Brantham Community & Economy Study
0
Babergh District Council & Haven Gateway
Partnership
Community Facilities and Local
Economy Study of Brantham
Navigus Planning
June 2012
Final Report
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Brantham Community & Economy Study
2
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………… 1
2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES – EXISTING DEFICITS AND REQUIREMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH GROW TH ……………………………………………………… 2
Existing facilities ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Existing services …………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Summary of service and facilities deficits ……………………………………………………… 13
Requirements associated with growth …………………………………………………………. 15
Summary of needs and costs …………………………………………………………………….. 16
3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES SURVEY AND ASSESSMEN T OF NEEDS …… 19
Summary of needs ………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Parish Council priorities ……………………………………………………………………………. 20
4 EMPLOYMENT NEEDS ASSESSM ENT …………………………………………… 21
Socio-economic baseline ………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Employment land demand and supply …………………………………………………………. 27
5 BUSINESS SURVEY …………………………………………………………………… 29
Previous surveys …………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Study survey findings ………………………………………………………………………………. 29
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………. 33
Community facilities ………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Employment needs …………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Appendices
Appendix A Summary assessment of community facilities provision
Appendix B Summary of bus services serving Brantham
Appendix C Detailed assessment of potential community needs associated with
growth
Appendix D Proforma community facilities survey
Appendix E List of community groups surveyed
Appendix F Proforma employer survey
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This study has been commissioned by Babergh District Council (BDC) and the Haven Gateway
Partnership (HGP). The purpose is to better understand the local community and employment
needs in Brantham. This can then inform the mix of uses for the proposed redevelopment of the
industrial land at Brantham, as well as potentially any planning contributions related to any grant
of planning permission.
1.2 The study seeks to understand community needs and also what is wanted by the local
community. To understand this, the study has engaged directly with Brantham Parish Council,
Brantham’s ward councillor and the community groups in the parish. The latter has been done
through a survey questionnaire which was also sent to parish councils in the neighbouring
parishes.
1.3 The employment needs of local businesses in the wider area have been sought through a survey
questionnaire. Clearly the needs of local employers would not be the only employment needs
that BDC and HGP would be seeking to address, but it is an important aspect to ensure that local
businesses have the opportunity to access new premises locally and so retain jobs locally.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
2
2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES – EXISTING DEFICITS AND
REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIA TED WITH GROWTH
Existing facilities
2.1 In assessing needs, it is important to consider Brantham within its context a rural parish. As
such, it cannot be expected to provide a range of facilities as wide as would commonly be found
in more urban areas. Certain facilities will be provided outside the parish and it is a question of
whether those facilities are reasonably accessible by the majority of the population or at least by
those most likely to use the facilities in question. Equally however, it has a significant and
growing population which should be capable of accessing a range of community facilities. There
can be no hard and fast rules as to what balance of provision is appropriate; this is a matter of
judgement and it is not for this study to definitively make that judgement.
2.2 Also, the assessment of needs simply relates to the quantum of provision. There is an issue also
of the quality of provision, which this study also seeks to consider. Simply because there is
adequate provision within or serving the parish does not mean that the facilities are of an
acceptable standard.
2.3 In ensuring that a complete range of community facilities is assessed, the starting point is the list
of facilities considered in an open space, sport and recreation study. Until recently these were
studies required to comply with national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 17 (Planning for
open space, sport and recreation). However, national policy is now contained in the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and PPG17 has been replaced by this document. Despite this,
the principles and need for such work are still reflected in the NPPF. Paragraph 73 states that:
“Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of
the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities
for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and
quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and
recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the
assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and
recreational provision is required.”
2.4 Therefore, work in this area is still considered to comply with national policy. This accounts for
the majority of facilities that can reasonably be expected to serve any given area, albeit
principally on a district-wide basis. Other facilities outside the main scope of an open space,
sport and recreation assessment are considered on a case-by-case basis using a combination of
experience and specific issues raised in consultation with community groups and local residents.
The extent of this list of facilities has also been informed by the brief for the study.
2.5 Babergh District Council (BDC) undertook an ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy’ (i.e. a
PPG17-compliant study which is still considered to comply with the NPPF) that was published in
September 2010. This assessed need mainly at a district level, but did identify certain issues at
parish level. In addition, a community facilities audit was undertaken in rural areas by parish
(August 2010), which identified a range of issues that have also been explored.
2.6 We now address each of the main community facilities in turn. A summary of the analysis below
is shown in Appendix A. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 shows the location of existing community facilities.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
3
Figure 2.1: Location of existing sports facilities serving Brantham
Brantham Community & Economy Study
4
Figure 2.2: Location of other community facilities serving Brantham
Brantham Community & Economy Study
5
Outdoor sports facilities
2.7 The BDC PPG17 study states that Brantham parish is “significantly deficient” in outdoor sports
provision (p.51). This is because it has an overall deficiency of more than one hectare of space.
However, the study does not provide detail of exactly how this opinion was arrived at.
Grass pitches
2.8 The BDC PPG17 study states that the recommended level of minimum provision for grass pitches
is 1.6ha per 1,000 population. To achieve this, the minimum accessibility standard is for this
level of provision to be achieved within a 15-minute drivetime of home (an average 12km
radius). Therefore not all provision necessarily has to be within Brantham parish to reflect an
acceptable level of provision.
2.9 Based on the 2008 population of Brantham of 2,620 people (source: BDC Parish Survey, 2010),
Brantham should be served by approximately 4.2ha of grass pitches to reach the acceptable
level of provision. Based on the minimum legal size of a football pitch of 4,050m², there is a
requirement for 10 pitches within the 12km radius of accessibility.
2.10 Currently there is the following provision of pitches locally:
2 in Brantham;
3 in Lawford (plus 2 junior pitches)
2 in Mistley
2 in East Bergholt
2.11 As such, there is sufficient provision to serve local needs, based on the required standards of a
PPG17 assessment. There is also additional provision within the acceptable 12km radius to
provide for additional needs.
2.12 However, it was observed by a significant majority of those local groups consulted that the
pitches in Brantham are in very high demand and several football teams have to book pitches
outside the parish. This reflects the demands placed upon these facilities from users outside the
local community which is in turn a reflection of the quality of the pitches and organisation by the
Brantham Sports Club. The simple supply analysis does not tell the whole story.
2.13 It is not considered that the quality of pitch provision is deficient and this has not been raised as
an issue in consultation.
2.14 It is considered that there may be justification for additional provision of pitches within Brantham
to address existing needs. This is predominantly a reflection of the perceived shortage of pitch
provision raised by local residents and councillors and it is recommended that further pitch
provision is supported by more detailed analysis of the needs of Brantham and, in particular,
surrounding communities.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Grass pitches
Brantham Community & Economy Study
6
Synthetic pitches
2.15 The expected standard for the provision of synthetic pitches is one pitch within a 20-minute
drivetime (approximately 16km). At present, there is at least one pitch within this drivetime, at
the Royal Hospital School in Holbrook. This is available for private hire outside of school hours.
2.16 The quality of provision is considered to be sufficient.
2.17 Current provision of synthetic pitches is considered to be sufficient to provide for local needs.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Synthetic pitches
Other outdoors sports
2.18 The standard for the provision of other outdoor sports (e.g. tennis, bowls and cricket) is part of
the standard for grass pitch provision, i.e. 1.6ha per 1,000 population within a 12km radius.
2.19 There is the following provision of such facilities for public use in the local area:
2 tennis courts in Brantham
4 tennis courts at East Bergholt High School, East Bergholt
5 tennis courts at the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
2 tennis courts at Lawford
2 tennis courts at Manningtree Sports Centre, Manningtree
2.20 This is considered to represent a sufficient level of provision for tennis to address local needs.
Some of the provision is of limited quality, but is generally acceptable for public use.
2.21 There are also bowls rinks at Brantham and Mistley. Whilst these are not for public use, i.e. they
are private members’ clubs, it is not considered reasonable to expected public provision of such
specialist facilities which require such high levels of maintenance. Therefore the presence of such
facilities, even as part of private clubs, is considered to offer the necessary level of provision.
2.22 The same issue relates to cricket pitch provision, with cricket pitches provided at Brantham and
Mistley, both as part of private clubs. Again, this is considered to be sufficient provision to
address the required standards.
2.23 There is no appropriate provision for netball in Brantham parish. Such provision is commonly part
of multi-use games areas (MUGAs), so this deficiency is considered as part of potential MUGA
provision.
2.24 Provision for other outdoor sports is considered to be sufficient to provide for local needs.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Tennis
Bowls
Cricket
Brantham Community & Economy Study
7
Athletics tracks
2.25 The expected standard for the provision of athletics tracks is one facility within a 45-minute
drivetime. At present, there are at least two tracks within this drivetime, at the Lancaster
Athletics Track and Stadium in Ipswich and the Colchester Garrison Athletics Stadium in
Colchester. Both are of sufficient quality.
