Transportation 23/08/2010
A1-SENSLR–MNB Economic Impact Report
Prepared by: ...... Checked by: ......
Helen Webster Sarah Robson Graduate Consultant Principal Consultant
Approved by: ...... Stuart Dalgleish Associate Director
A1-SENSLR–MNB Economic Impact Report
Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by
1 SR SM 01/10/2010 2 Updated Modelling Results SR SD 24//08/2011
5th Floor, 2 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AR Telephone: 0113 391 6800 Website: http://www.aecom.com
Job No 60095823 Reference M001.101 Date Created 23/08/2010
This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. f:\projects\53101tnet morpeth northern bypass\dev pool modelling\economic impact report\a1-senslr-mnb economic impact report\a1-senslr-mnb economic impact report.doc
Table of Contents
1 Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT ...... 3 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME...... 3 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME ...... 3 1.4 DEFINING THE REGENERATION AREA ...... 3 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT...... 4
2 Chapter 2 Policy Review ...... 6 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 2.2 BACKGROUND ...... 6 2.3 SUMMARY ...... 8
3 Chapter 3 Socio-Economic Context ...... 10 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 3.2 POPULATION...... 10 3.3 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ...... 12 3.4 EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE...... 14 3.5 OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE ...... 17 3.6 JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE ...... 19 3.7 INCOME SUPPORT ...... 23 3.8 INDICES OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION ...... 25 3.9 LAND AVAILABILITY ...... 25 3.10 SUMMARY ...... 27
4 Chapter 4 Business Surveys and Stakeholder Interviews ...... 29 4.1 BUSINESS SURVEY ANALYSIS ...... 29 4.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 29 4.3 CIRCULATION AND RESPONSE RATE ...... 29 4.4 BUSINESS CHARACTERISTICS ...... 29 4.5 BUSINESS PROSPECTS ...... 31 4.6 STAFF AND RECRUITMENT ...... 33 4.7 LOCATION AND TRANSPORT ...... 35 4.8 SUMMARY ...... 39 4.9 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...... 39 4.10 SUMMARY ...... 42
5 Chapter 5 Impacts of the Scheme ...... 44 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 44 5.2 HIGHWAY MODEL JOURNEY TIME ANALYSIS ...... 44 5.3 ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS ...... 47 5.4 SUMMARY ...... 54
6 Employment Forecasts ...... 56 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 56 6.2 FORECAST ADDITIONAL JOBS IN THE REGENERATION AREA ...... 56 6.3 FORECAST CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF JOBS ...... 57 6.4 IMPACT ON UNEMPLOYMENT...... 57 6.5 RISK ASSESSMENTS ...... 57 6.6 SUMMARY ...... 58
7 Chapter 7 Summary ...... 61 7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 61 7.2 POLICY CONTEXT ...... 61 7.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...... 61 7.4 BUSINESS SURVEYS AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...... 61 7.5 IMPACTS OF THE SCHEME ...... 62
7.6 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS ...... 62
Appendix 1 ...... 63
Appendix 2 ...... 64
Appendix 3 ...... 65
Appendix 4 ...... 66
Appendix 5 ...... 67
Appendix 6 ...... 68
Appendix 7 ...... 69
Appendix 8 ...... 70
Appendix 9 ...... 71
Chapter 1 Introduction
AECOM Economic Impact Report 3
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT This Economic Impact Report is to support Northumberland County Council’s proposal for the A1 - South East Northumberland Strategic Link Road – Morpeth Northern Bypass (A1-SENSLR-MNB). The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) states that the production of an Economic Impact Report must be considered for all schemes with a capital cost of £5 million or more. The purpose of the Economic Impact Report is to demonstrate how the proposed scheme will impact on the economy of the area. This area, referred to as the Regeneration Area, can be defined by the relevant regional economic strategy or by lowest 20% wards in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. The guidance suggests that a relatively thorough analysis is required for larger schemes, which have the potential to impact significantly on Regeneration Areas. There is a focus on showing the processes that link transport to economic activity and how the scheme is expected to reduce unemployment by generating new jobs or improved access to existing jobs. 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME The ‘A1 to South East Northumberland Link Road’ was first included in Northumberland County Council’s transport programme in 1995/6. In February 2007 Phase One of the project, the Pegswood Bypass, was completed. The Morpeth Northern Bypass section of this road, which links the A1 with the A197, is yet to be built. Currently, routes between the A1 and the A197 are limited causing daily congestion in the centre of Morpeth and restricted access to and from the trunk road network. Therefore, the new road is intended to help with existing traffic problems and facilitate development opportunities in Morpeth and surrounding settlements. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME The A1-SENSLR-MNB scheme will create a new route to the north of Morpeth. The road is expected to be built from the A1 just south of the junction with the A192 where it is proposed that the junction will replace the current arrangement. It is considered that the present junction does not provide a suitable access route into and out of the local area. The proposed route is outlined to join up with the existing Pegswood Bypass on the A197 at Whorral Bank, to the east of Morpeth. Appendix 1 illustrates the proposed route of the scheme. 1.4 DEFINING THE REGENERATION AREA The Regeneration Area was defined within the relevant Regional Economic and/or, now revoked, Spatial Strategies but can also be defined using the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) based on areas that fall into the lowest 20% of IMD ranked areas in England. Appendix 2 illustrates the Regeneration Area, which has been agreed by Northumberland County Council. It is divided into two components: 1.4.1 Area of Influence This larger area is that which the highway scheme is expected to influence in a meaningful manner. With the A1- SENSLR-MNB the key question is whether or not the presence of the road directly or indirectly influences the decisions people make with respect to access for residents, visitors and economic activity. A key part of the scheme is the improvement of the A1 interchange junction with the A192 at Morpeth into a full multi directional (or ‘all movements’) junction. There are currently limited junctions elsewhere through much of southern and mid Northumberland, which means that the resulting area of influence is large for a scheme of this size. The northern-most extent of the area of influence is the area around Amble and the A1068. Traffic from this area will benefit from improved access to the A1 at the new junction with the A1-SENSLR-MNB. The area of influence is considered not to extend much beyond the west of Morpeth. The A1 is the key road transport focus in the area and there is limited settlement to the west that could reasonably be described as in the ‘Area of Influence’. The Area of Influence is bound by the North Sea to the east. The southern boundary is the south of Cramlington. This is a recognition that residents and business will benefit from a better connected road network, for example, through improved access northbound onto the A1 and the ability to bypass Morpeth Town Centre. However, this influence ends at the A19, as by this point traffic has a wider range of travel options.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 4
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
1.4.2 Core Regeneration Area The Core Regeneration Area is the area which directly benefits from the implementation of the scheme. These benefits are considered to be across a wide range of physical, economic and social impacts, as well as improving overall accessibility to the road network, which can support economic activity and meet the needs of residents and businesses in the area. The Core Regeneration Area is focused on the communities of Morpeth, Ashington, Blyth, Ellington and Lynmouth. The main benefits are accrued from improved access to the A1 and a reduced number of congestion points in Morpeth and Pegswood. Residents and businesses in this area, or those considering relocating to the area, will benefit from improved access to the trunk road network and thus it is more attractive as a location for employment growth and as a place to live. Bedlington and Blyth are also included in the Core Regeneration Area for similar reasons. To the southern extent of these settlements, the impact of the A1-SENSLR-MNB dissipates to the level of ‘Area of Influence’ as traffic has increased options for accessing Tyne and Wear as well as the trunk road network. According to Economic Impact Report Guidance, to determine whether the Regeneration Area, will be affected by the A1-SENSLR-MNB, the scheme must: Lie entirely within the RA; or Pass through the RA; or Begin or end within the RA while extending beyond it; or Be located sufficiently close so as to affect travel to, from or within the RA.
In the latter case, this assessment is a matter of judgement and relates to the extent to which the scheme provides access to previously inaccessible employment opportunities or where the scheme impacts on the times and costs of travel. The A1-SENSLR-MNB meets at least one of the specified guidelines. The areas surrounding the RA will be identified as its Hinterlands. For the purposes of the Economic Impact Report, the definition of the Hinterlands is based on access: accessible employees, customers, suppliers and markets. A commentary on the relationship between the scheme and the Regeneration Area will be developed throughout the report. 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Following this introduction, the report is divided into six more chapters: Chapter 2 reviews the policy context within which the scheme was devised on a national, regional and local basis; Chapter 3 outlines the socio-economic context of the Regeneration Area; Chapter 4 builds on the baseline data discussed in Chapter 3 and presents key results from the questionnaire surveys and telephone interviews; Chapter 5 evaluates the impacts of the scheme by incorporating a comparison of journey times and calculation of changes in accessibility; Chapter 6 presents the employment forecasts; and Chapter 7 provides a summary of the report and highlights the key findings.
Chapter 2 Policy Review
-
AECOM Economic Impact Report 6
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Chapter 2 Policy Review
2.1 INTRODUCTION The objective of this section is to appraise the A1-SENSLR-MNB and consider its potential benefits in line with pertinent transport policy documents. However, this section will begin with a more detailed description of Morpeth and the surrounding areas. 2.2 BACKGROUND The proposed route for the A1-SENSLR-MNB lies within the former Borough of Castle Morpeth, however, it is envisaged that its benefits will be more far reaching. The A1-SENSLR-MNB would look to enhance the accessibility of Morpeth, Blyth, Ashington and various surrounding settlements by enhancing their access to the A1. Furthermore, traffic currently travelling from these areas to the south and Tyne and Wear, can also be accommodated along the A1. This in turn may alleviate traffic currently using the A19, A192 and A189. It is expected that the A1-SENSLR- MNB will provide an alternative route for the through-flow traffic of Morpeth Town Centre. Much of the need for improved accessibility and changes in other heavy county industry sectors stems from economic decline over recent decades. Following widespread coal mine closures, the dynamics of the future economy is changing and distant settlements are becoming more economically interdependent. Morpeth itself is relatively prosperous compared with areas such as Chevington and Lynemouth. These conurbations are largely along the coast and form part of the East Northumberland Regeneration Initiative (ENRgl) partnership. Within this area 41% of working adults have no qualifications and 85% of Castle Morpeth’s benefit claimants live in the ENRgl area. These circumstances have been exemplified in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) in 2007, which shows the socioeconomic conditions at a Super Output Area (SOA) level. 9 of the 42 SOA’s in the Wansbeck area are within the 10% most deprived SOA’s nationally with regard to level of income, health, employment and education provision. Wansbeck is also the most deprived district in Northumberland. Following a study of the area (An Economic Study of Castle Morpeth, May 2007), it was deemed that many of the contributing factors to this deprivation was owed to the lack of accessibility to commercial property, barriers to work and skill deficiency. Therefore, the A1-SENSLR-MNB has the potential to contribute to economic regeneration by increasing accessibility to the Wansbeck area. As part of this review, it has previously been necessary to look at the relevant regional planning policy documents. Since the change in Government, regional level policy has been revoked. Consequently, the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Regional Economic Strategy are not applicable to this Economic Impact Report and as a result have not been taken into consideration. Therefore, this policy review will only take into account documents from the local level of planning. The policy documents to be considered in this section are as follows: Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (February 2005); Northumberland Waste Local Plan (Adopted 2001); Wansbeck District Local Plan (Adopted 2007); Blyth Core Strategy 2007; Blyth Valley District Local Plan (Adopted 1999); and Castle Morpeth District Local Plan, (February 2003).
In April 2009, the Local Government structure of Northumberland was changed, with the two tier system being replaced with a unitary council. Northumberland County Council became the local planning authority for the area, which was previously covered by seven local planning authorities: Alnwick, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Blyth Valley, Castle Morpeth, Tynedale, Wansbeck and Northumberland County. Since the seven councils have come together, a Consolidated Planning Policy Framework for Northumberland has been created, which is now the statutory planning
AECOM Economic Impact Report 7
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
document for Northumberland. This section outlines some of the key local planning documents of relevance to A1- SENSLR-MNB, which are included in the Consolidated Planning Policy Framework Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (February 2005) The First Alteration of the Northumberland County and National Joint Structure Plan was adopted in 2005, and predominantly outlines green belt extension within Northumberland. Policy S7 notes Morpeth as a key rural site for growth. It states that development in the town should look to contribute to and enhance the current services. Therefore, the A1-SENSLR-MNB is supportive of this objective, as it is intended to reduce through traffic in Morpeth, which in turn should enhance the sustainability and efficiency of current businesses in the town. This could encourage further economic development to come forward in the area. Policy T1 outlines the objectives for reducing congestion and inappropriate routing of through traffic. By nature, the bypass will seek to alleviate traffic passing through Morpeth Town Centre, in turn decreasing congestion. It is also envisaged that as an alternative route, the A1-SENSLR-MNB will be more suitable for large and hazardous vehicles. This can work to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists within the town centre (Policy T7 and T8). With reference to Policy T10, A1-SENSLR-MNB also presents an opportunity to improve accessibility to major roads within the region, which would improve the viability of warehousing and other large scale developments in the area, reducing the impact of large vehicles in town centres. Finally, Policy T13 lists several objectives, which have to be considered when approving transport schemes and development sites. The objectives are as follows: Assist economic development and social inclusion; Lead to an improvement in road safety; Reduce environmental problems; Reduce congestion; Reduce conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, cyclists or other non motorised road users; Enable priority to be given to public transport; and Provide satisfactory access to essential services.
The A1-SENSLR-MNB meets much of the criteria listed above: it is expected to reduce congestion and conflict between traffic and other road users within Morpeth. 2.2.1 Northumberland Waste Local Plan (Adopted 2001) Although not a principle objective for the A1-SENSLR-MNB, it’s routing to the north of Morpeth will allow for the movement of any waste to be diverted away from the town centre. This re-routing of waste associated traffic will also mean that the A1-SENSLR-MNB adheres to the Waste Plan’s Policy EP21. In doing so, this will enhance safety in Morpeth by reducing conflict with pedestrians and other road users. 2.2.2 Castle Morpeth District Local Plan, (February 2003) The Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (2003) notes that a significant amount of traffic passes through the town centre with a large amount using the Telford Bridge (30.2.3). At present, high levels of traffic and the associated pollution and safety issues have impinged on pedestrian and cyclist experiences in Morpeth Town Centre, reducing its appeal. (30.28.2). Furthermore, heavy traffic in the town has reduced accessibility and efficient movement of vehicles, notably public transport, which in turn may also be restricting economic viability and vitality (30.28.1). According to national forecasts, traffic will increase with time and it is essential, given the issues outlined above, that the impact of traffic on the town centre is reduced (30.31.1). Although it is to be noted that the A1-SENSLR-MNB will not reduce traffic with an origin or destination in the town centre, only through traffic which should relieve congestion in the area (30.31.1). 2.2.3 Wansbeck District Local Plan, (July 2007) The Wansbeck and District Local Plan sets out the planning policies informing development within the Wansbeck area.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 8
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Policy 6, which looks at the acceptability of new road schemes, reviews applications based upon whether they improve the operation and safety of the existing junctions and road network. With regards to Policy 6, the development of the scheme is anticipated to improve the operation of surrounding roads and junctions by reducing their traffic loads, which in turn would be expected to aid safety and efficiency. The A1-SENSLR-MNB also adheres to the principles set out in Policy T9, given that the route of the bypass will allow for the diversion of traffic to the north of Morpeth, alleviating traffic congestion issues currently hampering the area. In turn, it is expected that amelioration of these issues will not only improve safety and reduce pollution within the town centre, but may also support economic regeneration measures within the town. 2.2.4 Blyth Core Strategy 2007 The efforts to regenerate Blyth by 2021 and specifically Policy SS1: H, the A1-SENSLR-MNB represents an infrastructure improvement that will aid accessibility to and from Blyth, from the north, south west and other settlements within Northumberland, such as Morpeth. Through developing the bypass it is anticipated that congestion in Morpeth town centre will be alleviated as vehicles reroute to the north, thus reducing pollution and enhancing the town centre’s environment, safety and accessibility. It may be considered that the A1-SENSLR-MNB represents construction on previously undeveloped land. However, in accordance with the Core Strategy’s overarching district wide priorities (notably Objective 4.5.2 which covers sustainable communities), the bypass has the potential to contribute to the economic regeneration of the surrounding communities as a whole. Consequently the anticipated enhancement of existing facilities, such as those in Morpeth, may well outweigh the environmental concerns. With regard to economic growth aspirations for the district, the A1-SENSLR-MNB may provide a viable and accessible corridor for development that allows demand for housing, leisure, communal and employment opportunities (Objective 5.3.2), to be met without increasing congestion in Morpeth town centre and create a more balanced and efficient local economy. As part of the sustainable Travel Policy DC11, set out in the Core Strategy, the A1-SENSLR-MNB may allow for the location of bus stops near new developments, improving public transport accessibility to new areas of employment and housing developments. Furthermore, Policy DC11 reinforces the potential to minimise the effects of transport on the environment, notably in the town centre, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. 2.2.5 Blyth Valley District Local Plan (Adopted 1999) The A1-SENSLR-MNB conforms to a number of key objectives associated with Policy M1 in the Blyth Valley District Plan. Although the A1-SENSLR-MNB may utilise undeveloped land, it does have a number of positive benefits that would appear to align with Policy M1, favouring the development of new transport infrastructure that enhances the environment. Most notably, the A1-SENSLR-MNB is likely to reduce conflict between road users and pedestrians by reducing through traffic in Morpeth. Also, the re-routing of some traffic to the north of the town has the potential to reduce the intensity and impact of pollution on Morpeth Town Centre. 2.3 SUMMARY At a local level, the scheme would contribute towards the objectives set out by the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (2005) and the Local Plans of Castle Morpeth, Blyth and Wansbeck, as the scheme would reduce traffic and ease congestion in the centre of Morpeth, which in turn should enhance the sustainability and efficiency of current businesses in the town. This could encourage further economic development to prosper in the area.
