble Valley in 2011 with that recorded for the North West region and England. The data indicates that older persons only households constitute 11.2% of all households in the Borough compared to 8.1% in the region and 8.4% nationally. The Figure also shows that some 28.3% of households in Ribble Valley contain only a couple with children, higher than the both the regional figure (24.9%) and the national one (25.4%).
Figure 2.4 Household composition in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England, 2011
One person Older persons only Couples only (non-older) Couples with dependent children Couples with children none dependent Lone parent with dependent children Lone parent none dependent Other
Ribble Valley
North West
England
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: 2011 Census
2.14 Figure 2.5 shows the change recorded between the 2001 and 2011 Census for the different household groups in Ribble Valley. The figure shows that lone parent households have increased the most (although from a very low base), followed by one person households. It is interesting to note that couples with only non-dependent children have increased whilst the number of couples with dependent children has declined. This suggests that household formation rates amongst young adults may have reduced. The reduction in couple with dependent children households does not appear to be a consequence of a lack of housing choice in the Ribble Valley market, but due to wider social trends - a decrease of 4.1% was also recorded for the North West region, whilst nationally there was a very slight growth (0.3%).
9 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 2.5 Change in household types resident in Ribble Valley 2001 to 2011
80%
60%
40%
21.8% 23.4% 20% 15.5% 10.1% 6.6% -1.1% 3.2% pecentage change 2001-2011 0% One person Couples only Couples w ith Couples w ith Lone parent Lone parent Other dependent children none w ith dependent none dependent -20% children dependent children
Source: 2001 & 2011 Census
Economy
2.15 Chapter 3 of the 2008 SHMA considered the economic context in Ribble Valley. It recorded a relatively high level of employment and above average earnings. Considerable data has been published since, which enables a detailed profile of the current local economy to be presented.
Employment in Ribble Valley
2.16 The latest data available on the economy in Ribble Valley indicates that there is notable capacity to undergo growth. NOMIS1 data on ‘job density’ (this is a measure of the number of jobs per person of working age) for 2010 shows that there are 0.99 jobs per working age person in the Borough. This is notably higher than the North West region (0.74) and England as a whole (0.78). The figure of 0.99 represents an increase from the 0.81 recorded in 2006 before the start of the economic downturn.
2.17 Measured by the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) there were 25,200 employee jobs in Ribble Valley in 2008. This is a 3.7% increase on the level recorded before the economic downturn (in 2006). This increase recorded for the Borough compares to a decrease of 0.4% for the region and an increase of 1.2% nationally over the same time period.
Employment profile of residents in the Borough
2.18 Although the overall economic performance of Ribble Valley provides important context, an understanding of the affect of the economic climate on the resident population is more crucial to this study.
1 NOMIS is a website provided by the Office of National Statistics that contains a range of labour market data at a local authority level. www.nomisweb.co.uk
10 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
2.19 The Census provides an overview of the employment situation in Ribble Valley in 2011. It shows that of all residents in work (excluding those who are also students), 19.9% are self-employed, with 58.3% full-time employees and 21.8% part-time employees. The level of self-employment is notably higher than both the regional (13.7%) and national averages (15.7%). Since the 2001 Census the number of part-time employees in Ribble Valley has increased by 20.4%, whilst the number of full-time employees has risen by 3.3%. The number of self-employed residents has increased by 10.3%.
2.20 The ONS publishes the number of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance on a monthly basis. This provides a very up-to-date measure of the level of unemployment of residents in an area. Figure 2.6 shows the change in the proportion of the working age population claiming Job Seekers Allowance in Ribble Valley since January 2007. The Figure indicates that the Ribble Valley unemployment level has been consistently higher than the level for the North West region and England.
2.21 Since January 2007 unemployment in Ribble Valley has increased by 91.0% (as opposed to 64.3% regionally and 60.3% nationally). The figure for Ribble Valley is higher because the base level of unemployment was low to begin with. However, over the last 12 months unemployment has decreased in Ribble Valley by 9.6% (compared to 4.1% in the North West region and 4.7% across England).
Figure 2.6 Level of unemployment in Ribble Valley (2007-2013)
Ribble Valley North West England 8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
job seekers allowance 2%
1%
0% Proportion of working age population claiming Jan- May- Sep- Jan- May- Sep- Jan- May- Sep- Jan- May- Sep- Jan- May- Sep- Jan- May- Sep- Jan- 07 07 07 08 08 08 09 09 09 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 Year
Source: ONS Claimant count
11 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
2.22 It is worth noting that Ribble Valley also has a relatively low proportion of young people unemployed; 3.6% of 18 to 24 year olds in the Borough are unemployed compared to 8.1% at the regional level and 7.0% nationally. There is also a lower than average level of long-term unemployed (more than 12 months unemployed) at 0.2% of the working age population, compared to 1.2% in the North West region and 1.0% for England.
2.23 The Census presents a ‘Standard Occupation Classification’ which categorises all working people resident within an area into one of nine groups depending on the nature of the skills that they use. These nine groups are graded from managerial jobs (Groups 1-3) to unskilled jobs (Groups 8-9). As Table 2.3 illustrates, some 45.2% of employed residents in Ribble Valley work in groups 1 to 3, and this is considerably higher than the equivalent figure for the North West region and also higher than the figure for England. Ribble Valley has a smaller proportion of the workforce in the occupation groups 6 to 7 and 8 to 9 than is found regionally and nationally.
2.24 The Table also shows that since the 2001 Census there has been a considerable increase in the number of people resident in Ribble Valley employed within groups 6 to 7. During the same period there has been a more modest increase in the number of residents employed within groups 1 to 3 and 4 to 5 with a decrease in the number employed in groups 8 to 9.
Table 2.3 Occupation structure
Change in no. of Ribble Valley North West England people employed in Occupation Groups 2011 2011 2011 Ribble Valley since 2001
Group 1-3: Senior, Professional 45.2% 37.7% 41.1% 11.1% or Technical
Group 4-5: Administrative, skilled 24.4% 23.0% 22.8% 7.1% trades
Group 6-7: Personal service, 15.0% 19.5% 17.7% 24.0% Customer service and Sales
Group 8-9: Machine operatives, 15.4% 19.7% 18.3% -6.1% Elementary occupations Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 8.7% Source: 2001 & 2011 Census
12 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Qualifications
2.25 An important factor in the ability of any economy to grow is the level of skill of the workforce. Figure 2.7 shows the highest qualification level of the working-age residents of Ribble Valley, compared to the regional and national equivalents as recorded in the 2011 Census. Level 1 qualification is the lowest (equivalent of any grade at GCSE or O-level) and Level 4 the highest (undergraduate degree or higher). The data indicates that over a third (34.0%) of working-age residents in the Borough have Level 4 or higher qualifications, significantly higher than the figure for the North West region (24.4%) and England (27.4%). Ribble Valley also has fewer residents with no qualifications. It is important to note however that the proportion of working-age residents in Ribble Valley without qualifications has reduced since the 2001 Census and the proportion with Level 4 or higher qualifications has increased notably (from 24.9% in 2001 to 34.0% in 2011).
Figure 2.7 Highest qualification level of residents in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England, 2011
No qualifications Level 1 qualifications Level 2 qualifications Apprenticeship Level 3 qualifications Level 4 qualifications and above Other qualifications
Ribble Valley
North West
England
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: 2011 Census
Income
2.26 Income has a crucial effect on the level of choice a household has when determining their future accommodation. The mean earned income for full-time employees resident in Ribble Valley in 2012 was £32,859, according to the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, higher than both the North West region (at £28,850) and England (£32,089). It is important to note that these figures assess individual incomes rather than household incomes. As Figure 2.8 shows, at all points on the distribution, annual gross income in Ribble Valley is notably higher than the equivalent in the North West region, although the pattern is most pronounced for higher income workers.
13 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 2.8 Annual gross income of full-time employed residents 2012 £38,574 £50,000 £37,742 £34,866 £26,660 £40,000 £26,411 £24,570 £19,053 £18,933 £30,000 £17,696
£20,000
Annual Gross Income £10,000
£0 Ribble Valley North West England
Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile
Source: ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2012)
2.27 Figure 2.9 shows the change in the mean income of full-time employees resident in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England since 2007. Ribble Valley has recorded a higher increase since 2007 (at 15.0%) than the North West region (8.1%) and England (9.9%).
Figure 2.9 Change in mean annual income of full-time employed residents 2007-2012
£40,000
Ribble Valley North West England
£35,000
£30,000
Annual Gross Income £25,000
£20,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year
Source: ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2007-2012)
14 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Household income
2.28 CACI Paycheck estimates that the mean gross annual household income in Ribble Valley is £39,518, which is 10.1% above the United Kingdom equivalent (£35,902) The median household income is noticeably lower at £32,132 (compared to £28,318 across the UK). The lower quartile figure is £16,622 (£14,273 nationally).
2.29 Figure 2.10 shows the distribution of income in the Borough, compared to that across the UK as a whole. It is clear that there is a significant range of incomes, with 31.4% of households having an income of less than £20,000, and 19.5% of households having an income in excess of £60,000. There are more high income households and fewer low income households than across the United Kingdom as a whole.
Figure 2.10 Distribution of annual gross household income
25% 22.0% 20.1% Ribble Valley 19.5% 20% United Kingdom 16.3% 15.6% 15.7% 15% 14.8% 13.8%13.1% 11.1% 11.3% 10.3% 10% 8.5% 7.7%
5%
0% Up to £10k £10k-£20k £20k-£30k £30k-£40k £40k-£50k £50k-60k £60k+
Source: CACI Paycheck, 2013
2.30 ONS have produced estimates of the proportion of households in poverty in 2008 for each middle- super output area (MSOA) in England and Wales, although these are classed as experimental statistics and should be treated with caution. The lowest figure recorded for the MSOAs in Ribble Valley is 10.6% of households in poverty and the highest is 18.8%. In comparison the median figure across England and Wales is 19.9%. All 8 of the MSOAs in Ribble Valley recorded a lower percentage than the national median. This suggests that households in poverty are not a significant issue in the Borough.
2.31 In addition in December 2012 the CLG published data tracking economic and child income deprivation at neighbourhood level in England between 1999 and 2009. This showed that of the 326 authorities in England, Ribble Valley was ranked the 2nd best for child income deprivation in 2009.
15 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
16 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
3. The housing market
Summary
i) The recent Census indicates that in 2011 there were 25,016 dwellings in the Borough and that since 2001 the dwelling stock had increased by 7.8%. Ribble Valley contains a lower than average number of homes with no usual residents in, including second homes. ii) The most common property type in the Borough is detached houses, followed by terraced and semi-detached houses. Only 8.0% of dwellings are flats, lower than the figures for the region (16.4%) and the England as a whole (22.1%). iii) The 2011 Census indicates that 77.2 of households in Ribble Valley are owner-occupiers, 7.6% reside in social rented accommodation and 13.7% rent privately. The size of the private rented sector in the Borough has increased by over 60% between 2001 and 2011. This substantial growth matches regional and national trends. iv) There is an increasing proportion of households with children resident in the private rented sector in the Borough. v) It is estimated that in Ribble Valley in 2013 just over 20% of households in the private rented sector are supported by Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance, compared to around 25% nationally .
Introduction
3.1 Analysis of the stock of housing allows a broad assessment of the range of properties currently within the Borough. A range of data sources, including the 2011 Census, will be used to provide an overview of the housing stock in Ribble Valley and how it has changed. The profile of dwellings in Ribble Valley will be compared to the regional and national situation where possible. The biggest change to the dwelling stock recorded is in the tenure profile, most notably the growth of private rented accommodation. The growth of this sector and the changing profile of households resident in it will be examined at a national level using recently published research, and also at a local level based on Borough-wide data and the opinions of letting agents operating in Ribble Valley. The cost and affordability of private rented housing is discussed in the following chapter.
Dwelling stock
3.2 The Census indicates that there were 25,016 dwellings in Ribble Valley in 2011 and that since 2001 the number of dwellings has increased by 7.8%, over 1,800 properties. In comparison the dwelling stock in the North West region increased by 6.8% between the 2001 and 2011 Census, whilst the dwelling stock of England increased by 8.3%.
17 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
3.3 According to the Census there were 974 homes with no usual residents in Ribble Valley in 2011. This represents 3.9% of all of the accommodation available for residence in the Borough. In the North West of England 4.5% of all available accommodation has no usual resident household, whilst the figure for England is 4.3%. The proportion of accommodation with no usual resident household in Ribble Valley has decreased since 2001, when a figure of 4.3% was recorded.
3.4 The 2011 Census clarifies that homes with no usual residence include second homes, vacant dwellings and short-term residents/visitors at the accommodation on the night of the Census. Information from the Council’s 2011 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) submission suggests that the number of vacant properties in Ribble Valley as of 1st April 2011 was 906. This suggests that the number of second homes in the Borough is in the region of 50-70 (around 0.3% of all accommodation in Ribble Valley). The same approach suggests that around 0.3% of all accommodation in the North West of England is second homes as is 1.4% of all accommodation nationally. The vacancy rate in 2011 in Ribble Valley was estimated to be 3.6%2, compared to 4.2% across the region and 2.9% nationally.
3.5 According to the Council’s 2012 ELASH (English Local Authority Statistics on Housing, the replacement of the HSSA) return, there are an estimated no Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Ribble Valley. There are 1,247 dwellings in the Borough that have a Category 1 Hazard (as assessed within the Health and Housing Safety Rating System). Some 1,041 of these properties are within the private sector.
Accommodation profile
3.6 Figure 3.1 compares the type of accommodation in Ribble Valley in 2011 with that recorded for the North West region and England. Ribble Valley contains more detached houses than the regional and national averages. Only 8.0% of dwellings are flats, lower than the figures for the region (16.4%) and the England as a whole (22.1%). The most common property type in the Borough is detached houses, followed by terraced and semi-detached houses.
2 Any homes not available to be occupied permanently, such as second homes, are excluded from the total stock figure, when calculating the vacancy rate.
18 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 3.1 Dwelling type in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England, 2011
Detached house Semi-detached house Terraced house Purpose-built flat Flat in a converted or shared house Flat in a commercial property Caravan/mobile home
Ribble Valley
North West
England
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: 2011 Census
3.7 Since 2001 the number of purpose built flats has increased by 31.6%, although they remain just 5.9% of the total dwelling stock. The change in the number of houses has been less notable; the number of detached houses has increased by 7.3%, semi-detached houses by 6.2% and terraced houses by 5.3%.
3.8 Table 3.1 compares the size of accommodation (in terms of bedrooms) in Ribble Valley, the North West Region and England. The Table indicates that the Borough has a smaller proportion of small (one or fewer bedrooms) properties than the North West region and England as a whole. The Table also indicates that some 25.9% of dwellings in Ribble Valley contain four or more bedrooms compared to 16.8% across the region and 19.0% nationally. Overall three bedroom homes are most common in Ribble Valley followed by two bedroom dwellings.
Table 3.1 Size of dwelling stock in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England, 2011
Property size Ribble Valley North West England No bedrooms 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1 bedroom 6.6% 9.5% 11.8% 2 bedrooms 28.2% 28.5% 27.9% 3 bedrooms 39.2% 45.0% 41.2% 4 bedrooms 19.3% 13.1% 14.4% 5 or more bedrooms 6.6% 3.7% 4.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: 2011 Census
19 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
3.9 The number of bedrooms in a property was not collected in the 2001 Census, however both the 2001 and 2011 Census recorded the total number of rooms in a dwelling. A comparison of the figures for Ribble Valley shows that the number of larger dwellings has recorded the greatest rise; between 2001 and 2011 the number of properties with 8 or more rooms increased by 30.9% and the number of properties with 7 rooms rose by 12.3%. In contrast the number of homes with four, five or six rooms declined. There was also a notable increase in the number of smaller dwellings, with the number of properties with three rooms increasing by 28.7%.
Tenure
3.10 Figure 3.2 compares the tenure of households in Ribble Valley in 2011 with that recorded for the North West region and England. The data indicates that 41.9% of households in the Borough are owner- occupiers without a mortgage, compared to 31.0% in the region and 30.6% nationally. The proportion of owner-occupiers with a mortgage (35.3%) is also higher than the regional (34.0%) and national average (33.6%). Some 7.6% of households in Ribble Valley are resident in the social rented sector, markedly lower than the figure for the North West region (18.3%) and England as a whole (17.7%). Finally, some 13.7% of households in the Borough live in private rented accommodation, compared to 15.4% in the North West and 16.8% across England.
Figure 3.2 Tenure profile in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England, 2011
Owner-occupied (no mortgage) Owner-occupied (with mortgage)* Social rented Private rented Living rent free
Ribble Valley
North West
England
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*Includes shared ownership Source: 2011 Census
3.11 The Census results indicate that amongst households in Ribble Valley where the Household Reference Person is aged 65 and over, 80.8% are owner-occupiers, 10.9% reside in the social rented sector and 8.3% live in private rented accommodation.
20 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
3.12 Figure 3.3 shows the change in the size of each tenure between the 2001 and 2011 Census. The Figure shows that in Ribble Valley, the North West region and England as a whole the private rented sector has increased dramatically. The number of owner-occupiers with no mortgage has also recorded an increase in all three areas, whilst owner-occupiers with a mortgage have decreased. The social rented sector has shown the smallest change, growing by 9.1% in Ribble Valley, but reducing slightly nationally and regionally.
Figure 3.3 Change in number of households in each tenure 2001 to 2011
100% 92.8% 82.4% 80% Ribble Valley North West 62.4% England 60%
40%
20% 15.2% 13.0% 11.5% 9.1% -8.7% -7.8% -8.4% -2.5% -0.9% pecentage change pecentage 2001-2011 0% Owner-occupied (no Owner-occupied (with Social rent Private rent -20% mortgage) mortgage)*
*Includes shared ownership Source: 2001 & 2011 Census
The private rented sector
3.13 This growth in the private rented sector alongside the related availabilities of other tenures has had a notable impact on housing market dynamics and the decisions made by households within the housing market. The report ‘Who Lives in the Private Rented Sector’ published in January 2013 by the British and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) will be used to describe the drivers behind the growth of the tenure nationally and the consequent changing nature of households within it, whilst locally available data and the views of local letting agents will be used to illuminate the situation in Ribble Valley.
21 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
The growth of the private rented sector
3.14 The BSHF report notes that the growth in the private rented sector at the start of this century was caused by the availability of buy-to-let mortgages allied to rising house prices which led to the sector being considered a good investment. The economic downturn from mid-2007 onwards changed these conditions but the private rented sector continued to grow, although for different reasons in different parts of the country. In more prosperous areas, the growth has been driven by the inaccessibility of owner-occupation due to both high house prices and unfavourable mortgage lending criteria. In less prosperous areas, growth has resulted from the limited supply of social rented housing, with households being forced into the private rented sector instead. In addition, across the country, demand for the tenure has increased from households choosing to live in the sector due to its greater flexibility during this period of economic uncertainty.
3.15 Ribble Valley can be considered a more prosperous area and much of the growth recorded in the private rented sector in the Borough has been from employed households. Demand for the sector has also increased in Ribble Valley due to the growth in household groups that typically look to reside in the tenure – young adults, and also from households that traditionally do not live in this tenure in Ribble Valley – households with children.
3.16 As indicated in Figure 2.1, the Census showed that the number of people aged between 15-29 in the Borough increased by over 6000 between 2001 and 2011, resulting in additional demand for private rented accommodation. Discussions with letting agents reflected that some of the increased caseload over the last few years was a consequence of more demand from young people sharing, but also from couples who do not yet wish to buy. It was noted however that in a significant number of cases, lettings to these groups are set up online and that the landlords will deal direct with the tenant rather than through an agency.
3.17 There has also been an increase in households with fairly young children renting in the Borough. Typically these households would be moving into the Borough from one of the larger urban areas nearby and looking to buy a property with more space, however the less favourable mortgage lending criteria now offered mean that these households are now moving to equivalent accommodation in the private rented sector rather than waiting in-situ till they can afford to purchase a home.
3.18 Agents noted that demand still exists for private rented property in Ribble Valley and that the cost of larger private rented properties in the Borough had notably increased even during the wider economic downturn. The demand for properties at the lower end of the market, likely to be occupied by benefit- supported tenants, was steady, but demand for mid-range homes for the households with children described above was thought to be most secure in the medium-term. Overall two and three bedroom property was considered to be most in demand.
22 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
3.19 Agents indicated that households with children usually use a different set of criteria when selecting a private rented home, considering the size of the outdoor space on the property as well as the space indoors. Accessibility of schools was also a significant determinant as to where households with children consider – resulting in rental markets operating very locally for this group. For other households looking to rent, the market area considered was wider, although many had clear ideas about which parts of the urban areas they would consider living in.
The nature of the benefit-supported private rented sector
3.20 The BSHF report, using figures from the Family Resources Survey, estimates that in 2009/10 around a quarter of private tenants were in receipt of Housing Benefit; although it is acknowledged that this is likely to be a slight underestimate as the Family Resources Survey under-reports the claiming of Housing Benefit. It is estimated from Department of Work & Pensions data that in Ribble Valley in 2013 around 20% of households in the private rented sector are benefit-supported, a lower figure than the national average. The BSHF report also notes that within the benefit-supported private rented sector:
• There are fewer younger households than in the private rented sector as a whole, however the largest growth has been from the 16-24 year old age group. • There are more households with children than the private rented sector as a whole, and they constitute over half of all households in the sector – a figure that is continuing to grow. Single parent households are particularly likely to reside in this accommodation. • The majority of households are not in work (an average of 78% over the last decade), however over 90% of new Housing Benefit claimants in the last two years are in work. • Households are more likely to reside in their home for longer periods; 43% having lived in their home for three or more years, compared to 31% of all private tenants.
3.21 The agents operating in Ribble Valley commented that the unease over letting a house to a benefit- supported tenant that was prevalent a few years ago, had reduced although there were still a large number of landlords uninterested in the sector. It was also noted that some landlords have mortgages which specifically prohibit letting to LHA benefit-supported tenants.
3.22 The more cautious landlords required very good references before they would consider taking on benefit-supported tenants. Some landlords were also uncomfortable with the cashflow discrepancy in the sector, with Local Housing Allowance being paid four weekly, in arrears, whereas a normal tenancy is paid monthly, in advance.
23 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
24 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
4. The cost and affordability of housing
Summary
i) According to data from the Land Registry, the mean house price in Ribble Valley in the third quarter of 2012 was £246,519, higher than the average for the North West region and England as a whole. Data shows that whilst prices have remained largely static since the economic downturn, the number of property sales has fallen dramatically. ii) The cost of housing by size was assessed for all tenures across the Borough. Entry-level prices in Ribble Valley range from £90,300 for a one bedroom home in the Clitheroe price market up to £304,000 for a four bedroom property in the Rural price market. Entry-level rents in Ribble Valley range from £400 per month for a one bedroom home up to £1,000 per month for a four bedroom property. iii) Housing market gaps analysis shows the nature of the housing ladder in a particular locality. An analysis of the gaps between each tenure shows that there is a large income gap between the social rented sector and market entry. This indicates that intermediate housing priced within this gap could potentially be useful for a number of households in Ribble Valley. iv) Flexible Tenancies are being introduced as a new tenure. They will allow Affordable Rent to be charged. Affordable Rent will be based on the open market value of each property. Within Ribble Valley, as bedroom size increases the range of Affordable Rents possible increases. v) Although affordability has theoretically improved since the start of the economic downturn, there remains a large proportion of households in Ribble Valley that are unable to afford to k t d ti i th B h
Introduction
4.1 An effective SHMA is founded on a thorough understanding of local housing – what it costs and how this varies. This chapter describes the changes in the housing market that have been recorded in Ribble Valley, Norfolk and England since the previous SHMA. Subsequently it assesses the entry-level costs of housing in Ribble Valley. A comparison of the cost of different tenures will be used to identify the housing market gaps that exist.
4.2 The Localism Bill has introduced Flexible Tenancies which permit Affordable Rent to be charged in the affordable sector. Affordable Rent is intended to help fill the gaps that exist in the current housing market. The most important issue for the Council to determine is the level at which Affordable Rent should be set. This chapter will therefore also consider the potential cost of Affordable Rent in Ribble Valley.
25 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
The situation in Ribble Valley
4.3 The most recent house price data available at the time of the previous SHMA report was from 2007. The Land Registry has now published data for the third quarter of 2012. It is therefore possible to assess the changes recorded in Ribble Valley over this period, alongside national equivalents.
4.4 Table 4.1 shows the change in average prices between the third quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2012 for England, Lancashire and Ribble Valley. The Table shows that between 2007 and 2012 average prices have decreased at a faster rate in Ribble Valley than they have across the County, whilst nationally prices have increased by almost 10%. Overall properties in Ribble Valley are on average notably more expensive than those in Lancashire as a whole and also higher than the national average.
Table 4.1 Change in average property prices
Percentage change Average price Average price Area recorded Jul- Sep 2007 Jul- Sep 2012 2007-2012 Ribble Valley £246,519 £226,021 -8.3% Lancashire £157,763 £150,116 -4.8% England £232,345 £253,816 9.2% Source: Land Registry via CLG
4.5 Figure 4.1 shows price change by property price level since the third quarter of 2007. The Figure shows that prices at all levels follow the same pattern of seasonal peaks and troughs. Lower quartile prices have fallen by less than median prices over the last five years (9.3% compared to 15.0%).
26 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.1 Price change by price level in Ribble Valley since 2007
£300,000
£250,000
£200,000
£150,000 Price
£100,000
£50,000 Lower quartile Median Mean
£0 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 Period
Source: Land Registry via CLG
4.6 Table 4.2 shows the change in the number of property sales between the third quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2012. The Table indicates that property sales have notably decreased since the high levels recorded at the time of the previous SHMA (pre the economic downturn). Ribble Valley records the level of sales decreasing by 44.5% during this period, whilst across the County the decrease was 60.6% and nationally sales levels fell by almost 50.6%.
Table 4.2 Change in the number of property sales
Percentage change Number of sales Number of sales Area recorded Jul- Sep 2007 Jul- Sep 2012 2007-2012 Ribble Valley 335 186 -44.5% Lancashire 7,813 3,076 -60.6% England 329,208 162,688 -50.6% Source: Land Registry via CLG
4.7 Figure 4.2 shows the indexed change in the number of property sales since the third quarter of 2007 for Ribble Valley, Lancashire and England. The Figure suggests that in Ribble Valley the pattern follows that recorded for Lancashire and England and, despite seasonal fluctuations, sales levels are much lower now than they were before the economic downturn.
27 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.2 Indexed change in sales in Ribble Valley since 2007
150
Ribble Valley 125 Lancashire England 100
75 Index=100) 50
25 Change in number of sales (Quarter 3 2007 0 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 Year
Source: Land Registry via CLG
4.8 It is useful to briefly review housing market activity over a longer period to consider the influences on property price changes. Figure 4.3 shows the variation in median prices and property sales levels since 2004. The data suggests that property prices remained relatively stable over the last eight years despite property sales declining dramatically for part of that period (Summer 2007 to Summer 2009).
28 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.3 Changes in prices and sales levels in Ribble Valley over the past 8 years
450 £200,000 400 350 £160,000 300 £120,000 250 200 £80,000
150 price Median Number of sales Number of Property sales 100 £40,000 Median prices 50 0 £0
Q3 2004Q1 2005Q3 2005Q1 2006Q3 2006Q1 2007Q3 2007Q1 2008Q3 2008Q1 2009Q3 2009Q1 2010Q3 2010Q1 2011Q3 2011Q1 2012Q3 2012
Source: Land Registry via CLG
The cost of housing in Ribble Valley
4.9 To fully understand the affordability of housing within an area, it is necessary to collect data on the cost of housing by number of bedrooms. This ensures that it is possible to assess the ability of households to afford market housing of the size required by that particular household. However, no secondary data contains this information. As part of this study we have therefore undertaken a price survey to assess the current cost of housing in the Borough. Variations in prices across the Borough were examined.
4.10 Figure 4.4 shows the variation in prices across the wards in the Borough. The Figure indicates that generally the difference in prices within the Borough is fairly small; with the majority of wards within 25% of the Borough-wide median. The Figure suggests that prices in the rural area are highest, and prices in the South West of the Borough the lowest.
29 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.4 Price variation across Ribble Valley – Ward median relative to Borough median
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012 © Crown copyright 2012 Land Registry and public sector information Licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0
Source: Property Database Ltd, 2012
Sub-markets
4.11 Variations in prices and market rents have been assessed to identify how many separate price markets exist within Ribble Valley. The analysis of the housing market indicated that four price markets exist currently; Clitheroe, Longridge, Towns in the South, and the Rural area. These price markets are based on ward boundaries.
4.12 Median property prices by number of bedrooms were obtained in each of these four price markets via an online search of properties advertised for sale during March 2013. The results of this online price survey are presented in Figure 4.5. The prices recorded include a discount to reflect that the full asking price is not usually achieved (with sales values typically 3-5% lower as indicated by local estate agents). One bedroom properties for purchase were found to be in very short supply outside of the Clitheroe price market, therefore prices have not been presented for this dwelling size in the other price markets.
30 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
4.13 The Figure shows that the price increase for each property size is quite consistent across all the market areas (a three bedroom home is about 45% more than a two bedroom home within the same market area and a four bedroom property is about 70% more than a three bedroom dwelling within the same market area). Overall prices are highest in the Rural price market and lowest in the Clitheroe price market.
Figure 4.5 Median property prices by size and price market
£450,000 1 bedroom 2 bedroom £400,000
3 bedroom 4 bedroom £418,000
£350,000 £294,500
£300,000 £282,500 £294,500
£250,000 £237,500 £213,800 £200,000 £175,800 £169,100 £161,500
£150,000 £144,400 £128,300 £123,500 Median purchase price
£100,000 £99,800
£50,000
£0 Clitheroe Longridge Towns in south Rural area
Source: Online estate agents survey March 2013
4.14 The online survey also collected information at different points of the price distribution. Entry-level property prices for each price market area are presented in Figure 4.6 below. In accordance with the Practice Guidance entry-level prices are based on lower quartile prices.
4.15 The Figure indicates that entry-level prices in Ribble Valley Borough range from around £90,300 for a one bedroom home in the Clitheroe price market up to £304,000 for a four bedroom property in the Rural price market. In terms of market availability the analysis showed that three bedroom properties are most commonly available to purchase in all price markets. One bedroom properties for purchase were found to be in relatively short supply outside the Clitheroe price market, therefore two bedroom dwellings are considered to be the smallest property found to be widely available in the other price markets and form the market entry point for owner-occupation.
31 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.6 Entry-level property prices by size and price market
£350,000 1 bedroom 2 bedroom
3 bedroom 4 bedroom £300,000 £304,000 £256,500
£250,000 £242,300 £225,600 £199,500 £200,000 £173,900 £153,900 £150,000 £147,300 £133,000 £121,600 £111,200 £109,300
£100,000 £90,300 Entry-level purchase price
£50,000
£0 Clitheroe Longridge Towns in south Rural area
Source: Online estate agents survey March 2013
4.16 The analysis so far has considered price data by price market; however it is useful to also present this information for the Borough as a whole. Figure 4.7 therefore shows median and entry-level property prices by number of bedrooms across Ribble Valley. The Figure indicates that entry-level prices in Ribble Valley range from £95,000 for a one bedroom home up to £266,000 for a four bedroom property. Median prices are generally around 15-25% higher than entry-level prices.
32 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.7 Median and entry-level property prices across the whole of Ribble Valley
£350,000 £313,500 Entry-level Median £300,000 £266,000
£250,000
£199,500 £200,000 £156,800 £150,000 £133,000 £116,400 £104,500 £95,000 Median purchase price £100,000
£50,000
£0 One bedroom Two bedroom Three bedroom Four bedroom
Source: Online estate agents survey March 2013
Entry-level rents
4.17 The principle factor determining the rent of a unit is not its general location, we found that rents are driven largely by the condition and situation of the property. Whilst there was variation in the rents across the Borough, it was not as great as is recorded in property prices. In addition the number of homes available to rent was notably smaller than the number available for purchase. For these reasons a single private rented market across the Borough is most appropriate. The entry-level price for private rented accommodation by property size is presented in Figure 4.8. The Figure indicates that entry-level rents in Ribble Valley range from £400 per month for a one bedroom home up to £1,000 per month for a four bedroom property.
4.18 The Figure shows that as with owner-occupation, the smallest difference is between the cost of a one and two bedroom entry-level home. The difference between the cost of three and four bedroom accommodation is most marked in the private rented sector as was the case for property purchase. In addition, the profile of properties available is somewhat different to that for purchase with a greater proportion of two bedroom homes available to rent.
33 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.8 Median and entry-level private rents across the whole of Ribble Valley
£1,400
Entry-level Median £1,200 £1,200
£1,000 £1,000
£800 £750 £625 £600 £500 £525
Rent per month £450 £400 £400
£200
£0 One bedroom Two bedroom Three bedroom Four bedroom
Source: Online letting agents survey March 2013
Social rents
4.19 The cost of social rented accommodation by dwelling size in Ribble Valley can be obtained from the Homes & Communities Agency’s Statistical Data Return dataset. Table 4.3 below illustrates the cost of social rented dwellings in Ribble Valley. As can be seen the costs are significantly below those for private rented housing, particularly for larger houses, indicating a significant potential gap between the social rented and market sectors.
Table 4.3 Social rented costs in Ribble Valley
Bedrooms Rent (per month) One bedroom £298 Two bedrooms £346 Three bedrooms £368 Four bedrooms £396 Source: HCA’s Statistical Data Return 2012
Analysis of housing market ‘gaps’
4.20 Housing market gaps analysis has been developed to allow easy comparison of the costs of different tenures. Figure 4.9 below shows the housing ladder that exists for different sizes of property in Ribble Valley. The housing ladder is illustrated by comparing the different types of housing in terms of the income required to afford them. To do this, we have divided the entry-level property price by 3.5 to get an income figure and multiplied the annual rent by four to produce a comparable figure. This latter step
34 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
was carried out for both social and market rents. This is in accordance with the affordability criteria set out in the Practice Guidance.
4.21 The Figure shows a comparison of the likely income requirements per household for different types of housing. Measurement of the size of the gaps between these ‘rungs of the ladder’ helps assess the feasibility of households moving between the tenures - the smaller the gaps, the easier it is for a household to ascend the ladder.
4.22 The Figure indicates that for one, two and three bedroom properties, the gap between social rent and market rent is larger than the gap between market rent and entry-level home ownership, with the reverse true for four bedroom homes. The gaps for four bedroom accommodation are particularly large; an additional £29,000 per year is required to access a four bedroom private rented home over the cost of a four bedroom social rented property, with a further £28,000 required to move to an owner-occupied home.
Figure 4.9 Household income required to access housing in Ribble Valley, by number of bedrooms
£80,000
£70,000
£60,000
£50,000
£40,000
£30,000
£20,000 Household income required
£10,000
£0 One Two Three Four bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom
Social rent Entry-level private rent Entry-level purchase
Source: Online survey of property prices March 2013; HCA’s Statistical Data Return 2012
4.23 Table 4.4 shows the size of the gaps for each dwelling size in Ribble Valley. The Table indicates, for example, that one bedroom market entry rents are 34.1% higher (in terms of income required) than the cost of social rented accommodation. The very large gap recorded between social rents and market entry rents for all dwelling sizes indicates that intermediate housing could potentially be useful for a large number of households in Ribble Valley. The significant gap between market entry rents and
35 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
market entry purchase indicates notable potential demand for part-ownership products for households in this gap.
Table 4.4 Scale of key housing market gaps in Ribble Valley Property size Social rent/market rent Rent/buy gap One bedroom 34.1% 41.4% Two bedrooms 44.4% 38.6% Three bedrooms 70.0% 49.3% Four bedrooms 152.4% 58.3% Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Affordable Rent
4.24 Affordable Rents are being introduced to help fill the gaps that exist in the current housing market. Affordable Rent is a social tenure intended to house households on the Housing Register. Affordable Rents can be set at up to 80% of open market rents, implying there is a flexibility as to what they may cost. This section, therefore profiles in more detail the private rented sector, on which the tenure is based, and then considers the potential cost of Affordable Rent in Ribble Valley.
Understanding the private rented sector (PRS) in Ribble Valley
4.25 The section considers the breadth of the private rented market for each property size in Ribble Valley. Table 4.5 shows the cost at the key points of the rental distribution. It can be seen from the figures in the Table that the price markets for each bedroom size are largely distinct as there is no overlap within the inter-quartile ranges of the adjacent property size. For all property sizes, the extremes of each market overlap somewhat with the next size of dwelling. For example, a household in a high quality two-bed dwelling could live in a median priced three-bed property at the same rent but they would have to accept a noticeable drop in quality.
Table 4.5 Private sector rent level in Ribble Valley (cost per month)
House size One bed Two bed Three bed Four bed Minimum £325 £395 £475 £725 Lower Quartile £400 £500 £625 £1,000 Median £450 £525 £750 £1,200 Upper Quartile £475 £600 £875 £1,350 Maximum £700 £950 £1,625 £1,750 Inter-quartile range £75 £100 £250 £350 % difference between quartiles 18.8% 20.0% 40.0% 35.0% Source: Online letting agents survey March 2013
36 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Affordable Rents compared with open market rents
4.26 We have considered various forms of averaging to derive a median market rent, from which the Affordable Rent at 80% could be calculated. The most effective, we believe, is to take the median from the middle range of observed rents. Table 4.6 compares the observed ranges of rent in the PRS with the Affordable Rents based at 80% of these levels. Social rent and Local Housing Allowance (LHA) levels are also included. The tables show that social rent levels in Ribble Valley are consistently below the entire range of rates for Affordable Rent products and the gap between social rent and Affordable Rent increases with property size.
4.27 Ribble Valley is located in three Broad Rental Market Areas (BRMA); the Central Lancashire BRMA, the East Lancashire BRMA and the West Pennine BRMA. The LHA cap for all three applicable BRMAs, as set by the Valuation Office Agency is also included in the table. This is based on the 30th percentile of open market rents. In most markets the LHA rates are above the median and often above the maximum Affordable Rent level. In the Central Lancashire BRMA the LHA cap is above the median Affordable Rent for one and two bedroom properties and above the lower quartile Affordable Rent for three bedroom homes, whilst the East Lancashire BRMA and the West Pennine BRMA LHA cap is only above the minimum Affordable Rent for one bedroom homes. A notable number of households accessing Affordable Rent in Ribble Valley will therefore be required to contribute to at least some of the cost themselves – it will not be covered entirely by LHA.
4.28 For four bedroom homes there is an overlap between the maximum Affordable Rent rate and the entry level private rent. If, in this instance, high end properties were made available as Affordable Rent products, they would offer the chance for households to move into a high quality property at below open-market rents; however, there would still be suitable cheaper properties available in the open market.
4.29 In terms of providing an Affordable Rent product that is above the social rent level but suitably below the entry-level market rent, the tables suggest that the most suitable properties to be made available for Affordable Rent would be ones equivalent to those in the ‘lower-middle’ section of the open market.
37 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 4.6 Rent levels by tenure in Ribble Valley (cost per month)
House size One bed Two bed Three bed Four bed PRS Lower Quartile £400 £500 £625 £1,000 Median £450 £525 £750 £1,200 Upper Quartile £475 £600 £875 £1,350 Affordable Rent Minimum (80% of lower quartile) £320 £400 £500 £800 Median (80% of median) £360 £420 £600 £960 Maximum (80% of upper quartile) £380 £480 £700 £1,080 Social rent Typical rent* £298 £346 £368 £396 LHA cap Central Lancashire BRMA** £375 £480 £550 £695 East Lancashire BRMA** £335 £390 £450 £600 West Pennine BRMA** £325 £368 £412 £595 Source: Online letting agents survey March 2013, *HCA’s Statistical Data Return 2012, ** Valuation Office Agency March 2013 Affordable Rent levels
4.30 Having established how Affordable Rent at 80% should be positioned in the market, it is important to consider the cost of other potential Affordable Rent options below the maximum of 80%. Alternative levels of Affordable Rent (70%, 65% and 60% of the median of the market) are also considered to understand how lowering rents impacts affordability. The costs of renting at these various levels are presented in Table 4.7.
4.31 As can be seen in Table 4.7, the 60% and 65% Affordable Rent rate is lower than the social rent level for one and two bedroom properties. As a result, when the affordability of different levels of Affordable Rent is tested in Chapter 5, we do not test this option. As the aim of Affordable Rent is to generate a greater income for registered providers (RPs) to supply more affordable developments, charging these levels would generate less income, therefore the RPs would be better off charging social rents.
4.32 A limited number of Affordable Rent units are currently available in Ribble Valley (25 as at April 2012 according to the HCA’s Statistical Data Return). The Table also indicates the current Affordable Rent charged on these properties (including any service charge). The Table shows that the current Affordable Rent levels charged are below the cost of entry-level rent for all property sizes. The Affordable Rent currently charged for one bedroom homes is above the 80% Affordable Rent level calculated, for two bedroom homes it is between the 70% and 80% Affordable Rent levels calculated, whilst for three bedroom homes it is between the 60% and 65% Affordable Rent levels calculated.
38 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 4.7 Monthly rental figures of different Affordable Rent levels – by property size
Bedrooms One Two Three Four Lower Quartile Private Rents £400 £500 £625 £1,000 Affordable Rent at 80% £360 £420 £600 £960 Affordable Rent at 70% £315 £368 £525 £840 Affordable Rent at 65% £293 £341 £488 £780 Affordable Rent at 60% £270 £315 £450 £720 Social rent* £298 £346 £368 £396 Current Affordable Rent charged* £394 £406 £456 - Italic figures are those below social rent. Source: Online letting agents survey March 2013, *HCA’s Statistical Data Return 2012
Shared ownership
4.33 Whilst this section has profiled Affordable Rent in detail, it should be noted that shared ownership accommodation is an alternative affordable product aimed at the same group of households - those able to afford more than social rents but unable to afford market accommodation.
4.34 Table 4.8 presents the estimated costs of shared ownership housing in Ribble Valley. The prices presented in the Table were obtained from the online estate agent survey. It is important to note that there were few shared ownership properties available in Ribble Valley at the time of the estate agent survey, so the open market value for these properties may be subject to refinement. The monthly costs of the most commonly available equity shares offered are also shown. The monthly costs are based on an interest rate of 5.69% paid on the equity share owned and rent payable at 2.5% on the remaining equity. These costs have been produced just to allow a broad comparison with the Affordable Rent levels presented above. It is clear that there is a potential overlap between the two products, particularly between shared ownership with a 50% equity share and Affordable Rent at 70%. Shared ownership with a 75% share is more expensive than the Affordable Rent options, but is cheaper than entry-level prices. It is worth noting that the vast majority of shared ownership properties available in the area have a 50% equity share (with higher levels of equity only available rarely) and where households in Ribble Valley are tested as to their ability to afford shared ownership accommodation later in this report, the price is based on the 50% equity share level.
Table 4.8 Estimated cost of shared ownership accommodation in Ribble Valley
One Two Three Four Open market value £97,500 £125,000 £160,000 £235,000
Monthly cost of shared ownership £333 £427 £546 £802 with a 50% equity share
Monthly cost of shared ownership £398 £510 £652 £958 with a 75% equity share Source: Online letting agents survey March 2013
39 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Affordability of housing
4.35 Assessing the affordability of market housing in an area is crucial to understanding the sustainability of the housing market. Poor affordability can result in the loss of employees from an area, an increase in poverty, a high number of households requiring assistance with their housing (either via a social rented property or through a benefit-supported private rented accommodation) and a loss of mix and balance in the population within the area.
4.36 The affordability of housing in an area is measured by the ratio of market housing costs to income in that area. Initially the general Borough-wide entry-level cost of market housing will be compared to different points on the earnings distribution of residents in Ribble Valley to consider affordability in historical terms. This will be followed by an analysis that assesses the ability of households in Ribble Valley to afford market accommodation of the size they require using data on the household income distribution and the household composition in the Borough.
General affordability
4.37 Figure 4.10 shows the lower quartile, median and upper quartile income of full-time workers (as set out in Chapter 2) multiplied by 3.5 (the income multiple set out in the Practice Guidance) compared to Borough-wide lower quartile prices (set out in Figure 4.7). The figure shows that full-time workers with earnings at the upper-quartile level in Ribble Valley would be able to purchase an entry-level property in the Borough. This would not however be possible for full-time workers with earnings at the lower quartile or median level, without additional income or a capital sum to deduct from the purchase price. It is clear that affordability theoretically improved immediately after the economic downturn (discounting the greater difficulty of acquiring a mortgage) and the affordability gap has reduced slightly since. Whilst in 2007 lower quartile prices were almost seven and a half times higher than lower quartile full-time incomes, in 2012 they were around six and a half times higher.
40 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.10 Earnings compared with lower quartile prices in Ribble Valley
£160,000
£140,000
£120,000
£100,000
£80,000
£60,000
£40,000 Lower quartile house prices Lower quartile income (x3.5) Median income (x3.5) Upper quartile income (x3.5) £20,000
£0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year
Source: Land Registry via CLG; Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
4.38 Although no time-series data is available on market rents in Ribble Valley, the current Borough-wide entry-level rent for a two bedroom home (£500 per month or £6,000 per year) can be compared to different points on the income distribution of full-time workers in the Borough. This is presented in Table 4.9. The Practice Guidance indicates that within the private rented sector no more than a quarter of gross income should be spent on the rent for the rent to be affordable. The Table indicates that whilst full-time workers with earnings at the median and upper quartile level would be able to afford entry-level market rents in the Borough, full-time workers with earnings at the lower quartile level would not.
Table 4.9 Ratio of entry-level private rents to earnings in Ribble Valley
Income level Earned income Price/income ratio Lower quartile £19,053 0.31 Median £26,411 0.23 Upper quartile £38,574 0.16 Source: Online letting agents survey March 2013; Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2012
41 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Specific theoretical affordability
4.39 The household income distribution shown in Figure 2.10 differentiated by household type can be use to asses the ability of households in Ribble Valley to afford the size home that they require (according to the bedroom standard). The cost of housing by bedroom size in the Borough is presented in Figures 4.7 and 4.8 and the test is based on the affordability criteria set out in the Practice Guidance (and presented in the Glossary).
4.40 Figure 4.11 shows the current affordability of households in Ribble Valley by household type, number of bedrooms required and price market. This is the theoretical affordability of households, as the analysis considers all households in the Borough regardless of whether the household intends to move.
4.41 The data indicates that 58.5% of lone parent households in the Borough would be unable to afford market housing (if they were to move home now). Single person households are also relatively unlikely to be able to afford, as are households with two adults and one child. Multi-adult households with two or more children are most likely to be able to afford market housing in Ribble Valley. Some 43.4% of households requiring a four bedroom home would be unable to afford market housing in the Borough (if they were to move now), compared to 14.6% of households requiring a one bedroom property. Finally households in the Clitheroe price market are least likely to be able to afford market housing, with those in the ‘towns in south’ price market most likely.
42 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 4.9 Theoretical affordability of market housing in Ribble Valley
Single pensioners 30.8%
2 or more pensioners 9.8%
Single non-pensioners 16.0%
Multi adult household, no children 9.3%
Lone parent 58.5%
2+ adults 1 child 17.9%
2+ adults 2+children 9.0%
Households requiring 1 bedroom 14.6%
Households requiring 2 bedrooms 16.7%
Households requiring 3 bedrooms 18.4%
Households requiring 4+ bedrooms 43.4%
Clitheroe 22.8%
Longridge 14.5%
Towns in south 11.6%
Rural 21.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Households unable to afford
Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
43 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
44 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
5. Housing need
Summary
i) Following the steps of the needs assessment model specified by the Practice Guidance results in a net need estimate of 404 affordable dwellings per year in Ribble Valley, however this figure does not equal the number of new affordable units to be built. The need will be met through a wide range of sources – but particularly by making better use of vacant stock, by making better use of the existing stock and through the private rented sector. ii) One bedroom and four bedroom affordable homes are particularly required. iii) Relatively few households in housing need could afford Affordable Rent at 80% of the median market rent. The most practical level to set Affordable Rent to meet substantial need is at 70%. iv) Factoring higher affordability thresholds households in the private rented sector pay in current market conditions and the supply of private rented accommodation (via LHA) to house those requiring affordable housing, the need for new affordable units reduces notably – however changes to the administration of LHA mean that it is unlikely to continue
Introduction
5.1 Housing need is a term first used in the mid-1990s to help provide a means-tested estimate of the requirement for affordable housing in an area. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance (August 2007) defines housing need as ‘the quantity of housing required for households who are unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance.’
