Impact of Expansion of Stansted Airport

Colin Buchanan and Partners Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study - Key Issues Report


Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 11.2 Purpose 12. BASELINE ASSESSMENT 32.1 Introduction 32.2 Settlement Pattern 42.3 Urban Settlement Review 72.4 Rural Settlement Review 262.5 Urban and Rural Deprivation 282.6 Historic Towns Assessment 312.7 Rural and Countryside Review 372.8 Spatial Linkages 543. QUANTIFICATION OF GROWTH 763.1 Introduction 763.2 Economic Model Study Area 773.3 Theoretical Considerations 773.4 Model Overview 833.5 Baseline 843.6 Forecasting process 873.7 Scenario formulation 903.8 Key Issues in Relation to SERAS 913.9 Results 953.10 Conclusions 1024. GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 1034.1 Introduction 1034.2 Environment 1034.3 Transport 1084.4 Employment and Economic Development 1124.5 Planning Policy Opportunities and Constraints 1264.6 Settlement Constraints and Opportunities 1295. LONDON-STANSTED-CAMBRIDGE SUB REGION AND HARLOW

OPTIONS STUDIES REVIEW 1475.1 Introduction 1475.2 London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub Regional Study 1475.3 The Harlow Options Study 1556. KEY ISSUES 1586.1 Introduction 1586.2 Quantum of Growth Projections 1586.3 Key Issues 1606.4 Principles for locating development to accommodate growth 162


APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Settlement role and functionAppendix 2 Landscape character areasAppendix 3 Baseline demographicsAppendix 4 Catalytic employmentAppendix 5 DisplacementAppendix 6 Results for high and low scenarios


1

1. Introduction

1.1.1 Colin Buchanan & Partners with Bone Wells Associates and Wardell Armstrong wereappointed by Essex County Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Hertfordshire CountyCouncil, Government Office for the East of England (GO-East), East of EnglandDevelopment Agency (EEDA) and the Countryside Agency to undertake an assessment ofthe urbanisation impacts that would result from the potential growth of Stansted Airport aspostulated within the SERAS consultation document, The Study is to consider, amongstother things, impacts on transport infrastructure, rural areas and the countryside, and onsettlements. This is the second report and presents the results of Stage Two of the Study.The first, the Inception Report, was prepared in May 2003 and presented to the client bodyand to a meeting of the Stakeholders on 23rd. May, 2003.

1.2 Purpose

1.2.1 The purpose of Stage Two of the Study is to provide an understanding of the Study area, ofthe role and function of settlements, of the economic drivers within the region, of thetransport infrastructure and how it is being used, of the social and community infrastructureand of important environmental resources both urban and within the countryside. It hasbeen an essential part of this Stage to assemble the information necessary to be able toassess the impact of growth on the area. Also as part of this Stage, and at the heart of it, isthe assessment of the likely levels of growth that would result from each of the principaloptions for the expansion of Stansted Airport. Finally, it is the purpose of Stage Two tomake a preliminary assessment of the likely impacts that each of the growth scenarios forthe Airport would have on the Study area.

1.2.2 This stage of the Study is split into four main parts which are reflected in the structure ofthis report :• Baseline assessment• Quantification of Growth and identification of Growth Opportunities and Constraints• Urbanisation Effects including an assessment of Spatial Distribution Issues• Summary Key IssuesThe report also contains an appraisal of the London-Stansted – Cambridge Region andHarlow Options Studies.

1.2.3 The baseline assessment provides a summary and analysis of data collected, which willenable the impact of the options for growth to be identified and covers both urban and ruralareas. The baseline assessment includes :• Broad settlement structure and assessment of settlement role and function• Urban and rural deprivation• Historic town assessment• Transport – road transport and public transport• Spatial linkages• Rural and countryside review


2

1.2.4 The quantification of growth is at the heart of this study. The starting point for determiningimpact is the assessment of the growth in jobs and population that would result from eachof the expansion options for Stansted Airport. In this part of the report the assumptionsused in the Study are identified and there is an assessment of the alternative approachesthat might be used to predict jobs growth, both directly and indirectly attributable to theexpansion of the Airport. Advice is given on the most appropriate basis for judging futuregrowth. There is also an assessment of growth opportunities and constraints. This sectionis in four parts. The first identifies environmental and physical constraints to development,then there is a review of transport opportunities and constraints offered or opposed by thehighways network and by public transport systems, thirdly there is a discussion ofopportunities and constraints in terms of economic development and potential employmentgeneration to contribute towards regeneration objectives. Finally, there is an analysis ofgrowth opportunities and constraints in relation to the main urban centres.

1.2.5 The next part of the report considers the urbanisation effects of the growth patterns, whichresult from the options for Stansted Airport. First there is a consideration of the spatialdistribution issues including an initial analysis of the increase in dwellings and employmentland and then a comparative appraisal of the urbanisation impacts of two distributionoptions.

1.2.6 Finally there is a summary of key issues, written in a form that summarises the report. Inaddition to the main report a series of appendices is included which provide information onthe methodologies used in the detailed analyses.


3

2. Baseline Assessment

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The Study area is diverse and has a number of important characteristics and linkages (bothinternally and externally) that have historically shaped the way in which its urban and ruralareas have developed in the past and which could also shape how they develop in thefuture. This section sets out the baseline situation with regards to these urban and ruralareas so that the impact of change compared to the existing situation can be assessed inthe evaluation of strategic spatial options (Stage 3 of this Study). It will also identify andhighlight current strengths and weaknesses and the pattern of deprivation, which thechosen strategy will need to address. The information, which has been assembled acrossthe study area has been provided by the constituent local authorities. Data has only beenused where there is a reasonable degree of crowding throughout the study area.

2.1.2 The baseline assessment considers urban and rural settlements, historic towns, rural areasand the countryside and spatial linkages. The Section is structured, as follows:• Settlement Pattern (Section 2.2) describes the current settlement pattern in terms of

the spatial organisation of urban settlements.• Urban Settlement Review (Section 2.3) analyses the dynamics of the urban areas

within the Study area, with particular emphasis on settlement role and function. Thisanalysis has enabled the development of a settlement hierarchy from which begins toemerge a pattern of interactions, both internally and externally, which is thendeveloped in more detail in Section 2.8 on Spatial linkages.

• Rural Settlement Review (Section 2.4) sets out the prevalent issues with regards torural settlements. Due to lack of available data at settlement level for the rural townsand villages, this section focuses on key issues rather than quantitative assessment.

• Urban and Rural Deprivation (Section 2.5) describes the patterns of deprivation, asmeasured by the Multiple Deprivation Scores, within urban and rural wards.Deprivation is more prevalent in urban areas with the wards around Stansted Airporthaving some of the lowest levels of deprivation in the Study area.

• Historic Towns Assessment (Section 2.6) sets out an assessment of the historictowns within the Study area. At this Stage in the Study it is necessary to determinewhich towns are considered to have historic and cultural heritage value and make abroad assessment of how sensitive they are to change. The methodology of how toassess suitability for development will be considered further in Stage 3 and will be builtinto the assessment of sites and strategic spatial options.

• Rural and Countryside Review (Section 2.7) sets out a review of the landscapecharacter areas within the Study area and their relative sensitivity with respect tolandscape character value, historic assets and tranquillity areas.

• Spatial Linkages (Section 2.8) analyses the physical and “functional” linkages withinthe Study area and it’s surrounding area. It sets out a brief analysis of the currenttransport networks, travel to work patterns and identifies linkages based on thesettlement hierarchy produced from the role and function analysis. For rail an analysishas been undertaken that sets out accessibility to Stansted Airport and for bus, ananalysis has been undertaken that categorises the settlements based on the level ofbus service they support.


4

2.2 Settlement Pattern

2.2.1 Settlements that have vitality and viability are the mainstay of a strong region with acompetitive economy. Settlements that provide a range of jobs, services and housingchoice not only provide the basis of strong economies and communities, but also have thepotential to support a greater range of sustainable modes of transport, both within andbetween settlements.

2.2.2 The main settlements that are examined in detail in this Study have been identified basedon the following criteria:• All settlements above 5,000 people• Settlements of less than 5,000 on a direct link rail link to Stansted Airport• Settlements of less than 5,000 with potential to contribute to a high quality bus corridor

2.2.3 The settlements that fit these criteria are shown in Map 2.1 and Table 2.1 below, groupedby population.

Table 2.1: Study Area Settlements, Grouped by Population (1991 census data)City or townapproaching100,000

Large Town50,000-75,000

Medium Town15,000-50,000

Small Town5,000-15,000

Settlements <5,000 (Rail)

Settlements <5,000 (Road)

Cambs Cambridge(113,127)

Cambourne(estimate>10,000)*Sawston(7,000)

Great Shelford(3,920)Whittlesford/Duxford(1,848+80)

Essex Colchester(96,063)Chelmsford(97,451)

Harlow (74,629) Braintree (33,229)Loughton(39,000) WalthamAbbey (18,000)Witham (22,684)

Saffron Walden(13,201)StanstedMountfitchet(4,943)Epping (9,922)Great Dunmow(4,907)Halstead (9,775)Chipping Ongar(5,974)

Little/GreatChesterford(1,369)Newport (2,178)WendensAmbo/Audley End(418)Elsenham/ UgleyGreen(2,216+430)

TakeleyLittle DunmowRayneBradwellCoggeshallStanwayMarks TeyLittle HadhamLittle HallingburyHatfield HeathLeaden RodingRoxwellWrittleLittle WalthamHowe StreetFord EndBarnford

Herts Cheshunt(52,000)

Letchworth/Baldock (40,650)Hitchin (32,221)Hertford/Ware(38,665)Hoddesdon(36,000)Bishops Stortford(28,403)

Royston (14,087)Sawbridgeworth(9,432)Broxbourne(9,925)Buntingford(5,170)

ReedWestmillAspendenBraughingStandonHadham FordGreat Amwell

* Cambourne has been included because as a new settlement, it is currently planned to grow to 3,000 dwellings. Acurrent planning application proposes further expansion.


5

Map 2.1


6

2.2.4 The Study area contains the full range of settlements from city through to large towns andvillages and small rural centres. The settlement pattern is diverse and has been influencedby a number of external and internal factors. Within the Study area, there are a number ofspatial patterns that can be identified.

2.2.5 They are:• The north/south Cambridge to London corridor;• The east /west Colchester to Bishop’s Stortford corridor;• Royston to London Corridor;• Colchester to London Corridor;• Hitchin to Cambridge Corridor; and• The Cambridge Sub-Region.

Cambridge-London Corridor

2.2.6 This north south corridor within the Study area is an important central spine on whichStansted Airport is located. Cambridge is located to the north of the corridor and connectsto the south via the M11 and the West Anglia Main line railway. The settlement pattern ischaracterised by a number of small to medium sized settlements located along the corridor.The largest ones in close proximity to Stansted Airport are Bishop’s Stortford and StanstedMountfitchet. The town of Harlow and the Lee Valley are identified as Priority Areas forRegeneration (PAER). Both areas suffer from high levels of deprivation, with particularseverity in Harlow. The remaining structure is characterised by a number of small ruralsettlements with populations under 5,000 people. These settlements are all well linked bygood transport infrastructure providing direct access to both London and Cambridge andare therefore likely to generate high levels of out commuting to these two cities.

Colchester – Bishop’s Stortford Corridor

2.2.7 This east to west axis within the Study area extends along the A120 from Colchester to theA10 at Standon. The corridor provides a direct link to Stansted Airport, taking in the keysettlements of Colchester, Braintree, Great Dunmow and Bishop’s Stortford, and a numberof small rural settlements. While many of the people living within this area will have stronglinks to the rural economy, well developed road and rail communications means there arealso strong functional links to London.

Royston to London Corridor

2.2.8 The northern part of this corridor is largely rural until reaching Hertford and Ware. After thisthe character of the corridor changes dramatically with a large number of linear settlementsconnecting into north London. The southern centres are important local service andemployment centres but they are also subject to a strong pull towards London and maintaina strong functional relationship with locations outside the Study area.

Colchester to London Corridor

2.2.9 This corridor contains the two sub-regional centres of Chelmsford and Colchester. Theyare major centres of population and employment within the Study area. The town of


7

Witham is located roughly equidistant between the two. Colchester and Chelmsfordperform a strong internal role within the Study area and have good access to StanstedAirport.

Hitchin to Cambridge Corridor

2.2.10 This corridor stretches from Hitchin in the south west to Cambridge in the north east alongthe A505. All the settlements have good access to London and with the exception ofCambridge are towns of medium size. Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock are likely to havestrong linkages with the neighbouring large settlements of Luton and Stevenage.

Cambridge Sub Region

2.2.11 Cambridge as the only City, dominates the north of the Study area. It is a major centre foremployment, retail, education, culture, tourism and leisure and has a far greater externalinfluence than Chelmsford or Colchester, which are the only other settlements within theStudy area that are comparable in population terms. Cambridge is surrounded by SouthCambridgeshire, a largely rural district with a number of villages and small towns.Cambridge is the natural focus for these villages although villages toward the periphery ofthe District look towards the market towns of St Ives, St Neots, Saffron Walden, Haverhill,Newmarket and Ely for everyday goods and services. There is a relatively weak urbanstructure within Cambridge’s surrounding area of influence, in that there are no large townsor villages within its immediate vicinity.

2.3 Urban Settlement Review

2.3.1 A baseline assessment of role and function has been undertaken for the settlements with apopulation of 5,000 or more people. A population threshold of 5,000 was adopted on thebasis of government guidance (Planning for Sustainable Development, DETR 1998). Ruralsettlements (settlements with a population of less than 5,000) are dealt with separately inSection 2.4 below. From the analysis of role and function the consultants have produced asettlement hierarchy. This hierarchy was produced by ranking the settlements based ontheir provision of different types of goods and services. The analysis draws out keyfeatures that are unique to particular settlements and provides a better understanding ofhow each currently operates within the Study area. Importantly it will be used todemonstrate how each settlement will be affected by the growth scenarios developed inStage 3.

2.3.2 This section sets out the steps in analysing role and function and the process ofdetermining the settlement hierarchy It should be noted that the analysis was a desk basedcollection of data and assessment. Also, data was not collected and no assessment hasbeen made of settlements outside, but which have interaction with, the Study area. Theassessment methodology is set out in Appendix 1.


8

Settlement Role and Function – Assessment Results

2.3.3 The assessment provides a broad understanding of service provision through identifyingthe location and number of services within the Study area and in doing so provides anindication of the broad role and function of each settlement.

2.3.4 Maps 2.2-2.6 show the location and concentration of services within the Study area by typeof service and for all service areas. This is a geographical representation of the raw datagathered on the number and location of services in the Study area. By then scoring andranking the total for each type of service and comparing this against population, theadequacy of provision can also be broadly determined.

2.3.5 Figures 2.1- 2.5 show the rank of each service type against the rank of population. Thetrend line that runs diagonally through the centre of each graph indicates where the tworanks should cross, meaning that the population rank is equal to the service rank. The twolines running parallel above and below the trend line indicate a deviation of 5 ranks fromthe trend line. Hence:• where a settlement is on the trend line or within the two lines running parallel to the

trend line, the service rank is broadly in line with the population rank suggesting abalance between service provision and the size of the settlement;

• where a settlement is above the trend line, the service rank is less than the populationrank, suggesting a low level of service provision relative to its size; and

• where a settlement is below the trend line, the service rank is greater than thepopulation rank, suggesting a high level of service provision relative to its size.

2.3.6 Commentary on each service examined is provided in the following paragraphs.

HEALTH

2.3.7 Map 2.2 shows the distribution and concentration of health facilities in the Study area,which include hospitals, doctor’s surgeries and dentist surgeries. Cambridge andColchester are the main centres for health provision in the Study area, having the largestconcentration of hospitals, doctors and dentists surgeries. Other hospitals in the Studyarea are located in Chelmsford, Braintree, Saffron Walden and Ware. Most centres haveas a minimum both doctors and dentists.

2.3.8 Figure 2.1 compares the rank of population to the rank of health services. It shows that ingeneral, health provision is in line with the size of the population. Settlements that standout as having a particularly good provision of health services, relative to their size (rank ofhealth services is 5 or more ranks above rank of population) are:• Hertford (population rank 16, health services rank 6);• Saffron Walden, (population rank 17, health services rank 8);• Epping, (population rank 20, health services rank 14);• Stansted Mountfitchet (population rank 27, health services rank 22); and• Buntingford (population rank 28, health services rank 19).


9

Map 2.2


10

Figure 2.1 Population Rank and Health Rank

Cambridge

ChelmsfordColchester

Harlow

Cheshunt

Loughton

Hoddesdon

Hitchin

Witham

Hertford

Ware

Waltham Abbey

Saffron Walden

Halstead

Broxbourne

Epping

Sawbridgeworth

Baldock

Cambourne

Sawston

Chipping Ongar

Great Dunmow

Buntingford

Braintree

Stansted Mountfitchet.

Royston

Letchworth Bishops Stortford

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Population Rank

Hea

lth R

ank


11

2.3.9 Settlements that indicate an under provision of services relative to their size include (rankof health is 5 or more ranks below population) include:• Cheshunt (population rank 5 health services rank 11);• Hoddesdon (population rank 7 health services rank 15);• Ware (population rank 14, health services rank 19);• Cambourne (population rank 23, health services rank 28)

EDUCATION

2.3.10 Map 2.3 shows the distribution and concentration of education facilities in the Study area,which include primary schools, secondary schools, further education colleges and highereducation institutions. Cambridge, Chelmsford and Colchester are the main centres foreducation provision in the Study area, offering the biggest concentration across the wholerange of services. Most other centres provide primary and secondary education as aminimum. Figure 2.2 compares the rank of population to the rank of education services. Itshows that in general, education provision is in line with the size of the population.

2.3.11 Settlements that stand out as having a particularly good provision of education services,relative to their size (rank of education is 5 or more ranks above rank of population) are:• Bishop’s Stortford (population rank 11, education rank 5); and• Buntingford (population rank 28, education rank 17).

2.3.12 Settlements that stand out as having a particularly poor provision of services, relative totheir size (rank of education is 5 or more ranks below rank of population) are:• Hoddesdon (population rank 7, education services rank 14).

RETAIL AND FACILITIES

2.3.13 Map 2.4 shows the distribution and concentration of retail and facilities in the Study area,which includes retail floorspace, cinemas/theatres, post offices, libraries and professionalservices. These categories of services reflect, in the main, the availability of consistent datasets but also provide a broad indication of the size and influence of a town centre. It showsthat the main location and concentration of retail services is within Cambridge, Colchesterand Chelmsford. Other centres, which are prominent in terms of retail floorspace areHarlow, Hitchin, Letchworth and Bishop’s Stortford.

2.3.14 Figure 2.3 compares the rank of retail and facilities to the rank of population. It shows thatfor Cambridge, Chelmsford, Colchester, Harlow, Loughton, Braintree, Letchworth, Ware,Halstead and Chipping Ongar, the rank of retail and facilities are generally in line with therank of population.

2.3.15 Those settlements where the retail and facilities ranking is 5 or more ranks above that ofpopulation (suggesting a high provision relative to settlement size) include:• Saffron Walden (population rank 17, retail and facilities rank 12);• Epping (population rank 20, retail and facilities rank 10);• Baldock (population rank 22, retail and facilities rank 12);• Stansted Mountfitchet (population rank 27 retail and facilities rank 19); and• Buntingford (population rank 28, retail and facilities rank 20).


12

Map 2.3


13

Map 2.4


14

2.3.16

Figure 2.2 Population Rank and Eductation Rank

Cambridge


Harlow

Cheshunt

Hoddesdon

Braintree

HitchinLetchworth

Bishops Stortford

Hertford

Ware

Royston

BaldockSawston

Buntingford

Witham

Great Dunmow


Chipping Ongar

Broxbourne

Saffron Walden

Epping

Sawbridgeworth

Halstead

Waltham Abbey

Loughton

Cambourne

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Population Rank

Educ

atio

n R

ank


15

Figure 2.3 Population Rank and Retail and Facilities Rank

Cambridge

Cheshunt

Loughton

Hoddesdon

Braintree Hitchin

Letchworth

Bishops Stortford

Witham

Hertford

Ware

Waltham Abbey

Royston

Saffron Walden

Halstead

Broxbourne

Epping

Sawbridgeworth

Baldock

Cambourne

Great Dunmow

Buntingford

Colchester Harlow

Chipping Ongar

Sawston

Chelmsford


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Population Rank

Serv

ices

Ran

k


16

2.3.17 Those settlements where the retail and facilities ranking is 5 ranks or more below that ofpopulation (suggesting low provision relative to settlement size) include:• Cheshunt (population rank 5, retail and facilities rank 12);• Hoddesdon (population rank 7 retail and facilities rank 22);• Waltham Abbey (population rank 15, retail and services rank 22);• Broxbourne (population rank 19 retail and facilities rank 27); and• Cambourne (population rank 23, retail and facilities rank 28).

ADMINISTRATION

2.3.18 Map 2.5 shows the locations of administrative centres in the Study area. The only regionaladministrative centre is Cambridge. The county administrative centres are Cambridge,Chelmsford and Hertford. The district administrative centres are Bishops Stortford,Braintree, Cambourne, Cheshunt, Colchester, Epping, Great Dunmow, Harlow, Letchworthand Saffron Walden. The town/parish administrative centres are Buntingford, ChippingOngar, Halstead, Loughton, Royston, Sawbridgeworth, Sawston, Stansted Mountfitchet,Waltham Abbey, Witham and Ware. The centres, which have no administration function areBaldock, Broxbourne, Cheshunt, Hitchin and Hoddesdon.

2.3.19 Figure 2.4 shows the rank of administration compared to the rank of population. Unlike theother service types there is a much weaker correlation between the administration functionof a settlement and its size since it is not strictly a public service or facility. The graphtherefore shows a much more random picture when the two ranks are compared. For mostsettlements, the rank of population is within or above 5 ranks of administration.

OVERALL SERVICES

2.3.20 Map 2.6 shows the location and concentration of all services. Consistent with the aboveanalysis, Cambridge has the largest concentration of all services, followed by Colchesterand Chelmsford. Other key centres include, Harlow, Hitchin, Letchworth, Braintree,Hertford and Ware.

2.3.21 Figure 2.5 compares the rank of service provision with the rank of population. It shows thatfor most settlements, the overall service rank is within 5 ranking points of the rank ofpopulation.

2.3.22 The settlements which stand out as having a very good level of provision relative to theirsize (overall service rank is 5 or more ranks above population rank) are:• Hertford (population rank 13, overall service rank 6);• Epping (population rank 20, overall service rank 15);• Great Dunmow (population rank 27, overall service rank 20); and• Buntingford (population rank 28, overall service rank 20).


17

Maps 2.5


18

Map 2.6


19

Figure 2.4 Population Rank and Administration Rank

Cambridge

Chelmsford

Loughton

Letchworth

Bishops Stortford

Hertford

Saffron Walden

Halstead

Broxbourne

Epping

Sawbridgeworth

Baldock

Cambourne

Great Dunmow

Buntingford

Braintree Harlow

Cheshunt

Colchester

Witham Ware

Waltham Abbey

Royston

Sawston Chipping Ongar


Hoddesdon Hitchin

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Population Rank

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Ran

k


20

Figure 2.5 Population Rank and Overall Service Rank

Cambridge


Harlow

Cheshunt

Loughton

Hoddesdon

Braintree

Hitchin

Letchworth

Bishops Stortford

Witham

Hertford

Ware

Royston

Saffron Walden

Broxbourne

Epping

Baldock

Cambourne Chipping Ongar

Sawbridgeworth

Halstead Waltham Abbey

Stansted Mountfitchet.Sawston

Great Dunmow Buntingford

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Population Rank

Ove

rall

Serv

ice

Ran

k


21

2.3.23 Those settlements which have a poor level of provision relative to their size (overall servicerank is 5 or more ranks below population rank include:• Cheshunt (population rank 5 overall service rank 10);• Hoddesdon (population rank 7, overall service rank 17);• Broxbourne (population 19, overall service rank 24); and• Cambourne (population rank 23, overall service rank 28).

2.3.24 A summary of the overall service rank and population rank per settlement is set out inTable 2.2 below, showing the difference in ranking points for each.

Table 2.2: Comparison of Overall Service Rank and Population RankSettlement Population Rank Service

RankDifference

Cambridge 1 1 0Chelmsford 2 3 -1Colchester 3 2 1Harlow 4 4 0Cheshunt 5 10 -5Loughton 6 8 -2Hoddesdon 7 17 -10Braintree 8 5 3Hitchin 9 7 2Letchworth 10 11 -1Bishop’s Stortford 11 9 2Witham 12 12 0Hertford 13 6 7Ware 14 14 0Waltham Abbey 15 18 -3Royston 16 16 0Saffron Walden 17 13 4Halstead 18 18 0Broxbourne 19 24 -5Epping 20 15 5Sawbridgeworth 21 22 -1Baldock 22 22 0Cambourne 23 28 -5Sawston 24 25 -1Chipping Ongar 25 27 -2Stansted Mountfitchet 26 25 7Great Dunmow 27 20 1Buntingford 28 20 8

Service Based Settlement Hierarchy

2.3.25 The overall service provision scores have been used to develop a Settlement Hierarchy.Whilst the hierarchy considers a number of indicators of role and function, it is not meant tobe a definitive or comprehensive definition or assessment. The main value of the exerciseis in providing an understanding of the characteristics of the main settlements, identifyinglinkages between settlements and defining the relationships within their surrounding areas.


22

Importantly, it will also help to demonstrate the impacts of future growth scenarios at asettlement level (by showing the change in the position of each settlement in the hierarchy)and at a sub-regional level (showing the impacts of change within each settlement’s widerarea of influence), thus providing a transparent and consistent method through whichcompare how the Study area will change as it grows.

2.3.26 The total service scores for each settlement is set out in Table 2.3. There is a wide gapbetween scores, from 196 (Cambridge) to just 7 (Cambourne). However, a logical range ofscores can be identified that can help to group the settlements based on the typicalcharacteristics of the settlements within each range. Table 2.4 sets out the score ranges,the settlements that fall within in each range and their broad characteristics. This ispresented graphically in Map 2.7.

Table 2.4: Settlement Categorisation by Overall Service ScoreScoreRange

Settlements Broad Characteristics

Level 1Over 151

Cambridge (196)

Large concentration of regional level services. Major retail centre and largerepresentation of professional services. Strong County and Regional administrativefunction. Serves extensive catchment area.Cambridge is the only settlement within this level and is distinguished from Chelmsfordand Colchester, which are comparable in population terms, by its concentration ofregional level services. Cambridge is a fulcrum for growth within the Study area and islikely to maintain its position in the hierarchy under any growth scenario.Level 2101-150

Colchester (150) Chelmsford (120)

Large concentration of sub-regional level services. Some regional level services. Largeretail centre and large representation of professional services. Serves County or Districtadministration function. Serves large sub regional catchment area.Chelmsford and Colchester are Level 2 settlements. They are comparable in populationterms to Cambridge but have a stronger sub-regional than regional focus. They areimportant centres of employment, important retail centres and, in the case ofChelmsford, a focus for local government administration. These centres are also likelyto maintain their position in the hierarchy, supported within the region by a network ofother centres which could develop into important sub-regional centres in their own right(for example, Harlow).Level 351-100

Harlow (100) Braintree (59), Hertford (56), Hitchin (53), Loughton (51)


23

Large concentration of district level services. Some sub-regional level services. Mediumsized retail centre with good representation of professional services. Serves district leveladministrative function. Serves district level catchment.These settlements are strong local centres providing a good range of district levelservices. The population range within this level varies significantly, from Harlow, with apopulation around 75,000 to Hertford with a population of around 21,000. This highlightsthe important function that the smaller settlements of Hertford and Hitchin play in termsof servicing a wide catchment area. It also suggests that their level of service provisioncould have the capacity to accommodate significant levels of growth. These are strongcontenders for growth and have potential to develop into centres, which have more of asub-regional focus.Level 426-50

Bishop’s Stortford (50), Cheshunt (42), Letchworth (41), Witham (34),Saffron Walden (33), Ware (28), Epping (27), Royston (26)

Large concentration local level services. Some district level services. Small retail centrewith some representation of professional services. Local administrative function. Serveslocal catchment.These settlements offer a more limited range of services, but are nonetheless able tosupport a high degree self sufficiency in their local context. Loughton and Cheshunt arewithin the higher population range and should be able to support a much higher level ofservices than at present. This may be a reflection of a dormitory function within thesesettlements, where people work and use services outside their local area. Thesesettlements are strong likely contenders for growth and have the potential to moveupwards within the hierarchy.Level 50-25

Hoddesdon (22), Waltham Abbey (20), Halstead (20), Great Dunmow (19),Buntingford (19), Sawbridgeworth (17), Baldock (17), Broxbourne (13),Sawston (11), Stansted Mountfitchet (11), Chipping Ongar (8), Cambourne(7)

More limited range of local services. No district level services. Small retail centre andlimited representation of professional services. Local administrative function. Servesdaily needs of the resident population. Likely to have a strong functional relationship withother centres for services.The position of Hoddesdon within this level is particularly notable since this is one of thelarger settlements, with a population of nearly 37,000 people, yet it is comparable interms of service provision to Great Dunmow, which has a population of 5,000 people. Atpresent these settlements serve a local function and therefore development at theselocations would require more careful consideration. Major development could have astrong local impact, which could be positive, in terms of building up a critical mass ofpopulation to support a greater range of services, or negative, by creating additionaljourneys to other centres in the absence of local provision.

Conclusions

2.3.27 Higher level settlements are to the east and north of the Study area. Settlements to thewest and south are at lower levels reflecting the fact that there are service centres outsidethe Study area. In addition, the southern part of the Study area contains a number of smalland medium sized centres and no single dominant centre has been able to develop.


24

Map 2.7


25

Table 2.3


26

2.4 Rural Settlement Review

2.4.1 Problems with availability of reliable and meaningful data with respect to settlements with apopulation of less than 5,000 people, has precluded them from the above broad analysis ofsettlement role and function. Nevertheless, they have an important position in thesettlement hierarchy with respect to their role and function as local service centres andindeed as local employment providers for the rural population.

2.4.2 The Study area contains a large number of rural settlements (approximately 600 in total).The settlements that are included in the analysis are limited to those that are on existingrail corridors or could form part of future potential bus corridors, thereby forming the mostsustainable options for future growth. These include, Great Shelford,Whittlesford/Duxford, Little/Great Chesterford, Newport, Wendens Ambo/Audley Endand Elsenham/Ugley Green on the rail corridor. For potential bus corridors, settlementsinclude Takeley, Little Dunmow, Rayne, Bradwell, Coggeshall, Stanway, Marks Tey,Little Hadham, Reed, Westmill, Aspenden, Standon, Hadham Ford, Braughing, GreatAmwell, Hatfield Heath, Roxwell, Little Hallingbury, Leaden Roding, Writtle, LittleWaltham, Howe Street, Ford End and Barnford on the A120, A10, A1060 and A130corridors. These corridors link to Stansted and have a range of settlement sizes along theirroute, as well as significant concentrations of population at either end of each corridor. Itshould be noted that population statistics are not readily available for settlements of thissize, many of which lie in parishes of only around 1,000 people.

2.4.3 Rural settlements in particular will undoubtedly come under increasing pressure in thefuture as a result of the underlying growth that is set to take place within the region ingeneral. Any additional growth resulting from the expansion of Stansted Airport will onlycompound this pressure. It is important therefore to determine which settlements canaccommodate growth. In doing so we consider the impact on the inherent qualities andcharacteristics that provide a high quality of life to their residents.

2.4.4 Even when it is considered that a settlement is not appropriate for further development, theimpact on development within close proximity is also an important consideration.Development in close proximity to existing small settlements could threaten the viability ofthe limited service range they provide. Similarly, growth of small settlements would need totake account of the impact on existing facilities and the effect on neighbouringcommunities.

Opportunities and Threats to Rural Settlements

2.4.5 The main threats to the well-being or quality of life in rural settlements are not necessarilygeographically specific. Pressure for housing and rising house prices; increasing traffic andcongestion; fear of crime and loss of social cohesion; and declining agriculturalemployment and the need to broaden local economies are common themes across thecountry. The Countryside Agency Report ‘The State of the Countryside 2020’ (March 2003)suggests however, that in general there are likely to be four types of countryside or ruralsettlement:• Those economically orientated to large towns or conurbations i.e. ‘suburban

countryside’. More rural areas are likely to fall into this category in future;


27

• Smaller ‘freestanding’ rural settlements offering tourism and leisure opportunities.These will be increasingly attractive locations for employment;

• Small settlements, villages or hamlets still largely dependant on agriculture and therural economy, but which could transform from a focus on quantity production to qualityproduction; and

• Ex-industrial areas in transition (not relevant to this Study area).2.4.6 The fact that development is going to continue in the region whether the airport expands or

not would suggest that rural settlements, especially those identified along rail and potentialbus corridors and with good links to growing towns, are likely to become increasinglysuburbanised. The small historic settlements in the study area, many of which are notidentified by name here, would continue increasingly to offer tourism and leisure roles. Itmay be that these two types of rural settlement are not mutually exclusive, in that, withcarefully designed development, smaller settlements can maintain their special characterwhile being orientated to larger towns and conurbations. Much depends on whethersustainable travel options exist, as it would clearly be unsustainable and against local andnational policy to allow anything but small scale development in inaccessible locations.

2.4.7 The Countryside Agency’s study suggests there are both opportunities and threats to beconsidered for rural settlements. Opportunities include:• maximising the evolution of e-economy for business and services,• middle-aged and middle class immigrants with increased spending power and leisure

time,• higher quality higher density development (e.g. Poundbury);• local/organic food production; and• outdoor recreation and tourism.

2.4.8 Threats include:• Skills shortages;• ‘Peripheral’ types of employment - i.e. temporary, contract or part-time work;• Threat to rural identity from development or change;• Lack of affordable homes;• Declining household sizes could cause stagnation and loss of services;• Agricultural crises – e.g. BSE, Foot and Mouth Disease;• Removal of subsidies;• Social exclusion, crime and fear of crime and poverty;• Loss of landscape character and erosion of difference between places and loss of local

identity; and• Loss of historic and cultural value.

Accessibility to Services

2.4.9 At present, the size of the rural settlements means that they provide only basic servicesand facilities. Therefore, on the whole they would be considered to fall into the sphere ofinfluence of the main settlements, maintaining a close functional relationship with thenearest large town. Therefore, it is important that the services and the facilities of thesettlements improve also so that as the population grows, they become more self sufficientin order to limit the extent to which they are dormitory settlements to larger centres.


28

2.5 Urban and Rural Deprivation

2.5.1 An assessment of rural and urban deprivation has been carried out to identify areas inneed of regeneration and to discuss the nature of deprivation within the Study area. Theassessment involves using the Index of Multiple Deprivation Scores for Wards, 2000(Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2000) in order to create twothematic maps, detailing deprivation for both rural and urban wards. Rural wards aredefined as encompassing settlements with a population less than 5,000 people and urbanwards are defined as encompassing settlements with more than 5,000 people. In addition,Local Plans have been examined to highlight the nature of deprivation.

2.5.2 The Multiple Deprivation Scores were constructed by the Index Team at Oxford Universityfor the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) by using thefollowing 6 domain indices, which were weighted accordingly, they are:• Income (25%);• Employment (25%);• Health Deprivation and Disability (15%);• Education, Skills and Training (15%);• Housing (10%); and• Geographical Access to Services (10%).

2.5.3 The national scores were then ranked appropriately, where the ward with a rank of 1 is themost deprived and 8,414, the least deprived on the overall measure.

2.5.4 In respect to the Study area wards, the range of ranks spans between 522 and 8,392.These ranks were then placed within percentile groupings of 10% intervals to representhigh and low levels of deprivation. Urban wards were then identified by overlaying theboundaries of settlements over 5,000 population and selecting those wards located withinthe settlement boundaries. Rural wards were then identified by inverting the selection ofurban wards, with the settlement boundaries of those settlements below 5,000 populationdisplayed.

2.5.5 Cambourne, in South Cambridgeshire was not included on the deprivation maps as thesettlement is relatively new with, as yet, no distinct settlement boundary. Therefore, it wasnot possible to map the settlement boundary and because the development of Cambourneis later than the index of Multiple Deprivation the data does not give a true representationof the settlement.

MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION RANK FOR URBAN AREAS

2.5.6 Map 2.8 reveals that a small number of settlements contain a high proportion of wards thathave high levels of deprivation. These include Harlow, Waltham Abbey, Witham andBraintree.

2.5.7 Harlow is identified as having a comparatively high level of deprivation as most of Harlow’swards are contained within the bottom 40% of the national ranking.


29

Map 2.8


30

2.5.8 The Deposit Draft Local Plan for Harlow identifies that there are serious social andeconomic problems at the localised level. Even though employment numbers haveremained stable over recent years and unemployment levels have declined (2.9% inSeptember 2001), the majority of new job growth has been in the highly skilled researchand development sectors, which local people are unable to access due to a skills gap. Inthis respect, Harlow has been identified as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration(PAER) due to its high levels of social deprivation, low education, training and skills levels,decline of manufacturing and the need for renewal of the urban fabric. The Local Planstates that the priority is to restructure, diversify and increase Harlow’s economic base andthat economic regeneration should be focused on skills training to address the imbalancebetween labour and jobs.

2.5.9 Waltham Abbey, Witham, and Braintree also contain a high proportion of wards that areclassified as deprived areas. In respect of Waltham Abbey, the Epping Forest Local Plandoes not give further details on this settlement, however, it does raise the general issue ofthe mis-match between the types of jobs that are available and the skills of theunemployed. The Local Plan for Braintree, which includes Witham, states that SingleRegeneration Budget (SRB) funding has been granted for the East of Braintree. The Planalso recognises that there has been an under provision of jobs, services and infrastructurein comparison to the provision of housing, which has led to out-commuting and issues ofsocial exclusion.

2.5.10 Small pockets of deprivation are also identified within Colchester, Loughton, Cheshunt,Hitchin, Baldock, Halstead and Cambridge. Many of the Local Plans do not provideadditional information on regeneration issues in respect to these urban settlements.However, the Colchester Local Plan states that the east of Colchester has been identifiedas a priority for regeneration, and was subsequently granted SRB funding in 2000. Otherregeneration areas have also been identified in the Local Plan, including ColchesterCentral Area, Colchester Garrison and The Hythe, all of which are located within the eastand south east of Colchester, where relatively high levels of deprivation exist.

2.5.11 The smaller settlements in the Study area generally contain the fewest deprived wardsFigure 2.6 shows that the urban wards within the following settlements are within the top50% of the least deprived wards in the Country :• Sawston;• Sawbridgeworth;• Ware;• Chipping Ongar;• Buntingford;• Royston;• Saffron Walden;• Stansted Mountfichet;• Bishop’s Stortford;• Great Dunmow;• Hertford;• Epping;• Broxbourne; and• Hoddersdon.


31

MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION RANK FOR RURAL AREAS

2.5.12 Map 2.9 shows that all but ten rural wards are classified as having very low levels ofdeprivation.

2.5.13 The area surrounding Stansted airport is predominately rural, and it can be clearly seen onthe rural deprivation map that the area is characterised by very low levels of deprivationwith many of the wards in the top 30% of least deprived wards. The Uttlesford Local Plan,confirms that the District has a very low unemployment rate.

2.5.14 Many of the small number of rural wards, which are classified as having relatively highlevels of deprivation surround urban settlement boundaries. This includes the mainsettlements of Braintree, Halstead, Chipping Ongar, Loughton and Waltham Abbey.Braintree District and South Cambridgeshire also contain small pockets of rural deprivationthat are not associated with urban areas. Unfortunately, there is a lack of information withinthe Local Plan to identify the nature of the deprivation being experienced by these ruralwards.

2.6 Historic Towns Assessment

2.6.1 It is important when developing a settlement hierarchy to consider historic and culturalheritage value. The need to protect the historic environment and cultural heritage puts anadditional dimension on the role and function of a settlement and will almost certainlyimpact on how it grows in the future. The historic environment and cultural heritage valueof a settlement is largely identified through designations such as conservation areas andlisted buildings and the relative concentration of these. The historic environment is alsoimportant with regard to quality of life. Many of the areas which are historic and that have ahigh culture heritage value are also extremely attractive places to live. They are oftenplaces where people visit and are therefore economic assets.

2.6.2 Furthermore, the historic streetscape possesses the very qualities that design standardstoday are trying to achieve. However, it does not necessarily follow that a town with historicand cultural heritage value will not be able to absorb future growth.

2.6.3 For the purposes of setting a baseline, it is necessary to assess the towns that areconsidered to have historic and cultural heritage value. This assessment has beencomplied by using the Council for British Archaeology (CBA, 1967) list of important historictowns, as this is the only attempt nationally to assess town centres for their historicqualities. The list is in no way definitive, and those towns that are not mentioned in the listshould not be taken as being unimportant in terms of their historic character. Therefore,the assessment criteria used in the CBA report were then used to identify furthersettlements within our Study area that could be regarded as having historic centres. Datafor this analysis has been provided from the Historic Towns Project Assessmentundertaken by Essex County Council and the Extensive Urban Survey Project undertakenby Hertfordshire County Council. However, some settlements listed in the settlementhierarchy have no available data and thus can not be assessed e.g. Cambridgeshire havenot undertaken any similar Study.


32

Map 2.9


33

2.6.4 The CBA report (1967) analysed the character of towns by using the following criteria:• 1) Townscape well preserved e.g. street pattern, market place (a) Ancient, (b)

Georgian or (c) Victorian - This refers to the streetscape of the centre ofsettlements, where the complexity of urban spaces and streets is well preserved.These open spaces and street patterns are important features to preserve, as theyprovide important urban design qualities to a town.

• 2) Town with a historic bridge crossing and approaches (either (a) Ancient or(b) Georgian) - A historic bridge crossing can provide the essential visual quality ofa town.

• 3) Waterfront - A historic river frontage can provide great amenity value.• 4) Town wall, ditch or gates well preserved – Including cases where old walls and

gates serve to define the historic core of a town.• 5) Castle site or precinct well preserved – These sites will add to the visual

amenity of a town and thus development close by should be compatible and notobscure.

• 6) Major ecclesiastical site or precinct well preserved (e.g. Cathedral, abbey,etc) – These sites often form a well-recognised area of historic buildings.

• 7) Towns characterised by a number of buildings worthy of preservation (a)Medieval Seventeenth Century, (b) Georgian and Regency and (c) Victorian –These buildings often form the character of the streetscape.

2.6.5 The CBA report (1967) identified 10 of the 28 settlements within the Study area settlementhierarchy as towns with important historic centres meriting preservation. Many of thesehistoric settlements were located in Essex and Hertfordshire, which have a wealth of well-preserved historic fabric. These settlements include the following; Cambridge, Colchester,Great Dunmow, Chipping Ongar, Saffron Walden, Witham, Baldock, Hertford, Hitchin andWare. The CBA report subsequently short-listed 51 towns that were regarded as ‘sosplendid and so precious that ultimate responsibility for them should be a national concern’.In this list, two settlements from the Study area are identified; Cambridge and Colchester.

2.6.6 The other settlements within the Study area that have historic and cultural heritage valuehave been assessed using the CBA methodology. Many of them have a wealth of historicinterest particularly in terms of the number of historic buildings that are well preserved.

2.6.7 The results of the assessment are set out in Table 2.5 and Map 2.10. Those identified bythe CBA report are highlighted bold in the Table. Consideration is given to historiclandscape issues in the Rural and Countryside Review set out in Section 2.7 below.


34

Map 2.10


35

Table 2.5: Summary of Historic Towns AssessmentCounty Settlement Attributes Comments

Cambridge 1a, 2a, 3, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c Cambridge is identified by the CBA (1967) report ashaving a most important historic town centre. It hasa wealth of historical buildings in the centre of theCity and retains the ancient street pattern. The riverCam and its many bridges, including theMathematical Bridge, provides a unique setting withhistorical attributes.

Cambourne Not Applicable

Cambs

Sawston Data Not Available

Colchester 1a, 2a, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a,7b, 7c

Colchester has also been designated by the CBA(1967) report as having a most important historictown centre. Colchester is the oldest recorded townin Britain, with a wealth of large-scale pre-Romanoccupation sites. The core area contains manyhistoric features including, listed buildings, SAM’sand a Historic Park and Garden.

Chelmsford 1a, 2a, 3, 7a, 7b, 7c Chelmsford, one of the largest and one of the oldestsettlements, was not identified on the CBA (1967), eventhough it still retains a well preserved medieval streetpattern, some medieval buildings and the MoulshamBridge (SAM). This is a largely due to the demolition ofthe majority of older buildings and the masking of theremaining examples behind modern shop frontages andthus does not have the appearance of an historic town.

Harlow 7a, 7b, 7c Even though Harlow is predominately a ‘new town’, OldHarlow and Harlowbury/Churchgate Street retainsufficient numbers of its post medieval structures andlayout to be recognisable as a historic town.

Braintree 7a. 7b, 7c Braintree still retains enough of its historic buildings,particularly on the High Street and Bank to preserve theappearance of an historic market town of medieval origin.Unfortunately, the nineteenth and early twentieth centuryindustrial architecture has been lost.

Loughton Data Not AvailableWaltham Abbey 1a, 6, 7a, 7c Waltham Abbey retains many features that classify it as a

historic town, including, the Abbey, monastic precinct andthe area of the Market Square and Sun Street, whichhave an important amenity value. There is also a wealthof late medieval and post medieval buildings.

Essex

Witham 1a, 2a, 4, 7a, 7b Witham has been identified by the CBA (1967) reportas being an example of an historic town. Thesurviving remains date to the medieval and postmedieval times, consisting of the church, streetpattern, mill ponds and leats and both listed andunlisted buildings. Double ditches in Witham dosurvive in areas beneath the post-medieval housing.Chipping Hill and parts of Newland Street areparticularly strong in historic character.


36

Saffron Walden 1a, 2a, 5, 7a, 7b Saffron Walden has been identified by the CBA(1967) report as being a very fine example of anhistoric town. It has retained many buildings ofoutstanding quality, dating back to the late medievaland post-medieval period. The settlement includes avery fine parish church, the maze, the castle keep,and a proportion of the town enclosure ditches.

StanstedMountfitchet

Data Not Available

Epping 1a, 7b Epping retains its post medieval built environment, interms of its plan of the High Street and its market place.Even though modern buildings and shop frontages havebeen built, the town is still distinctly historic.

Great Dunmow 1a, 7a, 7b Great Dunmow has been identified by the CBA (1967)report as being an example of an historic town. Thetown has the visual appearance of a medieval andpost medieval market town. The town also has alarge quantity of 17th and 18th century buildings thatare in good condition. Unfortunately, there are noremains of the roman town above ground.

Halstead 1a, 7a, 7b, 7c Halstead retains the appearance of an historic town ofmedieval origin, especially at the northern end of theHigh Street. There are some very good examples ofmedieval and post-medieval urban architecture within thetown.

Chipping Ongar 1a, 5, 7a, 7b Chipping Ongar has been identified by the CBA(1967) report as being an example of an historictown. The majority of the castle earthworks stillsurvive and many of the 17th and 18th Centurybuildings are in good condition.

Cheshunt Data Not AvailableLetchworth No Data Available Letchworth is a special case, as it is one of the world’s

first examples of a ‘Garden City’ which dates from 1903,with a unique environment of low-density residentialareas with high quality, tree lined streets and separateindustrial areas. This merits a special case forpreservation.

Baldock 1a, 7a, 7b Baldock is listed by the CBA as being an example ofan historic town. It contains a wealth of listedbuildings from the 17th and 18th Century and has awell-preserved medieval street plan.

Hitchin 1a, 2a, 7a, 7b, 7c Hitchin is listed by the CBA as being an example ofan historic town. It possess a wealth of listedbuildings from the 17th, 18th and the 19th Centuryand has a well-preserved medieval street plan.

Hertford 1a, 2a, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c Hertford is listed by the CBA as an example of ahistoric town. No less than four rivers meet inHertford, including the Mimram, Rib, Beane and theLea. The remains of the Motte, the Norman Walls andthe Gate house can still be seen.

Ware 1a, 2a, 3, 7a, 7b, 7c Ware is listed by the CBA an example of a historictown. It retains much of its ancient town plan, whichis characterised by the River Lea, which passesthrough the town.

Hoddesdon Data Not Available

Herts

BishopsStortford

Data Not Available


37

Royston 1a, 7a, 7b, 7c Royston contains many important listed buildings and thetown centre has conservation Status. The NorthHertfordshire Local Plan recognises that Royston is ofregional importance.

