housing market areas and functional economic market areas in buckinghamshire … · 2015-07-22 ·...

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

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

Volume II: Study Appendices March 2015

http://www.ors.org.uk/

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

Opinion Research Services | The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF

Jonathan Lee | David Harrison | Tara McNeill

enquiries: 01792 535300 · [email protected] · www.ors.org.uk

Atkins | Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road NW1 3AT

Richard Ainsley

enquiries: 020 7121 2280 · [email protected] · www.atkinsglobal.com

© Copyright March 2015

mailto:[email protected]





Contents Appendix A: Analysis of Valuation Office Data

Appendix B: Sectoral Strengths

Appendix C: LA-LA Commuting and Migration Flows

Appendix D: Stakeholder Engagement

Appendix E: Study Method Statement

Appendix F: Responses to Study Method Statement

Appendix G: Workshop Presentation of Emerging Findings

Appendix H: Further Information Circulated following Workshop

Appendix I: Responses to the Emerging Findings

Appendix J: Responses to the Report of Findings Consultation Draft

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


Appendix A Analysis of Valuation Office Data

Distribution of Floorspace

Figure A1: Total office and industrial floorspace in Bucks

Office

(000’s sq.m)

% of

Bucks total

Industrial

(000’s sq.m)

% of

Bucks total

South Bucks 157 18% 186 9%

Chiltern 124 14% 217 11%

Wycombe 407 46% 751 38%

Aylesbury Vale 190 22% 830 42%

Total Bucks 878 100% 1,984 100%

Figure A2: Distribution of office floorspace – MSOA level


Figure A3: Distribution of factory floorspace – MSOA level

Average Unit Sizes

Figure A4: Average office unit size

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Ave

rage

un

it s

ize

(sq

.m)


Figure A5: Average industrial unit size

Figure A6: Average office unit size – MSOA level

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Ave

rage

un

it S

ize

(sq

.m)


Figure A7: Average factory unit size – MSOA level

Average Rateable Value

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ave

rage

Rat

eab

le V

alu

e p

er s

q.m

(3

)


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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ave

rage

Rat

eab

le V

alu

e p

er s

q.m

(£

)


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


Appendix B Sectoral Strengths

Sectoral Composition

The sectoral composition of each of the four Buckinghamshire local authorities, alongside other authorities

in Berkshire and Surrey, is shown below.

Figure A12: Sectoral Composition

Sector

Ayl

esb

ury

Val

e

Ch

ilte

rn

Sou

th B

uck

s

Wyc

om

be

Bra

ckn

ell

Fore

st

Re

adin

g

Slo

ugh

Spe

lth

orn

e

We

st B

erk

shir

e

Win

dso

r an

d

Mai

de

nh

ead

Wo

kin

gham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The analysis of sector strengths is supported by an employment Location Quotient (LQ) analysis of

Buckinghamshire (by two sector Standard Industrial Sector) which shows the concentration of key

employment sectors in Buckinghamshire’s economy. The table below shows those comparative strengths

across the four Local Authorities within Buckinghamshire.

Figure A13: LQ analysis (2014)

Sector

Bu

ckin

gham

shir

e

Ch

ilte

rn

Sou

th B

uck

s

Ayl

esb

ury

Val

e

Wyc

om

be

21 : Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations

3.91 24.82 * * *

26 : Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 2.96 1.65 * * 5.08

59 : Motion picture, video & television production, sound recording and music publishing activities

2.27 1.14 10.34 0.64 0.76

30 : Manufacture of other transport equipment 1.77 0.75 4.13 2.62 *

46 : Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 1.75 1.26 2.10 1.42 2.11

70 : Activities of head offices; management consultancy activities

1.75 2.33 2.29 1.53 1.48

73 : Advertising and market research 1.73 0.64 1.61 2.74 1.33

62 : Computer programming, consultancy and related activities 1.71 1.82 1.04 1.09 2.51

31 : Manufacture of furniture 1.67 * * 0.94 3.46

74 : Other professional, scientific and technical activities 1.49 3.10 1.29 1.00 1.36

96 : Other personal service activities 1.48 1.62 2.54 1.34 1.09

60 : Programming and broadcasting activities 1.44 3.93 * * 2.06

18 : Printing and reproduction of recorded media 1.38 1.71 1.07 1.69 1.11

42 : Civil engineering 1.35 0.45 0.52 2.69 0.89

45 : Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles

1.35 1.06 1.33 1.36 1.48

68 : Real estate activities 1.33 1.47 1.77 1.13 1.25

41 : Construction of buildings 1.33 1.68 1.62 0.96 1.38

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


Appendix C LA-LA Commuting and Migration Flows

Aylesbury Vale

Figure A14: Local authority commuting flows to and from Aylesbury Vale (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified

where number of commuters to/from Aylesbury Vale was 500 or more)

Figure A15: Local authority migration flows to and from Aylesbury Vale (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified

where number of migrants to/from Aylesbury Vale was 100 or more. Excludes moves within Aylesbury Vale)

Milton Keynes South

Oxon

Central Beds Dacorum South

Norfolk

Milton Keynes

South Oxon

Westminster & City

Central Beds

Dacorum

S Norfolk

Wycombe

Cherwell

Wycombe

Cherwell

Hillingdon

Luton

Chiltern

Chiltern

Oxford

Camden

31%

20%

4%

13% 11%

21%

32%

19% 17%

7%

13% 12%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Rest ofBucks

Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere

Inbound commuting Outbound commuting

Wycombe

Cherwell Hillingdon

Central Beds

Dacorum

South Norfolk

Milton Keynes

South Oxon

Central Beds Dacorum S Norfolk

Milton Keynes

South Oxon

Wycombe

Cherwell

Chiltern

Oxford

Chiltern

Oxford

↑ 3,100

↑ 4,100

20%

11%

15%

6%

11%

38%

15%

10% 10%

6% 6%

53%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Rest ofBucks

Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Oxon London Beds Herts Elsewhere

UK inward migration UK outward migration


Chiltern

Figure A16: Local authority commuting flows to and from Chiltern (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where

number of commuters to/from Chiltern was 500 or more)

Figure A17: Local authority migration flows to and from Chiltern (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where

number of migrants to/from Chiltern was 100 or more. Excludes moves within Chiltern)

Wycombe

Dacorum Hillingdon

Wycombe

Dacorum

Westminster & City

Slough

Aylesbury Vale

Three Rivers

South Bucs

Three Rivers

Hillingdon

South Bucks

Aylesbury Vale

Watford

Camden

Ealing

50%

18%

13%

7% 11%

30%

13%

42%

7% 8%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Rest ofBucks

Herts London Berks Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Herts London Berks Elsewhere


Wycombe

Three Rivers Hillingdon

Wycombe

Dacorum

South Bucks

Dacorum Ealing

Aylesbury Vale

Three Rivers

Aylesbury Vale

Harrow

South Bucks

Wandsworth

Milton Keynes

24%

13%

34%

4%

26%

31%

8%

15%

4%

42%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

Rest ofBucks

Herts London Berks Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Herts London Berks Elsewhere



South Bucks

Figure A18: Local authority commuting flows to and from South Bucks (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified

where number of commuters to/from South Bucks was 500 or more)

Figure A19: Local authority migration flows to and from South Bucks (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where

number of migrants to/from South Bucks was 100 or more. Excludes moves within South Bucks)

Wycombe Slough

Hillingdon Wycombe

Slough Hillingdon

Chiltern Windsor &

Maidenhead

Ealing Chiltern

Windsor & Maidenhead

Westminster & City

Ealing

Hounslow 28% 29%

24%

6%

13% 14%

31%

44%

3%

8%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Rest ofBucks

Berks London Herts Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Berks London Herts Elsewhere


Wycombe

Slough Hillingdon Wycombe

Slough

Hillingdon

Chiltern


Ealing Chiltern


Hounslow 15%

23%

35%

3%

24% 21% 21%

20%

2%

36%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Rest ofBucks

Berks London Herts Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Berks London Herts Elsewhere



Wycombe

Figure A20: Local authority commuting flows to and from Wycombe (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where

number of commuters to/from Wycombe was 500 or more)

Figure A21: Local authority migration flows to and from South Bucks (Source: 2011 Census. Note: Individual LAs identified where

number of migrants to/from Wycombe was 100 or more. Excludes moves within Wycombe)

Aylesbury Vale Windsor &

Maidenhead

Hillingdon

South Oxon

Chiltern Windsor & Maidenhead Hillingdon

South Oxon

Chiltern

Slough

South Bucks

Slough Westminster & City

Oxford

South Bucks

Wokingham

Aylesbury Vale

Reading Ealing

Wokingham Hounslow

Bracknell Camden

33%

23%

11% 12%

5%

17%

28%

22%

30%

8%

4%

8%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Rest ofBucks

Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere


Chiltern

Windsor & Maidenhead Hillingdon

South Oxon

Dacorum Birmingham

Aylesbury Vale


Hillingdon

South Oxon

Birmingham

South Bucks

Slough

Ealing

Chiltern

Slough

Oxford

Aylesbury Vale

Wokingham Westminster

South Bucks

Wandsworth

↑ 3,200

↑ 3,800

20%

11%

22%

5%

4%

38%

18%

11%

14%

8%

2%

47%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Rest ofBucks

Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere Rest ofBucks

Berks London Oxon Herts Elsewhere



Appendix D Stakeholder Engagement

Organisation Representative Attended Workshop

Follow-up Discussion

Bedford Borough Council Carolyn Barnes

Bracknell Forest Council

Charlie Fulcher

Max Baker

Sue Scott

Buckinghamshire County Council John Rippon

Bucks and Thames Valley LEP

Jim Sims

Richard Harrington

Paul McKim

Central Bedfordshire Council Simon Andrews

Cherwell District Council Adrian Colwell

Chiltern Rail Thomas Painter

Dacorum Borough Council John Chapman

Laura Wood

Greater London Authority

John Lett

James Gleeson

Jorn Peters

Hertfordshire County Council Paul Donovan

London Borough of Hillingdon James Gleave

Luton Borough Council Kevin Owen

Milton Keynes Council Bob Wilson

Oxford City Council Adrian Roche

Reading Borough Council Kiaran Roughan

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Ian Bellinger

Jennifer Heaton

Runnymede Borough Council

Babatunde Adebutu

Georgina Pacey

Richard Ford

Slough Borough Council Pippa Hopkins

Paul Stimpson

South Northamptonshire Council Andy Darcy

South Oxfordshire District Council Peter Canavan

Spelthorne Borough Council John Brooks

John Devonshire

Three Rivers District Council David Holmes

Claire May

Watford Borough Council Vicky Owen

Catriona Ramsay

West Berkshire Council Caroline Peddie

West Northants (Joint Planning Unit) Colin Staves

Wokingham Borough Council John Spurling

Rebecca Bird


From: Katie Amesbury

Sent: 28 August 2014 09:54

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

Good Morning

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

My name is Katie Amesbury and I am a Research Executive at Opinion Research Services (ORS). We are an

independent social research company with vast experience of conducting many different types of research

across the UK, and are currently engaged in a joint research project with W S Atkins for District Councils in

Buckinghamshire; this e mail is to let you know that the study has commenced.

Wycombe District Council, in conjunction with Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chiltern District Council and

South Bucks District Council (the Buckinghamshire District Councils) have commissioned ORS and W S

Atkins to undertake a study to determine Housing Market Areas (HMAs) and Functional Economic Market

Areas (FEMAs) in the County and beyond, using an analysis of secondary data. The outputs from the study

will provide important evidence to planning policy in the County.

We are approaching you directly as you have been identified as an important stakeholder within the

County whose views the project steering group (of Council officers) would very much like to hear.

A first key objective of the study is to ensure stakeholders have the opportunity to comment and feed into

the research methodology. A methodology statement is currently being prepared which we will shortly

circulate to you for your consideration; this is what we propose to use to determine the outputs for the

HMA and FEMA. We would be very grateful if you could consider this document and provide any feedback

or comments which you may have.

Later in the process, when outputs emerge, we will invite all stakeholders to a project workshop. At this

event, ORS and W S Atkins will present findings and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide

further feedback to the project. The workshop will also be attended by Council officers. We hope to

confirm the date for the workshop shortly and will circulate attendance details then.

In the meantime, if you have any further queries about the process or the outputs, please do not hesitate

to get in contact with me.

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury

KATIE AMESBURY | Research Executive | Housing Research Team | 01792 535306 | [email protected] Opinion Research Services | The Strand · SWANSEA · SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk





Sent: 04 September 2014 09:30

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

Good Morning,

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

Workshop Venue

Further to my email below I can confirm that the workshop will be held on 29th September at 2pm at ‘The

Hub’, Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1NJ. There is a multi-storey car park immediately next door for

parking. Please confirm your attendance with me in advance.

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

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury








Good afternoon,


Methodology Paper

Please find attached the Buckinghamshire Councils HMA-FEMA proposed method statement for the study.

