Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 – Geographic Study€¦ · Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 –...

Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 – Geographic Study

Draft findings

21st February 2019

ALL DATA SUBJECT TO FACT CHECKING. ISSUED AS A DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION ONLY.

Welcome to Slough (running order, practicalities)Paul Stimpson,Strategic Lead Slough Borough Council

Local Plans ContextHelen Murch, Planning Policy Manager Royal Borough Windsor and Maidenhead

Today’s event Introduction, outcomes, commentsCristina Howick and Richard Pestell, DirectorsPeter Brett Associates


Study objectives• This study looks for an ‘area of search’

• Where could the future housing needs of Slough and RBWM be met?

• And also the needs of South Bucks?• Given all are highly constrained by policy• But Slough also physically constrained

• as it is almost completely urbanised

• ‘Urban intensification’ is unlikely to be enough• Though it is the first choice• In line with planning policy

• Further work will assess brownfield capacity• But some new land is likely to be needed• So where should the Councils look?


Overview

• In summary our method is:

• Understand existing residents’ ‘revealed preferences’• For where they live • Using migration and commuting data

• Infer what future preferences might be


Guiding principles• The area of search is land that

• If developed for new housing• Is most likely to best meet the needs of future residents • i.e. people who’d be in Slough or RBWM if those

places had enough capacity• (Demographic projections do put them in Slough / RBWM)

• So an area where the homes provided are likely to• Be accessible to residents’ jobs• Broadly reflects their housing preferences

• As shown by previous migration trends• Capturing social / community links between areas

• Command prices they can afford


Guiding principles continued

• To define those areas we use migration / commuting data• We take account of both origins and destinations

• Where people come from• As well as where they might go

• For example• Many migrants into Slough come from Hillingdon• They move house because

• Hillingdon is full up• But they still work at Heathrow

• If they were provided with homes in Hillingdon • They may never look at Slough


Our work is ‘policy off’• At this stage

• The area of search is not constrained • Either by policy designations or deliverability issues

• In later stages the study will look at constraints• On a consistent basis• Across the area of search


Our work is ‘policy off’ continued

• It may be that all land in the area of search is constrained • And cannot (or should not) be developed

• If so, people may have to moderate their expectations• Commute further than today• Live further from friends and family

• Or we’ll need new sustainable transport links• So a new land supply becomes accessible• And new commuting and migration flows are established

• As a last resort people need to change their lifestyle• To adjust to where homes can be provided


Previous evidenceStrategic Housing Market Assessments


Principles• Under recently deleted national policy and guidance• Councils were required to identify their Housing Market Area

(HMA)• The principle of the HMA is robust• Identify and area where housing choices are interchangeable• Within this geography

• Identify the most sustainable land for development• Regardless of administrative boundaries

• Slightly complicated here • Because two sets of evidence did not agree


Two assessments• The Bucks and Berks Councils commissioned separate studies

• To define their respective HMAs• These identified the ‘best fit’ for the client Councils• Buckinghamshire HEDNA (HMA-FEMA) (ORS with Atkins, updated

2016)• Fine-grained data for Bucks

• Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs)• Berkshire SHMA (GL Hearn, 2015)

• Coarse-grained for Berks• Data are for whole districts

• The two sets of evidence did not agree


Points of agreement• Neither study suggested an HMA extending south of Slough

/ RBWM• i.e. into Surrey

• Nor did they include London • Not because the data did not show strong links• But because the GLA had already defined their HMA

• Both said the area around Slough was hard to place• As was South Buckinghamshire


Points of disagreement• Main issue - where is South Buckinghamshire best placed?• Initial Buckinghamshire study

• Split South Bucks from rest of Buckinghamshire HMA• Made South Bucks part of a single Berkshire HMA

• Updated Buckinghamshire study (as Chiltern and South Bucks combined)• ‘Best-Fit for plan making’ grouped South Bucks with the rest of

Buckinghamshire • Acknowledged ‘functional’ relationship with Slough

• Joint Berkshire UAs study• Six Unitary Authorities agreed two HMAs;

• Eastern Berkshire HMA - Slough, RBWM and South Bucks • Western Berkshire HMA - Reading, Bracknell, Wokingham, West Berkshire

• South Bucks disagreed


Excluding London• Part of the reason for mixed messages • May have been the decision to exclude London• Excluding London was a pragmatic decision• But, for us, it creates an artificial result• Overstates links with areas outside London

• Exaggerates the strength of links between SB & Slough• So the results sometimes failed a common sense check?