2.26 Provision of athletics tracks is considered to be sufficient to provide for local needs.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Athletics tracks
Indoor sports facilities
Indoor sports halls and leisure centres
2.27 The BDC PPG17 study states that the recommended level of minimum provision for indoor sports
halls and leisure centres is 39.78m² per 1,000 population. To achieve this, the minimum
accessibility standard is for this level of provision to be achieved within a 5.6km radius (this is
based on the Sport England recommended benchmark standard).
2.28 Based on these standards, the requirement for Brantham is 104.22m² of provision. Based on the
average 4-badminton court facility (most commonly provided in sports halls) being 33m x 18m
(i.e. 594m²), this equates to just 0.18 facilities.
2.29 Currently there are sports centres in Manningtree, East Bergholt (at East Bergholt High School)
and an indoor bowls facility in Brantham itself. All are considered to be of sufficient quality.
2.30 It is therefore not considered that there is sufficient justification for additional provision of indoor
sports facilities within Brantham to address existing needs.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Sports halls
Swimming pools
2.31 The recommended level of minimum provision for indoor swimming pools is 9.18m² per 1,000
population. To achieve this, the minimum accessibility standard is for this level of provision to be
achieved within a 5.6km radius (this is based on the Sport England recommended benchmark
standard).
2.32 Based on these standards, the requirement for Brantham is 24m² of provision. Based on the
average community pool being 20m x 2.5m per lane and providing 4 lanes (i.e. 200m²), this
equates to 0.12 facilities.
2.33 Currently there is no indoor swimming pool in Brantham. The only pool in the immediate
surrounding area is at the Royal Hospital School in Holbrook, which can be used by the
community outside of school hours. The nearest public pools are in Ipswich or Colchester which
Brantham Community & Economy Study
8
are outside the minimum accessibility standard distance. It is therefore considered that there
could be justification for provision of an indoor swimming facility within Brantham to address
existing needs. However, this requirement would be insufficient to justify a whole facility so it
will be for the assessment of development scenarios, coupled with clear evidence of demand, to
determine whether this will create sufficient additional demand in order that a complete facility is
justified.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Swimming pools N/a
Youth facilities
Local Areas for Play (LAPs)
2.34 Whilst not used in the PPG17 study, the Fields in Trust Six-Acre Standard states that on
developments of 15 or more dwellings, every dwelling must be within a 1 minute walk (60m
straight line distance) of a LAP.
2.35 However, it is not appropriate to consider whether there is existing demand for such facilities
from developments already completed because there is little or no prospect of new development
providing for these historic needs. Such development would be more likely to provide larger
scale facilities such as LEAPs and NEAPs on their own sites.
Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs)
2.36 The PPG17 study recommends a minimum standard for the provision of LEAPs of 0.42ha per
1,000 population. This must be within a 5-minute walk or 2-minute bicycle ride of residential
development. For Brantham, this requirement equates to a need for 1.1ha (11,000m²) of LEAP
provision. Based on the minimum recommended size of a LEAP of 4,225m² (including a buffer
zone surrounding the facility), this equates to 3 LEAPs serving the parish.
2.37 Currently there are 3 LEAPs in Brantham parish and a further LEAP on the border with East
Bergholt parish. These LEAPs are quite old and are not considered to be of the necessary quality
to represent adequate provision.
2.38 Whilst not necessarily every dwelling in the parish will be within the recommended maximum
walk/cycle time of any of these facilities, it is not considered likely that there is a need for further
provision for the existing population. However, there is a need for improvement in the quality of
existing provision.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
LEAPs
Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs)
2.39 The minimum standard for the provision of NEAPs is 0.40ha per 1,000 population. This must be
within a 15-minute walk or 6-minute bicycle ride of residential development. For Brantham, this
Brantham Community & Economy Study
9
equates to a need for 1ha (10,000m²) of provision. Based on the minimum recommended size of
a NEAP of 8,500m² (including a buffer zone), this broadly equates to 1 NEAP.
2.40 There is not currently a NEAP serving Brantham. As such, there is the potential need for such a
facility to address existing needs.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
NEAPs N/a
Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs)
2.41 The provision of MUGAs is considered for the purposes of standards of provision as part of the
NEAP minimum standard, i.e. 0.40ha per 1,000 population within a 15-minute walk or 6-minute
cycle. The assessment of NEAPs has already demonstrates that there is a deficiency of provision
of these facilities in Brantham.
2.42 There are currently no MUGA facilities serving Brantham, so there is a potential need for such
provision to serve existing needs. This will also serve to address the identified need for netball
facilities.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
MUGAs N/a
BMX/skateboard facilities
2.43 The provision of BMX/skateboard facilities is considered for the purposes of standards of
provision as part of the NEAP minimum standard, i.e. 0.40ha per 1,000 population within a 15-
minute walk or 6-minute cycle. The assessment of NEAPs has already demonstrates that there is
a deficiency of provision of these facilities in Brantham.
2.44 There are currently no BMX/skateboard facilities serving Brantham, so there is a potential need
for such provision to serve existing needs. The nearest existing facility is in Mistley, which is
outside the accessibility standard.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
BMX/skateboard N/a
Youth shelters
2.45 There is currently no minimum standard for the provision of youth shelters. At present, there is
no such facility serving Brantham parish, so there is the potential need for provision of such a
facility.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Youth shelters N/a
Brantham Community & Economy Study
10
Green spaces
Natural and semi-natural green spaces
2.46 There is no recommended minimum standard for the provision of natural and semi-natural green
spaces. Such spaces are defined in the BDC PPG17 study as:
“Open spaces within or close to urban / built up areas which provide for
wildlife conservation, biodiversity and opportunities for environmental
education. Such areas also often serve as amenity areas, or provide public
rights of way within them and may form part of a wider network of green
corridors or green infrastructure” (p.21)
2.47 Work to inform the Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure Strategy used the accessibility
thresholds established by the Town and Country Planning Association and Natural England for
Accessible Natural Green Space (ANGSt). This showed that the majority of Brantham parish had
between a district- and sub-regional level of provision. As such, it is not considered that there is
a need for additional provision to serve the existing population.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Natural green spaces
Amenity green spaces
2.48 Amenity green spaces are areas for informal activities close to home or work that enhance the
appearance of residential or other developed areas. The standard for the provision of amenity
green space is 0.60ha per 1,000 population, with no accessibility standard recommended. As
such, the requirement to serve Brantham parish is for 1.57ha of such space.
2.49 It is not possible to accurately measure the provision of amenity green space currently serving
Brantham. However, it is observed that the PPG17 study considered Babergh district to be over-
provided for. In addition, amenity green space is mostly required in urban areas, whereas
Brantham is a more rural parish. Therefore it is not considered that there is a need for additional
provision to serve the existing population.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Natural green spaces
Other community facilities
Community centres/village halls
2.50 There is no minimum standard for the provision of community centres or village halls. Currently
there is one village hall within the parish, which caters for a range of needs. This hall is old and
is in need of significant improvement to bring it up to modern standards. However, it is of a
reasonable size to be capable of being used for a range of local activities.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
11
2.51 It is considered that there is sufficient quantitative provision of such facilities within Brantham
but there is an issue with the quality of this provision.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Village halls
Allotments
2.52 There is a minimum recommended standard of provision of allotment space in the PPG17 study
of 20 plots per 1,000 households. This must be within a 15-minute walk if in a sustainable
village. Based on an average, full-sized plot being 125m², this equates to a need for 21 full-sized
plots or 2,600m² of allotment space to serve Brantham.
2.53 Currently there are no allotment facilities in Brantham which would suggest that there is the
considerable need to address an existing deficiency for the current population.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Allotments N/a
Cemeteries and churchyards
2.54 There is no minimum standard for the provision of cemetery space or churchyards. Currently
there is one facility within the parish. However, it is noted that the existing cemetery is close to
capacity and additional provision is likely to be required.
2.55 It is considered that there is insufficient provision of such facilities within Brantham by virtue of
the fact that the existing facility is nearly full.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Cemeteries
Youth group facilities
2.56 There is no minimum standard for the provision of youth group facilities. Currently there is one
scout and guide hut within the parish. However, this is in a state of disrepair and needs
significant maintenance to bring it up to standard, or replacement.
2.57 It is therefore considered that there is need to provide improved youth group facilities in the
parish.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Youth group facilities N/a
Brantham Community & Economy Study
12
Footpaths
2.58 There is no minimum standard for the provision of footpaths. There is a network of footpaths in
the parish but what was particularly noted through the consultation process was the identified
need to provide better footpath access to Manningtree. It could therefore be said that footpath
provision is insufficient to address existing needs at present.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Footpaths
Existing services
Public transport
2.59 Brantham parish is not directly served by a railway station. Manningtree station is less than one
mile from the south western part of the parish (where the industrial area is located) and is
served by buses that pass through Brantham.