Sawbridgeworth Data Not AvailableBroxbounre Data Not AvailableBuntingford Data Not Available

2.7 Rural and Countryside Review

2.7.1 The rural and countryside review sets out the baseline situation with regards to thesensitivity of the rural landscape and countryside. This is based on an assessment of thefollowing:• Landscape Character Area Assessment;• Historic Landscape Assessment; and• Tranquillity Areas.

2.7.2 The review is pertinent to the Study since it is argued (Section 2.4) that the rural areas willexperience significant pressure for development and any development needs to becarefully managed to minimise detrimental impact. Some 85% of the Study area is madeup of rural areas (based on the total land make up of rural wards as a percentage of thetotal land within the Study area) including the 600 rural settlements mentioned in paragraph2.4.2.

2.7.3 It is therefore important to understand the sensitivity of rural areas to change so that growththat takes place outside the larger urban centres can be directed to locations which areleast sensitive to change and contribute towards achieving a sustainable pattern ofdevelopment.

2.7.4 The approach taken to the rural and countryside review is based on landscape character.This method has been recommended within the recent CPRE Report ‘Lie of the Land’(June 2003) as the most holistic approach to assessing the impact of development on thecountryside and rural areas, since it considers the whole of the countryside rather than justspecific parts that are protected by planning designations such as AONBs, SSSIs andnature reserves.

Landscape Character Area Assessment

2.7.5 The Inception Report outlined (in Section 3.3) how the Quality of Life Approach would beapplied in terms of the initial identification of sites with a potential capacity to accommodatedevelopment. This rural and countryside review uses the landscape character assessmentinformation already available within the Study area as the basis for further analysis of thecapacity of landscapes to accommodate change.

2.7.6 There is good coverage, in terms of recent landscape assessments, within Essex, thesouthern part of Hertfordshire and within the Cambridge Green Belt. These include:• Essex Landscape Character Assessment, Chris Blandford Associates, 2002.• Cambridge Landscape Guidelines – A Manual for Management, and Change in the

Rural Landscape, Countryside Commission and Landscape Design Associates, 1991.


38

• Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study, South Cambridgeshire DistrictCouncil, 1998.

• Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy Volume 2: Landscape Character Assessment,Evaluation and Guidelines for Southern Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire CC and theLandscape Partnership Ltd, 2001.

2.7.7 In addition, since production of the Inception Report a draft landscape characterassessment has been supplied for North Hertfordshire. Within parts of East Hertfordshireno local landscape assessments have been published to date, although nationalCountryside Character Areas apply. In order to bridge this information gap a broadcategorisation of landscape types within these areas has been undertaken through a briefarea survey to ensure broad linkages between the local landscape character areas withinthe Study area.

2.7.8 Of the landscape character studies undertaken to date, only the Essex LandscapeCharacter Assessment includes an appraisal of landscape capacity for each landscapecharacter area. This has been used as the basis of an assessment of capacity forremaining landscape character areas at the broad level, in order to set out the baselinesituation using a consistent approach across the Study area.

2.7.9 For each county, this baseline assessment sets out the landscape character areas (LCA)and then adopts the methodology for defining sensitivity of landscapes to change to forman initial picture of potential areas for growth.

Sensitivity of Landscapes to Accommodate Change

2.7.10 The sensitivity analysis carried out in the Essex Study was principally to guide and facilitatesubsequent work at County level. It is intended to inform:• The identification of spatial options at a strategic level;• Sustainability analysis of the structure plan proposals; and• Development of strategic design guidelines and initiatives.

2.7.11 It also highlights issues that could be considered in greater detail at a local level or inrelation to large scale development control issues.

2.7.12 The sensitivity analysis of landscape character areas undertaken in the Essex Study hasbeen used to form the basis for the assessment of capacity within this baselineassessment by applying the method used to Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

2.7.13 The approach to defining sensitivity levels based upon good practice, adapted to thecircumstances of Essex was developed and is set out in Table 2.6 below. These were thenapplied in a sensitivity matrix to provide an indication of the sensitivity of each characterarea to different types/scales of development/change. In order to make it useful the Studyidentified, in broad terms, the different categories of development pressure and land usechange.

2.7.14 To analyse sensitivity without such differentiation would have been less meaningful. Thelevels of sensitivity identified, rather than defining policy for a particular character area, aregeneralised statements that provide a pointer to issues that would need to be addressed inany development control or landscape planning context in that area. The Study


39

acknowledges that further analysis would need to be carried out at a district level, inrelation to a specific application with significant landscape or visual effects, or where thereare cumulative impacts of several developments. Map 2.11 shows the results of thelandscape area sensitivity analysis. The results are set out in more detail for each countyin Tables 2.6 - 2.9 below.

Table 2.6: Landscape Sensitivity Level and Landscape Sensitivity Criteria included in theEssex StudyLandscapeSensitivityLevel

Sensitivity Criteria Ability of the Landscapeto Absorb Impacts ofDevelopment and OtherChange

HIGH The landscape is very sensitive to this type/scaleof development/change due to the potential forvery adverse impacts on:Distinctive physical and cultural components or keycharacteristics,Strength of character/condition of the landscapeAONB Landscape,Landscape of high intervisibility/visual exposureTranquil area .Very limited opportunities for mitigation.

Unlikely to be capable ofbeing absorbed.Presumption againstdevelopment unlessoverriding need.

MODERATE The landscape is sensitive to this type/scale ofdevelopment/change due to the potential for someadverse impacts on:Distinctive physical and cultural components, orkey characteristics,Strength of character/condition of the landscape,Landscape of moderate intervisibility/visualexposure,Area of fragmented tranquillity.There may be more opportunities to overcomethese through appropriate siting, design and othermitigation measures.

May be capable of beingabsorbed. Developments tobe considered on theirindividual merits.

LOW The landscape is less sensitive to this type andscale of development/change due to the potentialfor only slight, or no damaging impacts on:Distinctive physical and cultural components or keycharacteristics,Strength of character/condition of the landscape,Landscape of low intervisibility/visual exposure,Area with an absence of tranquillityLikely to be considerable opportunities formitigation and/or landscape enhancement.

Likely to be capable inprinciple of being absorbed.


40

Map 2.11


41

2.7.15 The Essex Study assessed the sensitivity of the following types and scales ofdevelopment:• Major urban extensions (>5ha) and new settlements• Small urban extensions (<5ha)• Major transportation developments/improvements• Commercial/warehouse estate/port development• Developments with individual large/bulky buildings (e.g. large farm buildings, industrial

plant)• Large scale ‘open uses’ (e.g. golf courses, water bodies, major agricultural change,

forestry, marinas, caravan parks)• Mineral extraction/waste disposal• Incremental small scale developments (e.g. minor highway improvements, small

landform changes, farmstead intensification)• Utilities development i.e. masts, pylons• Decline in traditional countryside management.

2.7.16 For the purpose of the landscape character baseline assessment, major urban extensions(>5ha), new settlements and small urban extensions (<5ha) have been assessed. Theother types of development are deemed less applicable. The benchmark of 5 ha hasbeen used so that the Essex Study results can be used directly for this Study. Theidentification of sites that will be assessed in Stage 3 of this Study will have a minimum sizethreshold of at least 10ha.

2.7.17 A more detailed analysis of landscape character assessment will be carried out at thedetailed site/area level, which will incorporate the concept of Quality of Life Capital (QoL)focusing on the value of landscape to society, assessing sensitivity and uniqueness,thereby determining the capacity of the landscape to accommodate change. This will forman integral part of the QoL Site Assessment in Stage 3 of this Study.

2.7.18 The results of the review of Landscape Character Areas for each County are set out in thefollowing paragraphs, organised by County.

Landscape Character Areas and Sensitivity within the Study Area

ESSEX

2.7.19 Full coverage of the County is provided by the ‘Essex Landscape Character Assessment –Final Report’ (July 2002) Chris Blandford Associates’. The key characteristics for eacharea are included in Appendix 2.

2.7.20 An extract of the summary matrix in Appendix B of the Essex report is set out below asTable 2.7, indicating the relevant Landscape Character Areas and the sensitivity to bothmajor and small urban extensions.


42

Table 2.7: Summary Matrix of Essex Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations of Relevance tothis StudyCHARACTER AREAS Major urban

extensions(>5ha) and new

settlements

Small urbanextensions

(<5ha)

A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmlands H HB1 Central Essex Farmlands M LB2 North Essex Farmlands H HB3 Blackwater/Stour Farmlands M MB4 Gosfield Wooded Farmlands H LC1 Cam Valley H MC2 Stort Valley H MC3 Lee Valley H LC4 Roding Valley H MC5 Chelmer Valley H MC6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower Chelmer Valleys H LC7 Colne Valley H MC8 Stour Valley H HD1 Epping Forest & Ridges H MD2 Brentwood Hills M MD3 Danbury Hills H LD4 Tiptree Ridge H LE1 South Essex Farmlands M LE2 South Colchester Farmlands M LE3 Tendring Plain M LE4 North Colchester Farmlands M MF2 Crouch & Roach Farmland H MF5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal Farmlands H MF6 Mersea Island H MG1 Harlow & Environs M LG2 Chelmsford & Environs M LG3 South Essex Coastal Towns M LG4 Colchester & Environs M L

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

2.7.21 Within Cambridgeshire, the following landscape studies are relevant to this Study:• The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines published by Cambridgeshire County

Council with the Countryside Commission in 1991.• The Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study produced in 1998.

2.7.22 Neither of these studies indicate potential capacity but they do provide descriptions oflandscape character.

2.7.23 The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (1991) provide broad descriptions of alllandscapes within the County. The following character areas are relevant to this Study:


43

• South-East Clay Hills• Fenland• Chalklands• Western Claylands• Ouse Valley

2.7.24 The key characteristics for each area are included in Appendix 2.

2.7.25 The landscape capacity within each of these character areas is strongly influenced by thedegree of openness or enclosure of that landscape and the nature of the topography. TheCambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines do not provide an indication of potential capacityand there is considerable variation in the key characteristics of landscape character withineach character area. In the ‘Chalklands’ character area for example the well vegetatedand enclosed river valleys contrast sharply with the open chalklands on more elevatedtopography. It is therefore difficult to provide a general statement about landscapecapacity for each character area within Cambridgeshire without detailed site assessment,which will be carried out in Stage 3 of this study. However, for general guidance the rangeof landscape sensitivity is indicated in Table 2.8 below.

2.7.26 The Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study (1998) defines thirteen LocalLandscape Character Areas (LCAs) specifically within the Cambridge Green Belt, all ofwhich fall within the boundaries of the Study area:• Cam River Valley (south)• Rhee River Valley• Wimpole Ridge (east)• Bourn Brook Valley• Madingley Ridge• North Cambridge Fen Edge Claylands• Cam River Valley (north)• East Cambridge Fen Edge Chalklands• Fulbourn Fen Bowl• Gog Magog Hills• Granta Levels• Hobson’s Brook• Newton Chalk Hills

2.7.27 The Cambridge Sub-Region Study (2001), analysed the capacity of these character areasin relation to the main transport corridors radiating from Cambridge (refer to paragraph8.4.7 of Technical Papers, Volume 1). Extracts from this report are attached as Appendix 2,which indicates relative landscape sensitivities of these local LCA.

2.7.28 Landscape Capacity of these local Landscape Character Areas and the County LandscapeCharacter areas (identified by the Cambridgeshire Landscape guidelines) have beentabulated in Table 2.8. This has been derived by a broad analysis of the physicalcomponents or key characteristics of each character area and the recorded degree ofintervisibility/openness within the above written descriptions. It thus broadly applies thesensitivity criteria methodology used within the Essex Landscape Character study, allowingsome degree of consistency of assessment across the Study area. Issues of historicsensitivity and tranquillity are discussed below. It is emphasised that this has been a desk-


44

based appraisal and will therefore be subject to more detailed analysis during siteevaluation in Stage 3.

Table 2.8: Summary Matrix of Cambridgeshire Character Area Sensitivity EvaluationsCountyCharacter Areaand Number

Local Character Area (Cambridge Green Belt) Majorextensions(>5ha) and

newsettlements

Smallurban

extensions(<5ha)

South-east ClayHills (1)

N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) H H

Fenlands (8) East-Cambridge Chalklands (part) H M-HOutside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H

Chalklands (2) North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands (part) M-H M-HCam River Valley (North) M-H MEast Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Chalklands (part) M-H M-HFulbourn Fen Bowl H M-HGog Magog Hills H HGranta Levels H MHobson’s Brook M-H MNewton Chalk Hills H HRhee River Valley H MWimpole Ridge (Part) H HCam River Valley (South) – (part) H MBourn Brook Valley (part) H HOutside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H

WesternClaylands (3)

Cam River Valley (south) – (part) H M-H

Bourn Brook Valley – (part) H HWimpole Ridge (east) – (part) H HMadingley Ridge H M-HNorth Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands (part) H M-HOutside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M

Ouse Valley (4) N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) M MHERTFORDSHIRE

2.7.29 Within Hertfordshire, the following landscape studies are relevant to this study:• Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy Volume 2: Landscape Character Assessment,

Evaluation and Guidelines for Southern Hertfordshire, (2001), The LandscapePartnership Ltd.

• North Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areas, (Draft-April 2003), Babtie Group.2.7.30 As with the Cambridgeshire Landscape Character Assessments, capacity to accommodate

development has not been analysed by either of these studies but they do providedescriptions of landscape character.


45

2.7.31 The Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy (2001) for Southern Hertfordshire, (which extendsacross the southern half of the County) covers the southern part of East Hertfordshire andall of Broxbourne District. The Landscape Character Areas within the Study area areextensive and listed in Table 2.9 below, together with an analysis of sensitivity. The keycharacteristics for each area are included in Appendix 2.

2.7.32 Neither of the studies undertaken within Hertfordshire indicate potential capacity. However,potential landscape capacity of these landscape character areas have been tabulated inTable 2.9, derived from the character area descriptions.

Table 2.9: Summary Matrix of Hertfordshire Character Area Sensitivity EvaluationsSouthern Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areas withinEast Hertfordshire DC

Major urbanextensions(>5ha) and

newsettlements

Small urbanextensions

(<5ha)

37 Datchworth Settled Slopes M M38 Aston Estate Farmland M/H M39 MiddleBeane Valley H M/H40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland M/H M41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and Datchworth Uplands M L/M42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland M L/M43 Mimram Valley Parklands M L44 Panshanger Parkland (N/A)* (N/A)*45 Welwyn Fringes L/M L48 West End – Brickendon Wooded Slopes M L/M49 Little Berkhamsted Ridge Settlements M L/M55 Theobalds Estate M M56 Cheshunt Common H M/H57 Thunderfield Ridges M/H M/H58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands M M59 Lea Valley Marshes M/H M60 Middle Lea Valley South L/M L61 Broxbournebury M M62 Broxbourne Woods Complex H H63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands M M64 Hertford Heath M/H M65 Middle Lea Valley West M/H M66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury M L/M67 Bramfield Plain M/H M/H68 Lower Beane Valley M L/M69 Stoneyhills M M70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes M L/M71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge M/H M72 Munden Valley M/H M73 High Cross Plateau M/H M74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland M/H M/H


46

75 Lower Rib Valley M M76 Ware Parklands L/M L/M77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Floodplain M M78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes M L/M79 Amwell Floodplain M L/M80 Rye Meads H M/H81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands M/H M/H82 River Stort M L/M83 Hunsdon Plateau M/H M/H84 High Wych Slopes H M/H85 Thorley Uplands H M/H86 Perry Green Uplands M/H M/H87 Middle Ash Valley M M88 Lower Ash Valley M M89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands H M/H90 Middle Rib Valley H M/H91 Upper Rib Valley M/H M/H92 Puckeridge Parklands M/H M/H93 Hadhams Valley M M* Area has consent for mineral extraction – potential capacity following/as part of restorationNorth Hertfordshire DC Landscape Character Areas200 Peters Green Plateau M M201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom M/H M/H202 Breachwood Green Ridge M/H M/H203 Whitwell Valley Not available204 River Mimram M M205 Codicote Plateau M L/M206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath M L/M207 Datchworth Settled Slopes M/H M208 Knebworth M L/M209 Almshoe Plateau M/H M/H210 Langley Scarp M M211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden M M212 Lilley Bottom M M213 Chilterns Scarp H M/H214 Langley Valley H M/H215 Wymondley and Titmore Green M L/M216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley M/H M/H217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys M M218 Pirton Lowlands H M/H219 Baldock Gap H M/H220 Weston Park M L/M221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries H M/H222 Weston – Green End Plateau M L/M223 Wallington Scarp Slopes H M/H224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands H M/H225 Hinxworth Lowlands M/H M/H


47

226 Steeple Morden H M/H227 Odsey to Royston H M/H228 Royston Scarp Slopes M/H M/H229 Therfield – Reed Plateau H H230 Barkway Plateau Not available231 Nuthampstead M/H M/H232 Barley Scarp Slope M/H M/HREMAINDER OF EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT

2.7.33 No landscape character assessments have been undertaken in the northern part of EastHertfordshire. Consequently, the consultants undertook a brief site survey to determine thekey landscape characteristics and potential capacity of the landscapes within this area toaccommodate development.

2.7.34 It is emphasised that this was undertaken at a broad scale to aid capacity categorisation aspart of this study and does not comprise a full landscape assessment.

Conclusions on Landscape Character Capacity for the Study Area

2.7.35 Tables 2.7-2.9 summarise the potential landscape capacity of the landscape characterareas, which have been recorded within the Study area. Table 2.7 is extracted directlyfrom the Essex study, Tables 2.8 and 2.9 have been formulated using the samemethodology as applied the Essex Study. The sensitivity of these broad landscapecharacter areas have been recorded on Map 2.11 and the key characteristics of each areaset out in Appendix 2.

2.7.36 The results will be taken through to the site selection process for the sites database once abroad categorisation of historic asset density has been carried out, as described below. Inaddition, the location of character areas in relation to tranquillity area mapping will bedetermined, as set out below.

Historic Landscape Assessment

2.7.37 A large proportion of the historic assets are located in the open countryside or in ruralsettlements in the form of scheduled monuments, archaeological sites, and registeredlandscapes. Success in conserving the historic character of the countryside and protectingits archaeological sites will be dependent in large part on future land-use policy, which thisStudy seeks to guide and influence.

2.7.38 The baseline assessment therefore considers the extent to which the Study area isaffected by the presence of historic assets within the rural areas and also determines,through a broad assessment, the relative ‘historicness’ of the urban centres and small ruralsettlements that will be subject to growth. Map 2.12 shows the results of this analysisindicating relative levels of constraint due to the presence or otherwise of historic assets.


48

Map 2.12


49

2.7.39 In commenting on the brief for this study, English Heritage expressed a desire for thefollowing objectives to be incorporated into the Study:• Emphasis on the historic dimension of both the landscape and urban settlements;• To consider and promote the quality and character of urban areas;• Rural character assessment should encompass the new data available in Essex

through the Historic Landscape Characterisation Programme and the pilot study beingundertaken in a small Study area encompassing Harlow, Stansted, Great Dunmow,Thaxted and the surrounding rural area (the results of which are likely to be availableduring the course of the study).

2.7.40 English Heritage also acknowledged the absence of existing studies that adequatelycharacterise the historic towns and smaller settlements in the Study area. While thecollection of conservation appraisals (where they exist) will help, these will not provide aholistic picture of settlement character, or provide analysis of the potential impact ofperipheral development on historic settlements – both in terms of direct visual impact andindirect development pressure on central areas. Such work will be integral to this study,through the detailed site assessment process that will be undertaken in Stage 3.

2.7.41 Existing information that has been used to form the basis of the Historic EnvironmentAssessment includes the draft historic landscape characterisation study for Hertfordshirethat may be available in GIS format during the course of this study plus a number of TownAssessment Reports have been produced for historic towns in Hertfordshire and Essex.

2.7.42 In the light of these comments and given the tight timescales for completion of this study,the GIS datasets for the historic landscape characterisation for Essex have been used toidentify the density and nature of historic features within the county.

2.7.43 In addition, whilst historic landscape characterisation has not been undertaken forCambridgeshire and is not currently available for Hertfordshire, GIS datasets relating to thehistoric environment were requested and have been overlaid to ascertain the density andnature of historic features within each landscape character area within these counties.

2.7.44 GIS datasets supplied by Cambridgeshire are set out in Table A2.4 in Appendix 2 andcomprised the following:-• Scheduled Monuments• Conservation Areas• Registered Parks and Gardens• Ancient Woodland

2.7.45 GIS datasets supplied by Hertfordshire are set out in Table A2.5 in Appendix 5 andcomprised the following:-• Scheduled Monuments• Conservation Areas• Registered Parks and Gardens• Common Land• Ancient Woodland

2.7.46 (NB SMR data and other datasets available for Essex were not available forCambridgeshire and Hertfordshire).


50

2.7.47 Whilst the assessment of the density of historic assets will not provide the same level ofdetail as the historic landscape characterisation projects (which lies outside the scope ofthis study), it does allow a broad level appraisal of the historic environment withinCambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The sensitivity ratings included within the Essexhistoric landscapes report will be excluded from this appraisal in order to ensureconsistency of approach across all three counties.

Tranquillity Areas

2.7.48 In 1995, CPRE and the former Countryside Commission produced the Tranquil Area Mapsof England providing a unique analysis of changes over the last 30 years in the availabilityof countryside free from intrusive noise, development and visual clutter. The findingsshowed a 20% decline in the total area of tranquil countryside between 1960 and 1990 anda damaging fragmentation of the tranquil areas that remained, with a 73% decline in theiraverage size. The Government responded by recognising the need to protect ruraltranquillity in its Rural White Paper (2000).

2.7.49 Tranquil Area Map – East Anglia’ and ‘Tranquil Map Area – South East’ published by theCPRE and Countryside Commission in 1995, indicate “areas which are sufficiently far awayfrom the visual or noise intrusion of development or traffic to be considered unspoilt byurban influences. The maps are drawn at a regional level, ignoring local effects, andprovide a broad brush picture of areas in the countryside, which are free from urbanintrusion. Within Tranquil Areas lower level semi-tranquil areas are shown. In the case ofroads the disturbance is projected to increase and the zones are therefore identified asvulnerable (i.e. where growth in traffic levels would cause further loss of tranquillity). Inother cases, such as power lines the disturbance is not likely to increase significantly andthe zones are denoted less vulnerable. The cumulative effect of the vulnerable and lessvulnerable zones gives a measure of the integrity of a Tranquil Area. A Tranquil Area isdefined as being:-• 4km from the largest power stations• 3km from the most highly trafficked roads such as the M1/M6; from large towns (e.g.

towns the size of Leicester and larger); and from major industrial areas• 2km from most other motorways and major trunk roads such as the M4 and A1 and

from the edge of smaller towns.• 1km from medium disturbance roads i.e. roads which are difficult to cross in peak

hours (taken to be roughly equivalent too greater than 10,000 vehicles per day) andsome main line railways.

• A Tranquil Area also lies beyond military and civil airfield/airport noise lozenges asdefined by published noise data (where available) and beyond very extensive opencastmining.

• Tranquil Areas are drawn with a minimum radius of 1km.2.7.50 Within Tranquil Areas the following linear elements are shown as creating a lower level of

disturbance 1km wide:• Low disturbance roads• 400kV and 275kV power lines• some well-trafficked railways


51

2.7.51 Within Tranquil Areas various sites also fall into this lower level of disturbance category,including large mining or processing operations, groups of pylons or masts,settlements greater than 2,500 in population, some half-abandoned airfields and mostwindpower developments.

2.7.52 For the purposes of this study Tranquil areas recorded for the ‘early 1990s’ on the TranquilAreas – East Anglia’ and ‘Tranquil Areas – South-East Region’ maps have been mappedas a GIS layer and overlaid on the Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) within the Studyarea.

2.7.53 From this process it was possible to discern whether LCAs are located within Tranquilareas. The results are set out in Map 2.13 for the Study area as a whole and for eachcounty on Appendix 2 Tables A2.6, A2.7 and A2.8.

2.7.54 Where the majority of a LCA is located in a Tranquil Area this LCA, will be excluded fromfurther consideration within the Stage 3 search areas. Where part of a LCA is within aTranquil Area this aspect will be considered in more detail during the site assessment instage 3.

Summary and Conclusion of Rural and Countryside Review

2.7.55 Section 2.7 the Rural and Countryside Review analysed landscape capacity (based on theEssex Landscape Character Assessment methodology), carried out a broad analysis ofhistoric asset density (based on GIS datasets) and determined the location of TranquilAreas in relation to Landscape Character Areas within the Study area. This has allowed anassessment of whether Landscape Character Areas are suitable for inclusion in the sitesidentification and assessment process in Stage 3 of the Study. The results are set out inMap 2.14, which indicates which character areas are considered as absolute constraints(i.e. excluded from Stage 3). The results are also set out for each county in Tables A2.9 toA2.12 in Appendix 2.


52

Map 2.13


53

Map 2.14


54

2.8 Spatial Linkages

2.8.1 This Section identifies the physical relationships between districts and settlements withinthe Study area and between the Study area and its surrounding area. The spatial linkagesare identified in the following ways:• Road network• Rail network• Bus network• Travel to work patterns; and• Linkages based on the hierarchy resulting from settlement role and function analysis.

2.8.2 Section 4.5 of the Inception Report provides an overview of the transport infrastructurewithin the Study area with regards to highways, rail, bus and coach services. It describesthe current provision and also sets out the proposed, emerging and possible infrastructureenhancements.

2.8.3 This section includes an extract from the inception report on highways taken from theInception Report, detailing the key network flow information. In addition, furtherassessments have been undertaken with respect to the adequacy of rail and bus services,with specific reference to rail journey times to Stansted Airport and bus provision within themain urban settlements. The results of these assessments are set out below.

2.8.4 In the next stage of the Study when considering infrastructure capacity and locations forfuture development, spatial linkages will be one of the considerations in assessing impactof development. It may be preferable to exploit good existing linkages betweensettlements before creating new ones, and new linkages would need to fit in with an overallstrategy. The feasibility and deliverability of improvements in capacity will be aconsideration in any development options identified. For example, it could be consideredthat development within a retail catchment would strengthen the vitality of a town centre butalso add to congestion. In other locations, where several catchments overlap or seeminconsistently large in size, there may be potential for development of new facilities withoutadverse impacts on existing ones and thus the need to travel may be reduced.

2.8.5 Within the Study area there are four main transport corridors: Great Northern/A1M fromLondon to Cambridge; M11/West Anglia London to Cambridge, the Great Eastern/A12 fromLondon to Colchester and the A120 from the A10 to the A12 at Colchester. The first threecorridors are all part of a hub and spoke network radiating out from London. Cross country(east-west) travel will be more limited than north-south but none the less locally significant.East-west movement within Essex will be substantially improved in the near future whenthe new A120 from the M11 (junction 8) to Braintree is completed. East-west movementwill be further improved when the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey is upgraded todual carriageway1.

2.8.6 The Study area’s external linkages are dominated by London. Much of the Study area is aprime commuting location both in terms of distance and because of good transport links,for example, by train Cambridge is only 47 minutes away from Kings Cross and Colchesteris approximately 50 minutes. London also attracts many trips for business, leisure and

1 Announcement by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling 09th July 2003


55

shopping purposes. This is particularly true for Epping and Loughton, which are on theunderground Central Line.

Highways

2.8.7 Section 4.5 of the Inception Report provided an overview of the current highway network inthe Study area in relation to:• Existing network;• Traffic flows;• Accidents; and• Review of transport policy and planning documents.

2.8.8 This section elaborates the issues of traffic flow and accidents and then looks at thenetwork structure in relation to the main settlements.

Traffic Flows

2.8.9 A list of traffic level data for the Study area network is included in Table 2.10 below andMap 2.15. Map 2.15 shows the following trends:• The A10 has a relatively limited use for north-south movements confined to the section

immediately north of the M25 with traffic flows of 68,000 to 89,000. Flows drop offsignificantly after the junction with the A602 at Ware falling to between 5,000 and26,000. The traffic flows on the northern section of the A10 are comparable to eastwest flows on the A507, A505 and A120 between the A10 and the M11;

• The highest flows are found on the M25, which has for many years carried around125,000 vehicles per day (vpd) resulting in periods of unstable flow, especially at peakperiods. As a result stop/start conditions are created and wide variability of speedoccurs;

• To the north of the Study area, the A14 carries significant levels of traffic with thesection between Cambridge and Huntingdon carrying some 80,000 vehicles. Lengthseither side of this busier section, however, carry only 40,000 vpd. The section betweenwest of Cambridge and Bar Hill is of a dualled, three-lane standard;

• The A12 from the M25 junction carries over 67,000 vpd as far as Chelmsford, where itincreases slightly to 74,500 before dropping away. However, Map 2.15 shows that thevolumes of traffic along the whole of the A12 (at least as far as Colchester) aresubstantial;

• Traffic along the M11 shows four distinct sections. The heaviest flows are from theM25 to Junction 8 for Stansted Airport; there are also heavy flows as far as junction 9where traffic is siphoned off onto the A11; thirdly there are significant levels of trafficcontinuing to junction 11 for Cambridge and fourthly there is a substantial increase intraffic flows between junctions 11 and 12 indicating that a considerable volume of localtraffic uses this section of the motorway.

2.8.10 Although the flows are heavy at times, under normal conditions, the network functionsreasonably well albeit that there are sections where congestion arises due to high numberof vehicles leaving/joining through routes, closeness of junctions and changes in highwaygradient and other features. There is some evidence of an emerging accident problem onthe A14 west of Cambridge where the route is approaching its capacity level and which is


56

associated with the slightly older section of this route. As a result, congestion quicklydevelops and delays become quite extensive.


57

Map 2.15


58

2.8.11 Table 2.10 also indicates a high number of deaths and injuries on sections of the M11.The national average is 0.20 for the KSI ratio and there are three sections of the motorwaythat are greater, particularly junctions 12 to 13. The section close to Stansted (junctions 8-8a) also has an above average KSI ratio.

2.8.12 It is clear that in simple design terms, many sections of road in the area exceed thetheoretical design limits. This limit also represents the level at which the road is working toan effective economic level. Any increase in flows will therefore reduce the economicperformance of that route until a level of flow is reached which generates wildly fluctuatingspeeds. This is manifested in the low speed, stop-start patterns. This level is called theCongestion Reference Flow (CRF). There is no set flow level for any section of road asthis level will vary on a daily basis due to such matters as weather conditions, volume ofheavy goods vehicles and gradients along the road.

2.8.13 The network in the area does not yet experience extensive CRF conditions on a regularbasis, although at certain times such conditions do arise. These conditions, when they dooccur, are associated with significant peak flows or follow other traffic related incidentsarising from the high levels of use however, the congestion clears reasonably quickly,unless the occurrence of accidents add to the pressures and the delay periods extendslightly.

Table 2.10: Details of traffic flows and accidents on the highways network (2000-2003)AccidentsRoute Section Standard Flow (AADT)

16hr AverageCapacityCRFTA46/97Annex D

StressLevels(Flow/CRF)

F Se Sl

KSIRatio

Accident Rate(pias / mvkms)

M11 Jctn 6-7 D3M 95600 110000 0.87 3 32 178 0.18 0.28Jctn 7-8 D3M 77800 110000 0.71 5 23 121 0.19 0.12Jctn 8-8a D3M 63700 110000 0.58 0.07Jctn 8a-9 D2M 50000 74000 0.68

3 18 70 0.230.08

Jctn 9-10 D2M 32000 74000 0.43 0 1 5 0.18 0.33Jctn 10-11 D2M 42000 68000 0.62 1 1 6 0.25 0.02Jctn 11-12 D2M 49000 64000 0.77 0 1 4 0.20 0.03Jctn 12-13 D2M 46000 68000 0.68 0 2 3 0.40 0.04Jctn 13-14 D2M 38000 65000 0.58 0 0 4 - 0.05Jctn 14-A14 D3M 0 1 2 0.33

M25 Jctn 23/A1M-24

D3M 131000 110000 1.19

Jctn 24-25/A10

D3M 121000 110000 1.10

Jctn 25-26 D3MJctn 26-27/M11

D3M

Jctn 27-28/A12

D3M 125800 110000 1.14 3 23 198 0.11 0.14

A11 M11-A14 D2AP 24000 69000 0.35 1 4 14 0.26 0.04A12 M25-

ChelmsfordD2AP 67900 68000 1.00 9 46 189 0.23 0.21

Chelmsford-A120

D2AP 74500 68000 1.10 8 72 366 0.18 0.19

A120 – A120 D2AP 51700 68000 0.76 0 1 11 0.08 0.02A120-A14Ipswich

D2AP

A10 M25-A414(S) D2AP 47700 68000 0.70


59

A414(S)-A414(N)A414(N)-A602A602-A120 D2AP 22400 65000 0.34A120-A507 S2L part

D2AP16100 18000

650000.900.25

A507-Royston

S2L partD2AP

9000 2000065000

0.450.14

Royston-Cambridge

S2L 15000 20000 0.75 1 2 15 0.17 0.07

Cambridge-Ely

S2L 20000 20000 1.00 3 11 46 0.23 0.13

A1M M25-J 4 D2M 68200 71000 0.96J 4-6 D2M 75400 71000 1.06J 6-7 D2M 75500 71000 1.06J 7-8 D2M 66700 71000 0.94J 8-9 D2M 66600 71000 0.94J 9-10 D2M 48100 71000 0.68

A1 A1M-A421/A428

D2AP

A428-A14 D2AP 0 5 21 0.19A14 Kettering-A1 D2AP 42000 68000 0.62 1 4 17 0.22 0.01

A1-Huntingdon

D2AP 54000 68000 0.79 1 1 12 0.14 0.06

Huntingdon-M11

D2/3AP 80000 105000 0.76 1 12 91 0.13 0.06

M11(J14)-A10

D2AP 53000 63000 0.84 0 3 24 0.11 0.07

A10-A11W D2AP 44000 63000 0.70 1 3 17 0.19 0.05A11W-A11E D2AP 53000 63000 0.84 0 3 15 0.17 0.05A11E-Ipswich

D2AP 38000 66000 0.58 0 0 1 - -

A507 A505-A10 S2L 5300 16000 0.33A414 A1(M)-A10 D2AP 28400 63000 0.45A120 A414-A10

(Harlow)S2L 30400 23000 1.32

A10-A1184 S2L 14900 23000 0.65A1184-M11(J8)

S2L 17600 23000 0.77

M11(J8)-A130

S2L 26900 23000 1.17 5 25 150 0.17 0.56

A130-A131(S)

S2l 22400 23000 0.97 5 20 75 0.25 0.64

A131(S)-A131(N)

D2AP

A131-A12 S2L 18300 23000 0.80 4 29 131 0.20 0.07A505 A1M(J9)-A10 S2L*(part)

D2AP22300 20000

680001.120.33

A428 A1-M11 S2L 17000 20000 0.85 1 6 29 0.19 0.08

Notes:Data sources: Government Office Eastern Region

Herts CC Essex CC

Network Structure

2.8.14 The primary road network is ‘Londoncentric’ with the main arterial routes being the M11,A10 and A12. East-west the main routes are the M25 in the south of the study area andthe A14 to the north, this later route provides direct access to Felixstowe port and isdesigned to modern dual two-lane standard. The A120 also forms an important east-west


60

link connecting the A10 in Hertfordshire with the A12 in Essex, and, as mentioned above,this road is being rebuilt between Stansted and Braintree to modern dual two-lane standardand the section from Braintree to Marks Tey is also to be upgraded to dual carriagewaystandard. Stansted Airport effectively sits at a highways crossroads, which will haveimportant implications later on when determining future growth locations.

2.8.15 The new A120 is the most significant highway development within the Study area. Thisinvolves construction of the A120 to a new alignment by-passing the settlements ofTakeley Street, Takeley, Smith’s Green, Great Dunmow and Throws. When completed itwill reduce journey times from Stansted to the eastern part of the Study area and providesubstantial additional road capacity. The new A120 could have considerable influence onwhere people decide to live with Braintree, Great Dunmow, Colchester and Chelmsfordhaving reduced journey times to Stansted Airport. Bishop’s Stortford is strategically locatedon the A120 close to junction eight of the M11 giving good east-west and north-south links.

2.8.16 Based on the primary road network there are five distinct settlement patterns within theStudy area:• Cambridge to London along the M11 comprising Cambridge, Sawston, Saffron

Walden, Stansted Mountfitchet, Bishops Stortford, Sawbridgeworth, Harlow, Eppingand Loughton;

• Colchester to London along the A12 comprising Colchester, Witham and Chelmsford;• Royston to London along the A10, comprising Royston, Buntingford, Hertford, Ware,

Broxbourne, Cheshunt and Waltham Abbey;• Hitchin to Cambridge along the A505 and A10, comprising Hitchin, Letchworth,

Baldock, Royston and Cambridge; and• Colchester to Bishop’s Stortford along the A120, comprising Colchester, Braintree,

Great Dunmow and Bishops Stortford.2.8.17 A brief assessment of the road network shows that there are significant parts of the Study

area that do not have easy access to the primary road network or even to an A-road.Residents of many of the small settlements have to use minor roads to access B-roadsbefore they can access an A-road. Uttlesford and large parts of Braintree are particularlyaffected and the area between the M11 and the A1(M) has significant numbers of smallsettlements with poor access to the primary road network. The majority of the settlementsidentified in this Study are located on the primary road network. Those that are not are;Hitchin, Saffron Walden, Sawbridgeworth, Sawston and Stansted Mountfitchet. SaffronWalden and Stansted Mountfitchet do not have direct A-road access.

Rail Network

2.8.18 The Inception Report sets out the existing situation with regards to rail provision within theStudy area. It includes an analysis of the following:

• Existing Network• West Anglia Main Line

− Capacity and Performance− Traffic Flows

• Train Operators− WAGN


61

− Other Train Operators• Rail Freight• Committed Investment Plans

− WARM-R− WARM-E− Greater Anglia Franchise

• Other Strategic Rail Proposals− Thameslink 2000− East-West Rail Link− Felixstowe to Nuneaton Freight Link− Local Authority Aspirations

− Other Rail Related Proposals− East Cost Main Line Upgrade− CrossRail

• Strategic Rail Literature Review− SRA Strategic Plan 2003− SRA comments on Multi Modal Studies

2.8.19 The alignment of the rail network, like the highway network, is designed to facilitate travelto/from London. It is possible to travel east-west from Hitchin to Cambridge but thesesettlements are on the Cambridge to London main line and the primary function is to servethe London market.

2.8.20 As well as the main settlements there are a considerable number of small settlementswhich have rail stations. Of particular significance are Shelford, Whittlesford, GreatChesterford, Audley End, Newport, Elsenham and Harlow Mill on the West Anglia main lineand have direct rail access to Stansted Airport.

2.8.21 Map 2.16 maps journey times to Stansted by rail. Not surprisingly settlements on theLondon Liverpool Street to Cambridge route have the best rail access in terms of time, allbeing within 45 minutes travel time. Royston has relatively good access via Cambridge butother settlements have lengthy journeys, which generally involve travel via London. Themost disadvantaged settlement is Braintree, which, although being physically close toStansted, does not have a rail link and therefore rail is not an option. It is quicker to travelfrom King’s Lynn and Ely even though they are a far greater distance away. The only largesettlements within the Study Area that have viable rail commuting access to Stansted areHarlow and Cambridge. The lack of an east-west rail connection severely limits the abilityof the rail network to contribute to commuting to Stansted.

2.8.22 An accessibility assessment of rail links to Stansted Airport was run using the ABRA model(this is explained in Appendix 1). Map 2.17 shows the output from the model run of thecurrent network, which is explained in more detail below. The travel time results are allexpressed in generalised time (see methodology in Appendix 1 for explanation ofgeneralised time) and assume that access to the public transport network is on foot.

2.8.23 It can be seen from the map that areas of accessibility are, not surprisingly, clusteredaround railway stations. The most accessible railway stations are located within the Londonto Stansted rail corridor. The areas around the main stations within this corridor, between


62

Liverpool Street and Stansted, are all within 1 hours travel time of Stansted. Much of northLondon lies within 2 hours travel time of Stansted.


63

Map 2.16


64

Map 2.17


65

2.8.24 The rail corridor from Stansted to Cambridge shows reasonable accessibility with allstations being within at least 1 hours travel time of Stansted. It was agreed as part of theplanning application to increase the airport’s capacity to handle up to 25mppa that asecond rail tunnel on the spur from the West Anglia main line could be constructed,dependent upon mix of air traffic and resultant demand on rail services.

2.8.25 Other corridors which show levels of accessibility within 2 hours are as follows:• Colchester to Stansted (via Coach service)• Chelmsford to Stansted via Liverpool Street• Hertford East to Stansted• Cambridge to Royston line• Newmarket to Stansted via Cambridge

2.8.26 All areas within walking distance of a station in the study area are within a 3 hour traveltime of Stansted by rail. Accessibility moving away from the railway stations rapidlydecreases as walking distance increases. Areas not within walking distance of a railwaystation are generally not accessible to Stansted Airport by rail based public transport basedon the assumptions used in this analysis.

2.8.27 It is assumed that the rail network accounts for a limited percentage and number of localtrips within the Study area. Census data (Table 2.11 below) on travel to work patterns for asample of the Study settlements supports the assumption that rail has a small percentageof intra-Study area journeys.

2.8.28 Data was collated for a sample of six settlements to test the assumption that limited intra-study area trips to work are made by rail or bus. The main settlements of Cambridge,Chelmsford and Colchester were deliberately excluded because, after London, these arethe main employment centres. Settlements further away from London were also chosenbecause it was considered these would have more non-London bound trips to work.Although it does not have a rail station, Saffron Walden was included because it is amedium sized town with access to the rail station at Audley End.Table 2.11 Travel to work by rail from Study area settlement sampleSettlement of origin Percentage of trips to work by rail

Bishop’s Stortford 2.2Braintree 2.8Royston 8Saffron Walden 2Sawbridgeworth 1.8Witham 16

Source: 1991 Census Journey to Work 10% sample data


66

Bus Network

INTRA-URBAN SERVICES

2.8.29 We have categorised urban settlements in the study area according to the level of townbus service they support. A word of caution needs to be expressed, because thisassessment does not take account of the contribution that rural and interurban servicesmake towards providing service frequency in towns, particularly along the major radialcorridors. Indeed, whether a town service is actually desirable depends to some extent onthe coverage that can be achieved by the interurban services. For instance, Hoddesdon isquite a large settlement (approximately 37,000 population) but is a linear settlement lyingbetween other major settlements. This means that its population lives (by and large) withinthe catchment area of interurban services, which do not figure in this analysis.

2.8.30 Nonetheless, it is felt that the exercise is useful in indicating the level of population neededto support a given level of service. The four categories are:• Category 1: No Town Service. May be served by any frequency of interurban or rural

service;• Category 2: Limited Town Service. The characteristics are: No Sunday or evening

service; No better than an hourly headway on any bus route; and supported wholly ormainly by the local authority. These services are likely to appeal to a limited number ofpotential users;

• Category 3: Reasonable Town Service. The characteristics are: Route headways inthe main more than 60 but less than 15 minutes, and predominantly commerciallyprovided by the operator(s). These services will provide a more useable bus servicewhich will contribute more to personal mobility but are unlikely to provide an attractivealternative to the car; and

• Category 4: Excellent Town Service. More than one route providing a 15 minuteheadway or better; at least a basic evening and Sunday service, and predominantlycommercially provided by the operator(s). These services are most likely to provide anattractive alternative to the car.

2.8.31 Based on a brief review of timetables, Table 2.12 shows the estimated population and thecategory of town bus route.

Table 2.12: Categorisation of Towns by Town Bus RoutesLocation Total Population

19911Category of Town

Bus RoutesCambridge 113,127 4Chelmsford 97,451 4Colchester 96,063 4Harlow 74,629 4Cheshunt 51,998 1Loughton 39,559 3Hoddesdon* 36,883 1Braintree 33,229 3Hitchin 32,221 3


67

Letchworth 31,418 3Bishops Stortford 28,403 3Witham 22,684 3Hertford 21,665 3Ware 17,000 1Waltham Abbey 15,629 1Royston 14,087 1Saffron Walden 13,201 2Halstead 10,000 1Broxbourne* 9,925 1Epping 9,922 1Sawbridgeworth 9,432 1Baldock 9,232 1Cambourne** 7,920 1Sawston 7,172 1Chipping Ongar 5,974 1Stansted Mountfitchet 4,943 1Great Dunmow 4,907 1Buntingford 4,376 1

1 Source: 1991 Census urban area statistics for resident population* Not available in urban area statistics, therefore estimations from District Authorities** Cambourne population based on house size of 2.4 for 3,300 dwellings

2.8.32 The results of this admittedly crude exercise are quite telling. The smallest settlement tosupport a frequent service (type 4) is Harlow with a population of around 75,000. There isactually then a large interval in population size to around 40,000 (Loughton). Settlementsbetween 40,000 and 20,000 population tend to support a service of type 3 – that is auseable service but not one offering a frequency high enough to provide a viablealternative to the car. The exception is Hoddesdon, which as described above has alocation and urban form, which mean that interurban services provide an adequate level ofservice.

2.8.33 The only settlement supporting a service of type 2 (an infrequent town service) is SaffronWalden. The remainder of the settlements with a population of below 20,000 have no townservice (type 1).

2.8.34 So the thresholds for town service types are broadly as follows:• To 20,000 population: No town bus service (but may be very well served by rural and

interurban buses);• From 20,000 to 40,000 population: Town bus service with a moderate frequency and

which is likely to be for the most part commercially viable; and• 70,000 and above: A frequent town service.

2.8.35 We have also conducted an exercise in which we calculated the number of servicesbetween 08:00 and 09:00 in a particular town. This includes all town services, inter-urbanservices and rural services. The population divided by this value gives the number ofpopulation per bus service. This gives a crude estimate of the level of population coverageper bus service. This takes no account of spatial coverage of the network. The results aresummarised in Table 2.13 below.


68

Table 2.13: Population per Bus ServiceSettlement Population Sum of services/hour

(0800-0900) in onedirection

Population/Service

Chelmsford 97,451 63 1,550Colchester 96,063 76 1,264Epping 9,992 6 1,665Harlow 74,629 55 1,357Loughton 39,553 19 2,082Chipping Ongar 5,974 1 5,974Saffron Walden 13,201 7 1,886Average (excludingChipping Ongar)

1,634

2.8.36 With the exception of Chipping Ongar, the results are remarkably consistent. We believethat Ongar may be different because it is likely to generate demand for travel to otherlocations, but is unlikely to attract many arrivals in the AM peak hour.

2.8.37 The average of the population/service ratio is 1,634 which is a very similar result to a studycarried out by Colin Buchanan & Partners in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, which produceda ratio of 2,000 population per bus route. On this basis, when considering growth optionsin Stage 3 of the Study, bus infrastructure can be planned on the basis that for every 1,600to 2,000 increase in population one additional hourly bus service can be supported.

INTER-URBAN SERVICES

2.8.38 The inter-urban bus network, although offering a greater level of connectivity than the railnetwork, is rather limited, particularly with regard to east-west linkages across the Studyarea (the inter-urban bus network is mapped in Map 2.18). There are express coachroutes serving Stansted Airport and the main towns, but these will not serve the Study areainternal market except for people wishing to travel to Stansted Airport.

2.8.39 The pattern of bus routes bears a strong relationship to the settlement hierarchy identifiedin the role and function analysis. Chelmsford and Colchester which are level twosettlements by services (see Section 2.3) have the greatest number of routes followed byHarlow, Braintree, Hitchin and Hertford, which are all level three settlements. Bishop’sStortford and Loughton are exceptions to this general pattern with Bishop’s Stortfordhaving a low level of service provision and Loughton a higher level than other level foursettlements.

2.8.40 There is a cluster of routes within Hertfordshire linking Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock withStevenage and towns in the Lea Valley, and a number of routes radiate out fromChelmsford and Colchester. From the latter two, several of the routes link to locationsoutside the Study area. Braintree’s lack of rail access to Stansted is compensated for byhaving two bus links, one of which is an express coach link, which also connects the townto Colchester.


69

Map 2.18


70

2.8.41 Cambridge has a very limited inter-urban network reflecting the fact that there are nosizeable towns nearby. The lack of inter-urban bus routes with the Study area alsoindicates that the City functions as a discrete sub-region from the Study area. This point isalso evident from the travel to work patterns discussed below.

2.8.42 In the south of the Study area, Epping and Chipping Ongar have very limited serviceslinking with Waltham Cross and Chelmsford respectively. Loughton has a more extensivenetwork all of which connect the town with the north London periphery and not withlocations in the Study area.

2.8.43 As well as connecting the main towns the inter-urban routes connect many of theintermediate settlements, for example route 32 from Saffron Walden to Cambridge runs viaGreat Chesterford, Sawston and Great Shelford. Thus part of the importance of the busnetwork is that it connects many of the much smaller settlements to the service centres inour hierarchy. The network also provides the opportunity for investment and the provisionof more frequent higher quality services when considering growth options.

