Impact of Expansion of Stansted Airport

Colin Buchanan and Partners Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study - Key Issues Report
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 Purpose 1
2. BASELINE ASSESSMENT 3
2.1 Introduction 3
2.2 Settlement Pattern 4
2.3 Urban Settlement Review 7
2.4 Rural Settlement Review 26
2.5 Urban and Rural Deprivation 28
2.6 Historic Towns Assessment 31
2.7 Rural and Countryside Review 37
2.8 Spatial Linkages 54
3. QUANTIFICATION OF GROWTH 76
3.1 Introduction 76
3.2 Economic Model Study Area 77
3.3 Theoretical Considerations 77
3.4 Model Overview 83
3.5 Baseline 84
3.6 Forecasting process 87
3.7 Scenario formulation 90
3.8 Key Issues in Relation to SERAS 91
3.9 Results 95
3.10 Conclusions 102
4. GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 103
4.1 Introduction 103
4.2 Environment 103
4.3 Transport 108
4.4 Employment and Economic Development 112
4.5 Planning Policy Opportunities and Constraints 126
4.6 Settlement Constraints and Opportunities 129
5. LONDON-STANSTED-CAMBRIDGE SUB REGION AND HARLOW
OPTIONS STUDIES REVIEW 147
5.2 London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub Regional Study 147
5.3 The Harlow Options Study 155
6. KEY ISSUES 158
6.2 Quantum of Growth Projections 158
6.3 Key Issues 160
6.4 Principles for locating development to accommodate growth 162
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Settlement role and function

Appendix 2 Landscape character areas
Appendix 3 Baseline demographics
Appendix 4 Catalytic employment
Appendix 5 Displacement
Appendix 6 Results for high and low scenarios
1. Introduction
1.1.1 Colin Buchanan & Partners with Bone Wells Associates and Wardell Armstrong were
appointed by Essex County Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Hertfordshire County
Council, Government Office for the East of England (GO-East), East of England
Development Agency (EEDA) and the Countryside Agency to undertake an assessment of
the urbanisation impacts that would result from the potential growth of Stansted Airport as
postulated within the SERAS consultation document, The Study is to consider, amongst
other things, impacts on transport infrastructure, rural areas and the countryside, and on
settlements. 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 body
and 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, of
the role and function of settlements, of the economic drivers within the region, of the
transport infrastructure and how it is being used, of the social and community infrastructure
and of important environmental resources both urban and within the countryside. It has
been an essential part of this Stage to assemble the information necessary to be able to
assess the impact of growth on the area. Also as part of this Stage, and at the heart of it, is
the assessment of the likely levels of growth that would result from each of the principal
options for the expansion of Stansted Airport. Finally, it is the purpose of Stage Two to
make a preliminary assessment of the likely impacts that each of the growth scenarios for
the 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 of
this report :
• Baseline assessment
• Quantification of Growth and identification of Growth Opportunities and Constraints
• Urbanisation Effects including an assessment of Spatial Distribution Issues
• Summary Key Issues
The report also contains an appraisal of the London-Stansted – Cambridge Region and
Harlow Options Studies.
1.2.3 The baseline assessment provides a summary and analysis of data collected, which will
enable the impact of the options for growth to be identified and covers both urban and rural
areas. 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
1
1.2.4 The quantification of growth is at the heart of this study. The starting point for determining
impact is the assessment of the growth in jobs and population that would result from each
of the expansion options for Stansted Airport. In this part of the report the assumptions
used in the Study are identified and there is an assessment of the alternative approaches
that might be used to predict jobs growth, both directly and indirectly attributable to the
expansion of the Airport. Advice is given on the most appropriate basis for judging future
growth. There is also an assessment of growth opportunities and constraints. This section
is 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 the
highways network and by public transport systems, thirdly there is a discussion of
opportunities and constraints in terms of economic development and potential employment
generation to contribute towards regeneration objectives. Finally, there is an analysis of
growth 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, which
result from the options for Stansted Airport. First there is a consideration of the spatial
distribution issues including an initial analysis of the increase in dwellings and employment
land and then a comparative appraisal of the urbanisation impacts of two distribution
options.
1.2.6 Finally there is a summary of key issues, written in a form that summarises the report. In
addition to the main report a series of appendices is included which provide information on
the methodologies used in the detailed analyses.
2
2. Baseline Assessment
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The Study area is diverse and has a number of important characteristics and linkages (both
internally and externally) that have historically shaped the way in which its urban and rural
areas have developed in the past and which could also shape how they develop in the
future. This section sets out the baseline situation with regards to these urban and rural
areas so that the impact of change compared to the existing situation can be assessed in
the evaluation of strategic spatial options (Stage 3 of this Study). It will also identify and
highlight current strengths and weaknesses and the pattern of deprivation, which the
chosen strategy will need to address. The information, which has been assembled across
the study area has been provided by the constituent local authorities. Data has only been
used 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 areas
and 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. This
analysis has enabled the development of a settlement hierarchy from which begins to
emerge a pattern of interactions, both internally and externally, which is then
developed in more detail in Section 2.8 on Spatial linkages.
• Rural Settlement Review (Section 2.4) sets out the prevalent issues with regards to
rural settlements. Due to lack of available data at settlement level for the rural towns
and villages, this section focuses on key issues rather than quantitative assessment.
• Urban and Rural Deprivation (Section 2.5) describes the patterns of deprivation, as
measured by the Multiple Deprivation Scores, within urban and rural wards.
Deprivation is more prevalent in urban areas with the wards around Stansted Airport
having some of the lowest levels of deprivation in the Study area.
• Historic Towns Assessment (Section 2.6) sets out an assessment of the historic
towns within the Study area. At this Stage in the Study it is necessary to determine
which towns are considered to have historic and cultural heritage value and make a
broad assessment of how sensitive they are to change. The methodology of how to
assess suitability for development will be considered further in Stage 3 and will be built
into the assessment of sites and strategic spatial options.
• Rural and Countryside Review (Section 2.7) sets out a review of the landscape
character areas within the Study area and their relative sensitivity with respect to
landscape character value, historic assets and tranquillity areas.
• Spatial Linkages (Section 2.8) analyses the physical and “functional” linkages within
the Study area and it’s surrounding area. It sets out a brief analysis of the current
transport networks, travel to work patterns and identifies linkages based on the
settlement hierarchy produced from the role and function analysis. For rail an analysis
has been undertaken that sets out accessibility to Stansted Airport and for bus, an
analysis has been undertaken that categorises the settlements based on the level of
bus service they support.
3
2.2 Settlement Pattern
2.2.1 Settlements that have vitality and viability are the mainstay of a strong region with a
competitive economy. Settlements that provide a range of jobs, services and housing
choice not only provide the basis of strong economies and communities, but also have the
potential to support a greater range of sustainable modes of transport, both within and
between settlements.
2.2.2 The main settlements that are examined in detail in this Study have been identified based
on 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, grouped
by population.
Table 2.1: Study Area Settlements, Grouped by Population (1991 census data)
City or town Settlements < Settlements <
Large Town Medium Town Small Town
approaching 5,000 (Rail) 5,000 (Road)
50,000-75,000 15,000-50,000 5,000-15,000
100,000
Cambs Cambridge Cambourne Great Shelford
(113,127) (estimate (3,920)
>10,000)* Whittlesford/
Sawston Duxford
(7,000) (1,848+80)
Essex Colchester Harlow (74,629) Braintree (33,229) Saffron Walden Little/Great Takeley
(96,063) Loughton (13,201) Chesterford Little Dunmow
Chelmsford (39,000) Waltham Stansted (1,369) Rayne
(97,451) Abbey (18,000) Mountfitchet Newport (2,178) Bradwell
Witham (22,684) (4,943) Wendens Coggeshall
Epping (9,922) Ambo/Audley End Stanway
Great Dunmow (418) Marks Tey
(4,907) Elsenham/ Ugley Little Hadham
Halstead (9,775) Green Little Hallingbury
Chipping Ongar (2,216+430) Hatfield Heath
(5,974) Leaden Roding
Roxwell
Writtle
Little Waltham
Howe Street
Ford End
Barnford
Herts Cheshunt Letchworth/Baldo Royston (14,087) Reed
(52,000) ck (40,650) Sawbridgeworth Westmill
Hitchin (32,221) (9,432) Aspenden
Hertford/Ware Broxbourne Braughing
(38,665) (9,925) Standon
Hoddesdon Buntingford Hadham Ford
(36,000) (5,170) Great Amwell
Bishops Stortford
(28,403)
* Cambourne has been included because as a new settlement, it is currently planned to grow to 3,000 dwellings. A
current planning application proposes further expansion.
4
Map 2.1
5
2.2.4 The Study area contains the full range of settlements from city through to large towns and
villages and small rural centres. The settlement pattern is diverse and has been influenced
by a number of external and internal factors. Within the Study area, there are a number of
spatial 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 which
Stansted Airport is located. Cambridge is located to the north of the corridor and connects
to the south via the M11 and the West Anglia Main line railway. The settlement pattern is
characterised 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 Stansted
Mountfitchet. The town of Harlow and the Lee Valley are identified as Priority Areas for
Regeneration (PAER). Both areas suffer from high levels of deprivation, with particular
severity in Harlow. The remaining structure is characterised by a number of small rural
settlements with populations under 5,000 people. These settlements are all well linked by
good transport infrastructure providing direct access to both London and Cambridge and
are 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 the
A10 at Standon. The corridor provides a direct link to Stansted Airport, taking in the key
settlements of Colchester, Braintree, Great Dunmow and Bishop’s Stortford, and a number
of small rural settlements. While many of the people living within this area will have strong
links to the rural economy, well developed road and rail communications means there are
also 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 this
the character of the corridor changes dramatically with a large number of linear settlements
connecting into north London. The southern centres are important local service and
employment centres but they are also subject to a strong pull towards London and maintain
a 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. They
are major centres of population and employment within the Study area. The town of
6
Witham is located roughly equidistant between the two. Colchester and Chelmsford
perform a strong internal role within the Study area and have good access to Stansted
Airport.
Hitchin to Cambridge Corridor
2.2.10 This corridor stretches from Hitchin in the south west to Cambridge in the north east along
the A505. All the settlements have good access to London and with the exception of
Cambridge are towns of medium size. Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock are likely to have
strong 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 for
employment, retail, education, culture, tourism and leisure and has a far greater external
influence than Chelmsford or Colchester, which are the only other settlements within the
Study area that are comparable in population terms. Cambridge is surrounded by South
Cambridgeshire, 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 of
the 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 urban
structure within Cambridge’s surrounding area of influence, in that there are no large towns
or 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 a
population of 5,000 or more people. A population threshold of 5,000 was adopted on the
basis of government guidance (Planning for Sustainable Development, DETR 1998). Rural
settlements (settlements with a population of less than 5,000) are dealt with separately in
Section 2.4 below. From the analysis of role and function the consultants have produced a
settlement hierarchy. This hierarchy was produced by ranking the settlements based on
their provision of different types of goods and services. The analysis draws out key
features that are unique to particular settlements and provides a better understanding of
how each currently operates within the Study area. Importantly it will be used to
demonstrate how each settlement will be affected by the growth scenarios developed in
Stage 3.
2.3.2 This section sets out the steps in analysing role and function and the process of
determining the settlement hierarchy It should be noted that the analysis was a desk based
collection of data and assessment. Also, data was not collected and no assessment has
been made of settlements outside, but which have interaction with, the Study area. The
assessment methodology is set out in Appendix 1.
7
Settlement Role and Function – Assessment Results
2.3.3 The assessment provides a broad understanding of service provision through identifying
the location and number of services within the Study area and in doing so provides an
indication 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 type
of service and for all service areas. This is a geographical representation of the raw data
gathered on the number and location of services in the Study area. By then scoring and
ranking the total for each type of service and comparing this against population, the
adequacy 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. The
trend line that runs diagonally through the centre of each graph indicates where the two
ranks should cross, meaning that the population rank is equal to the service rank. The two
lines running parallel above and below the trend line indicate a deviation of 5 ranks from
the 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 a
balance between service provision and the size of the settlement;
• where a settlement is above the trend line, the service rank is less than the population
rank, 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 the
population 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 and
Colchester are the main centres for health provision in the Study area, having the largest
concentration of hospitals, doctors and dentists surgeries. Other hospitals in the Study
area are located in Chelmsford, Braintree, Saffron Walden and Ware. Most centres have
as 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 in
general, health provision is in line with the size of the population. Settlements that stand
out as having a particularly good provision of health services, relative to their size (rank of
health 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).
8
Map 2.2
9
Figure 2.1 Population Rank and Health Rank
30
Cambourne
Sawston Great Dunmow

25
Sawbridgeworth Chipping Ongar
Baldock
Stansted Mountfitchet.
20
Ware Broxbourne Buntingford
Royston
Health Rank
Halstead
15
Hoddesdon Waltham Abbey Epping
Bishops Stortford
Letchworth
Cheshunt
10 Witham
Loughton Saffron Walden

Hitchin
Hertford
5
Harlow Braintree
Chelmsford
Colchester
Cambridge
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Population Rank
10
2.3.9 Settlements that indicate an under provision of services relative to their size include (rank
of 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 higher
education institutions. Cambridge, Chelmsford and Colchester are the main centres for
education provision in the Study area, offering the biggest concentration across the whole
range of services. Most other centres provide primary and secondary education as a
minimum. Figure 2.2 compares the rank of population to the rank of education services. It
shows 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 to
their 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 professional
services. These categories of services reflect, in the main, the availability of consistent data
sets but also provide a broad indication of the size and influence of a town centre. It shows
that the main location and concentration of retail services is within Cambridge, Colchester
and Chelmsford. Other centres, which are prominent in terms of retail floorspace are
Harlow, 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 that
for Cambridge, Chelmsford, Colchester, Harlow, Loughton, Braintree, Letchworth, Ware,
Halstead and Chipping Ongar, the rank of retail and facilities are generally in line with the
rank of population.
2.3.15 Those settlements where the retail and facilities ranking is 5 or more ranks above that of
population (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).
11
Map 2.3
12
Map 2.4
13
Figure 2.2 Population Rank and Eductation Rank
30
Chipping Ongar
Cambourne
25
Great Dunmow
Halstead Baldock
Sawston
Epping
20
Broxbourne
W altham Abbey Buntingford
Education Rank
Sawbridgeworth
Saffron W alden
15
Hoddesdon Royston
W itham
W are
Hitchin
10 Letchworth
Hertford
Cheshunt
Braintree
Loughton
5 Bishops Stortford
Harlow
Chelmsford
Colchester
Cambridge
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Population Rank
61 . 3 . 2
14
Figure 2.3 Population Rank and Retail and Facilities Rank
30
Cambourne
Broxbourne
Sawston
25
Chipping Ongar
Hoddesdon Waltham Abbey Great Dunmow
20 Sawbridgeworth Buntingford
Services Rank
Witham Royston Halstead

15
Cheshunt Ware Saffron Walden Baldock
10 Hertford Epping
Letchworth
Loughton
Bishops Stortford
Braintree
5 Chelmsford Hitchin
Colchester
Harlow
Cambridge
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Population Rank
15
2.3.17 Those settlements where the retail and facilities ranking is 5 ranks or more below that of
population (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 regional
administrative 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, Letchworth
and Saffron Walden. The town/parish administrative centres are Buntingford, Chipping
Ongar, Halstead, Loughton, Royston, Sawbridgeworth, Sawston, Stansted Mountfitchet,
Waltham Abbey, Witham and Ware. The centres, which have no administration function are
Baldock, Broxbourne, Cheshunt, Hitchin and Hoddesdon.
2.3.19 Figure 2.4 shows the rank of administration compared to the rank of population. Unlike the
other service types there is a much weaker correlation between the administration function
of a settlement and its size since it is not strictly a public service or facility. The graph
therefore shows a much more random picture when the two ranks are compared. For most
settlements, 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 above
analysis, Cambridge has the largest concentration of all services, followed by Colchester
and 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 that
for most settlements, the overall service rank is within 5 ranking points of the rank of
population.
2.3.22 The settlements which stand out as having a very good level of provision relative to their
size (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).
16
Maps 2.5
17
Map 2.6
18
Figure 2.4 Population Rank and Administration Rank
30
Hoddesdon Hitchin
25 Broxbourne Baldock
Chipping Ongar
Sawston
20
Administration Rank
Waltham Abbey
15 Witham
Loughton Halstead Sawbridgeworth Buntingford
Ware
Royston
10
Colchester Harlow
Braintree
Letchworth Saffron Walden
Cheshunt Cambourne
5
Bishops Stortford Epping Great Dunmow
Chelmsford
Hertford
Cambridge
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Population Rank
19
Figure 2.5 Population Rank and Overall Service Rank
30
Cambourne
Chipping Ongar
Sawston
25
Broxbourne Stansted Mountfitchet.
Sawbridgeworth Baldock
20
Halstead Great Dunmow Buntingford
Overall Service Rank
Waltham Abbey
Hoddesdon
Royston
15 Epping
Ware
Saffron Walden
Witham
Letchworth
10 Cheshunt
Bishops Stortford
Loughton
Hitchin
Hertford
5 Braintree
Harlow
Chelmsford
Colchester
Cambridge
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Population Rank
20
2.3.23 Those settlements which have a poor level of provision relative to their size (overall service
rank 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 in
Table 2.2 below, showing the difference in ranking points for each.
Table 2.2: Comparison of Overall Service Rank and Population Rank

Settlement Population Rank Service Difference
Rank
Cambridge 1 1 0
Chelmsford 2 3 -1
Colchester 3 2 1
Harlow 4 4 0
Cheshunt 5 10 -5
Loughton 6 8 -2
Hoddesdon 7 17 -10
Braintree 8 5 3
Hitchin 9 7 2
Letchworth 10 11 -1
Bishop’s Stortford 11 9 2
Witham 12 12 0
Hertford 13 6 7
Ware 14 14 0
Waltham Abbey 15 18 -3
Royston 16 16 0
Saffron Walden 17 13 4
Halstead 18 18 0
Broxbourne 19 24 -5
Epping 20 15 5
Sawbridgeworth 21 22 -1
Baldock 22 22 0
Cambourne 23 28 -5
Sawston 24 25 -1
Chipping Ongar 25 27 -2
Stansted Mountfitchet 26 25 7
Great Dunmow 27 20 1
Buntingford 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 to
be a definitive or comprehensive definition or assessment. The main value of the exercise
is in providing an understanding of the characteristics of the main settlements, identifying
linkages between settlements and defining the relationships within their surrounding areas.
21
Importantly, it will also help to demonstrate the impacts of future growth scenarios at a
settlement 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 wider
area of influence), thus providing a transparent and consistent method through which
compare 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 gap
between scores, from 196 (Cambridge) to just 7 (Cambourne). However, a logical range of
scores can be identified that can help to group the settlements based on the typical
characteristics 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 is
presented graphically in Map 2.7.
Table 2.4: Settlement Categorisation by Overall Service Score

Score Settlements Broad Characteristics
Range
Level 1 Cambridge (196)
Over 151
Large concentration of regional level services. Major retail centre and large
representation of professional services. Strong County and Regional administrative
function. Serves extensive catchment area.
Cambridge is the only settlement within this level and is distinguished from Chelmsford
and Colchester, which are comparable in population terms, by its concentration of
regional level services. Cambridge is a fulcrum for growth within the Study area and is
likely to maintain its position in the hierarchy under any growth scenario.
Level 2 Colchester (150) Chelmsford (120)
101-150
Large concentration of sub-regional level services. Some regional level services. Large
retail centre and large representation of professional services. Serves County or District
administration function. Serves large sub regional catchment area.
Chelmsford and Colchester are Level 2 settlements. They are comparable in population
terms to Cambridge but have a stronger sub-regional than regional focus. They are
important centres of employment, important retail centres and, in the case of
Chelmsford, a focus for local government administration. These centres are also likely
to maintain their position in the hierarchy, supported within the region by a network of
other centres which could develop into important sub-regional centres in their own right
(for example, Harlow).
Level 3 Harlow (100) Braintree (59), Hertford (56), Hitchin (53), Loughton (51)
51-100
22
Large concentration of district level services. Some sub-regional level services. Medium
sized retail centre with good representation of professional services. Serves district level
administrative function. Serves district level catchment.
These settlements are strong local centres providing a good range of district level
services. The population range within this level varies significantly, from Harlow, with a
population around 75,000 to Hertford with a population of around 21,000. This highlights
the important function that the smaller settlements of Hertford and Hitchin play in terms
of servicing a wide catchment area. It also suggests that their level of service provision
could have the capacity to accommodate significant levels of growth. These are strong
contenders for growth and have potential to develop into centres, which have more of a
sub-regional focus.
Level 4 Bishop’s Stortford (50), Cheshunt (42), Letchworth (41), Witham (34),
26-50 Saffron Walden (33), Ware (28), Epping (27), Royston (26)
Large concentration local level services. Some district level services. Small retail centre
with some representation of professional services. Local administrative function. Serves
local catchment.
These settlements offer a more limited range of services, but are nonetheless able to
support a high degree self sufficiency in their local context. Loughton and Cheshunt are
within the higher population range and should be able to support a much higher level of
services than at present. This may be a reflection of a dormitory function within these
settlements, where people work and use services outside their local area. These
settlements are strong likely contenders for growth and have the potential to move
upwards within the hierarchy.
Level 5 Hoddesdon (22), Waltham Abbey (20), Halstead (20), Great Dunmow (19),
0-25 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 and
limited representation of professional services. Local administrative function. Serves
daily needs of the resident population. Likely to have a strong functional relationship with
other centres for services.
The position of Hoddesdon within this level is particularly notable since this is one of the
larger settlements, with a population of nearly 37,000 people, yet it is comparable in
terms of service provision to Great Dunmow, which has a population of 5,000 people. At
present these settlements serve a local function and therefore development at these
locations would require more careful consideration. Major development could have a
strong local impact, which could be positive, in terms of building up a critical mass of
population to support a greater range of services, or negative, by creating additional
journeys 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 the
west and south are at lower levels reflecting the fact that there are service centres outside
the Study area. In addition, the southern part of the Study area contains a number of small
and medium sized centres and no single dominant centre has been able to develop.
23
Map 2.7
24
Table 2.3
25
2.4 Rural Settlement Review
2.4.1 Problems with availability of reliable and meaningful data with respect to settlements with a
population of less than 5,000 people, has precluded them from the above broad analysis of
settlement role and function. Nevertheless, they have an important position in the
settlement hierarchy with respect to their role and function as local service centres and
indeed 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 existing
rail corridors or could form part of future potential bus corridors, thereby forming the most
sustainable options for future growth. These include, Great Shelford,
Whittlesford/Duxford, Little/Great Chesterford, Newport, Wendens Ambo/Audley End
and Elsenham/Ugley Green on the rail corridor. For potential bus corridors, settlements
include Takeley, Little Dunmow, Rayne, Bradwell, Coggeshall, Stanway, Marks Tey,
Little Hadham, Reed, Westmill, Aspenden, Standon, Hadham Ford, Braughing, Great
Amwell, Hatfield Heath, Roxwell, Little Hallingbury, Leaden Roding, Writtle, Little
Waltham, Howe Street, Ford End and Barnford on the A120, A10, A1060 and A130
corridors. These corridors link to Stansted and have a range of settlement sizes along their
route, as well as significant concentrations of population at either end of each corridor. It
should be noted that population statistics are not readily available for settlements of this
size, 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 the
future as a result of the underlying growth that is set to take place within the region in
general. Any additional growth resulting from the expansion of Stansted Airport will only
compound this pressure. It is important therefore to determine which settlements can
accommodate growth. In doing so we consider the impact on the inherent qualities and
characteristics 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, the
impact on development within close proximity is also an important consideration.
Development in close proximity to existing small settlements could threaten the viability of
the limited service range they provide. Similarly, growth of small settlements would need to
take account of the impact on existing facilities and the effect on neighbouring
communities.
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 necessarily
geographically specific. Pressure for housing and rising house prices; increasing traffic and
congestion; fear of crime and loss of social cohesion; and declining agricultural
employment and the need to broaden local economies are common themes across the
country. 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 rural
settlement:
• Those economically orientated to large towns or conurbations i.e. ‘suburban
countryside’. More rural areas are likely to fall into this category in future;
26
• 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 the
rural economy, but which could transform from a focus on quantity production to quality
production; 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 potential
bus corridors and with good links to growing towns, are likely to become increasingly
suburbanised. The small historic settlements in the study area, many of which are not
identified by name here, would continue increasingly to offer tourism and leisure roles. It
may be that these two types of rural settlement are not mutually exclusive, in that, with
carefully designed development, smaller settlements can maintain their special character
while being orientated to larger towns and conurbations. Much depends on whether
sustainable travel options exist, as it would clearly be unsustainable and against local and
national 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 be
considered 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 services
and facilities. Therefore, on the whole they would be considered to fall into the sphere of
influence of the main settlements, maintaining a close functional relationship with the
nearest large town. Therefore, it is important that the services and the facilities of the
settlements improve also so that as the population grows, they become more self sufficient
in order to limit the extent to which they are dormitory settlements to larger centres.
27
2.5 Urban and Rural Deprivation
2.5.1 An assessment of rural and urban deprivation has been carried out to identify areas in
need of regeneration and to discuss the nature of deprivation within the Study area. The
assessment involves using the Index of Multiple Deprivation Scores for Wards, 2000
(Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2000) in order to create two
thematic maps, detailing deprivation for both rural and urban wards. Rural wards are
defined as encompassing settlements with a population less than 5,000 people and urban
wards 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 University
for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) by using the
following 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 the
most 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 represent
high and low levels of deprivation. Urban wards were then identified by overlaying the
boundaries of settlements over 5,000 population and selecting those wards located within
the settlement boundaries. Rural wards were then identified by inverting the selection of
urban wards, with the settlement boundaries of those settlements below 5,000 population
displayed.
2.5.5 Cambourne, in South Cambridgeshire was not included on the deprivation maps as the
settlement is relatively new with, as yet, no distinct settlement boundary. Therefore, it was
not possible to map the settlement boundary and because the development of Cambourne
is later than the index of Multiple Deprivation the data does not give a true representation
of 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 that
have high levels of deprivation. These include Harlow, Waltham Abbey, Witham and
Braintree.
2.5.7 Harlow is identified as having a comparatively high level of deprivation as most of Harlow’s
wards are contained within the bottom 40% of the national ranking.
28
Map 2.8
29
2.5.8 The Deposit Draft Local Plan for Harlow identifies that there are serious social and
economic problems at the localised level. Even though employment numbers have
remained stable over recent years and unemployment levels have declined (2.9% in
September 2001), the majority of new job growth has been in the highly skilled research
and development sectors, which local people are unable to access due to a skills gap. In
this 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 Plan
states that the priority is to restructure, diversify and increase Harlow’s economic base and
that economic regeneration should be focused on skills training to address the imbalance
between labour and jobs.
2.5.9 Waltham Abbey, Witham, and Braintree also contain a high proportion of wards that are
classified as deprived areas. In respect of Waltham Abbey, the Epping Forest Local Plan
does not give further details on this settlement, however, it does raise the general issue of
the mis-match between the types of jobs that are available and the skills of the
unemployed. The Local Plan for Braintree, which includes Witham, states that Single
Regeneration Budget (SRB) funding has been granted for the East of Braintree. The Plan
also recognises that there has been an under provision of jobs, services and infrastructure
in comparison to the provision of housing, which has led to out-commuting and issues of
social 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 provide
additional information on regeneration issues in respect to these urban settlements.
However, the Colchester Local Plan states that the east of Colchester has been identified
as a priority for regeneration, and was subsequently granted SRB funding in 2000. Other
regeneration areas have also been identified in the Local Plan, including Colchester
Central Area, Colchester Garrison and The Hythe, all of which are located within the east
and 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 wards
Figure 2.6 shows that the urban wards within the following settlements are within the top
50% 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.
30
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 of
deprivation.
2.5.13 The area surrounding Stansted airport is predominately rural, and it can be clearly seen on
the rural deprivation map that the area is characterised by very low levels of deprivation
with 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 high
levels of deprivation surround urban settlement boundaries. This includes the main
settlements of Braintree, Halstead, Chipping Ongar, Loughton and Waltham Abbey.
Braintree District and South Cambridgeshire also contain small pockets of rural deprivation
that are not associated with urban areas. Unfortunately, there is a lack of information within
the Local Plan to identify the nature of the deprivation being experienced by these rural
wards.
2.6 Historic Towns Assessment
2.6.1 It is important when developing a settlement hierarchy to consider historic and cultural
heritage value. The need to protect the historic environment and cultural heritage puts an
additional dimension on the role and function of a settlement and will almost certainly
impact on how it grows in the future. The historic environment and cultural heritage value
of a settlement is largely identified through designations such as conservation areas and
listed buildings and the relative concentration of these. The historic environment is also
important with regard to quality of life. Many of the areas which are historic and that have a
high culture heritage value are also extremely attractive places to live. They are often
places where people visit and are therefore economic assets.
2.6.2 Furthermore, the historic streetscape possesses the very qualities that design standards
today are trying to achieve. However, it does not necessarily follow that a town with historic
and 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 are
considered to have historic and cultural heritage value. This assessment has been
complied by using the Council for British Archaeology (CBA, 1967) list of important historic
towns, as this is the only attempt nationally to assess town centres for their historic
qualities. The list is in no way definitive, and those towns that are not mentioned in the list
should 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 further
settlements within our Study area that could be regarded as having historic centres. Data
for this analysis has been provided from the Historic Towns Project Assessment
undertaken by Essex County Council and the Extensive Urban Survey Project undertaken
by Hertfordshire County Council. However, some settlements listed in the settlement
hierarchy have no available data and thus can not be assessed e.g. Cambridgeshire have
not undertaken any similar Study.
31
Map 2.9
32
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 of
settlements, where the complexity of urban spaces and streets is well preserved.
These open spaces and street patterns are important features to preserve, as they
provide 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 of
a 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 not
obscure.
• 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 settlement
hierarchy as towns with important historic centres meriting preservation. Many of these
historic 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 and
Ware. The CBA report subsequently short-listed 51 towns that were regarded as ‘so
splendid 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 value
have been assessed using the CBA methodology. Many of them have a wealth of historic
interest 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 by
the CBA report are highlighted bold in the Table. Consideration is given to historic
landscape issues in the Rural and Countryside Review set out in Section 2.7 below.
33
Map 2.10
34
Table 2.5: Summary of Historic Towns Assessment

County Settlement Attributes Comments
Cambs Cambridge 1a, 2a, 3, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c Cambridge is identified by the CBA (1967) report as
having a most important historic town centre. It has
a wealth of historical buildings in the centre of the
City and retains the ancient street pattern. The river
Cam and its many bridges, including the
Mathematical Bridge, provides a unique setting with
historical attributes.
Cambourne Not Applicable
Sawston Data Not Available
Essex Colchester 1a, 2a, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, Colchester has also been designated by the CBA
7b, 7c (1967) report as having a most important historic
town centre. Colchester is the oldest recorded town
in Britain, with a wealth of large-scale pre-Roman
occupation sites. The core area contains many
historic features including, listed buildings, SAM’s
and a Historic Park and Garden.
Chelmsford 1a, 2a, 3, 7a, 7b, 7c Chelmsford, one of the largest and one of the oldest
settlements, was not identified on the CBA (1967), even
though it still retains a well preserved medieval street
pattern, some medieval buildings and the Moulsham
Bridge (SAM). This is a largely due to the demolition of
the majority of older buildings and the masking of the
remaining examples behind modern shop frontages and
thus does not have the appearance of an historic town.
Harlow 7a, 7b, 7c Even though Harlow is predominately a ‘new town’, Old
Harlow and Harlowbury/Churchgate Street retain
sufficient numbers of its post medieval structures and
layout 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 the
appearance of an historic market town of medieval origin.
Unfortunately, the nineteenth and early twentieth century
industrial architecture has been lost.
Loughton Data Not Available
Waltham Abbey 1a, 6, 7a, 7c Waltham Abbey retains many features that classify it as a
historic town, including, the Abbey, monastic precinct and
the area of the Market Square and Sun Street, which
have an important amenity value. There is also a wealth
of late medieval and post medieval buildings.
Witham 1a, 2a, 4, 7a, 7b Witham has been identified by the CBA (1967) report
as being an example of an historic town. The
surviving remains date to the medieval and post
medieval times, consisting of the church, street
pattern, mill ponds and leats and both listed and
unlisted buildings. Double ditches in Witham do
survive in areas beneath the post-medieval housing.
Chipping Hill and parts of Newland Street are
particularly strong in historic character.
35
Saffron Walden 1a, 2a, 5, 7a, 7b Saffron Walden has been identified by the CBA
(1967) report as being a very fine example of an
historic town. It has retained many buildings of
outstanding quality, dating back to the late medieval
and post-medieval period. The settlement includes a
very fine parish church, the maze, the castle keep,
and a proportion of the town enclosure ditches.
Stansted Data Not Available
Mountfitchet
Epping 1a, 7b Epping retains its post medieval built environment, in
terms of its plan of the High Street and its market place.
Even though modern buildings and shop frontages have
been 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. The
town has the visual appearance of a medieval and
post medieval market town. The town also has a
large quantity of 17th and 18th century buildings that
are in good condition. Unfortunately, there are no
remains of the roman town above ground.
Halstead 1a, 7a, 7b, 7c Halstead retains the appearance of an historic town of
medieval origin, especially at the northern end of the
High Street. There are some very good examples of
medieval and post-medieval urban architecture within the
town.
Chipping Ongar 1a, 5, 7a, 7b Chipping Ongar has been identified by the CBA
(1967) report as being an example of an historic
town. The majority of the castle earthworks still
survive and many of the 17th and 18th Century
buildings are in good condition.
Herts Cheshunt Data Not Available
Letchworth 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 residential
areas with high quality, tree lined streets and separate
industrial areas. This merits a special case for
preservation.
Baldock 1a, 7a, 7b Baldock is listed by the CBA as being an example of
an historic town. It contains a wealth of listed
buildings from the 17th and 18th Century and has a
well-preserved medieval street plan.
Hitchin 1a, 2a, 7a, 7b, 7c Hitchin is listed by the CBA as being an example of
an historic town. It possess a wealth of listed
buildings from the 17th, 18th and the 19th Century
and 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 a
historic town. No less than four rivers meet in
Hertford, including the Mimram, Rib, Beane and the
Lea. The remains of the Motte, the Norman Walls and
the Gate house can still be seen.
Ware 1a, 2a, 3, 7a, 7b, 7c Ware is listed by the CBA an example of a historic
town. It retains much of its ancient town plan, which
is characterised by the River Lea, which passes
through the town.
Hoddesdon Data Not Available
Bishops Data Not Available
Stortford
36
Royston 1a, 7a, 7b, 7c Royston contains many important listed buildings and the
town centre has conservation Status. The North
Hertfordshire Local Plan recognises that Royston is of
regional importance.
Sawbridgeworth Data Not Available
Broxbounre Data Not Available
Buntingford 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 the
sensitivity of the rural landscape and countryside. This is based on an assessment of the
following:
• 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 will
experience significant pressure for development and any development needs to be
carefully managed to minimise detrimental impact. Some 85% of the Study area is made
up of rural areas (based on the total land make up of rural wards as a percentage of the
total land within the Study area) including the 600 rural settlements mentioned in paragraph
2.4.2.
2.7.3 It is therefore important to understand the sensitivity of rural areas to change so that growth
that takes place outside the larger urban centres can be directed to locations which are
least sensitive to change and contribute towards achieving a sustainable pattern of
development.
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 the
countryside and rural areas, since it considers the whole of the countryside rather than just
specific parts that are protected by planning designations such as AONBs, SSSIs and
nature reserves.
Landscape Character Area Assessment
2.7.5 The Inception Report outlined (in Section 3.3) how the Quality of Life Approach would be
applied in terms of the initial identification of sites with a potential capacity to accommodate
development. This rural and countryside review uses the landscape character assessment
information already available within the Study area as the basis for further analysis of the
capacity of landscapes to accommodate change.
2.7.6 There is good coverage, in terms of recent landscape assessments, within Essex, the
southern 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.
37
• Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study, South Cambridgeshire District

