años, condenado a 8 años, muere en el EMR 1 el 23/11/79.

Completions 2006 - 2010

6.10 The RSS targets started in 2006; so nearly 5 years have passed. Over this period the South Worcestershire authorities have successfully delivered 61ha of new employment floorspace which could count towards this target11. So 183 ha remain to meet the RSS long term indicative target.

Outstanding commitments in 2010

6.11 In addition to land physically completed the South Worcestershire authorities still have a portfolio of land already committed in development plans or benefiting from planning permission. The latest AMR shows 120.7ha of employment land is currently committed, of which around 25 ha is under construction.

6.12 We have not assessed the quality of this land; however this was done as part of the 2008 Employment land review. At that time the study assessed the quality of 127ha of

committed employment land; almost all (107ha) of the committed supply was found to be fit for purpose (i.e. it scored at least „average‟ for both market attractiveness and physical suitability).

6.13 This has been confirmed by the local planning and economic development officers as part of this study; they are not aware of any fundamental reasons why the vast majority of the

Final Report | March 2011 58 committed supply is not fit for purpose and should be removed from the supply. However there are some sites where competing uses are equally suitable and so as part of the new development plan for South Worcestershire there is scope to replace some employment commitments with alternative supply.

6.14 At moment we have to assume that all the outstanding commitments are carried forward; if sites are re-allocated as part of the new plan for South Worcestershire they may need to be replaced.

Emerging new sites in 2010

6.15 The Core Strategy Preferred Options suggested a number of new sites to be allocated in the JDP. These sites were needed to meet the then emerging RSS land target.

6.16 Over time local officers have worked with landowners, agents and site promoters to confirm the capacity of the new sites. The current position for the new sites is:

 Worcester West 10ha  Worcester South 20ha

 Worcester Technology Park 68ha  Copcut Lane, Droitwich 3.5ha  Vale Park, Evesham 5ha  Keytech, Pershore 5ha  Newland, Malvern 6ha

 Blackmore Park, Malvern 4.5ha

6.17 In total 122 ha of new land is being promoted by both officers and the various site owners. So in addition to the commitments and sites already completed the JCS the Councils are promoting more land than the emerging RSS required.

6.18 All three components of the 2006 – 2026 supply sum to 303.5 ha, 59.5 hectares more than the RSS requirement.

6.19 This may suggest that the JCS is over supplying land compared to the RSS requirement; technically this would appear to be the case. But there are some major risks associated with both the committed supply and the emerging supply.

6.20 The most obvious risk surrounds the Worcester Technology Park. This was originally a AWM priority intended to provide a new site for Worcester Bosch and also a new high technology business park. It remains a priority for the LEP but as with all the LEPs across England funding is no longer guaranteed.

6.21 Also; although we understand that the quantity of new space associated with the other new sites has been confirmed with the sites promoters there is no guarantee that the promoters will not seek to amended their allocations; most likely seek to reduce them. Worcester West is perhaps the most vulnerable new allocation, being the third largest being promoted in the JCS but the weakest commercial site; it requires access through Central Worcester.

Final Report | March 2011 59 However we understand that the sites promoters are satisfied with a 10ha allocation so we see no reason to recommend an alternative quantity.

6.22 So we would not suggest the authorities attempt to more finely balance the employment land by proactively removing sites or allocations from the emerging portfolio any further.

New Rural Sites

6.23 The quantitative balance discussed above is without the addition of any new rural sites; the whole new portfolio is on larger urban sites.

6.24 We know from experience that trying to proactively pepper pot villages with new allocations is difficult. The rural market is small and takeup driven by almost bespoke individual

property requirements. Our consultations show that small local businesses are even more likely to require freehold property which is difficult to deliver speculatively in advance,

6.25 So we would suggest that if village sites are presented for inclusion in the plan the Councils consider them favourably. But it is important that if these sites are offered they are offered on flexible terms, including freehold. And that the sites are actually marketed over the life of the plan. This may appear to be a very long time but there is a risk that employment will be viewed as an opportunity to get land allocated in the plan which at a latter date can be turned over to an alternative use.