The document outlines the anticipated methodology as well as the next steps of engagement. You are

invited to give any feedback by 17th September by emailing myself and I will arrange for someone to get

back in touch with you (either by telephone or email).

A paper setting out the emerging outputs from the analysis will be circulated prior to the workshop

arranged for the 29th September (details of which are below).

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

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury






Sent: 10 October 2014 15:21


Good afternoon,


Emerging Findings

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

been circulated on paper.

In addition, please find attached a short document that summarises the data flows underlying the key

outputs. This document also presents the results from further analysis based on migration flow data from

the 2001 Census. As discussed at the workshop, we had anticipated that the outcomes from this analysis

would reflect the outputs already produced based on commuting data. These results now confirm this and

therefore do not change any of our previous conclusions.

We would be grateful for any comments or feedback as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 17

October 2014. As outlined at the workshop, we would also be pleased to discuss any queries about the

work on a one-to-one basis. If you would like to arrange an appointment, we would be grateful if you could

confirm this early next week.

Kind regards

Katie








Good afternoon,


Responses following on from the Workshop

Many thanks to those who have sent responses following on from the workshop. We have now responded

to everyone who sent in comments so please can you let us know if you’ve sent anything across and not yet

received a response from us.

If you have any final comments to make, please can you provide these by the end of the week (24th

October) in order for us to finalise the report which will be circulated in due course.

Kind regards

Katie Amesbury





From: Jonathan Lee

Sent: 22 January 2015 17:41


Good afternoon


Study Report Consultation Draft

Thank you very much to everyone that has contributed to this study so far; through attending the

workshop, participating in interviews and providing feedback.

I am pleased to confirm that we have now completed the study report, but would welcome your comments

on the document before it is finalised. The Buckinghamshire Councils have therefore decided to published

a Consultation Draft of the report, which can be downloaded from the following link:

https://www.ors.org.uk/securefiles/download.php?reference=24efe0ff7d463c5033258280ee094098

There is a separate document which contains the study appendices (which are listed on the contents pages

of the main report), so please get in touch if you would also like a copy of this.

We are keen to finalise the study as soon as possible and would therefore be grateful if you could provide

any feedback as soon possible, and ideally no later than Tuesday 3 February. Nevertheless, if you do have

any concerns or queries about any aspect of the report, then please get in touch so that these can be

discussed. Similarly, if you can’t respond before Tuesday 3 February, please let us know as we want to

ensure that all feedback can be properly incorporated before the report is finalised.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards

Jonathan

JONATHAN LEE | Managing Director | 01792 535320 | [email protected]

Opinion Research Services | The Strand · SWANSEA · SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk





From: Jonathan Lee

Sent: 23 January 2015 15:38

To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'


Good Afternoon

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

Opinion Research Services (ORS) is an independent social research company that specialises in housing

research. ORS and W S Atkins were jointly commissioned by Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale

District Council, Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council (the Councils) to undertake a

study to identify Housing Market Areas (HMAs) and Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMAs) in

Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas. The outputs from the study will provide important evidence

to inform planning policy in the county, and the Councils are keen to reach agreement about the areas with

all Local Planning Authorities and other stakeholders that could be affected by the study’s conclusions.

Given this context, the Councils have involved their immediate neighbours, other nearby LPAs and relevant

stakeholders throughout the study. A method statement was circulated for comment at the outset, and a

workshop was convened to discuss the emerging outputs which were circulated for feedback. Interviews

and meetings have also been undertaken to reach agreement on assumptions and ensure consistency with

work being completed elsewhere. The Councils did not seek to involve you during these earlier stages of

the project, given that you are further away from the county and it was not anticipated that the study

conclusions would be relevant to you. However, the study has concluded that it would appropriate for

South Bucks to be considered as part of a wider HMA and FEMA which covers Reading and Slough,

extending along the M4 corridor from London; so the Councils would like to give you opportunity to

comment on the study report before it is finalised.

A Consultation Draft of the study report was published yesterday, which can be downloaded from the

following link:


There is a separate document which contains the study appendices (which are listed on the contents pages

of the main report), so please get in touch if you would also like a copy of this.

The Councils are keen to finalise the study and we would therefore be grateful if you could provide any

feedback as soon possible, and ideally no later than Tuesday 3 February – but if you can’t respond before

Tuesday 3 February, please let us know as we want to ensure that all feedback can be properly

incorporated before the report is finalised.

In the meantime, if you have any concerns or queries about any aspect of the study then please get in

touch with me by email: [email protected] or phone: 01792 535300; or if there are any issues that

you would like to discuss with the planning authorities responsible for the work, you can contact Ian

Manktelow at Wycombe District Council by email: [email protected] or phone: 01494

421579.





We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards

Jonathan

JONATHAN LEE | Managing Director | [email protected]





Appendix E Study Method Statement

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

1

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

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CLG, March 2012) requires local planning authorities to

have a “clear understanding of housing needs in their area … working with neighbouring authorities where

housing market areas cross administrative boundaries” (paragraph 159).

2. Similarly, the Framework requires local planning authorities to have a “clear understanding of business

needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area” and “work together with county and

neighbouring authorities and with Local Enterprise Partnerships” (paragraph 160).

3. Planning Practice Guidance on the Assessment of housing and economic development needs (PPG)

(CLG, March 2014) provides guidance on how Housing Market Areas (HMAs) and Functional Economic

Market Areas (FEMAs) can be defined. Whilst this Guidance provides the basis for identifying HMAs and

FEMAs for Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas, this Paper sets out the specific methodology for the

proposed approach for the Buckinghamshire study.

4. The study hopes to derive a consensus from local planning authorities and other relevant stakeholders

about the most appropriate HMAs and FEMAs for Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas. These

functional geographies will then provide the Buckinghamshire councils basis to undertake further work and

develop the evidence base required for the objective assessment of housing and economic need.

Housing Market Areas

5. Planning Practice Guidance sets out at paragraph 10 that:

A housing market area is a geographical area defined by household demand and preferences

for all types of housing, reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people

live and work. It might be the case that housing market areas overlap.

The extent of the housing market areas identified will vary, and many will in practice cut

across various local planning authority administrative boundaries. Local planning authorities

should work with all the other constituent authorities under the duty to cooperate.

Where there is a joint plan, housing requirements and the need to identify a five year supply

of sites can apply across the joint plan area. The approach being taken should be set out

clearly in the plan.

6. It subsequently states that “housing market areas can be broadly defined by using three different sources of

information”, these being:

» House prices and rates of change in house prices


2

» Household migration and search patterns

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

7. However, advice recently published in the Planning Advisory Services (PAS) technical advice note

“Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets” (PAS, June 2014) suggests that the main indicators will be

migration and commuting (paragraph 4.4).

The PG provides a long list of possible indicators, comprising house prices, migration and

search patterns and contextual data including travel-to-work areas, retail and school

catchments. With regard to migration, it explains that areas that form an HMA will be

reasonably self-contained, so that a high proportion of house moves (typically 70%) occur

within the area5. In practice, the main indicators used are migration and commuting.

8. The PAS advice note also suggests that analysis reported in the CLG report “Geography of Housing Market

Areas” (CLG, November 2010) should provide a starting point for drawing HMAs. This study was

commissioned by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) and undertaken by the

Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS) at Newcastle University. However, the

analysis of migration and commuting was based on data from the 2001 Census, so the PAS advice note

recognises that “more recent data should always ‘trump’ this geography” (paragraph 4.9).

Functional Housing Market Areas

9. The NPPF recognises that housing market areas will cross administrative boundaries, although the PAS

advice note suggests that (paragraph 4.11):

It is best if HMA boundaries do not cut across local authority areas. Dealing with areas

smaller than local authorities causes major difficulties in analysing evidence and drafting

policy. For such small areas data availability is poor and analysis is complex.

10. Nevertheless, the PPG emphasises that housing market areas reflect functional linkages between places

where people live and work.

11. The previous CLG advice note “Identifying sub-regional housing market areas” (CLG, March 2007)

established that functional housing market areas were not constrained by administrative boundaries,

though recognised the need for a “best fit” approximation to local authority areas for developing evidence

and policy (paragraph 9):

The extent of sub-regional functional housing market areas identified will vary and many will

in practice cut across local authority administrative boundaries. For these reasons, regions

and local authorities will want to consider, for the purposes of developing evidence bases

and policy, using a pragmatic approach that groups local authority administrative areas

together as an approximation for functional sub-regional housing market areas.

12. When identifying housing market areas, it remains important to properly differentiate between functional

housing market areas and the pragmatic need for a “best fit” to local authority boundaries. It is also

important that the process for identifying functional housing market areas is not constrained by local

authority boundaries. This allows the full extent of each functional housing market to be properly

understood and ensures that all of the constituent local planning authorities can work together under the

duty to cooperate, as set out in Guidance (PPG, paragraph 10).


3

13. However, as suggested by the recent PAS advice note (and the previous CLG advice note), it is also

necessary to identify a “best fit” for each functional housing market area that is based on local planning

authority boundaries. This “best fit” area provides an appropriate basis for analysing evidence and drafting

policy, and would normally represent the group of authorities that would take responsibility for

undertaking a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).

Defining Housing Market Areas

14. When defining housing market areas, it is important that functional housing markets are not constrained to

local authority boundaries – so it is necessary to use smaller geographic areas as the basic “building block”.

Whilst we would normally focus initially on migration patterns, migration data from the 2011 Census is

currently only published at local authority level, and the most recent data at a sufficiently fine-grained

geography is still the 2001 Census. However, commuting flow data from the 2011 Census has recently been

published for smaller areas, namely Middle-layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs). Given this context, it is

appropriate to start our analysis using the commuting flow data and the migration flow data will then be

analysed once it is available.

15. In considering the housing market areas for Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas, our initial analysis

will be based on the geographic area from Northampton in the north to Basingstoke in the south, and from

Swindon in the west to the City of London in the east. This will ensure that all functional housing market

areas are properly identified without unduly focussing on the local planning authorities within the county.

Nevertheless, the study will only identify the full extent of those housing market areas for Buckinghamshire

– neighbouring housing markets will only be identified as far as is necessary to establish the most

appropriate boundary between them and the housing market areas being identified in Buckinghamshire.

Identifying Travel to Work Areas

16. Insofar as the proposed analysis will initially focus on commuting flows, the areas established will be travel

to work areas rather than housing market areas. Nevertheless, as previously outlined, commuting patterns

form an important element of the analysis required to establish functional housing market areas.

17. The process for identifying the travel to work areas can be summarised as follows:

» Step 1: Identify MSOAs within the geographic area (but outside the Greater London region) where

all of the constituent Census Output Areas have been classified as being “urban” under the 2011

Rural Urban Classification (DEFRA, September 2011).

» Step 2: Group together any contiguous urban MSOAs (outside the Greater London region) into

single seed points.

Note that the Greater London MSOAs are excluded from steps 1 and 2 as almost all MSOAs within

the region are urban, and this would create a single seed point covering the whole of London at the

outset of the analysis process. Whilst Greater London will clearly be an important housing market,

we do not want this to be based simply on it being a contiguous urban area. Greater London

MSOAs are introduced into the process from step 3 onwards.

» Step 3: Identify MSOAs within the geographic area (including those in Greater London) with a

commuting ratio that is less than 1.0 (i.e. where the workplace population is larger than the

resident population).


4

» Step 4: Associate those MSOAs with concentrations of employment with the existing seed point

with which they have the strongest relationship. Where these MSOAs are not contiguous with an

urban area (including all MSOAs in Greater London) and have only weak relationships with the

existing seed points, employment MSOAs will form a new independent seed point.

» Step 5: For every MSOA in the geographic area, associate it with the seed point (or seed point

cluster) that has the largest number of workers resident in that MSOA.

» Step 6: Based on the MSOAs associated with each seed point (or seed point cluster) at Step 5,

calculate the proportion of the resident population that work in the area and the proportion of the

workplace population that live in the area to establish a self-containment ratio.

» Step 7: If all seed points (or seed point clusters) have an acceptable self-containment ratio, the

process will stop; otherwise for the seed point with the lowest self-containment ratio, the seed

point with which it has the strongest relationship (based on the commuting flows and distance

between the two seed points) is identified and the two seed points are clustered together. Where

the seed point with the lowest self-containment ratio is already formed of a cluster of seed points,

the cluster is separated and the strongest relationship is identified for each of the original seed

points before new clusters are formed.

The process from Step 5 to Step 7 is then repeated until an acceptable self-containment ratio is

achieved across all seed points (or seed point clusters).

18. The final distribution of areas will depend on the level at which the self-containment ratio is considered to

be acceptable. The higher that the self-containment ratio is required to be, the larger (and more strategic)

the identified areas will become – as smaller areas will tend to have lower levels of self-containment.