Council, 1998.
• Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy Volume 2: Landscape Character Assessment,
Evaluation and Guidelines for Southern Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire CC and the
Landscape Partnership Ltd, 2001.
2.7.7 In addition, since production of the Inception Report a draft landscape character
assessment has been supplied for North Hertfordshire. Within parts of East Hertfordshire
no local landscape assessments have been published to date, although national
Countryside Character Areas apply. In order to bridge this information gap a broad
categorisation of landscape types within these areas has been undertaken through a brief
area survey to ensure broad linkages between the local landscape character areas within
the Study area.
2.7.8 Of the landscape character studies undertaken to date, only the Essex Landscape
Character Assessment includes an appraisal of landscape capacity for each landscape
character area. This has been used as the basis of an assessment of capacity for
remaining landscape character areas at the broad level, in order to set out the baseline
situation 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 form
an 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 facilitate
subsequent 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 in
relation to large scale development control issues.
2.7.12 The sensitivity analysis of landscape character areas undertaken in the Essex Study has
been used to form the basis for the assessment of capacity within this baseline
assessment by applying the method used to Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
2.7.13 The approach to defining sensitivity levels based upon good practice, adapted to the
circumstances of Essex was developed and is set out in Table 2.6 below. These were then
applied in a sensitivity matrix to provide an indication of the sensitivity of each character
area to different types/scales of development/change. In order to make it useful the Study
identified, in broad terms, the different categories of development pressure and land use
change.
2.7.14 To analyse sensitivity without such differentiation would have been less meaningful. The
levels of sensitivity identified, rather than defining policy for a particular character area, are
generalised statements that provide a pointer to issues that would need to be addressed in
any development control or landscape planning context in that area. The Study
38
acknowledges that further analysis would need to be carried out at a district level, in
relation to a specific application with significant landscape or visual effects, or where there
are cumulative impacts of several developments. Map 2.11 shows the results of the
landscape area sensitivity analysis. The results are set out in more detail for each county
in Tables 2.6 - 2.9 below.
Table 2.6: Landscape Sensitivity Level and Landscape Sensitivity Criteria included in the
Essex Study
Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Ability of the Landscape
Sensitivity to Absorb Impacts of
Level Development and Other
Change
HIGH The landscape is very sensitive to this type/scale Unlikely to be capable of
of development/change due to the potential for being absorbed.
very adverse impacts on: Presumption against
Distinctive physical and cultural components or key development unless
characteristics, overriding need.
Strength of character/condition of the landscape
AONB Landscape,
Landscape of high intervisibility/visual exposure
Tranquil area .
Very limited opportunities for mitigation.
MODERATE The landscape is sensitive to this type/scale of May be capable of being
development/change due to the potential for some absorbed. Developments to
adverse impacts on: be considered on their
Distinctive physical and cultural components, or individual merits.
key characteristics,
Strength of character/condition of the landscape,
Landscape of moderate intervisibility/visual
exposure,
Area of fragmented tranquillity.
There may be more opportunities to overcome
these through appropriate siting, design and other
mitigation measures.
LOW The landscape is less sensitive to this type and Likely to be capable in
scale of development/change due to the potential principle of being absorbed.
for only slight, or no damaging impacts on:
Distinctive physical and cultural components or key
characteristics,
Strength of character/condition of the landscape,
Landscape of low intervisibility/visual exposure,
Area with an absence of tranquillity
Likely to be considerable opportunities for
mitigation and/or landscape enhancement.
39
Map 2.11
40
2.7.15 The Essex Study assessed the sensitivity of the following types and scales of
development:
• 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. The
other types of development are deemed less applicable. The benchmark of 5 ha has
been used so that the Essex Study results can be used directly for this Study. The
identification of sites that will be assessed in Stage 3 of this Study will have a minimum size
threshold of at least 10ha.
2.7.17 A more detailed analysis of landscape character assessment will be carried out at the
detailed 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 form
an 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 the
following 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 each
area 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 as
Table 2.7, indicating the relevant Landscape Character Areas and the sensitivity to both
major and small urban extensions.
41
Table 2.7: Summary Matrix of Essex Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations of Relevance to
this Study
CHARACTER AREAS Major urban Small urban
extensions extensions
(>5ha) and new (<5ha)
settlements
A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmlands H H

B1 Central Essex Farmlands M L
B2 North Essex Farmlands H H
B3 Blackwater/Stour Farmlands M M
B4 Gosfield Wooded Farmlands H L
C1 Cam Valley H M
C2 Stort Valley H M
C3 Lee Valley H L
C4 Roding Valley H M
C5 Chelmer Valley H M
C6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower Chelmer Valleys H L
C7 Colne Valley H M
C8 Stour Valley H H
D1 Epping Forest & Ridges H M
D2 Brentwood Hills M M
D3 Danbury Hills H L
D4 Tiptree Ridge H L
E1 South Essex Farmlands M L
E2 South Colchester Farmlands M L
E3 Tendring Plain M L
E4 North Colchester Farmlands M M
F2 Crouch & Roach Farmland H M
F5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal Farmlands H M
F6 Mersea Island H M
G1 Harlow & Environs M L
G2 Chelmsford & Environs M L
G3 South Essex Coastal Towns M L
G4 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 of
landscape character.
2.7.23 The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (1991) provide broad descriptions of all
landscapes within the County. The following character areas are relevant to this Study:
42
• 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 the
degree of openness or enclosure of that landscape and the nature of the topography. The
Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines do not provide an indication of potential capacity
and there is considerable variation in the key characteristics of landscape character within
each character area. In the ‘Chalklands’ character area for example the well vegetated
and enclosed river valleys contrast sharply with the open chalklands on more elevated
topography. It is therefore difficult to provide a general statement about landscape
capacity 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 range
of landscape sensitivity is indicated in Table 2.8 below.
2.7.26 The Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study (1998) defines thirteen Local
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) specifically within the Cambridge Green Belt, all of
which 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 areas
in relation to the main transport corridors radiating from Cambridge (refer to paragraph
8.4.7 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 Landscape
Character areas (identified by the Cambridgeshire Landscape guidelines) have been
tabulated in Table 2.8. This has been derived by a broad analysis of the physical
components or key characteristics of each character area and the recorded degree of
intervisibility/openness within the above written descriptions. It thus broadly applies the
sensitivity criteria methodology used within the Essex Landscape Character study, allowing
some degree of consistency of assessment across the Study area. Issues of historic
sensitivity and tranquillity are discussed below. It is emphasised that this has been a desk-
43
based appraisal and will therefore be subject to more detailed analysis during site
evaluation in Stage 3.
Table 2.8: Summary Matrix of Cambridgeshire Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations

County Local Character Area (Cambridge Green Belt) Major Small
Character Area extensions urban
and Number (>5ha) and extensions
new (<5ha)
settlements
South-east Clay N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) H H

Hills (1)
Fenlands (8) East-Cambridge Chalklands (part) H M-H
Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H
Chalklands (2) North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands (part) M-H M-H
Cam River Valley (North) M-H M
East Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Chalklands (part) M-H M-H
Fulbourn Fen Bowl H M-H
Gog Magog Hills H H
Granta Levels H M
Hobson’s Brook M-H M
Newton Chalk Hills H H
Rhee River Valley H M
Wimpole Ridge (Part) H H
Cam River Valley (South) – (part) H M
Bourn Brook Valley (part) H H
Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H
Western Cam River Valley (south) – (part) H M-H
Claylands (3)
Bourn Brook Valley – (part) H H
Wimpole Ridge (east) – (part) H H
Madingley Ridge H M-H
North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands (part) H M-H
Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M
Ouse Valley (4) N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) M M
HERTFORDSHIRE
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 Landscape
Partnership 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 provide
descriptions of landscape character.
44
2.7.31 The Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy (2001) for Southern Hertfordshire, (which extends
across the southern half of the County) covers the southern part of East Hertfordshire and
all of Broxbourne District. The Landscape Character Areas within the Study area are
extensive and listed in Table 2.9 below, together with an analysis of sensitivity. The key
characteristics 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 in
Table 2.9, derived from the character area descriptions.
Table 2.9: Summary Matrix of Hertfordshire Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations

Southern Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areas within Major urban Small urban
East Hertfordshire DC extensions extensions
(>5ha) and (<5ha)
new
settlements
37 Datchworth Settled Slopes M M
38 Aston Estate Farmland M/H M
39 MiddleBeane Valley H M/H
40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland M/H M
41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and Datchworth Uplands M L/M
42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland M L/M
43 Mimram Valley Parklands M L
44 Panshanger Parkland (N/A)* (N/A)*
45 Welwyn Fringes L/M L
48 West End – Brickendon Wooded Slopes M L/M
49 Little Berkhamsted Ridge Settlements M L/M
55 Theobalds Estate M M
56 Cheshunt Common H M/H
57 Thunderfield Ridges M/H M/H
58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands M M
59 Lea Valley Marshes M/H M
60 Middle Lea Valley South L/M L
61 Broxbournebury M M
62 Broxbourne Woods Complex H H
63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands M M
64 Hertford Heath M/H M
65 Middle Lea Valley West M/H M
66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury M L/M
67 Bramfield Plain M/H M/H
68 Lower Beane Valley M L/M
69 Stoneyhills M M
70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes M L/M
71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge M/H M
72 Munden Valley M/H M
73 High Cross Plateau M/H M
74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland M/H M/H
45
75 Lower Rib Valley M M

76 Ware Parklands L/M L/M
77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Floodplain M M
78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes M L/M
79 Amwell Floodplain M L/M
80 Rye Meads H M/H
81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands M/H M/H
82 River Stort M L/M
83 Hunsdon Plateau M/H M/H
84 High Wych Slopes H M/H
85 Thorley Uplands H M/H
86 Perry Green Uplands M/H M/H
87 Middle Ash Valley M M
88 Lower Ash Valley M M
89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands H M/H
90 Middle Rib Valley H M/H
91 Upper Rib Valley M/H M/H
92 Puckeridge Parklands M/H M/H
93 Hadhams Valley M M
* Area has consent for mineral extraction – potential capacity following/as part of restoration
North Hertfordshire DC Landscape Character Areas
200 Peters Green Plateau M M
201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom M/H M/H
202 Breachwood Green Ridge M/H M/H
203 Whitwell Valley Not available
204 River Mimram M M
205 Codicote Plateau M L/M
206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath M L/M
207 Datchworth Settled Slopes M/H M
208 Knebworth M L/M
209 Almshoe Plateau M/H M/H
210 Langley Scarp M M
211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden M M
212 Lilley Bottom M M
213 Chilterns Scarp H M/H
214 Langley Valley H M/H
215 Wymondley and Titmore Green M L/M
216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley M/H M/H
217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys M M
218 Pirton Lowlands H M/H
219 Baldock Gap H M/H
220 Weston Park M L/M
221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries H M/H
222 Weston – Green End Plateau M L/M
223 Wallington Scarp Slopes H M/H
224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands H M/H
225 Hinxworth Lowlands M/H M/H
46
226 Steeple Morden H M/H

227 Odsey to Royston H M/H
228 Royston Scarp Slopes M/H M/H
229 Therfield – Reed Plateau H H
230 Barkway Plateau Not available
231 Nuthampstead M/H M/H
232 Barley Scarp Slope M/H M/H
REMAINDER OF EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT
2.7.33 No landscape character assessments have been undertaken in the northern part of East
Hertfordshire. Consequently, the consultants undertook a brief site survey to determine the
key landscape characteristics and potential capacity of the landscapes within this area to
accommodate development.
2.7.34 It is emphasised that this was undertaken at a broad scale to aid capacity categorisation as
part 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 character
areas, which have been recorded within the Study area. Table 2.7 is extracted directly
from the Essex study, Tables 2.8 and 2.9 have been formulated using the same
methodology as applied the Essex Study. The sensitivity of these broad landscape
character areas have been recorded on Map 2.11 and the key characteristics of each area
set out in Appendix 2.
2.7.36 The results will be taken through to the site selection process for the sites database once a
broad categorisation of historic asset density has been carried out, as described below. In
addition, the location of character areas in relation to tranquillity area mapping will be
determined, 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 rural
settlements in the form of scheduled monuments, archaeological sites, and registered
landscapes. Success in conserving the historic character of the countryside and protecting
its archaeological sites will be dependent in large part on future land-use policy, which this
Study seeks to guide and influence.
2.7.38 The baseline assessment therefore considers the extent to which the Study area is
affected 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 rural
settlements that will be subject to growth. Map 2.12 shows the results of this analysis
indicating relative levels of constraint due to the presence or otherwise of historic assets.
47
Map 2.12
48
2.7.39 In commenting on the brief for this study, English Heritage expressed a desire for the
following 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 being
undertaken in a small Study area encompassing Harlow, Stansted, Great Dunmow,
Thaxted and the surrounding rural area (the results of which are likely to be available
during the course of the study).
2.7.40 English Heritage also acknowledged the absence of existing studies that adequately
characterise the historic towns and smaller settlements in the Study area. While the
collection of conservation appraisals (where they exist) will help, these will not provide a
holistic picture of settlement character, or provide analysis of the potential impact of
peripheral development on historic settlements – both in terms of direct visual impact and
indirect 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 Environment
Assessment includes the draft historic landscape characterisation study for Hertfordshire
that may be available in GIS format during the course of this study plus a number of Town
Assessment 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 to
identify the density and nature of historic features within the county.
2.7.43 In addition, whilst historic landscape characterisation has not been undertaken for
Cambridgeshire and is not currently available for Hertfordshire, GIS datasets relating to the
historic environment were requested and have been overlaid to ascertain the density and
nature 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 and
comprised 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 and
comprised 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 for
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire).
49
2.7.47 Whilst the assessment of the density of historic assets will not provide the same level of
detail as the historic landscape characterisation projects (which lies outside the scope of
this study), it does allow a broad level appraisal of the historic environment within
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The sensitivity ratings included within the Essex
historic landscapes report will be excluded from this appraisal in order to ensure
consistency of approach across all three counties.
Tranquillity Areas
2.7.48 In 1995, CPRE and the former Countryside Commission produced the Tranquil Area Maps
of England providing a unique analysis of changes over the last 30 years in the availability
of countryside free from intrusive noise, development and visual clutter. The findings
showed a 20% decline in the total area of tranquil countryside between 1960 and 1990 and
a damaging fragmentation of the tranquil areas that remained, with a 73% decline in their
average size. The Government responded by recognising the need to protect rural
tranquillity in its Rural White Paper (2000).
2.7.49 Tranquil Area Map – East Anglia’ and ‘Tranquil Map Area – South East’ published by the
CPRE and Countryside Commission in 1995, indicate “areas which are sufficiently far away
from the visual or noise intrusion of development or traffic to be considered unspoilt by
urban influences. The maps are drawn at a regional level, ignoring local effects, and
provide a broad brush picture of areas in the countryside, which are free from urban
intrusion. Within Tranquil Areas lower level semi-tranquil areas are shown. In the case of
roads the disturbance is projected to increase and the zones are therefore identified as
vulnerable (i.e. where growth in traffic levels would cause further loss of tranquillity). In
other cases, such as power lines the disturbance is not likely to increase significantly and
the zones are denoted less vulnerable. The cumulative effect of the vulnerable and less
vulnerable zones gives a measure of the integrity of a Tranquil Area. A Tranquil Area is
defined 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) and
some main line railways.
• A Tranquil Area also lies beyond military and civil airfield/airport noise lozenges as
defined by published noise data (where available) and beyond very extensive opencast
mining.
• 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
50
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 most
windpower developments.
2.7.52 For the purposes of this study Tranquil areas recorded for the ‘early 1990s’ on the Tranquil
Areas – East Anglia’ and ‘Tranquil Areas – South-East Region’ maps have been mapped
as a GIS layer and overlaid on the Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) within the Study
area.
2.7.53 From this process it was possible to discern whether LCAs are located within Tranquil
areas. The results are set out in Map 2.13 for the Study area as a whole and for each
county 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 from
further consideration within the Stage 3 search areas. Where part of a LCA is within a
Tranquil Area this aspect will be considered in more detail during the site assessment in
stage 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 the
Essex Landscape Character Assessment methodology), carried out a broad analysis of
historic asset density (based on GIS datasets) and determined the location of Tranquil
Areas in relation to Landscape Character Areas within the Study area. This has allowed an
assessment of whether Landscape Character Areas are suitable for inclusion in the sites
identification and assessment process in Stage 3 of the Study. The results are set out in
Map 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 to
A2.12 in Appendix 2.
51
Map 2.13
52
Map 2.14
53
2.8 Spatial Linkages
2.8.1 This Section identifies the physical relationships between districts and settlements within
the Study area and between the Study area and its surrounding area. The spatial linkages
are 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 infrastructure
within the Study area with regards to highways, rail, bus and coach services. It describes
the current provision and also sets out the proposed, emerging and possible infrastructure
enhancements.
2.8.3 This section includes an extract from the inception report on highways taken from the
Inception Report, detailing the key network flow information. In addition, further
assessments 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 the
main 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 for
future development, spatial linkages will be one of the considerations in assessing impact
of development. It may be preferable to exploit good existing linkages between
settlements before creating new ones, and new linkages would need to fit in with an overall
strategy. The feasibility and deliverability of improvements in capacity will be a
consideration in any development options identified. For example, it could be considered
that development within a retail catchment would strengthen the vitality of a town centre but
also add to congestion. In other locations, where several catchments overlap or seem
inconsistently large in size, there may be potential for development of new facilities without
adverse 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 from
London to Cambridge; M11/West Anglia London to Cambridge, the Great Eastern/A12 from
London to Colchester and the A120 from the A10 to the A12 at Colchester. The first three
corridors 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 when
the new A120 from the M11 (junction 8) to Braintree is completed. East-west movement
will be further improved when the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey is upgraded to
dual carriageway1.
2.8.6 The Study area’s external linkages are dominated by London. Much of the Study area is a
prime 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 Colchester
is approximately 50 minutes. London also attracts many trips for business, leisure and
1 Announcement by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling 09th July 2003
54
shopping purposes. This is particularly true for Epping and Loughton, which are on the
underground Central Line.
Highways
2.8.7 Section 4.5 of the Inception Report provided an overview of the current highway network in
the 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 the
network 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 and
Map 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 off
significantly after the junction with the A602 at Ware falling to between 5,000 and
26,000. The traffic flows on the northern section of the A10 are comparable to east
west 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 around
125,000 vehicles per day (vpd) resulting in periods of unstable flow, especially at peak
periods. As a result stop/start conditions are created and wide variability of speed
occurs;
• To the north of the Study area, the A14 carries significant levels of traffic with the
section between Cambridge and Huntingdon carrying some 80,000 vehicles. Lengths
either side of this busier section, however, carry only 40,000 vpd. The section between
west 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 it
increases slightly to 74,500 before dropping away. However, Map 2.15 shows that the
volumes of traffic along the whole of the A12 (at least as far as Colchester) are
substantial;
• Traffic along the M11 shows four distinct sections. The heaviest flows are from the
M25 to Junction 8 for Stansted Airport; there are also heavy flows as far as junction 9
where traffic is siphoned off onto the A11; thirdly there are significant levels of traffic
continuing to junction 11 for Cambridge and fourthly there is a substantial increase in
traffic flows between junctions 11 and 12 indicating that a considerable volume of local
traffic uses this section of the motorway.
2.8.10 Although the flows are heavy at times, under normal conditions, the network functions
reasonably well albeit that there are sections where congestion arises due to high number
of vehicles leaving/joining through routes, closeness of junctions and changes in highway
gradient and other features. There is some evidence of an emerging accident problem on
the A14 west of Cambridge where the route is approaching its capacity level and which is
55
associated with the slightly older section of this route. As a result, congestion quickly
develops and delays become quite extensive.
56
Map 2.15
57
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 motorway
that 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 the
theoretical design limits. This limit also represents the level at which the road is working to
an effective economic level. Any increase in flows will therefore reduce the economic
performance of that route until a level of flow is reached which generates wildly fluctuating
speeds. This is manifested in the low speed, stop-start patterns. This level is called the
Congestion Reference Flow (CRF). There is no set flow level for any section of road as
this level will vary on a daily basis due to such matters as weather conditions, volume of
heavy goods vehicles and gradients along the road.
2.8.13 The network in the area does not yet experience extensive CRF conditions on a regular
basis, although at certain times such conditions do arise. These conditions, when they do
occur, are associated with significant peak flows or follow other traffic related incidents
arising 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 extend
slightly.
Table 2.10: Details of traffic flows and accidents on the highways network (2000-2003)
Route Section Standard Flow (AADT) Capacity Stress Accidents KSI Accident Rate
16hr Average CRF Levels Ratio (pias / mvkms)
TA46/97 (Flow/CRF)
Annex D F Se Sl
M11 Jctn 6-7 D3M 95600 110000 0.87 3 32 178 0.18 0.28
Jctn 7-8 D3M 77800 110000 0.71 5 23 121 0.19 0.12
Jctn 8-8a D3M 63700 110000 0.58 3 18 70 0.23 0.07
Jctn 8a-9 D2M 50000 74000 0.68 0.08
Jctn 9-10 D2M 32000 74000 0.43 0 1 5 0.18 0.33
Jctn 10-11 D2M 42000 68000 0.62 1 1 6 0.25 0.02
Jctn 11-12 D2M 49000 64000 0.77 0 1 4 0.20 0.03
Jctn 12-13 D2M 46000 68000 0.68 0 2 3 0.40 0.04
Jctn 13-14 D2M 38000 65000 0.58 0 0 4 - 0.05
Jctn 14-A14 D3M 0 1 2 0.33
M25 Jctn 23/A1M- D3M 131000 110000 1.19
24
Jctn 24- D3M 121000 110000 1.10
25/A10
Jctn 25-26 D3M
Jctn 26- D3M
27/M11
Jctn 27- D3M 125800 110000 1.14 3 23 198 0.11 0.14
28/A12
A11 M11-A14 D2AP 24000 69000 0.35 1 4 14 0.26 0.04
A12 M25- D2AP 67900 68000 1.00 9 46 189 0.23 0.21
Chelmsford
Chelmsford- D2AP 74500 68000 1.10 8 72 366 0.18 0.19
A120
A120 – A120 D2AP 51700 68000 0.76 0 1 11 0.08 0.02
A120-A14 D2AP
Ipswich
A10 M25-A414(S) D2AP 47700 68000 0.70
58
A414(S)-
A414(N)
A414(N)-
A602
A602-A120 D2AP 22400 65000 0.34
A120-A507 S2L part 16100 18000 0.90
D2AP 65000 0.25
A507- S2L part 9000 20000 0.45
Royston D2AP 65000 0.14
Royston- S2L 15000 20000 0.75 1 2 15 0.17 0.07
Cambridge
Cambridge- S2L 20000 20000 1.00 3 11 46 0.23 0.13
Ely
A1M M25-J 4 D2M 68200 71000 0.96
J 4-6 D2M 75400 71000 1.06
J 6-7 D2M 75500 71000 1.06
J 7-8 D2M 66700 71000 0.94
J 8-9 D2M 66600 71000 0.94
J 9-10 D2M 48100 71000 0.68
A1 A1M- D2AP
A421/A428
A428-A14 D2AP 0 5 21 0.19
A14 Kettering-A1 D2AP 42000 68000 0.62 1 4 17 0.22 0.01
A1- D2AP 54000 68000 0.79 1 1 12 0.14 0.06
Huntingdon
Huntingdon- D2/3AP 80000 105000 0.76 1 12 91 0.13 0.06
M11
M11(J14)- D2AP 53000 63000 0.84 0 3 24 0.11 0.07
A10
A10-A11W D2AP 44000 63000 0.70 1 3 17 0.19 0.05
A11W-A11E D2AP 53000 63000 0.84 0 3 15 0.17 0.05
A11E- D2AP 38000 66000 0.58 0 0 1 - -
Ipswich
A507 A505-A10 S2L 5300 16000 0.33
A414 A1(M)-A10 D2AP 28400 63000 0.45
A120 A414-A10 S2L 30400 23000 1.32
(Harlow)
A10-A1184 S2L 14900 23000 0.65
A1184- S2L 17600 23000 0.77
M11(J8)
M11(J8)- S2L 26900 23000 1.17 5 25 150 0.17 0.56
A130
A130- S2l 22400 23000 0.97 5 20 75 0.25 0.64
A131(S)
A131(S)- D2AP
A131(N)
A131-A12 S2L 18300 23000 0.80 4 29 131 0.20 0.07
A505 A1M(J9)-A10 S2L*(part) 22300 20000 1.12
D2AP 68000 0.33
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 and
the A14 to the north, this later route provides direct access to Felixstowe port and is
designed to modern dual two-lane standard. The A120 also forms an important east-west
59
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 standard
and the section from Braintree to Marks Tey is also to be upgraded to dual carriageway
standard. Stansted Airport effectively sits at a highways crossroads, which will have
important implications later on when determining future growth locations.
2.8.15 The new A120 is the most significant highway development within the Study area. This
involves construction of the A120 to a new alignment by-passing the settlements of
Takeley Street, Takeley, Smith’s Green, Great Dunmow and Throws. When completed it
will reduce journey times from Stansted to the eastern part of the Study area and provide
substantial additional road capacity. The new A120 could have considerable influence on
where people decide to live with Braintree, Great Dunmow, Colchester and Chelmsford
having reduced journey times to Stansted Airport. Bishop’s Stortford is strategically located
on 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 the
Study area:
• Cambridge to London along the M11 comprising Cambridge, Sawston, Saffron
Walden, Stansted Mountfitchet, Bishops Stortford, Sawbridgeworth, Harlow, Epping
and 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-roads
before they can access an A-road. Uttlesford and large parts of Braintree are particularly
affected and the area between the M11 and the A1(M) has significant numbers of small
settlements with poor access to the primary road network. The majority of the settlements
identified in this Study are located on the primary road network. Those that are not are;
Hitchin, Saffron Walden, Sawbridgeworth, Sawston and Stansted Mountfitchet. Saffron
Walden 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 the
Study area. It includes an analysis of the following:
• Existing Network
• West Anglia Main Line
− Capacity and Performance
− Traffic Flows
• Train Operators
− WAGN
60
− 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 travel
to/from London. It is possible to travel east-west from Hitchin to Cambridge but these
settlements are on the Cambridge to London main line and the primary function is to serve
the London market.
2.8.20 As well as the main settlements there are a considerable number of small settlements
which have rail stations. Of particular significance are Shelford, Whittlesford, Great
Chesterford, Audley End, Newport, Elsenham and Harlow Mill on the West Anglia main line
and have direct rail access to Stansted Airport.
2.8.21 Map 2.16 maps journey times to Stansted by rail. Not surprisingly settlements on the
London Liverpool Street to Cambridge route have the best rail access in terms of time, all
being within 45 minutes travel time. Royston has relatively good access via Cambridge but
other settlements have lengthy journeys, which generally involve travel via London. The
most disadvantaged settlement is Braintree, which, although being physically close to
Stansted, does not have a rail link and therefore rail is not an option. It is quicker to travel
from King’s Lynn and Ely even though they are a far greater distance away. The only large
settlements within the Study Area that have viable rail commuting access to Stansted are
Harlow and Cambridge. The lack of an east-west rail connection severely limits the ability
of 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 the
current network, which is explained in more detail below. The travel time results are all
expressed in generalised time (see methodology in Appendix 1 for explanation of
generalised 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, clustered
around railway stations. The most accessible railway stations are located within the London
to Stansted rail corridor. The areas around the main stations within this corridor, between
61
Liverpool Street and Stansted, are all within 1 hours travel time of Stansted. Much of north
London lies within 2 hours travel time of Stansted.
62
Map 2.16
63
Map 2.17
64
2.8.24 The rail corridor from Stansted to Cambridge shows reasonable accessibility with all
stations being within at least 1 hours travel time of Stansted. It was agreed as part of the
planning application to increase the airport’s capacity to handle up to 25mppa that a
second 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 travel
time of Stansted by rail. Accessibility moving away from the railway stations rapidly
decreases as walking distance increases. Areas not within walking distance of a railway
station are generally not accessible to Stansted Airport by rail based public transport based
on the assumptions used in this analysis.
2.8.27 It is assumed that the rail network accounts for a limited percentage and number of local
trips within the Study area. Census data (Table 2.11 below) on travel to work patterns for a
sample of the Study settlements supports the assumption that rail has a small percentage
of 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 are
the main employment centres. Settlements further away from London were also chosen
because 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 a
medium sized town with access to the rail station at Audley End.
Table 2.11 Travel to work by rail from Study area settlement sample
Settlement of origin Percentage of trips to work by rail
Bishop’s Stortford 2.2
Braintree 2.8
Royston 8
Saffron Walden 2
Sawbridgeworth 1.8
Witham 16
Source: 1991 Census Journey to Work 10% sample data
65
Bus Network
INTRA-URBAN SERVICES
2.8.29 We have categorised urban settlements in the study area according to the level of town
bus service they support. A word of caution needs to be expressed, because this
assessment does not take account of the contribution that rural and interurban services
make towards providing service frequency in towns, particularly along the major radial
corridors. Indeed, whether a town service is actually desirable depends to some extent on
the coverage that can be achieved by the interurban services. For instance, Hoddesdon is
quite a large settlement (approximately 37,000 population) but is a linear settlement lying
between other major settlements. This means that its population lives (by and large) within
the 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 needed
to 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 or
mainly by the local authority. These services are likely to appeal to a limited number of
potential users;
• Category 3: Reasonable Town Service. The characteristics are: Route headways in
the main more than 60 but less than 15 minutes, and predominantly commercially
provided by the operator(s). These services will provide a more useable bus service
which will contribute more to personal mobility but are unlikely to provide an attractive
alternative to the car; and
• Category 4: Excellent Town Service. More than one route providing a 15 minute
headway or better; at least a basic evening and Sunday service, and predominantly
commercially provided by the operator(s). These services are most likely to provide an
attractive alternative to the car.
2.8.31 Based on a brief review of timetables, Table 2.12 shows the estimated population and the
category of town bus route.
Table 2.12: Categorisation of Towns by Town Bus Routes

Location Total Population Category of Town
19911 Bus Routes
Cambridge 113,127 4
Chelmsford 97,451 4
Colchester 96,063 4
Harlow 74,629 4
Cheshunt 51,998 1
Loughton 39,559 3
Hoddesdon* 36,883 1
Braintree 33,229 3
Hitchin 32,221 3
66
Letchworth 31,418 3
Bishops Stortford 28,403 3
Witham 22,684 3
Hertford 21,665 3
Ware 17,000 1
Waltham Abbey 15,629 1
Royston 14,087 1
Saffron Walden 13,201 2
Halstead 10,000 1
Broxbourne* 9,925 1
Epping 9,922 1
Sawbridgeworth 9,432 1
Baldock 9,232 1
Cambourne** 7,920 1
Sawston 7,172 1
Chipping Ongar 5,974 1
Stansted Mountfitchet 4,943 1
Great Dunmow 4,907 1
Buntingford 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 to
support a frequent service (type 4) is Harlow with a population of around 75,000. There is
actually then a large interval in population size to around 40,000 (Loughton). Settlements
between 40,000 and 20,000 population tend to support a service of type 3 – that is a
useable service but not one offering a frequency high enough to provide a viable
alternative to the car. The exception is Hoddesdon, which as described above has a
location and urban form, which mean that interurban services provide an adequate level of
service.
2.8.33 The only settlement supporting a service of type 2 (an infrequent town service) is Saffron
Walden. The remainder of the settlements with a population of below 20,000 have no town
service (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 services
between 08:00 and 09:00 in a particular town. This includes all town services, inter-urban
services and rural services. The population divided by this value gives the number of
population per bus service. This gives a crude estimate of the level of population coverage
per bus service. This takes no account of spatial coverage of the network. The results are
summarised in Table 2.13 below.
67
Table 2.13: Population per Bus Service