5.2 This chapter presents the results of the three broad stages of the needs assessment model. Within each of the three stages there are a number of detailed calculations (16 in total) many of which themselves have a number of components. This chapter presents details of how each of these 16 detailed steps is calculated using locally available data for Ribble Valley. An annual estimate of housing need is calculated from these 16 steps and the tenure and size of accommodation most appropriate to meet this need is discussed.
Stage 1: Current need (Steps 1.1-1.4)
5.3 The first stage of the model assesses current need. This begins with an assessment of housing suitability, before the affordability test is applied to determine the number of these households that require affordable housing, and are therefore in current need .
45 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Unsuitable housing
5.4 The Practice Guidance sets out a series of nine criteria for unsuitable housing:
• Homeless households • Households with tenure under notice, real threat of notice or lease coming to an end; housing that is too expensive for households in receipt of housing benefit or in arrears due to expense • Households overcrowded according to the ‘bedroom standard’ • Dwelling too difficult to maintain (eg too large) even with equity release • Couples, people with children and single adults over 25 sharing a kitchen, bathroom or WC with another household • Households containing people with mobility impairment or other specific needs living in unsuitable dwelling (eg accessed via steps), which cannot be made suitable in-situ • Dwelling lacks a bathroom, kitchen or inside WC and household does not have the resources to make fit (eg through equity release or grants) • Dwelling subject to major disrepair or unfitness and household does not have the resources to make fit (eg through equity release or grants) • Household suffers harassment from others living in the vicinity which cannot be resolved except through a move.
5.5 The Practice Guidance indicates that there are three particular categories of unsuitable housing that should be specifically identified. These are presented in Table 5.1 below, which also indicates the number of households in each category in Ribble Valley and the source of the data. The final column represents the revised total for each of these categories once any double-counting between them has been taken into account. Households can be unsuitably housed for more than one reason so it is important that they are only counted once.
5.6 The table shows that there are 918 households in unsuitable housing in Ribble Valley and the most common single reason for unsuitability is overcrowding. This figure of 918 represents 3.7% of all households in Ribble Valley.
46 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 5.1 Unsuitably household households in Ribble Valley
Revised Number of Step Source number of households households 1.1 Homeless households Section E6 of the Council’s P1(E) return for 4th quarter of and those in temporary 2012 showing the number of homeless households 5 03 accommodation accommodated by the authority at the end of the quarter 1.2 Overcrowded households 2011 Census 398 3264 1.2 Concealed households* 2011 Census 4 05 1.3 Other groups Data from Council’s 2012 ELASH return from April, 2012. 592 592 1.4 Total 999 918 *According to the Practice Guidance, concealed households include couples, people with young children and single adults over 25 sharing a kitchen, bathroom or WC with another household. Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Affordability
5.7 Some of these households in unsuitable housing are likely to be able to afford alternative accommodation in the market sector without requiring subsidy. The ability of these households to afford the cost of entry-level market housing of the appropriate size (set out in Figure 4.7 and 4.8) is therefore tested. The waiting list details the size of accommodation required by households unsuitably households for other reasons in Ribble Valley. For the other groups, the household composition recorded for these households in Ribble Valley is used to determine the size requirement profile. To test overcrowded households the income distribution for each dwelling size requirement, identified using the CACI income profile for the Borough, is adjusted to reflect that nationally the income of overcrowded households is 70.3% of the figure for all households (according to the English Housing Survey). Similarly for ‘other’ unsuitably households the income distribution is adjusted to reflect that nationally the income of social rented households is 46.9% of the figure for all households (according to the English Housing Survey).
5.8 These 918 households in unsuitable housing are therefore tested for their ability to afford market housing in Ribble Valley using the criteria set out in the Practice Guidance (and set out in the glossary). Table 5.2 shows the number of unsuitably housed households requiring different dwelling sizes and the proportion of these households able to afford the market-entry point. The number of households that are therefore in current need is shown in the final column.
3 The 2012 ELASH return allows councils to indicate the number of households on the waiting list and in a reasonable preference category (a proxy for in unsuitable housing) that are also homeless. The data from the Ribble Valley 2012 ELASH indicates that 0.8% of households on the waiting list and in a reasonable preference category are also homeless . 4 The 2011-12 CORE LA Area Lettings Report for Ribble Valley indicates the proportion of social rented lettings that were to previously overcrowded households. This provides an indication on the level of overlap between all households in unsuitable housing and overcrowded households. The proportion recorded in the CORE report is 12.2%) 5 The 2001 Census indicated that 100.0% of concealed households were also overcrowded in Ribble Valley. In the absence of equivalent data from the 2011 Census it is presumed that this proportion is accurate of the situation currently.
47 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 5.2 Affordability of households in unsuitable housing
Unsuitable housed Percentage unable to afford Number of bedrooms required Households in current need households entry-level market housing One bedroom 299 73.1% 218 Two bedroom 450 60.9% 274 Three bedroom 148 58.3% 86 Four or more bedrooms 21 73.8% 16 Total 918 64.7% 594 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
5.9 Overall 64.7% (594 households) of unsuitably housed households are unable to afford market housing and are in current need. For the purposes of the housing needs assessment, households considered to be in housing need have been split into two categories: current occupiers of affordable housing in need (this includes occupiers of social rented and shared ownership accommodation), and households from other tenures in need. It is estimated that some 167 households in need currently live in affordable housing.
Total current need
5.10 Table 5.3 summarises the first stage of the overall assessment of housing need as set out by the Practice Guidance. The data shows that there are an estimated 594 households in current need in Ribble Valley.
Table 5.3 Stage 1: Current housing need (gross)
Step Notes Output 1.1 Homeless households and those in temporary accommodation 0* 1.2 Overcrowding and concealed households 165 1.3 Other groups 429 1.4 equals Total current housing need (gross) 1.1+1.2+1.3 594 *Included within the other groups total Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Stage 2: Future need (Steps 2.1-2.4)
5.11 In addition to Current Need, there will also be Future Need. This forms the second stage of the housing needs assessment model. This is split, as per the Practice Guidance, into two main categories. These are as follows:
o new household formation (× proportion unable to buy or rent in market) o existing households falling into need.
48 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Need from newly forming households
5.12 The headship rate for each 5 year age cohort between the ages 15 and 44 was calculated using information in the Census on the number of people and number of household heads within each age cohort in Ribble Valley. This headship rate was then applied to the 2011-based mid-term population projections. This identified the projected number of households likely to form in the Borough between 2013 and 2018. This figure is then averaged to provide an annual estimate for the number of newly forming households. This approach is compliant with the procedure described in the annex to the Practice Guidance on suitable methodologies for deriving estimates of future household formation.
5.13 Using this methodology it is estimated that 2,076 new households will form in Ribble Valley over the next five years. This is annualised to 415 new households per year. This represents a household formation rate of 1.7%, slightly below the level recorded nationally by the English Housing Survey (1.8%)).
5.14 To assess the ability of these households to afford the cost of entry-level market housing of the appropriate size, it is presumed that these new households will have the same composition as the profile for new households recorded in the English Housing Survey, from which the appropriate size requirement profile can be determined. To test newly forming households ability to afford market housing the income distribution for each dwelling size requirement, identified using the CACI income profile for the Borough, is adjusted to reflect that nationally the income of newly forming households is 70.1% of the figure for all households (according to the English Housing Survey).
5.15 Table 5.4 shows details of the derivation of future need from newly forming households. The table shows that 56.6% of newly forming households will be unable to afford market housing. This means that there will be an annual affordable housing requirement from 235 newly forming households.
Table 5.4 Newly arising need from new household formation
Component Output Number of newly forming households 415 Proportion unable to afford entry-level market housing 56.6% Number of newly forming households requiring affordable accommodation 235 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Existing households falling into need
5.16 The Practice Guidance recommends that this figure is derived by looking at recent trends in households applying for affordable housing. Analysis of the approaches for affordable accommodation made to the Council over the last two years (April 2011 to March 2013) indicates that of the 501 approaches, 278 were from households in housing need.
49 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
5.17 This figure will include newly forming households, which have featured in the previous step. The CORE LA Area Lettings Report provides an estimate of the proportion of social rented lets each year taken by newly forming households in each authority. It shows that for the year 2011-12, 19.5% of lettings in Ribble Valley were to newly forming households. It is assumed therefore that 54 (19.5% of 298) of the households that approach the Council and are in need are newly forming households. The resultant number of existing households falling into need is 224 households per annum.
Total future need
5.18 The data from the two steps described above can now be put into the needs assessment model as illustrated in Table 5.5. It indicates that future need will arise from a total of 459 households per annum.
Table 5.5 Future need (per annum)
Step Notes Number 2.1 New household formation (gross per year) 415 2.2 Proportion of new households unable to buy or rent in the market leaves 235 56.6% 2.3 Existing households falling into need 224 2.4 Total newly arising housing need (gross per year) 2.1×2.2+2.3 459 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Stage 3: Available stock to offset need (Steps 3.1-3.8)
5.19 The supply of affordable housing to meet housing need comprises the third stage of the housing needs assessment model. The affordable housing supply stage is split between existing stock that is available to offset the current need and the likely future level of supply.
Available stock to offset current need
5.20 The stock available to offset the current need includes stock from current occupiers of affordable housing in need, surplus stock from vacant properties and committed supply of new affordable units. Units to be taken out of management are removed from the calculation.
Current occupiers of affordable housing in need
5.21 It is important when considering net need levels to discount households already living in affordable housing. This is because the movement of such households within affordable housing will have an overall nil effect in terms of housing need. As established when calculating current need (paragraph 5.9), there are 167 households currently in need already living in affordable housing.
50 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Surplus stock
5.22 A certain level of vacant dwellings is normal as this allows for transfers and for work on properties to be carried out. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance suggests that if the vacancy rate in the affordable stock is in excess of 3%, some of the vacant units should be considered as surplus stock which can be included within the supply to offset housing need. Ribble Valley records a vacancy rate in the affordable sector of 0.6%. As the vacancy rate in Ribble Valley is lower than the 3% benchmark, no vacant dwellings are considered available to be brought back into use to increase the supply of affordable housing.
Committed supply of new affordable units
5.23 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance recommends that this part of the assessment includes ‘new social rented and intermediate housing which are committed to be built over the period of the assessment’. For the purposes of analysis we have taken Council information on planned affordable housing provision between 2012 and 2014. This indicates that there are, currently, 211 affordable dwellings planned in Ribble Valley.
Planned units to be taken out of management
5.24 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance states that this step ‘involves estimating the numbers of social rented or intermediate units that will be taken out of management’. The main component of this step will be properties which are expected to be demolished (or replacement schemes that lead to net losses of stock). At the time of reporting, the proposed number of affordable dwellings expected to be ‘taken out of management’ in the future was unknown and hence a figure of zero has been used in this step of the model.
Total available stock to meet current need
5.25 Having been through a number of detailed stages in order to assess the total available stock to offset current need in Ribble Valley, we shall now bring together all pieces of data to complete this part of the needs assessment model. This is presented in the Table 5.6. The data shows that there are an estimated 378 properties available to offset the current need in Ribble Valley.
Table 5.6 Current supply of affordable housing
Step Notes Output 3.1 Affordable dwellings occupied by households in need 167 3.2 Surplus stock 0 3.3 Committed supply of affordable housing 211 3.4 Units to be taken out of management 0 3.5 Total affordable housing stock available 3.1+3.2+3.3-3.4 378 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
51 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Future supply of affordable housing
5.26 The future supply of affordable housing is the flow of affordable housing arising from the existing stock that is available to meet future need. It is split between the annual supply of social re-lets and the annual supply of re-lets within the intermediate sector.
The future supply of social rented housing
5.27 This is an estimate of likely future re-lets from the social rented stock. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance suggests that the estimate should be based on past trend data which can be taken as a prediction for the future. To enable consistency with the future need section (Stage 2), we have looked at trend data for the past two years.
5.28 CORE LA Area Lettings Reports provide an indication of the number of lettings in the social rented sector in Ribble Valley. The average number of lettings across the social rented sector over the two- year period from April 2010 to March 2012 was 94 per annum.
Supply of intermediate housing
5.29 In most local authorities the amount of intermediate housing (mostly shared ownership) available in the stock is fairly limited (as is the case in Ribble Valley). However, it is still important to consider to what extent the current supply may be able to help those in need of affordable housing.
5.30 Therefore we include an estimate of the number of intermediate units that become available each year. Based on applying the estimated re-let rate for the social rented sector (4.0%) to the estimated intermediate stock in Ribble Valley (111 units), it is estimated that around 4 units of intermediate housing will become available to meet housing needs from the existing stock of such housing.
Annual future supply of affordable housing
5.31 This step is the sum of the previous two. The total future supply is estimated to be 98, comprised of 84 units of social re-lets and 4 units of intermediate housing. This is shown in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7 Future supply of affordable housing (per annum)
Step Notes Output 3.6. Annual supply of social re-lets (net) 94 3.7. Annual supply of intermediate housing available for re-let or 4 resale at sub-market levels 3.8. Annual supply of affordable housing 3.6+3.7 98 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Estimate of net annual housing need
5.32 The 16 steps detailed above (set across the three broad stages) are brought together in the housing needs assessment model as set out in Table 5.8.
52 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 5.8 Housing needs assessment model for Ribble Valley
Stage and step in calculation Notes Number STAGE 1: CURRENT NEED (Gross) 1.1 Homeless households and those in temporary accommodation 0* 1.2 Overcrowding and concealed households 165 1.3 Other groups 429 1.4 Total current housing need (gross) 1.1+1.2+1.3 594 STAGE 2: FUTURE NEED 2.1 New household formation (gross per year) 415 2.2 Proportion of new households unable to buy or rent in the market leaves 235 56.6% 2.3 Existing households falling into need 224 2.4 Total newly arising housing need (gross per year) 2.1×2.2+2.3 459 STAGE 3: AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY Current supply
3.1 Affordable dwellings occupied by households in need 167 3.2 Surplus stock 0 3.3 Committed supply of affordable housing 211 3.4 Units to be taken out of management 0 3.5 Total affordable housing stock available 3.1+3.2+3.3-3.4 378 Future supply 94 3.6 Annual supply of social relets (net) 3.7 Annual supply of intermediate housing available for relet or resale 4 at sub-market levels 3.8 Annual supply of affordable housing 3.6+3.7 98 *Included within the other groups total Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment; various secondary sources
5.33 The Practice Guidance states that these figures need to be annualised to establish an overall estimate of net housing need. The first step in this process is to calculate the net current need. This is derived by subtracting the estimated total stock of affordable housing available (step 3.5) from the gross current need (step 1.4). This produces a net current need figure of 216 (594-378).
5.34 The second step is to convert this net current need figure into an annual flow. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance acknowledges that this current need can be addressed over any length of time although a period of less than five years should be avoided. For the purposes of this study the quota of five years proposed in the Practice Guidance will be used. Therefore to annualise the net current need figure, it will be divided by five. This calculation results in a net annual quota of 43 (216/5) households who should have their needs addressed.
53 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
5.35 The final step is to sum the net annual quota of households who should have their needs addressed with the total newly arising housing need (step 2.4) and subtract the future annual supply of affordable housing (step 3.8). This leads to an annual need estimate of 404 (43+459-98). These figures are summarised in Table 5.9 below. It is important to note that the result does not mean that 404 new affordable units are required each year. The need will be met through a wide range of sources – but particularly through making better use of vacant stock, making better use of the existing stock and through the private rented sector, as discussed in more detail later in the chapter.
Table 5.9 Summary of needs assessment model
Element Number Current need (Step 1.4)/5 119 Current supply (Step 3.5)/5 76 Net current need 43 Future need (Step 2.4) 459 Future supply (Step 3.8) 98 Net future need 361 Total net annual need 404 Total gross annual need 578 Total gross annual supply 174 Total net annual need 404 Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment; various secondary sources
Types of households in need
5.36 Table 5.10 gives a breakdown of gross annual households in need, by household type. The table shows that some 9.3% of ‘other’ households are in housing need compared to 1.2% of couple households with children. Overall, single person households comprise 28.3% of all households in need and couples with no children a further 23.9% of households in housing need.
5.37 It should be noted that 55 single person households are aged 35 and under. These individuals are deemed suitable to form part of a shared household should affordable accommodation not be available for them as a single household. If it is not possible to allocate them an affordable property, they would be offered Local Housing Allowance (discussed further in paragraph 5.54) to assist with their rent in the private rented sector, but only at the shared room rate, rather than the rate for a one bedroom property. These households are therefore not required to share, but are likely to have to.
54 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 5.10 Annual need requirement by household type
Need requirement No. of Total % of h’hold As a % of Household type h’holds in Not in need Number of type in those in need h’holds need need (gross) One person 163 6,963 7,127 2.3% 28.3% Couple with no children 138 7,414 7,552 1.8% 23.9% Couple with child/children 85 6,799 6,885 1.2% 14.8% Lone parent 108 1,960 2,068 5.2% 18.7% Other 83 806 889 9.3% 14.3%
Total 578 23,942 24,520* 2.4% 100.0% *The total household figure and household composition recorded for Ribble Valley in the Census has been updated to provide a profile in March 2013 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Size of accommodation required
5.38 Table 5.11 shows the size of accommodation required by households in housing need in Ribble Valley. The supply distribution is derived from the 2010-11 and 2011-12 CORE LA Area Lettings Reports for Ribble Valley. The last column presents the supply as a percentage of need. This is calculated by dividing the estimated supply of the property size by the derived need for that dwelling size. The lower the figure produced, the more acute the need for affordable accommodation in the area, as the current supply is unlikely to meet the identified need.
Table 5.11 Size of additional units required to meet housing need
Need requirement Gross As a % of Supply as a Size of home Gross Net annual annual total net % of gross annual need need supply annual need need One bedroom 301 62 239 59.2% 20.6% Two bedrooms 180 79 101 24.9% 43.9% Three bedrooms 50 32 18 4.5% 63.2% Four or more bedrooms 47 1 46 11.4% 2.0%
Total 578 174 404 100.0% 30.0% Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
5.39 The table suggests that there is a net need for all sizes of affordable housing. The largest net need is for one bedroom accommodation, followed by two and four bedroom homes. The final column shows that the need relative to supply is the greatest for four bedroom homes, followed by one bedroom accommodation. Households in need requiring three bedroom accommodation are most likely to have their need met from the current supply.
55 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
5.40 Part of the requirement for one bedroom homes comes from single person households (couples living on their own are also suitable occupants of this size home). As described in paragraph 5.37 above, 55 of the single person households in housing need each year are deemed suitable for shared housing. Given the extreme pressure for affordable housing in Ribble Valley, it is very likely that these households will be required to move into shared accommodation. It is useful therefore to profile the size of affordable accommodation required, excluding these households. This is presented in Table 5.12. The table suggests that the largest net need is still for one bedroom homes, although their relative importance has reduced slightly.
Table 5.12 Size of additional units required to meet housing need – excluding households suitable for shared housing
Need requirement Gross As a % of Supply as a Size of home Gross Net annual annual total net % of gross annual need need supply annual need need One bedroom 247 62 184 52.8% 25.2% Two bedrooms 180 79 101 28.8% 43.9% Three bedrooms 50 32 18 5.2% 63.2% Four or more bedrooms 47 1 46 13.2% 2.0%
Total 523 174 349 100.0% 33.2% Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
Type of affordable home required
5.41 As discussed in Chapter 4, Affordable Rent is being introduced to provide a further option within the intermediate sector and to help fill the gaps that currently exist in the housing market. The target residents for this product are households in housing need. As also discussed in Chapter 4, the level at which Affordable Rent is set, is to be determined by the Council. This section will therefore consider the suitability of different Affordable Rent levels for meeting housing need.
5.42 In carrying out the affordability assessment we have used the standard ‘25% of gross income on housing’ test, rather than a higher one. This is because, for households on low incomes, as those in housing need mainly are, anything much higher than 25% of income on housing leaves very little to live upon.
Affordability of Affordable Rent for households in housing need
5.43 Table 5.13 illustrates how many households in defined housing need are able to afford different levels of Affordable Rent. The figures are presented cumulatively, so that any household that can afford a more expensive version of Affordable Rent are included within the figures for the cheaper versions. For example households able to afford Affordable Rent at 80% are included within the number of households able to afford Affordable Rent at 70%.
56 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
5.44 The Table shows that of the 578 households in gross need each year, 9.6%, some 55 households, could afford Affordable Rent at 80%. Some 111 households in need could be housed in Affordable Rented accommodation were the level lowered to 70% of private rent values and 121 households would be suitable for Affordable Rent set at 60%. The largest group of households in need are those unable to afford any accommodation without support from LHA.
Table 5.13 Affordability of households in need (annual) (figures presented cumulatively)
Households in need % of households in need Affordable Rent at 80% 55 9.6% Affordable Rent at 70% 111 19.3% Affordable Rent at 65% 116 20.1% Affordable Rent at 60% 121 21.0% Social rent 161 27.8% Need LHA 417 72.2% Total number of households 578 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
5.45 Table 5.14 splits the figures shown in the table above by bedroom size, again the figures are shown cumulatively. It shows that Affordable Rent at 80% will be most suitable for households in need of two bedroom accommodation. Some 22.7% of households in need requiring a two bedroom home could afford Affordable Rent at 70%, as could 20.6% of those requiring four bedroom accommodation and 17.8% of households needing a one bedroom home.
Table 5.14 Size and type of Affordable Rent home required by those in need (figures presented cumulatively)
One bed Two bed Three bed Four bed Affordable Rent at 80% 7.9% 13.1% 3.2% 12.1% Affordable Rent at 70% 17.8% 22.7% 13.3% 20.6% Affordable Rent at 65% 17.8% 22.7% 18.7% 24.9% Affordable Rent at 60% 17.8% 22.7% 24.6% 30.0% Social rent 21.6% 26.9% 38.0% 60.6% Need LHA 78.4% 73.1% 62.0% 39.4% Total number of households 301 180 50 47 (per annum) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
What is the need for Affordable Rent?
5.46 Table 5.15 summarises the data in Table 5.14 to show the total number of households that could afford Affordable Rent at different levels. This allows us to consider how suitable different levels of
57 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Affordable Rent would be in Ribble Valley. Affordable Rent at 80% can be afforded by almost half of households in need suitable for an intermediate product. Affordable Rent at 70% would be suitable for 91.8% of all households in need able to pay more than social rent. Using these figures, the most appropriate level at which to set Affordable Rent would be 70%.
Table 5.15 Total number of households in need able to afford different affordable products (figures presented cumulatively)
Product type Households in need (annual) Affordable Rent (80%) 55 45.7% Affordable Rent (70%) 111 91.8% Affordable Rent (65%) 116 95.6% Affordable Rent (60%) 121 100.0% Total 121 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
5.47 If the Affordable Rent level were set at 70%, it would generate a potential demand from 111 households in housing need (each year). This is in excess of the figure for the average annual number of relets of social rented housing in Ribble Valley in the past two years (94 as discussed in paragraph 5.28).
Sensitivity analysis
5.48 The housing needs assessment model requirement of 404 affordable homes per year does not equate logically with the planned additional 200 new homes per year in the Borough between 2013 and 2028 as set out in the Core Strategy. This is because the CLG needs assessment model is a technical exercise that presents an assessment of the requirement for affordable housing, however it does not account for the functioning of the local housing market currently. This brief section considers the impact of changing two of the assumptions used in the model that do not reflect how the market operates.
Affordability threshold
5.49 The housing needs assessment model assesses the number of households in need based on the affordability assumptions required by the Practice Guidance. It is possible, however, to examine how the model would be affected if the affordability assumptions were altered. Table 5.16 presents the model results where households were considered able to afford market rented housing in cases where the rent payable would constitute no more than 30%, 35% and 40% of gross household income, rather than 25% used in the standard model.
58 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 5.16 Impact of different affordability assumptions on affordable housing requirement in Ribble Valley
Rent payable constitutes no more than: 30% of gross 35% of gross 40% of gross household income household income household income Backlog need (annual) 103 90 79 Backlog supply (annual) 71 67 64 Net backlog need (annual) 32 23 15 Future need (annual) 418 344 312 Future supply (annual) 98 98 98 Net future need (annual) 320 246 214 Total net annual need 352 268 229 Total gross annual need 521 434 391 Total gross annual supply 169 165 162 Total net annual need 352 268 229 Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
5.50 The table indicates that the number of households in need would decrease from 404 to 352 if 30% of gross household income could be spent on rent. This would decrease further to 268 if 35% of income could be spent on rent and to 229 if the affordability assumption was changed to 40%.
Local Housing Allowance
5.51 Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is the replacement for the former Housing Benefit in the private rented sector. It is designed to make up the shortfall in people’s ability to pay for the housing they need. LHA may represent 100% or some lower percentage of the overall rent paid. Whilst LHA-supported tenancies in the private rented sector are not considered a formal supply step within the housing needs assessment model. However it is of interest to note that applying the implied annual re-let rate to the benefit-supported private rented sector indicated in the British and Social Housing Foundation’s report Who Lives in the Private Rented Sector (of 19%) to the total stock of these dwellings (810) then this would suggest 154 of these homes become available for letting each year. It is therefore clear that the benefit-supported private rented sector will continue to be used as a supply solution to the need for affordable housing in Ribble Valley.
Adjusted model outputs
5.52 Table 5.17 examines the combined effect of changing the affordability assumptions used and including the supply of private rented accommodation via LHA, on the net annual requirement for affordable housing. If the affordability threshold used was adjusted to 35% of gross income on rent, which better
59 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
reflects the prevailing market conditions in Ribble Valley6, then there would be 136 fewer households in gross need each year. If the private rented sector via LHA is considered to represent a supply to meet the housing need then the gross annual supply increases by 154 dwellings. The impact of changing both of these assumptions is that the need for new affordable units reduces to 114 per year.
Table 5.17 Adjusted housing need assessment in Ribble Valley
Need according to Change due to Resultant adjusted Element the model altered assumptions figures
Total gross annual need 578 -136 442 Total gross annual supply 174 +154 327 Total net annual need 404 114 Source: Ribble Valley Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
5.53 The figure of 404 remains the overall need figure, because it is calculated in accordance with the approach set out in the Practice Guidance and is therefore comparable with historical estimates and figures derived elsewhere. However this figure does not equal the number of new affordable units to be built. The need will be met through a wide range of sources – but particularly by making better use of vacant stock, by making better use of the existing stock, and through the private rented sector as illustrated above.
Local Housing Allowance – a caveat
5.54 Recent changes to the administration of LHA by the Coalition Government will impact on the capacity of the private rented sector via LHA to continue to meet housing need in Ribble Valley. Although notionally set at the 30th percentile of properties available on the market, a comparison of the LHA cap with private rented sector rents presented in Table 4.6 suggests that it is lower than this level and closer to the 10th-20th percentile of properties.
5.55 What this means is that many households in the private rented sector via LHA will not get the same level of financial support towards their rent as they had previously (when the cap was not set at 30% and the benefit could cover up to the whole rent). The potential consequences are that LHA landlords will be forced to reduce their rent levels notably, households in the sector will have to increase their income to make up for the reduced LHA received, or households will be forced to look for new accommodation elsewhere. If the last of these three options happens, many households affected are likely to present themselves to the Council due to becoming homeless. These households will therefore join the backlog of housing need.
6 It is recognised that RSLs use 40% of income on rent to assess affordability, but 35% appears to be most common in the private rented sector in Ribble Valley.
60 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
7 5.56 It is worth noting that from April 2013 the payment of Housing Benefit (HB) in the social rented sector will be on the number of bedrooms required rather than the number of bedrooms occupied. Households in the social rented sector receiving HB that are under-occupying their home will have a reduction in the level of HB received. This may force more households out of their current home.
7 Housing Benefit has only been changed to Local Housing Allowance within the private rented sector.
61
Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
6. Improving market balance over the longer term
Summary
i) Work done by Nathanial Lichfield & Partners identifies an Objectively Assessed Need for between 220 and 250 additional homes per year in Ribble Valley from 2008 to 2028. ii) In terms of the accommodation required to provide housing market balance over the long- term, the model which is based on secondary data, suggests that of the new housing required up to 2028 (3,750 dwellings in total), 70% should be market dwellings, 6% shared ownership, 19% Affordable Rent and 5% new social rented dwellings.
Introduction
6.1 The previous chapters in this report have focused on current market pressures, this chapter considers what accommodation is required to provide housing market balance over the long-term. This is an important exercise because there is a lag in the planning system, which means that it is not possible to respond immediately to imbalances between the nature of accommodation required and the stock currently available. It is therefore appropriate to consider the intervention required to the housing stock over the long-term to enable future action to be planned effectively.
6.2 Although there is not a housing market model in the Practice Guidance, there is comment on the importance of studying mix and balance in National Planning Policy. The following extract from paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicates the importance of a housing market model with this purpose:
‘To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:
● plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community..;
●identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand’
6.3 This chapter describes a model (the LTBHM) that uses secondary data to compare the current housing stock against the stock of housing required in the future. The purpose of this model is to identify the new accommodation required to adequately house the future population in the Borough and ensure that the housing market is balanced.
63 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
6.4 Ribble Valley Council has separately commissioned Nathanial Lichfield & Partners (NLP) to determine the Objectively Assessed Need in the Borough. NLP have recently revised their findings in light of the 2011-based CLG household projections which were published in April, 2013. The report8 calculates the Objectively Assessed Need using the latest projections and extending them to best reflect the future situation in the Borough. The result is an Objectively Assessed Need for between 220 and 250 additional homes per year in Ribble Valley. This chapter briefly discusses the demographic changes projected in the Borough, which inform the NLP calculation of Objectively Assessed Need. These projections are then used within the model to identify the range of accommodation to adequately house the profile of future households within the Objectively Assessed housing growth and therefore balance the housing stock. The accommodation requirements are compared to the current stock resulting in suggested profiles for new housing in terms of tenure and dwelling size to address the required adjustment. These outputs are produced for a range of growth scenarios set out in the NLP report in addition to the Objectively Assessed Need.
Demographic projections
6.5 The most recently published long-term population projections available at a local level are the 2010- based ones from the Office of National Statistics. These projections demonstrate the projected change to the age profile of the population in Ribble Valley. Figure 6.1 shows the projected change within each age cohort between 2013 and 2028. The population projection data indicates that there will be reductions in certain age groups (0-4 year olds, 45-54 years olds and 20-29 year olds) but the majority of cohorts are predicted to grow, albeit moderately. The exception is the number of older people, which is projected to grow quite notably; with the number of people aged 90 or over expected to almost double by 2028.
8 Nathanial; Lichfield & Partners Implications of the 2011-based CLG Household Projections. Ribble Valley Housing Requirement Update (May, 2013)
64 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Figure 6.1 Forecast population change by age group in Ribble Valley, 2013-2028
100% 91.7%
80% 76.5% 70.0%
60%
40% 33.3% 26.7% 25.6% 20.0% 16.0%
20% 15.0% 11.1% 7.3% 6.3% -27.5% -23.4% -3.4% 0.0% -8.9% -10.7% -15.4%
0% 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90+
-20% % change in age group in % change 2013 to 2028
-40%
Source: ONS 2010-based population projections
6.6 The most recently published long-term household projections available at a local level are the 2008- based ones from the CLG. These demonstrate that the household composition in Ribble Valley is likely to change over time. Figure 6.2 shows the projected change in household structure in the Borough. The figure shows that the number of ‘couple and one or more other adult’ households is expected to decrease by 38.2%. In contrast single person households are anticipated to increase by 25.1% and lone parent households to rise by 23.2%.
Figure 6.2 Summary change in Ribble Valley household structure, 2013 – 2028
80%
60%
40% 25.1% 23.2% 12.1% 20% 16.6% -38.2% 0% Other
%age change 2013-2028%age change -20% adult adult Lone one or no other or withoutor more other more other adult) Couple and Couple and parent (with -40% One person
-60%
Source: ONS 2008-based household projections
65 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Methodology of the model
6.7 The Census provides information on the size (in terms of bedrooms) and tenure of accommodation in Ribble Valley in 2011. This has been adjusted9 to reflect the changes since 2011 to provide an accommodation profile in 2013. The 2001 Census provides detail on the occupational patterns of different household groups in Ribble Valley, which means that the profile of housing occupied by each household type can be determined. As equivalent data from the 2011 Census has not yet been published these occupational patterns have been compared to those recorded in recent household datasets we hold. The 2001 distribution for Ribble Valley has been adjusted to reflect changes caused by the different housing market environment as noted in these datasets. This adjusted distribution is applied to the household and population profile for 2013 as recorded in the latest projections.
6.8 Rather than assuming the current occupational patterns for each household group will apply to the future population of that household group, the model addresses over the long-term any undesirable elements of market imbalance that exist currently. This means that the future housing stock will better reflect the requirements of the future population in the Borough.
6.9 The adjustments made to counter market imbalance are:
• Households currently overcrowded will be housed in adequately sized accommodation in the future. • Households currently in the social rented stock with the aid of Housing Benefit that under- occupy their home are assumed to require a dwelling with no spare bedrooms in the future (to reflect the changes being introduced in April 2013). • Households currently resident in the private rented sector without Local Housing Allowance that spend more than 40% of their gross income on entry-level private rent (according to the differentiated household income distribution) are assigned to a suitable affordable tenure in the future.
6.10 Some further adjustments are also made to use the affordable stock and any housing subsidy paid most economically (this adjustment also allows the introduction of Affordable Rent to be assessed):
• Households currently resident in the private rented sector on Local Housing Allowance (LHA) that can afford market, shared ownership or Affordable Rented accommodation are assumed to require this in the future, to ensure that the stock is being most appropriately and efficiently used. • Households currently in social rented accommodation that can afford market, shared ownership or Affordable Rented accommodation are assumed to require this in the future, to ensure that the stock is being most appropriately and efficiently used.
9 Using the latest data from the Homes & Communities Agency’s Statistical Data Return dataset, the Council’s ELASH return and trends indicated within the English Housing Survey
66 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
6.11 This profile of suitable accommodation for each household type is applied to the household population in 15 years’ time. The accommodation profile required in 2028 is then compared to the current tenure profile and the nature of additional housing required is derived. The model assumes that the maximum Objectively Assessed Need will be met, therefore 250 new homes will be required per year over the next 15 years, equating to a total of 3,750 additional dwellings. The following section presents the outputs of this model.
Tenure of housing required
6.12 Table 6.1 shows the tenure profile of households resident in Ribble Valley currently. The table indicates that 89.0% of households are resident in market accommodation (without the aid of Local Housing Allowance), 0.4% live in a shared ownership home, 3.3% live in a social rented property (without the aid of Housing Benefit ) and 7.2% live in rented accommodation with the aid of benefit (Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance).
Table 6.1 Current tenure profile in Ribble Valley
Percentage of Tenure Number of households households Market 21,830 89.0% Shared ownership 110 0.4% Social rented 813 3.3% Benefit supported (both private and social rented) 1,767 7.2% Total 24,520 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.13 The tenure of Affordable Rent is being introduced and the distinction in the affordable sector will be between those able to afford Affordable Rent (or shared ownership) and those requiring subsidy for their housing costs (those needing LHA or HB to live in the rented sector). Taking this into account, Table 6.2 shows the ideal tenure profile for the Borough in 15 years’ time (presuming the affordable stock is to be used most efficiently). The data shows that in 2028 the housing stock should comprise 86.5% market dwellings, 1.2% shared ownership properties, 2.5% Affordable Rented homes and 9.8% dwellings occupied with the support of benefit.
67 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 6.2 Ideal tenure profile in 2028 in Ribble Valley
Percentage of Tenure Number of homes households Market 24,449 86.5% Shared Ownership 345 1.2% Affordable Rent 694 2.5% Benefit supported (both private and social rented) 2,782 9.8% Total 28,270 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.14 Table 6.3 shows the tenure profile required in Ribble Valley in 15 years’ time in comparison to the tenure profile recorded currently. The difference between these two distributions is the change required to the housing stock over this period. The results show that 69.8% of new housing should be in the market sector, 6.3% should be shared ownership properties and 18.5% Affordable Rent. It is assumed that the current LHA supported private rented homes and the social rented stock will principally house households unable to afford Affordable Rent, including those requiring benefit. However the model indicates that an additional 202 homes will be required for these households. It is suggested that these new dwellings be social rented accommodation. These additional social rented dwellings constitute 5.4% of the total new homes required in Ribble Valley.
Table 6.3 Tenure of new accommodation required in Ribble Valley over the next 15 years
Current tenure Tenure profile % of change Tenure Change required profile 2028 required Market 21,830 24,449 2,619 69.8% Shared ownership 110 345 235 6.3% Affordable Rent* 0 694 694 18.5% Social rented 813 Benefit supported 1,767 } 2,782 202 5.4% Total 42,530 28,270 3,750 100.0% *It should be noted that there are a very limited number of Affordable Rented units already in Ribble Valley (25 as at April 2012 according to the HCA’s Statistical Data Return 2012), however for the purpose of this model the stock is presumed to be 0. Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.15 The model is able to also provide detail on the size of new dwellings required within each of these tenures. This is shown for the current model in the section below.
68 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Size of housing required within each tenure
6.16 Table 6.4 presents the size of market accommodation required in Ribble Valley in 15 years’ time in comparison to the size profile recorded in the sector currently. The implied change to the housing stock is also presented. The table shows that some 37.2% of new market dwellings should be two bedroom properties, with 34.1% containing three bedrooms 22.9% having four or more bedrooms and 5.9% having one bedroom.
Table 6.4 Size of new market accommodation required in Ribble Valley over the next 15 years
Current size % of change Dwelling size Size profile 2028 Change required profile required One bedroom 584 738 154 5.9% Two bedrooms 5,993 6,966 973 37.2% Three bedrooms 8,984 9,876 892 34.1% Four or more bedrooms 6,269 6,868 599 22.9% Total 21,830 24,449 2,619 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.17 This analysis can be repeated for shared ownership housing and is presented in Table 6.5. The data indicates that of the 235 shared ownership dwellings required within the Borough, 44.7% should be two bedroom properties with a further 29.5% three bedroom accommodation. Some 17.3% should have one bedroom and 8.5% should have four or more bedrooms.
Table 6.5 Size of new shared ownership accommodation required in Ribble Valley over the next 15 years
Current size % of change Dwelling size Size profile 2028 Change required profile required One bedroom 21 62 41 17.3% Two bedrooms 56 161 105 44.7% Three bedrooms 30 100 69 29.5% Four or more bedrooms 3 23 20 8.5% Total 110 345 235 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.18 Table 6.6 shows the size of accommodation required in the Affordable Rented sector; as there is very little of this tenure in existence, it will almost all be new. The table shows that of the 694 additional Affordable Rented units required within Ribble Valley over the next 15 years, the majority (70.5%) should be two and three bedroom properties.
69 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Table 6.6 Size of new Affordable Rented homes required in Ribble Valley over the next 15 years
Dwelling size Size profile 2028 % of change required One bedroom 171 24.6% Two bedrooms 305 43.9% Three bedrooms 185 26.6% Four or more bedrooms 33 4.8% Total 694 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.19 Table 6.7 presents the size of social rented/LHA supported private rented accommodation required in Ribble Valley in 15 years’ time in comparison to the size profile recorded in the social rented and LHA supported private rented sector currently. The implied additional housing required is also presented. It is assumed that the current LHA supported private rented sector stock will continue to be available to this group of households in the future and will form an ‘alternative affordable housing’ supply. It is presumed that all of the additional housing required for this group will be social rented. The table shows that 60.7% of the new social rented housing required should contain four or more bedrooms, 28.1% should have one bedroom, 11.6% should have a three bedrooms and no additional two bedroom accommodation is required.
Table 6.7 Size of new social rented accommodation required in Ribble Valley over the next 15 years
Current size Size profile 2028 Change required profile (social (social rented (new social % of change Dwelling size rented and LHA and LHA private rented dwellings required private rented) rented) only) One bedroom 1,052 1,109 57 28.1% Two bedrooms 801 800 -1 -0.4% Three bedrooms 636 659 24 11.6% Four or more bedrooms 91 214 123 60.7% Total 2,580 2,782 202 100.0% Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.20 It should be noted that if the amount of LHA supported private rented sector homes reduces as a consequence of the introduction of the LHA caps and the accommodation reverts to ‘standard’ market accommodation, then the reverted dwellings should be deducted from the total market requirement and dwellings of equivalent size be added to the social rented requirement.
70 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Alternative growth scenarios
6.21 The NLP report has modelled a range of data on population and economic growth to derive an annual dwelling requirement through to 2028 within the Borough ,under a range of different demographic and economic scenarios. The results of the LTBHM model will be adjusted to identify the tenure and size requirement within two of the scenarios set out in the NLP report. The two scenarios being considered are forecast job growth of 280 additional dwellings per year and past trend job growth (adjusting the commuting balance sensitivity) of 434 additional dwellings per year. The alternative LTBHM outputs for these scenarios are presented in Figures 6.3 and 6.4 below.
6.22 Figure 6.3 shows the results within the forecast job growth scenario. The results indicate that some 71.6% of new housing should be market accommodation, with 16.8% Affordable Rent, 5.9% social rent and 5.2% shared ownership. The majority of market accommodation required is two, three and four bedroom dwellings, although there is a greater requirement for four bedroom homes than in the base scenario. A range of property sizes are required within the affordable sector, with two bedroom Affordable Rent homes the biggest individual requirement.
Figure 6.3 Profile of new accommodation required in the forecast job growth (adjusting the commuting balance sensitivity) scenario (280 dwellings per year) Tenure split Size profile
1,200 Social 1 bedroom rent, 1,000 Affordble 5.9% 2 bedroom Rent, 800 3 bedroom 16.8% 600 4+ bedroom
SO, 5.2% 400 Market, 71.6% 200 Number of dwellings required 0 Market Shared Affordable Social ownership Rent rented
New housing required over 15 years 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Market 3,008 166 1,084 1,049 709 Shared ownership (SO) 241 42 108 71 20 Affordable Rent 705 174 310 188 34 Social rent 247 74 12 34 126 Total 4,200 456 1,513 1,342 889 Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
6.23 Figure 6.4 shows the results within the past trend job growth (adjusting the commuting balance sensitivity) scenario. The results indicate that some 78.5% of new housing should be market
71 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
accommodation, with 12.4% Affordable Rent, 4.9% social rent and 4.1% shared ownership. Three bedroom market accommodation is most commonly required. A range of size homes are required in the affordable tenures.
Figure 6.4 Profile of new accommodation required in the past trend job growth (adjusting the commuting balance sensitivity) scenario (434 dwellings per year) Tenure split Size profile
2,500 Affordble Social Rent, rent, 2,000 1 bedroom 12.4% 4.9% 2 bedroom O, 4.1% 1,500 3 bedroom 4+ bedroom 1,000
Market, 500
78.5% Number of dwellings required 0 Market Shared Affordable Social ownership Rent rented
New housing required over 15 years 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Market 5,006 226 1,707 1,910 1,270 Shared ownership (SO) 269 47 121 79 22 Affordable Rent 762 188 383 203 37 Social rent 474 117 67 77 57 Total 6,510 577 2,278 2,269 1,386 Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
72 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
7. Policy implications of the results
Introduction
7.1 Both the NPPF and the Practice Guidance are clear that the ultimate aim of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is to provide robust evidence that will inform local housing strategy and planning policies. This report will set out a series of suggestions about possible policy responses in light of the findings of this SHMA, set in the context of the NPPF requirements.
7.2 In Ribble Valley the Core Strategy has been prepared and this report will provide up-to-date evidence to determine whether the housing policies set out within it are suitable. This final chapter will describe the housing related policies in the Core Strategy and determine whether they are supported by the evidence set out in this SHMA. There are three housing policies within the Core Strategy that are required to be reviewed; the size of the planned growth in dwellings across the Borough, the balance of new housing to be pursued and the amount of affordable housing required. Each of these will be appraised separately. The chapter also presents some further policy suggestions evidenced by this SHMA that do not relate to existing Core Strategy policies.
Overall scale of housing growth
7.3 ‘Key Statement H1 – Housing Provision’ of the Core Strategy states that it is intended that the dwelling stock will increase by approximately 4,000 dwellings over the 20-year period (2008 to 2028). The equates to an average annual increase of 200 homes per year. The Nathanial Lichfield & Partners report identified that there is an Objectively Assessed Need for between 220 and 250 additional homes per year in Ribble Valley.
7.4 The Objectively Assessed Need constitutes the figure that the Council should seek to plan towards in accordance with the NPPF, but it does not constitute the housing target. The Council also has to take into account a range of other factors; including the availability of suitable sites for housing development, the number of vacant properties available to help meet future demand, the environmental impact of potential development, how future housing development will impact on other infrastructure and how it corresponds to other priorities in the Borough. The objectively assessed need therefore informs the total dwelling growth proposed, but does not determine it.
7.5 In addition the limitations to the projections indicate that they should not be used as the sole information source for determining a housing target as the CLG Quality Report indicates “…these are demographic and trend-based only and do not take into account any policy changes that may affect actual household formation in future.”
73 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
7.6 Although a target of 200 dwellings per year can be justified based on practical constraints in the Borough and other imperatives, to better meet the objectively assessed need in Ribble Valley the Council could consider increasing their target toward the figure of 250 dwellings per year.
Market/affordable tenure split
7.7 ‘Key Statement H1 – Affordable Housing’ indicates that 30% of new housing as affordable will be sought on all sites with 10 or more dwellings in Clitheroe and Longridge or 5 or more dwellings elsewhere in the Borough.
7.8 The level of housing need in the Borough, as set out in chapter 5, is very high at 404 affordable homes per year. This represents 202% of the total planned additional dwellings in the Borough each year, however this figure does not equal the number of new affordable units to be built. The need will be met through a wide range of sources – but particularly make better use of vacant, making better use of the existing stock and through the continued use of the benefit-supported private rented sector as ‘alternative affordable housing’.
7.9 The LTBHM model, based on the maximum Objectively Assessed Need of 250 new homes per year in Ribble Valley, indicates that around 30% of the housing required over the next 15 years in the Borough should be affordable. The LTBHM outputs show however that a lower proportion of new housing as affordable would be suitable if the number of new homes built each year was to increase, as this additional population relates to increased employment opportunities so would be more affluent; if 434 additional homes were added each year (and the associated economic growth occurred) then only 22.5% of these would need to be affordable.
7.10 This evidence suggests that the current target is appropriate, although if a significant number of new dwellings come forward on sites that are below the thresholds set out in the Core Strategy and are therefore not covered under the current policy, then the Council must provide other mechanisms to ensure that these smaller development also contribute to the overall market/affordable mix required across Ribble Valley.
Mix of housing required
7.11 ‘Key Statement H2 – Housing Plan’ sets out that developments will only be permitted where it provides ‘a suitable mix of housing that accords with the projected future household requirements and local need across the Ribble Valley as a whole as evidenced by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment’.
Mix of affordable housing required
7.12 Analysis of the affordability of households in need in Chapter 5 suggests that just 20% of households could afford Affordable Rented accommodation, with the vast majority of households in need requiring subsidy for any form of affordable accommodation. As Affordable Rent set at 70% market median
74 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
rents is below the LHA cap, it would be possible to house households requiring subsidy within this accommodation.
7.13 The LTBHM model based on the Objectively Assessed dwelling growth in the Borough, suggests that 61.3% of new affordable housing could be Affordable Rent, 20.8% shared ownership and 17.9% social rent. The larger proportional requirement for Affordable Rent within the LTBHM model reflects that in fifteen years households that can afford it, will be housed in the Affordable Rented sector, rather than resident in the social rented sector, as they are likely to be currently.