Self-Containment Thresholds

19. Given that there is no single correct threshold for self-containment, the analysis will consider the

distribution of areas at different threshold points. These will include:

» 75% which is the target for ONS Travel-To-Work Areas;

» 70% which is set out as representing “a relatively high proportion of household moves” in

paragraph 11 of the Planning Practice Guidance; and

» 66.7% which is the minimum threshold for ONS Travel-To-Work Areas that have a working

population in excess of 25,000 workers.

20. It is likely that the London housing market will be important given the number of workers that commute

from Buckinghamshire to London, and the number of people that migrate from London to Buckinghamshire

each year. Given the potential influence of London, it is important to note that paragraph 10 of the

Planning Practice Guidance recognises that “it might be the case that housing market areas overlap” and it

would be important to identify local housing market areas that might also exist.

21. Given this context, depending on the outputs and the extent to which London is shown to extend into

Buckinghamshire on the basis of these thresholds, it may be appropriate to sensitivity test self-containment

ratios at lower thresholds. If this is considered necessary, we would initially review the analysis based on

thresholds of 40, 50 and 60%. It may also be appropriate to repeat the analysis excluding all workers who

work in the centre of London, but ensuring that local patterns (such as those workers commuting to

Heathrow and other parts of outer London) continue to be included within the analysis.


5

Migration and House Price Data

22. The analysis of commuting patterns from the 2011 Census will form an important part of the evidence used

to establish housing market areas – but it will also be important to review the available migration and

house price data.

23. In the absence of detailed migration flows from the 2011 Census, local-level data from the 2001 Census will

be reviewed to understand the proportion of movers that stayed within the areas identified using the

commuting flow data; although this analysis will exclude long-distance moves where it is likely that people

will also change employment at the time of their move.

24. More recent data about migration between local authorities will also be considered, although this is often

less useful as the main relationships tend to normally be with neighbouring areas. This is recognised in the

PAS advice note, which states (paragraph 4.5):

One problem in drawing boundaries is that, if each local planning authority were to draw an

HMA centred on its area, there would be almost as many HMAs as local authorities. This is

because the largest migration flows in and out of any individual authority are usually those

linking it with immediately adjacent authorities. But each of these adjacent authorities will

most probably find that their largest migration flows link them to their immediate

neighbours, and the chain continues indefinitely.

25. With regard to house prices, whilst the analysis will consider the latest absolute (and relative) prices, it is

arguably more important to understand the rate of change – for whilst a housing market area is likely to

include houses with a range of different prices, prices are likely to increase (or reduce) at a comparable rate

in each housing market area. However, once again, the proximity of London is likely to also be a significant

influence on house price patterns across Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas.

Reviewing the Evidence

26. Whilst the analysis of the housing market geography in and around Buckinghamshire proposed above will

inevitably be based on more recent data than previous studies, we will also review the conclusions from

earlier work. This will include:

» Geography of Housing Market Areas in England (NHPAU/CURDS, 2010);

» Broad Rental Market Areas (VOA); and

» Strategic Housing Market Assessments and other studies undertaken in and around

Buckinghamshire.

27. The evidence from the analysis of commuting flows, migration flows and house prices will be reviewed

collectively in the context of these previous studies to provide recommendations about the most

appropriate functional housing market areas.

28. Once the functional housing market areas have been established, the study will also consider the most

appropriate “best fit” housing market areas based on local planning authority boundaries.


6

Functional Economic Market Area

29. Planning Practice Guidance sets out at paragraph 12 that:

The geography of commercial property markets should be thought of in terms of the

requirements of the market in terms of the location of premises, and the spatial factors used

in analysing demand and supply – often referred to as the functional economic market area.

Since patterns of economic activity vary from place to place, there is no standard approach

to defining a functional economic market area, however, it is possible to define them taking

account of factors including:

» extent of any Local Enterprise Partnership within the area;

» travel to work areas;

» housing market area;

» flow of goods, services and information within the local economy;

» service market for consumers;

» administrative area;

» catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social well-being;

» transport network.

30. The proposed approach to defining the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) for the Buckinghamshire

study is consistent with the Guidance and reflects the following key topics:

» Administrative areas (e.g. Local authority, LEP and other bodies’ boundaries);

» Travel to work areas;

» Transport network.

» Supply chains;

» Flow of goods, services and information within the local economy;

» Service market for consumers; and,

» Catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social well-being.

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

Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas.

Travel to Work Area

32. The study will consider the travel to work analysis undertaken for establishing the HMA(s) (based on

commuting flows from the 2011 Census) as a key element of the evidence for establishing FEMA(s).

Transport Network

33. The transport network is a key facilitator of commuting trips in the local area. Understanding the existing

transport network, as well as potential changes in connectivity facilitated by improvements in the rail

network, will be key to defining the final labour market catchment area. The study will consult with all local

authorities in Buckinghamshire to understand current constraints to key transport corridors, and to identify

planned investment which may affect future capacity and connectivity.


7

34. We will also undertake an analysis of the projected changes in the balance between housing and

employment for surrounding local authorities to understand whether this might impact on the spatial

dynamics of the demand and supply of labour in the sub-region.

Supply Chain and Trade Flow Analysis

35. In order to explore supply chain dynamics in more detail we will explore business survey information from

the Buckinghamshire Business Survey to explore supply chain linkages.

36. To capture a more qualitative picture of the trade and flow of commercial activities we will undertake a

series of targeted telephone interviews with economic development and planning officers in each of the

four Bucks local authorities. This would provide us with qualitative evidence to verify the more quantitative

analysis set out in other stages.

Identification of local Socio-Economic and Property Market Characteristics

37. We will analyse the latest socio-economic data in order to identify clusters of activity to inform the FEMA.

This will include analysis of:

» Employment growth rates and entrepreneurial activity;

» Property market characteristics, including rents, vacancy, take-up and planning pipeline;

» Concentrations of specific clusters (such as motorsport);

Service market for consumers

38. We propose to use the retail studies undertaken by each of the local authorities in Buckinghamshire and

neighbouring areas as the starting point to define the area of trade draw. We will then consider major retail

developments across the County, as well as in neighbouring areas, to identify potential changes to retail

catchments since studies have been made.

Catchment Areas for Cultural & Social Wellbeing

39. To explore cultural and social wellbeing we will explore the following:

» IMD – Access to services & health;

» Creative and cultural economy – Firms & Employment;

» Visitor Economy Assets, Body Designations (e.g. National Trust, English Heritage etc)

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

Composite analysis of FEMA

41. We will overlay all of the above analysis in order to identify the potential possibilities for extent of the

FEMA. We propose that the analysis of the 2011 Travel to Work data will form the basis for identifying the

FEMA, with other information as set out above acting as a means to verify or challenge the labour market

analysis.


8

Involving Stakeholders

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

Stakeholder feedback on Methodology

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

stakeholder workshop.

44. Stakeholders are invited to feedback by Tuesday 17 September if they have any specific concerns or

comments about the approach. If there are any queries about the methodology, these can be sent by

email to [email protected] and we will get in touch (either by telephone or email) to discuss

these.

45. Any feedback received and responses made will be recorded, and any issues which propose changes to

study methodology will be discussed and agreed with the project steering group.

Stakeholder Workshop

46. A stakeholder workshop will be held on Monday 29 September. A paper setting out the emerging outputs

of the analysis will be prepared and reviewed by the project steering group. Once agreed by the project

steering group, we will circulate a copy by email to stakeholders in advance of the September workshop.

This paper will be circulated as soon as possible, but the final date will depend on the nature of feedback

received about the proposed method, and any changes to the study methodology agreed.

47. The emerging study analysis will presented and explained at the workshop, and Stakeholders will have the

opportunity to ask any questions to clarifying the approach and the initial conclusions of the study.

Stakeholders will also have the opportunity to discuss the emerging evidence and provide initial feedback.

Stakeholder feedback on Emerging Outputs

48. If any queries about the study arise after the workshop, these can be sent by email and we will get in touch

(either by telephone or email) to discuss these. We would then ask for any formal comments about the

emerging study outputs to be provided no later than Monday 13 October.

49. Where it would be helpful to discuss any feedback with individual stakeholders, we will do this by

telephone or email in the first instance. Where any stakeholders had concerns that would benefit from

one-to-one discussions, we propose to host a sequence of appointment-based face-to-face drop-in sessions

at an agreed central venue to seek to respond to and, where realistically possible, resolve such issues. The

date for this will be confirmed at the Workshop, if not sooner.

50. Any feedback received and responses made (including any subsequent discussions) will be recorded, and

responses will be agreed with the project steering group. This will include any recommendations for

changes to the assumptions associated with the emerging outputs and the initial conclusions of the study.

51. Following this process, the emerging study outputs and the study conclusions would be finalised and

reported to the project steering group. The final study report will be published, together with supporting

data, once the document has been agreed by the steering group.



9

Opinion Research Services | The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF

Jonathan Lee | David Harrison | Katie Amesbury


Atkins | Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road NW1 3AT

Martin Tedder

enquiries: 020 7121 2288 · [email protected] · www.atkinsglobal.com

© Copyright September 2014






Appendix F Responses to Study Method Statement

Chiltern Railways

Dacorum Borough Council


West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit


From: Thomas Painter [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury


Dear Katie,

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

Chiltern Railways’ welcomes the realisation that enhancements in transport infrastructure can shape

commuting flows and by extension the housing market profile (points 33 and 34).

The East-West route for example will link communities in north Buckinghamshire (such as Winslow) to

Oxford and Milton Keynes, creating journey opportunities that previously did not exist. Similarly, the

extension of the Chiltern line to connect with the East-West route at Calvert will link the principal

populations of Buckinghamshire (High Wycombe and Aylesbury) to Milton Keynes and the West Coast

Mainline.

Both of these improvements in rail services might be expected to alter the functional economic market

area in the county, expanding travel to work areas and easing the flow of people between key population

centres.

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

Kind regards,

Tom



To: Thomas Painter [mailto:[email protected]]


Hi Tom,

Many thanks for your feedback. I have forwarded it to Martin Tedder at Atkins who is working on the FEMA

and have asked him to get in contact regarding your comments.

Kind Regards

Katie







From: John Chapman [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury

Cc: Laura Wood; Chloe Thomson


Katie,

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

Thank you for consulting the Council on the proposed method statement for identifying HMAs and

FEMAs in Buckinghamshire.

We consider that the proposed approach set out in the method statement is sound, as it follows the

approach advocated in the NPPF, the PPG and the PAS SHMA guidance. The conclusions from

your study will be very helpful in the SHMA, Demographic Study and Economic Study that

Dacorum Council together with Hertsmere, Three Rivers and Watford Councils are commissioning

shortly.

Regards

John

John Chapman

Strategic Planning and Regeneration Officer

Dacorum Borough Council

Tel: 01442 228259


Sent: 13 November 2014 12:12

To: John Chapman

Cc: Laura Wood; Chloe Thomson


Hi John,

I’m currently going through the correspondence on this project and it’s come to my attention that my

response to your below email bounced without me noticing. Please accept my apologies and assurances

that your comments were passed on to the steering group and have also been documented.

Kind regards

Katie





From: Darren Richards [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury

Cc: John Lett; Elliot Kemp; Jorn Peters


Dear Katie

The GLA, on behalf of the Mayor, has the following comments on the Study:

1. Draw your attention to the Mayor’s SHMA prepared to support the Further Alterations to the London Plan;

2. The geographical links with London should be recognised, and it should consider the impact of migration and commuting flows between Greater London and Buckinghamshire

3. For reasons set out in the SHMA and statement to the FALP EiP Inspector, the Mayor does not consider that the 2011-based projections are a suitable basis for planning London’s future housing needs. In particular, the Mayor has concerns over the way migration is treated in the latest projections, in the light of the impact of the recent recession. We suggest that your SHMA should draw on a range of data in addition to the most recent household projections.

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

provide a formal response.

Regards

Darren

Darren Richards

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



To: Darren Richards

Cc: John Lett; Elliot Kemp; Jorn Peters


Hi Darren,

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

due course.

Kind regards

Katie






From: Colin Staves [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury

Cc: Claire Berry


Dear Katie,

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

Paper.

Overall we think the methodology is clear and comprehensive. Under the Functional Economic Market

Area section of the paper we think the proposals to identify the “Service Market for Consumers” and the

“Catchment Areas for Cultural and Social Welfare” could also include reference to access to a wider range

of services than just retail, i.e. leisure, health and education. A number of other similar studies refer to

“travel to learning” areas for further education. Retail catchments are frequently used as a proxy for other

services but if data about other services is available then this should also be used.

Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the workshop on 29th September, but we will of course let you

have further comments on the emerging outputs when these are circulated.

Kind regards

Colin Staves

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



To: Colin Staves


Hi Colin,

Many thanks for your feedback. I have forwarded it to Martin Tedder at Atkins who is working on the FEMA

and have asked him to get in contact regarding your comments.

Sorry to hear you can’t make the meeting – but as you said, please make any comments you have regarding

the emerging outputs once they are circulated.