Settlement Population Sum of services/hour Population/
(0800-0900) in one Service
direction
Chelmsford 97,451 63 1,550
Colchester 96,063 76 1,264
Epping 9,992 6 1,665
Harlow 74,629 55 1,357
Loughton 39,553 19 2,082
Chipping Ongar 5,974 1 5,974
Saffron Walden 13,201 7 1,886
Average (excluding 1,634
Chipping Ongar)
2.8.36 With the exception of Chipping Ongar, the results are remarkably consistent. We believe
that Ongar may be different because it is likely to generate demand for travel to other
locations, 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 study
carried out by Colin Buchanan & Partners in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, which produced
a ratio of 2,000 population per bus route. On this basis, when considering growth options
in Stage 3 of the Study, bus infrastructure can be planned on the basis that for every 1,600
to 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 rail
network, is rather limited, particularly with regard to east-west linkages across the Study
area (the inter-urban bus network is mapped in Map 2.18). There are express coach
routes serving Stansted Airport and the main towns, but these will not serve the Study area
internal 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 identified
in the role and function analysis. Chelmsford and Colchester which are level two
settlements by services (see Section 2.3) have the greatest number of routes followed by
Harlow, Braintree, Hitchin and Hertford, which are all level three settlements. Bishop’s
Stortford and Loughton are exceptions to this general pattern with Bishop’s Stortford
having a low level of service provision and Loughton a higher level than other level four
settlements.
2.8.40 There is a cluster of routes within Hertfordshire linking Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock with

Stevenage and towns in the Lea Valley, and a number of routes radiate out from
Chelmsford and Colchester. From the latter two, several of the routes link to locations
outside the Study area. Braintree’s lack of rail access to Stansted is compensated for by
having two bus links, one of which is an express coach link, which also connects the town
to Colchester.
68
Map 2.18
69
2.8.41 Cambridge has a very limited inter-urban network reflecting the fact that there are no
sizeable towns nearby. The lack of inter-urban bus routes with the Study area also
indicates that the City functions as a discrete sub-region from the Study area. This point is
also 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 services
linking with Waltham Cross and Chelmsford respectively. Loughton has a more extensive
network all of which connect the town with the north London periphery and not with
locations in the Study area.
2.8.43 As well as connecting the main towns the inter-urban routes connect many of the
intermediate settlements, for example route 32 from Saffron Walden to Cambridge runs via
Great Chesterford, Sawston and Great Shelford. Thus part of the importance of the bus
network is that it connects many of the much smaller settlements to the service centres in
our hierarchy. The network also provides the opportunity for investment and the provision
of 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 sample
Settlement of Origin Percentage of Trips to Work by Bus
Bishop’s Stortford 1.6
Braintree 2.3
Buntingford 5.1
Halstead 2.3
Royston 4.5
Saffron Walden 1.4
Sawbridgeworth 4.2
Sawston 9
Witham 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 area
commuting patterns by district. As stated above the main flows out of the Study area are
into London but there are also a substantial number of commuters into Cambridge from the
area to the north of the City and significant numbers of people who travel from Colchester
to Suffolk and from Braintree to Suffolk.
2.8.46 The travel to work data also reveals that Chelmsford is a sub-regionally important attractor
of commuter trips with significant numbers of people travelling from Colchester, Braintree
and south Essex to the town. Colchester does not generate many trips from outside the
district but it has the second highest number of internal journeys to work after
Cambridge/South Cambs.
70
Map 2.19
71
2.8.47 The travel to work flows also indicate that there are limited flows of commuters from the
Study area to the Cambridge Sub Region, indicating that it functions as a discrete sub
region from the Study area. Thus, for the central and southern parts of the Study area, the
primary focus for commuting is London; for Cambridge areas to the north of the city are the
main source of commuters. The same is true for out-commuter trips from Cambridge with
greater 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 Cambridge
City and South Cambs as a single entity) indicating that a majority of journeys to work are
relatively short with people living close to where they work.
2.8.49 Uttlesford has a diverse travel pattern with moderate numbers of commuters travelling to
London, Cambridge and into Hertfordshire. In total 52 percent of journeys to work are to
places outside the district, which accords with it being a largely rural district with limited
employment centres. In-commuting figures for Uttlesford are not shown on Map 2.19
because they are limited. However, the settlement sample used for Tables 2.11 and 2.14
also reveals that Stansted Mountfichet ward (where Stansted Airport is located) is the only
ward in Uttlesford that has in-commuting of any size from outside the district with Bishop’s
Stortford is the main source of trips.
LINKAGES BASED ON THE HIERARCHY RESULTING FROM SETTLEMENT ROLE AND

FUNCTION 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 the
north of the Study area while Chelmsford and Colchester (the next level down) are located
close together in the south east of the Study area. The next level down shows a small
cluster Hertford, Harlow and Bishop’s Stortford with Braintree and Hitchin being more
isolated. The south and east of the Study area will have a complex network of linkages
because of the greater number of settlements and there being no dominant settlement. To
the east, the presence of Luton, Stevenage and Milton Keynes will have a strong influence
on linkages, whilst to the south it is London. The pattern of settlements further
demonstrates that the central part of the Study area (eastern part of Uttlesford and western
part of Braintree) lacks a significant service providing settlement and is an area where the
catchment areas of Cambridge and Colchester overlap but it is difficult to determine which
has the strongest linkages.
2.8.51 Cambridge is the dominant settlement in terms of service provision. The city is the
principal employment location in the Study area, it has the largest retail floorspace by a
considerable margin and the highest concentration of FE colleges, theatres and
professional services. On this basis, the city will have an HE and extensive catchment
area. Addenbrokes Hospital and Cambridge University give the city supra-regional
importance. However, as stated above there are generally weak linkages between the city
and the wider Study area and only a limited number of people travel to work in the
Cambridge 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 Chelmsford
and Colchester. The proximity of the two towns to each other means that their catchment
areas will overlap. Chelmsford is a significant work trip generator (as mentioned above)
72
and will generate significant trips due to its function as an administrative, education, retail
and medical centre. The town has a rural hinterland to the west from where people will
travel for work and day to day services. To the south of the town is the heavily urbanised
South Essex Sub-Region which possibly dilutes non-work traffic flows as there are a
number of alternative centres such as Southend.
2.8.53 Colchester too has a rural hinterland and is likely to generate trips from a significant area
for leisure, shopping, hospital, education and other service users. As Colchester is on the
eastern edge of the Study Area a good proportion of these are likely to come from outside
the 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 the
neighbouring villages. Given the town’s location on the M11/West Anglia Corridor and
proximity to Stansted there will be significant levels of trips to Cambridge and London for a
variety 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 being
an administrative centre. Harlow will also serve neighbouring rural areas but the town sits
at the north eastern end of a urban chain from north London along the Lea Valley. The
town has good north-south links along the M11 and west into Hertfordshire but its east
bound links are more limited. Hertford is located amidst a dense group of urban areas and
generally going to generate trips from a small radius including Ware and Hoddesdon and
possibly Hatfield. Trips to the town are likely to be a result of its administrative function and
for 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 assumed
that 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 settlements
serve their own needs. Settlements at both levels will generate outward trips rather than
in-bound. Settlements such as Cambourne and Sawston will have strong linkages with
Cambridge given their proximity but others such as Broxbourne and Waltham Abbey will
have 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 and
Hitchin, which revealed that Stevenage was the most popular destination for comparison
shopping 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 the
Study area are rural these linkages will be important and significant. Many of the rural
settlements are isolated with regard road, rail and bus networks. Residents will be
dependent 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 for
comparison shopping. Rural settlements are also dependent on the larger settlements for
provision of education, medical services and most professional services. Within the rural
73
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 of
Haverhill and Sudbury have not been assessed because they are outside the Study area
but parts of Braintree, South Cambs and possibly Uttlesford will form part of the catchment
area 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 two
layers.
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 to
the place they live. At this level the dominance of London is evident. The road and rail
networks reinforce this pattern of commuting with their mainly north-south orientation and a
general lack of east-west routes. Commuting patterns are likely to be influenced in the
future by the new A120, which will have a significant impact on development along the
A120 corridor.
2.8.61 The second level of linkages is more localised, based on service provision and the bus
network. Buses are used for short distance trips and the network of routes generally
reflects the settlement hierarchy and is a good indication as to the catchment area of a
settlement.
2.8.62 Cambridge operates as a discrete sub region with weak linkages to the rest of the Study
area but in terms of commuting patterns, attracts trips from areas to the north and east of
the city.
74
Map 2.20
75
3. Quantification of Growth
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This chapter describes the economic model developed by the consultants, which estimates
the 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
3.1.2 It establishes a Baseline projection to 20412 that reflects the forecast for the study area
contained in the RES Sub-Regional Study3, which in aviation terms corresponds closely to
SERAS Package 2. The model can then project the potential consequences of each of the
SERAS packages with respect to that Baseline. This chapter then goes on to describe
alternative projections for each package reflecting alternative assumptions.
3.1.3 This chapter discusses important theoretical principles that underpin the model and then
presents a brief overview of the model. The rest of the chapter deals with the model in a
little more detail and concludes with the results. These were prepared as four sets of
projections:
3.1.4 Projections based on the SERAS assumptions, which could be compared directly with the
employment and housing estimates prepared by the DfT’s consultants. High and Low
projections were prepared
3.1.5 Alternative (“NON-SERAS”) projections, taking account of observed post SERAS

employment changes and revised productivity assumptions., also as High and Low
projections.
3.1.6 ‘Mid point’ projections, incorporating some small revisions to the model, on the “NON
SERAS” basis.
3.1.7 Two additional single runway projections assuming, first, passenger levels reach 25 mppa
by 2021 but do not grow beyond this, and second, they reach 40 mppa by 2021 (which is
above 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 the
earlier period.
3 Bone Wells Associates, Colin Buchanan and Partners, Experian Business Strategies, 2003 East of England
RES Model Updates

76
3.2 Economic Model Study Area
3.2.1 As outlined in the Inception Report (see Sections 1 and 7), a slightly different definition of
the study area was adopted for the purposes of the economic modelling, shown here in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 : Economic Model Study Area - Districts

Core Area Outer Area
Braintree Cambridge City
East Hertfordshire Chelmsford
Harlow Colchester
Uttlesford Epping Forest
South Cambridgeshire
St Edmundsbury
3.3 Theoretical Considerations
Introduction
3.3.1 This section describes in theoretical terms the process of adjustment in the labour market
to 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 growth
impacts of the Stansted Packages.
3.3.2 The assessment of the jobs created by major capital projects tends to follow a convention
that focuses on the new jobs that might potentially arise. Jobs are occupied by labour and
new jobs represent an increased demand for labour in a local market. The supply of labour
will come from residents in that area and from commuters. If in the first instance the
number of new jobs exceeds the ready supply of labour (unemployed in the area and its
surrounds), then firms will have to start bidding away the extra labour that they need from
existing jobs. Thus, the total number of jobs in an area need not necessarily increase by
the number of new jobs. Competition in the local labour market will permit some new jobs
and destroy some existing jobs (displacement). The consequences of this are shown in
Figure 3.1.
77
Figure 3.1: Firms Response to Higher Wages

Reduced
Pass on wages Reduced demand output and
employment
No adjustment to
production process
Absorb wages Capital stock

Firm pays higher - lower profit not replaced
wages
Raise labour
Excess productivity Eases excess
demand demand in
Adjustment to Reduce Demand
leads to labour
production process for Labour
higher real market -
wages equilibrium
returns
Outsourcing Greater returns to
increased scale supplying firms
Firm does not pay Ceases

higher wages production Releases labour
Labour Demand Adjustments
3.3.3 All firms in the area will be under some pressure to secure their labour. Wages will tend to
rise. A firm could decide that at the going wage rates it is not worth producing in the area
or perhaps at all. They cease production, their jobs are lost and their employees are
released on to the labour market to seek employment elsewhere. Firms with low profit
levels would be the most vulnerable, particularly if they are labour intensive and have low
labour productivity.
3.3.4 Other firms might decide to pay the higher wages. These firms fall into two camps, those
that can make adjustments to their production processes and those that cannot. For those
that 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 production
would have to be cut back. This could happen evenly across such firms, but is more
likely to fall upon the weaker firms. Either way the reduction in production means a
loss 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 that
their 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 from
the market place as their capital stock comes up for replacement. Once again there is
a loss of production and labour is released on to the market place.
78
3.3.5 Some firms will choose to pay higher wages in the knowledge that they can make
compensating changes in production costs. Various outcomes are possible that will result
in 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 achieve
better economies of scale. The consequence of the improved labour productivity is a
reduced demand for labour. This releases labour on to the market.
• A firm outsources some of the goods and services that they produce internally as an
input into their final output (e.g. accounting activities). If the firms to whom such
services are outsourced can benefit from improved economies of scale, the number of
staff laid off (accountants) by the outsourcing firm will exceed the number taken on by
the 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 existing
job requirements, thereby releasing labour to fill new jobs elsewhere. If this were the only
source of adjustment, one would expect productivity levels in the area to rise perceptibly
either because the least productive jobs fall away or firms through one route or another are
constrained to improve their productivity. However, labour supply to the area will also
adjust as the labour market tightens and wages rise.
79
Figure 3.2 Labour Supply Response

New Job
Opportunities
- wider choice
of
occupations
Those not in labour force enticed to join Higher activity rates
Residents working outside area have wider

choice inside or higher wages; save Less out-commuting
commuting costs
+ Wider job choice and higher wages attracts
workers from outside area; pay in- More in-commuting
commuting costs
Wider choice and higher wages in jobs & More migration
Higher wages commuting costs attract migrants
in study area
attracts
marginal
worked from
inactive status
or from
outside the
area
3.3.7 This is a more complex response. Labour supply will increase not only because wages are
higher 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. However
there 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 of
which is not worth acquiring. At the margin there will be some for whom this decision to
stay outside of the market is finely balanced. Thus when wages rise and new job
opportunities are created some local residents will now decide to participate in the labour
market 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. These
are local residents, in employment, who choose to work outside the Study area. They have
to balance their particular job satisfaction and wage against the cost of commuting. They
also have to weigh the cost of commuting against the cost of moving closer to their work
and 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 higher
wages in the Study area will, therefore, persuade them to take up jobs locally. This group
might be quite sensitive to the altered conditions since the potential savings in commuting
costs and time, increase these new attractive forces.
80
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 offer
in the Study area, the wages, commuting costs, etc and have decided that it is not just
worth taking up a job in the Study area. With the arrival of new jobs and higher local
wages, 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 new
jobs 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 Stansted
environment is likely to increase the number of in-commuters and hence labour supply to
the Study area. Furthermore, the greater the increase in wages the larger the area from
which 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 of
residency in the Study area or elsewhere. In assessing the impact of Stansted's expansion
on migration, there will be those who judge that migration is a better option for them than
in-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 rise
relative to those in their current location. This has two consequences. First it begins to
choke off demand, halting the migratory pressures, and secondly it begins to encourage
private 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 the
labour supply in terms of new labour arriving from outside the study area whether as a net
commuter or a migrant.
3.3.13 Additional migrants coming to work in the area will bring with them their dependants who
will initially or subsequently add to the labour force and also add to local consumption and
the 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 described
above.
Ex-Ante V Ex-Post Outcomes
3.3.14 Various airport impact studies have projected potential employment increases under four
headings:
• 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, including
the surface infrastructure
81
• Induced Employment - Employment caused in the study area by expenditures from the
incomes from the above new jobs.
3.3.15 The projected scale of activity at the airport drives the direct employment estimates, which
may be on or off-airport. SERAS used annual passenger numbers, split between low cost
and non-low cost travellers. The growth of direct employment is less than the growth in
passenger numbers because assumed labour productivity growth offsets it.
3.3.16 Indirect employment arises from the goods and services bought-in to support the activities
being undertaken by the direct labour force. This is an input-output relationship. Two
methods have been generally used: (a) applying an indirect multiplier running off direct
employment levels (b) linking it to passenger growth adjusted by assumed labour
productivity performance in these sectors.
3.3.17 Attracted employment is seen to depend on the scale and range of services offered by the
airport. A proxy employment driver might be the level of passenger throughput, though
clearly if they are largely charter flights they are unlikely to be of much use to the business
community. Even with scheduled flights it is debatable whether low cost services to some
leisure destinations appeal much to business.
3.3.18 The induced employment, generated by the extra spending of those living and working in
the study area, is calculated by applying a multiplier to the sum of direct, indirect and
attracted employment4. However, if existing jobs are displaced by competition from new
jobs the induced effect, as calculated above, would overstate new jobs. On the other hand
where 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 jobs
which would not be picked up by an employment multiplier.
3.3.19 The induced multipliers should in principle pick up the employment consequences of
additional expenditures on both private and public goods and services. But the multipliers
used are a distillation of past employment impact studies, where the fieldwork was carried
out 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 a
requirement for further investment expenditure in social infrastructure and additional study
area jobs (e.g. teachers, medical workers, social service workers, etc). The judgement of
this study is that this phenomenon is unlikely to be fully reflected in the induced multiplier
and an additional social employment calculation has been made prior to calculating the
induced effect.
3.3.20 From the foregoing theoretical discussion, it follows that these type of employment
estimates are picking up what might be called ex-ante increases, ones that have to still be
mediated 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, as
explained 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 spending
induced by the change in direct and indirect employment, which might produce extra migration.
82
HMT Green Book and Additionality
3.3.21 The Treasury’s Green Book5 provides guidance on the appraisal of major projects which
sets out the principles to be used in assessing the impacts of projects. The need to move
beyond a simple ex-ante calculation to an ex-post estimate is underlined in the Green Book
guidance:
"The success of government intervention in terms of increasing output or employment in a
given target area is usually assessed in terms of 'additionality'. This is the net, rather than
the gross, impact of making allowances for what would have happened in the absence of
the 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 being
created.
3.4 Model Overview
3.4.1 BWA have built a model that explicitly estimates the ex-ante increases in jobs and then
adjusts to an ex-post position. In terms of the ex-ante calculations they follow methods
used elsewhere. However, unlike the SERAS exercise attracted and induced impacts are
included in the ex-ante calculations. Like SERAS the model derives direct employment
from passenger throughputs (with an allowance for the mix of low cost and non-low cost
passengers) and assumed productivity growth. Unlike SERAS, which uses an indirect
multiplier indirect employment, also runs off passenger throughputs and assumed
productivity growth for this category of employment.
3.4.2 The model simulates from a baseline projection, developed separately by the consultants
and 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 Outer
Area (defined above for the purposes of modelling employment) . For both areas jobs are
classified to direct (assumed to be always on airport), indirect and non-airport related. The
location of these jobs between the core and outer area is set in the model, as is the
location of its employees. They may be located in either of the two parts of the study area
or outside. Given the location of the jobs and the location of the employees in-commuting
patterns are implied. Out-Commuting is also set in the baseline. A more detailed
description 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 or
falling function of passenger throughput.
• Job displacement is by deducting a proportion of the increase in direct, indirect and
attracted jobs between one period and the next. So, if the proportion is set at 20% and
jobs 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
83
represent the situation of firms either ceasing operations or losing output and jobs as a
result of their higher prices or reduced profitability.
3.4.4 These calculations imply that the airport always gets its labour. This is a necessary
assumption if the package effect is to be analysed. Indirect employment is also carried fully
through on the assumption that these firms have a locational advantage being close to their
customer 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 they
would 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. An
adjustment is made to allow for the circumstances where someone works in one area but
lives elsewhere. The bulk of their expenditure will occur where they live and not where they
work. 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 are
summed and compared to the Baseline labour supply. Excess labour demand is
calculated. The existence of excess demand is unreal. The model has to be used to
balance the labour market so that labour demand and supply match. This balancing
exercise has to be done judgementally. Not enough is known about the dynamics of local
labour markets to be able to design a deterministic model that directly solves for labour
market equilibrium. The user is therefore constrained to construct a series of scenarios to
shed 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 the
labour 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 baseline
growth of population and employment is important because it provides the benchmark
against which alternative options for airport growth are compared. In principle, this should
reflect the growth that is expected to happen anyway, in this case, with the growth of the
airport to the level of use permitted, i.e. 25 million passengers p.a. (mmpa). It so happens
that this level corresponds closely to the level of use by 2031 projected for SERAS
Package 2 (25.7 million), so Package 2 adjusted to give growth up to passenger 25 mmpa
exactly 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-Regional
Business 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
84
population growth affects employment growth. These projections also reflect 2001 Census
results 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 airport
employment in Uttlesford. This has been estimated, and turns out to be close to the
projections for package 2 on the updated, non-SERAS assumptions of direct and indirect
airport employment. Both are lower than the SERAS projections. An adjustment is made
to employment at the airport to reflect the different passenger numbers assumed for
baseline.
3.5.4 A number of other adjustments are made to reflect local conditions, which the BAU
projections 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 Plan
Review to 2021 have been used. These are much higher than existing Structure Plan
based 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 estimated
housing implications of that growth, for the model Study area and the whole planning Study
area. Housing implications are driven, not only by the growth in the population, but also by
the fall in household size, which is assumed to continue to decline to 2026 at a somewhat
slower rate after 2021 than before. The latter accounts for much of the fall in the five year
changes in household requirements in later years.
3.5.7 An equivalent adjustment is made to the BAU employment forecast for Cambridge and
South Cambridgeshire to 2021 to reflect a growth profile of employment consistent with the
population projections used (i.e. without the decline after 2011 in the BAU projection due to
population constraint). The total employment projection is also shown in Table 3.2.
85
Table 3.2 : Baseline Projections of Population, Housing and Employment

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
Total Population
Core Area 409,500 422,575 435,651 444,347 453,183 460,870 466,518 470,054
Outer Area
771,700 809,768 847,835 886,417 923,409 946,044 962,782 973,310
Rest of
planning 204,300 209,067 213,835 218,362 222,814 226,755 229,653 231,468
study area
Total
1,385,500 1,441,410 1,497,321 1,549,126 1,599,406 1,633,669 1,658,952 1,674,832
Housing Requirement
Core Area 179,393 188,350 197,621 205,182 213,084 219,709 225,526 230,464
Outer Area 335,207 358,074 381,740 406,486 431,375 448,186 462,594 474,341
Rest of 89,542 93,223 97,031 100,864 104,799 108,135 111,055 113,524
planning
study area
Total 604,143 639,647 676,392 712,532 749,257 776,030 799,175 818,329
Change in Housing Requirement over Preceding Five Years
Core Area 8,957 9,270 7,561 7,902 6,625 5,817 4,938
Outer Area 22,867 23,666 24,746 24,889 16,811 14,408 11,748
Rest of 3,680 3,809 3,832 3,935 3,336 2,920 2,468
planning
study area
Total 35,504 36,745 36,140 36,726 26,772 23,145 19,154
Employment
Core Area
198,404 203,101 205,292 206,734 206,606 207,463 207,198 206,855
Outer Area
417,336 440,996 462,906 479,729 491,342 502,424 513,069 523,366
Total
615,739 644,098 668,198 686,463 697,949 709,887 720,267 730,221
Source: consultants
Notes: 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 modelling
areas (see Inception Report). Core = Uttlesford, Braintree, Harlow, East Herts; Outer = Chelmsford,
Colchester, Epping Forest, Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire, St Edmundsbury. Note that St
Edmundsbury is not part of the planning study area; employment estimates are jobs located in the
area rather than where workers live.
Chelmer Projections
3.5.8 Subsequent to the development of baseline and model generated projections a new set of
population, housing and employment projections using the Chelmer model were developed
on behalf of EERA. These comprised four separate projections based on a variety of
housing and migration assumptions, running to 2021, Dwelling Constrained (DCP), Zero
Net 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 baseline
forecasts are the ‘Dwelling Constrained’ projection (DCP), based on continuation of
Structure 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 projections
are distributional, the consultants’ baseline projecting relatively more population in the outer
area, the Chelmer DCP and 5 YMT forecasts projecting relatively more in the core area.
86
The same distributional variation occurs in the Chelmer and consultants’ projections of
employment and housing.
Table 3.3: Comparison of Chelmer and Consultants’ Baseline Projections (‘000)

Population 2001 2021
projection Core Outer Rest Total Core Outer Rest Total
Consultants
409 772 204 1385 453 923 223 1599
Baseline
Chelmer Forecasts
DCP 409 772 204 1385 463 903 224 1591
ZNM 409 772 204 1385 428 790 211 1429
5 YMT 409 772 204 1385 492 831 237 1560
10 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 from
the adjusted BAU figures. In Package 2, for example, where there are only small
differences in projected airport related employment compared with those implicit in the BAU
projection, those differences are added to produce the new employment projection for
Package 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 projected
in 5 year periods to 2041. The population and employment figures reflected values
contained within the RES Sub-Regional study, which the Consultants extended to 2041
from 2021. Given historic activity rates and levels of unemployment it is possible to
estimate 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 the
1991 Census, the percentage of out-commuters to employed residents in the area was
applied to determine out-commuting. In-migration is then calculated from net migration and
out-commuting.
87
3.5.13 Activity rates will be affected by the long term change in the age structure, which, with
constant 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 for
activity 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 older
age 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 Model
Updates,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 in
Uttlesford, which was consistent with expansion of Stansted beyond the former 15mppa
limit. The implied passenger throughput was calculated. These can be seen in Appendix 3
with the traffic throughputs of Packages 2 (Maximum Use), 7, 10 and 14, and the Baseline
and 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 a
view on what proportion of the jobs would be located in each area. All direct jobs were
allocated to the Core area, which contains Stansted. Indirect jobs falling within the Study
Area were allocated 30% to Core and 70% to Outer, reflecting the current ratios of total
employment in each area. Both the direct and indirect proportions were held constant to
2041, on the assumptions that the broad distribution of total jobs between the core and
outer areas, in the absence of conclusions at this stage about spatial redistribution, would
remain similar.
Jobs
3.5.17 Study area direct employment and indirect employment were projected using the Baseline
traffic growth figures and suitable productivity assumptions. For historic levels of direct
employment, productivity growth had to be adjusted to square known employment with
known traffic levels. The level of indirect jobs in 1997 was estimated by DTZ-Pieda for
BAA and these have been extended. Using the job location shares these direct and
indirect jobs were allocated to core and outer areas. The non-airport jobs were calculated
for 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 from
these three areas. These proportions, modified slightly to reflect the Gatwick experience
were held constant in the Baseline to 2041, with no obvious reason for change. Indirect
jobs are located in both the Core and Outer area and could be met in theory by labour
7 Op. Cit.
88
resident in all three areas highlighted above. Since indirect employment is likely to have
the characteristics of total employment, the 1991 census figures were used to look at total
in-commuting to the core from outer and external areas and in-commuting to the outer area
from the core and external areas. In-commuting as a percentage of area total employment
was calculated for 1991 and applied for all years in the. These shares provided the
percentage of indirect jobs located in the core or the outer area that were met by residents
of 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 can
make 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. The
resulting unemployment rate should not be pushed below an assumed stable long-term
rate of unemployment of between, say 2-3%.
• Activity Rates: these may be added to baseline values to reflect more of the resident
population in the core and outer area being attracted into the labour force and reducing
excess demand
• Reducing Out-Commuting: the numbers of out-commuters can be reduced to reflect
the 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 within
the study area, there is an increase in the external supply of labour
• Displacement - Lost Jobs: percentages for direct, indirect and non-airport ex-ante
new jobs can be set to reflect the proportion of each that will result in a displacement of
non-airport jobs. This reduces the number of jobs and helps to reduce excess
demand.
• Displacement - Productivity Improvements: productivity can be raised for any of the
following sectors : Direct Low Cost, Direct non low-cost, Indirect and Non-Airport. This
has the effect of reducing the number of ex-ante required jobs. For higher levels of
excess demand one would expect greater pressures upon firms to improve their
productivity. The RES Sub-regional Study concluded that adding 0.25%pa to trend
productivity growth was challenging and this might represent the highest bound of
adjustment. Productivity improvements, particularly in the non-airport sector can be
quite powerful because they apply to a large number of employees and only a small
increase will release a large number of workers.
• Raising Migration: this directly increases the labour supply but not by the full increase
in 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 additional

demand 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
89
• Private Households = (Total Population - Non-Household population) / Average

Household Size
• Dwellings = (Private Households / Households per Occupied Dwelling)/(1-Vacancy
Rate)
• Simulation of additional housing impact induced byan increase in migration to the
areas:
• 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 induced
by the various SERAS packages. The annual difference in this series provides the annual
build rate required. These figures can be added to the Baseline figures to give an overall
housing demand for the area.
3.6 Scenario formulation
3.6.1 The foregoing explained that the model was not determinative of a unique answer but
indicates a series of assumptions, which are needed to balance the labour market. This
section explains how the potential outcomes can be constrained to a useful range. For
planning purposes the concern is largely about the scale of impact upon development
(largely housing) and on commuting. The larger the ex-ante employment impacts the
greater the potential problems. Clearly the employment impacts will be a function of each
Package so there is at least one scenario for each Package. However, within a Package
the employment impact, excluding scale effects will depend directly upon the number of
attracted jobs and inversely with the level of displacement. As Figure 3.3 shows the widest
range of impact is likely to arise by focusing on (a) a high attracted + a low displacement
scenario and (b) a low attracted + a high displacement scenario.
3.6.2 Since the consequential migration determines the increased housing requirement in the
Study Area, it also makes sense to look at combinations that would result in a high and low
migration outcome. Figure 3.3 shows a possible scenario structure, which explores the
bounds of the impacts of interest.
90
Figure 3.3: Possible Scenario Structure

Displacement Weakest Impact Combinations
High Dis / High Dis / Out In Activity
Attracted
Low Att Low Att Commuting Commuting Productivity Rates Migration
Low Dis / Low Dis /
Low Low Low Low High
High Att Low Att High High High High Low
Strongest Impact Combinations

Out In Activity
Commuting Commuting Productivity Rates Migration
Low Low Low Low High
High High High High Low
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. It
therefore helps to constrain the range of outcomes to identify a minimum-maximum range
for 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 in
relation to the work that was done for SERAS. These issues affect the selection of
assumptions and consequent growth projections for use for testing spatial options in the
next stage. It discusses issues that have potentially large implications for the scale of
growth, including the estimation of direct, indirect, induced and attracted employment and
displacement.
Direct employment
3.7.2 Data provided to the consultants by BAA for direct airport employment at Stansted for
20018 indicate that the jobs in relation to passenger numbers have changed rapidly since
1997. 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.
91
forecasting from a 1997 base, using the SERAS trend productivity assumptions, would
have given nearly 15,000. There have been rapid increases in productivity, equivalent to
11.2% a year, in part due to the increasing scale, but also due to changes in the industry
that have been substantial since 1997.
3.7.3 Forecasting from the actual 2001 base gives significantly lower employment figures for
2015 and 2030 than those in SERAS, even when the productivity growth assumption is
scaled back to the much lower average assumed in SERAS of 1.5% a year9 by 2011. It
may be argued that, given the predominance of low cost operations at Stansted, it will be
harder to increase productivity, especially as the projected share of low cost declines in the
larger scale packages10. However the lower 2001 base and recent productivity record
does 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 direct

employment11. Lower direct would therefore imply lower indirect employment, using a
multiplier, although indirect employment might equally be driven directly from passenger
numbers. SERAS used a multiplier of 1.3 across the board. One of the reasons that
SERAS used a standard figure across the board was to test relative performance of
different packages, however this is inappropriate when focusing on the local impacts at one
airport.
3.7.5 The latest survey evidence for Stansted from BAA suggests a much lower multiplier of 1.06
in the local area roughly equivalent to this study area12. A low figure can be explained by
the ability to supply over distances with modern communications. There are some
definitional issues that need to be clarified as to what exactly is included, and the scope of
the survey, but this does suggest that the 1.3 assumption for Stansted is too high. A
similar lower figure for the local indirect multiplier (1.08) was accepted at the Heathrow
Terminal 5 Inquiry. It might be argued that as the airport gets bigger, the indirect multiplier
will tend to rise as suppliers find it worthwhile having a local presence to service a bigger
volume of business at the airport, and the final ‘mid point’ estimates assumed multipliers of
1.06 at passenger levels below 30mppa, then 1.08 at levels below 70mppa, and 1.1 at
higher passenger levels Induced employment
3.7.6 Induced employment is mentioned in the SERAS documents, but it is not quantified for the
purposes of assessing the urbanisation impacts. The apparent assumption is that there will
be no net effects. This needs to be understood in the context of the SERAS method which
assumes 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 direct
employment level. The Consultants therefore projected employment using the SERAS
assumptions but from the actual 1997 base.
10 SERAS used the same trend productivity growth rate for low cost and non low cost operations. One would
imagine that the scope for future reductions in employment/mppa is greater for the non low cost
operators.
11 DTZ Pieda raised 1997 base level indirect employment in line with passenger growth adjusted downwards
for productivity growth.