2.8.44 As a means of commuting, inter-urban buses, like rail, carry a low proportion of commuters(Table 2.14 below). The settlement sample used is the same as that for Table 2.11 above.Table 2.14 Travel to work by bus from Study area settlement sampleSettlement of Origin Percentage of Trips to Work by Bus

Bishop’s Stortford 1.6Braintree 2.3Buntingford 5.1Halstead 2.3Royston 4.5Saffron Walden 1.4Sawbridgeworth 4.2Sawston 9Witham 2.4

Source: 1991 Census Journey to Work 10% sample data

TRAVEL TO WORK PATTERNS

2.8.45 Travel to work flows are illustrated in Map 2.19, which show intra and inter Study areacommuting patterns by district. As stated above the main flows out of the Study area areinto London but there are also a substantial number of commuters into Cambridge from thearea to the north of the City and significant numbers of people who travel from Colchesterto Suffolk and from Braintree to Suffolk.

2.8.46 The travel to work data also reveals that Chelmsford is a sub-regionally important attractorof commuter trips with significant numbers of people travelling from Colchester, Braintreeand south Essex to the town. Colchester does not generate many trips from outside thedistrict but it has the second highest number of internal journeys to work afterCambridge/South Cambs.


71

Map 2.19


72

2.8.47 The travel to work flows also indicate that there are limited flows of commuters from theStudy area to the Cambridge Sub Region, indicating that it functions as a discrete subregion from the Study area. Thus, for the central and southern parts of the Study area, theprimary focus for commuting is London; for Cambridge areas to the north of the city are themain source of commuters. The same is true for out-commuter trips from Cambridge withgreater numbers of people travelling north and north east than south.

2.8.48 The largest travel to work flows by a substantial margin are intra-district (taking CambridgeCity and South Cambs as a single entity) indicating that a majority of journeys to work arerelatively short with people living close to where they work.

2.8.49 Uttlesford has a diverse travel pattern with moderate numbers of commuters travelling toLondon, Cambridge and into Hertfordshire. In total 52 percent of journeys to work are toplaces outside the district, which accords with it being a largely rural district with limitedemployment centres. In-commuting figures for Uttlesford are not shown on Map 2.19because they are limited. However, the settlement sample used for Tables 2.11 and 2.14also reveals that Stansted Mountfichet ward (where Stansted Airport is located) is the onlyward in Uttlesford that has in-commuting of any size from outside the district with Bishop’sStortford is the main source of trips.

LINKAGES BASED ON THE HIERARCHY RESULTING FROM SETTLEMENT ROLE ANDFUNCTION ANALYSIS

2.8.50 Map 2.7 shows the settlement hierarchy produced by the role and function analysis.Spatially, Cambridge, which is the highest level service provider, is relatively isolated in thenorth of the Study area while Chelmsford and Colchester (the next level down) are locatedclose together in the south east of the Study area. The next level down shows a smallcluster Hertford, Harlow and Bishop’s Stortford with Braintree and Hitchin being moreisolated. The south and east of the Study area will have a complex network of linkagesbecause of the greater number of settlements and there being no dominant settlement. Tothe east, the presence of Luton, Stevenage and Milton Keynes will have a strong influenceon linkages, whilst to the south it is London. The pattern of settlements furtherdemonstrates that the central part of the Study area (eastern part of Uttlesford and westernpart of Braintree) lacks a significant service providing settlement and is an area where thecatchment areas of Cambridge and Colchester overlap but it is difficult to determine whichhas the strongest linkages.

2.8.51 Cambridge is the dominant settlement in terms of service provision. The city is theprincipal employment location in the Study area, it has the largest retail floorspace by aconsiderable margin and the highest concentration of FE colleges, theatres andprofessional services. On this basis, the city will have an HE and extensive catchmentarea. Addenbrokes Hospital and Cambridge University give the city supra-regionalimportance. However, as stated above there are generally weak linkages between the cityand the wider Study area and only a limited number of people travel to work in theCambridge Sub Region from the rest of the Study area.

2.8.52 After Cambridge there are the two smaller but distinct sub-regional centres of Chelmsfordand Colchester. The proximity of the two towns to each other means that their catchmentareas will overlap. Chelmsford is a significant work trip generator (as mentioned above)


73

and will generate significant trips due to its function as an administrative, education, retailand medical centre. The town has a rural hinterland to the west from where people willtravel for work and day to day services. To the south of the town is the heavily urbanisedSouth Essex Sub-Region which possibly dilutes non-work traffic flows as there are anumber of alternative centres such as Southend.

2.8.53 Colchester too has a rural hinterland and is likely to generate trips from a significant areafor leisure, shopping, hospital, education and other service users. As Colchester is on theeastern edge of the Study Area a good proportion of these are likely to come from outsidethe Study Area. The town does not generate a large number of inward work trips.

2.8.54 The next tier down comprises the five towns of Bishop’s Stortford, Braintree, Harlow,Hertford and Hitchin.

2.8.55 Bishop’s Stortford has a sizeable retail element, which will generate trips from theneighbouring villages. Given the town’s location on the M11/West Anglia Corridor andproximity to Stansted there will be significant levels of trips to Cambridge and London for avariety of activities and to Stansted Airport for work. Braintree serves a rural hinterland.The town contains a hospital, three secondary schools and a FE institution as well as beingan administrative centre. Harlow will also serve neighbouring rural areas but the town sitsat the north eastern end of a urban chain from north London along the Lea Valley. Thetown has good north-south links along the M11 and west into Hertfordshire but its eastbound links are more limited. Hertford is located amidst a dense group of urban areas andgenerally going to generate trips from a small radius including Ware and Hoddesdon andpossibly Hatfield. Trips to the town are likely to be a result of its administrative function andfor shopping. Hitchin’s influence will be restricted by its proximity to Stevenage and Luton,and because it forms part of a trio of towns with Letchworth and Baldock. It is assumedthat trips generated will be of more localised than say for Braintree.

2.8.56 Level 4 settlements will serve only a very limited catchment area while level 5 settlementsserve their own needs. Settlements at both levels will generate outward trips rather thanin-bound. Settlements such as Cambourne and Sawston will have strong linkages withCambridge given their proximity but others such as Broxbourne and Waltham Abbey willhave much more complex linkages as residents can access a variety of service centres.Smaller centres in the south of the Study area can also access London.

2.8.57 Although not in the Study area, there are going to be substantial linkages with Stevenage.This is demonstrated by two shopper’s surveys carried out in 1997 for Letchworth andHitchin, which revealed that Stevenage was the most popular destination for comparisonshopping by residents of the two towns.

RURAL AREAS AND SETTLEMENTS OUTSIDE THE STUDY AREA

2.8.58 Rural areas have not been assessed with regard to linkages but as substantial parts of theStudy area are rural these linkages will be important and significant. Many of the ruralsettlements are isolated with regard road, rail and bus networks. Residents will bedependent on the car and no doubt they create a complex pattern of linkages, for example,using lower level service providers for food shopping and higher level centres forcomparison shopping. Rural settlements are also dependent on the larger settlements forprovision of education, medical services and most professional services. Within the rural


74

areas there will be settlements that provide very basic services such as a sub-post office,but on the whole they will need to travel to higher level centres. The settlements ofHaverhill and Sudbury have not been assessed because they are outside the Study areabut parts of Braintree, South Cambs and possibly Uttlesford will form part of the catchmentarea for these two settlements.

SUMMARY OF SPATIAL LINKAGES

2.8.59 Spatial linkages within the Study area function at two levels. Map 2.20 overlays these twolayers.

2.8.60 On one level there are commuting patterns, which are based on road and rail journeys,which enable people to travel long distances and to locations with no other connection tothe place they live. At this level the dominance of London is evident. The road and railnetworks reinforce this pattern of commuting with their mainly north-south orientation and ageneral lack of east-west routes. Commuting patterns are likely to be influenced in thefuture by the new A120, which will have a significant impact on development along theA120 corridor.

2.8.61 The second level of linkages is more localised, based on service provision and the busnetwork. Buses are used for short distance trips and the network of routes generallyreflects the settlement hierarchy and is a good indication as to the catchment area of asettlement.

2.8.62 Cambridge operates as a discrete sub region with weak linkages to the rest of the Studyarea but in terms of commuting patterns, attracts trips from areas to the north and east ofthe city.


75

Map 2.20


76

3. Quantification of Growth

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This chapter describes the economic model developed by the consultants, which estimatesthe potential employment and housing impacts of 4 SERAS Stansted packages. These are:• Package 2 – maximum use of 1 runway, 35 m passengers per annum (mppa) by 2036• Package 7 – 2 runways, 82 mmpa by 2036• Package 10 – 3 runways, 102 mmpa by 2036• Package 14 – 4 runways, 129 mmpa by 2036

3.1.2 It establishes a Baseline projection to 20412 that reflects the forecast for the study areacontained in the RES Sub-Regional Study3, which in aviation terms corresponds closely toSERAS Package 2. The model can then project the potential consequences of each of theSERAS packages with respect to that Baseline. This chapter then goes on to describealternative projections for each package reflecting alternative assumptions.

3.1.3 This chapter discusses important theoretical principles that underpin the model and thenpresents a brief overview of the model. The rest of the chapter deals with the model in alittle more detail and concludes with the results. These were prepared as four sets ofprojections:

3.1.4 Projections based on the SERAS assumptions, which could be compared directly with theemployment and housing estimates prepared by the DfT’s consultants. High and Lowprojections were prepared

3.1.5 Alternative (“NON-SERAS”) projections, taking account of observed post SERASemployment changes and revised productivity assumptions., also as High and Lowprojections.

3.1.6 ‘Mid point’ projections, incorporating some small revisions to the model, on the “NONSERAS” basis.

3.1.7 Two additional single runway projections assuming, first, passenger levels reach 25 mppaby 2021 but do not grow beyond this, and second, they reach 40 mppa by 2021 (which isabove the maximum use level in SERAS).

3.1.8 The projection sets 1-3 above are consistent with SERAS Packages of passenger growth,respectively Packages 2 (one runway); 7 (2 runways); 10 (3 runways); and 14 (4 runways).Projections 4 assume different trajectories of growth for one runway to Package 2.

2 The projection period for the model was extended to 2041 to give flexibility for future use, and to allow

consideration of post 2036 changes that might influence assumptions and choices made in theearlier period.

3 Bone Wells Associates, Colin Buchanan and Partners, Experian Business Strategies, 2003 East of EnglandRES Model Updates


77

3.2 Economic Model Study Area

3.2.1 As outlined in the Inception Report (see Sections 1 and 7), a slightly different definition ofthe study area was adopted for the purposes of the economic modelling, shown here inTable 3.1.

Table 3.1 : Economic Model Study Area - DistrictsCore Area Outer AreaBraintreeEast HertfordshireHarlowUttlesford

Cambridge CityChelmsfordColchesterEpping ForestSouth CambridgeshireSt Edmundsbury

3.3 Theoretical Considerations

Introduction

3.3.1 This section describes in theoretical terms the process of adjustment in the labour marketto major changes resulting from large investment projects with large employment demands.This is important to provide the thinking behind the method used to forecast the growthimpacts of the Stansted Packages.

3.3.2 The assessment of the jobs created by major capital projects tends to follow a conventionthat focuses on the new jobs that might potentially arise. Jobs are occupied by labour andnew jobs represent an increased demand for labour in a local market. The supply of labourwill come from residents in that area and from commuters. If in the first instance thenumber of new jobs exceeds the ready supply of labour (unemployed in the area and itssurrounds), then firms will have to start bidding away the extra labour that they need fromexisting jobs. Thus, the total number of jobs in an area need not necessarily increase bythe number of new jobs. Competition in the local labour market will permit some new jobsand destroy some existing jobs (displacement). The consequences of this are shown inFigure 3.1.


78

Figure 3.1: Firms Response to Higher Wages

Excessdemandleads tohigher realwages

Firm pays higherwages

Firm does not payhigher wages

No adjustment toproduction process

Pass on wages Reduced demandReducedoutput andemployment

Absorb wages- lower profit

Capital stocknot replaced

Adjustment toproduction process

Raise labourproductivity

Reduce Demandfor Labour

Outsourcingincreased

Greater returns toscale supplying firms

Ceasesproduction Releases labour

Eases excessdemand inlabourmarket -equilibriumreturns

Labour Demand Adjustments

3.3.3 All firms in the area will be under some pressure to secure their labour. Wages will tend torise. A firm could decide that at the going wage rates it is not worth producing in the areaor perhaps at all. They cease production, their jobs are lost and their employees arereleased on to the labour market to seek employment elsewhere. Firms with low profitlevels would be the most vulnerable, particularly if they are labour intensive and have lowlabour productivity.

3.3.4 Other firms might decide to pay the higher wages. These firms fall into two camps, thosethat can make adjustments to their production processes and those that cannot. For thosethat cannot make such adjustments there are two courses that will lead to job losses:• If they pass the cost increase on to customers and their customers' demand is

sensitive to higher prices, they would experience a loss of demand and productionwould have to be cut back. This could happen evenly across such firms, but is morelikely to fall upon the weaker firms. Either way the reduction in production means aloss of jobs and the release of labour on to the market place.

• If a firm decides to absorb the higher wage costs, its profits will fall. Some will find thattheir long term return on capital falls below what they require to keep their capital(plant, machinery, buildings, working capital, etc) intact. They will eventually exit fromthe market place as their capital stock comes up for replacement. Once again there isa loss of production and labour is released on to the market place.


79

3.3.5 Some firms will choose to pay higher wages in the knowledge that they can makecompensating changes in production costs. Various outcomes are possible that will resultin the release of labour:• A firm improves on-site labour productivity by purchasing equipment embodying an

improved technology, by better organisation of production, or by merger to achievebetter economies of scale. The consequence of the improved labour productivity is areduced demand for labour. This releases labour on to the market.

• A firm outsources some of the goods and services that they produce internally as aninput into their final output (e.g. accounting activities). If the firms to whom suchservices are outsourced can benefit from improved economies of scale, the number ofstaff laid off (accountants) by the outsourcing firm will exceed the number taken on bythe accounting firm. Labour is once again released on to the market, as jobs are lost.

Labour Supply Adjustments

3.3.6 So far all the adjustment in the labour market has arisen from firms reducing their existingjob requirements, thereby releasing labour to fill new jobs elsewhere. If this were the onlysource of adjustment, one would expect productivity levels in the area to rise perceptiblyeither because the least productive jobs fall away or firms through one route or another areconstrained to improve their productivity. However, labour supply to the area will alsoadjust as the labour market tightens and wages rise.


80

Figure 3.2 Labour Supply ResponseNew JobOpportunities- wider choiceofoccupations

Those not in labour force enticed to join

Residents working outside area have widerchoice inside or higher wages; savecommuting costsWider job choice and higher wages attractsworkers from outside area; pay in-commuting costsWider choice and higher wages in jobs &commuting costs attract migrantsHigher wages

in study areaattractsmarginalworked frominactive statusor fromoutside thearea

Higher activity rates

Less out-commuting

More in-commuting

More migration

+

3.3.7 This is a more complex response. Labour supply will increase not only because wages arehigher in the area but also because the new jobs create a wider choice of employment.There are also constraints that can impede the growth in the supply of labour. Howeverthere are basically four sources of further labour supply to the area:Increased Study area activity rates

3.3.8 Before the proposed increase in Stansted airport some local residents would have decided,that at the available rates of pay and jobs available, not to participate in the labour market.For some the existing jobs on offer are unappealing or require training or skills the cost ofwhich is not worth acquiring. At the margin there will be some for whom this decision tostay outside of the market is finely balanced. Thus when wages rise and new jobopportunities are created some local residents will now decide to participate in the labourmarket and the Study area activity rate rises.Clawback of Study area out-commuters

3.3.9 A similar pre-Stansted expansion equilibrium can be described for out-commuters. Theseare local residents, in employment, who choose to work outside the Study area. They haveto balance their particular job satisfaction and wage against the cost of commuting. Theyalso have to weigh the cost of commuting against the cost of moving closer to their workand the natural and man-made amenities of the two locations. Some local residents'decisions to out-commute will be finely balanced. The arrival of new jobs and higherwages in the Study area will, therefore, persuade them to take up jobs locally. This groupmight be quite sensitive to the altered conditions since the potential savings in commutingcosts and time, increase these new attractive forces.


81

More in-commuters from outside the Study area

3.3.10 The pre-Stansted equilibrium for in-commuters is analogous to that for out-commuting.Some residents from outside of the Study area will have weighed the nature of jobs on offerin the Study area, the wages, commuting costs, etc and have decided that it is not justworth taking up a job in the Study area. With the arrival of new jobs and higher localwages, some will decide to take up opportunities in the Study area. Though a marginal in-commuter will be as sensitive to a change in wage rates as an out-commuter, where newjobs in the Study area represents an increased choice of employment the potential in-commuter still has to net off the commuting costs. All the same, the post Stanstedenvironment is likely to increase the number of in-commuters and hence labour supply tothe Study area. Furthermore, the greater the increase in wages the larger the area fromwhich in-commuters are drawn.More migration into the Study area

3.3.11 The choice to migrate to an area has already been touched upon in relation to commuting.There is a trade-off between the costs and time of commuting and the relative merits ofresidency in the Study area or elsewhere. In assessing the impact of Stansted's expansionon migration, there will be those who judge that migration is a better option for them thanin-commuting. However, the cost of housing then becomes a variable in that judgement.As migrants attempt to buy properties in the area, house prices (rents) will start to riserelative to those in their current location. This has two consequences. First it begins tochoke off demand, halting the migratory pressures, and secondly it begins to encourageprivate sector house building. The latter, however, is constrained by planning controls.

3.3.12 Clearly planning and transport policies have a bearing on the sources and location of thelabour supply in terms of new labour arriving from outside the study area whether as a netcommuter or a migrant.

3.3.13 Additional migrants coming to work in the area will bring with them their dependants whowill initially or subsequently add to the labour force and also add to local consumption andthe demands on local services paid for by the public sector, generating further job demand.The labour market then will make further adjustments through the processes describedabove.

Ex-Ante V Ex-Post Outcomes

3.3.14 Various airport impact studies have projected potential employment increases under fourheadings:• Direct Airport Employment - persons employed by businesses located in the study area

whose activity is directly and solely related to Stansted Airport;• Indirect Employment - Employment in firms located in the Study Area supplying goods

and services to the businesses directly and solely related to the airport;• Attracted Employment - Employment arising from firms seeking to locate new or

additional facilities in the Study area close to enjoy the services of the airport, includingthe surface infrastructure


82

• Induced Employment - Employment caused in the study area by expenditures from theincomes from the above new jobs.

3.3.15 The projected scale of activity at the airport drives the direct employment estimates, whichmay be on or off-airport. SERAS used annual passenger numbers, split between low costand non-low cost travellers. The growth of direct employment is less than the growth inpassenger numbers because assumed labour productivity growth offsets it.

3.3.16 Indirect employment arises from the goods and services bought-in to support the activitiesbeing undertaken by the direct labour force. This is an input-output relationship. Twomethods have been generally used: (a) applying an indirect multiplier running off directemployment levels (b) linking it to passenger growth adjusted by assumed labourproductivity performance in these sectors.

3.3.17 Attracted employment is seen to depend on the scale and range of services offered by theairport. A proxy employment driver might be the level of passenger throughput, thoughclearly if they are largely charter flights they are unlikely to be of much use to the businesscommunity. Even with scheduled flights it is debatable whether low cost services to someleisure destinations appeal much to business.

3.3.18 The induced employment, generated by the extra spending of those living and working inthe study area, is calculated by applying a multiplier to the sum of direct, indirect andattracted employment4. However, if existing jobs are displaced by competition from newjobs the induced effect, as calculated above, would overstate new jobs. On the other handwhere there was a general increase in Study area wages, even with total job displacement,i.e. no net additional jobs, there would still be higher expenditures inducing additional jobswhich would not be picked up by an employment multiplier.

3.3.19 The induced multipliers should in principle pick up the employment consequences ofadditional expenditures on both private and public goods and services. But the multipliersused are a distillation of past employment impact studies, where the fieldwork was carriedout to actually estimate them. It is difficult to be precise about their full scope. However,where migration arises and there is an expansion of the population, it is likely to promote arequirement for further investment expenditure in social infrastructure and additional studyarea jobs (e.g. teachers, medical workers, social service workers, etc). The judgement ofthis study is that this phenomenon is unlikely to be fully reflected in the induced multiplierand an additional social employment calculation has been made prior to calculating theinduced effect.

3.3.20 From the foregoing theoretical discussion, it follows that these type of employmentestimates are picking up what might be called ex-ante increases, ones that have to still bemediated by the labour market before the actual, or ex-post, outcome is realised. The ex-post outcome has to provide a consideration of how existing jobs might be lost, asexplained above, and how labour supply might expand.

4 The use of a multiplier is the conventional way of estimating the size of this effect, relating it to the direct

and indirect employment. It should theoretically take account of extra government spendinginduced by the change in direct and indirect employment, which might produce extra migration.


83

HMT Green Book and Additionality

3.3.21 The Treasury’s Green Book5 provides guidance on the appraisal of major projects whichsets out the principles to be used in assessing the impacts of projects. The need to movebeyond a simple ex-ante calculation to an ex-post estimate is underlined in the Green Bookguidance:

"The success of government intervention in terms of increasing output or employment in agiven target area is usually assessed in terms of 'additionality'. This is the net, rather thanthe gross, impact of making allowances for what would have happened in the absence ofthe intervention" (p. 52).

3.3.22 Furthermore, as the economy's unemployment rate trends down to much lower levels,there are quite clearly fewer opportunities for new jobs to mop up the unemployed and,therefore, of necessity there will be competition for labour where new jobs are beingcreated.

3.4 Model Overview

3.4.1 BWA have built a model that explicitly estimates the ex-ante increases in jobs and thenadjusts to an ex-post position. In terms of the ex-ante calculations they follow methodsused elsewhere. However, unlike the SERAS exercise attracted and induced impacts areincluded in the ex-ante calculations. Like SERAS the model derives direct employmentfrom passenger throughputs (with an allowance for the mix of low cost and non-low costpassengers) and assumed productivity growth. Unlike SERAS, which uses an indirectmultiplier indirect employment, also runs off passenger throughputs and assumedproductivity growth for this category of employment.

3.4.2 The model simulates from a baseline projection, developed separately by the consultantsand described below, of the study areas' demographic and employment patterns to 2041,progressing in 5-year periods. The study area is divided into a Core Area and an OuterArea (defined above for the purposes of modelling employment) . For both areas jobs areclassified to direct (assumed to be always on airport), indirect and non-airport related. Thelocation of these jobs between the core and outer area is set in the model, as is thelocation of its employees. They may be located in either of the two parts of the study areaor outside. Given the location of the jobs and the location of the employees in-commutingpatterns are implied. Out-Commuting is also set in the baseline. A more detaileddescription of how the baseline was created is given in the next section.

3.4.3 Each package is simulated by calculating:• New direct and indirect jobs associated with its traffic throughput.• New attracted jobs by multiplying attracted jobs per passenger (mppa) by the

throughput of any given year. Attracted jobs can be projected as a constant, rising orfalling function of passenger throughput.

• Job displacement is by deducting a proportion of the increase in direct, indirect andattracted jobs between one period and the next. So, if the proportion is set at 20% andjobs grow by 1000 between 2006 and 2011, then 200 non-airport jobs are deducted to

5 HM Treasury, 2003, The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government


84

represent the situation of firms either ceasing operations or losing output and jobs as aresult of their higher prices or reduced profitability.

3.4.4 These calculations imply that the airport always gets its labour. This is a necessaryassumption if the package effect is to be analysed. Indirect employment is also carried fullythrough on the assumption that these firms have a locational advantage being close to theircustomer and will be prepared to pay a wage premium to continue it. The attracted firms,all non-airport related, are also assumed to be able to secure their labour otherwise theywould not have come. Displacement falls on existing non-airport jobs.

3.4.5 The induced effects of direct, indirect, attracted and displaced are then calculated. Anadjustment is made to allow for the circumstances where someone works in one area butlives elsewhere. The bulk of their expenditure will occur where they live and not where theywork. All induced jobs are assumed to be non-airport related jobs.

3.4.6 The direct and indirect jobs under the package and the additional non-airport jobs aresummed and compared to the Baseline labour supply. Excess labour demand iscalculated. The existence of excess demand is unreal. The model has to be used tobalance the labour market so that labour demand and supply match. This balancingexercise has to be done judgementally. Not enough is known about the dynamics of locallabour markets to be able to design a deterministic model that directly solves for labourmarket equilibrium. The user is therefore constrained to construct a series of scenarios toshed light on the range and risks of possible outcomes.

3.4.7 The following interventions can be used in the model to cope with excess demand in thelabour market:• Draw down on study area unemployed• Raise activity rates• Reduce out-commuting• Increase in-commuting• Increase migration• Increase displacement through productivity or lost jobs.

3.5 Baseline

3.5.1 This section describes the key features of the Baseline projections to 2041. The baselinegrowth of population and employment is important because it provides the benchmarkagainst which alternative options for airport growth are compared. In principle, this shouldreflect the growth that is expected to happen anyway, in this case, with the growth of theairport to the level of use permitted, i.e. 25 million passengers p.a. (mmpa). It so happensthat this level corresponds closely to the level of use by 2031 projected for SERASPackage 2 (25.7 million), so Package 2 adjusted to give growth up to passenger 25 mmpaexactly by 2026 and no further growth, has been taken as the baseline.

3.5.2 The overall approach has been to base projections on the updated RES Sub-RegionalBusiness as Usual6 projections of population and employment because they provide an up-to-date, internally consistent set of projections down to the district level, in which long term

6 Bone Wells Associates, Colin Buchanan and Partners and Experian Business Strategies, March 2003, East

of England RES Model Updates


85

population growth affects employment growth. These projections also reflect 2001 Censusresults and up to date national population projections and Annual Business Inquiry data.

3.5.3 Within the BAU employment projections, there is an implicit growth of direct airportemployment in Uttlesford. This has been estimated, and turns out to be close to theprojections for package 2 on the updated, non-SERAS assumptions of direct and indirectairport employment. Both are lower than the SERAS projections. An adjustment is madeto employment at the airport to reflect the different passenger numbers assumed forbaseline.

3.5.4 A number of other adjustments are made to reflect local conditions, which the BAUprojections were not able to take into account. The key adjustments are described below,and further detail is given in Appendix 3.

3.5.5 The main adjustments to the BAU population projections are:• use of policy based projections to 2011, based on RPG dwellings requirements (which

are very close for the Study area to structure plan dwellings);• for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire specifically, the projected change in

population in Cambridge County Council’s population projections for the Structure PlanReview to 2021 have been used. These are much higher than existing Structure Planbased projections to reflect more generous housing provision in emerging policy.

3.5.6 The resulting population projection is shown in Table 3.2, together with the estimatedhousing implications of that growth, for the model Study area and the whole planning Studyarea. Housing implications are driven, not only by the growth in the population, but also bythe fall in household size, which is assumed to continue to decline to 2026 at a somewhatslower rate after 2021 than before. The latter accounts for much of the fall in the five yearchanges in household requirements in later years.

3.5.7 An equivalent adjustment is made to the BAU employment forecast for Cambridge andSouth Cambridgeshire to 2021 to reflect a growth profile of employment consistent with thepopulation projections used (i.e. without the decline after 2011 in the BAU projection due topopulation constraint). The total employment projection is also shown in Table 3.2.


86

Table 3.2 : Baseline Projections of Population, Housing and Employment2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Total PopulationCore Area 409,500 422,575 435,651 444,347 453,183 460,870 466,518 470,054Outer Area

771,700 809,768 847,835 886,417 923,409 946,044 962,782 973,310Rest ofplanningstudy area

204,300 209,067 213,835 218,362 222,814 226,755 229,653 231,468

Total1,385,500 1,441,410 1,497,321 1,549,126 1,599,406 1,633,669 1,658,952 1,674,832

Housing RequirementCore Area 179,393 188,350 197,621 205,182 213,084 219,709 225,526 230,464Outer Area 335,207 358,074 381,740 406,486 431,375 448,186 462,594 474,341Rest ofplanningstudy area

89,542 93,223 97,031 100,864 104,799 108,135 111,055 113,524

Total 604,143 639,647 676,392 712,532 749,257 776,030 799,175 818,329Change in Housing Requirement over Preceding Five YearsCore Area 8,957 9,270 7,561 7,902 6,625 5,817 4,938Outer Area 22,867 23,666 24,746 24,889 16,811 14,408 11,748Rest ofplanningstudy area

3,680 3,809 3,832 3,935 3,336 2,920 2,468

Total 35,504 36,745 36,140 36,726 26,772 23,145 19,154EmploymentCore Area

198,404 203,101 205,292 206,734 206,606 207,463 207,198 206,855Outer Area

417,336 440,996 462,906 479,729 491,342 502,424 513,069 523,366Total

615,739 644,098 668,198 686,463 697,949 709,887 720,267 730,221Source: consultantsNotes: rest of planning study area comprises the districts of Broxbourne and North Hertfordshire, which are

not in the study area used for the economic model; core and outer areas are economic modellingareas (see Inception Report). Core = Uttlesford, Braintree, Harlow, East Herts; Outer = Chelmsford,Colchester, Epping Forest, Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire, St Edmundsbury. Note that StEdmundsbury is not part of the planning study area; employment estimates are jobs located in thearea rather than where workers live.

Chelmer Projections

3.5.8 Subsequent to the development of baseline and model generated projections a new set ofpopulation, housing and employment projections using the Chelmer model were developedon behalf of EERA. These comprised four separate projections based on a variety ofhousing and migration assumptions, running to 2021, Dwelling Constrained (DCP), ZeroNet Migration (ZNM), 5 Year Migration Trend (5 YMT), 10 Year Migration Trend (10 YMT).Of the four assumptions the closest to the consultants’ ‘Business As Usual’ based baselineforecasts are the ‘Dwelling Constrained’ projection (DCP), based on continuation ofStructure Plan housing figures and the ‘Five year Migration Trend’ (5 YMT) projection.

3.5.9 Table 3.3 compares the projections to 2021. The main differences between the projectionsare distributional, the consultants’ baseline projecting relatively more population in the outerarea, the Chelmer DCP and 5 YMT forecasts projecting relatively more in the core area.


87

The same distributional variation occurs in the Chelmer and consultants’ projections ofemployment and housing.

Table 3.3: Comparison of Chelmer and Consultants’ Baseline Projections (‘000)2001 2021Population

projection Core Outer Rest Total Core Outer Rest TotalConsultantsBaseline 409 772 204 1385 453 923 223 1599

Chelmer ForecastsDCP 409 772 204 1385 463 903 224 1591ZNM 409 772 204 1385 428 790 211 14295 YMT 409 772 204 1385 492 831 237 156010 YMT 409 772 204 1385 471 828 220 1518

Source: Consultants and Chelmer Projections.Note: Core = 4 districts; Outer = 6 districts including St Edmundsbury; Rest = 2 districts (Broxbourne & North

Herts). Forecasting process

3.5.10 In the forecasting process, employment in the packages is considered as differences fromthe adjusted BAU figures. In Package 2, for example, where there are only smalldifferences in projected airport related employment compared with those implicit in the BAUprojection, those differences are added to produce the new employment projection forPackage 2.

Labour market demographics

3.5.11 For the core and outer area projections were made for the following variables:• Population 16+• Activity Rate• Economically Active (Labour Force)• Unemployed• Residents in Employment• Work based Employment• Net Commuting• In-Commuting• Out-Commuting• Out-Commuting % of Residents in Employment

3.5.12 Starting with two years of history or near-history, 1997 and 2001, the above were projectedin 5 year periods to 2041. The population and employment figures reflected valuescontained within the RES Sub-Regional study, which the Consultants extended to 2041from 2021. Given historic activity rates and levels of unemployment it is possible toestimate the number of residents in employment. Taking this from the number of jobs(work-based employment) in the area it is possible to identify net-commuting. From the1991 Census, the percentage of out-commuters to employed residents in the area wasapplied to determine out-commuting. In-migration is then calculated from net migration andout-commuting.


88

3.5.13 Activity rates will be affected by the long term change in the age structure, which, withconstant age specific activity rates would lead to a decline in the activity rate of the 16+population as a whole of about 7 percentage points to 2036. Forecasts were developed foractivity rates in the core and outer area, which involved somewhat smaller decline,reflecting ONS workforce forecasts to 2011 and anticipated increases in the rates for olderage groups due to factors such as the changing retirement age considered in the RES Sub-Regional Study.

3.5.14 The trend in unemployment rates has also been derived from work for the RES ModelUpdates,7 which anticipated a fall of about half a percentage point by 2016.

Airport Traffic

3.5.15 The BAU employment forecast contained an employment projection for transport inUttlesford, which was consistent with expansion of Stansted beyond the former 15mppalimit. The implied passenger throughput was calculated. These can be seen in Appendix 3with the traffic throughputs of Packages 2 (Maximum Use), 7, 10 and 14, and the Baselineand other scenarios.

Location of Jobs

3.5.16 Since the Study area had been split into a Core and Outer Area it was necessary to take aview on what proportion of the jobs would be located in each area. All direct jobs wereallocated to the Core area, which contains Stansted. Indirect jobs falling within the StudyArea were allocated 30% to Core and 70% to Outer, reflecting the current ratios of totalemployment in each area. Both the direct and indirect proportions were held constant to2041, on the assumptions that the broad distribution of total jobs between the core andouter areas, in the absence of conclusions at this stage about spatial redistribution, wouldremain similar.

Jobs

3.5.17 Study area direct employment and indirect employment were projected using the Baselinetraffic growth figures and suitable productivity assumptions. For historic levels of directemployment, productivity growth had to be adjusted to square known employment withknown traffic levels. The level of indirect jobs in 1997 was estimated by DTZ-Pieda forBAA and these have been extended. Using the job location shares these direct andindirect jobs were allocated to core and outer areas. The non-airport jobs were calculatedfor both areas by deducting direct and indirect from the BSL employment total.

Location of Employees & Commuting

3.5.18 Direct and indirect jobs were modelled to be met from the Core, Outer and External Area.The DTZ-PIEDA study identified the proportions of direct airport employees that came fromthese three areas. These proportions, modified slightly to reflect the Gatwick experiencewere held constant in the Baseline to 2041, with no obvious reason for change. Indirectjobs are located in both the Core and Outer area and could be met in theory by labour

7 Op. Cit.


89

resident in all three areas highlighted above. Since indirect employment is likely to havethe characteristics of total employment, the 1991 census figures were used to look at totalin-commuting to the core from outer and external areas and in-commuting to the outer areafrom the core and external areas. In-commuting as a percentage of area total employmentwas calculated for 1991 and applied for all years in the. These shares provided thepercentage of indirect jobs located in the core or the outer area that were met by residentsof the core, outer and external area.

Balancing the Labour Market

3.5.19 In order to balance the labour market in the core and the outer area, the model user canmake the following additions to the relevant variables:• Unemployment: a negative figure can be added to the unemployment total in the area

to reflect unemployed people moving into work and so reducing excess demand. Theresulting unemployment rate should not be pushed below an assumed stable long-termrate of unemployment of between, say 2-3%.

• Activity Rates: these may be added to baseline values to reflect more of the residentpopulation in the core and outer area being attracted into the labour force and reducingexcess demand

• Reducing Out-Commuting: the numbers of out-commuters can be reduced to reflectthe attractions of higher wages and new job opportunities

• Raising In-Commuting: by increasing the proportions of direct, indirect and non-airport jobs met from outside of the area, due to improved wages and choices withinthe study area, there is an increase in the external supply of labour

• Displacement - Lost Jobs: percentages for direct, indirect and non-airport ex-antenew jobs can be set to reflect the proportion of each that will result in a displacement ofnon-airport jobs. This reduces the number of jobs and helps to reduce excessdemand.

• Displacement - Productivity Improvements: productivity can be raised for any of thefollowing sectors : Direct Low Cost, Direct non low-cost, Indirect and Non-Airport. Thishas the effect of reducing the number of ex-ante required jobs. For higher levels ofexcess demand one would expect greater pressures upon firms to improve theirproductivity. The RES Sub-regional Study concluded that adding 0.25%pa to trendproductivity growth was challenging and this might represent the highest bound ofadjustment. Productivity improvements, particularly in the non-airport sector can bequite powerful because they apply to a large number of employees and only a smallincrease will release a large number of workers.

• Raising Migration: this directly increases the labour supply but not by the full increasein migrants because it also generates a certain demand for social employment.Nevertheless the net effect of increasing migration is to reduce excess demand

Housing Sub-Model

3.5.20 A consequence of increasing migration above Baseline levels is to create additionaldemand for housing. BWA built a housing sub-model based on the following principles.The Baseline projections were constructed thus:• Total Population is distributed across Core, Outer and the Rest of Planning Area and

for each area


90

• Private Households = (Total Population - Non-Household population) / AverageHousehold Size

• Dwellings = (Private Households / Households per Occupied Dwelling)/(1-VacancyRate)

• Simulation of additional housing impact induced byan increase in migration to theareas:

• Migrant Households = (Migrants x Average Family Size)/ Average Household Size(N.B. adjusts for multiple migrant workers in the same household)

• Migrant Dwellings = (Migrant Households / Households per Occupied Dwelling)/(1-Vacancy Rate)

3.5.21 The migrant dwellings, therefore, represent the increase in housing requirements inducedby the various SERAS packages. The annual difference in this series provides the annualbuild rate required. These figures can be added to the Baseline figures to give an overallhousing demand for the area.

3.6 Scenario formulation

3.6.1 The foregoing explained that the model was not determinative of a unique answer butindicates a series of assumptions, which are needed to balance the labour market. Thissection explains how the potential outcomes can be constrained to a useful range. Forplanning purposes the concern is largely about the scale of impact upon development(largely housing) and on commuting. The larger the ex-ante employment impacts thegreater the potential problems. Clearly the employment impacts will be a function of eachPackage so there is at least one scenario for each Package. However, within a Packagethe employment impact, excluding scale effects will depend directly upon the number ofattracted jobs and inversely with the level of displacement. As Figure 3.3 shows the widestrange of impact is likely to arise by focusing on (a) a high attracted + a low displacementscenario and (b) a low attracted + a high displacement scenario.

3.6.2 Since the consequential migration determines the increased housing requirement in theStudy Area, it also makes sense to look at combinations that would result in a high and lowmigration outcome. Figure 3.3 shows a possible scenario structure, which explores thebounds of the impacts of interest.


91

Figure 3.3: Possible Scenario Structure

Attracted

Displacement

High Dis / High Dis /Low Att Low Att

Low Dis / Low Dis /High Att Low Att

Out Commuting

In Commuting Productivity

Activity Rates Migration

Low Low Low Low HighHigh High High High Low

Weakest Impact Combinations

Out Commuting

In Commuting Productivity

Activity Rates Migration

Low Low Low Low HighHigh High High High Low

Strongest Impact Combinations

3.6.3 A high migration outcome requires low or weak stimuli to:• Out-commuting clawback• In-commuting increases• Activity rates• Labour productivity growth rates

3.6.4 For a low migration scenario one would need to have strong stimuli to all of the above. Ittherefore helps to constrain the range of outcomes to identify a minimum-maximum rangefor the list of balancing items. These ranges are presented with the results below.

3.7 Key Issues in Relation to SERAS

3.7.1 This section discusses some of the key issues arising for projecting the scale of growth inrelation to the work that was done for SERAS. These issues affect the selection ofassumptions and consequent growth projections for use for testing spatial options in thenext stage. It discusses issues that have potentially large implications for the scale ofgrowth, including the estimation of direct, indirect, induced and attracted employment anddisplacement.

Direct employment

3.7.2 Data provided to the consultants by BAA for direct airport employment at Stansted for20018 indicate that the jobs in relation to passenger numbers have changed rapidly since1997. The 2001 level of direct employment was 10,332, up from 6,652 in 1997. But

8 From BAA’s annual estimate of on-airport employment, which updates the full survey data last available for

1997.


92

forecasting from a 1997 base, using the SERAS trend productivity assumptions, wouldhave given nearly 15,000. There have been rapid increases in productivity, equivalent to11.2% a year, in part due to the increasing scale, but also due to changes in the industrythat have been substantial since 1997.

3.7.3 Forecasting from the actual 2001 base gives significantly lower employment figures for2015 and 2030 than those in SERAS, even when the productivity growth assumption isscaled back to the much lower average assumed in SERAS of 1.5% a year9 by 2011. Itmay be argued that, given the predominance of low cost operations at Stansted, it will beharder to increase productivity, especially as the projected share of low cost declines in thelarger scale packages10. However the lower 2001 base and recent productivity recorddoes warrant examination of scenarios with lower projections of direct employment.

Indirect employment

3.7.4 Indirect employment is conventionally measured as a multiplier linked to directemployment11. Lower direct would therefore imply lower indirect employment, using amultiplier, although indirect employment might equally be driven directly from passengernumbers. SERAS used a multiplier of 1.3 across the board. One of the reasons thatSERAS used a standard figure across the board was to test relative performance ofdifferent packages, however this is inappropriate when focusing on the local impacts at oneairport.

3.7.5 The latest survey evidence for Stansted from BAA suggests a much lower multiplier of 1.06in the local area roughly equivalent to this study area12. A low figure can be explained bythe ability to supply over distances with modern communications. There are somedefinitional issues that need to be clarified as to what exactly is included, and the scope ofthe survey, but this does suggest that the 1.3 assumption for Stansted is too high. Asimilar lower figure for the local indirect multiplier (1.08) was accepted at the HeathrowTerminal 5 Inquiry. It might be argued that as the airport gets bigger, the indirect multiplierwill tend to rise as suppliers find it worthwhile having a local presence to service a biggervolume of business at the airport, and the final ‘mid point’ estimates assumed multipliers of1.06 at passenger levels below 30mppa, then 1.08 at levels below 70mppa, and 1.1 athigher passenger levels Induced employment

3.7.6 Induced employment is mentioned in the SERAS documents, but it is not quantified for thepurposes of assessing the urbanisation impacts. The apparent assumption is that there willbe no net effects. This needs to be understood in the context of the SERAS method whichassumes that airport related employment growth does not result in any extra job growth so

9 SERAS' model used 1997 direct employment/mppa for low cost and non-low cost passengers as the basis

for their projection to 2030. However, this base would not have yielded the actual 1997 directemployment level. The Consultants therefore projected employment using the SERASassumptions but from the actual 1997 base.

10 SERAS used the same trend productivity growth rate for low cost and non low cost operations. One wouldimagine that the scope for future reductions in employment/mppa is greater for the non low costoperators.

11 DTZ Pieda raised 1997 base level indirect employment in line with passenger growth adjusted downwardsfor productivity growth.

12 The DTZ Pieda study showed that the ratio of indirect to direct employment was 1.05.


93

long as it is within the employment growth forecast for the area (using TEMPRO forecastsof the time). In other words it implicitly assumes displacement, although it is not quantified.

3.7.7 It might be held that, where the population and labour force does not increase andunemployment is low, there would be no induced employment effect, because theconsumption of the population is already catered for. However this would not apply wherethere is extra migration. Nor is it really correct where the population is fixed, asemployment, incomes and spending would rise. But it is clearly necessary to make thedistinction in the multiplier between cases where there is or is not extra migration. as thenew population will not be able to function without, for example, bus drivers, teachers andnurses.

3.7.8 The approach adopted in this study is to include and quantify induced employment, andthen, if appropriate also allow for displacement explicitly, but as a separate effect. Thelevel of the induced multiplier suggested in SERAS13 is 1.3. BAA uses a lower figure of1.24 to reflect residence outside the locality of a proportion of workers. It is not at all clearwhat is included and the area to which they apply when such figures are quoted. Theevidence for them is limited and rather out of date, but there is a consensus on the broadlevel of 1.2 to 1.3 for a local area of impact up to a region. In particular it is not clearwhether or not they include public sector services to the population, provided bygovernment spending rather than household spending, which is a substantial part of theemployment necessary to maintain a community, but is omitted in the normal descriptionsof the induced employment, e.g.

Induced employment is that employment supported by the local expenditure ofpersons employed directly and indirectly.14

Catalytic employment

3.7.9 SERAS does not allow for catalytic (or attracted) employment, although, on the basis ofvarious estimates of its scale at airports, it is potentially large. There are a number ofreasons put forward for ignoring it. There are difficulties in identifying and measuring it,particularly in deciding whether a business locates because of the airport or other factors,and their relative importance. There is limited evidence. Appendix 4 reviews some of thisevidence relating to other airports, and actually there is some reasonable evidence, whichwould justify testing the implications of catalytic employment. There is an argument thatcatalytic employment is optional, as it can be controlled by planning policies (e.g. to limitlarge business parks). However, much catalytic employment cannot be controlled in thisway, for example where small and medium sized companies take up existing premises, orwhere occupational densities rise, and where indirect suppliers attracted to the airport alsodo substantial non-airport business. Uncertainty about the potential level of catalyticemployment is acknowledged but this would argue for testing a range rather than not at all.

3.7.10 Much is made by advocates of air transport about the benefits of developing the industry inattracting investment to the UK and elsewhere, and maintaining economic competitiveness.If this argument is valid, it strongly suggests that at least some of this investment would

13 Halcrow Group Ltd., Jan. 2002, SERAS Stage 2: Appraisal Findings Report; Airport Employment

Forecasting p.514 DTZ Pieda Consulting, August 2001, Proposed development at Stansted Airport Environmental statement

Volume 7, para. 3.8 p.8


94

locate near to airports. There is also inconsistency in the treatment of the issue in differentareas. Other Regional Aviation Studies parallel to SERAS identify catalytic employment asa benefit, but do not quantify it. The SERAS work also recognises it as a real possibility15,as do other studies16.

3.7.11 A review of the evidence (Appendix 4) does suggest that catalytic employment could belarger than direct airport employment and should be considered as contributors to overallgrowth, using a range with high and low values to reflect the uncertainty about the likelyscale. Furthermore such values are likely to be greater for higher levels of scheduledservices than lower. The assumed range is derived from observed values, where theplanning and other constraints vary and may be one factor affecting the range ofobservations. The assumed levels rise over time to reflect the increasing effect as theairport gets larger and develops as a hub airport. By 2031 jobs per million passenger perannum (mppa) reach:• Package 2 (1 runway) - 35 jobs per mmpa• Package 7 (2 runways) – 180 to 300 jobs per mmpa• Package 10 (3 runways) – 220 to 330 jobs per mmpa• Package 14 (4 runways) – 280 to 468 jobs per mmpa

3.7.12 These ratios, calculated for single hub airports, are reduced for application to Stansted toreflect the fact that London has several airports and that catalytic employment would bedistributed between them, with the existing strong pull of Heathrow and critical mass ofmajor companies in that area having a lasting effect. These numbers do not include theindirect impacts of attracted employment. They should be added as well and have beenincorporated in the ‘mid point’ projections. In the initial modelling of SERAS and NON-SERAS scenarios no addition for this was included. Displacement

3.7.13 As described above, the SERAS method implicitly assumes displacement, to occur, but it isnot quantified. Treasury guidance notes that the level of displacement from major projectsis very hard to assess, and suggests testing from zero to 100%. With such a wide range,this can have a huge effect on the outcome for urbanisation. Clearly the policy stance onthe restrictiveness spectrum will affect what actually occurs, as well as other constraints ofinfrastructure provision and natural features. Furthermore there is likely to be competitionfor local labour which will simply bid it away from low value uses. A major project such asan airport is bound to produce some displacement however permissive the policyenvironment, if only because new airport jobs are preferred by some simply for their noveltyor security. A level of 5% has been taken as a minimum.

3.7.14 The issues of displacement and the scale are considered in more detail in Appendix 5.Emerging from that is a level of 25% gross displacement as a plausible rate in a situationwhere there is pressure in the labour market, but that would tend to reduce over time..

Summary

3.7.15 In summary recent evidence for Stansted airport suggests, first, that lower levels of directand indirect employment in relation to passenger numbers than those used in SERAS aremore appropriate for current projections. Second, when considering local urbanisation

15 Halcrow Group Ltd. Op. Cit. p.416 Arup/DTLR, July 2001, Implications of a Thames Gateway Airport, p.42 ff


95

impacts, induced employment should be explicitly allowed for, and a distinction should bemade between the induced impact where additional migration takes place and where itdoes not. Third, attracted employment has a potentially large impact that needs to betaken into account, and on some assumptions could have a greater impact than directemployment. Fourth, displacement, which is implicit but unquantified in the SERAS work,could substantially reduce the net employment impacts, and needs to be explicitly allowedfor in projections.