Kind regards

Katie






Appendix G Workshop Presentation of Emerging Findings

1

www.ors.org.uk

Identifying HMAs and FEMAs in Buckinghamshire and the surrounding areas

Workshop to Review Emerging Outputs29 September 2014

Overview of Workshop

Review of previous HMA analysis

Commuting Flows from 2011 Census

Further information for HMAs and FEMAs

2

www.ors.org.uk

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ANALYSIS OF HOUSING MARKET AREAS

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

3

Buckinghamshire SHMA (2008)

Windsor & Maidenhead SHMA (2013)

4

NHPAU Study – PAS advice note “starting point”

NHPAU Study – alternative output

5

ONS Travel To Work Boundaries (2007)

www.ors.org.uk

PREVIOUS ORS ANALYSIS BASED ON 2001 CENSUS DATA

6

Wycombe SHMA – Housing Market Area analysis

Functional relationships in and around Wycombe

7

Wycombe SHMA – High Wycombe HMA

Wycombe SHMA – High Wycombe HMA

69% of workers live in the HMA63% of residents work in the HMA(71% excluding those working in London)

72% of movers previously lived in the HMA73% of movers stayed in the HMA

8

Milton Keynes SHMA – Milton Keynes HMA

Milton Keynes SHMA – Milton Keynes HMA

75% of workers live in the HMA65% of residents work in the HMA

70% of movers previously lived in the HMA74% of movers stayed in the HMA

9

www.ors.org.uk

COMMUTING FLOW ANALYSIS BASED ON 2011 CENSUS DATA

Approach for defining HMAs – establishing a framework

1. Select contiguous urban areas (except in London)

2. Identify adjoining areas where the commuting ratio < 1.0

3. Associate employment areas with the urban area where the largest number of workers live

4. Define seed areas based on urban centre + associated employment area, infilling any areas that are completely surrounded by MSOAs that have been selected

10

Urban Areas (DEFRA classification) + densely populated

Areas with commuting ratio less than 1.0

11

Urban areas + Employment areas

“Seeds” for Housing Market Areas

12

Approach for defining HMAs – iterative process

5. Associate all MSOAs with the seed with strongest links

6. The seed with the area of weakest self‐containment is joined to the seed to which it has strongest links

7. If all seed points/clusters have acceptable self‐containment the process stops; else steps 5 to 7 are repeated with the new seed points/clusters

Initial modelling @ 20% containment

13



14


Approach for defining HMAs – iterative process

5. Associate all MSOAs with the seed with strongest links

6. The seed with the area of weakest self‐containment is joined to the seed to which it has strongest links, excluding Central London

7. If all seed points/clusters have acceptable self‐containment the process stops; else steps 5 to 7 are repeated with the new seed points/clusters

15

Further modelling @ 50% containment


16


67% containment with LA boundaries

17

67% containment with VOA Broad Market Rental Areas

67% containment with ONS 2007 TTWA boundaries

18

67% minimum flow with ONS 2007 TTWA boundaries

67% minimum flow with LA boundaries

19

www.ors.org.uk

EMERGING CONCLUSIONS

Emerging Conclusions

» There is substantial commuting to London from all of Buckinghamshire

» The strongest links from Buckingham are to Milton Keynes

Initial analysis @ 67% containment

20


» The strongest links from Buckingham are to Milton Keynes

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

Initial analysis @ 67% containment


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

Further analysis @ 67% containment

21


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

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

Further analysis @ 67% min flows


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

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

Further analysis @ 55% containment

22

www.ors.org.uk

THANK YOU FOR LISTENINGAny Comments or Questions?

www.ors.org.uk

JONATHAN LEEManaging Director

Opinion Research ServicesThe Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF

01792 535300

[email protected]

1

Assessment of HMA and FEMA of Buckinghamshire authoritiesEmerging findings

29th September 2014

Approach to defining the FEMA

2

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

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

2

Labour Market Areas

3

Labour Market Areas – 67% containment

Transport Network

4

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

3

Transport Network

5

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

Workplace (LA)Commuting flows (out)

from Aylesbury TC Travel time from Aylesbury TC

Wycombe 6.6% 0:29 - High WycombeChiltern 3.6% 0:27 - Amersham, 0:25 - CheshamSouth Oxfordshire 3.4% 0:36 - WheatleyDacorum 3.1% 0:23 - Hemel HempsteadMilton Keynes 2.7% 0:41 - Milton Keynes

Transport Network – Planned Investment

6

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

4

Business Linkages

7

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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0-19% 20-49% 50-69% 70-100%

Business Purchases in Bucks

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0-19% 20-49% 50-69% 70-100%

Business Sales in Bucks

Business Links: Economic characteristics

8

• County wide strengths in Professional & Scientific, Property, Information and Communication, Wholesale sectors

0.1%

0.9%

7.4%

5.6%

2.5%

7.4%

10.4%

2.6%

5.9%

6.2%

2.0%

2.5%

10.6%

8.5%

3.3%

9.5%

11.1%

5.2%

1.4%

1.1%

8.4%

4.6%

1.8%

4.2%

10.2%

4.6%

6.8%

4.0%

3.8%

1.8%

8.0%

8.3%

4.6%

9.2%

12.7%

4.5%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%

1 : Agriculture, forestry & fishing (A)

2 : Mining, quarrying & utilities (B,D and E)

3 : Manufacturing (C)

4 : Construction (F)

5 : Motor trades (Part G)

6 : Wholesale (Part G)

7 : Retail (Part G)

8 : Transport & storage (inc postal) (H)

9 : Accommodation & food services (I)

10 : Information & communication (J)

11 : Financial & insurance (K)

12 : Property (L)

13 : Professional, scientific & technical (M)

14 : Business administration & support…

15 : Public administration & defence (O)

16 : Education (P)

17 : Health (Q)

18 : Arts, entertainment, recreation & other…

England Buckinghamshire

5


9

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

% of people employed in professional, scientific and technical


10

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

% of people employed in professional, scientific and technical

6


11

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

% of people employed in information and communications


12

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

Business Birth Rate 2012

7


13

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

LEP Sectors

BuckinghamshireThames Valley

Food; ICT/Film/Digital Media; Advanced Engineering; Healthcare and the Visitor Economy

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

Service Market Catchments - Retail

14

Aylesbury Vale Retail Catchments

8


15

Chiltern and South Bucks Retail Catchments


16

Wycombe Retail Catchments

9


17

Areas of Bucks that form retail catchments outside the County

Local Authority Comment Source:

DacorumZones 6, 7 and 8 link into Buckinghamshire, particularly Tring, Aylesbury and Amersham.

Dacorum Retail Study Update

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

Milton KeynesZones 24, 19 and 18 link with rural Aylesbury Vale, Aylesbury Town and Leighton Buzzard.

Milton Keynes Retail Update

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

South OxfordshireZone 1, 4 and 5 link into the Western parts of Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe.

South Oxford Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment

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

Hillingdon Beaconsfield mentioned but not mapped. South Northamptonshire Retail Study

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

Cultural Services

18

• Higher proportion of people access museums in Chiltern and South Bucks

% of people that visit museums on regular basis

10

Cultural Services

19

• Higher proportion of people also access ‘the arts’ in Chiltern and South Bucks

% of people that access ‘the arts’ on regular basis

Social Infrastructure

20

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

11

Conclusions

21

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

Conclusions

22

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

12

Questions

23

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


Appendix H Further Information Circulated following Workshop

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

1

Commuting Zones 67% containment target (excluding Central London)

Commuting

Zone

Living

and

Working

in area

Workplace

Population

Resident Population Containment

Score All workers Exc. Central London

Total

workers

%

living in

area

Total

workers

%

working

in area

Total

workers

%

working

in area

Overall

Exc.

Central

London

Oxford 249,816 301,573 82.8% 295,612 84.5% 290,451 86.0% 83.7% 84.4%

West London 1,110,056 1,564,150 71.0% 1,636,597 67.8% 1,338,889 82.9% 69.4% 76.5%

Milton Keynes 138,224 186,061 74.3% 182,351 75.8% 176,579 78.3% 75.0% 76.2%

Reading 207,194 280,119 74.0% 286,744 72.3% 277,869 74.6% 73.1% 74.3%

Watford 297,694 417,046 71.4% 437,352 68.1% 398,930 74.6% 69.7% 73.0%

Luton 108,333 146,246 74.1% 164,675 65.8% 156,342 69.3% 69.7% 71.6%

High Wycombe 77,346 110,144 70.2% 122,124 63.3% 114,768 67.4% 66.6% 68.8%

Aylesbury 36,138 51,573 70.1% 58,674 61.6% 56,633 63.8% 65.6% 66.8%

Central London 179,623 1,574,645 11.4% 236,594 75.9% - - 19.8% -


2

Migration Zones Aylesbury and High Wycombe as separate seed clusters

Analysis of data from the 2001 Census shows the strongest relationships in terms of migration flows mirror

exactly the strongest relationships in terms of commuting flows from 2011 Census data when the data is

analysed at Middle-layer Super Output Area (MSOA) level.

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

support a similar distribution.

For the Aylesbury migration zone, the data shows that:

» 52% of all movers stayed in the area; and

» 45% of movers to the area previously lived in the area.

However these figures increase to 69% and 62% respectively when long distance moves (likely to involve a

change of job or lifestyle, for example retirement) are excluded.

For the High Wycombe migration zone, the data shows that:




3

However these figures both increase to 67% when long distance moves are excluded.

Commuting Zones 67% flow target (excluding Central London)

Commuting

Zone

Living

and

Working

in area

Workplace

Population

Resident Population Containment

Score All workers Exc. Central London

Total

workers

%

living in

area

Total

workers

%

working

in area

Total

workers

%

working

in area

Overall

Exc.

Central

London

Oxford 249,816 301,573 82.8% 295,612 84.5% 290,451 86.0% 83.7% 84.4%

Milton Keynes 138,224 186,061 74.3% 182,351 75.8% 176,579 78.3% 75.0% 76.2%

Reading 207,194 280,119 74.0% 286,744 72.3% 277,869 74.6% 73.1% 74.3%

Watford 297,694 417,046 71.4% 437,352 68.1% 398,930 74.6% 69.7% 73.0%

West London 1,110,056 1,564,150 71.0% 1,636,597 67.8% 1,338,889 82.9% 69.4% 76.5%

High Wycombe 120,933 161,717 74.8% 180,798 66.9% 171,401 70.6% 70.6% 72.6%

Luton 108,333 146,246 74.1% 164,675 65.8% 156,342 69.3% 69.7% 71.6%

Central London 179,623 1,574,645 11.4% 236,594 75.9% - - 19.8% -


4

Migration Zones Aylesbury and High Wycombe as a single seed cluster

Analysis of data from the 2001 Census shows the strongest relationships in terms of migration flows once

again mirror exactly the strongest relationships in terms of commuting flows from 2011 Census data at

MSOA level.

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

support a similar distribution.

For the High Wycombe migration zone, the data shows that:



However these figures increase to 72% and 70% respectively when long distance moves (likely to involve a

change of job or lifestyle, for example retirement) are excluded.


5

Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF

Jonathan Lee | Katie Amesbury


© Copyright October 2014




Appendix I Responses to Emerging Findings

Bedford Borough Council


Luton Borough Council

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils


From: Carolyn Barnes [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury


Bedford BC - OFFICIAL-Unsecure

Kate,

My query is having looked at the outputs and additional material - what are you saying about how the

housing market areas should be defined?

What is the basis for the 67% containment and flow target ie why was this set at 67% and why is this

deemed to be an appropriate threshold?

You have demonstrated that the containment and flow approaches produce different outcomes in the

Aylesbury High Wycombe area but you have not advanced an argument or methodology for determining

which outcome is considered to be your recommendation for the HMAs for the area. What is your view on

this and how do you propose to justify it? Will the outputs include a consideration of different tiers of HMA

or not? Do you consider that it is important for FEMAs and HMAs to be aligned? What weight are you giving

to the alignment / non alignment of FEMA/HMA data in reaching a recommendation?

Thanks

Carolyn

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

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

Opinion Research Services

Carolyn Barnes

Bedford Borough Council

Borough Hall

Cauldwell St

Bedford

MK42 9AP

Ask for: Katie Amesbury

Email: [email protected]

Direct line: 01792 535 306

Web: http://www.ors.org.uk/

Date: 22nd October 2014

Dear Carolyn,

Thank you very much for your response from Bedford Borough Council to the Buckinghamshire HMA and

FEMA study being undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS).

I can confirm that the 67% containment rate was adopted based on this being the minimum threshold used

by ONS when defining Travel to Work Areas. In terms of the two options currently presented (Aylesbury

and High Wycombe either as separate areas or combined) we are currently considering which of these is

likely to be most appropriate and would welcome any views from the local planning authorities in the

surrounding areas. The study report will set out our final recommendation once we have considered all of

the evidence and any feedback received. The report will also consider the implications of higher

containment rates, but the influence of Greater London on commuting patterns will inevitably limit the

potential for other areas to achieve significantly higher levels of containment.