12 The DTZ Pieda study showed that the ratio of indirect to direct employment was 1.05.
92
long as it is within the employment growth forecast for the area (using TEMPRO forecasts
of 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 and
unemployment is low, there would be no induced employment effect, because the
consumption of the population is already catered for. However this would not apply where
there is extra migration. Nor is it really correct where the population is fixed, as
employment, incomes and spending would rise. But it is clearly necessary to make the
distinction in the multiplier between cases where there is or is not extra migration. as the
new population will not be able to function without, for example, bus drivers, teachers and
nurses.
3.7.8 The approach adopted in this study is to include and quantify induced employment, and
then, if appropriate also allow for displacement explicitly, but as a separate effect. The
level of the induced multiplier suggested in SERAS13 is 1.3. BAA uses a lower figure of
1.24 to reflect residence outside the locality of a proportion of workers. It is not at all clear
what is included and the area to which they apply when such figures are quoted. The
evidence for them is limited and rather out of date, but there is a consensus on the broad
level of 1.2 to 1.3 for a local area of impact up to a region. In particular it is not clear
whether or not they include public sector services to the population, provided by
government spending rather than household spending, which is a substantial part of the
employment necessary to maintain a community, but is omitted in the normal descriptions
of the induced employment, e.g.
Induced employment is that employment supported by the local expenditure of
persons employed directly and indirectly.14
Catalytic employment
3.7.9 SERAS does not allow for catalytic (or attracted) employment, although, on the basis of
various estimates of its scale at airports, it is potentially large. There are a number of
reasons 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 this
evidence relating to other airports, and actually there is some reasonable evidence, which
would justify testing the implications of catalytic employment. There is an argument that
catalytic employment is optional, as it can be controlled by planning policies (e.g. to limit
large business parks). However, much catalytic employment cannot be controlled in this
way, for example where small and medium sized companies take up existing premises, or
where occupational densities rise, and where indirect suppliers attracted to the airport also
do substantial non-airport business. Uncertainty about the potential level of catalytic
employment 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 in
attracting 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.5
14 DTZ Pieda Consulting, August 2001, Proposed development at Stansted Airport Environmental statement
Volume 7, para. 3.8 p.8

93
locate near to airports. There is also inconsistency in the treatment of the issue in different
areas. Other Regional Aviation Studies parallel to SERAS identify catalytic employment as
a 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 be
larger than direct airport employment and should be considered as contributors to overall
growth, using a range with high and low values to reflect the uncertainty about the likely
scale. Furthermore such values are likely to be greater for higher levels of scheduled
services than lower. The assumed range is derived from observed values, where the
planning and other constraints vary and may be one factor affecting the range of
observations. The assumed levels rise over time to reflect the increasing effect as the
airport gets larger and develops as a hub airport. By 2031 jobs per million passenger per
annum (mppa) reach:
• Package 2 (1 runway) - 35 jobs per mmpa
• Package 7 (2 runways) – 180 to 300 jobs per mmpa
3.7.12 These ratios, calculated for single hub airports, are reduced for application to Stansted to
reflect the fact that London has several airports and that catalytic employment would be
distributed between them, with the existing strong pull of Heathrow and critical mass of
major companies in that area having a lasting effect. These numbers do not include the
indirect impacts of attracted employment. They should be added as well and have been
incorporated 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 is
not quantified. Treasury guidance notes that the level of displacement from major projects
is 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 on
the restrictiveness spectrum will affect what actually occurs, as well as other constraints of
infrastructure provision and natural features. Furthermore there is likely to be competition
for local labour which will simply bid it away from low value uses. A major project such as
an airport is bound to produce some displacement however permissive the policy
environment, if only because new airport jobs are preferred by some simply for their novelty
or 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 situation
where 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 direct
and indirect employment in relation to passenger numbers than those used in SERAS are
more appropriate for current projections. Second, when considering local urbanisation
15 Halcrow Group Ltd. Op. Cit. p.4

16 Arup/DTLR, July 2001, Implications of a Thames Gateway Airport, p.42 ff
94
impacts, induced employment should be explicitly allowed for, and a distinction should be
made between the induced impact where additional migration takes place and where it
does not. Third, attracted employment has a potentially large impact that needs to be
taken into account, and on some assumptions could have a greater impact than direct
employment. Fourth, displacement, which is implicit but unquantified in the SERAS work,
could substantially reduce the net employment impacts, and needs to be explicitly allowed
for 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 resulting
urbanisation impact, as well as the issues of balancing labour market supply and demand
discussed above, a single projection for each package does not give a rounded picture of
potential urbanisation impacts. So the study considered a range of alternative projections
based on alternative assumptions. These are summarised, with the key assumptions, in
Appendix 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 data
and have been constrained to match the data for 2001 as well. The indirect multiplier
adjusts to 1.3 by the year 2016 and remains at that level. These projections are
considered relevant, as they are the employment figures given by SERAS (rolled
forward by a year).
• The non-SERAS case reflecting the recent data on Stansted from BAA that indicates
lower direct employment in relation to passenger numbers (reflecting rapid productivity
growth and or economies of scale between 1997 and 2001) and a lower ratio of indirect
employment in the area.
3.8.3 In both cases, both induced and catalytic employment are included explicitly in the study
calculations (unlike in the SERAS calculations) adding to ex-ante employment demand. In
each case, a high impact and low impact (high and low in terms of urbanisation impacts) is
considered: the high has the high end of the range of attracted employment and low
displacement; the low has the low end of the range of attracted employment and high
displacement.
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 assumptions
about key variables, involves judgements about how these variables might change. The
process is not deterministic, and other judgements could have been made. In the
projections considered, balancing has been achieved by adjusting unemployment, activity
rates, out-commuting levels, and then, finally migration, when the earlier adjustments were
judged to have changed to a plausible extent. In-commuting rates in relation to jobs in the
study area are not adjusted although the levels increase as employment grows. No further
adjustment has been made to trend productivity growth of the non-airport jobs, which has a
potentially powerful effect because of the large number of jobs affected, and because
increases in one period affecting all subsequent periods.
95
3.8.5 Implicit in scenarios of this kind is a stance on planning policies and infrastructure
provision. In cases where displacement is low, the implicit assumption is that growth in
employment 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 fully
controlled, displacement of existing employment could be higher and in-migration reduced.
The assumption of the lower level of attracted employment, subject to the large uncertainty
about the levels that might arise in relation to the scale of the airport, may already imply
some 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 the
non-SERAS high and low cases together with a simplified summary for 2031 of the
additional housing requirements in excess of the baseline. The figures are indicative. They
illustrate the broad magnitude of outcomes, as the forecasting process is not an exact
science. These results show that the range of assumptions considered produced a very
wide 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 as
the direct and indirect employment in relation to passenger numbers is significantly higher.
In the SERAS case, packages with more than one runway require significant additional
housing, although in the low case the amounts are modest. The difference between the
high and the low case is also significant, which demonstrates the strong influence of
attracted employment and displacement. Both of these are areas of uncertainty where
data 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 of
displacement.
96
3.8.8 The non-SERAS case produces additional housing requirements that are below the
SERAS case, with the high scenario below the low scenario of the SERAS case. This
indicates the scale of the difference between the direct and indirect employment
assumptions in the two cases. The non-SERAS case requires additional housing only for
packages with three or four runways.
3.8.9 Comparing the additional housing requirements with the projected housing requirements
required anyway (see Appendix 6) it is clear that the cumulative extra requirements due to
Stansted 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 anticipated
in the Baseline.
Mid Point Projections
3.8.10 Following discussions with the client group and debate about the utility of high and low
estimates as shown in Appendix 6, it was agreed, first, that it was most realistic to develop
projections with the “Non-Seras” assumptions for the direct and indirect airport
employment. . Second, it was agreed that the consultants should prepare a set of
projections, based on mid-point assumptions. For example, using a displacement
assumption of 15%, rather than a 25% rate for the High projection and a 5% rate for the
Low projection. The third change was to increase the indirect employment assumption (as
a ratio) for higher passenger levels, since it was felt that as Stansted expanded, airport
suppliers would be increasingly motivated to locate close to their customers. The third
change 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 scenarios
in which passenger levels for one runway reach 25 mppa and 40 mppa by 2021 with no
further growth thereafter. The latter two consider the implications of limiting airport
expansion strictly to the current planning permission, and conversely, expanding faster
than envisaged in any SERAS option, reaching a level above that estimated as maximum
use of one runway by SERAS. The various projections and the key assumptions are set
out in Table 3.4. and the results, which show figures for the whole economic model study
area (see Table 3.1 above), in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
Table 3.4: Summary of Mid Point Projections and Key Assumptions

Scenario Passengers (mmpa) Catalytic Employment Displacement
Package 2, 1 23 mppa by 2021 38/ mppa by 2036 5% to 2031, 10% in 2036

runway 35 mppas by 2036
Package 7, 2 69.4 mppa by 2021 250/ mppa by 2036
runways 82 mppa by 2036 Displacement = 15%
Package 10, 3 92.9 mppa by 2021 300/ mppa by 2036 Displacement = 15%
runways 102 mppa by 2036
Package 14, 90 mppa by 2021 400/ mppa by 2036 Displacement = 15%
4 runways 129 mppa by 2036
97
Scenario 25 m 25 mppa by 2021 38/ mppa by 2036 5% to 2031, 10% in 2036

(1 runway) 25 mppa by 2036
Scenario 40m 40 mppa by 2021 108/ mppa by 2036 5% to 2031, 10% in 2036
(1 runway) 40 mppa by 2036
All scenarios:
Indirect airport employment multiplier = 1.06, then 1.08 for 30 mppa +, then 1.1 for 70 mppa and above
Indirect multiplier for catalytic employment = 1.15
Induced multiplier = 1.24 x direct, indirect and attracted employment, applied to jobs filled by study area
residents; 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 and
outer areas, and exceptionally above this level.
Activity rates can rise by up to 1.5 percentage points generally and exceptionally up to 2 percentage points
Additional migration is used to balance beyond the effect of the above, subject to a limit of 3,000 a year in
the core area to reflect limits in the rate of housing development
Source: consultants
98
Table 3.5: Summary of Mid Point Projections for SERAS Packages (economic model study
area)
2001 2021 2031 2036
P2 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
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 baseline
growth in dwelling, i.e. the extra dwellings required by airport expansion above the baseline level..
99
Table 3.6: Summary of Mid Point Projections for Additional Scenarios (economic model study area)
2001 2021 2031 2036

Sc 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
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
100
(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.
101
3.9 Conclusions
3.9.1 The wide range of potential outcomes for urbanisation apparent from consideration of the
range of alternative assumptions emerges as a major issue, creating big challenges for
planning. A key conclusion of the forecasting exercise is that a reliable single estimate of
how the local economy would react to a large shock of the nature of the larger packages
cannot be made, and a wide range of uncertainty is inherent. Plans must, therefore, have
the 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 and
indirect employment estimates are probably more appropriate. Hence the non-SERAS
case 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 to
accommodate the range of plausible uncertainty. As a matter of principle, whilst being
aware of the boundary cases, it is sensible to focus on intermediate cases rather than
boundary cases which are inherently less likely. Hence the set of ‘mid point’ projections
has 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 the
cases to be used in the next stage of work. A mid point projection suggests a stance with
some restriction, but not maximally restrictive.
3.9.5 The key question in terms of the actual scale of growth forecast is the additional migrant
population, and additional housing on top of that required for baseline growth, implied by
airport 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 with
accelerated growth of the airport to 40 mppa by 2021 on mid-point assumptions. However
additional housing for migrants generated by airport growth begins to be required, in
modest quantities, in all packages with more than one runway before 2021. Additional
housing begins to be substantial (i.e. equivalent to a substantial town) by 2021 for Package
10 and 14 by 2021, and significantly larger than that for Package 14 by 2031, and Package
10 as well by 2036.
3.9.6 A final and key point is that the baseline projected population growth is substantial, and
that means that, if it is accepted, there will be large increases in the labour force in the
study area which will provide labour for increased airport jobs, and will also need large
additional housing provision, substantially larger to 2031 than the additional housing
identified for the packages. This will be the bigger problem to accommodate. If a view
were taken that the ‘proper’ baseline population projection should be much lower, then
more of the housing growth in the airport packages would be treated as an additional
airport generated requirement.
102
4. Growth Opportunities and Constraints
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This section sets out the opportunities and constraints to development that will highlight
areas with capacity for future growth. It will also identify priority areas, in which it is
considered that growth will be most beneficial in terms of realising the wider planning and
regeneration objectives for the Study area. Given the extensive coverage of the constraints
it will be an important issue for the Study to determine what trade offs, if any, are necessary
in 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, which
reflect 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 airport
and related employment generation to contribute towards regeneration objectives.
• Settlement Opportunities and Constraints, sets out the growth opportunities and
constraints in relation to the main urban centres. This provides a broad analysis of
settlement potential based on, landscape and historic character, urban capacity, retail
capacity and social infrastructure capacity.
4.2 Environment
4.2.1 This section considers the physical and environmental constraints affecting the Study area
in 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, which
will need to be identified in order to direct growth to where it will have the least impact and
to protect those areas considered to be the most valuable. The extent of these constraints
has 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;
103
• Other aspects of the physical environment, such as the location of overhead power
lines, mineral sites and high risk fluvial flood plains that will have an impact on where
growth 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 on
Maps 4.1 and 4.2. The constraints have been classified as either absolute or partial
constraints to enable a distinction to be made between those constraints that should
preclude development completely and those where development within or in close
proximity would have implications. Accordingly, absolute constraints are designations that
merit the maximum level of protection, or by their nature preclude development. All areas
covered by absolute constraints on Map 4.1 will be excluded from consideration for
development in Stage 3. However, depending on the remaining capacity within the
Study area, highest value landscape areas may have to be considered for
development if growth levels are to be accommodated.
4.2.4 Partial constraints are those that are considered to be important, but which merit a degree
of flexibility in considering future development. They will provide an important input into the
assessment of areas for development in Stage 3. Where an area is on or within close
proximity to a partial constraint the impact of development on the constraint or the site will
be taken into account.
104
Map 4.1
105
Map 4.2
106
Table 4.1: Absolute and Partial Constraints to Development.
Absolute Constraints Partial Constraints

Airport Noise Zones – in accordance with Airport Safeguarding Zone –
PPG24 Safeguarding Zones place height
restrictions on development around
airports, restrict development that will
attract birds, e.g., landfill sites and
restrict road development within 3km of a
runway.
High Risk Fluvial Flood Plain – in accordance Public Open Space and Playing Fields
with PPG25 (including Country Parks, Regional Parks
and Common Land)
Historic Parks and Gardens – in accordance Local Nature Reserves
with PPG15
Nature Conservation Areas (SSSIs, NNRs, Local Archaeological Areas (including
RAMSAR) – in accordance with a range of EU conservation areas) Note: these areas
and national legislation, including PPG11 will be identified by use of Local Plans
and hard copy maps
Scheduled Ancient Monuments/ Ancient County Wildlife sites (including areas of
Landscape – in accordance with PPG15 Ancient Woodland)
Reserved Minerals Sites – (excluding worked High Quality (BMV) Agricultural Land -
and rehabilitated sites) in accordance with in accordance with PPG7 (Only areas
PPG1 and MPG1. Note: Hertfordshire Mineral where more than 60% of the land is
Sites are not available in GIS format and likely to be the best and most versatile –
therefore hard copies of their minerals plan will DEFRA 2003)
be used will be used to identify such sites.
Cemeteries – in accordance with PPG1 Other Woodland (including County
woodland)
Existing Commitments – Local Plan sites with Special Landscapes (including Special
planning permission and other committed sites. Landscape Areas and Best Lands)
Note: Existing Commitments for Essex are not
available in GIS format and therefore hard
copies of the Local Plans will be used to identify
such sites.
Overhead Power Lines (This is not a formal Green Belt – in accordance with PPG2
policy. But experience in other Studies
suggests a 50 m exclusion zone to either side)
Landfill Sites
Note: Cemeteries, overhead power lines and playing fields are already identified on
Ordinance 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 and
safety zone. Areas subject to aircraft noise levels over 57 dBA are considered unsuitable
107
for development, in line with the standards set out in PPG24. The 57 dBA noise contours
around Stansted for the three runway scenarios are shown on Map 4.1. The addition of two
or more new runways extends the noise contours significantly and precludes the greatest
areas of land, with three runways only taking marginally more land than two runways. This
means that the more runways that are developed, the more constrained the immediate
vicinity would be in terms of accommodating future growth. In particular the settlements of
Sawbridgeworth, Bishops Stortford and Stansted Mountfitchet would be highly constraint by
the Airport noise and safety zones.
4.2.6 The SERAS Report indicates that expansion of Stansted airport by a further one, two or
three 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 additional
runway), 19km2 (two additional runways) or 22km2 (three additional runways). The
additional land take required for development of three runways would be within the noise
and 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 to
development 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 will
be 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 absolute
constraints, in the form of the airport safeguarding zone and constrains development on the
settlements 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 core
area of the Study area, particularly in the form of special landscape areas, areas of
archaeological 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 is
also constrained by green belt.
4.2.10 While the presence of a high number of partial constraints does not preclude areas from
being included for potential growth in Stage 3, it does mean that these areas will not
perform well in environmental terms within the assessment process. For some areas, it is
likely that there will a trade off between environmental and other objectives so that growth
within Study area can be accommodated.
4.3 Transport
4.3.1 This section sets out the key opportunities and constraints to development with regards to
transport. This is undertaken for highways, rail and bus. The highways section identifies
the opportunities for improving strategic east west links within the Study area. The rail
section notes the present investment opportunities and the constraints resulting from
uncertainties within the rail industry. The bus analysis outlines the issues that need to be
addressed for improving bus services.
108
Highways
4.3.2 Proposed improvements to the primary road network are shown in Map 4.3. The most
significant road improvement programme currently underway in the Study area is the A120
works offering improved east-west access between Stansted and Braintree. Further
widening 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 dual
two lane carriageway of the A14 to full three lane standard between Huntingdon to
Cambridge. This was a recommendation of CHUMMS and tackles a major congestion and
safety 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 the
future growth of Harlow.
• A120 Braintree to Marks Tey dualling – recommendation in LOIS and agreed in the
announcement 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 related
traffic would naturally gravitate. The need to upgrade the M11 to a dual three lane
carriageway over its full length is likely to be a requirement for major development in order
to handle increased traffic volumes. Given that present flows are at the design level or
slightly above, widening the M11 will ensure that safety is not adversely affected by
growing traffic levels. The LSMMMS recommended widening of the M11 between
Junctions 8-9 and 9-14 to three lane and SERAS notes that widening works would be
required in the event of new runways at Stansted Airport. The improved east west
connections mentioned earlier will further support the need for additional capacity along its
length and the provision of high quality interchanges.
4.3.6 Additionally, there will be more localised pressures within and around existing settlements
as a result of increasing urbanisation. These issues will be addressed within Stage III
where potential settlement locations will be identified.
Rail
4.3.7 The current upgrades to the West Anglia Main Line through the WARM project (West
Anglia Route Modernisation) will lead to an improved rail service in terms of reliability and
punctuality. This will help to reduce levels of overcrowding and the enhanced signalling
systems should additionally lead to shorter journey times.
109
Map 4.3
110
4.3.8 Further enhancements to the route are planned as part of the package of measures
associated with the planned growth of Stansted Airport to 25 mppa as agreed between the
SRA and BAA. One of the major constraints in terms of rail access to the airport is the
single bore tunnel providing direct rail access to the airport. BAA plan to provide a second
tunnel at an agreed level of demand, which will improve the ability of Stansted Airport
station 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 to
access the airport, in turn helping Stansted maintain its high use of rail for access. It is not
yet clear whether other commuters in the region would benefit from these works which are
related to airport specific traffic.
4.3.9 The major constraint to the rail industry, at least in the short term, is the rising cost of
merely maintaining and renewing the existing network. Costs have risen dramatically since
the Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove accidents with safety and maintenance having much
higher priorities within a limited budget. As a result, the case for constructing entirely new
sections of railway will be very difficult to make in the short to medium term even if there is
a strong business case. Even constructing new stations to serve growing communities will
be difficult to deliver quickly. New rail links may be a possibility in the longer term, but
improving existing routes by providing additional lines is likely to be more cost-effective
options.
4.3.10 Another constraint is likely to be the introduction of a new timetable as part of the Greater
Anglia franchise. Through its Capacity Utilisation Policy, the SRA is now seeking to reduce
the level of railway services on lines, which are operating at or near capacity, as there are
adverse effects on performance and reliability. Until a revised timetable has been agreed
and a franchise awarded, it is too early to say by how much of a constraint it might be to
rail 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/are
demonstrated as part of the long term sustainable plan for increased urbanisation within
the Study area. The process required to provide a new station take a minimum of five years
and 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 and
delays.
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, which
in turn places pressure on services levels and fares.
111
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 reliable
and attractive to workers;
• Given agreements between the relevant parties, it is possible to provide high quality
roadside infrastructure. Bus stop provision and maintenance can be funded through
advertising, while it is within the gift of local authorities to fund the provision, updating
and maintenance of bus stop flags and timetable displays;
• The design of new development can be made such that it is easier to serve effectively
by bus. Its scale and form can influence the frequency of service that can viably be
provided – which in turn influences the number of people using the service;
• The location of new development can also influence the success of a service. It
is likely to be easier to serve adequately a development by bus that is between two or
more major trip attractors, rather than linking to only one trip attractor. An interurban
service will fulfil the former; a traditional town service may only be able to serve one trip
attractor – the town centre. An increased level of service on a bus route will benefit
other locations on the line of route, and in turn further increase demand and bus modal
share.
• 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 housing
development constructed. This will form a key part of the decision making process when
identifying potential new settlements.
4.4 Employment and Economic Development
4.4.1 This section sets out the opportunities and constraints in relation to employment creation
and 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 and
clusters in the area. The review is qualitative, drawing from existing literature to identify
anticipated effects. Further details of the estimated scale of catalytic employment
generated 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 of
recent research highlighting the role of agglomerations of firms in localities, cities and
regions as key drivers of economic growth.
4.4.4 The forces that drive clustering rely primarily on the existence of ‘spillovers’ between firms
and other costs or benefits that firms or workers do not fully internalise, to take effect.
112
However, it is important to note that clustering entails both positive (e.g. knowledge) and
negative (e.g. congestion and affordability of housing) spillovers as discussed in further
detail below.
EXISTING INDUSTRY CLUSTERS
4.4.5 On a national basis it is clear that there are a range of both established and developing
clusters in the region, several of which are distinctive in a number of respects. The DTI
study into clusters for example, notes that nationally cluster job creation is no better than
the regional average. However, in the eastern region cluster job creation performance is
significantly 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 well
established, deep in relation to the mix and range of industries present, growing in terms of
employment 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 the
greatest potential to generate new, high value economic activity because of the strength of
its research base.
4.4.8 However, as recent research into cluster development in the east of England17 and the role
of planning policy has demonstrated, RPG and development plans are only just beginning
to get to grips with planning for clusters. More generally there is a lack of understanding
about the differences between planning policies for clusters and policies for economic
development. There is a consensus that fostering cluster development can best be
achieved through co-ordinating regional planning and regional economic policy to provide
the necessary infrastructure.
POTENTIAL FOR ATTRACTING INWARD INVESTMENT
4.4.9 There have been a number of studies examining catalytic employment that have been
reviewed (see Appendix 2). Estimates vary widely in terms of jobs per mppa, but the
available evidence suggests that the impact could be substantial. Moreover, as noted a
distinction needs to be drawn between inward investment from elsewhere in the UK and
foreign direct investment (FDI) from abroad. Unfortunately, there are few reliable estimates
of 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 investment
that is attracted can play an important role in stimulating the economic performance of an
area. 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 by
introducing new technologies and working practices, as well as intensifying competitive
pressures. There is evidence to suggest that the impact on productivity and employment of
demand driven investment programmes is positive, although the effects across the regional
economy vary.
17 SQW Ltd & Land Use Consultants. East of England economic planning sub-regions and planning for
clusters. EEDA, July 2002.
113
IMPACT OF THE AIRPORT ON EXISTING CLUSTERS AND BUSINESSES
4.4.11 For the internationally competitively advantaged clusters located in the region airport
expansion will be beneficial given the strong national and international linkages evident in
such sectors. The significance of the international linkages tend to be overlooked by
policy-makers, but have been highlighted in research. For example, Hart and Simmie
(1997)18 emphasise the significance of national/international links over local ones and
further found little evidence of clustering inter-linkages between firms. For example, less
than one-fifth of firms interviewed regarded local production networks (LPNs) as making a
significant contribution to their innovations.
4.4.12 Not surprisingly, the growth of Stansted, and the scheduled routes to various UK and
European destinations is perceived to have enhanced the attraction of the sub-region as a
business location19. This is particularly the case for firms with substantial business in
Europe, although Heathrow and Gatwick are still used for most long-haul flights. The lack
of flights to the USA is cited as a major shortcoming for the many high-tech firms in
the area that have business links with North America. These positive findings are
echoed in the DETR study ‘Planning for Clusters’ that notes the importance of good
international 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 Stansted
airport as a key international gateway and economic driver for the region as well as the
sub-region’.
4.4.13 Airport expansion will be economically significant to the clusters in several ways. In
addition, to facilitating business links, it helps attract and retain highly skilled labour and
more generally, is a quality of life consideration for highly educated internationally mobile
elements of the labour force. All of these factors have an influence in maintaining the
competitiveness and contributing to the growth of clusters of international significance such
as are present in the sub-region. Expansion of long haul routes in the larger packages
where 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 offering
an alternative to the western corridor.
4.4.14 This does raise the question regarding the potential negative impact associated with
congestion and overheating, that can also impact on quality of life and propensity to attract
highly skilled and mobile labour. The capacity of Cambridge to accommodate growth is
limited. 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, other
than traffic, that suggests that there has been any decline in the quality of life in
Cambridge, arguably one of the most congested parts of the study area. Moreover, it
frequently features in surveys of potentially mobile businesses and managers as one of the
most 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.
114
4.4.16 However, it can be expected that there will be adjustments elsewhere in the economy with
a degree of displacement occurring in labour and property markets. This will be most
marked in lower value added activities. While this process is to be encouraged - since
complaints of labour shortages go hand in hand with economic development - it does mean
that some sectors offering low pay because of low productivity may experience labour
shortages.
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 join
the labour market. The area may also experience an increase in the number of commuters
from outside the study area, although this is likely to be limited in relation to low wage
employment. A further option is for firms to raise prices that in most cases is likely to lead
to a reduction in demand. Finally producers may look to improve their technology or the
way they organise their resources thereby increasing labour productivity.
4.4.18 In some instances firms may decide to relocate and evidence suggests that premises
constraints, 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 of
economic growth. The study area contains a number of leading technology based clusters
including pharmaceuticals/biotechnology, ICT/electronics, software and technology
consultancy. The expansion of Stansted is anticipated to benefit these clusters because
they, in contrast to those in many other regions, are internationally competitive and
increasingly operate in a global marketplace. Also, research suggests that for many
clusters national/international links appear more important than local ones. The literature
on clusters is strongly supportive of airport expansion (at Stansted) although empirical
evidence is limited.
4.4.20 The evidence on the international component of catalytic employment is limited, but as
Britain is one of the preferred destinations of foreign investment, it would naturally form part
of any catalytic employment. The development of a hub role for Stansted, and an extensive
long haul network, could be a key factor in attracting foreign investment to the area, in
combination with other factors, such as the agglomeration benefits of the internationally
orientated clusters. The attraction of such investment would strengthen these clusters.
The evidence suggests that any foreign direct investment that is attracted can play an
important role in stimulating the economic performance of an area, contributing further to
the tendency to increase productivity.
4.4.21 As yet little evidence, other than traffic, is available to suggest that there has been any
decline in the quality of life in the study area. Business surveys indicate Cambridge
remains highly attractive to potentially mobile businesses and managers.
4.4.22 However, the anticipated impetus to high value added activities will increase the
competition for resources locally, resulting in a degree of displacement in labour and
property markets. There is some capacity for market adjustment through higher activity
rates, increased commuting and/or higher prices. Some sectors offering low pay because
of low productivity are likely however to experience labour shortages. This may encourage
115
some firms to relocate to areas with lower production costs. Overall this process is to be
encouraged since complaints of labour shortages go hand in hand with economic
development 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 the
literature and in light of the findings presented in this report. Labour market issues are of
particular importance given the strong correlation between skills and economic
performance and more generally in light of the tightening of the labour market and growing
labour market shortages.
4.4.24 As previously noted, in many areas skill shortages are being exacerbated by wider social
inequalities evident in the UK, shortages of affordable housing - in part encouraged through
the sale of the public housing stock -and the relatively high cost of commuting by public or
private transport.
4.4.25 The labour market context has been reviewed by Arup in their social impacts appraisal
indicating:
• 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 available
workforce to 2031.
4.4.26 The expansion of the airport is likely to be met by some increase in net commuting in the
short term given existing high activity rates. As discussed below, this is also likely to be
accompanied 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, three
occupational groups can be identified: specialist staff - airline management, pilots (14%);
skilled staff – general management, customs, police, air cabin crew, clerical (57%) and
semi/unskilled staff (28%).
Table 4.2: Occupational Structure of Airport

Job
Occupational group
breakdown
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%
116
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 to
2041) amounts to 2.2% of the total jobs in the core and outer area (616,000). This
represents a relatively sizeable impact on the labour market for any one development, for
a 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 some
potential to increase this total it is not anticipated to be great. However, the range of jobs
provided by airport expansion is suitable for female and male workers. This should add to
the pool of labour encouraging greater labour market participation rates in airport
catchment areas.
4.4.30 The demand for low skill jobs from airport expansion (1,909) represents a significant
proportion (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-site
investment to regeneration priority areas. However, the ability to have any significant
impact on unemployment will be influenced by a range of other social policy issues that
affect 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 major
employer, the airport is anticipated to be able to pay better rates for semi and unskilled
groups where displacement effects are anticipated to be greatest.
Table 4.3: Salary Bands for Airport Employees