3.8 Results

Initial SERAS and NON-SERAS projections

3.8.1 Given the uncertainties about key variables, with potentially big effects on the resultingurbanisation impact, as well as the issues of balancing labour market supply and demanddiscussed above, a single projection for each package does not give a rounded picture ofpotential urbanisation impacts. So the study considered a range of alternative projectionsbased on alternative assumptions. These are summarised, with the key assumptions, inAppendix 6

3.8.2 Two alternatives for the direct and indirect airport employment were considered:• the SERAS case where projected direct and indirect employment are consistent with

the projections given in SERAS for 2015 and 2030. These are based on 1997 dataand have been constrained to match the data for 2001 as well. The indirect multiplieradjusts to 1.3 by the year 2016 and remains at that level. These projections areconsidered relevant, as they are the employment figures given by SERAS (rolledforward by a year).

• The non-SERAS case reflecting the recent data on Stansted from BAA that indicateslower direct employment in relation to passenger numbers (reflecting rapid productivitygrowth and or economies of scale between 1997 and 2001) and a lower ratio of indirectemployment in the area.

3.8.3 In both cases, both induced and catalytic employment are included explicitly in the studycalculations (unlike in the SERAS calculations) adding to ex-ante employment demand. Ineach case, a high impact and low impact (high and low in terms of urbanisation impacts) isconsidered: the high has the high end of the range of attracted employment and lowdisplacement; the low has the low end of the range of attracted employment and highdisplacement.

3.8.4 It is important to recognise that developing the projections, which, as explained above,involves balancing the labour market to eliminate excess demand by adjusting assumptionsabout key variables, involves judgements about how these variables might change. Theprocess is not deterministic, and other judgements could have been made. In theprojections considered, balancing has been achieved by adjusting unemployment, activityrates, out-commuting levels, and then, finally migration, when the earlier adjustments werejudged to have changed to a plausible extent. In-commuting rates in relation to jobs in thestudy area are not adjusted although the levels increase as employment grows. No furtheradjustment has been made to trend productivity growth of the non-airport jobs, which has apotentially powerful effect because of the large number of jobs affected, and becauseincreases in one period affecting all subsequent periods.


96

3.8.5 Implicit in scenarios of this kind is a stance on planning policies and infrastructureprovision. In cases where displacement is low, the implicit assumption is that growth inemployment is not constrained by planning and non-provision of infrastructure, housing etc.If such constraints were in place, attracted employment could be limited, although not fullycontrolled, displacement of existing employment could be higher and in-migration reduced.The assumption of the lower level of attracted employment, subject to the large uncertaintyabout the levels that might arise in relation to the scale of the airport, may already implysome policy constraint on provision for inward investors.

3.8.6 The results of the simulations are set out in summary in Appendix 6 for the SERAS and thenon-SERAS high and low cases together with a simplified summary for 2031 of theadditional housing requirements in excess of the baseline. The figures are indicative. Theyillustrate the broad magnitude of outcomes, as the forecasting process is not an exactscience. These results show that the range of assumptions considered produced a verywide range in the urbanisation impact, measured by additional housing requirements,which is the critical factor.

3.8.7 The SERAS case produces much higher housing requirements. This is to be expected asthe direct and indirect employment in relation to passenger numbers is significantly higher.In the SERAS case, packages with more than one runway require significant additionalhousing, although in the low case the amounts are modest. The difference between thehigh and the low case is also significant, which demonstrates the strong influence ofattracted employment and displacement. Both of these are areas of uncertainty wheredata and definite guidance are lacking to enable the range to be significantly narrowed.Arguably the range could be wider, for example on the basis of higher levels ofdisplacement.


97

3.8.8 The non-SERAS case produces additional housing requirements that are below theSERAS case, with the high scenario below the low scenario of the SERAS case. Thisindicates the scale of the difference between the direct and indirect employmentassumptions in the two cases. The non-SERAS case requires additional housing only forpackages with three or four runways.

3.8.9 Comparing the additional housing requirements with the projected housing requirementsrequired anyway (see Appendix 6) it is clear that the cumulative extra requirements due toStansted expansion are substantially less than what is projected to be required anyway.This reflects the large size of the whole study area, as well as the rate of growth anticipatedin the Baseline.

Mid Point Projections

3.8.10 Following discussions with the client group and debate about the utility of high and lowestimates as shown in Appendix 6, it was agreed, first, that it was most realistic to developprojections with the “Non-Seras” assumptions for the direct and indirect airportemployment. . Second, it was agreed that the consultants should prepare a set ofprojections, based on mid-point assumptions. For example, using a displacementassumption of 15%, rather than a 25% rate for the High projection and a 5% rate for theLow projection. The third change was to increase the indirect employment assumption (asa ratio) for higher passenger levels, since it was felt that as Stansted expanded, airportsuppliers would be increasingly motivated to locate close to their customers. The thirdchange was some small methodological improvements to the model as follows:• Indirect employment related to attracted employment added at ratio of 0.15• Displacement applied to induced employment

3.8.11 These ‘mid point’ projections were for the SERAS Packages and two additional scenariosin which passenger levels for one runway reach 25 mppa and 40 mppa by 2021 with nofurther growth thereafter. The latter two consider the implications of limiting airportexpansion strictly to the current planning permission, and conversely, expanding fasterthan envisaged in any SERAS option, reaching a level above that estimated as maximumuse of one runway by SERAS. The various projections and the key assumptions are setout in Table 3.4. and the results, which show figures for the whole economic model studyarea (see Table 3.1 above), in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.

Table 3.4: Summary of Mid Point Projections and Key AssumptionsScenario Passengers (mmpa) Catalytic Employment Displacement

Package 2, 1runway

23 mppa by 202135 mppas by 2036

38/ mppa by 2036 5% to 2031, 10% in 2036

Package 7, 2runways

69.4 mppa by 202182 mppa by 2036

250/ mppa by 2036Displacement = 15%

Package 10, 3runways

92.9 mppa by 2021102 mppa by 2036

300/ mppa by 2036 Displacement = 15%

Package 14,4 runways

90 mppa by 2021129 mppa by 2036

400/ mppa by 2036 Displacement = 15%


98

Scenario 25 m(1 runway)

25 mppa by 202125 mppa by 2036

38/ mppa by 2036 5% to 2031, 10% in 2036

Scenario 40m(1 runway)

40 mppa by 202140 mppa by 2036

108/ mppa by 2036 5% to 2031, 10% in 2036

All scenarios:Indirect airport employment multiplier = 1.06, then 1.08 for 30 mppa +, then 1.1 for 70 mppa and aboveIndirect multiplier for catalytic employment = 1.15Induced multiplier = 1.24 x direct, indirect and attracted employment, applied to jobs filled by study arearesidents; 10% applied to non-resident study area workers.Additional migrant population generates a further 0.1 jobs per person in public services.To balance the labour market:unemployment can fall to about 2.5%Out-commuting can fall up by up to about 15,000 (compared with baseline projection levels) in the core andouter areas, and exceptionally above this level.Activity rates can rise by up to 1.5 percentage points generally and exceptionally up to 2 percentage pointsAdditional migration is used to balance beyond the effect of the above, subject to a limit of 3,000 a year inthe core area to reflect limits in the rate of housing development

Source: consultants


99

Table 3.5: Summary of Mid Point Projections for SERAS Packages (economic model studyarea)

2001P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14

Initial Labour Excess Demand 4,261- 25,180 41,430 39,788 4,863 35,721 51,056 73,762 20,017 50,610 65,073 89,87 (before labour market balance)

Labour Demand - study area

Airport jobs impact, of which 13,522 15,947 64,367 91,718 89,012 15,976 67,208 92,617 130,412 19,851 71,110 95,128 136,4 Direct 10,332 12,210 38,082 50,792 49,104 11,859 35,324 46,366 57,474 14,985 36,135 44,942 56,6 Indirect 718 806 3,047 5,079 4,910 949 3,532 4,637 5,747 1,199 3,614 4,494 5,6 Catalytic (indirectly generated) 40 104 2,081 3,832 3,714 136 2,679 4,029 6,818 197 3,075 4,590 7,7 Catalytic (directly generated) 268 690 13,872 25,546 24,758 905 17,858 26,863 45,453 1,316 20,500 30,600 51,6 Catalytic 308 794 15,953 29,377 28,472 1,041 20,537 30,892 52,271 1,513 23,575 35,190 59,3 Induced 2,163 2,253 8,966 12,638 12,266 2,252 9,283 12,740 17,761 2,814 9,784 13,015 18,4 Displacement 0 -116 -1,681 -6,170 -5,741 -124 -1,469 -2,017 -2,842 -660 -1,998 -2,513 -3,6

Other jobs 602,217 682,002 682,452 684,072 683,712 705,000 705,450 707,430 710,940 716,027 718,367 720,617 724,3

Total jobs 615,739 697,949 746,818 775,790 772,724 720,976 772,658 800,047 841,352 735,878 789,477 815,745 860,8

Labour Supply

Employee residents 626,037 729,745 734,091 744,938 742,938 736,919 741,321 758,179 783,537 726,663 745,183 762,002 790,5 Migrants 0 0 2,500 11,500 9,500 0 2,500 13,500 33,000 0 13,000 25,500 46,5

Net commuting -10,297 -31,796 12,727 30,852 29,787 -15,943 31,337 41,868 57,815 9,214 44,294 53,743 70,2

Housing

Cummulative additional dwellings 0 0 2,073 9,538 7,879 0 2,083 11,247 27,494 0 10,831 21,245 38,7

2021 2031 2036

Source: consultants.Notes: Initial labour excess demand is the calculated ex-ante demand before adjustments in the labour market including unemployment, activity rates, commuting and migration.

Labour supply and demand give the ex-post position after adjustments. Displaced jobs are those displaced by the increase in ex ante airport related and connected(induced and attracted) jobs over the previous 5 years, rather than total displacement to date. Cumulative additional dwellings are the dwellings additional to the baselinegrowth in dwelling, i.e. the extra dwellings required by airport expansion above the baseline level..


100

Table 3.6: Summary of Mid Point Projections for Additional Scenarios (economic model study area)

2001Sc 25m Sc 40m Sc 25m Sc 40m Sc 25m Sc 40m

Initial Labour Excess Demand - 3,415- 5,103 4,518 12,660 16,413 24,206(before labour market balance)

Labour Demand

Airport jobs impact, of which 13,522 17,312 31,365 15,267 28,771 14,194 27,143 Direct 10,332 13,268 21,595 11,531 18,719 10,704 17,376 Indirect 718 875 1,728 684 1,498 604 1,390 Catalytic (indirectly generated) 40 113 520 132 621 141 650 Catalytic (directly generated) 268 750 3,467 880 4,139 940 4,336 Catalytic 308 863 3,987 1,012 4,759 1,081 4,986 Induced 2,163 2,446 4,382 2,152 3,998 2,012 3,789 Displacement 0 -139 -327 -111 -204 -207 -399

Other jobs 602,217 682,002 682,002 705,000 705,000 716,027 716,027

Total jobs 615,739 699,314 713,367 720,267 733,771 730,221 743,170

Labour Supply

Employee residents 626,037 729,745 729,745 736,919 736,919 726,263 728,265 Migrants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net commuting -10,297 -30,431 -16,377 -16,652 -3,148 3,958 14,905

Housing

Cummulative additional dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2021 2031 2036

Source: consultants.


101

Notes: Initial labour excess demand is the calculated ex-ante demand before adjustments in the labour market including unemployment, activity rates, commuting and migration.Labour supply and demand give the ex-post position after adjustments. Displaced jobs are those displaced by the increase in ex ante airport related and connected(induced and attracted) jobs over the previous 5 years, rather than total displacement to date. Cummulative additional dwellings are the dwellings additional to thebaseline growth in dwelling, i.e. the extra dwellings required by airport expansion above the baseline level.


102

3.9 Conclusions

3.9.1 The wide range of potential outcomes for urbanisation apparent from consideration of therange of alternative assumptions emerges as a major issue, creating big challenges forplanning. A key conclusion of the forecasting exercise is that a reliable single estimate ofhow the local economy would react to a large shock of the nature of the larger packagescannot be made, and a wide range of uncertainty is inherent. Plans must, therefore, havethe required flexibility.

3.9.2 Whilst it is appropriate to consider the SERAS levels of employment in reacting to SERAS,the data available since the SERAS work was done does suggest that lower direct andindirect employment estimates are probably more appropriate. Hence the non-SERAScase has been taken as the basis for the next stage of work in examining spatial options.

3.9.3 The planning response has no choice but to accept the uncertainty and plan for flexibility toaccommodate the range of plausible uncertainty. As a matter of principle, whilst beingaware of the boundary cases, it is sensible to focus on intermediate cases rather thanboundary cases which are inherently less likely. Hence the set of ‘mid point’ projectionshas been developed as the basis for the next stage.

3.9.4 A further aspect is the policy stance on the restrictiveness spectrum that underlies thecases to be used in the next stage of work. A mid point projection suggests a stance withsome restriction, but not maximally restrictive.

3.9.5 The key question in terms of the actual scale of growth forecast is the additional migrantpopulation, and additional housing on top of that required for baseline growth, implied byairport expansion. The results (Table 3.5 above) indicate that, on the assumptions made,one runway will not require any additional migration or housing. This is the case even withaccelerated growth of the airport to 40 mppa by 2021 on mid-point assumptions. Howeveradditional housing for migrants generated by airport growth begins to be required, inmodest quantities, in all packages with more than one runway before 2021. Additionalhousing begins to be substantial (i.e. equivalent to a substantial town) by 2021 for Package10 and 14 by 2021, and significantly larger than that for Package 14 by 2031, and Package10 as well by 2036.

3.9.6 A final and key point is that the baseline projected population growth is substantial, andthat means that, if it is accepted, there will be large increases in the labour force in thestudy area which will provide labour for increased airport jobs, and will also need largeadditional housing provision, substantially larger to 2031 than the additional housingidentified for the packages. This will be the bigger problem to accommodate. If a viewwere taken that the ‘proper’ baseline population projection should be much lower, thenmore of the housing growth in the airport packages would be treated as an additionalairport generated requirement.


103

4. Growth Opportunities and Constraints

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section sets out the opportunities and constraints to development that will highlightareas with capacity for future growth. It will also identify priority areas, in which it isconsidered that growth will be most beneficial in terms of realising the wider planning andregeneration objectives for the Study area. Given the extensive coverage of the constraintsit will be an important issue for the Study to determine what trade offs, if any, are necessaryin order to accommodate the forecast levels of growth under each expansion package.

4.1.2 The growth opportunities and constraints are considered in terms of the following, whichreflect the structure of this Section:• The Environment, identifies the environmental and physical constraints to

development.• Transport, sets out the opportunities and constraints to development offered and

imposed by the highways network and by public transport in terms of bus and rail.• Employment and Economic Development, discusses opportunities and constraints

in terms of economic development, labour market growth and the potential for airportand related employment generation to contribute towards regeneration objectives.

• Settlement Opportunities and Constraints, sets out the growth opportunities andconstraints in relation to the main urban centres. This provides a broad analysis ofsettlement potential based on, landscape and historic character, urban capacity, retailcapacity and social infrastructure capacity.

4.2 Environment

4.2.1 This section considers the physical and environmental constraints affecting the Study areain terms of:• Absolute and partial constraints• Environmental and physical constraints directly related to the growth of Stansted

Airport

Absolute and Partial Constraints (Environmental and Physical)

4.2.2 There are a number of environmental and physical constraints within the Study area, whichwill need to be identified in order to direct growth to where it will have the least impact andto protect those areas considered to be the most valuable. The extent of these constraintshas been examined in detail and includes:• Designated areas such as AONBs, SSSIs and nature reserves etc., which are the main

tools used to protect the environment through the planning process;• Highest value landscape character areas identified in the Rural and Countryside in

Section 2 (refer to Section 2.7, Map 2.13 and Tables 2.19 to 2.22 above);• Committed development, which includes land with planning permission or included in

adopted Local Plans;


104

• Other aspects of the physical environment, such as the location of overhead powerlines, mineral sites and high risk fluvial flood plains that will have an impact on wheregrowth can occur in the future.

4.2.3 The constraints identified are set out in table 4.1 below and mapped on GIS, as shown onMaps 4.1 and 4.2. The constraints have been classified as either absolute or partialconstraints to enable a distinction to be made between those constraints that shouldpreclude development completely and those where development within or in closeproximity would have implications. Accordingly, absolute constraints are designations thatmerit the maximum level of protection, or by their nature preclude development. All areascovered by absolute constraints on Map 4.1 will be excluded from consideration fordevelopment in Stage 3. However, depending on the remaining capacity within theStudy area, highest value landscape areas may have to be considered fordevelopment if growth levels are to be accommodated.

4.2.4 Partial constraints are those that are considered to be important, but which merit a degreeof flexibility in considering future development. They will provide an important input into theassessment of areas for development in Stage 3. Where an area is on or within closeproximity to a partial constraint the impact of development on the constraint or the site willbe taken into account.


105

Map 4.1


106

Map 4.2


107

Table 4.1: Absolute and Partial Constraints to Development.

Absolute Constraints Partial ConstraintsAirport Noise Zones – in accordance withPPG24

Airport Safeguarding Zone –Safeguarding Zones place heightrestrictions on development aroundairports, restrict development that willattract birds, e.g., landfill sites andrestrict road development within 3km of arunway.

High Risk Fluvial Flood Plain – in accordancewith PPG25

Public Open Space and Playing Fields(including Country Parks, Regional Parksand Common Land)

Historic Parks and Gardens – in accordancewith PPG15

Local Nature Reserves

Nature Conservation Areas (SSSIs, NNRs,RAMSAR) – in accordance with a range of EUand national legislation, including PPG11

Local Archaeological Areas (includingconservation areas) Note: these areaswill be identified by use of Local Plansand hard copy maps

Scheduled Ancient Monuments/ AncientLandscape – in accordance with PPG15

County Wildlife sites (including areas ofAncient Woodland)

Reserved Minerals Sites – (excluding workedand rehabilitated sites) in accordance withPPG1 and MPG1. Note: Hertfordshire MineralSites are not available in GIS format andtherefore hard copies of their minerals plan willbe used will be used to identify such sites.

High Quality (BMV) Agricultural Land -in accordance with PPG7 (Only areaswhere more than 60% of the land islikely to be the best and most versatile –DEFRA 2003)

Cemeteries – in accordance with PPG1 Other Woodland (including Countywoodland)

Existing Commitments – Local Plan sites withplanning permission and other committed sites.Note: Existing Commitments for Essex are notavailable in GIS format and therefore hardcopies of the Local Plans will be used to identifysuch sites.

Special Landscapes (including SpecialLandscape Areas and Best Lands)

Overhead Power Lines (This is not a formalpolicy. But experience in other Studiessuggests a 50 m exclusion zone to either side)

Green Belt – in accordance with PPG2

Landfill Sites

Note: Cemeteries, overhead power lines and playing fields are already identified onOrdinance Survey Maps (1:50,000), which forms the base layer to maps 4.1 and 4.2.

Stansted Airport Specific Constraints (Environmental and Physical)

4.2.5 The main absolute constraint to development as a result of airport growth is the noise andsafety zone. Areas subject to aircraft noise levels over 57 dBA are considered unsuitable


108

for development, in line with the standards set out in PPG24. The 57 dBA noise contoursaround Stansted for the three runway scenarios are shown on Map 4.1. The addition of twoor more new runways extends the noise contours significantly and precludes the greatestareas of land, with three runways only taking marginally more land than two runways. Thismeans that the more runways that are developed, the more constrained the immediatevicinity would be in terms of accommodating future growth. In particular the settlements ofSawbridgeworth, Bishops Stortford and Stansted Mountfitchet would be highly constraint bythe Airport noise and safety zones.

4.2.6 The SERAS Report indicates that expansion of Stansted airport by a further one, two orthree runways would require 7-12.5 km2 to accommodate the additional airport facilities.The current size of the airport is 9.5km2. This would increase to 16.5km2 (one additionalrunway), 19km2 (two additional runways) or 22km2 (three additional runways). Theadditional land take required for development of three runways would be within the noiseand safety zones shown on Map 4.1 and has therefore not been mapped.

4.2.7 The safeguarding zone for Stansted Airport is shown on Map 4.2 of partial constraints.Airport safeguarding zones are areas where certain height and other restrictions apply todevelopment around airports, for example, it restricts development that will attract birds,e.g. landfill sites and restrict road development within 3km of a runway. This restriction willbe considered in detail during the site assessment process in Stage 3.

Key Issues Relating to Absolute and Partial Constraints

4.2.8 Map 4.1 shows that the area around Stansted Airport is most effected by absoluteconstraints, in the form of the airport safeguarding zone and constrains development on thesettlements of Bishop’s Stortford, Stansted Mountfitchet and Sawbridgeworth.

4.2.9 Map 4.2 clearly illustrates the presence of partial constraints, which cover most of the corearea of the Study area, particularly in the form of special landscape areas, areas ofarchaeological significance and ancient woodland. In the outer area of the Study area,large parts of land to the south are effected by the metropolitan green belt. Cambridge isalso constrained by green belt.

4.2.10 While the presence of a high number of partial constraints does not preclude areas frombeing included for potential growth in Stage 3, it does mean that these areas will notperform well in environmental terms within the assessment process. For some areas, it islikely that there will a trade off between environmental and other objectives so that growthwithin Study area can be accommodated.

4.3 Transport

4.3.1 This section sets out the key opportunities and constraints to development with regards totransport. This is undertaken for highways, rail and bus. The highways section identifiesthe opportunities for improving strategic east west links within the Study area. The railsection notes the present investment opportunities and the constraints resulting fromuncertainties within the rail industry. The bus analysis outlines the issues that need to beaddressed for improving bus services.


109

Highways

4.3.2 Proposed improvements to the primary road network are shown in Map 4.3. The mostsignificant road improvement programme currently underway in the Study area is the A120works offering improved east-west access between Stansted and Braintree. Furtherwidening between Braintree and Marks Tey is recommended by the London Ipswich Multi-Modal Study which would improve access from the east still further.

4.3.3 Another significant highway improvement is the approval to upgrade the heavily used dualtwo lane carriageway of the A14 to full three lane standard between Huntingdon toCambridge. This was a recommendation of CHUMMS and tackles a major congestion andsafety issue and will also improve access to the Study area from the north and west.

4.3.4 There are also further opportunities for strengthening east-west links:• A421/428 widening (recommendation of London South Midlands Multi-Modal Study –

LSMMMS – and approved by the Highways Agency)• Completion of a A414 link to the M11 (originally proposed within the Hertfordshire LTP

and currently key to the Harlow Options Study), which will significantly influence thefuture growth of Harlow.

• A120 Braintree to Marks Tey dualling – recommendation in LOIS and agreed in theannouncement by the Secretary of State for Transport on 9th July 2003.

4.3.5 A constraint to future development will be the M11 to which most development relatedtraffic would naturally gravitate. The need to upgrade the M11 to a dual three lanecarriageway over its full length is likely to be a requirement for major development in orderto handle increased traffic volumes. Given that present flows are at the design level orslightly above, widening the M11 will ensure that safety is not adversely affected bygrowing traffic levels. The LSMMMS recommended widening of the M11 betweenJunctions 8-9 and 9-14 to three lane and SERAS notes that widening works would berequired in the event of new runways at Stansted Airport. The improved east westconnections mentioned earlier will further support the need for additional capacity along itslength and the provision of high quality interchanges.

4.3.6 Additionally, there will be more localised pressures within and around existing settlementsas a result of increasing urbanisation. These issues will be addressed within Stage IIIwhere potential settlement locations will be identified.

Rail

4.3.7 The current upgrades to the West Anglia Main Line through the WARM project (WestAnglia Route Modernisation) will lead to an improved rail service in terms of reliability andpunctuality. This will help to reduce levels of overcrowding and the enhanced signallingsystems should additionally lead to shorter journey times.


110

Map 4.3


111

4.3.8 Further enhancements to the route are planned as part of the package of measuresassociated with the planned growth of Stansted Airport to 25 mppa as agreed between theSRA and BAA. One of the major constraints in terms of rail access to the airport is thesingle bore tunnel providing direct rail access to the airport. BAA plan to provide a secondtunnel at an agreed level of demand, which will improve the ability of Stansted Airportstation to handle more frequent rail services, particularly to destinations other than London.Stansted Express services will also be improved through the provision of longer trains,which will assist in attracting an increasing number of passengers to use public transport toaccess the airport, in turn helping Stansted maintain its high use of rail for access. It is notyet clear whether other commuters in the region would benefit from these works which arerelated to airport specific traffic.

4.3.9 The major constraint to the rail industry, at least in the short term, is the rising cost ofmerely maintaining and renewing the existing network. Costs have risen dramatically sincethe Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove accidents with safety and maintenance having muchhigher priorities within a limited budget. As a result, the case for constructing entirely newsections of railway will be very difficult to make in the short to medium term even if there isa strong business case. Even constructing new stations to serve growing communities willbe difficult to deliver quickly. New rail links may be a possibility in the longer term, butimproving existing routes by providing additional lines is likely to be more cost-effectiveoptions.

4.3.10 Another constraint is likely to be the introduction of a new timetable as part of the GreaterAnglia franchise. Through its Capacity Utilisation Policy, the SRA is now seeking to reducethe level of railway services on lines, which are operating at or near capacity, as there areadverse effects on performance and reliability. Until a revised timetable has been agreedand a franchise awarded, it is too early to say by how much of a constraint it might be torail services on the West Anglia Main Line, if at all.

4.3.11 An output from this study might be that the need for a new railway station/s is/aredemonstrated as part of the long term sustainable plan for increased urbanisation withinthe Study area. The process required to provide a new station take a minimum of five yearsand can take up to ten years from inception to completion. The process is complex,involving numerous organisations and the programme can be liable to complications anddelays.

Bus

4.3.12 The development of the bus network is constrained by:• Traffic congestion, causing unreliability, and hence making services unattractive;• Poor image – reinforced by poor roadside infrastructure;• Low population density and poor layout of much residential development, meaning that

for many would-be passengers getting to the bus is more difficult than it should be;• Dispersed employment, education and retail facilities, which are hard to serve

effectively by conventional public transport services; and• Operating costs increasing at a rate well in excess of the Retail Price Index. Increases

in labour and insurance costs are driving cost increases of around 8% per year, whichin turn places pressure on services levels and fares.


112

4.3.13 However, there are opportunities for developing bus services:• Given the political will, it is possible to implement bus priority measures within larger

urban settlements to facilitate the movement of buses, making services more reliableand attractive to workers;

• Given agreements between the relevant parties, it is possible to provide high qualityroadside infrastructure. Bus stop provision and maintenance can be funded throughadvertising, while it is within the gift of local authorities to fund the provision, updatingand maintenance of bus stop flags and timetable displays;

• The design of new development can be made such that it is easier to serve effectivelyby bus. Its scale and form can influence the frequency of service that can viably beprovided – which in turn influences the number of people using the service;

• The location of new development can also influence the success of a service. Itis likely to be easier to serve adequately a development by bus that is between two ormore major trip attractors, rather than linking to only one trip attractor. An interurbanservice will fulfil the former; a traditional town service may only be able to serve one tripattractor – the town centre. An increased level of service on a bus route will benefitother locations on the line of route, and in turn further increase demand and bus modalshare.

• Section 106 agreements can be used to ‘pump prime’ new or improved bus services.4.3.14 Stage 3 of this study will identify those corridors in the study area that will enable the

biggest change in bus service levels (given current conditions) per unit of housingdevelopment constructed. This will form a key part of the decision making process whenidentifying potential new settlements.

4.4 Employment and Economic Development

4.4.1 This section sets out the opportunities and constraints in relation to employment creationand economic development. This has been undertaken in relation to the following:• Economic development opportunities and constraints with respect to growth of existing

businesses• Opportunities and constraints to meeting the labour demand within the Study area• Potential opportunity and constraints to meeting social regeneration objectives through

job creation

Economic Development Opportunities and Constraints for Existing Businesses

4.4.2 This section briefly reviews anticipated effects of airport expansion on existing industry andclusters in the area. The review is qualitative, drawing from existing literature to identifyanticipated effects. Further details of the estimated scale of catalytic employmentgenerated by airport expansion are provided in Appendix 4 of this report.

4.4.3 The potential effect on existing industrial clusters is of key concern given the findings ofrecent research highlighting the role of agglomerations of firms in localities, cities andregions as key drivers of economic growth.

4.4.4 The forces that drive clustering rely primarily on the existence of ‘spillovers’ between firmsand other costs or benefits that firms or workers do not fully internalise, to take effect.


113

However, it is important to note that clustering entails both positive (e.g. knowledge) andnegative (e.g. congestion and affordability of housing) spillovers as discussed in furtherdetail below.

EXISTING INDUSTRY CLUSTERS

4.4.5 On a national basis it is clear that there are a range of both established and developingclusters in the region, several of which are distinctive in a number of respects. The DTIstudy into clusters for example, notes that nationally cluster job creation is no better thanthe regional average. However, in the eastern region cluster job creation performance issignificantly better than the regional average.

4.4.6 In part this is likely to reflect the fact that a number of clusters in the region are wellestablished, deep in relation to the mix and range of industries present, growing in terms ofemployment and of international significance.

4.4.7 Key high technology based clusters include pharmaceuticals/biotechnology,ICT/electronics, software and technology consultancy variously located in Cambridge,Hertfordshire and the M11 corridor. The position of Cambridge is key given that it has thegreatest potential to generate new, high value economic activity because of the strength ofits research base.

4.4.8 However, as recent research into cluster development in the east of England17 and the roleof planning policy has demonstrated, RPG and development plans are only just beginningto get to grips with planning for clusters. More generally there is a lack of understandingabout the differences between planning policies for clusters and policies for economicdevelopment. There is a consensus that fostering cluster development can best beachieved through co-ordinating regional planning and regional economic policy to providethe necessary infrastructure.

POTENTIAL FOR ATTRACTING INWARD INVESTMENT

4.4.9 There have been a number of studies examining catalytic employment that have beenreviewed (see Appendix 2). Estimates vary widely in terms of jobs per mppa, but theavailable evidence suggests that the impact could be substantial. Moreover, as noted adistinction needs to be drawn between inward investment from elsewhere in the UK andforeign direct investment (FDI) from abroad. Unfortunately, there are few reliable estimatesof the potential level of FDI as opposed to nationally generated inward investment.

4.4.10 In terms of potential impact, there is evidence to suggest that any foreign direct investmentthat is attracted can play an important role in stimulating the economic performance of anarea. On average foreign firms have higher productivity levels than domestic owned firms.They can also provide positive spillover benefits to firms located in the same area byintroducing new technologies and working practices, as well as intensifying competitivepressures. There is evidence to suggest that the impact on productivity and employment ofdemand driven investment programmes is positive, although the effects across the regionaleconomy vary.

17 SQW Ltd & Land Use Consultants. East of England economic planning sub-regions and planning for

clusters. EEDA, July 2002.


114

IMPACT OF THE AIRPORT ON EXISTING CLUSTERS AND BUSINESSES

4.4.11 For the internationally competitively advantaged clusters located in the region airportexpansion will be beneficial given the strong national and international linkages evident insuch sectors. The significance of the international linkages tend to be overlooked bypolicy-makers, but have been highlighted in research. For example, Hart and Simmie(1997)18 emphasise the significance of national/international links over local ones andfurther found little evidence of clustering inter-linkages between firms. For example, lessthan one-fifth of firms interviewed regarded local production networks (LPNs) as making asignificant contribution to their innovations.

4.4.12 Not surprisingly, the growth of Stansted, and the scheduled routes to various UK andEuropean destinations is perceived to have enhanced the attraction of the sub-region as abusiness location19. This is particularly the case for firms with substantial business inEurope, although Heathrow and Gatwick are still used for most long-haul flights. The lackof flights to the USA is cited as a major shortcoming for the many high-tech firms inthe area that have business links with North America. These positive findings areechoed in the DETR study ‘Planning for Clusters’ that notes the importance of goodinternational transport links to the growth of the case study clusters. Similarly the SQW(2002) study on planning for clusters identifies the need to ‘support expansion of Stanstedairport as a key international gateway and economic driver for the region as well as thesub-region’.

4.4.13 Airport expansion will be economically significant to the clusters in several ways. Inaddition, to facilitating business links, it helps attract and retain highly skilled labour andmore generally, is a quality of life consideration for highly educated internationally mobileelements of the labour force. All of these factors have an influence in maintaining thecompetitiveness and contributing to the growth of clusters of international significance suchas are present in the sub-region. Expansion of long haul routes in the larger packageswhere Stansted develops a hub role, could also be a key factor, in combination with others,in the location choice of international investments, e.g. from the USA and Asia, by offeringan alternative to the western corridor.

4.4.14 This does raise the question regarding the potential negative impact associated withcongestion and overheating, that can also impact on quality of life and propensity to attracthighly skilled and mobile labour. The capacity of Cambridge to accommodate growth islimited. The effects are reflected in terms of a growing shortage of employment land,housing affordability for key workers and recruitment difficulties.

4.4.15 Research by SQW on the Cambridge phenomenon however found little evidence, otherthan traffic, that suggests that there has been any decline in the quality of life inCambridge, arguably one of the most congested parts of the study area. Moreover, itfrequently features in surveys of potentially mobile businesses and managers as one of themost attractive locations in the country.

18 Simmie, J and Hart, D. Innovation Projects and Local Production Networks: A case study of Hertfordshire.

European Planning Studies, 1999.19 SQW/Cambridge University. The Cambridge Phenomenon Reviewed, 2000.


115

4.4.16 However, it can be expected that there will be adjustments elsewhere in the economy witha degree of displacement occurring in labour and property markets. This will be mostmarked in lower value added activities. While this process is to be encouraged - sincecomplaints of labour shortages go hand in hand with economic development - it does meanthat some sectors offering low pay because of low productivity may experience labourshortages.

4.4.17 The market is likely to adjust to these labour shortages in a number of ways. Activity rates(that are already quite high) may increase slightly as people previously not employed jointhe labour market. The area may also experience an increase in the number of commutersfrom outside the study area, although this is likely to be limited in relation to low wageemployment. A further option is for firms to raise prices that in most cases is likely to leadto a reduction in demand. Finally producers may look to improve their technology or theway they organise their resources thereby increasing labour productivity.

4.4.18 In some instances firms may decide to relocate and evidence suggests that premisesconstraints, skill shortages and production cost differentials arising from congestion are key‘push’ factors underpinning a decision to relocate.

CONCLUSIONS

4.4.19 Research has highlighted the role of agglomerations of firms in localities as key drivers ofeconomic growth. The study area contains a number of leading technology based clustersincluding pharmaceuticals/biotechnology, ICT/electronics, software and technologyconsultancy. The expansion of Stansted is anticipated to benefit these clusters becausethey, in contrast to those in many other regions, are internationally competitive andincreasingly operate in a global marketplace. Also, research suggests that for manyclusters national/international links appear more important than local ones. The literatureon clusters is strongly supportive of airport expansion (at Stansted) although empiricalevidence is limited.

4.4.20 The evidence on the international component of catalytic employment is limited, but asBritain is one of the preferred destinations of foreign investment, it would naturally form partof any catalytic employment. The development of a hub role for Stansted, and an extensivelong haul network, could be a key factor in attracting foreign investment to the area, incombination with other factors, such as the agglomeration benefits of the internationallyorientated clusters. The attraction of such investment would strengthen these clusters.The evidence suggests that any foreign direct investment that is attracted can play animportant role in stimulating the economic performance of an area, contributing further tothe tendency to increase productivity.

4.4.21 As yet little evidence, other than traffic, is available to suggest that there has been anydecline in the quality of life in the study area. Business surveys indicate Cambridgeremains highly attractive to potentially mobile businesses and managers.

4.4.22 However, the anticipated impetus to high value added activities will increase thecompetition for resources locally, resulting in a degree of displacement in labour andproperty markets. There is some capacity for market adjustment through higher activityrates, increased commuting and/or higher prices. Some sectors offering low pay becauseof low productivity are likely however to experience labour shortages. This may encourage


116

some firms to relocate to areas with lower production costs. Overall this process is to beencouraged since complaints of labour shortages go hand in hand with economicdevelopment and the transition to a more productive economy.

Labour Market Opportunities and Constraints

4.4.23 This section highlights anticipated labour market impacts drawn from a review of theliterature and in light of the findings presented in this report. Labour market issues are ofparticular importance given the strong correlation between skills and economicperformance and more generally in light of the tightening of the labour market and growinglabour market shortages.

4.4.24 As previously noted, in many areas skill shortages are being exacerbated by wider socialinequalities evident in the UK, shortages of affordable housing - in part encouraged throughthe sale of the public housing stock -and the relatively high cost of commuting by public orprivate transport.

4.4.25 The labour market context has been reviewed by Arup in their social impacts appraisalindicating:• Lower than average levels of unemployment projected to further decline throughout the

period to 2030• High activity rates, 84% in the core area and 83% in the outer area• Some structural unemployment persisting but at much lower levels than those

prevailing throughout the 1980s and 1990s.• At Stansted, the existing worker surplus (of 8,100) is projected to decline by 2016 due

to a significant increase in jobs available, followed by an increase in the availableworkforce to 2031.

4.4.26 The expansion of the airport is likely to be met by some increase in net commuting in theshort term given existing high activity rates. As discussed below, this is also likely to beaccompanied by a degree of displacement within the labour market.

AIRPORT OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE

4.4.27 The airport occupational structure is detailed in Table 4.2 below. Broadly, threeoccupational groups can be identified: specialist staff - airline management, pilots (14%);skilled staff – general management, customs, police, air cabin crew, clerical (57%) andsemi/unskilled staff (28%).

Table 4.2: Occupational Structure of Airport

Occupational group Jobbreakdown

Airline/airport mgmt 1.7%Pilots/ATC/Flight ops 12.1%Mgmt & prof - general 6.3%Customs, immigration, police & fire 3.6%Mtce/trade & other skilled 16.8%Air cabin crew 6.8%


117

Passenger services, sales & clerical 23.8%Apron/ramp/semi skilled 18.8%Catering, cleaning & housekeeping 10.0%TOTAL STAFF 100.0%

4.4.28 Taking Package 2 to illustrate the scale of the potential impacts, some 13,000 (2001 to2041) amounts to 2.2% of the total jobs in the core and outer area (616,000). Thisrepresents a relatively sizeable impact on the labour market for any one development, fora single runway only.

ACTIVITY RATES AND UNEMPLOYMENT

4.4.29 Activity rates are already high (83.7% in the total area), so while there may be somepotential to increase this total it is not anticipated to be great. However, the range of jobsprovided by airport expansion is suitable for female and male workers. This should add tothe pool of labour encouraging greater labour market participation rates in airportcatchment areas.

4.4.30 The demand for low skill jobs from airport expansion (1,909) represents a significantproportion (8%) of the current number of unemployed (23,441) in the core and outer area.As the previous review of regeneration impacts indicated, there is potential to steer off-siteinvestment to regeneration priority areas. However, the ability to have any significantimpact on unemployment will be influenced by a range of other social policy issues thataffect the ability of the disadvantaged to take-up jobs.

EARNINGS

4.4.31 The salary bands for airport employees are indicated in Table 4.3 below. As a majoremployer, the airport is anticipated to be able to pay better rates for semi and unskilledgroups where displacement effects are anticipated to be greatest.

Table 4.3: Salary Bands for Airport EmployeesSalaries - Permanent Job breakdown£34K+ 7.2%£26-33.999K 9.7%£20-25.999K 14.2%£16-19.999K 12.4%£11-15.999K 27.5%£7-10.999K 21.6%£4-6.999K 5.0%< £4K 2.3%ALL 100.0%

LABOUR SHORTAGES

4.4.32 The effect on labour/skill shortages is a key issue. Given the relatively small scale ofairport labour demand in relation to total labour market demand in the study area economythe effect of airport expansion would appear to be negligible. However, a more realistic


118

view would be to examine the effects at the margin, where demands on the labour marketrelative to the current numbers of unemployed appear strong.

4.4.33 A number of actions can be taken to mitigate labour shortages including efforts to :• encourage the over 50s to re-enter the workforce;• support childcare responsibilities and increase activity rates for women and single

parents;• addressing social exclusion and tackle urban/rural deprivation; and• encourage opportunities for people with disabilities.

4.4.34 Nevertheless, in the short term the demand for labour, given existing low levels ofunemployment, is anticipated to be met through an influx of new employees, longer journeyto work patterns and, as discussed below, a degree of displacement within the labourmarket.

4.4.35 In the longer term projections are complicated by the range of uncertain variables that needto be considered. Employment in low skill occupations for example can be influenced by arange of factors including training and social policy. The role of RPGs in allocatingemployment and housing levels in the key areas is also open to wide interpretation.

DISPLACEMENT

4.4.36 Displacement of other activity within a local area can occur :• through product markets, where the output of a supported activity takes market share

from local firms producing the same good or service; and• through factor markets, where a supported activity uses locally scarce factors of

production (e.g. skilled labour or land) or by bidding up their prices.4.4.37 A review of previous empirical research20 show displacement averaging 24% to 33% (for a

mix of retail activities), with more highly skilled/ higher paid jobs being less likely to causedisplacement than low skilled/ low paid jobs. Displacement by airport jobs has beeninvestigated (Appendix 5) suggesting an average displacement of 25%. However, giventhat the project scans a long time scale it is anticipated that there will be a degree ofmarket adjustment that will in effect correct for displacement over time (i.e. wage rates willequalise, population will rise etc).

CONCLUSIONS

4.4.38 The labour market is characterised by low levels of unemployment, high activity rates andskill shortages. These problems are arguably being exacerbated by marked socialinequalities evident in the UK, shortages of affordable housing - in part encouraged throughthe sale of the public housing stock -and the relatively high cost of commuting by public orprivate transport.

4.4.39 The expansion of the airport is expected to have some positive, if relatively marginaleffects, on activity and unemployment rates. In the short term at least it is expected thatlabour demand will be met through commuting, longer journey to work patterns and a

20 DOE Evaluation of Urban Devt Grant, Urban regeneration Grant & City Grant (1993); Robinson etal, Evaluating the impact and

effectiveness of financial assistance policies in the Newcastle Metropolitan region (1987); PACEC: An evaluation of theEnterprise Zone Experiment (for DOE, 1987).


119

degree of displacement within the labour market. In the longer term projections arecomplicated by the range of uncertain variables that need to be considered includinghousing, planning, regeneration and social policy.

4.4.40 An indicative average displacement rate of about 25% is calculated. This is likely tocontribute to an increase in firm productivity and wage levels in the regional economy andexacerbate existing skill shortages. However, the effect directly attributable to airportexpansion needs to be seen in the context of wider social, planning and housing policiesthat influence the ability of the market to adjust to long run changes in labour demand.

Opportunities and Constraints to Economic and Social Regeneration

4.4.41 This section sets out the potential contribution of Stansted Airport expansion to theachievement of social regeneration objectives. This largely qualitative analysis is drawnfrom a review of the literature – principally recent research by Arup21 – combined withoutputs from the modelling work. However, the analysis does not purport to constitute aformal impact assessment, but rather indicates the regeneration effects and key contextualissues that influence their likely significance . Regeneration effects are illustrated here withreference to the range of employment projections considered for the relevant Packages.

4.4.42 The relevant factors are likely to include:• Labour market requirements in terms of net additional demand, skill needs and also

importantly job requirements including flexible hours and shift working• The extent, nature and location of disadvantaged groups relative to job opportunities

created, particularly bearing in mind the relatively high cost of travel for lower incomegroups and more localised patterns of job search

• Accessibility of employment created, particularly by public transport given lower levelsof private car ownership amongst low income groups. Long journeys by bus or trainwill be a major disincentive to those seeking low paid work.

• Labour market context including growth in labour supply/demand,activity/unemployment rates (including the level of structural/cyclical unemployment)and accessibility/commuting patterns

• Implementation of complementary social and economic policy measures designed toencourage and support take-up of jobs by disadvantaged groups and tackle structuralunemployment that does not result from a deficiency in demand.

4.4.43 The effect of these factors in the context of Stansted is further explored below.

REGENERATION PRIORITY AREAS

4.4.44 Overall the area is relatively affluent and contains few areas of high deprivation asillustrated in Maps 2.8 and 2.9 in Section 2 above, which illustrate the ward ranking ofurban and rural deprivation In general, deprivation is contained in pockets within urbanareas with Harlow, Cambridge and Colchester containing the most deprived wards (i.e.districts that fall within the top 30% national ranking). Harlow stands out as having thebiggest concentration of the most deprived wards, containing 7 wards that rank in the top

21 Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd. South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study: Social

Impacts Appraisal. DTLR: October 2001.


120

20% most disadvantaged wards in England. Harlow lies within the core area and provides5.1% of employees at Stansted.

4.4.45 Harlow features as a high regional regeneration priority and this is reflected in itsdesignation as a Priority for Area for Economic Regeneration within Regional PlanningGuidance 9.

4.4.46 A brief summary of the regeneration priorities within each of the districts within the Studyarea is summarised in the following bullet points:• Cambridge City contains very low levels of deprivation in the west of the City

however; there are small pockets of high deprivation located to the north east. Inrespect to the Local Plan, there are no economic regeneration aspirations but it isnoted that affordable housing is an issue.

• South Cambridgeshire experiences very low levels of deprivation, owing to a balancebetween jobs, housing, and infrastructure. The local plan gives no further advice oneconomic regeneration matters. However, it is noted that affordable housing is anissue facing the district..

• Braintree has a small proportion of wards facing relatively high levels of deprivation, inboth urban areas i.e. Witham and Braintree and also in rural areas. Even thoughemployment levels have fallen steadily in recent years, the Braintree Local Plancomments that there are significant levels of out commuting as a result of a mismatchbetween jobs, infrastructure provision and housing. Social exclusion has also beenidentified in Braintree as a result of roads and other infrastructure provision, fallingbehind housing development in both rural and urban areas.

• Epping Forest district contains mainly wards with low levels of deprivation however;there are concentrations of high levels of deprivation within urban areas such asLoughton and Waltham Abbey. The Local Plan does not give any further informationon regeneration aspirations.

• Chelmsford and its surrounding rural hinterland contain low levels of deprivation. As aconsequence, no regeneration initiatives have been implemented through the LocalPlan.

• Colchester continues to experience change to the structure of employment away fromtraditional manufacturing to service sector and part time working has placed significantstress on Colchester. Even in this respect, Colchester experiences low levels ofdeprivation within the rural areas and west of Colchester town. However, ColchesterLocal Plan, states that the east of Colchester has been identified as a priority forregeneration, and was subsequently granted SRB funding in 2000. Specificregeneration areas identified in the Local Plan, include Colchester Central Area,Colchester Garrison and The Hythe, all of which are located within the east and southeast of Colchester, where high levels of deprivation exist.

• Harlow currently faces serious social and economic problems that result from pooreducation, poor training and skill levels, decline in the manufacturing sector and theneed for renewal of the urban fabric. On a district level, Harlow is ranked 82nd mostdeprived district in England out of 354 districts. As a consequence, the district hasbeen identified as an Priority Area for Economic Regeneration in RPG9, where newemployment opportunities should be focussed. The Local Plan also encouragesStansted related development via policy ER14, as this would bring indirect employmentin the form of offices, industry, leisure, entertainment, conference facilities andwarehousing, thus providing a diverse range of employment opportunities. In this


121

respect, Harlow would benefit greatly from the growth of Stansted Airport, in terms ofdirect and indirect employment provision.

• Uttlesford District currently experiences very low levels of deprivation, with much ofthe area characterised as being rural in nature amid many small settlements. In relationto the Local Plan, it states that the district has a very low-employment rate so that, anynew jobs created by the growth of Stansted would have to be filled by people eithermoving in to the area or consequently commuting from other Districts.

• Broxbourne has a low unemployment rate compared to the national average, thedistrict has the highest unemployment rate in Hertfordshire. In this respect, the districtunemployment rate masks pockets of deprivation found in the east of the district. Thisis resultant from a mismatch in skills and jobs. Currently, the Local plan has proposedthat Park Plaza employment site in Waltham Cross will help readdress this issue.

• North Hertfordshire currently experiences very low levels of deprivation, with onlysmall pockets of deprived urban wards located in the settlements of Hitchin andBaldock. In this respect, there is no priority for regeneration outlined in the Local Plan.

• East Hertfordshire has only one ward that is classified as deprived. In this respect,there is no priority for regeneration outlined in the Local Plan.

AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT GENERATED

4.4.47 In terms of regeneration effects, the demand for semi-skilled and unskilled jobs will becritical. Based on the current occupational structure for airport employment it is presentlyestimated that around 30% of all jobs created will be unskilled or semi-skilled, falling to16% for indirect and non-airport employment. Hence, of the 13,048 jobs created underPackage 2 approximately 2,869 represent unskilled or semi-skilled jobs over the period2001 to 2041. In addition, off-site and indirect employment will be created. Again takingPackage 2 to illustrate the effects, it is estimated that in the order of 2,714 non-airportcatalytic jobs would be created over the period 2001 to 2041.