Chapter 3 Socio-Economic Context
AECOM Economic Impact Report 10
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Chapter 3 Socio-Economic Context
3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overall assessment of the economy within the Regeneration Area. The socio-economic context has been reviewed by analysing key statistics relating to economic activity, employment structure, unemployment, vacancies, income support, multiple deprivation and land availability. Geographically this includes the specified Regeneration Area and its Hinterland. The Hinterland is primarily the areas within Northumberland, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and North Tyneside that are not included within the Regeneration Area. 3.2 POPULATION 3.2.1 Population Change It can be seen from Table 1 that the authority with the largest increase in population from 2001 to 2007 was Newcastle-upon-Tyne with an increase of over 12,000 residents. In contrast to this, Blyth Valley’s population increased by only 0.05%. Table 1 - Population Change - Local Authority Census 2001 2007 Population Population Population Increase Population Estimate Increase (%) Alnwick 31,037 32,300 1,263 3.9% Blyth Valley 81,263 81,300 37 0.1% Castle Morpeth 48,996 49,800 804 1.6% Newcastle-upon- 259,573 271,600 12,027 4.4% Tyne North Tyneside 191,702 196,000 4,298 2.2% Wansbeck 61,140 61,700 560 0.9% Source: Nomisweb and Census 2001, National Statistics Online The population increases in Northumberland and the North East are greater than what can be seen for England and Great Britain. Table 2 shows an increase in Northumberland of 7% from 2001 to 2007, whereas England and Great Britain had a population increase of 4%. Table 2 - Population Change - Regional Area Census 2001 Total (2007 Estimates) Population Change 2001 – 2007 (%) Northumberland 95,432 101,775 7% North East 978,112 1,029,715 5% Great Britain 58,789,200 59,226,500 +0.7% Source: Nomisweb and Census 2001, National Statistics Online 3.2.2 Population Age Distribution Table 3 shows that the population age distribution of those people residing in the Regeneration Area and Hinterland is similar to that which exists in Northumberland and the North East as a whole. Table 3 - Population Age Distribution Area Population Age Distribution (%) Total 0 - 4 5 - 19 20 – 39 40 – 64 65+ Regeneration Area 5 19 25 34 17 125,722 Hinterland 5 19 26 35 15 88,299 Northumberland 5 18 24 35 18 307,192 North East 6 19 27 32 17 2,515,445 Source: Census Area Statistics 2003, Nomis
AECOM Economic Impact Report 11
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
3.2.3 Regeneration Area Population The total population of the Regeneration Area is 125,722; the ward with the largest population being Bedlington West with 5,365 residents. Table 4 illustrates how this is in contrast to Stannington, which has the smallest population of 1,643 residents. Table 4 - Regeneration Area Population Regeneration A rea Population by Population Regeneration Area Population by Population Ward Ward Cowpen 4,810 Ulgham 2,907 Croft 4,864 Bedlington Central 4,329 Isabella 3,293 Bedlington East 4,462 Kitty Brewster 3,473 Bedlington West 5,365 Newsham and New Delaval 4,592 Bothal 4,115 Plessey 5,235 Central 3,914 South Beach 3,454 Choppington 2,892 South Newsham 2,814 College 3,650 Wensleydale 3,291 Guide Post 3,615 Ellington 2,908 Haydon 4,780 Hebron, Hepscott and Mitford 2,007 Hirst 3,368 Lynemouth 1,830 Newbiggin East 3,291 Morpeth Central 2,818 Newbiggin West 2,654 Morpeth Kirkhill 2,533 Park 3,736 Morpeth North 2,791 Seaton 3,904 Morpeth South 2,654 Sleekburn 4,061 Morpeth Stobhill 3,041 Stakeford 3,004 Pegswood 3,624 Total 125,722 Stannington 1,643 Source: 2001 Census 3.2.4 Hinterland Population by Ward Table 5 shows how the total population of the Hinterland is 88,299 with the Castle ward being the most populous with 11,437 residents. Longhorsley in comparison only has a seventh of that population with 1,498 residents. The difference between the most and least populous wards in the Hinterland is much greater than in the Regeneration Area. The combined population of the Regeneration Area and the Hinterland is 214,021.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 12
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 5 - Hinterland Population by Ward Hinterland Population by Ward Population Castle 11,437 Camperdown 9,559 Weetslade 9,963 Amble Central 2,223 Amble East 2,304 Amble West 2,078 Warkworth 1,962 Cramlington East 5,412 Cramlington Eastfield with East Hartford 3,876 Cramlington North 5,608 Cramlington Parkside 3,347 Cramlington South East 4,152 Cramlington Village 4,388 Cramlington West 3,611 Hartley 4,775 Seaton Delaval 4,370 Seghill 2,924 Chevington 3,222 Hartburn 1,590 Longhorsley 1,498 Total 88,299 Source: 2001 Census NB : The difference in the total populations in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 is due to the differing age of the data used as identified in the table sources. 3.3 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 3.3.1 Economic Activity in the Regeneration Area Table 6 shows that there are three wards with unemployment at 13%; these are Cowpen, Croft and Newbiggin East. This is relatively high considering that the average for England is 5%. Table 6 also shows that average unemployment for the Regeneration Area is 7%. Whilst indicating the wards with the highest unemployment rate, it is also important to indicate those with the lowest. These are South Newsham and Stanningham both with an unemployment rate of 2%, which is well below the 5% national average. The total number of people of working age in the Regeneration Area is 91,716. Of that, 34,691 (37%) of the working population are economically inactive.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 13
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 6 - Economic Activity in the Regeneration Area Area All People of Economically Economically Active Economically Working Age Active (Unemployed) Inactive Cowpen 3,202 1,765 13% 1,437 Croft 3,447 2,008 13% 1,439 Isabella 2,402 1,390 11% 1,012 Kitty Brewster 2,580 1,586 9% 994 Newsham and New Delaval 3,318 2,141 10% 1,177 Plessey 3,734 2,113 12% 1,621 South Beach 2,625 1,917 3% 708 South Newsham 2,160 1,589 2% 571 Wensleydale 2,391 1,548 7% 843 Ellington 2,224 1,507 3% 717 Hebron, Hepscott and 1,556 885 4% 671 Mitford Lynemouth 1,232 691 10% 541 Morpeth Central 1,968 1,255 5% 713 Morpeth Kirkhill 1,854 1,131 5% 723 Morpeth North 2,025 1,286 3% 739 Morpeth South 1,910 1,220 5% 690 Morpeth Stobhill 2,212 1,310 6% 902 Pegswood 2,724 1,671 7% 1,053 Stannington 1,252 845 2% 407 Ulgham 2,114 1,325 8% 789 Bedlington Central 3,123 2,102 5% 1,021 Bedlington East 3,224 2,053 11% 1,171 Bedlington West 3,950 2,701 5% 1,249 Bothal 3,038 1,926 4% 1,112 Central 2,777 1,696 8% 1,081 Choppington 2,142 1,389 9% 753 College 2,723 1,661 7% 1,062 Guide Post 2,734 1,621 6% 1,113 Haydon 3,564 2,380 5% 1,184 Hirst 2,346 1,280 12% 1,066 Newbiggin East 2,428 1,293 13% 1,135 Newbiggin West 1,924 1,089 11% 835 Park 2,716 1,608 10% 1,108 Seaton 2,893 1,890 6% 1,003 Sleekburn 2,909 1,707 11% 1,202 Stakeford 2,295 1,446 4% 849 Total 91,716 57,025 7% 34,691 Source: 2001 Census 3.3.2 Economic Activity in Hinterland Table 7 shows that the average unemployment rate for the Hinterland is 5%, which is less than the Regeneration Area at 7%. Chevington and Amble East both have unemployment rates of 11%, whilst Cramlington North, Cramlington Parkside and Longhorsley have unemployment rates of 2%. It is also important to note that there are
AECOM Economic Impact Report 14
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
65,498 people of working age in the Hinterland. Of these, 21,749 are economically inactive, which equates to 33% of the working population not being in work. Table 7 - Economic Activity in Hinterland Area All People of Economically Economically Economically Working Age Active Active Inactive (Unemployed) Castle 8,338 5,725 4% 2,613 Camperdown 6,999 4,703 7% 2,296 Weetslade 7,398 4,781 5% 2,617 Amble Central 1,628 1,068 8% 560 Amble East 1,659 959 11% 700 Amble West 1,520 989 6% 531 Warkworth 1,475 882 4% 593 Cramlington East 3,927 2,516 7% 1,411 Cramlington Eastfield with East 2,744 2,008 7% 736 Hartford Cramlington North 4,213 3,475 2% 738 Cramlington Parkside 2,578 2,059 2% 519 Cramlington South East 3,367 2,315 4% 1,052 Cramlington Village 3,348 2,196 5% 1,152 Cramlington West 2,504 1,535 10% 969 Hartley 3,538 2,254 5% 1,284 Seaton Delaval 3,220 2,032 7% 1,188 Seghill 2,188 1,438 6% 750 Chevington 2,527 1,139 11% 1,388 Hartburn 1,220 905 4% 315 Longhorsley 1,107 770 2% 337 Total 65,498 43,749 5% 21,74 9 Source: 2001 Census 3.3.3 Economic Activity Summary By comparing the figures in Table 8 below, it can be seen that the Regeneration Area has an equivalent unemployment rate with the North East region. This is in comparison with the Hinterland, which has an equivalent unemployment rate to that of the England average. This is 2% lower than the Regeneration Area and the North East of England. Table 8 - Economic Activity Summary Area All People of Economically Active Economical ly Active Economically Working Age (Unemployed) Inactive Regeneration Area 91,716 57,025 7% 34,691 Hinterland 65,498 43,749 5% 21,749 North East 1,831,354 1,122,922 7% 708,432 England 35,532,091 23,756,707 5% 11,775,384 Source: 2001 Census 3.4 EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE The largest employment sector in the Regeneration Area, as shown in Table 9, is public administration, education and health, which accounts for 47% of employee jobs. This represents a much more significant proportion of jobs than this same sector does in Northumberland, the North East, England and Great Britain.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 15
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
It is also interesting to note that the banking, finance and insurance sectors do not play as large a part in the economy in the Regeneration Area and Northumberland as it does in the North East, England and Great Britain. The remaining employee sectors have similar proportions of jobs across all areas. Table 9 - Employee Structure 2007 (Employee Jobs) Sector Regeneration Northumberland North East England Great Britain Area Number % % % % % % % Difference % % Difference Difference Differenc e Agriculture and 46 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% fishing Energy and 205 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% water Manufacturing 4,021 11% 12% 1% 13% 2% 11% 0% 11% 0% Construction 1,882 5% 6% 1% 6% 1% 5% 0% 5% 0% Distribution, 7,901 21% 24% 3% 22% 1% 23% 2% 23% 2% hotels and restaurants Transport and 1,297 3% 3% 0% 5% 2% 6% 3% 6% 2% communication s Banking, 2,931 8% 12% 4% 17% 9% 22% 15% 22% 14% finance and insurance Public 17,821 47% 35% -13% 32% -15% 26% -21% 27% -21% administration, education & health Other services 1,464 4% 5% 1% 5% 1% 5% 1% 5% 1% Source: ABI Employee Analysis 2007 3.4.1 Changes in Employment Sectors The largest sector in the Regeneration Area is in the public administration, education and health sector. This is also the largest sector in Northumberland, the North East and England. Table 10 shows how this is the case in both 2003 and 2007. Table 10 also shows a decrease in jobs in all sectors in the Regeneration Area except public administration, education and health; transport and communication and construction. A large decrease in jobs of 67% is particularly evident in the energy and water sector in the Regeneration Area. Over the same time period of 2003 to 2007, there was a 35% decrease in the jobs in this same sector in Northumberland.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 16
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 10 - Changes in the Employment Sector in the Regeneration Area and Wider Area
Sector 2003 Number of Jobs 2007 Number of Jobs % Change in the Number of Jobs from 2003 - 2007 Regeneration Northumberland North England Regeneration Northumberland North England Regeneration Northumberland North England Area East Area East Area East Agriculture and 48 2,388 4,660 177,054 46 2,218 4,507 192,655 -4% -7% -3% 9% fishing Energy and water 613 1,292 10,880 126,416 205 853 8,850 123,599 -67% -34% -19% -2% Manufacturing 4,222 12,060 146,444 2,807,133 4,021 12,024 128,751 2,439,095 -5% 0% -12% -13% Construction 1,689 4,744 53,157 970,840 1,882 6,002 58,863 1,094,188 11% 27% 11% 13% Distribution, 8,789 25,900 224,796 5,531,343 7,901 24,682 224,831 5,394,978 -10% -5% 0% -2% hotels and restaurants Transport and 1,242 3,243 51,287 1,365,920 1,297 3,384 53,204 1,375,985 4% 4% 4% 1% communications Banking, finance 3,155 10,046 139,809 4,509,266 2,931 11,971 170,104 5,140,051 -7% 19% 22% 14% and insurance, etc Public 17,236 37,135 323,817 5,645,351 17,821 35,292 331,395 6,046,647 3% -5% 2% 7% administration, education & health Other services 1,857 5,520 56,257 1,152,938 1,464 5,349 49,211 1,197,711 -21% -3% -13% 4% Source: ABI Employee Analysis 2007
AECOM Economic Impact Report 17
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 11 shows that 1,283 jobs have been lost in all sectors in the Regeneration Area from 2003 to 2007. The greatest numbers of jobs was lost in the distribution, hotels and restaurant sector with 888 being lost. Also of significance is the loss of 408 jobs in the energy and water sector. Nonetheless, jobs have been created in several sectors, the most significant being the public administration, education and health sector where 585 jobs were created. Table 11 - Summary of Employment Sectors in the Regeneration Area Sector 2003 Number of 2007 Number of Regeneration Area Jobs created / lost Jobs Jobs Agriculture and 48 46 -4% -2 fishing Energy and water 613 205 -67% -408 Manufacturing 4,222 4,021 -5% -201 Construction 1,689 1,882 11% 193 Distribution, hotels 8,789 7,901 -10% -888 and restaurants Transport and 1,242 1,297 4% 55 communications Banking, finance and 3,155 2,931 -7% -224 insurance, etc Public administration, 17,236 17,821 3% 585 education & health Other services 1,857 1,464 -21% -393 Total Sum of Jobs created and lost -1,283 Source: ABI Employee Analysis 2007 3.5 OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE Table 12 and Table 13 outline the occupation by skill level for residents in the Regeneration Area and Hinterland. Table 12 shows that the wards with the largest proportion of unskilled occupations were in Hirst (22%), Isabella (21%) and Cowpen (20%). 50% of the population in South Newsham are in white collar professions. Table 12 also shows that 48% of the population in Hebron, Hepscott and Mitford and 49% of the population in Morpeth North, are in Managerial and Professional occupations. This compares with only 8% in the Isabella ward, and 9% in Cowpen and Lynemouth. 3.5.1 Occupation by Skill Level Table 12 - Occupation by Regeneration Area Ward and Skill Level Area Unskilled Skilled White Collar Managerial and Total Manual Professional Cowpen 20% 32% 38% 9% 1,513 Croft 16% 28% 42% 15% 1,746 Isabella 21% 32% 40% 8% 1,225 Kitty Brewster 15% 30% 38% 17% 1,416 Newsham and New Delaval 15% 28% 42% 15% 1,918 Plessey 16% 26% 45% 13% 1,857 South Beach 9% 22% 49% 21% 1,861 South Newsham 7% 19% 50% 25% 1,550 Wensleydale 12% 23% 46% 19% 1,423 Ellington 10% 19% 47% 23% 1,438 Hebron, Hepscott and Mitford 7% 12% 33% 48% 839 Lynemouth 19% 28% 44% 9% 618 Morpeth Central 9% 12% 44% 34% 1,205
AECOM Economic Impact Report 18
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Area Unskilled Skilled White Collar Managerial and Total Manual Professional Morpeth Kirkhill 10% 14% 43% 33% 1,062 Morpeth North 5% 6% 40% 49% 1,237 Morpeth South 10% 12% 42% 36% 1,162 Morpeth Stobhill 14% 17% 45% 25% 1,236 Pegswood 14% 20% 46% 20% 1,526 Stannington 10% 17% 36% 38% 821 Ulgham 12% 24% 42% 21% 1,205 Bedlington Central 11% 20% 46% 23% 1,990 Bedlington East 15% 29% 45% 11% 1,818 Bedlington West 11% 18% 48% 23% 2,553 Bothal 11% 22% 47% 20% 1,848 Central 19% 26% 44% 12% 1,555 Choppington 14% 23% 46% 17% 1,260 College 15% 26% 45% 14% 1,524 Guide Post 14% 26% 44% 16% 1,501 Haydon 12% 23% 46% 19% 2,247 Hirst 22% 27% 43% 8% 1,105 Newbiggin East 16% 29% 40% 15% 1,131 Newbiggin West 18% 26% 43% 13% 966 Park 18% 28% 44% 10% 1,440 Seaton 14% 22% 46% 18% 1,778 Sleekburn 18% 30% 41% 12% 1,508 Stakeford 13% 25% 44% 18% 1,378 Total 13% 23% 44% 19% 52,460 Source: Census 2001, CAS Table 13 details the occupations by skill level for the Hinterland. Overall, the proportions in each skill level are broadly similar to that shown in Table 12 for the Regeneration Area. The wards with the greatest number working in unskilled occupations are in Cramlington West and Chevington at 18% and Cramlington East (17%). Chevington also has 36% of workers in skilled manual occupations. In white collar occupations, Cramlington North has the highest proportion at 51%. Similarly, Longhorsley has the highest proportion in managerial and professional occupations with 38% of the workforce. Chevington has the lowest proportion in managerial and professional occupations with 10%.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 19