With regard to the relationship between HMAs and FEMAs, the respective analysis has considered these

separately. Nevertheless, given that both are influenced by commuting patterns, it is perhaps not surprising

that our emerging conclusions are similar for both types of area. We also note that the recent PAS advice

note suggests that there should be consistency between the HMAs and FEMAs and also the need to identify

“best fit” areas based on LA boundaries; so we will have regard to these points when developing the study

conclusions, but the final recommendations will depend on the evidence.

I hope that this responds to your queries, and I can confirm that a copy of the Buckinghamshire report will

be sent to you once it’s available.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE

Managing Director


ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND COMMUNITIES

Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1JD

T: 01344 352000 F: 01344 352555 Minicom: 01344 352045 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk

Katie Amesbury Research Executive Housing Research Team Sent by email to: [email protected] 13 October 2014 Dear Kate, IDENTIFYING HMAs AND FEMAs IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA Thank you for providing Bracknell Forest with the opportunity to comment on the methodology and initial findings of the HMAs and FEMAs for Buckinghamshire. Bracknell Forest has the following comments to make: Housing Market Areas (HMAs) The starting point for identifying HMAs is to consider a broad variety of datasets, and undertake multivariate analysis of these. The NPPG makes it clear that “no single source of information on needs will be comprehensive in identifying the appropriate assessment area; careful consideration should be given to the appropriateness of each source of information and how they relate to one another.” The NPPG states that the three different sources of information are:

House prices and rates of change in house prices

Household migration and search patterns

Contextual data (e.g. travel to work areas). The Buckinghamshire methodology has started with contextual data as a base and proposes that house price data and migration is not a defining step but is corroborative and will be used to modify the HMAs. The NPPG suggests that these three separate sources of information are the starting point, and should be analysed to determine the potential HMAs they generate. Once this has been undertaken, then the most suitable HMAs should emerge. Therefore, whilst commuting flow data is an important component when identifying a HMA, migration and house price data are also key in establishing a HMA and should not form secondary components of consideration. The emerging analysis based on commuting flow data suggests that London will affect the HMAs in Buckinghamshire. The ‘seed points’ require London to be removed from the analysis, in order to gain a self-containment rate of 67% to show ‘local’ HMAs. London is considered to have its own unique housing market area, with sub-market


ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND COMMUNITIES

Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1JD

T: 01344 352000 F: 01344 352555 Minicom: 01344 352045 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk

areas within, therefore its removal from the analysis could be considered appropriate in order to determine local HMAs in Buckinghamshire. It should be noted that when defining travel to work areas, the Office of National Statistics seeks a self-containment rate of 75%, unless there is a working population in excess of 25,000 then self-containment as low as 67% can be accepted. The initial findings have only assessed as high as 67% and have not concluded if the HMAs would change at this higher self-containment rate. Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMAs) Similarly to HMAs, to define FEMAs there is a requirement to assess a variety of factors, one of which is travel to work areas or clusters of commuting flows. The Buckinghamshire methodology starting point of using commuting data is not the best practice set out the NPPG. All matters should be considered equally, and then a recommendation formed on the most suitable FEMA(s) the evidence supports. Matters such as the commercial property market and business clustering should also be analysed. As with HMAs, it has not been demonstrated if self-containment rates of above 67% alter the labour market areas based on commuting data. The emerging findings suggest that South Bucks could have strong FEMA links with parts of Berkshire. As such, the relevant Local Authorities should be consulted before the results are finalised. Other considerations An element of analysis that neither the HMA or FEMA methodologies include is an evaluation of existing identified HMAs and FEMAs in the surrounding area. Bracknell Forest Council intends to embark on similar work in the near future, having recently sought quotes for work on identifying the FEMA, and having agreed to work with certain other Berkshire Authorities on a joint HMA. At the workshop, a separate meeting was offered to discuss this work. Whilst this may not be appropriate at this stage, Bracknell Forest would like to be kept informed of progress on identifying both the Bucks HMAs and FEMAs. Yours sincerely,

Max Baker (Head of Spatial Policy)




Max Baker

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Time Square

Market Street

Bracknell

Berkshire

RG12 1JD



Direct line: 01792 535 306



Dear Max Baker,

Thank you very much for the joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils to the

Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA study being undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS).

The points made in your response will be considered when determining final outputs for the study. As

requested, we will keep you up to date with regard to any future progress on identifying the

Buckinghamshire HMAs and FEMAs and I can confirm that a copy of the Buckinghamshire report will be

sent to you once it’s available.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE

Managing Director



From: Owen, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury

Cc: Troy Hayes


Hi Katie,

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

HMA - as you may know ORS have completed Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA 2014 and the HMA for Luton and Central Beds currently defines a small part of AVDC within it - however, it would be helpful to clarify whether you foresee anything changing whether it be new because of new TTWA information or different methodology - that is likely to change this in your work? If so Luton would be interested to know the reasons.

FEMA - I note from the methodology how the TTWA and commuting data will be used - but there is also reference to the NPPG indicators e.g. flow of goods and services and transport network - I would encourage the use of such commercial and supply chain information whether quantitative or qualitative in particular because of Luton's busy and growing airport (with recent planning permission to expand to 18mppa and M1 J10a improvement underway) which has a regional/sub regional impact not only in terms of travel to work but also business aviation as well as passengers - it would be helpful to see whether you think this is significant for your study area.

I will not be attending the meeting on Monday but would be happy for these matters to be circulated and

discussed at the meeting and would be grateful for any minutes and outcome of the meeting including any

further agenda papers for meetings.

Rgs

Kevin

From: Owen, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Katie Amesbury

Cc: Hayes, Troy; Troy Hayes


Dear Katie - attached are my earlier email comments sent admittedly fairly late in the day but before the

meeting on the 29th Sept and I would like some feedback on the questions/points I've raised as I've not

received any yet.

Recap

HMA - am I correct in ascertaining that the work now suggests that there is no overlap between Luton's HMA and Aylesbury Vale's administrative area? I would very much appreciate an explanation why this may be so given the recent Luton and Central Bedfordshire joint SHMA 2014 Refresh ORS completed for us in June this year? Does it reflect the latest TTWA intelligence?

FEMA - has there been any analysis of the economic influence of London Luton Airport on the sub region affecting your study area e.g. commuting, passengers, investment and flow of goods and supply chain?

Rgs

Kevin




Kevin Owen

Team Leader – Local Plans

Luton Borough Council

Town Hall

Luton

LU1 2BQ



Direct line: 01792 535 306


Date: 31st October 2014

Dear Kevin,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this.

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

The first is that the Bucks work is based on 2011 data whereas the Luton/CB work was based on 2001 data

– so there may be real changes in the patterns.

The second is that the 2011 data is currently only published at Middle-layer Super Output Area (MSOA)

geography, whereas the 2001 data is published at Census Output Area (COA). The MSOA “building blocks”

are much bigger than COAs, so if some COAs in an MSOA had stronger links to Luton but the rest of the

COAs in the same MSOA had stronger links to somewhere elsewhere (e.g. Aylesbury) then the majority

would determine the outcome for the whole MSOA. This is a more likely reason for the results differing, as

it was only a small area in AV that was counted in the Luton HMA.

Flow data from the 2011 Census will be published at COA level at some point in the future (possibly

November or December, but these dates have been already put back so I wouldn’t place much weight on

this timetable either). When it is published, we will review the detailed boundaries for the various HMAs

that we have defined; so some of AV may still have stronger links with Luton HMA when they are

considered at a more fine-grained geography.

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

FEMA.

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE

Managing Director



From: Jennifer Heaton [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 10 November 2014 09:17

To: Katie Amesbury

Cc: Ian Bellinger

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

Dear Katie,

Thank you very much for the attached documents detailing the emerging findings from the

Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study. Apologises for

not feeding back comments earlier, we have been in the process of collecting data sets to inform this

discussion, to allow us to provide meaningful feedback.

Reading through the information provided has generated a number of observations, which we would

appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you and officers from the Buckinghamshire districts. These are

outlined below.

We would also be grateful if you could expand on your next steps of engagement and your anticipated

timescales for the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA work going forward.

We look forward to working with you,

Yours faithfully,

Jennifer Heaton

Planning Research Officer, & Statistical Liaison Officer

Planning Services

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

Tel: 01628 796066

[email protected]

Observations on emerging findings from Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA work:

Whilst detailed analysis has been done of the 2011 Census commuting data and 2001 Migration data at low level geographies, what other datasets have been assessed? The National Planning Policy Guidance suggests a range of datasets which should be considered when identifying the area over which housing and economic development should be assessed. E.g. house prices and affordability, contextual data.

Whilst the technique of identifying housing and employment “seeds” and repeatedly conglomerating them to form travel to work areas is one way of analysing the Commuting and Migration data, it is a method where small changes in methodology can have significant changes in the resulting output, especially in areas exhibiting low levels of containment. E.g. the choice and size of the original seeds, the geography at which the analysis is performed, what constraints are applied, whether iterations can undo earlier groupings to optimise the final allocations.



Was the Census data also analysed in its “raw” form and at different geographies e.g. if an urban area sitting on a boundary has almost equal pull in two directions, what weight should be given to its suggested allocation to a HMA? What consideration was taken of the statistical significance of flows across suggested boundaries (e.g. as shown on the ONS website http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc193/index.html?) When ONS used the 2001 Census ward level data to create TTWAs, the London TTWA was smaller than when the same data was used at LSOA level. The NHPAU CURDS study chose to analyse the same data at Census ward level and produced a different set of HMAs. Has the sensitivity of the work to the building block geography been tested?

In your presentation you commented that the seeds coalescence analyses have been run through to higher containments (e.g. 75% for the commuting and migration data at supply and demand side?) If so, can this be shared as part of the data analysis to be considered?

How relevant is historical data and analysis such as the 2001 Census data compared to more recent data sets e.g. the ONS Internal Migration Estimates data series based on administrative datasets (e.g. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc25/index.html)?

Analysis of previous HMA work suggests there are different levels of HMA ranging from those defined at the strategic sub-regional level to those reflecting local housing market areas, all of which can cross local authority boundaries. The Duty to Cooperate requires local authorities to cooperate on important strategic issues, such as housing delivery and economic growth at the Framework / Strategic Housing Market Area and Functional Economic Area, where as the Local Market Areas inform detailed spatial planning considerations. The NHPAU CURDS work used commuting data to define the Strategic HMAs, then migration data (at a lower level of self-containment) to define local HMAs, then used standardised house prices to refine the boundaries. How much weight did the review of previous analysis of Housing Market Areas give to the different levels of HMA geographies? Is the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA work likely to define a hierarchy of geographies?

When looking at the FEMA background data, where employers in industry sectors known to co-locate represent a high percentage of the workers for the area, it is important to consider where the jobs are located (e.g. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/LQ/Locationquotients.html) and where the workers who work in that industry live (https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs605ew), to better understand the commuting patterns. For example, looking at the Professional, scientific and technical activities sector and the Information and Communication sector, there appears to be a concentration to the West of London but it extends out to the west of Oxfordshire.

Smaller geographical contextual data such as retail, school and cultural facilities catchments may be more relevant to the definition of sub-areas within the framework HMA and FEMA rather than the definition of the strategic geographies.

What consideration has been given to house price data e.g. Land Registry House Price Index changes, price paid data, CLG lower quartile house price to earning ratios, Valuation Office monthly rental data?

Have trends in Employment been taken into consideration e.g. where industry sectors are growing or shrinking? (e.g. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc198/index.html)

Whilst the analysis started with 2011 Census urban areas, were the 2011 Census Built-up areas used to sense-check the results of the analysis? (https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/Docs/Boundaries/Built-up_areas_(E+W)_Mar_2011_Boundaries_(Generalised_Grid).zip)

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc193/index.html


http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/LQ/Locationquotients.html

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs605ew


https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/Docs/Boundaries/Built-up_areas_(E+W)_Mar_2011_Boundaries_(Generalised_Grid).zip)

https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/Docs/Boundaries/Built-up_areas_(E+W)_Mar_2011_Boundaries_(Generalised_Grid).zip)


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

Notes of Meeting with council officers from Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Slough

16th January 2015, 2.00pm

Attendees

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues regarding Evidence and Conclusions

PS: Do the Buckinghamshire authorities agree?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH: Are there views on overlapping?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

JH: What about the sectorial changes in Wycombe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS: The Surrey fit is going to be okay.

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

London

JH: Is it worth discussing the London element?

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

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

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

IB: Housing needs will also need to be considered.