2.60 There are no standards for bus service provision so it is not possible to determine whether
Brantham is adequately served by bus or not. However, it can be assumed that a good service
will provide services in the peak hours to and from Manningtree station (which in turn provides
services to Colchester, London and Ipswich) and the nearest main service centre of Ipswich, as
well as off-peak services again to Ipswich for shopping and other services.
2.61 Apart from school-only buses, there are three services which pass through Brantham – numbers
92 (Ipswich-Holbrook-Brantham-Manningtree/East Bergholt), 93C (Ipswich-Tattingstone-East
Bergholt-Manningtree-Mistley) and 96 (Ipswich-Tattingstone-East Bergholt-Manningtree-Mistley).
2.62 The three routes provide a total of two buses in the morning peak to Manningtree station
(although one is quite late for those travelling on by train to work, arriving at the station at
09.11) but no buses returning from the station in the evening peak. This clearly is an issue for
anyone wishing to access the station by bus for work.
2.63 In the morning peak there are two buses to Ipswich, but only one bus returning in the evening
peak, at 1740. This gives commuters little flexibility if they are to use the bus for work,
particularly given that there are also no buses from Manningtree station in the evening for those
who caught the train home. Again, this could potentially be an issue for workers.
2.64 During the middle of the day, there are two buses every two hours travelling to and from
Ipswich, which would appear to be reasonable. There are also buses every two hours to
Manningtree which gives less flexibility to users, many of whom will travel to Manningtree to
access basic services such as convenience food shopping, post office and GP/pharmacy/dental
services.
2.65 On Saturdays, there are three buses every two hours to and from Ipswich and two buses every
two hours to and from Manningtree. This would appear to offer a reasonable service.
2.66 There are no buses on Sundays which could be an issue for those wishing to access services
open on Sundays.
2.67 More detail on the bus services is shown in Appendix B. It is considered that commuter bus
services in particular are insufficient to provide a reasonable service. This issue was also
Brantham Community & Economy Study
13
identified through consultations with local people and is discussed in more detail in the next
section.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Bus services N/a
Other services
2.68 There are no standards for the provision of other services. However, there are certain services
which are commonly considered to be of high importance, so local provision is a preference. This
includes postal, health and education services.
2.69 There is one post office in Brantham providing basic postal services.
2.70 There are no GP or other public health services in Brantham parish. The nearest GP surgeries are
in Manningtree, Lawford and East Bergholt. All have capacity to accept new patient registrations.
2.71 Perhaps as a result of this, there are no pharmacy services in Brantham parish. The nearest
pharmacies that offer a prescription service are in Manningtree and East Bergholt.
2.72 There are no dental surgeries in Brantham parish. The nearest dental surgeries are in
Manningtree and Holbrook. The Manningtree practice does accept NHS patients at certain times.
2.73 Brantham has two pre-school facilities in the parish, as well as a primary school. There are three
secondary schools within 5 miles, at East Bergholt, Holbrook and Manningtree.
2.74 In terms of retail services, there is a small Co-op supermarket which is sufficient to undertake
top-up shopping. There is also a carpet shop and a photographic shop/studio. There is a limited
range of services including a hairdressing salon and several take-away and eat-in restaurants.
Quantity
(of existing provision)
Quality
(of existing provision)
Post offices N/a
GPs N/a
Pharmacies N/a
Dentists N/a
Pre-schools N/a
Retail services N/a N/a
Summary of service and facilities deficits
2.75 The assessment of community facilities provision against standards shows there to be a number
of facilities where there is a theoretical deficiency in provision. It is theoretical because whilst
provision may not achieve a standard considered acceptable for the whole of Babergh district,
the need for increased provision should only be justified with evidence that such a shortfall in
provision is considered to be an issue by local residents and community groups. This evidence is
provided by the community survey that has been undertaken as part of the study, along with
consultations with Brantham Parish Council and the local ward councillor.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
14
2.76 There is also the consideration of the quality of provision. Whilst there may be sufficient levels of
provision against a quantitative requirement, if this provision is not of an acceptable standard,
then there could be justification for improving the quality of facilities, either through
refurbishment or re-provision.
Deficits in quantitative provision
2.77 The BDC PPG17 study assessment, focused on the parish of Brantham, has shown there to
potentially be deficits in provision of the following facilities:
Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs) – potential need for one NEAP to serve
existing population.
Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) – no standard, so a potential need for at least one MUGA to
serve existing population.
BMX/skateboard facilities – no standard, so a potential need for at least one BMX/skateboard
facility to serve existing population.
Youth shelters – no standard, so a potential need for at least one youth shelter to serve
existing population.
Allotments – potential need for at least 21 plots to serve existing population.
Swimming facilities – deficit is not sufficiently large to justify the full provision of a new
facility; this could only potentially be done in tandem with additional needs created by
further growth in local population.
2.78 The current provision of burial space is close to capacity and additional space is needed to
support the existing population.
2.79 Existing public transport provision in the form of bus services do not reasonably provide for peak
time travel by workers, either to Manningtree station or to Ipswich.
2.80 There is a complete absence of GP surgery provision, along with associated pharmacy services in
the parish. Likewise, there is no provision of dental services in the parish.
2.81 The current range of retail services in Brantham parish is extremely limited and even given the
existing provision in Manningtree, there is the potential for some additional retail provision to
serve very local needs.
Deficits in qualitative provision
2.82 Of the existing community facilities that are provided, there are potentially issues in terms of the
quality of the following facilities in or serving Brantham parish:
The village hall is in need of maintenance and upgrade in the quality of facilities. This is
particularly acute given that it is the principal meeting place for general hire in the parish.
Existing play areas (specifically local equipped areas for play – LEAPs) are in need of
upgrades to play apparatus.
The existing scout and guide hut is not fit for purpose.
Footpath access to Manningtree.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
15
Requirements associated with growth
2.83 The study requires an assessment of the needs associated with growth under a range of
scenarios. These consider the following levels of additional dwelling provision at Brantham:
50-250 dwellings
250-450 dwellings
450-600/650 dwellings.
2.84 For the purposes of testing, the assessment has considered needs accruing from each of these
levels, i.e. 50, 250, 450, 600 and 650 dwellings.
2.85 It is assumed that the existing average household size will be the same for any future
development in Brantham; based on the 2008 population of the parish and the number of
households in the parish in 2001, the average household size is 2.52 persons.
2.86 Table 2.1 shows the potential needs associated with each of the growth scenarios for items
where standards can be applied. The more detailed analysis is shown in Appendix C.
Table 2.1: Assessment of potential community facilities needs associated with
growth
* A single allotment is classified as a grouping of 20 plots. Commonly an allotment holder would take 0.5 or 1 plots
2.87 The red cells show where additional provision is almost certainly needed; amber where additional
provision may be needed; and green where additional provision is almost certainly not needed.
This is based on the PPG17 standards of provision, coupled with an overall judgement of existing
provision serving the parish.
2.88 This shows that additional grass pitches could be needed if development reaches upwards of 450
dwellings. At between 250 and 450 dwellings, this provision may possibly be required although
the levels of additional need may be insufficient to make a definitive case. The existing levels of
provision within the accessibility standard are sufficient, so there is some spare ‘slack’ in pitch
provision that could be taken up by growth, but very little within the immediate local area. But
whilst the accessibility standards allow for local pitch provision as far as 12km away, this is not
considered reasonable when there is such high demand for pitches from local teams – the parish
council reported that there are 22 football teams within Brantham that would wish to make use 50 250 450 600 650
Outdoor sports facilities –
grass pitches
0.5 2.5 4.5 6.0 6.5
Swimming pools 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Indoor sports halls and leisure
centres
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Local Equipped Areas for Play
(LEAPs)
0.1 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.6
Neighbourhood Equipped
Areas for Play (NEAPs)
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8
Allotments* 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7
Type of facility Scenario – no of dwellings
No. of new facilities required by scenario
Brantham Community & Economy Study
16
of the two pitches in the parish. It is therefore considered reasonable that almost all needs
created by new growth will have to be additionally provided for.
2.89 Local equipped areas for play (LEAPs) are almost certainly required once development gets close
to 450 dwellings, although none of the scenarios are sufficient to fully justify provision of more
than one LEAP.
2.90 There is the possible need for provision of neighbourhood equipped areas for play (NEAPs) when
growth reaches 600 dwellings. It should also be borne in mind that there is no NEAP provision at
present in the parish and there is a need for a NEAP to serve the existing population. So a
requirement could be part of any new residential provision at much lower development levels.