• Take Village A• Migration to A is 60% from Hillingdon, 25% from Slough &

15% from South Bucks• A new home in the village is therefore more likely to meet

Hillingdon's need rather than Slough’s or South Bucks’• And residents perception is one of a weaker Slough

link• But if you exclude London (as the SHMAs do):

• 62.5% of migration to A is from Slough• And 37.5% is from South Bucks• Suggests a new home in A is most likely to meet Slough’s

need• But actually it’s most likely to meet Hillingdon’s need

Excluding London: an illustration


SHMAs and our ‘exam question’• Unlike the previous evidence base studies

• We do not need to define Housing Market Areas• We are not bound by the (now deleted) guidance on HMAs• The 70% HMA containment test does not need to be met

• Our ‘exam question’ is different and more practical• Where can the needs of Slough and RBWM be met?

• ‘Seed’ the Growth Area where unmet need arises (as done with Norwich or Colchester)• i.e. the Slough/ Windsor/Maidenhead urban cluster

• Redefine the market geographies of the earlier studies • Apply quantitative and qualitative analysis

• To go from existing to potential future market areas


Emerging answersStrand A – commutingWhere can people get to work from?


Introduction • Of our three principles• This is perhaps the most important

• And the most enduring

• Most households need to access jobs• And those employers need labour

• The geography of jobs is unlikely to change• London will remain a main hub

• And specifically Heathrow • As will Slough • And the RBWM towns

• This will continue to impact on housing choices• Much the same as today


Where do residents work today?

From RBWM to:From Slough to:Windsor and Maidenhead 6380

Hillingdon 5458South Bucks 3486

Hounslow 2148Westminster,City of London 1513

Ealing 1200Wycombe 1184

Reading 910Runnymede 777

Bracknell Forest 751

Slough 5865Hillingdon 2868

Westminster,City of London 2857Wycombe 2810

Bracknell Forest 2135Wokingham 1692

South Bucks 1615Runnymede 1554

Hounslow 1489Reading 1297

Commuting out by district(London Boroughs in red)

• From Slough combined flow to West London exceeds flow to RBWM• So Slough residents tend to travel east towards London • Not west towards RBWM

• RBWM residents also travel east • But generally are more ‘360 degrees’ around the Borough


Where does the labour force live?

To Slough from: To RBWM from: Windsor and Maidenhead 5865South Bucks 3618Hillingdon 3046Hounslow 2172Wycombe 2058Bracknell Forest 1878Ealing 1831Wokingham 1767Spelthorne 1416Reading 1052

Slough 6380Bracknell Forest 4910Wokingham 3124Wycombe 2983South Bucks 1868Reading 1361Surrey Heath 1079Runnymede 986Hillingdon 826Spelthorne 722

Commuting in by district(London Boroughs in red)

• For Slough West London provides more workers than RBWM• RBWM shows the ‘360 degree’ pattern again


Commuting by MSOA• We have also looked at the very local level data

• MSOA• Focusing on districts with strong links to Slough or RBWM• Commuters between Slough and RBWM are dispersed• No strong pattern

• Those close to the boundary are not especially likely to commute from one to another

• Because the River Thames is a barrier to movement• So they may be adjacent MOSAs • But in terms of travel distance – they are miles apart

• South Bucks is split • Parts are strongly Slough

• Flows into South Bucks but also outwards into Slough (south)• Parts look to Hillingdon (east)• One MSOA is split three ways (west of Slough)• Again – residents don’t tend to cross the Thames


Commuting by MSOA continued

• Outside Slough and RBWM

• For all Bracknell Forest’s MSOAs the main workplace is Bracknell Forest

• But in the east of Bracknell patterns are more finely balanced• Nearly as many work in RBWM as Bracknell Forest

• Wycombe has weak links to both Slough and RBWM• Again the Thames has a bid impact on commuting ‘flows’• But close to the bridges

• Marlow & Bourne End• Some Residents will commute south into Slough and RBWM• These towns are also rail connected to Maidenhead

• But not the High Wycombe


Summary – commuting• Parts of Slough and South Bucks are strongly linked with West London

• Probably because people work at Heathrow• And/or Uxbridge

• East and North of RBWM the Thames is a commuting barrier• So land that may be geographically close• In terms of travel time - is much further away

• West / South West of RBWM • Parts of Bracknell Forest have moderate commuting flows with

RBWM• But further west commuting is dominated by Reading• So Wokingham has only weak flows with RBWM


Emerging answersStrand B – migrationWhere do people choose to live today?