7.14 It is clear that there is latent potential demand for this form of accommodation and because of the low level of existing stock, new Affordable Rent accommodation should be a priority over the short-term. It is therefore recommended that the proportions set out in the LTBHM model base scenario (maximum Objectively Assessed Need) are pursued. This is just a recommendation; it is up to the Council to determine policy.
Affordable and market dwelling size mix
7.15 The LTBHM model provides considerable detail on the size of accommodation required within each tenure. The base scenario (maximum Objectively Assessed Need) outputs have been used to inform the recommended dwelling size mix within each tenure in Ribble Valley. These results are summarised in Figure 7.1 and can be used to assess the suitability of proposed new housing developments in Ribble Valley as indicated in the Core Strategy.
Figure 7.1 Recommended profile of new housing in Ribble Valley Tenure split Size profile within each tenure
100% 5 10 90% Social 25 25 rented, 5% 80% Affordable 30 Rent, 19% 70% 60
60% 35 SO, 6% Market, 50% 70% 45 40% 45 10 30% Proportion of dwellings required dwellings of Proportion 35 20% 30 25 10% 15 5 0% Market Shared ownesrhip Affordable rent Social rent 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4+ bedroom
Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2013
75 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Other issues
Affordable Rent
7.16 This is the new social tenure, set at 80% of median market rent, or lower if there is evidence to justify it. If the Affordable Rent were set at 80% of median market rent, it would be affordable for relatively few households in housing need. But if it were set at 70% of market rent, it would be affordable for 111 households in housing need each year.
7.17 Affordable Rent can be achieved either by newbuild or by conversion of social re-lets. The latter is obviously cheaper and can be used to cross-subsidise newbuild. It is up to the Council to choose the level that Affordable Rent is finally set at: there is a considerable range of evidence in the report, however the current cost of Affordable Rent in the Borough (set out in Table 4.7) seems to be appropriate, particularly as it is at a lower level relative to market costs for larger dwellings where the intermediate gap is greater.
The SHMA as an ‘evidence base’
7.18 These findings form part of the ‘evidence base’ for policy, but do not form policy in itself. It is a policy issue for the Council to decide what types of affordable housing to build. The Council will want to consider its priorities in the light of the evidence, but will not in any way be dictated by it. It is recommended that the outputs from this report should also be viewed alongside the latest other information on the Council’s housing and planning priorities.
76 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Glossary
Affordability A measure of whether households can access and sustain the cost of private sector housing. There are two main types of affordability measure: mortgage and rental. Mortgage affordability assesses whether households would be eligible for a mortgage; rental affordability measures whether a household can afford private rental. Mortgage affordability is based on standard lending multipliers (3.5 times income) and considers any capital the household may have (existing equity or savings) to discount from the purchase price of the home. Rental affordability is defined as the rent being less than a proportion of a household’s gross income (25% of gross income is used as the baseline).
Affordable housing NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) defines affordable housing as ‘Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.’
Affordable Rent NPPF defines Affordable Rent as ‘housing that is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).’
Annual need The combination of the net future need plus an allowance to deal progressively with part of the net current need.
Average The term ‘average’ when used in this report is taken to be a mean value, unless otherwise stated.
77 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Bedroom standard The bedroom standard is calculated as follows: a separate bedroom is allocated to each co-habiting couple, any other person aged 21 or over, each pair of young persons aged 10-20 of the same sex, and each pair of children under 10 (regardless of sex). Unpaired young persons aged 10-20 are paired with a child under 10 of the same sex or, if possible, allocated a separate bedroom. Any remaining unpaired children under 10 are also allocated a separate bedroom. The calculated standard for the household is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms available for its sole use, to indicate deficiencies or excesses. Bedrooms include bed-sitters, box rooms and bedrooms which are identified as such by respondents, even though they may not be in use as such.
Concealed household A household that currently lives within another household, but has a preference to live independently and is unable to afford appropriate market housing.
Current need Households whose current housing circumstances at a point in time fall below accepted minimum standards. This would include households living in overcrowded conditions, in unfit or seriously defective housing, families sharing, and homeless people living in temporary accommodation or sharing with others.
Disaggregation Breaking a numerical assessment of housing need and supply down, either in terms of size and/or type of housing unit, or in terms of geographical price market within Ribble Valley.
Financial capacity This is defined as household income+savings+equity (the value of the property owned by owner- occupiers, typically the family home, net of mortgage). This provides an indication, when put on a capital basis, of the amount which the household could afford to pay for housing. Since equity is now a substantial part of the overall financial capacity of the large fraction of owner-occupiers, it is essential to use this measure rather than the old price/income ratio to measure the activity of a housing market.
Forecast Either of housing needs or requirements is a prediction of numbers which would arise in future years based on a model of the determinants of those numbers and assumptions about (a) the behaviour of households and the market and (b) how the key determinants are likely to change. It involves understanding relationships and predicting behaviour in response to preferences and economic conditions.
78 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Grossing-up Converting the numbers of actual responses in a social survey to an estimate of the number for the whole population. This normally involves dividing the expected number in a group by the number of responses in the survey.
Household One person living alone or a group of people who have the address as their only or main residence and who either share one meal a day or share a living room.
Household formation The process whereby individuals in the population form separate households. ‘Gross’ or ‘new’ household formation refers to households which form over a period of time, conventionally one year. This is equal to the number of households existing at the end of the year which did not exist as separate households at the beginning of the year (not counting ‘successor’ households, when the former head of household dies or departs).
Household living within another household Is a household living as part of another household of which they are neither the head nor the partner of the head.
Households sharing Are households (including single people) who live in non-self-contained accommodation but do not share meals or a living room (e.g. 5 adults sharing a house like this, constitute 5 one-person households).
Housing market area The geographical area in which a substantial majority of the employed population both live and work, and where most of those changing home without changing employment choose to stay.
Housing need Housing need is defined as the number of households lacking their own housing, or living in housing which is judged to be inadequate or unsuitable, who are unlikely to be able to meet their needs in the housing market without some financial assistance.
Housing Register A database of all individuals or households who have applied to a local authority or RSL for a social tenancy or access to some other form of affordable housing. Housing registers, often called waiting lists, may include not only people with general needs, but people with support needs or requiring access because of special circumstances, including homelessness.
79 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Housing size Measured in terms of the number of bedrooms, habitable rooms or floor space. This report uses the number of bedrooms.
Income Income means gross household income unless otherwise qualified
Intermediate housing NPPF defines intermediate housing as ‘homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.’
Lending multiplier The number of times a household’s gross annual income a mortgage lender will normally be willing to lend. The most common multiplier quoted is 3.5 times income.
Lower quartile The value below which one quarter of the cases falls. In relation to house prices, it means the price of the house that is one quarter of the way up the ranking from the cheapest to the most expensive.
Mean The mean is the most common form of average used. It is calculated by dividing the sum of a distribution by the number of incidents in the distribution.
Median The median is an alternative way of calculating the average. It is the middle value of the distribution when the distribution is sorted in ascending or descending order.
Migration The movement of people between geographical areas, primarily defined in this context as the local authority Borough area. The rate of migration is usually measured as an annual number of households, living in Ribble Valley at a point in time, who are not resident in Ribble Valley one year earlier.
Net need The difference between need and the expected supply of available affordable housing units (e.g. from the re-letting of existing social rented dwellings).
Newly arising need
80 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
New households which are expected to form over a period of time and are likely to require some form of assistance to gain suitable housing together with other existing households whose circumstances change over the period so as to place them in a situation of need (e.g. households losing accommodation because of loss of income, relationship breakdown, eviction, or some other emergency).
Non-self contained accommodation Where households share a kitchen, bathroom or toilet with another household, or they share a hall or staircase that is needed to get from one part of their accommodation to another.
Overcrowding An overcrowded dwelling is one which is below the bedroom standard (see 'Bedroom Standard' above).
Primary data Information that is collected from a bespoke data collection exercise (e.g. surveys, focus groups or interviews) and analysed to produce a new set of findings.
Potential households Adult individuals, couples or lone parent families living as part of other households of which they are neither the head, nor the partner of the head, and who need to live in their own separate accommodation, and/or are intending to move to separate accommodation rather than continuing to live with their ‘host’ household.
Projection Either of housing needs or requirements is a calculation of numbers expected in some future year or years based on the extrapolation of existing conditions and assumptions. For example, household projections calculate the number and composition of households expected at some future date(s) given the projected number of residents, broken down by age, sex and marital status, and an extrapolation of recent trends in the propensity of different groups to form separate households.
Random sample A sample in which each member of the population has an equal chance of selection.
Re-lets Social rented housing units which are vacated during a period and become potentially available for letting to new tenants.
81 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Rounding error Totals in tables may differ by small amounts (typically one) due to the fact that fractions have been added together differently. Thus a table total may say 2011, and if the individual cell figures are added the total may come to 2012. This is quite normal and is a result of the computer additions made. Figures should never be taken to be absolutely accurate. No such state exists. The figures in this document are robust estimates, not absolutely precise ones. The usual practice is to use the stated total (in the above case 2011) rather than the figure of 2012 to which the individual figures sum. That is because the total will have resulted from a rounding after all the fractions are taken fully into account.
Sample survey Collects information from a known proportion of a population, normally selected at random, in order to estimate the characteristics of the population as a whole.
Sampling frame The complete list of addresses or other population units within the survey area which are the subject of the survey.
Secondary data Existing information that someone else has collected. Data from administrative systems and some research projects are made available for others to summarise and analyse for their own purposes (e.g. Census, national surveys).
Shared ownership schemes Housing of which a proportion is available to buy (usually at market value). There is the option for the other part to be rented.
SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) SHMA derives from government guidance suggesting that the ‘evidence base’ required for the good planning of an area should be the product of a process rather than a technical exercise.
Social rented housing NPPF defines social rented housing as housing ‘Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers , for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime.’
82 Ribble Valley Borough Council – SHMA 2013
Stratified sample A sample where the population or area is divided into a number of separate sub-sectors (‘strata’) according to known characteristics based, for example, on sub-areas and applying a different sampling fraction to each sub-sector.
Specialised housing Refers to housing that has been specially designed for a particular client group to meet their particular needs (such as accommodation that is accessible to people with a physical disability, extracare housing where care services are provided on site, hostels, refuges or group homes) or housing specifically designated for particular groups (such as older people, people with physical disabilities, learning difficulties or mental health issues). This is characterised as housing that includes special design features and/or access to support to assist people to live independently for as long as possible in their own home.
Support needs Relating to people who have specific needs: such as those associated with a disability.
Under-occupation An under-occupied dwelling is one which exceeds the bedroom standard by two or more bedrooms.
Unsuitably housed households All circumstances where households are living in housing which is in some way unsuitable, whether because of its size, type, design, location, condition or cost. Households can have more than one reason for being in unsuitable housing, and so care should be taken in looking at the figures: a total figure is presented for households with one or more unsuitability reason, and also totals for the numbers with each reason.
83 APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 2 – RVBC letter to DLA re A1 reopening 16 July 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630
APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 3 – RVBC Housing Land Availability Schedule July 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630
APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 4 – Waddington Road Appellant Opening Statement 6th August 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630
APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 5 – RVBC Employment Land Study Refresh 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Ribble Valley Employment Land Study 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group
Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 5 2.0 STRATEGIC CONTEXT...... 11 3.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE...... 44 4.0 PROPERTY MARKET – GENERAL ...... 56 5.0 PROPERTY MARKET – ANALYSIS...... 67 6.0 EMPLOYMENT LAND ...... 76 7.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS...... 89 8.0 COMPANY SURVEY ...... 103 9.0 GROWTH FORECASTS ...... 112 10.0 CONCLUSIONS...... 128 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 144
Appendix 1 – Consultees Appendix 2 – Vacant Property Schedules Appendix 3 – Sites Appraisals Appendix 4 – Employment Site Proformas Appendix 5 – Sites Scoring System Appendix 6 – Sites Scoring Appendix 7 – Company Survey Questionnaire Appendix 8 – Economic Forecast Models Calculations Appendix 9 – Developer Marketing Standards
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group
Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction i) This report assesses the supply, need and demand for employment land and premises (use class B) in Ribble Valley. It has been carried out for Ribble Valley Borough Council to provide robust evidence to underpin and inform its Local Plan for the period to 2028. This report comprehensively reviews and updates the employment land and premises research of the existing Employment Land and Retail Study, which dates from October 2008. There are five main elements to this study: • An assessment of the Borough’s economy that informs the amount, location and type of employment land and premises required to facilitate its development and growth • A review of the current portfolio of employment land and premises • Identification and appraisal of additional potential employment land which could be used to meet the Borough’s future land needs • An assessment of the potential impact of major public and private sector development proposals, notably the Enterprise Zone at Samlesbury • Recommendations on the future allocation of employment land and premises to maintain the Borough’s economic growth.
Methodology ii) A number of research methods have been used – site visits, interviews with property market stakeholders and a survey of 200 businesses (of which 102 responded). This has been combined with extensive consultation with public sector agencies involved in the Borough (and in neighbouring local authority areas) as well as with BAE Systems, a key employer in Ribble Valley. Desktop analysis of existing strategies, reports and documents has also been used to inform the overall findings. The 42 Parish and Town Councils of the Borough have also been contacted by post and email. The methodology follows ODPM guidance on the production of employment land reviews.
Findings iii) The least deprived local authority area in Lancashire, Ribble Valley is affluent with a highly skilled population. This is evidenced by the high proportions of people who work in managerial and professional occupations in the Borough. The population is
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 1 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
relatively mobile and Borough is a net exporter of labour to the rest of Pennine Lancashire, Preston and the Manchester City Region. iv) Property professionals argue that there is an oversupply of both office and industrial property in the Borough. There is also little inward investment. However, Ribble Valley’s rural business centres are performing well at present. Schemes such as the Manor Court, Ribchester and Time Technology Park, have wide catchment areas for occupiers. Demand is for office suites of less than 50 sqm and industrial units of up to 1,000 sqm. v) In the short/medium term, low land values and a lack of demand is encouraging the landowners of Barrow Brook Business Park to seek higher value uses on their land. However, owners are also seeking planning permissions for B1, B2, B8 uses. This is evidence that employment development can, in the long term, still be brought forward at this location. vi) Ribble Valley is bordered by nine other local authorities. Most have few direct links with the Borough and none expect to have to look to Ribble Valley to meet any shortfalls in employment land or premises supply. In Burnley, the former Michelin tyre warehouse will be promoted as an advanced manufacturing/engineering park for aerospace companies. This may compete with the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone. Preston City Council is committed to support the development of Longridge and is considering the provision of employment land off Whittingham Road. vii) Neighbouring authorities are supportive of the Enterprise Zone proposals at Samlesbury Aerodrome. However, most do not feel they will derive much economic benefit from this specialist scheme which is distant from their main settlements.
Employment Land Supply viii) At 31st March 2012 there was a headline supply of 20 ha of available employment land, made up of 12 sites. 61 percent of this (12.27 ha) comprises land at Barrow Brook Business Park, and represents medium and long term supply. At Barrow Brook, the 4.32 ha Papillion Site (2) site has outline permission for housing. If this is excluded then there is only 15.68 ha (11 sites). ix) An additional 3.73 ha is required based on long term past take-up rates. This increases to 8.05 ha when measured against the worst case scenario. If short term
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 2 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
take-up rates are used, then the land need increases to almost 11 ha (see Table ES1).
Table ES1 – Land Forecast Models Reflecting Perceived & Residual Supply
Model Land Need, ha Perceived Surplus Predicted Surplus 2012-2028 (Shortfall) to 2028 (Shortfall) to 2028 (including 5 years Headline Supply Realistic Supply Buffer) (20.00 ha) (15.68 ha) Long Term Land 23.73 (3.73) (8.05) Take-up Short Term Land 26.46 (6.46) (10.78) Take-up Employment Based 6.75/10.55 9.45/13.25 5.13/8.93 Labour Supply 9.05/10.55 10.25/10.95 5.93/6.63 Policy ‘On’ (linked 28.60/30.31 (8.60/10.31) (12.92/14.63) to Enterprise Zone) Employment Based Policy ‘On’ (linked 19.75/21.40 0.25/(1.40) (4.07/5.72) to Enterprise Zone) Labour Supply Source: BE Group 2013 x) The ‘policy on’ models also indicate shortfalls of up to 14.63 ha. However these relate land requirements which will be met within the Enterprise Zone and are not part of Ribble Valley’s general employment land supply. xi) The other forecast models (employment and labour supply) suggest the Borough has an oversupply of employment land. This would suggest that much of the current land supply is surplus to requirements and could be used for other activities. However, these methods take no account of pent-up demand, failures in the property market or need for a range of sites and locations to provide companies with choice; a five year buffer to ensure a continuum of supply beyond the Plan period. They are frequently contradicted by empirical evidence generated by this study.
Recommendations xii) This report has had full regard to the requirements of the NPPF to encourage and deliver growth through the planning system. The key recommendations are: • That the Council should adopt the short term land take-up scenario. This suggests that the Borough requires another 8 ha of employment land, to 2028.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 3 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• That the Council explore the feasibility of bringing forward new allocations in Longridge (considering sites at College Farm and to the rear of Sainsbury’s) and in the Clitheroe area (at Standen and Salthill). • The Council should designate six key employment sites and areas to be safeguarded for B Class Uses and other employment uses which achieve economic enhancement. These align to the NPPF description of ‘key employment sites’ and are: • Barrow Brook Business Park, Barrow • Samlesbury Aerodrome • The Sidings, Whalley • Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe • Shay Lane industrial Estate, Longridge • Time Technology Park, Simonstone. • Within these ‘key employment sites’ non – B Class employment uses should only be allowed if an applicant can demonstrate exceptional circumstances and that the proposals will not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding local uses. • For Ribble Valley’s remaining employment areas, a more flexible approach could be taken to help facilitate a broad range of economic development. In some cases a more intensive mixed-use development could provide greater benefit to the local community than if the site was retained solely in employment use. • Employment development outside Employment Areas makes a contribution to local employment activity and jobs. Any consideration of future non- employment use, in such locations, should be addressed in the same way as non ‘key employment’ sites. • The Council should work with neighbouring authorities on issues in which interests will overlap, notably capitalising on the supplier chain and production spin off opportunities generated by the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone. • Review and monitor the employment land and premises position and undertake the study again in about three years, as 2028 is a long time in the future and much will happen before then.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 4 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report provides an employment land and premises review for the Borough of Ribble Valley (the Borough). It has been carried out on behalf of Ribble Valley Borough Council (the Council).
1.1 The Study has been commissioned provide robust evidence to underpin and inform the Council’s Local Plan. The Study will analyse employment land and premises demand, supply and need to 2028.
1.2 BE Group, economic development and property consultants based in Warrington, has compiled this report. BE Group also carried out the Council’s existing Employment Land and Retail Study which dates from October 2008. This report reviews and refreshes the employment land and premises research undertaken within that 2008 study (but not the retail capacity and market town health check elements). In particular, it takes account of recent planning policy changes such as the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the changing economic situation since the Employment Land and Retail Study was completed.
1.3 This research has been undertaken following the Ribble Valley Core Strategy Public Examination of October/November 2012. In that examination, the Inspector highlighted the need for the Council to update the Core Strategy evidence base documents, including the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study.
1.4 The Study comprises five main elements: • An assessment of the Borough’s economy that informs the amount, location and type of employment land and premises required to facilitate its development and growth • A review of the current portfolio of employment land and premises • Identification and appraisal of additional potential employment land which could be used to meet the Borough’s future land needs • An assessment of the potential impact of major public and private sector development proposals, notably the Enterprise Zone at Samlesbury • Recommendations on the future allocation of employment land and premises to maintain the Borough’s economic growth.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 5 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Background 1.5 This Employment Land and Premises Review will form part of the evidence base for policies and proposals in the Ribble Valley Local Plan. As part of the plan preparation process, the Council is required to review and assess the level and quality of its existing employment sites and premises to help ensure an adequate supply of appropriate sites has been identified over the plan period.
1.6 Land and premises need to reflect the changing requirements of businesses and local economies. The Study will therefore help assess the suitability of sites, indicating which sites might be best safeguarded for employment uses, any sites that appear no longer suitable for employment uses at least in their present form, and any need for new allocations. Planning policies are intended to intervene in the market to ensure amongst other things an appropriate balance between housing and employment uses in the Borough. And whilst the drive to deliver more housing is important, it should not be at the expense of losing important sites that could contribute to local economic development. However, as well as securing sustainable development for employment purposes, a realistic view is taken of the operation and vitality of the market.
1.7 The Study covers all industrial, warehousing and distribution uses, as well as offices. It does not refer to all uses that provide jobs, but to the above group of uses, which tend to share certain locational and physical characteristics. The Study is primarily concerned with those uses included within the planning Use Class B – B1 (business offices/light industrial), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) and appropriate sui generis uses including recycling and the environmental industry. However, the land needs of non B-class employment uses, included within the NPPF definition of ‘economic development’, are briefly considered in Section 9.0.
1.8 Recognising the rural nature of the Borough the study also has regard to the rural economy, and specifically opportunities for diversification of agricultural buildings into B Use Class accommodation.
Methodology 1.9 Research methods used include site visits, face-to-face and telephone interviews with property market stakeholders such as developers, investors and their agents. A survey of 200 local businesses (online and by post, with follow-up telephone calls) has been undertaken and the 42 Parish and Town Councils of Ribble Valley have
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 6 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
also been contacted by post and email.
1.10 Consultations were undertaken with a number of the Borough’s major private sector employers and key public sector agencies, including Lancashire County Developments Ltd and the Lancashire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). Desktop analysis of national, regional and local reports and strategies has also been undertaken.
1.11 The property market in the local authority areas adjacent to Ribble Valley was also reviewed. This has been undertaken through consultations with officers from the relevant Councils, combined with desktop analysis of the Employment Land Studies and Core Strategies of those local authorities. Understanding the supply and demand of employment land and premises in neighbouring areas is important in assessing their impact on the Borough’s land and property market.
1.12 Finally the land supply has been assessed against forecast data to understand future land need. This is then developed into a series of economic development recommendations that cover not just land, but also premises.
1.13 At Appendix 1 we have included a schedule of all consultees.
Study Area 1.14 Ribble Valley (population 57,132, as of the 2011 Census) is a largely rural area covering 226 square miles in the east of Lancashire (see Figure 1). To the south it is bounded by the M65 and conurbation of Blackburn, Burnley and Central Lancashire towns. It comprises numerous picturesque villages, but the key settlements are Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley. The north of Ribble Valley reaches as far north as Lancaster to the west and Yorkshire to the east.
1.15 Employment is focused in and around the main towns of Clitheroe, Longridge and the A59 corridor. Key employment areas include Shay Lane Industrial Estate (Longridge), Salthill Industrial Estate and Link 59 (Clitheroe) and Time Technology Park (Simonstone). Key employers in Ribble Valley include BAE Systems, Hanson, Ultraframe, Dugdale Nutrition, Total Foods and Johnson Matthey.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 7 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Figure 1 – Ribble Valley
Source: ONS 2013
Employment Land Review: Guidance Note (ODPM 2004) 1.16 The Employment Land Review: Guidance Note promotes a three-stage process, and provides the framework for this study. Although this document is now nine years old it has not been amended or superseded by more recent statements of policy and remains the only national guidance document for the production of Employment Land Studies. It has been recommended for retention (until superseded) in the 2012 Taylor Review of Planning practice guidance.
1.17 Stage One: take stock of the existing situation including an initial assessment of ‘fitness for purpose’ of existing allocated employment sites. The objective is to identify the best employment sites to be protected; identify employment sites to be
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 8 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
released and prepare an effective brief for stages two and three of the review. The outcome of this stage is to understand key employment land supply issues and generate a portfolio of potential employment sites to take forward for more detailed review.
1.18 Stage Two: understand the future quantity of land required across the main business sectors; to provide a breakdown of that analysis in terms of quality and location and provide an indication of ‘gaps’ in supply through economic forecasting, consideration of recent trends and/or assessment of local property market circumstances. The outcome of this stage is to provide broad quantitative employment land requirements across the principal market segments covering the Local Plan period and an analysis of the likely ‘gaps’ in supply that need to be filled.
1.19 Stage Three: entails a qualitative review of all significant sites (and premises) in the existing portfolio in order to confirm which of them are unsuitable for/unlikely to continue in employment use; to establish the extent of ‘gaps’ in the portfolio; and if necessary, identify additional sites to be allocated or safeguarded. The outcome will be the completion of the employment land review, to be taken forward in the Local Plan. The Ribble Valley Employment Land Review Refresh is prepared in compliance with this advice.
1.20 Table 1 shows how this report aligns with, and answers the requirements of the ODPM guidance. The link between the report and the ODPM steps is not always clear cut, with different sections overlapping, indeed certain steps overlap. It should be noted this report reflects adaptation (and improvement) of the ODPM guidance in order to address the requirements of the brief and the particular local circumstances of the Borough’s property market.
1.21 In line with the guidance the study covers, very broadly, all the employment property market segments and types of sites outlined in it (see Table 2). To keep the report simple, the research combines most of these requirements into three broad areas: employment land, office premises and industrial properties.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 9 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 1 – Employment Land Reviews – Guidance Note
Stage 1 – Taking Stock of the Existing Situation Step 1 – Devise Brief Prepared by Ribble Valley Borough Council Step 2 – Collate Data on Land Stock and Land Stock covered in Section 6 Revealed Demand Revealed Demand covered in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 Step 3 – Devise and Apply Site Appraisal Site Appraisals covered in Section 6 and Criteria Appendix 4-6 Step 4 – Undertake Preliminary Site Appraisal Site Appraisals covered in Section 6 and Appendix 4-6 Step 5 – Confirm Brief for Stages 2 & 3 Agreed in study progress meetings Stage 2 – Creating a Picture of Future Requirements Step 6 – Understand Market Areas and Covered in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Segments Relationship with neighbouring areas covered in Section 7 Step 7 – Select and Apply Suitable Forecast Covered in Section 9 Model/Demand Analysis Step 8 – Quantify Employment Land Supply Covered in Section 6 Step 9 – Translate Employment Land Covered in Sections 9, 10 and 11 Forecasts to Land Requirements Step 10 – Scenario Testing Covered in Section 9, 10 Stage 3 – Identifying a New Portfolio of Sites Step 11 – Devise Qualitative Site Appraisal Covered in Section 6 Criteria Step 12 - Confirm Existing Sites to be Covered in Sections 6, 10 and 11 Retained or Released and Define Gaps in Portfolio Step 13 – Identify Additional Sites Covered in Sections 10 and 11 Step 14 – Complete Employment Land Covered in Sections 6, 9, 10 and 11 Review Source: BE Group 2013
Table 2 – Main Employment Property Market Segments and Sites
Established or Potential Office Locations Heavy/Specialist Industrial Sites
High Quality Business Parks Incubator/SME Cluster Sites
Research and Technology/Science Parks Specialised Freight Terminals
Warehouse/Distribution Parks Sites for Specific Occupiers
General Industrial/Business Areas Recycling/Environmental Industries Sites
Source: ODPM 2004
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 10 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
2.0 STRATEGIC CONTEXT
Introduction 2.1 This section focuses on national, sub regional and local reports and strategies that have a relevance to the allocation of employment land and premises. An understanding of the strategies and reports contained in this review is needed to show strategic alignment and a holistic approach to promote sustainable development. The consultants’ recommendations follow the general principles set by them.
National
National Planning Policy Framework – Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) 2.2 As part of ongoing reforms of planning policy, the Department for Communities and Local Government has published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England, articulating the Government’s vision of sustainable development. It provides a framework for the production of local and neighbourhood plans, and has replaced all the previous Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes .
2.3 In terms of business and economic development, the NPPF argues that “Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations. Planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including poor environment or any lack of infrastructure, services or housing.” Local planning authorities should: • “Set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth • Set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated requirements over the plan period • Support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting and, where possible, identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate requirements not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 11 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries • Identify priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement • Facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial used within the same unit.”
2.4 Planning policies should also “avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.”
2.5 In addition to this, paragraph 51 indicates that local planning authorities “should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.”
2.6 In town centres, local planning authorities should “allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, community services and residential development needed.”
2.7 Planning policies should support sustainable economic growth in rural areas by taking a positive approach to new development, supporting “the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings” and promoting “development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.”
2.8 The NPPF re-introduces district-wide local plans, replacing the Local Development Framework system. The Local Plan should be a single strategic document, with supplementary planning documents only created if they can help to bring forward
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 12 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
sustainable development at an accelerated rate.
2.9 It is proposed that Local Plans will address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change, setting out the opportunities for development and providing clear guidance on what will, or will not, be permitted and where. The Local Plan should outline the Local Planning Authority’s strategic priorities. This should include strategic policies to deliver “the homes and jobs needed in the area” as well as “the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development” .
2.10 Crucially, Local Plans should: • “Plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this Framework • Be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15 year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements, and be kept up to date • Be based on cooperation with neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector organisations • Indicate broad locations for strategic development on a key diagram and land- use designations on a proposals map • Allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of land, bringing forward new land where necessary, and provide detail on form, scale, access and quantum of development where appropriate • Identify areas where it may be necessary to limit freedom to change the uses of buildings, and support such restrictions with a clear explanation • Identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic value; and • Contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, and supporting Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified.”
2.11 Local planning authorities need to prepare and maintain a robust evidence base to understand business need within their area. This can be achieved by working with neighbouring authorities, LEPs and the local business community. This evidence base should be used to assess: • “the needs for land or floorspace for economic development, including both the quantitative and qualitative need for all foreseeable types of economic activity over the plan period
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 13 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• existing and future supply of land available for economic development and its sufficiency and suitability to meet identified needs. Reviews of land available for economic development should be undertaken at the same time, or combined with Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments and should include a reappraisal of the suitability of previously allocated land • the role and function of town centres and the relationship between them, including any trends in the performance of centres • the capacity of existing centres to accommodate new town centre development • locations of deprivation which may benefit from planned remedial action • the needs of the food production industry and any barriers to investment that planning can resolve.”
Sub-Regional Policy
Lancashire Economic Strategy Framework of Priorities – Lancashire County Council (2010) 2.12 The Economic Strategy provides an overarching framework that will direct the County Council’s approach to economic development over the next three years. The framework is structured around five strategic priorities which are deemed critical to Lancashire’s future economic success. • Economic Growth, Knowledge and Innovation • Spatial • Skills and Employment • Infrastructure • Partner Development.
2.13 Under economic growth, knowledge and innovation, the priority most relevant to this Study, there are ten key objectives: • Developing Lancashire’s seven strategic development sites of regional importance to accelerate the region’s growth • Working with new Economic Development Companies to bring forward programmes to deliver sufficient sustainable growth • Unlocking Lancashire’s growth potential as a location for nuclear, renewable energy and environmental technology • Enhancing Lancashire’s competitive advantage in advanced manufacturing
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 14 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Bridging the shortfall in knowledge-based and creative sectors • Strengthening links between Lancashire’s leading companies, universities and SMEs • Working with developers and investors to develop new business accommodation • Strengthening linkages with major regional developments such as Mediacity:UK and the emerging Energy Coast initiative • Improving Lancashire’s visitor economy offer • Aiming for economic growth to mitigate impacts of climate change and generate low carbon technology innovations to create a carbon neutral economy.
2.14 The County Council aspires to work with its Multi-area Agreement partners to deliver the priorities in order to improve the prospects of Lancashire. Furthermore it identifies a number of specific steps that LCC needs to take to ensure the priorities are achieved. These include ensuring that planning departments work more effectively with businesses, making sure strategic policy supports the achievement of priorities, and taking a more active role in strategic land assembly and the development of investment vehicles.
Lancashire Economic Assessment – Lancashire County Council (2011) 2.15 Although no longer a statutory document, the Local Economic Assessment remains an important document, providing an overview of Lancashire’s local economy as well as playing a role in informing the development of economic strategies and interventions in order to support sustainable economic growth in Lancashire.
2.16 In terms of land, building and infrastructure, the Assessment reports that Lancashire has not benefited from the shift towards office base service sector employment, which has led to economic development and regeneration in many urban areas in the country. This has resulted in a lack of office space in the County (with the exception of Preston, Burnley, Lancaster and isolated areas of Fylde). There is therefore a need to increase the number of office developments in locations where there is demand, in order to capture a greater share of service sector employment in the future.
2.17 There remains a large amount of industrial space, some of which has become
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 15 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
redundant due to the long term decline of manufacturing employment. There is therefore need to reutilise redundant space and provide appropriate premises to enable existing businesses to diversify and develop higher value activities, as well as to attract higher value companies to the area. Warehouse development, which has been an important contributor to employment growth in Lancashire in recent years, may provide the opportunity to support this higher value growth, particularly through links to advanced manufacturing.
2.18 The Assessment also highlights the “lack of suitable employment sites in strategic locations which has limited economic growth and hindered inward investment ”. Therefore “ a development portfolio of proposed new sites is critical to Lancashire’s economic future and the shift to the higher value economy ”. Many existing employment sites have been developed on an ad-hoc basis, rather than through strategic or economic considerations. They are consequently not sufficient for higher value uses.
2.19 A number of strategic sites are identified in the Assessment which are deemed critical to diversifying the economic base and creating more than 15,000 jobs over the next five years. The BAE Systems site at Samlesbury is the only site that is (partially) located in Ribble Valley.
An Integrated Economic Strategy for Pennine Lancashire – Pennine Lancashire Leaders and Chief Executives (2008) 2.20 The Pennine Lancashire Integrated Economic Strategy examines key economic indicators for the sub-region and other factors that influence the area’s economic performance. It identifies key areas of underperformance and proposes strategic interventions to address those failings.
2.21 The Strategy makes the following points about the economy of the Pennine Lancashire Sub-Region: • Pennine Lancashire contributes £6.1 billion to the Lancashire economy (more than any other part of the county) and employs 228,000 people • GVA per head is only £13,000, compared to £17,200 nationally • It has strong links with the Manchester, Leeds and Central Lancashire City Regions
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 16 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Blackburn with Darwen is the most populous district and accounts for the largest proportion of employees. However, significant employment is also located in Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle. The distributed nature of employment in the sub-region reflects both the industrial heritage of the major towns, and a strong rural economy in the north and east of the sub-region • Prior to the recession, employment was increasing and the number of VAT registered businesses has grown by 10 percent (to 14,000) since 1997 • Manufacturing remains an important source of employment. Although manufacturing employment has declined overall, in recent years, jobs growth has occurred in some key sub-sectors (notably furniture production, basic chemicals, and food and drink) • Pennine Lancashire’s aerospace and advanced flexible materials sectors are of national significance • Pennine Lancashire has experienced strong business services growth in recent years, but this has been from a low employment base • Most of Pennine Lancashire’s workforce has, at least, intermediate level skills. However, graduate level skills (level 4) are under-represented • In 2006 there were the high levels of economic inactivity in the sub-region (a quarter of the working age population was inactive compared to 21 percent nationally). 33,500 individuals were in receipt of Incapacity Benefit. Economic inactivity was spread unevenly across the area, ranging from 16 percent in the Ribble Valley to 30 percent in Hyndburn.
2.22 The Strategy’s Vision for the Pennine Lancashire economy is that by 2020, the sub- region will: • “Have narrowed the gap in economic performance between itself, the Lancashire sub-region and the North West Region • Demonstrate confidence and dynamism, mirrored in the attitudes and ambitions of the community • Have high rates of new business start-ups and low business failure rates • Be supported by an education and training system that reflects the economic needs of the area • Be responsive to external economic pressures and new opportunities; technology and innovation will feature strongly • Feature successful major projects and role models
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 17 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Have much lower levels of deprivation, and a much narrower gap between the more and less prosperous areas • Have strong links to other neighbouring economies, with local residents readily able to access a wide range of employment opportunities • Enjoy a business support infrastructure of the highest quality.”
2.23 Table 4 provides a SWOT Analysis for the Sub-Region.
Table 4 – Relevant Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Facing Pennine Lancashire
Strengths Weaknesses • World class aerospace sector • Six small Boroughs with the lack of a • A strong and innovative advanced single large centre manufacturing sector • Poor commuter access by both road • Recent growth in services and rail to the key growth centres of • Recent investment in regeneration Preston, Manchester and Leeds initiatives • Low skill levels and fewer high level • Strong internal connectivity skills • Proximity to and good • Low confidence and aspiration communications with the Preston area • Poor educational attainment and lack of higher level skills • Few high income households in the inner towns • Low wage rates and GVA • Below average rates of self employment and business formation • High levels of worklessness • Loss of high quality manufacturing jobs not offset by growth in services • Limited industrial structure, reliance on a number of sectors • Lack of opportunity for accredited skills training in the workplace. Opportunities Threats • Whitebirk Strategic Employment Site • Growth of the Manchester City Region and other key employment areas and its potential domination of the • Development of a BAE Aerospace region Park • Potential changes to the aerospace • Proximity to Manchester, Preston and supply chain Leeds • Globalisation and potential further • Ready access to growth in the decline of the manufacturing sector Preston economy • Competition from growth centres • Potential new rail links to Manchester. • Reducing public sector funding • Credit squeeze • Lack of funding for rail links.
Source: Pennine Lancashire Leaders and Chief Executives, 2008
2.24 Table 5 summarises the relevant Strategy and Strategic Interventions which have been created for to achieve this vision, along with the expected impacts.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 18 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 5 – An Integrated Economic Strategy for Pennine Lancashire, Relevant Policy Summary
Strategy Strategic Intervention Impact Change the enterprise culture of Pennine Lancashire by This will increase the rate of new business formation, reduce Strategy 1.1 - Developing an systematically removing barriers to enterprise and encouraging worklessness and raise prosperity levels. Enterprise Culture entrepreneurship at all levels and investing in entrepreneurial skills.
Recognise the strategic importance of the aerospace sector to the This will cascade the knowledge and skills embedded in the prime Pennine Lancashire economy and actively promote knowledge contractors down the supply chain, to secure real added value transfer across the local economy throughout the aerospace engineering and support sectors. It will help to make those companies more competitive and help to raise GVA.
Promote the development of the Advanced This will directly impact on GVA and wage levels within the local economy. It will help to encourage new investment and build on the Strategy 1.2 - Promoting Growth Manufacturing sector, focusing on innovation and knowledge strengths within the manufacturing sector to help secure its long term Sectors transfer within the economy. Support growth companies. future.
Recognise the growth potential of the medical manufacturing sector This will directly impact on job creation and investment in this high Growth sectors are: within Pennine Lancashire and dedicate appropriate resources to value area of the economy. It could help to establish Pennine • Aerospace encourage investment and employment creation including the Lancashire as an area of expertise. • Advanced manufacturing/ establishment of the Medi-Knowledge Park . advanced flexible materials Harness the employment growth potential of the health care sector This will directly impact on job creation, productivity and skills. • within Pennine Lancashire to narrow the skills and GVA deficit of the Medical/health/fitness/soci area. al care and well being • Creative industries Develop the support infrastructure for digital and media companies, This would have the potential to accelerate employment creation in building on the Creative Lancashire initiative. Identify specific this national growth sector and to encourage growth in higher level • Business services opportunities for collaborative working with Media City:UK. skills. • Visitor and tourism Encourage the growth of financial and business This would encourage employment growth in a high value sector services and take steps to access the growth opportunities in within the economy and help to develop a higher skill base for adjoining City Regions Pennine Lancashire. Exploit the potential of the wealth of natural resources in Pennine This will help to create direct investment in visitor infrastructure, and Lancashire to promote tourism and the visitor economy. to generate considerable employment opportunities. It will also help to change external perceptions of Pennine Lancashire and improve the area’s image. Actively seek out [including inward investment] and encourage This will have a direct impact on GVA within the local economy. businesses and individuals who have the potential to innovate, to Strategy 1.3 - Encouraging create wealth and reduce the GVA deficit. Build on the Ideas North Innovation West model to help convert viable innovative projects from concept stage to reality.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 19 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Strategy Strategic Intervention Impact Secure business support mechanisms to enable businesses to innovate and to bring forward new ideas and products that can be exploited to the advantage of the local economy. Identify and promote the sources of higher value added activity This will have a direct impact on GVA and higher level skills within Strategy 1.4 - Growing the within the economy and access routes to knowledge transfer from the local economy. knowledge economy HE institutions. Promote these drivers. Promote the attainment of skills and qualifications within the This will raise skills and attainment levels across the economy and workforce. Encourage employers and individuals to invest in training help to improve the competitiveness of the local area. and personal development that will result in higher skill levels across the workforce. Strategy 2.2 - Investing in higher Invest in leadership and management skills within businesses and This will equip those leading key institutions to achieve greater added level skills public sector agencies. value and to improve the performance and competitiveness of the organisations. Establish a School of Business Management within one of the HE This will help to build higher level skills within businesses to equip institutions within Pennine Lancashire. them with the capabilities to develop and grow in a competitive environment. Work with relevant stakeholders to improve the transport links within This intervention will lead to an increase in commuting, with residents Pennine Lancashire and to adjoining City Regions, based on the taking up additional employment opportunities in adjoining City Strategy 4.1 – Promoting a need to improve the scale and quality of the labour market available Regions. This will help to increase the employment rate of Pennine skilled and mobile workforce to employers at the core of the conurbations. Lancashire residents, widen the range of skills, and increase average earnings and household incomes. Invest in rail infrastructure to improve the frequency and journey This intervention will lead to an increase in sustainable commuting, times from the sub region to Manchester, with a high priority for with residents taking up employment opportunities in Greater increasing the frequency of the Blackburn to Manchester leg, Manchester, particularly the City of Manchester. This will help to reinstating a direct rail link with competitive journey times between increase the employment rate of Pennine Lancashire residents, and Strategy 4.2 – Investing in Burnley and Manchester via the Todmorden Curve, and Rossendale increase average earnings and household incomes. transport infrastructure and Manchester. Secure the delivery of the Pennine Reach project to improve internal The proposed Pennine Reach project will greatly improve access for communications within Pennine Lancashire and to improve access residents from deprived communities to major employment sites and to employment opportunities via public transport. town centres, and will reduce dependency on private cars. Embed the principles of sustainable development in the strategy The economic development of Pennine Lancashire will be to the and in its implementation by all partners . benefit of local people and the environment. This will, over the long Strategy 5.4 Securing term, ensure that the trajectory of the key economic indicators can be sustainable economic growth changed and that the economy of Pennine Lancashire will be more robust without compromising the environmental sustainability of the area.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 20 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Strategy Strategic Intervention Impact Secure the commitment of the Pennine Lancashire partners This will, over the long term, ensure that the trajectory of the key and other stakeholders to a long term strategy of intervention that is economic indicators can be changed and that the economy of economically and environmentally sustainable. Pennine Lancashire will be more robust, output levels will be higher and the community will be more prosperous. Source: Pennine Lancashire Leaders and Chief Executives, 2008
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 21 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Local Policy
Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan – Ribble Valley Borough Council (1998) 2.25 The Local Plan sets out detailed policies and specific proposals for the development and use of land in Ribble Valley. Until the Core Strategy (discussed below) and associated Development Plan Documents are adopted, the saved policies of the Districtwide Local Plan remain the primary development plan for the Borough.
2.26 The objectives of the Local Plan can be grouped under three broad aims: • The environment • Economic health • Quality of life.
2.27 Relevant objectives under the ‘economic health’ heading include: • “To promote and encourage economic and productive agriculture • To identify land for new industrial/employment generating operations in sites attractive to potential users • To promote the diversification of farms • To recreate the jobs lost at Brockhall Hospital during the 1980's/1990's on site • To encourage the efficient operation, and where appropriate expansion, of existing industrial concerns • To encourage a broader economic base • To ensure adequate and safe transport infrastructure for industry • To protect remaining and increase job opportunities in the more remote rural parts of the Borough.”
2.28 Within the defined main settlements of Ribble Valley (Clitheroe, Billington, Longridge, Whalley and Wilpshire because of its physical linkage with the Blackburn urban area) Policy G2 indicates that the the following scale of development will be approved: • “Wilpshire – development of sites within the settlement boundary and outside the green belt • Clitheroe – consolidation and expansion of development and rounding off development. In all cases this must be on sites wholly within the settlement boundary and must be appropriate to the town's size and form • Billington, Longridge and Whalley – development wholly within the built part of the settlement or the rounding-off of the built-up area.”
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 22 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
2.29 Within the villages of Mellor Brook, Read and Simonstone, Policy G3 indicates that planning permission will be granted for “ the development and redevelopment of land wholly within the settlement boundary, not defined as essential open space” or “the rehabilitation and re-use of buildings.”
2.30 Policy G4 identifies 26 further villages which could accommodate smaller scale development on allocated sites, infill sites or through the rehabilitation/re-use of rural buildings. The villages included in Policy G4 are: • Barrow • Holden • Sabden • Bolton-by-Bowland • Hurst Green • Sawley • Copster Green • Langho • Slaidburn • Chatburn • Mellor • Tosside • Chipping • Newton • Waddington • Downham • Osbaldeston • West Bradford • Dunsop Bridge • Pendleton • Wiswell • Gisburn • Ribchester • Worston • Grindleton • Rimington
2.31 Outside the main settlement and village boundaries, Policy G5 indicates that planning consent will only be granted for small-scale developments which are: • “Essential to the local economy or the social well being of the area • Needed for the purposes of agriculture or forestry • Sites developed for local needs housing • Small scale tourism developments and small scale recreational developments appropriate to a rural area • Other small-scale uses appropriate to a rural area which conform to the policies of this plan.”
2.32 Saved employment land policies allocate 7 ha of land to the north of Salthill Industrial Estate for B1 and B2 uses (Policy EMP2). The 2 ha of land adjoining Clitheroe Hospital is only suitable for B1 uses. Proposals for B8 development at Salthill must have regard to (Policy EMP3): • “The likely scale and nature of traffic generation • The effects on the visual qualities of the area • The impact of noise and fumes on neighbouring land uses.”
2.33 Policy EMP4 allocates a further 1.3 ha at Chapel Hill, Longridge for B1 uses.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 23 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
2.34 Policy EMP7 indicates that “ the expansion of existing firms within the main settlement will be allowed on land within or adjacent to their existing sites, provided no significant environmental problems are caused and the extension conforms to the other policies of this plan.” Policy EMP8 adds that: “The expansion of established firms on land outside main settlements will be allowed provided it is essential to maintain the existing source of employment and is not contrary to the other policies of this plan.”
2.35 The conversion of barns and other rural buildings for employment uses will be permitted provided (Policy EMP9): • “The proposed use will not cause unacceptable disturbance to neighbours in any way • The building has a genuine history of use for agriculture or other rural enterprise • The building is structurally sound and capable of conversion for the proposed use without the need for major alterations which would adversely affect the character of the building • The impact of the proposal or additional elements likely to be required for the proper operation of the building will not harm the appearance or function of the area in which it is situated • The access to the site is of a safe standard or is capable of being improved to a safe standard without harming the appearance of the area • The design of the conversion should be of a high standard and be in keeping with local tradition, particularly in terms of materials, geometric form and window and door openings.”
2.36 Policy EMP11 notes that proposals to convert employment land or property, to non- employment uses, will be assessed against Local Plan Policy and: • “The environmental benefits to be gained by the community • The potential economic and social damage caused by loss of jobs in the community • Any attempts that have been made to secure an alternative employment generating use for the site.”
2.37 Policy EMP12 notes that proposals for agricultural diversifications will be approved (subject to other policies in the Local Plan) provided they are “appropriate in both
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 24 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
scale and character to the rural areas of Ribble Valley and do not compromise its natural beauty.”
2.38 Finally, the Local Plan sets out area policies for three defined locations – Primrose Lodge, Clitheroe; Brockhall Hospital, Old Langho and Calderstones Hospital, Whalley. Employment uses are considered appropriate in each area: • Policy A1: Primrose Lodge – Development or change of use of buildings for B1 uses will be permitted in the south west of the area • Policy A2: Brockhall Hospital – “Employment opportunities must be created to help replace those lost as a result of the hospital closure” • Policy A3: Calderstones Hospital – Development proposals should provide employment opportunities which may include health, business, industrial, housing, leisure, open space and nature conservation.