2.91 Likewise, there is the potential requirement for additional allotment provision sufficient to justify
a reasonably sized facility (assumed to be 2,500m², providing nearly 21 plots) once development
gets above 600 dwellings. But this must be coupled with the need for an additional facility to
serve the existing population. Therefore there would be a potential need for provision in
Brantham ranging from 22 to 34 plots (2,750m² to 4,250m²). This equates to between
approximately 1 and 1.75 new allotment facilities of a standard size.
Summary of needs and costs
2.92 In order to serve the existing population to expected standards, there is a need for a number of
new community facilities. Table 2.2 below lists them and the likely cost of provision, based on
experience elsewhere in the country and guidance from Sport England:
Table 2.2: Summary of minimum needs of existing population and costs
Facility Cost
1 Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP)² £80,000
1 Multi-Use Games Area (MUGAs) – floodlit¹ £115,000
1 BMX/skateboard facility¹ £120,000
1 youth shelter² £5,000
1 allotment facility providing at least 21 plots² £26,000
Burial space² £50,000
Total £396,000
¹Source: Sport England
²Based on cost of provision elsewhere
2.93 The total cost of provision of these facilities, based on equivalent costs to those allowed for an
experienced elsewhere, is £396,000. This excludes maintenance of the items in question, which
will create additional costs (although in the case of allotments, these should be covered by
annual membership fees) and also the cost of any land purchase.
2.94 This also excludes the identified need for swimming facilities because this deficit is not
sufficiently large to justify the full provision of a new facility.
2.95 It also excludes the considered shortfall in provision of other facilities, which include commuter
bus services and other services that are not offered in the parish, such as GP and dental
surgeries and pharmacy services. This is for three reasons:
Such needs have less evidence to support additional local provision.
They are more dependent on the willingness of providers to deliver them.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
17
They have such a wide range of costs, depending on the type of provision, as to be
impossible to attach a reasonable cost or range of costs to.
2.96 Any new residential development in Brantham will create additional demands on community
facilities. The needs and costs of the different scenarios are shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Summary of minimum needs of new development and costs
Facility Scenario, number of facilities and cost
50 dwgs 250 dwgs 450 dwgs 600 dwgs 650 dwgs
Grass pitches (senior
football)
0.5 pitches
£37,500
3 pitches
£225,000
5 pitches
£375,000
6 pitches
£450,000
7 pitches
£525,000
Local Equipped Areas
for Play (LEAP)
No need
£0
1 LEAP
£40,000
1 LEAP
£40,000
1 LEAP
£40,000
2 LEAPs
£80,000
Neighbourhood
Equipped Areas for
Play (NEAP)
No need
£0
0.3 NEAPs
£24,000
0.5 NEAPs
£40,000
1 NEAP
£80,000
1 NEAP
£80,000
Allotments
(ave. size is 20 plots)
No need
£0
0.25
allotments
£6,000
0.5
allotments
£11,000
0.6
allotments
£15,000
0.7
allotments
£15,000
Total £37,500 £295,000 £466,000 £585,000 £701,000
2.97 This shows a theoretical need for new community facilities arising from growth of between 50
and 650 dwellings would cost between £37,500 and £701,000. This excludes maintenance costs
and any land costs. It also assumes that other local infrastructure items such as Local Areas for
Play (LAPs) are also provided at the standard required.
2.98 It should be noted that under the 50 dwelling scenario, there is insufficient need for any facilities
other than football pitches. Furthermore, this does not create sufficient need for a full grass
pitch. If contributions were therefore to be sought for such needs, this would have to be as a
commuted sum and it would have to be demonstrated where this contribution would be used to
increase pitch provision within the catchment.
2.99 NEAP requirements under the 250-dwelling and 450-dwelling scenarios are less than a whole
facility. Again, a contribution towards provision could be sought but it would have to be
demonstrated how and where the NEAP was going to be delivered and that it would serve the
proposed development.
2.100 The same principle applies to allotment needs under the 250-dwelling and 450-dwelling
scenarios, namely that the demand created is likely to be insufficient to justify even a small
stand-alone allotment facility. Any contribution would again have to be used to expand another
allotment facility in the surrounding area, although given the local catchment for allotments, it
may be difficult to demonstrate that this is directly related to the proposed development.
2.101 If the requirements for existing community facilities are added to the requirements from growth,
then this creates a total cost of between £0.40m and £1.1m, plus maintenance.
2.102 This figure excludes the need to improve and upgrade existing facilities:
The village hall is in need of improvement (but not expansion), however it is not possible to
cost this because it would require more detailed assessment.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
18
A new scout and guide hut is needed to replace the existing facility – there is no guidance as
to the possible cost of such a facility because this very much depends on the specification of
what it provides. Also, if the village hall were re-provided as a new facility, then this could be
a multi-use facility shared with the scouts/guides. Based on a reasonable assumption of
200m² for a small meeting hall and a cost budget of £1,700/m² (to cover construction, fees
and basic equipment), this could cost £340,000. For a larger, multi-room facility, which may
be necessary for multiple users, a 500m² facility would cost £850,000.
Existing LEAPs were in need of upgrade – this could be done by providing new equipment,
but depending on the location of any new facilities, this may be unnecessary.
Improvements to footpaths would very much be dependent on the specific footpaths and the
particular needs. As such, it is not possible to cost this although it is not considered likely
that this would increase the overall cost of social infrastructure provision significantly. Any
footpath provision through the Brantham industrial area as part of the redevelopment would
likely be included as a site-specific condition. If this was part of a wider strategic need, i.e. in
improving footpath connections between Brantham and Manningtree, then there may be
justification for a contribution towards this if the site specific provision did not fully address
this.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
19
3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES SURVEY AND ASSESSMEN T OF
NEEDS
3.1 The previous section identified potential needs, when assessed against standards. However, the
study requires an understanding, along with needs, of what community facilities are wanted in
the parish.
3.2 Community needs surveys were sent out to all of the identified community groups in the parish,
as well as Brantham Parish Council and the parish councils of all the surrounding parishes. A
proforma version of the survey is shown in Appendix D and the full list of community groups
surveyed in Appendix E. In total, 14 community groups and parish councils were sent a survey.
Whilst there was only one direct response to the survey by groups other than Brantham Parish
Council (and this stated that the particular community group in question had no additional
needs), parish councillors stated that their views were broadly representative of the relevant
community group(s) in the parish.
3.3 In addition, the views of Brantham Parish Council were sought separately. The study was
presented at a parish council meeting on 7th March 2012, with members of the public in
attendance. Both councillors and individual members of the public gave their views at the
meeting and councillors were invited to complete a survey form as well.
3.4 The findings of the Brantham Parish Plan are also worthy of note. Whilst undertaken in 2000 so
is somewhat dated, it still represents the views of a significant proportion of the local population
who still reside in the parish.
Summary of needs
3.5 The following issues were raised by survey responses and by direct responses provided by those
attending the Brantham Parish Council meeting:
Outdoor sports facilities
The need for improvements to be made to the sports and social complex, specifically the
provision of lift facilities to provide disabled access, refurbishment of the car park and the
provision of a multi-use games area (MUGA), which will address the need for a netball
facility.
The provision of additional playing pitches for local football teams, many of whom have to
play outside the parish.
The provision of separate playing fields for football and cricket, which currently are shared.
Youth facilities
The lack of basic activities for young people; this includes the need for a youth shelter.
The need to replace the existing scout and guide hut, which is in a poor state of repair.
The upgrade of dated equipment in the parish’s play areas.
Other community facilities
A lack of parking facilities at St Michael’s Church and for the pre-school playgroup which is
attached to it.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
20
The need to for additional burial space because of capacity issues in the existing cemetery at
St Michael’s Church.
The need for improvements to be made to the village hall.
Other services
Improved public transport and walking links to Manningtree station. It was considered that
provision of additional bus services would likely increase usage. This was an item also
identified in the Parish Plan by residents.
Provision of footpaths through the Brantham industrial area in order to access the river, the
war memorial and Manningtree.
Improved broadband communication facilities – current broadband speeds were described as
poor.
The need for GP services directly in the parish. This was also identified in the Parish Plan,
along with provision of a supporting chemist.
Councillors also suggested that placing existing electrical and telephone cables situated on
Brantham Hill underground would provide environmental benefits.
Parish Council priorities
3.6 It is not possible, given the limited response to the survey, to clearly understand the priorities for
each of these items. However, discussions with Brantham parish councillors and the ward
councillor has suggested that the following are priority items:
A car park at St Michael’s Church.
Additional burial space which would ideally have to be located at or close to the existing
burial space at St Michael’s Church.
A floodlit MUGA at the sports and social complex, which could be used by local netball teams
that currently have no such facility in the parish.
A new scout and guide hut to replace the existing facility which is not fit for purpose.
At least two additional football pitches to serve the needs of the large number of local teams
who are unable to play their matches within the parish because the existing pitches are in
such high demand.