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 13 - Occupation by Hinterland Wards and by Skill Level Area Unskilled Ski lled White Managerial and Total Manual Collar Professional Castle 10% 16% 44% 29% 5,461 Camperdown 14% 25% 46% 16% 4,355 Weetslade 11% 22% 47% 20% 4,541 Amble Central 14% 31% 42% 13% 980 Amble East 14% 30% 41% 15% 852 Amble West 11% 23% 45% 21% 930 Warkworth 7% 16% 41% 36% 846 Cramlington East 17% 26% 43% 14% 2,326 Cramlington Eastfield with East 14% 23% 46% 17% 1,865 Hartford Cramlington North 6% 13% 51% 31% 3,380 Cramlington Parkside 9% 22% 50% 19% 1,991 Cramlington South East 10% 22% 50% 18% 2,208 Cramlington Village 12% 20% 48% 20% 2,082 Cramlington West 18% 26% 43% 13% 1,378 Hartley 9% 22% 48% 20% 2,158 Seaton Delaval 12% 25% 44% 19% 1,888 Seghill 11% 24% 46% 20% 1,343 Chevington 18% 36% 37% 10% 1,006 Hartburn 11% 27% 31% 30% 865 Longhorsley 10% 17% 34% 38% 755 Total 12% 22% 45% 21% 41,210 Source: Census 2001, CAS 3.5.2 Occupation by Skill Level Table 14 indicates that the majority of jobs within the Regeneration Area and Hinterland are predominantly within the white collar skill base. Table 14 - Occupation by Skill Level: Summary Area Unskilled Skilled White Managerial and Total Manual Collar Professional Regeneration Area 13% 23% 44% 19% 52,460 Hinterland 12% 22% 45% 21% 41,210 Total 13% 23% 45% 20% 93,670 3.6 JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE 3.6.1 Job Seekers Allowance in the Regeneration Area Table 15 shows that the average proportion of claimants in the Regeneration Area is 8% as opposed to 5% for Northumberland. The wards with the largest proportion of claimants are in Park with 15% and Croft with 14%. The wards included within the Regeneration Area with the lowest proportions of job seeker allowance claimants are in Hebron, Hepscott and Mitford as well as Stannington.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 20
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 15 - Job Seekers Allowance in Regeneration Area Area Total Claimants Economically RA Zone %* Northumberland (%) Active Cowpen 203 1,765 12% 5% Croft 286 2,008 14% Isabella 108 1,390 8% Kitty Brewster 140 1,586 9% Newsham and New Delaval 197 2,141 9% Plessey 235 2,113 11% South Beach 68 1,917 4% South Newsham 46 1,589 3% Wensleydale 113 1,548 7% Ellington 61 1,507 4% Hebron, Hepscott and Mitford 16 885 2% Lynemouth 88 691 13% Morpeth Central 59 1,255 5% Morpeth Kirkhill 56 1,131 5% Morpeth North 30 1,286 2% Morpeth South 40 1,220 3% Morpeth Stobhill 87 1,310 7% Pegswood 107 1,671 6% Stannington 20 845 2% Ulgham 86 1,325 6% Bedlington Central 82 2,102 4% Bedlington East 201 2,053 10% Bedlington West 135 2,701 5% Bothal 115 1,926 6% Central 179 1,696 11% Choppington 130 1,389 9% College 174 1,661 10% Guide Post 110 1,621 7% Haydon 106 2,380 4% Hirst 234 1,280 18% Newbiggin East 182 1,293 14% Newbiggin West 122 1,089 11% Park 234 1,608 15% Seaton 127 1,890 7% Sleekburn 188 1,707 11% Stakeford 57 1,446 4% Total 4,422 57,025 8% 3.6.2 Job Seekers Allowance in the Hinterland Table 16 demonstrates that the average number of job seekers allowance in the Hinterland at 5% is equivalent to that of Northumberland as a whole. Chevington has the highest number of job seekers claimants of all wards included within the Hinterland at 10%.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 21
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 16 - Job Seekers Allowance in Hinterland Area Total Economically Hinterland Northumberland Claimants Active Zone (%) (%) Castle 196 5725 3% 5% Camperdown 292 4703 6% Weetslade 212 4781 4% Amble Central 64 1068 6% Amble East 91 959 9% Amble West 50 989 5% Warkworth 27 882 3% Cramlington East 167 2516 7% Cramlington Eastfield with East Hartford 106 2008 5% Cramlington North 74 3475 2% Cramlington Parkside 47 2059 2% Cramlington South East 81 2315 3% Cramlington Village 92 2196 4% Cramlington West 132 1535 9% Hartley 92 2254 4% Seaton Delaval 161 2032 8% Seghill 102 1438 7% Chevington 112 1139 10% Hartburn 6 905 1% Longhorsley 15 770 2% Total 2,119 43,749 5% 3.6.3 Jobcentre Plus Vacancies by Industry The vacancy information is provided on the basis of Job Centre Plus office administrative boundaries and is broken down by industry and occupation. It can be seen from Table 17 that in the Regeneration Area and Hinterland the number of vacancies has reduced between 2007 and 2009 in distribution, hotels and restaurants; transport and communication; public administration, education and health; and manufacturing. It is interesting to where the number of vacancies in the Regeneration Area and Hinterland have decreased; it is also mirrored in the wider region. The exception to this is distribution, hotels and restaurants. In contrast, the number of vacancies available in the banking, finance and insurance sector has increased in the Regeneration Area and Hinterland, but has decreased regionally.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 22
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 17 - Jobcentre Plus Vacancies by Industry Industry Apr -07 Apr -09 Change 2007 - 20 09
Regeneration Area Hinterland Northumberland NorthEast Regeneration Area Hinterland Northumberland NorthEast Regeneration Area Hinterland Northumberland NorthEast Agriculture and 4 2 16 102 1 2 5 38 -3 0 -11 -64 fishing Energy and water 0 0 0 16 0 5 8 112 0 5 8 96 Manufacturing 15 20 45 680 9 11 37 430 -6 -9 -8 -250 Construction 2 13 41 466 9 26 43 762 7 13 2 296 Distribution, hotels 115 59 316 2,421 79 48 335 2,868 -36 -11 19 447 and restaurants Transport and 17 13 30 277 12 1 29 210 -5 -12 -1 -67 communications Banking, finance and 141 217 582 8,510 190 234 439 8,263 49 17 -143 -247 insurance, etc Public administration, 126 32 239 2,246 114 22 211 2,237 -12 -10 -28 -9 education & health Other services 18 12 35 498 21 12 57 580 3 0 22 82 To tal 438 368 1,304 15,216 435 361 1,164 15,500 -1% -2% -11% 2% 3.6.4 Jobcentre Plus Vacancies by Occupation Table 18 shows that the largest increase in vacancies in the Regeneration Area is in the associate professional and technical occupations with an increase of 34. It should also be noted that there has been a decrease in occupations in the sales and customer service sector. This is in stark contrast to the North East as a whole which has seen a significant increase in these occupations. This sector includes vacancies as shop assistants, call centre staff and other jobs requiring the collection of revenue.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 23
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 18 - Jobcentre Plus Vacancies by Occupation Occupation Apr -07 Apr -09 Change from 2007 - 2009 Regeneration Area Hinterland Northumberland North East Regeneration Area Hinterland Northumberland North East Regeneration Area Hinterland Northumberland North East Managers and Senior Officials 15 4 36 486 12 8 46 449 -3 4 10 -37 Professional Occupations 35 14 67 598 26 12 82 655 -9 -2 15 57 Associate Professional and 40 16 72 1,151 74 35 117 1,894 34 19 45 743 Technical Occupations Administrative and Secretarial 39 27 108 1,663 31 19 73 1,099 -8 -8 -35 -564 Occupations Skilled Trades Occupations 32 60 209 1,681 34 27 98 1,052 2 -33 -111 -629 Personal Service Occupations 44 17 152 1,405 62 14 116 1,239 18 -3 -36 -166 Sales and Customer Service 59 50 146 2,570 34 60 185 5,710 -25 10 39 3,140 occupations Process, Plant and Machine 30 55 100 2,234 33 49 104 914 3 -6 4 - Operatives 1,320 Elementary Occupations 144 125 414 3,427 129 137 343 2,488 -15 12 -71 -939 Total 438 368 1,304 15,21 435 361 1,164 15,50 -1% -2% -11% 2% 5 0
3.7 INCOME SUPPORT 3.7.1 Income Support Claimants in the Regeneration Area Table 19 and Table 20 illustrate the income support claimants in the Hinterland and Regeneration Area. This has been compared against the adult population for each ward to calculate the percentage of the adult population on income support. The ward with the greatest proportion of the adult population on income support is Croft with 8.7%. The ward of Hirst also has a high proportion of its adult population on income support, this standing at 8.3%. Two wards with noticeably low levels of income support claimants are South Newsham and Stannington with 0.9%.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 24
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 19 - Income Support Claimants in the Regeneration Area
Regeneration Area Wards Income Support Claimants % Total Adult Population Cowpen 335 7.0% Croft 425 8.7% Isabella 175 5.3% Kitty Brewster 165 4.8% Newsham and New Delaval 230 5.0% Plessey 360 6.9% South Beach 35 1.0% South Newsham 25 0.9% Wensleydale 80 2.4% Ellington 55 1.9% Hebron, Hepscott and Mitford 60 3.0% Lynemouth 125 6.8% Morpeth Central 55 2.0% Morpeth Kirkhill 50 2.0% Morpeth North 30 1.1% Morpeth South 55 2.1% Morpeth Stobhill 120 3.9% Pegswood 110 3.0% Stannington 15 0.9% Ulgham 90 3.1% Bedlington Central 95 2.2% Bedlington East 235 5.3% Bedlington West 140 2.6% Bothal 80 1.9% Central 205 5.2% Choppington 155 5.4% College 215 5.9% Guide Post 100 2.8% Haydon 115 2.4% Hirst 280 8.3% Newbiggin East 215 6.5% Newbiggin West 155 5.8% Park 295 7.9% Seaton 150 3.8% Sleekburn 195 4.8% Stakeford 55 1.8% Totals 5280 4.2% 3.7.2 Income Support Claimants in the Hinterland Table 20 outlines the statistics for the Hinterland. The ward with the largest proportion of its adult population on income support is Cramlington West with 6.6%, whereas Cramlington North has the lowest at 0.4%.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 25
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 20 - Income Support Claimants in the Hinterland Hinterland Income Support Claimants % Total Adult Population Castle 225 2.0% Camperdown 365 3.8% Weetslade 230 2.3% Amble Central 65 2.9% Amble East 100 4.3% Amble West 35 1.7% Warkworth 30 1.5% Cramlington East 230 4.2% Cramlington Eastfield with East Hartford 155 4.0% Cramlington North 20 0.4% Cramlington Parkside 25 0.7% Cramlington South East 60 1.4% Cramlington Village 90 2.1% Cramlington West 240 6.6% Hartley 80 1.7% Seaton Delaval 145 3.3% Seghill 100 3.4% Chevington 120 3.7% Hartburn 15 0.9% Longhorsley 10 0.7% Total 2340 2.7% 3.8 INDICES OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION Appendix 3 displays a map of the Northumberland area showing a rank of the Index of Multiple Deprivation. It is evident from this map that a high proportion of the Super Output Areas in the Regeneration Area are in the 20% most deprived according to the Index of Deprivation. A number of the Super Output Areas lie to the east of Ashington and down the coast from Lynmouth to Blyth. The majority of Ashington lies within the 20-40% bracket for level of deprivation. The A1-SENSLR-MNB has the potential to reduce the level of deprivation in Ashington, Lynemouth and Blyth by facilitating development and employment opportunities. The A1-SENSLR-MNB will also improve access from Ashington to employment opportunities in Morpeth and beyond by improving access to the A1. 3.9 LAND AVAILABILITY Northumberland County Council has undertaken a full Employment Land Review, which was published in March 2010. Table 21 outlines the employment land available in Blyth Valley, Castle Morpeth and Wansbeck respectively. This is presented for 2005 and 2009 to show the change in the amount of land available for development. Table 21 – Vacant Employment Land in Blyth Valley, 2009 Site Vacant land area (Ha) Vacant Land (Ha) Change 2005 -2009 2009 2005 Blyth Valley Riverside Business Park (Cowley Rd) 3.726 0.00 +3.726 Riverside Business Park (Coniston 6.321 0.00 +6.321 Rd) Blyth Harbour South 0.204 10.6 -10.396 Blyth Crofton Mill 1.430 0.00 +1.430 East Cramlington 0.297 0.00 +0.297
AECOM Economic Impact Report 26
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Site Vacant land area (Ha) Vacant Land (Ha) Change 2005 -2009 2009 2005 Northumberland Business Park 12.118 0.00 +12.118 Seaton Delaval-Double Row 0.274 0.00 +0.274 Seghill 3.470 0.00 +3.470 Blyth Bates 23.280 0.00 +23.280 Cramlington –North Nelson 1.620 0.00 +1.620 Cramlington –Nelson Park West 7.790 0.00 +7.790 Cramlington –Crossland Park 2.916 0.00 +2.916 Cramlington –South Nelson 2.618 0.00 +2.618 Cramlington –SW Sector off Fisher 22.314 0.00 +22.314 Lane Cramlington –West Hartford Farm 51.464 0.00 +51.464 Total 139.84 10.6 +129.24 Castle Morpeth Hadston 1.22 1.075 +0.145 Morpeth Coopies Lane 0.161 0.329 -0.168 Morpeth Whalton Rd 0.00 7.402 -7.402 Morpeth Fairmoor (Northgate) 10.2 10.2 0 Morpeth Railway Yards 1.8 1.8 0 Linton Linton Lane 3.612 5.00 -1.388 Longhorseley Land at East Road 0.4 0.4 0 Morpeth Ex to Land at Fairmoor 5.6 5.6 0 Scots Gap part of Auction Mart Site 0.44 0.44 0 Stannington –Part of St. Marys 33.6 33.6 0 Hospital Ellington Colliery 20.5 20.5 0 Morpeth Fairmoor Adj to A1 8.15 8.15 0 Whitehouse Business Centre 2.03 2.57 -0.54 Low Stanners Mixed Development 0.00 2.28 -2.28 Area Goose Hill Factory 0.00 0.2 -0.2 Total 87.71 99.55 -11.83 Wansbeck Ashington –North Seaton 5.895 5.6 +0.295 Barrington 0.135 2.5 -2.365 Bedlington Station 0.00 3.2 -3.2 Cambois –Zone of Economic 8.9 0.00 +8.9 Opportunity Blyth Harbour North 5.639 0.00 +5.639 Ashington –Wansbeck Business Park 4.381 5.0 -0.619 Ashington –Lintonville 0.977 1.5 -0.523 Ashington –Ashwood Business Park 34.726 24.4 +11.54 Cambois –West Sleekburn Industrial 2.10 130.4 -128.3 Estate Newbiggin by the Sea –Woodhorn Rd 0.3 0.3 0
AECOM Economic Impact Report 27
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Site Vacant land area (Ha) Vacant Land (Ha) Change 2005 -2009 2009 2005 West Sleekburn –Earth Balance 0.00 9.13 0 Total 63.05 182.03 -118.98
Overall Total 290.7 292.18 -1.48 Overall, it is evident from Table 21 that there is 1.48Ha less land available for development in 2009 than there was in 2005. Although the change is marginal, there is a marked difference between the areas; with 129.24Ha becoming available in Blyth Valley since 2005, but a loss of 118.98Ha in Wansbeck. The least amount of change is evident in Morpeth. Blyth Valley is the only area where there is more land available in 2009 than in 2005. In Castle Morpeth, a number of the sites that were available in 2005 are still available with either the same land area or less. There is only one site in Morpeth where more land has come available for development. 3.10 SUMMARY The review of the socio-economic context of the Regeneration Area and the Hinterland has shown that overall the level of economic activity in the Regeneration Area is lower than the Hinterland, with the Hinterland mirroring Northumberland more closely. Unemployment in the Regeneration Area (7%) is 2% higher than in the Hinterland (5%). In line with unemployment, both the number of job seekers claimants and the proportion on income support are higher in the Regeneration Area. This is supported by the Index of Multiple Deprivation, which shows that a high proportion of the Super Output Areas in the Regeneration Area are in the 20% most deprived according to the Index of Deprivation. The economic structure in the Regeneration Area has also changed. Between 2003 and 2007 1,283 jobs were lost in all sectors, predominantly in distribution, hospitality and energy. In the same time period, 585 jobs were created in the Regeneration Area, predominantly in public administration, education and health. This transition in economic structure could be a contributing factor to the higher levels of unemployment in the area. With the bypass in place, the local area is potentially opened up to improved journey times, allowing for more people to access jobs within the local area within a shorter time. In turn, increasing accessibility to more jobs within the local area has the potential to reduce unemployment. For example, having a direct access to the A1 from Ashington has the potential to improve HGV access to this area. This can improve the prospect of businesses moving into the area and creating jobs. The employment land availability analysis shows that there is marginally less land available for employment development in 2009 than there was in 2005. However, the change is much greater when examined spatially. As this is a locational-based issue, it could be related to a number of outside factors, other than transport, affecting the take up of employment land in the area.