Core Strategy 2008 – 2028, A Local Plan for Ribble Valley (Regulation 22 Submission Draft) – Ribble Valley Borough Council (2012) 2.39 The Ribble Valley Core Strategy forms part of the new Local Plan for the Borough. This version was formally submitted to the Secretary of State for Public Examination in October/November 2012. That Examination has now been suspended to allow the Council time to update its evidence base (which includes this refresh of the Borough’s Employment Land Review).
2.40 The Core Strategy provides the overall strategy, core policies and long term vision for Ribble Valley up to 2028. The Core Strategy Vision is that:
“The Ribble Valley will be an area with an exceptional environment and quality of life for all, sustained by vital and vibrant market towns and villages acting as thriving service centres, meeting the needs of residents, businesses and visitors.
We will seek to create an area with unrivalled quality of place, respecting the unique natural, social and built heritage of the area.
New development to meet the needs of the area for growth, services and quality of life will be managed to ensure the special characteristics of the area are preserved for future generations.”
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 25 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
2.41 To help deliver the vision, a number of Strategic Objectives have been created. One objective is to: “Improve the competitiveness and productivity of local businesses by safeguarding and promoting local employment opportunities.”
2.42 Key Statement DS1 provides an overarching development strategy for the Borough. It notes that strategic employment opportunities will be promoted at Barrow Enterprise Site and the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone (discussed below). In addition “development that has recognised regeneration benefits, is for identified local needs or satisfies neighbourhood planning legislation will be considered in all the Borough’s settlements, including small-scale development in the smaller settlements that are appropriate for consolidation and expansion or rounding-off of the built up area.”
2.43 Employment development will generally be directed to the main areas of population growth (Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley) and sites linked to the A59. Strategic land releases will also be considered, particularly where these would contribute to the growth of BAE Samlesbury.
2.44 Key Statement EC1 makes the following points about business and employment development: • A further 9 ha of employment land will be allocated over the plan period • In identifying employment sites, priority will be given to the re-use of brownfield land • New sites will be identified in accord with the development strategy where the health of the local and (where relevant) wider economy support such an allocation • Opportunities to identify employment land as part of appropriate mixed-use schemes will be considered favourably • The expansion of existing businesses will, wherever appropriate, also be considered favourably • Developments that contribute to farm diversification, strengthen the wider rural and village economies or promote town centre vitality and viability will be supported in principle • Proposals that result in the loss of existing employment sites, to other forms of development, will need to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact upon the local economy.
2.45 With regards to BAE Samlesbury, Key Statement EC1 notes that this area “should be
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 26 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
regarded as a regionally significant employment site with considerable potential to accommodate a variety of advanced knowledge based industries in the future. This has been recognised by the Government’s creation of an Enterprise Zone at this location. As such the site is not considered part of the Borough’s general employment land supply.”
2.46 In Chapter 9, the Core Strategy states the intention to deliver a strategic site at Standen, to the south east of Clitheroe. Acceptable uses at Standen will include housing, B1 employment, community uses, local retail and service provision to serve the site, open space and recreational uses. The development will also secure improvements to the strategic highway network at the A59/Clitheroe Road/Pendle Road Junction. The precise mix of uses, developable areas, development, detailed infrastructure requirements and the need for phasing will be addressed in subsequent Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents.
2.47 Policy DMB1 ‘Supporting Business Growth and the Local Economy’ makes the following points: • “Proposals that are intended to support business growth and the local economy will be supported in principle • The expansion of existing firms within settlements will be permitted on land within or adjacent to their existing sites, provided no significant environmental problems are caused and the extension conforms to the other policies of the LDF • The expansion of established firms on land outside settlements will be allowed provided it is essential to maintain the existing source of employment and can be assimilated within the local landscape. There may be occasions where due to the scale of the proposal, relocation to an alternative site is preferable • Proposals for the development, redevelopment or conversion of sites with employment generating potential in the plan area for alternative uses will be assessed with regard to the following criteria: o The provisions of Policy DMG1 o The compatibility of the proposal with other policies of the LDF o The environmental benefits to be gained by the community o The economic and social impact caused by loss of employment opportunities to the Borough
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 27 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
o Any attempts that have been made to secure an alternative employment generating use for the site (must be supported by evidence (such as property agents details including periods of marketing and response) that the property/ business has been marketed for business use for a minimum period of six months or information that demonstrates to the council’s satisfaction that the current use is not viable for employment purposes.).”
2.48 Policy DMB2 ‘The Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings for Employment Uses’ notes that planning permission will be granted for employment generating uses in barns and other rural buildings, provided all of the following criteria are met: • “The proposed use will not cause unacceptable disturbance to neighbours in any way. • The building has a genuine history of use for agriculture or other rural enterprise • The building is structurally sound and capable of conversion for the proposed use, without the need for major alterations which would adversely affect the character of the building • The impact of the proposal or additional elements likely to be required for the proper operation of the building will not harm the appearance or function of the area in which it is situated. • The access to the site is of a safe standard or is capable of being improved to a safe standard without harming the appearance of the area. • The design of the conversion should be of a high standard and be in keeping with local tradition, particularly in terms of materials, geometric form and window and door openings • That any existing nature conservation aspects of the existing structure are properly surveyed and where judged to be significant preserved or, if this is not possible, then many loss adequately mitigated • The conversion of buildings should be of a high standard and in keeping with local tradition. The impact of the development, including the creation of servicing, storage areas and car parking facilities (or other additions) should not harm the appearance or function of the area in which it is situated • Proposals for the conversion of buildings for employment purposes that include residential accommodation will be carefully assessed. The council will require the submission of a business plan in support of the proposal where
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 28 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
residential accommodation is required as part of the scheme in locations where the council would otherwise restrict • The creation of dwellings. In all cases the proportion of living accommodation to workspace must not exceed a level of 60:40, workspace to living accommodation, and should form an integral part of the layout and design of the conversion • Proposals will be assessed in accordance with national planning guidance.”
Ribble Valley: An Economic Strategy 2009-2014 – Ribble Valley Borough Council (2009) 2.49 This document sets out aims and objectives for achieving a successful and sustainable economic environment in the Borough. The vision for the Economic Strategy is that: “a competitive and sustainable economy will be created for the Borough of Ribble Valley, providing opportunities for employment and continuous business development. By encouraging sustainable practices, we will seek to enhance and maintain vibrant local communities whilst promoting the protection of the environment for future generations.” The strategy sets out five thematic areas of activity: • “Regeneration and Economic Development - maximising the areas potential to generate initiatives, projects and attract resources in line with community needs. Encourage and engage both people and businesses for collective community action • Business Support and Development – addressing issues that facilitate healthy business performance, encouraging business start-ups, business growth and inward investment • Infrastructure and Communications - providing the necessary ‘physical environment’ in areas such as transport, affordable housing, ICT and ‘broadband’ access, appropriate business sites and premises • Image, Marketing and Promotion – maintaining and enhancing the perception and image of the area; inspiring and encouraging people to invest in and visit Ribble Valley whether for business or pleasure • Employment and Skills - ensuring with partners in the public and private sectors that a diversity of training and educational opportunities are available to people and businesses to ensure a healthy labour market.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 29 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
2.50 A SWOT analysis identifies a number of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the economic development of the Borough. Those of relevance to this study are outlined in Table 6.
Table 6 – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Facing Future Economic Development
Strengths Weaknesses • Low Unemployment • Limited amount of employment land • Culture of Enterprise and • Hidden low wage economy in certain Entrepreneurship sectors • Location advantages and external • Poor rural transport and utilities transport links road (M6, M65 and A59) infrastructure in some areas and rail • Over representation in declining • Low levels of unemployment and economic sectors deprivation • High and increasing levels of in and out • Strong agricultural sector and resilient commuting (net out commuter) and manufacturing and retail sector worsening self-containment rate • High educational attainment and skill • Shallow knowledge economy and low levels within resident population representation of growth sectors • Good business formation and self • Low inward investment profile and employment rates and high levels of limited recent success entrepreneurship • Areas of rural disadvantage, service loss • Market towns and rural centres and isolation established in their roles • Poor public transport provision and • Dedicated town partnerships and reliance on private transport to access Chambers of Trade employment/ training • Strong employment growth and • Some key sectors seen as low skill/low business formation in recent years wage employers • Transport / Traffic constraints affecting viability of economic centres Opportunities Threats • Location and accessibility to M6, M65 • Perception of an affluent area and A59 affording good east/west and • Lack of Government and European north/south connectivity funding streams • Access to ICT Broadband Infrastructure • Insufficient employment land to meet • Vocational training opportunities (Aspire future potential needs Project) • Tight labour supply and perceived skills • Retain commuters and stem worsening shortages / gaps (particularly lower level self containment rate occupations) • Increase Borough's share of regional • Potential loss of existing firms seeking inward investment success expansion • Potential of A59 corridor for employment • Perceived/actual mismatch of labour development supply and demand • Growth potential of existing businesses • Continuing cost and competitive and their loyalty to area pressures facing traditional sectors • Corporate track record in e-government (agriculture / manufacturing.) and potential lead on ICT • Continuing loss of employment land to infrastructure/e- business alternate uses • Opportunity to harness skills, knowledge • Low commercial vacancy rates and and entrepreneurial potential of re sident comparative high costs of commercial
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 30 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
population development • Economic growth potentially constrained by planning policies • Exodus of talented young people Source: Ribble Valley Borough Council, 2009
2.51 Table 7 summarises the Strategic Objectives which have been created for each theme, the main local issues identified for each thematic area and the Priority Aims and Objectives, (relevant for this study) set for each theme.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 31 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 7 – Ribble Valley Economic Strategy, Policy Summary Theme Strategic Objective Main Issues Identified Priority Aims and Objectives Regeneration and To identify and develop • The need to establish • Establish priorities for in the major service centres of Economic initiatives that will geographical and thematic Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley through the development Development encourage the long priorities for action of individual Action Plans, working in partnership with Parish term physical and • The need to link all aspects of and Town Councils and local business groups social regeneration of Ribble Valley’s regeneration • Support regeneration activities in smaller settlements Ribble Valley, needs to regional and sub- through the Community and Parish Planning process maximising on and regional priorities • Strengthen and develop communication mechanisms for seeking appropriate • The need to retain and enhance sharing regeneration information between Ribble Valley funding from national, local services to local people and partners regional and sub businesses • Ensure, through effective representation, that sub-regional, regional sources • Benefits of Partnership working regional, national and European policy makers are aware of wherever possible locally, sub-regionally and the issues facing Ribble Valley regionally • Ensure that the 'rural' case for funding assistance from • Identify, constantly monitor and national, regional, sub-regional and European sources has a pursue funding opportunities in high profile line with Ribble Valley’s economic • Maximise funding opportunities as appropriate to the needs needs of the area • Maximising opportunities for • Engage with Ribble Valley Local Strategic Partnership further development appropriate steering group to take forward the Ribble Valley Community to needs. Strategy • Work towards developing a higher wage economy. Business Support To work in partnership • A confusing network of agencies • Enhance co-ordination of business advice and support and Development at local, sub-regional supporting businesses services in Ribble Valley and regional level to • Lack of awareness of the • Promote a sustainable approach to business development in provide the best activities of some agencies Ribble Valley possible support for • Inward Investment competition in • Increase the profile of business support and advice services existing and new other areas. through improved promotion throughout the area using businesses in the • High growth potential around A59 appropriate media Ribble Valley corridor • Monitor incentives and schemes of support and assistance • Opportunity to develop social and (including financial support) to businesses in Ribble Valley community enterprise • Seek measures towards accommodating appropriate and • Opportunity for expansion in key potential inward investment to the area. growth sectors such as tourism, food and drink, creative and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 32 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Theme Strategic Objective Main Issues Identified Priority Aims and Objectives cultural industries, digital industries, financial and professional services, sport and textiles. Infrastructure and To strive for a high • Poor internal transport systems in • Promote external transport networks e.g. regional, national Communications quality, modern and some areas links and encourage potential enhancement schemes to integrated • Good external transport networks support this infrastructure, within half hour-hour drive • Encourage the improvement of local transport provision maintaining and • ICT offers opportunity to attract • Seek improvements to ICT and broadband access across improving the public quality businesses the whole community realm, appropriate and • ICT communications and • Identify demand for business accommodation and sites affordable housing, broadband access needs across Ribble Valley transport infrastructure addressing • and technology for the Develop and redevelop, through appropriate programmes, • benefit of Ribble Valley Inadequate supply of appropriate key employment sites and premises in major service business, residents and business accommodation centres, including the stimulation and investment in tourism visitors without • Certain growth can be projects. compromising the constrained by the planning quality of the existing regime natural and built • Lack of availability of employment environment land for new and future investment. Image, Marketing To constantly and • Need to raise the profile of Ribble • Raise awareness of the importance of economic and Promotion consistently raise the Valley, sub-regionally, regionally development and tourism to the local economy profile and perceptions and nationally • Continue to strengthen our work with tourism and economic of Ribble Valley, • Low awareness of economic development partners to raise the profile of Ribble Valley strengthening development and business awareness of the support services benefits of the area in terms of quality of life as a place to live, visit, work and do business Employment and Encourage and develop • Lack of data to clearly identify • Identify employer and employee skills needs Skills educational attainment training and development issues • Supporting partnership working to provide solutions to skills and a skilled labour facing Ribble Valley employers issues identified market in Ribble Valley • The need to undertake research • Ensure that learning opportunities are addressing the needs for the benefit of into skil ls gaps and skills needs of Ribble Valley businesses
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 33 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Theme Strategic Objective Main Issues Identified Priority Aims and Objectives existing and new into skills gaps and skills needs of Ribble Valley businesses employers • Lack of skills identified in growth • To provide learning opportunities as locally as possible sectors such as culture and • To encourage the development of a comprehensive creative industries, leisure and vocational learning centre in Ribble Valley sport • Promote and develop learning activities that support lifelong • Lack of career development learning opportunities • Seek measures to encourage the knowledge economy in • Lack of training opportunities in Ribble Valley outlying areas of Ribble Valley • Decline in workforce development by employers Source: Ribble Valley Borough Council, 2009
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 34 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Employment Land Position Statement – Ribble Valley Borough Council (2011) 2.52 This document provides an update on the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study. It sets out and analysis of future employment land requirements, to 2020, based on past land take-up rates.
2.53 The period 2008-2010 saw completions on 1.776 ha of employment land (excluding development in BAE Samlesbury) or 0.88 ha per year (rounded to 0.9 ha per year). Extending that figure over 10 years (to 9 ha), then adding a 5-year buffer, as applied in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study, gives a ten year land need of 13.5 ha .
2.54 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study identified that Ribble Valley had a readily available employment land supply of 12.52 ha. Between 2008 and 2010, completions have taken place on three sites: • New Close Properties, Barrow Brook (housing) – 2.74 ha • Salesbury Hall Farm (employment) – 0.13 ha • Total Foods, Barrow Brook (employment) – 0.86 ha
2.55 Removing these completions (which total 3.73 ha) gives an updated supply of 8.79 ha. Including outstanding planning permissions (which total 1.74 ha) gives a total land supply of 10.54 ha. As Table 8 shows, subtracting that supply from the projected need (13.50 ha) indicates that there is a land supply shortfall of 2.96 ha.
Table 8 – Employment Land Supply 2010 – 2020 Supply Calculation 2010 Area (ha) Overall Need (at 0.9 ha/yr plus 5 year buffer) 13.50 Remaining Supply 8.80 Existing Permissions (for employment uses) 1.74 Sub total (13.5 – 10.54 (8.8 + 1.74.)) 2.96 Losses to be made good (2008 – 2010) 2.60 Total Additional Requirement 5.56 (6 rounded) Source: Ribble Valley Borough Council, 2011
2.56 However, the period 2008-2010 also saw 2.60 ha of employment land lost to non- employment uses. Thus the total additional requirement (as shown in Table 8) is 5.56 ha (rounded to 6 ha).
2.57 This additional land need will be met in, and around, the Borough’s existing major
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 35 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
employment locations (notably Barrow Brook). There are few opportunities to deliver additional large employment allocations in Ribble Valley.
2.58 Local property agents, consulted for this research, made several points about the local property market and how they saw it developing over the next two to three years:
Office Market • The local office market is severely limited by the current oversupply of premises in the M65 corridor and the relatively small local demand • The on-going caution over bank lending is constraining freehold demand • The prime location in the Ribble Valley is the A59 corridor, including the area around Samlesbury, which benefits from nearby access to Preston and the M6 • There is limited demand in the wider rural area. Occasional high quality development, such as at Salesbury, could work but that particular development has probably soaked up all current demand for that type of development in more rural locations • There maybe a market for small offices in the local towns, notably for businesses making the transition from homeworking. However, some agents felt that the market for ‘over the shop’ offices was not healthy.
Industrial Market • There is demand for accessible, (ideally) freehold, light industrial units of less than 3,000 sqm • Units at Salthill, brought up to a modern specification, would fit this market • An extension to Salthill/Link 59, with premises to modern specifications, would also meet needs, as would the development of light industrial uses at Barrow Brook.
Ribble Valley Sustainable Community Strategy 2007-2013 – Ribble Valley Strategic Partnership (2008) 2.59 The purpose of the Sustainable Community Strategy is to: • “Support our Communities in articulating their hopes, needs and priorities • Co-ordinate the actions of all public, private, voluntary, community (including the faith sector) organisations operating locally • Focus and shape existing and future activity of those organisations to meet community needs and aspirations
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 36 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Contribute to local and wider sustainable development • Give clear prioritised targets for Ribble Valley Strategic Partnership members to achieve • Create a working document directing service and budget planning of partner organisations • Help the local authorities prepare their land-use plans • Emphasise those priorities and actions that rely on efficient partnership working for their achievement.”
2.60 The vision of the Community Strategy is to create, in Ribble Valley: “An area with an exceptional environment and quality of life for all, sustained by vital and vibrant market towns and villages acting as thriving service centres, meeting the needs of residents, businesses and visitors”.
2.61 The actions of the Strategy are listed under three headings – People, Places and Prosperity. Under the ‘Prosperity’ heading, Key Priorities include the need to: “ensure that there are opportunities for businesses to survive and flourish.” Relevant Strategic Objectives and Key Actions under the Prosperity heading are shown in Table 9.
Table 9 – Ribble Valley Sustainable Community Strategy – ‘Prosperity’ Theme Policy Summary
Strategic Objective Action(s) Diversify the economy by Increase number of new high growth business encouraging and supporting a starts and the survival rates of new and existing broader range of business sectors businesses through the provision of appropriate and support existing businesses to business advice and support in Ribble Valley linked provide a basis for diversification to the BSSP agenda Take all appropriate steps to ensure the availability of a locally accessible business support service for rural enterprises Encourage young people to be more Undertake research into youth enterprise initiatives enterprising and develop business specifically looking at the 14-30 age and improve opportunities career opportunities and the take up of those opportunities Ensure that there is a supply of Identify suitable business workspace and suitable employment sites employment sites through the production of the Local Development Framework and consider all methods by which designated employment land can be implemented Improve the competitiveness and Launch a campaign to ‘think and act Ribble Valley’ productivity of local businesses by promoting local produce and local
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 37 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Strategic Objective Action(s) promoting local produce and local employment opportunities
Explore opportunities to further Undertake a strategic review of the economic develop Ribble Valley’s Business development potential based on the A59 corridor base
Source: Ribble Valley Strategic Partnership, 2008
Clitheroe Town Centre Masterplan – Ribble Valley Borough Council/Lancashire County Council/Ribble Valley Strategic Partnership (2010) 2.62 This masterplan aims to set out a strategy for the future of Clitheroe Town Centre, together with development principles for the Market Square area. The masterplan vision is to make Clitheroe “a place of many places” and to achieve this, a number of goals are set, namely to make the town: • “Recognised as one of the most diverse places in the Ribble Valley • Distinct, independent, refined and well known for food, shopping and events vibrant, offering a choice of places to shop, visit, stay, live and work • Alive with culture and heritage • For all seasons with events, festivals and celebrations throughout the year • Connected to and provides for its community • Connected by streets and squares that are easily understood and explored • Connected to its region and landscape • Confident, a place to invest with a clear delivery strategy • Well managed by its civic, business and residential communities.”
2.63 The masterplan identifies four ‘catalyst projects’ for change in the town: • Town Team • Castle Street and Clitheroe Market • Moor Lane and Lowergate • Market Place and Wellgate.
2.64 In the Market Place and Wellgate, the masterplan proposes the reuse and conversion of vacant/derelict buildings and the development of vacant sites. New business, leisure and residential uses will be promoted through the conversion of existing uses and on infill sites.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 38 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
The Lancashire Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Enterprise Zone (Samlesbury) Local Development Order No.1 – Lancashire County Council (2012) 2.65 In the 2011 Budget Government announced that it would establish 21 new Enterprise Zones (EZ) in Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) areas in order to improve local economies and increase contribution to national growth. The first 11 LEPs to benefit from the EZs were named in the Budget. For the second wave, LEPs were asked to submit bids.
2.66 Lancashire Enterprise Partnership Ltd submitted a bid to develop the Lancashire Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing (AEM) Enterprise Zone, with BAE Systems as the lead private sector partner. In the Government’s Autumn 2011 Financial Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer granted Enterprise Zone status to the BAE Systems Samlesbury and Warton sites.
2.67 The Enterprise Zone will create 1,200 jobs in the short/medium term and 4,000 to 6,000 jobs in the long term (across both the Samlesbury and Warton sites). It aims to attract inward investment opportunities, into Lancashire, in the advanced engineering and manufacturing sector. It will not displace existing companies that are already located in Lancashire.
2.68 The Lancashire Enterprise Partnership (LEP) will manage and co-ordinate activities in the Enterprise Zone through an Enterprise Zone Governing Body. In association with BAE Systems as the landowner, it will assess each proposed development to ensure that the displacement of existing Lancashire companies does not occur and that any development is genuine growth. Activity will focus on international inward investment.
2.69 The Lancashire Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Enterprise Zone (Samlesbury ) Local Development Order (LDO) is part of a phased approach to the development of the Samlesbury element of the Enterprise Zone. The LDO covers 16 ha of land, most of which is within Ribble Valley portion of the Samlesbury facility, that will be the focus for new development associated with the Enterprise Zone.
2.70 The purpose of the LDO is to authorise the development of Class B uses in the
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 39 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Enterprise Zone, where that development will provide accommodation to advanced engineering and manufacturing businesses in the following sectors:. • Advanced flexible materials • Aerospace • Computing, systems engineering and autonomous systems • General Aviation Services • High-end automotive including motorsport, electric/alternative energy vehicles, • Nuclear • Renewable Energy.
2.71 Delivery of a (D1 use class) Regional Skills Academy at Samlesbury is also authorised by the LDO.
2.72 Development for occupiers falling within the above industry sectors is automatically within the scope of the LDO and will not require full planning permission to bring forward (although other statutory requirements, including assessments of highways and ecological impacts will still be needed). Development outside the scope of the LDO will require the submission of a standard planning application. However, proposals to provide space for advanced engineering or manufacturing businesses which fall outside of the above sectors, or for complementary uses, would (subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and LEP) potentially also be acceptable.
2.73 The LDO will be active for three years (with options to renew after that time) and will be augmented by a masterplan (currently under preparation) that will place this LDO within a strategic context and establish long-term strategic objectives.
Parish Plans and Town Action Plans 2.74 Only two local parish councils have produced full parish plans (Read and Grindleton) while the Longridge Partnership and Whalley Parish Council/Whalley Chamber of Trade have (with the assistance of the Borough Council) produced Action Plans for those towns. At the time of writing, Simonstone is also in the process of producing a parish plan.
2.75 As Table 10 shows, these studies make little reference to supply or demand for
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 40 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
B1/B2/B8 uses. However, the Longridge Action Plan suggests support for additional employment premises, specifically an extension to Shay Lane Industrial Estate. Within that town, the Longridge Business Group is working to promote and represent local businesses through a variety of methods.
Table 10 – Parish/Town Plan Employment Issues
Parish Plan Employment Comment Comment - Yes / No Grindleton Y In a survey of 180 households, some demand for (2008) business start-up advice was noted. The Parish Action Plan (2008) sought to help young people who seek paid work like baby sitting, dog walking, etc. The aspirations of such individuals are to be promoted through use of the Parish website and magazine. Read (2012) N - Longridge Y Action 2: Support Extension of Shay Lane Industrial Action Plan Estate (2010) Action 18: To continue to promote Longridge as a centre to do business Action 26: Support the development of the Civic Hall Site.
Within the town, the Longridge Business Group has 52 local members. Its stated goals are to: • Promote Longridge as a retail, business and leisure destination to consumers and other businesses in the North West • Ensure the trading environment in the town is conducive to the success of businesses and encourage the establishment of other businesses in the town • Act as the interface between Longridge businesses and other stakeholders in the town • Influence statutory bodies to the extent that Longridge businesses will be represented at the appropriate level and aid in developing the potential of Longridge environmentally, socially and economically • Communicate with all businesses in the town on matters of relevance, quickly and effectively.
The Business Group has assisted around 20 businesses to advertise themselves in the trade magazine Home Handbook, which is distributed to 6,000 homes around the area. Businesses, vacancies and available commercial premises are also advertised on the Business Group website. The Group also helps to organise and publicise events which attract visitors to the town (such as the new Winter Festival) and represents lo cal businesses in engaging with organisations such as
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 41 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Parish Plan Employment Comment Comment - Yes / No the Borough Council. Economic Y Theme 3 of the Plan (Business Support, Development & Action Plan for Investment) has the following Actions/Activities: Whalley (2010) • Significantly improve Broadband to Businesses • Provide a business support information point at Whalley Library and provide a direct Business Link website linkage to the Chamber of Trade Website Source: BE Group 2013
Summary 2.76 It is a responsibility of local government to support and encourage economic growth. This includes the provision, initially through planning policy, of sufficient employment land and premises. This must be of the right scale, type and location, be readily available for development and be well related to the strategic or local highway network according to the nature of the site and the function of the settlement. One of the most important issues to consider is that the land must be allocated in sustainable locations and be readily capable of development. The employment land portfolio needs to be balanced and to adequately cater to all sectors of the economy, i.e. small and large businesses, offices and industrial, high and low quality operations.
2.77 Strategies prioritise development into the main settlements of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley. Encouraging sustainable communities is supported, particularly in a range of rural centres such as Dunsop Bridge and Ribchester.
2.78 The emerging Core Strategy seeks to promote strategic employment opportunities at the Barrow Enterprise Site and Samlesbury Enterprise Zone. A further strategic development site is also proposed at Standen, to the south east of Clitheroe. Acceptable uses at Standen could include B1 employment. Overall, a further 9 ha of employment land will be allocated over the plan period (to 2028).
2.79 The Council’s 2011 Employment Land Position Statement, which updates the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study, suggests that, a further 5.56 ha of employment will be required over the 2010-2020 period. This additional land need will be met in, and around, the Borough’s major employment locations (notably Barrow Brook). There are few opportunities to deliver additional large employment allocations in Ribble Valley.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 42 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
2.80 Around 16 ha of the BAE Systems site at Samlesbury is now an Enterprise Zone; along with land at its sister facility in Warton. The Enterprise Zone could create 6,000 new jobs in the long term. A Local Development Order is now in place which authorises development that will provide accommodation to advanced engineering and manufacturing businesses in eight key sectors. An education and skills facility ( Regional Skills Academy) is also allowed.
2.81 There is little focus on B1/B2/B8 uses in the parish plans or town action plans. Instead the focus is on promoting existing companies. Only the Longridge Action Plan suggests support for additional employment premises, specifically an extension to Shay Lane Industrial Estate.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 43 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
3.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
Introduction 3.1 It is important to understand the nature of the economy in Ribble Valley in order to provide suitable employment opportunities to facilitate sustainable growth. For example there is a need to try and provide employment land close to existing concentrations of businesses, in regeneration areas or in areas where companies want to locate.
3.2 This section, therefore, considers the size of the economy, where the businesses are, and what type of businesses they are. By appreciating these aspects it is easier to facilitate economic development by allocating land and premises in the correct locations and of the right type. The profile is a result of secondary research, drawing together a number of existing data sources. It also uses demographic data to build the picture, given that there are no readily available answers to some of the key questions included within this section.
Demographic Assessment 3.3 The population of the Ribble Valley, as of the 2011 Census, was 57,132 residents, which was 3.9 percent of the Lancashire total (1,460,893). Comparison with the 2001 Census indicates that the Borough’s population increased by 5.6 percent (from 53,960) over that 10 year period. This is above the county (3.3 percent) and regional (4.8 percent) growth rates, over the same period, but well below the national growth rate (7.8 percent).
3.4 The Census also showed that, as of March 2011, 66.9 percent of Ribble Valley’s economically active population was in employment. This was higher than the North West (59.6 percent) and national (62.1 percent) averages. At 2.1 percent, local unemployment was less than half the regional (4.7 percent) and national (4.4 percent) averages. A county wide unemployment figure is not available from the 2011 Census.
3.5 Deprivation is not a significant issue in Ribble Valley. The Lancashire County Economic Assessment (2011) indicates that the Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) of Ribble Valley Borough had an average rank of 285 in 2010. This places Ribble Valley in the top 20 percent least deprived local authority areas in England and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 44 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
makes the Borough the least deprived in Lancashire. In comparison, neighbouring Burnley is the 21 st most deprived local authority area in England.
3.6 Deprivation in Ribble Valley has grown slightly worse since 2007, when the Borough was ranked 296 th in England (a drop of 11 places). This reflects similar decreases in most other Lancashire local authorities, during the recession. Across the county the changes range from a drop of three places in West Lancashire to a drop of 35 places in Chorley. Only three local authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, Rossendale and Wyre) improved their ranking between 2007 and 2010, and only by one to five places.
3.7 Table 11 shows that the working age population of Ribble Valley is highly qualified. The proportion of working age residents qualified to NVQ Level 4 and above (equivalent to degree level), is well above county, regional and national levels. Conversely, the proportion of residents with no qualifications (18.3 percent) is low when compared that of Lancashire, the North West and England.
Table 11 – Qualifications (2011), Percent
Level NVQ4 NVQ3 NVQ2 NVQ1 Other No and and and and qualifications qualifications above above above above Ribble Valley 34.0 46.5 66.8 77.9 3.7 18.3 Lancashire 23.6 36.8 57.1 70.7 4.7 24.8 North West 24.4 37.3 57.0 70.6 4.5 24.8 England 27.4 39.4 58.6 71.9 5.7 22.5 Source: 2011 Census
Employment by Occupation 3.8 Table 12 illustrates the breakdown of employment by main occupation group. Ribble Valley has a significantly higher proportion of people employed as managers, directors and senior officials and in professional occupations than is the case elsewhere. The proportion employed in skilled trade occupations is also above wider averages.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 45 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 12 – Employment by Main Occupation Group, Percent
Socio-Economic Class Ribble Lancashire North England Valley West Managers, Directors and 13.8 9.9 9.9 10.9 Senior Officials Professional Occupations 20.2 17.2 16.3 17.5 Associate Professional and 11.3 12.3 11.5 12.8 Technical Occupations Administrative and Secretarial 10.3 12.5 11.8 11.5 Occupations Skilled Trades Occupations 14.0 11.2 11.3 11.4 Caring, Leisure and Other 9.6 10.2 10.1 9.3 Service Occupations Sales and Customer Service 5.4 7.7 9.4 8.4 Occupations Process, Plant and Machine 6.3 6.5 8.1 7.2 Operatives Elementary Occupations 9.1 11.6 11.6 11.1 Source: 2011 Census, ONS Annual Population Survey 2011
3.9 Conversely, Ribble Valley has a smaller proportion of people employed in low level roles such as sales and customer service or elementary occupations. Differences in
how this Census data is collected mean that the proportions shown in Table 13 cannot be compared with the 2006-2007 employment data (derived from the 2007 Annual Population Survey) included in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study.
3.10 The 2011 Census also provides details of the number of jobs within differing industry sectors within a local authority area. In the 2008 study, economic activity was measured using Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) data. As data for ABI and the Census is collected using different survey methods, again it is not possible to compare the present breakdown of economic activity with the position in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study.
3.11 Table 13 shows that the largest employment sector in Ribble Valley is wholesale and retail trade (and repair of motor vehicles), which accounts for 15.1 percent of jobs. The public sector, notably education, human health and social work activities, is also a large employer in the Borough. Almost a third of all jobs are in sectors which will be dominated by public organisations. However, this is in line with Lancashire and North West averages.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 46 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 13 – Economic Activity
Employment Structure, proportion of jobs, percent Ribble North England Lancashire Valley West Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 Mining and Quarrying 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Manufacturing 13.1 12.2 10.3 8.8 Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 Conditioning Supply Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 Activities Construction 7.9 7.5 7.4 7.7 Wholesale and Retail Trade, 15.1 16.6 16.7 15.9 Repair of Motor Vehicles Transport and Storage 2.6 4.3 5.0 5.0 Accommodation and Food Service 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.6 Activities Information and Communication 2.2 2.5 2.9 4.1 Finance and Insurance Activities 2.4 2.6 3.5 4.4 Real Estate Activities 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.5 Professional, Scientific and 6.1 4.5 5.6 6.7 Technical Activities Administrative and Support Service 3.1 4.3 4.9 4.9 Activities Public Administration, Defence and 5.5 7.2 6.0 5.9 Social Security Education 12.4 10.2 9.7 9.9 Human Health and Social Work 13.6 14.2 13.9 12.4 Activities Other 4.5 4.4 4.6 5.0 Source: 2011 Census
3.12 The manufacturing sector also employs a high proportion of local people in Ribble Valley. It accounts for 13.1 percent of jobs, above county, regional and national averages. Manufacturing employment in Ribble Valley is boosted by the presence of several large employers, notably BAE Systems, Samlesbury (although the bulk of that facility is in neighbouring South Ribble Borough).
3.13 Transport and storage has only a modest role in Ribble Valley. Only 2.6 percent of the Borough’s workforce is employed in this sector, compared to county, regional and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 47 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
national averages of 4.3-5.0 percent. Administrative and support service activities also have a limited presence in Ribble Valley when compared to wider averages.
3.14 Unsurprisingly, given Ribble Valley’s rural character, the Borough supports a strong agricultural sector. Agriculture, forestry and fishing employ 2.9 percent of the Borough’s population, compared to only 0.7 across the North West and 0.8 percent nationally. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs June 2010 Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture (latest available data at the local authority level) indicates that in that year there were 626 agricultural holdings in Ribble Valley, farming 47,853 ha of land (82 percent of the total land of the Borough). Almost all of that land (97 percent) was used as grassland to support livestock. Together these farms employed 1,408 people, including 1,079 full and part-time farmers, 233 full and part-time workers, 17 salaried managers and 79 casual workers.
Numbers and Sizes of Businesses 3.15 ONS data identifies that there were 3,260 VAT registered businesses operating in the Borough (see Table 14) in 2011. This compares to 2,720 in 2007, the figure used in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study. Thus some 540 businesses were either created in Ribble Valley, or relocated into the Borough, over that four year period.
3.16 83 percent of businesses in England employ less than ten people (micro businesses), and overall 96.6 percent of all businesses are classified as small (up to 49 employees). The proportion of small and micro businesses in Ribble Valley is slightly above regional and national averages (but follows the Lancashire average). As Table 14 shows, 97.9 percent of businesses in the Borough employ less than 50
employees, while the proportion employing less than ten is 88.8 percent.
Table 14 – Business Sizes, Percent
Area Number of Employees 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ Ribble Valley 75.8 13.0 5.7 3.4 1.4 0.5 0.3
Lancashire 74.5 13.7 6.3 3.4 1.1 0.6 0.4
North West 65.8 15.5 8.7 6.2 2.2 1.1 0.5
England 68.5 14.5 8.1 5.5 2.0 1.0 0.5 Source: ONS 2011
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 48 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
3.17 The total number of VAT registered businesses can be broken down further by industry sector. Table 15 again emphasises the strength of agriculture in Ribble Valley. 16.1 percent of the Borough’s active businesses are in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, more than double county and regional averages and more than triple the national average.
Table 15 – VAT Registered Businesses by Sector, Percent
Sector Ribble Lancashire North West England Valley Agriculture, Forestry and 16.1 7.8 5.4 4.4 Fishing Production 6.1 7.8 7.1 5.8 Construction 10.4 12.7 12.1 10.7 Motor Trades 3.4 4.3 3.6 3.0 Wholesale 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.0 Retail 10.6 10.8 10.3 11.0 Transport and Storage 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.2 Accommodation and Food 6.7 6.2 6.5 6.2 Services Information and 2.9 4.3 5.3 6.6 Communication Finance and Insurance 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.7 Property 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 Professional, Scientific and 12.3 12.2 15.0 14.3 Technical Business Administration and 6.0 6.6 6.7 7.2 Support Services Public Administration, 6.9 6.0 6.1 9.2 Defence, Education and Health Arts, Entertainment, 5.5 6.6 6.7 7.1 Recreation and Other Services Source: ONS 2011
3.18 The second largest business sector is professional, scientific and technical, which accounts for 12.3 percent of VAT registered businesses (equal to the Lancashire average of 12.2 percent, but below regional and national averages of 14-15 percent). The construction, retail and public administration, defence, education and health sectors are also strong, although the proportions of these in Ribble Valley are below (most) wider averages.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 49 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
3.19 In comparison, the proportions of motor trade; finance; arts, entertainment, recreation and other services and, most notably, insurance information and communication businesses in the Borough are generally lower than elsewhere.
Geographic Location 3.20 Table 16 shows the distribution of office and industrial premises (hereditaments identified by the Valuation Office for the purposes of business rates collection). The spatial distribution can be analysed by Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs). Ribble Valley comprises eight such MSOAs. The most recent Valuation Office data available at the MSOA level is only for 2008 (only one year later than the data used in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study), which pre-dates the recession.
3.21 Table 16 shows that the number of industrial units in Ribble Valley is more than double the number of offices. The bulk of the business space is located in the south of the Borough, near to the boundary with Burnley and Hyndburn local authorities (including Time Technology Park, Simonstone), and in North and East Clitheroe (Link 59, Primrose Industrial Estate and Salthill Industrial Estate).
3.22 There are far fewer properties in the western part of the Borough. Only 9.7 percent of the units and 4.9 percent of the floorspace are here. The north east part of the Borough is also poorly represented with just 11.1 percent of the units and 4.2 percent of the floorspace.
Table 16 – Valuation Office Hereditaments
Area Number of Units Number of (Floorspace, sqm) People Homeworking, Factories/ Office 2011 Warehouses North Eastern SOA 001 (Slaidburn, Bolton by 61 29 613 Bowland, Gisburn, Waddington, (15,000) (2,000) Newton, Bashall Eaves, Hurst
Green) Central SOA 002 (North and East 156 69 177 Clitheroe) (182,000) (11,000)
SOA 003 (South and West 47 39 140 Clitheroe) (38,000) (4,000)
203 108 317
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 50 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Area Number of Units Number of (Floorspace, sqm) People Homeworking, Factories/ Office 2011 Warehouses Sub-Total (220,000) (15,000) Western SOA 004 (Dunsop Bridge, 50 19 278 Chipping, Hesketh, Knowle (19,000) (1,000) Green, Ribchester) Southern SOA 005 (Chatburn, Downham, 89 - 276 Sabden, Simonstone, Barrow, (46,000) Wisewell, Worston)
86 33 128 SOA 006 (Longridge) (52,000) (3,000)
SOA 007 (Billington, Whalley, 58 39 303 Grant Mitton) (19,000) (4,000)
SOA 008 (Balderstone, Samlesbury, Mellor) 33 - 367 (9,000)
Sub-Total 266 72 1,074 (126,000) (7,000) Total 580 228 2,282 (380,000) (25,000) Source: ONS Commercial and Industrial Floorspace 2008 Census 2011
Homeworking 3.23 In Ribble Valley, homeworking accounted for 14.6 percent of the working age population in employment in 2011 (increased from 12.7 percent in 2001). This is above the average homeworking levels for Lancashire (10.2 percent), the North West (9.4 percent) and England (10.6 percent). High proportions of people work from home in the rural north east of the Borough.
Commuting Patterns 3.24 Details on contemporary commuting patterns, obtained through the 2011 Census have yet to be published. Until they are, the most up to date commuting data is available from the 2001 Census. Table 17 analyses 2001 Census data on commuting.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 51 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 17 – Travel to Work Flows – Ribble Valley, 2001
Destination/Origin Ribble Valley Ribble Valley Net Inflow/(Outflow) Inflow Outflow Blackburn 1,810 3,385 (1,575) Blackpool 183 174 9 Burnley 1,011 1,066 (55) Chorley 466 201 265 Fylde 272 325 (53) Hyndburn 1,588 1,629 (41) Lancaster 195 168 27 Pendle 783 516 267 Preston 1,630 2,271 (641) Ribble Valley 13,980 13,980 - Rossendale 150 186 (36) South Ribble 1,044 517 527 West Lancashire 96 30 66 Wyre 288 228 60 Manchester City Region 622 3,996 (3,040) Liverpool City Region 84 201 (117) Total 24,202 28,873 (4,671) Source: Census 2001
3.25 In 2001, the Borough was a net exporter of labour at a level of some 4,671 workers. Table 17 shows, as might be expected because of their proximity, that there are strong commuting flows between Ribble Valley and Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn and Preston. The Borough also has a role as a supplier of labour to employment centres in the Manchester City Region. Trips from Ribble Valley to Greater Manchester account for almost two thirds of the net outflow.
3.26 The largest net inflow is from South Ribble. However, it is not clear if this includes commuting to the BAE Systems facility in Samlesbury, the bulk of which is in South Ribble Borough.
3.27 In 2001, 56.7 percent of Ribble Valley’s employed residents also worked in the Borough. As Table 18 shows, this is a low rate of self containment when compared to other Lancashire local authority areas. Only in South Ribble, Fylde and Preston do a lower proportion of employed residents both live and work in the area.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 52 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 18 – Percentage of Labour Retained, 2001
Authority Percentage of Indigenous Employment, percent
Lancaster 86.8 Pendle 72.5 Wyre 70.7 Blackpool 69.7 Rossendale 67.7 Chorley 65.7 Burnley 65.0 Blackburn 63.4 West Lancashire 62.3 Hyndburn 60.0 Ribble Valley 56.7 South Ribble 53.5 Fylde 49.8 Preston 48.3 Source: Census 2001
3.28 National experience is that commuting patterns differ between occupational groups. For example lower grade jobs tend to be filled by more local workers who travel less than 2 miles to the place of business. Higher grade workers are generally prepared to travel further (an average of 6 to 12.5 miles) and for up to an hour or more. Therefore out-commuting is more common among professionals and skilled workers.
Earnings 3.29 Table 19 shows that the average earnings of people living and working in Ribble Valley are above county, regional (and national levels when measured by place of residence). Indeed average weekly pay is higher in Ribble Valley than in any other local authority in Lancashire. It is notably higher than rates elsewhere in Pennine Lancashire.
Table 19 – Average Weekly Earnings
Area Gross Median Weekly Pay, £ Gross Median Weekly Pay, £ (Analysis by place of work) (Analysis by place of residence) Burnley 374.6 367.3 Chorley 355.7 410.9 Fylde 379.1 405.8
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 53 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Area Gross Median Weekly Pay, £ Gross Median Weekly Pay, £ (Analysis by place of work) (Analysis by place of residence) Hyndburn 350.2 336.4 Lancaster 356.2 364.7 Pendle 363.1 362.4 Preston 370.3 331.6 Ribble Valley 408.0 440.2 Rossendale 324.3 378.7 South Ribble 368.8 373.4 West Lancashire 368.3 425.7 Wyre 343.6 355.9 Lancashire 365.1 372.1 Blackburn with Darwen 351.4 317.2 Blackpool 318.8 314.4 North West 378.0 378.0 England 412.0 412.1 Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2012
Summary 3.30 Ribble Valley has a population of 57,132 people, comprising an economically active and skilled workforce. This is evidenced by the high proportions of people who work in professional occupations in the Borough, compared to the rest of Lancashire and the North West. It is also an affluent location, the least deprived local authority area in Lancashire.
3.31 The retail/wholesale and public sectors employ high proportions of people in Ribble Valley, although the levels of employment in these sectors do not generally exceed wider averages. The local manufacturing sector is also strong, accounting for 13.1 percent of jobs, above county, regional and national averages. However, much of this will be accounted for by employment at BAE Systems, Samlesbury.
3.32 Ribble Valley has a strong agricultural sector. In 2010, there were some 626 local farms employing 1,408 people. 82 percent of the total land area of the Borough is given over to farming.
3.33 Most of Ribble Valley’s businesses employ less than ten employees (88.8 percent). Local employment premises are focused in the south of the Borough, near to the
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 54 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
boundary with Burnley and Hyndburn local authorities (including Time Technology Park, Simonstone), and in North and East Clitheroe (Link 59, Primrose Industrial Estate and Salthill Industrial Estate).
3.34 In 2011, homeworking in Ribble Valley accounted for 14.6 percent of the working age population, greater than homeworking levels across Lancashire (10.2 percent), the North West (9.4 percent) and England (10.6 percent). High proportions of people work from home in the rural north east of the Borough.
3.35 In terms of commuting, the population of Ribble Valley is relatively mobile. In 2001 (the most recent published data), only 56.7 percent of the population both lived and worked in the Borough and Ribble Valley is a net exporter of labour. There are strong commuting flows between the Ribble Valley and Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn and Preston. The Borough also has a role as a supplier of labour to employment Centres in the Manchester City Region.
3.36 The average earnings of people both living and working in Ribble Valley are higher than elsewhere in Lancashire, and notably higher than elsewhere in Pennine Lancashire.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 55 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
4.0 PROPERTY MARKET – GENERAL
Introduction 4.1 Prior to analysing the study area’s property market by the individual components of sites, industrial and offices – commentary is provided about the study area as a whole. This comprises a review of the supply of premises along with information on general national property and business trends. It is important to understand the supply and demand for property, as this is the key driver affecting the market for employment land.
Property Supply 4.2 A schedule of the vacant floorspace being marketed in the study area (as at March 2013) has been compiled mainly from physical survey, a trawl of commercial property agents’ websites and consultations with agents. The marketed space is taken to be a reasonably close approximation to that which is vacant – although there may be occupiers waiting for interest in their property before moving, and empty units not actually being marketed. The schedules for industrial (including warehouses and workshops) and offices have been included in Appendix 2.
Industrial 4.3 Table 20 shows that there is 25,959 sqm of marketed industrial floorspace, made up of 37 properties, in Ribble Valley. This is a reduction of around a quarter on the amount of floorspace that was available in 2008 (35,088 sqm, made up of 31 properties). However, it should also be noted that the vacant premises schedule of the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study included one large (8,128 sqm) unit at Time Technology Park and a number of mid-sized units at Link 59 in Clitheroe. These are no longer on the market. At present there is only one large (5,000 sqm plus) unit available – Unit 3, Time Technology Park, Blackburn Road, Simonstone (6,875 sqm).
4.4 As was the case in 2008, the overwhelming majority of available properties are at Time Technology Park, Simonstone (which has 57 percent of the available units and 80 percent of the available floorspace) or Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe (30 percent of the available units and 15 percent of the available floorspace). There is only one unit on the market in Longridge and one in the rural parts of the Borough (at Chatburn). There is no availability in Whalley. This is not significantly different from the position in 2008.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 56 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 20 – Amount of Marketed Industrial Property
Area Size Band, sqm Total 0- 101- 201- 501- 1001- 2,001- 5,001+ 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 Simonstone Floorspace, 488 104 1,909 731 1,672 9,012 6,875 20,791 (Time sqm Technology Number of Park) 9 1 5 1 1 3 1 21 Properties Clitheroe Floorspace, - 356 2,098 1,487 - - - 3,941 (Salthill sqm Industrial Number of Estate) - 2 7 2 - - - 11 Properties Clitheroe Floorspace, - - - 511 - - - 511 (Link 59) sqm Number of - - - 1 - - - 1 Properties Elsewhere Floorspace, - 264 - - - - - 264 in Clitheroe sqm Number of - 2 - - - - - 2 Properties Longridge Floorspace, 97 ------97 sqm Number of 1 ------1 Properties Elsewhere Floorspace, - - 355 - - - - 355 in Ribble sqm Valley Number of - - 1 - - - - 1 Properties Total Floorspace, 585 724 4,362 2,729 1,672 9,012 6,875 25,959 sqm Number of 10 5 13 4 1 3 1 37 Properties Source: BE Group 2013
4.5 Small (0-100 sqm) workshops and larger units (greater than 1,001 sqm in size) are only readily available at Time Technology Park. Apart from one small unit in Longridge, other schemes only offer mid-sized properties of 101-1,000 sqm. Overall, the greatest availability is in the 201-500 sqm category.