4.4.48 Estimates produced as part of this research allocate catalytic employment within thedefined study area predominately to the outer area (70%) with less than a third located inthe core area (30%). Hence for the more distant districts catalytic off-site employmentcould potentially constitute a more significant impact than direct airport generatedemployment. More relaxed planning policies in areas such as Harlow, that are concernedto encourage development and employment creation, could also help to divert attractedinvestment to regeneration priority areas.

LABOUR MARKET CAPACITY

4.4.49 The Arup report usefully reviews the labour market context for Harlow. While the figuresquoted are now slightly dated, they do provide a baseline (for 1998) and an indication ofscale and potential impact of airport expansion.

4.4.50 In terms of labour supply in Harlow, there are 8,157 people living and working in low skilljobs. Total low skilled unemployment totals 629 workers, thus the available low skillresident labour force totals 8,786. Of the total in employment 69% work in semi-skilledjobs. There is forecast to be a fall of 9.2% in the low skill workforce levels between 1998and 2016 in Harlow (343 workers). Between 2016 – 2031 this is expected to fall further,with a 32% fall in the low skill workforce (819 workers).


122

4.4.51 In relation to unemployment, while it is anticipated that structural unemployment will persistthroughout the period to 2030, it will be well below the high historic levels seen in the early1980s and 1990s. In part this reflects improvements in the skills base that is facilitatingskills transferability across sectors.

4.4.52 In terms of labour demand in Harlow, in 1998 there were 38,041 available jobs, with 21% ofthese being low skilled. By 2016 the number of low skill jobs (7,577) is forecast to haverisen by 3,773 or 99%. By 2031 the level of available low skill jobs is forecast to have fallenagain, by 4,388 (58%) below its 1998 level.

ESTIMATED REGENERATION EFFECTS

4.4.53 Table 4.4 provides details of direct, indirect and non-airport/catalytic employment created atthe airport for Package 2 (non-SERAS case) that might be taken-up by Harlow residents.Estimates of direct employment are derived from the level of net additional employmentcreated that is unskilled or semi-skilled (based on the present occupational structure)multiplied by the current proportion of employment at Stansted accounted for by residentsof Harlow (5%). Indirect employment is estimated at 10%.

4.4.54 Attracted employment is assumed to be 33% of the total, the target reflecting a mix ofpolicy measures designed to steer growth to achieve regeneration objectives and the largerproportion of catalytic employment anticipated to be created in outer areas.

4.4.55 The results show that over the period 2001 to 2041 of the total 13,048 jobs created, 303low skilled jobs might be created potentially for residents in Harlow. The majority of thesewould comprise catalytic (144) and indirect (69) jobs.

Table 4.4: Estimated Low Skill Jobs Potential for Harlow Residents Package 2

Shares oftotal jobs

2006 2016 2026 2036 2041 2001 to2041

Total Jobs inStudy Area 17,986 23,924 23,428 28,357 26,530 13,048

of whichTotal Direct 13,600 15,319 14,840 17,721 16,450 6,118Total Indirect 1,349 4,596 4,452 5,316 4,935 4,217Total Non-Airport(induced/catalytic/displaced) 3,037 4,009 4,136 5,320 5,146 2,714

Add.l/Reduced Jobs in StudyArea of which 4,504 2,757 927 6,074 - 1,827 13,048

Total Direct 3,268 650 506 3,697 - 1,271 6,118Total Indirect 631 1,662 152 1,109 - 381 4,217Total Non-Airport 605 444 269 1,268 - 174 2,714

Add.l/Reduced Low Skill Jobsin Study Area of which 1,139 524 213 1,445 -455 2,869

Total DirectUnskilled

10% 327 65 51 370 -127 612


123

Semi skilled 18.80% 614 122 95 695 -239 1,150Total 29% 941 187 146 1,065 -366 1,762Total IndirectUnskilled

4.64% 29 77 7 51 -18 195

Semi skilled 11.36% 72 189 17 126 -43 479Total 16.00% 101 266 24 177 -61 674Total Non-Airport Unskilled

4.64% 28 21 12 59 -8 125

Semi skilled 11.36% 69 50 31 144 -20 308Total 16.00% 97 71 43 203 -28 433Add.l/Reduced Low Skill Jobsin Study Area, 90 60 25 139 -34 303

Potentially filled by Harlowresidents, of whichTotal Direct 5.10%UNSKILLED 17 3 3 19 -6 32Semi skilled 31 6 5 35 -12 58Total 48 9 8 54 -18 90Total Indirect 10.00%UNSKILLED 3 8 1 5 -2 20SEMI SKILLED 7 19 2 13 -4 49Total 10 27 3 18 -6 69Total Non-Airport

33.00%

Unskilled 9 7 4 19 -3 41Semi skilled 23 17 10 48 -7 103Total 32 24 14 67 -10 144

Source: consultants

4.4.56 Using the same assumptions and approach, the potential regeneration impacts ofscenarios for other packages have also been calculated to illustrate the range of potentialimpacts, detailed in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5: Estimated Low Skill Jobs for Harlow Residents 2001-2041Package Direct

JobsIndirectJobs

CatalyticJobs

Total

Package 2 Non-SERAS case, (as above) 90 69 144 303Package 7 Non-SERAS case high 341 14 1,689 2,044Package 14 Non-SERAS case high 622 32 4,312 4,966Package 14 SERAS case high 812 305 4,573 5,690

Source: consultants

4.4.57 This would suggest that Catalytic employment in all scenario’s modelled is likely to have amore significant effect than direct airport related employment in outer areas such asHarlow. This effect could be encouraged through the planning process. This illustrates thepotential influence of planning and other complementary policy packages in terms of theability to divert footloose employment to regeneration priority areas.


124

4.4.58 Depending upon the scenario adopted as the base case the impact for Harlow could bequite substantial. Even for Package 2, impacts are small but not totally insignificant inassisting the regeneration of Harlow in relation to, for example, the current number of lowskilled unemployed (629). This figure also needs to be considered in relation to the widerevidence provided by Arup that indicates that between 2016 and 2031 the level of availablelow skill jobs is forecast to have fallen by 4,388 to below its 1998 level in Harlow.

4.4.59 As a proportion of total employment generated the figures appear small but this isconsistent with evidence elsewhere that suggests that new jobs for local people are oftenlimited. For example, evidence from the assessment of URG and City Grant indicated thatthe majority of schemes produced a low level of net additional jobs, less than 25%, for localpeople when displacement was taken into account. Taking into account that investment isnot motivated by regeneration objectives, skill requirements and issues of accessibilityfurther reduce this figure here. Further constraints are experienced in targeting sociallyexcluded groups where there is a need to consider other policy areas including for examplethe key role of health issues in addressing social exclusion.

IMPACT ON RURAL COMMUNITIES

4.4.60 Research consistently has highlighted the very different nature of rural communitiesdepending on their location and in particular degree of peripherality. Severalcommentators have argued that rurality as a concept is probably of less significance thanperipherality. Rural communities in the South East for example are relatively affluent andhave made the transition from agricultural economies to relatively wealthy commutervillages, the latter trading off additional transport costs in favour of quality of life andenvironment. Maps 2.8 and 2.9 contained within the Baseline assessment clearlydemonstrate that the greatest concentrations of deprivation are concentrated in the urbanareas. This suggests that rural communities, in the sense of relatively self-contained,strongly agricultural communities with a traditional country way of life may be a thing of thepast in the area. However the consultants have not been able to identify any specificresearch for the area that could confirm or refute this.

4.4.61 The whole Study area is within reach of London and Cambridge and is home to manycommuters. The market towns and villages already house many people from urbanbackgrounds, and pressures on rural housing, particularly shortages of affordable housing,are a feature of the Study area, as for most of the south east of England.

4.4.62 Specific issues that tend to affect disadvantaged groups in rural areas include for example:• The limited number, choice and quality of jobs in rural areas. Rural jobs tend to pay

less and are associated with longer hours and short term contracts.• Housing affordability is a problem for many rural communities and is seen by many

commentators as possibly the key issue.• Accessibility to services, although this tends to be more of a problem in peripheral rural

communities where, terrain and population sparsity increase distance to facilities andmarkets.

4.4.63 The major policy issue for the rural communities will continue to revolve aroundissues of housing affordability. Insofar as the expansion of Stansted will attract extra in-migration this will add to the demand for housing, and especially the pressure on therestricted supply of rural housing in the more attractive towns and villages, where only


125

limited expansion can take place without eroding their character. For disadvantaged groupswith less resources at their disposal this is likely to result in increased difficulty in gettingonto the housing ladder, especially in the more ‘desirable’ rural communities. This in turnmay exacerbate labour shortages with implications for the performance of the widereconomy.

CONCLUSION

4.4.64 The scale of expected regeneration benefits of airport expansion, through creation ofunskilled and semi-skilled jobs potentially available to concentrations of deprivation willvary widely according to the package. For Package 2 the potential impacts are quite small,while for other packages potential impacts are much more significant, creating up to 5,690jobs.

4.4.65 Beyond this, for the area as a whole, the regeneration effects are anticipated to be fairlylimited due to:• The relative affluence of the area and limited concentrations of deprivation within close

proximity to the airport• High activity rates and low levels of ‘hidden’ unemployment• Leakage and displacement effects• Social policy issues – benefit system, childcare, accessibility, health for example – that

influence the ability of disadvantaged groups to take-up employment. This is animportant consideration bearing in mind that Harlow has been defined as an areawhere strong economic performance co-exists with high levels of deprivation. 22

4.4.66 The potential to contribute to the achievement of regeneration objectives, would beprimarily through the focusing of Catalytic employment to designated regenerationareas. This will help to offset the reduction in low skill jobs anticipated over the period to2031. Supportive planning policies would be needed to achieve regeneration benefits. InPackage 2 it is estimated this would create around 300 low skilled jobs potentially forHarlow residents (2001-2031), amounting to around 3% of the total number of low skilledjobs available in the district in 1998.

4.4.67 Some consideration is also required of effects on rural communities. These are anticipatedto be widely dispersed and hence difficult to quantify with any precision. However, givencurrent problems arising from housing affordability - that is arguably leading to anincreasing spatial dimension to the existing high level of social inequality experienced inthe UK - it can be expected that these issues would be exacerbated by airport expansionand associated in-migration of more affluent income groups.

4.4.68 To the extent that issues of housing affordability are exacerbated then this may have widerramifications for the economy as a whole accentuating existing skill shortages, particularlyin vocational and semi-skilled trades. Careful consideration will be required of the role thatthe planning system and delivery of housing development has to play in securing thecompetitiveness of the region.

22 DTZ. Prioritisation in the East of England. EEDA, October 2002.


126

4.5 Planning Policy Opportunities and Constraints

4.5.1 This section draws out the main constraints and opportunities to growth contained withinthe various planning guidance and policy documents that cover the Study area. All of theconstraints and opportunities have been identified within the Inception Report, Section 4Document and Data Review and are included here as bullet points only. The structure ofthis section is:• Regional Planning Guidance• Cambridgeshire

- Structure Plan- Cambridge City- South Cambs

• Essex- Structure Plan- Braintree- Chelmsford- Colchester- Epping Forest- Harlow- Uttlesford

• Hertfordshire- Structure Plan- Broxbourne- East Herts- North Herts

Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia (RPG6) 2000• The planning framework for the Cambridge sub-region should allow it to develop as a

world leader in research and technology and provide a more sustainable balancebetween jobs and housing.

• Availability of water supplies in the region is a concern.Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) 2001

• Harlow is a PAER.• Protection should be given to areas with national and international designations and

biodiversity safeguarded.Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14) Consultation Document

• Urban areas should meet their own development needs locally to ensure a balancebetween housing and employment to discourage long distance commuting.

• The London-Stansted-Cambridge sub-region provides an opportunity for long-termrestructuring of the region based on a major centre (Harlow or a new town) andimproved east-west links. However, the area around Stansted has limited capacity toaccommodate major development.

• Allowing the current pattern of development to continue will adversely affect theenvironment and the character of many settlements.

• Harlow is an area for regeneration.


127

Cambridgeshire

STRUCTURE PLAN• The Cambridge sub-region will continue to develop as a centre for excellence and a

world leader in the fields of higher education and research.• Substantial areas of Green Belt surround the City of Cambridge.• Development will be restricted in areas of nature designation, areas of high quality

agricultural land and flood plains.• Housing to the south of Cambridge will be restricted in order to limit long distance

commuting.• Development will be restricted in areas of potable water supply in order to prevent

contamination.• Adequacy of water supplies needs to be considered to prevent future requirements

being put at risk.• Mineral and aggregate sites are protected.

CAMBRIDGE CITY• Encourage development that reinforces the high-technology and research industry

within the city.• Historic character of Cambridge is to be protected.• The disused rail lines to Bedford and St. Ives are protected for possible future use as

an advance public transport system.SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

• There are no towns within the district and villages have only limited capacity. Thefurther development of Cambourne and a second new settlement atOakington/Longstanston will accommodate significant levels of future development.

• The district is concerned to provide for the needs of the high-technology and researchindustry.

• Development in Landscape Character Areas will be restricted.• Development within the vicinity of hazardous installations will be restricted. There are

nine such installations within the district and 11 high pressure natural gas pipelines.Essex

STRUCTURE PLAN• The south and west of the Study area has substantial areas of Metropolitan Green Belt.• Development will be restricted in areas of nature designation, areas of high quality

agricultural land and flood plains.• Development will be restricted in areas of potable water supply to prevent

contamination.• Potentially workable mineral sites will be safeguarded from development.• Harlow is identified for regeneration

BRAINTREE• Development restricted within rural areas.• High grade agricultural land will be protected and there are seven special landscape

areas that will be protected. Development affecting SSSIs will be refused.


128

• The plan strategy is to reduce the rate of housing development to enable employmentopportunities and infrastructure to catch up with population.

• The Environment Agency is concerned about abstraction levels from local waterresources.

CHELMSFORD• Metropolitan Green Belt and high grade agricultural land are protected from

development.COLCHESTER

• Areas of high grade agricultural land and with nature designations will be protectedfrom development.

• There is significant development capacity on PDL sites within Colchester town.EPPING FOREST

• Substantial parts of the district are covered by Metropolitan Green Belt and sites ofecological importance, for example, Epping Forest.

HARLOW• During the 1990s the towns population declined.• Areas of ecological value will be protected.• Employment development will be encouraged as part of the town’s regeneration

agenda.UTTLESFORD

• No large towns within the district and limited opportunities for development on PDLbecause of the largely rural character of the district.

• Over 80% of the district is grade two agricultural land and is protected fromdevelopment.

• A major aquifer underlies the northern part of the district and there are seven locationswhere water is extracted for human consumption. In these locations development isrestricted to prevent contamination.

• Noise sensitive development is not permitted within the 57dB(A) noise zone ofStansted Airport.

Hertfordshire

STRUCTURE PLAN• Significant proportion of the county is Metropolitan Green Belt.• Areas of ecological value will be protected.

BROXBOURNE• Substantial part of the district is Metropolitan Green Belt and there are a number of

areas of ecological importance.EAST HERTS

• Only limited development will be permitted within villages.• Metropolitan greenbelt covers the southern part of the district.


129

• There are several areas of ecological importance where there is a presumptionagainst development and a number of Landscape Character Areas wheredevelopment is restricted.

• The area of special restraint at Bishop’s Stortford will be released if there is a need torelease land for Stansted Airport development.

NORTH HERTS• Development not permitted in areas of special restraint or in the green belt. The town

of Royston is considered to be restrained because of surrounding area of specialrestraint. There is a presumption against development of high grade agricultural land.

4.6 Settlement Constraints and Opportunities

4.6.1 This section considers key issues which may affect the capacity of settlement’s to provideopportunities for strategic development. Where possible, it also highlights implications forachieving high rates of growth. Importantly, these factors inter-relate and in drawingconclusions as to a settlements capacity for growth must be looked at holistically. Thisoverall capacity assessment is drawn together in Chapter 6.

4.6.2 There are a wide range of factors which contribute to a settlement’s capacity toaccommodate further development. Some of this will be related to environmentalconstraints and the need to preserve aspects of the built environment. Others are moreassociated with facilities and public services. This section makes a broad assessment ofthe following:• Landscape and Historic Character;• Urban Capacity;• Retail Capacity;• Social infrastructure capacity.

4.6.3 This list is by no means exhaustive and is in part a reflection of the availability of consistentdata at a settlement level and part due to the timescale of the Study, which precludes anin-depth analysis from being undertaken. It nevertheless draws out a number of importantissues and provides a broad comparative picture of which settlements are strongcontenders for growth and others which are subject to a number of constraints, whichmeaning that they are less suitable to accommodate major growth.

Landscape Constraints (by settlement)

4.6.4 The landscape character or type surrounding each settlement has been listed in Table 4.6to make a broad judgement as to whether there may be capacity for small or major urbanextensions in the vicinity. Where a landscape was graded as H or M-H in the baselinelandscape assessment, it is taken to mean that there is no capacity for expansion (x);where the landscape was graded as M there is possible capacity for expansion of thesettlement (?) , and where the landscape was graded as L or L-M it is assumed that thereis some capacity for expansion ( ).


130

4.6.5 Many settlements fall within several landscape areas, either at the boundary of differentareas or close to it. The table below lists each settlement’s surrounding landscape typesand their capacities for absorbing development.

Table 4.6: Landscape Character Constraints by SettlementSettlement Landscape Character Major Extension (>5a) / New

SettlementCambridge Cam River Valley,/ Bourn Brook Valley

/ Madingley Ridge / North CambridgeFen Edge Claylands / East CambridgeFen Edge Chalklands / Fulbourn FenBowl / Gog Magog Hillls / Hobson’sBrook

x / x / x / x / x / x / x / x

Cambourne Western Claylands xSawston Cam River Valley/ Granta Levels ? / xGreatShelford

Cam River Valley/ Granta Levels / GogMagog Hills

? / x / x

Duxford Chalklands xColchester G4 / E4 / C7 / B4 / E2 / E3 ? / ? / x / x / ? / ?Chelmsford G2 / B1 / C5 / C6 / D3 / E1 / D2 ? / ? / x / x / x / ? / ?Harlow G1 / C2 / B1 / C3 / 81 / 82 / 84 ? / x / ? / x / x / x / ? / xBraintree B1 / C6 ? / xLoughton C4 / D1 x / xWalthamAbbey

C3 / 59 x / x

Witham C6 / B1 / D4 x / ? / xSaffronWalden

C1 / A1 / B1 / B2 x / x / ? / x

StanstedMontifitchet

C2 / A1 / B1 /B2 x / x / ? / x /

Epping D1 / C3 / C4 ? / x / xGreatDunmow

C5 / B1 x / ?

Halstead C7 / B3 / B4 x / ? / xChippingOngar

C4 / B1 / D1 / D2 x / ? / x / ?

Little/GreatChesterford

C1 / Chalkland / B2 x / x / ?

Newport C1 / B1 / A1 x / ? / xWendensAmbo /Audley End

C1 / B1 / A1 x / ? / x

Ugley Green B1 / A1 / C2 ? / x / xCheshunt 59 / 55 / 57 / 58 x / x / x / ?Letchworth /Baldock

216 / 224 / 225 / 216 / 219 x / x / x / x / x

Hitchin 217 / 218 / 214 / 216 ? / x / x / x


131

Hertford /Ware

78 / 64 / 63 / 65 / 66 / 77 / 76 / 75 / 69 /68 / 67 / 44

? / ? / ? / x / ? / ? / / ? / ? / ?/ x

Hoddesdon 61 / 62 / 64 / 78 / 79 / 80 60 / C3 ? / x / x / ? / ? / x / / xRoyston 11 / 10 / ChalklandSawbridgesworth

81 / 84 / 85 / 82 / C2 x / x / x / ? / x

Broxbourne 58 / 61 / 60 / C3 ? / ? / / xBuntingford E / B / C / D ? / x / x / xBishopsStortford

82 / 85 / 86 / A1 / C2 ? / x / x / x / x

4.6.6 The assessment shows that there is little capacity for major expansion to existingsettlements due to the sensitivity of their surrounding landscape character areas.Broxbourne, Hoddesdon, and Hertford/Ware, all in Hertfordshire are the only settlementssurrounded in part by landscapes with some capacity for major expansion, although at thisstage the extent or the physical size of these areas has not been assessed.

4.6.7 Several more settlements are surrounded by landscapes with possible opportunities formajor expansions that would warrant further investigation when sites have been identified.Only Duxford in Cambridgeshire and Letchworth/Baldock are situated in landscapeconsidered to have no capacity for development for either small or large expansions.

4.6.8 Colchester, Chelmsford, Harlow, Braintree, Waltham Abbey, Witham, Saffron Walden,Stansted Mountifitchet, Epping, Great Dunmow, Halstead, Chipping Ongar , Newport,Wendens Ambo, Ugley Green, Hertford/Ware, Hoddesdon, Sawbridgeworth, Broxbounre,and Bishops Stortford all have some landscape capacity for small urban extensions (<5ha).

4.6.9 There is some possibility of development capacity being identified with more site specificassessment at Cambridge, Cambourne, Sawston, Great Shelford, Loughton, Little andGreat Chesterford, Cheshunt, Hitchin and Buntingford.

Historic Character

4.6.10 Certain settlements will have a greater sensitivity to change than others, for example,Cambridge has one of the largest concentrations of listed buildings and conservationareas, yet has accommodated a significant amount of growth without compromising itshistoric and cultural heritage value. Other places, like Great Dunmow will be much moresensitive to change. Thus, any new development near to a historic town needs to becarefully considered and planned, so that it does not cause detrimental harm to a town’shistoric character.

4.6.11 The report on ‘Sustaining the Historic Environment in Essex’, undertaken by Chris Blanfordand Associates (CBA, 2002), identified three separate urban landscapes within our studyarea, including; Colchester, Chelmsford and Harlow. The results were as follows:• Colchester is the oldest recorded town in Britain and as a consequence has a highly

sensitive historic core comprising a wealth of historical and environmentaldesignations. In addition, surrounding Colchester they found a ‘moderately sensitiveband’, which is capable in principle of absorbing very limited types of changes, due tothe nature and significance of heritage assets.


132

• Chelmsford also contains a wealth of historic remains and buildings that are highlysensitive to change.

• Harlow is considered moderately sensitive to change due to a number of historicdesignations in the ‘Old Town’.

4.6.12 In addition to these settlements, the baseline assessment identified others that had historiccentres. The CBA (1967) report identified a further 10 settlements from the Study area thathad important historic centres, including:• Cambridge;• Great Dunmow;• Chipping Ongar;• Saffron Walden;• Witham;• Baldock;• Hertford;• Hitchin; and• Ware.

4.6.13 These settlements will be particularly sensitive to new development and therefore carefulconsidered will be given to them when growth is to be distributed in Stage 3 of the Study.Furthermore, there were also a number of other settlements, which were identified ashaving a historic core meriting preservation. These settlements will have a moderately highsensitivity to growth and included:• Braintree;• Waltham Abbey;• Epping;• Halstead;• Letchworth; and• Royston.

4.6.14 Stage 3 will develop a methodology for measuring historic settlement sensitivity to changein greater detail. This will preclude the most sensitive settlements from further growth andthe impact of growth on the remaining settlements will be assessed in the site assessmentprocess.

Urban Capacity

4.6.15 The Urban Capacity Studies for Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire were used todetermine urban capacity at a District level, which will identify capacity for development tobe accommodated within exiting urban areas. This has been done on a district wide levelbecause there was insufficient data available for individual settlements.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

4.6.16 Cambridge City Council undertook an assessment of housing capacity in 2002 following anearlier assessment performed in 1998, which then identified a notional urban capacityfigure of 3,393 up to 2016. That earlier study recognised that there was insufficient urbancapacity to allow Cambridge City to accommodate growth without the release of green beltland for development.


133

4.6.17 The 2002 housing capacity study found that the largest potential sources were identified asbeing redevelopment of existing other uses, existing housing allocations in the Local Planand through the intensification of existing areas. Therefore, between July 1999 and 2016,Cambridge City has an Urban Capacity of around 6,500, taking into account completions,planning permissions, other extant planning permissions and identified discounted capacity(around 3,600 dwellings, 35% of total capacity identified). However, this figure will havereduced as some of these dwellings have already been constructed between July 1999and March 2002.

4.6.18 For South Cambridgeshire, the target for the District Council’s housing allocation withinvillages, up to 2016 is 9,600 dwellings. Urban capacity work for the district has not yet beencompleted and therefore, the urban capacity figure provided for the District is based ondelivering windfalls of 200 dwellings p.a. (the historic rate for about 15 years), for theremaining 13 to the period 2016. This equates to around 2,600 dwellings.

Table 4.7: Urban Capacity for CambridgeshireArea Windfall * (pa) Urban CapacityCambridge City N/A 6,500**South Cambridgeshire 2,600 2,600Total 200 9,100*Windfall (pa) - based on historic rate over 15 years. A full UCS for South Cambridgeshire has yet to becompleted and therefore the windfall estimation has been used as the basis for estimating urban capacity.** Cambridge City includes the windfall estimate within overall capacity figure

ESSEX

4.6.19 The Essex and Southend-on-Sea Urban Capacity Study was undertaken during the period2001 to 2003. At the time of the assessment, the District studies had not been fullycompleted. Thus, in order for a county-wide assessment of urban capacity to beundertaken, each of the capacity studies had to be adjusted so that each District could beaccounted for and comparable.

4.6.20 The Study found that most of the identified capacity was in the north of the Structure Planarea along the A12/Great Eastern Corridor, through the districts of Brentwood, Chelmsfordand Braintree. The Study also identifies Colchester as having a markedly high capacity asa result of a high number of large brownfield sites within the District i.e. ColchesterGarrison. However, there is a low level of capacity identified along the M11/West AngliaCorridor. The greatest potential capacity source was identified as intensification of existinghousing areas as well as the redevelopment of car parks and conversion of commercialbuildings. All figures for the Essex districts have been discounted to take account ofdeliverability.NB: All figures are interim findings of the Essex Study. There are still significant gaps in theurban capacity data and therefore the findings should be treated with caution.


134

Table 4.8: Urban Capacity for EssexArea Urban Capacity Windfall* Total Urban

CapacityBraintree 6,674 1,001 7,675Chelmsford 2,764 415 3,179Colchester 23,620 3,543 27,163Epping Forest 684 103 787Harlow 768 - 1115 115-167 883-1282Uttlesford 964 145 1,109Total 35,487 - 35,821 5,323 - 5,228 40,796 - 41,195* Windfall is an additional 15% of identified Urban Capacity. This was calculated separately and therefore been added to theurban capacity figure to provide a total urban capacity figure.

HERTFORDSHIRE

4.6.21 Hertfordshire County Council undertook a detailed assessment of housing capacitybetween 2000-2002, covering the period of 2001-2016, to inform the preparation of thedeposit stage alterations to the current Structure Plan policies on housing distribution anddevelopment strategy.

4.6.22 The assessment found that most of the potential capacity was identified within East Hertsand North Herts Districts, equating to 6,430 and 6,110 dwellings respectively. Thisexcludes a proportion of discounting, which varies across the Districts. The reason for thishigh figure is the large amount of surplus employment land that has the potential forhousing development and a greater opportunity for redevelopment and infill within urbanareas. Broxbourne has limited additional capacity to accommodate housing on brownfieldsites (3,490 taking into account dwellings discounted).

Table 4.9: Urban Capacity for Hertfordshire (2001-2016)Area Windfall** Urban CapacityEast Hertfordshire 527 6,430North Hertfordshire 556 6,110Broxbourne 292 3,490Total 1375 16,030**windfall based on 1-1 ratio - this is included in the Urban Capacity figure

CORE AND OUTER AREA

4.6.23 With regards to Table 4.10 the urban capacity figures for the core Study area districts isfairly low, with the potential to accommodate around 20,400 to 20,800 houses between2001-2016. In comparison, the outer area has the ability to accommodate approximately45,600 houses.

Table 4.10: Urban Capacity, Core and Outer AreasArea Lower Range Upper RangeCore Area 20,400 20,800Outer Area 45,600Total for the Study area 66,000 66,400


135

Retail Capacity

4.6.24 This section sets out a broad comparative analysis of retail provision for each settlement tohighlight the settlements potential to move up the hierarchy and accommodate populationgrowth.

4.6.25 Figure 4.1 shows the retail ranking plotted against the settlement’s population ranking,based on retail floorspace figures provided by the client and the 1991 population figuresfrom the settlement hierarchy. This has been plotted to give a broad analysis of thecomparative levels for retail provision in the Study area and where there may be limitationsand opportunities for growth or higher growth rates according to a settlement’s ability toserve its population’s needs. For example, where a settlement has a high ranking in termsof retail provision and a lower ranking in terms of population, (for example, BishopsStortford, retail rank 6 and population rank 13), it can be assumed that additional growthwould not be restricted by a lack of retail provision. Conversely, where a settlement rankslower in terms of retail than population it can be assumed that the lack of retail provisioncould initially restrict growth.

4.6.26 The settlements can be grouped into having a comparative excess of retail provisioncompared to their population; a proportionate amount of retail provision compared topopulation; or a comparative lack of retail compared to their population. From this,assumptions can be made as to the effect on growth rates.

Table 4.11: Comparative Retail ProvisionExcess Retail Provision Proportionate Retail

ProvisionLack of Retail Provision

Hitchin Cambridge LoughtonLetchworth Harlow Hoddesdon

Bishops Stortford Chelmsford CheshuntWare Braintree Witham

Saffron Walden Royston Waltham AbbeyEpping Halstead BroxbourneBaldock Sawbridgeworth Sawston

Great Dunmow CambourneBuntingford Chipping Ongar

Stansted Mountfitchet4.6.27 However, it is important to stress that this is an approximate measurement of the

opportunities and constraints retail floorspace and town centres may provide.Notwithstanding constraints imposed by the physical form of town and other retail centres,for example in historic towns, it does not consider the wider catchment populations ofsettlements, the influence of settlements outside the Study area, or the nature of retailprovision (comparison or convenience). Neither does it provide a quantification of thecapacity of the town centre in terms of the population levels it can reasonably serve.

4.6.28 Other factors will also influence the likelihood of further retail development in settlementsas well as the physical capacity for expansion, such as the socio-economic profile andaccessibility factors.


136

Figure 4.1 Retail Floorspace (Rank) Against Population (Rank)

Cambridge

Chelmsford

ColchesterHarlow

Cheshunt

Loughton Hoddesdon

Braintree

Hitchin

LetchworthBishops Stortford

Witham

Hertford

Ware

Waltham Abbey

Royston

Saffron Walden

Halstead

Broxbourne

Epping

Sawbridgeworth

Baldock

Cambourne

Sawston

Chipping Ongar

Great Dunmow

Stansted Mountfitchet.Buntingford

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


137

Social Infrastructure Capacity

4.6.29 This assessment considers secondary school provision within the Study area.Assessments of other social infrastructure, such as health care provision were not possibledue to data limitations and the short time scale of the study.

4.6.30 The School Organisation Plans for Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire were used tocalculate maintained school capacity figures, which will identify settlement capacity thatcould either present opportunities or constraints to growth. The plan period of theCambridgeshire and Essex Schools Organisation Plans has a base date of 2002 andforecasts to 2007, whereas the Hertfordshire Plan forecasts to 2009/2010. The tables(Tables 4.12 and 4.13) on school capacity must be read in this context.

4.6.31 The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) More Open Enrolment (MOE) capacitycalculation was used to obtain the total building capacity figures for secondary schools foreach settlement. This figure was used for all three counties in order to standardise dataand to make comparisons. Pupil enrolment numbers were then subtracted from thebuilding capacity to obtain the spare or deficit school capacity for 2002.

4.6.32 Both Cambridgeshire and Essex produced figures to indicate the potential building capacityin 2006/2007. However, building capacity was not produced by Hertfordshire, thus theassumption has been to use total capacity at 2002. The forecast figures for Essex andCambridgeshire are based on previous historical trends and extrapolated forward toprovide a forecast up to 2007. Hertfordshire’s forecast capacity uses information on livebirths and migration patterns. Forecasted 2007 and 2009/2010 pupil numbers were thensubtracted away from the 2007 total building capacity figures (2002 in the case ofHertfordshire) to obtain the capacity of schools in the Study area in the future.

4.6.33 Forecasts that include a separate adjustment for new housing have also been included forEssex only, to indicate the potentially higher pupil numbers that would result from newhousing development. In terms of secondary schools in Cambridgeshire, some allowancehas been made for house building in some parts of the County. However, it is envisagedthat most of the spare capacity in Cambridge City’s secondary school will be taken up byplanned development. The Hertfordshire School Organisational Plan included housingdevelopment in its forecasted pupil enrolment figures.

4.6.34 The capacity figures are shown in Figure 4.2 and discussed below. In addition Tables 4.12and 4.13 summaries the findings.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

4.6.35 In 2002, Cambridge City, including the Northern Fringe area and Sawston has a significantamount of spare capacity at secondary school level, which increases in 2007. However, itis expected that the spare capacity in Cambridge City’s secondary school will be taken upby planned development in the future.


138

HERTFORDSHIRE

4.6.36 Secondary schools in Hertford/Ware, Hitchin, Bishop’s Stortford/Sawbridgeworth andRoyston in 2002, have significant amounts of spare capacity. However, Letchworth,Baldock and Cheshunt have significant deficit in capacity in 2002/2003.

4.6.37 The forecasted capacity in 2009/2010 suggests that Letchworth, Baldock, Bishop’sStortford/Sawbridgeworth and Cheshunt will have significant capacity deficits.

ESSEX

4.6.38 The secondary schools in Braintree, Colchester, Halstead, Loughton, Waltham Abbey,Epping and Harlow have significant amounts of spare capacity in 2002. However, Withamhas a major deficit of secondary school places, in 2002.

4.6.39 In 2007, Halstead, Waltham Abbey and Harlow will continue to have major surpluscapacity. However, significant deficit of capacity at the secondary school level, is identifiedat Braintree, Witham, Colchester, Chelmsford, Great Dunmow, and at StanstedMountfichet.

SUMMARY

Table 4.12: Comparative Secondary School Places Capacity (2002Major Surplus of School Capacity (+100 places)

Proportionate SchoolCapacity (+/- 100 places)

Major Deficit of SchoolCapacity (- 100 places)

Braintree Saffron Walden WithamColchester Great Dunmow LetchworthHalstead Stansted Mountfitchet BaldockLoughton Hoddesdon/Broxbourne CheshuntWaltham Abbey ChelmsfordEppingHarlowHitchinBishops Stortford/ SawbridgeworthHertford/WareRoystonBuntingfordSawstonCambridge

Table 4.13: Comparative School Places Capacity (Forecast 2007 – 2009/2010 forHertfordshire Schools)Major Surplus of SchoolCapacity (+ 100 places)

Proportionate SchoolCapacity (+/- 100 places)

Major Deficit of SchoolCapacity (- 100 places)

Halstead Loughton BraintreeWaltham Abbey Epping WithamHarlow Saffron Walden ChelmsfordHertford/Ware Buntingford Colchester


139

Hitchin Cambridge Great DunmowRoyston Hoddesdon/ Broxbourne Stansted MountfitchetSawston Cheshunt

LetchworthBaldockBishop’sStortford/Sawbridgeworth

NB: No Secondary Schools at Cambourne or Chipping Ongar


140

Figure 4.2: Capacity of Schools

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Brai

ntre

e

Hal

stea

d

With

am

Che

lmsf

ord

Col

ches

ter

Loug

hton

Wal

tham

Abb

ey

Chi

ppin

g O

ngar

Eppi

ng

Gre

at D

unm

ow

Saffr

on W

alde

n

Stan

sted

Mou

ntfit

chet

Har

low

Hod

desd

on/B

roxb

ourn

e

Che

shun

t

Bish

ops

Stor

tford

/Saw

brid

gew

orth

Her

tford

/War

e

Bunt

ingf

ord

Bald

ock

Hitc

hin

Letc

hwor

th

Roy

ston

Cam

bour

ne

Saw

ston

Cam

brid

ge (

incl

Nor

ther

nFr

inge

)

Settlement

Cap

acity

2002 2007 (2009/2010 for Herts)


141

Summary of Settlement Capacity Opportunities and Constraints

4.6.40 The following table summarises the settlement wide capacity constraints and opportunitiesthat could influence where development takes place. Table 4.14 sets out a summaryanalysis of the key finding of the settlement capacity opportunities and constraints and setsout judgement as to whether settlements could be considered as having high (H), medium(M) or low growth (L) potential. This is also shown graphically on Map 4.4.

Table 4.14 Settlement Constraints and PotentialSettlement Retail

Constraints onGrowth Rate

LandscapeConstraints

HeritageConstraints

SchoolsConstraints

Potential

Braintree Retail rank (8) isequal topopulation rank(8) thereforepopulation growthwould requireproportional retaildevelopment

Landscape suitablefor small urbanextensions butuncertainty overpotential for largescale developments

Core meritspreservation– moderatelysensitive

Significant deficitin SecondarySchool places by2007

L - M

Halstead Retail rank (19) isclose to, butslightly lower thanpopulation rank(18) thereforeretail developmentwould need to bea priority withpopulation growth



Significant sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2007

M - H

Witham Retail rank (18) issignificantly lowerthan populationrank (12),therefore a highgrowth rate wouldbe inhibitedwithout significantretail provision


HistoricCentre –Sensitive tonewdevelopment


L - M

Chelmsford Retail rank (4) isclose to, butslightly lower thanpopulation rank(2)therefore retaildevelopmentwould need to bea priority with


HistoricCentre - HighSensitivity


L - M


142

population growth

Colchester Retail rank (2) isclose to butslightly higherthan populationrank (3), thereforehigh growth wouldnot initially beprohibited.


HistoricCentre - HighSensitivity


L - M

Loughton Retail rank (10) isless thanpopulation rank(6), therefore highgrowth rates maybe inhibited by theneed for retaildevelopment.

Uncertainty overlandscape suitabilityfor small urbanextensions and nocapacity for largescale developments

N/A Deficit inSecondarySchool places by2007

Waltham Abbey Retail rank (24) issignificantly lowerthan populationrank (15) ,therefore a highgrowth rate wouldbe inhibitedwithout significantretail provision

Landscape suitablefor small urbanextensions but nopotential for largescale developments



M

Chipping Ongar Retail rank (26) isclose to, butslightly lower thanpopulation rank(25) thereforeretail developmentwould need to bea priority withpopulation growth



No secondaryeducationfacilitiestherefore nospare capacity

L - M

Epping Retail rank (14) ishigher thanpopulation rank(20), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially



Some sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2007

M - H

Great Dunmow Retail rank (20) ishigher thanpopulation rank(26), therefore

Landscape suitablefor small urbanextensions butuncertainty over

HistoricCentre –Sensitive tonew


M


143

high growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially

potential for largescale developments

development

Saffron Walden Retail rank (13) ishigher thanpopulation rank(17), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially



Deficit inSecondarySchool places by2007

M - H

StanstedMountfitchet

Retail rank (22) ishigher thanpopulation rank(27), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially


N/A Significant deficitin SecondarySchool places by2007

M - H

Harlow Retail rank (3) isclose to butslightly higherthan populationrank (4), thereforehigh growth wouldnot initially beinhibited.


Moderatelysensitive 'OldTown'


H

Hoddesdon Retail rank (11) isless thanpopulation rank(7), therefore highgrowth rates maybe inhibited by theneed for retaildevelopment.

Some surroundinglandscape suitable forlarge scaledevelopment andsmall urbanextensions

N/A Some deficit inSecondarySchool places by2009/2010 -figure includesBroxbourne

M

Broxbourne Retail rank (27) issignificantly lowerthan populationrank (19),therefore a highgrowth rate wouldbe inhibitedwithout significantretail provision


N/A Some deficit inSecondarySchool places by2009/2010 –figure includesHoddesdon

M

Cheshunt Retail rank (17) issignificantly lowerthan populationrank (5), thereforea high growth ratewould be inhibited

Uncertainty overlandscape suitabilityfor small urbanextensions anduncertain capacity forlarge scale

N/A Significant deficitin SecondarySchool places by2009/2010

L


144

without significantretail provision

developments

Bishops Stortford Retail rank (6) ishigher thanpopulation rank(11), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially


N/A Significantdeficit inSecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010 -figure includesSawbridgeworth

M-H

Hertford Retail rank (9) ishigher thanpopulation rank(13), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially


HistoricCentre -Sensitive tonewdevelopment

Significant sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010 -figure includesWare

M - H

Ware Retail rank (12) ishigher thanpopulation rank(14), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially



Significant sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010 -figure includesHertford

M - H

Sawbridgeworth Retail rank (23) isclose to, butslightly lower thanpopulation rank(21) thereforeretail developmentwould need to bea priority withpopulation growth


N/A Significant deficitin SecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010 -figure includedwith BishopsStortford

L- M

Buntingford Retail rank (21) ishigher thanpopulation rank(28) therefore highgrowth would notbe inhibitedinitially

Uncertainty overlandscape suitabilityfor small urbanextensions anduncertain capacity forlarge scaledevelopments

N/A Some sparecapacity inSecondarySchool places by2009/2010

L

Baldock Retail rank (15) ishigher thanpopulation rank(22), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially

No capacity for smallor large scaledevelopments


Significant deficitin SecondarySchool places by2009/2010

L


145

Hitchin Retail rank (5) ishigher thanpopulation rank(9), therefore highgrowth would notbe inhibited byretail initially



Significant sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010

L - M

Letchworth Retail rank (7) ishigher thanpopulation rank(10), thereforehigh growth wouldnot be inhibited byretail initially

No capacity for smallor large scaledevelopments

Core meritspreservation -moderatelysensitive

Significant deficitin SecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010

L - M

Royston Retail rank (16) isequal topopulation rank(16) thereforepopulation growthwould requireproportional retaildevelopment

Uncertain Core meritspreservation -moderatelysensitive

Significant sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2009/2010

L - M

Cambourne Retail rank (25) isclose to, butslightly lower thanpopulation rank(23) thereforeretail developmentwould need to bea priority withpopulation growth

No landscapesuitable for largescale developmentand uncertainty overpotential for smallscale urbanextensions

N/A No secondaryeducationfacilitiestherefore nospare capacity

L - M

Sawston Figures wereunavailable forretail floorspace inSawston. It isassumed there islimited provisionand high growthrates are likely tobe constrained.


N/A Significant sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2007

L - M

Cambridge (incl.Northern Fringe)

Retail rank (1) isequal topopulation rank(1) thereforepopulation growthwould requireproportional retaildevelopment

No landscapesuitable for largescale developmentand uncertainty overpotential for smallscale urbanextensions


Some sparecapacity inSecondarySchools placesby 2007

L - M


146

Map 4.4


147

5. London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub Regionand Harlow Options Studies Review

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Two studies were commissioned, which potentially influence the Stansted/M11 CorridorDevelopment Options Study (referred to below as the Stansted/M11 Study) and whichmight help to provide a context for it or help to inform the input to it. They are the London-Stansted- Cambridge Sub Regional Study (LSC) (final report July 2002) and the HarlowOptions Study (HOS) (draft final report June 2003).

5.1.2 The purpose of this review is to identify the objectives of each study and to examine themethodologies used, to summarise the conclusions and to identify the key outputs whichare of relevance to the Stansted / M11 Study.

5.2 London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub Regional Study

5.2.1 This study was carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. with David LockAssociates, Land Use Consultants and Oscar Faber. The primary aim of the study was toprovide advice and guidance on a sustainable framework for future strategic land useplanning and transportation for the Study area up to 2026 and beyond. The consultantswere to explore the options for long term spatial development and transport arrangementsand to consider how trends, key issues, development needs and pressures, and structuralrelationships are likely to change and develop over time.

5.2.2 The spatial development frameworks were to have regard to :• projections for economic and employment growth and development needs,• urban and economic regeneration,• environmental constraints and environmental capacity,• existing characteristics/spatial inter-relationships,• impacts and implications of different growth scenarios,• implications for further potential increase at Stansted,• spatial location of any further development within the study area.

5.2.3 The Study area for the LSC stretches from Stratford and Poplar in the south to Cambridgein the north, and from Hertford in the west to Braintree in the east. The LSC Study area isdefined in two parts, Inside London and Outside London. Inside London the LSC areaincorporates all or part of seven London boroughs. Outside London it covers most but notall of the Stansted/M11 Study area. Thus Broxbourne and North Hertfordshire wereincluded within the LSC study area but are not in the Stansted/M11 area. Chelmsford,Colchester and St. Edmunsbury are included in the Stansted/M11 Study but were notwithin the LSC Study. The LSC Study area incorporated only parts of some local authoritydistricts. Thus direct comparison of figures in the LSC study and the figures forStansted/M11 Study is difficult. Figure 5.1 shows the boundaries of the LSC,Stansted/M11 and Harlow Options Study areas.


148

Map 5.1


149

5.2.4 The methodology for the LSC Study involved the identification of four options for spatialdistribution (spatial patterns) and testing them against three growth scenarios. The fouroptions were developed from a synthesis of spatial aspirations for the sub-region derivedfrom the Stakeholder seminar (May 2001). The four options were defined as follows;• Spatial Pattern 1: Continuity development largely following the existing settlement

pattern and allocated to each settlement largely in proportion to their current size. Thedistribution of new development followed a sequential approach with brownfieldopportunities given priority over greenfield development.

• Spatial Pattern 2: Regeneration development focused primarily on the Priority Areasfor Economic Regeneration and other areas in need of regeneration. Growth outsidethe regeneration areas was assumed to be more constrained, and in particular, growthstimulated by Cambridge and Stansted was assumed to be limited to regenerationareas. The majority of growth outside London was thus limited to the PAERS (Harlowand the Upper Lee Valley). Harlow was assumed to be a focus for both housing andemployment growth, with Braintree as a secondary focus for housing and employmentdevelopment outside London.

• Spatial Pattern 3: Economic Growth Poles development focused in areas close to orvery accessible to the main centres of economic growth in the sub-region, including theCambridge sub-region, Stansted and the eastwards extension of the City of London.Around Stansted it was assumed that the amount of new development in comparisonto the existing levels of urbanisation would be significant, especially for scenarios 1 and2 (see below). Around Stansted this included Harlow, Braintree and a number of othersettlements in the central rural belt such as Bishop’s Stortford, Hertford, GreatDunmow and villages along the A120.

• Spatial Pattern 4: New Towns and Settlements development of major newsettlements or towns in accommodating the growth in the sub-region linked tostrengthening east-west links. It was acknowledged that this option was better suited tothe high growth scenario. It was assumed that new settlements would help spatialrestructuring of the wider area and that they would be able to support the key economicdrivers. The potential corridors identified with this option were A10/Cambridge/Letchworth – Hitchin rail line, A11 / A505 and A120.

5.2.5 The growth scenarios used in the LSC Study represented different views as to the level ofgrowth that might have to be accommodated in the sub-region, but they were not putforward as forecasts. The growth scenarios were defined as follows;• Option 1 - Maximising strategic opportunities for economic development by fully

exploiting the long term potential of the key economic drivers. This scenario assumedthat Stansted would expand to two runways and that it would be handling 30mppa by2016 and 50mppa by 2026. It assumed the continued growth of Cambridge, thedevelopment of Stratford with the CTRL and successful regeneration within the PAERSand Thames Gateway.

• Option 2 - Regional scale growth based on the concept that the study area outsideLondon will act as a regional growth area in ROSE in terms of long term housingprovision. The levels of labour availability were used to determine potential growth in


150

employment. In this scenario it was assumed that passenger numbers at Stanstedwould increase from 25mppa in 2016 to 40 mppa in 2026, the maximum throughput onone runway.

• Option 3 - Indigenous growth, a continuation of existing planning policies, whichprovide for limited growth outside London. It reflected the lowest growth scenario.Outside London this scenario reflected the agreed housing allocations in the RPG,which were rolled forward to 2026. This determined labour availability and thereforeemployment growth outside London. This scenario assumed some additional growth atStansted, 20mppa by 2016 and 30mppa by 2026.

5.2.6 The allocations of household growth for each of the scenarios to 2026 for the study areaoutside London are given in table 5.1. In the LSC study it was assumed that 75% of growth(option 3) is likely to be close to existing areas of development. It was then assumed thatthe additional growth for scenario 3 and all the extra growth above this for scenarios 1 and2 would be footloose. Allocations of population, employment, households and employmentland were then made to each spatial pattern for each growth scenario using the criteriareferred to above.