Salaries - 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 of
airport labour demand in relation to total labour market demand in the study area economy
the effect of airport expansion would appear to be negligible. However, a more realistic
117
view would be to examine the effects at the margin, where demands on the labour market
relative 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 of
unemployment, is anticipated to be met through an influx of new employees, longer journey
to work patterns and, as discussed below, a degree of displacement within the labour
market.
4.4.35 In the longer term projections are complicated by the range of uncertain variables that need
to be considered. Employment in low skill occupations for example can be influenced by a
range of factors including training and social policy. The role of RPGs in allocating
employment 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 cause
displacement than low skilled/ low paid jobs. Displacement by airport jobs has been
investigated (Appendix 5) suggesting an average displacement of 25%. However, given
that the project scans a long time scale it is anticipated that there will be a degree of
market adjustment that will in effect correct for displacement over time (i.e. wage rates will
equalise, population will rise etc).
CONCLUSIONS
4.4.38 The labour market is characterised by low levels of unemployment, high activity rates and
skill shortages. These problems are arguably being exacerbated by marked social
inequalities evident in the UK, shortages of affordable housing - in part encouraged through
the sale of the public housing stock -and the relatively high cost of commuting by public or
private transport.
4.4.39 The expansion of the airport is expected to have some positive, if relatively marginal
effects, on activity and unemployment rates. In the short term at least it is expected that
labour 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 the
Enterprise Zone Experiment (for DOE, 1987).
118
degree of displacement within the labour market. In the longer term projections are
complicated by the range of uncertain variables that need to be considered including
housing, planning, regeneration and social policy.
4.4.40 An indicative average displacement rate of about 25% is calculated. This is likely to
contribute to an increase in firm productivity and wage levels in the regional economy and
exacerbate existing skill shortages. However, the effect directly attributable to airport
expansion needs to be seen in the context of wider social, planning and housing policies
that 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 the
achievement of social regeneration objectives. This largely qualitative analysis is drawn
from a review of the literature – principally recent research by Arup21 – combined with
outputs from the modelling work. However, the analysis does not purport to constitute a
formal impact assessment, but rather indicates the regeneration effects and key contextual
issues that influence their likely significance . Regeneration effects are illustrated here with
reference 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 income
groups and more localised patterns of job search
• Accessibility of employment created, particularly by public transport given lower levels
of private car ownership amongst low income groups. Long journeys by bus or train
will 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 to
encourage and support take-up of jobs by disadvantaged groups and tackle structural
unemployment 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 as
illustrated in Maps 2.8 and 2.9 in Section 2 above, which illustrate the ward ranking of
urban and rural deprivation In general, deprivation is contained in pockets within urban
areas 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 the
biggest 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.
119
20% most disadvantaged wards in England. Harlow lies within the core area and provides
5.1% of employees at Stansted.
4.4.45 Harlow features as a high regional regeneration priority and this is reflected in its
designation as a Priority for Area for Economic Regeneration within Regional Planning
Guidance 9.
4.4.46 A brief summary of the regeneration priorities within each of the districts within the Study
area 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. In
respect to the Local Plan, there are no economic regeneration aspirations but it is
noted that affordable housing is an issue.
• South Cambridgeshire experiences very low levels of deprivation, owing to a balance
between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. The local plan gives no further advice on
economic regeneration matters. However, it is noted that affordable housing is an
issue facing the district..
• Braintree has a small proportion of wards facing relatively high levels of deprivation, in
both urban areas i.e. Witham and Braintree and also in rural areas. Even though
employment levels have fallen steadily in recent years, the Braintree Local Plan
comments that there are significant levels of out commuting as a result of a mismatch
between jobs, infrastructure provision and housing. Social exclusion has also been
identified in Braintree as a result of roads and other infrastructure provision, falling
behind 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 as
Loughton and Waltham Abbey. The Local Plan does not give any further information
on regeneration aspirations.
• Chelmsford and its surrounding rural hinterland contain low levels of deprivation. As a
consequence, no regeneration initiatives have been implemented through the Local
Plan.
• Colchester continues to experience change to the structure of employment away from
traditional manufacturing to service sector and part time working has placed significant
stress on Colchester. Even in this respect, Colchester experiences low levels of
deprivation within the rural areas and west of Colchester town. However, Colchester
Local Plan, states that the east of Colchester has been identified as a priority for
regeneration, and was subsequently granted SRB funding in 2000. Specific
regeneration areas identified in the Local Plan, include Colchester Central Area,
Colchester Garrison and The Hythe, all of which are located within the east and south
east of Colchester, where high levels of deprivation exist.
• Harlow currently faces serious social and economic problems that result from poor
education, poor training and skill levels, decline in the manufacturing sector and the
need for renewal of the urban fabric. On a district level, Harlow is ranked 82nd most
deprived district in England out of 354 districts. As a consequence, the district has
been identified as an Priority Area for Economic Regeneration in RPG9, where new
employment opportunities should be focussed. The Local Plan also encourages
Stansted related development via policy ER14, as this would bring indirect employment
in the form of offices, industry, leisure, entertainment, conference facilities and
warehousing, thus providing a diverse range of employment opportunities. In this
120
respect, Harlow would benefit greatly from the growth of Stansted Airport, in terms of
direct and indirect employment provision.
• Uttlesford District currently experiences very low levels of deprivation, with much of
the area characterised as being rural in nature amid many small settlements. In relation
to the Local Plan, it states that the district has a very low-employment rate so that, any
new jobs created by the growth of Stansted would have to be filled by people either
moving in to the area or consequently commuting from other Districts.
• Broxbourne has a low unemployment rate compared to the national average, the
district has the highest unemployment rate in Hertfordshire. In this respect, the district
unemployment rate masks pockets of deprivation found in the east of the district. This
is resultant from a mismatch in skills and jobs. Currently, the Local plan has proposed
that Park Plaza employment site in Waltham Cross will help readdress this issue.
• North Hertfordshire currently experiences very low levels of deprivation, with only
small pockets of deprived urban wards located in the settlements of Hitchin and
Baldock. 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 be
critical. Based on the current occupational structure for airport employment it is presently
estimated that around 30% of all jobs created will be unskilled or semi-skilled, falling to
16% for indirect and non-airport employment. Hence, of the 13,048 jobs created under
Package 2 approximately 2,869 represent unskilled or semi-skilled jobs over the period
2001 to 2041. In addition, off-site and indirect employment will be created. Again taking
Package 2 to illustrate the effects, it is estimated that in the order of 2,714 non-airport
catalytic jobs would be created over the period 2001 to 2041.
4.4.48 Estimates produced as part of this research allocate catalytic employment within the
defined study area predominately to the outer area (70%) with less than a third located in
the core area (30%). Hence for the more distant districts catalytic off-site employment
could potentially constitute a more significant impact than direct airport generated
employment. More relaxed planning policies in areas such as Harlow, that are concerned
to encourage development and employment creation, could also help to divert attracted
investment to regeneration priority areas.
LABOUR MARKET CAPACITY
4.4.49 The Arup report usefully reviews the labour market context for Harlow. While the figures
quoted are now slightly dated, they do provide a baseline (for 1998) and an indication of
scale 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 skill
jobs. Total low skilled unemployment totals 629 workers, thus the available low skill
resident labour force totals 8,786. Of the total in employment 69% work in semi-skilled
jobs. There is forecast to be a fall of 9.2% in the low skill workforce levels between 1998
and 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).
121
4.4.51 In relation to unemployment, while it is anticipated that structural unemployment will persist
throughout the period to 2030, it will be well below the high historic levels seen in the early
1980s and 1990s. In part this reflects improvements in the skills base that is facilitating
skills transferability across sectors.
4.4.52 In terms of labour demand in Harlow, in 1998 there were 38,041 available jobs, with 21% of
these being low skilled. By 2016 the number of low skill jobs (7,577) is forecast to have
risen by 3,773 or 99%. By 2031 the level of available low skill jobs is forecast to have fallen
again, 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 at
the 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 employment
created that is unskilled or semi-skilled (based on the present occupational structure)
multiplied by the current proportion of employment at Stansted accounted for by residents
of 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 of
policy measures designed to steer growth to achieve regeneration objectives and the larger
proportion 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, 303
low skilled jobs might be created potentially for residents in Harlow. The majority of these
would comprise catalytic (144) and indirect (69) jobs.
Table 4.4: Estimated Low Skill Jobs Potential for Harlow Residents Package 2
Shares of 2006 2016 2026 2036 2041 2001 to
total jobs 2041
Total Jobs in
17,986 23,924 23,428 28,357 26,530 13,048
Study Area
of which
Total Direct 13,600 15,319 14,840 17,721 16,450 6,118
Total Indirect 1,349 4,596 4,452 5,316 4,935 4,217
Total Non-Airport
3,037 4,009 4,136 5,320 5,146 2,714
(induced/catalytic/displaced)
Add.l/Reduced Jobs in Study
4,504 2,757 927 6,074 - 1,827 13,048
Area of which
Total Direct 3,268 650 506 3,697 - 1,271 6,118
Total Indirect 631 1,662 152 1,109 - 381 4,217
Total Non-
605 444 269 1,268 - 174 2,714
Airport
Add.l/Reduced Low Skill Jobs
1,139 524 213 1,445 -455 2,869
in Study Area of which
Total Direct 10%
327 65 51 370 -127 612
Unskilled
122
Semi skilled 18.80% 614 122 95 695 -239 1,150

Total 29% 941 187 146 1,065 -366 1,762
Total Indirect 4.64%
29 77 7 51 -18 195
Unskilled
Semi skilled 11.36% 72 189 17 126 -43 479
Total 16.00% 101 266 24 177 -61 674
Total Non- 4.64%
28 21 12 59 -8 125
Airport Unskilled
Semi skilled 11.36% 69 50 31 144 -20 308
Total 16.00% 97 71 43 203 -28 433
Add.l/Reduced Low Skill Jobs
90 60 25 139 -34 303
in Study Area,
Potentially filled by Harlow
residents, of which
Total Direct 5.10%
UNSKILLED 17 3 3 19 -6 32
Semi skilled 31 6 5 35 -12 58
Total 48 9 8 54 -18 90
Total Indirect 10.00%
UNSKILLED 3 8 1 5 -2 20
SEMI SKILLED 7 19 2 13 -4 49
Total 10 27 3 18 -6 69
Total Non- 33.00%
Airport
Unskilled 9 7 4 19 -3 41
Semi skilled 23 17 10 48 -7 103
Total 32 24 14 67 -10 144
Source: consultants
4.4.56 Using the same assumptions and approach, the potential regeneration impacts of
scenarios for other packages have also been calculated to illustrate the range of potential
impacts, detailed in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5: Estimated Low Skill Jobs for Harlow Residents 2001-2041
Package Direct Indirect Catalytic Total
Jobs Jobs Jobs
Package 2 Non-SERAS case, (as above) 90 69 144 303
Package 7 Non-SERAS case high 341 14 1,689 2,044
Package 14 Non-SERAS case high 622 32 4,312 4,966
Package 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 a
more significant effect than direct airport related employment in outer areas such as
Harlow. This effect could be encouraged through the planning process. This illustrates the
potential influence of planning and other complementary policy packages in terms of the
ability to divert footloose employment to regeneration priority areas.
123
4.4.58 Depending upon the scenario adopted as the base case the impact for Harlow could be
quite substantial. Even for Package 2, impacts are small but not totally insignificant in
assisting the regeneration of Harlow in relation to, for example, the current number of low
skilled unemployed (629). This figure also needs to be considered in relation to the wider
evidence provided by Arup that indicates that between 2016 and 2031 the level of available
low 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 is
consistent with evidence elsewhere that suggests that new jobs for local people are often
limited. For example, evidence from the assessment of URG and City Grant indicated that
the majority of schemes produced a low level of net additional jobs, less than 25%, for local
people when displacement was taken into account. Taking into account that investment is
not motivated by regeneration objectives, skill requirements and issues of accessibility
further reduce this figure here. Further constraints are experienced in targeting socially
excluded groups where there is a need to consider other policy areas including for example
the 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 communities
depending on their location and in particular degree of peripherality. Several
commentators have argued that rurality as a concept is probably of less significance than
peripherality. Rural communities in the South East for example are relatively affluent and
have made the transition from agricultural economies to relatively wealthy commuter
villages, the latter trading off additional transport costs in favour of quality of life and
environment. Maps 2.8 and 2.9 contained within the Baseline assessment clearly
demonstrate that the greatest concentrations of deprivation are concentrated in the urban
areas. 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 the
past in the area. However the consultants have not been able to identify any specific
research 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 many
commuters. The market towns and villages already house many people from urban
backgrounds, 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 and
markets.
4.4.63 The major policy issue for the rural communities will continue to revolve around
issues 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 the
restricted supply of rural housing in the more attractive towns and villages, where only
124
limited expansion can take place without eroding their character. For disadvantaged groups
with less resources at their disposal this is likely to result in increased difficulty in getting
onto the housing ladder, especially in the more ‘desirable’ rural communities. This in turn
may exacerbate labour shortages with implications for the performance of the wider
economy.
CONCLUSION
4.4.64 The scale of expected regeneration benefits of airport expansion, through creation of
unskilled and semi-skilled jobs potentially available to concentrations of deprivation will
vary 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 5,690
jobs.
4.4.65 Beyond this, for the area as a whole, the regeneration effects are anticipated to be fairly
limited 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 an
important consideration bearing in mind that Harlow has been defined as an area
where 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 be
primarily through the focusing of Catalytic employment to designated regeneration
areas. This will help to offset the reduction in low skill jobs anticipated over the period to
2031. Supportive planning policies would be needed to achieve regeneration benefits. In
Package 2 it is estimated this would create around 300 low skilled jobs potentially for
Harlow residents (2001-2031), amounting to around 3% of the total number of low skilled
jobs available in the district in 1998.
4.4.67 Some consideration is also required of effects on rural communities. These are anticipated
to be widely dispersed and hence difficult to quantify with any precision. However, given
current problems arising from housing affordability - that is arguably leading to an
increasing spatial dimension to the existing high level of social inequality experienced in
the UK - it can be expected that these issues would be exacerbated by airport expansion
and 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 wider
ramifications for the economy as a whole accentuating existing skill shortages, particularly
in vocational and semi-skilled trades. Careful consideration will be required of the role that
the planning system and delivery of housing development has to play in securing the
competitiveness of the region.
22 DTZ. Prioritisation in the East of England. EEDA, October 2002.

125
4.5 Planning Policy Opportunities and Constraints
4.5.1 This section draws out the main constraints and opportunities to growth contained within
the various planning guidance and policy documents that cover the Study area. All of the
constraints and opportunities have been identified within the Inception Report, Section 4
Document and Data Review and are included here as bullet points only. The structure of
this 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 balance
between 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 balance
between housing and employment to discourage long distance commuting.
• The London-Stansted-Cambridge sub-region provides an opportunity for long-term
restructuring of the region based on a major centre (Harlow or a new town) and
improved east-west links. However, the area around Stansted has limited capacity to
accommodate major development.
• Allowing the current pattern of development to continue will adversely affect the
environment and the character of many settlements.
• Harlow is an area for regeneration.
126
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. The
further development of Cambourne and a second new settlement at
Oakington/Longstanston will accommodate significant levels of future development.
• The district is concerned to provide for the needs of the high-technology and research
industry.
• 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.
127
• The plan strategy is to reduce the rate of housing development to enable employment
opportunities and infrastructure to catch up with population.
• The Environment Agency is concerned about abstraction levels from local water
resources.
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 protected
from 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 of
ecological 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 PDL
because of the largely rural character of the district.
• Over 80% of the district is grade two agricultural land and is protected from
development.
• A major aquifer underlies the northern part of the district and there are seven locations
where water is extracted for human consumption. In these locations development is
restricted to prevent contamination.
• Noise sensitive development is not permitted within the 57dB(A) noise zone of
Stansted 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.
128
• There are several areas of ecological importance where there is a presumption

against development and a number of Landscape Character Areas where
development is restricted.
• The area of special restraint at Bishop’s Stortford will be released if there is a need to
release 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 special
restraint. 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 provide
opportunities for strategic development. Where possible, it also highlights implications for
achieving high rates of growth. Importantly, these factors inter-relate and in drawing
conclusions as to a settlements capacity for growth must be looked at holistically. This
overall 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 to
accommodate further development. Some of this will be related to environmental
constraints and the need to preserve aspects of the built environment. Others are more
associated with facilities and public services. This section makes a broad assessment of
the 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 consistent
data at a settlement level and part due to the timescale of the Study, which precludes an
in-depth analysis from being undertaken. It nevertheless draws out a number of important
issues and provides a broad comparative picture of which settlements are strong
contenders for growth and others which are subject to a number of constraints, which
meaning 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 4.6
to make a broad judgement as to whether there may be capacity for small or major urban
extensions in the vicinity. Where a landscape was graded as H or M-H in the baseline
landscape 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 the
settlement (?) , and where the landscape was graded as L or L-M it is assumed that there
is some capacity for expansion (D).
129
4.6.5 Many settlements fall within several landscape areas, either at the boundary of different
areas or close to it. The table below lists each settlement’s surrounding landscape types
and their capacities for absorbing development.
Table 4.6: Landscape Character Constraints by Settlement

Settlement Landscape Character Major Extension (>5a) / New
Settlement
Cambridge Cam River Valley,/ Bourn Brook Valley x / x / x / x / x / x / x / x
/ Madingley Ridge / North Cambridge
Fen Edge Claylands / East Cambridge
Fen Edge Chalklands / Fulbourn Fen
Bowl / Gog Magog Hillls / Hobson’s
Brook
Cambourne Western Claylands x
Sawston Cam River Valley/ Granta Levels ?/x
Great Cam River Valley/ Granta Levels / Gog ? / x / x
Shelford Magog Hills
Duxford Chalklands x
Colchester 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/?/x
Braintree B1 / C6 ?/x
Loughton C4 / D1 x/x
Waltham C3 / 59 x/x
Abbey
Witham C6 / B1 / D4 x/?/x
Saffron C1 / A1 / B1 / B2 x/x/?/x
Walden
Stansted C2 / A1 / B1 /B2 x/x/?/x/
Montifitchet
Epping D1 / C3 / C4 ?/x/x
Great C5 / B1 x/?
Dunmow
Halstead C7 / B3 / B4 x/?/x
Chipping C4 / B1 / D1 / D2 x/?/x/?
Ongar
Little/Great C1 / Chalkland / B2 x/x/?
Chesterford
Newport C1 / B1 / A1 x/?/x
Wendens C1 / B1 / A1 x/?/x
Ambo /
Audley End
Ugley Green B1 / A1 / C2 ?/x/x
Cheshunt 59 / 55 / 57 / 58 x/x/x/?
Letchworth / 216 / 224 / 225 / 216 / 219 x/x/x/x/x
Baldock
Hitchin 217 / 218 / 214 / 216 ?/x/x/x
130
Hertford / 78 / 64 / 63 / 65 / 66 / 77 / 76 / 75 / 69 / ?/?/?/x/?/?/D/?/?/?
Ware 68 / 67 / 44 /x
Hoddesdon 61 / 62 / 64 / 78 / 79 / 80 60 / C3 ?/ x/x/?/?/x/D/x
Royston 11 / 10 / Chalkland
Sawbridgesw 81 / 84 / 85 / 82 / C2 x/x/x/?/x
orth
Broxbourne 58 / 61 / 60 / C3 ?/?/D/x
Buntingford E/B/C/D ?/x/x/x
Bishops 82 / 85 / 86 / A1 / C2 ?/x/x/x/x
Stortford
4.6.6 The assessment shows that there is little capacity for major expansion to existing
settlements due to the sensitivity of their surrounding landscape character areas.
Broxbourne, Hoddesdon, and Hertford/Ware, all in Hertfordshire are the only settlements
surrounded in part by landscapes with some capacity for major expansion, although at this
stage 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 for
major expansions that would warrant further investigation when sites have been identified.
Only Duxford in Cambridgeshire and Letchworth/Baldock are situated in landscape
considered 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 specific
assessment at Cambridge, Cambourne, Sawston, Great Shelford, Loughton, Little and
Great 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 conservation
areas, yet has accommodated a significant amount of growth without compromising its
historic and cultural heritage value. Other places, like Great Dunmow will be much more
sensitive to change. Thus, any new development near to a historic town needs to be
carefully considered and planned, so that it does not cause detrimental harm to a town’s
historic character.
4.6.11 The report on ‘Sustaining the Historic Environment in Essex’, undertaken by Chris Blanford
and Associates (CBA, 2002), identified three separate urban landscapes within our study
area, 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 environmental
designations. In addition, surrounding Colchester they found a ‘moderately sensitive
band’, which is capable in principle of absorbing very limited types of changes, due to
the nature and significance of heritage assets.
131
• Chelmsford also contains a wealth of historic remains and buildings that are highly
sensitive to change.
• Harlow is considered moderately sensitive to change due to a number of historic
designations in the ‘Old Town’.
4.6.12 In addition to these settlements, the baseline assessment identified others that had historic
centres. The CBA (1967) report identified a further 10 settlements from the Study area that
had 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 careful
considered 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 as
having a historic core meriting preservation. These settlements will have a moderately high
sensitivity 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 change
in greater detail. This will preclude the most sensitive settlements from further growth and
the impact of growth on the remaining settlements will be assessed in the site assessment
process.
Urban Capacity
4.6.15 The Urban Capacity Studies for Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire were used to
determine urban capacity at a District level, which will identify capacity for development to
be accommodated within exiting urban areas. This has been done on a district wide level
because there was insufficient data available for individual settlements.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE
4.6.16 Cambridge City Council undertook an assessment of housing capacity in 2002 following an
earlier assessment performed in 1998, which then identified a notional urban capacity
figure of 3,393 up to 2016. That earlier study recognised that there was insufficient urban
capacity to allow Cambridge City to accommodate growth without the release of green belt
land for development.
132
4.6.17 The 2002 housing capacity study found that the largest potential sources were identified as
being redevelopment of existing other uses, existing housing allocations in the Local Plan
and 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 have
reduced as some of these dwellings have already been constructed between July 1999
and March 2002.
4.6.18 For South Cambridgeshire, the target for the District Council’s housing allocation within
villages, up to 2016 is 9,600 dwellings. Urban capacity work for the district has not yet been
completed and therefore, the urban capacity figure provided for the District is based on
delivering windfalls of 200 dwellings p.a. (the historic rate for about 15 years), for the
remaining 13 to the period 2016. This equates to around 2,600 dwellings.
Table 4.7: Urban Capacity for Cambridgeshire

Area Windfall * (pa) Urban Capacity
Cambridge City N/A 6,500**
South Cambridgeshire 2,600 2,600
Total 200 9,100
*Windfall (pa) - based on historic rate over 15 years. A full UCS for South Cambridgeshire has yet to be
completed 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 period
2001 to 2003. At the time of the assessment, the District studies had not been fully
completed. Thus, in order for a county-wide assessment of urban capacity to be
undertaken, each of the capacity studies had to be adjusted so that each District could be
accounted for and comparable.
4.6.20 The Study found that most of the identified capacity was in the north of the Structure Plan
area along the A12/Great Eastern Corridor, through the districts of Brentwood, Chelmsford
and Braintree. The Study also identifies Colchester as having a markedly high capacity as
a result of a high number of large brownfield sites within the District i.e. Colchester
Garrison. However, there is a low level of capacity identified along the M11/West Anglia
Corridor. The greatest potential capacity source was identified as intensification of existing
housing areas as well as the redevelopment of car parks and conversion of commercial
buildings. All figures for the Essex districts have been discounted to take account of
deliverability.
NB: All figures are interim findings of the Essex Study. There are still significant gaps in the
urban capacity data and therefore the findings should be treated with caution.
133
Table 4.8: Urban Capacity for Essex

Area Urban Capacity Windfall* Total Urban
Capacity
Braintree 6,674 1,001 7,675
Chelmsford 2,764 415 3,179
Colchester 23,620 3,543 27,163
Epping Forest 684 103 787
Harlow 768 - 1115 115-167 883-1282
Uttlesford 964 145 1,109
Total 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 the
urban capacity figure to provide a total urban capacity figure.
HERTFORDSHIRE
4.6.21 Hertfordshire County Council undertook a detailed assessment of housing capacity

between 2000-2002, covering the period of 2001-2016, to inform the preparation of the
deposit stage alterations to the current Structure Plan policies on housing distribution and
development strategy.
4.6.22 The assessment found that most of the potential capacity was identified within East Herts
and North Herts Districts, equating to 6,430 and 6,110 dwellings respectively. This
excludes a proportion of discounting, which varies across the Districts. The reason for this
high figure is the large amount of surplus employment land that has the potential for
housing development and a greater opportunity for redevelopment and infill within urban
areas. Broxbourne has limited additional capacity to accommodate housing on brownfield
sites (3,490 taking into account dwellings discounted).
Table 4.9: Urban Capacity for Hertfordshire (2001-2016)

Area Windfall** Urban Capacity
East Hertfordshire 527 6,430
North Hertfordshire 556 6,110
Broxbourne 292 3,490
Total 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 is
fairly low, with the potential to accommodate around 20,400 to 20,800 houses between
2001-2016. In comparison, the outer area has the ability to accommodate approximately
45,600 houses.
Table 4.10: Urban Capacity, Core and Outer Areas

Area Lower Range Upper Range
Core Area 20,400 20,800
Outer Area 45,600
Total for the Study area 66,000 66,400
134
Retail Capacity
4.6.24 This section sets out a broad comparative analysis of retail provision for each settlement to
highlight the settlements potential to move up the hierarchy and accommodate population
growth.
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 figures
from the settlement hierarchy. This has been plotted to give a broad analysis of the
comparative levels for retail provision in the Study area and where there may be limitations
and opportunities for growth or higher growth rates according to a settlement’s ability to
serve its population’s needs. For example, where a settlement has a high ranking in terms
of retail provision and a lower ranking in terms of population, (for example, Bishops
Stortford, retail rank 6 and population rank 13), it can be assumed that additional growth
would not be restricted by a lack of retail provision. Conversely, where a settlement ranks
lower in terms of retail than population it can be assumed that the lack of retail provision
could initially restrict growth.
4.6.26 The settlements can be grouped into having a comparative excess of retail provision
compared to their population; a proportionate amount of retail provision compared to
population; 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 Provision

Excess Retail Provision Proportionate Retail Lack of Retail Provision
Provision
Hitchin Cambridge Loughton
Letchworth Harlow Hoddesdon
Bishops Stortford Chelmsford Cheshunt
Ware Braintree Witham
Saffron Walden Royston Waltham Abbey
Epping Halstead Broxbourne
Baldock Sawbridgeworth Sawston
Great Dunmow Cambourne
Buntingford Chipping Ongar
Stansted Mountfitchet
4.6.27 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 of
settlements, the influence of settlements outside the Study area, or the nature of retail
provision (comparison or convenience). Neither does it provide a quantification of the
capacity 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 settlements
as well as the physical capacity for expansion, such as the socio-economic profile and
accessibility factors.
135
Figure 4.1 Retail Floorspace (Rank) Against Population (Rank)
30
Sawston
Broxbourne
Chipping Ongar
25 Cambourne
Waltham Abbey
Sawbridgeworth
Buntingford
20 Great Dunmow
Halstead
Witham
Cheshunt
Royston
15 Baldock
Epping
Saffron Walden
Ware
Hoddesdon
10 Loughton
Hertford
Braintree
Letchworth
Bishops Stortford
5 Hitchin
Chelmsford
Harlow
Colchester
Cambridge
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
136
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 possible
due 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 to
calculate maintained school capacity figures, which will identify settlement capacity that
could either present opportunities or constraints to growth. The plan period of the
Cambridgeshire and Essex Schools Organisation Plans has a base date of 2002 and
forecasts 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) capacity
calculation was used to obtain the total building capacity figures for secondary schools for
each settlement. This figure was used for all three counties in order to standardise data
and to make comparisons. Pupil enrolment numbers were then subtracted from the
building 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 capacity
in 2006/2007. However, building capacity was not produced by Hertfordshire, thus the
assumption has been to use total capacity at 2002. The forecast figures for Essex and
Cambridgeshire are based on previous historical trends and extrapolated forward to
provide a forecast up to 2007. Hertfordshire’s forecast capacity uses information on live
births and migration patterns. Forecasted 2007 and 2009/2010 pupil numbers were then
subtracted away from the 2007 total building capacity figures (2002 in the case of
Hertfordshire) 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 for
Essex only, to indicate the potentially higher pupil numbers that would result from new
housing development. In terms of secondary schools in Cambridgeshire, some allowance
has been made for house building in some parts of the County. However, it is envisaged
that most of the spare capacity in Cambridge City’s secondary school will be taken up by
planned development. The Hertfordshire School Organisational Plan included housing
development in its forecasted pupil enrolment figures.
4.6.34 The capacity figures are shown in Figure 4.2 and discussed below. In addition Tables 4.12
and 4.13 summaries the findings.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE
4.6.35 In 2002, Cambridge City, including the Northern Fringe area and Sawston has a significant
amount of spare capacity at secondary school level, which increases in 2007. However, it
is expected that the spare capacity in Cambridge City’s secondary school will be taken up
by planned development in the future.
137
HERTFORDSHIRE
4.6.36 Secondary schools in Hertford/Ware, Hitchin, Bishop’s Stortford/Sawbridgeworth and

Royston 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’s
Stortford/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, Witham
has a major deficit of secondary school places, in 2002.
4.6.39 In 2007, Halstead, Waltham Abbey and Harlow will continue to have major surplus
capacity. However, significant deficit of capacity at the secondary school level, is identified
at Braintree, Witham, Colchester, Chelmsford, Great Dunmow, and at Stansted
Mountfichet.
SUMMARY
Table 4.12: Comparative Secondary School Places Capacity (2002

Major Surplus of School Capacity (+ Proportionate School Major Deficit of School
100 places) Capacity (+/- 100 places) Capacity (- 100 places)
Braintree Saffron Walden Witham
Colchester Great Dunmow Letchworth
Halstead Stansted Mountfitchet Baldock
Loughton Hoddesdon/Broxbourne Cheshunt
Waltham Abbey Chelmsford
Epping
Harlow
Hitchin
Bishops Stortford/ Sawbridgeworth
Hertford/Ware
Royston
Buntingford
Sawston
Cambridge
Table 4.13: Comparative School Places Capacity (Forecast 2007 – 2009/2010 for
Hertfordshire Schools)
Major Surplus of School Proportionate School Major Deficit of School
Capacity (+ 100 places) Capacity (+/- 100 places) Capacity (- 100 places)
Halstead Loughton Braintree
Waltham Abbey Epping Witham
Harlow Saffron Walden Chelmsford
Hertford/Ware Buntingford Colchester
138
Hitchin Cambridge Great Dunmow

Royston Hoddesdon/ Broxbourne Stansted Mountfitchet
Sawston Cheshunt
Letchworth
Baldock
Bishop’s
Stortford/Sawbridgeworth
NB: No Secondary Schools at Cambourne or Chipping Ongar
139
Capacity
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Braintree
Halstead
Witham
Chelmsford
Figure 4.2: Capacity of Schools
Colchester
Loughton
Waltham Abbey
Chipping Ongar
Colin Buchanan and Partners
Epping
Great Dunmow
Saffron Walden
Settlement
Stansted Mountfitchet
Harlow
Hoddesdon/Broxbourne
2002
Cheshunt
Bishops
Stortford/Sawbridgeworth
Hertford/Ware
Buntingford
Baldock
Hitchin
Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study - Key Issues Report
Letchworth
Royston
Cambourne
2007 (2009/2010 for Herts)
Sawston
Cambridge (incl Northern

Fringe)
140
Summary of Settlement Capacity Opportunities and Constraints
4.6.40 The following table summarises the settlement wide capacity constraints and opportunities
that could influence where development takes place. Table 4.14 sets out a summary
analysis of the key finding of the settlement capacity opportunities and constraints and sets
out 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 Potential

Settlement Retail Landscape Heritage Schools Potential
Constraints on Constraints Constraints Constraints
Growth Rate
Braintree Retail rank (8) is Landscape suitable Core merits Significant deficit L - M
equal to for small urban preservation in Secondary
population rank extensions but – moderately School places by
(8) therefore uncertainty over sensitive 2007
population growth potential for large
would require scale developments
proportional retail
development
Halstead Retail rank (19) is Landscape suitable Core merits Significant spare M - H
close to, but for small urban preservation capacity in
slightly lower than extensions but – moderately Secondary
population rank uncertainty over sensitive Schools places
(18) therefore potential for large by 2007
retail development scale developments
would need to be
a priority with
population growth
Witham Retail rank (18) is Landscape suitable Historic Significant deficit L - M
significantly lower for small urban Centre – in Secondary
than population extensions but Sensitive to School places by
rank (12), uncertainty over new 2007
therefore a high potential for large development
growth rate would scale developments
be inhibited
without significant
retail provision
Chelmsford Retail rank (4) is Landscape suitable Historic Significant deficit L - M
close to, but for small urban Centre - High in Secondary
slightly lower than extensions but Sensitivity School places by
population rank(2) uncertainty over 2007
therefore retail potential for large
development scale developments
would need to be
a priority with
141
population growth
Colchester Retail rank (2) is Landscape suitable Historic Significant deficit L - M

close to but for small urban Centre - High in Secondary
slightly higher extensions but Sensitivity School places by
than population uncertainty over 2007
rank (3), therefore potential for large
high growth would scale developments
not initially be
prohibited.
Loughton Retail rank (10) is Uncertainty over N/A Deficit in
less than landscape suitability Secondary
population rank for small urban School places by
(6), therefore high extensions and no 2007
growth rates may capacity for large
be inhibited by the scale developments
need for retail
development.
Waltham Abbey Retail rank (24) is Landscape suitable Core merits Significant spare M
significantly lower for small urban preservation capacity in
than population extensions but no – moderately Secondary
rank (15) , potential for large sensitive Schools places
therefore a high scale developments by 2007
growth rate would
be inhibited
without significant
retail provision
Chipping Ongar Retail rank (26) is Landscape suitable Historic No secondary L-M
close to, but for small urban Centre – education
slightly lower than extensions but Sensitive to facilities
population rank uncertainty over new therefore no
(25) therefore potential for large development spare capacity
retail development scale developments
would need to be
a priority with
population growth
Epping Retail rank (14) is Landscape suitable Core merits Some spare M-H
higher than for small urban preservation capacity in
population rank extensions but – moderately Secondary
(20), therefore uncertainty over sensitive Schools places
high growth would potential for large by 2007
not be inhibited by scale developments
retail initially
Great Dunmow Retail rank (20) is Landscape suitable Historic Significant deficit M
higher than for small urban Centre – in Secondary
population rank extensions but Sensitive to School places by
(26), therefore uncertainty over new 2007
142
high growth would potential for large development

retail initially
Saffron Walden Retail rank (13) is Landscape suitable Historic Deficit in M-H
higher than for small urban Centre – Secondary
population rank extensions but Sensitive to School places by
(17), therefore uncertainty over new 2007
high growth would potential for large development
retail initially
Stansted Retail rank (22) is Landscape suitable N/A Significant deficit M - H
Mountfitchet higher than for small urban in Secondary
population rank extensions but School places by
(27), therefore uncertainty over 2007
high growth would potential for large
retail initially
Harlow Retail rank (3) is Landscape suitable Moderately Significant spare H
close to but for small urban sensitive 'Old capacity in
slightly higher extensions but Town' Secondary
than population uncertainty over Schools places
rank (4), therefore potential for large by 2007
high growth would scale developments
not initially be
inhibited.
Hoddesdon Retail rank (11) is Some surrounding N/A Some deficit in M
less than landscape suitable for Secondary
population rank large scale School places by
(7), therefore high development and 2009/2010 -
growth rates may small urban figure includes
be inhibited by the extensions Broxbourne
need for retail
development.
Broxbourne Retail rank (27) is Some surrounding N/A Some deficit in M
significantly lower landscape suitable for Secondary
than population large scale School places by
rank (19), development and 2009/2010 –
therefore a high small urban figure includes
growth rate would extensions Hoddesdon
be inhibited
without significant
retail provision
Cheshunt Retail rank (17) is Uncertainty over N/A Significant deficit L
significantly lower landscape suitability in Secondary
than population for small urban School places by
rank (5), therefore extensions and 2009/2010
a high growth rate uncertain capacity for
would be inhibited large scale
143
without significant developments

retail provision
Bishops Stortford Retail rank (6) is Landscape suitable N/A Significant M-H
higher than for small urban deficit in
population rank extensions but Secondary
(11), therefore uncertainty over Schools places
high growth would potential for large by 2009/2010 -
not be inhibited by scale developments figure includes
retail initially Sawbridgeworth
Hertford Retail rank (9) is Some surrounding Historic Significant spare M-H
higher than landscape suitable for Centre - capacity in
population rank large scale Sensitive to Secondary
(13), therefore development and new Schools places
high growth would small urban development by 2009/2010 -
not be inhibited by extensions figure includes
retail initially Ware
Ware Retail rank (12) is Some surrounding Historic Significant spare M-H
higher than landscape suitable for Centre - capacity in
population rank large scale Sensitive to Secondary
(14), therefore development and new Schools places
high growth would small urban development by 2009/2010 -
not be inhibited by extensions figure includes
retail initially Hertford
Sawbridgeworth Retail rank (23) is Some surrounding N/A Significant deficit L- M
close to, but landscape suitable for in Secondary
slightly lower than large scale Schools places
population rank development and by 2009/2010 -
(21) therefore small urban figure included
retail development extensions with Bishops
would need to be Stortford
a priority with
population growth
Buntingford Retail rank (21) is Uncertainty over N/A Some spare
higher than landscape suitability capacity in L
population rank for small urban Secondary
(28) therefore high extensions and School places by
growth would not uncertain capacity for 2009/2010
be inhibited large scale
initially developments
Baldock Retail rank (15) is No capacity for small Historic Significant deficit L
higher than or large scale Centre - in Secondary
population rank developments Sensitive to School places by
(22), therefore new 2009/2010
high growth would development
not be inhibited by
retail initially
144
Hitchin Retail rank (5) is Uncertainty over Historic Significant spare L - M