4.6 Table 21 shows that the majority of marketed industrial space in Ribble Valley is of moderate quality. The quality appraisal comes from an external inspection only and considers building condition, style, specification, servicing areas, eaves height and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 57 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
rental level. Good quality premises only are available in Clitheroe, primarily at Hawthorne Industrial Estate (part of Salthill Industrial Estate). There is only one budget option, in Longridge. Again this is not dissimilar from the position in 2008.
Table 21 – Quality of Marketed Industrial Property
Quality Area Good Moderate Budget Simonstone (Time Technology Park) - 21 - Clitheroe (Salthill Industrial Estate) 5 6 - Clitheroe (Link 59) - 1 - Elsewhere in Clitheroe 2 - - Longridge - - 1 Elsewhere in Ribble Valley - 1 - Total 7 29 1 Source: BE Group 2013
4.7 The majority of premises (89 percent) are available leasehold (Table 22), including all marketed space at Time Technology Park. There are three workshops available to let or for sale in Clitheroe, while a 355 sqm industrial unit is for sale at Pendle Trading Estate, Chatburn. This is a different from 2008 when one fifth of the marketed units were exclusively freehold disposals.
Table 22 – Tenure of Marketed Industrial Property
Tenure Area Leasehold Freehold Either Simonstone (Time Technology Park) 21 - - Clitheroe (Salthill Industrial Estate) 8 - 3 Clitheroe (Link 59) 1 - - Elsewhere in Clitheroe 2 - - Longridge 1 - - Elsewhere in Ribble Valley - 1 - Total 33 1 3 Source: BE Group 2013
Offices 4.8 Table 23 shows that there are 7,055 sqm of marketed offices (51 premises) in Ribble Valley. This more than double the supply in 2008 when only 24 premises (totalling 3,567 sqm) were on the market. The difference reflects greater availability at Time
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 58 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Technology Park, Simonstone (with 25 suites on the market in 2013, compared to 15 in 2008); Salesbury Hall, Ribchester (which was not being marketed in 2008) and a number of other rural schemes.
4.9 82 percent of the premises are of 200 sqm or less, two thirds are of 100 sqm or less. There is only one property larger than 1,000 sqm – Suite 109, Time Technology Park, Blackburn Road, Simonstone (1,129 sqm).
4.10 Again Time Technology Park has the greatest supply with 69 percent of the available floorspace and 49 percent of the available units. This includes all but one of the nine available properties which are greater than 200 sqm in size. However, there are also options in a range of rural settlements, including Brockhall Village, Gisburn and Ribchester. In the case of Ribchester, Salesbury Hall has 12 suites available, in sizes ranging from 26 sqm to 132 sqm.
4.11 In Clitheroe, there are five available suites in the Town Centre (primarily at De Lacy Business Centre, Station Road), three within Salthill Industrial Estate and one at Primrose Studios in the south of the town.
4.12 Generally, the vacant office property offer of Ribble Valley in 2013 is far more extensive and diverse than was the case in 2008. Then 83 percent of the available properties were either in Time Technology Park or Clitheroe Town Centre. Three quarters of the premises were of 100 sqm or less and there were only two offices available that were larger than 500 sqm.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 59 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 23 – Amount of Marketed Office Property
Size Band, sqm Total Area 51- 101- 201- 501- 1001- 0-50 2001+ 100 200 500 1000 2000 Simonstone Floorspace, 327 72 663 1,229 1,479 1,129 - 4,899 (Time sqm Technology Number of Park) 12 1 4 5 2 1 - 25 Properties Clitheroe Floorspace, 101 - 280 - - - - 381 Town sqm Centre Number of 3 - 2 - - - - 5 Properties Clitheroe Floorspace, 16 ------16 (Primrose sqm Studios, Number of Primrose 1 ------1 Road) Properties Clitheroe Floorspace, - 121 - - 616 - - 737 (Salthill sqm Industrial Number of Estate) - 2 - - 1 - - 3 Properties Brockhall Floorspace, - 176 - - - - - 176 Village sqm (Brockhall Number of Business - 2 - - - - - 2 Centre) Properties Barrow Floorspace, 50 ------50 (The sqm Printworks) Number of 1 ------1 Properties Gisburn Floorspace, - - 174 - - - - 174 (Gisburn sqm Business Number of Park) - - 1 - - - - 1 Properties Longridge Floorspace, 34 ------34 (The sqm Business Centre, Number of 1 ------1 Stanley Properties Street) Ribchester Floorspace, 261 195 132 - - - - 588 (Primarily sqm Salesbury Number of Hall) 8 3 1 - - - - 12 Properties Floorspace, sqm 789 564 1,249 1,229 2,095 1,129 - 7,055 Number of Properties 26 8 8 5 3 1 - 51 Source: BE Group 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 60 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
4.13 The available office space is all of moderate quality and all units are to let. There are no freehold options on the market in Ribble Valley. By comparison, in 2008 there were two buildings available on a freehold basis.
Valuation Office Data
Industrial 4.14 According to the latest Valuation Office (VO) statistics (2008) there are 580 industrial hereditaments in the Borough, totalling 380,000 sqm. Out of all this space there are 37 marketed premises totalling 25,959 sqm (see Table 20 above). This suggests an overall ‘occupancy rate’ for Ribble Valley of 93.2 percent by floorspace. By premises numbers, the ‘occupancy rate’ is 93.6 percent. This compares to occupancy rates of 91.5 percent by floorspace and 94.2 percent by premises numbers in 2008.
Offices 4.15 There are 228 office hereditaments in the study area, totalling 25,000 sqm. Out of all this space there are 51 marketed premises totalling 7,055 sqm (see Table 23 above). This suggests an overall ‘occupancy rate’ for the study area of 71.8 percent by floorspace. By premises numbers the overall ‘occupancy rate’ is 77.6 percent.
4.16 These are far lower occupancy rates than in 2008, when occupancy was 87.3 percent by floorspace and 91.5 percent by premises numbers. The explanation for this is that the number of vacant units (and the amount vacant floorspace) has increased between 2008 and 2013, while the total number of hereditaments has (slightly) decreased. The 2007 VO statistics (used in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study) recorded that there were 253 office hereditaments in the study area, totalling 28,000 sqm. It is not clear why there was such a reduction of office accommodation over the 2007-2008 period (with 25 office properties and 3,000 sqm of floorspace lost).
Modern Occupier Needs 4.17 In this sub-section the report outlines what modern businesses are looking for in terms of their property, as well as those developers providing space for them. These are general comments and apply across the UK, as well as in the study area.
4.18 There are two key property sub-markets to consider in understanding the demand for premises. The first is the demand from companies looking for sites for their own
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 61 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
occupation; the second, which is necessarily derived from the first, comes from specialist property developers who will provide solutions for these companies.
4.19 Many end-user companies, especially small ones, looking for accommodation prefer occupying an existing building to either organising the construction of one for themselves or entering into a design and build agreement with a developer. This is due to the management time involved; while it may also be difficult to rationalise and visualise such an important acquisition off-plan.
4.20 Having premises built for owner occupation requires a long lead-time to cover the planning, negotiation and construction time involved. Furthermore not every company wants a brand new building, partly because they are generally more expensive than second-hand ones.
4.21 However the recent combination of low interest rates and the depressed stock market has led to an unusually large number of companies looking to own their premises (although current market conditions have softened this due to the lack of available finance). One route to achieving this is by developing their own site, especially if they cannot find a suitable freehold property. Nationally most requests for such small sites to enable self-build are of less than 0.4 ha in size.
4.22 Although design and build options can be convenient, they are quite expensive because the controlling developer makes its profit not only on the land sale, but also on managing the building process. Consequently if the company is able, some prefer to buy land direct and organise building contractors themselves. This is especially the case with lower value added industries where high quality buildings are of secondary importance. However without strong planning control this scenario can lead to business areas of lower aesthetic value and layout.
4.23 Developers acquiring sites consider the nature of the market, as outlined above, as well as the potential for speculative development, i.e. riskier, supply-led, rather than demand-driven construction. They also prefer to acquire prominent, (easy to develop) greenfield sites close to arterial roads or motorways because irrespective of sustainable transport policies, private transport still predominates. They naturally want land that is attractive to end-users. Furthermore property development is intensely entrepreneurial and extremely price sensitive. So although land may be
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 62 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
available on the open market, if it is at too high a price, then the developer will not acquire it.
Emerging Property Trends
Industrial 4.24 Occupiers are generally looking for smaller premises as average company size continues to decrease. In line with rising aspirations and a concentration on higher value added activities, companies are looking for higher quality accommodation. In rural areas company sizes are generally already small; and the desire for high quality is less of a priority due to affordability issues. Successful industrial businesses typically require dedicated, self-contained, secure yard areas, and for units over 2,000 sqm the trend seems to be at least one dock level loading bay and a 40 metre turning circle to allow heavy goods vehicles access into and out of the unit. Eaves heights are also continuing to rise from an average of six metres to more towards ten metres to allow storage racking and more efficient use of space. For B8 high bay warehousing eaves heights can now be 15 metres to accommodate automatic racking systems. Indeed some are as much as 40 metres high.
4.25 Large requirements, above 10,000 sqm, are comparatively rare, and where they do exist are generally for distribution warehousing. Most of these are contract-led with a flurry of activity as a number of specialist distribution companies look for units, before one of them secures the contract on offer. However these companies generally cannot wait for a bespoke warehouse to be built for them and so, due to the rarity of such large, available buildings their search areas are increasingly wide.
4.26 Freehold demand is relatively strong as a result of low interest rates, poor stock market pension performances and increased private sector interest in property investment. However the lack of available finance is constraining this sub-market currently. This previously resulted in an overheated investment market, rising values, lowering yields and led to property developers being more willing to offer speculative, freehold buildings. However, as a consequence of the recent prolonged recession speculative development has stopped dead across much of the country. It may resume once the effects of the recession recede, but in more rural areas speculative development will never be commonplace.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 63 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
4.27 Outsourcing of many aspects of the production and distribution process has led to a declining need for traditional, large scale, all-encompassing manufacturing facilities. This is gradually being replaced by smaller, sub-assembly light manufacturing space. Shorter leases (five years) and break clauses (three years) are now becoming much more common.
Offices 4.28 For offices the trend is for smaller suites as average business sizes fall. There are two strands to this. Micro-businesses (those with less than ten employees) want serviced offices or similar types of easy-in, easy-out schemes that lower their risk of exposure. Small businesses (with 10-49 employees) are looking for offices in the region of 150-300 sqm. Often they are satellite facilities for larger companies.
4.29 Improving technology means specifications are changing, for example wireless networks may soon make raised floors superfluous and make the conversion of Victorian and other similar buildings easier.
4.30 In line with rising aspirations and a concentration on higher value added activities, successful companies are looking for higher quality accommodation. For example air conditioning is becoming almost a standard requirement in new schemes, which pushes up rentals by £5-10/sqm on average. Furthermore some occupiers (looking for more than 200 sqm) increasingly want self-contained premises, i.e. their own front door, toilets, reception, utilities, etc. There is increasing demand for relatively short leases (one to three years), which helps account for the increasing popularity of serviced offices.
4.31 Prior to the credit crunch, freehold demand was strong as a result of low interest rates, poor stock market pension performances and increased private sector interest in property investment. However, as with the industrial market, the recession and lack of available finance is constraining this sub-market and has largely eradicated speculative development, outside of major city centres.
4.32 Occupiers requiring higher skills, especially those linked to key growth sectors will be concerned about access to an appropriate pool of skilled labour, which will drive demand towards city centres, research facilities and higher education institutes.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 64 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
4.33 Property will need to be increasingly flexible to accommodate research-based manufacturing space as more complex processes develop, but still within an office environment.
4.34 Clustering around like-minded companies will also drive demand to key business park locations, with good availability of ‘white collar’, knowledge-based, skilled staff. Other businesses will require central urban locations such as the professions and creative industries, where face-to-face contact is important or where public transport is important to attract staff.
Summary 4.35 There is more than three times as much industrial floorspace available as there is office. It is concentrated in Time Technology Park, Simonstone and Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe. There are few units above 1,000 sqm while small (0-100 sqm) workshops are only readily available at Time Technology Park. Supply is very limited in Longridge and there is no available space in Whalley or in most rural settlements. Good quality units are focused in Clitheroe, primarily at Hawthorne Industrial Estate. There is very little freehold availability.
4.36 The Borough’s office supply is mostly small (0-200 sqm). Although the majority of the supply is at Time Technology Park or in Clitheroe (including all the larger suites) there is at least some availability in a range of rural settlements. Most space is of moderate quality, and there are no freehold units on the market.
4.37 The overall occupancy rates of Ribble Valley are lower in 2013 than was the case in 2008. This is particularly the case in terms of office occupancy, where rates have fallen from 87.3 percent to 69.8 percent by floorspace and from 91.5 percent to 74.7 percent by premises numbers. This partially reflects an apparent decrease in the number of office hereditaments over the 2007-2008 period. However, even allowing for this there is clearly far more property on the market today than was recorded in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study.
4.38 Modern businesses and developers want easily developable, accessible and usually prominent sites for their premises. A healthy property market should provide a mix of options including speculative developments; design and build schemes, and freehold plots for owner occupiers to self-build. However, property development is entrepreneurial and not all companies that are looking for space can realistically be
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 65 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
satisfied all the time. The property market, by nature, is inherently imperfect. Companies will, however, generally seek to move from existing property to provide themselves with better, more efficient, cost effective accommodation of an approximate size.
4.39 Modern trends are expected to lead to a greater number of businesses that are smaller in size, which are more dynamic and technology driven and which will come and go more fluidly.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 66 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
5.0 PROPERTY MARKET – ANALYSIS
Introduction 5.1 This section considers the more detailed issues related to supply and demand within the Borough as a prelude to assessing the future need for land.
5.2 The section presents the comments of private sector stakeholders on Ribble Valley’s industrial and office property markets. The industrial market refers to accommodation for manufacturing, storage, distribution and warehousing purposes including smaller workshop premises. It should be noted that the owners and managers of Time Technology Park, Blackburn Road, Simonstone, one of the Borough’s large existing developers, declined to participate in the study.
5.3 Private sector stakeholders made a range of comments regarding the local market. Their views have been summarised in a series of tables. Table 24 provides a breakdown of the comments received on the Borough’s employment land supply.
Table 24 – Property Market Comments – Land
Contact Comment Regional Agent Employment land allocations should be focused along the A59, particularly on sites east of Clitheroe. Recent planning permissions at Barrow Brook Business Park for B1, B2, B8 uses show that the Park remains of interest to developers. Local Agent Marketing land at Barrow Brook Business Park. No real interest or enquiries in recent years. Developers don’t have the confidence to consider speculative developments. Feels that gap funding, or an element of higher value uses, will be required to kick-start any development at Barrow Brook. Source: BE Group, 2013
5.4 Table 25 provides a summary of the comments received from stakeholders with regards to the local industrial property market.
Table 25 – Property Market Comments – Industrial
Contact Comment Regional Agent Available units let quickly. Demand is from local firms for units of up to 1,000 sqm. Demand is mostly from traditional business sectors, but can include non-employment uses such as fitness studios. Get regular enquiries for space. Regional Agent There is an oversupply of available space and rents/values are comparatively low. There is unlikely to be any new development in
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 67 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Contact Comment the near future. Low land values for industrial uses are encouraging landowners to seek residential uses on their land. Feels this could be solved by the Council acquiring vacant land to release plots directly to owner occupiers. Regional Agent Time Technology Park is popular with storage companies as it offers cheap warehouse space with good access to the M65. Source: BE Group, 2013
5.5 To understand agent and developer comments in more detail, the performance of multi-let industrial schemes in Ribble Valley are compared. Details are shown in Table 26. The multi-let schemes shown are not a totally comprehensive list; it is a selected sample as it is not always possible to identify all existing schemes. Nor is it possible to get the required information on all schemes, e.g. some landowners will not co-operate. However this remains a good sample of the schemes out there.
5.6 As can be seen, industrial schemes in Ribble Valley appear to be performing well, despite the persistence of recessionary conditions. High occupancy rates occur not just in the main economic centre of Clitheroe, but across the Borough. Occupancy rates in rural schemes are as high, and often higher, as those in Clitheroe. Any scheme with an occupancy rate of 90 percent can be assumed to be effectively at full occupancy given the expected turnover of tenants associated with smaller space provision.
Table 26 – Industrial Multi-Let Scheme Performance
Scheme Name Total No. Units Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate sqm sqm)
Fairfield 1,300 8 100 Farm conversion Business Park, (85-200) Prominently located on A59 Longsight the A59 Road, Clayton- Dominated by trade/motor le-Dale trade uses including Fairfield Valeting Centre. Includes a café and butchers shop Serviced scheme, facilities include IT, bookkeeping and business support Whalley 3,251 20 100 Converted feed mill Industrial Park, (50 – Popular with start-up Barrow 300) businesses
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 68 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Scheme Name Total No. Units Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate sqm sqm)
Occupiers include Air Cycle Repair Rents from £45/sqm A good performing scheme with a healthy level of enquiries The Sidings, 1,700 19 100 Fully occupied for some Whalley (50 – 100) time Occupiers include Solar Largely an office location Mill Lane 800 4 100 Small rural industrial Industrial (200 each) estate north of Gisburn Estate, Gisburn Auction Mart Occupiers include Lawntrack Supplies Link 59 16,250 52 98 JGB Investments own Business Park, (250 – 2000) Modern, high quality self Clitheroe contained and terraced units. Key source of good quality space in the Borough Occupiers include Travis Perkins, Bailey Development and West Coast 4x4 Scheme performing well and largely full Bee Mill, 6,040 32 91 Converted mill space, Ribchester (19 – 1,300) the main source of accommodation in Ribchester Offers office, industrial and retail units Wide range of occupiers, including motor trade businesses and creative industries Mix of start-up and relocating businesses Rents from £30/sqm Expansion space exists for four further industrial units. Time 37,400 55 (approx) -. 65 Owned by GET Technology (industrial/ Industrial/ Most significant multi-let Park, warehouse warehouse scheme in the Borough Blackburn units space) Also has some offices Road, (37 – 9,290) (see below) Simonstone
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 69 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Scheme Name Total No. Units Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate sqm sqm)
Simonstone Occupiers include First Rail Supplies Offers small workshops (37-91 sqm), mid-sized units (around 232 sqm) and larger warehouses (465-9,290 sqm) Serviced scheme, facilities include 24 hr security, café, IT support, back up generators, administrative support, maintenance support 600 car parking spaces available Rents from £10/sqm Borders Burnley and Hyndburn Boroughs, close to J8, M65. Source: BE Group, 2013
5.7 Table 27 provides a summary of the comments received on the local office property market.
Table 27 – Property Market Comments – Office
Contact Comment National Agent Agents for the Root Hill Estate, Dunsop Bridge on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster. Of the six offices, three have a planning permission for a change of use to housing. This will require the relocation of one tenant. The remaining three will be retained in employment use, with occupiers including Lancashire County Council and two local businesses. The local office market is weak and the Duchy has no plans for any further commercial development in Dunsop Bridge. Regional Agent The office market is oversupplied, with around 5,600 sqm currently vacant. This is several years’ supply for the Borough. Rents are also relatively low, around £100/sqm for new/modern premises and around £70/sqm for second hand space. Together these issues make it unlikely that there will be any new build office development in Ribble Valley in the next 5 years. Regional Agent Some demand for small offices of 19-46 sqm. The most successful recent scheme has been Manor Court in Ribchester. Although some distance from the A59, the high quality of this scheme and its high speed broadband connectivity, have made Manor Court popular with local occupiers. Rents of around £110/sqm have been achieved there. Local Manager Manage Fern Court Business Centre, Clitheroe. The scheme is fully occupied and has (for the most part), been so for several years. When units do become available, they usually let quickly. Demand has reduced during the recession, but still get occasional requirements for
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 70 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Contact Comment space. Local Manager Manage Primrose Studios, Clitheroe. Reasonable demand from local businesses, but the scheme has also seen a high turnover of tenants. Source: BE Group, 2013
5.8 To understand demand in more detail, the performance of selected multi-let office and mixed schemes is shown in Table 28. Again the multi-let schemes shown are a selected sample.
5.9 There are a reasonable number of business centres in the Borough. These include a range of rural schemes as well as options in Clitheroe Town Centre. Established schemes, including Fern Court Business Centre in Clitheroe; The Printworks, Barrow Brook Business Park; Gisburn Business Park, Gisburn; Brockhall Business Centre, Brockhall Village and Asturian House, Ribchester are all reasonably successful, with occupancy rates of 75-100 percent. These schemes perform an important role, providing small business accommodation (of varying quality) to local start-up and existing micro businesses. Several serve large rural catchment areas.
5.10 There are a number of recently refurbished business centres which have low occupancy rates. Generally, the managers/agents of these schemes report that it is taking time to attract occupiers to new locations. However, most feel that, given time and an improving market, they will be able to fill the vacant space.
5.11 Comparison with the 2008 Ribble Valley Employment Land and Retail Study, suggests that local multi-let schemes are performing at about the same rate they were five years ago, with no significant reductions (or improvements) in occupancy.
Table 28 – Office and Mixed Multi-Let Scheme Performance
Scheme Name Total No. Suites Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate, sqm sqm) percent Poors’land Barn, 360 9 100 Rural workspace Slaidburn (20 – 50) scheme Fully occupied within six months of completion Diverse range of occupiers, including a hairdresser and an ecologist
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 71 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Scheme Name Total No. Suites Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate, sqm sqm) percent Fern Court 225 8 100 Small, good quality Business Centre, (13-62) business centre in Castlegate, Clitheroe Town Centre Clitheroe Marketed to start-up businesses Units available on three year leases, with 3 months notice required to quit Serviced scheme, facilities include reception, meeting room, business support Root Hill Estate 610 6 100 Owned by the Duchy Yard, Whitewell (37-161) of Lancaster (part of Road, Dunsop the Whitewell Estate)
Bridge High quality conversion of estate buildings to provide accommodation in a rural part of the Borough Of the six offices, three have a planning permission for a change of use to housing. The remaining units are let, with occupiers including Lancashire County Council. The Printworks, 2,000 10 90 Good quality office Whalley Road, (50 – 200) scheme in the largely Barrow Brook undeveloped Barrow Business Park, Brook Business Park Barrow Prominently located off the A59 Rents from £150/sqm Gisburn Business 690 6 83 Farm conversion Park, Gisburn (65 – 200) A good performing Road, Gisburn rural scheme Rents from £85/sqm Primrose Studios, 372 5 80 Small, recently Primrose Road, (13-16) refurbished office Clitheroe building in the south of Clitheroe In a primarily industrial area, the property has low prominence
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 72 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Scheme Name Total No. Suites Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate, sqm sqm) percent Brockhall Business 5,700 6 75 Small, modern Centre, Brockhall (87-89) business centre Village Prominently located at the entrance to Brockhall Village, off the A59 Rents are £120/sqm plus a service charge of £40/sqm Asturian House, 330 4 75 Brindle Ribchester (40 – 100) Developments own Part of a former hospital site Historically fully let Time Technology 6,503 51 (approx*) - 51 Owned by GET Park, Blackburn (office offices Most significant multi- Road, Simonstone space) (22 – 1,115) let scheme in the Borough Also has some industrial/warehouse units (see above) Offers small offices (23 sqm,1-4 people), mid-sized suites (38- 260 sqm, 5-15 people) and larger offices (743-1,115 sqm, 50-100 people) Offers managed start-up units (with shared meeting, kitchen, recreation rooms and video conference suites), serviced suites and call centre space Serviced scheme, facilities as described in Table 27 600 car parking spaces available Rents from £30/sqm Borders Burnley and Hyndburn Boroughs, close to J8, M65. Manor Court, 1,200 13 15 Good quality Salesbury Hall, (21-465) conversion of rural Ribchester buildings Main source of office space in Ribchester Reasonable initial
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 73 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Scheme Name Total No. Suites Occupancy Comment Floorspace, (Size Range, Rate, sqm sqm) percent demand, but taking time to let suites Phase II (17 office suites of 21-79 sqm) proposed De Lacy Business 211 4 0 Comprises the second Centre, Station (22-110) floor of a recently Road, Clitheroe completed office building in Clitheroe Town Centre Properties offered as a multi-let business centre, but also available as a whole Rents from £100/sqm Source: BE Group, 2013 *Space can be sub-divided in a variety of ways.
Summary 5.12 Ribble Valley has a primarily local property market in both the industrial and office sectors. There is little, if any, inward investment.
5.13 Across the Borough, agents feel there is an oversupply of available office premises. Office rents are low (around £100/sqm for new/modern space, and around £70/sqm for second had accommodation) and these factors are discouraging the development of new office space.
5.14 However, despite this general weakness in the market, local office schemes and business centres are performing well. These schemes perform an important role, providing small business accommodation (of varying quality) to local start-up and existing micro businesses. Several serve large rural catchment areas. Most have occupancy rates of 75-100 percent. Manor Court, Ribchester is cited as an example of a successful recent development, which compensates for its poor accessibility with high build quality and high speed broadband service. Demand is for small suites of less than 50 sqm.
5.15 The exception to this appears to be Root Hill Estate Yard, Dunsop Bridge where the Duchy of Lancaster has secured a change of use, to residential, on three of the six office units. As justification for this change, the scheme’s agents indicate that there is little demand for office space in this isolated rural location.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 74 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
5.16 Agents only made limited comments on the industrial market. Again the view is that while there is a borough-wide oversupply of industrial premises, and rents/values are generally low, local schemes appear to be performing well. Industrial schemes are well occupied, both in Clitheroe and in rural areas. Demand is for units of up to 1,000 sqm.
5.17 The owners/managers of Time Technology Park were unwilling to comment for this study. However, other agents note that the scheme is popular with storage companies as it offers cheap warehouse space with good access to the M65.
5.18 Agents made differing comments about the prospects for new development at Barrow Brook Business Park. The most common view was that low land values and a lack of demand is encouraging landowners to seek higher value (residential) uses on their land. There is little prospect of speculative development, for employment, in the short/medium term. However, others noted that owners are still seeking planning permissions for B1, B2, B8 uses, evidence that owners/developers still believe that employment uses can (in an improving market) be brought forward at this location.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 75 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
6.0 EMPLOYMENT LAND
Introduction 6.1 This section looks at the existing portfolio of potential employment land in the study area, not only how much there is, but also its quality, type, suitability and availability. Ribble Valley needs a balanced portfolio of land to accommodate a sustainable, growing economy that can respond to dynamic market conditions, changing business needs and working practices. By initially establishing how much land there is, the second task is to consider how much land is needed in the future (to 2028), which is picked up in the forecasting section later in the report.
6.2 In calculating the existing land supply and future needs from now until 2028, it is important to set a base date for the analysis. For this report, that date is 31 st March 2012. This means that any employment planning permissions approved since 1 st April 2012 do not affect the identified land supply, neither do any site completions which occurred after that date.
Land Supply 6.3 The Council tracks a large number of sites as part of its annual monitoring. However an assessment of them indicates that most are to be excluded on the basis that they are below the 0.25 ha threshold (contained in ODPM Employment Land Review Guidance), or refer to building conversions, changes of use or rebuilds rather than being sites. In most cases the proposed employment floorspace has been given an equivalent employment land figure using a multiplier of 3,900 sqm/ha. This equates to a typical industrial estate/business park development density for both office and industrial schemes. Appendix 3 outlines the assumptions made about sites included in the Council’s monitoring records, explaining why certain sites have been deleted or why revised site areas have been used.
6.4 Table 29 schedules the employment sites (of 0.25 ha or larger) in Ribble Valley. It outlines their sizes; provides comments on current status (e.g. owner intentions) together with an assessment as to when they might come forward for development or use. This assessment of timescale is based upon a number of factors – market demand, overview (from discussions with stakeholders and site owners), ownership situation, planning status, infrastructure and services required. Proformas for each site (which include plans) are provided at Appendix 4.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 76 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 29 – Employment Sites Schedule
Name Size, ha Comment/Update Availability, years Papillion Site 4.32 Owner (Papillion Properties) is now in 0-1 (2), Barrow receivership Brook Business A previous full planning permission for Park, Barrow 8,746 sqm of B1(a) office floorspace has now lapsed. An outline application for 104 dwellings on the site was allowed at appeal. Sale of the land to a (confidential) housebuilder is underway Industrial/office Greenfield Unserviced Land North of 3.33 Admiral Taverns own 1-3 Barrow Brook Outline planning permission for 12,975 Business sqm of B1/B2/B8 office/industrial Village, Barrow floorspace The owner is now considering next steps, which may include a sale to, or joint venture with, a developer Competes with an additional application by Newclose Properties for B1, B2, B8 uses, on the same land. Newclose hold a ransom strip which is required to connect this land with the existing business park The owner has aspirations for housing on land to the west, fronting Whalley Road, and may wish further housing developed on the site Industrial/office Greenfield Unserviced BAE Systems, 2.69 BAE Systems own 0-1 Samlesbury Within the secure site (not related to the Aerodrome, Enterprise Zone) Myerscough Road, Development of 10,489 sqm of B1(a) office Balderstone and B2 industrial premises, for BAE’s own use, has now been completed. Industrial/office Brownfield Serviced Land off Hey 2.43 Newclose Properties and Athertons own 1-3 Road, Outline planning permission for B1/B2/B8 Barrow Brook office/industrial floorspace Business Village, Barrow Competes with an additional application by Admiral Taverns for 12,975 sqm of B1, B2, B8 uses, on the same land Industrial/office Greenfield
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 77 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Name Size, ha Comment/Update Availability, years Unserviced Building 611, 2.38 BAE Systems own 0-1 Samlesbury Within the secure site (not related to the Aerodrome, Enterprise Zone) Myerscough Road, Development of a 9,300 sqm B1(a) office Balderstone building, for BAE’s own use, has now been completed. Office Brownfield Serviced Hindle and 1.19 Private developer owned 3-5 Schofield Site, Previous planning permission for 2,271 Barrow Brook sqm of B1(a) offices has now lapsed Business Park, Barrow Site continues to be marketed for offices, available as managed suites or long leaseholds, of 93-2,044 sqm Agent reports no interest in this land over the last five years Owner lacks the finance to develop speculatively. Has considered a mixed-use scheme, including housing, but has been unable to find a development partner Owner/agent view is that this site cannot be brought forward without an element of higher value uses to kick-start development. Office Brownfield Unserviced Papillion Site 1.00 Owner (Papillion Properties) is now in 1-3 (1), Barrow receivership Brook Business A previous full planning permission for Park, Barrow B1/B2/B8 floorspace has now lapsed. The land is now on the market, for sale, for a range of commercial or leisure uses. The land could be sold as a single site or as plots of 0.2 ha or more. Industrial/office Brownfield Unserviced Casting Foundry 0.87 Fort Vale Engineering own 0-1 Site, Fort Vale Full planning permission for 3,412 sqm B2 Engineering, Investment Casting Foundry, for Fort Calder Vale Vale’s own use Park, Simonstone Fort Vale expect that development of this Lane, facility will commence after completion of Simonstone the extension to Building S (discussed below). Industrial
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 78 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Name Size, ha Comment/Update Availability, years Brownfield Serviced Rear of Building 0.50 Fort Vale Engineering own 0-1 S, Full planning permission for a 1,951 sqm Fort Vale B1(c)/ B2 extension to an existing building Engineering, (Building ‘S’), for Fort Vale’s own use Calder Vale Fort Vale expect that development of this Park, facility will commence within 4 months Simonstone Lane, Industrial Simonstone Brownfield Serviced Land at Salthill 0.46 Jacksons Haulage own 1-3 Industrial Estate, Presently an active haulage yard with a Lincoln Way, 470 sqm B8 warehouse on the site Clitheroe Outline planning permission for 1,508 sqm of B1(c)/B8 industrial/trade floorspace, plus full planning permission for a further 294 sqm of B8 trade floorspace One unit will be retained for Jacksons Haulage’s own use. A further five buildings, 300-900 sqm in size, are on the market, to let (or for long leasehold) as design and build options. Marketed as Ajax Business Park, one unit is let to date. Industrial Brownfield Serviced Land Adj. to 0.45 GET own 5+ Simonstone Adjacent to former coal yard and housing Lane, Time Technology Previous outline permission 1,769 sqm of Park, office and industrial floorspace has now lapsed Simonstone No change from 2008 study although
landowner retains the aspiration to develop on this site Industrial/office Brownfield Unserviced
B Dugdale and 0.38 B Dugdale and Son (Dugdale Nutrition) 1-3 Son, Bellman Full planning permission to demolish Mill, Salthill, existing offices and develop a new office Clitheroe for Dugdale Nutrition, plus seven B1(c) light industrial units (1,476 sqm in total) The office building is now complete, with 121 sqm of first floor office space on the market, to let. The industrial units will be developed as a
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 79 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Name Size, ha Comment/Update Availability, years separate phase. A further five industrial units are also being considered, on a site presently occupied by a pet food warehouse. Industrial/office Brownfield Serviced Source: BE Group/RVBC, 2013
6.5 There are 12 sites totalling 20.00 ha. This compares to 11 sites totalling 15.33 ha in the 2008 Ribble Valley Employment Land and Retail Study. The increased land supply position in 2013, reflects the substantial planning permissions at Samlesbury Aerodrome (19,789 sqm of office, research and manufacturing facilities on 5.07 ha) and Fort Vale Engineering (5,363 sqm of expanded industrial facilities on 1.37 ha), which were not included in the previous study. It also reflects changes in how site sizes are measured in 2013 (i.e. using a multiplier of 3,900 sqm/ha, as discussed above) compared to how they were measured in 2008.
Sites Analysis 6.6 Table 30 shows how the land is distributed through Ribble Valley. 61 percent of the land is at Barrow Brook Business Park and around a quarter is at Samlesbury Aerodrome (and is for the exclusive use of BAE Systems). The remaining land is either at Simonstone (Fort Vale Engineering and Time Technology Park) or Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe. There is no employment land in Longridge, Whalley or the rural parts of the Borough.
Table 30 – Distribution of Employment Land
Area Number of All Employment Land, Serviced Land, Sites ha ha Barrow Brook Business Park 5 12.27 - Samlesbury Aerodrome, 2 5.07 5.07 Balderstone Simonstone 3 1.82 1.37 Clitheroe (Salthill Industrial 0.84 Estate) 2 0.84
Total 12 20.00 7.28 Source: BE Group 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 80 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
6.7 Out of the total land supply of 20.00 ha, just over 36 percent (7.28 ha) is serviced. Most of the serviced land is either at BAE Systems, Samlesbury Aerodrome or Fort Vale Engineering, Simonstone. In both cases, these sites are being held as expansion land for the respective operators. Serviced land at Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe (B Dugdale and Son and Land at Salthill Industrial Estate) is also being held for industrial/trade developments.
6.8 A site is assumed to be serviced if utilities and road access are readily available. This would apply to infill sites in existing employment areas or where major sites have been opened up. Large allocations, where although services run to the edge of the site they have not been provided into the site itself, are not considered to be serviced. For this reason, the 12.27 ha at Barrow Brook Business Park (which mostly comprises undeveloped greenfield/brownfield land) cannot be considered serviced until the relevant infrastructure is delivered and development plots prepared.
6.9 Land is divided between two types of uses – office and industrial (which can include B8 warehousing). Table 31 shows that almost three quarters of the Borough’s land could be suitable for either use. This includes most land at Barrow Brook Business Park, apart from the Hindle and Schofield Site. Development at Fort Vale Engineering will be for industrial uses, notably a 3,412 sqm Investment Casting Foundry.
6.10 Office land is on the market at Barrow Brook Business Park (the Hindle and Schofield Site), although the relevant planning permission for 2,271 sqm of B1(a) offices has now lapsed. BAE Systems has also recently completed an office development (Building 611) at Samlesbury Aerodrome.
Table 31 – Anticipated Land Use
Site Type Total, ha (number of sites) Office 3.57 (2) Industrial 1.83 (3) Office / Industrial 14.60 (7) Total 20.00 (12) Source: BE Group 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 81 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
6.11 Each site has been assessed for its expected availability, the point at which it may come to market or be developed. This is derived from consultations with owners, agents, the Council and other evidence gathered in this study.
6.12 As Table 32 shows that 54 percent of the land supply (10.76 ha) is immediately available for development. This includes the 5.07 ha at Samlesbury Aerodrome, where development has now been completed (after the 31st March 2012 base date). It also includes land at Fort Vale Engineering. Fort Vale indicate that they will begin work on the Building S extension in the next few months, followed by the Investment Casting Foundry, when that extension is complete. Take-up of the Papillion Site (2), Barrow Brook Business Park, is also likely in the short term, although it is expected that this site will be lost to housing.
6.13 Most land at Brook Business Park will not be brought forward in less than a year. However, with the exception of the Hindle and Schofield Site, owners do appear to be proceeding with planning proposals (or land disposals) which may see development activity begin in the medium term. Thus as much as 92 percent of the land supply (18.36 ha) could become available over the next three years. This compares to only 74 percent in 2008, and emphasises that at least some progress is being made in delivering the major employment sites of the Borough.
Table 32 – Land Availability
Area Hectares Available, years (Number of Sites) 0-1 1-3 3-5 5+ Total Barrow Brook Business 4.32 6.76 1.19 - 12.27 Park (1) (3) (1) (5) Samlesbury Aerodrome, 5.07 - - - 5.07 Balderstone (2) (2) 1.37 - - 0.45 1.82 Simonstone (2) (1) (3) Clitheroe (Salthill 0.84 - - 0.84 Industrial Estate) - (2) (2) Total 10.76 7.60 1.19 0.45 20.00 (5) (5) (1) (1) (12) Source: BE Group 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 82 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
6.14 Only one site (Land Adj. to Simonstone Lane, Time Technology Park, Simonstone – 0.45 ha) may not come forward inside five years.
Site Grading 6.15 As was undertaken in the 2008 study, all sites have been graded using a standard scoring system (see Appendix 5). Each site is scored out of a 100, made up of ten individual measures, each scored out of ten. These are: proximity to the strategic highway network, proximity to the motorway network, prominence, access to public transport, planning status, access to services, constraints, environmental setting, flexibility and availability. The detailed scores are provided in Appendix 6.
6.16 The scoring illustrates how attractive the site is to developers and occupiers. It gives an appraisal of the overall quality of the land resource. However, the location needs of certain occupiers, linked to the specialist sectors, means that their choice is limited and an otherwise very poor quality site, might be suitable for them (and indeed may be one of very few options available nationally and even internationally).
6.17 Two scores are provided in Table 32, a total score and a market-led score, which reflects the locational strengths and weaknesses of each site. The market-led score is made up of just strategic highway proximity, motorway proximity, prominence, environmental setting and flexibility. These are the characteristics that are very difficult to improve. The other five aspects (public transport, planning status, services, constraints and availability), which combine to make up the total score, are easier to improve and hence provide the ability to raise the quality of a site.
Table 32 – Employment Sites Scoring
Name Location Size, Score, Market - Land Type ha max 100 led Sub- total BAE Systems, Balderstone Brownfield Samlesbury 2.69 89 44 Aerodrome, Myerscough Road Building 611, Balderstone Brownfield Samlesbury 2.38 88 43 Aerodrome, Myerscough Road Papillion Site (2), Barrow Greenfield Barrow Brook Business 4.32 79 43 Park Casting Foundry Site, Simonstone Brownfield Fort Vale Engineering, 0.87 76 31 Calder Vale Park,
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 83 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Name Location Size, Score, Market - Land Type ha max 100 led Sub- total Simonstone Lane Rear of Building S, Fort Simonstone Brownfield Vale Engineering, 0.50 76 31 Calder Vale Park, Simonstone Lane Land off Hey Road, Barrow Brownfield Barrow Brook Business 2.43 75 43 Village Papillion Site (1), Barrow Brownfield Barrow Brook Business 1.00 75 43 Park Land North of Barrow Barrow 3.33 73 43 Greenfield Brook Business Village Hindle and Schofield Barrow Brownfield Site, Barrow Brook 1.19 68 41 Business Park Land at Salthill Clitheroe Brownfield Industrial Estate, 0.46 67 23 Lincoln Way B Dugdale and Son, Clitheroe 0.38 61 26 Brownfield Bellman Mill, Salthill Land Adj. to Simonstone Brownfield Simonstone Lane, Time 0.45 50 28 Technology Park Source: BE Group 2013
6.18 The highest scoring sites are those in high profile locations along the A59 at Samlesbury Aerodrome. Development here can be delivered immediately (in fact it is already complete), on locations adjacent to A59 and only a short distance from the M6 Junction 31.
6.19 Sites at Barrow Brook Business Park score slightly worse than they did in 2008. In some cases, this reflects the fact that unimplemented planning permissions, current in 2008, have now lapsed. However, sites at Samlesbury and Barrow Brook Business Park score equally well on market-led criteria. Land Adj. to Simonstone Lane, Time Technology Park, Simonstone is the worst scoring overall. This reflects the fact that the previous planning permission has now lapsed and development is unlikely in the short or medium term. Land at Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe has the lowest market-led score.
6.20 The site grading provides a reference against which decisions may be taken as to whether some sites might be recommended for deletion from the land supply, because they are unsuited to market needs.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 84 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Potential Site Losses 6.21 There is a headline land supply figure of 12 sites – 20.00 ha. However, the 4.32 ha Papillion Site (2), Barrow Brook Business Park, Barrow now has outline permission for 104 dwellings (won at appeal). Although a reserved matters permission is still required, it must be assumed that this land will be lost to housing in the short term.
6.22 The owners of the 3.33 ha Land North of Barrow Brook Business Village site may also have aspirations for housing. However, at the time of writing they are pursuing an employment-led mixed use scheme that would see the majority of the site developed for B1/B2/B8 uses.
6.23 As a further complication, two neighbouring landowners appear to be pursuing rival schemes, which include each other’s landholdings, on land north of the existing Barrow Brook Business Park. The affected sites are Land North of Barrow Brook Business Village (which fronts the A59 and is owned by Admiral Taverns) and Land off Hey Road, Barrow Brook Business Village (which is to the rear of Land North of Barrow Brook Business Village and is owned by Newclose Properties and Athertons). From initial discussions with owners it is not clear how, and by whom, this land will ultimately be brought forward. However, both parties continue to pursue schemes which are employment led.
6.24 The owner of the Hindle and Schofield Site, Barrow Brook Business Park has also considered alternative (residential) uses on that land. Indeed the owner argues that some element of higher value uses will be necessary to make any development financially viable. However, at the time of writing they remain committed to delivering an employment led scheme and are continuing to market the site for B1(a) office uses.
6.25 Therefore, in Table 33 scenarios are presented for Ribble Valley’s land resource, considering the total supply initially and then adjusting it according to the various assumptions made above.
Table 33 – Ribble Valley Land Supply Scenarios
Scenario Cumulative Total Comments Land Supply, ha Baseline 20.00 Allocated and existing consented employment sites.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 85 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Scenario Cumulative Total Comments Land Supply, ha Baseline less land subject 15.68 Papillion Site (2), Barrow Brook of alternative planning Business Park, Barrow - (4.32 ha) An permissions outline application for 104 dwellings on the site was allowed at appeal. Sale of the land to a housebuilder is underway. Source: RVBC/BE Group 2013
6.26 As Table 34 shows, in a best case scenario Ribble Valley has 20.00 ha of employment land and in a worst case only 15.68 ha, at the base date of 31 st March 2012.
Employment Areas 6.27 In this sub-section an assessment of Ribble Valley’s main employment areas is made in order to provide guidance as to their continued viability. In Table 34, they are grouped into BE Group’s categories to better reflect their ranking one against the other. They are graded in the context of the study area, not at a sub-regional level. It should be noted that an employment area, because of its functions may be included in more than one category of site.
Table 34 – Site Hierarchy
Type Typical Characteristics Employment Areas/Sites Flagships Sites of scale, location and setting Barrow Brook Business Park, capable of being broad business park Barrow developments competing for investment Samlesbury Enterprise Zone in the regional/sub regional marketplace. These are prime sites for marketing to a cross-section of users – including new inward investments into the Borough. They can also meet the needs of image- conscious, aspirational companies already in the area. They may be B1, B2 or B8 in nature. Narrow Band Key developments where the sites, their Samlesbury Enterprise Zone Sites locations and environment are promoted for a narrow range of uses. It may be that only a part of a larger site is allocated to this activity. In other cases it may be prudent to dedicate the whole site to this narrow band use. Often they are high technology/key growth sector related. Key Sites with an influence over the whole of Link 59 Business Park, Employment the study area, geared to serving the Clitheroe Sites needs of indigenous industry. They are Salthill Industrial Estate, likely to be of a size to create presence Clitheroe and able to accommodate a range of
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 86 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Type Typical Characteristics Employment Areas/Sites uses, but more suited to B2 and B8 Shay Lane Industrial Estate, activity. Longridge Time Technology Park, Simonstone Key Local Sites that offer employment opportunities Bee Mill, Ribchester Sites within specific local areas. In most De Lacy Business Centre, instances their role will be to meet the Clitheroe expansion needs of indigenous Fern Court Business Centre, companies or to accommodate local Clitheroe start-ups. They tend to focus on use classes B1c, B2 and B8. Pendle Trading Estate, Chatburn Primrose Studios, Clitheroe The Sidings, Whalley Key Rural Sites that offer employment opportunities Asturian House, Ribchester Sites within rural areas. In most instances Fairfield Business Park, their role will be to meet the expansion Clayton-le-Dale needs of rural businesses or to Gisburn Business Park accommodate rural start-ups. Manor Court, Salesbury Hall, Ribchester Mill Lane Industrial Estate, Gisburn Poors’land Barn, Slaidburn Brockhall Business Centre, Brockhall Village Root Hill Estate Yard, Dunsop Bridge Whalley Industrial Park, Barrow Source: BE Group 2013
Summary 6.28 Updating of the Borough Council’s recorded employment land availability schedule, confirms that as at 31 st March 2012 there were 12 sites totalling 20.00 ha. This represents unimplemented planning permissions and other vacant land in the Borough’s employment areas. After adjustment to reflect a worst case scenario this land supply could reduce to 15.68 ha. This is an increase on 2008, when only 9.78 ha was ultimately deemed available.
6.29 The land supply is dominated by provision in at Barrow Brook Business Park, close to the A59 and Clitheroe. Supply elsewhere is limited as many existing sites are held for the expansion of existing large firms. There is no supply in Longridge (the 1.78 ha Chapel Hill site, allocated in the Local Plan, was judged unviable in the 2008 study) or Whalley. There are also no rural options, particularly in the north of the Borough.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 87 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
6.30 The availability of the existing supply is not a particular issue, as most could be brought forward in the short or medium term (0-3 years). The supply could also meet the needs of both office and industrial occupiers, or provide for a mix of the two uses. However, in most cases land is being held for expansion or planned development. Only at Barrow Brook Business Park is there land readily available for purchase by an incoming business, investor or developer.
6.31 Site scoring shows that Ribble Valley does have a range of high quality employment sites. Indeed, only three sites score less than 70 percent and only one (Land Adj. to Simonstone Lane, Time Technology Park) scores so badly that questions are raised about its viability.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 88 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS
Introduction 7.1 Here commentary is provided about Ribble Valley as a whole. This comprises comment from the public sector and other stakeholders – primarily public sector agencies, major businesses and business forums (as suggested by the Council). It should be noted that each organisation’s comments are their perception of the situation, and may well reflect their role and involvement, rather than being the complete picture. This has been done to widen the consultation process and to complement the company survey
7.2 This section also considers the property market in the local authority areas adjoining or adjacent to Ribble Valley. Understanding the supply and demand of employment land and premises in neighbouring areas is important in assessing their impact on the Borough’s land and property market.