Chapter 4 Business Surveys and Stakeholder Interviews
AECOM Economic Impact Report 29
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Chapter 4 Business Surveys and Stakeholder Interviews
4.1 BUSINESS SURVEY ANALYSIS The baseline data has been supplemented with additional information derived from a survey of businesses in the area. This has been key to enabling a fuller understanding of the issues facing the local economy and crucially the relationship between transport and the economy. 4.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY A questionnaire was developed in order to provide key information for exploring the importance of transport to businesses in the Regeneration Area and ascertaining how well they are performing. This was developed in accordance with the DfT guidance for producing an Economic Impact Report (WebTAG Unit 3.5.8). The questionnaire addressed a range of issues, not just transport. Some key aspects included: Name of the business and a description of what they do; Number of employees and whether this was expected to change in the coming year; Recruitment difficulties; How the staff travel to the site and where they travel from; Location of customers, suppliers and competitors; Prospects for the business and reasons for growth/decline; Strengths and weaknesses of the location; Movement of goods; and Access for visitors or tourism. It should be recognised that there is potential for bias in the responses as businesses were informed that the questionnaire was required in order to provide information for the scheme submission. However, it was considered that the response rate would have been very poor had businesses not been informed of the purpose of the survey. The questionnaire is provided in full in Appendix 4. 4.3 CIRCULATION AND RESPONSE RATE The questionnaire was distributed to all businesses and schools in the Northumberland area that were registered on the Northumberland County Council business directory. Of the 941 questionnaires sent out, 111 responses were received, giving a response rate of 12%. This is a typical response rate for this type of survey. The following analysis was undertaken using only the responses from the businesses, which were located in the Regeneration Area. 4.4 BUSINESS CHARACTERISTICS This section of the business survey focused on the characteristics of the businesses in the Regeneration Area from which responses were received. The questions looked at the type of business and their location. Table 22 shows the number and proportion of businesses responding to the questionnaire by sector. This shows that the highest proportion of responses came from the public administration and services sector. A number of the businesses involved in this sector are service providers who require road transport to access their market.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 30
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 22 - Businesses by Sector Sector Count % Car sales and repairs 4 5 Distribution, Transport and 4 5 Communication Education 11 15 Health 6 11 Hospitality, leisure and retail 13 18 Manufacturing and engineering 11 15 Public administration and services 24 33 Total 73 100 For the purpose of this analysis, the locations of the businesses were allocated to one of four areas in order to identify patterns in the Regeneration Area. Table 23 shows that 47% of the questionnaire responses were from businesses located in Morpeth. This was followed by Ashington, which provided 25% of the questionnaire responses. As the A1-SENSLR-MNB has the potential to improve the access of these two urban areas to the strategic road network, then a high response rate from businesses in these two areas is a great benefit to the study. Table 23 - Businesses by Area Area Count % Ashington 18 25 Bedlington 13 18 Blyth 8 10 Morpeth 34 47 Total 73 100 Table 24 shows that over half (57%) of the businesses have been established at their respective location for over 20 years. Furthermore, 82% of businesses had been at there current location for at least 10 years. There were no businesses, which had not been in their current location for less than one year. Table 24 - Length of Time at their Current Location Time period Count % Less than one year 0 0 1-4 years 5 7 5-9 years 7 10 10-14 years 14 19 15 -20 years 4 6 20 years plus 41 57 Table 25 presents the length of time businesses have been at their current location by sector. This shows that the ‘distribution, transport and communication’, ‘education’ and ‘manufacturing and engineering’ sectors have been established for the longest periods of time at their current location. In contrast, the majority of the businesses in the ‘hospitality, leisure and retail,’ sector have been established at their current location for less than 5 years.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 31
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 25 – Length of Time at Current Location by Sector Secto r Less than one 1-4 5-9 10 -14 15 -20 20 Total year years years years years years + % Car sales and repairs 0 0 25 50 25 0 100 Distribution, Transport and 0 25 0 0 0 75 100 Communication Education 0 0 9 0 0 91 100 Health 0 0 33 17 0 50 100 Hospitality, leisure and retail 0 17 8 17 8 50 100 Manufacturing and engineering 0 0 0 27 0 73 100 Public administration and 0 13 8 25 4 50 100 services Total 0 8 10 19 4 58 100 Of the businesses located in the Regeneration Area, Table 26 shows that 48% of the respondents have other sites located in the Northumberland area, including Castle Morpeth. Therefore, efficient transport links within Northumberland are key to a successful economy through efficient business to business interactions and the economic growth of the area. Additionally, 22% of the businesses also have sites that are established elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, having good access to the A1 is important to allow these businesses to connect efficiently with their other sites. Table 26 - Other Business Locations Area Count % Other Locations in Castle Morpeth 12 15% In Northumberland, but outside Castle Morpeth 27 33% In North east England, but outside of Northumberland 16 20% Elsewhere in the UK 17 22% Outside of the UK 8 10% Total 79 100% 4.5 BUSINESS PROSPECTS This section of the business survey looked at what is expected to happen to the businesses in the Regeneration Area in the near future. The results are reported by sector and location. The reason for the change in prospects is also given. Table 27 outlines the prospects for the businesses in the Regeneration Area by sector. It is evident that the majority of businesses in the Regeneration Area are expected to stay static in their respective markets. Only 6% of the businesses surveyed are expecting a decline in prospects in the near future. The sector where the highest proportion of businesses thought their prospects for the future were good was ‘manufacturing and engineering’ (45%). This is in comparison to ‘car sales and repairs’, where the highest proportion considered their prospects to be static (75%) and a further 25% considered them to be poor. The only other sector where prospects were considered to be poor was ‘hospitality, leisure and retail’.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 32
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 27 - Prospects by Sector Sector Pro spects Total (%) Good (%) Static (%) Poor (%) Car sales and repairs 0 75 25 100 Distribution, Transport and Communication 25 75 0 100 Education 33 67 0 100 Health 17 8 0 100 Hospitality, leisure and retail 25 58 17 100 Manufacturing and engineering 45 55 0 100 Public administration and services 29 71 0 100 Total 28 66 6 100 The location of the businesses within the Regeneration Area is outlined in Table 28 . This table shows that the businesses with the best prospects are located in Blyth with 43% of respondents stating that they have good prospects for the near future. Table 28 also suggests that the highest percentage of businesses with poor prospects for the future were located in Ashington. Table 28 - Prospects by Location Location Prospects Total Good Static Poor (%) (%) (%) (%) Ashington 19 56 25 100 Bedlington 18 82 0 100 Blyth 43 57 0 100 Morpeth 24 74 2 100 Total 24 69 7 100 Table 29 , Table 30 and Table 31 list the reasons why they expect their business to either grow, decline or remain static. This section is based on a smaller sample of businesses, as not all respondents cited a reason for their business prospects. Of those businesses that stated they were expecting to grow, the reasons for this are outlined in Table 29 . This suggests that growth within their industry was helping the individual business to grow. Where growth within the industry was outlined as a reason, the economy was frequently outlined as a reason for improving their business by changing the trading environment. Table 29 - Reasons why Businesses are Growing Reason for Growth Count Industry growth 9 Competitive pricing 1 Effective management/marketing 3 Total 13 Of those businesses that stated they were expecting to decline, the reasons for this are outlined in Table 30. This suggests that the economic climate has had the greatest impact upon the businesses in the Regeneration Area. Table 30 - Reasons why Businesses are Declining Reason for Decline Count Economic climate 3 Operational cost increases 1 Total 4
AECOM Economic Impact Report 33
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Of the businesses that stated they are expecting to remain static over the coming period, the reasons are outlined in Table 31 . It is evident that the economic climate and the recession have played a big part in businesses not growing. This was also cited as the main reason for businesses declining. Table 31- Reasons why Businesses are Static Reaso ns for remaining static Count Economic climate 13 Increasing demand 1 Business type will remain constant 4 Company changed location 1 Changes in the local economy 1 Business restructure/expansion 4 Product quality 3 Operational costs 2 Total 29 4.6 STAFF AND RECRUITMENT This section reports on the questions relating to recent and projected staff numbers and businesses relative ease or difficulty in recruiting staff. The change in the number of employees is reported by sector and the difficulties over recruiting are reported by sector and location. The reasons for problems in recruiting staff are also explored. Table 32 shows that 66% of the respondents have less than 29 employees on site. In comparison, only 4% of businesses have over 500 employees on one site. The majority of businesses have between 10 and 29 employees on site. Table 32- Number of employees at location Number of Employees Count % More than 1000 1 1% Between 500 and 1000 2 3% Between 100 and 499 5 7% Between 30 and 99 17 23% Between 10 and 29 34 47% Less than 10 14 19% Total 73 100% The change in number of employees is shown in Table 33 . It is apparent that over the past year, 27% of businesses have increased in staff numbers, but 32% have reduced in numbers. The industry, which has seen the biggest increase in number of employees, is ‘education’, whereas 75% of businesses in ‘car sales and repairs’ have seen a decrease in the numbers of employees.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 34
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 33 - Staff Changes in the Past Year Sector Change in staff numbers Total (%) Increase (%) Decrease (%) Stay the same (%) Car sales and repairs 0 75 25 100 Distribution, Transport and Communication 0 50 50 100 Education 55 1 27 100 Health 14 29 57 100 Hospitality, leisure and retail 23 23 54 100 Manufacturing and engineering 18 36 46 100 Public administration and services 33 33 34 100 Total 27 32 41 100 Table 34 outlines the expectations for change in staff numbers over the next year by sector. 23% of businesses are expected to see an increase in staff numbers and 71% are expected to stay the same. Just 6% of the businesses who responded to the questionnaire stated that they expected their staff numbers to decline. The industries, which are expected to see the biggest proportional increases in staff, are ‘distribution, transport and communication’ and ‘health’. Table 34 - Expectations for Staff Change
Change in staff numbers Sector Total (%) Increase (%) Decrease (%) Stay the same (%) Car sales and repairs 25 25 50 100 Distribution, Transport and Communication 50 0 50 100 Education 18 9 73 100 Health 50 0 50 100 Hospitality, leisure and retail 23 0 77 100 Manufacturing and engineering 27 9 64 100 Public administration and services 13 4 83 100 Total 23 6 71 100 The difficulties over recruiting are reported by sector and location in Table 35 and Table 36 respectively. Table 35 shows that 42% of businesses highlighted skill shortages as a key problem in the recruitment of staff. Staff travel problems were also an issue with 23% of respondents highlighting this as a difficulty for recruitment. The ‘distribution, transport and communication’ and ‘manufacturing and engineering’ sectors have the greatest difficulty over recruitment relating to skill shortages for their type of work. The ‘car sales and repairs’ and ‘education’ sectors cite staff travel problems as large contributors to their recruitment difficulties.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 35
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 35 - Reasons for Recruitment Difficulty by Sector Sec tor Difficulty with Recruiting (%) Total Staff skill Staff Staff Childcare Salary Other Shortages travel childcare problems uncompetitive problem problems Car sales and repairs 33 33 0 34 0 0 100 Distribution, Transport 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 and Communication Education 18 36 9 9 28 0 100 Health 3 0 0 0 50 0 100 Hospitality, leisure and 22 22 0 0 22 34 100 retail Manufacturing and 66 22 0 0 0 12 100 engineering Public administration 44 22 11 6 11 6 100 and services Total 42 23 5 5 18 7 100 Table 36 outlines the staff recruitment difficulties by location. A staff skill shortage is highlighted as being the biggest problem for businesses located in Ashington, Bedlington and Blyth. Businesses in Morpeth and Blyth both highlighted staff travel problems as a problem for recruitment. Table 36 - Reasons for Recruitment Difficultly by Location Location Difficulty with Recruiting % Total Staff skill Staff Staff childcare Childcare Salary Other Shortages travel problems problems uncompetitive problem Ashington 45 9 0 9 9 27 100 Bedlington 43 7 7 7 29 7 100 Blyth 40 20 20 10 10 0 100 Morpeth 37 37 0 0 17 9 100 Total 42 23 5 5 18 7 100 4.7 LOCATION AND TRANSPORT This section explores what the businesses consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of their current business location and what would improve their location. The future intentions of the businesses in respect of their location are also examined. Transport problems are then analysed in terms of: Movement of goods; Movement of staff travelling to work and business trips; and Visitors to the site. This section also reports how the location of the business affects the movement of goods, staff and visitors to the site. Table 37 outlines the future intentions of the businesses in the Regeneration Area. It is evident that 69% of the businesses in the Regeneration Area are intending stay at their current location. In addition to this, a further 19% are intending to stay at their current location and expand on site. Only 3% of businesses have stated an intention to move outside of the Northumberland district.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 36
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 37 - Business Intentions in the Near Future Business Intention % To stay at this location 69 To stay at this location, but expand 19 To stay at this location, but decrease our 1 operations Move to another location within Castle Morpeth 3 Move to another location within Northumberland, 5 but outside Castle Morpeth Move to another location in the UK 3 Total 100 Businesses were asked to consider whether they thought the following factors were a strength or a weakness of their location: Access to the road network; Access to markets; Access to employees; and Availability of staff. Table 38 and 39 outline the strengths and weaknesses of their site by location. Table 38 shows that the most common strength of their location was access to employees with 40 responses. Businesses located in Morpeth recorded the highest number of strengths for their location with 61, whereas Blyth was considered to have the least number of strengths with only 9. Morpeth was considered the strongest in each of the categories; it had the best access to the road network, markets, employees and availability of staff. In comparison, the businesses located in Blyth recorded the least number of strengths in all categories. Table 38 - Strengths of their Site by Location Location Strengths (count) Total Access to the road network Access to markets Access to Availability of employees staff Ashington 13 10 14 13 50 Bedlington 7 6 6 6 25 Blyth 2 1 3 3 9 Morpeth 15 16 17 13 61 Total 37 33 40 35 145 Table 39 shows that the most common weakness for businesses locations was availability of staff with 18 responses. This is closely followed by access to the road network, with 17 responses. The businesses in Morpeth recorded the highest number of weaknesses in relation to their location with 32 responses. Similarly to the strengths, Morpeth businesses also recorded the highest number of votes for each category as a weakness. Blyth businesses recorded the least number of weaknesses for its location. Table 39 - Weaknesses of their Site by Location Location Weaknesses (count) Total Access to the road Access to markets Access to Availability of network employees staff Ashington 3 4 2 2 11 Bedlington 3 3 3 3 12 Blyth 3 2 2 2 9 Morpeth 8 5 8 11 32 Total 17 14 13 18 64
AECOM Economic Impact Report 37
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
The businesses were asked to grade how each of the factors listed in Table 40 would improve the quality of their location. The factor, which was considered to need the most improvement by the highest number of businesses, was ‘the availability of capital’ with 20 votes. This was closely followed by ‘improved access to and from the site for staff’ with 16 votes. The factor, which was considered to need the least improvement in the area, was ‘increased competition’ with 30 businesses voting that this was a negligible factor for improvement. Table 40 - Improvements to the Location Factor Significant Moderate Small Negligible improvement to improvement to improvement to improvement the location the location the location to the location Improved access to and from for 16 10 8 11 staff Improved access for suppliers 8 10 9 18 Improved access to markets 9 7 11 19 Increased competition 2 6 1 30 Reduced transport costs 13 11 8 12 Availability of suitable land 10 2 5 22 Availability of suitable premises 10 5 7 20 Availability of capital 20 8 7 10 Total 88 59 56 142 The place of residence for staff based at each site in the Regeneration Area is shown in Table 41. This shows that the workforce is predominantly locally based, but there are a significant number of people who travel between 6 and 15 miles to reach their place of work. On average, 47% of staff live within 5 miles, and a further 38% live between 6 and 15 miles away from their place of work. People living further than 15 miles away account for only 15% of the workforce in the Regeneration Area.
Table 41 - Place of Residence (Staff) Location Average % Live locally (within 5 miles) 47 Within the sub-region (between 6 and 15 38 miles) Further than 15 miles 15 Total 100% Table 42 outlines the mode share of employees by location. It is clear that car travel is the most used mode for the journey to work. Blyth and Morpeth have the highest percentage of employees who travel to work by car. The second highest mode share is walking with 13%. This can be linked to the high proportion of people living within 5 miles of their place of work, as outlined in Table 41 . Ashington and Bedlington have the lowest proportions of car travel compared with Blyth and Morpeth, but comparatively the highest proportion of travel to work by walking. Table 42 - Employee Mode Share by Location Location Mode (%) Total Car Car Bus Train Walk Cycle Other (%) Passenger Ashington 77 2 3 0 16 2 0 100 Bedlington 68 10 6 0 15 1 0 100 Blyth 81 4 4 0 9 1 1 100 Morpeth 80 5 2 0 11 1 1 100 Total 77 5 3 0 13 1 1 100
AECOM Economic Impact Report 38
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 43 provides an overview of what percentage of businesses who responded to the questionnaire require goods to be transported onto and off the premises. 58% of the businesses require goods to be transported on or off site. Table 43 - Movement of Goods Yes No Total (%) (%) (%) Movement of goods into and out of 58 42 100 the premises is important to the business The frequency of delay due to transport links is likely to have a big impact on the efficiency of the business. Table 44 reports the frequency of delays, which are suffered by the businesses as a result of transport links. Of the businesses, which require the movement of goods in and out of the site to occur, 7 of them are affected on a daily basis by delays on the transport network. Additionally, a further 10 are affected at least on a monthly basis. Table 44 - Frequency of delays due to transport links Frequency Count Very frequent, affects business on a daily basis 7 Frequent, affects business on a weekly basis 4 Fairly frequent, affects business on a monthly 6 basis Infrequent, affects business up to 4 times a 8 year Not typical, affects business irregularly 15 Total 40 The location of principle customers, suppliers and competitors is presented in Table 45. This shows that the principle customers, suppliers and competitors of the businesses who responded to the survey, are in Northumberland, but outside of Castle Morpeth. Whilst Castle Morpeth was an important location for 44 of the businesses as a principle location for customers, it was less important as a principle place for suppliers or competitors. Table 45 - Location of Customers, Suppliers and Competitors Location Principle Principle Principle Total Customers Suppliers Competitors Count Other locations in Castle Morpeth 43 20 23 86 In Northumberland, but outside Castle Morpeth 51 39 33 123 In North East England, but outside Northumberland 26 37 29 92 Elsewhere in the UK 24 33 25 82 Outside of the UK 10 7 7 24 Businesses were asked about transport problems with respect of staff making business trips and visitors to the site. Table 46 shows that congestion on the roads leading to and from the site and lack of parking are key problems for staff making business trips. Both of these issues are replicated for visitors to the site. A further issue, which is a problem for both staff making business trips and visitors to the site, is that there is no public transport.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 39
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 46 - Nature of Transport Problems Problem Staff making business trips Visitors to the site No public transport to the site 15 5 Infrequent public transport to the site 10 3 Public transport does not run at appropriate times 11 4 Poor road access 10 5 Congestion on roads leading to/from site 23 7 Lack of parking provision 23 7 Safety of cyclists/pedestrians 3 2 Total 95 33 4.8 SUMMARY The business survey was undertaken to understand the importance of transport to the businesses in the area and identify what aspects of their business is affected by the current transport system. 58% of the businesses that responded to the questionnaire stated that the movement of goods was an important part of their business, which shows the importance of the road network to the operation of local industry. There were also a number of trends, which are consistent with the national picture, such as the economic climate being cited as a key reason for decline in the prospects of the business and for lack of growth in the near future. In terms of location, businesses see Northumberland and Castle Morpeth as a key location for customers, suppliers and competitors. The majority of respondents were from businesses in Morpeth; this location was considered to have the best access to the road network as well as the worst. It was noted in the questionnaire responses that congestion on the road network was a common cause of problems and delays for staff making business trips, for visitors to the site and the movement of goods. Staff skill shortages were cited as a key recruitment problem for all sectors and locations. This could be linked to the location of the site in relation to the number of potential employees who could access the site with the required skills. Additionally, it was noted that access to and from the site would be a significant improvement to the location for the current workforce. This suggests that accessibility to their site is a problem for a large proportion of the businesses involved in the questionnaire. 4.9 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS The stakeholder interviews were undertaken to identify any issues that were not highlighted in the business questionnaire. They also ensured more in-depth responses were obtained from some of the key stakeholders in the area. The telephone interviews were held in January 2010 with the following organisations: Blyth Harbour Commission, Blyth; Moffat 2000 LTD, Ashington; North East Chamber of Commerce, Morpeth; Robson and Prescott Veterinary Surgeons, Morpeth; Northumberland County Council, Morpeth; and Watson Haulage, Bedlington. All stakeholders interviewed said that the A1-SENSLR-MNB would improve the economy of the area by improving the movement of goods and people into and out of the area. It was commonly agreed that the transport links travelling north from the area at present are less than satisfactory and can at times be dangerous due to congestion in the centre of Morpeth and an unsatisfactory junction on to the A1 from the A192. It was considered that the building of the A1-SENSLR-MNB would allow the large amounts of employment land in the area to be used productively, as improving the access to and from the area will encourage businesses to move in and increase the prosperity of the area. 4.9.1 Blyth Harbour Commission –Technical Operations Director For traffic from the port moving south, the road network is considered to be fine, but “moving north is a nightmare”. A key contract for the Blyth Harbour at present involves the movement of 50,000 tons of stone from Rothbury to the Port and beyond. This equates to 6 lorry loads a day. This is a 5 year contract and the road network is a “constant battle” in this work. The Harbour Commission has plans to expand into the wider area of Blyth and Ashington and the building of the A1-SENSLR-MNB would significantly help this aspiration. “The HGVs have to fight across the A1
AECOM Economic Impact Report 40
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