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


Update on Berkshire HMA

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

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

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

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

Further Evidence

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

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

Buckinghamshire Authorities SHMA and FEMA Studies Thank you for engaging Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils with respect to the Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA studies. This response is a joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede who are currently working together on a joint SHMA study. Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils are committed to working with authorities outside of their area and welcome the opportunity to engage in the Bucks HMA and FEMA study. We would also like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding to your request for comments. It should be noted however that the comments made in this response are at officer level only and as such, Runnymede and Spelthorne Borough Councils reserve the right to raise any further issues at any subsequent Examination if Members of either Council wish to do so. Further to the e-mail dated 10th September 2014 from ORS which attached the draft HMA & FEMA methodology and the stakeholder event held on 29th September 2014 at High Wycombe, we have the following comments to make: - HMA The proposed approach (dated September 2014) to identify housing market areas (HMAs) appears to be in line with advice in the Planning Practice Guide on Housing and Economic Needs Assessments. The approach appears to consider travel to work areas, migration flows and house prices/house price change to determine a functional HMA as suggested by the PPG. It is noted that the proposed approach will determine functional HMAs first and then consider the ‘best fit’ based on local planning authority boundaries. Spelthorne & Runnymede agree that this approach is a pragmatic solution whilst recognising that discussions under the Duty to Co-operate will need to take place with all authorities falling within the functional HMA. As already indicated Spelthorne & Runnymede are currently undertaking a joint SHMA, which at the time of writing is still considering the extent of the HMA. Early indications from the draft Stage 1 Report is that Spelthorne/Runnymede is a localised HMA (with some overlap into neighbouring areas) which sits within the context of a wider HMA. South Bucks District Council has been engaged in this process. It is noted that the ‘Identified Areas’ PDF attached to the e-mail sent by ORS on the 10th October, shows that at a 67% containment target or flow rate, areas of South Bucks are located within a West London zone which may also include Spelthorne and possibly Runnymede. The ‘Identified Areas’ PDF also shows that this zone is exactly the same for migration flows. There is no indication at this time whether these zones constitute the ‘functional HMA’ and if so whether this can be disaggregated down further into

more localised HMAs. Spelthorne & Runnymede will be interested to see the results of this in due course. In the meantime Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils would urge ORS to consider the Spelthorne/Runnymede SHMA and any other neighbouring SHMAs to ensure consistency in defining the wider HMA. In this respect Officers at Spelthorne/Runnymede would be happy to share the work undertaken so far on the draft Stage 1 Report and/or answer any questions you may have in this respect. FEMA Spelthorne & Runnymede Borough Councils have no comment to make with respect to the FEMA methodology as it appears to follow guidance set out in the PPG. It should be noted that Runnymede have begun assessing their possible FEMA (which may include Spelthorne) and as such the two authorities would wish to be kept informed of the work undertaken for the Buckinghamshire authorities. If you have any queries regarding the comments set out in this response or would like more information on the work we are doing, please do not hesitate to contact the Officers below. Yours sincerely John Devonshire, 01784 446345 [email protected] Babatunde Adebutu, 01932 425274 [email protected] Georgina Pacey, 01932 425248 [email protected]







John Devonshire

Spelthorne Borough Council

Council Offices

Knowle Green

Staines-upon-Thames

TW18 1XB



Direct line: 01792 535 306



Dear John Devonshire,

Thank you very much for the joint response from Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils to the

Buckinghamshire HMA and FEMA study being undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS).

We note that the response is only provided at officer level and understand that both Councils reserve the

right to raise any further issues at any subsequent Examination should Members of either Council wish to

do so. Nevertheless, the Buckinghamshire councils are keen to agree the Housing Market Area boundaries

with other planning authorities in the surrounding area, therefore we would be grateful if you could

identify if any concerns are likely to emerge at a later stage.

We would be grateful if you could forward a copy of the draft Stage 1 report of the joint Spelthorne and

Runnymede SHMA to Katie Amesbury at [email protected] and we will seek to ensure

consistency with the emerging outputs as far as possible.

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

Yours sincerely

JONATHAN LEE

Managing Director




Appendix J Responses to the Report of Findings Consultation Draft


Cherwell District Council


Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Spelthorne and Runnymede Borough Councils


Bucks Advantage on behalf of Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP


From: Sue Scott [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 16 February 2015 16:06

To: Jonathan Lee

Subject: UNRESTRICTED: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic

Market Area Study

Dear Jonathan,

I apologise for not having responded to your e-mail at an earlier stage, but, as you will be aware, we are at

a difficult stage at the moment as our SHMA work (including defining the HMA) has only just begun. We

also have consultants working on defining the FEA within which Bracknell Forest sits. The latter is at a

slightly more advanced stage.

Whilst I have not looked at your report in detail, my initial reaction is one of surprise in terms of the

suggestion that South Bucks should be in a Berkshire HMA and FEMA that includes Bracknell Forest as I

would not have thought that there would have been a strong relationship between the 2 of us or with

some of our surrounding Authorities.

We would like to study the draft report a little further but could you let us know whether or not there are

any further opportunities to feed into the process.

Regards

Sue Scott

Development Plan Team Leader

Spatial Policy

01344 351181


From: Jonathan Lee


To: 'Sue Scott'

Subject: RE: UNRESTRICTED: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic

Market Area Study

Dear Sue

Thank you for your email, and I'm sorry that you haven't yet had chance to study the Buckinghamshire

report. Given that it's been four weeks since the consultation draft was published and two weeks since the

date for feedback, we are now close to finalising the document - but the Buckinghamshire Councils are

keen to make sure that the study does take on board and respond to any concerns, so if you could let us

have any comments by the end of the week (or next Monday at the very latest) then we will make sure that

these are properly considered.

With regard to your concerns about the conclusions for South Bucks, please accept my assurance that this

is based on the evidence available that is presented in the report (see pages 93-96 in particular).

It is also perhaps worth noting that the previous Berkshire SHMA identified that South Bucks should be

considered alongside Slough and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead as an area that they called

"East Berkshire Plus"; whilst Bracknell Forest and the remaining Berkshire authorities, together with part of

South Oxfordshire, formed an area called "West Central Berkshire" (see page 23). That conclusion is

consistent with our findings for the Buckinghamshire study (albeit that our analysis is based on more recent

data) where we also identify these two separate areas (see page 38, figure 21 at 72% containment) -

although our final areas are based on higher levels of self-containment, which lead to a single HMA

covering the whole of Berkshire together with South Bucks south of the M40.

As part of the Buckinghamshire study, we did meet with officers from Royal Borough of Windsor and

Maidenhead and Slough in January to discuss the relationship between their respective areas and South

Bucks, and their subsequent feedback does not raise any concerns about the study conclusions. They also

noted that the Berkshire SHMA is currently in its early stages and the relevant HMA boundaries are being

considered. We have already discussed the conclusions from the Buckinghamshire study with Chris

Cobbold (who is working on the current Berkshire SHMA) and whilst they had yet to undertake their

analysis of the latest data when we spoke, he was anticipating a likely relationship with South Bucks given

the conclusions of the previous Berkshire SHMA and his involvement in that work.

I hope that this additional information and signposting of the most relevant parts of the report is helpful,

but if you would like to discuss any of these issues further then please don't hesitate to get in touch. In the

meantime, if you would like us to take account of any feedback then we would be most grateful if this

could be provided as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Jonathan

JONATHAN LEE | Managing Director | 01792 535320 | [email protected]





From: Sue Scott [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Jonathan Lee

Cc: Max Baker

Subject: UNRESTRICTED: RE: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic

Market Area Study

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your response to this matter. I am pleased to hear that you have already discussed the

conclusions from the Buckinghamshire study with Chris Cobbold.

We have been looking at the draft document and have concluded that the evidence presented indicates

that South Bucks is clearly split with the northern part which contains the main town of Beaconsfield having

stronger links with Buckinghamshire and the southern part being more closely connected with Berkshire

(although the evidence appears to be mixed depending on which indicators you use). It seems to be

suggested that the inclusion of South Bucks could go either way, but greatest weight has been given to

labour market analysis, commuting and migration. However. Aylesbury Vale is also clearly split and yet this

is included apparently due to a significant proportion of the population being within the Central Bucks

element. Could you assure us that a consistent approach has been taken?

We are also wondering whether or not there has been a review of any possible significant areas of change

in Buckinghamshire which might be relevant.

Regards,

Sue


From: Jonathan Lee


To: 'Sue Scott'

Cc: Max Baker

Subject: RE: UNRESTRICTED: RE: Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic

Market Area Study

Dear Sue

Thanks for your email.

South Bucks is clearly divided between the Central Bucks area (to the north) and the Slough/Maidenhead

area (to the south), and this is recognised in the report. In terms of the key factors, the southern part has

the largest population and the LA-LA commuting and migration patterns both show stronger linkages to the

Berkshire authorities.

Aylesbury Vale is also divided: but the split covers four different areas, with the Central Bucks area covering

around two-thirds of the population and the other areas (Milton Keynes, Oxford and Watford/Luton) when

combined only covering a third of the population. LA-LA commuting is divided between the rest of Bucks,

eastern Oxfordshire, Milton Keynes and London (with gross commuter flows totalling 9,700, 9,400, 7,700

and 6,800 respectively); so the strongest linkages are with the other Bucks LAs. Similarly, LA-LA migration is

divided but the strongest linkages are with the other Bucks LAs.

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

and Aylesbury Vale.

With regard to future change, the FEMA analysis does consider planned infrastructure improvement (such

as East-West rail) but there was nothing that affected the final conclusions in relation to the proposed "best

fit" groupings.

We are in the process of finalising discussions with stakeholders following feedback, so if you do have any

further comments then please let us know.

Kind regards

Jonathan

1

Strategic Planning & the Economy

Adrian Colwell – Head of Strategic Planning & the Economy

Jonathan Lee Opinion Research Services The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF

Bodicote House Bodicote Banbury Oxfordshire OX15 4AA

www.cherwell.gov.uk

Please ask for: Adrian Colwell Direct Dial: 01295 227985

Email: [email protected] Our Ref: Buckinghamshire

2 February 2015

Dear Mr Lee, Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Draft Report Consultation

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

our comments below.

Transport Connectivity This section should make reference to the Government’s Road Investment Strategy (December 2014) which sets out a long-term vision for motorways and major roads to improve the network and create better roads for users. In particular it looks to improve the connection between Oxford and Cambridge by creating an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, which would create a high-quality link between the two cities, via Bedford and Milton Keynes. Reference should also be made on High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) as the Hybrid Bill for Phase 1 of HS2 proposes a route that passes through Aylesbury, Waddesdon, Quainton, Calvert and Twyford. The village of Steeple Claydon is also an area proposed for a maintenance depot which will serve the HS2 line. Expected impact of East West Rail It will be helpful to include some text on how the East West Rail could help inform new growth locations within the Aylesbury district and what implications this could have on Cherwell district. Future Growth and Impact on Travel Demand Aylesbury Vale borders Cherwell District to the east which is within reasonable distance to Bicester. Bicester is one of the main areas for growth at Cherwell. The Submission Local Plan (as proposed to be modified) includes over 10,000 homes at Bicester (2011-2031). The designation of Bicester as a Garden Town by Government provides further opportunities including additional homes, employment uses, a garden park, a strategic rail-freight site and a new M40 junction to the south of Junction 9. The potential new M40 junction south of Junction 9 borders Aylesbury Vale which looks to connect through Arncott on to the A43 and on to Bicester to serve the area and

2

strategic rail-freight site. This will have implications on the strategic road networks in the area to the north and south of the potential junction. Therefore it is important to consider the planned growth expected at Bicester as it is likely to have an impact on travelling patterns within the Buckinghamshire area in particular Aylesbury district. Duty to Cooperate This section could be expanded to cover how the Duty to Cooperate has been undertaken in a wider context and how this could be continued either as part of this process or other strategic planning related work; in particular showing how this process and the engagement with neighbouring Councils and has helped refine the consideration of issues and proposed outcomes. We consider that now would be a good opportunity for Cherwell District, Aylesbury Vale District and Buckinghamshire County Councils to meet and discuss the Garden Town proposals at Bicester. Bicester is expecting to accommodate a high level of growth which will have implications on the strategic A41 route, and the potential new M40 junction south of junction 9 will also present a major opportunity for the supporting growth of the areas around Aylesbury and the rest of the Buckinghamshire study area. Housing Market Areas We acknowledge that containment issues have been addressed as part of this study however more could be considered in relation to the neighbouring authorities. Planned growth at Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Luton is worth highlighting. LEP Sector Priorities It is good to see that the study has considered the priorities of the Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP and the SEMLEP which Cherwell District is part of and Aylesbury District is too. However we feel that it will be useful to also make reference to the neighbouring Oxfordshire LEP which borders Buckinghamshire. Advanced Engineering Paragraph 5.44 - Needs correcting as the Motorsport Valley is located around Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, not Oxford and Northampton which is currently referenced. Paragraph 5.44 - The final sentence could be expanded to say that Silverstone borders Northamptonshire where most of the development is taking place. Visitor Economy This appears to be too brief considering the area contains some of the most visited sites such as the National Trust gardens at Stowe, the Chilterns and Waddesdon. Trends and investments in the area should be considered so that the analysis could take this into account when defining FEMAs. Supply Chain Data Paragraph 5.55 – The impact of the University Technical College at Aylesbury which opened in September 2013 is worth referencing in this paragraph. Service Market for Consumers The study has already identified authorities outside of Buckinghamshire who have prepared a retail study however it does not explain what the impacts are of the major retail centres such as Milton Keynes and Oxford. The section needs to consider retail leakage which Aylesbury Vale and others experience. Other Public Services We feel that it is particularly important to make reference to the projected public sector changes as budget cuts necessitate major service changes and some consideration of how this might affect a range of services and employment patterns. General

3

There are still some outstanding data from the 2011 Census to be released such as data at parish/ward level. Would the study be affected by these or would it be considered once this data is released? Thank you once again for giving us the opportunity to comment on the draft report of findings and

we hope that the above points are useful. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of

the above in detail please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Colwell Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy


From: Jorn Peters [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Jonathan Lee

Cc: Elliot Kemp; John Lett; Gerard Burgess; Jennifer Peters


Dear Jonathan

Thank you for your email of 22 January consulting the Mayor of London on the Housing Market Area &

Functional Economic Market Area Study – Study Report Consultation Draft.