Introduction• Where do today’s residents come from?

• And move to?• So what is the likely pattern • If we build more homes in any given area? • An important question • But migration evidence is less useful than commuting• Because

• Sample sizes are very small – the Census is a single year snapshot

• Even by district – very small samples by MSOA• Undeveloped fields don’t have flows associated with them• And existing flows reflect the profile of existing homes

• Not the new homes we may need to build• i.e. flows into a small village may be different to flows into a new

estate or urban extension ALL DATA SUBJECT TO FACT CHECKING. ISSUED AS A DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION ONLY.

Looking at Slough

• Very strong East to West pattern• Migrants flow in from London

• Or the immediate neighbours

• Out to South Bucks or RBWM • But no further west• i.e. they ‘bottle up’ around Slough

• Possibly because they need to commute back to West London?


Flows from and to Slough

LondonSouth BucksRBWM

From To


Looking at RBWM • Still East to West flows – but much weaker

• From Slough - into RBWM• Less from West London

• From Slough – then onto Bracknell Forest • Fewer move back to Slough than came from Slough• In general much more ‘360 degree’

• But not into Reading• Or Surrey • Nor back into London


Flows From and To RBWM

From To

Slough

SurreyBracknell F

Wycombe


Summary – past migration• Both Slough and RBWM show East to West pattern • Slough shows a stronger East – West Flow

• Residents come from West London• Or the immediate neighbours

• Whereas RBWM is much more 360 degrees• Some East – West flow• West into Bracknell Forest • But generally more balanced flows with most neighbours

• RBWM don’t tend to move into Greater Reading• Its own market area?

• Nor South into Surrey• The M3 Corridor?


Emerging answersStrand C – Where can people afford to live?Affordability


Introduction• If we are looking to meet the needs of future Slough

• Or future RBWM residents• We need to provide homes where they can afford

• To buy (preferable – government policy)• To rent

• Same broad caveat applies• We can only ‘see’ existing values

• i.e. prices people pay to live in a small village• Not the price of a new home in a urban extension


House prices• Looking at house prices• Slough forms part of a ‘low-price’ bulge

• (low price is obviously relative)• A home in Slough is generally similar price to West London• And cheaper than surrounding areas

• Including South Bucks and RBWM• Despite this, Slough and RBWM have similar affordability

• (Ratio of price to earnings)• Because residents’ earnings in RBWM are higher• And so they can access higher value homes


House prices


House price affordability

Source: ONS (April 2018), Ratio of median house price to median gross annual residence-based earnings (table 5c) ALL DATA SUBJECT TO FACT CHECKING. ISSUED AS A DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION ONLY.

Can Slough residents afford RBWM?• If we were to provide housing in RBWM• Could the average Slough resident access it? • No - unless the homes are delivered at Slough prices• For the average Slough resident to access a home in RBWM

• Needs 17 times their average earnings• As opposed to 11 times for a home in Slough

• Therefore • The average home in RBWM is not accessible to the

average Slough resident • But the average RBWM resident can afford to move ‘360

degrees’ around (outside) the borough


House Price affordability

Source: ONS (April 2018), Ratio of median house price to median gross annual residence-based earnings (table 5c) ALL DATA SUBJECT TO FACT CHECKING. ISSUED AS A DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION ONLY.

• Rents show a similar pattern• For a two-bedroom house / flat

• But not as ‘sharp’ differentiation as house prices• Median houses prices can double between districts• Two bed flats are cheaper to rent in Slough

• Than RBWM or South Bucks• But not twice the price

• £995 per month - Slough• £1,200 per month – RBWM• £1,150 per month- Sough Bucks

• Three bed show a similar pattern• Four bed+ show a sharper difference

• (Probably influenced by a few very large properties)

Rents affordability


Summary – what people can afford• Regardless of commuting and migration patterns• This evidence suggest two markets are in play here• Firstly people who aim to live in Slough