BAE Systems/Lancashire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)/Lancashire County Council (LCC) 7.3 These three organisations were consulted jointly in order to review the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone proposal in the context of Ribble Valley. The Enterprise Zone comprises 72 ha, almost a quarter of BAE Systems’ 300 ha landholding at Samlesbury Aerodrome. The first phase of 16 ha is now subject to a Local Development Order and could deliver 60,000 sqm of floorspace. In all, 20 ha of the Enterprise Zone is in Ribble Valley.
7.4 A ‘commercial masterplan’ is being prepared which addresses site infrastructure, phasing, physical constraints, the location of existing services, the BAE secured site boundaries and a separate non-secure access to the site, strategic development principles and off site infrastructure upgrading.
7.5 Samlesbury Aerodrome lacks the constraints of its sister facility Warton, which include an active runway and adjacent housing. Therefore, whilst development at Warton will be limited to office, research and development and light manufacturing uses, Samlesbury will host large scale heavy manufacturing.
7.6 The rules of the Enterprise Zone mean that all new businesses attracted to Samlesbury must be inward investors into Lancashire. Marketing the site and attracting such inward investment is the responsibility of the Lancashire LEP and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 89 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
LCC. The LEP confirmed that four (confidential) organisations are presently considering investments at Samlesbury. All are aiming to be operational by 2015.
7.7 Between them, the Samlesbury and Warton Enterprise Zones will generate 5,000- 6,000 indirect jobs. However, in Pennine Lancashire the LEP expects that most of this benefit will be felt in the M65 Corridor, with few additional jobs generated in Ribble Valley. The Enterprise Zone is not seen as an individual ‘centre of gravity’, rather it is one part of wider picture embracing the Preston (and South Ribble) ‘City Deal’ area and developments in Burnley.
7.8 Enterprise Zone proposals may include a regional training centre facility. BAE Systems is exploring options for the delivery of this with other industry sectors.
7.9 The remaining 228 ha of Samlesbury Aerodrome will be retained by BAE Systems for their own use. BAE Systems has invested significantly in the Samlesbury site since 2006, doubling the amount of manufacturing floorspace. There are now around 4,000 employed on the site, with recent job losses offset by the transfer of some operations from Brough and Warton. Past research, undertaken for BAE Systems by Oxford Economics, established GVA per employee of £76,000/year and a 1:18 job ratio in terms of indirect employment.
7.10 All three organisations consider that there would be value in understanding the existing supply chain providers of BAE Systems, within Ribble Valley. The existing Aerospace Alliance as a membership subscription organisation does not include them all. Also some businesses may be in multi-sector supply chains, which are not eligible to join the Aerospace Alliance.
Neighbouring Areas 7.11 Through changes to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, introduced through the Localism Act 2011, and the direction of the National Planning Policy Framework, a local authority has a duty to cooperate with other local planning authorities relating to development plan document preparation and evidence base collation. Para 160, of the NPPF states local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs within their local economic markets, by working with county and neighbouring authorities to prepare and maintain a robust evidence base about business needs and likely market changes.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 90 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.12 Ribble Valley is surrounded by a number of local authority areas. To the north and east is Craven, part of North Yorkshire. To the north west is Lancaster (although the City of Lancaster, and other key settlements are some distance away). To the west are Wyre, Preston and South Ribble. The bulk of the Samlesbury Aerodrome facility is located in South Ribble Borough. To the south and south east are the other districts of Pennine Lancashire. Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle all share a boundary with Ribble Valley.
Blackburn with Darwen 7.13 Blackburn with Darwen adopted its Core Strategy in 2011. This makes provision for up to 105.5 ha additional employment land between 2011 and 2026. The precise figure will be set in the emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (to be completed in early 2014).
7.14 Land provision will include ‘prestige’ sites around Junctions 5 and 6 of the M65. Prestige sites currently exist at the Evolution Park site adjacent to Royal Blackburn Hospital, and on the Lantern Park site at Whitebirk. Further development at the Whitebirk Strategic Regional Site will be brought forward in partnership with neighbouring Hyndburn Borough.
7.15 Blackburn and Darwen are some distance from Samlesbury Aerodrome and, at present, there are few economic linkages between Blackburn with Darwen and the BAE facility. However, Blackburn with Darwen still consider the Enterprise Zone to be an important future source of higher value employment to people living in Blackburn with Darwen.
Burnley 7.16 Burnley Borough Council is in the process of jointly developing Core Strategy, Site Allocations and Development Control DPDs. All three will be taken to the Issues and Options Stage by the end of the 2013. Burnley’s Employment Land Review is also presently being refreshed. If this revised employment land study does show a supply shortfall, then future employment land allocations will be focused at Burnley’s strategic employment sites, Burnley Bridge; the former Michelin Site, and Burnley Knowledge Park.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 91 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.17 The 18.21 ha Burnley Bridge site is located off Junction 9, M65. Developers, Eshton, propose to deliver 23,226 sqm of B1, B2, B8 accommodation over the next few years. Infrastructure provision is underway.
7.18 Within Burnley town the former Michelin tyre warehouse has recently undergone a £3 million refurbishment. It is now occupied by aircraft components manufacturer Aircelle. The site will be promoted as an “advanced manufacturing/engineering park attractive to the higher value added manufacturing and engineering business sectors.” It is hoped that further aerospace companies will be attracted to the location, particularly those who are part of the Aircelle supply chain.
7.19 The Borough Council intends that this development will operate successfully alongside the similar aerospace facility at Samlesbury Aerodrome (i.e. that BAE Systems supply chain firms will go to Samlesbury while Aircelle supply chain firms go to Burnley). However, some competition between the two schemes will be inevitable.
7.20 The 2.2 ha Knowledge Park will provide facilities for knowledge based businesses next to the Burnley UCLan Campus. Developed by a partnership of Burnley Borough Council, UCLan, Burnley College and the Homes and Communities Agency, the site has outline planning permission for 12,077 sqm of B1 development. It is envisaged that many occupiers will be spin-offs and start-ups from UCLan.
7.21 In terms of existing employment areas, Shuttleworth Mead Business Park is close to Time Technology Park, Simonstone. It delivers high quality business premises and is readily accessible to the M65. It covers 28 ha and accommodates approximately 60,000 sqm of industrial and office space. It is fully built out now and there is no scope for further expansion of the site.
Craven 7.22 Craven District Council is in the process of preparing a Local Plan which will combine general policies and site allocations. Informal consultation on the housing and employment elements of this plan will be undertaken in June 2013, with formal consultation likely in early 2014.
7.23 The District Council’s 2008 Employment Land Study (which was never fully completed) identified the need for a further 52-61 ha of employment land between 2006 and 2021. Around two thirds of this, 37 ha, should be allocated immediately to
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 92 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
meet needs to 2016. A further 19 ha should be identified for occupation between 2016 and 2021.
7.24 Most existing employment allocations (as provided for in the 1999 Local Plan) have now been built out. Future land allocations will be focused around the South Skipton Employment Zone. This is a 23.5 ha site (14ha of which is developable, while 9 ha lies within a floodplain) that will extend an existing industrial estate. The site has no real linkages to Ribble Valley, or the rest of Lancashire.
7.25 Demand for employment land and premises is focused in the south of the District, around Skipton. This area has strong links with West Yorkshire and (in terms of commuting) the Leeds/Bradford City Regions. Pendle also sits within the Skipton travel to work area, with significant commuting along the A56/A65. Although the A59 provides good linkages to Clitheroe there is little commuting between Craven and Ribble Valley. The only exception is for retail trade, Ribble Valley Borough is within Skipton’s catchment area.
7.26 The only employment scheme that may have any relevance to Ribble Valley is Broughton Hall. This is a high quality office scheme located off the A59, half way between Skipton and the boundary with Ribble Valley.
7.27 In the north west of Craven, the villages of Bentham and Ingleton have employment/commuter links with Lancaster, while Settle is predominantly self contained.
Hyndburn 7.28 The Hyndburn Core Strategy was adopted in 2012. Reflecting the findings of the 2008 Employment Land Study, this strategy seeks to allocate 58 ha of additional employment land for the period 2011-2026. Major allocations will include a 35 ha Strategic Regional Employment Site at Whitebirk, Junction 6 M65. This will be brought forward over the next five years. Employment development is also proposed, as part of a mixed-use scheme, at Huncoat Colliery.
7.29 Closer to the boundary with Ribble Valley, Altham Business Park is now fully developed and is performing well. The Core Strategy allows a small greenfield extension to the south of the existing business park.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 93 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.30 Hyndburn has few existing businesses in the aerospace sector and officers do not feel that Hyndburn Borough will derive any particular benefit from the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone.
Lancaster 7.31 Lancaster adopted its Core Strategy in 2008. It was the first to be adopted in the North West. This sets a target to deliver 24 ha of additional employment land by 2021. New employment development will be focused on the main urban locations of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth. No significant allocations are proposed in the rural east of the District, which borders Ribble Valley.
7.32 The largest employment site in the District is the 9.7 ha Lancaster Science Park, south of Lancaster City. Development here will be driven by knowledge-based industries originating from outside the District or from the neighbouring Lancaster University. The highly specialised nature and location of this proposal makes it unsuitable for meeting general employment land needs. Other significant development is expected to focus around Heysham, including the expansion of Heysham Port and the (possible) delivery of a third nuclear reactor.
7.33 In the east of the District, close to Ribble Valley, existing employment areas are limited to two small schemes at Cowen Bridge and Hornby. There are no plans for further development at either location.
Pendle 7.34 The 2008 Employment Land Study noted the need for 54 ha of employment land between 2005 and 2026. Taking account of undeveloped employment land, potential sites, completions and planning consents there is an outstanding requirement for 7 ha of land, to be allocated in the emerging Local Plan. Pendle Borough Council is proposing to update the Employment Land Study over 2013, before the Borough’s emerging Core Strategy begins its Examination in Public.
7.35 Pendle’s allocated employment sites and existing employment areas are focused along the M65 Corridor and at Barnoldswick. None are close to the boundary with Ribble Valley. Most out-commuting from Pendle is to Burnley or West Yorkshire, while there are few travel to work journeys to, or from, the main settlements of Ribble Valley.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 94 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.36 There is a small cluster of aviation based businesses in Barnoldswick, who may benefit from linkages with the emerging Samlesbury Enterprise Zone. However, the distance between Pendle District and Samlesbury Aerodrome means that any economic benefits which Pendle derives from the Enterprise Zone will be limited.
Preston 7.37 In 2010, Preston had an employment land supply of 107 ha, and required an additional 6 ha to meet targets to 2026. By this measure, Preston requires 113 ha of employment land to meet its needs to 2026. However, the City Council also assumes it will lose around 5.5 ha of employment land to non-employment uses over this period, meaning that 118.5 ha will ultimately be required (107 ha on existing sites, 11.5 ha on new allocations).
7.38 Preston’s large existing land supply and comparatively modest future requirements mean that the City is self sufficient for employment land, with no need to look to surrounding local authority areas for support. The City’s larger strategic sites are focused around Junction 31(a) M6, and include Preston East (34.89 ha) and Red Scar (21.31 ha). These are located in relatively close proximity to Longridge.
7.39 Proposed new allocations will also be focused around Junction 31(a) and are likely to include The Junction 31(a) Employment Site (up to 25.50 ha) and Roman Road Farm (up to 21.94 ha). These strategic sites will meet needs for industrial and warehousing land, while office requirements will (where possible) be accommodated in the City Centre where there are plans to create a new central business district.
7.40 The availability of land around Junction 31(a) means that there is pressure to release some of the older employment sites for housing, particularly those in city centre locations. Preston City Council (along with other Central Lancashire authorities) has now adopted a joint Supplementary Planning Document which sets out the criteria by which marginal employment sites can be released for other uses.
7.41 In terms of linkages with Ribble Valley, Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy One: ‘Locating Growth’ identifies Longridge as a ‘Key Service Centre’. The policy notes that “land within Central Lancashire may be required to support the development of this Key Service Centre in Ribble Valley.”
7.42 The emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD proposes the 19 ha ‘Land off Whittingham Road’ site, Longridge (Site HS1.26) for
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 95 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
housing, with a potential mixed-use element that could include B1, B2, B8 employment. Developers Gladman are currently seeking outline planning permission to develop 9.19 ha in the south of this site for a mix of uses, including 515 sqm of B1(a) offices, housing and a water pumping station. A previous application, by Gladman, for a similar scheme was refused at appeal in 2012. ‘Cumulative traffic impacts’ on local roads was the cited reason for that refusal. City Council planners have not yet determined if this new proposal addresses those previous concerns.
7.43 Preston City Council argues that the City will benefit from Enterprise Zone proposals at Samlesbury Aerodrome. They envisage that employment areas in Preston will be able to accommodate aerospace supply chain companies who wish to locate close to Samlesbury, but who may not be eligible to occupy the Enterprise Zone itself. However, Council officers feel that the net economic benefit to Preston will be small compared to the benefits for South Ribble and Ribble Valley, particularly as the City does not have an existing cluster of aerospace businesses to build upon.
South Ribble 7.44 In 2010, South Ribble had an employment land supply of 159 ha, and required an additional 27 ha to meet targets derived from the RSS, to 2026. This additional need accounts for half of the total requirement for Central Lancashire (54 ha), to 2026, as set out in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy, Employment Land Requirements Background Topic Paper (2010) and the South Ribble Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, Development Plan Document (2011).
7.45 By this measure, South Ribble requires 186 ha of employment land to meet its needs to 2026. However, the Borough Council also assumes it will lose around 17.5 ha of employment land to non-employment uses over this period, meaning that 203.5 ha will ultimately be required (159 ha on existing sites, 44.4 ha on new allocations).
7.46 South Ribble’s large employment land supply includes major strategic sites at Cuerden and Samlesbury. The strategic site at Cuerden lies between Leyland, Lostock Hall and Bamber Bridge, adjacent to the M6/M65 junction. Owned by Lancashire County Council, this 65 ha site is suitable for high technology industrial and business uses. South Ribble Borough Council is presently in negotiation with a number of developers, who have options on this site, to agree a masterplan for the scheme and bring development forward.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 96 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.47 The Samlesbury Enterprise Zone is split between the South Ribble and Ribble Valley local authority areas. The development proposed within the Enterprise Zone is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this study. South Ribble Borough Council (along with Ribble Valley Borough Council) are presently awaiting completion of a masterplan for the EZ.
7.48 Proposals at Samlesbury Aerodrome will generate additional jobs in South Ribble (and Ribble Valley). However, South Ribble Borough Council is unsure what other benefits the Enterprise Zone will have for the rest of the Borough. For example, while some aerospace supply chain companies (who wish to locate close to Samlesbury) may move to the employment areas of the Borough, others may be discouraged by the distance between Samlesbury Aerodrome and South Ribble’s existing business parks and industrial estates.
Wyre 7.49 The Wyre Core Strategy Preferred Option (2012) divides the Borough into nine Spatial Areas: • Central Rural Plain • Cleveleys • Fleetwood • Garstang and Catterall • Poulton-Le-Fylde and Carleton • Rural East and Uplands • Rural West • Thornton • Wyre Sands.
7.50 The Core Strategy allocates an employment land supply of 96 ha for the period 2011 to 2028. This supply is focused in the Spatial Areas of Thornton (65 percent), Fleetwood (18 percent), Garstang and Catterall (17 percent) and Poulton-Le-Fylde (1 percent).
7.51 A particular focus for employment land allocations is the Fleetwood-Thornton Strategic Site, a strategically important land corridor between Habour Village, Fleetwood and Stanah Road, Thornton. Overall, 76 ha of employment land will be made available in this area, including around 62 ha at Hillhouse, Thornton. Proposals for this former ICI facility include a specialist industrial park, providing land and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 97 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
properties for companies in the energy, renewables, chemicals and plastics sectors, and a 28 ha trade park. Major energy infrastructure is planned on the site, including a 875 MW combined cycle gas power station, to be completed by 2016.
7.52 Fleetwood is recognised as a focus for office development in the Borough, with mixed-use redevelopment options at Fleetwood Docks. However, much of Wyre’s employment land is felt to be constrained by access issues and land in multiple ownerships. There is also a lack of understanding about owner intentions and what is actually deliverable on key sites, including Hillhouse.
7.53 Wyre has recently completed an Employment Land Study (January 2013). This study identified a (gross) land need of 45 ha to 2029. This figure provides opportunities for Wyre to develop its renewables and energy generation industries, alongside growth in established manufacturing sectors.
7.54 As with Lancaster, it is the rural east of Wyre Borough which borders Ribble Valley. Growth in this part of Wyre will be limited to small extensions to existing employment schemes in Catterall and Garstang. These primarily serve local communities and are unlikely to have much influence on the more distant settlements of Ribble Valley.
Town/Parish Councils 7.55 All the Town and Parish Councils in the Borough have been contacted. Only Clitheroe and Longridge Town Councils, together with two Parish Councils - Whalley and Aighton, Bailey & Chaigley, responded with any issues in respect to the economy or the employment land and property market.
7.56 Clitheroe Town Council made three relevant comments in relation to this study: • “They are not aware of other suitable employment sites in Clitheroe that are available that have not already been identified. However, they are of the opinion that land which forms part of the Clitheroe Community Hospital site could be used to develop appropriate medical associated services. • They consider that there is a need to attract more employers to encourage diversity of employment. • They recognise the importance of the [Samlesbury] Enterprise Zone and would not wish to see development elsewhere in Clitheroe which would have a detrimental effect on the success of the Zone.”
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 98 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
7.57 Longridge Town Council was consulted in a face to face meeting. The ten Town Councillors, present at that meeting, concluded that there was a strong need for further employment provision in Longridge. This is necessary to allow the town to keep its existing employers and attract new business opportunities. It is also important to retain existing employment and not lose sites to housing. Finally, Preston City Council is proposing new residential allocations close to Longridge, while the Ribble Valley Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment proposes a further 400 homes in the town. These will create additional local employment demand.
7.58 Existing employment sites, including those at Barrow Brook Business Park, are judged to be too remote from Longridge. Indeed any sites east of Chipping and Ribchester are judged to be inaccessible for local residents. Possible growth locations are all on or across, the boundary with Preston, in the west of Longridge. However, the Town Councillors felt that Ribble Valley and Preston Council officers are not working together to address this issue. Certainly, most of Preston’s land supply is focused at Junction 31a, M6.
7.59 The following sites/areas were considered for employment use: • Shay Lane Industrial Estate is full, with no room to grow unless it is over the boundary in Preston • The former Forrest site is being marketed for small units • The Towneley Auction site now subject to redevelopment proposals for nine starter industrial units • College Farm, Lower Road is considered a suitable location • Land to rear of Sainsburys (around 4 ha), adjacent to the cricket club would be a suitable location. The site could be accessed from Willow Park Lane.
7.60 Agricultural conversions may also generate opportunities, although it is assumed that most such conversions will be for housing.
7.61 Whalley Parish Council argues that as the Calderstones site (previously designated solely for business use, for some 15 years) is developed for housing, there is no demand for employment land within the village. Housing development is also underway on land at nearby Barrow Brook Business Park. The road infrastructure, in and around Whalley, cannot cope with the increased traffic which would result from a
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 99 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
development of further business premises. Future development in Ribble Valley should be focused at the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone.
7.62 Aighton, Bailey & Chaigley Parish Council do not see any sites within its parish that could be developed for large employment sites. Indeed any such proposals would be opposed. However, the Parish Council does recognise the need to develop local employment opportunities, wherever possible, in order to encourage innovative entrepreneurship from both within and outside the local community. In this respect the Parish Council considers Local Plan planning policy should be flexible in its approach to change of use requests for properties such as redundant public houses or farm units which, subject to appropriate safeguards, could lead to increased employment provision.
7.63 The Parish Council also highlights increased levels of home working that might lead to requests for workspace associated with residential properties. Again the Council feels a flexible approach be adopted with the balance being in favour of granting permissions providing it is reasonable to do so. A less stringent alternative to blanket Borough-wide policies would be more encouraging to employment development and be more attuned to the rapidly changing nature of employment –particularly in rural areas.
Summary 7.64 The Samlesbury Enterprise Zone comprises 72 ha of the 300 ha BAE Systems site. 20 ha of this is in Ribble Valley, of which 16 ha will be brought forward in the first phase. This will deliver some 60,000 sqm of floorspace, potentially including heavy manufacturing facilities. The Enterprise Zone will provide accommodation for companies, in certain industry sectors, looking to invest into Lancashire. The Lancashire LEP indicates that four organisations are presently considering investments at Samlesbury over the next two years.
7.65 Between them, the Samlesbury and Warton Enterprise Zones will generate 5,000- 6,000 indirect jobs. However, it is not clear how may of these additional jobs will be generated in Ribble Valley.
7.66 Blackburn with Darwen, Craven, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle and Wyre have few direct links with Ribble Valley. In Pendle, for example, most commuting is along the
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 100 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
M65 Corridor to neighbouring Burnley or east into Yorkshire. Craven is part of the West Yorkshire economic market, with little commuting west along the A59.
7.67 In Burnley, the former Michelin tyre warehouse has now been refurbished and is occupied by aircraft components manufacturer Aircelle. The site will be promoted as an advanced manufacturing/engineering park, providing accommodation for aerospace companies, particularly those who are part of the Aircelle supply chain. It is hoped that this development will operate successfully alongside the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone (i.e. that BAE Systems supply chain firms will go to Samlesbury while Aircelle supply chain firms go to Burnley). However, some competition between the two schemes is likely.
7.68 Preston’s employment land supply is, and will remain, focused around Junction 31a, M6. However, the City is also committed, through the Central Lancashire Core Strategy, to support the development of Longridge as a Key Service Centre. This may include the provision of employment uses in the 19 ha Land off Whittingham Road site, Longridge. Developers Gladman are currently seeking outline planning permission to develop 9.19 ha in the south of this site for a mix of uses, including 515 sqm of offices.
7.69 Neighbouring authorities are supportive of the Enterprise Zone proposals at Samlesbury Aerodrome. However, most do not feel they will derive much economic benefit from this specialist scheme which is (in many cases) distant from their main settlements. Only Burnley and Pendle have existing clusters of aerospace businesses that may be able to develop links with incoming companies of the Enterprise Zone.
7.70 Perhaps surprisingly, South Ribble, home to the bulk of the Samlesbury facility, is also not sure what local benefit will be derived from the Enterprise Zone. Although the scheme will inevitably generate some local employment, Samlesbury Aerodrome is viewed as distant from the key settlements and employment areas of South Ribble. Generally, the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone will be a sub-regional/regional scheme with benefits that are dispersed across Lancashire and the North West. The benefits to individual local authority areas will be limited.
7.71 Although every Parish and Town Council was contacted to seek their views on employment land and premises provision, only four responded. Of these, Clitheroe and Longridge Town Councils identified the need for more local employment
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 101 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
premises. Aighton, Bailey & Chaigley Parish Council comment on the importance of Local Plan planning policies being flexible to enable the use of redundant public house and farm units or the use of part of residential properties – in rural areas – to reflect the rapidly changing nature of employment in rural areas.
7.72 Clitheroe Town Council feels that land at the Clitheroe Community Hospital site could be used to develop appropriate medical services facilities. They also recognise the importance of the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone and would not wish to see development elsewhere if it would have a detrimental effect on the success of the Zone.
7.73 Longridge Town Council indicates that there is a strong need for further employment provision in Longridge. Possible development sites (some of which are in Preston) include an extension to Shay Lane Industrial Estate, the former Forrest site, the Towneley Auction site, College Farm, and land to rear of Sainsbury’s. Agricultural conversions may also generate opportunities, although it is assumed that most such conversions will be for housing.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 102 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
8.0 COMPANY SURVEY
Introduction 8.1 A business survey has been carried out to establish evidence of demand for land and property, and substantiate findings in other sections of this study. It also widens the consultation process and provides direct empirical data on the demand for property and land. It is another strand of evidence that will be used to inform the study’s conclusions and recommendations.
Methodology 8.2 A questionnaire (included at Appendix 7), with explanatory covering letter and pre- paid envelope, was sent out to 200 companies. The list of companies to be surveyed was compiled from those who responded to the 2008 Employment Land Study questionnaire; from EGi, a specialist commercial property database and augmented with data sourced from Ribble Valley Borough Council.
8.3 In 2011 there were approximately 2,000 relevant businesses operating out of B1, B2 or B8 premises or sites in the study area (according to the Office of National Statistics, VAT & PAYE Enterprises, 2012). The survey therefore represents a ten percent sample.
Response 8.4 The postal/online response achieved was 14.0 percent (compared to 33 percent in 2008). Building on this, follow-up telephone calls were made to elicit better co- operation from businesses. These actions significantly enhanced the numbers of responses, as well as establishing those companies who have either ceased trading or are no longer in the study area.
8.5 Overall 105 questionnaires have been completed, 52.5 percent of the total originally targeted (200). This equates to around 5 percent sample of the study area’s relevant business population. The responses reflect the dispersed settlement pattern of the Borough, with no less than eighteen different locations represented. Clitheroe and Longridge are the main employment centres and almost 70 percent of the responses were from companies based in these two towns. Table 35 summarises the responses by location.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 103 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 35 – Company Survey Responses by Location
Location Number of Responses Clitheroe 56 Longridge 14 Whalley 6 Chatburn 5 Barrow 4 Billington 4 Waddington 3 Other 13 Total 105 Source: BE Group 2013
Company Size 8.6 The 105 companies taking part in this survey employ 785 people. Of these, 10.3 percent are part-time employees, as shown in Table 36.
Table 36 – Number of Employees
Location Employment Full Time Part Time Total Clitheroe 448 58 506 Longridge 79 7 86 Whalley 14 2 16 Chatburn 28 3 31 Barrow 9 4 13 Billington 25 1 26 Waddington 31 0 31 Other 70 6 76 Total 704 81 785 Source: BE Group 2013
8.7 Table 37 shows that responses generally follow the national profile of small company employment. 80 percent are micro businesses (1-9 employees), with all but one company employing less than 50. Three companies did not indicate their employment levels.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 104 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 37 – Company Size
Location Number of Companies Responding Company Size, Employees 0-2 3-5 6-9 10-20 21-49 50+ N/K Total Clitheroe 20 15 8 7 4 1 1 56 Longridge 4 4 3 2 1 0 0 14 Whalley 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 Chatburn 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 Barrow 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Billington 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 Waddington 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 Other 6 2 1 2 0 0 2 13 Total 38 30 14 13 6 1 3 105 Source: BE Group 2013
Current Premises 8.8 Companies were asked to state the type of property they occupy e.g. offices, industrial, warehouse, etc. Industrial premises dominate. Table 38 shows that 47 percent of the companies replying occupy industrial/warehouse accommodation. One quarter of respondents are in offices, and 17 percent work from home.
Table 38 – Responses by Premises Type Occupied
Location Industrial Office Warehouse Barn Home Other Total Conversion /Farm Clitheroe 21 13 6 5 10 1 56 Longridge 8 3 1 0 2 0 14 Whalley 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 Chatburn 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 Barrow 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 Billington 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 Waddington 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 Other 3 2 0 4 4 0 13 Total 40 27 9 10 18 1 105 Source: BE Group 2013
8.9 Companies were asked to indicate whether they own or rent their property. Table 39 shows that a slightly higher proportion of companies rent their premises than own them, although this is influenced by the level of responses from Clitheroe based
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 105 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
companies. For most of the smaller settlements freehold properties dominate, a pointer to the limited availability of rented premises due to an absence of property investors outside Clitheroe, Longridge and Barrow. It should be noted that 17 percent of the companies are home-based – all of which are owned freehold.
Table 39 –Tenure of Premises Occupied
Location Freehold Leasehold N/A Not Stated Total (work from home) Clitheroe 17 24 10 5 56 Longridge 6 5 2 1 14 Whalley 2 3 0 1 6 Chatburn 1 3 1 0 5 Barrow 0 1 2 1 4 Billington 4 0 0 0 4 Waddington 2 0 0 1 3 Other 5 4 4 0 13 Total 37 40 19 9 105 Source: BE Group 2013
8.10 Table 40 indicates the sizes of premises occupied by companies. Overall, emphasis is on premises of 500 sqm or less (61 percent). A further 27 percent are either home based or were unable to state the size of their premises. Only seven companies occupy property in excess of 1,000 sqm.
Table 40 – Size of Premises Occupied
Location Number of Companies Responding Size, sqm 0-100 101-200 201-500 501- 1001- 2001- N/A Not Total 1000 2000 5000 (work stated from home) Clitheroe 15 14 6 4 1 4 9 3 56 Longridge 4 4 3 1 0 0 2 0 14 Whalley 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Chatburn 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 5 Barrow 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 Billington 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 Waddington 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Other 1 2 0 0 0 2 4 4 13
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 106 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Location Number of Companies Responding Size, sqm 0-100 101-200 201-500 501- 1001- 2001- N/A Not Total 1000 2000 5000 (work stated from home) Total 26 24 14 6 1 6 18 10 105 Source: BE Group 2013
8.11 Respondents were asked to comment on whether they were satisfied with their present accommodation, and if not to explain why. Over 94 percent are content, with only six companies stating they were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied.
8.12 All but one of the six companies provided explanations. Four companies are in premises they feel are no longer suited to their needs because of the building age, layout, access arrangements and maintenance issues. Two are in Clitheroe, with one each in Chatburn and Longridge. One Clitheroe company commented on town centre parking restrictions being an issue for their premises.
Future Accommodation Requirements 8.13 Companies were asked to indicate whether they are considering moving premises in the next twelve months, or two to three years. Only seven companies indicated that they are intending to relocate; with three of them proposing that this will happen in the next twelve months. Five companies require industrial/warehouse space, with two stating that this should include offices. One company is seeking space that would be delivered by conversion of a redundant agricultural building. Another requires office space. No land requirements have been identified. This compares to nine office requirements; six industrial requirements, and one site, which were identified in the 2008 study.
8.14 The forecasted future space needs by size, tenure, quality and location type are shown in Table 41.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 107 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Table 41 – Property Requirements by Location and Type
Location Property Current Required Tenure and Area Preferred Type Type Size, sqm Size, sqm Quality Clitheroe Town Centre Office 0-100 0-100 Leasehold/Budget Clitheroe/Whalley Industrial Warehouse Unknown Unknown No Preference/ Clitheroe Estate/ + Office Moderate Business Park Industrial Industrial 201-500 201-500 No Preference/ Clitheroe Estate Budget Industrial Warehouse 2,001- 2,001- No Preference/ Clitheroe/ M65 Estate/ 5,000 5,000 Moderate Corridor Business Park Barn Industrial 0-100 0-100 Freehold/ No Anywhere rural in Conversion Preference Ribble Valley Chatburn Unknown Warehouse Unknown Unknown No Preference/ No Unknown Preference Longridge Town Centre Warehouse Unknown Unknown Freehold/ Budget Longridge Total 2,202-5700 2,202-5700 Source: BE Group 2013
8.15 Analysis of the seven requirements suggests that all involve alternative, rather than additional, premises. The majority do not express a preference in terms of leasehold/freehold tenure. In terms of the preferred location most companies identify Clitheroe, although one that is already based in Longridge wishes to remain there. There is also a very clear preference for industrial property, with only one office requirement identified.
8.16 There is no evidence to confirm the requirements will involve additional floorspace. Where companies have indicated a size band for their future space, these all align to their existing premises and reflect indications that moves would be for alternative rather than additional space.
8.17 The known demand is mostly for properties of below 500 sqm. Two of the three companies who do not define future spatial needs are micro businesses and as such are therefore also likely to be wanting properties of sub-500 sqm.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 108 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
8.18 One further responding Clitheroe based company commented that they will be expanding within five years, planning to move from 100 sqm to 930 sqm of industrial space. The future location is fluid; it could be within Ribble Valley or elsewhere in Pennine or Central Lancashire.
Property Factors 8.19 Companies expecting to move in the next three years were invited to identify the most important factor(s) to be considered when looking for alternative accommodation. The responses indicate the most important factors are accessibility (for either customers or commercial vehicles); availability of parking; the size and specification of the property. The environmental setting was also mentioned by one company.
Additional Findings 8.20 92 of the 105 companies responding to the survey state that they are occupying the same premises they began their business in. Three of the remaining 13 companies have moved to their current property as a result of relocations into the Ribble Valley from Blackburn or Read. Another has expanded into the Ribble Valley from its Preston base.
8.21 Companies were asked if they had initially been formed in the Ribble Valley, and if so for how long. Around three quarters are indigenous to the Ribble Valley, with two approaching 100 years of operations. Almost one third have been in existence from at least the 1990s. However, 42 percent have only been established in the last ten years, and indeed one fifth have been set up since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007.
8.22 The economic situation in the UK is continuing to impact on companies’ growth expectations. Only 30 percent expect to see growth in their business over the next five years, and of these only two companies consider they will experience significant growth. For most the expectation is for maintaining current business levels. However, only five companies comment that they expect to reduce operations and these include two where the current owners are planning for retirement.
Summary 8.23 The company survey secured a 52.5 percent response rate.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 109 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
8.24 The survey results reflect Ribble Valley’s local economy structure. Despite the general economic shift from industrial to service sector activity, the former remains a strong focus for the Borough.
8.25 The survey shows a much lower level of demand, in terms of companies planning to expand to new premises, than was the case at the time of the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study. This would appear to reflect the general economic situation, with most companies expressing caution about future growth levels.
8.26 The emphasis of demand is to industrial/warehouse space of up to 500 sqm. Where companies have indicated a preference, this is for both leasehold and freehold premises. Industrial estates are the most popular locations. Companies want budget or moderate quality accommodation.
8.27 The findings in Section 4.0 – Property Market General assess the supply of available premises. In Table 42 the available properties are aligned to the identified company requirements as one test of the supply and demand situation.
Table 42 – Ribble Valley Premises Supply and Demand Analysis
Requirement Industrial Office Property Size, Available Number of Available Number of sqm Units Requirements Units Requirements Identified by Identified by Company Company Survey Survey 0-100 10 1 34 1 101-200 5 - 8 - 201-500 13 1 5 - 501-1,000 4 - 3 - 1,001-2,000 1 - 1 - 2,001-5,000 3 1 - - 5,001+ 1 - - - Source: BE Group 2013
8.28 Table 42 illustrates that overall Ribble Valley has a reasonable range of industrial premises, in that there is some availability in all size bands. However this supply is weighted towards premises of less than 500 sqm, with few options for companies who may require larger properties.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 110 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
8.29 Table 42 also shows that the supply of office accommodation is very much geared to micro businesses or start up/small operations. Two thirds of the available properties represent sizes of 100 sqm or less and there is only one larger (1,001 sqm and above) option on the market.
8.30 Table 43 compares the tenure and quality of the available accommodation with the identified requirements. This suggests a shortage of freehold industrial properties in the Borough, against the demand emerging from just the company survey. There appears to be a plentiful supply of office premises, though there are no freehold opportunities. There are few good quality or new premises available. However the company survey findings suggest occupiers’ aspirations are only for lesser quality space.
Table 43 – Ribble Valley Premises Supply – Qualitative Analysis
Requirement Industrial Office Property Size, sqm Available Number of Available Number of Units Requirements Units Requirements Identified by Identified by Company Company Survey Survey Freehold (or Either) 4 6 - - Leasehold 33 4 51 1 Good Quality/New 7 - - - Moderate 29 2 51 - Basic/Budget 1 2 - 1 Source: BE Group 2013
8.31 It should be remembered that the company survey is just one strand of evidence, providing an illustration of pent-up demand. It is not the sole answer. It is probable that not all the company requirements identified by the survey returns will come to fruition. Equally there will be other companies who were surveyed that stated that they do not intend to relocate or expand at the moment, but which may well do so over the next three years. It should also be noted that this survey has been undertaken during a period of challenging national and global economic conditions. This is likely to impact on companies’ future plans and the timing of these plans.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 111 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
9.0 GROWTH FORECASTS
Introduction 9.1 This section explains the five alternative models we have applied to the assessment of employment land allocations for the Local Plan period. None provide a definitive answer, but they are influences to be considered. The five models are explained in the following paragraphs and are summarised as follows: • Historic land take-up forecast • Policy off – employment based forecast • Policy off – labour supply forecast • Policy on – employment based forecast • Policy on – labour supply forecast.
9.2 Both the ‘policy off’ and ‘policy on’ forecasts are based on data commissioned for this study from Oxford Economics. As such they represent up to date forecasts that reflect the impact of the recent recession.
9.3 The ‘policy on’ forecasts reflect the Enterprise Zone status allocated to part of the BAE Systems site at Samlesbury.
9.4 For the last four models we have commented upon the implications in terms of the volume of land required. Where appropriate the options take into account assumptions regarding the built floorspace associated with developable land areas drawn from the consultancy team’s experience and application in other Employment Land Review studies. Job related densities used equate to those identified in the Homes and Communities Agency and OFFPAT (Office of Project and Programme Advice and Training) Employment Densities Guide 2nd Edition, published in 2010.
9.5 This section also considers the land needs of non B-class employment uses included within the NPPF definition of ‘economic development’,
Model 1: Historic Land Take-Up 9.6 Employment land take-up is recorded by the Borough Council. Table 44 schedules completions since 1998. It combines evidence complied for the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study with the subsequent Borough Council Annual Monitoring Reports’ data on employment land take-up. The 15.83 ha of land developed since 1998 equates to an annual average take-up of 1.13 ha. Total land take-up is
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 112 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
categorised between B Use classes (B1 offices; B1 industrial; B2 industry and B8 warehousing) and employment land gain with other use classes. Table 44 – Ribble Valley Employment Land Take-up 1997/98-2011/12
Year Amount of Land, ha 1998-2008 1 10.72 2008-2009 2 1.15 2009-2010 2 3.09 2010-2011 2 0.40 2011-2012 2 0.47 Total 15.83 Average Annual Take-up, ha/year 1.13 (14 years period) Average Annual Take-up, ha/year 1.26 (5 years period) Source: Ribble Valley BC/BE Group 2013 NB.1: From 2008 Ribble Valley Employment Land & Retail Study NB.2: From Ribble Valley BC Annual Monitoring Report
9.7 The historic (long term) take-up rate of 1.13 ha is marginally higher than the 1.07 ha figure reported in the 2008 study. This is somewhat surprising bearing in mind the economic recession during the past five years. It is testimony to the resilience of the Ribble Valley local economy. As a consequence the annual average take-up for the last five years also exceeds, at 1.26 ha, the historic 1.13 ha per annum.
9.8 Application of the long term take-up figure suggests Ribble Valley would need 18.08 ha to cater for an expected annual take-up of 1.13 ha for the next 16 years (to the end of the Local Plan period, 2028). However the Borough should, based on accepted practice for employment land studies, have a buffer of five years supply to reflect a choice of sites by size, quality and location and to provide a continuum of supply beyond the end of the Plan period. Based on the historic take-up trend this would increase land supply need to 23.73 ha.
9.9 At March 31 2012 the headline supply of available land in the Borough (from Section 6.0) was 20.00 ha, which suggests there is a small surplus of 1.92 ha, based on historic trends – and before allowance for any buffer. As noted in Section 6.0, the supply position has reduced as a consequence of an alternative use planning consent, to create a realistic supply figure of 15.68 ha. This suggests a shortfall in supply of 2.40 ha against the historic trend.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 113 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
9.10 Notwithstanding the short term trend which has seen an increased annual take-up average during a period of economic recession, it is prudent to apply longer period trends in considering forecasts for the Local Plan period. The average take-up for the last fourteen years has been 1.13 ha. Applying this rate, Ribble Valley would require 18.08 ha to the end of the Local Plan period, plus a five year buffer of 6.65 ha. The resulting total of 24.73 ha suggests the Borough has a shortfall of 4.73 ha compared to the headline supply and 9.05 ha against the realistic supply figure.
Model 2: ‘Policy Off’ – Employment Based Forecast 9.11 This scenario uses as its base the Oxford Economics Forecasts referred to above. The forecasts project employment change through to 2028 and include annual employment figures for the Borough from 1991.
9.12 The forecasts break down employment to the level of 19 industry sectors, although not all are relevant to this Employment Land review. It should be noted that for this model the forecasts reflect a non-intervention scenario, in that no account is taken of any planned or emerging investment programmes or strategies in the Ribble Valley.
9.13 Oxford Economics’ baseline indicates that whilst Ribble Valley’s employment was initially impacted by the recent recession, with a fall in numbers in 2007 and 2008, there has since been a sharp recovery. Job numbers in 2012 (34,500) were well above those of 2007 (28,700). The forecasts suggest a year on year growth from 2013, albeit at a low level, right through to the end of the Plan period.
9.14 As a result, over the Plan period total employment is forecast to increase by 1,600 jobs, equivalent to a rise of 4.6 percent from 2012, when the total figure was 34,500. However, this is significantly less than the UK growth figure of 8.1 percent for the same period, and is also below the 6.2 percent increase rate projected for the North West.
9.15 The figures suggest that Ribble Valley is aligned to the general trend of the UK of a decline in manufacturing employment and growth in services. At 2012 manufacturing employment represented over one fifth of the Borough’s total, 20.6 percent, almost two and a half times the UK average (8.3 percent) and more than double that for the North West (9.2 percent). Although manufacturing employment in the Borough is forecast to reduce to 15.8 percent by 2028, it remains a very significant share of the
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 114 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
local economy and employment provision due to the presence of BAE Systems site at Samlesbury. This reduced share is still very substantially above the North West (7.0 percent) and UK (6.3 percent) projections for 2028.
9.16 Although services sector employment is forecast to grow in Ribble Valley over the Plan period, the rate of growth is well below that for either the North West or the UK. As Table 45 illustrates for most of the services sectors Ribble Valley’s share of employment is less than half the national or regional rates. This is the case for both private and public sector services employment.
Table 45 – Employment Share For Service Sectors, 2028 Ribble Valley, North West, UK
Service Sector Percentage Share 2028 of Total Employment Ribble Valley North West UK Information & Communications 1.7 2.6 4.1 Financial & Insurance 0.8 3.0 3.2 Professional, Scientific & 4.4 8.7 9.4 Technical Administration & Support 4.7 9.2 9.3 Public Administration 1.9 3.8 3.9 Other Services 2.2 2.9 3.0 Source: Oxford Economics Forecasts 2013
9.17 Reflecting its rural and tourism characteristics the forecasts show Ribble Valley’s employment shares for agriculture (2.2 percent) and accommodation and food services (10.5 percent) well above the regional and national averages at the end of the Plan Period. Collectively they represent 12.7 percent of Ribble Valley’s total employment, compared to 8.2 percent for the North West, and only 7.9 percent for the UK.
9.18 In terms of future employment land requirements this model is likely to be affected by three key factors: • The future mix of activities in respect of office, manufacturing and warehousing employment within different sectors. It is not possible to predict the impact of evolving technical change over the Local Plan period, and we have therefore assumed the current split is maintained
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 115 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• The average space each employee occupiers – the employment density. We have assumed no variation in the density rates through to 2028 and as stated earlier have used those identified in the 2010 published Employment Densities Guide 2 nd Edition • The average development floorspace per hectare for office, manufacturing and warehousing activities. We have applied the uniform amount of 3,900 sqm per ha.
9.19 Table 46 provides a breakdown of the projected sector changes. It should be noted that the figures include non-B use class sectors such as retailing, hotel and catering, to acknowledge their reference as economic activity. Total employment is forecast to increase by 1,600 between 2012 and 2028, despite the decline in manufacturing.
Table 46 – Projected Employment Change by Industry Sector 2012-2028
Industry Sector Workforce Change Percentage Numbers of Employees Workforce Change Agriculture (100) -11.1 Utilities - - Manufacturing (1,400) -19.7 Construction - - Transportation & Storage - - Wholesale & Retail 1,400 +15.2 Hotels & Catering 400 +11.8 Information & Communications 100 +20.0 Real Estate - - Finance & Insurance 100 +50.0 Professional, Scientific & Technical 300 +18.8 Services Administrative & Support Services 500 +41.7 Public Administration (100) -12.5 Education 100 +2.8 Health & Social Work 100 - Arts, Entertainment, Research 100 +25.0 Other Services 100 +14.3 TOTAL 1,600 Source: Oxford Economics/BE Group 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 116 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
9.20 In calculating the employment land requirement arising from forecast employment changes, the following assumptions have been used (Table 47): • The proportion of people in each industry sector that occupy B1, B2 or B8 space conforms to those ratios used in other studies and accepted in comparable locations and are sourced from the South East Regional Planning Conference’s ‘The Use of Business Space’ • Employment Densities for each B Use Class are those set out in the 2010 Employment Densities Guide 2 nd Edition published by HCA and OFFPAT • The development per hectare of land is uniform across all B Use Class functions – 3,900 sqm per hectare, the accepted industry norm.
Table 47 – Model Assumptions for Industry Sectors – Employment Percentage Occupying B Use Class Floorspace and Floorspace Allocations
Industry Employees Sector Percentage B1,B2,B8 Other Comments Occupying B1, B2, Floorspace per B8 Floorspace, person, sqm Agriculture 5 12 Managerial, admin Utilities 5 12 Manufacturing 100 36-47 Higher density reflects B2; Lower density B1 light industry Construction 26 12 Managerial, admin Distribution 48 70 Warehouses, offices-non large scale/high bay facilities Transport 48 70 Warehouses, offices-non large scale/high bay facilities Financial & 100 12 Business Government & 22 12 Local Government, Public Other Services Administration Source: SERPLAN and Employment Densities Guide 2 nd Edition, 2010
9.21 Application of these assumptions suggests the following in terms of future employment land provision: • From sectors predicted to grow, the need for a further 12.00 ha • From those sectors where employment is forecast to reduce there will be a reduction in the requirement of between 12.99 and 16.94 ha less land. This range reflects the variance in employment densities between light and general manufacturing.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 117 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
9.22 The net result of this suggests Ribble Valley would have an excess of between 1.0 and 4.9 ha of employment land by 2028, before taking into account the current baseline supply. The detailed calculation is provided at Appendix 8.
9.23 In reality the employment land provision situation will be reliant upon two issues. Firstly, how far the growth in office employment takes place in a town centre location, at higher densities, rather than in low-density business parks. Secondly, whether the decline in some manufacturing sub-sectors will actually lead to the release of land that could then be regenerated for other employment uses.
9.24 It is probable that these land requirements’ calculations represent a false position. Irrespective of changes to employment densities, whilst growth sectors seek to expand by taking additional space, declining sectors may actually not release land in line with the above assumptions. Were this to be the case this model’s outcome would change to a position where around three quarters of the current realistic supply would be required to meet the forecast need.
9.25 It is possible the Local Plan period will see further changes in employment densities. For office employment this could be the result of trends towards remote working, hot desking, increased use of ICT and smaller businesses. Densities in manufacturing and distribution may well continue to fall as a result of automation. However, it is impossible to project what the percentage change in densities might be and thus what the impact on future land requirements might be.
Model 3: ‘Policy Off’ Labour Supply Forecast 9.26 This scenario is based upon Oxford Economics Population Forecasts. The projections indicate a rise in population numbers for the Borough to 64,000 by 2028. This represents a 10.3 percent increase from the 2012 figure of 58,000. Reflecting a trend of an ageing population, the working age population figure would increase by a lesser amount, from 33,000 to 35,000.
9.27 The forecast is based on the assumption that the current resident employment rate of 83 percent will marginally increase to 84 percent by 2028. This suggests a 1,600 increase in the number of residents working by 2028. To calculate what the increase means in terms of impact on employment land need we have converted the effect of the 1,600 growth into an equivalent land area. We have applied the Oxford
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 118 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Economics’ forecasts for the percentage shares of the different industry sectors to the 1,600 figure to establish the number of jobs applicable to each sector. We have also assumed that the relationship between employment densities and land requirements within industry sectors is the same as projected in Model 2 – the employment based analysis. This translates to an increased need of between 3.40 and 4.11 ha. As with Model 2 the range of need reflects high and low densities for manufacturing employment. However the model indicates there would be a significant oversupply of employment land when measured against the current baseline position.