in two crossings, which is dangerous and runs the risk of causing a big accident in the near future”. Morpeth was considered to be too busy as a route choice and it is unfair to continue putting these heavy vehicles through the built up areas of Ashington and Blyth. The Pegswood Bypass is good but needs extending to the A1 to have its full impact. At present, the Port of Blyth does not always look favourable to businesses, as their access is significantly less viable compared with others. It is their aspiration to make the Port of Blyth as competitive as possible, but there is a hindrance. The current location is considered to influence decisions of prospective clients. For example, the shipping of turbines is not totally feasible from the Port of Blyth due to the road network. Therefore, this contract could be lost to other companies as a result, causing a future downturn in business. Potential customers in the Borders Regions also look at the Port of Blyth as less of an option, as they are not in easy access to the A1. The A1 was considered as a key strategic route with bad connections in the area, which is of great concern. Building the A1- SENSLR-MNB would definitely give their customers a better feel of how they travel to the Port. The current situation with the road network was considered to cost time and money. Building the A1-SENSLR-MNB would make the area more appealing to businesses and therefore help its economic development. Ashington was considered to be at a loss without it and will remain so until the area is more outward facing. The A1-SENSLR-MNB will help to improve this connectivity with places such as Alnwick. This opens the area up to more affluent people to come in and work in the area. Blyth and Ashington are not considered as necessarily favourable places to live, but improving the travel links would encourage people to commute into the area. This allows business managers to take up opportunities in the port area, but not necessarily live there. This would encourage more businesses to locate in the area. The Blyth Harbour commission are a big land owner and want to encourage more businesses to move in. There is lots of employment land available, which is currently undeveloped. This would help the economic development of the area. The workers are considered to be in the area, and the more affluent business managers would be able to travel in where necessary. 4.9.2 Moffat 2000 LTD –Director As they have a lot of business contacts in Aberdeen and worldwide, the A1-SENSLR-MNB would be beneficial. Links are considered to be fine to the South, as it is easy to get onto the A1 to travel southwards, but “going north is a problem”. To travel north, they have to pass down very inappropriate roads, even residential streets, which is not ideal. Customers coming to the site have said that it is not very accessible, which is “not a favourable view to have from the customers who are using the services”. The biggest problem at this site is access for staff. As they are a specialist welding company, finding people with the required skills in the immediate area is hard. A lot of the staff have to commute a considerable distance to reach the site. Having the A1-SENSLR-MNB would cut their commute. This would be a big time-cost saving on both the part of the company and the employees. Staff have to be committed to travel the distances that they are expected to in order to reach the site. It was considered likely that they often choose between what is important in their lives: would the employee prefer to commute to work at this site or spend less time commuting and work in the Tyne and Wear area? In turn, the A1-SENSLR-MNB would open up the labour pool and a broader skill base would become available. Those with the skills who live further away are more likely to want to travel if the route is easier and less stressful. As a company they have only been located at their current site for 2 years, but it was chosen as there is room for expansion. If the A1-SENSLR-MNB was to go ahead, this would help to initiate the expansion and reduce the constraints on the site. 4.9.3 North East Chamber of Commerce – Economic Policy Department The A1-SENSLR-MNB will help the economic growth of the Northumberland area by allowing the traffic to flow quicker and more efficiently into and out of the region. This would open up the plentiful supply of development land, which is currently unused. “This is not high quality land, but it is good useable land, which is perfect for distributional and warehouse based industries”. Blyth and Ashington are beginning to rediscover their industrial voices and this would be one factor, which would ignite this development. If the Port of Blyth gets its renewable energy contract then there is a requirement for a massively improved network with the increased volume of heavy distribution traffic. Building the A1-SENSLR-MNB will allow for improved connectivity between the A1 and Northumberland. Currently, the traffic flow through Morpeth is not ideal. The through traffic is causing unnecessary congestion and restricting
AECOM Economic Impact Report 41
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
access when such issues should not exist. Morpeth wants to grow and planning applications are in, however this would cause more trips to be on the network. Further problems will result, yet it is unfair to not let a town develop. Congestion has put developers off, particularly in Blyth. Blyth is relatively inaccessible when travelling north and the congestion is making the problem worse. There is a big problem of congestion at the Blyth Port, which is having an influence on Blyth as a town. There is a need to retain the character of the place, but the congestion is causing a damaging effect internally to Blyth. The A1-SENSLR-MNB might relieve this situation. Growth of the area and its economy depends upon attracting new industry. For this to happen, then the A1-SENSLR-MNB is definitely needed, as the current network cannot cope at present, let alone if more development was put into the area. However, if the new industry, such as the renewable energy contract, was given to the industrial areas on the Tyne or Teeside, then the value of the road is less obvious. It would relieve the current congestion problems of Morpeth and help the present industry, but that wouldn’t gain any additional economic value, in terms of employment increases, out of the road. The affectivity of the A19 in terms of congestion might become more of an issue. The Blyth and Ashington area is short of affluent housing, this is present around Morpeth, but not where it is needed to encourage employment and improve the quality of the area. Therefore, there is a market for this type of housing, but it is hard to encourage developers to build there, as it is currently not desirable and there is not the economic growth to encourage employment. Building the A1-SENSLR-MNB will help this and the regeneration of the area. 4.9.4 Robson & Prescott Veterinary Surgeons –Practice Manager The A1-SENSLR-MNB was considered essential to the growth of the business. Morpeth is grid locked by traffic and their clients are finding access increasingly difficult. Currently their clients travelling from the south have to come through Morpeth, often with horseboxes, which is not ideal considering the narrow and twisty nature of the road network. The alternative route round to the north from the A1 is too far. As a business, they have approximately 200 clients a month who use the surgery and come in a car. Many of which would use the A197 if it was linked to the A1. Similarly, many of their clients take horseboxes to the stables at Clifton so that the horse can be treated there. This group of people would also use the A1-SENSLR-MNB rather than travelling through Morpeth. 4.9.5 Northumberland County Council –Travel Plan Coordinator There are 975 staff based at the Council offices in Morpeth, of which 84% travel for more than 5 miles. 78% of the staff working at the site travel by car, mainly because they need their car for going out on site during the day, and also because the bus routes are poor. The buses are also held up in the congestion, as there are no bus priority lanes in Morpeth, so travelling by public transport is not beneficial. Building the A1-SENSLR-MNB would improve the route into work for about 25% of staff who travel in from the north. This would potentially encourage more people to use the bus if they were stuck in less congestion in the centre of Morpeth. Therefore, improving the access to the site will significantly improve the quality of the location. As the main council office, they have to be based in the area of the Authorities’ principal town. However, we also need to be accessible for staff and visitors to reach us. The A1- SENSLR-MNB would significantly improve this for both staff and visitors, especially those travelling from the north. Approximately 7 million miles are covered every year by car for business trips. Congestion in the centre of Morpeth can cause staff to lose time, particularly during the peak hours and at school leaving time. Going south there is no problem, but to travel to sites in the north then you have to pass through Morpeth Town Centre, which is the source of a lot of the problems. The A1-SENSLR-MNB will be crucial if we are to allow places such as Blyth and Ashington to develop. This would help the industry currently in the area and also encourage new industry in. Developers currently favour other sites over those located within the area of Blyth and Ashington, as access in and out of the immediate area for prospective home owners and workers is limited. 4.9.6 Watson’s Haulage –Partner As a haulage and distribution company in the area, the efficiency of the road network is an important part of the effectiveness of the businesses and its operations. Delays are frequent on the local network particularly in the peak hours. Whilst this does not affect the office staff, as they all live locally, distributional lorry journeys are greatly affected. Lorry journeys have to be planned so that their use of the local road network during the peak hours is limited; otherwise much delay is suffered within the local area. Travelling south this is not an issue, it is only travelling north that this is a problem. The A1-SENSLR-MNB would relieve this issue, as they would have to travel less often in the residential areas and within the town centre of Morpeth where the most congestion and delay is felt. This would make a big cost saving to the business as a whole.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 42
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
The congestion in areas, such as Morpeth Town Centre, is a frequent reason behind late deliveries. This is not good for the reputation of the company, especially as core customers are relied upon. Lorries often have to leave early to allow time for the congestion, which is a cost to the company in terms of time. The A1-SENSLR-MNB would reduce the amount of time they have to accommodate for this happening and allow a much more efficient business to be operated. The customer base for the company is also limited by the network going northwards, as potential customers who know the difficulties of the local road network are aware of the issues they may face in making timely deliveries. 4.10 SUMMARY From the stakeholder interviews, it is clear that there is much support for the building of the A1-SENSLR-MNB. The support predominantly focuses on improving road transport links to the north. Stakeholders considered that travelling to the south is relatively easy and the road network is adequate. However, to travel north trips often pass through residential streets, which are not suitable for heavy goods vehicles or high volumes of traffic. This is causing costly and potentially dangerous journeys to be made. It is a common consensus that this is making businesses in the area unattractive to prospective customers who consider connections to the north as an import factor in their operation. Improving transport links to Ashington and Blyth is widely considered to be an aid to helping the economy grow in these two locations. Industry is an important part of the economy in this area and an adequate road network is critical to this type of employment. As well as it improving the movement of goods out of the area, it was also considered to be beneficial to moving staff in and improving the skills pool from which to develop their labour force. The town of Morpeth was also considered to be a beneficiary from the building of the A1-SENSLR-MNB. Reducing congestion in the town centre was considered to be a big benefit for the businesses in the town. This would be a time-cost saving for staff and their customers reaching town centre businesses.
Chapter 5 Impacts of the Scheme
AECOM Economic Impact Report 44
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Chapter 5 Impacts of the Scheme
5.1 INTRODUCTION This section analyses the impact of the scheme in relation to changes in journey time. The analysis uses the highway model to determine the change in journey time between key origins and destinations (as forecast by the highway model). This is presented for the 2007 Base, 2015 scheme opening year and the design year of 2030. The journey time information has been used in conjunction with employment, workforce and other data to present forecast changes in the number of accessible jobs and the accessible workforce. 5.2 HIGHWAY MODEL JOURNEY TIME ANALYSIS 5.2.1 The Highway Model The Morpeth Traffic Model has been developed using the SATURN modelling suite (version 10.8.20) for a base year of 2007, scheme opening year of 2015 and design year of 2030. The AM (8.00-9.00), inter-peak (10.00-16.00) and PM (17.00-18.00) peak hours have been modelled for pessimistic, central and optimistic growth scenarios and include four user classes comprising of: Commuting traffic; Business traffic; HGV traffic; and Other traffic. One of the main benefits of using SATURN for the assignment process is that it is applicable to both urban and rural networks and can model peak hour congestion in sufficient detail. Also, as a combined simulation and assignment model, SATURN is suitable for this study, as it enables detailed junction modelling. The model in question is a highway assignment model only and does not include any multimodal or demand modelling. In terms of future year forecasting, an initial elastic assignment was undertaken to estimate the level of variable demand. Following this, full variable demand assignment was undertaken. The geographical coverage of the strategic model needed to be sufficient to enable all route choices before and after the scheme are implemented and modelled accurately. In the context of the Morpeth model, this meant that the next comparable route (in terms of local and regional traffic movements) to the north, east and south of Morpeth needed to be included in the model. The detailed coverage based on this is bounded by the A1/A1068 at Alnwick to the north, the A1068 and A189 to the east, the A19 south of Cramlington to the south and the A1 to the west. It was also necessary to have a higher level of detail in the area of highest interest with the level of detail reducing as the distance from the scheme increases. Therefore the greatest level of detail was required in the town of Morpeth itself. The network within the detailed study area has been coded as a simulation network. The network outside of this has been coded as a buffer network. The links included in the model are illustrated in Appendix 5 and 6. 5.2.2 Base, Opening Year and Design Year Journey Times Table 47 presents the journey times for the AM (8-9) peak period between key origin and destination points in the ‘Base’ scenario (2007), a ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ scenario in 2015, and a ‘Do Minimum’ and a ‘Do Something’ scenario in 2030. These key locations were chosen by considering where people enter into the area to reach key locations. The difference between each scenario is also presented to understand the increase in journey time without the A1-SENSLR-MNB and what the reduction in journey time is with the scheme in place. Table 48 shows the equivalent comparisons in the PM peak period.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 45
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 47 - Comparison of Journey Times between Base, Opening Year and Design Year (AM Peak) Origin - User Class Journey Time (Minutes and Seconds ) AM Peak Destination Base Do Do Do Do Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference (2007) Minimum Something Minimum Something 2007 to 2007 to 2007 to 2007 to Do Minimum (2015) (2015) (2030) (2030) 2015 Do 2015 Do 2030 Do 2030 Do 2030 to Minimum Something Minimum Something 2030 Do Something A1 (junction with Commuters 12:53 13:02 08:43 13:29 08:49 00:08 -04:10 00:35 -04:04 -04:40 the A192) - HGV Ashington 12:53 13:07 08:43 13:25 08:49 00:13 -04:10 00:31 -04:04 -04:35 Ashington - A1 Commuters 12:08 14:06 08:52 17:04 08:58 01:58 -03:16 04:56 -03:10 -08:07 (junction with the HGV A192) 12:08 16:24 08:52 17:07 08:58 04:16 -03:16 04:59 -03:10 -08:10 North West Commuters 12:07 12:45 09:37 13:18 09:44 00:38 -02:29 01:11 -02:23 -03:34 Morpeth - HGV Ashington 12:07 14:11 09:37 13:13 09:44 02:04 -02:29 01:07 -02:23 -03:29 Ashington – North Commuters 11:13 12:30 09:46 12:34 09:52 01:17 -01:27 01:20 -01:22 -02:42 West Morpeth HGV 11:13 12:32 09:46 12:35 09:52 01:19 -01:27 01:22 -01:22 -02:43 A1 (junction with Commuters 15:14 15:22 11:04 15:50 11:10 00:08 -04:10 00:36 -04:04 -04:40 the A192 – HGV Newbiggin-by-the- Sea 15:14 15:26 11:04 15:45 11:10 00:13 -04:10 00:31 -04:04 -04:35 Newbiggin-by-the- Commuters 14:31 18:46 11:16 19:29 11:23 04:15 -03:15 04:58 -03:08 -08:07 Sea - A1 (junction HGV with the A192 14:31 18:48 11:16 19:33 11:23 04:17 -03:15 05:02 -03:08 -08:10 A1 (junction with Commuters 14:43 14:50 10:31 15:13 10:34 00:07 -04:13 00:29 -04:10 -04:39 the A192) - HGV Ellington 14:43 14:56 10:31 15:08 10:34 00:13 -04:13 00:25 -04:10 -04:35 Ellington - A1 Commuters 14:28 18:38 11:05 19:27 11:13 04:11 -03:23 04:59 -03:15 -08:14 (junction with the HGV A192) 14:28 18:40 11:05 19:31 11:13 04:13 -03:23 05:03 -03:15 -08:18
AECOM Economic Impact Report 46
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 48 - Comparison of Journey Times between Base, Opening Year and Design Year (PM Peak) Origin - User Class Journey Time (Minutes and Seconds ) PM Peak Destination Base Do Do Do Do Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference (2007) Minimum Somethin Minimum Somethin 2007 to 2007 to 2007 to 2007 to Do Minimum (2015) g (2015) (2030) g (2030) 2015 Do 2015 Do 2030 Do 2030 Do 2030 to Minimum Something Minimum Something 2030 Do Something A1 (junction with Commuters 12:42 13:00 08:43 13:06 08:48 00:17 -03:59 00:24 -03:54 -04:18 the A192) - HGV Ashington 12:44 13:02 08:43 13:08 08:48 00:19 -04:00 00:24 -03:55 -04:20 Ashington - A1 Commuters 12:11 13:21 08:42 13:30 08:47 01:10 -03:30 01:18 -03:24 -04:43 (junction with the HGV A192) 12:11 13:24 08:42 13:31 08:47 01:13 -03:30 01:20 -03:24 -04:44 North West Commuters 11:55 12:25 09:39 12:36 09:44 00:30 -02:17 00:41 -02:11 -02:52 Morpeth - HGV Ashington 11:57 12:28 09:39 12:40 09:44 00:32 -02:18 00:43 -02:12 -02:55 Ashington – North Commuters 11:18 12:26 09:38 12:33 09:44 01:08 -01:39 01:15 -01:34 -02:49 West Morpeth HGV 11:18 12:28 09:38 12:35 09:44 01:11 -01:39 01:17 -01:34 -02:51 A1 (junction with Commuters 15:05 15:23 11:06 15:31 11:13 00:18 -03:59 00:26 -03:53 -04:18 the A192 – HGV Newbiggin-by-the- 00:19 -04:00 00:26 -03:54 -04:20 Sea 15:07 15:26 11:06 15:33 11:13 Newbiggin-by-the- Commuters 14:32 15:41 11:02 15:51 11:09 01:10 -03:29 01:20 -03:23 -04:43 Sea - A1 (junction HGV with the A192 14:32 15:45 11:02 15:53 11:09 01:13 -03:29 01:21 -03:23 -04:44 A1 (junction with Commuters 14:59 15:17 10:59 15:26 11:07 00:18 -04:00 00:27 -03:52 -04:20 the A192) - HGV Ellington 15:00 15:20 10:59 15:28 11:07 00:19 -04:01 00:28 -03:54 -04:21 Ellington - A1 Commuters 14:06 15:13 10:34 15:23 10:38 01:07 -03:32 01:17 -03:28 -04:45 (junction with the HGV A192) 14:06 15:15 10:34 15:25 10:38 01:09 -03:32 01:19 -03:28 -04:47
AECOM Economic Impact Report 47
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
The results in Table 47 show that, for the AM peak, between the base year (2007) and the 2015 Do Minimum scenario, there is a deterioration in journey time results for all origin destination pairs analysed. The results suggest that, with an increase in traffic on the network, there will also be greater variability in journey time results between commuter traffic and HGV traffic, which use different values of distance and time to determine the best route to travel. There is a further increase in journey times between the base year and the 2030 Do Minimum scenario, although this would be expected due to background traffic growth. Table 47 shows that the greatest increase in journey time between the AM base year and the Do Minimum scenario, in absolute numbers, occurs in an east west direction; Ashington to the A1, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea to the A1 and Ellington to the A1. The results for these origin destination pairs are showing journey time increases of up to five minutes by 2030. If the results are analysed with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place, journey times are significantly reduced and are below the base level for all origin destination pairs in both 2015 and 2030. Journey time savings are greatest in an east west direction with journey time savings of over 8 minutes in some locations. The A1-SENSLR-MNB will provide a more direct route between the origin destination pairs analysed allowing traffic to bypass Morpeth Town Centre; it is this which accounts for the journey time savings observed. Similar to the AM peak, the results for the PM peak in Table 48 also show an increase in journey times between the base year and the Do Minimum scenario 2015 and 2030. Again, increases are greatest in an east west direction, although the increases are lower than those observed for the AM peak. For the PM peak, the greatest increase between the base year and 2030, in absolute numbers, is observed between Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and the A1; journey time increases of 1 minute 20 seconds and 1 minute 21 seconds for commuter traffic and HGV traffic respectively. Once the A1-SENSLR-MNB is in place, significant journey time savings are observed. These journey time savings are of a similar magnitude in both an eastbound and westbound direction with savings in 2030 for most origin destination pairs of just under 5 minutes. It is evident from the data presented in Tables 47 and 48 that there will be significant journey time savings with the construction of the A1-SENSLR-MNB. Whilst these savings are likely to be greatest in the AM peak, there is still a significant reduction in journey time in the PM peak, which will improve the movement of traffic in the Morpeth and South East Northumberland area. . 5.3 ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS 5.3.1 Introduction A key aspect in preparing the Economic Impact Report is to demonstrate how the scheme affects patterns of accessibility. This section describes how changes in the accessible workforce and accessible jobs have been calculated for key locations in the Regeneration Area. The accessible workforce is the number of people willing to travel there to work, given that a job is available and the travel costs they would have to bear. Accessible jobs are defined as the number of suitable jobs that are within an acceptable range. Key inputs to the process are journey times as well as workforce and employment information. 5.3.2 Model Zones to Ward Correspondence The first task was to assign each of the 81 model zones to a census ward or external area. The correspondence was built in order to ensure geographical consistency between the journey time data and the workforce and employment data. This was undertaken by overlaying the model zones with the ward boundaries using GIS software. The zone system is illustrated in Appendix 7 and 8. 5.3.3 Car Journey Time Inputs The highway model has been used to provide journey times for origin/destinations that are internal to the Northumberland district. WebTAG Guidance states that generalised cost is a measure to be used for calculating accessibility. Generalised Cost is a measure of the overall costs of travel and includes elements, such as time, vehicle operating costs, charges for tolls. Public Transport trips must include walking and waiting times, in vehicle
AECOM Economic Impact Report 48
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
times, interchange times and fares. All elements can be weighted approximately to match user’s calculations and perceptions of the costs of the various elements. In the case of the Morpeth model, like most SATURN models, the generalised cost has been based upon distance and time. The price per kilometre (ppk) and the price per minute (ppm) values entered into the Morpeth model are outlined in Table 49 . Table 49 – Generalised Cost Parameters 2015 Parameter Commuting Business Other HGV
AM PPM 10.95 59.29 14.21 19.08 PPK 8.72 9.81 8.72 34.51 IP PPM 10.85 57.86 14.79 19.08 PPK 8.72 9.81 8.72 34.51 PM PPM 10.66 57.11 15.14 19.08 PPK 8.72 9.81 8.72 34.51 20 30
PPM 11.73 64.65 15.23 20.45 AM PPK 8.41 9.55 8.41 35.33 PPM 11.63 63.09 15.85 20.45 IP PPK 8.41 9.55 8.41 35.33 PPM 11.43 62.27 16.23 20.45 PM PPK 8.41 9.55 8.41 35.33 Generalised cost in the Morpeth model is calculated as follows: Generalised cost = (Distance of the journey * ppk) + (Journey time * ppm) Although there are parking charges applied to spaces in the centre of Morpeth, these have not been included in the highway model, as there is no mode choice available. Therefore, parking costs would have no real effect, as the trip distribution is based on surveys. It is our robust assumption that the bypass is unlikely to affect the choice between bus and car. Also, as the parking charges in Morpeth town centre are minimal, they are unlikely to have a material impact upon whether people choose to drive and park or take the bus. 5.3.4 Assigning Weights to Car Travel Times The next stage was to attach weight to the travel times in order to reflect how far people are prepared to travel to work. The 2007 base highway model and time matrices were used to calculate the number of trips in each journey time band. This information could be used as a proxy to indicate willingness to travel by journey time in the modelled area. Table 50 shows the proportion of trips that fall into the respective journey time bands and the corresponding weights to be attached to each band. It is assumed that all people are prepared to travel up to 5 minutes giving a weight of 1. However, a weight of 0.66 is attributed to the 5-10 minute bracket, as 34% have a journey time of less than 5 minutes. Table 50 - Calculation of Travel Time Weights Journey Time Band (Mins) % Trips (from Model) % Trips (Cumulative) Weight 0-5 34% 0.34 1 5-10 28% 0.62 0.66 10-15 22% 0.84 0.38 15-20 8% 0.92 0.16 20-30 7% 0.99 0.08 30-60 1% 1.00 0.01
AECOM Economic Impact Report 49
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
5.3.5 Workforce Data Occupation data from the 2001 Census was used to provide equivalent workforce information for the Regeneration and Hinterland Areas. The numbers of unemployed were taken from the ‘Economically Active Unemployed’ category of the ‘Economic Activity’ data (2001 Census). The data was split down by the following occupation groups: Unskilled; Skilled manual; White Collar; Managerial and Professional; and Unemployed Calculation of the accessible workforce requires the mobile workforce to be estimated. This requires the workforce estimates to be factored down on the basis of car ownership information for each area. A car ownership factor for the North East of 0.74 was also extracted from the NOMIS website. 5.3.6 Employment Data Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) employment data from 2007 was extracted from the NOMIS website. This includes the number of jobs by sector at ward level. The employment sectors are as follows: Agriculture and fishing; Energy and water; Manufacturing; Construction; Distribution, hotels and restaurants; Transport and communications; Banking, finance and insurance, etc; Public administration, education & health; and Other services This data was extracted for all of the wards in the Regeneration Area and this was used to understand in which wards the jobs are currently located. The active working age population has been used as a proxy for estimating employment in the regeneration zones. The number of jobs has also been factored down by the car ownership factor extracted from NOMIS. 5.3.7 Vacancies Information on vacancies by area is limited to data provided by Jobcentre Plus and it is acknowledged that this is by no means comprehensive. The NOMIS website was used to obtain Jobcentre Plus vacancy data for June 2010. The number of vacancies in individual zones within the Regeneration Area was estimated on the basis of the employment data. As with jobs, the number of vacancies was factored down prior to calculation of vacancy accessibility on the basis of car ownership factor of 0.74 in the Regeneration Area. 5.3.8 Calculation of Workforce Accessibility (car) The calculation of the accessible workforce adds up the workforce in each zone, weighted by the generalised time by car from that zone to a zone within the Regeneration Area. As stated in the WebTAG guidance, the accessible workforce from a zone in the Regeneration Area (for example, Morpeth Central) is given by: (Workforce in zone 1) * (weight for travel from zone 1 to Morpeth Central) + (Workforce in zone 2) * (weight for travel from zone 2 to Morpeth Central) etc Table 51 (below) presents the forecast accessible workforce to key employment locations within the Regeneration Area for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in 2015 and 2030. This analysis has been based on the active population, which are the people of working age who are eligible to work and have use of a car.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 50
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 51 shows that the greatest difference in accessibility is related to the employment sites in Morpeth. The number of people able to access this site within one hour from the Regeneration Area has increased in 2015 by nearly 100% when the scheme is in place; this has increased to 120% in 2030. The A1-SENSLR-MNB has also had an impact on the accessibility to the Wansbeck Business Park in Ashington, the Cambois Zone of Economic Opportunity and Ellington Colliery development sites, although the magnitude of this impact is less pronounced due to the location of these sites from the bypass.