Footpaths and rights of access through the Brantham site to provide access to the river, the
war memorial and across the river to Manningtree.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
21
4 EMPLOYMENT NEEDS ASS ESSMENT
Socio-economic baseline
4.1 In assessing the needs of the local economy, it is necessary to understand the socio-economic
profile of the local area. This is not just Brantham parish, but reflects a wider ‘local’ economic
area. There is no defined extent of such an area so the study has sought to construct one, based
on an evaluation of local catchments for services and an understanding of the local economy.
This is shown in Figure 4.1 below:
Figure 4.1: Extent of Brantham economic area
Source: Navigus Planning
4.2 This area has been selected because it includes the whole of the parish of Brantham as well as
the surrounding villages in Babergh district. It also includes parts of Manningtree, Mistley and
Lawford in Tendring district (Essex county) because this is a key service area for Brantham
residents, including for employment.
4.3 In this context, it is important to understand why a wider area has been considered than just
Brantham parish. In assessing the socio-economic profile, it is important to consider both the
resident workforce and the existing businesses. Ideally there should be a good inter-relationship
between the two, with the workforce of local businesses being filled as largely as possible by
local residents. In an area as small as Brantham parish, this geography is too local; the
consideration of the ‘local’ economy spreads wider than this. And the extent of the economic
area in Figure 4.1 reflects this wider geography. Therefore, the analysis below should not be
Brantham Community & Economy Study
22
seen as specific to Brantham parish. The parish is part of a wider economic area that at its most
local covers the geography shown. For the purposes of the analysis, this is referred to as the
‘Brantham economic area’.
4.4 Figure 4.2 shows the age profile of the Brantham economic area, compared to Babergh district
and Suffolk county. The profile is very similar to Babergh as a whole, although does have a lower
proportion of young people aged 16 to 24.
Figure 4.2: Age profile of the population, 2001
Source: 2001 Census
4.5 Figure 4.3 shows that the Brantham economic area has an economic inactivity rate of
approximately 15%. This is quite a reasonable level, although it is noticeable that the area has a
higher proportion of retirees who are also not going to be adding to the economic base.
Figure 4.3: Economic activity, 2001
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0-15 16-24 25-40 41-65 Over 65
% of population
Age
Babergh
Suffolk
Brantham area
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
% of people 16
–
74
Babergh
Suffolk
Brantham
Brantham Community & Economy Study
23
Source: 2001 Census
4.6 Figure 4.4 shows that, in 2001, the Brantham economic area had higher levels of young people
out of work and people that had never worked. Whilst this picture is clearly quite dated, it
suggests a structural issue in the economy which there is no evidence to suggest has been
resolved, particularly given the decline of larger-scale employment on the Brantham industrial
area since 2001.
Figure 4.4: Breakdown of unemployment, 2001
Source: 2001 Census
4.7 Figure 4.5 shows the qualification levels of the population. Of particular note is the high
proportion of those in the Brantham economic area with Level 3 qualifications. These are A-level,
NVQs or equivalent, suggesting a reasonably well qualified local workforce.
Figure 4.5: Level of qualifications, 2001
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unemployed
aged 16 – 24
Unemployed
aged 50+
Never
worked
Long-term
unemployed
Babergh
Suffolk
Brantham
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
No quals Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5
% of population
Qualifications
Babergh
Suffolk
Brantham
Brantham Community & Economy Study
24
Source: 2001 Census
4.8 This is supported by Figure 4.6, which shows the occupation types of the local workforce. The
Brantham economic area has comparatively high proportions of people working in some of the
more skilled occupations, including managers and senior officials, professionals, associate
professionals and technical occupations. By contrast, there are lower proportions working in low
or unskilled occupations.
Figure 4.6: Occupation groups, 2001
Source: 2001 Census
4.9 The industries that employ significant numbers of people from the Brantham area are wholesale
and retail, manufacturing and business (which includes activities such as research and
development, business and management consultancy, advertising, recruitment and disciplines
such as accountancy and architecture). It should be noted that these figures are from 2001 so
the proportion of those working in manufacturing is likely to have fallen with the loss of
employment from the Brantham industrial area. The Brantham economic area is proportionately
over-represented compared to the district and county average in education, health and social
work, business and financial intermediation. These are all predominantly higher skilled
professions, reinforcing the data that showed the Brantham economic area to have highly skilled
residents.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Managers & Senior Officials
Professional Occupations
Assoc Prof & Technical Occs
Admin & Secretarial Occs
Skilled Trades Occupations
Personal Service Occupations
Sales & Cust Service Occs
Plant & Machine Operatives
Elementary Occupations
% of population
Brantham area Suffolk Babergh
Brantham Community & Economy Study
25
Figure 4.7: Industry of employment, 2001
Source: 2001 Census
4.10 Figure 4.8 shows where workers in the area travel from. Significant proportions of people either
work from home or travel from less than 2km away, so effectively live and work in the local area.
Equally, a high proportion of people travel between 10km and 20km, which likely means that
most come from the major centres of Colchester and Ipswich to access jobs in the Brantham
economic area.
Figure 4.8: Distance travelled to work of people working in the area
Source: 2001 Census
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Agriculture & forestry
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas & water supply
Construction
Wholesale & retail trade, repairs
Hotels & restaurants
Transport, storage & comms
Financial intermediation
Real estate, renting & business
Public administration & defence
Education
Health & social work
Other comm’ty, soc. & personal
% of population
Brantham Suffolk Babergh
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Works from home
<2km
2km-5km
5km-10km
10km-20km
20km-30km
30km-40km
40km-60km
60km +
% of population of working age in employment
Commuting distance
Brantham Babergh Suffolk
Brantham Community & Economy Study
26
4.11 Figure 4.9 shows the same analysis but for local residents of the Brantham economic area.
Again, significant proportions of people either work from home or travel a very short distance to
work. However, by far and away the predominant destinations for work are between 10km and
20km, i.e. Colchester and Ipswich. A significant proportion also travel more than 60km, which
represents those people travelling to Central London for work.
Figure 4.9: Distance travelled to work by residents of the area
Source: 2001 Census
4.12 In total, just over 4,400 people work in the Brantham economic area, whereas there are over
6,800 people living in the area that are in employment. In other words, the area is a net
exporter of labour, with over 2,400 people leaving the area to access employment.
Summary
4.13 The Brantham economic area shows the following characteristics that are relevant when
considering the needs of local businesses:
It has comparatively high levels of economic activity, so less local labour is available to fill
new positions – access from outside the area will be important for businesses looking to
provide new jobs.
Despite this, there are potential structural issues in the local economy, with significant
proportions of young people unemployed; in recent years, this has become a wider national
issues.
The workforce is well qualified and does work in more skilled occupations. Whilst this does
not mean that these people are working locally, it does show scope for higher skilled local
jobs to be filled locally.
The local economy has predominantly been in manufacturing which is declining. However,
there is growing representation in business services, which fits the profile of a well skilled
workforce.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Works from home
<2km
2km-5km
5km-10km
10km-20km
20km-30km
30km-40km
40km-60km
60km +
% of population of working age in employment
Commuting distance
Brantham Babergh Suffolk
Brantham Community & Economy Study
27
The area is a net exporter of labour each day, with people travelling to Ipswich, Colchester
and London to work. However, a significant proportion of people live and work locally;
potentially many of these people may run their own small businesses.
Employment land demand and supply
Babergh district
4.14 The employment position in Babergh district has been most recently informed by the Suffolk
Haven Gateway Employment Land Review (ELR), published in October 2009. This considered a
range of scenarios and the associated demand and supply for employment land in the district. In
summary, it assessed that there was a land surplus for all scenarios of between 58 and 68ha.
The split between the surplus of office versus industrial land did vary in each scenario but both
office and industrial sectors did show significant oversupply in all cases.
4.15 The Suffolk Haven Gateway ELR also assessed the Brantham Industrial Area in its role as a
strategic site. It considered that the area has limited alignment with the strategic employment
land criteria. However, the view of the study was that employment floorspace should play a
significant role in supporting the regeneration of the site. This is because of its local significance
and in providing employment opportunities for the local population.
4.16 Rental values for ‘A’ grade office space in Babergh were considered to be between £8 and £13
per sq ft, but such locations were not in Brantham. Equally, the ‘A’ grade rents for industrial
floorspace of £4.50-£7.00 per sq ft were also not expected to be achieved in Brantham. Rather,
they reflect better locations such as Hadleigh, Sudbury and the A12/A14 junction. The March
2005 study for Babergh District Council entitled ‘Developing a Local Strategy for Shotley
Peninsula’ considered that industrial rents for Brantham/Manningtree were £4 per sq ft, which
was considered to be too low for speculative development.