Model 4: ‘Policy On’ Scenario, Employment Based Forecast 9.28 The ‘policy on’ scenario is based on the information contained within the Lancashire Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Enterprise Zone bid application, approved by the Department of Communities and Local Government in August 2011, referenced elsewhere in this report. The scenario reflects the following: • 701 direct jobs are to be created at the Enterprise Zone by 2015 and 2,461 in total by 2037 (end of Enterprise Zone status) • 1,204 indirect jobs are to be generated through the supply chain and local services sector by 2015 • Development of 35,000 sqm of B1,B2 and B8 space by 2015 and 6,000 sqm of D1 space for a Regional Skills Academy • The Enterprise Zone will focus on upper tier high value companies in aerospace, general aviation services, high end automotive, computing systems engineering and autonomous systems, nuclear, advanced flexible materials and renewable energy.
9.29 The ‘policy on’ scenario identifies a number of differences from the ‘policy off’ forecasts. These are: • The overall jobs total forecast will increase by 4,900 over the Local Plan period (compared to 1,600 in the policy off scenario) as a consequence of the Enterprise Zone’s introduction • There will be a increase of 3,000 in the number of residents working, rather than an increase of 1,600 –again as a result of the Enterprise Zone’s introduction • The resident employment rate increases to 86 percent in 2028, compared to 84 percent in the ‘policy off’ forecast
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 119 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Reflecting the nature of Enterprise Zone the manufacturing, transportation, and administrative and support services sectors see enhanced levels of employment growth, compared to the ‘policy off’ forecast.
9.30 Applying the ‘policy on’ scenario to the employment based model indicates that growth sectors would generate a further need of between 23.02 and 24.71 ha. Taking account of reduced employment in other sectors would result in a minimal reduction in need to between 22.95 and 24.66 ha. As explained previously, the variance reflects the different employment densities applicable to light and general industry in that there would therefore be a need of 5.5 ha based on the lower floorspace per job ratio, which increases to 7.2 ha at the higher floorspace ratio. This model suggests an additional need of between 20 and 22 ha compared to Model 2 ‘Policy Off’ Employment Based Forecast. This would be substantially accommodated by the Enterprise Zone, which as stated in the Borough’s Core Strategy does not form part of the general employment land supply.
Model 5: ‘Policy On’ Labour Supply Forecast 9.31 For the labour supply model the ‘policy on’ scenario indicates there would be an increase in working residents of 3,000, over the Local Plan period. Assuming this increase aligns to the percentage share of each industry sector in accordance with the forecast employment by sector, then this suggests a need of between 14.10 and 15.75 ha. However set against the headline supply position of 20.00 ha this suggests that as much as 30 percent of the supply could be considered surplus.
9.32 The detailed calculations for the ‘policy on’ scenarios are set out in Appendix 8.
Land Needs of Non-B Class Uses 9.33 The NPPF provides a broad definition of ‘economic development’ which extends beyond B-class employment to include “public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development).” No further definition of ‘public and community uses’ or ‘main town centre uses’ is provided. However, based on BE Group’s past experience and earlier definitions provided in the (now revoked) Planning Policy Statement 4, relevant non-B class sectors will include: • Retail trade (excluding wholesale and motor trade)
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 120 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
• Accommodation and food service activities • Education • Human health and social work activities • Arts, entertainment and recreation. 9.34 All these non-B class employment uses can be accommodated within town centres, while education and human health and social work activities are the main ‘community’ uses which generate employment (i.e. employment in schools, higher/further education facilities, hospitals and associated medical centres).
9.35 At present, these sectors are estimated to account for around a third of all jobs in Ribble Valley. This is expected to increase slightly to 34.9 percent by 2028, according to Oxford Economics’ job forecasts.
9.36 It must be recognised that the job and space requirements associated with these sectors are estimated and planned for in a different way to B class uses. For example, health facilities will have quite specific land needs that are not linked directly to job numbers; education facilities are planned based on forecasts for pupil roll numbers and capacity in existing schools/colleges. Retail or leisure operators will locate in town centres, within mixed-use schemes or in locations of their choice, rather than on specifically allocated sites.
Retail Trade 9.37 The Retail Trade (except of motor vehicles and motorcycles) sector provided 2,100 jobs in Ribble Valley in 2012 (Oxford Economics forecast). This equates to some 6.1 percent of the total number of jobs. Oxford Economics forecast the sector to see growth of 300 jobs by 2028. By the end of the Local Plan period the sector’s share of total jobs in the Borough will have risen to 6.6 percent.
9.38 Most new retail floorspace can be expected to be located primarily within or adjoining the Borough’s main centres. It is possible, as has already been explained, that some retail warehousing and convenience superstores may seek to locate on existing industrial land because their floorplate and site requirements cannot be accommodated elsewhere. It is difficult to estimate as part of this study how much industrial land might be needed for retail uses (particularly non-food retail) over the Local Plan period. However it is suggested a relatively modest amount of say 1-2 ha, could come under pressure for warehousing/superstore uses, primarily in the Clitheroe area.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 121 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Accommodation and Food Service Activities 9.39 The Accommodation and Food Services Activities sector provided 3,400 jobs in Ribble Valley in 2012 (9.9 percent of the total). Growth of some 400 jobs is predicted by 2028. By the end of the Local Plan period the sector’s share of total jobs in the Borough will have risen to 10.5 percent.
9.40 The sector covers employment generated by hotel, bed and breakfast self-catering accommodation, as well as bars and restaurants.
9.41 Demand for this sector is generated from both domestic, and to a lesser extent overseas tourism (hotels and restaurants), as well as spend by the Borough’s residents (most likely to be restaurants and other catering). Future growth depends on visitor numbers to Ribble Valley and business activity. For example many business parks now include 3 or 4 star hotels as part of their offer of support services for occupiers. As Barrow Business Park continues to grow then provision might be required for such a hotel, linked to the existing roadside services.
9.42 Of the uses included in this sector it is only likely to be hotels (especially if they want co-located bar/restaurant facilities) that will have significant new land needs. Most other bars, restaurants, pubs etc are likely to occupy existing retail properties or rural premises. Consequently it seems appropriate to make some provision for land for new hotel facilities. Based on the typical current site requirements of 3 star budget chain hotels, this would mean in the order of 1 ha.
Education 9.43 This sector incorporates primary and secondary schools, further education colleges as well as commercial nurseries. In 2012 the sector comprised 2,100 jobs in the Borough which Oxford Economics forecast will rise to 2,200 by the end of the Local Plan period.
9.44 The scale and location of new facilities is heavily interrelated with the level of population and housing growth in the Borough. It is likely any new school provision will be accommodated within the gross area of larger housing/settlement developments, such as that proposed at Standen.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 122 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Human Health and Social Work Activities 9.45 Included within this sector are hospitals, medical centres, GP and dental surgeries, private or specialist healthcare (e.g. physiotherapy), veterinary practices and residential care homes. Oxford Economics estimate that in 2012, 3,600 jobs were provided in this sector within Ribble Valley. At just over 10 percent of the total jobs in the Borough, the sector is the third largest source of employment behind manufacturing and wholesale trade. Oxford Economics’ jobs forecasts expect to see the sector experience only a modest rise of 100 jobs between 2012 and 2028.
9.46 Despite a slowdown in Government spending on health, the increasing numbers and longevity of the elderly population and possible growth in demand for private health care may lead to further provision of residential care homes. Nevertheless in general employment sites are inappropriate locations for care homes, due to amenity considerations. However, some smaller rural sites might be of interest for such use.
9.47 There is evidence elsewhere of veterinary practices, GP and private or specialist healthcare operations being accommodated on employment sites, or through a change of use of existing office buildings. The informal health sector, with its many micro-business practitioners, tends to operate from dwellings, converted retail premises or community buildings. Whilst they can contribute to local job growth, they do not require significant amounts of floorspace.
9.48 Consequently it is considered the growth in employment from this sector will be limited in terms of requirements for new space (more probably existing buildings will be occupied through changes of use) and there will be very little requirement for additional land.
Arts Entertainment and Leisure 9.49 This sector includes amongst other activities forms of commercial leisure such as cinemas, theatres, bowling alleys, bingo halls and nightclubs. Overall the relative proximity of major leisure facilities in surrounding Districts (particularly Preston and Blackburn with Darwen) constrains the catchment area and potential for sizeable growth in commercial leisure facilities in Ribble Valley. There could be some expansion of provision in bars and nightclubs, but these activities would mainly be located within town centres, using former retail properties or forming part of new mixed-use development. They would not require additional land of any significant scale.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 123 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Summary 9.50 Five alternative forecast options have been produced and considered for the Plan period. The calculations for each are summarised in Table 48, which illustrates the net land need for each model when the existing headline baseline supply of 20.00 ha is taken into account. The calculations show varied outcomes, with the land take-up trend models and the two ‘Policy On’ scenarios suggesting a range of shortfalls. The ‘Policy Off’ employment and labour supply models indicate a surplus, ranging from a low of 10.06 ha to a high of 24.66 ha.
Table 48 – Land Forecast Models – Summary
Model Land Land Need Buffer (5 Surplus Assumptions Stock 2012-2028, years (shortfall), 2012 1, ha take-up ha ha rate), ha Long Term Land 20.00 18.08 5.65 (3.73) Based on historic Take-up (14 years) take- up of 1.13 ha/pa Short Term Land 20.00 20.16 6.30 (6.46) Based on last five Take-up years take up of 1.26 ha/pa Policy ‘Off’ 20.00 -0.99/-4.94 5.65 19.29/24.66 Based on Employment projected Based growth/reduction of employment in industry sectors and inclusion of historic take up buffer Policy ‘Off’ 20.00 3.40/4.11 5.65 10.24/10.95 Based on Labour Supply population projections and industry sector changes (growth/reduction) and impact on floorspace (and thus land) need, and inclusion of historic take up buffer. Policy ‘On’ (linked 20.00 22.95/24.64 5.65 (8.60/10.29) As per to Enterprise employment Zone) based policy of Employment model but reflects Based Enterprise Zone forecasts Policy ‘On’ (linked 20.00 14.10/15.75 5.65 0.25(1.40) As per labour to Enterprise supply policy off
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 124 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Model Land Land Need Buffer (5 Surplus Assumptions Stock 2012-2028, years (shortfall), 2012 1, ha take-up ha ha rate), ha Zone) Labour model but reflects Supply Enterprise Zone forecasts Source: BE Group 2013 1 N.B. Headline supply at 31 March 2012
9.51 The employment based model suggests that the Borough might eliminate all of the current baseline available supply, even after allowing for a five years buffer. The labour supply model suggests around 10 ha of the baseline land supply would be surplus, though this reduces to between 5 and 6 ha when assessed against the realistic supply figure of 15.68 ha.
9.52 The ‘policy off’ forecasts indicate the Borough needs significantly less employment land than predicted by either the long or short term take-up rates. Indeed both ‘policy off’ models suggest that at best only half of the currently allocated or consented but undeveloped employment land in Ribble Valley is required.
9.53 Common sense suggests this argument is flawed. The two models cannot account for the vagaries of the property market. They assume the property market is perfect and not rife with market failures as is reality. For example, neither model makes allowances for companies modernising or relocating into different sized properties; that land is not used totally efficiently; that some brownfield land may remain undeveloped due to the costs of remediation; that some companies occupy more space than they need or will hold land long term for their own possible future expansion; or that there needs to be a range of sites and locations to provide companies with choice.
9.54 The ‘policy on’ forecast scenarios generate outcomes that suggest Ribble Valley would have a shortfall of land – although somewhat lesser in scale for the labour supply based model compared to the employment based scenario. The latter could see a shortfall equivalent to as much as half the current baseline supply. However, it should be noted the Enterprise Zone land allocation is excluded from the Employment Land supply, and it must be anticipated that the demand generated would be accommodated within the Enterprise Zone.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 125 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
9.55 In other local authority areas where similar studies have been completed, the use of employment and labour supply models has also generated comparable results. In all instances where BE Group has been involved these models have been discounted in favour of long term land take-up trends. The latter have been considered a better yardstick for future land supply requirements and have been accepted as such by local authorities and planning inspectors examining these studies.
9.56 Furthermore the figures in Table 48 relate to the 2012 headline land supply. They take no account of the potential loss to this supply, identified in Section 6.0, which generates a realistic supply figure reduced to 15.68 ha.
9.57 The non B Uses could provide some 1,000 more jobs in Ribble Valley by 2028, a 7.9 percent increase on the 2012 employment level.
9.58 In terms of future land needs for these sectors the analyses suggest land requirements for more are likely to be at best modest (see Table 49). This is largely because many will use land already held by the relevant provider, or because the use can be incorporated within mixed-use developments, often town centre based.
Table 49 – Non-B Class Sectors Job Growth and Land Requirements
Sector Employment Employment Additional Implications for B Class Nos 2012 Forecast Land Land Growth Requirement (Decline) to 2028 Retail Trade 2,100 +300 1-2 ha Potential, for modest employment land losses to warehousing/superstore uses, primarily in the Clitheroe area.
Accommodation 3,400 +400 1 ha (for Potentially a hotel could & Food hotel) occupy Business Park Services location Education 2,100 +100 Possible None. New facilities likely to be associated with housing developments Health & Social 3,600 +100 Likely to be Potential for some Work limited in activities e.g. vets scale practice, informal health activities to locate on B Class sites or occupy existing office / industrial buildings, based on trend evidence elsewhere.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 126 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Residential care homes might pursue stand alone industrial sites where location is considered appropriate from market perspective Arts, 400 +100 Likely to be None. Activities Entertainment & limited in associated mainly with Leisure scale town centres uses and will occupy either retail properties or be part of new mixed-use schemes Source: Oxford Economics / BE Group 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 127 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 This study has included a wide-ranging look at the factors affecting the Ribble Valley’s economy, with particular reference to those that are likely to affect the future need for land and property within the Borough. This section draws together the main issues that will need to be addressed as a preliminary to the more detailed recommendations set out in Section 11.0.
Planning Policy Position 10.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) places a strong emphasis on delivering sustainable development through the planning system. This includes reviewing employment land allocations to ensure supply meets identified objectively assessed needs; proactively supporting sustainable economic development to deliver business and industrial units, and encouraging the effective use of land by reusing brownfield land.
10.3 The Government’s planning policy approach sees responsibility resting with Ribble Valley Borough Council to set employment land requirement figures for the Local Plan. Land targets will be tested through the Local Plan process and the Council therefore needs to collect and use reliable information to justify employment land supply policies. This report provides this information.
10.4 The economic role that the planning system must perform incorporates contributing to the building of a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring sufficient land of the right type is available in the right locations, at the right time, to support growth and innovation.
10.5 The NPPF states that ‘significant weight’ should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. To help achieve this growth, Local Plans should set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment and to meet anticipated needs over the Local Plan period. For Ribble Valley this means to 2028.
10.6 In addition, during the course of this study the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced the intention to increase the scope of permitted development rights in order to facilitate growth. These will allow change of
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 128 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
use from B1 (a) offices to C3 residential. The policy change will be reviewed after three years to determine whether the policy should be extended indefinitely.
10.7 The NPPF also highlights that allocated employment sites for which there is no reasonable prospect of development should not be protected in the long term. Proposals for alternative uses on such sites should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.
10.8 The NPPF states that local planning authorities should apply sequential testing to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. This sequential testing applies to office development – but not to small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development. As NPPF stays silent on the definition of “ small scale rural offices” and no established precedent is known, it is considered Ribble Valley should have regard to this through its planning policies. This will avoid any doubt as to what is meant. It is believed the intent of NPPF is to facilitate and encourage the economic re-use of former agricultural properties, which by and large are small scale in size.
10.9 It is suggested that Ribble Valley define small scale rural offices as individual premises of no more than 200 sqm in size created either by conversion or new build and a maximum of 1,000 sqm of development on a single site. This therefore does not preclude the provision of more than one property at a single location but it would ensure the avoidance of large scale office development by stealth i.e. an attempt to circumvent the sequential test requirement for schemes not in town centres.
Economic Profile 10.10 The socio-economic profile of Ribble Valley reveals over 66.9 percent of the working age population to be in employment, which is above both the North West (59.6 percent) and national (62.1 percent) averages. Unemployment, at 2.1 percent is less than half the national and regional figures of 4.4 percent and 4.7 percent respectively. Ribble Valley has an economically active and skilled workforce. High proportions work in professional occupations, compared to the rest of Lancashire and the North West. It is an affluent location, being the least deprived local authority area in the county. Average earnings of people both living and working in Ribble Valley are also higher that elsewhere in Lancashire.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 129 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
10.11 2011 Census data regarding contemporary commuting patterns is still awaited. Historically the Borough has been a net exporter of labour (the 2001 Census revealed a net outflow of over 4,600 people), with the main destinations being Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn and Preston. The Borough also has a role as a supplier of labour to employment centres in Greater Manchester, with these accounting for almost two thirds of the net outflow.
10.12 The manufacturing sector continues to employ a significant proportion (13.1 percent) of people in Ribble Valley – a reflection of the presence of BAE Systems. As a consequence the percentage share is 50 percent higher than the national average and more than a quarter higher that the North West average. It is also marginally above the county figure of 12.2 percent. However, private sector services activities, ICT, finance and insurance, administrative and support service activities represent a much lower share of employment (7.6 percent) than either the county, regional or national picture. The national average is 13.4 percent.
10.13 The number of VAT registered businesses (3,260 in 2011) is the product of continuing growth during the recession. There has been a 20 percent increase in the number of businesses in the borough since the 2007 figure of 2,720 used in the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study. Almost 89 percent of companies are micro- businesses (less than 10 employees). A further 9.1 percent employ up to 49 people (small businesses). Homeworking accounts for 14.6 percent of the working age population in employment in 2011. This is a higher level than the county, regional and national averages. It is a characteristic of the rural north east areas of the Borough.
10.14 The current structure of premises in Ribble Valley is strongly industrial. Across the Borough the number of industrial and warehousing units is more than double the number of offices. Spatially the bulk of the business space is located in the south of the Borough (close to the Burnley and Hyndburn borders) and in north and east Clitheroe.
Property Market Assessment 10.15 The A59 corridor through the Borough, particularly around north Clitheroe and Barrow, dominates the existing supply of premises. To a lesser extent Longridge and Simonstone represent other concentrations of supply. The latter location connects to the M65 corridor. The A59 is seen as an axis between the M6 at Preston and
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 130 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Yorkshire, and is a focus of demand because of the proximity to the Ribble Valley’s main population centre.
10.16 Office market demand is very much locally sourced, and is of small scale (for premises of less than 100 sqm). Most large space users tend to look to either the motorway related office parks associated with the M6 or M65, to meet their needs. Modern office space provision is mainly limited to Barrow Brook Business Park.
10.17 Across the Borough demand indications are for industrial premises of up to 1,000 sqm. There is no particular preference towards either freehold or leasehold property.
Industrial Market 10.18 Companies already established in Ribble Valley are mainly looking for budget or moderate quality accommodation of up to 500 sqm. There is no particular preference towards either freehold or leasehold accommodation.
10.19 Around 26,000 sqm of industrial space is currently vacant – 6.8 percent of the total floorspace and 6.4 percent by premises numbers. Comparison against a market equilibrium average rate of 7.5 percent suggests Ribble Valley is marginally undersupplied. The overwhelming majority of the available properties are at either Time Technology Park, Simonstone or Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe. Together these locations represent 87 percent of the available premises and 95 percent of the floorspace.
Office Market 10.20 The Borough’s office market is small. According to ONS data half the existing supply stock is located in Clitheroe with the remainder mostly split between smaller settlements in the south and north east of the Ribble Valley. Paradoxically ONS data indicates there is no office floorspace in Simonstone, despite this being the location of most current availability. It is presumed this reflects Time Technology Park’s former industrial use prior to conversion to offices. Demand evidence affirms the limited level of interest and that this is weighted towards premises of less than 100 sqm.
10.21 There is 7,055 sqm of vacant office floorspace, which equates to vacancy rates of 28.2 percent by floorspace and 22.4 percent by number of premises. Measured against the 7.5 percent market equilibrium average rate this would suggest Ribble
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 131 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Valley is substantially oversupplied. However this must be caveated by the fact that analysis of the vacant supply shows half of the premises (69 percent of the available floorspace) is located within one development; there is no freehold property available; two thirds of the supply is focussed in premises of less than 100 sqm, with only four properties available with floorspace in excess of 500 sqm.
10.22 Table 50 balances the requirements identified in the company survey undertaken as part of this study against the premises supply identified by this research.
Table 50 – Ribble Valley Property Supply and Demand
36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 0-100 101-200 201-500 501-1000 1001- 2001- 5001+ 2000 5000
Office Supply Office Demand Ind. Supply Ind. Demand
Source: BE Group 2013
Current Land Availability 10.23 Ribble Valley’s current potential employment land resource (at 31 March 2012) amounts to 20.00 ha, located across 12 sites. These sites represent unimplemented and partially implemented planning permissions. The majority of the sites are small; with almost two-thirds being less than 1.2 ha, and indeed over one third are less than 1 ha.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 132 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
10.24 The land supply is dominated by just two locations, Barrow Brook Business Park and Samlesbury Aerodrome. They comprise 86.7 percent of the resource.
10.25 The market suitability of most of the available supply is applicable to either offices or industrial and warehousing activity. Only two sites totalling 3.57 ha are available exclusively for office use. And only three sites, totalling 1.83 ha are exclusively for industrial use.
10.26 Around 22 percent of the existing headline land supply is no longer available for employment use as the owners have been granted planning (on appeal) for residential development.
10.27 Over 53 percent of the Borough’s land supply is immediately available. Another 44 percent could be brought forward within the medium term (up to five years).
Employment Areas 10.28 The Borough’s main Employment Areas have been appraised in order to provide guidance as to their continued viability.
10.29 They have been grouped within a site hierarchy structure to reflect their ranking one against another. These are graded in the context of Ribble Valley, not at a sub- regional or wider level. One employment area, because of its functions, is included in more than one category. Table 51 summarises the hierarchy and rankings.
Table 51 – Employment Areas – Sites Hierarchy
Employment Area Flagship Narrow Key Key Key Band Employment Local Rural Barrow Brook Business Park Samlesbury Enterprise Zone Link 59 Business Park Salthill Industrial Estate Shay Lane Industrial Estate Time Technology Park Bee Mill, Ribchester De Lacy Business Centre
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 133 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Employment Area Flagship Narrow Key Key Key Band Employment Local Rural Centre Fern Court Business Centre Pendle Trading Estate Primrose Studies The Sidings Asturian House Fairfield Business Park Gisburn Business Park Manor Court, Salesbury Hall Mill Lane Industrial Estate Poors’land Barn Brockhall Business Centre Root Hill Estate Yard Whalley Industrial Park Source: BE Group 2013
Impact of Neighbouring Areas 10.30 Ribble Valley shares boundaries with nine local authorities – Lancaster, Craven, Wyre, Preston, South Ribble, Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle. All have been consulted.
10.31 All of the local authority areas that adjoin Ribble Valley indicate they are able to meet their employment land needs through a mixture of existing and proposed additional land allocations. As a consequence none expect to have to look to Ribble Valley to meet any shortfalls in employment land or premises supply. Most consider there have few direct links with Ribble Valley. Pendle, for example sees its connections along the M65 corridor to Burnley or east into Yorkshire. Craven is part of the West Yorkshire economic market.
10.32 Burnley has the fully developed Shuttleworth Mead Business Park close to Simonstone. There is no scope for further expansion. However, should the findings of its own current Employment Land Review study show a supply shortfall then new
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 134 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
allocations will be focused at the Borough’s strategic employment sites in Burnley or at Junction 9, M65.
10.33 Hyndburn’s adopted Core Strategy seeks to allocate 58 ha of additional employment land through to 2026. Major allocations include a strategic regional employment site at Junction 6, M65. Its closest existing site to Ribble Valley, Altham Business Park, is fully developed, although the Core Strategy allows a small greenfield extension.
10.34 Preston’s large existing land supply and comparatively modest future requirements mean that the city is self sufficient for employment land. Much of the supply is to the east of the city, geared to the M6 motorway. In terms of linkages with Ribble Valley, Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy One ‘Locating Growth’ identifies Longridge as a key service centre, and notes land within Central Lancashire (i.e. Preston) may be required to support its development. The City Council’s emerging Sites Allocation and Development Management Policies DPD proposes a 19 ha site at Whittingham Road, Longridge for mixed use including B Class employment, though the current planning application for the site restricts this to only 515 sqm of B1(a) offices.
10.35 South Ribble shares the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone with Ribble Valley. It has allocations or proposals that will deliver its identified employment land need to 2026. These include the Cuerden strategic site adjacent to the M65/M6 intersection.
10.36 The neighbouring authorities are supportive of the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone proposals, acknowledging the economic benefit to the wider sub-region, including scope to draw in supply chain functions that do not meet the Enterprise Zone qualification criteria. It is considered the latter may be attracted to sites associated with the M6 or M65 corridors, rather than look to local solutions within Ribble Valley.
10.37 Only two of the Ribble Valley’s Parish and Town Councils have identified need for more local employment premises. Clitheroe Town Council suggest land at the Clitheroe Community Hospital might be used for medical services facilities. Longridge Town Council consider there is a strong need for further employment provision in the town, especially in view of its growth role for new housing. Whilst extension of Shay Lane would be appropriate in market terms, the physical challenges of delivery are acknowledged. As such other sites are suggested, some of which are within Preston City Council’s boundaries. These are referenced later in this section.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 135 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Future Land Requirements 10.38 It is a responsibility of local government to support and encourage economic growth. This includes the provision, initially through planning policy of sufficient employment land and premises. Provision must be of the right scale, type, location and be readily available for, and capable of, development. The allocated land must be in sustainable locations and comprise a portfolio that is balanced, to adequately cater to all sectors of the economy i.e. small and large companies, offices and industrial, high and low quality operations.
10.39 Since the Borough’s previous Employment Land Study was completed in 2008 there have been changes to the planning policy and strategy landscape. Government has now formally approved the NPPF, which provides the framework for the production of local and neighbourhood plans. The NPPF replaces all the previous Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes. In addition Government has announced changes regarding permitted development rights, which will allow blanket change of use from B1 (a) offices to C3 residential for existing office buildings – although there is limited scope to argue for local exemptions.
10.40 This study is primarily concerned with those uses included within the planning Use Class B (B1, offices, research and development and light industrial; B2, general industrial; B8, storage and distribution) and appropriate sui generis uses including recycling and the environmental industry. It considers a number of different employment land scenarios. All look at the situation as it stands now. As such the land supply required is balanced against what is currently available. Furthermore it sets forecasts for a sixteen year period (to 2028).
10.41 There is no definitive model for forecasting future employment land needs. Three ‘policy off’ based models have been used to assess future employment land provision. These are the projection forward of historic land take-up (based on both long and short term trends); a forecast based on employment sector change and one of labour supply projections. A further two ‘policy on’ models (employment sector change and labour supply) have been used, reflecting the Enterprise Zone status awarded to part of BAE Systems’ site at Samlesbury.
10.42 From data provided it has been possible to establish long term (14 years) and short term (5 years) trends that can be used in the projection forward of historic take-up
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 136 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
rates achieved in Ribble Valley. This trend based forecast merely reflects and perpetuates the economic circumstances of the past two decades. It takes no account of the changes in economic activity that may arise from the implementation of sub-regional initiatives, such as the recently announced Enterprise Zone.
10.43 The take-up evidence shows a fluctuating picture. The long term annual average is 1.13 ha. This is marginally above the 1.07 ha figure reported in the 2008 study. This is because the last five years’ take-up has been higher at 1.26 ha. This is somewhat surprising as this has been a period of economic recession, but is testimony to the resilience of the Ribble Valley local economy.
10.44 The long term take-up forecast suggests a need for 18.08 ha for the period 2012- 2028. Incorporating a five year take-up buffer to provide a choice and range of sites and a continuum of supply beyond the Plan period, indicates a shortfall of 3.73 ha against the current headline supply. However when potential loss from the headline supply is taken into account, this suggests an increased shortfall of 8.05 ha.
10.45 The short term (5 years) take-up trend generates a greater need of 20.16 ha. When allowance is made for a five years buffer at the same rate, the shortfall against the current headline supply figure becomes 6.46 ha. After taking into account the potential loss from the headline supply then a shortfall of 10.78 ha is identified.
10.46 The employment based forecast indicates that over the Plan period there would be need for between 1.0 and 4.9 ha less land before taking into account the current headline supply. Even after the inclusion of the five years buffer figure to allow for a range and choice of sites (based on the long term take up rate) this model suggests there is a surplus of between 8.5 and 12.2 ha against the current headline supply (in other words the worst case is that as much as 60 percent of the current supply could be de-allocated). This reduces to between 4.2 and 8.0 ha when the potentially unavailable land is removed from the supply figure.
10.47 For the labour supply forecast there is also a suggested surplus of between 9.2 and 10.2 ha. This reduces to 4.9 to 5.7 ha when the headline figure is adjusted to take account of potential losses.
10.48 However the employment and labour supply methods make no allowance for companies modernising or relocating into different sized property; that land is not
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 137 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
used totally efficiently; that some companies occupy more space than they need or will hold land long term for their own possible future expansion; or that there needs to be a range of sites and locations to provide companies with choice. Therefore common sense suggests the assessments based on the forecasts are flawed, even though their principles of limited job growth and higher density land use are correct.
10.49 ‘Policy on’ forecasts to take account of the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone generate contrasting outcomes. The ‘policy on’ employment based forecast generates an additional need of between 20 and 22 ha compared to the ‘policy off’ employment based scenario. However it is presumed this would be substantially accommodated by the Enterprise Zone, which does not form part of the general employment land supply.
10.50 The ‘policy on’ labour supply forecast suggests a need of between 14 and 16 ha. Set against the headline supply position this suggests as much as 30 percent of the current supply could be considered surplus. However even this represents a minimum case position as some of the employment will be associated with the Enterprise Zone and would not therefore relate to the general employment land supply.
10.51 A summary of the various forecast scenarios is set out in Table 52. They relate solely to the Plan period 2012-2028 and illustrate the effect of a five year buffer as proposed in Section 9.0, to facilitate an ongoing range and choice of sites to accommodate the anticipated structural change in employment sectors and a continuum of available supply beyond 2028.
Table 52 – Land Forecast Models –Summary
Model Land Land Need Buffer (5 Surplus Assumptions Stock 2012-2028, years (shortfall), 2012 1, ha take-up ha 2 ha rate), ha Long Term Land 20.00 18.08 5.65 (3.73) Based on historic Take-up (14 years) take- up of1.13 ha/pa Short Term Land 20.00 20.16 6.30 (6.46) Based on last five Take-up years take up of 1.26 ha/pa Employment 20.00 -0.99/-4.94 5.65 15.34/19.29 Based on Based projected growth/reduction of employment in
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 138 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Model Land Land Need Buffer (5 Surplus Assumptions Stock 2012-2028, years (shortfall), 2012 1, ha take-up ha 2 ha rate), ha industry sectors and inclusion of historic take up buffer Labour Supply 20.00 3.40/4.11 5.65 10.24/10.95 Based on population projections and industry sector changes (growth/reduction) and impact on floorspace (and thus land) need, and inclusion of historic take up buffer. Policy ‘On’ (linked 20.00 22.95/24.64 5.65 (8.60/10.29) As per to Enterprise employment Zone) based policy of Employment model but reflects Based Enterprise Zone forecasts Policy ‘On’ (linked 20.00 14.10/15.75 5.65 0.25/(1.40) As per labour to Enterprise supply policy off Zone) Labour model but reflects Supply Enterprise Zone forecasts Source: BE Group, 2012 1 N.B. Headline supply at 31 March 2012 2 N.B. Where alternative figures are shown this reflects the different job densities for different job types
10.52 The variation in the outcome figures demonstrates the uncertainty of forecasting. The long and short term land take-up scenarios suggest there would be a shortfall against the headline supply of as much as 6.5 ha. The ‘policy on’ models also indicate shortfalls of up to 10.3 ha. However as these relate to the introduction of the Enterprise Zone there is need to acknowledge that generated land requirements will to some extent be met within the Enterprise Zone and this is not part of the general employment land supply for Ribble Valley. The ‘policy off’ employment and labour supply forecasts provide contrary conclusions, suggesting there is an over-provision of employment land based against the headline supply figure, varying from 10.2 to 19.3 ha.
10.53 However, 4.32 ha of the headline supply is now unlikely to be available due to an alternative use planning consent secured on appeal. The effect of this would, for the
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 139 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
historic trend take-up models increase the shortfall in supply to between 8.0 and 10.75 ha. It would also raise the shortfall associated with the ‘policy on’ models to be between 4 and 14.5 ha. For the ‘policy off’ models there would be a deduction in the forecast level of over-provision – but in the context of Ribble Valley this would still be sizeable.
10.54 Table 53 compares the forecast employment land need and the projected shortfall/surplus for both the headline (perceived) available supply (20.00 ha) and the realistic supply (15.68 ha).
Table 53 – Land Forecast Models Reflecting Perceived & Residual Supply
Model Land Need, ha Perceived Surplus Predicted Surplus 2012-2028 (Shortfall) to 2028 (Shortfall) to 2028 (including 5 years Headline Supply Realistic Supply Buffer) (20.00 ha) (15.68 ha) Long Term Land 23.73 (3.73) (8.05) Take-up Short Term Land 26.46 (6.46) (10.78) Take-up Employment Based 6.75/10.55 9.45/13.25 5.13/8.93 Labour Supply 9.05/10.55 10.25/10.95 5.93/6.63 Policy ‘On’ (linked 28.60/30.31 (8.60/10.31) (12.92/14.63) to Enterprise Zone) Employment Based Policy ‘On’ (linked 19.75/21.40 0.25/(1.40) (4.07/5.72) to Enterprise Zone) Labour Supply Source: BE Group 2013
10.55 The application of ‘policy off’ economic forecasts indicates the Borough needs less employment land than already exists. At best they suggest only half of the currently allocated or consented but undeveloped land in Ribble Valley is required. However, they do refer to a net need, taking no account of requirements for the recycling or renewal of property. Nor do they reflect that the headline supply is overwhelmingly concentrated at just two locations – Barrow Brook Business Park and Samlesbury Aerodrome.
10.56 Consequently these forecasts should be seen as a ‘direction of travel’ rather than as specific targets to be set to be met. The inference therefore is to lower the need for land using the rolling forward of historic employment land take-up experience.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 140 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
10.57 In terms of future land needs from non B-class employment sectors, this study suggests land requirements for more are likely to be at best modest (less than 3 ha). This is largely because many will use land already held by the relevant provider, or because the use can be incorporated within mixed-use developments, often town centre based.
Providing for Structural Change 10.58 The complexities of structural change make it difficult to be confident about the true scale or nature of future employment land needs through to 2028, especially when what is actually happening on the ground – where industrial demand continues to outpace office demand – is contrary to expected forecasts. The differential between ‘policy off’ and ‘policy on’ will require careful monitoring over the Plan period, alongside the need to recognise the redundancy of poor quality employment sites and premises and to encourage the recycling of less suitable older stock to make way for premises better suited to meet modern requirements. In practice, this can only be realistically addressed by ensuring that a good range of suitable sites is maintained throughout the Plan period to stimulate local company growth, inward investment and emerging industries including supply chain opportunities associated with the Enterprise Zone occupiers, as well as to provide for choice and for ‘room to manoeuvre’, to enable any necessary structural change to occur.
10.59 Structural change will also have implications for the type of land required. Notwithstanding manufacturing will continue to be important to Ribble Valley (but largely associated with BAE Systems), there is need to ensure that future sites and premises provision is suited to the requirements of the service industry sector. To attract and retain these occupiers, environmental setting, accessibility and provision of support facilities for the workforce, are expected to assume much greater importance as part of the wider need to directly address the quality of the land supply.
Potential Future Allocations 10.60 The draft Core Strategy states a further 9 ha of employment land will be allocated over the plan period to 2028. As noted above this study has indicated a shortfall in the current headline supply of just under 4 ha, when assessed against the long term take-up trend. This increases to 8 ha, when land now unlikely to be brought forward for employment use is excluded. The two figures are therefore closely aligned.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 141 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
10.61 In view of the identified shortfall of land provision, and the spatial distribution of the current supply, consideration has been given to potential employment sites that might form part of any future allocations.
10.62 The 2008 study identified a number of potential new employment sites, some of which have since been developed for other uses, principally housing. One, Barrow Brook Business Park extension, now forms part of the headline employment land supply. Two sites, Salthill Industrial Estate Extension and Sidings Business Park Extension remain as potential future opportunities.
10.63 The draft Core Strategy indicates that employment should be directed to Clitheroe, Longridge, Whalley and sites associated with the A59 corridor. At present there is no available employment land provision within Longridge or Whalley. For Whalley this situation could be addressed by Sidings Business Park Extension – an area of approximately 2 ha.
10.64 Longridge is planned to accommodate substantial housing growth, with some of this taking place within the adjoining Preston City Council area. The City Council wishes to see mixed use development on the former TDG site on Whittingham Lane, which would deliver some level of employment use. The current planning application for the site does however only allow for a small amount of B1 office space. With all currently allocated employment land in use in Longridge, it is considered the Borough Council should pursue some new allocation in order to address sustainability issues for what is acknowledged as a key service centre.
10.65 The 2008 Study – suggested land south of Chapel Hill remains the subject of constraint due to ground contamination. As such two possible other options have been identified. One is at the eastern edge of Longridge, at College Farm, Blackburn Road. This is well connected in that access back to Preston and the M6 motorway would not necessitate road traffic passing through the town. The second option is land to the rear of Sainsbury’s store to the north of the town centre. This adjoins what was historically an employment site, but would require traffic passing through the town’s built up are in order to access the route to Preston.
10.66 For Clitheroe there are also two opportunities, both of which meet the criteria for proximity to existing development and to the A59. One, Salthill Industrial Estate
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 142 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
extension was identified as part of the 2008 study as potentially of a size up to 26 ha, capable of accommodating B1, B2 and B8 uses. The second is identified in the draft Core Strategy, at Standen, south east Clitheroe. This is a proposed mixed use scheme that would include B1 development. The development scale is not known. The draft Core Strategy notes the development area is to be addressed in the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents.
10.67 BE Group conclude that these opportunities identified for Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley provide sufficient scope to meet the employment land needs of Ribble Valley through to 2028.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 143 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction 11.1 This section sets out the consultants’ recommendations arising from the Employment Land and Premises Review. The recommendations in this report have had full regard to the requirements of the NPPF to encourage and deliver growth through the planning system. The recommendations are grouped around four aspects: • Employment Land Supply • Spatial Implications • Provision of Premises • External Influences.
Employment Land Supply
Recommendation 1 – Employment Land Provision Definition 11.2 The NPPF does not define employment land provision within the main document. However Annex 2 defines economic development as “ development, including those uses within the B use classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development) ”.
11.3 For the purpose of this study the current available land supply in Ribble Valley is defined as the twelve sites with unimplemented or partially implemented planning consents as at 31 March 2012. These total 20.00 ha and are identified in Section 6.0 Table 29.
Recommendation 2 – Employment Sites and Areas to be Retained 11.4 As is discussed in Section 10.0, existing sites and premises provide valuable opportunities for employment close to where people live. They benefit the local economy, and the loss of employment uses can negatively impact on local access to jobs and the economic competitiveness of local areas. Ultimately this challenges the Borough’s economic growth.
11.5 The relative scarcity of a range and choice of available developable employment land, due to the domination of the supply by just two locations, alongside the issues outlined above, means there is strong economic justification for the ongoing protection of employment land in Ribble Valley.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 144 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
11.6 The NPPF provides the opportunity for Ribble Valley Borough Council to identify ‘key employment sites’ that are considered to significantly contribute to the Borough’s land supply for B class uses. It enables these to be safeguarded for B class uses and other employment uses which achieve economic enhancement without detrimental impact to either the site or the wider area.
11.7 The Employment Areas’ assessment (Section 6.0) determines a hierarchy of sites/ locations. From these a small number are identified of being of a scale or of local economic value that aligns to the NPPF ‘key employment sites’ designation. It is recommended that Ribble Valley Borough Council therefore designates the following as key employment sites to be safeguarded for B Class uses and other employment uses which achieve economic enhancement without detrimental impact to either the site or the wider area: • Barrow Brook Business Park, Barrow • Samlesbury Aerodrome • The Sidings, Whalley • Salthill Industrial Estate, Clitheroe • Shay Lane Industrial Estate, Longridge • Time Technology Park, Simonstone.
11.8 Within these ‘key employment sites’ as a rule only applications for B class use should be permitted. Non- B Class uses should only be allowed within these sites if an applicant can demonstrate exceptional circumstances and that the proposals will not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding local uses. The use for employment purposes other than B class uses may be appropriate but only if it can be shown that the use provides on-site support facilities or demonstrates an economic enhancement over and above B class uses. Such development should however not prejudice the efficient and effective uses of the remainder of the employment area.
11.9 Retail uses should not generally be supported on employment sites. Exceptionally, uses which have trade links with employment uses or are un-neighbourly in character (such as car showrooms, tyre and exhaust centres, or trade counters) may be permitted on employment sites which have good access to a range of sustainable transport options.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 145 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
11.10 Where non- B Class uses are proposed for, or within, those sites then Ribble Valley Borough Council should require the applicants to demonstrate that: • the site/premises are no longer suitable or reasonably capable of being redeveloped for employment purposes, and • the site/premises has been proactively marketed for employment purposes for a reasonable period of time (a minimum of twelve months) at a reasonable market rate (i.e. rent or capital value) as supported through a documented formal marketing strategy and campaign, or • there will be a significant community benefit which outweighs the impact of losing the employment site/premises.
11.11 At Appendix 9 Developer Marketing Standards are set out that provide the template for delivering the evidence that premises or sites have been appropriately marketed without success. Whilst these are primarily directed at B Use Class situations they are equally applicable to other property types e.g. public houses, retail outlets.
11.12 For Ribble Valley’s remaining employment areas, a more flexible approach could be taken to help facilitate a broad range of economic development, which is vital for the future sustainability and development of the local area’s economy. In some cases, the size, location and characteristics of a site may mean that a more intensive mixed- use development could provide greater benefit to the local community, in terms of addressing local needs, than if the site was retained solely in employment use. However, Ribble Valley Borough Council should look to ensure that any proposal for mixed-use redevelopment (incorporating both employment and non-employment uses) must retain an equivalent amount of jobs on the site. Where a site is vacant or underused then consideration should be given to its potential for job creation rather than the existing number of jobs. The Council should also ensure that any such use (for example a noise sensitive use such as residential) does not prejudice the future operation of adjacent or adjoining employment uses.
11.13 Ribble Valley Borough Council should also recognise the increasing level of precedents of non-B use employment activity provision within employment areas across the UK. Sui generis uses, such as vets practices, and D1 non-residential institutions including training centres, nurseries/children’s play facilities and activity centres do generate employment opportunities. Such applications within the
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 146 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Borough should be treated on their individual merits, including employment outputs, but should be restricted to the non- ‘key employment sites’.
11.14 It is suggested that in terms of protecting employment sites that do not sit within Employment Areas, the redevelopment of employment land and premises for non- employment uses be allowed in the following circumstances: • The present (or previous, if vacant or derelict) use causes significant harm to the character or amenities of the surrounding area, and it is demonstrated that no other appropriate viable alternative employment uses could be attracted to the site, or • Mixed-use redevelopment would provide important community and/or regeneration benefits with no significant loss of jobs, potential jobs, and the proposed mix of uses accords with other planning policies.
11.15 This advice is offered without consideration of other planning, traffic/highways issues, etc. which might render some uses or mixed use developments inappropriate on particular employment sites. It is clearly for Ribble Valley Borough Council to judge proposals on their merits taking account of these factors.
11.16 If land within employment areas or employment sites (allocations) outside employment areas is lost to other uses, – then an equivalent amount of land should be identified elsewhere to ensure a sufficient overall land supply in the Borough is maintained.
Recommendation 3 – Future Employment Land Provision 11.17 The perceived land supply of 20.00 ha, at April 2012, suggests a shortfall of 3.73 ha when measured against a roll forward of the long term land take-up experience. The shortfall increases to 8.0 ha when land unlikely to be brought forward is excluded.
11.18 The forecasts of future population (labour supply) and industry sector activity (jobs), suggest there will be a substantial surplus of employment land, so much so that at least half the currently available land would be surplus to requirements. There would still be a surplus when measured against the residual supply following the exclusion of land that is unlikely to be brought forward.
11.19 The ‘policy on’ model forecasts, reflecting the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone, also suggest the current land supply would be insufficient to meet future needs. The
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 147 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
employment based model suggests a larger shortfall (of almost 15 ha) than the labour supply (up to 5.75 ha), though the Enterprise Zone will deliver land that is excluded from the general supply that is addressed by this study.
11.20 However, BE Group does not recommend that the economic forecasts be the basis for defining employment land provision for the Local Plan period. This is because the forecasts represent the absolute minimum amount of land required to accommodate the activities of different industry sectors. Furthermore they take no account: • that within sectors expected to decline (particularly manufacturing) there will still be businesses that will grow and expand • that there will be local market churn • that there will be need to maintain a choice of supply by size, type, location and quality of sites and premises for businesses at differing levels of their maturity • that there should be a continuing forward supply to accommodate site development beyond the end of the Local Plan period • of reference to the level and nature of the existing employment land supply at April 2012 • of addressing the fact the Borough is a net exporter of labour • that one fifth of the headline land supply at April 2012 is now likely to be lost to non-employment use.
11.21 It is therefore recommended that Ribble Valley Borough Council use the roll forward of long term take-up experience as the main measure of the Borough’s future land needs, to 2028.
11.22 It is also recommended that the Council seeks to identify further land allocations for B1 (a, b and c uses), B2 and B uses in the order of 8 ha to meet the shortfall generated by the application of long term take-up performance.
11.23 Increasing office use will lead to a reduced scale of employment land demand. However, getting there is a different proposition. Therefore it is recommended that Ribble Valley maintains a buffer zone of at least five years historic land take-up. This should be maintained as a five year rolling supply at all times to provide range and choice as well as ‘room-to-manoeuvre’ to enable the forecast structural change to occur.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 148 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
11.24 To be safe, Ribble Valley Borough Council should adopt the scenario that the reduced baseline/realistic figure of 15.68 ha identified in Section 6.0, Table 33 actually occurs and that, notwithstanding the recommendations of this study, some land is lost to alternative uses. Where employment sites are lost to other uses, this will need to be re-provided elsewhere in the Borough to ensure a sufficient supply. If it is not possible to identify alternative land under these circumstances, then this should be monitored and addressed at subsequent Employment Land Reviews.
11.25 In recommending the allocation of further employment land BE Group has had regard not just to forecast need levels but also the structure of the existing employment land portfolio. At April 2012 just two locations, made up almost 87 percent of the supply. Two of three main settlements, Longridge and Whalley, have no available land allocations but this is a greater issue for Longridge.
11.26 The draft Core Strategy also identifies Standen, south east of Clitheroe, for new employment land as part of a larger mixed-use development area. However this would be limited to B1 space, whilst demand continues for B2 and B8 uses. The latter two could be accommodated through the Salthill Industrial Estate extension opportunity, identified as part of the 2008 Employment Land and Retail Study.
11.27 It is recommended that Ribble Valley gives priority to identifying new land allocations in Longridge, and that the possible sites at College Farm and to the rear of Sainsbury’s be examined for their suitability.
11.28 It is also recommended that Ribble Valley explores the feasibility of bringing forward new allocations at Standen and Salthill that meet the full spectrum of B1 and B2 industrial, and B8 warehousing uses to serve as a continuum of supply for the Clitheroe area.