Table 5.1: LSC Study area outside London - additional householdsGrowth scenario Households 2001 –

2016Households 2001 - 2026

Maximising opportunities 171,183 302,659Regional scale growth 116,501 194,789Indigenous growth 58,785 100,213

Source : London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Study. ECOTEC et al , Scenarios Working Paper Final, November2001

Comparison of the Spatial Patterns

5.2.7 Each Spatial Pattern was assessed for each growth scenario against a series of six criteriaincluding transport, economy, social, environment, settlement pattern and delivery. Theperformance of the Spatial Patterns was then compared and from this evaluation process aseries of conclusions were drawn.

Conclusions

5.2.8 The conclusions of the LSC Study, which have relevance to the Stansted/M11 Study, aresummarised below. They are divided into two groups, general conclusions resulting fromthe comparative analysis of the optional scenarios and conclusions, which have relevanceto the preparation of the Regional Planning Guidance. The following general conclusionswere reached in the LSC Study:

STRATEGIC• there is great uncertainty about the future level of growth that is acceptable in the sub-

region;

• the scenarios and spatial patterns developed in the LSC Study assume the success ofthe London Plan, and no increase in the relative level of commuting. The London


151

figures are ambitious and they rely on the development of brownfield land, which willbe expensive to develop and service. If London fails to deliver the levels of housingaspired to then commuting and pressures to house commuters will increase;

ECONOMIC• Cambridge and Stansted, along with London, Thames Gateway, Stratford/CTRL, and

Lee Valley are identified as specific drivers of economic change. Stansted andStratford are identified as two significant nodes within the LSC Study area capable ofacting as a catalyst to the development of Thames Gateway;

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT• there is a need to ensure that growth continues without damaging the environment and

quality of life;

• outside London the amount of land required for development to meet even the highestgrowth scenarios is a relatively small proportion of non-urbanised land. However thisgrowth will have a significant impact on transport and the patterns, nature andcharacter of existing settlements;

• north, outside London, there are considerable landscape and natural resourceconstraints. This area is also under development pressure which is likely to continue;

PERFORMANCE OF SPATIAL PATTERNS• Spatial Pattern 1 (continuity) would work well with limited growth;

• Spatial Patterns 2, 3 and 4 would be more adaptable to change including high growthrates and greater levels of economic activity;

• in the event of economic failure Spatial Patterns 1 and 3 would be robust. SpatialPattern 2 would falter due to the high costs of regenerating the PAERS and SpatialPattern 4 would fail because the economies of scale of investing in a new town wouldbe lost;

• all the spatial patterns, except SP1 under scenarios 1 and 2, retain the general patternand characteristics of the more rural parts of the central rural belt;

TRANSPORT• all the spatial patterns include good rail links from Stansted to Stratford and London;

• north-south links in the sub-region are better catered for than east-west or peripheralmovements, even though the north-south links are congested and over-capacity.Strengthening east-west links will have three benefits:

− enable the Cambridge cluster to have links to other growing parts of the UK;− allow Stansted to provide services to a wider market;− enable the eastern part of London access to growth and prosperity;

• M11/A14 corridor should be able to provide a long distance relief route between M25and A1 at Huntingdon. This suggests capacity enhancement between Cambridge and


152

Stansted on M11. Given the supra-regional roles of the M11, the focus of sub-regionaldevelopment must assist in strengthening east-west links;

• none of the spatial patterns has major development located on M11 in the more ruralarea north of Stansted;

WATER SUPPLY• water supply in the sub-region is limited. Suppliers believe that a combination of

demand management, leakage control, application of new technologies and some newreservoir provision can meet the needs of the growth scenarios;

HARLOW• all the spatial patterns, except possibly SP1, develop to a greater or lesser extent, an

arc of development up the Lee valley, north through Harlow and then east throughStansted to Braintree;

• of the most deprived areas within the LSC study area, only Harlow is outside London.

Implications for the emerging Regional Planning Guidance

5.2.9 The LSC Final Report lists the implications drawn by the study for the emerging RegionalPlanning Guidance for the East of England. These have been grouped by the consultantsinto four categories of significance related to the Stansted/M11 Study: very significant,significant, some significance and little or no significance.

VERY SIGNIFICANT• there is a need to lay the basis for the long term and plan proactively for it. Spatial

pattern 1 suggests that a continuation of the current pattern risks damaging manysettlements if growth accelerates to any degree;

• the role of Harlow needs full consideration as it plays an important role in most spatialpatterns;

• consideration needs to be given to the role of the A120 corridor;• major development in the rural central belt is not a feature of any spatial pattern;

SIGNIFICANT• the growth of the sub-region outside London will be important for the regeneration of

Thames Gateway and the Lee Valley. Stansted can play an important role as aninternational gateway for north-east London and for the sub-region;

• there is the potential within the sub-region to develop a polycentric structure;• Cambridge needs better east-west links. The growth of Cambridge needs to be seen in

an east-west context;• emphasising the east-west links, allowing growth around the Cambridge area and

encouraging the emergence of a major centre on the Harlow – Braintree arc will enablethe sub-region to play a part in a wider polycentric structure at national and “centrecapitals” levels;

• pressures for growth around the centres could in part be accommodated by developinga localised polycentric structure of smaller centres around the main centre;

• the scale of growth of the higher scenarios makes a new town/s possible;


153

• an appropriately located new town in the southern part of the area outside Londoncould help to strengthen east-west links and serve the airport;

SOME SIGNIFICANCE.• the sub-region is not a functional sub-region;• there is a need to consider the scale of growth to plan for;• new settlements must be seen in a broader context than the sub-region;• some of the spatial options explored have implications for parts of the Green belt;• concentrating growth on the PAERS will mean that the Green Belt around Harlow and

south into London needs to be re-visited.LITTLE OR NO SIGNIFICANCE.

• to ensure success of Spatial Patterns 2, 3 and 4, they need to be supported byproviding higher education/research and development institutions as a core for theenhanced centres;

• a new town westwards on the Cambridge – Oxford arc needs to be seen as part of asolution to the opportunities of the biotech/life sciences and ILT/software clusters.

Commentary on the relevance of the LSC Study to the Stansted/M11 Study.

5.2.10 The principal benefits of the LSC Study for the Stansted/M11 Study come from the widerange of general conclusions. Many of these will be of use in helping to inform Stage 3 ofthe Stansted / M11 Study when specific development options must be identified andevaluated.

TIMESCALE

5.2.11 A principal difference is the timescale for the two studies. The LSC Study was required toconsider a projection to 2026, whilst the Stansted/M11 study is required to look forward to2036. Thus the LSC Study considered in its highest projection the expansion of Stansted totwo runways with a maximum throughput of 50 mppa by 2026. The Stansted/M11 Study isrequired to consider the implications of up to four runways with a passenger throughput of130mppa.

REGIONAL CONTEXT / THAMES GATEWAY

5.2.12 The LSC Study does provide a broader regional context for the Stansted/M11 work. Ofparticular significance is the relationship between the success of the regeneration of theThames Gateway and the pressures for continued growth within the sub-region north ofLondon. Stansted Airport, even with its currently approved capacity, provides impetus todevelopment in the Thames Gateway east of London. The development of optional spatialpatterns around Stansted will in part be influenced by the growth of the Airport, but also bythe degree of development pressure being exerted from London. There is an issue as tothe degree to which the Stansted/M11 Study should take into account these widerinfluences.

CAPACITY FOR GROWTH

5.2.13 Perhaps the most significant comment in the LSC Study is the acknowledgement of theuncertainty about the level of growth “that is acceptable” within the sub-region. This


154

illustrates the difference in approach between the LSC and the Stansted/M11 Studies. Bymeasuring impacts of urbanisation within its Study area of the Stansted/M11 Study will beassessing capacity or ability of the area to accept development.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

5.2.14 There is a clear indication in the LSC Study area that there are advantages in promotingthe concept of polycentric development “which aims to achieve a better balance…betweencentres and reduces the concentration, congestion and overheating that occurs as a resultof existing hierarchical settlement structures”. The study identifies the orientation of centresin the Study area to London as a problem. However the impact and scale of London (as anemployment centre and for other metropolitan facilities) is so great that it is difficult toimagine that a polycentric structure within the sub-region would be able to affect thatrelationship. It is conceivable that a less hierarchical structure would reduce movementbetween centres within the sub-region, but there will still be local hierarchical structuresbased on each “polycentric” centre.

NEW SETTLEMENTS

5.2.15 The LSC Study considers the potential for new settlements. Understandably, it isconcluded that this option offers less flexibility in the face of variable and uncertain rates ofgrowth. Once committed to a new town, there is the potential for abortive investment andsocial imbalance unless the level of planned growth can be achieved. However, there is animplication in the LSC report that a new town should be considered in the much broaderregional context. Given the likely development pressures within the sub-region, thisconclusion is questionable and depends upon the scale of the planned settlement. Forexample, the Cambridge sub-regional strategy identified the potential for new andexpanded settlements solely within the context of the expansion needs of Cambridge (asdictated by RPG 6). It is conceivable that a similar justification can be made in the contextof the growth of Stansted

HARLOW

5.2.16 The LSC Study provides clear pointers to the development potential around Harlow, and toa lesser extent, around Braintree. Growth based on Harlow would be consistent with theobjective to secure regeneration. However, this potential, and the potential for developmentat other locations, must be assessed against all the constraints that are being identifiedacross the Study area. In part, at least, the spatial options will be derived as output fromthe analysis of constraints and opportunities within the Study area.

CAMBRIDGE/SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

5.2.17 The LSC Report was published shortly after the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough DraftStructure Plan, which, informed by the Cambridge Sub-Region Study, sets out thedevelopment pattern for the Cambridge Sub-Region to 2016. It must be noted that theStructure Plan review has established the strategy to 2016 and beyond and as the RPG 14consultation paper (September 2002) explains, ‘It is important that the Cambridge Sub-region should not be disrupted by new or revised proposals in RPG14’, therefore furtherpressures could not be considered until after 2016.


155

5.2.18 The LSC Report makes assumptions that do not necessarily comply with the developmentpattern or policy of the Structure Plan which carries increased certainty with theExamination in Public into the Structure Plan and publication of Proposed Modifications.The LSC Study assumes in Scenario 2 that a focus on regeneration areas such as Harlowmay limit the potential of the Cambridge cluster, however it could be argued that a keyfeature of specialised clusters in Cambridge is that growth derives from proximity factors orhas particular spatial requirements and if anything, is being encouraged to spreadoutwards to market towns in the Cambridge sub-region rather than to Harlow. Thereforethis assertion may not be valid.

5.2.19 Without the benefit of quantified growth assumptions, the assertion that with Spatial Pattern3, major growth of the Cambridge area could, without imaginative planning and designsolutions, undermine the attractiveness of the Cambridge area and reduce its effectivenessas an economic driver nationally, is also difficult to substantiate, considering there may bepotential for further growth at Oakington/Longstanton new settlement, Cambourne andWaterbeach (subject to resolution of transport issues) as detailed in the Panel Report. Thestatement in the LSC Report that ‘Similar problems of the impact on the character ofsettlements in the Stansted area would arise’ is also not substantiated by capacityassessments of such settlements.

5.3 The Harlow Options Study

5.3.1 The Harlow Options Study was carried out by Atkins and was issued in draft final form earlyin June, 2003. The primary aim of the study was to identify the development potential of thearea around Harlow over the period to 2021. Its purpose was to set out the broadimplications of further urban growth and provide guidance on how the area could bedeveloped in the most sustainable way.

5.3.2 A number of key objectives were set out in the project brief and which the consultants hadto examine and report upon. They included the following which have a direct relevance tothe Stansted / M11 Study:• the key drivers influencing the potential future growth of the Harlow area;• the main constraints which limit its growth potential;• the views of key stakeholders regarding future growth;• the broad locational options for accommodating further growth in a sustainable way;• the scope for integrating existing urban areas and transport networks, economic

regeneration and potential new development;• the most sustainable approach to long term growth in terms of scale, location, type,

design and rate of new development;• the numeric distribution of further growth in relation to existing administrative

boundaries.5.3.3 The Study area covered the district of Harlow and parts of the districts of Epping Forest,

East Hertfordshire and Broxbourne including the settlements of Ware, Sawbridgeworth andChipping Ongar.

5.3.4 The methodology for the Study incorporated seven steps ;• establish and evaluate alternative growth levels;


156

• identify alternative spatial development patterns to accommodate growth in the Studyarea to 2021;

• establish a matrix of options;• identify potential development sites for inclusion in the spatial development options;• evaluate potential development sites;• formulate spatial development options;• evaluate spatial development options.

5.3.5 Four optional growth levels were initially identified, low, low intermediate, high intermediateand high. The low and high options were discarded. The low growth option was discardedbecause of its failure to address the regeneration needs of the Study area and its limitedimpact on accommodating the growth needs of the sub-region. The high growth option wasdiscarded because it implies a scale and rate of development that, the consultants argued,would be difficult to deliver over the period to 2021. This option would probably requireheavy investment in rail, and would result in the loss of environmental quality.

5.3.6 Four spatial options were identified :• incremental dispersal;• satellite development;• sub-regional urban focus;• transport and regeneration led corridors.

5.3.7 These four spatial options were evaluated against seven groups of criteria which reflectedthe objectives of sustainable development. From this evaluation process two of the spatialoptions were discarded. Incremental dispersal scored low against most of the criteria andcould not, in the consultant’s view, sustain high levels of growth. Satellite development alsoscored poorly against most of the criteria. Thus two options were taken forward : sub-regional urban focus and transport and regeneration led corridors.

5.3.8 The next step in the process was to identify potential development sites which includedsites already committed to development, sites identified from a review of policy documents,sites identified in development plans, redevelopment and renewal opportunities within thebuilt up area, and newly identified greenfield sites. An appraisal of potential sites wascarried out taking into account environmental designations and constraints within the Studyarea.

5.3.9 The sites deemed to be appropriate were then assigned to the two preferred spatial optionson a sequential basis, incorporating only enough greenfield land to enable the relevantgrowth target to be achieved. For each of these spatial options the “approximate route orlocation of transport” was identified.

5.3.10 Finally, the two more detailed options were evaluated in terms of :• physical implications including impact on environment, Green Belt, transport and

utilities;• social and community facilities;• costs of physical and social infrastructure.

5.3.11 The Study came to a series of conclusions the following of which have some relevance tothe Stansted/M11 Study :


157

• both the sub-regional urban focus and transport and regeneration led corridors optionscould bring about the sustainable development of the Study area;

• both options necessitate the release of a substantial area of land from the Green Belt;• the transport and regeneration led corridors option better meets the regeneration

objectives, particularly as it does not focus solely on Harlow.

Commentary on the relevance of the Harlow Options Study

5.3.12 There are limitations to the usefulness of the Harlow Options Study to the Stansted/M11Study. First, the expansion potential of Harlow is not defined nor is it fully explored. Theexamination is limited by the approach to cater for a defined housing/population level whichcould fall well short of the optimum capacity . The Study only looks forward to 2021 (afunction of the brief) which is 15 years less than the time horizon for the Stansted/M11Study.

5.3.13 Although the Study outcomes rely on the contribution of each of the two preferred optionsin securing regeneration, there is no analysis of the nature of the problems which have ledto the need for regeneration. It is difficult to understand, therefore, how their respectiveroles in aiding regeneration can be evaluated. There is no analysis of structural, physical,social or economic issues within Harlow or other parts of the Study area where benefitmight be gained from the new investment that comes with expansion.

5.3.14 There is no mention in the report of analysis of movement. It is not clear how the transportdemands of the two preferred options were assessed, and thus how the new infrastructurerequired for each option was determined and costed.

5.3.15 Although the Study quantifies the new social infrastructure required (e.g. schools) there isno attempt to assess the impact of the growth options on the town centre of Harlow. Thismust be a consideration where there is likely to be significant growth and where there is aneed for renewal and, possibly, for expansion.

5.3.16 The Harlow Options Study does identify sites with the potential for development which canbe used as input to the Stansted/M11 Study. They will need to be evaluated on the samebasis as other potential development areas. However, there will still be a need to checkthat there are no further potential sites within and adjacent to Harlow which were notidentified in the Options Study.


158

6. Key Issues

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Previous chapters of this report have identified the current spatial pattern of development inthe Study Area Sub-Region and the various interrelationships between them. Ruralsettlements have also been considered as well as other economic and regeneration issues.The overall growth required within the Study Area is identified and a strategic levelassessment of the capacity of settlements to accommodate additional growth is made.

6.1.2 The purpose of this section is to summarise the key issues that will influence thedevelopment of options in Stage 3 of the Study. In particular, it is necessary to drawconclusions that will aid the development and examination of the optional spatial strategies.The section starts with a summary of the growth projections related to each of thepackages and then considers key issues under the headings of :

- Strategic Issues

- Growth Forecasts

- Planning / Transport / Environment

- Spatial Issues

6.1.3 The section concludes by establishing a number of principles, derived from the work inStage 2, for locating development to accommodate the growth which is forecasted to occurwith each of the packages for airport growth.

6.1.4 The next Stage of the Study (Stage 3) will examine optional spatial distribution patternsand the degree to which they can accommodate the levels of growth anticipated andconsider and identify variations according to settlement by settlement analysis ofdevelopment areas. The last stage (Stage 4) will select an option and advise onimplementation issues and on alternative mechanisms to secure delivery.

6.2 Quantum of Growth Projections

6.2.1 Table 6.1 summarises the growth projections which will be used in Stage 3 of the Study.The table shows total growth in jobs (direct and rest) and in dwellings by 2036 for each ofthe Airport Packages being considered. It also incorporates two additional projections forthe single runway with accelerated growth to 25mppa by 2021 (the limit of the currentplanning consent) and 40mppa by 2021 (the estimated maximum capacity of the singlerunway). The level of accelerated growth is higher than that accepted by the Government.Also in order for one runway to achieve a through put of 40 mppa, changes in the nature ofairport operations in the South East will be required.


159

Table 6.1 Summary of additional jobs and dwellings for each of the Packages (2,7,10 and 14) by 2036, and for 25mppa and 40mppa by 2021.

20361 runway 2 runways 3 runways 4 runways

Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings Jobs DwellingsDirect Rest Total Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total4,653 110,070 114,723 190,205 137,634 140,870 166,673 201,036 152,031 157,512 192,122 211,450 168,408 189,344 235,642 228,946

2021

1 runway (Package 2) 1 runway (25m. by 2021) 1 runway (40m. by 2021)Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings

Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total1,878 79,785 81,663 129,858 2,936 79,785 82,721 129,858 11,263 79,785 91,048 129,858


160

6.3 Key Issues

Strategic

6.3.1 The following key strategic issues will be relevant in considering the strategy for the Studyarea:

• The Study area is within a Growth Area as defined by Government within the context ofits policy for handling growth within the South East,

• Therefore, there will be a need to accommodate that growth irrespective of theexpansion of Stansted,

• It follows that there will be a need to find land for development well in excess of currentcommitments,

• It also follows that if substantial growth in dwellings (as postulated by ODPM) is likelyto occur irrespective of expansion of Stansted, lack of additional jobs would lead to agreater level of out-commuting, probably to London. However, even with majorexpansion of Stansted, there could remain an imbalance with too few new jobs inrelation to the numbers of new dwellings.

Growth Forecasts

6.3.2 The following issues arise from the forecasting exercise;

• Within the Study area the principal influence on growth is the underlying change inpopulation and employment that will occur irrespective of the further development ofStansted,

• With the provision of two, three and four runways the input from the Airport expansionin terms of dwellings is an additional dwelling growth of between 20% and 35% of totaldwelling growth by 2036,

• This extra component of housing is likely to be of particular significance for the sub-region surrounding the Airport,

• Notwithstanding this, the influence of the expansion of Stansted in terms both of jobsand dwellings, is likely to be felt throughout the Study area,

• Accelerating the growth in passengers, with one runway, to 25mppa and 40mppa by2021, increases the numbers of jobs that are generated but requires no additionaldwellings,

• A wide range of uncertainty is inherent in the forecasting process. Nonetheless, a basisfor proceeding with the Study has been proposed which recognises the results of


161

studies by BAA on the jobs/passengers ratio, and which uses as working figures, themid-points of the forecasts.

Planning / Transport / Environment

6.3.3 The following key issues have been identified which relate to planning, transport and theenvironment:

• It is being assumed that a permissive strategic policy approach will be followedwhereby demand that is expressed will be met,

• There will be pressure for development but limited capacity for growth withoutcompromising constraints,

• Even those locations with potential for growth are unlikely to have the capacity to copewith this level of growth without a relaxation of constraints,

• It will be necessary to establish the priorities for the relaxation of constraints. This canbe done in Stage 3, when the merits of the options are considered.

• Development should be located in the larger urban areas with significant emphasisplaced on the re-use of brownfield land and change of use. However, there are lowlevels of previously developed land in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire,Uttlesford District, Braintree, Harlow, Epping, Witham, Halstead, and Broxbourne.There are high levels of previously developed land in Colchester, East Herts., andNorth Herts.,

• The location of development should aim to redress any imbalance between homes andjobs,

• The principal areas in need of regeneration are Harlow, the Lower Lea Valley andSouth Essex / Thames Gateway (the latter two areas not being located in the StudyArea).

• Despite allocations to 2016 in Cambridgeshire there will still be an imbalance betweenjobs and homes in Cambridge which will continue to encourage inward commuting.,

• Essex County Council aims includes reducing commuting to London,

• Generally east-west transport links are poor and there is no direct west link toStevenage and Luton,

• The M11 would need to be upgraded to 3 lanes to cater for increased traffic. LOIS andthe LSMMMS have recommended that junctions 8-9 and 9-14 be upgraded. (ref. map4.3). Again these improvements have been agreed in the announcement by theSecretary of State for Transport on 9th July 2003.

• Public transport links to Stansted are poor, particularly from Cambridgeshire andBraintree (despite 10% of Stansted’s workforce living in Braintree). Only 2% of airportworkers currently travel by public transport ,


162

• Only 6% of passenger trips to Stansted are by bus or coach,

• From the same analysis, travel to work by rail shows no change, reflecting the poor railconnections to Stansted. A key issue is the degree to which new or revived rail linkscan be brought into use.

• There is uncertainty about improvements to the main WAGN rail line and the SRA isunable to fund new schemes.

Spatial Issues

• A key issue will be how to meet the growth requirements, especially for four runways,in terms of rates of development. This issue might be more pronounced fordevelopment that is concentrated than where it is in a more dispersed pattern,

• The Cambridge sub-region has a growth strategy. A key issue is the degree to whichthe Stansted / M11 Study should overlie the Cambridge strategy.

• A key issue will be the degree to which Harlow , identified as a PAER, can benefit fromthe expansion of Stansted,

• The conclusions from the initial transport analyses provide clear pointers to a pattern ofdevelopment that concentrates housing close to jobs and located development alongprincipal public transport corridors. Where possible, balancing the distribution ofhousing and jobs should be an overriding objective,

• The greatest relative levels of impact resulting directly from an expansion of the airportis likely to be in the Districts in closest proximity to the airport, Uttlesford, Braintree andHarlow,

• This concentration in the Districts around the airport will be even greater if Stansted isto be developed as an economic driver,

• Taking into account baseline growth and Stansted related growth, the significantexpansion of existing settlements or the provision of new settlements could be justifiedunder any of the Airport’s growth scenarios.

6.4 Principles for locating development to accommodategrowth

6.4.1 During the course of this stage of the Study and consistent with many of the key issuesreferred to above, a number of principles have been identified which should be consideredat the next stage when developing the spatial options. They are :• Jobs should be balanced with housing,• Underlying growth should generally be accommodated around the settlements or in the

Districts that cause it unless there is some greater good in locating it in the Stanstedarea (e.g. to achieve critical mass),


163

• To service direct growth, on and off the Airport, dwellings should be located as close aspossible to Stansted,

• These areas should be linked to Stansted by good, cheap public transport. The publictransport options might be:- automated personal public transport

- bus with or without busway

- existing rail

- extended rail• Indirect and induced jobs need good linkages to the airport and dwellings need to be

close to jobs,• Some of the catalytic growth may wish to be located around existing developments.

Some may be channelled into new or existing but expanded settlements such asHarlow or Haverhill,

• Direct, indirect and induced jobs require mainly low to medium level skills. Catalyticjobs will require a bigger proportion of medium and higher skills. Given the currentdistribution of job skills, certain places such as Cambridge will tend to attract high skillgrowth unless positive measures are taken to attract the higher skilled jobs elsewhere.

6.4.2 The principal settlements within the Study area (Cambridge, Colchester and Chelmsford)are likely to experience significant pressures for growth irrespective of the strategy thatmight be adopted for Stansted. They have the scale and administrative structures to dealwith it. Greater problems are going to be experienced in the areas closer to Stansted,which are rural in character with smaller settlements. It is here that the impact of anygrowth will be greatest. It is logical, therefore, to concentrate on producing a spatialstrategy to deal with the area where the impacts will be significant and where someintervention may be required in order to manage the rates of growth that might beachieved. In Stage 3, therefore, a sub-region will be defined around Stansted within whichthe spatial strategy will be developed. Growth outside this area will be quantified but willnot be translated into a spatial strategy in this Study.

Colin Buchanan and Partners Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study – Key IssuesAppendices

1

CONTENTS

1. APPENDIX 1 – SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION 22. APPENDIX 2 – LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS 53. APPENDIX 3 – BASELINE DEMOGRAPHICS 554. APPENDIX 4 - CATALYTIC EMPLOYMENT 575. APPENDIX 5 - DISPLACEMENT 656. APPENDIX 6 – RESULTS FOR HIGH AND LOW SCENARIOS 69


2

1. Appendix 1 – Settlement Role andFunction

Settlement Role and Function – Data Collection Methodology

Introduction

1.1.1 Section 2, sets out an analysis of settlement role and function based on service provisionwithin each town over 5,000 people. This appendix sets out the methodology for the datacollection, which included information on health, education, services, transport,administration, and tourism within each settlement. Table 2.3 in Section 2 of the KeyIssues Report sets out the raw data collected.

Methodology

POPULATION

1.1.2 Settlement population was obtained from the 1991 urban area Census data, under residentpopulation. Settlement population data from the 2001 Census was unavailable.

HEALTH

1.1.3 The number of hospitals, doctors surgeries and dentist surgeries were obtained to identifysettlements role and function as health providers. This information was obtained from twoweb sites, the NHS web site (www.nhs.uk) and by using the yellow pages (www.yell.com).In respect to hospitals, only NHS hospitals were counted.

EDUCATION

1.1.4 The numbers of primary schools, secondary schools, Further Education (FE)establishments and Higher Education (HE) institutions were obtained to indicatesettlements’ educational role and function. Data for primary and secondary schools wasobtained from the School Organisational Plans for all three Counties. Private educationalestablishments were excluded from the search as a result of insufficient data. Data relatingto FE establishments was obtained from County Council web sites. HE institution data wasobtained from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Council (UCAS) web site(www.ucas.ac.uk).

SERVICES

1.1.5 A number of different services were included for service role and function. They are:• Retail floorspace (sq. m);• Theatre• Cinemas;• Post Offices;• Libraries; and


3

• Professional services - comprising− Architects;− Banks;− Building Societies;− Financial consultants; and− Solicitors.

1.1.6 Retail floorspace data was obtained from Cambridgeshire, Essex and HerefordshireCounty Councils, Broxbourne and North Hertfordshire District Councils, and CambridgeCity Council. The information for the other components was obtained from the yellowpages and ‘up my street’ (www.upmystreet.com) web sites.

TRANSPORT

1.1.7 Transport is derived from two components, access to train stations and the number of busroutes. Train stations were identified by using maps available on the national rail enquiresweb site. The number of bus routes was obtained from the relevant timetables available atwww.carlberry.co.uk. Cambridgeshire routes were taken from all services as at February2002, Hertfordshire routes were taken from all services as at March 2002 and Essex routeswere taken from all services as at May 2003.

ADMINISTRATION

1.1.8 The location of each local government organisation from the regional to parish level wasused to identify administration centres within the Study area. However, the data excludessub-offices due to insufficient data on the web sites.

1.1.9 A number of web sites were used to find the locations of administration centres. The mainsource of information came directly from the relevant county/district/town council web sitesby ascertaining their contact details. Parish details were either directly available on Countyweb sites, in the case of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, however, direct web searcheswere undertaken to find those parishes in Essex.

TOURISM

1.1.10 As it was not possible to obtain data on the number of tourists visiting each settlement, thenumber of attractions was used to delineate the tourism role and function for each of thesettlements. The ‘Visit Britain’ (www.visitbritain.com) and National Trust(www.nationaltrust.org.uk) web sites were both used to find attractions.

1.1.11 The analysis of role and function has enabled a ranking of settlements based on theirrelative provision of different types of goods and services and based on the level of thisprovision, establish their sub regional importance. This is described through a settlementhierarchy. The analysis of role and function will also inform the analysis of SpatialLinkages, set out in 2.9, through an understanding of what are the key functions of eachsettlement and how these functions relate to each other, spatially within Study area.


4

Settlement Role and Function – Assessment Methodology

1.1.12 The assessment of role and function was carried out based on the following 4 stepprocess:• Step 1: Data collection on service provision within each settlement;• Step 2: Assign a weighting to each service to provide a service provision score for

each settlement;• Step 3: Develop a ranking system to enable comparison between settlements and

between population and service provision ; and• Step 4: Use total service provision score to develop a settlement hierarchy

Step 1: data collection

1.1.13 Data on service provision was collected and recorded for each settlement in order toprovide some indication about rôle and function. These covered the broad service typeswithin a settlement and to some extent reflected the availability of consistent data sets at asettlement level. They are:• Health - number of hospitals (NHS), doctors surgeries and dentist surgeries (only the

number of facilities have been considered and not the type or size, thus AddenbrokesHospital in Cambridge is given the same weighting in the assessment as the hospital inSaffron Walden);

• Education - numbers of primary schools, secondary schools, Further Education (FE)establishments and Higher Education (HE) institutions;

• Retail and Facilities− Retail floorspace (sq. m);− Theatres− Cinemas;− Post Offices;− Libraries; and− Professional Services (architects, banks, building societies, financial consultants

and solicitors);• Administration – presence of local government offices, for regional (e.g. Regional

Development Agencies, Local Government Conference etc.) county, district, town andparish councils. However, the data excludes sub-offices due to insufficient dataavailability;

• Transport – accessibility to main road network (motorway and primary roads), accessto rail station and number of bus routes; and

• Tourism - data relating to visitor numbers was patchy and inconsistent at a settlementlevel and therefore information on tourist attractions present was used to determine asettlement's tourism function.

1.1.14 The data collection methodology is set out in detail in Appendix 1.

1.1.15 Data relating to the main service types of health, education, retail and facilities andadministration were recorded and mapped for each settlement (see Table 2.3 of the mainreport and Maps 2.2-2.6).


5

Step 2: Weighting and Scoring

1.1.16 To enable meaningful comparison between settlements of service provision, each servicewas assigned a weighting and then scored based on that methodology. This wasnecessary to determine different levels of provision and to identify the settlements that playa regional, sub regional, district or local rôle within the Study area. For example, a hospitalserves a greater number of people over a wider area than a doctors surgery and thereforeshould be scored higher. Table A1.1 sets out the weighting and scoring methodology,which is based on the following hierarchy of services:• Regional Level Services +5• Sub Regional Level Services +3• District Level Services +2• Local Level Services +1

1.1.17 The weighting means that each type of service scores according to its weighting. Forexample, a hospital has a weighting of 5 because it is a regional level service, so asettlement with 2 hospitals would score 10. The weighting for each service is set out inTable A1.1 below.

Table A1.1: Weighting and Scoring for Role and Function IndicatorsService Type Level of Provision Weighting/Score

HealthHospitalDoctors SurgeryDentist

RegionalLocalLocal

+5+1+1

EducationPrimary SchoolSecondary SchoolFE CollegeHE Institution

LocalDistrict

Sub RegionalRegional

+1+2+3+5

Retail and FacilitiesRetail FloorspaceSmall Centre (1,000 - 5,000 m2)Medium Centre (5,000 - 50,000 m2)Large Centre (50,000 - 150,000 m2)Major Centre (150,000+)TheatreCinemaPost OfficeLibraryProfessional ServicesOver 10051-10031-5011-300-10

LocalDistrict

Sub RegionalRegional

Sub RegionalDistrictLocalLocal

RegionalSub Regional

Sub Regional/DistrictDistrictLocal

+1+2+3+5+3+2+1+1

+5+4+3+2+1

Administration


6

Parish CouncilTown CouncilDistrict CouncilCounty CouncilRegional Agency

Local/RuralLocal

DistrictCounty

Regional

+1+2+3+4+5

1.1.18 The results of the scoring process for services and facilities that were included in theanalysis is given in Table 2.2. For each settlement the following scores are provided:• Score per service (e.g. hospital, doctors surgery etc.)• A total score per service type, (e.g. health, education etc.)• An overall service provision score (sum of scores per service type).

STEP 3: RANKING

1.1.19 Each settlement has been ranked based on the total score for each service type and theoverall service score, with rank 1 representing the highest scoring settlement and rank 28the lowest. This makes comparisons between settlements and types of services mucheasier and highlights where a settlement may be strong in some areas and weaker inothers, depending on its different ranking positions. By ranking population also it enables acomparison to be made of service provision relative to the size of a settlement.

STEP 4: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY

1.1.20 The total score for each settlement was then used to develop a settlement hierarchy basedon service provision. It was necessary to use total scores for this process because theranking system conceals the actual level and range of scores achieved. The total scoresare able to provide a broad indication of the different types of settlements, depending onwhere in the banding of the overall scores they fall within. Based on this methodology, thesettlement hierarchy is set out in paragraphs 2.3.34 – 2.3.40 of the main report.

ABRA Model of Accessibility analysis

Accessibility analysis approach

1.1.21 The methodology underpinning the accessibility analysis utilises CBP’s ABRA (Analysis ofBus Route Accessibility) model to recreate the existing transport network in the study area.This has been built on top of an existing model which includes all the London rail and tubenetwork.

1.1.22 The model helps to identify areas of poor accessibility in relation to Stansted airport.Cross-reference to the results from the STRATEGEM model helps to locate ‘gaps’ in thenetwork from which there is demand for travel.

Building the PT model: existing networks

1.1.23 The basis of the model is a detailed representation of the public transport network. Thenetwork is built to include individual railway stations and underground stations. TheLondon part of the network was previously available and was digitised from maps of the


7

national railway and underground stations. Added to this were all the rail stations in thestudy area.

1.1.24 All the stops and stations were then connected together by all the individual rail routes andunderground lines (the coach link between Stansted Airport and Colchester was alsoincluded) to form the public transport network. The public transport routes were each giventravel times and frequencies according to timetable information.

1.1.25 The network of routes were connected together by interchanges. The interchanges wereselected according to their ability to offer passengers a sensible and efficient location tochange between services and modes.

1.1.26 Walking time at interchanges is based on the ‘as the crow flies’ walk distance betweeninterchange stops/stations. This was weighted by a factor of two in the model to representindividuals perception of travel time for walking when compared to in-vehicle-travel time.

1.1.27 Likewise, service frequency was used to predict average waiting time for a service beingtypically half the frequency but as for walking, weighted by a factor of two. A 10 minuteheadway would on average represent a 5 minute wait time, which in turn would beweighted by two to give a perceived weight time of 10 minutes.

1.1.28 Walking time to access the network was based on an ‘as the crow flies’ distance and werefixed at typically no more than 1200 m.

Accessibility zone system

1.1.29 The origin zone system for the public transport accessibility calculation consisted of a 1km2 grid covering the whole of the study area. When calculating accessibility, the modelsearches an area within a radius of 500 metres from the centre of the origin zone lookingfor stops and stations with which to connect to the public transport network. If none arefound then the search distance is increased up to a maximum of 1200 metres Thegeneralised travel time (see below) to a chosen destination is then applied to the originzone to represent accessibility.

Running the PT accessibility model

1.1.30 The model calculates the shortest path through the public transport network. This is basedon the shortest path in terms of generalised time which consists of the following:

GT = OWlkT + WT + IVT + (ICP + ICWlk + ICWT) + DWlkT + MC

Where:GT = generalised timeOWlkT = origin walk timeWT = wait timeIVT = in vehicle timeICP = interchange penalty

(only applicable to interchange)ICWlk = interchange walk time


8

(only applicable to interchange)ICWT = interchange wait time

(only applicable to interchange)DWlkT = destination walk timeMC = mode constant

1.1.31 Walking and waiting parameters are weighted by a factor of two to represent people’sperception of these elements of the journey.

1.1.32 The model has been run and travel time budget contour lines (in generalised time GT) forunder 1 hour, under 2 hours and under 3 hours to Stansted Airport by rail and underground(and coach between Stansted Airport and Colchester) produced. For guidance on themeaning of these travel time bands, the following equivalent example scenarios could beconsidered:• 1 hour travel time (GT) equivalent to: walk 5 mins, wait 5 mins, travel 20 mins, walk 5

mins• 2 hour travel time (GT) equivalent to: walk 10 mins, wait 10 mins, travel 50 mins, walk

10 mins• 3 hour travel time (GT) equivalent to: walk 15 mins, wait 10 mins, travel 40 mins,

interchange including walk/wait, travel 40 mins, walk 15 mins1.1.33 These are only meant for illustration and different combinations of each part of a journey

will affect the overall generalised time.


5

2. Appendix 2 – Landscape CharacterAreas

Essex

2.1.1 Landscape Character Areas within the study area with their identified key characteristicsare as follows:-

A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmland

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Strongly rolling landform of broad roundbacked ridges.• Large scale arable farmland.• Distinctive elevated, expansive and generally open character.• Panoramic views from ridgetops.• Dispersed blocks of woodland and isolated copses.• Sparse settlement pattern, small linear villages alongside stream courses, and hamlets

with greens.• Mostly tranquil and remote character.

B1 Central Essex Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Irregular field pattern of mainly medium size arable fields, marked by sinuous

hedgerows and ditches.• Many small woods and copses provide structure and edges in the landscape.• Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small hamlets, typically with greens and

ponds.• A concentration of isolated moated farmsteads.• Network of narrow, winding lanes.• Mostly tranquil character away from major roads and Stansted Airport.

B2 North Essex Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Strongly undulating landform dissected by small valleys. Distinctive, elevated broad

flat topped ridges.• Medium to large scale arable field pattern.• Sense of openness and space on high ground with wide views.• Contrasting semi-enclosed character of some valleys.• Relatively low density of small villages, hamlets and farmsteads.• Mostly remote/tranquil character.


6

B3 Blackwater and Stour Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Very gently undulating or flat landform.• Large scale arable field pattern.• Infrequent small blocks of woodland, some mature hedgerow trees on field boundaries.• Wide views across the farmland.• Small villages, hamlets with a wealth of historic buildings.• Tranquil character.

B4 Gosfield Wooded Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Flat to gently undulating landform.• Strong pattern of large and small woods, including distinctive ancient limewoods.• Irregular medium size arable fields, bounded by thick hedgerows with mature

hedgerow trees.• Enclosed character.• Many small farmsteads, occasional hamlets and villages.

C1 Cam Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Broad valley. Strongly rolling valleysides in the north, gentler slopes to the south.• Predominantly large scale, open arable farmland on the valley slopes.• Enclosed character of the valley floor with lush riverside vegetation.• Nucleated settlement pattern.• Extensive historic parkland between Littlebury and Newport.

C2 Stort Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Shallow and narrow valley with moderately sloping arable valleysides.• Fairly enclosed character due to the frequency of hedgerows/hedgerow trees, small

woods/copses and riverside trees.• Small pastures and large flood plain meadows on the valley floor.• Numerous small estates and parklands.• Substantially undeveloped character.

C3 Lee Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Very broad, flood plain occupied by wet gravel pits, woodland and a variety of

fragmented agricultural, recreational and small scale industrial land uses.• Rolling farmland to the east, typically with bold blocks of woodland and linear tree belts

on valleysides and ridges.• Significant clusters of active and derelict glasshouse land use.


7

• Extensive views from higher ground within the area.

C4 Roding Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Wide valley, deepening to the south.• Gently to moderately undulating valleysides, occasionally intersected by small tributary

valleys.• Strong pattern of valleyside vegetation with thick hedgerow field boundaries, many

hedgerow trees and scattered small woodlands.• Meadows on flat valley floor, with occasional riverside trees.• Tranquil character except in the south.

C5 Chelmer Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Narrow valley, with a restricted valley bottom.• Dense riverside trees.• Arable valleysides with a fairly open character.• Small linear settlements occupy the upper valleysides or straggle down to a few

bridging points.• Historic watermills and Second World War pillboxes are distinctive features.• Mostly tranquil character.

C6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower Chelmer Valleys

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Shallow valleys.• Predominantly arable farmland with well hedged medium to large fields.• The Brain and the Upper Blackwater Valleys are narrow with undulating valleysides.• The Lower Chelmer, and the Blackwater near Maldon, have wide flat valley floors, and

gently valleysides.• Extensive linear poplar and willow plantations are a distinctive feature.

C7 Colne Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Shallow valley of variable width with numerous small tributary valleys.• Gently to moderately undulating valleysides.• Narrow valley bottom, mainly pasture.• Arable valleyside farmland with frequent small woodlands.• A series of small towns and villages at bridging points.• Historic mill buildings are distinctive features.


8

C8 Stour Valley

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Typically wide flat valley floor with flood plain meadows, riverbank willow trees and

small wet woodlands.• Rolling rounded valleysides with a complex mosaic of small woods, pasture and arable

fields in the east, gentler arable valleysides in the north and west.• Church towers, traditional villages, farmsteads, barns and mills are distinctive features.• Sinuous pattern of lanes and roads.• Mostly tranquil, secluded character.

D1 Epping Forest and Ridges

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Elevated moderate to steep sided ridges, crowned by woodland.• Very large crescent shaped block of ancient deciduous woodland to the west.• Wooded skylines.• Distinctive grassy plains and large ponds within Epping Forest, greens and commons

associated with settlements.• Small to medium scale pattern of hedged pasture and arable fields with frequent

hedgerow trees.

D2 Brentwood Hills

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Gently to strongly undulating hills/ridges.• Semi enclosed character due to presence of numerous small woods, large interlocking

blocks of woodland and frequent hedgerow trees.• Patchwork of small irregular pasture and arable fields, opening out to medium to large

regular arable fields in the centre of the area.• Dense linear settlement pattern along major south west to north east road/rail routes.

D3 Danbury Hills

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Distinctive landform of a very large gently domed hill, and a broad connecting ridge

eroded into small rounded hills in the south east.• Dense woodland on Danbury Hill, fairly open arable farmland to the east.• Historic parklands, grassy commons, pockets of heathland and orchards diversity

character.• Long views across the Chelmer Valley from high ground.

D4 Tiptree Ridge

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Elevated, broad ridge.• Strongly wooded western ridgeside.


9

• Small – medium scale field pattern.• Enclosed character provided by many tall, thick hedgerows and woodland.• Framed views over the Blackwater Valley and the Blackwater coastal farmlands.

E1 South Essex Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Gently undulating landform, locally strongly rolling.• Rectilinear field pattern with tall thick hedgerow boundaries.• Occasional small woods and copses.• Sense of enclosure.• Striking large open water expanse of Hanningfield Reservoir surrounded by dense tree

belts is a distinctive feature in the west.• Pylons are a frequent presence.

E2 South Colchester Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Mix of small regular pasture and large arable fields.• Dense woodland in the Roman River valley.• Enclosed, intimate character in the north, more open in the south.• Complex settlement pattern of nucleated and linear villages/hamlets, and farmsteads

along dispersed lanes.• Distinctive elongated large waterbody of Abberton Reservoir within a shallow valley.

E3 Tendring Plain

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Large flat farmland plateau, dissected by occasional small narrow valleys.• Arable land use dominates, but with some pasture and orchards.• Straight and regular field patterns with mainly low trimmed hedgerows.• Widely dispersed blocks of woodland /small copses, sparse tree cover in the north.• Former heathland character near Colchester.

E4 North Colchester Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Flat arable farmland, with regular fields and low trimmed hedgerows.• Isolated linear woods.• Generally wide views.• Large apple orchards introduce interest and variety.• Many smallholdings and glasshouses.

F2 Crouch & Roach Farmland

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Long narrow Crouch and Roach river estuaries with bands of flat low lying marshlands.


10

• Rolling or gently undulating arable farmland between the estuaries. Regular fields ofvariable size and thick or intermittent hedgerow boundaries.

• Frequent long views across the farmland to the estuaries from higher ground.• Strongly right angled pattern of lanes.• Small villages, a scattering of hamlets, farmsteads, and newer suburban properties are

concentrated along the lanes on higher ground.

F5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal Farmlands

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Gently sloping arable farmland with intermittent tall elm hedgerows.• Significant areas of grazing marsh and saltmarsh associated with narrow estuarine

inlets and outlets, channels and creeks.• Small villages/hamlets and isolated farmsteads mainly on higher land, with a few

creekside villages.• Tranquil character.

F6 Mersea Island

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Oval shaped island with a broad low central clay ridge.• Fringing low lying grazing marshes, pockets of saltmarsh and broad mud/sandflats.• Mainly agricultural landscape with a few large farmsteads and a scattering of suburban

houses along lanes.• Predominantly open character with frequent views of sea and the estuary.• Narrow zig-zagging an sinuous hedgerowed lanes.• Most of the area is tranquil.

G1 Harlow and Environs

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• A new town with compact residential neighbourhoods, and distinct zones of

commercial development.• Prominent tower blocks in the centre.• Extensive linear network of open spaces in valley bottoms and on lower valleysides.• Mixed arable and pasture farmland on rising ground to the south, west and south east

of the town.• Medium size hedgerowed arable fields on gently undulating/flat land to the east.• Flood plain edge of the river Stort forms the northern boundary.

G2 Chelmsford and Environs

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Historic town with extensive residential estate development spreading over a gently

sloping valleyside landform.• Wide riverside corridors of green space except in the town centre.


11

• Fringe of mixed farmland with variable size hedgerowed fields, with few woods orcopses.

• Large villages of Writtle and Galleywood physically separated from the town, but withmuch development of an urban character.

G3 South Essex Coastal Towns

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Large areas of dense urban development.• Strongly rolling hills with steep south and west facing escarpments covered by open

grassland or a mix of small woods, pastures and commons.• Extensive flat coastal grazing marshes in the south adjacent to the Thames Estuary.• Large blocks of woodland in the centre of the area.• Narrow bands and broader areas of gently undulating arable farmland, with a remnant

hedgerow pattern, separating some of the towns.• Particularly complex network of major transportation routes.• Pylon routes visually dominate farmland in the A130 corridor.

G4 Colchester and Environs

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Historic town core with a strong grid pattern on a low hill above the River Colne.• Residential and commercial development wraps over valleysides or slightly elevated

flatter land.• Uninterrupted valley floor of the Colne forms a ribon of green space running through

the centre of the urban area.• Large blocks of woodlands and open spaces on some valleysides.• Variable size regular hedgerowed fields in the fringing farmland.


12

Cambridge

2.1.2 The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (1991) provide broad descriptions of alllandscapes within the County. The following character areas are relevant to this Study:

SOUTH-EAST CLAY HILLS

2.1.3 The main characteristics of this Landscape Character Area (LCA) are:-‘This is an undulating area, quite high for Cambridgeshire, at about 100-120m above sea levelon the hilltops. The small villages and hamlets have developed in more sheltered situations,usually along the springline in the shallow valleys.…..Landscape character derives from the scattering of farmsteads, and small settlementsinterspersed with farm woodlands. The field sizes are large, but are united by the gentlyrolling landform and woodlands. Earth banks are a distinctive feature along some roadsides,…. A few still retain their hedges. Elsewhere surviving hedges, often without trees, aretrimmed low and can create a mean appearance to the landscape’.

FENLAND

2.1.4 The main characteristics of this LCA are:-‘Fenland is a landscape of contrasts and variety. Superimposed upon the regimented andhighly organised drainage patterns is a much more haphazard pattern of settlement and treecover. It is a large open landscape and although appearing monotonous, it is in factcharacterised by continuous change as the visual characteristics of one fen merge into thenext. The open landscape provides distant views where the scattering of clumps andindividual trees merge together to produce a feeling of a more densely tree-covered horizon….In the expansive open landscape isolated agricultural buildings, farmsteads and loose-knitvillages are often prominent against a background of a constantly changing sky where vastcloudscapes provide drama and visual delight. There is considerable variation within Fenland,each fen having its own characteristics. Journeying through Fenland these subtle changes incharacter become gradually apparent with the constant change in the balance of landscapecomponents’.