Tendring district
4.17 It is also important to understand the employment land position for Tendring district, given its
proximity to Brantham. In April 2010, Tendring District Council published a Stage 2 Employment
Land Study which assessed the need for employment land over the emerging plan period to
2026. This showed that the preferred scenario had a requirement for 15ha of employment land
between 2006 and 2026. However, when compared to supply, there was a surplus in the district
of 65ha.
4.18 The study considered the Manningtree area, which is closest to Brantham, functions as an
employment market for Brantham residents. According to agents, the local market for office
space is limited and properties come onto the market sporadically. Whilst office space in this
area is mainly limited to small units above retail properties, some industrial transactions do take
place.
4.19 Demand for industrial property in the area is very localised. Those taking up property in
Manningtree and Lawford tend to already be located within three miles of the property.
4.20 Prime rents for industrial property in Manningtree are around £4.50 per sq ft. This compares to
figures of between £4.50 and £5.50 in Clacton and Harwich.
4.21 The study recommended restricting employment land supply in the Manningtree area. The
predominant employment offer in the area is at the Lawford Industrial Estate, which the report
considered was of questionable quality, with development and redevelopment land remaining
available. Restricting supply was seen as a way of potentially promoting and encouraging re-
Brantham Community & Economy Study
28
investment within the existing stock and built environment of the site. The Tendring Core
Strategy is still emerging so whether such a policy is promoted in Lawford and whether it would
be successful, is yet to be seen.
Summary
4.22 Across the local and wider area within the study, it can be seen that there is a surplus of
employment land when compared to all scenarios of forecast need. Moreover, typical rents for
employment space locally are very low and the markets tend to be extremely local in nature.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
29
5 BUSINESS SURVEY
Previous surveys
5.1 As part of the ‘Local Strategy for Shotley Peninsula’ study (2005), a survey of local businesses
was undertaken. These businesses were located across a wider catchment than the Brantham
survey area, but Brantham is on the edge of the Shotley Peninsula, so it is useful to understand
the issues that were raised, whilst recognising that the economic and business environment has
changed substantially since 2005.
5.2 30% of the 40 businesses surveyed said that they were dissatisfied with the Shotley Peninsula as
a business location. Of these, over half were categorised as ‘other reasons’ meaning that there
was a wide range of non-specific reasons such as unreliable rail services and a poor customer
base.
5.3 At the time of the survey, only 25% of companies wished to expand in the future, with the
majority of these (20%) expecting to expand to a reasonable size which could be comfortably
managed by its founder i.e. around 20 people. However, perhaps the most important finding was
that only 8% of respondents stating that they needed to move premises in order to expand.
With this survey having been undertaken over seven years ago, clearly much will have happened
and intentions changed, but this is a helpful guide as to the typical level of intention to grow and
the possible scale of such growth.
5.4 Over half of these companies looking to grow considered there to be no barriers to achieving
these plans. Where barriers were identified, these covered a wide range of issues which might
be regarded as common, i.e. lack of finance, shortage of customers and shortages of staff skills.
5.5 If companies were dissatisfied with premises, the reasons for this were that there was a limited
stock of good quality premises in the right location, that premises were too expensive and that
there was a lack of small starter units.
Study survey findings
5.6 For the purposes of this study, all relevant businesses within the Brantham economic area were
surveyed. In total, there were 1,277 businesses listed by Experian in this area. This total was
reduced to 996 because certain businesses were stripped out. This was because they were not
relevant to the survey and what it was seeking to achieve, and included public houses,
restaurants, churches and other community facilities.
5.7 In addition, a certain number of these businesses had their registered office listed within the
survey area but did not operate from there. Some of these businesses responded with this
information but it is assumed that there were other such businesses which chose not to respond.
As such, the overall sample size will be smaller than the 996 businesses surveyed.
5.8 The proforma survey is shown in Appendix F.
5.9 In total, 76 responses were received, representing a response rate of 7.6%. When factoring in
the number of businesses that were not operating in the Brantham economic area, the response
rate would be higher, although it is not possible to determine the exact figure. The response rate
is considered reasonable for a ‘cold call’ survey which for many businesses would not be directly
relevant. For example, a home business or a high street retailer is unlikely to be considering the
need for new facilities as part of a new development and so would not see the need to fill the
survey in and return it.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
30
5.10 The main findings are discussed below.
Business activity
5.11 There was a broad range of businesses that responded to the survey. Most common were
businesses that worked in manufacturing (15%), with business and financial services (15%) and
other services (9%) also well represented.
5.12 Most sectors were represented, indicating a broadly based economy.
Company size
5.13 Over one-quarter (28%) of companies are sole traders in the area, indicating that many
businesses do not need premises because they work from home or, if they do need premises,
then these are very small.
5.14 Over one-third (36%) of companies are micro-businesses, employing between 2 and 5 staff.
However, there was also significant representation of larger companies, with 16% of respondees
having 6 to 10 staff and 17% having 11 to 25 staff. Only 4% of respondents had more than 25
staff, with none having more than 50 staff.
5.15 Encouragingly, the vast majority of these businesses had either had static staffing levels over the
past five years (60%) or had increased in size (32%). The vast majority of growing companies
had increased by 5 or less workers. This prosperity is likely a function of the number of small
businesses which, if well established, are often able to survive because of their lower cost base.
5.16 Only 8% of respondents had decreased staffing numbers, with only one business decreasing by
more than 5 staff.
Company premises
5.17 The majority of respondents (60%) worked in office premises, with a further 13% in ‘other’
premises. This is likely to relate in many cases to working from home. Only 21% worked in
factory buildings, with only one company in a warehouse facility.
5.18 The size of premises was very evenly split, with the largest proportion of respondents in facilities
of between 50m² and 249m². For all other size ranges up to 1,000m² there was an almost even
split of between 16% and 17%. Only one company occupies more than 1,000m ², which is
expected to be the company in the warehousing premises.
5.19 This illustrates that modern business needs are predominantly for small and medium-sized
premises of less than 250m².
5.20 There was also a split of tenure types for these facilities. One-third of respondents leased their
premises whilst almost a further one-third owned their premises outright. Significantly, nearly
one-quarter of respondents rented space on an easy-in, easy-out basis, which highlights the
importance of flexible terms for small businesses.
5.21 The pattern of how long businesses had been in their current premises showed that most are
well established in the area. Over half (51%) of respondents had been in their current location
for at least 10 years, with a further 36% located there for at least 2 years. No respondents had
been in their premises for less than 6 months which reinforces the current lack of activity in the
commercial premises market. Also, given the high proportion of those operating on easy-in,
easy-out terms, this highlights the importance of such terms to business survival.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
31
5.22 In terms of suitability, the following proportion of respondents considered their current premises
to be satisfactory, based on the criteria shown:
Rental costs – 90%
Location – 94%
Size – 72%
Facilities – 91%
Accessibility – 91%
5.23 This demonstrates a generally high level of satisfaction with existing premises in the local area,
reinforcing the length of time that businesses have stayed in their current premises. The criterion
that most commonly is an issue for businesses is size of premises, which is a function of current
and future needs.
Future needs
5.24 60% of respondents said that they were not planning to seek new premises within the next 5
years. Of the rest, 14% said that they were likely to seek new premises, 23% would possibly be
looking and 3% didn’t know.
5.25 Most interestingly, 57% of those that were not definitely expecting to stay in their current
premises were expecting to need larger premises. Of these 17 respondents, 4 were looking for
less than 50m² of additional space, 5 were looking for between 50m² and 100m² and 7 were
looking for between 300m² and 2,000m² (the other respondee did not specify). The latter
represent substantial increases in size given that the majority of respondees currently occupy
relatively small spaces.
5.26 Only 7% of respondees were expecting to downsize but 37% were looking for a different type of
facility. There were a range of reasons for wanting different facilities, the most common of which
related either to requiring large areas for storage space, often for vehicles, and wanting to move
into more purpose-built facilities, particularly those requiring offices.
5.27 Respondents were asked what criteria would influence their decision in sourcing a new site.
Respondents could provide multiple reasons. The most commonly cited reasons were costs and
rates (18%) and location (17%), which may highlight potential weaknesses in the local area as a
business location. Other common reasons were accessibility (14%), facilities available (14%),
business circumstances/opportunities (11%) and transport links (8%). Interestingly, 31
respondents (representing 13% of the reasons given) stated that the size of premises was an
issue, yet only 19 respondents had earlier said that they were expecting to have to look for
different sized premises in the next 5 years. This highlights that there may be some companies
wishing to expand but are unable to afford to do so.
5.28 Of those that cited location as one of the factors that would influence their choice of a new site,
less than two-thirds (62%) said that they would be interested in premises in the local area, with
a further 8% saying they didn’t know. This highlights again that the area is not seen by many as
a preferable location from which to do business.
