2 Economic Regeneration

							HBBC Core Strategy Core Strategy Examination

Submission by GPA Ltd for Cawrey Ltd

2

Economic Regeneration

1. How will the proposals address the structural weaknesses identified in the economy? What
particular measures will be used to attract the modern, ‘creative’ industries to the borough? Are there any specific measures proposed to improve the skills base of the economy in those sectors? • Paras 3.14 – 3.18 identify the main areas of structural weakness in the local economy: Over reliance on manufacturing and losing jobs from traditional industries; Growth in storage and distribution which has led to congestion along the A5 and Northern Perimeter Road around the HUA; Hinckley Town Centre which is under-performing and is suffering from a poor public realm; Decline in agricultural and other rural employment due to CAP, decline in mining and loss of traditional industries. Core strategy measures to address these issues lack vision, boldness, are more aspirational and unlikely to be supported by the market; Office development schemes associated with Hinckley Town Centre, which will be difficult to achieve in the current economic climate – the CS seems to be over dependent on new office jobs being created in a location which has experienced limited historic demand for office sector jobs; Employment parks associated with the proposed SUEs at Burbage and Barwell/Earl Shilton (only available in the long term after 2016 and not very attractive to the market due to poor access to strategic road network; Limited rural employment provision (few if any allocations and part reliance on redevelopment of contaminated sites in the countryside); Transport infrastructure improvements – these are mainly associated with the proposed SUEs (long term) and in any event the projects are not included in the EMRP and LTP transport investment priorities. Hinckley is caught between two strong employment markets: Leicester PUA and West Midlands (Nuneaton/Coventry/Birmingham), all of which have larger skills bases, greater mass, are more strongly supported by regional policies, have better transport links including rail – specifically the West Midlands RP has strong emerging policy framework to promote major rail based distribution centres and strategic employment parks unlike the East Midlands; Also within Leicester and Leicestershire HMA, other locations are likely to prove more attractive than the HUA – these include Loughborough which has an established university and potential for a Science park aimed at attracting modern industries; and also around East Midlands Airport which is a major attractor of inward investment into the region; HBBC will therefore struggle to attract new industries when upturn comes, and the Borough will continue to be a net exporter of labour – concentration of new housing provision in the HUA will result in a growing jobs deficit and increased long distance out-commuting (the SUEs are poorly located in relation to access to other jobs markets outside of the Borough); Best growth prospects will be close to Leicester. The north east of the Borough is located in one of the most accessible and economically attractive parts of the country – Junction of M1/M69/A46/A50, but the CS has failed to recognise the locational advantages of this part of the County in preparing its CS – it appears to be more content with promoting tourism development which it acknowledges comprises a limited offering, generates few jobs and attracts limited numbers of day visitors to visitor attractions such as Twycross Zoo and Bosworth Battlefield;

•

•

•

•

•

May 2009 1

HBBC Core Strategy Core Strategy Examination

Submission by GPA Ltd for Cawrey Ltd

•

The CS appears to be more concerned with environmental protection than economic development and jobs creation, clearly demonstrated by its policies for new layers of landscape policy protection (see Policy 8 on Ratby and policies 20 Green Infrastructure, and policies 21 and 22 re the National Forest and Charnwood Regional Park). The CS has not taken account of changing trends in employment with many companies looking to reduce staff and premise overheads and rely more on networks and contract staff – this is being reflected in changing lifestyles, increased working from home (HBBC is below the regional average for % of self employed workers) and the desire to have a home in a pleasant environment. Will the CS contribute towards meeting the new demands generated by this trend? Given HBBC’s attractive environment, the Borough represents an attractive location close to two/three large conurbations for high income earners wishing to part work from home and live in such an environment.

•

2.