Table 51: Accessible Workforce for Key Employment Sites, 2015 To Scenario Difference % Difference Do Minimum Do Scenario Wansbeck Business Park 35509 35778 269 0.76% Cambois Zone of Economic 34213 34673 460 1.34% Opportunity Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic 11474 22938 11464 99.91% Employment Sites Ellington Colliery Development 26644 26644 0 0.00% Sites
Table 52: Accessible Workforce for Key Employment Sites, 2030 To Scenario Difference % Difference Do Minimum Do Scenario Wansbeck Business Park 35332 35601 269 0.76% Cambois Zone of Economic 0 0.00% Opportunity 34213 34213 Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic 12515 120.11% Employment Sites 10420 22936 Ellington Colliery Development 211 0.80% Sites 26433 26644
5.3.9 Calculation of Jobs Accessibility (car) The number of jobs accessible from each zone is calculated in a similar way to workforce accessibility. For people living in the Regeneration Area, the number of accessible jobs is given by: (Jobs in zone 1) * (weight for travel from zone 1 to Morpeth Central) + (Jobs in zone 2) * (weight for travel from zone 2 to Morpeth Central) etc Table 53 and Table 54 (below) present the forecast accessible jobs from key locations in the Regeneration Area for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in 2015 and 2030 respectively. The data is based upon the ABI employment structures data (2007) by ward. The same information is entered into both the 2015 and 2030 model runs. The number of jobs was calculated using the highway model to determine the number of jobs that are within reach from each zone in the Regeneration Area within one hour. It is evident from the data in Table 53 and Table 54 that the scheme has the greatest impact on making jobs more accessible from the A1/North West Morpeth area. With the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place, from the A1 junction with the A192, in 2015 there are 11,500 more jobs accessible in an hour than there are without the scheme in place. Similarly, there are 5,420 additional jobs accessible within an hour from North West Morpeth. Table 54 shows a further increase in available jobs accessible within one hour in 2030 with the A1/North West Morpeth area again seeing the biggest benefit.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 51
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Whilst the increase in the number of accessible jobs from Central Morpeth, Ashington and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea with the scheme in place is much lower than from the A1/North West Morpeth area, there is still a noticeable increase in the number of accessible jobs for people travelling from the Regeneration Area.. Table 53 - Accessible Jobs from the Regeneration Area in 2015 From Scenario Difference % Difference Do Minimum Do Scenario The A1 junction with the A192 20979 32478 11500 54.82% North West Morpeth 21617 27037 5420 25.07% Central Morpeth 22665 22701 36 0.16% Newbiggin-by-the-Sea 43736 45757 2021 4.62% Ashington 44035 46199 2163 4.91%
Table 54 - Accessible Jobs from the Regeneration Area in 2030 From Scenario Difference % Difference Do Minimum Do Scenario The A1 junction with the A192 20891 33488 12597 60.30% North West Morpeth 20820 27799 6979 33.52% Central Morpeth 21883 23362 1479 6.76% Newbiggin-by-the-Sea 41646 42495 849 2.04% Ashington 41945 42415 470 1.12% Table 55 and Table 56 (below) show the number of accessible vacancies from the same locations in the Regeneration Area for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in 2015 and 2030. This was calculated on the same basis as the accessible jobs. The number of vacancies in the area was extracted from the NOMIS website and is based upon vacancies in the Regeneration and Hinterland Areas in June 2010. It is evident that the scheme has the greatest impact on the number of job vacancies accessible within one hour on those travelling from A1/North West Morpeth and the surrounding area. The increase in the number of vacancies accessible to those travelling from the A1 junction with the A192 and the surrounding area increases by as much as 33% in 2015 and 2030. Again, like with the change in the number of accessible jobs, whilst the increase in the number of vacancies from Central Morpeth, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Ashington is much smaller than from Morpeth, there is still an increase in the number of vacancies available to those travelling from these areas with the scheme in place. Table 55 - Accessible Vacancies from the Regeneration Area in 2015 From Scenario Difference % Difference Do Minimum Do Scenario The A1 junction with the A192 144.4037 191.4015 46.99777 32.55% North West Morpeth 146.9237 178.3318 31.40809 21.38% Central Morpeth 149.77 153.9881 4.218015 2.82% Newbiggin-by-the-Sea 171.5882 198.8737 27.28556 15.90% Ashington 186.8547 214.8896 28.03487 15.00%
AECOM Economic Impact Report 52
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 56 - Accessible Vacancies from the Regeneration Area in 2030 From Scenario Difference % Difference Do Minimum Do Scenario The A1 junction with the A192 143.7371 191.4015 47.66431 33.16% North West Morpeth 143.562 178.3318 34.76986 24.22% Central Morpeth 147.4117 153.9881 6.576343 4.46% Newbiggin-by-the-Sea 166.0921 170.1302 4.038068 2.43% Ashington 181.3587 182.1112 0.752542 0.41% 5.3.10 Evaluation of Cost Savings from Movement of Goods The WebTAG Guidance states that for the business to business sector, examples should be given of how the cost of moving materials and goods (i.e. distribution costs) are reduced by the scheme. This section looks at the distribution operations of three businesses located within the Regeneration Area. The businesses assessed include two haulage companies one based around Bedlington and one based around Blyth, and one engineering organisation, which is located near Ashington. The names of the businesses are not stated in order to protect confidentiality agreements. The base data was derived from the highway model journey times and questionnaire returns, but additional information on the nature of their operation was also obtained from a short follow-up telephone survey. This obtained information on the following: Number of HGV movements to/from the site on a typical working day; % of HGV movements travelling to/from the A1 that intend to travel north; and Destinations served by the site. The Blyth haulage company operates approximately 75 HGVs in and 75 HGVs out of the site per day, of which proportionally 20% of the trips are travelling north on the A1 in both the AM and PM peak periods. In comparison, the Bedlington haulage company operates approximately 15 HGVs in and 15 HGVs out of the site per day, of which 60% of these trips are travelling north on the A1. Finally, the engineering company, based in the Ashington area, operates approximately 5 HGVs into and 5 HGVs out of the site per day. Of these trips, 60% of them are travelling north on the A1. Each of the companies operates approximately 300 days per year and serves locations in Castle Morpeth, the North East and other places in the UK. The above information was used in conjunction with the journey times from the highway model and average operating cost assumptions to estimate the daily costs for transporting good to/from the A1 junction with the A192. The specialist freight team at AECOM advised an operating cost assumption of £43.40 per hour, which covers all capital, revenue and labour costs. This is acknowledged to be a typical industry standard rate for HGVs. Table 57 presents the estimated distribution costs per HGV for transporting goods between the A1 junction with the A192 and the Port of Blyth during the AM and PM peak periods. It is evident that in 2015 the saving per HGV journey could be up to £2.89 with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place. Table 57 - Estimated Distribution Costs per HGV Trip (A1 junction with the A192 - Port of Blyth), 2015 Time Direction Cost (£) Period Do Minimum Do Something Difference (£) (£) (£) AM peak A1 (junction with the A192) – Port of Blyth 12.99 11.99 -1.01 Port of Blyth - A1 (junction with the A192) 14.45 11.97 -2.48 PM peak A1 (junction with the A192) – Port of Blyth 14.23 11.34 -2.89 Port of Blyth - A1 (junction with the A192) 12.10 11.82 -0.28 Table 58 presents the equivalent information for trips from the A1 junction with the 192 to Bedlington in the AM and PM peak periods. It is evident that in 2015 PM peak the saving per HGV journey is up to £2.90 with the A1- SENSLR-MNB in place.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 53
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Table 58 - Estimated Distribution Costs per HGV Trip (A1 junction with the A192 – Bedlington), 2015 Time Direction Cost (£) Period Do Minimum Do Something Difference (£) (£) (£) AM peak A1 (junction with the A192) – Bedlington 10.52 9.51 -1.01 Bedlington - A1 (junction with the A192) 11.95 9.47 -2.48 PM peak A1 (junction with the A192) – Bedlington 11.71 8.81 -2.90 Bedlington - A1 (junction with the A192) 9.63 9.35 -0.28 Finally, Table 59 presents the equivalent information for trips from the A1 junction with the A192 to Wansbeck Business Park in the AM and PM peak periods. It is evident that in 2015 the saving per HGV journey is up to £5.45 with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place. Although this business has the smallest HGV operation of the three assessed, its location has shown that the operational savings can be significant with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place. This is important information for businesses considering moving to the Ashington area. Table 59 - Estimated Distribution Costs per HGV Trip (A1 junction with the A192 – Wansbeck Business Park), 2015 Time Direction Cost (£) Period Do Minimum Do Something Difference (£) (£) (£) AM peak A1 (junction with the A192) – Wansbeck Business Park 9.48 6.31 -3.18 Wansbeck Business Park - A1 (junction with the A192) 11.86 6.41 -5.45 PM peak A1 (junction with the A192) – Wansbeck Business park 9.43 6.31 -3.12 Wansbeck Business Park - A1 (junction with the A192) 9.69 6.29 -3.40 Table 60 estimates the annual distribution costs for the three businesses to and from the A1 junction with the A192. This has been calculated on the basis of the estimated distribution costs per HGV (as above), the average number of daily trips to/from the site and by annualising for the year. The annualisation assumes 280 days of operation per year, which is a conservative assumption. It should be noted that Table 60 only shows a section of the journey between businesses and the A1 junction so is likely to be an overestimate where these companies make long distance journeys. The greatest cost saving per year is by the Ashington engineering company, which makes a reduction in operating costs of 37%. In each of the examples, it shows that the scheme will result in a reduction of operating costs for businesses across a number of locations within the area. It should be noted that these savings assume that the businesses are able to restructure their operations in order to realise the benefits of the scheme. Table 60 - Estimated Annual Distribution Costs (Site – A1 junction with the A192) Business Do Minimum (£) Do Something Difference (£) % Difference (£) Blyth Haulage Company 78,909.60 68,386.50 -10,523.10 -13% Bedlington Haulage Company 38,162.88 32,353.02 -5,809.86 -15% Ashington Engineering Company 11,748.24 7,349.58 -4,398.66 -37% The impact scheme on the total distribution costs is more difficult to quantify owing to the multiplicity of destinations. Typically, the relative impact upon a business with a predominance of longer distance destinations will benefit less than businesses serving more local markets. Each of the businesses used to demonstrate the reduction in operating costs all have a range of destinations. Where a shorter journey is being undertaken, the A1-SENSLR-MNB will take up a greater proportion of the journey than if the destination was further afield. Regardless of the destination, when
AECOM Economic Impact Report 54
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
HGVs need to use the A1, to reach their destination, the journey will be lower in cost, as they are unlikely to have to pass through the centre of Morpeth with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place. 5.4 SUMMARY This chapter has provided an analysis of the changes in journey times between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in the base year (2007), opening year (2015) and design year (2030) in the AM and PM peak periods. This showed that, with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place, there is expected to be a significant reduction in journey times between the A1 and destinations in the East. These reductions in journey times will have a positive benefit on the movement of vehicles through the network in Morpeth and the surrounding South East Northumberland area It is evident from this analysis that the greatest accessibility benefits are seen in the A1/North West Morpeth area. The employment sites, jobs and job vacancies in the A1/North West Morpeth area each saw the greatest increase in their accessibility within one hour. In 2015 there are nearly 17,000 additional jobs accessible within an hour from the A1/North West Morpeth area. The analysis also showed that increases in traffic from 2015 to 2030 without the scheme in place will reduce the number of jobs available within one hour to the accessible workforce. Finally, in terms of job vacancies, in 2015 and 2030, the increase in the number of vacancies accessible to those travelling from some areas of Morpeth increases by as much as 33%. The distribution operations of three businesses located within the Regeneration Area was also examined. The greatest cost saving per journey was seen by the engineering company located near Ashington. Based upon a standard industry operating cost per HGV, it was calculated that a businesses located in this area could make a saving of up to £5.45 per journey from the Wansbeck Business Park to the A1 junction with the A192. Over the year, the analysis suggested that there would be a reduction in cost of up to 37% for this same business.