higher than landscape suitability Centre - capacity in
population rank for small urban Sensitive to Secondary
(9), therefore high extensions and new Schools places
growth would not uncertain capacity for development by 2009/2010
be inhibited by large scale
retail initially developments
Letchworth Retail rank (7) is No capacity for small Core merits Significant deficit L - M
higher than or large scale preservation - in Secondary
population rank developments moderately Schools places
(10), therefore sensitive by 2009/2010
high growth would
not be inhibited by
retail initially
Royston Retail rank (16) is Uncertain Core merits Significant spare L - M
equal to preservation - capacity in
population rank moderately Secondary
(16) therefore sensitive Schools places
population growth by 2009/2010
would require
proportional retail
development
Cambourne Retail rank (25) is No landscape N/A No secondary L-M
close to, but suitable for large education
slightly lower than scale development facilities
population rank and uncertainty over therefore no
(23) therefore potential for small spare capacity
retail development scale urban
would need to be extensions
a priority with
population growth
Sawston Figures were Uncertainty over N/A Significant spare L - M
unavailable for landscape suitability capacity in
retail floorspace in for small urban Secondary
Sawston. It is extensions and Schools places
assumed there is uncertain capacity for by 2007
limited provision large scale
and high growth developments
rates are likely to
be constrained.
Cambridge (incl. Retail rank (1) is No landscape Historic Some spare L-M
Northern Fringe) equal to suitable for large Centre - capacity in
population rank scale development Sensitive to Secondary
(1) therefore and uncertainty over new Schools places
population growth potential for small development by 2007
would require scale urban
proportional retail extensions
development
145
Map 4.4
146
5. London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub Region

and Harlow Options Studies Review
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Two studies were commissioned, which potentially influence the Stansted/M11 Corridor
Development Options Study (referred to below as the Stansted/M11 Study) and which
might 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 Harlow
Options 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 the
methodologies used, to summarise the conclusions and to identify the key outputs which
are 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 Lock
Associates, Land Use Consultants and Oscar Faber. The primary aim of the study was to
provide advice and guidance on a sustainable framework for future strategic land use
planning and transportation for the Study area up to 2026 and beyond. The consultants
were to explore the options for long term spatial development and transport arrangements
and to consider how trends, key issues, development needs and pressures, and structural
relationships 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 Cambridge
in the north, and from Hertford in the west to Braintree in the east. The LSC Study area is
defined in two parts, Inside London and Outside London. Inside London the LSC area
incorporates all or part of seven London boroughs. Outside London it covers most but not
all of the Stansted/M11 Study area. Thus Broxbourne and North Hertfordshire were
included 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 not
within the LSC Study. The LSC Study area incorporated only parts of some local authority
districts. Thus direct comparison of figures in the LSC study and the figures for
Stansted/M11 Study is difficult. Figure 5.1 shows the boundaries of the LSC,
Stansted/M11 and Harlow Options Study areas.
147
Map 5.1
148
5.2.4 The methodology for the LSC Study involved the identification of four options for spatial
distribution (spatial patterns) and testing them against three growth scenarios. The four
options were developed from a synthesis of spatial aspirations for the sub-region derived
from 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. The
distribution of new development followed a sequential approach with brownfield
opportunities given priority over greenfield development.
• Spatial Pattern 2: Regeneration development focused primarily on the Priority Areas

for Economic Regeneration and other areas in need of regeneration. Growth outside
the regeneration areas was assumed to be more constrained, and in particular, growth
stimulated by Cambridge and Stansted was assumed to be limited to regeneration
areas. The majority of growth outside London was thus limited to the PAERS (Harlow
and the Upper Lee Valley). Harlow was assumed to be a focus for both housing and
employment growth, with Braintree as a secondary focus for housing and employment
development outside London.
• Spatial Pattern 3: Economic Growth Poles development focused in areas close to or

very accessible to the main centres of economic growth in the sub-region, including the
Cambridge sub-region, Stansted and the eastwards extension of the City of London.
Around Stansted it was assumed that the amount of new development in comparison
to the existing levels of urbanisation would be significant, especially for scenarios 1 and
2 (see below). Around Stansted this included Harlow, Braintree and a number of other
settlements in the central rural belt such as Bishop’s Stortford, Hertford, Great
Dunmow and villages along the A120.
• Spatial Pattern 4: New Towns and Settlements development of major new

settlements or towns in accommodating the growth in the sub-region linked to
strengthening east-west links. It was acknowledged that this option was better suited to
the high growth scenario. It was assumed that new settlements would help spatial
restructuring of the wider area and that they would be able to support the key economic
drivers. 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 of
growth that might have to be accommodated in the sub-region, but they were not put
forward 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 assumed
that Stansted would expand to two runways and that it would be handling 30mppa by
2016 and 50mppa by 2026. It assumed the continued growth of Cambridge, the
development of Stratford with the CTRL and successful regeneration within the PAERS
and Thames Gateway.
• Option 2 - Regional scale growth based on the concept that the study area outside
London will act as a regional growth area in ROSE in terms of long term housing
provision. The levels of labour availability were used to determine potential growth in
149
employment. In this scenario it was assumed that passenger numbers at Stansted

would increase from 25mppa in 2016 to 40 mppa in 2026, the maximum throughput on
one runway.
• Option 3 - Indigenous growth, a continuation of existing planning policies, which

provide 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 therefore
employment growth outside London. This scenario assumed some additional growth at
Stansted, 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 area
outside 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 that
the additional growth for scenario 3 and all the extra growth above this for scenarios 1 and
2 would be footloose. Allocations of population, employment, households and employment
land were then made to each spatial pattern for each growth scenario using the criteria
referred to above.
Table 5.1: LSC Study area outside London - additional households

Growth scenario Households 2001 – Households 2001 - 2026
2016
Maximising opportunities 171,183 302,659
Regional scale growth 116,501 194,789
Indigenous growth 58,785 100,213
Source : London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Study. ECOTEC et al , Scenarios Working Paper Final, November
2001
Comparison of the Spatial Patterns
5.2.7 Each Spatial Pattern was assessed for each growth scenario against a series of six criteria
including transport, economy, social, environment, settlement pattern and delivery. The
performance of the Spatial Patterns was then compared and from this evaluation process a
series of conclusions were drawn.
Conclusions
5.2.8 The conclusions of the LSC Study, which have relevance to the Stansted/M11 Study, are
summarised below. They are divided into two groups, general conclusions resulting from
the comparative analysis of the optional scenarios and conclusions, which have relevance
to the preparation of the Regional Planning Guidance. The following general conclusions
were 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 of
the London Plan, and no increase in the relative level of commuting. The London
150
figures are ambitious and they rely on the development of brownfield land, which will
be expensive to develop and service. If London fails to deliver the levels of housing
aspired 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 and
Stratford are identified as two significant nodes within the LSC Study area capable of
acting 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 highest
growth scenarios is a relatively small proportion of non-urbanised land. However this
growth will have a significant impact on transport and the patterns, nature and
character of existing settlements;
• north, outside London, there are considerable landscape and natural resource
constraints. 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 growth
rates and greater levels of economic activity;
• in the event of economic failure Spatial Patterns 1 and 3 would be robust. Spatial
Pattern 2 would falter due to the high costs of regenerating the PAERS and Spatial
Pattern 4 would fail because the economies of scale of investing in a new town would
be lost;
• all the spatial patterns, except SP1 under scenarios 1 and 2, retain the general pattern
and 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 peripheral
movements, 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 M25
and A1 at Huntingdon. This suggests capacity enhancement between Cambridge and
151
Stansted on M11. Given the supra-regional roles of the M11, the focus of sub-regional
development must assist in strengthening east-west links;
• none of the spatial patterns has major development located on M11 in the more rural
area 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 new
reservoir 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 through
Stansted 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 Regional
Planning Guidance for the East of England. These have been grouped by the consultants
into 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 many
settlements if growth accelerates to any degree;
• the role of Harlow needs full consideration as it plays an important role in most spatial
patterns;
• 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 an
international 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 enable
the sub-region to play a part in a wider polycentric structure at national and “centre
capitals” levels;
• pressures for growth around the centres could in part be accommodated by developing
a localised polycentric structure of smaller centres around the main centre;
• the scale of growth of the higher scenarios makes a new town/s possible;
152
• an appropriately located new town in the southern part of the area outside London
could 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 by
providing higher education/research and development institutions as a core for the
enhanced centres;
• a new town westwards on the Cambridge – Oxford arc needs to be seen as part of a
solution 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 wide
range of general conclusions. Many of these will be of use in helping to inform Stage 3 of
the Stansted / M11 Study when specific development options must be identified and
evaluated.
TIMESCALE
5.2.11 A principal difference is the timescale for the two studies. The LSC Study was required to
consider a projection to 2026, whilst the Stansted/M11 study is required to look forward to
2036. Thus the LSC Study considered in its highest projection the expansion of Stansted to
two runways with a maximum throughput of 50 mppa by 2026. The Stansted/M11 Study is
required to consider the implications of up to four runways with a passenger throughput of
130mppa.
REGIONAL CONTEXT / THAMES GATEWAY
5.2.12 The LSC Study does provide a broader regional context for the Stansted/M11 work. Of
particular significance is the relationship between the success of the regeneration of the
Thames Gateway and the pressures for continued growth within the sub-region north of
London. Stansted Airport, even with its currently approved capacity, provides impetus to
development in the Thames Gateway east of London. The development of optional spatial
patterns around Stansted will in part be influenced by the growth of the Airport, but also by
the degree of development pressure being exerted from London. There is an issue as to
the degree to which the Stansted/M11 Study should take into account these wider
influences.
CAPACITY FOR GROWTH
5.2.13 Perhaps the most significant comment in the LSC Study is the acknowledgement of the
uncertainty about the level of growth “that is acceptable” within the sub-region. This
153
illustrates the difference in approach between the LSC and the Stansted/M11 Studies. By
measuring impacts of urbanisation within its Study area of the Stansted/M11 Study will be
assessing 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 promoting
the concept of polycentric development “which aims to achieve a better balance…between
centres and reduces the concentration, congestion and overheating that occurs as a result
of existing hierarchical settlement structures”. The study identifies the orientation of centres
in the Study area to London as a problem. However the impact and scale of London (as an
employment centre and for other metropolitan facilities) is so great that it is difficult to
imagine that a polycentric structure within the sub-region would be able to affect that
relationship. It is conceivable that a less hierarchical structure would reduce movement
between centres within the sub-region, but there will still be local hierarchical structures
based on each “polycentric” centre.
NEW SETTLEMENTS
5.2.15 The LSC Study considers the potential for new settlements. Understandably, it is
concluded that this option offers less flexibility in the face of variable and uncertain rates of
growth. Once committed to a new town, there is the potential for abortive investment and
social imbalance unless the level of planned growth can be achieved. However, there is an
implication in the LSC report that a new town should be considered in the much broader
regional context. Given the likely development pressures within the sub-region, this
conclusion is questionable and depends upon the scale of the planned settlement. For
example, the Cambridge sub-regional strategy identified the potential for new and
expanded settlements solely within the context of the expansion needs of Cambridge (as
dictated by RPG 6). It is conceivable that a similar justification can be made in the context
of the growth of Stansted
HARLOW
5.2.16 The LSC Study provides clear pointers to the development potential around Harlow, and to
a lesser extent, around Braintree. Growth based on Harlow would be consistent with the
objective to secure regeneration. However, this potential, and the potential for development
at other locations, must be assessed against all the constraints that are being identified
across the Study area. In part, at least, the spatial options will be derived as output from
the 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 Draft
Structure Plan, which, informed by the Cambridge Sub-Region Study, sets out the
development pattern for the Cambridge Sub-Region to 2016. It must be noted that the
Structure Plan review has established the strategy to 2016 and beyond and as the RPG 14
consultation paper (September 2002) explains, ‘It is important that the Cambridge Sub-
region should not be disrupted by new or revised proposals in RPG14’, therefore further
pressures could not be considered until after 2016.
154
5.2.18 The LSC Report makes assumptions that do not necessarily comply with the development
pattern or policy of the Structure Plan which carries increased certainty with the
Examination 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 Harlow
may limit the potential of the Cambridge cluster, however it could be argued that a key
feature of specialised clusters in Cambridge is that growth derives from proximity factors or
has particular spatial requirements and if anything, is being encouraged to spread
outwards to market towns in the Cambridge sub-region rather than to Harlow. Therefore
this assertion may not be valid.
5.2.19 Without the benefit of quantified growth assumptions, the assertion that with Spatial Pattern
3, major growth of the Cambridge area could, without imaginative planning and design
solutions, undermine the attractiveness of the Cambridge area and reduce its effectiveness
as an economic driver nationally, is also difficult to substantiate, considering there may be
potential for further growth at Oakington/Longstanton new settlement, Cambourne and
Waterbeach (subject to resolution of transport issues) as detailed in the Panel Report. The
statement in the LSC Report that ‘Similar problems of the impact on the character of
settlements in the Stansted area would arise’ is also not substantiated by capacity
assessments 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 early
in June, 2003. The primary aim of the study was to identify the development potential of the
area around Harlow over the period to 2021. Its purpose was to set out the broad
implications of further urban growth and provide guidance on how the area could be
developed in the most sustainable way.
5.3.2 A number of key objectives were set out in the project brief and which the consultants had
to examine and report upon. They included the following which have a direct relevance to
the 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 and
Chipping Ongar.
5.3.4 The methodology for the Study incorporated seven steps ;

• establish and evaluate alternative growth levels;
155
• identify alternative spatial development patterns to accommodate growth in the Study

area 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 intermediate
and high. The low and high options were discarded. The low growth option was discarded
because of its failure to address the regeneration needs of the Study area and its limited
impact on accommodating the growth needs of the sub-region. The high growth option was
discarded 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 require
heavy 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 reflected
the objectives of sustainable development. From this evaluation process two of the spatial
options were discarded. Incremental dispersal scored low against most of the criteria and
could not, in the consultant’s view, sustain high levels of growth. Satellite development also
scored 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 included
sites already committed to development, sites identified from a review of policy documents,
sites identified in development plans, redevelopment and renewal opportunities within the
built up area, and newly identified greenfield sites. An appraisal of potential sites was
carried out taking into account environmental designations and constraints within the Study
area.
5.3.9 The sites deemed to be appropriate were then assigned to the two preferred spatial options
on a sequential basis, incorporating only enough greenfield land to enable the relevant
growth target to be achieved. For each of these spatial options the “approximate route or
location 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 to
the Stansted/M11 Study :
156
• both the sub-regional urban focus and transport and regeneration led corridors options
could 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/M11
Study. First, the expansion potential of Harlow is not defined nor is it fully explored. The
examination is limited by the approach to cater for a defined housing/population level which
could fall well short of the optimum capacity . The Study only looks forward to 2021 (a
function of the brief) which is 15 years less than the time horizon for the Stansted/M11
Study.
5.3.13 Although the Study outcomes rely on the contribution of each of the two preferred options
in securing regeneration, there is no analysis of the nature of the problems which have led
to the need for regeneration. It is difficult to understand, therefore, how their respective
roles 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 benefit
might 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 transport
demands of the two preferred options were assessed, and thus how the new infrastructure
required for each option was determined and costed.
5.3.15 Although the Study quantifies the new social infrastructure required (e.g. schools) there is
no attempt to assess the impact of the growth options on the town centre of Harlow. This
must be a consideration where there is likely to be significant growth and where there is a
need for renewal and, possibly, for expansion.
5.3.16 The Harlow Options Study does identify sites with the potential for development which can
be used as input to the Stansted/M11 Study. They will need to be evaluated on the same
basis as other potential development areas. However, there will still be a need to check
that there are no further potential sites within and adjacent to Harlow which were not
identified in the Options Study.
157
6. Key Issues
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Previous chapters of this report have identified the current spatial pattern of development in
the Study Area Sub-Region and the various interrelationships between them. Rural
settlements 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 level
assessment 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 the
development of options in Stage 3 of the Study. In particular, it is necessary to draw
conclusions 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 the
packages 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 in
Stage 2, for locating development to accommodate the growth which is forecasted to occur
with each of the packages for airport growth.
6.1.4 The next Stage of the Study (Stage 3) will examine optional spatial distribution patterns
and the degree to which they can accommodate the levels of growth anticipated and
consider and identify variations according to settlement by settlement analysis of
development areas. The last stage (Stage 4) will select an option and advise on
implementation 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 of
the Airport Packages being considered. It also incorporates two additional projections for
the single runway with accelerated growth to 25mppa by 2021 (the limit of the current
planning consent) and 40mppa by 2021 (the estimated maximum capacity of the single
runway). 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 of
airport operations in the South East will be required.
158
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.
2036
1 runway 2 runways 3 runways 4 runways
Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings Jobs Dwellings
Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total Direct Rest Total
4,653 110,070 114,723 190,205 137,634 140,870 166,673 201,036 152,031 157,512 192,122 211,450 168,408 189,344 235,642 228,946
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 Total
1,878 79,785 81,663 129,858 2,936 79,785 82,721 129,858 11,263 79,785 91,048 129,858
159
6.3 Key Issues
Strategic
6.3.1 The following key strategic issues will be relevant in considering the strategy for the Study
area:
• The Study area is within a Growth Area as defined by Government within the context of
its policy for handling growth within the South East,
• Therefore, there will be a need to accommodate that growth irrespective of the

expansion of Stansted,
• It follows that there will be a need to find land for development well in excess of current
commitments,
• It also follows that if substantial growth in dwellings (as postulated by ODPM) is likely
to occur irrespective of expansion of Stansted, lack of additional jobs would lead to a
greater level of out-commuting, probably to London. However, even with major
expansion of Stansted, there could remain an imbalance with too few new jobs in
relation 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 in
population and employment that will occur irrespective of the further development of
Stansted,
• With the provision of two, three and four runways the input from the Airport expansion
in terms of dwellings is an additional dwelling growth of between 20% and 35% of total
dwelling 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 jobs
and dwellings, is likely to be felt throughout the Study area,
• Accelerating the growth in passengers, with one runway, to 25mppa and 40mppa by
2021, increases the numbers of jobs that are generated but requires no additional
dwellings,
• A wide range of uncertainty is inherent in the forecasting process. Nonetheless, a basis

for proceeding with the Study has been proposed which recognises the results of
160
studies by BAA on the jobs/passengers ratio, and which uses as working figures, the
mid-points of the forecasts.
Planning / Transport / Environment
6.3.3 The following key issues have been identified which relate to planning, transport and the
environment:
• It is being assumed that a permissive strategic policy approach will be followed

whereby demand that is expressed will be met,
• There will be pressure for development but limited capacity for growth without
compromising constraints,
• Even those locations with potential for growth are unlikely to have the capacity to cope
with this level of growth without a relaxation of constraints,
• It will be necessary to establish the priorities for the relaxation of constraints. This can
be done in Stage 3, when the merits of the options are considered.
• Development should be located in the larger urban areas with significant emphasis
placed on the re-use of brownfield land and change of use. However, there are low
levels 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., and
North Herts.,
• The location of development should aim to redress any imbalance between homes and
jobs,
• The principal areas in need of regeneration are Harlow, the Lower Lea Valley and
South Essex / Thames Gateway (the latter two areas not being located in the Study
Area).
• Despite allocations to 2016 in Cambridgeshire there will still be an imbalance between

jobs 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 to
Stevenage and Luton,
• The M11 would need to be upgraded to 3 lanes to cater for increased traffic. LOIS and
the LSMMMS have recommended that junctions 8-9 and 9-14 be upgraded. (ref. map
4.3). Again these improvements have been agreed in the announcement by the
Secretary of State for Transport on 9th July 2003.
• Public transport links to Stansted are poor, particularly from Cambridgeshire and
Braintree (despite 10% of Stansted’s workforce living in Braintree). Only 2% of airport
workers currently travel by public transport ,
161
• 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 rail
connections to Stansted. A key issue is the degree to which new or revived rail links
can be brought into use.
• There is uncertainty about improvements to the main WAGN rail line and the SRA is
unable 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 for
development 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 which
the Stansted / M11 Study should overlie the Cambridge strategy.
• A key issue will be the degree to which Harlow , identified as a PAER, can benefit from
the expansion of Stansted,
• The conclusions from the initial transport analyses provide clear pointers to a pattern of
development that concentrates housing close to jobs and located development along
principal public transport corridors. Where possible, balancing the distribution of
housing and jobs should be an overriding objective,
• The greatest relative levels of impact resulting directly from an expansion of the airport
is likely to be in the Districts in closest proximity to the airport, Uttlesford, Braintree and
Harlow,
• This concentration in the Districts around the airport will be even greater if Stansted is
to be developed as an economic driver,
• Taking into account baseline growth and Stansted related growth, the significant
expansion of existing settlements or the provision of new settlements could be justified
under any of the Airport’s growth scenarios.
6.4 Principles for locating development to accommodate

growth
6.4.1 During the course of this stage of the Study and consistent with many of the key issues
referred to above, a number of principles have been identified which should be considered
at 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 Stansted
area (e.g. to achieve critical mass),
162
• To service direct growth, on and off the Airport, dwellings should be located as close as
possible to Stansted,
• These areas should be linked to Stansted by good, cheap public transport. The public
transport 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 as
Harlow or Haverhill,
• Direct, indirect and induced jobs require mainly low to medium level skills. Catalytic
jobs will require a bigger proportion of medium and higher skills. Given the current
distribution of job skills, certain places such as Cambridge will tend to attract high skill
growth 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 that
might be adopted for Stansted. They have the scale and administrative structures to deal
with 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 any
growth will be greatest. It is logical, therefore, to concentrate on producing a spatial
strategy to deal with the area where the impacts will be significant and where some
intervention may be required in order to manage the rates of growth that might be
achieved. In Stage 3, therefore, a sub-region will be defined around Stansted within which
the spatial strategy will be developed. Growth outside this area will be quantified but will
not be translated into a spatial strategy in this Study.
163
Colin Buchanan and Partners Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study – Key Issues
Appendices
CONTENTS
1. APPENDIX 1 – SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION 2

2. APPENDIX 2 – LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS 5
3. APPENDIX 3 – BASELINE DEMOGRAPHICS 55
4. APPENDIX 4 - CATALYTIC EMPLOYMENT 57
5. APPENDIX 5 - DISPLACEMENT 65
6. APPENDIX 6 – RESULTS FOR HIGH AND LOW SCENARIOS 69
1
Appendices
1. Appendix 1 – Settlement Role and

Function
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 provision
within each town over 5,000 people. This appendix sets out the methodology for the data
collection, which included information on health, education, services, transport,
administration, and tourism within each settlement. Table 2.3 in Section 2 of the Key
Issues Report sets out the raw data collected.
Methodology
POPULATION
1.1.2 Settlement population was obtained from the 1991 urban area Census data, under resident
population. 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 identify
settlements role and function as health providers. This information was obtained from two
web 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 indicate
settlements’ educational role and function. Data for primary and secondary schools was
obtained from the School Organisational Plans for all three Counties. Private educational
establishments were excluded from the search as a result of insufficient data. Data relating
to FE establishments was obtained from County Council web sites. HE institution data was
obtained 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
2
Appendices
• Professional services - comprising

− Architects;
− Banks;
− Building Societies;
− Financial consultants; and
− Solicitors.
1.1.6 Retail floorspace data was obtained from Cambridgeshire, Essex and Herefordshire
County Councils, Broxbourne and North Hertfordshire District Councils, and Cambridge
City Council. The information for the other components was obtained from the yellow
pages 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 bus
routes. Train stations were identified by using maps available on the national rail enquires
web site. The number of bus routes was obtained from the relevant timetables available at
www.carlberry.co.uk. Cambridgeshire routes were taken from all services as at February
2002, Hertfordshire routes were taken from all services as at March 2002 and Essex routes
were 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 was
used to identify administration centres within the Study area. However, the data excludes
sub-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 main
source of information came directly from the relevant county/district/town council web sites
by ascertaining their contact details. Parish details were either directly available on County
web sites, in the case of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, however, direct web searches
were 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, the
number of attractions was used to delineate the tourism role and function for each of the
settlements. 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 their
relative provision of different types of goods and services and based on the level of this
provision, establish their sub regional importance. This is described through a settlement
hierarchy. The analysis of role and function will also inform the analysis of Spatial
Linkages, set out in 2.9, through an understanding of what are the key functions of each
settlement and how these functions relate to each other, spatially within Study area.
3
Appendices
Settlement Role and Function – Assessment Methodology
1.1.12 The assessment of role and function was carried out based on the following 4 step
process:
• 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 to
provide some indication about rôle and function. These covered the broad service types
within a settlement and to some extent reflected the availability of consistent data sets at a
settlement 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 Addenbrokes
Hospital in Cambridge is given the same weighting in the assessment as the hospital in
Saffron 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 and
parish councils. However, the data excludes sub-offices due to insufficient data
availability;
• Transport – accessibility to main road network (motorway and primary roads), access
to rail station and number of bus routes; and
• Tourism - data relating to visitor numbers was patchy and inconsistent at a settlement
level and therefore information on tourist attractions present was used to determine a
settlement'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 and
administration were recorded and mapped for each settlement (see Table 2.3 of the main
report and Maps 2.2-2.6).
4
Appendices
Step 2: Weighting and Scoring
1.1.16 To enable meaningful comparison between settlements of service provision, each service
was assigned a weighting and then scored based on that methodology. This was
necessary to determine different levels of provision and to identify the settlements that play
a regional, sub regional, district or local rôle within the Study area. For example, a hospital
serves a greater number of people over a wider area than a doctors surgery and therefore
should 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. For
example, a hospital has a weighting of 5 because it is a regional level service, so a
settlement with 2 hospitals would score 10. The weighting for each service is set out in
Table A1.1 below.
Table A1.1: Weighting and Scoring for Role and Function Indicators
Service Type Level of Provision Weighting/Score
Health
Hospital Regional +5
Doctors Surgery Local +1
Dentist Local +1
Education
Primary School Local +1
Secondary School District +2
FE College Sub Regional +3
HE Institution Regional +5
Retail and Facilities
Retail Floorspace
Small Centre (1,000 - 5,000 m2) Local +1
Medium Centre (5,000 - 50,000 m2) District +2
Large Centre (50,000 - 150,000 m2) Sub Regional +3
Major Centre (150,000+) Regional +5
Theatre Sub Regional +3
Cinema District +2
Post Office Local +1
Library Local +1
Professional Services
Over 100 Regional +5
51-100 Sub Regional +4
31-50 Sub Regional/District +3
11-30 District +2
0-10 Local +1
Administration
5
Appendices
Parish Council Local/Rural +1

Town Council Local +2
District Council District +3
County Council County +4
Regional Agency Regional +5
1.1.18 The results of the scoring process for services and facilities that were included in the
analysis 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 the
overall service score, with rank 1 representing the highest scoring settlement and rank 28
the lowest. This makes comparisons between settlements and types of services much
easier and highlights where a settlement may be strong in some areas and weaker in
others, depending on its different ranking positions. By ranking population also it enables a
comparison 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 based
on service provision. It was necessary to use total scores for this process because the
ranking system conceals the actual level and range of scores achieved. The total scores
are able to provide a broad indication of the different types of settlements, depending on
where in the banding of the overall scores they fall within. Based on this methodology, the
settlement 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 of
Bus 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 tube
network.
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 the
network 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. The
network is built to include individual railway stations and underground stations. The
London part of the network was previously available and was digitised from maps of the
6
Appendices
national railway and underground stations. Added to this were all the rail stations in the
study area.
1.1.24 All the stops and stations were then connected together by all the individual rail routes and
underground lines (the coach link between Stansted Airport and Colchester was also
included) to form the public transport network. The public transport routes were each given
travel times and frequencies according to timetable information.
1.1.25 The network of routes were connected together by interchanges. The interchanges were
selected according to their ability to offer passengers a sensible and efficient location to
change between services and modes.
1.1.26 Walking time at interchanges is based on the ‘as the crow flies’ walk distance between
interchange stops/stations. This was weighted by a factor of two in the model to represent
individuals 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 being
typically half the frequency but as for walking, weighted by a factor of two. A 10 minute
headway would on average represent a 5 minute wait time, which in turn would be
weighted 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 were
fixed 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 1
km2 grid covering the whole of the study area. When calculating accessibility, the model
searches an area within a radius of 500 metres from the centre of the origin zone looking
for stops and stations with which to connect to the public transport network. If none are
found then the search distance is increased up to a maximum of 1200 metres The
generalised travel time (see below) to a chosen destination is then applied to the origin
zone to represent accessibility.
Running the PT accessibility model
1.1.30 The model calculates the shortest path through the public transport network. This is based
on 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 time
OWlkT = origin walk time
WT = wait time
IVT = in vehicle time
ICP = interchange penalty
(only applicable to interchange)
ICWlk = interchange walk time
7
Appendices

ICWT = interchange wait time
DWlkT = destination walk time
MC = mode constant
1.1.31 Walking and waiting parameters are weighted by a factor of two to represent people’s
perception of these elements of the journey.
1.1.32 The model has been run and travel time budget contour lines (in generalised time GT) for
under 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 the
meaning of these travel time bands, the following equivalent example scenarios could be
considered:
• 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 mins
1.1.33 These are only meant for illustration and different combinations of each part of a journey
will affect the overall generalised time.
8
Appendices
2. Appendix 2 – Landscape Character

Areas
Essex
2.1.1 Landscape Character Areas within the study area with their identified key characteristics
are 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
• 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
• 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.
5
Appendices
B3 Blackwater and Stour Farmlands
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
6
Appendices
• Extensive views from higher ground within the area.
C4 Roding Valley
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
7
Appendices
C8 Stour Valley
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Elevated, broad ridge.
• Strongly wooded western ridgeside.
8
Appendices
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Long narrow Crouch and Roach river estuaries with bands of flat low lying marshlands.
9
Appendices
• Rolling or gently undulating arable farmland between the estuaries. Regular fields of
variable 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
10
Appendices
• Fringe of mixed farmland with variable size hedgerowed fields, with few woods or
copses.
• Large villages of Writtle and Galleywood physically separated from the town, but with
much development of an urban character.
G3 South Essex Coastal Towns
• 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
• 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.
11
Appendices
Cambridge
2.1.2 The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (1991) provide broad descriptions of all
landscapes 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 level
on 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 settlements
interspersed with farm woodlands. The field sizes are large, but are united by the gently
rolling landform and woodlands. Earth banks are a distinctive feature along some roadsides,
…. A few still retain their hedges. Elsewhere surviving hedges, often without trees, are
trimmed 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 and
highly organised drainage patterns is a much more haphazard pattern of settlement and tree
cover. It is a large open landscape and although appearing monotonous, it is in fact
characterised by continuous change as the visual characteristics of one fen merge into the
next. The open landscape provides distant views where the scattering of clumps and
individual 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-knit
villages are often prominent against a background of a constantly changing sky where vast
cloudscapes provide drama and visual delight. There is considerable variation within Fenland,
each fen having its own characteristics. Journeying through Fenland these subtle changes in
character become gradually apparent with the constant change in the balance of landscape
components’.
CHALKLANDS

‘The complex history of settlement and the impact of people on the landscape over the
centuries is particularly apparent in this part of the County.
…..These artificial elements overlie the smooth rolling chalkland hills. The hills are dissected
by the two gentle valleys of the Granta and the Rhee, which converge to form the River Cam
just south of Cambridge.
…. The majority of the chalkland is devoted to growing cereal crops, despite the frequently
poor, this soils. It is a broadscale landscape of large fields, low mechanically trimmed hedges
and few trees. The eastern part of this area has a number of woodlands and shelter belts
which help to break up the long distant views and give some form and character. Certain high
points have small beech copses or ‘hangers’ which are prominent and characteristic features
in the open landscape’.
12
Appendices
WESTERN CLAYLANDS

‘This gently undulating landscape is subdivided by the shallow Ouse Valley. It consists of
large-scale arable farmland with open fields, sparse trimmed hedgerows and watercourses
often cleared of bankside vegetation. There are scattered woodlands and approximately half
of 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. Elsewhere
individual woods are of importance in visual and nature conservation terms, but they tend to
be isolated incidents in an area dominated by farmland.
The landscape of this part of Cambridgeshire has been greatly affected by modern agricultural
practices. Increased mechanisation has led to the removal of hedgerows and amalgamation
of fields. Many of the remaining hedges are ‘gappy’ and trimmed almost out of existence by
regular cutting. Dutch Elm Disease has taken a considerable toll of hedgerow trees, and the
extensive 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 in
the landscape….’
OUSE VALLEY