CHALKLANDS

2.1.5 The main characteristics of this LCA are:-‘The complex history of settlement and the impact of people on the landscape over thecenturies is particularly apparent in this part of the County.…..These artificial elements overlie the smooth rolling chalkland hills. The hills are dissectedby the two gentle valleys of the Granta and the Rhee, which converge to form the River Camjust south of Cambridge.…. The majority of the chalkland is devoted to growing cereal crops, despite the frequentlypoor, this soils. It is a broadscale landscape of large fields, low mechanically trimmed hedgesand few trees. The eastern part of this area has a number of woodlands and shelter beltswhich help to break up the long distant views and give some form and character. Certain highpoints have small beech copses or ‘hangers’ which are prominent and characteristic featuresin the open landscape’.


13

WESTERN CLAYLANDS

2.1.6 The main characteristics of this LCA are:-‘This gently undulating landscape is subdivided by the shallow Ouse Valley. It consists oflarge-scale arable farmland with open fields, sparse trimmed hedgerows and watercoursesoften cleared of bankside vegetation. There are scattered woodlands and approximately halfof these are ancient semi-natural woodlands of considerable importance in the County context.The biggest concentration of woodlands is in the south-west corner of the County. Elsewhereindividual woods are of importance in visual and nature conservation terms, but they tend tobe isolated incidents in an area dominated by farmland.The landscape of this part of Cambridgeshire has been greatly affected by modern agriculturalpractices. Increased mechanisation has led to the removal of hedgerows and amalgamationof fields. Many of the remaining hedges are ‘gappy’ and trimmed almost out of existence byregular cutting. Dutch Elm Disease has taken a considerable toll of hedgerow trees, and theextensive replanting which is still young has yet to make any major impact….Marginal land has been brought into production by drainage and other soil improvements.Larger farm units have created a need for large storage buildings, which can be prominent inthe landscape….’

OUSE VALLEY

2.1.7 The main characteristics of this LCA are:-‘The meandering River Ouse in its shallow valley bisects the claylands that form the westernedge of Cambridgeshire. The margins of the river consist of a mosaic of flood plains andgrazing meadows, working and disused gravel pits and lakes, sprawling housing areas andindustrial estates. Elsewhere, the Ouse Valley is characterised by thick hedges, trees andfields’.

2.1.8 The Cambridge Sub-Region Study (2001), CBP, WA and Bone Wells Associates, analysedcapacity of these character areas in relation to the main transport corridors radiating fromCambridge (at para 8.4.7 of Technical Papers, Volume 1).

2.1.9 The southern transport corridor occurs within chalkland. However, the sub-landscapecharacter types within this broad category are very different in terms of scale, topographyand vegetation and this has been recognised by previous publications. The CambridgeGreen Belt Landscape Setting Study (1998) identifies 4 character types, which lie withinthe southern transport corridor:• Hobson’s Brook;• Cam River Valley;• Rhee River Valley; and• Granta Levels.

2.1.10 These areas are identified as generally ‘gentle low topography’, although the relief is muchstronger further out from the Rhee valley and it is suggested that the ‘river banks andsettlements possess much higher densities of tree cover’. Field boundaries are enclosedby hedgerows with trees, tree belts and blocks of woodland along the valley. With theexception of open areas within ‘Hobson’s Brook’, these landscape character areas have acapacity to absorb development, which contrasts sharply with the open chalklands of more


14

elevated topography more characteristic of the land to the east in local landscape characterarea ‘Gog Magog Hills’.

2.1.11 The north-west transport corridor is located within claylands characterised by apredominantly open, gently undulating and intensive arable landscape with few hedgerowtrees. Scattered woodland is another feature of this landscape. Due to the relativeopenness of this landscape character area, capacity to absorb change is generally lessthan to the south of Cambridge. This corridor lies in the local landscape character arearecognised by the ‘Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study (1998)’ as the ‘NorthCambridge Fen Edge Claylands’.

2.1.12 The north-east transport corridor is located on the border between the three mainlandscape character types (identified by the Cambridgeshire Guidelines, 1994). Due to thenature of this flat landscape the capacity to absorb development is largely dictated by thevegetation pattern. The Green Belt Landscape Setting Study described this area as theCam River Valley (North) and recognised the need for ‘landscape enhancement works andsuitable redevelopment along the Fen Road’.

2.1.13 The eastern transport corridor is located with a chalkland landscape, described as theFulbourn Fen Bowl and the northern edge of the Gog Magog Hills local landscapecharacter types in the Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study. This studyrecognised the sensitivity of this area to development due to the generally open nature ofthe landscape. Development can only be accommodated where the location of tree beltsand woodland provide screening elements.

2.1.14 This report also analysed remaining LCAs in the Cambridge Green Belt at paras 8.4.12-8.4.14, as follows:-

2.1.15 Remainder of the Green Belt - the landscape character of remaining sections of the GreenBelt, lying outside the four transport corridors, are categorised in the Cambridge Green BeltSetting Study as being:• Wimpole Ridge (east);• Bourn Brook Valley;• Madingley Ridge;• East Cambridge Fen Edge Chalklands;• Gog Magog Hills; and• Newton Chalk Hills.

2.1.16 The Setting Study recognised the high sensitivity to development of the open chalklandlandscapes of the Wimpole Ridge, Gog Magog Hills and Newton Chalk Hills. It alsorecognised that the East Cambridge Fen Edge Chalklands would also be highly sensitivedue to its open flat character as would be the Bourn Brook Valley due to its openness andvisibility from higher ground. It therefore suggested that development would not beappropriate in these areas. This is confirmed by this Green Belt Review, which hasinvolved site assessment of each of the local character areas identified by the CambridgeGreen Belt Setting Study. These have been examined in the context of their capacity toaccommodate development. ‘Where potential capacity has been identified by site survey,some sites have been brought forward within the Sites Database, including a numberoutside the transport corridors in Bottisham, Histon and Impington’.


15

2.1.17 The Cambridge Green Belt Setting Study suggested that development could potentially beaccommodated in the Madingley Ridge local landscape character area, due to its moreenclosed nature than some other local landscape character areas. However, it recognisedits substantial historical, archaeological and ecological value. Site survey work undertakenfor this Green Belt Review found that there are ‘no opportunities to accommodatedevelopment in close proximity to the inner boundary of the Green Belt without adverselyaffecting the interface between countryside and the city’. The historical and ecologicalimportance of the area is likely to generate further constraints within the area, which wouldbecome apparent when assessing site suitability against capacity and sustainability criteria.Consequently no potential sites have been included within this local landscape characterarea.

Hertfordshire

2.1.18 Landscape Character Areas within the study area with their identified landscape characterdescriptions and “Strategy and Guidelines for Managing Change” are as follows:-

37 Datchworth Settled Slopes

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER:-

2.1.19 Undulating and gently sloping, west-facing, open arable farmland. An ancient landscapewith modern settlements. Large blocks of woodland (Harmergreen Wood) screen views ofsome of the urban development and block views to the south. This is very much an ‘inbetween’ area, still rural but exhibiting a stronger urban influence than the adjoining areasto the east and south.

STRATEGY AND GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING CHANGE:

2.1.20 Improve and Conserve.

38 Aston Estate Farmland


2.1.21 South-facing undulating parkland dominated by two estates – Astonbury and Frogmore –exhibiting planned and unified characteristics of estate farmland. Rural, seemingly remoteand ancient, despite proximity to Stevenage.


2.1.22 Conserve and Restore.

39 Middle Beane Valley



16

2.1.23 Open arable farmland with small grouped woodlands linked by hedges. Medium to large-scale field pattern over strongly undulating slopes, with a remote character despiteproximity to Stevenage.


2.1.24 Conserve and Strengthen.

40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland


2.1.25 Undulating and gently sloping large-scale arable farmland with no settlements. Discretemedium to large blocks of woodland frame views over large fields with few hedges, but areinsufficient in scale to create strong vertical elements. A long cultivated landscape, lackingvariety.



41 Bramfield Wood, Twein Wood and Datchworth Uplands


2.1.27 A densely wooded upland area, gently undulating, with settlements of different ages eithergrouped around village greens or carefully planned within wooded areas. Althoughwoodland is a dominant feature, arable production is also characteristic and prominent,with very little pasture even around the villages. It divides into three sub-areas. TheBramfield Woods area is unsettled and consists of a dense complex of plateau woodlands,with mixed deciduous and conifer plantations, surrounded by large-scale arable fields.Bull’s Green and Burnham Green, like Datchworth, are old settlements clustered aroundextensive village greens. Tewin Wood, on the south-western part of the plateau, sharesthe woodland character of Bramfield Woods but contains a 20th-century settlement of some600 plots.



42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland


2.1.29 This area is south facing, strongly undulating rural slope consisting of mixed arablefarmland and woodland, readily distinguishable from the surrounding urban and suburbansettlements associated with Welwyn. The Lockley estate farmland and Dawley Woodfarmland share the settlement of Digswell as a boundary, while Dawley Wood and Tewinshare the Mimram valley parkland boundary. Although each sub-area has distinguishingcharacteristics, they are unified by their over-riding shared physiographic characteristics.


17

Lockleys has a strong pattern of arable farmland and woodland blocks, with some parklandfeatures around the farm on its summit and many mature oaks. Dawley Wood farmland isless unified by management and has south-facing views over the Mimram to the Haldenspart of Welwyn Garden City, so that it is less remote than Lockleys. Tewin village’s viewsto the south are filtered by vegetation along the river and around the edge of thePanshanger part of Welwyn Garden City. The village is a strong feature within the arablefarmland around it, contained by woodland on three sides.



43 Mimram Valley Parklands


2.1.31 A consistent parkland character overlies any change in topography throughout this sinuousribbon of flood plain pasture and woodland. Twentieth-century development and the busytransport network mask this character in some places.


2.1.32 Safeguard and Manage.

44 Pashanger Parkland


2.1.33 Relic historic ornamental parkland with dense wooded boundaries and extensive mineralexcavation, developed around the valley of the river Mimram. Little remains of the historicbuildings within the park, but Repton’s landscape design has not yet been completelyobliterated, although screened from public view. The parkland character is of grazingpastures fringed with beech woods.


2.1.34 Improve and Restore.

45 Welwyn Fringes


2.1.35 An urban fringe belt around the eastern flanks of Welwyn, with a wide range of land uses,from recreation through arable cultivation to mineral extraction. While the western end ofthis area, squeezed between Welwyn and Hatfield, has very obvious urban-fringe landuses, the area to the east is more rural, with arable cultivation and some blocks ofwoodland.



18


West End to Brickendon Wooded Slopes


2.1.37 Steeply undulating wooded slopes, clearly differentiated by topography, woodland and ageof settlement from both the arable slope to the north and the small plateau to the south.Very articulated and complex topography, with parkland and ancient settlements strung outalong winding undulating lanes. An ‘old’ landscape pattern, remote and enclosed, with asmall, domestic scale. Densely wooded and treed, with a clear pattern of irregular fieldswith tall treed boundaries and good views across the Lea valley. Here arable conversiondoes not appear to have had a negative impact on hedges.



Little Berkhamstead Settled Plateau


2.1.39 A small settled plateau of several very narrow ‘finger’ ridges, each of which has asettlement at its extreme end, with extensive views out over wooded valleys and the Leavalley to the north, where vegetation permits. Around each settlement pasture gives wayto arable and views out are frequently screened by small blocks of woodland or hedges.



55 Theobalds Estate


2.1.41 Complex layers of history are evident in the cultural pattern of the landscape, in whichmixed farmland and parkland are a dominant feature. A strong pattern of discretewoodland blocks and medium to large open arable fields create an unusual patchwork ofecologically rich and sterile patches across the undulating landform. Low, managedhedgerows allow long views across the arable slopes to the M25 in the south. Isolatedsettlement is generally confined to defensive sites on the higher ground. Small farms arescattered across the estate.



56 Cheshunt Common



19

2.1.43 Open arable farmland squeezed between two urban areas and linking two areas of formerparkland – Ponsbourne to the north and the Theobald’s Estate to the south. The localtopography is very noticeable, swooping down from the north and made the more obviousby the lack of woodland, hedges and settlements.



57 Thunderfield Ridges


2.1.45 Very rural area dominated by wave-like landform and opportunity for extensive long-rangeviews. A small-scale mixture of woodland and pasture with limited 19th and 20th-centurydevelopment. From the northern edge of Hammond Street a distinctive pattern of fieldsand strip woodland can be seen at Wormley West End. South of Hammond Street newhousing development is rapidly obliterating a similar relic field pattern.



58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Park


2.1.47 A palimpsest, with modified remains of ancient oak/hornbeam woodlands in parklandsettings with 18th and 19th-century mixed plantations added. A complex mixture of landuses almost masks this area’s history, but clear traces of a medieval deer park and laterparklands are evident. These are now covered by arable farmland, pasture with parklandand recreational uses.



59 Lea Valley Marshes


2.1.49 This is a wetland landscape of unified character, with nature conservation and recreationdominant. The Lee Valley Regional Park designation covers this whole area. The westernedge is very crisp, the urban settlement held in by the railway, while the eastern edge issofter and more rural, with extensive woodland west of the B194 and mixed farmland andnursery production further north. Within the Park there are a range of sub-character areas,including savannah, orchid meadow, birchwood and canal towpath.



20


60 Middle Lea Valley South


2.1.51 Less ‘watery’ than either of the other two areas of the southern Lea valley, due to greaterareas of dry land and the difficulty of gaining access to the river or waterbodies. A complexand varied mix of industrial, commercial, urban and rural land uses, with many glasshousesalong its eastern flank and extensive operational and derelict minerals sites. The railwaycombines with housing development to provide a strong urban edge to the west.



61 Broxbournebury


2.1.53 This area is now a mix of parkland, converted parkland and mixed farmland, with smallareas of woodland scattered throughout and an extensive golf course in former parkland.The A10(T) cuts a swathe through it but it is surprisingly undisturbed by the urban area tothe east.



62 Broxbourne Woods Complex


2.1.55 Dense and extensive hornbeam coppice and forestry plantations in a linked series ofwoodlands on strongly undulating terrain. A very unified landscape with few other features.The north-south line of the ancient Ermine Street through the woodland is a strong historicfeature.



63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands


2.1.57 Generally undulating parkland and estate farmland with large mansions now used forinstitutional purposes. Elsewhere this is a landscape of isolated farms and farm cottages,with some influence along the northern edge from Hertford’s urban fringe. Bayfordburyoccupies a sloping site and is characterised by its semi-natural oak/hornbeam woodland


21

and many ornamental trees. Brickendonbury and Balls Park occupy a plateau divided by abrook, which is a strong landscape feature, and they are surrounded by arable farmland.


2.1.58 Improve and Reinforce.

64 Hertford Heath


2.1.59 An area of gently undulating wooded farmland, much of it pasture, with extensive areas ofwoodland and heath. At the heart of this rural area lies Haileybury College, which alsoinfluences the only settlement in the area, from which it takes its name. The damp acidgrasslands and relic heath are ecologically and visually important.



65 Middle Lea Valley West


2.1.61 Pastoral farmland within a flat valley landform. Grazing marshes along both banks of theriver (which is not a prominent feature) and parkland which is well integrated and locallyprominent. Mineral extraction tends to be on the valley side rather than in the valleybottom, so there are few extensive waterbodies except at the western end betweenHatfield and Hatfield Hyde.



66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury Settled Farmland


2.1.63 A mainly pastoral area of small hamlets, with parkland and mineral extraction along itssouthern edge and urban influence at its eastern extent.



67 Bramfield Plain



22

2.1.65 A very gently undulating to flat area of open arable land, unsettled and with little woodland.It is enclosed to the north west by the wooded ridge of the Tewin-Datchworth plateau andby river valleys to south (Mimram) and east (Rib).



68 Lower Beane Valley


2.1.67 A narrow flat flood plain with steeply rising valley sides. The river is not dominant enoughto be a major landscape feature, but the valley does differ significantly from the arableuplands to either side, not least in the congregation within it of transport features, such asroad and railway. A mix of pasture and woodland is typical throughout, with the southernpart strongly influenced by ribbon development, industry and mineral extraction, while thenorthern part is more rural and remote.



69 Stoneyhills


2.1.69 Gently undulating light arable upland and valley slopes between the Rib and Beanevalleys, widening to the north. Generally large irregular fields and woodlands on very lightsoils, with several blocks of ancient woodland in the south. Very rural, with few settlementsbut many mineral extraction sites.



70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes


2.1.71 An upland arable landscape, more enclosed by woodland than the open area to the northand with very strong overlying planned parkland characteristics within Woodhall, whichmakes a strong statement, contained within its extensive brick wall yet visible over a widearea.




23

71 Benington-Sacombe Ridge


2.1.73 An area of ancient countryside with small woods, winding green lanes and numerousstream-eroded valleys. It consists of a narrow, gently undulating settled plateau, with acontinuous ribbon of development along its length from Benington southwards. Althoughpredominantly in agricultural production, this is also a more populated area, with a slightcommuter character derived from the substantial houses in large plots and a variance incharacter through the different linked villages.



72 Munden Valley


2.1.75 This area is a group of small, remote pastoral and arable valleys carrying tributaries to theriver Beane, dominated by important relic woodlands. The Old Bourne is a smallwatercourse with wetland flora but no trees, lying within a wide, shallow valley, while theDane End Tributary, often no more than a ditch, has its course marked by non-wetlandtrees within a long, narrow valley with moderately steep sides and a gentle gradient. It is along-settled area, with grouped hamlets.



73 High Cross Plateau


2.1.77 A two-speed landscape. Open undulating clay plateau bisected by fast A-road alongancient route with several wayside settlements. In arable cultivation with several ancientwoodlands. Noticeably larger field pattern to the east of the A10, without settlements; moreancient, smaller scale to the west, with settlements. The linear area west of The Bourneshares some of the characteristics of the Sacombe estate farmland but does not lie withinit, relating rather to the wooded farmland to its north.



74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland



24

2.1.79 Strongly undulating wooded arable farmland and parkland. Rural, remote and tranquil.The parkland and farmland are unified by the consistency of architectural style and thepresence of many mature hedgerow oaks and parkland trees. Sacombe House isdiscreetly concealed within its parkland, which is set tightly around the house, with theestate farmland spread out to the south and more visible.



75 Lower Rib Valley


2.1.81 Flat valley bottom with extensive wetland vegetation. Extensive mineral extraction on bothvalley slopes.


2.1.82 Restore condition to maintain character.

76 Ware Parklands


2.1.83 Gently undulating ridge above river valleys with narrow steep slopes to Lea and Rib rivers,with small pasture and large arable fields. On the ridge there is relic parkland andextensive mineral extraction, with a strong urban edge to the south east. Strong influenceof road transport network.



77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Flood plain


2.1.85 Urbanised public amenity/nature conservation site between Hertford and Ware, with somerural characteristics; large area of public open space, divided between formal/informalsports facilities at Hartham and a broad area of predominantly wet grassland of joint natureconservation and informal recreation value (Kings Mead). The eastern end of this area ismore urbanised, with the Lee Navigation a particular feature through Ware.




25

78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes


2.1.87 A complex semi-urban area with two settlements and combined-urban edge and rural landuses.



79 Amwell Flood plain


2.1.89 An area of man-made lakes and wetland vegetation with a 20th century character belied bythe presence of the manicured surrounds of the New River on the south-western edge. Asignificant transport route with an urban tinge to its character. An open wetland landscapewithin a flat river valley bottom, extensively wooded, comprising the River Lea Navigation,the Lea river and extensive flooded former mineral workings, some of which have beenrestored as nature reserves.



80 Rye Meads


2.1.91 A curious mix of utilities such as sewage works, leisure activities (marina) and the quasi-rural character of nature reserves and historic artefacts in partly restored former mineralworkings, around highly important remnant flood plain grazing grasslands.



81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands


2.1.93 Parkland and arable farmland on gently undulating south-facing slope interrupted byvalleys of the Stort’s tributaries. Cultural pattern overrides topographical change. An areaof ancient settlements, dominated by the many parklands on the south-facing slopes abovethe Stort valley.




26

82 River Stort


2.1.95 An enclosed landscape, focused on the Stort Navigation with its locks and the more naturaloriginal river with its side loops. The landform is dominant, although the watercourseswithin it are relatively insignificant visually. The valley is predominantly rural with significantlocalised urban impact, varying with the degree to which industry is water related.



83 Hunsdon Plateau


2.1.97 Large-scale open arable farmland on flat upland plateau, with smaller fields and woodlandto north west of Hunsdon.



84 High Wych Slopes


2.1.99 A south-facing slope of mixed farming within a small irregular field pattern, usually ditchedrather than hedged. An area of transition, showing increasing urban influence in thesouthern part and with links to the parkland area to the west. Around High Wych there arewide stretches of open farmland with old houses nestling in small coppices. The flintchurch is surrounded by the school, ancient houses and thatched cottages.



85 Thorley Uplands


2.1.101 The western half of this area is an extensive area of monotonous flat arable farmland,lacking vertical elements except for infrequent large blocks of woodland, young roadsidetrees and the occasional large barn. Very large fields with no hedges are locallycharacteristic, while isolated farms with associated groups of farm buildings add incidentand a sense of productivity. Cattle in meadows around the farms add occasionalmovement to what is otherwise a static landscape. The eastern half of this area consists ofsloping arable farmland around a tributary stream on the west bank of the river Stort. It toois arable land, with some pasture and isolated farms with the occasional group of three or


27

four cottages. The area is remote but lacks tranquility, due to the aircraft overhead comingand going from Stansted.



86 Perry Green Uplands


2.1.103 Undulating settled uplands with meandering lanes linking hamlets and small villages ofvarying ages. Predominantly a medium-scale arable landscape of neat hedges and fewhedgerow trees. Open, with narrow sunken lanes and very extensive views out but limitedviews within.



87 Middle Ash Valley


2.1.105 Narrow flat river valley floor, falling gradually to the south, with steep undulating slopes oneither side.



88 Lower Ash Valley


2.1.107 Narrow flat river valley floor with steep, undulating wooded slopes on either side.Distinctive wetland vegetation and historic settlement with traditional dairy and sheepfarming create a picturesque rural setting. The impact of settlement is absorbed andcontained by topography. There is a clear distinction between the Ash and the Lea valleys,with the Ash valley concealed by extensive vegetation around its mouth. Within this area,Easneye stands out as a distinctive sub area for its topography and vegetation cover.



89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands



28

2.1.109 Open, gently undulating arable farmland with clustered settlements and few roads, on aclay plateau of varying width between the valleys of the rivers Rib and Ash. The area canbe divided into four sub-areas: the Fanhams Plateau; the central plateau area;Westland/Wellpond Green and Braughing Friars. Arable cultivation has removed fieldboundaries and reduced woodland cover and the significant settlements lie within the rivervalleys, with isolated farms set above them on the edge of the plateau.



90 Middle Rib Valley


2.1.111 Short, steep valley slopes with a V-shaped valley floor and little wetland, with woodland onthe steepest slopes. Historic Youngsbury lies on the north bank.



91 Upper Rib Valley


2.1.113 Variable valley landform, within which watercourses are not a significant feature, openingout to a broader undulating arable valley. Between Barwick Ford and The Lordship andagain around Braughing it is an undulating arable valley, while north and south of Standonit is much narrower. The ancient settlements on the valley slopes are a notable localfeature.



92 Puckeridge Parklands


2.1.115 Group of disturbed parklands along the A10 Roman road, on the upper slopes of the Ribvalley.



93 Hadhams Valley



29

2.1.117 Marked valley formation with flat valley floor, within which the river Ash is marked only bylinear wetland vegetation rather than as a visible watercourse. It is edged by steepundulating slopes, some densely vegetated, some in arable cultivation, with little pasture.It is characterised chiefly by ancient settlements with historic houses: Much Hadham andLittle Hadham, which merit sub-areas.



North Herts

2.1.119 The draft of North Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areas provides written descriptionsof each landscape character area within North Hertfordshire District with some overlap intoadjoining districts. The “Strategy and Guidelines for Managing Change” are still beingformulated. All of the Character Areas are of relevance to the study area and thedescriptions of landscape character are as follows:

200 Peters Green Plateau


2.1.120 Gently rolling elevated landscape plateau defined by steep sided incised valleys to east,west and south. Many large exposed arable fields with smaller pockets of grazing aroundsettlements. Occasional scattered dwellings. Field pattern degraded with relatively fewremaining hedgerows. Remnant mature hedgerow trees. Mixture of woodland types,some mature, well-established, deciduous woodland interspersed with more recent mixedwoodland plantations. Area to the north truncated by the man-made landscape featuresassociated with Luton Airport.

201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom


2.1.121 Steeply sided dry valleys with Whiteway Bottom Lane following the bottom of the valley andthe B652 Kimpton Bottom Road to the south. To the north of Whiteways small windinglanes cross perpendicular to the line of the valley. Predominantly arable use. WhitewaysBottom is largely devoid of settlement whilst Kimpton Bottom has a linear settlement.Locally smaller field parcels on the more steeply sloping land. Scattered woodland parcelsalong the top edge of valley sides.

202 Breachwood Green Ridge


2.1.122 Gently rolling plateau ridge landscape. Mainly large arable fields with smaller pockets ofgrazing around settlements and occasional scattered dwellings. Field pattern degraded.Mature remnant trees, remaining hedgerows of diverse species. Woodlands old,


30

established and some more modern mixed deciduous/evergreen plantations. Strongcultural pattern remains based on layout of lanes and older woodlands.

204 River Mimram


2.1.123 The valley floor of the river Mimram is characterised by extensive flood meadows. Theland is given over to rough grazing mainly cattle with some horse grazing adjacent tohouses and farmsteads. The field pattern is largely lost through grazing of hedges, leavingremnant hedgerow trees and replacement post and barbed wire boundaries. Mature treesare scattered throughout the area with the only notable woodland to the north. Species mixis dominated by willow and poplar. Vegetation frames views and allows occasionalglimpses down the river corridor. The smaller, more intimate scale of the landscape isemphasised by the enclosing large-scale arable landscape.

205 Codocote Plateau


2.1.124 Gently rolling upland landscape plateau defined to the south and west by the RiverMimram. To the north the area merges into the Knebworth Parkland. The plateau isincised by smaller valleys creating a locally undulating landform. Large sized regularshaped fields mainly used for arable production but with parcels of grazing land andpaddocks adjacent to Codicote. Larger blocks of ancient woodland in the north adjacent toKnebworth, smaller copses further south. Localised pockets of acid heathland habitats.

206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath


2.1.125 Extensive area of heathland which has been developed and settled. Complex pattern oflarge plots with ribbon development following network of local lanes. Only part of thissettlement lies within the district boundary. Linear blocks of woodland associated with localdevelopment.

207 Datchworth Settled Slopes


2.1.126 Gently undulating landform enclosing the settlement of Knebworth. Area is open, mainlyarable farmland. Parkland to the north given over to use as a Golf Course. Area abuts therailway in the north, which encloses the southern end of Stevenage. Open views to edgesof Knebworth.

208 Knebworth



31

2.1.127 Mature woodland in the north consisting of ancient oak and some hornbeam coppice. Thearea has developed from acid heathlands and includes pockets of wood pasture and heathgrasslands. To the south lies the main area of parkland which includes numerous matureindividual trees. The woods and parkland also incorporate a number of springs, streams,ponds and bogland areas.

209 Almshoe Plateau


2.1.128 Gently undulating plateau. Open, exposed landscape with views out in all directions. Verylarge arable fields with localised remnant sections of hedgerow. Area includes smalldeciduous woodland copses. Almshoebury Farmstead located on exposed promontory tonorth.

210 Langley Scarp


2.1.129 Steeply sloping chalk landscape formed by a long narrow belt of land facing the Langleyvalley and in the south merging into the wooded landscape of Knebworth. Field sizes varyin size, but generally large sized. Pattern varies between regular and irregular sized fields.Fields enclosed by hawthorn hedges. Area is well wooded, with mature deciduouswoodland parcels. Long distance views over the Langley valley to the east.

211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden


2.1.130 Gently rolling upland landscape plateau, which has been dissected by incised valleys intosmaller, but still interlinked network of narrow arms extending from the scarp in the north tothe lower lying but more developed land to the north of Codicote. Generally more openarable land in the north and more complex patterns to the south. Parcels of grazing landadjacent to settlements, varying sizes of woodland parcels often visually interlocking toframe views. Field pattern large in arable areas, however, landscape is often crossed byold winding and sunken lanes. Parkland is a distinctive feature of the area. Individualremnant mature hedgerow trees are a distinctive feature in the north but remain an integralpart of the hedgerows to the south where coppice woodland is also a common feature.Generally scattered settlements and farmsteads with occasional larger settlements.

212 Lilley Bottom


2.1.131 Gently undulating arable landscape, defined by sloping valley sides. Fields enclosed byclosely cropped patchy hedges. Views generally filtered by patchy vegetation althoughsome longer panoramic views from higher ground. Woodlands/plantations particularly onhigher fringes, but generally scattered across the area. Red brick village settlements follow


32

the line of the road in the valley bottom. Localised pasture and horse-grazing paddocks onfringes of settlements.

213 Chilterns Scarp


2.1.132 Steeply sloping chalk landscape scarp. Arable land along the upper reaches with highproportion of sheep grazing land on the lower slopes. Field sizes vary in scale with sheepgrazing areas enclosed by post and barbed wire. Area is generally well woodedinterspersed with pockets of regenerating scrubland on the lower slopes. Part of the scarpis managed as a chalk grassland site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

214 Langley Valley


2.1.133 Large scale rolling landform. Predominantly in arable land use but with pockets of grazingon the steeper slopes in the north and adjacent to settlements at St Ippolyts and Langley.Field sizes vary with extensive arable land to the south west of Hitchin and smaller fieldsassociated with grazing land. Hedges generally well trimmed with remnant mature trees.High proportion of stag-headed trees to the north. Scattered settlements and farmsteads.Parkland as a notable feature widely spread over the area. Large number of scattereddetracting features.

215 West of Stevenage Plateau


2.1.134 Rolling landform disguised by mature enclosed character. Smaller scale more intimatehistoric landscape characterised by winding lanes, smaller settlements and scatteredfarmsteads in the local vernacular and historic place names. Land use mixed arable andgrazing. High proportion of mature tree cover.

216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley


2.1.135 To the south the rolling landform in a fold running north-south gradually merges into thegently undulating to low lying landform to the north. Area changes in character graduallybetween the enclosed historic landscape in the south and the large scale open, exposedarable landscape in the north. Southern section is characterised by small plantations andcopses scattered over the area whilst to the north there are very few hedges and trees butlinear shelter belts feature. The River Ivel corridor has a mature woodland setting and hasbeen partly developed for recreational purposes.

217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys



33

2.1.136 Traditional cattle grazed water meadows with poplar, willow and ash trees along thewatercourses. Self seeded mature hawthorn also randomly distributed across the area.Area has a mature landscape character, trees restrict views. Area well defined by urbandevelopment (Hitchin). General change of land use adjacent to Ickleford where land ispredominantly used for horse grazing and stabling. Paddocks are defined by post andbarbed wire fencing. Area is crossed, in several locations, by the mainline railway, whichruns on embankment. Oughtonhead Common, to the west, managed as a local naturereserve.

218 Pirton Lowlands


2.1.137 Large scale open, flat farming landscape given over predominantly to arable production.Remnant hedges, gappy and predominantly hawthorn but with occasional mature trees.Hedges generally well trimmed. Very little woodland cover except adjacent to settlements.Settlement pattern is nucleated with older settlements maintaining the use of localvernacular materials. Occasional farmsteads are less well integrated in terms of materialsand general scale of farm buildings. Additionally the A600, Bedford Road, is quiteprominent in the east.

219 Baldock Gap


2.1.138 Steeply sloping Chalk Scarp, eroded by local valleys, mostly dry, to form an undulatinglandform. Two deeply incised valleys south west of Weston still carry streams, which feeda number of water features. Extensive arable fields of cereals with occasional patches ofpasture land. Sparse woodland cover. General lack of development.

220 Weston Park


2.1.139 Gently sloping chalk plateau overlain by clay soils. Predominantly arable land use but withpockets of grazing adjacent to Weston Parkland to southeast of village. Area is wellwooded – predominantly ancient deciduous woodlands. Density of woodland covercreates a sense of enclosure and enhances the character of the landscape. Area crossedby a network of winding lanes, generally open and affording views over the plateau.

221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries


2.1.140 Incised chalk landscape with water courses. Predominantly arable land use, organicenclosure pattern associated with an irregular network of winding lanes to the north andwest of Luffenhall. The Beane valley to the north and west has regular rectilinear fieldboundaries often curving, set within an earlier organic pattern of boundaries.


34

222 Weston – Green End Plateau


2.1.141 Flat, gently sloping chalk plateau with some gentle undulations overlain by clay soils.Predominantly arable land use but with extensive blocks of ancient deciduous woodlandcover. Density of woodland cover creates a sense of enclosure and enhances the maturecharacter of the landscape. Pockets of grazing land adjacent to settlements. Area crossedby a network of winding lanes, densely scattered hedgerows and clusters of waysidedwellings and small dispersed settlements or farmsteads.

223 Wallington Scarp Slopes


2.1.142 Sloping chalk scarp, steeper in places nearer the crest and shallower at the transition tothe lowlands. The scarp face is incised locally by spring fed streams. Rectilinear fieldswith curving boundaries set within an earlier organic pattern of lanes and primaryboundaries. Predominant arable land use.

224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands


2.1.143 Rolling chalk landform, eroded by a complex network of shallow dry valleys. Smallrounded chalk knolls common. Large scale arable fields often with remnant fieldboundaries, mainly well trimmed hawthorn hedges. The core of the area has a pattern ofregular rectilinear fields often with curving boundaries. Boundaries are often based on anolder more organic pattern of lanes and primary boundaries. To the east of the Ashwell toSlip End Road and west of Newham the field patterns become more regular with strongerpatterns of more rectilinear field boundaries and lines.

225 Hinxworth Lowlands


2.1.144 Very gently rolling landform with predominantly large scale arable fields but with smallerpaddocks and grazing land adjacent to settlements or water courses. Small shelter beltsand tree groups frequent. Settlements of Ashwell and Hinxworth on higher ground. In thesouth the field pattern is characteristically made up of rectilinear fields often with curvingboundaries based on an earlier organic pattern of lanes and primary boundaries. To thenorth of the District/County boundary, the field pattern changes to an ordered layout ofrectilinear fields and lanes with straight boundaries.

226 Steeple Morden


2.1.145 Steeple Morden is one of several nucleated settlements, extending eastwards, which run ina line (probably a spring line) parallel to the foot of the chalk scarp. Gently rolling chalk


35

landform with a strong pattern of geometrically ordered fields and lanes. South of SteepleMorden fields are large (greater than 8 hectares), whilst the parcel to the east of Ashwellhas medium to large sized fields. Northefield Road to the north of Ashwell, runs on a slightrise across the landscape. The land falls away gently on each side of the road. Vastacreage of arable land on both side of the road only interrupted by the recent tree plantingalong the road. Some redundant field boundaries also noted. Area is very exposed andwill be bleak during periods of seasonal weather. Absence of settlements adds to the lackof variety and homogeneity of the landscape.

227 Odsey to Royston


2.1.146 Gently rolling landform with localised chalk knolls (outliers). Large scale arable fields setout in an ordered pattern of rectilinear fields and lanes with straight boundaries. Extensiveplantations around Ashwell and Morden otherwise linear tree belts along field boundaries.Remnant field boundaries.

228 Royston Scarp Slopes


2.1.147 Chalk scarp slope incised by water erosion but now dry valleys. Undulating landform withsteeper slopes towards the upper plateau edge. Large scale arable fields with orderedpattern of rectilinear field boundaries and lanes with straight boundaries. Occasionalfarmsteads. Small tree plantations set out in discrete coverts. Individual tree belts.

229 Therfield – Reed Plateau


2.1.148 Gently rolling landform. Predominantly arable but with pockets of grazing land adjacent tosettlements. Generally well wooded with small pockets of ancient deciduous woodland anddensely scattered hedgerow trees. Network of ancient winding lanes and an extensivefootpath network specially around the settlements. Organic enclosure pattern associatedwith an irregular network of winding lanes. Field sizes to the south generally large sized,however, between Therfield and Reed fields are small to medium sized. Scatteredfarmsteads and wayside dwellings.

231 Nuthampstead


2.1.149 Gently rolling landform eroded into a series of shallow local valleys. Predominantly arableuse but land to the south east given over to former MOD airfield with more recent extensiveplantation at Scales Park, to the south east. The area is well wooded with a mixture ofancient woodland parcels and more recent plantations. Organic enclosure patternassociated with an irregular network of winding lanes. Field sizes are generally medium to


36

large sized. Nuthampstead is a network of dispersed farmsteads strung out along the localroad network.

232 Barley Scarp Slopes


2.1.150 Chalk scarp slope incised by water erosion. Barley stands on sloping ground squeezedbetween Wardington Bottom to the west and Cumberton Bottom to the east forming abroad promontory of chalk, which falls away on three sides. Land use is predominantlyarable. This is an area of transition with a complex pattern of field sizes and boundaries.To the north and west, the field pattern is typical of the adjacent areas of large geometricrectilinear fields. Around the settlement and in particular to the south of the village centrethe pattern changes to one of small to medium sized rectilinear fields often with curvingboundaries, wet within an earlier organic pattern of lanes and primary boundaries. To thesouth east of Shaftenhoe End the pattern becomes more irregular, one of a more organicframework associated with the irregular network of winding lanes. The area is well woodedto the south but more open to the north. There are long distance views to the north fromvantage points on the scarp.

Landscape Character Area for Unsurveyed part of Hertfordshire

Area A

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Rolling topography• Arable predominates• Sunken lanes• Small enclosure pattern with mature hedgerows• Copses and woodland blocks• Clustering of farmsteads and settlements• Strong sense of enclosure

Area B

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Rolling topography• Arable predominates• Medium scale enclosure enclosed by intact hedgerows or defunct hedgerows with

mature trees• Woodland blocks and copses• Small settlements and farms• Semi-enclosed to open sense of enclosure

Areas CI, CII and CIII

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-


37

• Gently rolling landform with shallow local valleys• Extensive woodland blocks• Irregular field pattern• Medium to large enclosure with defunct or managed hedgerows• Farmsteads along the road network• Open to semi-enclosed sense of enclosure, depending on placement of woodland

blocks

Area D

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Gently rolling landform• Dominant arable land use• Large enclosure pattern, usually without hedgerows• Isolated woodland blocks• Dispersed farmsteads• Open sense of enclosure

Area E

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Chalk valley with sloping sides• Mixed land use• Some parkland• Willows predominate along river course• Small to medium enclosure pattern enclosed by managed hedgerows• Adjoins urban area of Buntingford• Strong sense of enclosure

Area F

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Flat to gently sloping plateau• Predominantly arable• Extensive woodland blocks• Medium scale field pattern enclosed by hedgerows• Clustering of settlements• Strong sense of enclosure

Area GI and GII

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Steeply sloping chalk valley sides incised by water courses• Arable land use• Irregular medium to large field pattern with defunct or managed hedgerows• Small blocks of woodland• Semi-enclosed sense of enclosure


38

Area H

KEY CHARACTERISTICS:-• Flat to gently sloping• Parkland, woodland blocks and tree belts predominate• Pasture hedgerows enclosed small to medium fields• Estates houses and cottages• Strong sense of enclosure

2.1.151 Potential capacity of these broad character areas have been tabulated in Table A2.1

Table A2.1: Summary Matrix of Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations Northern Section ofEast Hertfordshire (established from site survey June 2003)

Character Area Major urban extensions(>5ha) and new settlements

Small urban extensions(<5ha)

A M-H MB M-H M-HC M-H M-HD H HE M MF M MG H M-HH M-H M

Historic Assets within Landscape Character Areas

2.1.152 The density (determined through visual analysis of relative density of GIS datasetinformation) and nature of historic landscape assets within each Landscape Character Areawithin the Study area are set out in Tables A2.3 – A2.5 below. Where the overall density ofhistoric assets is high these character areas have been excluded from further considerationwithin the sites database for the study. The overall density is unweighted and scoring isdetermined as follows:Table A2.2: Scoring SystemScore Sensitivity Comment

moderate Moderate recorded density predominates or wheremoderate/high ( / ) is balanced by low density.

/ moderate/high high recorded density ( ) occurs up to twice inthe table.

high where high recorded density ( ) occurs morethan twice in the table

X none No recorded historic assets


39

TABLE A2.3 – ESSEX – Density of Historic Assets Recorded on GISCHARACTER AREAS

Sche

duled

Mon

umen

ts

SMR

Site

s

List

ed B

uild

ings

Cons

erva

tion

Area

s

Regi

ster

ed P

arks

and

Gard

ens

Regi

ster

ed B

attle

field

s

Ancie

nt L

ands

cape

s

Com

mon

Lan

d

Ancie

nt W

oodl

and

Over

all D

ensit

y

A1 North West EssexChalk Farmlands

/ x/ n/a x /

B1 Central EssexFarmlands

/ n/a

B2 North EssexFarmlands

/ x n/a x

B3 Blackwater/StourFarmlands

x/ / x/ n/a x

B4 Gosfield WoodedFarmlands

x / x/ n/a x /

C1 Cam Valley / n/a x x

C2 Stort Valley x n/a x /

C3 Lee Valley / x/ n/a /

C4 Roding Valley / / n/a x /

C5 Chelmer Valley x / n/a x /

C6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower ChelmerValleys

x/ n/a x/ x

C7 Colne Valley x / x/ n/a x /

C8 Stour Valley x/ / n/a x x

D1 Epping Forest &Ridges

/ x/ n/a /

D2 Brentwood Hills x/ / n/a /

D3 Danbury Hills x / n/a x /

D4 Tiptree Ridge x / x n/a x /

E1 South EssexFarmlands

x x x n/a x

E2 South Colchester / x n/a x /


40

FarmlandsE3 Tendring Plain x / x n/a x

E4 North ColchesterFarmlands

x / x n/a x

F2 Crouch & RoachFarmland

x x x n/a x

F5 NorthBlackwater/ColneCoastal Farmlands

x/ / x n/a x

F6 Mersea Island x n/a xG1 Harlow & Environs / / x n/a x

G2 Chelmsford &Environs

x / n/a x / x /

G3 South EssexCoastal Towns

x / x n/a x x

G4 Colchester &Environs

n/a x x

TABLE A2.4 – CAMBRIDGESHIRE – Density of Historic Assets Recorded on GIS

CountyCharacterArea

Local Character Area (Cambridge GreenBelt)

Sche

duled

Mon

umen

ts

Cons

erva

tion

Area

s

Regi

ster

ed P

arks

and

Gard

ens

Ancie

nt W

oodl

and

Over

all D

ensit

y

South-eastClay Hills

N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) /

Fenlands East-Cambridge Chalklands (part) x /Outside Cambridge Green Belt x x /

Chalklands North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands(part)

x x /

Cam River Valley (North) x x /East Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Chalklands(part)

x x x

Fulbourn Fen Bowl x /Gog Magog Hills x x /Granta Levels x xHobson’s Brook x x xNewton Chalk Hills x x /Rhee River Valley x x /Wimpole Ridge (Part) x x x x xCam River Valley (South) – (part) x x /Bourn Brook Valley (part) x x


41

Outside Cambridge Green Belt x /WesternClaylands

Cam River Valley (south) – (part) x x /

Bourn Brook Valley – (part) xWimpole Ridge (east) – (part) x x x x xMadingley Ridge x /North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands(part)

x x

Outside Cambridge Green BeltOuse Valley N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) x x /

TABLE A2.5 – HERTFORDSHIRE – Density of Historic Assets Recorded on GISSouthern Hertfordshire Areas within EastHertfordshire DC

Sche

duled

Mon

umen

ts

Cons

erva

tion

Area

s

Regi

ster

ed P

arks

and

Gard

ens

Com

mon

Lan

d

Ancie

nt W

oodl

and

Over

all D

ensit

y

37 Datchworth Settled Slopes x x x x38 Aston Estate Farmland x x /

39 MiddleBeane Valley x /

40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland /

41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and DatchworthUplands

x x / /

42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland x x/ /

43 Mimram Valley Parklands x x / /

44 Panshanger Parkland x x /

45 Welwyn Fringes x x /

48 West End – Brickendon Wooded Slopes x x /

49 Little Berkhamsted Ridge Settlements x /

55 Theobalds Estate x x x x56 Cheshunt Common x x x x57 Thunderfield Ridges x x /

58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands x x59 Lea Valley Marshes x x x x


42

60 Middle Lea Valley South x x x x61 Broxbournebury x x62 Broxbourne Woods Complex x x /

63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and BallsParklands

x/ x /

64 Hertford Heath x/ x/ /

65 Middle Lea Valley West x x66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury67 Bramfield Plain x x /

68 Lower Beane Valley x x / /

69 Stoneyhills x x / /

70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes x / /

71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge x / /

72 Munden Valley x x /

73 High Cross Plateau x /

74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland x x75 Lower Rib Valley x x x x76 Ware Parklands x x / x

77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Floodplain x x /

78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes x /

79 Amwell Floodplain x x /

80 Rye Meads x x81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands x82 River Stort x x x83 Hunsdon Plateau x x /

84 High Wych Slopes x x x85 Thorley Uplands x x x86 Perry Green Uplands x x /

87 Middle Ash Valley x x /

88 Lower Ash Valley x x /

89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands x/ x /

90 Middle Rib Valley / x


43

91 Upper Rib Valley / x /

92 Puckeridge Parklands x x93 Hadhams Valley x/ x /

North Hertfordshire DC Landscape Character Areas200 Peters Green Plateau X X x x201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom X X /

202 Breachwood Green Ridge X X203 Whitwell Valley204 River Mimram X X x205 Codicote Plateau /

206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath /

207 Datchworth Settled Slopes X X X X208 Knebworth X209 Almshoe Plateau X X X X X X210 Langley Scarp X211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden /

212 Lilley Bottom X X /

213 Chilterns Scarp X214 Langley Valley X X X215 Wymondley and Titmore Green X X X X216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley X X X /

217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys X X X218 Pirton Lowlands X X X219 Baldock Gap X X X X220 Weston Park X X X /

221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries X X X X222 Weston – Green End Plateau223 Wallington Scarp Slopes X X X X224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands X X225 Hinxworth Lowlands X X226 Steeple Morden X X X X227 Odsey to Royston X X X X X X228 Royston Scarp Slopes X X X /

229 Therfield – Reed Plateau X X230 Barkway Plateau X X /

231 Nuthampstead X X X /


44

232 Barley Scarp Slope X /

Northern section of East Hertfordshire, established from site survey June 2003Character Area

Sche

duled

Monu

men

ts

Cons

erva

tion

Area

s

Regi

ster

edPa

rks a

ndGa

rden

s

Com

mon

Lan

d

Ancie

ntW

oodl

and

Over

allDe

nsity

AB x/ x x /C x / / /

D x x /E x x x x x xF x x /G x/ x x x xH x x x /

Tranquil Areas in relation to the Study AreaTable A2.6 – Essex Summary Matrix of Character Areas in Relation to Tranquil AreasArea

LCA

outs

ide

Tran

quil A

rea

Part

of L

CA w

ithin

Tran

quil A

rea

Majo

rity

of

LCA

with

in T

ranq

uil A

rea

A1 North West Essex Chalk FarmlandsB1 Central Essex FarmlandsB2 North Essex FarmlandsB3 Blackwater/Stour FarmlandsB4 Gosfield Wooded FarmlandsC1 Cam ValleyC2 Stort ValleyC3 Lee ValleyC4 Roding ValleyC5 Chelmer ValleyC6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower Chelmer ValleysC7 Colne ValleyC8 Stour ValleyD1 Epping Forest & RidgesD2 Brentwood HillsD3 Danbury HillsD4 Tiptree RidgeE1 South Essex FarmlandsE2 South Colchester FarmlandsE3 Tendring Plain


45

E4 North Colchester FarmlandsF2 Crouch & Roach FarmlandF5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal FarmlandsF6 Mersea IslandG1 Harlow & EnvironsG2 Chelmsford & EnvironsG3 South Essex Coastal TownsG4 Colchester & Environs

Table A2.7 – CambridgeshireSummary Matrix of Character Areas in Relation to Tranquil AreasCountyCharacter Area


LCA

outs

ide

Tran

quil

Area

Par

t of

LC

A wi

thin

Tran

quil A

rea

Majo

rity

of

LCA

with

inTr

anqu

il Are

a

South-east ClayHills

N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt)

Fenlands East-Cambridge Chalklands (part)Outside Cambridge Green Belt

Chalklands North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands(part)Cam River Valley (North)East Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Chalklands(part)Fulbourn Fen BowlGog Magog HillsGranta LevelsHobson’s BrookNewton Chalk HillsRhee River ValleyWimpole Ridge (Part)Cam River Valley (South) – (part)Bourn Brook Valley (part)Outside Cambridge Green Belt

WesternClaylands

Cam River Valley (south) – (part)

Bourn Brook Valley – (part)Wimpole Ridge (east) – (part)Madingley RidgeNorth Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands(part)Outside Cambridge Green Belt


46

Ouse Valley N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt)

Table A2.8 – HertfordshireSummary Matrix of Character Areas in Relation to Tranquil AreasSouthern Hertfordshire Areas within East HertfordshireDC

LCA

outs

ide T

ranq

uil A

rea

Part

of L

CA w

ithin

Tra

nqui

lAr

ea

Majo

rity

of

LCA

with

inTr

anqu

il Are

a

37 Datchworth Settled Slopes38 Aston Estate Farmland39 MiddleBeane Valley40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and Datchworth Uplands42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland43 Mimram Valley Parklands44 Panshanger Parkland45 Welwyn Fringes48 West End – Brickendon Wooded Slopes49 Little Berkhamsted Ridge Settlements55 Theobalds Estate56 Cheshunt Common57 Thunderfield Ridges58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands59 Lea Valley Marshes60 Middle Lea Valley South61 Broxbournebury62 Broxbourne Woods Complex63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands64 Hertford Heath65 Middle Lea Valley West66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury67 Bramfield Plain68 Lower Beane Valley69 Stoneyhills70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge72 Munden Valley73 High Cross Plateau74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland75 Lower Rib Valley76 Ware Parklands


47

77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Floodplain78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes79 Amwell Floodplain80 Rye Meads81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands82 River Stort83 Hunsdon Plateau84 High Wych Slopes85 Thorley Uplands86 Perry Green Uplands87 Middle Ash Valley88 Lower Ash Valley89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands90 Middle Rib Valley91 Upper Rib Valley92 Puckeridge Parklands93 Hadhams Valley

North Hertfordshire DC Landscape Character Areas200 Peters Green Plateau201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom202 Breachwood Green Ridge203 Whitwell Valley Information on location n/a204 River Mimram205 Codicote Plateau206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath207 Datchworth Settled Slopes208 Knebworth209 Almshoe Plateau210 Langley Scarp211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden212 Lilley Bottom213 Chilterns Scarp214 Langley Valley215 Wymondley and Titmore Green216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys218 Pirton Lowlands219 Baldock Gap220 Weston Park221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries222 Weston – Green End Plateau223 Wallington Scarp Slopes224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands225 Hinxworth Lowlands226 Steeple Morden227 Odsey to Royston228 Royston Scarp Slopes


48

229 Therfield – Reed Plateau230 Barkway Plateau231 Nuthampstead232 Barley Scarp Slope

Northern section of East Hertfordshire, established from site survey June 2003Character Area

ABCDEFGH2.1.153 Section 2.7 the Rural and Countryside Review analysed landscape capacity (based on the

Essex Landscape Character Assessment methodology), carried out a broad analysis ofhistoric asset density (based on GIS datasets) and determined the location of TranquilAreas in relation to Landscape Character Areas within the Study area. This allowed anassessment of whether Landscape Character Areas are suitable for inclusion in the sitesidentification and assessment process in Stage 3 of the Study. The results for each countyare set out tables A2.9 to A2.12 below.