Key issues
5.29 The survey illustrates that there is a core of employment floorspace which underpins the local
economy and also potentially that certain types of floorspace will be sought by local businesses
in the future.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
32
5.30 The local Brantham economy is dominated by smaller companies, typically employing less than 5
people and working in small premises, often with flexible terms that were an attraction to locate
there in the first place. The outlook is positive, with many of these businesses potentially looking
to expand and take on larger premises. This step up in floorspace is not significant in absolute
scale – those currently in 40m² of office space may be looking for 80-100m² in new premises –
but it demonstrates the underlying strength of the emerging local economy which is taking over
from the previously dominant manufacturing sector, characterised by very large employers.
5.31 It will therefore be important that any new employment offer has facilities that these local
businesses can grow into. The common requirements are broadly:
Small space, both for office and light industrial uses
Purpose-built
Flexible terms, i.e. easy-in, easy-out
Fast broadband access
A good range of facilities and general surrounding environment
Accessible, both by car and public transport
Brantham Community & Economy Study
33
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Community facilities
6.1 The existing community facilities that are both considered to have a shortfall of provision and
were also identified through consultation as being required to support the existing community
were:
A Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA)
A BMX/skateboard facility
A youth shelter
An allotment facility
Additional burial space
6.2 In total, these items are estimated to cost £316,000 plus the ongoing costs of maintenance.
6.3 The need for a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) was also identified in the
assessment of existing provision. This would cost £80,000 plus maintenance.
6.4 The development scenarios showed that there were additional community facilities which would
be required because existing facilities would be insufficient to address total demand locally. They
include:
Additional grass pitches
Additional Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs)
A Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP)
Additional allotment facilities
6.5 In total, these facilities would cost between £37,500 and £701,000 to provide (plus
maintenance), depending on the level of development delivered.
6.6 From the point of view of Brantham Parish Council and the local ward councillor, the greatest
priorities for community facility provision are:
A car park at St Michael’s Church
Additional burial space, ideally located at or close to the existing burial space at St Michael’s
Church
A MUGA at the sports and social complex
A new scout and guide hut
At least two additional football pitches
Footpaths and rights of access through the Brantham site to provide access to the river, the
war memorial and across the river to Manningtree
6.7 The study also notes the need for improved bus routes to provide access for commuters both to
and from Ipswich and to and from Manningtree station. This is an issue that crosses over into
the employer assessment, where accessibility was raised as an issue.
6.8 The potential to fund new community facilities will come from new development. Any
redevelopment of the Brantham industrial area should, depending on the level of residential
Brantham Community & Economy Study
34
development coming forward, provide significant additional community facilities as part of a
package of planning contributions. These could potentially be both on-site and also off-site at
appropriate locations elsewhere in the parish. It will be for the District Council, in consultation
with the developer and the Parish Council, to ideally agree priorities and the overall package of
provision.
6.9 This assumes that the scheme is granted planning permission prior to a Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge being implemented by Babergh District Council. If permission is
granted after this date, then it is likely that a large proportion of these community facilities will
be paid for by CIL. However, this does not preclude their provision as part of any proposed
development coming forward at Brantham, with the cost offset against the overall CIL charge
incurred by the approved scheme.
Employment needs
6.10 The study has demonstrated that the economy of the Brantham economic area is changing.
Previously it was dominated by manufacturing, provided by a small number of very large
employers. Now the economy is diversifying (albeit with manufacturing still a significant sector),
with an increasing proportion of local people and businesses working in the business/financial
services and retail sectors. Companies are much smaller, with a significant proportion of sole
traders or companies with less than 5 employees. As a result, business premises are used more
flexibly and are leased on more flexible terms than they ever were.
6.11 Any development at the Brantham industrial area will result in a net loss of employment
floorspace/land. As such, the proposals that come forward will have to demonstrate how they
can provide significant employment and economic benefits, despite this fact. But with the
changes to the modern economy that have been observed locally, the overall quantum of
employment is potentially less important than the quality of the ‘package’ of measures that are
proposed to enhance the economy.
6.12 This economic package must clearly, for a site of such strategic importance, secure strategic
economic benefits for the wider economy. This might be in the form of facilities to attract high
value inward investment, for example. However, there must equally be certain fundamentals that
the package of measures should seek which will explicitly support the businesses and economy
of the Brantham economic area, i.e. the local economy, and that has been the focus of this
study.
6.13 What the study has found is that a notable number of local businesses are prospering and are
considering taking larger premises which would ideally be more purpose-built to suit their needs.
This points to two needs that should be provided for:
a proportion of smaller, purpose-built space (office and light industrial) for businesses to be
able to take on an easy-in, easy-out basis; and
some larger, move-on space to ensure that the small businesses in the start-up premises
have somewhere to move to locally.
6.14 In terms of tenure of these premises, there should be a balance. Many small businesses prefer
freehold premises because of the value and safety of having part of the business invested in
property. Such provision should also always be part of the offer.
6.15 Therefore, the package should focus on commercial floorspace needs of up to 500m², with most
of this space providing units of less than 300m². Some should be offered freehold but most must
be on a leasehold basis. Of this, a proportion should be on easy-in, easy-out terms. This space
Brantham Community & Economy Study
35
should be a mix of office and light industrial space and, if well designed, could be sufficiently
flexible to be used as either, depending on the fit out.
6.16 This is not to say that there should not be a proportion of employment space retained to provide
for the needs of warehousing and general industry. Whilst certain ‘heavy’ operations may not be
suitable on a mixed use development, some B2 and particularly B8 operations will be
appropriate, particularly at the far end of the site which would have few amenity issues.
6.17 The package of measures should also focus on the non-floorspace needs of businesses. The
principle items are:
improved links to Manningtree station – possibly a dedicated shuttle bus – and improved bus
services to Ipswich to help retain businesses in the area, an identified weakness for the
locality at present; and
good broadband services, a minimum requirement that modern businesses expect and need.
6.18 Also, if the Brantham industrial area is to be re-established as a business location, then it should
be supported ideally by other services for workers, such as small convenience retail provision
that workers could use on a day-to-day basis.
6.19 More generally, the successful smaller business offer in the Brantham economic area is
commonly provided in the rural barn conversion-type of development, so quality of environment
is important as well as the actual facilities themselves. Therefore, design, landscaping and
general integration of the employment development into the wider scheme proposals will be a
factor contributing to the success of the overall economic offer.
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Appendix A Summary assessment of community
facilities provision
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Assumptions
2pitches in Brantham
3pitches in Lawford (plus 2 junior pitches)
2pitches at Mistley
2pitches at East Bergholt
4tennis courts at East Bergolt
5tennis courts at Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
2tennis courts at Lawford
1bowls rink at Brantham
1cricket pitch at Brantham
1cricket pitch at Mistley
Synthetic pitches 1pitch within 1pitch1pitch 1pitch at Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
Athletics tracks 1track within 1track1track 1in Ipswich
Swimming pools 9.18m2 per1,000pop 24m2 0.12pools within 15
min drive
Community pool of 20m x
2.5m x 4m
1in Holbrook (part of Royal Hospital School)
1sports hall in Manningtree
1sports hall in East Bergholt
1indoor bowls facility in Brantham
Local Areas for Play (LAP) New residential should
provide on site
n/a
3 in Brantham
1on border with East Bergholt
Neighbourhood Equipped
Areas for Play (NEAPs)
0.4ha per1,000pop 1.0ha 1NEAP Minimum 8,500m2 size (inc
buffer) - excludes BDC
requirement for either a
MUGA or BMX/skateboard
facility
0serving Brantham
Multi use games area 1(part of NEAP) 0serving Brantham
BMX/skateboard facility 1(part of NEAP) 0serving Brantham (1 in Mistley, but too far away)
Youth shelter 0serving Brantham
Allotments 20plots per1,000h'holds 21plots2600m2 125m2 per plot 0serving Brantham
Cemeteries and
Churchyards
2in Brantham
Civic spaces 0serving Brantham
Community centres/
village halls
1in Brantham
Natural and semi-natural
green space
Amenity greenspace 0.6ha per1,000pop 1.572haNot possible to assess
Minimum 4,225m2 size (inc
buffer)
No minimum standard
No minimum standard
No minimum standard
Part of NEAP provision
No minimum standard
No minimum standard
0.18halls within 15
min drive
4-badminton court facility
is 33mx18m
0.42ha per1,000pop 1.1ha 3
39.78m2 per1,000pop m2
20 mins
45 mins
Part of NEAP provision
No minimum standard
LEAPs
District wide over-provision assumed to be the same
for Brantham
ha 10
Local Equipped Areas for
Play (LEAPs)
Most of Brantham covererd by district/sub-regional
level provision
1.6ha per1,000pop 4.192 Each pitch is 4,050m2 (min
legal size)
Part of standard for grass pitches
Indoor sports halls and
leisure centres
Other outdoor sports, e.g.