Are there planned programmes of skills training through, for example, the Learning and Skills Council and local education establishments which will tackle the need for reskilling? • No comment

3. Are the allocations of land in the in the CS sufficient to meet the likely demand for employment during the Plan period? Is too much employment land identified? What is the forecast employment growth? What is the evidence base for that growth? • Based on the Leicestershire Employment Land Availability Report the Structure Plan requirement (1996-2016) is for 122ha. As at 01/04/08 total supply was 89.63 ha, leaving 32.37 ha to be brought forward by 2016. However only 68.64 ha had been started (56% of total), and over the past 5 years total starts have been slow at 21.75 ha including 16.26 ha in one year. In 2 years no starts were recorded. In 2007/08 only 0.21ha was completed (0.07% of total for Leicestershire) comprising 1,322 sq m (less than 1% of total completed floorspace created in Leicestershire), and 4.91 ha of employment land was lost to other uses. This makes Hinckley the worse performing District in the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA and demonstrates the weakness of the Hinckley economy, and the need for more radical action based on market requirements. In the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Study it notes at para 6.6.22 that over the half of the current supply is deemed unsuitable or unlikely to come forward; • Rather than promoting a number of small employment parks (long term and uncertain) as part of the SUEs a better strategy would be to establish a strategic employment park (50ha +) on the edge of Hinckley with easy access to the M69 and A5, to attract national and international manufacturing and distribution industries, and to work closely with Blaby, Charnwood and Leicester Councils to further develop existing and new employment provision on the western side of Leicester where there is already good access to the strategic highway network. Small local employment sites in Rural Settlements and Key rural centres would provide employment choice, reduce commuting and put less strain upon the transport infrastructure by creating a more diffuse employment pattern. Employment sites lost to residential use within villages and rural centres due to poor location or inappropriate use within settlement boundary, could be replaced by releasing employment land adjacent to settlement boundaries.

•

•

4. Is the proposed distribution of employment land the most appropriate strategy to meet future demand? What other options were considered? • No - see reasons given above; • Other options – no significant alternative options appear to have been assessed except within the HUA;
May 2009 2

HBBC Core Strategy Core Strategy Examination

Submission by GPA Ltd for Cawrey Ltd

5. Are sites identified which will provide sufficient land/floor-space to meet the stated targets in the CS? Are all sites available? • Targets are unlikely to be met, as sites coming forward in the town centre and at SUEs are long term/not likely to be very attractive to the market. Also research from the property industry indicates that over the medium term that firms will seek to reduce fixed overheads by reducing their property holdings; • A key target should be to provide sufficient jobs to meet future growth in the District of those economically active and to reduce out-commuting/distance travelled to work, but I am doubtful whether the employment and housing policies in the CS will deliver any changes in this direction. 6. Should the CS contain an over-arching policy on the protection of employment land, to replace Policy EMP 1 of the Local Plan? Should there be blanket protection on all employment land or a criteria-based policy for release where appropriate? th • No – Many existing employment sites date from the 19th Century/early 20 Century and include sites with outdated buildings, some are contaminated, access is often poor and services infrastructure is in poor condition/requires replacement. Many sites are small and within/close to residential areas where there are amenity concerns. It is pointless to try and sustain these as employment sites when many of the existing industries are marginal and reaching the end of their ‘market’ life. New industries have different site requirements and HBBC through its Core Strategy should seek to provide such sites. • Also some existing allocations are deemed unsuitable and unlikely to come forward; 7. Is the proposed level of provision realistic and achievable? Is there identified demand for that level of employment development? • See comments above. 8. How has the development industry been involved in the production of the proposals? What commitment is there from developers? • Limited; • Should the questions be – What level of inquiries has the Economic Development Unit received? (District and County level). What has been the conversion rate from inquiry to take up? What do investors perceive as being the strengths and weaknesses of Hinckley for a new business venture in the District? Have inquiries been followed up to determine why businesses come/do not come to Hinckley? What does this mean for the provision of sites? • Table 3.3 of the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Study indicates that property inquiries in HBBC are limited compared to other Districts in the HMA, notably Charnwood, NW Leics (near East Midlands Airport) and Leicester City. 9. What level of commitment is there from developers for the proposed regeneration of Hinckley TC? Are the floor-space figures appropriate? Is there known interest in the redevelopment of the Bus Station site, the Railway Station site, and/or the proposed redevelopment of the Brittania Centre? Does the Council propose to take an active role in those schemes, e.g. through land assembly? If any or all of those major schemes fails to materialise are there other options which can be pursued? • No comment, except to note the poor location of the rail station in relation to the town centre, and the limited capacity of the rail line which provides a ½ hourly/hourly service to Birmingham and Leicester.

May 2009 3