Recommendation 4 – Employment Development outside Employment Areas 11.29 This study has not surveyed B use class employment activities associated with solus sites outside current employment land allocations. However, it is accepted that these are activities that make a contribution to local employment activity and jobs. It is also recognised that there may be competing pressures for other non-employment uses on some of these sites, but any consideration of future non-employment use should be addressed in the same way as non ‘key employment’ sites.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 149 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Recommendation 5 – Future Reviews 11.30 BE Group has recommended that allocation of further land to meet forecast need and also to address the structure of the existing employment land portfolio. It has recommended potential locations whose feasibility should be tested to determine their viability and deliverability as components of the future land supply. In view of this Ribble Valley Borough Council should review its employment land portfolio at intervals of around three years. This is broadly in accordance with the NPPF which recommends regular monitoring and review of the local land supply to ensure a robust evidence base.
External Influences
Recommendation 6 – Maintain Awareness of External Influences 11.31 Ribble Valley Borough Council must recognise its role, together with the other Lancashire authorities, in developing the county’s economy. In this respect they are interconnected, to varying degrees, on a number of levels.
11.32 Discussions with the nine local authorities whose boundaries abut Ribble Valley indicate that they all have, or expect to have, sufficient land allocations (both existing and proposed) to meet their projected needs. There is therefore no immediate need for them to look to Ribble Valley for support in land provision.
11.33 However, there are still a number of issues and opportunities in which some of the wider area local authorities’ interests will overlap, and where joint working is advisable. For example, capitalising on the supplier chain and production spin off opportunities generated by the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone. Or the recognition of Longridge as a key service centre in Central Lancashire, and the potential contribution of development within Preston City Council’s boundaries to generate local employment for the town.
Rural Area Development
Recommendation 7 – Definition of Small Scale Rural Offices 11.34 Ribble Valley is characterised as a rural area. As NPPF paragraph 25 references ‘small scale rural offices’, but does not provide a definition, it is recommended that Ribble Valley takes responsibility for this in order to avoid future debate around
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 150 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
individual applications.
11.35 Our recommendation is that a development threshold be set for small scale rural offices of no more than 1,000 sqm on a single site and that no individual premises should exceed 200 sqm.
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 151 Employment Land Review Refresh Ribble Valley Borough Council
Ribble Valley Employment Land Study 2013
R53(p)/Draft Report V2/May2013/ BE Group 152 APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 6 – RVBC Planning Development Committee Report 6th August 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630
APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 7 – RVBC Emergency Committee Report Appeals Update 1 July 2013
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630 NOT FOR PUBLICATION – EXEMPT INFORMATION under 3 and 5 of DECISION Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT TO EMERGENCY COMMITTEE Agenda Item No.
meeting date: 1 JULY 2013 title: PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE submitted by: JOHN HEAP – DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES principal author: JOHN MACHOLC – HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To provide Members with an update in relation to the recent major planning appeals.
1.2 To request a decision on whether to continue to oppose the Waddington Road, Clitheroe appeal (3/2012/0913) in the light of external Barristers advice and changes in circumstances.
1.3 Relevance to the Council’s ambitions and priorities:
x Community Objectives – } Matters identified raise issues associated with protecting and enhancing the local environment as well x Corporate Priorities – } as being a well-managed Council providing an efficient service. x Other Considerations – None.
2 INFORMATION
2.1 Members will be aware from the regular appeals update submitted as an information item on all Planning and Development agendas, that numerous planning appeals have been subject to Public Inquiry. In relation to the reasons for refusal it has been necessary to appoint expert witnesses and Barristers to represent the Council given in relation to landscape and visual impact issues.
2.2 Members will be aware of a report taken to Committee on 23 May 2013 which included details of the costs of the appeal and this report is to reflect on the Barrow Inquiry and the likely costs of non-determination appeal relating to the smaller Barrow scheme for 190 houses submitted under reference 3/2013/0190.
3 ISSUES
Appeal costs
3.1 The direct costs are those of instructing a Barrister and engaging an expert witness to defend the appeals in which a landscape/visual impact formed part of the reason for refusal.
3.2 Members may be aware that a sum of £309,000 is currently set aside to pay for potential planning issues such as appeals.
3.3 In relation to landscape witnesses the relevant costs are:
1 Mitton Road Inquiry £21,000 + vat Barrow Inquiry £9,000 + vat Waddow View Clitheroe Inquiry £8,000 + vat Barrow Inquiry no 2 £6,000 + vat
The Barrow and Clitheroe cases are based on the need to attend throughout the Inquiries and the need to provide a rebuttal so the actual direct costs may be slightly less than anticipated.
3.4 The Council has appointed Barristers to represent the Council on all 4 appeals. It is difficult to ascertain the full extent of any costs based on previous experiences, the level of preparation work and meetings as well as the likely sitting days for each Inquiry, I anticipate the relevant costs to be in the region of:
Mitton Road Inquiry £25,000 + vat Barrow Inquiry £25,000 + vat Waddow View Clitheroe Inquiry £15,000 + vat Barrow Inquiry no 2 £20,000 + vat
3.5 I am mindful of the costs involved and recognise the cumulative impact of such costs and therefore it is essential to assess the merits of each case before engaging any external consultant. In relation to the appointment of a Barrister to represent the Council, it has been the normal procedure to request the service of a Barrister for major Planning Inquiries.
Waddington Road Planning Appeal
3.6 The Council has instructed a Barrister to support the Council on this case. In the light of recent Public Inquires and the changing policy circumstances since the initial refusal of the scheme in February 2013, officers have discussed the Council’s ability to defend the reasons for refusal and the likely cost consequences with the Barrister. It is important to emphasise that such discussions are confidential and legally privileged. As the Council would not wish to waive such privilege the contents of this report are similarly confidential and legally privileged and we would remind Members to ensure they remain so.
Members are reminded that the scheme was refused on two grounds:
(i) The proposed development due to its scale and location outside the defined settlement boundary of Clitheroe is considered to represent an urban extension in the open countryside which would change the character of this area of countryside to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area...contrary to G1, G2 and ENV 3 Local Plan...";
(ii) The proposal conflicts with the Council's submitted Core Strategy for reasons relating to visual amenity impact as a result of an inappropriate urban extension to the open countryside. It is also considered that to grant outline permission at the present time, for a development of this scale on greenfield land outside the settlement boundary, would be prejudicial to the emerging policies in the Core Strategy, as it would pre-determine decisions about the scale and location of new development that should properly be made through the plan making process;
2 when the effects of the proposed development on all relevant considerations (including highway safety and visual amenity) could be assessed in association with similar considerations regarding other potential greenfield development sites.
3.7 Whilst defending any appeal the Council and its witnesses have a duty to consider any new issues, information or advice that may be relevant to the circumstances of the appeal. Members will be aware of the new evidence submitted by NLP, which was requested by the Council in relation to the Core Strategy. This promotes a figure of 280 units per annum. Although the Council will continue to use a figure of 200 for decision making purposes on planning applications, developers will no doubt argue at appeal that a figure of 280 is more appropriate.
The change in evidence base for the emerging Core Strategy is a material consideration. Given this, this Committee should reconsider the initial recommendation of the Waddington Road proposal.
3.8 Without the new figure of 280, Counsel advised that there is little likelihood of being able to defend and substantiate the reasons for the refusal. This advice is given on the basis of the current situation in relation to the land supply, the datedness of the Local Plan and in particular the need to apply Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
The Council therefore needs to assess the benefits of the scheme in reaching its decision and these would include:
x The LPA must attach significant weight to the need to deliver housing; x The LPA must attach significant weight to the benefits of 345 units to boosting housing supply (in accordance with NPPF 47); x The LPA must attach significant weight to the need for affordable housing; x The LPA must attach significant weight to the benefits of the delivery of affordable housing (in accordance with NPPF 50 and 54); x The LPA must attach significant weight to the jobs created in the construction industry and further down the supply chain; x The LPA must attach significant weight to the increased expenditure which will take place in Clitheroe, as a result of new housing development; x The LPA must attach significant weight to the benefits of the New Homes Bonus that will be delivered to the Council.
3.9 In relation to the second reason, it raised the prematurity issue. Counsel has advised that there is no policy basis for refusal on prematurity grounds in the Development Plan or in the NPPF. Reason 2 does not refer to any breach in planning policy and so this in itself would reduce the likelihood of success in defending that reason.
Counsel and officers explored the prematurity argument and the concerns that approval would pre-determine decisions about the scale and location of development in Clitheroe
3 and in particular its impact on the Strategic site allocation. It is concluded that based on the revised housing figures and the period of the plan, that the appeal site would not prejudice Standen.
3.10 Members will be aware that costs can be awarded against the Council if it has been deemed to act unreasonably. Recently costs have been awarded in relation to the Lawsonsteads appeal, despite the appeal being withdrawn at a late date. Although no formal request has yet been submitted, they have informally advised it could be around £90,000. The Council requested our Barrister to advise on what figure could be anticipated on the Waddington Road appeal and it is suggested that based on his previous experience, it could be in the region of £250,000.
4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 We will continue to keep under review the planning earmarked reserve to ensure sufficient funds are available to meet the costs arising from planning appeals.
4.2 Advice from Counsel is that the Council should withdraw from the appeal and no longer object to the appeal. This does not prevent third party representations and the appeal would still proceed but with no formal objection from the Council with no witnesses being put forward.
4.3 It should also be noted that the consequence of the housing evidence would also need to be considered in relation to other current planning appeals.
4.4 I am mindful of the likely reaction and disappointment from the local residents should the Council withdraw from this appeal but there is no realistic prospect of winning this appeal. Members should be aware that there is a professional code of conduct which requires officers to give their professional opinion as to the merits of the case and I believe under cross examination it would be difficult to sustain any reason. I fully accept that there would be an adverse public reaction should the Council withdraw from the appeal, but in the light of the new information and the advice from the Barrister, it is my advice that the Council no longer defends the appeal.
5 RISK ASSESSMENT
5.1 The approval of this report may have the following implications
x Resources – Currently the expenditure can be met from the reserves allocation fund of £309,000. However, it should be noted that if there are more significant appeals it may be necessary to increase the reserve fund. Although costs awards are not automatic it should be noted that the implications of the costs awards granted for the withdrawn appeal at Lawsonsteads and the possibility of awards for the Waddington Road appeal could amount to a figure in the region of £300,000 to £350,000.
x Technical, Environmental and Legal – No implications identified.
x Political – No implications identified.
4 x Reputation – It is clear there are implications either way and that the Council has a duty to use its resources wisely but I anticipate the change in stance, however justified, could adversely affect the reputation of the Council.
x Equality & Diversity – No implications identified.
6 RECOMMENDED THAT COMMITTEE
6.1 Note the need to review the amount of reserves to be allocated to defend planning appeals.
6.2 Advise the appellant and the Inspectorate that the Council withdraws from the Waddington Road appeal
JOHN MACHOLC JOHN HEAP HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Barristers report/advice dated 16 June 2013
For further information please ask for John Macholc, extension 4502.
JM/EL/P&D/010713
5 APP/SN/6
Appeal on behalf of Barrow Lands Company Limited
Land west of Whalley Road and south-west of Barrow, near Clitheroe, Lancashire
Appendix 8 – Mitton Road Appeal Decision 3-2012- 0637
PINS Ref: APP/T2350/A/13/2190088/NWF LPA Ref: 3/2012/0630
Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 15-17 & 21-23 May 2013 Site visit made on 24 May 2013 by Louise Crosby MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 27 June 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/T2350/A/12/2188887 Land at Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by David Wilson Homes North West and AC Surveyors & Valuers against Ribble Valley Borough Council. • The application Ref: 3/2012/0637, is dated 18 July 2012. • The development proposed is for the erection of 116 No two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings and 21 No one bedroom bungalows, together with associated landscaping, open space, drainage infrastructure, car parking and access roads.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 116 No two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings and 21 No one bedroom bungalows, together with associated landscaping, open space, drainage infrastructure, car parking and access roads at Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 3/2012/0637, dated 18 July 2012 and subject to the schedule of conditions set out in the attached Annex.
Procedural matter
2. A draft Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was submitted at the inquiry. By the close of the inquiry the UU, although agreed, still required signing. I gave the appellants time to submit it after the close of the inquiry. A signed version was received by me on 20 June 2013. The UU secures an education contribution of £297,011; a transport contribution of £105,000; and a Travel Plan contribution of £50,000. It would ensure that 30% of the dwellings are ‘affordable units’ and that 15% of the total number of dwellings are single storey, single bedroom dwellings for the elderly. Also, 50% of this type of dwelling would be ‘affordable units’. I shall deal with this in more detail below.
Main issues
3. The main issues are:
i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area;
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
ii) the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Whalley Conservation Area;
iii) whether the proposal would preserve the setting of Whalley Viaduct, Whalley Abbey and Whalley Abbey Gatehouse; and
iv) the effect of the proposal on housing land supply.
Reasons
Background and policy context
4. The North West Regional Spatial Strategy has recently been abolished and so in this case the only relevant adopted development plan is the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (1998) (LP). It was agreed at the inquiry that its housing policies and policy ENV19 are out of date and so carry very little weight. The emerging Core Strategy: 2008-2028 – A Local Plan for Ribble Valley is due to be examined in July this year. Given the stage that this plan has reached the Council say that the policies within it should be afforded only limited weight in this decision and I agree.
5. The site is identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2009) (SHLAA). It assesses numerous sites in Whalley and after consideration, in line with an adopted methodology, some were excluded and others included. The appeal site was included and identified as being available within the next 5 years and deliverable within a 6-10 year period. It also says that there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be developed on this site and that in determining any future planning applications the impact on the Viaduct, but mainly on the open nature of the countryside, should be borne in mind.
6. The appeal site is located outside, but adjacent to, the settlement limits for Whalley as defined in the LP. However the main parties agree that the settlement boundary is out of date and will need to expand to accommodate the projected growth within the borough and therefore more weight should be placed on the emerging Core Strategy in this regard. This identifies Whalley as being a key service centre expected to accommodate a significant level of growth over the plan period (2008-2028). While Clitheroe is at the top of the hierarchy of most sustainable settlements, Whalley and Longridge both rank 2nd . Importantly, unlike Longridge, Whalley has a railway station that is very close to the appeal site.
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
7. The site is currently an agricultural field that is divided by a belt of trees. It is contained within existing clearly defined boundaries. To the west of the site is the elevated A59, to the north the existing traditional dwellings on Mitton Road, to the south Ridding Lane and to the east Broad Lane and Whalley Viaduct. The Viaduct, Whalley Abbey ruins and Whalley Abbey Gatehouse are all listed buildings; and Whalley Abbey ruins and Whalley Abbey Gatehouse are also scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs). In addition, the site lies adjacent to Whalley Conservation Area. The main parties agree that the central most visible part of the Viaduct, part of which is within Whalley Conservation Area, is the most important section to be taken into account when considering this scheme. Having visited the site and the surrounding area, I agree.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
8. The appeal site is located in the River Calder valley bottom, close to the river. The appeal site can be seen from many near and elevated, distant vantage points. I shall discuss what I consider to be the most important ones below. The proposal would consist of a mix of single storey, 2 storey and 2/3 storey dwellings. The western corner of the site would contain a play area and open green space. The single storey dwellings would be mainly located in the area around Cross House, an existing 1½ storey traditional dwelling on the corner of Broad Lane and Ridding Lane. The 2/3 storey townhouses would be positioned along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to Broad Lane. These dwellings have been designed with staggered roofs and elevations which greatly reduces their overall scale and mass.
9. This part of the site is closest to the grade II listed Viaduct which is an important landscape feature here. The highest part of the 2/3 storey dwellings would be around 4m lower than the Viaduct and the distance from the rear elevation of these dwellings to the Viaduct would be between 30m and 37m. Those set farthest away would be screened by existing mature trees located along the boundary of the site.
10. It seems from evidence before me that the Council encouraged the general design principles that have been adopted here i.e. a gradual increase in height of development across the site towards the Viaduct and leaving part of the site undeveloped. This would result in the greatest impact being on Broad Lane, but from here the dwellings would still appear modest in scale compared to the Viaduct, particularly when their distance from Broad Lane is taken into account, along with their detailed design and landscaping.
11. The development would be set back from Ridding Lane by an area of landscaped green space and a play area. Also, the dwellings on this part of the site would be 2 storeys high and on the opposite side of Ridding Lane there are open fields with the river beyond. Some views towards the Viaduct from the part of Ridding Lane close to Cross House would be interrupted by the 2/3 storey dwellings close to Broad Lane, but the best views (where one can see through the arches) near Cross House, would be preserved as this part of the site would contain bungalows. From further back along Ridding Lane (towards the A59), the taller dwellings would interrupt views of part of the Viaduct, but not the central most visible section. As such, the rural character and appearance of this lane would not be unduly harmed and views of the central most visible part of the Viaduct would, in the main, be preserved.
12. Ridding Lane also extends eastwards, under the Viaduct, and eventually joins with The Sands. From here limited views of the appeal site are available because of the angle of view through many of the arches and their depth. Where there is a clear view through the arches this would be to the part of the site near Cross House which would contain bungalows. Some of the taller houses beyond would be visible to a very limited degree, but overall from here the proposal would not result in any discernible visual impact.
13. On the busy elevated A59 the main view of the site is from a lay-by where people are likely to stop for short periods. From here, views of the proposed development (which would be set back from this road and embankment), would be filtered by trees and hedges along the edge of the carriageway and thus not appear unduly harmful.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
14. Clearly, when viewed from Mitton Road (close to the entrance to the site), the landscape would change by virtue of the introduction of housing. However, from Mitton Road the development would be experienced in the context of existing residential development along this road. Views from here of the Viaduct would be greatly reduced, but the current view is very much shielded by trees and there are far better views of the Viaduct from other parts of Whalley and the surrounding area. From the rear gardens and windows of the existing dwellings on Mitton Road, abutting the appeal site, again the views would change greatly. Nevertheless, some views of the Viaduct would still be available.
15. From various points along public footpaths on The Nab and the area around Painter Wood, some of the finest views of the Viaduct are available, with the appeal site beyond. From these elevated vantage points the sheer length and uniformity of the arches can be more readily appreciated. Also from here existing development can be seen at either end of both sides of the Viaduct. From slightly lower down, on Whalley Road and Longworth Road, closer views are available although it is the central section spanning the river that is most prominent. From here it is generally seen in the context of a flat rural landscape with the river running through it and The Judge Walmsley Mill Complex beyond.
16. The appellants’ photomontages show that from the distant, elevated views on The Nab the proposed development would be visible and appear as a sizable extension to the housing that currently exists in this area. However, it would not appear as an alien feature in this landscape which is already layered with built development. Importantly it would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the overall dominant features would be the Viaduct, the remaining (most prominent) fields, the river and the hills in the distance. From lower down, on Whalley Road and Longworth Road, the proposed development would be barely noticeable beyond the viaduct.
17. Taking all of the above into account, including the position of the site on the edge of the existing village with clear defensible boundaries the proposal would have only a moderate adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Nevertheless, conflict with LP policy ENV3 occurs, in so far as it aims to conserve and enhance the open countryside and only allow development that benefits the area 1.
The effect of the proposal on the setting of Whalley Conservation Area
18. As a consequence of Whalley Conservation Area being extended in 2007, part of the central most visible section of the Viaduct; Cross House; and parts of Broad Lane fall within it. Whalley Conservation Area Appraisal (2005) (CAA), which recommended this extension describes the Viaduct as a local landmark and a dominant feature within the landscape to the west of Whalley and says that this particular area has a rural, open character which relates well to the first part of The Sands and the medieval route out of the Abbey to the west. The Sands area is identified as having a number of principal positive features and these include views to the west through the arched openings of the red brick Viaduct; a rural open character with trees and open green spaces; and little traffic and peaceful character.
1 Para 4.2.13 of Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
19. The CAA highlights as an opportunity the open fields to the west of The Sands and south of the River Calder. Two of these are adjacent to the Viaduct. It identifies them as particularly valuable assets which should be included in the extended conservation area and protected from development. However, I note that in doing this it did not seek to protect the appeal site, at the other side of the Viaduct, in the same manner or indeed at all.
20. English Heritage 2 advises that setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. The appeal site lies adjacent to the western edge of the conservation area. It is within its setting and has an open rural character. Clearly the open setting of the conservation area, provided by the appeal site, would be greatly reduced if the appeal site were developed.
21. The development would be experienced mainly from the area around Broad Lane and Ridding Lane (west of the Viaduct), but some limited glimpsed views through the arches would be available when travelling along The Sands/Ridding Lane (east of the viaduct). From Broad Lane and Ridding Lane some of the proposed 2/3 storey dwellings along the eastern boundary of the site would appear dominant when viewed from this small part of the Conservation Area.
22. The tranquillity in the part of the conservation area along Broad Lane would be reduced as the area would generally become busier and noisier. However, I saw when I visited the site that Broad Lane already carries a limited number of vehicles. From time to time these break the solitude in this area along with the passing trains and the noise of traffic from the elevated A59 road and Mitton Road. Importantly Broad Lane would only be used as an emergency access from the site for motor vehicles. So the main increases in noise along Broad Lane would be from within the appeal site. Following the construction phase, this is not likely to be excessive.
23. Given the overall scale of the proposal, in comparison to the open rural character that exists at present, the proposal would have a moderate adverse effect on the setting of this discrete part of the conservation area and thus its character and appearance. This harm would be ameliorated to some degree by the existing and proposed landscaping which would soften the effect of the built development. The proposal would lead to a modest degree of harm to the setting of the Whalley Conservation Area (and thus lead to much less than substantial harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset). As such, it would conflict with LP policy ENV16.
Whether the proposal would preserve the setting of Whalley Viaduct, Whalley Abbey and Whalley Abbey Gatehouse
24. Whalley Viaduct is a Grade II listed building. It is the longest in Lancashire with 48 round headed arches on battered piers. It is an impressive structure and feat of engineering. It was opened in 1850 and its purpose was and still is to span the River Calder valley floor. Unusually, it has 2 ‘blind’ arches at either side of the arch that spans The Sands (a narrow road). These are ecclesiastical in style and reference the historical route to the Abbey through the Gatehouse.
25. The Viaduct is clearly important as a local landmark and is very dominant in views into and out of Whalley village. Indeed, images of it appear in numerous places including on a mural at Whalley Railway Station (painted by local school
2 English Heritage Guidance – The Setting of Heritage Assets www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
children); in magazine articles about Whalley; and in the opening credits of a local television news programme.
26. Since the function of the Viaduct is to span the open valley floor, this landscape is integral to its design, although it is a functional structure with no formal or indeed designed setting. It is the landscape features that made the Viaduct necessary in the first place and these contribute towards the setting of the asset and are an integral part of its significance. Both main parties agree that the Viaduct has a linear setting and that the appeal site falls within it and I agree.
27. Turning to consider the degree to which the setting makes a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. Clearly the open countryside setting is important to its significance. The contrast between the undeveloped open countryside to the west of the Viaduct (including the appeal site) allows one to appreciate the sheer height and scale of the Viaduct. The close up views from Broad Lane, the appeal site and Ridding Lane allow for a comparison with the human scale, which is undoubtedly striking. With the proposed development, these would, on the whole, still remain as would the way in which one experiences the Viaduct from these places.
28. This Viaduct and its setting are best appreciated in long distance elevated views, such as from The Nab and Painter Wood. From these elevated areas the Viaduct is extremely striking and impressive because one can clearly see the central section of the Viaduct spanning the valley floor with the open countryside (including the appeal site) beyond. The proposal would lead to the appeal site being partially developed with dwellings, associated infrastructure and amenity space. This would lead to a reduction in the open green space which contributes towards the setting of the Viaduct. However, as I have already found, from these elevated areas the proposed development would be seen in the context of other development and more important open aspects of the valley floor, closer to the river, would remain.
29. The Council agree that, in principle, some development could take place here. The amount of development proposed in this case would have a modest effect on the setting of the designated heritage asset. Overall, given the distance between the Viaduct and the proposed dwellings and the dominant scale of it, which would still prevail, this small degree of harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset and thus to its significance would be less than substantial.
30. I will now consider the effect of the proposal on the setting of Whalley Abbey and its Gatehouse, both of these are grade I listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. They lie to the east of the appeal site, beyond the Viaduct. The Cistercian Abbey ruins enable visitors to observe the plan form of the development and understand how individual buildings would have related to one another. According to the list entry for Whalley Abbey building work began on the site in c.1320. The Abbey has formed part of an established community since it was founded.
31. The Gatehouse was built in 1480 and is likely to be the oldest remaining building within the Abbey complex and is significant as the main entranceway to the Abbey and as the last remaining component of the precinct walls. It is a functional and fortified Gatehouse and is visually prominent because it is a standalone feature separate from the main Abbey complex. The Sands/Ridding
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
Lane and Broad Lane are elements of the setting of the Gatehouse that contribute to its significance as they formed the medieval route to the Abbey. While the development would be clearly visible from Broad Lane, the historic route would still exist and Broad Lane would still appear as a narrow lane although its semi-rural character would be diminished slightly.
32. Consequently the character of this part of the setting would be affected to a minor degree, but I am not convinced that this would result in material harm to the significance of the setting of these heritage assets. Moreover, this would be the only harm to the setting as the important undeveloped area around The Sands/Ridding Lane and its major contribution to the significance of the heritage assets would be largely unchanged by the proposal. Overall the proposal would preserve the setting of Whalley Abbey and its Gatehouse and result in less than substantial harm to the significance of both these listed buildings.
Housing land supply
33. The main parties agree that even if the Council can demonstrate that they have a 5-year supply of housing land that would not in itself be a reason to prevent other housing sites being approved. The Council accepts that the housing policies in the LP are out of date and so the default position in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies. This advises that where the development plan is out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies (such as those protecting designated heritage assets) in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
34. Both main parties have reached different conclusions in relation to the Council’s current housing land supply. This is principally because of the different calculation methods used. The appellants favour the Sedgefield approach 3 and the Council the residual method. The other variables which are in dispute are firstly whether a site in Whalley, with outline planning permission, (Lawsonsteads) should be included in the supply side of the calculation; and secondly whether the non-delivery discount to be applied should be 10% or 20%.
35. Dealing first with the calculation method, the key difference is that the residual method spreads the existing shortfall, which is agreed, over the plan period (around 15 years in this case), whereas the Sedgefield approach deals with the shortfall over the first 5 years. The Framework requires a 20% buffer (in cases where there has been persistent undersupply) to be brought forward from later in the plan period. To my mind it must then follow that the historic under- supply should be given the same priority. In doing this it is envisaged that a greater supply would increase the prospect of delivery and ensure choice and competition in the market for land 4. This is critical if the supply of housing is to be significantly boosted.
36. So, taking the Sedgefield approach, regardless of whether Lawsonsteads is included or whether a non-delivery discount of 10% or 20% is applied the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing. At best, they have a
3 This refers to the methodology used by Sedgefield Borough Council in calculating its 5-year supply requirement. 4 Para 47 of the Framework www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
4.5 year supply, based on the inclusion of Lawsonsteads and a 10% non- delivery discount. This scheme would provide 116 dwellings on the edge of one of the most sustainable locations in the borough and even more importantly 30% of them would be affordable units. When considered in the context of the unmet housing need in this area and in particular the need for affordable homes, this benefit attracts significant weight in the overall planning balance.
Other matters
37. Third parties have expressed concerns about a number of other matters not already dealt with above and so I shall deal with the principal ones now. In terms of highway safety and traffic issues, the planning application was accompanied by a traffic impact assessment and this was subsequently added to at the request of Lancashire County Council (LCC). On the basis of this information the County Highway Engineer concluded that there was sufficient capacity on the relevant part of the road network to accommodate the additional traffic from this development. Taking this into account as well as my observations when I drove around Whalley during the morning peak-time, I agree.
38. In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to the fact that the proposed dwellings would be within a very short walking distance of Whalley railway station and bus stops. Between them they provide regular services to a number of places including Clitheroe, Preston, Bolton, Blackburn and Manchester. This is likely to reduce the number of trips made by car and Whalley village centre contains a variety of shops and services, within walking or cycling distance of the appeal site. Moreover, 30% of the dwellings would be 1 bedroom bungalows for the elderly and these residents would be less likely to be using the roads at peak times than younger people travelling to school and work.
39. In terms of highway and pedestrian safety, while there is a footpath in front of the appeal site it terminates in front of the dwellings on Mitton Road. At this point pedestrians would have to cross to the footpath on the other side of the road via a new traffic island in the road. Given that the road is in a built-up area with a speed limit of 30mph I am satisfied that this would be safe.
40. Moreover, there would be a network of paths within the site leading onto Broad Lane, close to No 4. Although Broad Lane also has no footpath, it is a short walk to the one on Mitton Road and Broad Lane is restricted to ‘access only’ for motorised vehicles. Some additional works are proposed by the appellants to improve highway and pedestrian safety in this area. I am also content that the visibility splays at the junction of the site and Mitton Road would be adequate.
41. I appreciate that car parking in Whalley village is also of concern to local residents. It seems that free car parking is at a premium and in high demand, but on the day I carried out my site visit I saw that the pay and display car park in the centre of the village was not full. Overall, on the basis of the evidence before me the proposal would not be detrimental to highway or pedestrian safety or overload the existing highway network.
42. The amount of available school places in local schools is of real concern to local residents. However, following lengthy negotiations between LCC Education Department and the appellants, LCC have confirmed that there is likely to be
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
sufficient capacity at the local secondary schools to accommodate need arising from the proposal. At Whalley Primary School there would be a lack of places in some years, based on projections. LCC have raised no objection to the proposal subject to a contribution being secured to fund additional primary school places. The submitted UU satisfies this requirement.
43. In relation to flooding and drainage the planning application was supported by a detailed flood and drainage assessment and the proposed dwellings would be placed within the area of the site at the lowest risk of flooding. On this basis the Environment Agency and United Utilities have raised no objections subject to the imposition of planning conditions. These would ensure that, among other things, finished floor levels are set at a certain level, surface water run- off is controlled and the site is developed with a drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles. I agree with this approach.
44. Local residents have suggested that the site may contain archaeology linked to the fact that the site is close to the original medieval entrance to the Abbey. However, following some investigative trial trenching by the appellants, the County Archaeologist is content that the site could be developed without the need for any further investigative work. While I can understand local residents’ concerns in this regard, on the basis of the work that has been undertaken already, I concur with this professional advice. As such, it would be unreasonable to impose an archaeology related condition.
45. Turning to the matter of living conditions, the residents of the dwellings on Mitton Road, which abut the appeal site, would have a different outlook if the appeal site were to be developed. However, the separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings would be ample and so no harmful levels of overlooking would occur. Moreover, the fact that the view for existing residents would change is not in itself a reason to withhold planning permission. While there would be some increase in noise and disturbance during the construction of the dwellings and associated infrastructure this could be controlled to an acceptable degree with the use of a planning condition to ensure that development takes place within the parameters of an agreed construction management plan.
Unilateral Undertaking
46. A UU under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been submitted relating to the provision of the contributions and matters set out above. The UU binds the owner to covenants with both Ribble Valley Borough Council and LCC. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations require that any planning obligation providing for contributions, such as those set out above, must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
47. The covenants with Ribble Valley Borough Council relate to the provision of the number and proportion of affordable dwellings, as set out above. This is in accordance with the Council’s document ‘Addressing Housing Need in Ribble Valley’ (January 2012) which sets out the type and tenure of affordable housing that is required. On the basis of the advice in this document and the data from the Whalley Housing Needs Survey 2011, I am satisfied that the need for affordable housing in this development is justified.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
48. As already mentioned there is insufficient capacity within the local primary school to be able to accommodate the additional pupils the proposed new housing is likely to generate. Specific information and calculations have been provided in an open and transparent manner by LCC to show where the deficit in school places would occur as a result of this development. The commuted sum is derived from this evidence and based on the LCC document ‘Lancashire County Council - Planning Obligations in Lancashire Methodology – Contributions towards education places – Update December 2012’. The owner covenants with LCC to provide a commuted sum (as set out above) towards the provision of the necessary primary school places.
49. The owner also covenants with LCC to provide commuted sums in relation to off-site highway improvement works and Travel Plan funds. Detailed evidence has been provided to show how the contributions have been arrived at, including a break down of off-site works. These are in accordance with ‘The Lancashire County Council document: Planning Obligations in Lancashire Policy 2008.
50. I am satisfied that the provisions of the submitted UU would meet the three tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 and the tests in the Framework.
Conditions
51. In addition to the standard time condition, and those already mentioned, a number of other planning conditions are required. An implementation condition is reasonable to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved proposed plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. External materials will require the prior written approval of the Council to ensure that they respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Conditions in respect of renewable energy and the code for sustainable homes are necessary to comply with the policies in the Council’s LP and emerging Core Strategy.
52. Landscaping and tree conditions are important since this existing site contains some fine mature landscaping and along with additional planting this will help settle the built development into its surroundings. Ecology related conditions are necessary to protect nature conservation issues and avoid the disturbance of habitats of protected species. Because of the proximity of some of the dwellings and gardens to the elevated A59 road a condition is necessary to ensure that the noise environment is satisfactory and thus the living conditions of the future occupiers of these units are protected.
Overall Conclusion
53. The appeal site is identified in the Council’s SHLAA as being suitable for housing and is located on the edge of one of the most sustainable locations in the borough where there is a historic and current unmet need for both market housing and affordable housing. In addition, the Council cannot demonstrate that they have a 5-year supply of specific deliverable sites for housing. The proposal would also bring some economic benefits in terms of construction jobs and to the local economy from the increased population.
54. While the development would result in some moderate harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and only minor harm to the settings of a number of designated heritage assets these would not significantly and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, summarised above, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies which seek to protect heritage assets. So, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Louise Crosby
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Giles Cannock Of Counsel. Instructed by the Solicitor to Ribble Valley Borough Council He called Mr Aydin Zorlutana Mr Adrian Dowd Mr John Macholc Mr Colin Hirst
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Mr Christopher Boyle QC Of Counsel. Instructed by Graham Love of Turley Associates He called Mr Roger Mascall Mr Jonathan Berry Mr Graham Love Mr Phillip Livesley
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Ms Copley CPRE Mr M Diack Local resident Mr R J M Loebell As above Ms K Czapowski As above Mr S Scott As above Mr M Harper As above Mrs Higgins As above Mr N Walker As above Mr Barker As above
DOCUMENTS
1 Copy of letter of notification of the inquiry 2 Photographs of Stockport Viaduct 3 Appellants’ rebuttal statement in relation to an education contribution 4 Appellants’ position statement in relation to an education contribution 5 Statement of Common Ground – highway matters 6 Draft Section 106 agreement (v10) 7 Statement of Common Ground – design matters 8 Opening submissions on behalf of the appellants 9 Mrs Copley’s statement to the inquiry on behalf of CPRE 10 Mr N Walker’s (local resident) statement to the inquiry 11 Written statement from Save Whalley Action Group (Mrs Higgins) statement to the inquiry 12 Mr R J M Loebell’s (local resident) statement to the inquiry 13 Ms K Czapowski’s (local resident) statement to the inquiry 14 Statement on behalf of Lancashire County Council in relation to education 15 Agreed education position statement between the main parties 16 Mr M Diack’s (local resident) statement to the inquiry 17 Updated HLS calculation (17 May 2013) 18 Copies of correspondence between Mr M Diack and Mr Moir (County
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
Archaeologist) 19 Mr S Scott’s (local resident) statement to the inquiry 20 Copy of brief for Mr Livesley from David Wilson Homes (North West) 21 Red line plans for Lawsonsteads 22 Mr M Harper’s (local resident) statement to the inquiry 23 Draft planning conditions (version 2) 24 Agreed 5 year HLS calculations (20 May 2013) 25 Copy of report to RVBC planning and development committee, entitled Housing Land Availability (dated 17 Jan 2013) 26 Pages 10 & 11 of Circular 01/2006 27 Copy of e-mail, dated 16 May 2013, from Sarah Wozencroft to Colin Hirst 28 Appellants’ statements on Planning Obligations (21 May 2013) 29 Copy of Lancashire County Council - Planning Obligations in Lancashire Methodology – Contributions towards education places – Update December 2012 30 Planning Obligations in Lancashire Policy 31 Appellants’ written response to third party representations, including the highway safety concerns raised by Mrs J Higgins 32 Draft planning conditions (version 3) 33 Written closings on behalf of third parties presented by Mr Diack 34 Mr Cannocks’s closing submissions on behalf of the Council 35 Mr Boyle’s closing submissions on behalf of the appellants
DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
Signed version of the Unilateral Undertaking dated 12 June 2013.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
ANNEX
Schedule of conditions in respect of planning permission granted for the erection of 116 No two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings and 21 No one bedroom bungalows, together with associated landscaping, open space, drainage infrastructure, car parking and access roads at Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire.
Commencement of Development 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Drawings and Plans 2) This permission shall be implemented in accordance with the proposal as detailed on drawings: Site location plan NW-09-16 Boundary Plan NW-09-17 Proposed Planning Layout (presentation) Plan NW-09-06D House Type Portfolio Plans NW-09-07 Rev C (listed as they appear in the document): House Type CE4 House Ref H421---5 planning 2 of 2 (plots 23, 24, 58, 120, 121, 132, 133, 136) House Type CE4 House Ref H421---5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 23, 58, 120, 133) House Type CE4 House Ref H421---5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 24, 121, 132, 136) House Type CE5 House Ref H431---5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 18, 19, 21, 22) House Type CE5 House Ref H431---5 planning 2 of 2 (plots 18, 19, 21, 22) House Type CE6 House Ref H431---5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 20) House Type CE6 House Ref H431---5 planning 2 of 2 (plot 20) House Type CE7 House Ref H436--X5 planning 2 of 2 (plots 25, 59, 73 & 76) House Type CE7 House Ref H436--X5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 59, 73, 76) House Type CE7 House Ref H436--X5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 25) House Type CE8 House Ref H455---5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 123) House Type CE8 House Ref H455---5 planning 2 of 2 (plot 123) House Type CE9 House Ref H469---5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 57, 74, 75, 122) House Type CE9 House Ref H469---5 planning 2 of 2 (plot 57, 74, 75, 122) House Type CE11 House Ref H500---5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 119, 131, 135)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
House Type CE11 House Ref H500---5 planning 2 of 2 (plots 119, 131, 135) House Type CE13 House Ref H536---5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 56, 118, 134) House Type CE13 House Ref H536---5 planning 2 of 2(plots 56, 118, 134) House Type CY1 House Ref P206---5 planning (plot 107) House Type CY2 House Ref SH35---5 Rev A (plots 26, 30 & 38) House Type CY2 House Ref SH35---5 Rev A (plots 5, 36, 51, 66 & 72) House Type CY3 House Ref P231-W-5 (plots 110) House Type CY3 House Ref P231-W-5 (plots 65* & 90*) House Type CY4 House Ref P231-V-5 (plots 79, 1118, 126) House Type CY6 House Ref P331---5 (plots 92, 103 & 104) House Type CY6 House Ref P331---5 (plots 77) House Type CY7 House Ref P382---5 (plots 49,50, 53-55, 69-71, 78, 80, 81, 91, 108, 109, 112, 113, 127-129) House Type CY8 House Ref H431---5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 117) House Type CY8 House Ref H431---5 planning 2 of 2 (plot 117) House Type CY8 House Ref H431---5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 12) House Type CY8 House Ref H431---5 planning 2 of 2 (plot 12) House Type CY10 House Ref H455---5 planning 1 of 2 (plots 11, 82, 83, 114, 115, 124, 125, 130) House Type CY10 House Ref H455---5 planning 2 of 2 plots 11, 82, 83, 114, 115, 124, 125, 130) House Type CY11 House Ref H469---5 planning 1 of 2 (plot 116) House Type CY11 House Ref H469---5 planning 2 of 2 (plot 116) House Type CY12 House Ref SH27---5 Rev A (plots 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 29, 67, 68, 84, 85, 86, 87, 105 & 106) House Type CY12 House Ref SH27---5 Rev A (plots 1, 2, 3, 4 27 & 28) House Type CY13 Walsham (plot 52) House Type CY14 House Ref SH38---5 Rev A (plots 9, 10 & 37) House Type CY14 House Ref SH38---5 Rev A (plots 6 & 7) House Type CY15 Walsham Splayed (plot 8) House Type V1 Ruby (plots 35, 64, 89) House Type V2 Ruby (plots 32, 33, 34, 61, 62, 63) House Type V3 Ruby (plots 31, 60, 88) Plan NW-09-11A Planning Plots 39-40 and 137 Plan NW-09-12 Planning Drawing Plots 93-102 Country Edge Garages CEG1, CEG2, CEG3, CEG4, CEG5, CEG6
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
Courtyard Garages CYG1, CYG2, CYG3 Pumping Station Rev A Planning Plots 39 – 48 & 137 Plan NW-09-11A Planning Drawing Plots 93 – 102 Plan NW-09-12 Materials Plan NW-09-13C Colour Street Scenes Plan NW-09-14A Proposed Site Sections Plan NW-09-15 External Materials 3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Energy Supply 4) Not less than 10% of the energy supply required for the development (after completion) shall be secured from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources. Details and a timetable of how this is to be achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and retained as operational thereafter. Code for Sustainable Homes 5) The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve a minimum rating level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Home. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code level 3 has been achieved. Flooding and Drainage 6) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment submitted by David Wilson Homes/RSK dated July 2012 and letter from RSK dated 30 August 2012 given reference number 880213/CW/L02. 7) No development other than the formation of the site access shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details prior to completion of the first dwelling for that phase of the development and adhered to at all times thereafter. 8) No development other than the formation of the site access shall take place until a strategy outlining the system of drainage for foul and sewage waste arising from the entire site has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. This strategy shall include details of any necessary infrastructure including the foul water pumping station. The foul water pumping station shall have a maximum foul pumping rate set at no great than 5 l/s and shall include sufficient foul
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
storage to satisfy the design criteria outlined in SFA 6 th edition. Thereafter the detailed schemes for foul and sewage waste disposal for the development shall be submitted for approval in accordance with the strategy for the entire site approved under this condition. No dwellings shall be occupied until the approved foul drainage scheme has been completed in accordance with the approved details. 9) No development shall commence on site until a scheme, hereinafter called the Sewer Approved Method Statement, for working near the sewers on site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place except in complete accordance with the Sewer Approved Method Statement, unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Landscaping, Trees and Nature Conservation 10) In this condition retained tree means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs v) and vi) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from completion of the final phase of development: i) Before the development begins (including any site preparation works and the delivery of materials or any excavations) all trees and hedgerows identified for retention in the Tree Report dated July 2012 by Pinnacle Environment Ltd shall be protected in accordance with British Standard 5837 2012 (Trees in Relation to Demolition, Construction and Design), the details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full. A Tree Protection Monitoring Schedule shall also be agreed and the tree protection measures shall be inspected by the Local Planning Authority before the site works are begun. ii) During the building works, no excavations or changes in ground levels shall take place and no building materials/spoil/soil/rubble shall be stored or redistributed within tree Root Protection Areas. No impermeable surfacing shall be constructed within the Root Protection Areas. iii) No disturbance, pruning or other arboricultural works to any retained tree identified within Table 3.2 of the Ecological Survey and Assessment dated July 2012 as suitable or with low to moderate potential for bat roosts shall take place until a detailed investigation by a qualified and licensed ecologist has taken place. The results of any investigation including details of any mitigation measures required, along with an implementation plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any tree works take place. iv) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). v) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. vi) The development shall be carried out in full compliance with the Tree Report dated July 2012 unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variations to the requirements of the assessment. 11) No development shall take place until a detailed Method Statement for the removal and/or treatment and control of Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia Japonica) on site has been submitted to and approving in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method Statement shall include details of the proposed working methods to be adopted to prevent the spread of the species during any operation such as mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free of the seeds/root/stem of any invasive plant covered under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved Method Statement. 12) Before practical completion of the first dwelling details of an external lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall demonstrate that artificial illumination of wildlife habitats (including the River Calder and its banks, boundary trees and shrubs and hedgerows) is prevented and minimised. The approved lighting scheme shall be carried out and permanently maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 13) No tree felling/vegetation clearance works, or other works that may affect nesting birds shall take place between 1 st March and 31 st August inclusive. In the event that works are required to be carried out during the nesting period a comprehensive risk assessment in order to establish the absence/presence of nesting birds should be undertaken. The report of the assessment (together with proposals for mitigation/compensation, if required) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works being undertaken. Thereafter, the works shall be carried out in accordance with any necessary and approved measures. 14) No development (including clearance of site vegetation) shall take place until a repeat survey for the presence of badgers has been undertaken. The report of the survey (together with proposals for mitigation/compensation, if required) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with specialist advisors. Any necessary and approved measures for the protection of badgers shall thereafter be implemented in full. 15) The removal of any hedgerow, shrub, vegetation or tall grass or other works that may affect brown hares shall be avoided between 1 st February and 30 th September inclusive. In the event that works are required to be carried out during the breeding season the area shall be surveyed by a suitably experienced ecologist for the presence/absence of brown hares and their young four weeks prior to the commencement of activities. The results of the survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works being carried out. If the survey demonstrates absence of brown hare and their young then
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
development may commence. However, if the survey determines their presence, then the area must be avoided and further surveys conducted at four-week intervals with the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing until their absence can be demonstrated. 16) Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, a landscape management plan including long term design objectives, timing of the works, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (other than within curtilages of buildings) including the play area, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall also provide precise details of all play equipment and its maintenance and indicate a timescale when the play space shall be provided and made available for use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. 17) Prior to practical completion of the first dwelling details of the landscaping of the site, incorporating the recommendations of paragraphs 5.10.3 to 5.10.13 inclusive of the Ecological Survey and Assessment dated July 2012 (identifying how the biodiversity of the site will be enhanced, and including wherever possible the retention of existing trees) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall indicate, as appropriate, the types and numbers of trees and shrubs, their distribution on site, those areas to be seeded, turfed, paved or hard landscaped, including details of any changes of level or landform, specific details for the creation of the pond including its size, shape, location, planting list, cross section drawing and management plan and the types and details of all fencing and screening throughout the site. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following occupation or use of the development, whether in whole or part and shall be maintained thereafter for a period of not less than 5 years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This maintenance shall include the replacement of any tree or shrub which is removed, or dies, or is seriously damaged or diseased, with one of the same species to those originally planted, and of similar size to that removed. 18) Before practical completion of the first dwelling details of all garden boundary fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to identify the measures to be taken to encourage habitat connectivity in accordance with paragraph 5.8.1 of the submitted Ecological Survey and Assessment dated July 2012. Noise Mitigation 19) Prior to first occupation of plots 1-5 the noise mitigation measures as detailed in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.6 of the submitted Noise Assessment dated July 2012 shall be provided and thereafter retained.
Construction Management Plan 20) No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/12/2188887
Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v) wheel washing facilities; vi) a management plan to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction identifying suitable mitigation measures; vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction work (there shall be no burning on site); viii) a Management Plan to identify potential ground and water contaminants; details for their storage and how the River Calder will be protected against spillage incidents and pollution during the course of construction; and ix) a scheme to control noise during the construction phase. Roads, Parking and Travel 21) No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until the site access (plan SCP/12036/SCP1/REVB) the King Street lay-by (plan SCP/12036/FO2) and a bus stop on the western side of Mitton Road have been constructed in accordance with details first submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 22) No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a scheme for the construction of the emergency access (plan SCP/12036/FO3/REVB) has been first submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The scheme shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the 50 th dwelling and thereafter retained. 23) No more than 50 dwellings shall be occupied until the Full Travel Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include objectives, targets, measures and funding mechanism to achieve targets, monitoring, implementation timescales for delivery (which exceeds the build out period), and the provision of a travel plan co-ordinator. The plan will be carried out, audited and updated in accordance with the approved details. 24) At no time in the future shall the emergency route onto Broad Lane be opened up as a public highway for all vehicular traffic. The link shall remain solely for the use of pedestrians, cyclists, public and emergency services. 25) No heavy goods vehicles shall enter or leave the site between the hours of 0830 and 0930 and 1500 and 1600 hours.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20