TABLE A2.9Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search AreasCHARACTER AREAS

Majo

r urb

an ex

tens

ions

(>5h

a) an

d ne

wse

ttlem

ents

Small

urb

an ex

tens

ions

(<5h

a)Ov

erall

Den

sity o

f Hist

oric

Asse

ts

Majo

rity o

f LCA

in T

ranq

uil A

rea

Inclu

sion

with

in S

tage

3 Se

arch

Are

as

A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmlands H H / - No

B1 Central Essex Farmlands M L - YesB2 North Essex Farmlands H H NoB3 Blackwater/Stour Farmlands M M - YesB4 Gosfield Wooded Farmlands H L / - Yes


49

C1 Cam Valley H M - NoC2 Stort Valley H M / - Yes

C3 Lee Valley H L / - Yes

C4 Roding Valley H M / - Yes

C5 Chelmer Valley H M / - Yes

C6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower Chelmer Valleys H L - NoC7 Colne Valley H M / - Yes

C8 Stour Valley H H YesD1 Epping Forest & Ridges H M / - Yes

D2 Brentwood Hills M M / - Yes

D3 Danbury Hills H L / - Yes

D4 Tiptree Ridge H L / - Yes

E1 South Essex Farmlands M L - YesE2 South Colchester Farmlands M L / - Yes

E3 Tendring Plain M L - YesE4 North Colchester Farmlands M M - YesF2 Crouch & Roach Farmland H M - YesF5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal Farmlands H M - YesF6 Mersea Island H M - YesG1 Harlow & Environs M L - YesG2 Chelmsford & Environs M L / - Yes

G3 South Essex Coastal Towns M L - YesG4 Colchester & Environs M L - No


50

TABLE A2.10 – CambridgePotential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search AreasCountyCharacterArea


Majo

r ex

tens

ions

(>

5ha)

an

d ne

wse

ttlem

ents

Small

urb

an ex

tens

ions

(<5h

a)

Over

all D

ensit

y of H

istor

ic As

sets

Majo

rity o

f LCA

in T

ranq

uil A

rea

Inclu

sion

with

in S

tage

3 Se

arch

Are

as

South-eastClay Hills

N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) H H / No

Fenlands East-Cambridge Chalklands (part) H M-H / - YesOutside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H / - Yes

Chalklands North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands(part)

M-H M-H / - Yes

Cam River Valley (North) M-H M / - YesEast Cambridgeshire Fen EdgeChalklands (part)

M-H M-H - Yes

Fulbourn Fen Bowl H M-H / - YesGog Magog Hills H H / - NoGranta Levels H M - YesHobson’s Brook M-H M - YesNewton Chalk Hills H H / - NoRhee River Valley H M / - YesWimpole Ridge (Part) H H X - NoCam River Valley (South) – (part) H M / - YesBourn Brook Valley (part) H H - NoOutside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H / - Yes

WesternClaylands

Cam River Valley (south) – (part) H M-H / - Yes

Bourn Brook Valley – (part) H H - NoWimpole Ridge (east) – (part) H H X NoMadingley Ridge H M-H / - YesNorth Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands(part)

H M-H - Yes

Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M - NoOuse Valley N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) M M / No


51

Table A2.11 – Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search Areas

Southern Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areaswithin East Hertfordshire DC

Majo

r urb

an ex

tens

ions

(>5h

a) an

dne

w se

ttlem

ents

Small

urb

an ex

tens

ions

(<5h

a)

Over

all D

ensit

y of H

istor

ic As

sets

Majo

rity o

f LCA

in T

ranq

uil A

rea

Inclu

sion

with

in S

tage

3 Se

arch

Are

as

37 Datchworth Settled Slopes M M X - Yes38 Aston Estate Farmland M/H M - Yes39 MiddleBeane Valley H M/H - Yes40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland M/H M / - Yes

41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and Datchworth Uplands M L/M / No

42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland M L/M / No

43 Mimram Valley Parklands M L / - Yes

44 Panshanger Parkland (N/A)*

(N/A)* / - No

45 Welwyn Fringes L/M L / - Yes

48 West End – Brickendon Wooded Slopes M L/M / No

49 Little Berkhamsted Ridge Settlements M L/M No55 Theobalds Estate M M x - Yes56 Cheshunt Common H M/H x - Yes57 Thunderfield Ridges M/H M/H / - Yes

58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands M M - Yes59 Lea Valley Marshes M/H M x - Yes60 Middle Lea Valley South L/M L x - Yes61 Broxbournebury M M - Yes62 Broxbourne Woods Complex H H / - No

63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands M M / - Yes

64 Hertford Heath M/H M / - Yes

65 Middle Lea Valley West M/H M - Yes66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury M L/M - Yes


52

67 Bramfield Plain M/H M/H / - Yes

68 Lower Beane Valley M L/M / - Yes

69 Stoneyhills M M / - Yes

70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes M L/M - Yes71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge M/H M / - Yes

72 Munden Valley M/H M No73 High Cross Plateau M/H M - Yes74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland M/H M/H - Yes75 Lower Rib Valley M M x - Yes76 Ware Parklands L/M L/M - Yes77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Floodplain M M / - Yes

78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes M L/M / - Yes

79 Amwell Floodplain M L/M / - Yes

80 Rye Meads H M/H x - Yes81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands M/H M/H - Yes82 River Stort M L/M - Yes83 Hunsdon Plateau M/H M/H - Yes84 High Wych Slopes H M/H - Yes85 Thorley Uplands H M/H - Yes86 Perry Green Uplands M/H M/H - Yes87 Middle Ash Valley M M / No

88 Lower Ash Valley M M / - Yes

89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands H M/H - Yes90 Middle Rib Valley H M/H - Yes91 Upper Rib Valley M/H M/H - Yes92 Puckeridge Parklands M/H M/H - Yes93 Hadhams Valley M M / - Yes

* Area has consent for mineral extraction – potential capacity following/as part of restorationNorth Hertfordshire DC Landscape Character Areas200 Peters Green Plateau M M - Yes201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom M/H M/H / No

202 Breachwood Green Ridge M/H M/H - Yes203 Whitwell Valley Not available -204 River Mimram M M No205 Codicote Plateau M L/M / No


53

206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath M L/M / No

207 Datchworth Settled Slopes M/H M - Yes208 Knebworth M L/M - Yes209 Almshoe Plateau M/H M/H X - Yes210 Langley Scarp M M - Yes211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden M M / No

212 Lilley Bottom M M / - Yes

213 Chilterns Scarp H M/H - Yes214 Langley Valley H M/H - Yes215 Wymondley and Titmore Green M L/M - Yes216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley M/H M/H / - Yes

217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys M M - Yes218 Pirton Lowlands H M/H - Yes219 Baldock Gap H M/H - Yes220 Weston Park M L/M / - Yes

221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries H M/H - Yes222 Weston – Green End Plateau M L/M No

223 Wallington Scarp Slopes H M/H - Yes224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands H M/H - Yes225 Hinxworth Lowlands H M/H - Yes

226 Steeple Morden H M/H No227 Odsey to Royston H M/H X No228 Royston Scarp Slopes M/H M/H / - Yes

229 Therfield – Reed Plateau H H No

230 Barkway Plateau Information not available/

No

231 Nuthampstead M/H M/H / No

232 Barley Scarp Slope M/H M/H / No


54

Table A2.12 – Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search AreasCharacter Area

Majo

r ur

ban

exte

nsio

ns (

>5ha

) an

dne

w se

ttlem

ents

Small

ur

ban

exte

nsio

ns (<

5ha)

Over

all

Dens

ity

ofHi

stor

ic As

sets

Majo

rity

of

LCA

inTr

anqu

il Are

a

Inclu

sion

with

in S

tage

3 Sea

rch

Area

s

A M-H M - YesB M-H M-H / - YesC M-H M-H / - YesD H H / - NoE M M X - YesF M M / - YesG H M-H - YesH M-H M / - Yes


55

3. Appendix 3 – Baseline Demographics

General approach

3.1.1 The overall approach has been to base projections on the updated RES sub-regionalBusiness as Usual1 projection of population and employment because they provide aninternally consistent set of projections, in which long term population affects employmentgrowth. These projections also reflect 2001 Census results and up-to-date nationalpopulation projections and Annual Business Inquiry data. A number of adjustments aremade to reflect local conditions, which the BAU projections were not able to take intoaccount, as follows.

Population

3.1.2 2001 District populations are set to revised Mid-Year Estimates (2001 Census based),which differ very slightly for some districts from the BAU figures.

3.1.3 Data for 2001 district population in private households and number of private householdssourced from Tempro 1.5 Policy dataset (2001 Census based, and compatible with Mid-Year Estimates). The proportion of the total population that is over 16, which is used with16+ activity rates to calculate the workforce in the economic model, is also derived from thesame Tempro source.

3.1.4 Population projections based on RPG housing allocations 2001 to 2011 (apportioned todistricts according to structure plan distributions), with the exception of Cambridge andSouth Cambridgeshire districts, where Cambridge County Council population projectionsfor the Structure Plan Review to 2021 have been used. These are much higher thanadopted Structure Plan based projections to reflect more generous housing provision inemerging policy. Note that the difference between Structure Plan and RPG housingallocations are minimal, equivalent to 0.3% of the study area population by 2021 and withinmargins of error in the projections.

3.1.5 Projections of 2011 to 2021 for the study area (other than Cambridge and S. Cambs) usethe BAU growth rate for the area. Projections beyond 2021 roll forward the BAU growthrate for the area, but constrained to follow the trend of the Government Actuary’s England2001 based population projections to 2041, and so reflect long term change in growthrates.

3.1.6 Other parameters, including household size, sharing and concealed households, vacancyrates have been sourced from recent Chelmer county forecasts for the region to 2021.Average household size is assumed to continue to decline after 2021, but at a decliningrate, falling to 2.08 by 2041. The average household size for migrants is assumed not tofall below 2.2. The 2001 private household and institutional population have been derivedfrom the TEMPRO 1.5 Policy Based (2001 Census based) data set and institutionalpopulation is assumed to remain constant.

1 Bone Wells Associates, Colin Buchanan and Partners and Experian Business

Strategies, March 2003, East of England RES Model Updates


56

Employment

3.1.7 The growth differences between the adapted population projections and the original BAUprojections are relatively minor and do not justify changes to the employment projections,with the exception of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. An adjustment has beenmade to reflect a growth profile of employment consistent with the population projectionsused (i.e. without the decline after 2011 in the BAU projection due to population constraint).This results in an increase of 13,600 in employment in the study area up to 2021 comparedwith BAU i.e. in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.

3.1.8 Beyond 2021 BAU growth for the study area (core and outer) has been rolled forward to2031 on the basis of the BAU 2016 to 2021 rate.

3.1.9 Within the BAU employment projections, there is an implicit growth of direct airportemployment in Uttlesford. This has been estimated, and turns out to be close to theprojections for package 2 (maximum use of one runway) on the updated, non-SERASassumptions of direct airport employment. They are lower than the SERAS projections.Accordingly the BAU (adjusted for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire) employmentprojections can be taken as being roughly equivalent to Package 2 (non-SERAS case).

Passenger forecasts

3.1.10 Table A3.1 summarises the passenger forecasts for Stansted in the various scenariostested, including one that reaches 25 million passengers per annum (mppa) by 2026,following the growth trajectory of SERAS Package 2 to that date, after which the levelremains at 25 million. This is used for the purposes of constructing baseline employmentas a departure from the passenger forecast implicit in BAU employment (where the growthtrajectory to 2026 is very similar, but passenger growth continues after 2026).

Table A3.1 : Forecast Stansted Air Passengers for SERAS Packages and other Scenarios (mppa)Package 1997 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

BAU implicitgrowth

5.4 13.4 18.5 21.3 23.3 25.3 27.5 29.9 32.5

25 mppa by2021

5.4 13.4 20.5 22.8 22.8 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0

40 mppa by2021

5.4 13.4 22.0 28.0 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0

Package_2 5.4 13.4 20.5 22.8 22.8 23.0 25.6 25.7 35.0

Package_7 5.4 13.4 20.5 47.4 64.7 69.4 72.3 74.4 82.0

Package_10 5.4 13.4 20.5 47.7 64.9 92.9 95.1 97.7 102.0

Package_14 5.4 13.4 20.5 47.8 64.7 90.0 118.4 121.5 129.0

Source: DfT, SERAS Output, Consultants' own estimates

Colin Buchanan and Partners Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study - Key Issues ReportAppendices

57

4. Appendix 4 - Catalytic Employment

What is Catalytic Employment?

4.1.1 Catalytic (or attracted) employment arises from firms attracted to an area because ofbenefits derived from the primary activity, in this case the airport. An example may be aheadquarters office of a multi-national company which moves close to an airport to availitself of airport connections, although it is neither a supplier of goods and services to it(indirect employment) nor supported by the spending of direct and indirect activities(induced employment).

4.1.2 A common though not universal feature of estimates made for airport generated catalyticemployment is the division of the attracted activity by business (defined as inwardinvestment) and tourist (defined as inbound tourism) sub-sectors. By inference, eachconstitutes a net addition to regional income and employment, compared with a no airportsituation. Inward investment is often associated with international movement but inconsidering urbanisation impacts should be taken to include domestic relocated activity solong it was understood that the latter would not be a net addition to national employmentbut only a local effect.

4.1.3 Estimates made for both vary widely in terms of jobs per million passengers per annum(mppa) but one needs to be cautious about tourism. Although as is widely known, largeincreases in tourist numbers have occurred at small continental airports newly served bylow cost airlines, the links to local economies may be very indirect. Visitors newly arrivingby air may replace ones arriving by other modes, the visitors may travel far from the airportand spend their money outside the airport’s catchment area, and the new air services mayencourage reverse tourism movement, depressing or eliminating inbound tourismexpenditure.

4.1.4 Known studies and estimates for quantifying catalytic employment near airports are limitedin number, and appear to be variable in sophistication. This has led the SERASemployment forecasting exercise2 to omit it altogether in the employment projection, citinglack of quantifiability as a reason. However, this is not consistently applied, since theconsultants preparing the urbanisation assessment do not allow for it in one report3 but doallow for it in an earlier study for DTLR.4 The latter includes an indicative quantification andgoes on to state:

‘It [the airport] is also likely to provide a major catalyst for the attraction of a widerange of economic activities that typically seek locations near to major internationalairports, bringing with it both additional investment and jobs’

Arup, Thames Gateway Airport implications, op cit.

2 SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings Report – Airport Employment Forecasting,

Halcrow Group Ltd, January 2002, p.37.3 SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation Study Final Report, Arup Economics and Planning,

April 2002.

4 DTLR Implications of a Thames Gateway Airport, Final Report, Arup, July 2001. p43.


58

4.1.5 The consultants fully accept the problematic nature of quantifying attracted employment,but question the logic of assuming a zero number, which then directly reduces the potentialdemands for in-migrants and new housing. It is likely to provide a very misleading pictureof future growth requirements. If catalytic employment is expected to arise, and there is ageneral consensus that it will, then even a very conservative estimate is bound to representa better and more accurate number than zero. Moreover where there is great uncertainty,it is common and accepted practice to consider a range. If technical studies exist whichattempt to estimate catalytic employment, then a judgement made on the basis of theseestimates, and the use of a range, has much more to commend it than the adoption of azero figure.

Attracted Employment and Planning Policy

4.1.6 An argument espoused in some of the SERAS literature and elsewhere is that significantlevels of attracted or catalytic employment depend on relaxed planning policies, and sinceplanning restraint is exercised in many areas of the South East where new runways may bebuilt, such as Stansted and Gatwick, there is a presumption against large levels of suchemployment arising.

4.1.7 This argument has limited force. Although towns like Cambridge operate restraint policiesagainst non-local firms, many others do not, e.g. Harlow. Where they do operate suchpolicies they are unable to stop small companies from setting up and neither is it possibleto prevent attracted employment companies taking over established firms. It will alsoexclude non-airport business within firms attracted to provide airport services unless thiselement is explicitly included in the estimate.

4.1.8 From the foregoing it seems reasonable to accept that:• Some catalytic employment will already exist for established airports like Stansted,

which even a decade ago offered a wide number of destinations; this is likely to haveincreased over the last five years as the range of destinations has multiplied.

• The relative significance of catalytic employment will grow as the airport widens thedestinations served, with a particular jump as intercontinental services increase.

• There will be a time lag following the introduction of new services for catalytic activityto build up.

European Estimates of Attracted/Catalytic Employment

4.1.9 One source of estimates for attracted employment is the European association of airportsACI (Airports Council International). A table generated by ACI distinguishing catalyticemployment by inward investment and inbound tourism components, and its ratio to millionpassengers per annum (mppa) is reproduced below (Table A4.1)


59

Table A4.1 : Estimates of Catalytic Employment at European AirportsAirport Inward

Investmentrelated

InboundTourism related

Inward-InvestJobs per mppa

In-Tourism Jobsper mppa

Amsterdam 19,100 2,900 94 15Barcelona n.e. 60,015 n.e 5,826Birmingham 860 1,050 180 220Brussels 7,694 1,150 767 115Dusseldorf n.e. 34,944 n.e 2,269Malaga n.e. 103,504 n.e. 16,563Milan 15,436 n.e 1,185 n.e.Newcastle 11,250 1,060 4,499 423Oslo n.e 10,000 n.e 901Zurich n.e 3,267 n.e 268

Source: Creating Employment and Prosperity in Europe, ACI Europe, September 1998. Figure for Osloincluded in version of table by York Consulting/ACI 1998, quoted in Mouchel/Ecotec report, “Reviewof National Consultation” for Essex, Herts. and Uttlesford, November 2002.

n.e. not estimated

4.1.10 The Mouchel report provides a refinement for Amsterdam (Schiphol), based on theECORYS study, October 20025 (which the consultants were not able to obtain). Thissuggests that there were some 12,000 catalytic jobs generated by the airport. Thebackground research suggests that this was nearly all business and not tourism related.

4.1.11 A further research study identified has been undertaken for Frankfurt Airport by a group atCologne University.6 This appears to have approached the quantification issue byestimation of output and employment changes related to a 'with' and 'without' a hub airporteffect. The findings are based on a large-scale survey of employers and detailed analysis.

4.1.12 The report compares the absence of hub airport and freight concentration development inrelation to a reference case including these, developing low medium and high estimates.

4.1.13 It is not clear whether the freight effect is effectively additive to the hub effect in terms ofcatalytic employment, and there are with and without ‘compensation’ assumptions thatgenerate a range of estimates. The research indicates reference levels of catalyticemployment per mppa for year 2015 when the airport is expected to handle 82 millionpassengers. Our estimates based on this throughput are as follows:Impact of hub effect only: 620 per mppa * (50,900/ 82)Impact of hub + freight effect: 994 per mppa * (81,500/ 82)* without compensation effect, i.e. lower values

5 Ecorys Transport Note, ECORYS, October 2002.6 Der Flughafen Frankfurt /Main als Standort fur die regionale Wirtschaft,

Mediationsgrupppe FlufghafenFrankfurt /Main, Herbert Baum, et al, 1999.


60

North American Estimates

4.1.14 Attempts to quantify catalytic employment have been made for a proposed airport inOrange County, California which also quotes some figures prepared for Chicago.7 Thishas concentrated on high tech employment only, so by implication the calculations are anunderestimate of the whole catalytic employment effects. The estimates are based on theRegional Airport Demand Model (RADAM), which uses extensive passenger surveys takenat all major airports in Southern California plus existing research on catalytic effects ofairports upon businesses. The author is a professor in the University of California with asubstantial published research output and, like the Frankfurt study above, the analysisappears to be a serious exercise.

4.1.15 The estimates are summarised in Table A4.2 below.

Table A4.2 : Estimates of Catalytic Employment at North American AirportsAirport Passengers (mill) Catalytic employment Jobs per mppaChicago 76 (projected) 90,000 (1) up to 1,184Orange county 28 18,300 (2) 654Orange county 18 12,330-13,050 (3) 685-725

Source: A New Orange County Airport at El Toro: Catalyst for High Wage, High-Tech Economicdevelopment, Steven Erie, December 1999.

Notes: (1) The level stated to be additional to direct, indirect and induced employment. 76 mppa assumed torelate to airport’s expansion programme.

(2) Gross 20,270 adjusted for overlap with induced and retention factor.(3) Similar adjustment made for gross calculations for the lower mppa level.

Overview of Catalytic/Attracted Employment Estimates

4.1.16 Table A4.3 presents the estimates of catalytic employment described above, ignoringtourism related employment and excluding the highest and lowest outliers (for businessrelated catalytic employment) among the European figures.

7 A New Orange County Airport at El Toro: Catalyst for High Wage, High Tech Economic

Development, Steven P Erie et al, for Orange County Business Council,December 1999.


61

Table A4.2 : Summary of Estimates for Catalytic Employment Airport Catalytic employment

(excluding tourismeffect)

Mppa for date ofestimate (to nearest

million)

Inward-Invest Jobsper mppa

Amsterdam/Schiphol (1) 12,000 39 308Birmingham 860 5 180Brussels 7,694 10 767Frankfurt 50,900 * 82 496Manchester 20,000 13 1,558Milan 15,436 13 1,185Chicago 90,000 76 up to 1,184Orange County 18,300 28 654Average 834

Source Tables 1 and 2 and Frankfurt reference above. * hub airport effect.Notes: (1) Ecorys study, 2002

4.1.17 The ranges provided here are broad and the only studies where we understand thatserious analytical appraisals and/or specific survey work has been undertaken are inrespect of Schiphol, Frankfurt and Orange County. The jobs level for the latter might bediscounted for airport dissimilarity to Stansted (larger area and less hub airportcompetition). All the estimates are related to reasonably large passenger scales, thoughnone are as high as the higher Stansted levels.

Application to Stansted

4.1.18 The first step is to identify the most plausible estimates of attracted/catalytic employmentfrom the above and set these out in relation to actual Stansted passenger thresholds fordifferent packages. This generates a crude table before any adjustment for spatialallocation and other factors, which might be taken into account; (e.g. part of the attractedemployment activity is likely to locate outside the modelled urbanisation catchment area).

4.1.19 Based on Table A3.3 and the better regarded studies (Schiphol, Frankfurt and OrangeCounty) a range was identified of 300-450 jobs per million passengers per annum torepresent attracted employment levels at the lower scale of mppa related to the Schipholand Orange County estimates. (discounting the higher Orange County estimate to about450 per mppa). It was assumed conservatively that these levels of attracted employment(300-450 range) at Stansted would relate to a higher (47mppa in 2011) passengerthreshold rather than the 28-39 mppa thresholds related to the benchmark estimates. Asthe most plausible estimates found , these are set as reference figures forattracted/catalytic employment at the 47 mppa levels for Stansted - in Packages 7, 10 and14.

4.1.20 Similarly a second reference level was identified drawn from the Frankfurt research for thehigher passenger throughput relevant to the Frankfurt study (82 mppa in 2015). From thatstudy we suggest that appropriate levels for 82 mppa (Package 7 year 2036 levels) mightbe in the range 500-750. Using these two reference levels of catalytic employment permppa, estimates are made for other years as interpolations or extrapolations related tothese reference points.


62

4.1.21 Table A4.4 sets out unadjusted (before any reduction for catalytic employment locatedoutside the study area) estimates by low and high assumptions for catalytic employmentfor the Baseline and Package 2 scenarios (assumed to be the same) and for the otherpackages and other dates. The shaded ratios for 47mppa and 82 mppa constitute the‘reference cases'. The projected levels take account of the character of the airport, withincreasing employment per mppa for the larger airport scenarios which incorporate moreinternational destinations.

Adjustments to the Estimates

4.1.22 Two adjustments to the Table A4.4 estimates have been made:• Reduction for a ‘London system’ effect, i.e. presuming that with 3-4 major airports

serving London (not least Heathrow) a significant amount of attracted or catalyticemployment based on the Schiphol/Frankfurt/Orange County single hub airport modelswould continue to be located around the other London airports. It is unrealistic in otherwords to assume that it will all be attracted to Stansted.

• Reduction for proportion of attracted employment located outside the study area.4.1.23 The first adjustment is the most significant. Because of the likelihood that a considerable

part of the catalytic employment estimated from the reference levels would be locatedaround other South East airports, all the incremental (above the Baseline/Package 2 levels)are reduced by 50%. This generates a net “Stansted catalytic employment” effect.

4.1.24 Regarding the second adjustment, one needs to determine where attracted employment islikely to be located. In the judgement of Mouchel (Mouchel/Ecotec report, op cit.),

‘Catalytic employment is considered to be more localised. As a result we have assumedthat 50% of catalytic employment would be within the 30 minute catchment (for Stanstedplus 2 and 3 runways only).’

4.1.25 The Chicago study was based on employment patterns ‘in a 12-mile radius around O’Hare.’This (19km) band translated to Stansted represents a small catchment area, includingHarlow and Saffron Walden but not Chelmsford or Braintree town. The outer area coverslocations within approximately a 45-minute drive time isochrone. It seems likely that mostattracted companies would prefer to locate within this area, say around 80%. Finally, theinner two catchments of the Frankfurt study appear to account for about 80% of theestimated employment impact.

4.1.26 For the purpose of the modelling work it is assumed that 20% of such employment wouldbe located in the external area. Within the modelling study area the model allocatescatalytic employment 30% to the core area and 70% to the outer area, broadly proportionalto the distribution of existing non-airport employment.

4.1.27 Table A4.5 sets out the final high and low attracted employment estimates after these twoadjustments. The full table with CE per mppa ratios is provided in the employment modelspreadsheets.

4.1.28 For the purposes of the projections for Packages 7, 10 and 14 the model takes theincrement of catalytic employment levels for these Packages over the base case(Baseline/Package 2).


63

Conclusions

4.1.29 The consultants find the case for omitting catalytic employment from airport impactassessment, as in the SERAS studies, to be untenable, the scale of its growth beingpotentially very large for a major international airport which Stansted could become.Assuming in effect a zero employment level is likely to lead to great distortions inassessment of impact, and in any case is inconsistent, allowance for such employmentbeing accepted in other similar studies for government.

4.1.30 A more acceptable approach is to consider a plausible range of impacts, based on themost evidence based research studies undertaken into this phenomenon, with furtheradjustments to take account of lower levels of such employment which might in practicearise around Stansted. The adjustments made at a number of stages are all downward, toreduce possibilities of exaggeration, and the estimates may indeed be conservative.


64

Table A4.4 : Assumed Catalytic Employment Levels Per Million Passengers: Total (1)Baseline Pack 2 Pack 7 Pack 10 Pack 14Year

mppa CEratio

mppa CEratio

mppa CEratio

mppa CEratio

mppa CEratio

2001 13.4 50 13.4 50 13.4 50 13.4 50 13.4 50hi 50 50 50 50 502006 18.5 56 20.5 56 20.5 100 20.5 100 20.5 100hi 56 56 200 200 2002011 21.3 63 22.8 63 47.4 300 47.7 300 47.8 300hi 63 63 450 450 4502016 23.3 69 22.8 69 64.7 350 64.9 350 64.7 350hi 69 69 580 580 5802021 25.3 75 23 75 69.4 400 92.9 550 90 550hi 75 75 600 825 8252026 27.5 81 25.6 81 72.3 450 95.1 550 118.4 700hi 81 81 750 825 11702031 29.9 88 25.8 88 74.4 450 97.7 550 121.5 700hi 88 88 750 825 11702036 32.5 94 35 94 82 500 102 600 129 750hi 94 94 750 900 12502041 35.3 100 35 100 82 500 102 600 129 750hi 100 100 750 900 1250

Shaded figures are reference cases.

Table A4.5: Assumed Catalytic Employment Levels Per Million Passengers: Study Area (1)Baseline Pack 2 Pack 7 Pack 10 Pack 14Year

mppa emp mppa Emp mppa Emp mppa emp mppa Emp2001 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0hi 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.02006 18.5 22.4 20.5 22.4 20.5 40.0 20.5 40.0 20.5 40.0hi 22.4 22.4 80.0 80.0 80.02011 21.3 25.2 22.8 25.2 47.4 120.0 47.7 120.0 47.8 120.0hi 25.2 25.2 180.0 180.0 180.02016 23.3 27.6 22.8 27.6 64.7 140.0 64.9 140.0 64.7 140.0hi 27.6 27.6 232.0 232.0 232.02021 25.3 30.0 23 30.0 69.4 160.0 92.9 220.0 90 220.0hi 30.0 30.0 240.0 330.0 330.02026 27.5 32.4 25.6 32.4 72.3 180.0 95.1 220.0 118.4 280.0hi 32.4 32.4 300.0 330.0 468.02031 29.9 35.2 25.8 35.2 74.4 180.0 97.7 220.0 121.5 280.0hi 35.2 35.2 300.0 330.0 468.02036 32.5 37.6 35 37.6 82 200.0 102 240.0 129 300.0hi 37.6 37.6 300.0 360.0 500.02041 35.3 40.0 35 40.0 82 220.0 102 240.0 129 300.0hi 40.0 40.0 300.0 360.0 500.0

Shaded figures are reference case.


65

5. Appendix 5 - Displacement

Additionality

5.1.1 The effectiveness or impact of an activity or programme depends upon the ‘additionality’ ornet (as opposed to gross) effect on output. Additionality is the extent to which an activity,which is a policy objective, is undertaken on a larger scale, takes place at all, or earlier, orwithin a geographical area of policy concern, as a result of public sector intervention. TheTreasury definition of additionality is:

‘a general concept relating to any output of regeneration policies. In practice, mostempirical work relates to employment. Additional output is defined relative to what wouldhave happened in the absence of the intervention (the counterfactual). It may relate toscale, timing or location of activity.’

5.1.2 Estimating additionality involves an assessment of:• The gross direct effects of the project.• An allowance for deadweight, the extent to which the activity generated is merely

substituting for other activity, which would have occurred anyway (the do nothingoption).

• The gross local direct effects less deadweight provides an assessment of the grossadditional impacts.

• The gross additional impact then needs to be adjusted to take into account the effectsof displacement - both factor and product market - to derive an estimate of the netadditional direct impacts.

• Finally, the direct effects will also lead to a range of multiplier effects namely: a) asupply linkage multiplier associated with the purchases made by firms, impacted uponby the project, from local firms elsewhere in the study area; and b) an income orconsumption multiplier associated with local induced expenditure from those derivingtheir income from the additional activity generated by the projects.

5.1.3 More speculative adjustments such as long-term multipliers should not be used, to conformwith Treasury guidance. In some instances it is also appropriate to consider issues ofleakage defined as the level of activity/benefit that is lost to the assisted area. Forexample, this may involve jobs generated benefiting local residents.

5.1.4 The net additional impact of the proposed schemes therefore equates to:

Net impact = (gross direct local impact - deadweight) x(1 - displacement) x (supplier multiplier) x (income multiplier).

5.1.5 The size of the effects depends significantly upon the definition of the area covered. Thelarger the area over which the effects of a project or local initiative are analysed the higherthe displacement, supply and income multiplier. For some local services (e.g. foodretailing, hairdressing, vehicle repairs) displacement may be close to 100%.

5.1.6 For ‘policy on’ areas of 20%+ of the UK population analysis also needs to consider theeffects of crowding-out. Such effects are ignored here since the area does not meet thestated threshold.


66

5.1.7 Calculating additionality may be possible through the comparison of assisted versus nonassisted areas, although this is frequently complicated by the difficulty of identifyingsuitable comparative areas. In most cases additionality is determined through primaryresearch. Given the time and costs involved, in order to simplify the process of estimatingnet additional impacts and in the absence of project specific information ODPM (andEnglish Partnerships) guidance propose the use of ‘ready reckoners’. This approach hasbeen adopted to calculate displacement effects as discussed in further detail below.

Displacement

5.1.8 Displacement of other activity within a local area can occur:• Through product markets, where the output of a supported activity takes market share

from local firms producing the same good or service; and• Through factor markets, where a supported activity uses locally scarce factors of

production (e.g. skilled labour or land) or by bidding up their prices.5.1.9 Appraisals should aim to take account of both. Where appropriate, substitution should

also be considered (i.e. the extent to which extra jobs created in participating firms simplysubstitute for existing labour).

5.1.10 Displacement/substitution effects are concerned with primarily market related activities. Assuch they should be assessed in relation to employment, housing and business supportoutputs.

5.1.11 In general, displacement will be high where :• The firm or activity has many competitors in the area;• There is a ‘local’ market dominated by producers from the same area;• The ‘product' is not sold on national or international markets;• Demand for the product is inelastic so that increased competition causing a fall in price

does not produce a large increase in sales.5.1.12 While substitution would not appear to be appropriate, the level of (factor market)

displacement is potentially a significant issue. There may be some level of product marketdisplacement overall this is anticipated to negligible.Calculating displacement

5.1.13 The range of displacement effects estimated for each sector is detailed below. A review ofprevious empirical research8 shows displacement bunching around two levels: a lower levelof 0 to 5%, particularly for projects funded under the urban programme, and a higher levelranging from 20 to to 33%, with more highly skilled/ higher paid jobs being less likely tocause displacement than low skilled/ low paid jobs.

8 Employment Effects of Economic Development Projects Funded under the Urban programme, DOE 1986;

Tourism and the Inner City, Polytechnic of Central London, Leisureworks, DRV Research, DOE 1990;DOE Evaluation of Urban Devt Grant, Urban regeneration Grant & City Grant (1993); Robinson et al,Evaluating the impact and effectiveness of financial assistance policies in the Newcastle Metropolitanregion (1987); PACEC: An evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment (for DOE, 1987). Evaluationof RSI 1991-95, Arup Economics and Planning, DTINaFW, Scottish Executive, September 2000


67

5.1.14 A further complexity is that market adjustments over time, e.g. rises in population, are likelyto reduce the net impacts of displacement, although we have not attempted to calculatethat. Instead factors on a scale of 0-1 have been applied to a range of 0-40%displacement scale to calculate possible initial displacement based on the make-up ofStansted Airport’s employment and pay in 1997.

5.1.15 Tables A5.1 and A5.2 illustrate displacement calculations by occupation and salary band(unfortunately available data does not provide a breakdown of both factors together). Thisprovides an overall average initial displacement rate for the Stansted project of 24.5%,within the range indicated by available empirical research. However, given that the projectspans a long time scale it is anticipated that there will be a degree of market adjustmentthat will in effect correct for displacement over time (i.e. wage rates will equalise, populationwill rise etc).

5.1.16 For the purposes of the projection inputs, two alternative levels of displacement wereassumed, a lower level of 5% reflecting the low end of the range identified, and a higherlevel of 25% based on the Table A5.1 and Table A5.2 scenario estimates, but without anyallowance for reduction over time.

Table A5.1 : Displacement by Occupation GroupDisplacement Occupational

groupJobbreakdown

Displacementfactor, 0 to 1

DisplacementRate

least likely Airline/ airport mgmt 1.7% 0.00 0.0%Pilots/ ATC/ Flightops

12.1% 0.00 0.0%

Mgmt & profl –general

6.3% 0.20 8.0%

Customs,immigration, police &fire

3.6% 0.30 12.0%

Mtce/ trade & otherskilled

16.8% 0.50 20.0%

Air cabin crew 6.8% 0.60 24.0%Passenger services,sales & clerical

23.8% 0.80 32.0%

Apron/ ramp/ semiskilled

18.8% 0.90 36.0%

most likely Catering, cleaning &housekeeping

10.0% 1.00 40.0% Jobweight

TOT AL STAFF 100.0% Overall: 24.3% 50%

Table A5.2 : Displacement by SalaryDisplacement? Salaries -

PermanentJob

breakdownDisplacementfactor, 0 to 1

Displacement Rate

least likely £34K+ 7.2% 0.00 0.0%£26-33.999K 9.7% 0.25 10.0%£20-25.999K 14.2% 0.50 20.0%


68

£16-19.999K 12.4% 0.60 24.0%£11-15.999K 27.5% 0.70 28.0%£7-10.999K 21.6% 0.85 34.0%£4-6.999K 5.0% 0.95 38.0%

most likely < £4K 2.3% 1.00 40.0% Salaryweight

ALL 100.0% Overall: 24.7% 50%


69

6. Appendix 6 – Results for High and LowScenarios

6.1.1 The results of the simulations for the SERAS and the non-SERAS high and low cases aresummarised in the following tables for the whole economic model study area whichcomprises the Districts of Braintree, East Hertfordshire, Harlow, Uttlesford, in the ‘corearea’ and the districts of Cambridge City, Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping Forest, SouthCambridgeshire and St Edmundsbury in the ‘outer area’. The figures are indicative. Theyillustrate the broad magnitude of outcomes. These results show that the range ofassumptions considered produced a very wide range in the urbanisation impact, measuredby additional housing requirements, which is the critical factor.

6.1.2 The last table gives a simplified summary for 2031 of the additional housing requirementsin excess of the baseline for the whole economic model study area, and the figures forhousing requirements estimated by SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation Study for 2030 toallow comparison. However it should be borne in mind that the SERAS housingrequirement figures are not necessarily directly comparable with those for this study asthey use a different calculation method: as a proportion of the excess housing requirementbetween rolled forward RPG requirements (apportioned to districts in the study area) andTempro forecasts of population, translated into housing requirements. The proportion isset by the ratio of the forecast airport related growth (direct plus indirect) to the Temproforecast employment growth for the area. This ratio can exceed 1 where the airport relatedgrowth is more than the employment growth forecast for the area. It also means that,where forecast population growth is sufficient to provide for the airport’s labour needs, itwould still generate airport housing requirements, because RPG provision is inadequate forthe forecast population anyway.


70

Table A6.1 : Summary of Projections for Packages - SERAS case – High (Economic Model Study Area)

2001P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14

Initial Labour Excess Demand 8,407 44,265 41,840 39,149 7,566 47,675 66,400 95,209 23,360 62,553 80,419 111,946(before labour market balance)

Labour Demand

Airport jobs impact, of which 13,482 23,786 86,808 82,471 77,666 22,279 92,297 124,992 174,628 28,053 92,297 127,304 181,569 Direct 10,332 15,319 46,850 43,858 40,625 14,025 43,849 57,842 71,752 17,721 43,849 56,065 70,697 Indirect 718 4,596 14,055 13,157 12,188 4,207 13,155 17,353 21,526 5,316 13,155 16,820 21,209 Catalytic 268 630 15,010 15,056 15,007 905 22,323 32,235 56,877 1,316 22,323 36,720 64,500 Induced 2,163 3,359 12,238 11,625 10,946 3,146 13,002 17,604 24,576 3,961 13,002 17,924 25,544 Displaced -118 -1,345 -1,225 -1,100 -4 -32 -42 -103 -261 -32 -224 -381

Other jobs 602,258 669,509 672,479 672,209 671,309 705,000 709,500 710,940 715,800 716,027 727,946 724,307 729,887

Total jobs 615,739 693,294 759,287 754,679 748,975 727,279 801,797 835,932 890,428 744,080 820,244 851,611 911,456

Labour Supply


Net commuting -10,297 -8,106 41,536 38,129 34,004 -9,630 40,028 58,153 79,840 9,821 50,131 71,411 92,785

Housing


2016 2031 2036


Labour supply and demand give the ex-post position after adjustments. Displaced jobs are those displaced by the increase in ex ante airport related and connected(induced and attracted) jobs over the previous 5 years, rather than total displacement to date. Cummulative additional dwellings are the dwellings additional to thebaseline growth in dwelling, i.e. the extra dwellings required by airport expansion above the baseline level..


71

Table A6.2 : Summary of Projections for Packages - SERAS case – Low (Economic Model Study Area)

2001P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14


Labour Demand

Airport jobs impact, of which 13,482 23,786 74,525 70,726 70,726 22,279 81,842 112,384 147,759 28,053 85,715 112,465 150,658 Direct 10,332 15,319 46,850 43,858 40,625 14,025 43,849 57,842 71,752 17,721 44,856 56,065 70,697 Indirect 718 4,596 14,055 13,157 12,188 4,207 13,155 17,353 21,526 5,316 13,457 16,820 21,209 Attracted 268 630 9,058 9,085 9,056 905 13,394 21,490 34,029 1,316 16,400 24,480 38,700 Induced 2,163 3,359 10,509 9,973 9,379 3,146 11,540 15,841 20,818 3,961 12,081 15,847 21,219 Displaced -118 -5,947 -5,347 -4,731 -4 -95 -142 -365 -261 -1,079 -747 -1,168

Other jobs 602,258 669,509 670,409 670,589 666,020 705,000 705,900 709,140 712,200 716,027 717,287 721,427 725,927

Total jobs 615,739 693,294 744,934 741,315 736,746 727,279 787,742 821,524 859,959 744,080 803,002 833,892 876,585

Labour Supply


Net commuting -10,297 -8,106 33,124 30,344 27,675 -9,630 40,068 53,526 69,422 9,821 51,979 63,871 80,414

Housing


203620312016




72

Table A6.3 : Summary of Projections for Packages - Non-SERAS case – High (Economic Model Study Area)

2001P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14


Labour Demand

Airport jobs impact, of which 13,482 16,979 63,488 63,692 63,516 15,677 69,421 94,532 136,839 19,751 72,808 97,636 144,121 Direct 10,332 13,050 37,742 37,859 37,752 11,859 35,324 46,366 57,474 14,985 36,135 44,942 56,630 Indirect 718 905 2,563 2,571 2,563 703 2,035 2,672 3,325 846 1,983 2,466 3,119 Catalytic 268 630 15,010 15,056 15,007 905 22,323 32,235 56,877 1,316 24,600 36,720 64,500 Induced 2,163 2,398 8,943 8,972 8,947 2,213 9,770 13,301 19,237 2,788 10,245 13,732 20,253 Displaced -3 -770 -766 -753 -4 -32 -42 -74 -184 -154 -224 -381

Other jobs 602,258 669,509 669,509 670,589 670,589 705,000 705,000 708,420 712,020 716,027 716,927 721,967 725,747

Total jobs 615,739 686,488 732,997 734,281 734,104 720,677 774,421 802,952 848,859 735,778 789,735 819,603 869,868

Labour Supply

Employee residents 626,037 701,582 705,020 707,550 707,350 737,019 748,586 761,877 789,537 734,369 743,053 765,283 798,023 Migrants 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 0 0 19,000 39,000 0 5,000 33,000 54,000

Net commuting -10,297 -15,093 27,977 26,734 26,754 -16,342 25,835 41,074 59,321 1,409 46,682 54,320 71,844

Housing

Cummulative additional dwellings 0 0 0 4,888 4,888 0 0 15,830 32,492 0 4,166 27,494 44,990

2016 2031 2036




73

Table A6.4 : Summary of Projections for Packages - Non-SERAS case – Low (Economic Model Study Area)2001

P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14Initial Labour Excess Demand 5,554 28,287 28,411 28,348 4,773 31,353 45,397 62,547 19,870 45,978 58,462 76,972(before labour market balance)

Labour Demand

Airport jobs impact, of which 13,482 16,979 53,884 54,087 53,985 15,677 58,966 81,924 110,104 19,751 62,343 82,796 113,209 Direct 10,332 13,050 37,742 37,859 37,752 11,859 35,324 46,366 57,474 14,985 36,135 44,942 56,630 Indirect 718 905 2,563 2,571 2,563 703 2,035 2,672 3,325 846 1,983 2,466 3,119 Catalytic 268 630 9,058 9,085 9,056 905 13,394 21,490 34,029 1,316 16,400 24,480 38,700 Induced 2,163 2,398 7,595 7,624 7,609 2,213 8,308 11,537 15,498 2,788 8,779 11,655 15,928 Displaced -3 -3,073 -3,052 -2,995 -4 -95 -142 -222 -184 -954 -747 -1,168

Other jobs 602,258 669,509 669,509 669,509 669,509 705,000 705,000 706,800 708,510 716,027 716,027 718,097 721,607

Total jobs 615,739 686,488 723,393 723,596 723,493 720,677 763,966 788,724 818,614 735,778 778,370 800,893 834,816

Labour Supply

Employee residents 626,037 701,582 703,160 704,970 705,020 737,019 738,821 752,624 770,087 734,369 738,103 753,121 775,073 Migrants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 19,500 0 0 11,500 31,000

Net commuting -10,297 -15,093 20,233 18,626 18,473 -16,342 25,145 36,100 48,526 1,409 40,267 47,771 59,743

Housing

Cummulative additional dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,331 16,246 0 0 9,581 25,827

2016 2031 2036

Source: consultantsNotes: Initial labour excess demand is the calculated ex-ante demand before adjustments in the labour market including unemployment, activity rates, commuting and migration. Labour supply and demand give the ex-post

position after adjustments. Displaced jobs are those displaced by the increase in ex ante airport related and connected (induced and attracted) jobs over the previous 5 years, rather than total displacement to date.Cummulative additional dwellings are the dwellings additional to the baseline growth in dwelling, i.e. the extra dwellings required by airport expansion above the baseline level..


74

Table A6.5 : Additional Housing Requirements of Packages with Alternative Assumptions(Economic Model Study Area 2031)

SERASdirect/indirectemploymentassumptions

Non-SERASdirect/indirectemploymentassumptions

SERAS LandUse andUrbanisationStudy

Planning StudyArea BaselineHousingRequirement2001-2031

Package 14(4 runways)

49,988 33,326 32,492 16,246 17,789


34,159 19,162 15,830 8,331 13,886


20,829 4,166 0 0 9,995

Package 2(Maximumuse)

0 0 0 0 1,752

195,032

Source: Consultants, SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation Study Final Report, Arup Economics and PlanningNote: Housing requirements for each package estimated for this study are requirements over and above the

baseline housing requirement shown in the last column.

Impact of Expansion of Stansted Airport

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Expansion of Stansted Airport