The report covers supply chain analysis, however, it could benefit from including some analysis of logistics

with regard to the functional relationships of Buckinghamshire based logistics serving London and the

wider South East.

This specific comment is in addition to the points raised earlier in the preparation process of your Study by

my colleague Darren Richards – please see attached his e-mail of 17 Sept 2014.

Kind regards

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

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



From: Ian Bellinger [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Jonathan Lee

Cc: Jennifer Heaton

Subject: Bucks HMA and FEMA study

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area &

Functional Economic Market Area Study Report. It is a clear and comprehensive report covering the

evidence from commuting flows, migration flows and market data informing the definition of strategic

housing market areas, local housing market areas and functional economic areas, in what is a complex

interrelated area.

As you are aware, the Berkshire local authorities have jointly commissioned a Strategic Housing Market

Assessment which will include consideration of the relevant housing market area(s). This study will

hopefully deliver draft results on the recommended geography in Spring 2015. This will allow officers to

provide a more informed response to the Buckinghamshire results in due course. We have drawn your

report to the attention of the appointed consultant. The Berkshire local authorities have not commissioned

a joint study of the Functional Economic Market Area although it is noted that the PAS Technical advice

note suggesting HMAs and functional economic areas would be expected to be geographically similar.

Your report comments that regardless of the final groupings, Chiltern and Wycombe will need to maintain

dialogue with Reading, Slough and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead; South Bucks will need

to maintain dialogue with the other Buckinghamshire districts, and all districts will need to maintain

dialogue with the boroughs to the West of London as well as the Mayor of London through the Greater

London Authority. This is something that we support and we welcome the opportunity to continue to

cooperate on strategic issues.

Please note that this feedback is at officer level only, and reflects the current progress Berkshire local

authorities have made to define strategic geographies. As this work develops, it is envisaged that

continued discussions with Buckinghamshire authorities will be required, including both at officer and

member levels.

Kind regards, Ian.

Ian Bellinger, Principal Planning Officer (Planning Policy)

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1RF.

T: 01628 796634 E: [email protected]


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

6th February 2015 Jonathan Lee Opinion Research Services The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF By email only to: [email protected] Dear Mr Lee Buckinghamshire Councils: Housing Market Area & Functional Economic Market Area Study – Study Report Consultation Draft

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yours sincerely G. Pacey

GEORGINA PACEY PRINCIPAL PLANNING OFFICER-POLICY AND STRATEGY TEAM

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



From: Colin Staves [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Jonathan Lee

Cc: 'Andy Darcy (SNC)'


Dear Jonathan

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the draft study. We are pleased to note that the

study reflects the comments that we made on the original methodology and overall we are content with

the findings. It would be helpful if you could let the JPU and South Northamptonshire Council know when

the final report is published.

Kind regards

Colin

Colin Staves

Principal Spatial Planner


The Guildhall, St Giles Square, Northampton NN1 1DE

Tel: 01604 838678 Fax: 01604 838543




From: Paul McKim [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Jonathan Lee

Cc: Jim Sims; Richard Harrington


Jonathan

Thank you for an opportunity to comment on the Draft Report, please see below which are comments sent

on behalf of Richard Harrington Chief Executive Officer BTV LEP, apologies for the delay.

Firstly we would say the report is thorough in its analysis of economic statistics and existing context in

considering what the Central Bucks HMA and FEMA should be. However from a TVB LEP perspective we

would say the report is limited to existing economic context and does not consider future growth

opportunities that will arise through the implementation of the Buckinghamshire Strategic Economic Plan.

In some ways the Report is self fulfilling in its pursuit to exclude South Bucks from the HMA which could

lead the reader to raise an questions of whether that is an intention from the outset that leads to the ultimate

conclusion, as to all intents and purposes the statistical and context analysis would appear to support the

ultimate conclusion for the Central Bucks HMA and FEMA to consist of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and

Wycombe. Additional evidential critical analysis and consideration of reasonable alternatives would be

helpful- this may be embedded in the statistical analysis.

Our main and substantive comment would be the Report relies on the existing or extant economic

characteristics of the area, especially in regards to the economy and existing markets in that there is no

detailed analysis of the BTVSEP and what that would mean for the HMA or FEMA in terms of future

economic and housing growth. This is a potential weakness as guidance is clear around the need to plan for

growth. In this context the report limits itself to a very high level rehearsal of LEP priority areas and what

they mean in terms of existing linkages and impacts.

Whilst this may not be an issue at this stage as the primary reason being is to define the HMA/FEMA to

enable future collaboration on housing and economic evidence, it is important to ensure this does not set

the tone and lead later evidence which then ignores the potential or opportunities for economic growth and

what that may mean for assessing the need for and linkages between jobs and homes mix and tenure. In

essence, the report appears to ask ‘what do we have now’ rather than asking ‘what do we want in the future’

whilst has ever been the problem with the need to evidence gather ahead of preparing strategy. But, in the

interests of the LEP and considering the intentions of paragraph 160 of the Framework Report we’d might

have expected to see more analysis of existing business needs and economic forecasting linked to scenario

planning and respective changes in markets and sectors at a national and sub regional level.

The Report does briefly rehearse transportation investment, however we do not concur with the findings of

the Report that Buckinghamshire is well connected. Connectivity to and through Buckinghamshire is

congested, this is a strategic weakness particularly in relation to sustainable and public transportation.

With regard to the method in defining FEMAs: The report appears to suggest that the primary test for

defining a FEMA is travel to work (and tests of self containment) but when it comes to commenting on the

FEMAs the report identifies labour force characteristics (retail catchment, property markets, and distinct

sectoral strengths) as reasons why a particular area may be a FEMA. This is interesting, not least for the sub

areas as it restricts itself to not only ‘what is there’ rather than ‘what is its potential ’ but also because it does

not recognise the need for strengthening a balanced and diverse labour market area.



This could be a distinct issue if there is structural failure in an area and it is too small and too isolated a

FEMA for future economic programmes and funding packages which could have a limited effect in a

outcome/VFM context. Any scope for flexibility, re-ordering of priorities and funding programmes and

movement of projects between FEMAs could be restricted by such an approach and could be issues of

consistency between sub FEMA strategies as future problems should be tackled under Duty to Co-operate. It

could also result in local impacts not warranting sufficient benefits as part of an business case and/our

economic appraisal for external interventions. In this case it maybe better not to seek sub-FEMA and not to

prepare strategy or programmes that rely on or reflect them, rather promote a more flexible joined up

response across the FEMA as a whole.

The flip side to this above is that distinct, focused sub-FEMAs may allow for specific, focussed strategies and

funding programmes. Ultimately, a question for those who administer the funding and intervention strategy

as to the measurement of impacts and benefits when considering how they wish to move forward in

demonstrating VFM and economic benefits.

Findings on FEMAs: The pre-existing FEMAs are generally recommended for retention although the South

Bucks (Beaconsfield) element of the FEMA is recommended for exclusion from Central Bucks FEMA. This

provides for a consistent HMA/FEMA area, however, the Report also considers the Central Bucks FEMA to

be made up of two ‘distinct’ sub areas. This type of drilling down may not be helpful for the reasons above.

In summary;

The Report appears to present a defensible case for defining Central Bucks HMA/FEMA, subject to

the comments raised above concerning the question of scale, flexibility, impacts, benefits and VFM

in assessing future investment and interventions.

The Report reflects existing circumstances rather than economic potential or opportunities-

depending on the application of FEMAs and direction of travel for economic strategies there may be

a risk that the FEMAs and sub FEMAs are too closely defined around single sectors and are too

localised as to be able achieve structural change.

The definition of FEMAs may also limit ability to respond to economic opportunities flexibly and

creatively. Although this will depend on how the definition of the Central HMA/FEMA will presumably

lead to evidence being prepared for the number of homes and assessment of jobs growth in that

light. This could be important if the ultimate identification is to rely on existing economic

circumstances (including labour supply) rather than looking at the opportunities to drive economic

growth and the number and types of jobs to achieve that and the mix and tenure homes required in

the HMA to support growth.

I trust you find these comments useful.

Regards

Paul McKim

Project Manager

The Saunderton Estate,

Wycombe Road,

Saunderton

HP14 4BF


Appendix K Schedule of Changes to the Final Report of Findings

Respondent Comment Response Change

Cherwell DC Transport Connectivity

This section should make reference to the

Government’s Road Investment Strategy

(December 2014) which sets out a long-

term vision for motorways and major roads

to improve the network and create better

roads for users. In particular it looks to

improve the connection between Oxford

and Cambridge by creating an Oxford to

Cambridge Expressway, which would

create a high-quality link between the two

cities, via Bedford and Milton Keynes.

Agreed. Add text as

suggested

(see Para 5.15).

Cherwell DC Transport Connectivity

Reference should also be made on High

Speed Rail 2 (HS2) as the Hybrid Bill for

Phase 1 of HS2 proposes a route that

passes through Aylesbury, Waddesdon,

Quainton, Calvert and Twyford. The village

of Steeple Claydon is also an area proposed

for a maintenance depot which will serve

the HS2 line.

HS2 will pass through Aylesbury (there will

not be any stations), so will not have an

impact on transport connectivity for the

area. As such no impact on the FEMA is

envisaged as a result of HS2. The addition

of a maintenance depot at Steeple Claydon

could provide some maintenance jobs in

the district, but this is not anticipated to

have an impact on the FEMA.

No change.

Cherwell DC Expected impact of East West Rail

It will be helpful to include some text on

how the East West Rail could help inform

new growth locations within the Aylesbury

district and what implications this could

have on Cherwell district.

Agree to include some text on the impact

of East West rail on growth in Aylesbury.

However, the implications that this will

have on Cherwell are unknown.

Add text

(see Para 5.17).

Cherwell DC Future Growth and Impact on Travel

Demand

Aylesbury Vale borders Cherwell District to

the east which is within reasonable

distance to Bicester. Bicester is one of the

main areas for growth at Cherwell. The

Submission Local Plan (as proposed to be

modified) includes over 10,000 homes at

Bicester (2011-2031). The designation of

Bicester as a Garden Town by Government

provides further opportunities including

additional homes, employment uses, a

garden park, a strategic rail-freight site and

a new M40 junction to the south of

Junction 9. The potential new M40 junction

south of Junction 9 borders Aylesbury Vale

which looks to connect through Arncott on

to the A43 and on to Bicester to serve the

The Growth planned at Bicester potentially

could have the impact of attracting people

to work in Bicester Garden Town (BGT)

depending on the make-up and level of

employment generating uses developed.

Equally new residents of BGT could

realistically also work in Milton Keynes,

London, Oxford, Banbury as well as in the

Bucks FEMA. It is assumed that a Garden

Town should be planned with a level of

self-containment in mind and this would

impact on the commuting patterns and the

economic geography of Cherwell and the

wider area. The implications / impacts of

BGT will need careful consideration and

cooperation between the adjoining

authorities and there is likely to be a need

for a study in its own right to consider the

implications of this strategic housing

No change.



area and strategic rail-freight site. This will

have implications on the strategic road

networks in the area to the north and

south of the potential junction. Therefore

it is important to consider the planned

growth expected at Bicester as it is likely to

have an impact on travelling patterns

within the Buckinghamshire area in

particular Aylesbury district.

development, it is not something that can

be incorporated in this study.

Cherwell DC Duty to Cooperate

This section could be expanded to cover

how the Duty to Cooperate has been

undertaken in a wider context and how

this could be continued either as part of

this process or other strategic planning

related work; in particular showing how

this process and the engagement with

neighbouring Councils and has helped

refine the consideration of issues and

proposed outcomes.

Further information about the stakeholder

engagement has been added to the report;

however this only concerns the Duty to

Cooperate activities associated with this

study.

Further details

added to

chapter 6.

Cherwell DC Housing Market Areas

We acknowledge that containment issues

have been addressed as part of this study

however more could be considered in

relation to the neighbouring authorities.