tennis, bowls, cricket
Outdoor sports facilities -
grass pitches
104.22
pitches within
12 km radius
Recommended level of provisionRequired
provision
Current provisionReq'd no of facilities Population of Brantham (2008)2,620
Households in Brantham (2001)1,040
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Appendix B Summary of bus services serving
Brantham
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
BUS SERVICES
92: Ipswich-Holbrook-Brantham-Manningtree/East Bergholt
Morning peak:
- One bus to Manningtree station (arr. 0752)
- One bus to Ipswich (arr. 0804)
- One school bus to East Bergholt High School
Middle of day:
- Every 2 hours to Ipswich – broadly staggered with service 96
- One school bus from East Bergholt High School
Evening peak:
- One bus from Ipswich (dep. 1740)
- No buses from Manningtree station
Weekends:
- Buses every 2 hours to/from Ipswich on Saturdays
- No buses on Sundays
93C: Ipswich-Tattingstone-East Bergholt-Manningtree-Mistley
Morning peak:
- One bus to Manningtree station (arr. 0911)
- One bus to Ipswich (arr. 0843)
Middle of day:
- No buses
Weekends:
- Buses every 2 hours to Manningtree on Saturdays
- Buses every 2 hours to Ipswich on Saturdays
- No buses on Sundays
96: Ipswich-Tattingstone-East Bergholt-Manningtree-Mistley
Morning peak:
- No buses in morning peak
Middle of day:
- Buses every 2 hours to Manningtree
- Buses every 2 hours to Ipswich (one in mid-afternoon is 93C) – broadly staggered
with service 92
Weekends:
- Buses every 2 hours to Manningtree on Saturdays
- Buses every 2 hours to Ipswich on Saturdays
- No buses on Sundays
Brantham Community & Economy Study
2
Appendix C Detailed assessment of potential
community needs associated with growth
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Population of Brantham (2008)2620
Households in Brantham (2001)1040
Ave household size 2.52 Dwgs 50 250 450 600 650
Pop 126 630 1,1341,5121,638
1.6ha per 1,000pop 4,050m2 per pitch 2pitches8,100m2 m2 2,01510,07718,13824,18526,200
pitches 0.50 2.49 4.48 5.97 6.47
9.18m2 per 1,000pop 200m2 perpool 1pool 200m2 m2 1 6 10 14 15
pools 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08
39.78m2 per 1,000pop 594m2 perhall 1hall 594m2 m2 5 25 45 60 65
halls 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.11
0.42ha per 1,000pop 4,225m2 perLEAP 1LEAP 4,225m2 m2 529 2,6454,7616,3486,878
LEAPs 0.13 0.63 1.13 1.50 1.63
0.4ha per 1,000pop 8,500m2 perNEAP 1NEAP 8,500m2 m2 504 2,5194,5356,0466,550
NEAPs 0.06 0.30 0.53 0.71 0.77
20plots per1,000h'holds 20plots perallotment1allotment2,500m2 plots 1 5 9 12 13
allotments 0.05 0.25 0.45 0.60 0.65
Dwellings/population in scenario
Recommended level of provision
Minimum reasonable
provisionType of facility
Average size of facility
Outdoor sports facilities -
grass pitches
Swimming pools
Indoor sports halls and
leisure centres
Local Equipped Areas for
Play (LEAPs)
Neighbourhood Equipped
Areas for Play (NEAPs)
Allotments
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Appendix D Proforma community facilities survey
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
BRANTHAM COMMUNITY GROUP SURVEY
All responses will be treated confidentially
Name of community group
1. What new facilities would your community group/local residents wish to see provided in Brantham
parish? (if appropriate, please specify)
Public green spaces
Play areas
Other youth facilities, e.g. youth shelters,
skateboard parks
Outdoor sports pitches, e.g. grass or astroturf
pitches, multi-use games areas, etc
Other outdoor sports facilities
Allotments
Meeting halls
Footpath links
Indoor sports facilities, e.g. badminton courts,
gymnasia
Other facilities
2. If these facilities are currently available in Brantham parish, then why would you wish to see new
facilities?
The currently provision is not of a
sufficient standard to use (if yes, then name
the type of facility)
The current provision is already fully used
and cannot support additional users (if
yes, then name the type of facility)
Other reason (please specify)
3. If these facilities are currently unavailable in Brantham parish, then where do people currently go
to access such facilities? (For each location, name the type of facilities)
Manningtree/Lawford
East Bergholt
Ipswich
Colchester
Other (please specify)
4. Thinking about facilities that are currently not provided within Brantham parish, how much more
likely would you be to access these facilities if they were provided in the parish?
Much more likely (If yes, then
name the type of facility)
More likely (If yes, then name
the type of facility)
No more likely (If yes, then
name the type of facility)
Brantham Community & Economy Study
2
Continued overleaf…
5. Thinking about other types of common services found in communities, which would you wish to see
more provision of in Brantham parish?
Schools Nurseries
Pubs and bars GP services
Restaurants
Other health services, e.g. chiropractor,
physiotherapist
Shops (be specific about the type of shop below) Other (please specify below)
6. Are there any environmental improvements you would like to see in the village, to improve its
character? (specify below)
7. Thinking about local bus provision, would additional services to Brantham increase bus usage?
Yes Don’t know
No
8. If the answer to question 7 is yes, then which destinations should be better served?
Manningtree Colchester
Ipswich Other (please specify below)
9. For each of the destinations given as answers to question 8, what would these journeys
predominantly be for?
Commuting (If yes, then name destination(s))
Shopping (If yes, then name destination(s))
Other (If yes, then name destination(s))
10. Please provide any other comments you wish to make below
Brantham Community & Economy Study
3
Appendix E List of community groups surveyed
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Brooklands Primary School
Brantham Bowls Club
Brantham Womens Institute
Brantham Over 60s Club
Brantham Athletic Football Club
Brantham Amateur Theatrical Society
East Bergholt High School
Lawford Parish Council
Manningtree Town Council
East Bergholt Parish Council
Bentley Parish Council
Capel St Mary Parish Council
Tattingstone Parish Council
Stutton Parish Council
Brantham Parish Council
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
Appendix F Proforma employer survey
Brantham Community & Economy Study
1
BRANTHAM EMPLOYER SURVEY
All responses will be treated confidentially
Name of business:
1. What is the main business activity undertaken by your company?
Retail Healthcare
Construction & engineering Transport
Manufacturing Financial services
Hospitality Sports & recreation
Vehicle maintenance & sales Fast food / take away
Agriculture Animal care
Care homes Training
Maintenance & repairs Other services
Public house Plumbing & Heating
Installation IT
Printing Charity
Business services Energy
Hair & beauty Customer Service
Logistics Entertainment
Catering & food production Recruitment and HR
Real estate activities Other
2. Number of employees at this location
1 (sole trader) 26-50
2-5 51-100
6-10 More than 100
11-25
3. Roughly how has this number of employees changed over the last 5 years?
Stayed the same Decreased by up to 5 employees
Increased by up to 5 employees Decreased by 6-10 employees
Increased by 6-10 employees Decreased by 11-20 employees
Increased by 11-20 employees Decreased by more than 20 employees
Increased by more than 20 employees
4. What type of premises do most of your employees at this location work in?
Shop Factory
Office Warehouse
5. What is the approximate size of your premises at this location?
<20m² 250m² – 499m²
20m² - 49m² 500m² – 1,000m²
50m² - 249m² >1,000m²
Brantham Community & Economy Study
2
6. Are the premises you occupy…
Owned by the company outright? Leased?
Mortgaged? Rented on an easy-in easy-out basis?
7. How long have you been at this present location?
0-6 months 2-5 years
6 months-1 year 5-10 years
1-2 years 10+ years
8. Are these premises suitable for your current and future needs in terms of…
Rent? (Answer yes or no) Facilities? (Answer yes or no)
Location? (Answer yes or no) Accessibility? (Answer yes or no)
Size? (Answer yes or no)
9. Are you anticipating a need for alternative premises within the next 5 years?
Yes Possibly
No Don’t know
10. If you are possibly or definitely anticipating a need for alternative premises, how would you expect
the new premises to differ from your current premises?
Smaller? If so, say roughly how much
smaller
Larger? If so, say roughly how much
larger
Different facilities? If so, say what
facilities it would have
11. What factors / criteria would influence your decision in sourcing a new site?
(You may give multiple answers)
Cost / rates Business circumstances/opportunities
Location Transport links
Accessibility Health and Safety
Size of premises Don’t know
Facilities available (e.g. broadband)
12. If location was one of your answers to the previous question, would you still possibly be interested in
premises in the wider local area?
Yes Don’t know
No
13. Please provide any other comments you wish to make
Brantham Community & Economy Study
3