Chapter 6 Employment Forecasts
AECOM Economic Impact Report 56
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Employment Forecasts
6.1 INTRODUCTION There is a high risk of overstating the impacts in generating employment forecasts for a transport scheme. Often non-transport related external factors can result in potential employers not responding to opportunities offered by a scheme. The approach adopted for this scheme has therefore focussed on producing a conservative set of forecasts that can be strongly supported by the stakeholder interviews and business surveys. Specifically, this has involved an assessment of the jobs that could be generated from development sites, which currently have land available for development on them and are considered to be made more accessible with the development of the bypass. 6.2 FORECAST ADDITIONAL JOBS IN THE REGENERATION AREA The stakeholder interviews and business surveys highlighted poor connectivity to the A1 from a number of key locations in the Regeneration Area. Journeys, which have to pass through the centre of Morpeth are considered to be costly due to the time lost from the impact of town centre congestion. Equally, making HGVs pass through Morpeth and other small built up areas is not considered desirable. Therefore, it is anticipated that the bypass will assist both commuters and HGVs accessing the employment sites. Making the employment sites more accessible can also make them more desirable to developers and businesses. As a result, the development sites included in this analysis, which are listed in Table 61, are all considered at present to have their main point of access from and to the A1 through either the centre of Morpeth or another built up area. If the transport scheme was in place, the main route choice for each of these employment sites could be via the A1-SENSLR-MNB. To calculate the forecast jobs for each site, the outstanding available land at each of the employment sites listed in Table 61 has been converted to square metres and a percentage take up of land has been applied. This is the amount of land that will actually be occupied by prospective employees. The percentages calculated and listed in Table 61 are based upon an analysis of other employment sites in the area. The type of development and its location are used to determine the likely percentage of take up of land at the site. For the sites at Morpeth Railway Yards and Morpeth Coopies Lane, 80% of land is anticipated to be taken up by employees, as these sites are located close to or within the suburban area of Morpeth and are relatively dense sites. In contrast, it is anticipated that the remainder of the sites, with the exception of Woodhorn Road at Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, will have a take up of 40%. This assumption has been based upon the idea that these are large sites and are either business parks or have the potential to be logistics based sites. An average of 50 sqm per job was calculated from a sample of 228 establishments, which included industrial estates, business parks and light industrial units in the TRICS 2010(a) database. This has been applied to the sites listed in Table 61 and a forecast number of jobs have been calculated accordingly. Table 61 shows how together the sites could generate an additional 5,331 jobs in the Regeneration Area. A higher proportion of these jobs are expected to be located on the larger sites, such as Ellington Colliery, Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic Employment Sites and in the Cambois Zone of Economic Opportunity. Table 61 - Potential Jobs from Take-Up of Available Employment Sites Site Vacant land Vacant % Take up SQM take Forecast area (Ha) Land Area with up with additional 2009 in SQM scheme scheme Jobs Ashington –North Seaton 5.895 58,950 40% 23,580 472 Ashington –Ashwood Business Park 34.726 347,260 40% 13,904 278 Cambois –West Sleekburn Industrial 2.100 21,000 40% 8,400 168 Estate Cambois – Zone of Economic 8.900 89,000 40% 35,600 712 Opportunity
AECOM Economic Impact Report 57
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Site Vacant land Vacant % Take up SQM take Forecast area (Ha) Land Area with up with additional 2009 in SQM scheme scheme Jobs Ashington –Wansbeck Business 4.381 43,810 40% 17,524 350 Park Ashington –Lintonville 0.977 9,770 40% 3,908 78 Newbiggin by the Sea –Woodhorn 0.3 3,000 60% 1,800 36 Rd Ellington Colliery 20.5 205,000 40% 82,000 1,640 Morpeth Coopies Lane 0.161 1,610 80% 1,288 26 Morpeth Fairmoor (Northgate) 10.200 102,000 40% 40,800 816 (Strategic Employment Site) Morpeth Railway Yards 1.800 18,000 80% 14,400 288 Blyth Habour North 5.639 56,390 40% 22,556 451 Blyth Harbour South 0.204 2,040 40% 816 16 Total 95.783 957,830 - 266,576 5,331
6.3 FORECAST CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF JOBS Table 62 shows that with the scheme in place the number of jobs in the Regeneration Area is forecast to increase to 42,899 (+14.2%). The forecast growth in jobs shown here does include the jobs retained or created in the construction industry. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the number of jobs shown in the base (2007) is before the economic downturn and recession, so the number of jobs lost since 2007 has not been calculated into this growth forecast. Table 62 - Forecast Change in Jobs in the Regeneration Area Base Jobs Forecast Total % Change (2007) Additional Forecast Jobs Jobs 37,568 5,331 42,899 +14.2% In the context of these two factors, it is considered that a forecast increase of 14.2% is not an overestimate and can be supported by the evidence within this report relating to the need for more accessible industrial land in the Regeneration Area. In order to provide a conservative estimate of the impact of the scheme, the forecasts have focussed on the potential to improve access to the allocated employment land. However, the forecast job opportunities are likely to be wider as a result of the bypass. The new scheme will improve access to the A1, allowing residents of the Regeneration Area quicker access to employment outside the immediate area. 6.4 IMPACT ON UNEMPLOYMENT Analysis of the 2001 Census showed that the proportion of economically active people in the Regeneration Area who are unemployed was 7% (3,939). The Census data is now 9 years old and the unemployment in the area is likely to have increased due to the economic downturn since 2008. The only source of more recent information on unemployment at ward level is the number of Jobseekers Allowance claimants. Table 15 showed that 8% (4,422) of the economically active population were claiming Job Seekers Allowance in July 2009. However, it is likely that this is an underestimate, as not all of the economically active unemployed claim Job Seekers allowance. The Economic Impact Report does not estimate a reduction in the level of unemployment in the Regeneration Area, but it can be expected that the new jobs forecast will increase the number of opportunities for the unemployed and help to reduce the overall level of unemployment. 6.5 RISK ASSESSMENTS The Economic Impact Report suggests that there are three types of uncertainty regarding any proposed number of new jobs, which are as follows: Uncertainty about the current situation; Uncertainty about real decisions; and
AECOM Economic Impact Report 58
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Uncertainty about adverse impacts. 6.5.1 Uncertainty about the Current Situation This relates to aspects, such as the quality of information and data available when the Economic Impact Report was prepared. The forecast changes in the accessible workforce, for example, is an approximate figure and is reliant upon transport and workforce data that can be subject to imprecision. In this instance, such uncertainty is limited, as it has been demonstrated that the highway model (which provided much of the input data for this Economic Impact Report) meets the criteria set by the DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) and WebTAG. The workforce data was provided by the Census, which although this is 9 years old it is still considered to be a credible source. Where possible, this data has been supplemented with more recent ABI or NOMIS data, of which the majority has a base year of 2007. 6.5.2 Uncertainty about the Real Decisions It is acknowledged that the completion of the A1-SENSLR-MNB can only provide opportunities for new economic activity; businesses may or may not choose to exploit them. The Economic Impact Report guidance suggests that when new jobs are claimed they should be assigned to one of three bands, as shown in Table 62. Table 63 - Bands for New Jobs Claimed Band Quality of Evidence 1 Hypothetical, based on changes in accessibility etc, but no corroborative evidence, such as enquiries from employers. 2 Cases where a reasonably high level of serious interest from employers can be demonstrated, but not necessarily any firm commitments. Documentary evidence should be supplied at this stage. 3 Cases of high probability where firm commitments have been made stating that jobs will appear if the scheme is implemented. Documentary evidence should be provided. The sites included in this report to construct the employment forecasts range across bands 1 and 2, according to what is outlined in Table 63. It is the opinion of the Planning Department at Northumberland County Council that the Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic Employment Sites, which are located adjacent to the proposed route of the A1- SENSLR-MNB, are unlikely to come forward unless the bypass, or other strategic highway improvements, is constructed. The Employment Land Review Steering Group considers the development of this site to be significantly hindered by the poor local transport network. It has also been noted by Stakeholders and other parties that a shortage of the right skills in the area could also be a limiting factor in encouraging businesses to move to the area. A number of the development sites listed in Table 60 have planning applications pending, which displays an expression of interest, but not necessarily any firm commitments in writing from a Developer or the Local Planning Authority. 6.5.3 Uncertainty about Adverse Impacts A number of questions are to be considered in relation to the possibility of the proposed transport scheme reducing employment in the Regeneration Area by exposing it to competition from outside that it cannot withstand. This is known as the ‘two-way’ road effect. Firstly, if the scheme increases access to the external labour force then there is the possibility of the newly accessible workforce being from outside the Regeneration Area. Therefore, there is the potential that the new jobs could be taken by those living outside the Regeneration Area. In the case of this scheme, Table 18 in Appendix 9 estimates that this is likely to be around 5,437 jobs. Whilst the main benefits of the scheme are reduced journey times for those in the Regeneration Area due to reduced congestion in the centre of Morpeth, the scheme also improves access into the area from the Regeneration Hinterland. Another adverse impact identified by the guidance is whether improved access to better paid jobs will increase local wage costs in the Regeneration Area. This has not been analysed in any great detail within this report, as again it was not considered to be important in the case of this scheme. Overall, it is estimated that 1,304 new jobs will be gained directly from the scheme. 6.6 SUMMARY Given the high risks involved with over-estimating a growth in employment as a result of transport schemes, a conservative approach was adopted for this Economic Impact Report. The employment sites were carefully selected to make sure only those that may have an improved accessibility from the bypass if it was built. The sites included suggest 5,331 additional jobs could be created in the area if all of the development sites were to come forward. A higher proportion of these jobs are expected to be located on the larger sites, such as Ellington Colliery, Morpeth
AECOM Economic Impact Report 59
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Fairmoor Strategic Employment Sites and in the Cambois Zone of Economic Opportunity. Overall, with the scheme in place, the number of jobs accessible in the Regeneration Area is estimated to rise to 42,899, which is an increase of 14.2%. It was noted in the Stakeholder Interviews and by Northumberland County Council planners that there is an abundance of development land available, but the poor local transport infrastructure is making this land unattractive to prospective developers. For example, it is the opinion of the Planning Department at Northumberland County Council that the Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic Employment Sites, which are located adjacent to the proposed route of the bypass, are unlikely to come forward unless the bypass, or other strategic highway improvement, is constructed. The Employment Land Review Steering Group considers the development of this site to be significantly hindered by the poor local transport network. It must be acknowledged in a scheme such as this that the ‘two-way’ road effect can play a part in how these newly accessible jobs are occupied. In the case of this scheme, it is likely that 5,437 jobs will be taken by residents outside the regeneration area. Whilst the main benefits of the scheme are reduced journey times for those in the Regeneration Area due to reduced congestion in the centre of Morpeth, the scheme also improves access into the area from the Regeneration Hinterland. Overall, it is estimated that 1,304 new jobs will be gained directly from the scheme.
Chapter 7 Summary
AECOM Economic Impact Report 61
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Chapter 7 Summary
7.1 INTRODUCTION This Economic Impact Report is to support Northumberland County Council’s proposal for the A1-SENSLR-MNB. The purpose of the Economic Impact Report is to demonstrate how the proposed scheme will impact on the economy of the Regeneration Areas. The A1-SENSLR-MNB scheme will create a new route to the north of Morpeth. The bypass is expected to be built from the A1 at the junction with the A192 where it is proposed that the junction will be upgraded to replace the current unsatisfactory arrangement. The proposed route is outlined to join up with the existing Pegswood Bypass on the A197 at Whorral Bank, to the east of Morpeth. This section summarises the main findings and key results from the Economic Impact Report under the main chapter headings. This covers how the scheme fits with the policy context, a summary of key socio-economic indicators, findings from the business surveys and stakeholder interviews, a review of the impacts of the scheme and the employment forecasts. 7.2 POLICY CONTEXT At a local level, the scheme would contribute towards the objectives set out by the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (2005) and the Local Plans of Castle Morpeth, Blyth and Wasnbeck, as the scheme would reduce traffic and ease congestion in the centre of Morpeth, which in turn should enhance the sustainability and efficiency of current businesses in the town. This could encourage further economic development to prosper in the area. 7.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT In 2001, the Census recorded unemployment in the Regeneration Area as 7%, which is 2% higher than in the Hinterland. In line with unemployment, both the number of job seekers claimants and the proportion on income support are higher in the Regeneration Area. This is also supported by the Index of Multiple Deprivation, which shows that 9 out of the 42 Super Output Areas in the Regeneration Area are in the 20% most deprived in the county. The economic structure in the Regeneration Area has also changed. Between 2003 and 2007 1,283 jobs were lost in all sectors, but predominantly from the distribution, hospitality and energy sector. In the same time period, 585 jobs were created in the Regeneration Area, predominantly in public administration, education and health. This transition in economic structure could be a contributing factor to the higher levels of unemployment in the area. The employment land availability analysis shows that there is marginally less land available for employment development in 2009 than there was in 2005. However, the change is much greater when examined spatially. As this is a locational based issue, it could be related to a number of outside factors affecting the take up of employment land in the area. 7.4 BUSINESS SURVEYS AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Business surveys and Stakeholder Interviews were undertaken to understand the importance of transport to the businesses in the area and identify what aspects of their operation were affected by the current transport system. All stakeholders interviewed said that the A1-SENSLR-MNB would improve the economy of the area by allowing the movement of goods and people into and out of the area more easily. 58% of the businesses that responded to the questionnaire stated that the movement of goods was an important part of their business, which shows the importance of the road network to the operation of local industry. There were also a number of trends, which are consistent with the national picture, such as the economic climate being cited as a key reason for decline in the prospects of the business and for lack of growth in the near future. Improving the transport network to Ashington and Blyth is widely considered to be a positive step in helping the economy grow in both of these two locations. Industry is an important part of the economy in this area and an adequate road network is critical to this type of employment. As well as it improving the movement of goods out of the area, it was also considered to be beneficial to moving staff in and improving the skills pool from which to develop their labour force. Morpeth was also considered to be a beneficiary from the building of the bypass, as
AECOM Economic Impact Report 62
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
reducing congestion in the town centre was considered to be a big benefit for the businesses in the town. This would be in a time-cost saving for staff and their customers reaching their destination. It was noted in the questionnaire responses that congestion on the road network was a common cause of problems and delays for staff making business trips, visitors to the site and the movement of goods. This was mirrored in the Stakeholder Interviews, where it was commonly agreed that the transport links travelling north from the area at present are less than satisfactory. Congestion and safety concerns with the movement of large vehicles through built up areas, such as the centre of Morpeth, were noted as key problems related to the current transport network. It is a common consensus that this is making businesses in the area unattractive to prospective customers who consider connections to the north as an import factor in their operation. It was considered that the building of the A1-SENSLR-MNB would allow the large amounts of employment land in the area to be used productively, as improving the access to and from the area will encourage businesses to move in and increase the prosperity of the area. Staff skill shortages were also cited as a key recruitment problem for all sectors and locations in both the business surveys and Stakeholder Interviews. It was noted that access to and from the site would be a significant improvement to the location for the current workforce. 7.5 IMPACTS OF THE SCHEME Chapter 5 included an analysis of the changes in journey times between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in the base year (2007), the opening year (2015) and the design year (2030) in the AM and PM peak periods. This showed that significant journey time reductions are forecast for journeys to and from the A1 junction with the A192 to Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Ellington. It is evident from this analysis that the greatest accessibility benefits are seen in Morpeth. The employment sites, jobs and job vacancies in Morpeth each saw the greatest increase in their accessibility within one hour with the A1- SENSLR-MNB in place. The analysis also showed that increases in traffic from 2015 to 2030 without the scheme in place will reduce the number of jobs available within one hour to the accessible workforce. Finally, in terms of job vacancies, in 2015 and 2030, the increase in the number of vacancies accessible to those travelling from the A1/North West Morpeth area increases by as much as 33%. The distribution operations of three businesses located within the Regeneration Area was also examined. The greatest cost saving per journey was seen by the engineering company located near Ashington. Based upon a standard industry operating cost per HGV, it was calculated that a business located in this area could make a saving of up to £5.45 per journey from the Wansbeck Business Park to the A1 junction with the A192. Over the year, the analysis suggested that there would be a reduction in cost of up to 37% for this same business. 7.6 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS Given the high risks involved with over-estimating a growth in employment as a result of transport schemes, a conservative approach was adopted for this Economic Impact Report. The employment sites were carefully selected to make sure only those that may have an improved accessibility from the bypass if it was built. The sites included suggest 5,331 additional jobs could be created in the area. A higher proportion of these jobs are expected to be located on the larger sites, such as Ellington Colliery, Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic Employment Sites and in the Cambois Zone of Economic Opportunity. Overall, with the scheme in place, the number of jobs accessible in the Regeneration Area is estimated to rise to 42,899, which is an increase of 14.2%. It was noted in the Stakeholder Interviews and by Northumberland County Council planners that there is an abundance of development land available, but the poor local transport infrastructure is making this land unattractive to prospective developers. For example, it is the opinion of the Planning Department at Northumberland County Council that the Morpeth Fairmoor Strategic Employment Sites, which are located adjacent to the proposed route of the bypass, are unlikely to come forward unless the A1-SENSLR-MNB, or other strategic highway improvement, is constructed. The Employment Land Review Steering Group considers the development of this site to be significantly hindered by the poor local transport network. In a scheme such as this, the ‘two-way’ road effect can also play a part in how these newly accessible jobs are occupied. However, in this scheme, this is unlikely to be the case. Instead, an increase of 537 jobs for local residents is calculated. This is because the location of the scheme is unlikely to provide jobs for those outside the Regeneration Area. Instead, its main benefits will be a reduced journey time for those internal to the regeneration area, due to reduced congestion in the centre of Morpeth.
AECOM Economic Impact Report 63
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 1
A1 Size Print of HE092631/0/A197/01/07 Rev J in plastic A4 wallet To replace this page
AECOM Economic Impact Report 64
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 2
AECOM Economic Impact Report 65
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 3
AECOM Economic Impact Report 66
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 4
AECOM and Northumberland Council Morpeth Northern Bypass - Business Questionnaire
Section A - About your business
For the following questions, please answer only for the business or organisation at this postal address. If your organisation has other premises, please do not include them in your response.
A1. What is the main activity of your business at this site? [Please write below]
A2. What are the usual hours of operation? [Tick all that apply]
a) Monday to Friday – day time b) Monday to Friday – night time c) Saturday / Sunday
A3. Is your company based at sites other than this? [Tick one only]
a) Yes b) No
A4. Where else is your business located? [Tick all that apply]
a) Other locations in Castle Morpeth b) In Northumberland, but outside of Castle Morpeth c) In North East England, but outside of Northumberland d) Elsewhere in the UK e) Outside of the UK
[1]
Section B - About your Employees
In this section, please think about your total workforce based at this site , including full and part time employees, temporary or agency staff, subcontractors, voluntary staff and self-employed staff.
B1. How many people are employed at this site? [Tick the appropriate box]
a) More than 1000 b) Between 500 and 1000 c) Between 100 and 499 d) Between 30 and 99 e) Between 10 and 29 f) Less than 10
B2. Has this number of employees increased or decreased over the past year? [Tick one box only]
a) Increased b) Decreased c) Stayed the same
B3. What are the expectations for staff numbers in the coming year? [Tick one box only]
a) Increase b) Decrease c) Stay the same
B4. What is the typical staff turnover rate / numbers recruited per year? [Please write below]
B5. Are there any particular difficulties over recruiting ? [Please tick all boxes which apply]
a) Staff skill shortages b) Staff travel problems c) Staff childcare problems d) Childcare problems e) Salary uncompetitive [2]
f) Other, please state: ......
Section C - Movement of staff
C1. What percentage of staff travel to work by the following modes? [Please provide % estimates]
Mode % mode share
Car
Car passenger
Bus
Train
Walk
Cycle
Other
C2. Where do staff usually travel from? [Please supply an estimated % breakdown]
a) Live locally (Locally defined as 5 miles) b) Within the sub-region? (Defined as between 6 and 15 miles) c) Further than 15 miles
C3. Please provide an example and background to a staff member who has a long distance commute. [Please write below]
[3]
Section D - About your customers, suppliers and competitors
D1. Where are your principal customers located? [Tick all that apply]
a) Other locations in Castle Morpeth b) In Northumberland, but outside of Castle Morpeth c) In North East England, but outside of Northumberland d) Elsewhere in the UK e) Outside of the UK
D2. Where are your principal suppliers located? [Tick all that apply]
a) Other locations in Castle Morpeth b) In Northumberland, but outside of Castle Morpeth c) In North East England, but outside of Northumberland d) Elsewhere in the UK e) Outside of the UK
D3. Where are your principal competitors located? [Tick all that apply]
a) Other locations in Castle Morpeth b) In Northumberland, but outside of Castle Morpeth c) In North East England, but outside of Northumberland d) Elsewhere in the UK e) Outside of the UK
[4]
Section E - The business sector
E1. What are the prospects for your business sector? [Tick the appropriate box]
a) Good – the business is growing b) Neither good nor bad – the industry us fairly static at the moment c) Poor – the business is currently in decline
E2. What are the expectations for this business? [Please tick the appropriate box]
a) Growth b) Static c) Decline
E3. Please outline the reasons for this expected growth / decline or if the prospects for the business are static. [Please write below]
[5]
Section F - Your business at this location
F1. How long has the business been located here? [Please tick one box only]
a) Less than one year b) 1 – 4 years c) 5 – 9 years d) 10 – 14 years e) 15 – 19 years f) 20 years
F2. What are the strengths / weaknesses of this location? [Please circle whether the specified aspects of your location is a strength or a weakness. Then grade each by ticking the box under the following scale: 0 – represents a neutral feeling; 1 – represents a slight strength / weakness; 2 – represents a moderate strength / weakness; and 3 – represents a significant strength / weakness.]