6.26 Even with new rural sites it is quite likely that over the life of the plan rural businesses will seek new space in or around their existing rural location. It is not reasonable for these businesses to predict their requirements and make land allocations „just in case‟. The cost of relocating these firms to urban sites can be a considerable expense.

6.27 So the plan should make favourable policy provision for new sites to be identified over the life of the plan, including allowing existing businesses to expand over settlement

boundaries. Criteria should be used to maintain the integrity of the settlement remains and there are no other compelling reasons why limited expansion should not be permitted.

6.28 These could include:

 The extension is located on land within or abutting the boundary of existing premises  Any new development is subsidiary to the existing operation

 The scale of the total cumulative development is in keeping with both the site and its surroundings

 Development relates physically to the scale, pattern and form of existing developmen  Any new site boundary is logical, utilising existing features wherever possible, or

incorporates suitable boundary treatment.

Protecting and monitoring existing sites

6.29 The RSS targets discussed above are gross new land requirements; not net as used in some other areas.

Final Report | March 2011 60 6.30 This means that there is no benchmark target to use when controlling the loss of

employment sites.

6.31 Instead the Councils need to carefully control potential losses to ensure that viable sites, which are in market demand are not lost. It will be much easier to protect existing sites than try to promote new ones. It is also easier to protect existing sites for more value conscious occupiers than secure new provision for these occupiers.

6.32 So we suggest the Council develops a criteria driven approach to releasing sites; with the exception of these sites the officers have highlighted in the appendices as no longer fit for purpose.

6.33 Applicants are often eager to replace existing industrial buildings, because they could potentially be replaced by higher density development; often including a mix of higher value uses. They may argue that a property is obsolete and needs redevelopment or major refurbishment to be fit for purpose, when in reality it could be made fit for purpose with repairs or limited refurbishment.

6.34 To avoid this, the Councils could perhaps require owners to demonstrate that they have offered prospective tenants the opportunity to repair or improve the space. Properties would have to be offered with a reasonable length of lease, perhaps 3-5 years depending on the scope of necessary works, so incoming occupiers can write down costs of improvement over a period of time. Where properties are offered on short rolling leases of perhaps two years, occupiers cannot undertake even quite minimal works to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. Needless to say, if the property requires the potential occupier to make some investment the achievable rent will reflect this.

6.35 While we have provided some guidance to what type of space is in demand in South Worcestershire but the true litmus test will always be whether the owner can successfully let their property or develop their site.

6.36 As a minimum good practice guide to effective marketing, we would suggest that:  Sites should be marketed by a reputable local or national agent

▫ Who can demonstrate a track record of letting employment space in the area.  There should be a visible letting board on the property.

 Marketing material should be published on the Web

▫ Including popular online property databases such as Focus.  Marketing campaigns should not be abandoned for at least 18 months

▫ From when the letting board is erected and the property is advertised online (i.e. not simply from when agents were appointed).

 Advertised rents should be reasonable

▫ Reflecting market conditions and the condition of the property  Lease terms offered should be attractive to the market:

Final Report | March 2011 61 ▫ A least three years, with longer terms, up to five years or longer, if the occupier

needs to undertake some works

▫ And/or short term flexible leases for smaller units which are appropriate for SMEs. 6.37 A similar principle should be applied to development sites; but the marketing process may

be longer. The Councils should also consider the terms under which the site is offered for development. We know that freehold remains in demand and many occupiers will refuse to take leasehold property,

6.38 To judge if marketing has conformed to these standards, the Councils need to be well informed about market conditions, so they can judge what is reasonable in terms of both rents and lease periods and of what standard of works may be required to bring a unit back into use. We would suggest that it collect basic market information at annual intervals, as part of the development plan monitoring process.

6.39 For large mixed use schemes it may be helpful for the Councils to seek independent advice from property agents as part of any pre-application discussions. This would avoid

inappropriate schemes going forward to the formal development management

(development control) process. The Councils and applicants could also agree at an early stage on reasonable rent and value expectation for a site.

Final Report | March 2011 62

7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 At the outset we set the following questions for this study:

 To assess the needs for employment land12 _{in the area over the plan period to 2026}

 To see how far the land supply currently identified by the planning system matches these needs, both in terms of quantity and qualitative mix

 Hence to advise on policy and land allocations, suggesting if the planning authorities should provide more or different sites for employment, or conversely if they should encourage some existing employment sites to shift to other uses.