• (or Hillingdon)• People who earn Slough and West London wages • They can afford a home in Slough (or Hillingdon)• But not further west

• Secondly people who aim to live in RBWM• People who work in RBWM or central London earn more• They can afford a home in Slough • But they can also afford a home in RBMW

• The first market is nested within the second


Conclusions – How the market works


Main findings - Slough• London is a key driver of housing demand here

• The start of the East – West Flows• And also where many residents here work

• London is especially relevant to Slough • Move too far away from Slough • And those residents can no longer get to work• Nor can they afford a house in the more expensive districts

• Some Slough residents move out to neighbouring areas• But they stay close to Slough and West London


Main findings – Slough continued

• For Slough the evidence suggests • A narrow area of search• Close to West London for work (Heathrow)• Where house prices are similar to Slough• As opposed to Maidenhead or Amersham etc.

• The area of search includes Hillingdon• Because that’s where many migrants come from• And where they work


Main findings - RBWM• RBWM residents are less tied to West London• Still East – West pattern but weaker• They don’t tend to work in the West London Boroughs

• Central London is a greater influence here• They can afford housing in a much larger area• They move more 360 degrees


Main findings – Slough & RBWM• So we need a two-tier area of search • Because

• Slough residents don’t want homes away from Slough• nor can they afford them

• Whereas RBWM residents have a wider choice• They may choose to live in Slough• Or further afield


Main findings – South Bucks• South Bucks is the hard-to-place district

• And always has been• Where the HMA evidence struggles

• It is strongly related to Slough • By both migration and commuting

• But previous evidence may have exaggerated this • Because London was ‘turned off’

• Many new homes in South Bucks will meet London's need • So we have a new ‘caveat’ to add re South Bucks• Note

• There is no evidence to link Chiltern to our area


Caveats• All data relate to today’s market

• Reflecting today’s infrastructure• E.g. bridges (or lack of) across the River Thames• Congestion at Handy Cross Junction (Wycombe)

• And today’s market prices• The future could be different

• Undeveloped land does not generate commuting• Or migration• There could be new large scale transport infrastructure

• Boundaries are ‘fuzzy’• The geography needs to be pragmatic

• Informed by the data• But not slavishly applied• Common sense also comes into it


Conclusions – The areas of search


The Inner Area• The inner area is tight to Slough• Includes South Bucks MSOAs where:

• PBA commuting data shows strong links with Slough• ORS (Bucks SHMA) shows migration links with Slough• Does not extend west – over the River Thames

• We also suggest including Hillingdon • Because many migrants to Slough come from there• And also work there• New homes here will suit people who’d otherwise be in Slough

• The boundary might extend slightly south of Slough• Some of the commuting data suggest this


The Outer Area• For RBWM the area of search includes the inner area• But extends beyond it to the west• Most obviously into Bracknell Forest

• Migration and commuting links• But not Wokingham or Reading

• The links are much weaker• Is there a very different, Reading-centric market?


The Outer Area - Surrey• In the south we think the area extends slightly into Surrey• We have taken the M3 as the boundary• We think Surrey forms its own ‘wedge’

• M3 vs M4• But here the rail links are shared with much of RBWM

• And Bracknell Forest• I.e. Virginia Water & Longcross

• Longcross – Sunningdale is 3 minutes by train• 6 minutes to Ascot

• Reasonable to assume that new homes here• Will meet some of the same demand


• In the north the area extends into Wycombe district• The district has modest migration links with RBWM

• In and out • But we can’t define a robust boundary

• There is no migration or commuting evidence to support it• However for Marlow and Bourne End

• Roughly one resident commutes to Slough or RBWM • For every two who commute to Wycombe district • So there is some evidence this area should be included• And Marlow and Bourne End are rail connected to RBWM• Just like Surrey

• Further afield, flows are dispersed around the district • Most likely mixing with stronger flows up an M40 ‘wedge’• So it’s difficult to see any pattern

The Outer Area - Wycombe


The area of search


Thank you for coming

• Conclusion - Part 1• Duty to Cooperate

• PBA will produce a report • We’ll send this out to you via the email address we have

• We want your views please• Via email [email protected]• So we have a correct record

• What next? • Part two

• Any Questions?


mailto:[email protected]

Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 – Geographic Study€¦ · Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 –...

Documents

Transcript of Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 – Geographic Study€¦ · Wider Area Growth Study Part 1 –...