Aspect of Location 0 1 2 3
Access to the road Strength network Weakness
Strength Access to markets Weakness
Strength Access to employees Weakness
Strength Availability of staff Weakness Others: [please specify]
[6]
F3. Which of the following best describes your business intentions in the near future? [Please tick all that apply]
a) We are intending to stay at this location b) We are intending to stay at this location but expand c) We are intending to stay at this site but decrease our operations d) We are intending to move to another location with Castle Morpeth e) We are intending to move to another location in Northumberland but outside of Castle Morpeth f) We are intending to move to another location elsewhere in the UK
F4. What would improve this location for the business? [Add the grade in the box and write in detail]
Grade: 1 - Significant improvement to the location 2 - Moderate improvement to the location 3 - Small improvement to the location 4 - Negligible improvement to the location
Factor Grade Further Information Improved access to and from for Staff
Improved access to Suppliers
Improved access to Markets
Increased competition
Reduced transport costs
Availability of suitable land
Availability of suitable premises
Availability of capital
Other: [Please write below]
[7]
Section G - Movement of Goods
G1. Is the movement of goods in to and out of your premises important for your business? [Tick appropriate box]
a) Yes Go to G2 b) No Go to H1
G2. Please identify important outwards and inward movements to and from your locations. [Please write below, specifying route and mode of transport, e.g. Morpeth – Newcastle, lorry freight
G3. Do you transport your own goods or do you use logistics companies? [Please tick the appropriate box]
a) Transport own goods b) Transport goods using logistics companies c) Transport own goods and use logistics companies
G4. What is the typical usage of different transport modes for moving materials into and out of your premises? [Please fill in the table] Mode Inbound materials (%) Outbound materials (%) Car Van LGV HGV Rail Other: [Please specify]
[8]
G5. What are the costs of moving goods as a percentage of turnover and profit ? [Fill in the % column and outline any further detail]
Issue % Further detail
Turnover
Profit
G6. What are the incidences of delays due to transport links? [Please tick the appropriate box]
a) Very Frequent – affects business on a daily basis b) Frequent – affects business on a weekly basis c) Fairly Frequent – affects business on monthly basis d) Infrequent – affects business up to four times a year e) Not typical – affects business irregularly
G7. What are the consequences of these delays to your business? [Please write below]
[9]
Section H - Business travel
H1. Please specify the total number of annual business trips made by your staff. (When thinking of business trips please do not include the movements of goods). [Please write below]
H2. For these business trips, please identify as accurately as possible the mode of transport used to get there. [Complete the box below as well as provide any further comments i.e. use of pool cars Mode of transport Number of trips Car Rail Coach Taxi Air Other: [Please specify]
H3. Of these business trips, can you identify what percentage are to the following destinations? [Please provide % breakdown]
Locality % of business trips Local (Within 20 miles) Regional (Within Northumberland and Tyne and Wear)
National
EU Other: [Please specify]
[10]
H4. What, if any, problems do your staff experience when making business trips? [Tick all that apply]
a) No public transport to site b) Infrequent public transport to site c) Public transport does not run at appropriate times d) Poor road access e) Congestion on roads leading to / from site f) Lack of parking provision g) Safety of cyclist / pedestrians h) Other (specify) ......
Section I - Tourism
I1. Does your business involve members of the public visiting your establishment as tourists? [Tick one box]
a) Yes Go to I2 b) No Go to J1
I2. How many tourist visitors do you have in an average year per season? [Tick one box]
a) Spring b) Summer c) Autumn d) Winter
I3. What is the average spend per visitor? [Please write below]
[11]
I4. Where do visitors come from? (Estimated proportions) [Please fill in the table with % and any further detail]
Area Estimated proportions (%) Any other details Local Northumberland
North East Region Rest of England UK EU World
I5. What, if any, problems do your visitors experience travelling to and from your site? [Tick all that apply]
a) No public transport to site b) Infrequent public transport to site c) Public transport does not run at appropriate times d) Poor road access e) Congestion on roads leading to / from site f) Lack of parking provision g) Safety of cyclist / pedestrians h) Other: [Please specify] ......
[12]
Section J - About you
J1. Would you be willing to take part in further consultation regarding the Morpeth Northern Bypass? [Please tick one box]
a) Yes Go to J2 b) No Questionnaire complete
J2. Please provide the following details: [Please write below]
Name of Company:......
Your name:......
Your position:......
Company address:......
Telephone Number:......
Thank you on behalf of AECOM and Northumberland Council for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
[13]
AECOM Economic Impact Report 67
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 5
AECOM Economic Impact Report 68
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 6
AECOM Economic Impact Report 69
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 7
AECOM Economic Impact Report 70
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 8
AECOM Economic Impact Report 71
Capabilities on project:
Transportation
Appendix 9
Appendix 9: Guidance on Preparing an Economic Impact Report, Worksheet
The scheme and its location Opening year: 2015 Comparison year: 2030 1 Provide maps and supporting text locating the scheme and the RA(s) The A1 South East Northumberland Strategic Link Road Morpeth Northern Bypass (A1- on which it is expected to impact. SENSLR-MNB) will create a new route to the north of Morpeth. The route of the A1- SENSLR-MNB is from the A1 at the junction with the A192 where it is proposed that the junction will be upgraded to replace the current unsatisfactory arrangement. The A1- SENSLR-MNB will then join up with the Pegswood Bypass on the A197 at Whorral Bank, to the east of Morpeth. Appendix 1 illustrates the proposed route of the scheme. The Core Regeneration Area is focused on the communities of Morpeth, Ashington, Blyth, Ellington, Lynmouth and Bedlington. Appendix 2 illustrates the Regeneration Area and the overall Area of Influence for the scheme.
Transport and the economy in the RA 2 Provide a description of the economy in the RA: its chief sources of According to the ABI employment data (2007), 47% of the population in the Regeneration employment, the markets in which its employers operate the recent Area are employed in the public administration, education and health sectors. A further 21% performance and the prospects for the future if no action is taken. are employed in the distribution; hotel and restaurant sectors. According to the business surveys, the principle location of suppliers, customers and competitors are located in Northumberland but outside of Castle Morpeth. However, Castle Morpeth was an important location for 44 of the businesses as a principle location for customers, it was less important as a principle place for suppliers or competitors. A common national market served by businesses in the Regeneration Area was listed as Scotland. It was also recorded in the surveys that 66% of the businesses are expecting business to remain static in the near future. 6% of the businesses are expecting a decline in prospects and 28% are expecting an increase in business in the near future. The sector where the highest proportion of businesses thought their prospects for the future were poor was ‘car sales and repairs’.
3 Describe the ways in which transport is currently a constraint on At present all traffic (including HGVs) travelling southwards from the A1 to all locations east economic activity in the area. Focus on why expansion is inhibited by of Morpeth, including Ashington, Blyth and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea (or in the reverse direction)
Page 1 current transport provision. have to pass through the centre of Morpeth or another built up residential area. As a result, supported by Stakeholders in the interviews and surveys, places, such as Morpeth are congested and safety concerns have been raised with HGVs in dense built up areas. It was also noted that at the A1 junction with Morpeth, the substandard layout is causing HGVs to perform dangerous movements when turning into Morpeth. In a number of the stakeholder interviews having good access to the site from the A1 was commented upon as being an attractor to prospective clients. A poor transport network is seen as a factor, which may increase costs. For example, late deliveries due to congestion and an increased amount of time covering the same distance reaching customers. Finally, it has also been noted by Northumberland County Council and other stakeholders that there is an abundance of employment land available in the area, but the poor transport infrastructure is a hindrance to it coming forward and is often a stumbling block to obtaining planning permission.
4 Describe any other constraints inhibiting economic activity, and It was stated in the stakeholder interviews and in a number of the business surveys that a measures being taken to reduce them. skills shortage and problems recruiting staff with the required skills was restricting the growth of their business and economic development as a whole in the area. 42% of businesses stated that staff skill shortages were a problem and a further 23% stated staff travel problems were an issue with recruitment. Additionally, the highest proportion of businesses selected the availability of staff as the biggest weakness of their current location. 5 Explain in words why the proposed scheme will contribute to The scheme will reduce journey time to key existing and prospective employment sites and increased economic activity in the RA, and higher employment. This make the area more accessible overall. This improves the desirability of the area for increase should derive from changes to transport costs, times and prospective businesses to move in and bring jobs. As demonstrated in Chapter 5, the reliability. number of people who can access jobs and current job vacancies is increased by the scheme. The greatest impact is seen in Morpeth where the number of people able to access the employment sites within 5 minutes has increased by 2,188 and the number of people able to access the sites within 10 minutes has increased by 15,638. In 2015 there are 5,455 additional jobs accessible within an hour from North West and Central Morpeth. In terms of job vacancies, the increase in the number of vacancies accessible to those travelling from Morpeth and the surrounding area increases by as much as 29% in 2030.
Page 2 Congestion in Morpeth is a cost to established businesses. It was stated in a number of business surveys that congestion in the centre of Morpeth led to unreliable journey times, late deliveries and increased the cost of making local trips and deliveries. The greatest cost savings for transporting goods by HGVs was seen in the Ashington area. A saving of up to £5.45 per journey from the Wansbeck Business Park to the A1 junction with the A192 in the AM peak periods. Over the year, the analysis suggested that there would be a reduction in cost of up to 37% for this same business.
Jobs and People in the RA 6 Provide a breakdown of the current jobs located in the RA, indicating Vacancies skill levels and vacancies. Skill level Jobs (A) Number (B) %
Unskilled 5,260 61 Skilled manual 8,641 100 White collar 16,530 191 Managerial & professional 7,138 83 Total 37,568 435 1% 7 Provide a breakdown of the workforce resident in the RA, indicating Unemployed skill levels and numbers of unemployed. Skill level Workforce (C) Number (D) % 473 Unskilled 6,820 867 Skilled manual 12,314 1773 White collar 23,283 827 Managerial & professional 10,227
Total 52,460 3,939 7% Jobs and People in the RA hinterlands
Page 3 8 Provide a breakdown of the accessible jobs located outside the RA, Skill level Jobs (E) Vacancies (F) indicating skill levels and vacancies. Unskilled 3,575 52 Skilled manual 6,554 85 White collar 13,407 162 Managerial & professional 6,257 70
Total 29,793 368 1.2% 9 Provide a breakdown of the accessible workforce resident in the RA Unemployed hinterlands, indicating skill levels and numbers of unemployed. Number (H) % Unskilled 4,945 Skilled manual 9,066 White collar 18,545 Managerial & professional 8,654 Total 41,210 2060 5% Total accessible jobs and vacancies for residents of the RA 10 Accessible Accessible jobs in Accessible jobs Total accessible jobs Accessible vacancies Total accessible vacancies outside outside the RA = E (I=A+E) in the RA =B vacancies (J=B+F) the RA = A the RA =F Unskilled 5,260 3,575 8,835 61 52 113 Skilled manual 8,641 6,554 15,195 100 85 185 White collar 16,530 13,407 29,937 191 162 353 Managerial & professional 7,138 6,257 13,395 83 70 153 Total 37,568 29,793 67,361 435 368 803 Quantified impacts of the scheme
Page 4 11 Provide specific examples of how the Travel times: On average, in the AM peak period in 2015 with the scheme in place, a commuter journey time from scheme will affect travel times, costs and the A1 to Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the Sea and Ellington is likely to reduce on average by 4 minutes reliability. Give quantified examples where 10 seconds. In the reverse direction, from Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Ellington to the A1 in possible. the AM peak in 2015, the journey time for both commuters and HGVs is reduced by 3 minutes 16 seconds. By 2030, in the AM peak period the reduction in journey time when compared with 2007 from the A1 to Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the Sea and Ellington is likely to be on average 4 minutes 4 seconds for both commuters and HGVs. The reverse journey, from Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Ashington and Ellington to the A1 has on average a reduced journey time of 3 minutes 10 seconds. In the PM peak period, in 2015 with the A1-SENSLR-MNB in place, a commuter journey time from the A1 to Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Ellington, is likely to reduce on average by 3 minutes 59 seconds for commuters and 4 minutes for HGVs. In the reverse direction from Ashington, Newbiggin- by-the-Sea and Ellington to the A1 the average reduction in journey time for both commuters and HGVs is 3 minutes 30 seconds.
Travel costs: Section 5 of the report includes an analysis of the cost savings for businesses involved in the movement of goods. The greatest cost savings for transporting goods by HGVs was seen in the Ashington area. A saving of up to £5.45 per journey from the A1 junction with the A192 to Wansbeck Business Park in the AM peak period. Over the year, the analysis suggested that there would be a reduction in cost of up to 37% for this same business. Travel Travel time reliability is important for businesses in the area to ensure that deliveries are made timely reliability, and costs are kept to a minimum. The quality of the journeys will also improve because there is no quality, need for commuters or HGVs to travel through the centre of Morpeth. This will also improve the quality capacity: of the built up environment for residents and people accessing the businesses in Morpeth. Finally, the A1-SENSLR-MNB will increase the capacity of the local road network, as currently the main route from the A1 to Ashington, Blyth, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Ellington is through the centre of Morpeth.
Page 5 Access to existing jobs outside the RA
12 For residents of the RA, how many extra Skill Existing jobs brought into range Residents of the RA gaining existing jobs outside the RA will the (K) employment from these jobs (L) scheme provide access to? How many residents are expected to find employment Unskilled 114 50 as a result? Skilled manual 209 92 White collar 428 189 Managerial & professional 200 88 Total: 952 419 Changes to the accessible workforce for employers in the RA 13 For existing employers in the RA, Skill Accessible Increase in Residents of RA New jobs due to Residents of RA by how much is the accessible workforce accessible gaining increased gaining employment workforce increased? How many without scheme workforce (M) employment due accessible from new jobs (P) residents of the RA will find = G to better access workforce (O) employment as a result? If (N) employers expand as a result, how many extra jobs are Unskilled 6,820 1,322 357 243 153 expected? How many of these Skilled manual 12,314 2,424 655 412 259 will go to residents of the RA? White collar 23,283 4,958 1,339 779 489 Managerial & professional 10,227 2,314 625 342 215 Total: 52,460 11,017 2,975 1777 1,116
Page 6 Access to suppliers and markets
14 For existing employers in the RA, describe how access to Location of Suppliers & Markets, Improvements Gained markets and suppliers will be improved. For instance, give changes in travel times to locations where markets and suppliers For those businesses already established in the area, the scheme will provide a quicker and are located, or to the national transport network, such as safer route to the Strategic Road Network. The scheme will prevent traffic from having to pass motorways, airports and seaports. Indicate how significant these through the town centre of Morpeth and other built up areas. This will reduce traffic congestion changes are compared to operating margins for businesses in for customers and suppliers reaching businesses in Morpeth and will reduce journey time for the RA. Explain why, if at all, these changes are likely to lead to customers and suppliers reaching businesses beyond Morpeth. An average reduction in journey new jobs, either by expansion of existing businesses or new time on the route from the A1 junction with the A192 and Ashington, Ellington and Newbiggin-by- inward investment. the-Sea in 2015 in the AM peak for a commuter and HGV journey by 4 minutes 13 seconds. By 2030, the greatest journey time savings are in the AM peak. The average journey time is likely to reduce by 4 minutes 4 seconds for both commuters and HGVs between the A1 and Ashington. For businesses in Ashington transporting goods by HGVs, this resulted in a cost saving of £5.45 per journey and a reduction in annual transportation costs of 37%. The main impact of the scheme for the area is that it will open up allocated employment sites that are not currently considered to be accessible. Making these employment sites more desirable to prospective businesses could bring jobs to the area. The Port of Blyth has also indicated its aspirations for expanding in the future and the A1-SENSLR-MNB will improve the chance of this happening. New jobs due to expansion of existing businesses responding to improved access to markets and suppliers 15 Indicate the number of jobs expected to be created among Skill Extra jobs from expansion of Residents of RA gaining employment existing businesses as a result of improved access to markets existing businesses (Q) from these jobs (R) and suppliers Unskilled 243 153 Skilled manual 412 259 White collar 779 489 Managerial & professional 342 215 Total: 1,777 1,116
Page 7 New jobs due to inward investment
16 Indicate the number of jobs Skill Residents of RA gaining employment from these jobs (T) expected to arise from EXTRA JOBS FROM INWARD INVESTMENT (S) inward investment as a Unskilled 243 153 result of improved access to markets and suppliers Skilled manual 412 259 White collar 779 489 Managerial & professional 342 215 Total: 1,777 1,116 Summary of expected gains in employment position resulting from the scheme. Target year: 2015
17 Total new jobs These jobs comprising: Current New jobs Residents Residents Total increase in from expansion unemploye expected to into into employment among and/or inward Potential – Not Firm d workforce go to existing existing residents of RA. investment based on committed commitments in RA = D unemployed jobs in the jobs (W=V+N+L) (U=O+Q+S) calculations but available residents RA = N elsewhere only supporting (V=P+R+T) = L evidence available Unskilled 729 729 473 458 357 50 865 Skilled manual 1,237 1,237 867 776 655 92 1523 White collar 2,338 2,338 1,773 1468 1,339 189 2996 Managerial & professional 1,027 1,027 827 645 625 88 1358 Total 5,331 5,331 3,939 3,347 2,975 419 6,741
Page 8 Reduction in employment of RA residents due to increased access from workforce outside RA
WITHOUT SCHEME WITH SCHEME 18 Accessible Of whom, Ratio 1 = Total Of whom, Ratio 2 Accessible Of Ratio 3 Employed Of whom, Implied workforce living X/G employed Resident = Y / B workforce for whom, = Z / a in RA b = resident reduction for outside RA in RA = B outside employers in resident A + U outside RA in employers (X) RA (Y) RA a = G + M outside C = b x employm in RA = G RA (Z) ratio 2 x ent for ratio 3 / residents ratio 1 of RA = d
Unskilled 6,820 2706 0.65 5,260 2,175 0.41 8,142 2,818 0.35 5,989 1,319 -856 Skilled 12,314 4588 0.65 8,641 3,573 0.41 14,738 5,167 0.35 9,878 2,203 -1,370 Manual White Collar 23,283 8674 0.65 16,530 6,835 0.41 28,241 10,569 0.37 18,868 4,492 -2,343 Managerial & Professional 10,227 3810 0.65 7,138 2,952 0.41 12,541 4,932 0.39 8,165 2,043 -909
Total 52,460 19,778 0.65 37,568 15,534 0.41 63,477 23,486 0.37 42,899 10,097 -5,437
Page 9 All other reductions in employment among residents of RA 19 Losses due to wage Losses due to retail Losses due to other forms Loses due to access from Total loss of employment competition competition of increased competition external workforce among RA residents (e) Unskilled - - - -856 -856 Skilled manual - - - -1,370 -1,370 White collar - - - -2,343 -2,343 Managerial & professional - - - -909 -909 Total - - - -5,437 -5,437 Summary of change in employment of residents of the RA 20 Gain in employment = W Losses in employment = e Net change in employment = W - e Unskilled 865 -856 9 Skilled manual 1523 -1,370 153 White collar 2996 -2,343 653 Managerial & professional 1358 -909 449 Total 6,741 -5,437 1,304
Page 10