‘The meandering River Ouse in its shallow valley bisects the claylands that form the western
edge of Cambridgeshire. The margins of the river consist of a mosaic of flood plains and
grazing meadows, working and disused gravel pits and lakes, sprawling housing areas and
industrial estates. Elsewhere, the Ouse Valley is characterised by thick hedges, trees and
fields’.
2.1.8 The Cambridge Sub-Region Study (2001), CBP, WA and Bone Wells Associates, analysed
capacity of these character areas in relation to the main transport corridors radiating from
Cambridge (at para 8.4.7 of Technical Papers, Volume 1).
2.1.9 The southern transport corridor occurs within chalkland. However, the sub-landscape
character types within this broad category are very different in terms of scale, topography
and vegetation and this has been recognised by previous publications. The Cambridge
Green Belt Landscape Setting Study (1998) identifies 4 character types, which lie within
the 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 much
stronger further out from the Rhee valley and it is suggested that the ‘river banks and
settlements possess much higher densities of tree cover’. Field boundaries are enclosed
by hedgerows with trees, tree belts and blocks of woodland along the valley. With the
exception of open areas within ‘Hobson’s Brook’, these landscape character areas have a
capacity to absorb development, which contrasts sharply with the open chalklands of more
13
Appendices
elevated topography more characteristic of the land to the east in local landscape character
area ‘Gog Magog Hills’.
2.1.11 The north-west transport corridor is located within claylands characterised by a

predominantly open, gently undulating and intensive arable landscape with few hedgerow
trees. Scattered woodland is another feature of this landscape. Due to the relative
openness of this landscape character area, capacity to absorb change is generally less
than to the south of Cambridge. This corridor lies in the local landscape character area
recognised by the ‘Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study (1998)’ as the ‘North
Cambridge Fen Edge Claylands’.
2.1.12 The north-east transport corridor is located on the border between the three main
landscape character types (identified by the Cambridgeshire Guidelines, 1994). Due to the
nature of this flat landscape the capacity to absorb development is largely dictated by the
vegetation pattern. The Green Belt Landscape Setting Study described this area as the
Cam River Valley (North) and recognised the need for ‘landscape enhancement works and
suitable redevelopment along the Fen Road’.
2.1.13 The eastern transport corridor is located with a chalkland landscape, described as the
Fulbourn Fen Bowl and the northern edge of the Gog Magog Hills local landscape
character types in the Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study. This study
recognised the sensitivity of this area to development due to the generally open nature of
the landscape. Development can only be accommodated where the location of tree belts
and 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 Green
Belt, lying outside the four transport corridors, are categorised in the Cambridge Green Belt
Setting 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 chalkland
landscapes of the Wimpole Ridge, Gog Magog Hills and Newton Chalk Hills. It also
recognised that the East Cambridge Fen Edge Chalklands would also be highly sensitive
due to its open flat character as would be the Bourn Brook Valley due to its openness and
visibility from higher ground. It therefore suggested that development would not be
appropriate in these areas. This is confirmed by this Green Belt Review, which has
involved site assessment of each of the local character areas identified by the Cambridge
Green Belt Setting Study. These have been examined in the context of their capacity to
accommodate development. ‘Where potential capacity has been identified by site survey,
some sites have been brought forward within the Sites Database, including a number
outside the transport corridors in Bottisham, Histon and Impington’.
14
Appendices
2.1.17 The Cambridge Green Belt Setting Study suggested that development could potentially be
accommodated in the Madingley Ridge local landscape character area, due to its more
enclosed nature than some other local landscape character areas. However, it recognised
its substantial historical, archaeological and ecological value. Site survey work undertaken
for this Green Belt Review found that there are ‘no opportunities to accommodate
development in close proximity to the inner boundary of the Green Belt without adversely
affecting the interface between countryside and the city’. The historical and ecological
importance of the area is likely to generate further constraints within the area, which would
become apparent when assessing site suitability against capacity and sustainability criteria.
Consequently no potential sites have been included within this local landscape character
area.
Hertfordshire
2.1.18 Landscape Character Areas within the study area with their identified landscape character
descriptions 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 landscape
with modern settlements. Large blocks of woodland (Harmergreen Wood) screen views of
some of the urban development and block views to the south. This is very much an ‘in
between’ area, still rural but exhibiting a stronger urban influence than the adjoining areas
to 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 remote
and ancient, despite proximity to Stevenage.
2.1.22 Conserve and Restore.
39 Middle Beane Valley
15
Appendices
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 despite
proximity 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. Discrete
medium to large blocks of woodland frame views over large fields with few hedges, but are
insufficient in scale to create strong vertical elements. A long cultivated landscape, lacking
variety.
41 Bramfield Wood, Twein Wood and Datchworth Uplands
2.1.27 A densely wooded upland area, gently undulating, with settlements of different ages either
grouped around village greens or carefully planned within wooded areas. Although
woodland 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. The
Bramfield 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 around
extensive village greens. Tewin Wood, on the south-western part of the plateau, shares
the woodland character of Bramfield Woods but contains a 20th-century settlement of some
600 plots.
42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland
2.1.29 This area is south facing, strongly undulating rural slope consisting of mixed arable
farmland and woodland, readily distinguishable from the surrounding urban and suburban
settlements associated with Welwyn. The Lockley estate farmland and Dawley Wood
farmland share the settlement of Digswell as a boundary, while Dawley Wood and Tewin
share the Mimram valley parkland boundary. Although each sub-area has distinguishing
characteristics, they are unified by their over-riding shared physiographic characteristics.
16
Appendices
Lockleys has a strong pattern of arable farmland and woodland blocks, with some parkland
features around the farm on its summit and many mature oaks. Dawley Wood farmland is
less unified by management and has south-facing views over the Mimram to the Haldens
part of Welwyn Garden City, so that it is less remote than Lockleys. Tewin village’s views
to the south are filtered by vegetation along the river and around the edge of the
Panshanger part of Welwyn Garden City. The village is a strong feature within the arable
farmland 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 sinuous
ribbon of flood plain pasture and woodland. Twentieth-century development and the busy
transport 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 mineral
excavation, developed around the valley of the river Mimram. Little remains of the historic
buildings within the park, but Repton’s landscape design has not yet been completely
obliterated, although screened from public view. The parkland character is of grazing
pastures 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 of
this area, squeezed between Welwyn and Hatfield, has very obvious urban-fringe land
uses, the area to the east is more rural, with arable cultivation and some blocks of
woodland.
17
Appendices
West End to Brickendon Wooded Slopes
2.1.37 Steeply undulating wooded slopes, clearly differentiated by topography, woodland and age
of 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 out
along winding undulating lanes. An ‘old’ landscape pattern, remote and enclosed, with a
small, domestic scale. Densely wooded and treed, with a clear pattern of irregular fields
with tall treed boundaries and good views across the Lea valley. Here arable conversion
does 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 a
settlement at its extreme end, with extensive views out over wooded valleys and the Lea
valley to the north, where vegetation permits. Around each settlement pasture gives way
to 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 which
mixed farmland and parkland are a dominant feature. A strong pattern of discrete
woodland blocks and medium to large open arable fields create an unusual patchwork of
ecologically rich and sterile patches across the undulating landform. Low, managed
hedgerows allow long views across the arable slopes to the M25 in the south. Isolated
settlement is generally confined to defensive sites on the higher ground. Small farms are
scattered across the estate.
56 Cheshunt Common
18
Appendices
2.1.43 Open arable farmland squeezed between two urban areas and linking two areas of former
parkland – Ponsbourne to the north and the Theobald’s Estate to the south. The local
topography is very noticeable, swooping down from the north and made the more obvious
by 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-range
views. A small-scale mixture of woodland and pasture with limited 19th and 20th-century
development. From the northern edge of Hammond Street a distinctive pattern of fields
and strip woodland can be seen at Wormley West End. South of Hammond Street new
housing 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 parkland

settings with 18th and 19th-century mixed plantations added. A complex mixture of land
uses almost masks this area’s history, but clear traces of a medieval deer park and later
parklands are evident. These are now covered by arable farmland, pasture with parkland
and recreational uses.
59 Lea Valley Marshes
2.1.49 This is a wetland landscape of unified character, with nature conservation and recreation
dominant. The Lee Valley Regional Park designation covers this whole area. The western
edge is very crisp, the urban settlement held in by the railway, while the eastern edge is
softer and more rural, with extensive woodland west of the B194 and mixed farmland and
nursery production further north. Within the Park there are a range of sub-character areas,
including savannah, orchid meadow, birchwood and canal towpath.
19
Appendices
60 Middle Lea Valley South
2.1.51 Less ‘watery’ than either of the other two areas of the southern Lea valley, due to greater
areas of dry land and the difficulty of gaining access to the river or waterbodies. A complex
and varied mix of industrial, commercial, urban and rural land uses, with many glasshouses
along its eastern flank and extensive operational and derelict minerals sites. The railway
combines 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 small
areas 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 to
the east.
62 Broxbourne Woods Complex
2.1.55 Dense and extensive hornbeam coppice and forestry plantations in a linked series of
woodlands 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 historic
feature.
63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands
2.1.57 Generally undulating parkland and estate farmland with large mansions now used for
institutional purposes. Elsewhere this is a landscape of isolated farms and farm cottages,
with some influence along the northern edge from Hertford’s urban fringe. Bayfordbury
occupies a sloping site and is characterised by its semi-natural oak/hornbeam woodland
20
Appendices
and many ornamental trees. Brickendonbury and Balls Park occupy a plateau divided by a
brook, 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 of
woodland and heath. At the heart of this rural area lies Haileybury College, which also
influences the only settlement in the area, from which it takes its name. The damp acid
grasslands 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 the
river (which is not a prominent feature) and parkland which is well integrated and locally
prominent. Mineral extraction tends to be on the valley side rather than in the valley
bottom, so there are few extensive waterbodies except at the western end between
Hatfield 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 its
southern edge and urban influence at its eastern extent.
67 Bramfield Plain
21
Appendices
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 and
by 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 enough
to be a major landscape feature, but the valley does differ significantly from the arable
uplands to either side, not least in the congregation within it of transport features, such as
road and railway. A mix of pasture and woodland is typical throughout, with the southern
part strongly influenced by ribbon development, industry and mineral extraction, while the
northern part is more rural and remote.
69 Stoneyhills
2.1.69 Gently undulating light arable upland and valley slopes between the Rib and Beane
valleys, widening to the north. Generally large irregular fields and woodlands on very light
soils, with several blocks of ancient woodland in the south. Very rural, with few settlements
but 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 north
and with very strong overlying planned parkland characteristics within Woodhall, which
makes a strong statement, contained within its extensive brick wall yet visible over a wide
area.
22
Appendices
71 Benington-Sacombe Ridge
2.1.73 An area of ancient countryside with small woods, winding green lanes and numerous
stream-eroded valleys. It consists of a narrow, gently undulating settled plateau, with a
continuous ribbon of development along its length from Benington southwards. Although
predominantly in agricultural production, this is also a more populated area, with a slight
commuter character derived from the substantial houses in large plots and a variance in
character 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 the
river Beane, dominated by important relic woodlands. The Old Bourne is a small
watercourse with wetland flora but no trees, lying within a wide, shallow valley, while the
Dane End Tributary, often no more than a ditch, has its course marked by non-wetland
trees within a long, narrow valley with moderately steep sides and a gentle gradient. It is a
long-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 along
ancient route with several wayside settlements. In arable cultivation with several ancient
woodlands. Noticeably larger field pattern to the east of the A10, without settlements; more
ancient, smaller scale to the west, with settlements. The linear area west of The Bourne
shares some of the characteristics of the Sacombe estate farmland but does not lie within
it, relating rather to the wooded farmland to its north.
74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland
23
Appendices
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 the
presence of many mature hedgerow oaks and parkland trees. Sacombe House is
discreetly concealed within its parkland, which is set tightly around the house, with the
estate 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 both
valley 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 and
extensive mineral extraction, with a strong urban edge to the south east. Strong influence
of road transport network.
77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Flood plain
2.1.85 Urbanised public amenity/nature conservation site between Hertford and Ware, with some
rural characteristics; large area of public open space, divided between formal/informal
sports facilities at Hartham and a broad area of predominantly wet grassland of joint nature
conservation and informal recreation value (Kings Mead). The eastern end of this area is
more urbanised, with the Lee Navigation a particular feature through Ware.
24
Appendices
78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes
2.1.87 A complex semi-urban area with two settlements and combined-urban edge and rural land
uses.
79 Amwell Flood plain
2.1.89 An area of man-made lakes and wetland vegetation with a 20th century character belied by
the presence of the manicured surrounds of the New River on the south-western edge. A
significant transport route with an urban tinge to its character. An open wetland landscape
within 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 been
restored 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 mineral
workings, 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 by
valleys of the Stort’s tributaries. Cultural pattern overrides topographical change. An area
of ancient settlements, dominated by the many parklands on the south-facing slopes above
the Stort valley.
25
Appendices
82 River Stort
2.1.95 An enclosed landscape, focused on the Stort Navigation with its locks and the more natural
original river with its side loops. The landform is dominant, although the watercourses
within it are relatively insignificant visually. The valley is predominantly rural with significant
localised 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 woodland
to 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 ditched
rather than hedged. An area of transition, showing increasing urban influence in the
southern part and with links to the parkland area to the west. Around High Wych there are
wide stretches of open farmland with old houses nestling in small coppices. The flint
church 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 roadside
trees and the occasional large barn. Very large fields with no hedges are locally
characteristic, while isolated farms with associated groups of farm buildings add incident
and a sense of productivity. Cattle in meadows around the farms add occasional
movement to what is otherwise a static landscape. The eastern half of this area consists of
sloping arable farmland around a tributary stream on the west bank of the river Stort. It too
is arable land, with some pasture and isolated farms with the occasional group of three or
26
Appendices
four cottages. The area is remote but lacks tranquility, due to the aircraft overhead coming
and going from Stansted.
86 Perry Green Uplands
2.1.103 Undulating settled uplands with meandering lanes linking hamlets and small villages of
varying ages. Predominantly a medium-scale arable landscape of neat hedges and few
hedgerow trees. Open, with narrow sunken lanes and very extensive views out but limited
views within.
87 Middle Ash Valley
2.1.105 Narrow flat river valley floor, falling gradually to the south, with steep undulating slopes on
either 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 sheep
farming create a picturesque rural setting. The impact of settlement is absorbed and
contained 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
27
Appendices
2.1.109 Open, gently undulating arable farmland with clustered settlements and few roads, on a
clay plateau of varying width between the valleys of the rivers Rib and Ash. The area can
be divided into four sub-areas: the Fanhams Plateau; the central plateau area;
Westland/Wellpond Green and Braughing Friars. Arable cultivation has removed field
boundaries and reduced woodland cover and the significant settlements lie within the river
valleys, 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 on
the 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, opening
out to a broader undulating arable valley. Between Barwick Ford and The Lordship and
again around Braughing it is an undulating arable valley, while north and south of Standon
it is much narrower. The ancient settlements on the valley slopes are a notable local
feature.
92 Puckeridge Parklands
2.1.115 Group of disturbed parklands along the A10 Roman road, on the upper slopes of the Rib
valley.
93 Hadhams Valley
28
Appendices
2.1.117 Marked valley formation with flat valley floor, within which the river Ash is marked only by
linear wetland vegetation rather than as a visible watercourse. It is edged by steep
undulating slopes, some densely vegetated, some in arable cultivation, with little pasture.
It is characterised chiefly by ancient settlements with historic houses: Much Hadham and
Little Hadham, which merit sub-areas.
North Herts
2.1.119 The draft of North Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areas provides written descriptions
of each landscape character area within North Hertfordshire District with some overlap into
adjoining districts. The “Strategy and Guidelines for Managing Change” are still being
formulated. All of the Character Areas are of relevance to the study area and the
descriptions 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 around
settlements. Occasional scattered dwellings. Field pattern degraded with relatively few
remaining hedgerows. Remnant mature hedgerow trees. Mixture of woodland types,
some mature, well-established, deciduous woodland interspersed with more recent mixed
woodland plantations. Area to the north truncated by the man-made landscape features
associated 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 and
the B652 Kimpton Bottom Road to the south. To the north of Whiteways small winding
lanes cross perpendicular to the line of the valley. Predominantly arable use. Whiteways
Bottom is largely devoid of settlement whilst Kimpton Bottom has a linear settlement.
Locally smaller field parcels on the more steeply sloping land. Scattered woodland parcels
along 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 of
grazing around settlements and occasional scattered dwellings. Field pattern degraded.
Mature remnant trees, remaining hedgerows of diverse species. Woodlands old,
29
Appendices
established and some more modern mixed deciduous/evergreen plantations. Strong

cultural 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. The
land is given over to rough grazing mainly cattle with some horse grazing adjacent to
houses and farmsteads. The field pattern is largely lost through grazing of hedges, leaving
remnant hedgerow trees and replacement post and barbed wire boundaries. Mature trees
are scattered throughout the area with the only notable woodland to the north. Species mix
is dominated by willow and poplar. Vegetation frames views and allows occasional
glimpses down the river corridor. The smaller, more intimate scale of the landscape is
emphasised 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 River
Mimram. To the north the area merges into the Knebworth Parkland. The plateau is
incised by smaller valleys creating a locally undulating landform. Large sized regular
shaped fields mainly used for arable production but with parcels of grazing land and
paddocks adjacent to Codicote. Larger blocks of ancient woodland in the north adjacent to
Knebworth, 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 of
large plots with ribbon development following network of local lanes. Only part of this
settlement lies within the district boundary. Linear blocks of woodland associated with local
development.
2.1.126 Gently undulating landform enclosing the settlement of Knebworth. Area is open, mainly
arable farmland. Parkland to the north given over to use as a Golf Course. Area abuts the
railway in the north, which encloses the southern end of Stevenage. Open views to edges
of Knebworth.
208 Knebworth
30
Appendices
2.1.127 Mature woodland in the north consisting of ancient oak and some hornbeam coppice. The
area has developed from acid heathlands and includes pockets of wood pasture and heath
grasslands. To the south lies the main area of parkland which includes numerous mature
individual 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. Very
large arable fields with localised remnant sections of hedgerow. Area includes small
deciduous woodland copses. Almshoebury Farmstead located on exposed promontory to
north.
210 Langley Scarp
2.1.129 Steeply sloping chalk landscape formed by a long narrow belt of land facing the Langley
valley and in the south merging into the wooded landscape of Knebworth. Field sizes vary
in size, but generally large sized. Pattern varies between regular and irregular sized fields.
Fields enclosed by hawthorn hedges. Area is well wooded, with mature deciduous
woodland 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 into
smaller, but still interlinked network of narrow arms extending from the scarp in the north to
the lower lying but more developed land to the north of Codicote. Generally more open
arable land in the north and more complex patterns to the south. Parcels of grazing land
adjacent to settlements, varying sizes of woodland parcels often visually interlocking to
frame views. Field pattern large in arable areas, however, landscape is often crossed by
old winding and sunken lanes. Parkland is a distinctive feature of the area. Individual
remnant mature hedgerow trees are a distinctive feature in the north but remain an integral
part 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 by
closely cropped patchy hedges. Views generally filtered by patchy vegetation although
some longer panoramic views from higher ground. Woodlands/plantations particularly on
higher fringes, but generally scattered across the area. Red brick village settlements follow
31
Appendices
the line of the road in the valley bottom. Localised pasture and horse-grazing paddocks on
fringes of settlements.
213 Chilterns Scarp
2.1.132 Steeply sloping chalk landscape scarp. Arable land along the upper reaches with high
proportion of sheep grazing land on the lower slopes. Field sizes vary in scale with sheep
grazing areas enclosed by post and barbed wire. Area is generally well wooded
interspersed with pockets of regenerating scrubland on the lower slopes. Part of the scarp
is 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 grazing
on 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 fields
associated 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 scattered
detracting features.
215 West of Stevenage Plateau
2.1.134 Rolling landform disguised by mature enclosed character. Smaller scale more intimate
historic landscape characterised by winding lanes, smaller settlements and scattered
farmsteads in the local vernacular and historic place names. Land use mixed arable and
grazing. 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 the
gently undulating to low lying landform to the north. Area changes in character gradually
between the enclosed historic landscape in the south and the large scale open, exposed
arable landscape in the north. Southern section is characterised by small plantations and
copses scattered over the area whilst to the north there are very few hedges and trees but
linear shelter belts feature. The River Ivel corridor has a mature woodland setting and has
been partly developed for recreational purposes.
217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys
32
Appendices
2.1.136 Traditional cattle grazed water meadows with poplar, willow and ash trees along the
watercourses. Self seeded mature hawthorn also randomly distributed across the area.
Area has a mature landscape character, trees restrict views. Area well defined by urban
development (Hitchin). General change of land use adjacent to Ickleford where land is
predominantly used for horse grazing and stabling. Paddocks are defined by post and
barbed wire fencing. Area is crossed, in several locations, by the mainline railway, which
runs on embankment. Oughtonhead Common, to the west, managed as a local nature
reserve.
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 local
vernacular materials. Occasional farmsteads are less well integrated in terms of materials
and general scale of farm buildings. Additionally the A600, Bedford Road, is quite
prominent in the east.
219 Baldock Gap
2.1.138 Steeply sloping Chalk Scarp, eroded by local valleys, mostly dry, to form an undulating
landform. Two deeply incised valleys south west of Weston still carry streams, which feed
a number of water features. Extensive arable fields of cereals with occasional patches of
pasture 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 with
pockets of grazing adjacent to Weston Parkland to southeast of village. Area is well
wooded – predominantly ancient deciduous woodlands. Density of woodland cover
creates a sense of enclosure and enhances the character of the landscape. Area crossed
by 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, organic
enclosure pattern associated with an irregular network of winding lanes to the north and
west of Luffenhall. The Beane valley to the north and west has regular rectilinear field
boundaries often curving, set within an earlier organic pattern of boundaries.
33
Appendices
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 woodland
cover. Density of woodland cover creates a sense of enclosure and enhances the mature
character of the landscape. Pockets of grazing land adjacent to settlements. Area crossed
by a network of winding lanes, densely scattered hedgerows and clusters of wayside
dwellings 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 to
the lowlands. The scarp face is incised locally by spring fed streams. Rectilinear fields
with curving boundaries set within an earlier organic pattern of lanes and primary
boundaries. Predominant arable land use.
224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands
2.1.143 Rolling chalk landform, eroded by a complex network of shallow dry valleys. Small
rounded chalk knolls common. Large scale arable fields often with remnant field
boundaries, mainly well trimmed hawthorn hedges. The core of the area has a pattern of
regular rectilinear fields often with curving boundaries. Boundaries are often based on an
older more organic pattern of lanes and primary boundaries. To the east of the Ashwell to
Slip End Road and west of Newham the field patterns become more regular with stronger
patterns 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 smaller
paddocks and grazing land adjacent to settlements or water courses. Small shelter belts
and tree groups frequent. Settlements of Ashwell and Hinxworth on higher ground. In the
south the field pattern is characteristically made up of rectilinear fields often with curving
boundaries based on an earlier organic pattern of lanes and primary boundaries. To the
north of the District/County boundary, the field pattern changes to an ordered layout of
rectilinear fields and lanes with straight boundaries.
226 Steeple Morden
2.1.145 Steeple Morden is one of several nucleated settlements, extending eastwards, which run in
a line (probably a spring line) parallel to the foot of the chalk scarp. Gently rolling chalk
34
Appendices
landform with a strong pattern of geometrically ordered fields and lanes. South of Steeple
Morden fields are large (greater than 8 hectares), whilst the parcel to the east of Ashwell
has medium to large sized fields. Northefield Road to the north of Ashwell, runs on a slight
rise across the landscape. The land falls away gently on each side of the road. Vast
acreage of arable land on both side of the road only interrupted by the recent tree planting
along the road. Some redundant field boundaries also noted. Area is very exposed and
will be bleak during periods of seasonal weather. Absence of settlements adds to the lack
of 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 set
out in an ordered pattern of rectilinear fields and lanes with straight boundaries. Extensive
plantations 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 with
steeper slopes towards the upper plateau edge. Large scale arable fields with ordered
pattern of rectilinear field boundaries and lanes with straight boundaries. Occasional
farmsteads. 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 to
settlements. Generally well wooded with small pockets of ancient deciduous woodland and
densely scattered hedgerow trees. Network of ancient winding lanes and an extensive
footpath network specially around the settlements. Organic enclosure pattern associated
with 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. Scattered
farmsteads and wayside dwellings.
231 Nuthampstead
2.1.149 Gently rolling landform eroded into a series of shallow local valleys. Predominantly arable
use but land to the south east given over to former MOD airfield with more recent extensive
plantation at Scales Park, to the south east. The area is well wooded with a mixture of
ancient woodland parcels and more recent plantations. Organic enclosure pattern
associated with an irregular network of winding lanes. Field sizes are generally medium to
35
Appendices
large sized. Nuthampstead is a network of dispersed farmsteads strung out along the local
road network.
232 Barley Scarp Slopes
2.1.150 Chalk scarp slope incised by water erosion. Barley stands on sloping ground squeezed
between Wardington Bottom to the west and Cumberton Bottom to the east forming a
broad promontory of chalk, which falls away on three sides. Land use is predominantly
arable. 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 geometric
rectilinear fields. Around the settlement and in particular to the south of the village centre
the pattern changes to one of small to medium sized rectilinear fields often with curving
boundaries, wet within an earlier organic pattern of lanes and primary boundaries. To the
south east of Shaftenhoe End the pattern becomes more irregular, one of a more organic
framework associated with the irregular network of winding lanes. The area is well wooded
to the south but more open to the north. There are long distance views to the north from
vantage points on the scarp.
Landscape Character Area for Unsurveyed part of Hertfordshire
Area A
• 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
• 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
36
Appendices
• 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
• Gently rolling landform
• Dominant arable land use
• Large enclosure pattern, usually without hedgerows
• Isolated woodland blocks
• Dispersed farmsteads
• Open sense of enclosure
Area E
• 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
Area F
• Flat to gently sloping plateau
• Predominantly arable
• Extensive woodland blocks
• Medium scale field pattern enclosed by hedgerows
• Clustering of settlements
Area GI and GII
• 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
37
Appendices
Area H
• Flat to gently sloping
• Parkland, woodland blocks and tree belts predominate
• Pasture hedgerows enclosed small to medium fields
• Estates houses and cottages
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 of
East Hertfordshire (established from site survey June 2003)
Character Area Major urban extensions Small urban extensions
(>5ha) and new settlements (<5ha)
A M-H M
B M-H M-H
C M-H M-H
D H H
E M M
F M M
G H M-H
H M-H M
Historic Assets within Landscape Character Areas
2.1.152 The density (determined through visual analysis of relative density of GIS dataset
information) and nature of historic landscape assets within each Landscape Character Area
within the Study area are set out in Tables A2.3 – A2.5 below. Where the overall density of
historic assets is high these character areas have been excluded from further consideration
within the sites database for the study. The overall density is unweighted and scoring is
determined as follows:
Table A2.2: Scoring System
Score Sensitivity Comment
moderate Moderate recorded density predominates or where
moderate/high (/) is balanced by low density.
/ moderate/high high recorded density () occurs up to twice in
the table.
high where high recorded density () occurs more
than twice in the table
X none No recorded historic assets
38
Appendices
TABLE A2.3 – ESSEX – Density of Historic Assets Recorded on GIS

CHARACTER AREAS
Scheduled Monuments
Registered Battlefields
Registered Parks and
Ancient Landscapes
Conservation Areas
Ancient Woodland
Listed Buildings
Overall Density
Common Land
SMR Sites
Gardens
A1 North West Essex / x/ n/a x /
Chalk Farmlands
B1 Central Essex / n/a
Farmlands
B2 North Essex / x n/a x
Farmlands
B3 Blackwater/Stour x/ / x/ n/a x
Farmlands
B4 Gosfield Wooded x / x/ n/a x /
Farmlands
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/Lo x/ n/a x/ x
wer Chelmer
Valleys
C7 Colne Valley x / x/ n/a x /

C8 Stour Valley x/ / n/a x x

D1 Epping Forest & / x/ n/a /
Ridges
D2 Brentwood Hills x/ / n/a /

D3 Danbury Hills x / n/a x /

D4 Tiptree Ridge x / x n/a x /

E1 South Essex x x x n/a x
Farmlands
E2 South Colchester / x n/a x /
39
Appendices
Farmlands
E3 Tendring Plain x / x n/a x

E4 North Colchester x / x n/a x
Farmlands
F2 Crouch & Roach x x x n/a x
Farmland
F5 North x/ / x n/a x
Blackwater/Colne
Coastal Farmlands
F6 Mersea Island x n/a x
G1 Harlow & Environs / / x n/a x

G2 Chelmsford & x / n/a x / x /
Environs
G3 South Essex x / x n/a x x
Coastal Towns
G4 Colchester & n/a x x
Environs
TABLE A2.4 – CAMBRIDGESHIRE – Density of Historic Assets Recorded on GIS

County Local Character Area (Cambridge Green
Character Belt)
Scheduled Monuments

Area
Conservation Areas
Ancient Woodland
Overall Density
Gardens
South-east N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) /
Clay Hills
Fenlands East-Cambridge Chalklands (part) x /
Outside Cambridge Green Belt x x /
Chalklands North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands x x /
(part)
Cam River Valley (North) x x /
East Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Chalklands x x x
(part)
Fulbourn Fen Bowl x /
Gog Magog Hills x x /
Granta Levels x x
Hobson’s Brook x x x
Newton Chalk Hills x x /
Rhee River Valley x x /
Wimpole Ridge (Part) x x x x x
Cam River Valley (South) – (part) x x /
Bourn Brook Valley (part) x x
40
Appendices
Outside Cambridge Green Belt x /

Western Cam River Valley (south) – (part) x x /
Claylands
Bourn Brook Valley – (part) x
Wimpole Ridge (east) – (part) x x x x x
Madingley Ridge x /
North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands x x
(part)
Outside Cambridge Green Belt
Ouse Valley N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) x x /
TABLE A2.5 – HERTFORDSHIRE – Density of Historic Assets Recorded on GIS

Southern Hertfordshire Areas within East
Hertfordshire DC
Scheduled Monuments

Conservation Areas
Ancient Woodland
Overall Density
Common Land
Gardens
37 Datchworth Settled Slopes x x x x
38 Aston Estate Farmland x x /

39 MiddleBeane Valley x /

40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland /

41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and Datchworth x x / /
Uplands
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 x
56 Cheshunt Common x x x x
57 Thunderfield Ridges x x /

58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands x x
59 Lea Valley Marshes x x x x
41
Appendices
60 Middle Lea Valley South x x x x

61 Broxbournebury x x
62 Broxbourne Woods Complex x x /

63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls x/ x /
Parklands
64 Hertford Heath x/ x/ /

65 Middle Lea Valley West x x
66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury
67 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 x
75 Lower Rib Valley x x x x
76 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 x
81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands x
82 River Stort x x x
83 Hunsdon Plateau x x /

84 High Wych Slopes x x x
85 Thorley Uplands x x x
86 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

42
Appendices
91 Upper Rib Valley / x /

92 Puckeridge Parklands x x
93 Hadhams Valley x/ x /


200 Peters Green Plateau X X x x
201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom X X /

202 Breachwood Green Ridge X X
203 Whitwell Valley
204 River Mimram X X x
205 Codicote Plateau /

206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath /

207 Datchworth Settled Slopes X X X X
208 Knebworth X
209 Almshoe Plateau X X X X X X
210 Langley Scarp X
211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden /

212 Lilley Bottom X X /

213 Chilterns Scarp X
214 Langley Valley X X X
215 Wymondley and Titmore Green X X X X
216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley X X X /

217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys X X X
218 Pirton Lowlands X X X
219 Baldock Gap X X X X
220 Weston Park X X X /

221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries X X X X
223 Wallington Scarp Slopes X X X X
224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands X X
225 Hinxworth Lowlands X X
226 Steeple Morden X X X X
227 Odsey to Royston X X X X X X
228 Royston Scarp Slopes X X X /

229 Therfield – Reed Plateau X X
230 Barkway Plateau X X /

231 Nuthampstead X X X /

43
Appendices
232 Barley Scarp Slope X /

Northern section of East Hertfordshire, established from site survey June 2003
Character Area
Common Land
Conservation
Monuments
Registered
Scheduled
Woodland
Parks and
Gardens
Ancient
Density
Overall
Areas
A
B x/ x x /
C x / / /

D x x /
E x x x x x x
F x x /
G x/ x x x x
H x x x /
Tranquil Areas in relation to the Study Area

Table A2.6 – Essex Summary Matrix of Character Areas in Relation to Tranquil Areas
Majority of LCA
Part of LCA within
outside
Area
within Tranquil Area

Tranquil Area
Tranquil Area
LCA
A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmlands

B1 Central Essex Farmlands
B2 North Essex Farmlands
B3 Blackwater/Stour Farmlands
B4 Gosfield Wooded Farmlands
C1 Cam Valley
C2 Stort Valley
C3 Lee Valley
C4 Roding Valley
C5 Chelmer Valley
C6 Blackwater/Brain/Lower Chelmer Valleys
C7 Colne Valley
C8 Stour Valley
D1 Epping Forest & Ridges
D2 Brentwood Hills
D3 Danbury Hills
D4 Tiptree Ridge
E1 South Essex Farmlands
E2 South Colchester Farmlands
E3 Tendring Plain
44
Appendices
E4 North Colchester Farmlands

F2 Crouch & Roach Farmland
F5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal Farmlands
F6 Mersea Island
G1 Harlow & Environs
G2 Chelmsford & Environs
G3 South Essex Coastal Towns
G4 Colchester & Environs
Table A2.7 – Cambridgeshire

Summary Matrix of Character Areas in Relation to Tranquil Areas
within
Majority of LCA within

Tranquil
Character Area Belt)
Part of LCA
outside
Tranquil Area
Tranquil Area
Area
LCA
South-east Clay N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt)
Hills
Fenlands East-Cambridge Chalklands (part)
Chalklands North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands
(part)
Cam River Valley (North)
East Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Chalklands
(part)
Fulbourn Fen Bowl
Gog Magog Hills
Granta Levels
Hobson’s Brook
Newton Chalk Hills
Rhee River Valley
Wimpole Ridge (Part)
Cam River Valley (South) – (part)
Bourn Brook Valley (part)
Western Cam River Valley (south) – (part)
Claylands
Bourn Brook Valley – (part)
Wimpole Ridge (east) – (part)
Madingley Ridge
North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands
(part)
45
Appendices
Ouse Valley N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt)
Table A2.8 – Hertfordshire

Summary Matrix of Character Areas in Relation to Tranquil Areas
within
Part of LCA within Tranquil
Southern Hertfordshire Areas within East Hertfordshire
LCA outside Tranquil Area

DC
Majority of LCA
Tranquil Area
Area
38 Aston Estate Farmland
39 MiddleBeane Valley
40 Bramfield – Datchworth Sloping Farmland
41 Bramfield Wood, Tewin Wood and Datchworth Uplands
42 Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland
43 Mimram Valley Parklands
44 Panshanger Parkland
45 Welwyn Fringes
48 West End – Brickendon Wooded Slopes
49 Little Berkhamsted Ridge Settlements
55 Theobalds Estate
56 Cheshunt Common
57 Thunderfield Ridges
58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands
59 Lea Valley Marshes
60 Middle Lea Valley South
61 Broxbournebury
62 Broxbourne Woods Complex
63 Bayfordbury, Brickendonbury and Balls Parklands
64 Hertford Heath
65 Middle Lea Valley West
66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury
67 Bramfield Plain
68 Lower Beane Valley
69 Stoneyhills
70 Woodhall Park and Watton-at-Stone Slopes
71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge
72 Munden Valley
73 High Cross Plateau
74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland
75 Lower Rib Valley
76 Ware Parklands
46
Appendices
77 Kingsmead and Hartham Common Floodplain