Planned growth at Milton Keynes,

Oxfordshire and Luton is worth

highlighting.

We do not believe that planned growth at

Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire or Luton would

change the study conclusions about the

most appropriate housing market areas for

the Buckinghamshire Councils.

No change.

Cherwell DC LEP Sector Priorities

It is good to see that the study has

considered the priorities of the

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP and

the SEMLEP which Cherwell District is part

of and Aylesbury District is too. However

we feel that it will be useful to also make

reference to the neighbouring Oxfordshire

LEP which borders Buckinghamshire.

Agreed. Add Oxfordshire

and other

neighbouring

LEP priorities to

Figure 41.

Cherwell DC Advanced Engineering

Paragraph 5.44 - Needs correcting as the

Motorsport Valley is located around

Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and

Warwickshire, not Oxford and

Northampton which is currently

referenced.

Paragraph 5.44 - The final sentence could

be expanded to say that Silverstone

borders Northamptonshire where most of

the development is taking place.

Agreed. Amended as

suggested (see

para 5.45).

Cherwell DC Visitor Economy

This appears to be too brief considering the

area contains some of the most visited

sites such as the National Trust gardens at

Stowe, the Chilterns and Waddesdon.

The Visitor economy does not represent a

large part of the Buckinghamshire

Economy, and is unlikely to be significantly

impacting on the economic geography of

Buckinghamshire. There is no visitor data

Amend report

to clarify the

issues / make

reference to the

visitor



Trends and investments in the area should

be considered so that the analysis could

take this into account when defining

FEMAs.

available for the attractions referred to, so

not possible to provide more detail.

attractions (see

para 5.48).

Cherwell DC Supply Chain Data

Paragraph 5.55 – The impact of the

University Technical College at Aylesbury

which opened in September 2013 is worth

referencing in this paragraph.

Agreed to add reference – although this

was after completion of the BBF survey in

2013 and therefore no data is available on

the firms with links to this institution.

Add reference –

but with caveat

that no data

available on

links (see para

5.56).

Cherwell DC Service Market for Consumers

The study has already identified authorities

outside of Buckinghamshire who have

prepared a retail study however it does not

explain what the impacts are of the major

retail centres such as Milton Keynes and

Oxford. The section needs to consider

retail leakage which Aylesbury Vale and

others experience.

See paragraph 5.62 which makes reference

to parts of Aylesbury Vale being served by

Oxford and MK. Also see the conclusions

on service markets and how these have are

used to define sub-markets rather than

define the FEMA itself.

No change.

Cherwell DC Other Public Services

We feel that it is particularly important to

make reference to the projected public

sector changes as budget cuts necessitate

major service changes and some

consideration of how this might affect a

range of services and employment

patterns.

Public sector cuts are likely to affect service

delivery in ways that we can’t assess as

part of this study.

No change.

Cherwell DC General

There are still some outstanding data from

the 2011 Census to be released such as

data at parish/ward level. Would the study

be affected by these or would it be

considered once this data is released?

The study report will be published based

on the information currently available,

however we will produce a supplementary

note when we are able to access the more

fine-grained data. This may affect the

precise boundaries for the areas that have

been identified, but will not change the key

conclusions.

No change to

current report,

but a

supplementary

note will be

published when

the data is

available.

Spelthorne BC

and

Runnymede BC

The only comment we would wish to make

is that the FEMA analysis does not appear

to acknowledge the potential links and

influence of Heathrow airport. Whilst this

may not be an issue for the majority of

Buckinghamshire, the area of South Bucks

within the Slough-Reading FEMA could

potentially be affected and therefore the

potential impact of Heathrow should be

more clearly explored.

There is a lack of suitable data to be able to

make a case for Heathrow impacting on

the FEMA (at present and in the future).

The Heathrow Related Employment draft

Final report (2011), considers the level of

employment related to Heathrow (both

direct and indirect). Of those working

directly at the airport a large proportion

(45%) of these come from the local labour

area (which does not include

Buckinghamshire). There is no data

available showing to what extent people in

Buckinghamshire work at Heathrow. The

report does not provide detail on where

the jobs that are supported by Heathrow

are located other than in general terms

(i.e. defined Local, London and UK). The

future impact of Heathrow (in terms of

Jobs) will be largely dependent on whether

a third runway is built at the airport, this

No change -

given the limit

of available

data on the

current linkages

between Bucks

and Heathrow,

both in terms of

employees and

businesses, and

also given the

uncertainty

around the

future growth

of Heathrow.



remains uncertain until the Davies

Commission has reported. As such we can’t

factor this into defining the FEMA.

Greater London

Authority

The report covers supply chain analysis,

however, it could benefit from including

some analysis of logistics with regard to

the functional relationships of

Buckinghamshire based logistics serving

London and the wider South East.

Logistics represents a very small proportion

of the Buckinghamshire economy with

transport and storage (including postal)

representing only 2.2% of employment

(BRES 2013). Another issue is that the data

for the supply chain section is based on the

Buckinghamshire Business Survey (2013)

and therefore the data is not available to

carry out the analysis that the GLA are

suggesting. The data that is available

suggests a low level of businesses on

average making purchases (18%) and sales

(19%) in ‘neighbouring counties / towns’,

there is no data specifically identifying

sales / purchases in London.

No change

given lack of

data and the

likely low level

of logistics in

Bucks.

BTV LEP Firstly we would say the report is thorough

in its analysis of economic statistics and

existing context in considering what the

Central Bucks HMA and FEMA should

be. However from a TVB LEP perspective

we would say the report is limited to

existing economic context and does not

consider future growth opportunities that

will arise through the implementation of

the Buckinghamshire Strategic Economic

Plan.

The definition of FEMA is based on existing

evidence about how markets currently

operate in Buckinghamshire. This is

consistent with advice on how FEMAs

should be defined.

No change.

BTV LEP In some ways the Report is self fulfilling in

its pursuit to exclude South Bucks from the

HMA which could lead the reader to raise

an questions of whether that is an

intention from the outset that leads to the

ultimate conclusion, as to all intents and

purposes the statistical and context

analysis would appear to support the

ultimate conclusion for the Central Bucks

HMA and FEMA to consist of Aylesbury

Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe. Additional

evidential critical analysis and

consideration of reasonable alternatives

would be helpful- this may be embedded in

the statistical analysis.

The evidence supports the definition of the

Central Bucks HMA and FEMA excluding

South Bucks. This was a conclusion reached

on the basis of the analysis and there were

no preconceived outcomes. The councils

have positively challenged the evidence

and agree with the study findings.

No change.

BTV LEP Our main and substantive comment would

be the Report relies on the existing or

extant economic characteristics of the

area, especially in regards to the economy

and existing markets in that there is no

detailed analysis of the BTVSEP and what

that would mean for the HMA or FEMA in

terms of future economic and housing

growth. This is a potential weakness as

guidance is clear around the need to plan

for growth. In this context the report limits

itself to a very high level rehearsal of LEP

The definition of FEMA is based on existing

evidence about how markets currently

operate in Buckinghamshire. This is

consistent with advice on how FEMAs

should be defined. Economic forecasting

and future growth across the FEMA are not

part of the scope of this work and will

come in the next stage of the work, which

the Central Bucks authorities are now

commissioning.

No change –

this will need to

be considered

as part of the

needs

assessments

and subsequent

Plans.



priority areas and what they mean in terms

of existing linkages and impacts.

Whilst this may not be an issue at this

stage as the primary reason being is to

define the HMA/FEMA to enable future

collaboration on housing and economic

evidence, it is important to ensure this

does not set the tone and lead later

evidence which then ignores the potential

or opportunities for economic growth and

what that may mean for assessing the need

for and linkages between jobs and homes

mix and tenure. In essence, the report

appears to ask ‘what do we have now’

rather than asking ‘what do we want in the

future’ whilst has ever been the problem

with the need to evidence gather ahead of

preparing strategy. But, in the interests of

the LEP and considering the intentions of

paragraph 160 of the Framework Report

we’d might have expected to see more

analysis of existing business needs and

economic forecasting linked to scenario

planning and respective changes in

markets and sectors at a national and sub

regional level.

BTV LEP The Report does briefly rehearse

transportation investment, however we do

not concur with the findings of the Report

that Buckinghamshire is well connected.

Connectivity to and through

Buckinghamshire is congested, this is a

strategic weakness particularly in relation

to sustainable and public transportation.

The evidence shows that Buckinghamshire

is well connected, but we note the

concerns about congestion.

Add text (see

para 5.2 and

7.37).

BTV LEP With regard to the method in defining

FEMAs: The report appears to suggest that

the primary test for defining a FEMA is

travel to work (and tests of self

containment) but when it comes to

commenting on the FEMAs the report

identifies labour force characteristics (retail

catchment, property markets, and distinct

sectoral strengths) as reasons why a

particular area may be a FEMA. This is

interesting, not least for the sub areas as it

restricts itself to not only ‘what is there’

rather than ‘what is its potential ’ but also

because it does not recognise the need for

strengthening a balanced and diverse

labour market area.

This could be a distinct issue if there is

structural failure in an area and it is too

small and too isolated a FEMA for future

economic programmes and funding

packages which could have a limited effect

in a outcome/VFM context. Any scope for

flexibility, re-ordering of priorities and

Guidance on preparing FEMAs identifies

that it is important to identify any sub-

markets that may exist within them. We

recognise the need for balance between

the conclusions about the Central Bucks

FEMA and its constituent sub-FEMAs and

have reviewed this in the light of these

comments.

Revised

conclusions re

Central Bucks

FEMA and sub-

FEMAs (see

paras 7.79-7.82

and exec

summary paras

29-32)



funding programmes and movement of

projects between FEMAs could be

restricted by such an approach and could

be issues of consistency between sub

FEMA strategies as future problems should

be tackled under Duty to Co-operate. It

could also result in local impacts not

warranting sufficient benefits as part of an

business case and/our economic appraisal

for external interventions. In this case it

maybe better not to seek sub-FEMA and

not to prepare strategy or programmes

that rely on or reflect them, rather

promote a more flexible joined up

response across the FEMA as a whole.

The flip side to this above is that distinct,

focused sub-FEMAs may allow for specific,

focussed strategies and funding

programmes. Ultimately, a question for

those who administer the funding and

intervention strategy as to the

measurement of impacts and benefits

when considering how they wish to move

forward in demonstrating VFM and

economic benefits.

Findings on FEMAs: The pre-existing

FEMAs are generally recommended for

retention although the South Bucks

(Beaconsfield) element of the FEMA is

recommended for exclusion from Central

Bucks FEMA. This provides for a consistent

HMA/FEMA area, however, the Report also

considers the Central Bucks FEMA to be

made up of two ‘distinct’ sub areas. This

type of drilling down may not be helpful for

the reasons above.

BTV LEP The Report appears to present a defensible

case for defining Central Bucks

HMA/FEMA, subject to the comments

raised above concerning the question of

scale, flexibility, impacts, benefits and VFM

in assessing future investment and

interventions.

The FEMA is defined for the purpose of

considering the future economic

development needs of the area, in

particular the employment land

requirements. Future investment and

intervention decisions are likely to need

strategy development at a broader

geographical level, such as the local

authority and or LEP level in consultation

with other partners.

No change.

BTV LEP The Report reflects existing circumstances

rather than economic potential or

opportunities-depending on the

application of FEMAs and direction of

travel for economic strategies there may

be a risk that the FEMAs and sub FEMAs

are too closely defined around single

sectors and are too localised as to be able

achieve structural change.

The FEMAs have been defined on the basis

of existing evidence (a range of factors

have been considered to arrive at the

outcome for the FEMA) and the FEMAs are

not too narrowly defined or based on a

single sector. The future growth aspirations

of the LEP are acknowledged and

considered, however it is not possible to

build in scenario modelling of the how

FEMA might change over time based on

these aspirations into this work. The next

Revised

conclusions re

Central Bucks

FEMA and sub-

FEMAs (see

paras 7.79-7.82

and exec

summary paras

29-32)



stage of the work would be to forecast how

the FEMA would grow in the future.

BTV LEP The definition of FEMAs may also limit

ability to respond to economic

opportunities flexibly and creatively.

Although this will depend on how the

definition of the Central HMA/FEMA will

presumably lead to evidence being

prepared for the number of homes and

assessment of jobs growth in that light.

This could be important if the ultimate

identification is to rely on existing

economic circumstances (including labour

supply) rather than looking at the

opportunities to drive economic growth

and the number and types of jobs to

achieve that and the mix and tenure

homes required in the HMA to support

growth.

As above the next stage of the work would

look forward at how the economy (of the

FEMA) is forecast to grow, and the local

authorities within the FEMA would need to

plan for this growth accordingly.

No change –

this will need to

be considered

as part of the

needs

assessments

and subsequent

Plans.

housing market areas and functional economic market areas in buckinghamshire … · 2015-07-22 ·...

Documents