7.2 However the RSS has now been abolished but so far there is no alternative planning target. The South Worcestershire authorities may revisit this in the future, following agreement on other parts of the plan which will influence the scale and pattern of sustainable

development in the area.

7.3 Using the former RSS targets the Councils are already promoting enough new land. However most of this supply is in large land allocations, including sites attached to large urban extensions. As with any large, lumpy, supply portfolio there is little margin of error. For example if the Worcester Bocsh site falls, because it fails to prove viable in the new economic climate the area would soon be at risk of not meeting the RSS targets.

7.4 At the moment the Councils report that they are confident that the portfolio of new sites being promoted is deliverable and importantly has the commitment of the various land owners. However experience shows that over time the trend has been for owners to reduce their employment land commitments; claiming that they are not viable to develop. There is a risk that owners will promote sites through the development plan but then fail to deliver. Careful management of these sites, policy wording and the applications will be needed to ensure that developers comprehensively implement their developments. 7.5 Servicing and making the employment sites available to the market should be a priority for

these schemes; i.e. the infrastructure required to deliver the employment elements should be secured early on.

7.6 Our property market chapter should be used to help guide the type of property delivered on the new sites.

7.7 Managing and protecting the existing stock will be vital now developing new sites has been made much more difficult. The appendices suggest some sites can be lost from the

portfolio but this is only a small proportion of the overall stock. Protecting existing

12 _{By „employment land‟ we mean those uses falling within the B class of the Use Classes Order, comprising factories,} warehouses and offices – and physically similar sui generis uses, such as waste disposal. However, we exclude office development in town centres, which is planned for in a different way by the RSS.

Final Report | March 2011 63 businesses and their sites is now even more important given that attracting new businesses to South Worcestershire, with public sector support is no longer a viable model.

7.8 In this regard Worcester Bosch is vital. The relocation of the firm to a new greenfield site will open up new opportunities on some of the areas best employment areas. So the success of the Bosch scheme will deliver not only a single new site but a new supply of prime quality employment land for new occupiers (in addition to the proposed technology park)

7.9 Although quantitatively the area is promoting enough new land there remains a qualitative deficiently. Most of the qualitative requirements, or market deficiencies we identified in earlier chapters do not necessary need large land allocations but instead more modest provision and the management of the existing stock of sites.

7.10 Despite the apparent need for new land being low; there remains market demand to provide new land. From a market perspective there is demand to provide more land than the RSS. Market demand for highly accessible new warehousing land is unlikely to go away.

7.11 This type of demand is largely footloose; attracted to areas where sites and land is made available for development. If South Worcestershire provides this type of site our analysis shows that there remains market demand and it is likely to be taken up. Although this would be in excess of the RSS targets.

7.12 To a lesser extent this also applies to new large general industrial provision; although this is nationally a declining industry South Worcestershire has a track record of supporting

regionally and nationally significant manufacturing firms. It could, if commercially attractive (i.e Motorway accessible) sites are offered continue to capture what demand remains in the region.

7.13 In the future one key change in policy direction the authorities may consider is departing from the RSS past takeup approach to land provision; which as discussed above made simple assumptions about re-providing a similar amount and type of land provided in the past. This required Worcester and the other authorities to provide large Greenfield land allocations for new development when national and local policy emphasises the renewal of brownfield and the town centres.

7.14 We have not been asked to propose a new job (or land) target for South Worcestershire. But freed of the RSS it is something the authorities may wish to revisit in the future. If anything a new target is likely to be lower than the RSS. As noted above the RSS was largely based on a period of high past takeup and a degree of public sector support. It may be that in the future we have enough evidence to robustly promote an alternative approach.

7.15 Finally the Councils need to carefully consider new rural employment land provision and the wider rural economy in general. One important finding is that the greatest risk to the rural economy is not necessary the supply of employment sites; although there is demand for some modest provision with a warning that the demand of often for unrealistic quantities of

Final Report | March 2011 64 cheap (i.e. unviable) space. Instead the real risk to the rural economy is one of changing demographics and declining average household sites.