78 Great Amwell Ridge and Slopes
79 Amwell Floodplain
80 Rye Meads
81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands
82 River Stort
83 Hunsdon Plateau
84 High Wych Slopes
85 Thorley Uplands
86 Perry Green Uplands
87 Middle Ash Valley
88 Lower Ash Valley
89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands
90 Middle Rib Valley
91 Upper Rib Valley
92 Puckeridge Parklands
93 Hadhams Valley

200 Peters Green Plateau
201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom
202 Breachwood Green Ridge
203 Whitwell Valley Information on location n/a
204 River Mimram
205 Codicote Plateau
206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath
208 Knebworth
209 Almshoe Plateau
210 Langley Scarp
211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden
212 Lilley Bottom
213 Chilterns Scarp
214 Langley Valley
215 Wymondley and Titmore Green
216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley
217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys
218 Pirton Lowlands
219 Baldock Gap
220 Weston Park
221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries
223 Wallington Scarp Slopes
224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands
225 Hinxworth Lowlands
226 Steeple Morden
227 Odsey to Royston
228 Royston Scarp Slopes
47
Appendices
229 Therfield – Reed Plateau

230 Barkway Plateau
231 Nuthampstead
232 Barley Scarp Slope
Northern section of East Hertfordshire, established from site survey June 2003
Character Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2.1.153 Section 2.7 the Rural and Countryside Review analysed landscape capacity (based on the
Essex Landscape Character Assessment methodology), carried out a broad analysis of
historic asset density (based on GIS datasets) and determined the location of Tranquil
Areas in relation to Landscape Character Areas within the Study area. This allowed an
assessment of whether Landscape Character Areas are suitable for inclusion in the sites
identification and assessment process in Stage 3 of the Study. The results for each county
are set out tables A2.9 to A2.12 below.
TABLE A2.9
Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search Areas
CHARACTER AREAS
Major urban extensions (>5ha) and new
Inclusion within Stage 3 Search Areas

Overall Density of Historic Assets
Majority of LCA in Tranquil Area

Small urban extensions (<5ha)
settlements
A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmlands H H

/ - No

B1 Central Essex Farmlands M L - Yes
B2 North Essex Farmlands H H No
B3 Blackwater/Stour Farmlands M M - Yes
B4 Gosfield Wooded Farmlands H L / - Yes

48
Appendices
C1 Cam Valley H M - No
C2 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 - No
C7 Colne Valley H M / - Yes

C8 Stour Valley H H Yes
D1 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 - Yes
E2 South Colchester Farmlands M L / - Yes

E3 Tendring Plain M L - Yes
E4 North Colchester Farmlands M M - Yes
F2 Crouch & Roach Farmland H M - Yes
F5 North Blackwater/Colne Coastal Farmlands H M - Yes
F6 Mersea Island H M - Yes
G1 Harlow & Environs M L - Yes
G2 Chelmsford & Environs M L / - Yes

G3 South Essex Coastal Towns M L - Yes
G4 Colchester & Environs M L - No
49
Appendices
TABLE A2.10 – Cambridge

Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search Areas
Major extensions (>5ha) and new


Character Belt)

Area

settlements
South-east N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) H H / No
Clay Hills
Fenlands East-Cambridge Chalklands (part) H M-H / - Yes
Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H / - Yes
Chalklands North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands M-H M-H / - Yes
(part)
Cam River Valley (North) M-H M / - Yes
East Cambridgeshire Fen Edge M-H M-H - Yes
Chalklands (part)
Fulbourn Fen Bowl H M-H / - Yes
Gog Magog Hills H H / - No
Granta Levels H M - Yes
Hobson’s Brook M-H M - Yes
Newton Chalk Hills H H / - No
Rhee River Valley H M / - Yes
Wimpole Ridge (Part) H H X - No
Cam River Valley (South) – (part) H M / - Yes
Bourn Brook Valley (part) H H - No
Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M-H / - Yes
Western Cam River Valley (south) – (part) H M-H / - Yes
Claylands
Bourn Brook Valley – (part) H H - No
Wimpole Ridge (east) – (part) H H X No
Madingley Ridge H M-H / - Yes
North Cambridgeshire Fen Edge Claylands H M-H - Yes
(part)
Outside Cambridge Green Belt M-H M - No
Ouse Valley N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) M M / No
50
Appendices
Table A2.11 – Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search Areas

Southern Hertfordshire Landscape Character Areas

within East Hertfordshire DC
Major urban extensions (>5ha) and

new settlements
37 Datchworth Settled Slopes M M X - Yes
38 Aston Estate Farmland M/H M - Yes
39 MiddleBeane Valley H M/H - Yes
40 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 No
55 Theobalds Estate M M x - Yes
56 Cheshunt Common H M/H x - Yes
57 Thunderfield Ridges M/H M/H / - Yes

58 Wormleybury and Cheshunt Parklands M M - Yes
59 Lea Valley Marshes M/H M x - Yes
60 Middle Lea Valley South L/M L x - Yes
61 Broxbournebury M M - Yes
62 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 - Yes
66 Cole Green and Hertingfordbury M L/M - Yes
51
Appendices
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 - Yes
71 Benington – Sacombe Ridge M/H M / - Yes

72 Munden Valley M/H M No
73 High Cross Plateau M/H M - Yes
74 Sacombe Park Estate Farmland M/H M/H - Yes
75 Lower Rib Valley M M x - Yes
76 Ware Parklands L/M L/M - Yes
77 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 - Yes
81 Stanstead to Pishiobury Parklands M/H M/H - Yes
82 River Stort M L/M - Yes
83 Hunsdon Plateau M/H M/H - Yes
84 High Wych Slopes H M/H - Yes
85 Thorley Uplands H M/H - Yes
86 Perry Green Uplands M/H M/H - Yes
87 Middle Ash Valley M M / No

88 Lower Ash Valley M M / - Yes

89 Wareside – Braughing Uplands H M/H - Yes
90 Middle Rib Valley H M/H - Yes
91 Upper Rib Valley M/H M/H - Yes
92 Puckeridge Parklands M/H M/H - Yes
93 Hadhams Valley M M / - Yes

* Area has consent for mineral extraction – potential capacity following/as part of restoration
200 Peters Green Plateau M M - Yes
201 Kimpton and Whiteway Bottom M/H M/H / No

202 Breachwood Green Ridge M/H M/H - Yes
203 Whitwell Valley Not available -
204 River Mimram M M No
205 Codicote Plateau M L/M / No

52
Appendices
206 Danesbury – Rabley Heath M L/M / No

207 Datchworth Settled Slopes M/H M - Yes
208 Knebworth M L/M - Yes
209 Almshoe Plateau M/H M/H X - Yes
210 Langley Scarp M M - Yes
211 Offley to St Paul’s Walden M M / No

212 Lilley Bottom M M / - Yes

213 Chilterns Scarp H M/H - Yes
214 Langley Valley H M/H - Yes
215 Wymondley and Titmore Green M L/M - Yes
216 Arlesey – Great Wymondley M/H M/H / - Yes

217 River Oughton and Purwell Valleys M M - Yes
218 Pirton Lowlands H M/H - Yes
219 Baldock Gap H M/H - Yes
220 Weston Park M L/M / - Yes

221 Upper Beane Valley Tributaries H M/H - Yes
222 Weston – Green End Plateau M L/M No

223 Wallington Scarp Slopes H M/H - Yes
224 North Baldock Chalk Uplands H M/H - Yes
225 Hinxworth Lowlands H M/H - Yes

226 Steeple Morden H M/H No
227 Odsey to Royston H M/H X No
228 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

53
Appendices
Table A2.12 – Potential inclusion of LCAs within Stage 3 Search Areas
urban
of
urban
Majority of LCA in
extensions (>5ha) and
Inclusion within Stage

Character Area
Overall Density
extensions (<5ha)
new settlements
Historic Assets
3 Search Areas
Tranquil Area
Small
Major
A M-H M - Yes
B M-H M-H / - Yes
C M-H M-H / - Yes
D H H / - No
E M M X - Yes
F M M / - Yes
G H M-H - Yes
H M-H M / - Yes
54
Appendices
3. Appendix 3 – Baseline Demographics
General approach
3.1.1 The overall approach has been to base projections on the updated RES sub-regional
Business as Usual1 projection of population and employment because they provide an
internally consistent set of projections, in which long term population affects employment
growth. These projections also reflect 2001 Census results and up-to-date national
population projections and Annual Business Inquiry data. A number of adjustments are
made to reflect local conditions, which the BAU projections were not able to take into
account, 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 households
sourced 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 with
16+ activity rates to calculate the workforce in the economic model, is also derived from the
same Tempro source.
3.1.4 Population projections based on RPG housing allocations 2001 to 2011 (apportioned to
districts according to structure plan distributions), with the exception of Cambridge and
South Cambridgeshire districts, where Cambridge County Council population projections
for the Structure Plan Review to 2021 have been used. These are much higher than
adopted Structure Plan based projections to reflect more generous housing provision in
emerging policy. Note that the difference between Structure Plan and RPG housing
allocations are minimal, equivalent to 0.3% of the study area population by 2021 and within
margins of error in the projections.
3.1.5 Projections of 2011 to 2021 for the study area (other than Cambridge and S. Cambs) use
the BAU growth rate for the area. Projections beyond 2021 roll forward the BAU growth
rate for the area, but constrained to follow the trend of the Government Actuary’s England
2001 based population projections to 2041, and so reflect long term change in growth
rates.
3.1.6 Other parameters, including household size, sharing and concealed households, vacancy
rates 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 declining
rate, falling to 2.08 by 2041. The average household size for migrants is assumed not to
fall below 2.2. The 2001 private household and institutional population have been derived
from the TEMPRO 1.5 Policy Based (2001 Census based) data set and institutional
population 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
55
Appendices
Employment
3.1.7 The growth differences between the adapted population projections and the original BAU
projections are relatively minor and do not justify changes to the employment projections,
with the exception of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. An adjustment has been
made to reflect a growth profile of employment consistent with the population projections
used (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 compared
with 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 to
2031 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 airport
employment in Uttlesford. This has been estimated, and turns out to be close to the
projections for package 2 (maximum use of one runway) on the updated, non-SERAS
assumptions of direct airport employment. They are lower than the SERAS projections.
Accordingly the BAU (adjusted for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire) employment
projections 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 scenarios
tested, 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 level
remains at 25 million. This is used for the purposes of constructing baseline employment
as a departure from the passenger forecast implicit in BAU employment (where the growth
trajectory 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 implicit 5.4 13.4 18.5 21.3 23.3 25.3 27.5 29.9 32.5
growth
25 mppa by 5.4 13.4 20.5 22.8 22.8 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
2021
40 mppa by 5.4 13.4 22.0 28.0 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
2021
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
56
Appendices
4. Appendix 4 - Catalytic Employment
What is Catalytic Employment?
4.1.1 Catalytic (or attracted) employment arises from firms attracted to an area because of
benefits derived from the primary activity, in this case the airport. An example may be a
headquarters office of a multi-national company which moves close to an airport to avail
itself 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 catalytic
employment is the division of the attracted activity by business (defined as inward
investment) and tourist (defined as inbound tourism) sub-sectors. By inference, each
constitutes a net addition to regional income and employment, compared with a no airport
situation. Inward investment is often associated with international movement but in
considering urbanisation impacts should be taken to include domestic relocated activity so
long it was understood that the latter would not be a net addition to national employment
but 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, large
increases in tourist numbers have occurred at small continental airports newly served by
low cost airlines, the links to local economies may be very indirect. Visitors newly arriving
by air may replace ones arriving by other modes, the visitors may travel far from the airport
and spend their money outside the airport’s catchment area, and the new air services may
encourage reverse tourism movement, depressing or eliminating inbound tourism
expenditure.
4.1.4 Known studies and estimates for quantifying catalytic employment near airports are limited
in number, and appear to be variable in sophistication. This has led the SERAS
employment forecasting exercise2 to omit it altogether in the employment projection, citing
lack of quantifiability as a reason. However, this is not consistently applied, since the
consultants preparing the urbanisation assessment do not allow for it in one report3 but do
allow for it in an earlier study for DTLR.4 The latter includes an indicative quantification and
goes on to state:
‘It [the airport] is also likely to provide a major catalyst for the attraction of a wide
range of economic activities that typically seek locations near to major international
airports, 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.
57
Appendices
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 potential
demands for in-migrants and new housing. It is likely to provide a very misleading picture
of future growth requirements. If catalytic employment is expected to arise, and there is a
general consensus that it will, then even a very conservative estimate is bound to represent
a 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 which
attempt to estimate catalytic employment, then a judgement made on the basis of these
estimates, and the use of a range, has much more to commend it than the adoption of a
zero figure.
Attracted Employment and Planning Policy
4.1.6 An argument espoused in some of the SERAS literature and elsewhere is that significant
levels of attracted or catalytic employment depend on relaxed planning policies, and since
planning restraint is exercised in many areas of the South East where new runways may be
built, such as Stansted and Gatwick, there is a presumption against large levels of such
employment arising.
4.1.7 This argument has limited force. Although towns like Cambridge operate restraint policies
against non-local firms, many others do not, e.g. Harlow. Where they do operate such
policies they are unable to stop small companies from setting up and neither is it possible
to prevent attracted employment companies taking over established firms. It will also
exclude non-airport business within firms attracted to provide airport services unless this
element 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 have
increased over the last five years as the range of destinations has multiplied.
• The relative significance of catalytic employment will grow as the airport widens the
destinations served, with a particular jump as intercontinental services increase.
• There will be a time lag following the introduction of new services for catalytic activity
to build up.
European Estimates of Attracted/Catalytic Employment
4.1.9 One source of estimates for attracted employment is the European association of airports
ACI (Airports Council International). A table generated by ACI distinguishing catalytic
employment by inward investment and inbound tourism components, and its ratio to million
passengers per annum (mppa) is reproduced below (Table A4.1)
58
Appendices
Table A4.1 : Estimates of Catalytic Employment at European Airports

Airport Inward Inbound Inward-Invest In-Tourism Jobs
Investment Tourism related Jobs per mppa per mppa
related
Amsterdam 19,100 2,900 94 15
Barcelona n.e. 60,015 n.e 5,826
Birmingham 860 1,050 180 220
Brussels 7,694 1,150 767 115
Dusseldorf n.e. 34,944 n.e 2,269
Malaga n.e. 103,504 n.e. 16,563
Milan 15,436 n.e 1,185 n.e.
Newcastle 11,250 1,060 4,499 423
Oslo n.e 10,000 n.e 901
Zurich n.e 3,267 n.e 268
Source: Creating Employment and Prosperity in Europe, ACI Europe, September 1998. Figure for Oslo
included in version of table by York Consulting/ACI 1998, quoted in Mouchel/Ecotec report, “Review
of 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 the
ECORYS study, October 20025 (which the consultants were not able to obtain). This
suggests that there were some 12,000 catalytic jobs generated by the airport. The
background 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 at
Cologne University.6 This appears to have approached the quantification issue by
estimation of output and employment changes related to a 'with' and 'without' a hub airport
effect. 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 in
relation 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 of
catalytic employment, and there are with and without ‘compensation’ assumptions that
generate a range of estimates. The research indicates reference levels of catalytic
employment per mppa for year 2015 when the airport is expected to handle 82 million
passengers. 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.
59
Appendices
North American Estimates
4.1.14 Attempts to quantify catalytic employment have been made for a proposed airport in
Orange County, California which also quotes some figures prepared for Chicago.7 This
has concentrated on high tech employment only, so by implication the calculations are an
underestimate of the whole catalytic employment effects. The estimates are based on the
Regional Airport Demand Model (RADAM), which uses extensive passenger surveys taken
at all major airports in Southern California plus existing research on catalytic effects of
airports upon businesses. The author is a professor in the University of California with a
substantial published research output and, like the Frankfurt study above, the analysis
appears 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 Airports

Airport Passengers (mill) Catalytic employment Jobs per mppa
Chicago 76 (projected) 90,000 (1) up to 1,184
Orange county 28 18,300 (2) 654
Orange county 18 12,330-13,050 (3) 685-725
Source: A New Orange County Airport at El Toro: Catalyst for High Wage, High-Tech Economic
development, Steven Erie, December 1999.
Notes: (1) The level stated to be additional to direct, indirect and induced employment. 76 mppa assumed to
relate 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, ignoring
tourism related employment and excluding the highest and lowest outliers (for business
related 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.
60
Appendices
Table A4.2 : Summary of Estimates for Catalytic Employment

Airport Catalytic employment Mppa for date of Inward-Invest Jobs
(excluding tourism estimate (to nearest per mppa
effect) million)
Amsterdam/Schiphol (1) 12,000 39 308
Birmingham 860 5 180
Brussels 7,694 10 767
Frankfurt 50,900 * 82 496
Manchester 20,000 13 1,558
Milan 15,436 13 1,185
Chicago 90,000 76 up to 1,184
Orange County 18,300 28 654
Average 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 that
serious analytical appraisals and/or specific survey work has been undertaken are in
respect of Schiphol, Frankfurt and Orange County. The jobs level for the latter might be
discounted for airport dissimilarity to Stansted (larger area and less hub airport
competition). All the estimates are related to reasonably large passenger scales, though
none 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 employment
from the above and set these out in relation to actual Stansted passenger thresholds for
different packages. This generates a crude table before any adjustment for spatial
allocation and other factors, which might be taken into account; (e.g. part of the attracted
employment 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 Orange
County) a range was identified of 300-450 jobs per million passengers per annum to
represent attracted employment levels at the lower scale of mppa related to the Schiphol
and Orange County estimates. (discounting the higher Orange County estimate to about
450 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) passenger
threshold rather than the 28-39 mppa thresholds related to the benchmark estimates. As
the most plausible estimates found , these are set as reference figures for
attracted/catalytic employment at the 47 mppa levels for Stansted - in Packages 7, 10 and
14.
4.1.20 Similarly a second reference level was identified drawn from the Frankfurt research for the
higher passenger throughput relevant to the Frankfurt study (82 mppa in 2015). From that
study we suggest that appropriate levels for 82 mppa (Package 7 year 2036 levels) might
be in the range 500-750. Using these two reference levels of catalytic employment per
mppa, estimates are made for other years as interpolations or extrapolations related to
these reference points.
61
Appendices
4.1.21 Table A4.4 sets out unadjusted (before any reduction for catalytic employment located
outside the study area) estimates by low and high assumptions for catalytic employment
for the Baseline and Package 2 scenarios (assumed to be the same) and for the other
packages 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, with
increasing employment per mppa for the larger airport scenarios which incorporate more
international 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 catalytic
employment based on the Schiphol/Frankfurt/Orange County single hub airport models
would continue to be located around the other London airports. It is unrealistic in other
words 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 located
around 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 is
likely 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 assumed

that 50% of catalytic employment would be within the 30 minute catchment (for Stansted
plus 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, including
Harlow and Saffron Walden but not Chelmsford or Braintree town. The outer area covers
locations within approximately a 45-minute drive time isochrone. It seems likely that most
attracted companies would prefer to locate within this area, say around 80%. Finally, the
inner two catchments of the Frankfurt study appear to account for about 80% of the
estimated employment impact.
4.1.26 For the purpose of the modelling work it is assumed that 20% of such employment would
be located in the external area. Within the modelling study area the model allocates
catalytic employment 30% to the core area and 70% to the outer area, broadly proportional
to 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 two
adjustments. The full table with CE per mppa ratios is provided in the employment model
spreadsheets.
4.1.28 For the purposes of the projections for Packages 7, 10 and 14 the model takes the
increment of catalytic employment levels for these Packages over the base case
(Baseline/Package 2).
62
Appendices
Conclusions
4.1.29 The consultants find the case for omitting catalytic employment from airport impact
assessment, as in the SERAS studies, to be untenable, the scale of its growth being
potentially 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 in
assessment of impact, and in any case is inconsistent, allowance for such employment
being accepted in other similar studies for government.
4.1.30 A more acceptable approach is to consider a plausible range of impacts, based on the
most evidence based research studies undertaken into this phenomenon, with further
adjustments to take account of lower levels of such employment which might in practice
arise around Stansted. The adjustments made at a number of stages are all downward, to
reduce possibilities of exaggeration, and the estimates may indeed be conservative.
63
Appendices
Table A4.4 : Assumed Catalytic Employment Levels Per Million Passengers: Total (1)
Year Baseline Pack 2 Pack 7 Pack 10 Pack 14
mppa CE mppa CE mppa CE mppa CE mppa CE
ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio
2001 13.4 50 13.4 50 13.4 50 13.4 50 13.4 50
hi 50 50 50 50 50
2006 18.5 56 20.5 56 20.5 100 20.5 100 20.5 100
hi 56 56 200 200 200
2011 21.3 63 22.8 63 47.4 300 47.7 300 47.8 300
hi 63 63 450 450 450
2016 23.3 69 22.8 69 64.7 350 64.9 350 64.7 350
hi 69 69 580 580 580
2021 25.3 75 23 75 69.4 400 92.9 550 90 550
hi 75 75 600 825 825
2026 27.5 81 25.6 81 72.3 450 95.1 550 118.4 700
hi 81 81 750 825 1170
2031 29.9 88 25.8 88 74.4 450 97.7 550 121.5 700
hi 88 88 750 825 1170
2036 32.5 94 35 94 82 500 102 600 129 750
hi 94 94 750 900 1250
2041 35.3 100 35 100 82 500 102 600 129 750
hi 100 100 750 900 1250
Shaded figures are reference cases.
Table A4.5: Assumed Catalytic Employment Levels Per Million Passengers: Study Area (1)
Year Baseline Pack 2 Pack 7 Pack 10 Pack 14
mppa emp mppa Emp mppa Emp mppa emp mppa Emp
2001 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0 13.4 20.0
hi 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
2006 18.5 22.4 20.5 22.4 20.5 40.0 20.5 40.0 20.5 40.0
hi 22.4 22.4 80.0 80.0 80.0
2011 21.3 25.2 22.8 25.2 47.4 120.0 47.7 120.0 47.8 120.0
hi 25.2 25.2 180.0 180.0 180.0
2016 23.3 27.6 22.8 27.6 64.7 140.0 64.9 140.0 64.7 140.0
hi 27.6 27.6 232.0 232.0 232.0
2021 25.3 30.0 23 30.0 69.4 160.0 92.9 220.0 90 220.0
hi 30.0 30.0 240.0 330.0 330.0
2026 27.5 32.4 25.6 32.4 72.3 180.0 95.1 220.0 118.4 280.0
hi 32.4 32.4 300.0 330.0 468.0
2031 29.9 35.2 25.8 35.2 74.4 180.0 97.7 220.0 121.5 280.0
hi 35.2 35.2 300.0 330.0 468.0
2036 32.5 37.6 35 37.6 82 200.0 102 240.0 129 300.0
hi 37.6 37.6 300.0 360.0 500.0
2041 35.3 40.0 35 40.0 82 220.0 102 240.0 129 300.0
hi 40.0 40.0 300.0 360.0 500.0
Shaded figures are reference case.
64
Appendices
5. Appendix 5 - Displacement
Additionality
5.1.1 The effectiveness or impact of an activity or programme depends upon the ‘additionality’ or
net (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, or
within a geographical area of policy concern, as a result of public sector intervention. The
Treasury definition of additionality is:
‘a general concept relating to any output of regeneration policies. In practice, most

empirical work relates to employment. Additional output is defined relative to what would
have happened in the absence of the intervention (the counterfactual). It may relate to
scale, 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 nothing
option).
• The gross local direct effects less deadweight provides an assessment of the gross
additional impacts.
• The gross additional impact then needs to be adjusted to take into account the effects
of displacement - both factor and product market - to derive an estimate of the net
additional direct impacts.
• Finally, the direct effects will also lead to a range of multiplier effects namely: a) a
supply linkage multiplier associated with the purchases made by firms, impacted upon
by the project, from local firms elsewhere in the study area; and b) an income or
consumption multiplier associated with local induced expenditure from those deriving
their 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 conform
with Treasury guidance. In some instances it is also appropriate to consider issues of
leakage defined as the level of activity/benefit that is lost to the assisted area. For
example, 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. The
larger the area over which the effects of a project or local initiative are analysed the higher
the displacement, supply and income multiplier. For some local services (e.g. food
retailing, 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 the
effects of crowding-out. Such effects are ignored here since the area does not meet the
stated threshold.
65
Appendices
5.1.7 Calculating additionality may be possible through the comparison of assisted versus non
assisted areas, although this is frequently complicated by the difficulty of identifying
suitable comparative areas. In most cases additionality is determined through primary
research. Given the time and costs involved, in order to simplify the process of estimating
net additional impacts and in the absence of project specific information ODPM (and
English Partnerships) guidance propose the use of ‘ready reckoners’. This approach has
been 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 simply
substitute for existing labour).
5.1.10 Displacement/substitution effects are concerned with primarily market related activities. As
such they should be assessed in relation to employment, housing and business support
outputs.
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 market
displacement 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 of
previous empirical research8 shows displacement bunching around two levels: a lower level
of 0 to 5%, particularly for projects funded under the urban programme, and a higher level
ranging from 20 to to 33%, with more highly skilled/ higher paid jobs being less likely to
cause 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 Metropolitan
region (1987); PACEC: An evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment (for DOE, 1987). Evaluation
of RSI 1991-95, Arup Economics and Planning, DTINaFW, Scottish Executive, September 2000
66
Appendices
5.1.14 A further complexity is that market adjustments over time, e.g. rises in population, are likely
to reduce the net impacts of displacement, although we have not attempted to calculate
that. 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 of
Stansted 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). This
provides 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 project
spans a long time scale it is anticipated that there will be a degree of market adjustment
that will in effect correct for displacement over time (i.e. wage rates will equalise, population
will rise etc).
5.1.16 For the purposes of the projection inputs, two alternative levels of displacement were
assumed, a lower level of 5% reflecting the low end of the range identified, and a higher
level of 25% based on the Table A5.1 and Table A5.2 scenario estimates, but without any
allowance for reduction over time.
Table A5.1 : Displacement by Occupation Group

Displacement Occupational Job Displacement Displacement
group breakdown factor, 0 to 1 Rate
least likely Airline/ airport mgmt 1.7% 0.00 0.0%
Pilots/ ATC/ Flight 12.1% 0.00 0.0%
ops
Mgmt & profl – 6.3% 0.20 8.0%
general
Customs, 3.6% 0.30 12.0%
immigration, police &
fire
Mtce/ trade & other 16.8% 0.50 20.0%
skilled
Air cabin crew 6.8% 0.60 24.0%
Passenger services, 23.8% 0.80 32.0%
sales & clerical
Apron/ ramp/ semi 18.8% 0.90 36.0%
skilled
most likely Catering, cleaning & 10.0% 1.00 40.0% Job
housekeeping weight
TOT AL STAFF 100.0% Overall: 24.3% 50%
Table A5.2 : Displacement by Salary

Displacement? Salaries - Job Displacement Displacement Rate
Permanent breakdown factor, 0 to 1
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%
67
Appendices
£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% Salary
weight
ALL 100.0% Overall: 24.7% 50%
68
Appendices
6. Appendix 6 – Results for High and Low

Scenarios
6.1.1 The results of the simulations for the SERAS and the non-SERAS high and low cases are
summarised in the following tables for the whole economic model study area which
comprises the Districts of Braintree, East Hertfordshire, Harlow, Uttlesford, in the ‘core
area’ and the districts of Cambridge City, Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping Forest, South
Cambridgeshire and St Edmundsbury in the ‘outer area’. The figures are indicative. They
illustrate the broad magnitude of outcomes. These results show that the range of
assumptions considered produced a very wide range in the urbanisation impact, measured
by additional housing requirements, which is the critical factor.
6.1.2 The last table gives a simplified summary for 2031 of the additional housing requirements
in excess of the baseline for the whole economic model study area, and the figures for
housing requirements estimated by SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation Study for 2030 to
allow comparison. However it should be borne in mind that the SERAS housing
requirement figures are not necessarily directly comparable with those for this study as
they use a different calculation method: as a proportion of the excess housing requirement
between rolled forward RPG requirements (apportioned to districts in the study area) and
Tempro forecasts of population, translated into housing requirements. The proportion is
set by the ratio of the forecast airport related growth (direct plus indirect) to the Tempro
forecast employment growth for the area. This ratio can exceed 1 where the airport related
growth 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, it
would still generate airport housing requirements, because RPG provision is inadequate for
the forecast population anyway.
69
Appendices
Table A6.1 : Summary of Projections for Packages - SERAS case – High (Economic Model Study Area)
2001 2016 2031 2036
P2 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
Labour Demand
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
Migrants 0 0 16,500 15,000 10,000 0 25,000 33,000 60,000 0 44,000 46,000 77,000
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
baseline growth in dwelling, i.e. the extra dwellings required by airport expansion above the baseline level..
70
Appendices
Table A6.2 : Summary of Projections for Packages - SERAS case – Low (Economic Model Study Area)
2001 2016 2031 2036
P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14
Labour Demand
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
Migrants 0 0 5,000 6,000 4,000 0 5,000 23,000 40,000 0 7,000 30,000 55,000
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
71
Appendices
Table A6.3 : Summary of Projections for Packages - Non-SERAS case – High (Economic Model Study Area)
2001 2016 2031 2036
P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14
Labour Demand
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
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
72
Appendices
Table A6.4 : Summary of Projections for Packages - Non-SERAS case – Low (Economic Model Study Area)
2001 2016 2031 2036
P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14 P2 P7 P10 P14
Labour Demand
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
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
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.
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..
73
Appendices
Table A6.5 : Additional Housing Requirements of Packages with Alternative Assumptions

(Economic Model Study Area 2031)
SERAS Non-SERAS SERAS Land Planning Study
direct/indirect direct/indirect Use and Area Baseline
employment employment Urbanisation Housing
assumptions assumptions Study Requirement
2001-2031
Package 14 49,988 33,326 32,492 16,246 17,789
(4 runways)
Package 10 34,159 19,162 15,830 8,331 13,886
(3 runways)
Package 7 20,829 4,166 0 0 9,995 195,032
(2 runways)
Package 2 0 0 0 0 1,752
(Maximum
use)
Source: Consultants, SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation Study Final Report, Arup Economics and Planning
Note: Housing requirements for each package estimated for this study are requirements over and above the
baseline housing requirement shown in the last column.
74

Impact of Expansion of Stansted Airport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Expansion of Stansted Airport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Appendix 1 Settlement role and function

2.2 Settlement Pattern

2.2.5 They are:

Colchester – Bishop’s Stortford Corridor

Royston to London Corridor

Colchester to London Corridor

Hitchin to Cambridge Corridor

Cambridge Sub Region

2.3 Urban Settlement Review

Settlement Role and Function – Assessment Results

Figure 2.1 Population Rank and Health Rank

Sawston Great Dunmow

Loughton Saffron Walden

Figure 2.2 Population Rank and Eductation Rank

Figure 2.3 Population Rank and Retail and Facilities Rank

Witham Royston Halstead

Cheshunt Ware Saffron Walden Baldock

Figure 2.4 Population Rank and Administration Rank

Figure 2.5 Population Rank and Overall Service Rank

Table 2.2: Comparison of Overall Service Rank and Population Rank

Service Based Settlement Hierarchy

Table 2.4: Settlement Categorisation by Overall Service Score

2.4 Rural Settlement Review

Opportunities and Threats to Rural Settlements

• Smaller ‘freestanding’ rural settlements offering tourism and leisure opportunities.

2.5 Urban and Rural Deprivation

MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION RANK FOR URBAN AREAS

MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION RANK FOR RURAL AREAS

2.6 Historic Towns Assessment

Table 2.5: Summary of Historic Towns Assessment

2.7 Rural and Countryside Review

Landscape Character Area Assessment

• Cambridge Green Belt Landscape Setting Study, South Cambridgeshire District

Sensitivity of Landscapes to Accommodate Change

Landscape Character Areas and Sensitivity within the Study Area

A1 North West Essex Chalk Farmlands H H

• South-East Clay Hills

Table 2.8: Summary Matrix of Cambridgeshire Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations

South-east Clay N/A (outside Cambridge Green Belt) H H

Table 2.9: Summary Matrix of Hertfordshire Character Area Sensitivity Evaluations

75 Lower Rib Valley M M

226 Steeple Morden H M/H

Conclusions on Landscape Character Capacity for the Study Area

Historic Landscape Assessment

Summary and Conclusion of Rural and Countryside Review

2.8 Spatial Linkages

1 Announcement by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling 09th July 2003

− Other Train Operators

Table 2.12: Categorisation of Towns by Town Bus Routes

Table 2.13: Population per Bus Service

2.8.40 There is a cluster of routes within Hertfordshire linking Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock with

TRAVEL TO WORK PATTERNS

LINKAGES BASED ON THE HIERARCHY RESULTING FROM SETTLEMENT ROLE AND

RURAL AREAS AND SETTLEMENTS OUTSIDE THE STUDY AREA

SUMMARY OF SPATIAL LINKAGES

3.1.5 Alternative (“NON-SERAS”) projections, taking account of observed post SERAS

RES Model Updates

3.2 Economic Model Study Area

Table 3.1 : Economic Model Study Area - Districts

3.3 Theoretical Considerations

Figure 3.1: Firms Response to Higher Wages

Absorb wages Capital stock

Firm does not pay Ceases